Kingston University - Sir Peter Scott, EX-Vice Chancellor

By order of the management of Kingston University, staff are not permitted to access this site from University computers.
But what are they afraid of? Could it be that independent thought has become dangerous to the interests of the University?

Welcome to the Website of Sir Peter Scott
EX-Vice-Chancellor of Kingston University

This site tells a story through documentary evidence, images, music and video. It paints a picture for the reader/viewer to judge for him/herself, rather than putting forth a particular point of view about relevant events, by asking difficult and important questions to consider about what it means to work and study at Kingston University.

Dr Howard Fredrics began his employment as Senior Lecturer and Route Leader of Creative Music Technologies in September 2002. He moved with his wife, Lori from the United States, leaving a full-time permanent position to relocate his life to the UK.

In early 2003, he was approached by a colleague, Mike Searby, to sign a letter of grievance against his manager. Dr Fredrics decided that he did not want to become involved in such matters, as he was new in in post, still on probation, and simply did not wish to join in a mob action to address concerns about his manager. Rather, it was Dr Fredrics view that such matters are best handled on an individual basis through direct discussion with management to resolve individual concerns as they arise.

But Mr Searby did not take no for an answer. He continued to pressurize Dr Fredrics and even approached Dr Fredrics' wife, Lori to try to prevail upon her to convince Dr Fredrics to sign the letter of grievance. He also told Dr Fredrics that ALL other staff had signed the letter (a false statement) and that it would not be in his (Dr Fredrics) "best interests" to not sign the letter -- a clear threat, which Dr Fredrics understood as such. Shortly thereafter, Mr Searby and another colleague, Dr Frank Millward approached Mrs Fredrics to try to pressurize her further into getting Dr Fredrics to sign the grievance. They told Mrs Fredrics that Dr Fredrics was already becoming "marginalized" and that he would "find himself being sent back to the US" if he ended up on the "wrong side" of the battle against his manager.

What follows below are a series of links to pages containing documents, which show what happened to Dr Fredrics and his wife, Lori after Dr Fredrics made it clear that he would not engage in mobbing of his manager. Indeed, all Dr Fredrics wanted to do was to do his job, to concentrate on his teaching and research, to improve the quality of Kingston, to be helpful to his colleagues, and to live a normal and happy life. Alas, this was not to be.....

To whet the reader's appetite to read/listen on, the following recording of a conversation amongst UCU union rep., Chris Wills, Personnel Director, Liz Lanchbery and Dr Fredrics documents Mr Wills request to Mrs Lanchbery that the University's appointed "independent" investigator look into allegations that Dr Fredrics was threatened by his colleagues with the loss of his job if he did not sign onto the letter of grievance against his manager. You'll note that Mrs Lanchbery agrees to formally instruct the investigator to perform such an investigation upon receipt of a written request from Mr Wills, who did precisely that. (n.b. the recording contains brief silences where the name of Dr Fredrics' manager is mentioned, in order to respect the privacy of that individual).

Mrs Lanchbery did NOT, however, include such instructions to the University's investigator, and he did NOT, therefore, investigate whether or not Dr Fredrics was threatened or otherwise pressurized by his colleagues, and whether or not this may have ultimately led to the targeting for elimination of Dr Fredrics by some of his colleagues through a collective grievance, one that was issued in much the same manner as had been done in order to eliminate Dr Fredrics' manager.

Does it seem to you that Dr Fredrics may have been bullied by his colleagues and later, by Mrs Lanchberry?
Do you think that the failure to conduct a FULL investigation, not only of allegations against Dr Fredrics, but also of charges of bullying by Dr Fredrics' colleagues means that the investigation was, from the outset, fatally flawed?

Read on to find out more.....

DAILY QUOTATIONS AND POEMS

A British beknighted V-C
Brought charges maliciously
For he based such shite
On an electronic site
That he frequented willingly.

(source: P. Cardin)

Evan, The Fat Cat Banker <--Click to see a poem inspired, in part, by the case outlined in this website.

"Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." - Robert F. Kennedy

NEW QUOTE DU JOUR
"In order to succeed in a claim under the 1997 [Protection from Harassment] Act, Dr Fredrics must also demonstrate that Kingston is vicariously liable for the acts of its employees on which he relies. In my opinion, he would be able to demonstrate this.

In my opinion, it is arguable that Kingston should have been able to foresee that stress would cause Dr Fredrics personal injury, on the basis that he informed them prior to his employment that he suffered from depression. Further, as from the time of receipt of the document at Tab 2 (the undated note from Wendy in Occupational Health), Kingston were on notice that Dr Fredrics was being caused stress from the working environment." - Adam Solomon, Barrister-at-Law

Did Dr Fredrics make his concerns known by filing a grievance and informing management BEFORE a collective grievance was filed against him?

Have a listen to the following RECORDING of a meeting held in February 2005 with Prof Penny Sparke, then Dean of the Faculty of Art, Design and Music.
Why didn't Prof Sparke follow through with her commitment to arrange for mediation between Dr Fredrics and Dr Carol Gartrell, his line manager?
Why, indeed?

It appears that a certain David Bowie aficionado and KU professor has a knack for finding himself in hot water, with allegations of both sexual and academic misconduct now lodged against him by a highly respected UK academic. These allegations have led to his resignation from his post as an advisory editor of an important cinema and media studies journal, followed by the journals strongly worded statement against perpetrators of sexual and academic misconduct, and has elicited a rather explicit published outing of the events surrounding these allegations . If true, these reports would suggest that this certain KU professor might very well have committed acts that go beyond mere bad form to encompass a bona fide case of sexual assault.

While he is certainly innocent until proven guilty, it does seem curious that Kingston University has, as far as we are aware, taken no formal action to protect other staff and students from the reach of an alleged abuser.

Is preserving the reputation of the University by sweeping the matter under the rug more important to senior management than protecting the safety of the KU community from unwanted advances by a member of staff?
What liability might the University have if this erstwhile professor were to repeat his alleged behavior with a KU staff member or student?
And with respect to the alleged acts of academic misconduct, does lifting another academic's ideas without proper acknowledgment simply fit with the University's pattern of suborning student plagiarism?

Of all of the English universities, Kingston University had the highest deficit, according to Times Higher Education .
Could this financial crisis be caused, in part, by spending on legal fees and settlements?
Did the University's poor academic record and history of bullying discourage students from attending?
How much longer can the University hold out before it's forced to shut its doors?
What do YOU think?

After numerous allegations of unfair employment practices, supported by copious documentary evidence, but which have yielded few legal victories for staff, an Employment Tribunal has agreed with the view that Kingston University has clearly broken the law. What is especially notable about the decision is that the Tribunal found that Kingston University assigned a conflicted individual, who had likely prejudged the outcome of disciplinary charges against the claimant, in a manner quite similar to the approach used in the disciplinary case against Dr. Fredrics.

Social work students were denied course work placements and suffered severe health issues due to an internal error at Kingston University.
To learn more, click HERE

The Guardian University Rankings for 2019 have been released. Kingston University has recorded several infeasible rises. The Guardian rankings are independently complied by Matt Hiely-Rayner of Intelligent Metrix. The Kingston University Head of Planning responsible for submitting data to Matt Hiely-Rayner is...Matt Hiely Rayner!!! So that's all right, then...totally credible and trustworthy data. Oh, and Matt also performed a similar job function at Brunel University and University of West London. Wonder how they are doing?

Good sense has finally prevailed. The Magistrates have spoken, and have decided to afford an absolute discharge to Dr. Howard Fredrics for having used "insulting words" in breach of s.5 of the UK Public Order Act.

A music lecturer who has waged a decade-long war against his former vice-chancellor has been told that he is no longer an international fugitive.

The decision by Wimbledon Magistrates Court to issue an absolute discharge in the case of Howard Fredrics concludes one of UK higher educations longest and most bizarre legal sagas.

Ine Julia, Features Editor of the Kingston University River newspaper interviewed the twitter poster, Kingston Dissenter in a courageous effort to bring to light University bullying, corruption and mismanagement

To learn more, click HERE

The River, the student newspaper of Kingston University, has chimed in, in a rather unusual (for The River) example of balanced reporting.

Written by Molly Jang on November 27 2017
A sacked KU music lecturer accused of a campaign of harassment against the Universitys former vice chancellor, has finally had a legal case against him come to a close.

Dr Howard Fredrics received an absolute discharge in a landmark case that spanned eight years.

The London Southwest Magistrates Court sent a letter recently to Dr Fredrics' former solicitors, Mishcon de Reya summoning Dr Fredrics to a hearing on October 9th, 2017, under threat of yet another an arrest warrant being issued for the 2nd most wanted international fugitive.

Dr Fredrics replied as follows to explain to the Court why he would NOT be attending this hearing, which was being held more than seven years after Dr Fredrics' conviction on charges that he allegedly used insulting words directed at Sir Peter Scott by calling him a criminal

1. I am advised by my immigration solicitors that I would be denied entry to the UK were I to appear at the border.
2. My wife and I are the target of 2009 anti-Semitic death threats, apparently issued by members of the terrorist group, Hizb ut Tahrir in conjunction with a reported assault against my wife, and likely with the knowledge and assistance of Kingston University and its officials past and present. We are advised that were we to return to the UK, our lives would be in grave danger.
3. We do not have the funds needed to arrange transport to the UK.
4. We continue to suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder resulting from the above death threats and other improper actions by Kingston University and its associates. To return to the UK would be contrary to our doctors' medical advice.
5. The crime for which I was convicted in absentia is no longer an offense, as the allegation against me was that I used "insulting" words, in breach of S. 5(1)(a) of the Public Order Act 1986. Specifically, it was alleged that I called Prof. Peter Scott "a criminal" in public. This provision involving "insulting" words was removed from the Public Order Act by Parliament in 2014.
6. It is not in the Public Interest to expend resources to pursue this matter any further, given the fact that I no longer reside in the UK and am barred from entering the country.

It is not clear from the Court summons what the purpose of the new hearing is.

Kingston University, who employs the founder of the anti-Press body Hacked Off, was at the centre of a racism row last night over donations worth tens of thousands of pounds from unrepentant former neo-fascist tycoon Max Mosley through a family trust.

To learn more, click HERE

Experts have warned that Kingston University is one of the universities most likely to face closure due to a decline in new student applications and an alarming deficit.

Kingston University has seen the biggest decline in applications from 18-year-olds from 2012 to 2017, with a drop of 35 per cent, according to UCAS statistics.

To learn more, click HERE

Kingston University Applications
Plunge By 10 Percent...

Well, actually more like 20 percent

The University received more than 9,000 applications in the week before January 15th - one of the key application deadlines this year. However, it still left the University more than 2,000 applications down on this point last year.
Editor's note -- this figure is closer to 18-20 percent, if you do the math
To learn more, click HERE

While the University has complained about alleged Data Protection Act breaches against its governing officials, since at least 2006, during the reign of Sir Peter I, it has apparently routinely played fast and loose with the data of countless students for commercial gain.

To learn more, click HERE

Martin McQuillans Embezzlement
of 200,000 Pounds of Research Money
Hushed Up by the Kingston University SMT

McQuillan had been pushed out because he was found to have been embezzling large amounts of research money, apparently in the region of 200,000 pounds. As Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (FASS), McQuillans corrupt carryings on had been detected by some, including the late Christine Bradley, FASS finance officer, and by Professor Philip Spencer, Associate Dean of FASS. Yet Bradley was sacked by McQuillan while Spencer was pushed into early retirement (McQuillan did not attend his leaving party). When the Senior Management Team (SMT) finally discovered his criminal activities, however, instead of reporting him to the police as a law-abiding university would have done, they let him go quietly, with both parties signing a non-disclosure agreement.
To learn more, click HERE

Many will have been relieved at the departure this summer of Queasy McQuillan, but also a little surprised at the abruptness. The brief note on the staff website disappeared soon after it announced McQuillan is leaving for personal reasons, a phrase often used euphemistically, especially in political spheres. One comment below this blog post on the matter alleges financial irregularities. This surprised even Dissenter: the SMT is well known for its contempt for the staff and incompetent management but fingers in the till? However, investigations by this blog suggest the allegation stands up. McQuillan was up to financial no good, embezzling research funds, according to commenter Jack Dawson. No wonder he was so keen on raising research income as he cracked his whip over the wretched staff.
To learn more, click HERE

Former Kingston University Lecturer
Speaks Out on Perpetrators, Enablers and Resisters

Kingston Uni Student
Who went on racist tirade
After being refused entry to Notting Hill Arts Club

Written by Grainne Cuffe on March 15, 2017
A Kingston University student who racially abused staff at a Notting Hill nightclub after being refused entry for being too drunk has been spared jail.
To read more, click HERE.

Written by Meka Beresford on November 29th 2016
Former vice chancellor Julius Weinberg has been accused of taking an absurd golden handshake for £250,000 in his new role of president, after stepping down from his position at the beginning of the term. To read more, click HERE.

Written by Jennifer Richardson on September 27th 2016
Julius Weinberg stepped down as Kingston University (KU) vice-chancellor yesterday, admitting there were “differing” views on the future of the university between him and the board of governors. Weinberg, who announced his decision on the first day of teaching of the academic year, told staff that he will be resigning from his position after almost six years, due to different opinions regarding the strategic approach to addressing some of the challenges the institution faces. “It has become evident to me that the board of governors and I hold differing views,” he wrote in an email to staff members.
To read more click HERE.

Kingston University Faces Dramatic Drop In Course Applications
After League Table Plunge and Rising Debt

Applications to Kingston University for next year have slumped by a quarter, according to official figures. To read more click HERE.

Kingston University
Named Among Worst Universities
For Supporting Islamist Extremism on Campus

Prime Minister, David Cameron names Kingston University among worst universities for allowing extremism to flourish on campus.

Read more HERE

Kingston University and its supporters try to fight back with a challenge to the PM to 'Show us the evidence.'

But, IS there, in fact, evidence?

Whom exactly did Kingston University get involved with when they chose to hire Zafar Ali as 'independent investigator' to investigate allegations against a Jewish staff member?

Would you send your son or daughter to a place like this?
Even ISIS executioner, Jihadi John, who applied to Kingston and was offered a place, decided not to attend.

Source: The River, March, 2015.

Longstanding Kingston University
Harassment Case

Meg Jensen Sarah Sceats David Rogers
Emerges Into The Public Sphere

As previously noted, Kingston University has apparently maintained its failure to acknowledge and remedy its history of bullying and harassment of staff. Recently, it has come to our attention that Professor of Creative Writing, Dr Michael Stephens, who was effectively dismissed from his post after reporting allegations of harassment by his line manager, has been in a longstanding legal battle with the University, which has refused to acknowledge its mistakes and to make amends to Prof Stephens, a well-known American published author of some eighteen books.

In a disappointing decision by the Employment Tribunal, Dr Stephens' case was dismissed on the grounds of it having been filed too late to be considered. This having occured after the Employment Appeals Tribunal instructed the lower Tribunal to reconsider its prior decision to dismiss the case with reference to particular legal precedents involving whether or not it would be just and equitable to allow the case to proceed. It appears from her written judgment, however, that EJ Hyde did not address the specific provisions of an important case, as instructed by the Judge Peter Clark of the EAT, namely a case known as "Chohan."

Because the ET has refused to allow the case to proceed, we have decided that it is only fair that the public be made aware of the allegations lodged by Prof Stephens:

The crux of Prof Stephens' complaint is that Kingston University, once again, failed to investigate and act upon complaints of harassment by a manager, and instead, victimized Prof Stephens by firing him for his having alerted the University to the situation, in particular, because he was considered to be a fixed-term employee:

The complete Employment Tribunal judgement is provided here. It will remain to be seen what further developments transpire in this rather important case, which is about the search by a former professor for justice, albeit one that was delayed by an unfortunate set of circumstances beyond his control.

NEW Reports of Continuing
Culture of Bullying and Discrimination
At Kingston University

Recent reports indicate that Kingston University has not eliminated its longstanding and widespread culture of bullying and discrimination. Sadly, despite a new administration led by Prof Julius Weinberg, the culture in some departments appears to have remained toxic and unwelcoming, particularly towards international staff.

We are, nevertheless, hopeful that Prof Weinberg will ultimately address these matters and insure that rather than relying on disciplinary measures to eliminate staff who've become targets of bullying, more supportive measures can be undertaken at the outset to address genuine complaints.

We intend, as always, to continue reporting on the latest developments and experiences of staff and students, both present and past as long as Kingston University continues to fail to fully address and make amends to affected individuals.

Head of the School of Planning and Surveying, Sarah Sayce has been suspended for daring to inform students of the University's plans to close the School, and encouraging them to voice their concerns to University management about the likely impact of closure upon their academic careers. Prof Sayce also endured the indignity of having to clear out her desk in the presence of HR staff, before being escorted off the premises.

Does the University's response seem consistent with the principles of free, open and honest discourse and the ability to challenge conventional wisdom that are supposed to be essential elements of academic freedom?

What do YOU think?

Update: Professor Sarah Sayce has apparently been forced to "retire" from her position as Head of School of Planning and Surveying, and now lists herself as Emeritus Professor.

Did she receive a payout to accept a compromise agreement in order to be silenced by the University from speaking out against the closure of the School of Planning and Surveying?

What do YOU think?

Gone, But NOT Forgotten...
Frank Millward Takes Up Early "Retirement"
Returns to Native Australia
to Work at University of Newcastle

Frank Millward illustrates how close he came to being fired,
before agreeing to a payoff to take early retirement.

Former Kingston Music Senior Lecturer, Frank Millward has reportedly received a handsome payoff to take early retirement. Retirees generally receive a nice pension and, often, a lump sum payment at the time of departure. They are NOT supposed to take up full-time lecturing posts elsewhere, however, as apparently seems to be the case with Mr Millward.

One can't help but wonder whether or not Kingston University is aware that Frank Millward has taken up a post as Professor and Head of School at University of Newcastle in Australia, and likewise, whether or not Newcastle is aware that Mr Millward received a nice payoff from Kingston for taking early retirement.

Could it be that Frank Millward's habit of bullying colleagues and students finally came back to bite him on the ass, resulting in his being invited to retire?

And does University of Newcastle know about his history of bullying at Kingston?

What do YOU think?

August 2013 UPDATE:
David Osbon Departs Kingston University Music Department
for University of West London
(formerly Thames Valley University)

David Osbon's biography has resurfaced on the website of University of West London, where he is now "Professor."

Interestingly, his bio states that Osbon has "...held lecturing roles at the University of London, South Bank University and Rose Bruford College, whilst holding down a full-time role as Head of Arts and Culture at Greenwich Council..."

Why is there no reference in his bio to his appointment between 2005 - 2013 at Kingston University?

Under what circumstances did David Osbon leave his post at Kingston?

Did David Osbon ever hold a lectureship at University of London?

Former Kingston University Lecturers
Help to Put James Gandolfini's Hometown
On World Stage

Unfortunately, the international recruiting potential for Kingston University took a hit when in 2006, it lost the services of two former KU lecturers, Howard Fredrics and his wife, Lori Fredrics.

Following the untimely death in June, 2013 of Park Ridge, New Jersey native and acting star, James Gandolfini, Ms Fredrics, a high school classmate of Mr Gandolfini set forth on a successful quest to have the main thoroughfare through their hometown renamed, James Gandolfini Way. The goal came to fruition at a widely attended public celebration attended by a number of Gandolfini's former castmates from the award-winning TV series, The Sopranos.

Although Dr Fredrics was sharply criticized during his tenure at KU by some of his Music Department colleagues for setting his sights on bringing recognition to the University through celebrity involvement in his musical-theatrical works, the Fredrics have, once again, been proven to have realistic and achievable goals.

Click HERE to link to Chasing New Jersey TV program interview with Lori and Howard Fredrics

According to a report published in the January 2015 Minutes of the Board of Governors, applications to Kingston University have declined by 11% compared with a similar period in 2014.

Could it be that the poor showing in the National Student Survey and League Tables has rendered Kingston a lesser choice among prospective applicants?
Could this website's revelations of the academic and social culture at the University have influenced students' decisions on where to apply?

Stay tuned for further analysis...

With only five institutions out of over a hundred in the UK scoring worse than Kingston University, it appears that whatever is being done by the current administration is not resulting in greater student satisfaction results. While "satisfying" customers is not the only measure of quality, it does indicate where market trends are heading for the University.

Could the University be failing its students because of a culture of bullying that pervades the institution?

Unfortunately, the National Student Survey doesn't specifically measure the level of bullying experienced by students, nor does it indicate whether or not staff are bullied. It is, however, certain that a university where bullying is not widespread is likely to offer a better experience for both staff and students.

Continuing its troubling trend, Kingston University has fallen sixteen places in the Times Higher Education Student Experience Survey.

Does this mean that they are simply refusing to kowtow to market pressures to keep their "customers" happy?
Or does it mean that there is a culture of bullying and mismanagement that continues to bring about the decline and fall of Kingston's place within British higher education?

Inflatable Grades?

Kingston University's Degree Awards
Found to be at Higher Level
Than Most Other UK Universities

A recent study determined that 21 UK universities awarded more 1st Class and 2:1 degrees than expected in 2013.
Included among these universities was Kingston University.

Does this mean that the quality of teaching is better than expected at Kingston?
Or does this mean that grades are routinely inflated in order to give students the false impression of earning a "good" degree?

Do you really think employers are fooled by this?

What do YOU think?

Kingston University

Ranks in
Top 10 Worst UK Universities
For Graduate Employment

According to the most recent figures from the Higher Education Statistics Agency, Kingston University ranks 10th in the UK for worst rate of graduates in employment or further study six months after graduation.

Is this because Kingston University turns out lazy students, who don't bother trying to do anything?
Or is it because Kingston University has a poor reputation among employers for producing well-qualified candidates?

What do YOU think?

Kingston University students failed to draw a crowd at their recent Arts Festival.

Was this because of poor organization and planning, or a public perception that the quality of performances would be likely to be sub-par?

Watch the above video and see what YOU think.

While lower enrollments may mean that the number of staff and course offerings will decrease, those students who remain will be better off, and the University will become a more efficient place to study and work, since fewer resources will be wasted on non-progressing students and/or students in need of extraordinary support. But most of all, the need to bully staff into fraudulently passing students will be eliminated if the students coming to the University are prepared to meet the challenges of University study.

It is for these reasons that this website endorses recent changes enacted by the University to raise entry standards and to target more ABB+ students for recruitment.

Too bad that it's taken this long for the University to realize that such a policy is for the best.

The recent edition of the Guardian League Table has Kingston University scoring a perfect 100 -- its ranking out of 119 UK universities. This represents a disturbing downward trend on the part of the university, which has seen its ranking slowly, but surely dropping through the floor. Could it be that its pandering to market "demands" and its apparent disregard for staff welfare has come back to haunt the University?

The recent edition of the Guardian League Table has Kingston University's Music programme rating 66th out of 77 university music programmes. With scores like this, could it be long before the University decides to save money by closing the department?

Kingston University VC, Prof Julius Weinberg recently announced to the Board of Governors a new university-wide strategy of increased student entry requirements designed to improve retention and progression rates. In an apparent admission that the University's past strategy of admitting weak students and fraudulently passing them in order to meet numbers targets had failed miserably, Prof Weinberg has, in effect, acknowledged the validity of what former Senior Music Lecturer, Dr Howard Fredrics had repeatedly advocated to his colleagues by proposing the raising of entry requirements in the now former School of Music.

While setting the floor at 220 UCAS points remains within the lower range relative to national averages, it is nonetheless, a substantial improvement over past practices. Kudos to Prof Weinberg for taking this positive step. Hopefully, he will gradually move the University further in this direction, as improved outcomes become apparent to all.

But perhaps more importantly, this quality-enhancing change will hopefully reduce or eliminate circumstances where the University feels it must bully staff into silence when they object to fraudulent academic practices.

The following is extracted from a Facebook exchange between Kingston University English Lecturers, Dr Heidi James-Dunbar and Dr Sara Upstone:

Analysis
In the above screenshot, Dr James-Dunbar appears to express concern that automatically awarding a full set of 10 marks for students who merely complete a reading log that identifies nine books read, will lead to "...a lot of undeserving firsts" in the undergraduate module, Contemporary British Fiction, irrespective of the quality of the reading logs in question.

Extending this marking policy to its logical conclusion, a student could could bump up his/her grade from a low 2.1 to a first by simply submitting the following:
Where Are The Night Animals? (Frazer, 1998)
I found this book to be challenging considering that it was written for six year olds.

Why Are Frogs Wet? (Frazer, 1998)
I found this book to be challenging considering that it was written for six year olds.

How Baby Animals Stay Safe? (Frazer, 1998)
I found this book to be challenging considering that it was written for six year olds.

Repeat that process a total of nine times, and and the student would have thirteen easy marks -- ten marks for reading the books and three marks for providing a correct referencing format. To quote Dr Upstone, "Welcome to the world of grade inflation."

Do you find it extraordinary that Kingston University effectively awards a 10 percent mark boost for simply producing a reading log, irrespective of quality?
And when lecturers acknowledge that there is widespread grade inflation across a number of modules, resulting in an unusually large number of first class marks, would this justify the launching of a formal investigation by HEFCE and/or QAA?
What do YOU think?

Times Higher Education Reports on Fredrics Case
The Times Higher Education has also recently published an article about Dr Howard Fredrics' response to the news of his being named to the Most Wanted list. They have, however, censored his comments because of what appears to be a superinjunction preventing publication of such comments.

The following are his original comments as they were posted.
Do you find these to be at all defamatory or anything but rather innocuous?

Kudos to Sarah Cunnane and THE for a well-written and entertaining article. A few minor corrections and clarifications in the interest of artistic and temporal truth are, I believe, in order:

The circular and snake-like movements contained in the dance reflect the subject matter of the video, the "circle of corruption" and the neo-reptilian behavior of certain individuals who shall, for the purposes of common decency, remain nameless.

Moreover, the theme of circular movement is consistent with a common thread that runs through a number of our previous music videos (e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWoIm3Cq_4g), and which symbolizes the medieval instrument of torture, the Catherine Wheel.

Also, I was employed by Kingston University between 2002-2006, not 2003-2006, as stated in the above article. Similarly, my wife and muse, Lori, was also employed at Kingston's School of Music during that period as a part-time Lecturer of Voice.

Lastly, I must add that what has saddened me most about this entire debacle is that I am no longer teaching at Kingston University, where I would have continued to share my approach to creating multimedia performance art with an ever widening array of interesting and talented students. Ultimately, that's what this is all about.

Although overall applications fell by 8.5 percent in England for the 2012-2013 academic year, Kingston University experienced an extraordinarily large decline in applications, down by 15.5 percent. Yet its admissions figures only declined by 8.8%, which means their standards have apparently slipped even further.

Could the University's record of cutting corners on ethical as well as academic matters have come back to haunt it, now that its New Labour benefactors are no longer in power? Or could its record of bullying and harassing staff and students have discouraged potential applicants from applying?

What do YOU think?

Does Kingston University honor its contractual agreements with its staff/prospective staff?

The following questions for the reader to ponder relate to a recent case involving a prospective staff member:-

Is it right for an employer to make a formal offer to a prospective staff member, only to withdraw such an offer on the sole grounds of "budget cuts" and that they have decided to change the allocation of funding, so that adequate funds for the position are no longer available?

If an employer does withdraw such an offer, what, if any, compensation should be paid to the employee for losses incurred?

Should the employer pay the employee for a period of notice (e.g. at least 3 mos. salary), or just a token payment to cover the cost of "administrative" expenses (e.g. the cost of obtaining a British Passport)?

What, if any, compensation should be paid to the employee to take account of the fact that he/she may have given up another job, given up their house/flat, or other related expenses incurred as might be expected when one is offered a job in a foreign country?

To read details of this horrendous but indicative case, click HERE

According to a recent Freedom of Information request, Kingston University now employs over 1000 staff members on insecure, non-guaranteed zero hours contracts.

Is this policy really in the best interests of students or affected staff?

An analysis by the House of Commons Library found that Kingston University will lose 400-450 student places in an auction designed to make additional places available for students earning AAB or better A-level exam results.

Does this reflect the fact that Kingston University will be charging nearly the government maximum of 9,000 pounds per year in tuition fees? Or does it reflect the fact that Kingston University has, in order to increase student numbers (irrespective of quality of these students) and the cash flow they bring with them, made it a practice of keeping entry requirements so low as to discourage stronger students with AAB or higher exam results from attending? Have the chickens, in fact, come home to roost for Kingston University as far as its academic standards are concerned?

What do YOU think?

Those attending Kingston University face average rents of more than £100 per week in their second year. That is almost matched by the cost of the most basic halls provided by the university.

Kingston's cheapest en suite rooms cost £92.75 a week for a 40-week tenancy, which means at least you are not paying for the summer holidays.

However, these are not big rooms. "Please note the lower fee reflects the small size of the rooms. They are unsuitable if you have a large drawing board or are over 6ft tall," warns Kingston's website. Across town, its "luxury" rooms in private halls start at £195 a week.
(Source: The Guardian, 20 August 2010)

Sir Peter Scott's
Failed Harassment Case
Mentioned by David Burrowes, MP
in UK Parliamentary Questions

Rt. Hon. David Burrowes, MP for Enfield brought forth a series of questions before the House of Commons concerning cases where harassment laws were abused by wealthy and powerful institutions and indivduals to silence free expression.
Citing both the case of Dr Howard Fredrics and the case of Ian Puddick, Mr Burrowes posed difficult questions to the Minister of Policing and Criminal Justice, Nick Herbert.

"It appears that my constituents experience is not an isolated one, since having secured this debate I was contacted by Dr Howard Fredrics, who is similarly charged with harassment because of a website exposing misconduct by officials at Kingston university. Even though, as I am also informed, Kingston police found no evidence of harassment, the Crown Prosecution Service went ahead with a case against Dr Fredrics, just as the CPS decided not to take account of Sussex police advice and a case was mounted against Mr Puddick. In both cases the common factor seems to be people and institutions of influence, and one would have to say that the concept of the rule of law has been challenged. Those are two examples, but there may be more, which might have gone unnoticed because of the under-reporting of magistrates court cases. The reason for this debate is that they should not go unnoticed by this House or the Government." - David Burrowes, MP

To read the complete transcript of these questions, click HERE

National Bullying Report Reveals
0 Percent of Kingston University Grievances Upheld

A national study of higher education institutions reveals results on bullying and harassment related grievances at Kingston University.

Kingston University Music Programmes
Score Poorly in 2012 National Student Survey

Kingston University's Music and Creative Music Technologies programmes rate poorly in student satisfaction surveys:-

According to a survey conducted by the Times Higher Education, Kingston University's ranking dropped in the past year from from 80th to 99th out of 113 universities.

One wonders whether or not there exists an institutional culture of bullying and harassment of staff and students, which may have contributed to this significant loss in standing from a poor to abysmal ranking among British universities.
It is especially notable that despite benefiting from an excellent location near to downtown London, where nightlife, shopping and cultural offerings are tremendously advantageous, the University's ranking continues to fall.
How does this result jibe with Kingston's PR campaign concerning the popularity of the University? Does it mean that the University is good at attracting students, but terrible at keeping them happy?
If so, why do YOU think that is?

"How is education supposed to make me feel smarter? Besides, every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain. Remember when I took that home winemaking course, and I forgot how to drive?" - Former Kingston University Music Student

"wacky and wonderful -- and lots of fun!"-A. Rothkin, Artistic Director, White Rabbit Theatre

Kingston University
Employs Disgraced "Sex Abuse Therapist"
As Visiting Professor

Was Kingston University aware of the background of a self-proclaimed "sex abuse therapist" when they hired him as Visiting Professor to lecture at the University?
Did they know that Anthony Baker had been struck off the General Medical Council's register for his inappropriate sexual conduct with teenage patients?

Find out more about this scandal by clicking HERE and HERE .

Following the departure of its rather short-term Finance Director, Terry Butcher, Mr Martin Potter joins Kingston University after several years as Group Controller and Divisional CFO at AkzoNobel Chemicals, a company highly noted for their criminal conviction on charges of Price Fixing for which they were fined $3.15 million. With the upcoming increase in allowable tuition fees, one can't help but wonder whether or not Mr Potter will want to help recreate this "miracle" of price fixing in the Higher Education sector, starting, of course, by setting Kingston's tuition at or near the maximum of £9000 per year.

Following the precipitous departure of Nick Rogers, subsequent to his having served his useful purpose as witness for the University at Dr Howard Fredrics' Employment Tribunal Pre-Hearing Review, Mr Dean Morley , formerly Head of HR Strategy and Change at the Government's Department of Work and Pensions and Head of Resource Management at HM Prison Service, adds his twenty years of experience in human resource management to the Kingston University leadership team. Artressa hopes that his experience in managing change will be applied to the culture of management at the University, so that it does not continue to engage in widespread bullying practices.

Dead Sea Scrolls Blogger
Sentenced to Prison Term
For Blogs and Emails Alleging Plagiarism

In an online free speech case with striking parallels to the failed case lodged by Sir Peter Scott against Dr Howard Fredrics, American lawyer, Raphael Golb was sentenced to six months behind bars for having blown the whistle on alleged academic misconduct by several of his father, Prof Norman Golb's rivals and detractors.

To read more about this remarkable landmark case, which is now before a US-based Appeals Court, click HERE.

DATELINE - September 22, 2010

Allegations of Racial Discrimination
Lodged Against University's KUSCO Service Company

According to the University's Finance Director, as reported in the March 2010 minutes of the Board of Governors, allegations of Racial Discrimination were made against KUSCO. The Finance Director further indicated that the matter was subject to an ongoing internal investigation, the outcome of which was expected within TWO WEEKS.

Further examination of the minutes of the following Board of Governors meeting of May 2010 makes no mention whatsoever of the outcome of this important investigation.

One would think that IF the outcome was that there was no finding of discrimination, the University would want this known by the entire Board and other attendees of the May 2010 meeting.

But what if the finding revealed that there WAS discrimination?
Would the University try to ensure that a compromise agreement was signed so that the outcome could never be discussed publicly?

What other reason could there be for there to be no further reference to the ongoing investigation in the May 2010 minutes?

What do YOU think?

The alleged victim(s) and the University are invited to contact us to put forward their side of the story and/or the formal written report of the investigation. We will be happy to publish all accounts on this site so that the truth is finally known to all.

"It has been a very busy time for the Board of Governors and in particular the Nominations Committee which I am part of.
As you will know, we received news that the Vice Chancellor, the Chair of the Board of Governors, the Finance Director and the HR Director are leaving the University shortly. Given the recent changes in personnel (the Deputy Vice Chancellor and the University Secretary) and the portfolio of Senior Management Group (the Pro-Vice Chancellors) the Board is keen to maintain the stability of the University."
- Nona McDuff - Director of Equality & Diversity and member of the Board of Governors

Given the large management turnover, can it be presumed that the University might actually be teetering on its edge?
What do YOU think?

Newsflash:
DATELINE - June 17, 2011
Another Victory for Free Speech
Over Abuse of Power

In an other crushing victory for free speech over the right of rich and powerful individuals and companies' abuse of police powers, ordinary plumber, Ian Puddick has been found innocent of all charges in his online harassment case.

For further details on this surprising (in light of established precedent) case, click HERE

Newsflash:
DATELINE - June 16, 2011
Online Harassment Case
Proceeds to Trial
Despite Strong Legal Precedent

Despite the compelling legal precedent set in the case of R v Fredrics (2010) in which DJ Kreiman ruled in favor of the defendant, Dr Howard Fredrics, finding no case to answer on the basis that harassment laws weren't intended to protect individual reputations, the CPS and London City Police have moved forward to trial in a strikingly similar case. The most recent case involves a rich and posh Company Director, Tim Haynes, who complained that plumber, Ian Puddick had harassed him online via websites and Twitter by exposing allegations that Haynes fiddled company expense claims through the use of company funds to support an illicit affair with Puddick's wife.

For further details on this surprising (in light of established precedent), click HERE

Newsflash:
DATELINE - July 22, 2010
'NO CASE TO ANSWER'
on Harassment Charge Against
Dr Howard Fredrics

A District Judge sitting before the Kingston Magistrates' Court today ruled that there was "NO CASE TO ANSWER" in the matter of R v Fredrics, involving an allegation that this website constituted harassment of Sir 'Peter' Scott.

The Judge was reported to have said that Harassment law was not designed to protect a person's reputation.

Furthermore, the Judge determined that this site addressed Prof Scott's professional rather than personal conduct, and that it does not contain any material that is consistent with a charge of harassment.

Dr Fredrics wishes to thank his outstanding barrister, Mr David Rhodes of Doughty Street Chambers, and his equally outstanding team of solicitors at Mishcon de Reya, Mr Anthony Julius, Ms Dina Shiloh, and Mr Matthew Papasavva for their tremendous skill and effort in clearly defining the important free speech issues inherent in this case.

Today was truly a resounding victory for free speech in Britain!

On a separate matter, Dr Fredrics was, today, convicted of breaching s.5 of the Public Order Act, however he continues to maintain his innocence on that charge, and he intends to explore his options for appeal pursuant to this matter.

DATELINE - July 10, 2010
Dr Howard Fredrics
Unable to Attend Re-Trial
Due to Death Threats

Dr and Mrs Fredrics will not be attending his re-trial on harassment charges and trial on Public Order charges scheduled for 22-23 July 2010, owing in part to ongoing threats to their safety.

Newsflash:
Dateline: 8 June, 2010
Kingston University Slips in 2011 Guardian League Tables
to 98th Out of 118 Universities
Down from 73rd in 2010

What have the current management policies done for the quality of Kingston University lately?
Has the way staff and students are treated helped or hurt the University's standing?
Where does the University appear to be heading?

What do YOU think?

Newsflash:
Dateline: 2 June, 2010
Sir Peter Scott to Retire from Kingston University
Six Months Early

It was announced recently that Sir George 'Peter' Scott will be resigning early, in December 2010, and that he will take up a part-time post as Professor at University of London. We sincerely wish Prof Scott well in his new endeavors.

Given the recent disclosure that the University spent the most of any British University between 2007-2009 on defending Employment Tribunal cases, one can't help but wonder if Prof Scott might have been encouraged by the University's Board of Governors, or even by the recently appointed Universities Minister, David Willetts, MP to move elsewhere before he was due to take up retirement.

The authors of this website hope that Kingston University will use Prof Scott's departure as a golden opportunity to make a seismic shift in its management practices in favor of a less top down structure, with greater respect for and colleagiality among the members of the University community.

We also hope that transparency, open communication, and a true sense of freedom of expression of ideas, even if they differ from management or majority views, will become the new way of doing business at KU. For many a great things can come from just taking the time to listen to and consider ideas that might appear unconventional at first, but which offer great promise upon further reflection.

With its location near to London, the centre of Britain's economic and cultural life, and with great potential to develop the best staff and student population, it would be wonderful, indeed, if Kingston University could transform itself into a great success story--a genuine centre for excellence in research and teaching that draws attention and accolades from the entire international, as well as national academic community.

Newsflash:
Dateline: March 7, 2011

Donald Beaton's New Employer, SOAS
Signs Pact with Gaddafi Regime

In a shocking revelation, shortly after he joined SOAS as University Secretary and Registrar, SOAS signed a lucrative deal with war criminal, Gaddafi's regime to develop an MSc in Finance for a Libyan state-sponsored university. This occurred only after SOAS provided English language tutoring for one of Gaddafi's sons, suggesting at least the possibility of a quid-pro-quo arrangement. The burning question is, therefore, did Donald Beaton play a role in the cementing of such a "pact with the "devil?"

Newsflash:
Dateline: February, 2010

University Secretary Admits Defeat
Sends Out An SOaS

After less than four years in post, Kingston University Secretary, Donald 'Nothing Personal' Beaton leaves his soulmate, Sir 'Peter' Scott's side to take up the post of Registrar and Secretary at SOAS, University of London.

Less than four months later, Prof Scott announces his resignation.
Could life without 'Don' have become that unbearable?
Or had Mr Beaton's position simply become untenable?

Newsflash:
Dateline: 24 May, 2010
Kingston University Music Programme
Ranked 2nd from Bottom
in 2010-2011 University League Tables

Has the management style of Kingston University's Music programme succeeded at improving the quality of service offered to students and staff?

If so, why has the Music programme been rated near the bottom of the barrel among British universities?

Does bullying encourage the best staff members to remain dedicated to their jobs?

What do YOU think?

Following a decision today by a District Judge of the Kingston Magistrates' Court, the arrest warrant and conviction of Dr Howard Fredrics on the charge of harassment of Sir George Peter Scott have been overturned.

The Judge determined that the prosecution of Dr Fredrics should not have gone forward as a matter of law, and accepted Dr Fredrics' arguments as set forth by his barrister, Mr Richard Thomas of Doughty Street Chambers, that the prosecution of this case was entirely disproportionate, and in breach of Dr Fredrics' rights under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). The Judge decided that the case should never have gone forward in Dr Fredrics' absence, as this would breach his right to a fair trial with representation.

Dr Fredrics is grateful to his many supporters as well as to his legal team at Mishcon de Reya (Mr Anthony Julius and Ms Dina Shiloh), and at Doughty Street Chambers (Mr Richard Thomas) for their effective pursuit of justice in this matter.

Stay tuned for further news on how this case will impact upon other matters....

For further details see the following articles:

Newsflash:
Dateline: 13 August, 2010
Kingston University
Continues Its Legal Spending Spree

£313,919.07

Over a five-year period between 2004-2009, Kingston University spent over £300,000 on one staff member's Employment Tribunal case.

What is it about this case that could possibly have been so important to the University that they would have felt justified in spending so much public money?

Do YOU think it was money well spent?

Kingston University has decided to spend upwards of £50,000/year to hire a full-time in-house lawyer.

Given the current government funding cutbacks, that have resulted in fewer places for students and fewer academic staff hirings, do you think it is responsible for the University to devote as much money as it might spend on over FIFTEEN student bursaries or a full professor's salary to clean up its legal tangles?

Have a look at the detailed Job Description to learn more about the kinds of matters that this newly hired lawyer might face.

Newsflash:
Dateline: 1 May, 2010
Kingston University
Misstates Legal Expenditure Figures

"Hey, big spender..."

Following queries by the Surrey Comet, Kingston University was forced to backpedal on its previous statements provided in response to a Freedom of Information Act request concerning its legal expenditures on Employment Tribunal cases. In fact, the University spent £635,165 of public money between 2007 and 2009, with three quarters of that (nearly £500,000) spent on the case of Dr Howard Fredrics v Kingston University alone.

This amended figure makes Kingston the BIGGEST SPENDER of all universities in the UK on legal fees.

Click HERE to read the email documentation proving that what the University originally stated about its legal expenses was not accurate. You'll also find other related facts about Kingston University's legal expenses and hiring/firing practices.

Newsflash:
Dateline: 2 April, 2010
Kingston University Spent Over £500,000 On Tribunal Cases

According to figures obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests*, Kingston University spent the 4th highest amount of all UK universities between 2007-2010 (the past three years) on legal fees to deal with six Employment Tribunal cases filed by current or former staff. By comparison, Manchester University, with forty cases filed against it, spent only approximately £170k on legal costs to defend these claims, less than 1/2 of what Kingston spent during this same period.

In addition, Kingston paid out a total of over £100,000 to settle just two claims.

Thus, Kingston University spent over £500,000 dealing with Tribunal claims over a three year period.
(n.b. This figure doesn't include legal fees and settlements paid for ongoing cases initiated prior to 2007 -- For example, Kingston University is claiming over £37,000 in costs spent for a single Pre-Hearing Review court appearance. Can you imagine how much they must have spent since 2006 when Dr Fredrics' case was first filed? )

How many student bursaries could have been provided had the University not spent your money on legal matters?
How many lecturing positions could have been created or saved from cuts?

Newsflash:
Dateline: 9 March, 2010
Academic to argue that conviction was unlawful

Man found guilty of harassing v-c to tell judge that prosecution breached his right to free expression. Melanie Newman reports

Newsflash:
Dateline: 14 January, 2010
Dr Howard Fredrics v Kingston University Struck Out by Tribunal

An academic's claim of unfair dismissal against Kingston University has been struck out. Howard Fredrics, who was a senior lecturer of music, also claimed wrongful dismissal, public-interest disclosure and disability discrimination against his former employer.

Why were these claims struck out? Was it because they lacked merit, or because of Dr Fredrics' criminal conviction?

What do you think Kingston University's legal strategy was in launching a criminal complaint on behalf of the Vice Chancellor shortly before a Pre-hearing Review, at which Dr Fredrics' case was struck out?

Was the University afraid to have a Tribunal decide the case on the evidence, rather than having it 'short-circuited' by applying to strike it out prior to a full merits hearing?

Do you think it was fair to deny Dr Fredrics the opportunity of having his Tribunal case heard on its actual merits?

Newsflash:
Dateline: 7 January, 2010
Lecturer 'intended to harass' V-C court finds

An academic is wanted by police after being found guilty of harassing the vice-chancellor of Kingston University.

To read the entire story, click HERE
Be sure to read the comments section following the article to learn more about why Dr Fredrics was forced to flee.

Click HERE to read a police report on the evidence

UPDATE:
Dateline: March 20, 2011

Kingston University Has
Third Highest Number of Cheaters

In a recent report on numbers of students caught cheating, Kingston University came in third place among all UK universities. Although the University claims to have a "zero tolerance" policy towards cheating, one wonders why there are, nonetheless, so many students who have been caught. Is it because there is a nudge and a wink emanating from the University's administration, so that students know that they won't be sanctioned if caught cheating? Is that what gives them the feeling of tacit approval, which emboldens them to take the risk? Or are there simply so many unqualified students admitted to the University, who have no other way to pass modules than to cheat?

What do YOU think?

As Dr Howard Fredrics reported to BMus Course Director, Gloria Toplis as far back as 2004, students have allegedly employed a practice sometimes known as "tag-teaming" to collude on assignments. While Dr Fredrics noted that groups of students were submitting identical assignments on disks instead of submitting individual assignments, recent reports in the Kingston University student newspaper, The River, have suggested that groups of students have been submitting virtually identical papers, with a few bits altered to avoid detection, and that this practice is apparently quite widespread within the University.

How did Dr Fredrics come to learn of these clear acts of plagiarism?
In fact, he was informed by two junior colleagues, who were lecturing on modules for which he was Module Leader. It was therefore his duty to report this information to the BMus Course Director.

But when he had still not learned the outcome of a so-called "investigation" of the allegations by the time Exam Board meetings took place, he was left with no option but to ask for the outcome of that investigation during the meeting, as he was unable, thus far, to submit the final marks for these modules without knowing whether to apply deductions to the marks for the students in question.

This, in turn lead some of his colleagues to complain as part of a formal grievance that Dr Fredrics had somehow failed in his duty to turn in all of his marks on time.

How could Dr Fredrics have turned in all marks without knowing whether or not students were found guilty of plagiarism?

What do you think happened to the students who committed the acts of plagiarism?
Nothing more than a letter telling them that they had better not do it again, except in the case of one student who had the courage to admit her deliberate plagiarism -- she was required to resit the module.

What sort of message does this send to students?
Do you think this has anything to do with the fact that five years later, the same sort of tactics are used by students to avoid doing original work on assignments?

What sort of message does this send to staff?
Do you think this encourages or discourages staff from coming forward and reporting clear acts of plagiarism?

What do YOU think?

Fourteen-year-veteran lecturer, Ron Delves is set to lose his job if Kingston University's decision to force his retirement at age 65 is not reversed on appeal. Although not required to dismiss staff when they turn 65, the University has, nonetheless decided to do so in the case of Mr Delves.

The University's apparent rationale is that Mr Delves' level of research activity is not worthy of his being retained. But is there a subtext to this story? Is it possible that openly expressed dissent by Mr Delves might, indeed, be what lies beneath the veneer of a 'policy' decision?

Whether legally permissable or not, does it seem right to you that the University is using the arbitrary age limit of 65 to force retirement upon a dedicated staff member, who has served his students and the University with dignity and apparent success during his career?

DATELINE - October 20, 2009:
Dr Howard Fredrics
Charged with Criminal Harassment
For Posting this Website

Following a complaint by Sir "Peter" Scott, the composer, Dr Howard Fredrics was ordered to appear in Kingston Magistrates Court on 20 October, 2009 to answer charges of Criminal Harassment for having posted this website, charges which could result in a sentence of six months in prison.

During the hearing, Dr Fredrics entered a plea of "Not Guilty" to all charges, and a trial was set for 22-23 December, 2009.

As a condition of bail, Dr Fredrics was ordered to refrain from posting any material on this site, which would presumably include a ban on posting new songs and videos.

This case appears to raise new legal issues regarding freedom of speech and press, as well as setting the stage for the first ever case of a musician being prosecuted in Britain for disseminating musical works since the adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1689.

To read more press coverage of this case, click HERE

To contribute to the Howard Fredrics
Criminal Defence Fund, click HERE

DATELINE - October 8, 2009:
Head of School of Performance and Screen Studies
Steps Down

After only three years in post, and under a cloud created by various scandals in the now former School of Music, Frank Whately has stepped down as Head of School of Performance and Screen Studies. When asked exactly why he was stepping down, Mr Whately issued his standard refrain, "It's everything...it's all of this...isn't it obvious?"

What's next for Mr Whately? Will he remain as Principal Lecturer of Drama, or will he "retire" with a nice severence package?
Will the new Head of School come from an outside search, or will he/she be yet ANOTHER inside candidate, as was Mr Whately?
And will whomever is appointed clean up the current climate of bullying and intimidation that has prevailed for so many years?

Since April 2007, this site has attracted a huge number of visitors from all over the world. Traffic has nearly doubled this year alone compared with last year's already remarkable public response.

Please tell all of your friends and colleagues about this site so that 2009 becomes the year we reach the 1 billion hit mark!

The Artressa and The Pimp Show
(A new TV series
based on the events surrounding
the External Examiner scandal)

Artressa Phunding Releases NEW Music

*new* Criminal, Criminal, Criminal *new*
(a new dance hit single)

Scott Song (Reprise)
(dedicated to the brave souls who recorded the Kingston University National Student Survey Scandal)

Come Study at Kingston University:
Have the Most Intimate Details of Your Sex Life Exposed

A mass e-mailing of a document containing identifying photographs of students along with allegations of a variety of sexual dalliances was sent to and/or downloaded by a total of approximately 1.5 million people recently, resulting in incidents of harassment of these students as they went about their daily business around town.
For more details of this outrageous affair, click HERE

Is it possible that a culture of bullying has been promoted or tolerated by the University so that students feel able to engage in such horrendous acts designed to humiliate and intimidate their colleagues?

What, if any, sanctions will the University issue against the perpetrators, assuming that the University bothers to get to the bottom of this debacle?

Do you think it's safe to send your son or daughter to attend Kingston University in light of the apparent environment where sexual harassment exists in such an extreme form?

What do YOU think?

DATELINE - October 5, 2009:
Kingston University Student Tells of Terrifying Attack
at Kingston Hill Campus

In May 2008 on the Kingston Hill Campus, a Kingston University student was set upon by a gang of up to 15 people and needed 51 stitches. Three of his alleged attackers, all recent former students at the University, went on trial last week in connection with this brutal and indefensible beating.

Would you send your son or daughter to a place like this, where students attack other students?

Click HERE to read the complete story

(Excerpt from witness statement to Police)

In February 2008, an incident involving several students occurred at the Penrhyn Road Campus of Kingston University. During this incident, (shown in the above CCTV footage) the students became violent and exchanged physical blows, resulting in facial injuries to at least one of the students.

Independent witness statements were taken, an example of which may be viewed HERE (.PDF file). The description of the incident by the witness provides firsthand insight into the sheer level of violence of the events.

Following this incident, which was immediately reported to the police and the University in the form of formal complaints, the University apparently failed (until at least July 2008) to take prudent action to ensure the safety of the involved parties, pending the outcome of an internal investigation and of a seperate criminal legal case. Indeed, during May 2008, the involved students sat their exams together and throughout this period, the University took no action to keep the students apart during the course of their normal daily activities.

In July 2008, the University finally (and quite rightly) wrote to one of the parties instructing her to sit her upcoming August 2008 exams in an alternate setting so that the parties would not have contact with one another.

In November 2008, one of the students involved was convicted of several counts of assault. This conviction, however, was overturned in March 2009 when the Crown Prosecution Service decided to drop all of the charges instead of proceeding to contest the student's legal appeal of her convictions.

To date, despite the resolution of the criminal case, the University has not concluded its internal investigation, or at the very least, it has not informed the parties of the outcome of that investigation.

No students have thus far been expelled or suspended from their studies as a result of their conduct surrounding this apparently serious incident nor, during the course of the investigation, in order to ensure the health and safety of all concerned.

Do you think it was right for the University to allow the involved students to continue to interact through their normal University activities, given the seriousness of the allegations against them?

What does this suggest to you is the University's view towards on-campus violence?

Is student safety a priority for the University?

What do YOU think?

UPDATE
As of 3.7.09, Edward Davey, MP reports that the University has informed him that they have terminated the investigation of the above incident.
No findings have been issued and the matter has simply been closed without further action being taken against any of the involved parties.

Newsflash:

DATELINE - November 26, 2015:
RAPE at Kingston University

Do you REALLY want to continue to send your sons and daughters to Kingston University?
Find out more about the latest rape at Kingston University HERE

A Kingston University student reported being assaulted in her residence hall. The University took no action against the alleged assailant, despite the victim having received multiple injuries. The victim has now withdrawn from the University and enrolled elsewhere. For further details, Click HERE

Once again, a Kingston University student has engaged in a violent outburst against an innocent person trying to intervene in a case of verbal abuse.
The Kingston student headbutted the bystander when he tried to calm a situation after the Kingston student had made offensive remarks to some women walking late at night on a Kingston area street. The perpetrator has now been sentenced to a seven month suspended prison sentence for his vicious crime.

DATELINE - 27 May 2009:
Dr Howard Fredrics
Wins Employment Appeal Tribunal
Preliminary Hearing

In a key ruling by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), Dr Howard Fredrics won his 3(10) hearing, which grants him a full hearing of two important points of appeal in his ongoing Employment Tribunal case against Kingston University.

The EAT Judge decided that there was a reasonable prospect of success for a finding of errors in law by the Employment Tribunal on the matters heard today. These matters go to the very heart of Dr Fredrics' claims of disability discrimination, which he has alleged in his case against the University.

Stay tuned for more news on the outcome of the EAT case as it becomes available.

UPDATE: This Appeal Hearing will be held on 15 September 2009 at the London Employment Appeals Tribunal at 10:30 a.m.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND ALL SUPPORTERS AND MEMBERS OF THE PRESS ARE WELCOME TO ATTEND!

Today's decision by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) marks an important victory for supporters of democratic rights of free speech. WIPO's panelist, Mr Alistair Payne found that Sir Peter Scott holds no monopoly over the use of his name as a trademark, and that Dr Fredrics was free to continue his entirely legitimate use of the domain name, sirpeterscott.com.

This decision, again, raises important questions:-
Why did the University/Peter Scott launch this complaint in the first instance, when surely they must have known it had no prospect of success?
Who should be responsible for paying back the taxpayers for the substantial legal costs in filing this frivolous and unfounded complaint?

What do YOU think?

UPDATE: 25 June 2009

HEFCE Finds
Kingston University's Expenditure of Public Funds
Was Proper

In response to a public interest disclosure, HEFCE has now issued a decision upholding Kingston University's right to spend thousands of pounds of public money during a recession on launching an ill-fated legal claim with WIPO on behalf of its Vice-Chancellor.

To read HEFCE's response in its entirety, click HERE
To read about the amount of money spent by the University, click HERE

DATELINE - 31 March 2009:
Sir 'Peter' Scott and Kingston University
Stung by Defamation Suit

Sadly, as a result of Kingston University's public press statements denying the authenticity of documentary evidence, which had been provided by Dr Howard Fredrics to the press and to HEFCE, Dr Fredrics found himself with no alternative than to issue defamation proceedings in the Surrey County Court against the University and it's Vice-Chancellor.

When a recent report by the British Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) upheld allegations of wrongdoing by Kingston staff members in connection with the pressurizing of an External Examiner, the veracity and authenticity of the evidence was clearly and irrefutably established. Yet, despite the publication of this compelling government-sponsored report, the University and Prof Scott failed to issue a public apology and retraction of its allegedly defamatory statements concerning Dr Fredrics' evidence.

Instead, both the University and Prof Scott have, thus far, maintained complete public silence, and have instead indicated (through their solicitors) that they intend to fully contest the Court action filed by Dr Fredrics.

Isn't it a shame that Prof Scott has chosen to reserve what must surely be a rather large sum of public money in order to defend this lawsuit instead of simply issuing a public apology to Dr Fredrics?

During a time of recession, when job cuts are being contemplated in the UK university sector, does it make you angry to know that YOUR taxes are being used to fund the defence of a lawsuit that would never have been filed, had the University and/or Prof Scott simply admitted that they were wrong to have denied the authenticity of Dr Fredrics' evidence?

What do YOU think?

CASE UPDATE:-
7 May 2009
Kingston University Applies for Strike Out of Defamation Case

On the grounds that the Civil Procedures Rules don't allow libel cases to be heard in County Court without agreement of both parties, Kingston's solicitors have asked the Court to strike out the case or to order it to be transfered to the High Court, where it is not feasable for an unrepresented Claimant to have his case heard. Moreover, since the claim is currently for a maximum amount of £3000, the High Court has no jurisdiction under Civil Procedure Rules to actually hear the case, since it only hears cases claiming at least £15,000.

The question remains, what will the County Court decide? Will they use their Judicial discretion to find a way to hear the case in County Court, or will they strike it out and award costs to the University?

Does it seem fair and in the interests of Justice that a claim that does not seek to obtain a huge monetary award, and instead is principally aimed at obtaining a public retraction of the allegedly defamatory statements might not ever be heard, simply because the Claimant is not greedy enough to ask for higher damages and/or because he has insufficient funds to hire a solicitor to represent him in the High Court?

How does it make you feel to know that the cost to the public for the University's legal fees are likely to be MUCH higher if the case goes to the High Court?

What do YOU think?

DATELINE - 17 March 2009:
Prof Gail Cunningham to 'Retire'
Dr Fiona Barlow-Brown Demoted

Following the emergence of various scandals at Kingston University, it was revealed by a reliable source that Prof Gail Cunningham, Dean of FASS has decided to 'retire' effective July 2009. But given her role in the National Student Survey Scandal and the External Examiner Scandal, as well as various other pecadillos exposed on this website, had her position simply become untenable?

Similarly, once Dr Barlow-Brown's role as the infamous 'voice' of the National Student Survey was revealed in the press, did it then become inevitable that she could no longer command the position of Field Leader of Psychology?

The University has yet to comment on the fact that the QAA has upheld the allegations against the University in relation to the External Examiner Scandal, but last word was that it was insisting that the evidence used by QAA to reach its findings was somehow inauthentic.

Could the University have finally decided that it could no longer ignore the public outcry for someone to 'go over a cliff' over these very public scandals surounding the act of bullying students and an external examiner? If so, will there be any others who will depart in the near future?

For further updates, stay tuned to this website......

DATELINE - 3 March 2009:
Kingston University Attempts to Silence
The Voices of Truth and Justice
by Filing a Complaint
with the World Intellectual Property Organisation
to SHUT DOWN THIS SITE

In an apparent attempt to intimidate the publishers of legitimate and truthful cultural criticism and as well as important information in the public interest about workplace bullying, Kingston University's latest tactic is to file a complaint with WIPO to force the shut down of this site and to seize possession of its domain name, sirpeterscott.com on the grounds that it somehow infringes upon the legitimate interests of the University. But what, if any, interest does Kingston University actually have in obtaining this site's domain name from its current owner, who lawfully registered it more than two years ago?

How much money, drawn from the public purse, did Kingston University spend to launch this action, and how much are they prepared to spend to pursue it on behalf of Sir Peter Scott? Well, as a matter of fact, the application filing fee alone cost $1500.00 of taxpayer money. And the University has engaged the services of Mr Michael Cover, Partner and Head of Intellectual Property Disputes Team at Charles Russell Solicitors, a London top 50 firm. How much would you guess he charges per hour to pursue this complaint on behalf of the University? £250/hr? £350/hr? £450/hr? What do you think the total bill will be for the University if it ends up being taken to Court by the domain owner? Could it end up costing the University and YOU, the taxpayer tens of thousands of pounds to take this complaint forward? How does that make you feel during a time of recession?

Under no circumstances will the site operators give way to this form of pressure, which runs counter to the US Supreme Court Decision in the case of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994) which held that 2 Live Crew's obvious parody of Roy Orbison's song, Pretty Woman, constituted legitimate fair use that was in the public interest, even though unlike this site's domain owner, 2 Live Crew earned considerable income from their parody song.

All information concerning Kingston University and/or Sir Peter Scott contained on this site is drawn from documentary evidence (much of it from published press accounts and court documents) and/or reliable witness testimony. This site is intended to provoke free thought and discussion while raising awareness about the issues surrounding workplace bullying. Its content is protected speech and its use of the domain name, sirpeterscott.com is not intended to represent any association with or sponsorship by any persons living or dead, including but not limited to Kingston University itself.

UPDATE: 10 July 2009

Following the filing of a Freedom of Information Act request, Kingston University, at first, refused to provide information on the amount of public funds spent on launching its ill-fated legal case with WIPO. When confronted with the fact that the Solicitors Act 1974 requires lawyers to provide itemized bills, the University relented in its claim that it does not receive itemized bills from its solicitors, Charles Russell, and that it therefore did not hold the information requested.

On 10 July 2009, the University provided the information on its legal costs. They are as follows:-

Filing Fee paid to WIPO £1268.61
Legal Fees paid to Charles Russell Solictors £ 3,115.35

To read the sequence of correspondence with the University in this matter, click HERE

Just who IS Sir Peter Scott? This is an interesting and complex question. The answer depends upon WHICH Sir Peter Scott you are referring to.

Quiz du Jour

Sir Peter Scott is:
a. An Olympic yachtsman.
b. A popular television presenter.
c. A gliding champion.
d. A painter of repute.
e. A naturalist.
f . A skipper in the Americas Cup.
g. The son of a national hero.
h. The holder of the Distinguished Service Cross for gallantry.
i. The founding chairman of WWF.
j. The Vice Chancellor of Kingston University.
k. The former Chancellor of Birmingham University
l. The former Rector of Aberdeen University
m. All of the above.
n. None of the above.

Send your answers to blowthewhistle@sirpeterscott.com
Correct answers will be automatically entered into a drawing for an autographed photo of Artressa Phunding.

DATELINE - 19 February 2009:
Kingston Professor Escapes Sanctions
Following Alleged Threats of Assault*

According to reliable sources, in approximately 2004, now retired Professor, Joe Bailey acted in a menacing and physically aggressive manner towards a staff member, raising his voice and pointing his finger between the eyes of the staff member. After this incident, Prof Bailey then engaged in a pattern of bullying, including but not limited to overmonitoring of work patterns. Following a finding by the University that the incidents in question did, indeed, occur as alleged, Prof Bailey was allowed to retire with full benefits instead of being subjected to disciplinary sanctions.

Interestingly, Prof Bailey is married to Prof Gail Cunningham, Dean of FASS.

Prof Cunningham is the same Dean who presided over Dr Howard Fredrics' disciplinary hearing and who took the decision to dismiss him for such alleged 'misconduct' offences as having reported quality of service issues (e.g surrounding the teaching of one of his colleagues) to appropriate managers.

Yet when The School of Music's MA Course Director, Mr Michael Searby and BMus Course Director, Ms Gloria Toplis took actions, condoned by then Acting Head of School, Dr Carol Gartrell, to presurise the School's External Examiner into changing her report to be less critical, the University failed to dismiss any of the aforementioned staff members, even though the allegations of wrongdoing were fully upheld by the UK Quality Assurance Agency.

Are there two different standards for staff conduct at Kingston -- one for non-disabled, non-whistleblowing administrators and their spouses and another for disabled/whistleblowing 'ordinary' staff members?

What do YOU think?

*=n.b. 7.3.09 - The above is a corrected account of events, which were previously misreported in error. The site operator offers its sincere apologies to the involved parties for this unintentional misreporting, which was based on third-party accounts believed at the time of the initial posting to be accurate. The corrections, however, do not constitute a renunciation by the site operator of the key material facts, which involve the University's decision to refrain from imposing significant disciplinary action against Prof Bailey after finding that he had, in fact, engaged in a pattern of improper conduct, as described above.

DATELINE - 25 January 2009:
Kingston University May Lose £1m in Funding
for its Underreporting of Dropout Rates

In reporting on another recent example of corruption at Kingston University, the Surrey Comet has obtained compelling evidence of underreporting of dropout figures by the University's management.

During his tenure at the University, Dr Howard Fredrics had been concerned with upholding academic standards and with honest reporting of the causes of student failures.

Does this latest report suggest that Dr Fredrics' concerns about the recasting of student failures in terms of course design problems, rather than in terms of deficits in management, infrastructure, and with the level of student preparation and accountability, may indeed have been well-founded?

By Martin George
Kingston University may forfeit £1m of funding, after failing to declare hundreds of students who failed to complete their courses - and the university warned other institutions may have even bigger problems.

Last year the university reported a 6.4 per cent non-completion rate, but an audit of 180 of the university’s 21,300 students revealed a higher figure of 8.6 per cent.

According to documents obtained by the Surrey Comet under the Freedom of Information Act, a later examination of 9,000 student records revealed that the true rate could be high as 14.5 per cent.

Third year computer science student Alfa Sow found it hard to believe. She said: “It sounds like a joke. To the outside it looks like bad management. I think that is bad at the time of the recession. There is so much you could do with that money.”

The miscounting is the latest embarrassment for the university, after a lecturer told students to cheat in a national survey last year, and novelist and research fellow Hanif Kureishi said he gave all his students a 71 per cent mark regardless of what they wrote.

DATELINE - 23 January 2009:
Kingston University Named
As Among Worst UK University Employers
For Workplace Well-Being

According to a survey published in the January 2009 issue of the magazine, UC, Kingston University has scored near the bottom of the league tables in terms of the well being of its staff members. This result is based on a number of relevant critera that impact upon the levels of stress experienced by staff.

DATELINE - 30 December 2008:
Kingston University REFUSES to turn over
evidence in case of a staff member
allegedly threatened with assault

Kingston University has refused to acknowledge the relevance of evidence in connection with allegations of a threatened assault by one of its staff members against another staff member and has, therefore, refused to disclose this evidence in connection with the case of H Fredrics v Kingston University.

In this instance, the accused staff member who worked in the same faculty as Dr Fredrics and who was, nonetheless permitted to retire on full benefits instead of facing disciplinary sanctions, was also named in other documents disclosed by the University in connection with the case.

Here we have a case of a staff member who was allegedly given more favourable treatment than was Dr Fredrics, after being accused of actual threats of violence, and whose other statements were deemed to be perfectly relevant by the University in their disclosure of documents. And yet somehow, this potentially damaging evidence of a staff member getting away with an alleged threatened assault is not considered 'relevant' by the University's solicitors.

Will the University get away with covering up the facts surrounding this case? Or will the Tribunal force them to disclose the truth?

Can the University have its cake and eat it, as well?

DATELINE - 18 December 2008:
Kingston Music Sinks
Towards the Bottom
of the RAE Scale

Kingston's 'Quality Assurance' methods have once again proven themselves, as Music has reached a low water point in the recent Research Assessment Exercise, the results of which are used to determine government funding allocation for research.

DATELINE - 30 October 2009:
Kingston University's Solicitors
Allege Breach of Tribunal Order

On 30 October 2009, Ms Amanda Brown, solicitor at Mills & Reeve Solicitors, the firm instructed (following the termination of Charles Russell Solicitors' contract) to represent the University, wrote to the Employment Tribunal alleging that Dr Howard Fredrics was in breach of Tribunal Orders for failing to disclose his medical records, and issued a threat that she would seek a strike out of his claim in response to this alleged breach. Ms Brown went on to allege that Dr Fredrics had merely disclosed a "computerised summary of appointments" with his GP.

Ms Brown also wrote to the Tribunal on 14 October, making similar allegations concerning Dr Fredrics' alleged non-disclosure of medical records.

• On 6 June 2006, Mr Dominic Tomkins of Russell Cooke Solicitors, representing Dr Fredrics, wrote to then Personnel Director, Liz Lanchbery, attaching a document. Here is a relevant excerpt from that email:

• As you will note, the final paragraph states, "..we attach our client's medical records.."

• Attached to that letter was a 5-page document (presented here in excerpted/redacted form to preserve confidentiality):

• You will note that the document is titled, "All Medical History."

• It begins with Dr Fredrics' visit to his GP of 6/6/2006 and continues in reverse chronological order to 2002 (not shown here), which represents the essential relevant period of his employment at Kingston, as ordered by the Tribunal.

• As shown above, the document does not merely list dates of appointments, but rather, includes actual symptoms, medical diagnoses and treatments prescribed, the essential components of a complete medical record.

• In addition, Dr Fredrics disclosed ancillary documents, including letters from his U.S. GP, whom he saw during brief visits to the U.S. (e.g. 15.05.2006 above), which were provided to his UK GP and reflected in the above records.

• Indeed, the above pages of documents are excerpted and copied directly from the actual bundle of documents submitted by the University's previous solicitors, Charles Russell for use in the Tribunal proceedings, pp. 1296-1304.

• Notwithstanding the above facts, Ms Amanda Brown, of Mills & Reeve wrote the following letter to the Tribunal (presented redacted of personal information and including only the relevant paragraphs), to which she attached no evidence whatsoever (i.e. copies of the documents which she stated did not consitute Dr Fredrics' medical records):-

In light of the above facts, documents and correspondence, a few questions arise:-

1. Why would Russell Cooke Solicitors have enclosed a PDF document titled "HF Medical Records," indicating that these were, indeed Dr Fredrics's records as of June 2006 (n.b. Dr Fredrics' records begin in 2002, when he moved to the UK to begin his employment)?

2. Do you think Mr Tompkins was lying when he said he was attaching Dr Fredrics' medical records?"

3. In examining the excerpted document, do you think that this appears to be a genuine NHS "All Medical History" record?

4. What do you think is meant by the title, "All Medical History," which appears throughout the document?

5. Does the document contain enough information for a medical professional to understand the symptoms, diagnosis and treatment provided for each condition?

6. In light of your answers to the above questions (and any other questions that might come to mind), do you think that it is likely that Dr Fredrics has, indeed, provided his complete medical records for the relevant period (i.e. the period of his employment from 2002-mid 2006)?

7. Do you think Amanda Brown was lying when she wrote to the Tribunal to say that Dr Fredrics had not disclosed his medical records?

8. Why do YOU think Amanda Brown wrote this letter?

We'd really like to know, what do YOU think?

DATELINE - 12 December 2008:
Kingston University Attempts
to Intimidate Tribunal Witness

Once again, Kingston University has attempted to use strong-armed tactics to intimidate a key witness in the Employment Tribunal case of Howard Fredrics v Kingston University. This witness, a former employee of the University, had signed a compromise agreement containing a so called 'gag clause.' While such clauses are normally intended to prevent such individuals from making disparaging remarks about their former employer to the Press, they are NOTallowed, by law, to be used to obstruct witness testimony in legal cases, such as those before the Employment Tribunal.

Nonetheless, Kingston University has apparently decided to threaten this individual with legal action for simply testifying truthfully about what he knows about what goes on at the School of Music and throughout the University.

12 January - 3 February 2009
Hearing Before London South Employment Tribunal
Dr H Fredrics v Kingston University
POSTPONED INDEFINITELY
(BECAUSE OF INJURIES TO CLAIMANT
CAUSED BY KINGSTON UNIVERSITY
STEMMING FROM ITS THREATS AGAINST DR FREDRICS
AND TWO KEY WITNESSES)

You are cordially invited to attend the Employment Tribunal hearing scheduled for 9:00 a.m. at London South Employment Tribunal, Montague Court, 101 London Road, West Croydon, CR0 2RF.

The first day of the hearing, 12 January is a 'Reading Day' only, where Tribunal members will read case documents. So the REAL action won't begin until 13 January.

For those of you who can't wait or who can't make this event, click HERE to see some SNEAK PREVIEWS of Witness Statements.

The following is an excerpt from a threatening letter of 9 December 2008 from Charles Russell Solicitors, the University's lawyers:-

The above letter, received by post on 11 December, a day after the arbitrary deadline imposed by the University's solicitors, concerned the their false representation that Dr Fredrics had not disclosed his documents related to his case, when he had, indeed, done so. The University's solicitors then denied that the documents were contained on a set of discs provided to them.

In the above letter, the University's solicitors attempted to pressure Dr Fredrics agree to waste countless hours of his time needed to prepare his case by having to instead gather original copies of all of his documents, go to a local copy shop and stand around waiting all day whilst the solicitors arranged to take photocopies of tens of thousands of pages.

After all, a paper list of documents provided to the University by Dr Fredrics was, in fact, derived by simply listing the contents of what was put on the discs.

And besides, what would Dr Fredrics have had to gain by not providing the documents, when they were evidence that could help to prove his case?

Could it be that the University's solicitors were trying on the oldest trick in the book of claiming that the documents were missing in order to have Dr Fredrics' case struck out?

The following is an excerpt from a letter from Dr Fredrics' wife, written subsequently on his behalf while he was extremely ill:-

Several days later, Dr Fredrics arranged to send another copy of the disc containing the disclosure of documents. The University's solicitors are, for some strange reason, no longer claiming that the documents were missing from the disc.

And what of the University's practice of forcing bullied employees to sign compromise agreements in order to gag them from telling the truth, as they are, in fact, required to do under the law in court cases where they might have relevant evidence to offer?

Will they continue to silence the voices of truth or will courage and decency win out?

DATELINE - November 6, 2008:
UCU Names (and Shames) Universities
with Biggest Bullying Problems

The union said the deep-seated problem of bullying at work had to be tackled by universities and attacked organisations in the sector for failing to get to grips with the issue.

To read the complete article and survey results click HERE

(But we'll give you three guesses on which University's results were very near the top of the list)

DATELINE - October 2008:
Kingston University Named 'Second Worst' in UK
for Bullying of Staff

The recent results of a study by the University and Colleges Union (UCU) reveals the fact that Kingston University scored more than twice the national average in terms of the level of bullying of staff, with 15.9% of staff reporting that they were either 'always' or 'often' subjected to bullying.

Injunction Issued
against
Kingston University
to force it to
STOP
Alleged Harassment of Disabled Student

Francois Greeff, a disabled post-graduate student at Kingston University was allegedly targeted for a campaign of harassment after he lodged complaints about his University-owned housing arrangements. The University, according to Mr Greeff's complaint, locked him out of his room, turned off water in the residence hall, and expelled him for allegedly breaching health and safety policies.

Why does the University seem to have problems with getting on the wrong side of the Law when it comes to acts of alleged harassment and intimidation?

Is there a management culture that condones and encourages such behavior?

Have you EVER heard of another UK university being slapped with an injunction to cease harassment of one of its students?

How about criminal charges being accepted by a Magistrates Court charging a top university official with witness intimidation?

DATELINE - July 28, 2008:
Dr Howard Fredrics Speaks Out
About Bullying in Academia
On BBC Radio

Dr Howard Fredrics, in an interview on the BBC Good Evening Wales programme, spoke about why he became a singing telegram performer after he was bullied out of his position at Kingston University.

To listen to the interview, click to listen directly to a downloaded excerpt.

DATELINE - July 26, 2008:
Kingston University Psychology Department
IS Expelled From The League Tables

The BBC has reported on its website that Kingston University's Psychology Department, under the leadership of Fiona Barlow Brown and Fred Vallee-Tourangeau, has been removed from this year's League Tables because of the fraudulent manner in which it administered the National Student Survey.

To learn more about this latest development in the ongoing scandal at Kingston University and about the way in which Kingston has responded to the actions of these and other staff members, click here.

DATELINE - July 9, 2008:
Kingston University External Examiner Scandal
Authenticity of E-mails Denied

The Surrey Comet now reports that Kingston University never referred to the e-mails documenting attempts to pressurize an External Examiner into changing her critical report on the School of Music, nor the subsequent e-mails from Senior staff encouraging the appointment of more 'sympathetic' Examiners as 'bogus.' Kingston University did, however categorically deny the authenticity of the e-mails, which were allegedly sent to all full-time teaching staff in the School.

But given the multiplicity of recipients who have come forward to verify that the e-mails are genuine, and given that the BBC reported that the Examiner has acknowledged that she was pressurized to change her report and that she did, indeed comply, can Kingston University reasonably expect the public to accept that these revealing internal e-mails were not, in fact, genuine?

And how can they continue to deny the authenticity of the e-mails in light of the UK Quality Assurance Agency's findings upholding Dr Fredrics' allegations?

On 21 July 2009, a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act was forwarded to the University in order to obtain a copy of an email allegedly sent by the University Press Office to the Surrey Comet around 1 July 2008, shortly before an article was published in which the University appeared to categorically deny the authenticity of the evidence used to support the allegations that one of the University's External Examiners was presurized to change her critical report.

According to sources at the Comet, the University Press Office sent this email in response to a request by the newspaper for comments on the allegations.

To view a copy of the FOI Request, click HERE.

Did HEFCE Collude with Kingston University
To "Repair" the University's Damaged Reputation
Following the External Examiner Scandal?

At a November 2008 Board of Governors meeting, Vice-Chancellor, Prof Peter Scott spoke at some length about the recent External Examiner scandal. During the course of his presentation, he indicated that he was planning on meeting with HEFCE Director, John Selby to discuss the University's efforts to mitigate the damage to its reputation caused by press reports surrounding this set of events.

The following are the minutes from that Board meeting:-

Do YOU think it was proper for the Vice-Chancellor to meet with a HEFCE official in order to discuss reputation management issues stemming from improper conduct by University staff members?

DATELINE - June 24, 2008:
Kingston University External Examiner
Bullied into Dropping Course Criticism

An external examiner who judged that a university course had not reached the necessary standard was later contacted and persuaded to change her mind. An internal e-mail, forwarded by readers of the BBC News website, shows efforts at Kingston University to avoid "bad publicity". "We must avoid externals with these attitudes in future," says an e-mail.

The external examiner told the BBC that "the kind of pressure that was applied was that it would have dire consequences for the music school if I didn't change the report".

The e-mails surrounding a report into Kingston University's music degree were forwarded in the wake of academic whistleblowers claiming that degree standards were being lowered. The external examiner system, which brings in academics from other universities to provide an independent perspective, is under scrutiny from the higher education watchdog. A report from the Quality Assurance Agency warns that there can be "gaps between institutional ambitions... and the practices of staff in departments".

E-mails submitted to the BBC raise questions about the selection of external examiners and what happens to unflattering reports. An external examiner's report on a music degree course at Kingston University in 2004 identified weaknesses. The report observed that students "producing not just barely acceptable but sometimes unacceptable work are attaining passes at Honours level". The examiner warned that some work had been "overmarked" and that "it is surely important not to over-reward this work and thereby devalue the Degree".

On a crucial "yes" or "no" question about whether the standards were comparable with similar programmes in other UK institutions, the examiner answered "no". An e-mail to department staff highlights the response: "Can we ask her to amend that so it is less damning... We must avoid externals with these attitudes in future - we cannot afford this type of bad publicity."

A member of the university staff then contacted the external examiner - and following this conversation, the examiner changed their view.

To read the rest of this article link here.
To read the External Examiner's report, link here.

To read a letter from Peter Williams, Chief Executive of the UK Quality Assurance Agency to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills in which Mr Williams reports that Dr Fredrics' allegations surrounding the External Examiner scandal were upheld, click here.

DATELINE - April 26, 2010:
National Student Survey Scandal

The Story That Won't Die

DATELINE - May 16, 2008:
Government Responds to Kingston University National Student Survey Scandal

And yet, Kingston University continues to say this was an 'isolated incident.'

The University also claims to have launched an investigation into this matter.
Who will they hire to perform this investigation?
Will they hire Zafar Ali?

What do YOU think?

Cick above to listen to the original recording of Kingston staff instructing students on how to fraudulently complete the National Student Survey

And what has become of Dr Fiona Barlow-Brown and Dr Fred Vallee-Tourangeau since this illustrious incident?
Has the University disciplined these staff members?
Is Dr Barlow-Brown on cozy terms with a member of the University's Board of Governors, and if so, is that why she's escaped without even a formal warning?

DATELINE - November 13, 2008:
Sir Peter Scott Website Reaches 250,000 Hit Milestone

Since April 2007, this site has attracted a huge number of visitors from all over the world. Traffic has been growing steadily, as public attention becomes increasingly focused on the issue of bullying in higher education.
November, 2008 is well on its way to being the most trafficked month ever for the site. Help it to get there by spreading the word to all of your friends and colleagues.

The following is from a letter received from a current student at Kingston University. Names and other identifiers have been redacted at the request of the student, who fears retribution: -

"I would like to remain anonymous until at least after I graduate but bullying within
Kingston University is not just limited to academic staff. Students particularly postgraduate
students are bullied if they raise any grievance about the way that the university is run,
some are threatened with suspension from their course. A part time [DEPARTMENT
REDACTED] professor , [NAME REDACTED] I think his name is has made allegations to his
students about the bullying of staff/postgraduate students including to the point that
several of them left/dropped out.

The university would often use technicalities to suspend students, one student who had a
grievance about the university was suspended for a week because he forgot to update a
change in his term time address for example. There is an article in this issue of the River
that claims one student was bullied by her fellow students who when she made a formal
complaint was suspended from her course for a day. For lack of attendance (she wasn't
attending because she was getting bullied).

One way to test what I am saying is to make a FOI request for reasons why students have
been suspended from the university and watch them either delay or not honour it. It is
widespread.

The student union lacks enough independence from the university to deal with this issue.
The [NAME OF CLUB REDACTED] club was threatened with having its funding removed if it
didnt remove one student from it. This often encourages the clubs and societies to take
matters into their own hands and encourages student members of these clubs to
intimidate members of the club into leaving.

Bullying does not only occur among academic staff, It seems to be almost institutional. "

For further info on alleged bullying of students in connection with their responses to the National Student Survey, link to the following story published by the Kingston University Student Union, where you can read the University's response to the allegations:-

Exposed
Shocking Evidence of Past Abuses
by Kingston University Personnel Director, Liz Lanchbery

Kingston loses tribunal
Times Higher Education Supplement
20 October 2000
by Phil Baty

"Kingston University dismissed senior lecturer Agi Oldfield unfairly, giving her an ultimatum to "resign or be sacked" after she made informal complaints of harassment against her line manager and complained about breaches of her contract, a tribunal has ruled.

Ms Oldfield, a principal lecturer at the school of human resources management, resigned from Kingston, but the South London tribunal ruled that she was constructively dismissed. The university "repudiated" her contract by giving her the ultimatum, said the tribunal chair, Mr I. S. Lamb, in his judgment.

In late 1997, Ms Oldfield complained orally to David Miles, dean of the business faculty, saying she felt harassed and bullied by her line manager, Christine Edwards, who had questioned Ms Oldfield's competence.

The tribunal did not adjudicate on the allegations and counter-allegations between Ms Oldfield and Professor Edwards, but found that the difficulties were handled badly, at the expense of Ms Oldfield's career.

The university repeatedly asked Ms Oldfield to withdraw her allegations, she was assigned a new line manager and removed as an MA course director. In June 1998, Ms Oldfield brought a formal grievance, saying she had been "summarily removed" as course director of an MA in breach of her contract.

"The considerations of the continued employment of Ms OldfieldI her role and job title, responsibilities and pursuit or withdrawal of the allegations against Professor Edwards, wereI overlapping with each other," said Mr Lamb in his written judgment.

During the grievance hearing Ms Oldfield was told by personnel director Elizabeth Lanchbery - criticised by the tribunal for being "underhand" - that if the issues could not be resolved, Ms Oldfield might have to be "sacked", Mr Lamb said. Ms Oldfield's grievance was rejected and rejected again at appeal by vice-chancellor Peter Scott.

In October 1998, Ms Oldfield was offered a job at Surrey University, despite an "unfavourable verbal reference from somebody at Kingston", the tribunal said. "By then, Ms Lanchbery had said to Ms Oldfield that it would be best if she accepted the position, because unless she resigned, she would be sacked," said the judgment.

Mr Lamb said: "Up to September (when the job at Surrey came up) Ms Oldfield was pursuing the internal grievance procedure. As she did so, there was a gradually deteriorating background state of affairs relating to her relationship with Christine Edwards, in particular the factor that Christine Edwards questioned her competence.

"(Ms Oldfield) was constantly told to withdraw her allegations, although she was not formally pursuing them... We accept the evidence that the final straw in the course of events was the statement by Ms Lanchbery that the applicant should resign or be sacked," he said.

The university believed "there had been a breakdown of relationships and that Ms Oldfield was behaving unreasonably", said Mr Lamb. "The university did not act reasonably in treating that as a sufficient reason for dismissal.

"What (Ms Oldfield) had done was to pursue the grievance procedures... as she was entitled to do. She was willing to record that she was not pursuing her complaints against Christine Edwards. The university's responsibility in that situation was to find her alternative responsibilities commensurate with her position as a principal lecturer. Instead it adopted the 'take it or leave it' attitude...

"We accept that the effective cause of her resignation was the breach of contract by the (university) and the outright repudiation of her contract by the ultimatum."

The tribunal decided unanimously that Ms Oldfield's complaint of unfair dismissal was "well-founded".

A remedies hearing will be held next month. The university said it could not comment until the case was finished."

Here is an excerpt from the above decision in the case of Oldfield v Kingston University:-

Site Webmaster's Commentary:
As you read through this site, ask yourself whether history has a tendency to repeat itself?

Click HERE to view more examples drawn from a broad range of Employment Tribunal cases against Kingston University.

LOTS more recordings of shocking statements
by Kingston University staff & students

DATELINE - February 26, 2008:
University's Denial of Freedom of Information Request Called Into Question

The following is a letter written to Mr Chris Ince, FOI officer and Head of Secretariat at Kingston University in response to the University's denial of a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act. They have claimed that they do not hold records on out of court settlements between 1998-2007.

I refer to the University's response of 30 January 2008 to my request for information under the FOI Act from the University's Freedom of Information Co-ordinator in which she states, "..information relating to the amounts spent on out of court financial settlements is not held. The University does not collate information of this nature."

In light of an article in the Times Higher Education Supplement, dated 14 October 2005, in which it is revealed that in 2002-2003, the University settled three cases for a total of £60,936, how is it that the University can rightly claim not to collate information of this nature? Where did these figures come from? Indeed it is evident to me that they must have been provided by the University in connection with the aforementioned article. Surely if the Times Higher Education Supplement obtained access to this information, the University must also have access to it.

Under these circumstances, I must insist that the University provide all of the requested information as set forth in my original requests, as its denials now appear to lack credibility.

n.b. In the interest of fairness, the following is from a reply of 6 March 2008 by Chris Ince:-

"In the University's response to your initial request the information
provided was that University does not collate this information. Therefore
it is not possible to provide the information requested. In a previous
e-mail you have drawn attention to the fact that the Times Higher
published information that in 2002-2003, the University settled three
cases for a total of £60,936. It is possible that they obtained this from
the University at the time but it is not something that is currently
recorded."

Several questions remain:-
WHAT happened to the information? Was it merely discarded?
And what responsibility does the University have to the public interest to maintain important financial records of this sort?

In a ruling that should surprise no one, the Employment Tribunal dismissed RB's case against Kingston University. By failing to take note of key aspects of Dr B's evidence that proved that she was singled out for disciplinary action, the Tribunal, in its stated reasons for finding against Dr. B, whitewashed yet another case of targetting for elimination of one of Kingston University's employees, who had filed complaints regarding harassment/bullying.

The following document, entered into evidence in this case, was sent from Sir Peter Scott to then Personnel Director, Liz Scholey (Lanchbery) and Dean, Reg Davis following a grievance appeal hearing before the Board of Governors at Kingston University:-

A number of questions remain about the Employment Tribunal's handling of evidence in this case, which suggest that it may have erred in its ruling:-

• Why was ‘244’ (the page number of this document in the bundle of documented evidence) the only information from this document that appeared in the 11.02.08 judgment of the Employment Tribunal? Weren’t its contents relevant, worthy of consideration or mention?

• Why didn’t the Governors of Kingston University, who heard Dr B’s grievance for harassment by her line managers Professors R Davis and J Morris, include their criticisms in their findings, instead chosing to communicate them privately to Sir Peter Scott?

• If it was not for the fact that the managers involved just had a ‘narrow escape’ from being found guilty of harassment, what precipitous action had been planned against Dr B that Sir Peter Scott decided to postpone for 6 months? Could it be Dr B’s dismissal that the Personnel Director, Mrs Lanchbery, had advocated in her earlier email to the Dean, Professor R Davis?

• What was the 'further action' Sir Peter Scott proposed to take after the passage of 6 months? Did that have anything to do with the action that led to Dr B’s dismissal?

On 7 January 2007, Sir Peter Scott testified before the London South Employment Tribunal in the case of B v Kingston University. Dr B, a former lecturer at the University, has sued for unfair dismissal and victimization, which, as alleged in her claim, the Vice Chancellor did nothing to prevent.

Sir Peter suggested in his testimony that it was perfectly reasonable for him to have placed Dean Reg Davis in the position of presiding over Dr B's disciplinary hearing, despite the fact that, contrary to University policy, he had for some time been involved in her case, having expressed clear irritation at being named as defendant in her bullying and victimization grievance and Tribunal case, which would have made it highly likely that he could not act in a fair and impartial manner in her disciplinary hearing.

In light of the significant potential for retribution on the part of Prof Davis towards Dr B, do YOU think it would have been MORE REASONABLE for Sir Peter to have appointed an independent and impartial disciplinary chairperson to preside, for example a dean of another faculty?

Is it surprising to you that Prof Davis did, indeed, find against Dr B and ordered her dismissal?

Artressa Phunding believes in celebrating the Christmas spirit
Here is Artressa's latest recording of a performance of the traditional carol,
which is dedicated to bullying managers around the world:-

Here is a recent music video by Artressa Phunding, which is dedicated to the principles set forth by Thomas Jefferson:

Help Artress Phunding Celebrate Over 1000 YouTube Viewings of Her Video, "Scott Song"
Click above to watch the video so that Artressa can reach her next milestone: 2000 viewings!

And Introducing
Pietro Scotto
(whose identifiable bass-baritone voice we have all come to know and love from his famous recordings)
'Wehr hat meinem Bilt genommen?'

Carmen Banana
(Wed, Fri, Sun mat)

Click HERE to read the synopsis and to listen to some lovely arias

Newsflash:
DATELINE - November 8, 2007:
Kingston University Silences Key Witness at Employment Tribunal

On 8 November, 2007, Kingston University's barrister succesfully lodged a formal objection to the presentation of key relevant witness testimony during an Employment Tribunal hearing in a case brought by a former staff member alleging victimization.

Like the claimant, this witness also allegedly suffered victimization at the hands of the University, which involved, among others, the now former Personnel Director, Liz Lanchbery (aka Liz Scholey), and was prepared to bring forth a formal acknowledgement by the University of improper treatment.

The claimant had NO OTHER WITNESSES to be brought forward during a scheduled eight day hearing, while Kingston University is bringing Prof Peter Scott, Liz Lanchbery (Scholey), and a number of other staff members to defend against various allegations.

Do YOU think it is fair for Kingston University to be able to parade a large number of witnesses before the Tribunal while denying the right of the claimant to bring in one single witness to read a short one page statement detailing experiences of being victimized after bringing forward a grievance?

WHY is Kingston University afraid of having this witness testify?
Could it be that they KNOW that the witness would help to PROVE that the University engaged in victimization of its staff members on a regular basis?

How many MORE times will the University try to silence this same witness when they are asked to come forward in other cases against the University, and in which their testimony would be extremely compelling?

What do YOU think?

DATELINE - October 17, 2007:
Kingston University Delivers Alleged Witness Statements UNSIGNED

On 17 October 2007, Kingston University FINALLY delivered a set of UNSIGNED alleged witness statements by complainants against Dr Fredrics, which were allegedly provided to the University's 'independent' investigator, Zafar Ali.
To learn more about the SHOCKING revelations of involvement by HR and Dean of FASS, Prof Gail Cunningham in the unlawful filing of a collective grievance and the conflicting statement by Zafar Ali regarding the willingness of Dr Fredrics' colleagues to engage in mediation with him, click HERE.

DATELINE - September 4, 2007:
Kingston University Threatens Website Host

Dr Chris Ince

Donald Beaton, University Secretary of Kingston University
is Charged with Witness Intimidation

The following is a copy of a summons issued by Richmond Magistrates' Court on April 20, 2007:-

1. If the allegations are correct, who, if anyone, ordered Mr Beaton to commit such acts? Would he have REALLY decided on his own to write such letters?

2. If the allegations are correct, what was so important about the evidence that would have motivated someone to go to such lengths to retrieve ALL existing copies?

3. Given the very serious nature of the criminal charges against Mr Beaton, what action, if any, has Kingston University taken with respect to his duties, pending the outcome of the case before the Court?

4. Does the fact that the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 does not explicitly reference Employment Tribunal proceedings among the list of "relevant proceedings" for the purposes of the Act mean that intimidation of a witness in an Employment Tribunal proceeding is perfectly LEGAL?

Click HERE to VIEW a petition to Parliament and the CPS to revise the Act to explicitly refer to Employment Tribunal proceedings - SIGNATURES NEEDED!!

UPDATE: Following a hearing before the Court on 22 June 2007 and a decision by the Richmond CPS to take over the case so that they could then DROP it, the charges have been, FOR NOW, dismissed.

REMEMBER, no Court of Law has rendered a final decision on whether or not an Employment Tribunal constitute a "relevant proceeding" for the purpose of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.

And Donald Beaton has NOT been found to be innocent of the charges by any Court of Law.

Could the Clerk of the Court AND a panel of THREE Magistrates all have been wrong to have handed down a summons, which REQUIRES that there be a prima facie case to answer?

UPDATE: 2 Nov 2007:-
Justice Ministry rules that Witness Intimidation is NOT legal when it involves parties to an Employment Tribunal proceeding

The following is an excerpt from a statement by Vera Baird MP QC of the Solicitor General's Office regarding the instances where witness intimidation IS a criminal offence:-

The question remains, what will the Courts do with Mr Donald Beaton and Sir Peter Scott?
Will the Courts find that they did, indeed, commit criminal acts?
Or will they be found innocent of allegations of witness intimidation?

The Employment Appeals Tribunal has held, in Force One Utilities v Hatfield (2008), that it is appropriate to strike out an employer's ET3 Response when the employer threatens the Claimant. According to the EAT, once intimidation of this kind has occurred, no fair trial is possible. The only fair remedy is removal of the employer from the entire Tribunal process.

Similarly in Nicholls v Corin Tech Ltd, the EAT held that the Respondent employer threatened a Claimant, using unpleasant and intimidating language, outside the lifts at the Southampton tribunal. The EAT held that conversations outside the lift did not form any part of the judicial proceedings and were not, therefore, immune from the legal ramifications of acts of intimidation. The EAT also held that conduct intended to deter a Claimant from enforcing his statutory employment rights would be sufficiently closely connected with the employment relationship to amount to a (potentially) unlawful act by an employer within the meaning of the discrimination legislation.

HERE is some of the evidence that forms the basis of the charges against Mr Beaton.
Why not decide for yourself whether or not you think that what Mr Beaton wrote is proper? Are these the sort of letters that ought to be written by public officials to former employees who have LEGALLY and LAWFULLY obtained evidence of wrongdoing?

And HERE is some of the evidence that forms the basis of allegations that Peter Scott was aware of and/or ordered his subordinate, Mr Beaton to write the series of intimidating and threatening letters to Mrs Fredrics, Dr Fredrics and their solicitor.

And what of the basis for Dr Fredrics' grievance appeal? What led him to conclude that the process of developing and investigating the allegations against him was unfair?

Click HERE to learn more about how allegations were developed and put forth. Then decide for yourself whether or not there was undue pressure placed upon staff to invent complaints against Dr Fredrics.

Click HERE to learn about a secret meeting held on 25 May 2006 between Dean of FASS, Prof Gail Cunningham, Personnel Director, Liz Lanchbery (aka Liz Scholey) and Personnel Officer, Jas Lally just over a month prior to Dr Fredrics' disciplinary hearing, which led to his dismissal.

Click HERE to learn more about Zafar Ali, the barrister, whom Kingston University appointed to investigate allegations against Dr Fredrics.

Click HERE to see evidence of possibly anti-Semitic actions by certain Kingston University officials and their associates. Then decide for yourself whether or not the allegations against Dr Fredrics (and the way his case was subsequently handled) were motivated by anti-Semitism.

Click HERE to learn more about Dr David Osbon, Head of Performance at the now former School of Music at Kingston University, and decide for yourself whether or not Kingston University and/or its management staff engage in discriminatory practices against members of minority races and religious groups.

Click HERE to learn more about how Kingston University staff help to maintain access to high quality education for all.

Click HERE to learn more about how Kingston University staff view students, as well as how plagiarism is dealt with.

Click HERE to VIEW a petition to the Prime Minister to outlaw the easily abused SOSR (some other substantial reason) basis for dismissal of British workers.

Here is an interview with Dr Howard Fredrics, author of the petition to outlaw SOSR:-

Here is a blurb on the legal limitations of using SOSR as the basis for dismissal:-

DISCLAIMER: ALL PERSONS ARE PRESUMED UNDER THE LAW AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS WEBSITE TO BE INNOCENT OF ALL CRIMES UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY BY A COURT OF LAW

This site is dedicated to the memory of Aaron Fruchtman, whose approach to dealing with corrupt and powerful forces, has been the inspiration for its development.

Have you worked for Kingston University?
Have you been mistreated by Kingston University?
Were you bullied and/or unfairly dismissed by Kingston University?

Or were you a staff member who participated in bullying or corruption at Kingston University?
If so, it's NOT too late to seek redemption by coming forward NOW and telling the truth about WHY you may have done what you did and WHO may have told you that you HAD to do this to save your own job.

We want to know YOUR story.
Tell us about what happened to you.
We promise to keep it STRICTLY confidential.
Send e-mail to: blowthewhistle@sirpeterscott.com
Site maintained by L. J. Fredrics

This Site is Sponsored by
The Forbidden Fruit Society