 |
| Sir Alan outside Copland with David Cameron |
He was on
trial with others for allegedly misappropriating school funds from the school
to a total of £2.7 million. The six charges were for false accounting.
He had
originally pleaded not guilty. Observers suggest a plea bargain might have been struck whereby the charges of
conspiracy and money laundering were dropped for him to plead guilty to the
lesser charges.
Hank
Roberts, the original whistleblower, said:
Lesley Gouldbourne, Joint Brent Teachers Association Secretary, said:He has admitted to six charges of false accounting after years of claiming his innocence. Why has it taken four years to bring this to trial? It's a school not a multinational. He wasted thousands and thousands of pounds of tax payers money by maintaining this façade of innocence causing a lengthy and expensive Brent Council and 'Fraud Squad' investigation”.I was justified in my whistleblowing. Scrutiny and oversight of school finances has seriously been tightened up in Brent and to some extent around the country. The growth of academies and free schools, however, is only making the problem of adequate oversight worse.
In its coverage of the story the Kilburn Times LINK states:It has taken four long years but at last the truth has come out. Now he should pay back Brent the cost of the investigation and lose his knighthood.
William Clegg QC, defending, said it was agreed with the prosecution ‘that all monies paid to Sir Alan were honestly paid to him and honestly received by him'.Sir Alan will be sentenced tomorrow on the six false accounting charges to which he pleaded guilty.
Copland Community School recently failed its Ofsted inspection and an Interim Executive Board was appointed to replace the governing body. There have been two teachers' strikes over moves to force the school to become an academy.
I'm confused - if as was apparently said in Court "... it was agreed with the prosecution ‘that all monies paid to Sir Alan were honestly paid to him and honestly received by him'." Why should he have to pay anything back?
ReplyDeleteThis result is literally unbelievable and no one who knows anything about the case does believe it. He initially pleaded not guilty and threatened to name names and some of those names were powerful people in local and national politics. Nor was their behaviour with the 'bonuses' out of character. This is what Davies's deputy was up to at the time .http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2009/jun/07/tory-deputy-head-paintings-mary-fedden. As I say, unbelievable.
ReplyDeleteIs Davies standing beside Cameron to make himself look honest by comparison...........or is it the other way round?
ReplyDeleteIs it really 'literally unbelieveable', or simply not the result you wanted? I'm sure you will forgive us for taking the agreed opinion of both the Prosecution and Defence Barristers, not to mention that of the Judge as articulated on The Guardian Online, over yours.
ReplyDeleteApparently, all Bonuses at Copland were found to be entirely legal (by the Prosecution no less!) and Davies was effectively found Guilty of 'sloppy' Paperwork - nothing more. Read the Transcript.
Not sure how many people the 'us' you mention refers to, nor what you know of the people or circumstances of the case. Your innocence is touching, however. Credulousness, on the other hand, is what crooks like these thrive on.
ReplyDeleteWill Brent Council write off the debt that the school is still paying for 3 years on , due to those overly generous backdated bonuses he gave himself and his close work colleagues at Copland.
ReplyDeleteI guess not. Why not turn the school into an academy, change all the staffs contracts and have them work longer hours for less. Oh sorry that's already happening
I understand that Sir Alan was brought in to turn around a SINK SCHOOL, which he did and you have to pay for the very best. I also read that the school has gone downhill rather rapidly since he was dismissed. Doesn't that state the obvious! i.e. the bonuses were totally justified for this man. Also, every thing was found to be above board and legal regarding bonuses. It was just Sir Alans sloppy paper keeping. I think that the union man who started this whole thing should be made to pay back the cost of the investigation to Copeland School.
ReplyDeleteYour post, my friend, begins 'I understand,,,' What follows, I'm afraid, demonstrates that you understand nothing. 'It was just Sir Alan's sloppy paper keeping'. Aw,shucks. It's just the kind of £2.7 million mistake that any guy could make.
DeleteI fear it is you that fails to understand the facts in this Case. The so called '£2.7m' Bonus figure has never been been substantiated by LB Brent and since they originally claimed it was £1.6m, one wonders quite where their figures actually come from. But whichever figure is in fact the correct one, it represents payments paid to ALL STAFF at the school over a period of 7 YEARS. I cannot imagine why LB Brent never made this point clear to either the Court or the Media - but then again, why ruin a good story with facts...
DeleteOk. Let's not bother to argue about the amounts which Brent and the CPS claim were involved. But, just out of interest, and leaving out the various other family members, and Evans, how much do YOU think Davies actually trousered?
Delete