Stanbridge Earls Charity Commission Investigation Still Ongoing

Charity Commission

It has been reported here that the Charity Commission has previously published 2 reports into Stanbridge Earls School, the Management and Trustees, both of which were withdrawn due to complaints about inaccuracies.

In March 2015, the Daily Echo reported that “questions have been raised about the findings of its report, which investigated whether trustees had managed the school charity properly in the wake of the allegations, prompting the move”.

Over 2 years after this article I can reveal that the Charity Commission claims that it is still investigating the matter, despite repeated claims by some that the school has been cleared and there was nothing supporting the claims of systematic child abuse and substantial failings by Trustees.

Is this a case of certain parties, such as the police, local authority, local politicians and former Trustees hoping that if its left long enough Stanbridge Earls will be forgotten about and can slip off the agenda?

In an email to a freelance journalist, Rola Kamaleddine, the Assistant Press Officer at Charity Commission for England and Wales, stated

From: Rola Kamaleddine
Date: Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 4:19 PM
Subject: RE: Stanbridge Earls School Report Update – Charity Commission Number 307342
To: Claire Hall

Hi Claire,

Yes, we previously withdrew a report in December 2015. This inquiry is still ongoing and we will publish a new report online once the investigation has concluded. We unfortunately cannot provide timescales for ongoing inquiries.

Just to note, we did not publish or withdraw a report in regards to this investigation in February 2016.

It is of great concern to the many victims who have since come forward with regards to abuse allegations at Stanbridge Earls School that nearly 3 years after the initial reports were withdrawn the Charity Commission is no nearer concluding its report and bringing closure for these victims.

Posted in Charity Commission, Child Abuse, Romsey, Stanbridge Earls School | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Hope Not Hayes for Romsey

In May 2017 there will be County Council Elections in Hampshire and one district in particular is causing grave consternation in Romsey. One of the candidates, appears to have put the “Con” back into “Conservative”.

Cllr Mark Cooper, Mayor of Romsey, welcomed Her Majesty The Queen to Romsey in 2007

The Hampshire County Council Romsey Town District has been held by Liberal Democrat, Cllr Mark Cooper, since 2005 and his credentials are impressive:

1986 – To Date:
Elected to Romsey Town Council

1986 – To Date:
Elected to Test Valley Borough Council

1991 – To Date:
Mayor of Romsey

2005 – To Date:
Elected to Hampshire County Council

In 2007, Cooper was re elected Mayor of Romsey, and welcomed Her Majesty The Queen on her official visit to the town.

Cllr Cooper has worked tirelessly on numerous projects and local charities in Romsey over the last 30 years, interacting with every aspect of the community, young and old.  Some would go as far as to say Mark Cooper was the best MP Romsey never had.

Simon Hayes - Former Hampshire Police & Crime Commissioner

Simon Hayes - Former Hampshire Police & Crime Commissioner

And that is why the announcement that former Hampshire Police & Crime Commissioner Simon Hayes is the Conservative candidate for Romsey Town has got so many people up in arms, even within diehard Tory ranks.

In 2012, when the country was facing its first round of elections for Police & Crime Commissioners (PCC), eyebrows were raised when Simon Hayes, a life-long, card-carrying Conservative, stood for election and made the extraordinary claim he was “Independent”.

A career politician, and close personal friend of Cllr Roy Perry and Caroline Nokes MP, Simon Hayes had previously been Chairman of the Hampshire Police Authority, a Conservative Councillor on both Hampshire County Council and New Forest District Council, and the Conservative Candidate for Mid Dorset and North Poole in 2005.

Anyone who believed he was independent was in denial. Further, he was also investigated for electoral fraud after it was claimed he was living 100 miles away in Northampton.

Former Conservative MP Michael Mates

I have long since held the belief that Simon Hayes was no more “Independent” than…well…the other Tory PCC Candidate in 2012, former Tory MP, Michael Mates.

The local Tories hedged their bets by putting up two stooges; establishment Tory figure in Mates and Hayes the Tory boy cunningly disguised as an independent, who if elected, could ensure Hampshire County Council, Hampshire Police and local Tory politicians, had their backs covered.

Hayes won the 2012 PCC election at a time when the people of Hampshire quite rightly were getting a little fed up of party politics. For the following four years he continued to claim he was independent despite the fact that he did everything possible to protect the Hampshire Kleptocracy, a cabal of rotten establishment figures who all shared the same incestuous, political bed.

Stanbridge Earls School, the site of child abuse allegations

During Hayes’s tenure as PCC, Hayes himself, Hampshire Police and Hampshire politicians repeatedly faced claims that they were involved in the cover-up of a child abuse scandal relating to Stanbridge Earls School. Two senior Hampshire police officers are still under investigation and the publication of a previously unseen Ofsted Report last week has raised further questions about who at Hampshire Police and Hampshire County Council knew of, and kept quiet about, Ofsted’s findings of underage sex and rape at the now closed school.

Hampshire PCC Candidates at a Public Meeting 2016

Hayes continued to peddle his claim of “independence” during his campaign for re-election in 2016, telling the people of Hampshire “I’m again standing as an Independent, non-Party Political candidate, because I believe YOUR Police Commissioner must be free from the influences of political masters in Westminster.”

At hustings meetings Hayes told the voting public he “would never again go into politics because he had found himself “free” of any pressure”.

Me thinks he did protest too much!

Simon Hayes and Caroline Nokes MP

Fast forward a few months after Hayes spectacular defeat, and he is back in the sack with another Tory runner and rider, Romsey MP Caroline Nokes and the Romsey & Southampton Conservative Association.

Those who have observed his tawdry career over the last five years are not in the least bit surprised. He never left in the first place. His “independent” claims are as fake as his interest in Romsey Town.

NB. For other information on Simon Hayes CLICK HERE

Posted in Assistant Chief Constable Laura Nicholson, Caroline Nokes, Caroline Nokes MP, Child Abuse, Cllr Mark Cooper, Cllr Roy Perry, Conservative Party, Deputy Chief Constable Sara Glen, Hampshire, Hampshire Constabulary, Hampshire County Council, Hampshire PCC Simon Hayes, Lib Dems, Liberal Democrats, Police & Crime Commissioner, Romsey, Romsey & Southampton North, Romsey Conservatives, Romsey Town, Simon Hayes, Stanbridge Earls School, Test Valley | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Stanbridge Earls – Child Abuse Deniers, It’s Time to Face Facts

Stanbridge Earls School

More shocking revelations from an Oftsed Advice Note about Stanbridge Earls School recently secured from an FOI request. The Report details incidents of homosexual oral rape and under age sex which went unreported, in addition to the previously reported rape allegations and other abuse at the school. 4 weeks before this report was published Caroline Nokes MP publicly backed the school.

Over the last 4 years my family and I have been the target of threats, harassment and false allegations as I continue to expose the truth about Stanbridge Earls School and the authorities involved in the child abuse cover-up.

A number of individuals, including parents from the school, continue to claim that there was nothing wrong with Stanbridge Earls School and that the content of articles on this blog are false.

I can only assume it is mixture of denial and a campaign to distract from the truth about the school, which closed in 2013.

I can understand a state of denial where the child abuse is concerned, after all no parent wants to admit they have put their child willingly in harms way or, God forbid, their child was a victim of abuse that they are not aware of. There are parents who attack me to this day who do not even know the truth about their own children because Stanbridge Earls School decided it was down to the children to tell their parents what had happened to them, and not the schools responsibility.

I have previously published the Emergency Inspection Residential Report – 30th April 2013 now, through a Freedon of Information request, I can reveal the extent of the failings of Stanbridge Earls School, Staff, Teachers and Governors through the Ofsted Advice Note For An Emergency Inspection – Welfare Only – Stanbridge Earls School.

The Report details leadership failings, staff failings, training failings and more disturbingly further examples of children engaging in unlawful sexual activity: one of a serious sexual assault (boy on boy) and the other of underage sex among children (girl aged 16 and boy aged 14). Neither case was referred to child protection or the police. This was in a school where children had severe learning difficulties and mental ages well below their actual ages.

Extract of the Ofsted Advice Note

The Report is highly critical of the Head Teacher, Peter Trythall and his running of the school, saying: The DfE rejected the school’s original action plan following the January 2013 Ofsted inspection. The school has worked to strengthen and implement an updated action plan to address safeguarding failures. In some areas progress has been made, management structures revised and practice improved. However, serious weaknesses remain.

…new houseparent who has no relevant residential experience was left in sole charge of 39 boys within a week of starting to work at the school. His induction had included basic child protection instruction, but he had not been given an overview of individual young people’s needs or directed to read risk assessments.

Going on to say: “Since the inspection in January 2013, six new staff started working at the school prior to receipt of a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check. At the time of appointment for five of these staff, there was no documented risk assessment to confirm that the headteacher had given permission for them to commence working and to outline the necessary additional supervision arrangements. The continued failure here is a real concern and indicative of weakness in the leadership of the school.”

The Report was also highly critical of the Chair of the Governors.

Extract of the Ofsted Advice Note

There remains a lack of clear leadership within the school to enable them to take forward the post-inspection action plan despite the appointment of a team of consultants. This is preventing rapid improvement, clear prioritisation and resource allocation on a systematic basis. The school does not have an overarching development plan and, while there is much work underway, the two deputy headteachers are working beyond their individual and collective capacity. The school’s own performance assessment shows that, while the two deputy headteachers have potential, their ability to lead and manage the school is limited. They are unable to lead the school out of the crisis within which it is now operating.

During the inspection, the Chair of Governors accepted that the management arrangements were inadequate and would not secure the urgent improvements required. This is despite initially reporting a ‘growing confidence’ in the leadership team.

Durand Academy

It is also critical of the Deputy Head. Although not named in the report one of the Deputy Head’s at the time was Grant Taylor who was later embroiled in another scandal at Durand Boarding School in West Sussex after parents withdrew their children after his appointment when they found out about his history at Stanbridge Earls School.

In a school where a high proportion of the children had Special Educational Needs and Autism, the staff clearly did not even have the most basic of understanding of how to care for these children: “The National Autistic Society (NAS) has audited the school, identifying the need for staff to attend basic awareness training in autistic spectrum disorders. The NAS has been commissioned to deliver this training by the end of the summer term.”

In a School where the events surrounding this report stemmed from a rape allegation it is criminal that accounts of further rape allegations and sexual assaults were dealt with in such an off-hand manner. It was as if these events were so common place at the school that they did not bother the staff nor warranted the correct procedures.

On 26 April 2013, the school was informed that a boy who had previously boarded at Stanbridge Earls had made an allegation of serious sexual assault (oral rape) against another boy that occurred while they both attended the school. The alleged perpetrator is still a boarder at Stanbridge Earls. While the school worked promptly and sensitively to remove the alleged perpetrator from the establishment for the weekend, he was re-admitted as a boarder on 29 April 2013 without a full assessment of risk. This young person shares a bedroom with two other teenage boys. Until instructed to do so by inspectors, the school failed to assess the risk associated with allowing these three young people to share a bedroom. Given the wide range of needs of children who board, the failure to identify this risk factor is a significant omission. In this case, decision making, including risk assessment, was overseen by the Chair of Governors and a Deputy Headteacher; these individuals failed to fully recognise, assess and manage risk appropriately.

In another case that clearly warranted the involvement of child protection services and the police, the Deputy Head appears to simply brush the incident under the carpet. It begs the question exactly what were the parents really told about the incident as I doubt any caring parent of a 14 year old boy would have been happy to send their child back into this environment.

In a second case, the school was informed that a 14-year-old boy and 16-year-old girl had entered into a sexual relationship during the Easter holidays. On their return to school, following discussions with the parents, the Deputy Headteacher concluded that the relationship was consensual and therefore decided that it should not be referred to external agencies. There is no record of how this assessment was made and the instructions issued to staff were basic and unrealistic given staffing levels at the school.

The report concluded that in May 2013 that children remained “unsafe” at the school.

“The school has not made the urgent improvements required by Ofsted in January 2013 because leadership is not clear and incisive. Although this inspection has found evidence that there have been some improvements to safeguarding since the end of March, and particularly since the resignation of the previous headteacher, it is a concern that more significant improvement has not been secured in the three months since the last inspection. As a consequence of continuing weaknesses within leadership and governance, children remain unsafe at this residential special school.”

Caroline Nokes MP and her father Cllr Roy Perry

All this information was available to the then Head of Hampshire County Council’s Children’s Services, John Coughlan and soon to be Leader of HCC, Cllr Roy Perry. This report would have also been made available to Hampshire Police during their Operation Oregan and Flamborough investigations.

Just 4 weeks before Ofsted started this investigation, Caroline Nokes, the MP for Romsey & Southampton North, publicly backed the failing Headteacher Peter Trythall and was also campaigning to keep the school open, claiming in the press that the school had made “massive strides”.

Working on the “ice-berg principle where only the tip will be visible – there will be further examples of rape and sexual abuse that have not been reported, yet.

Read the full Report here: Ofsted Advice Note For An Emergency Inspection – Welfare Only – Stanbridge Earls School.

Further Reading: Stanbridge Earls School – A Timeline of Abuse

Posted in Child Abuse, Hampshire, Hampshire Constabulary, Hampshire County Council, Hampshire Safeguarding Children's Board, Romsey, Romsey Extra, Stanbridge Earls School | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Stanbridge Earls School Update – 2 Top Hampshire Police Officers face independent investigation

Stanbridge Earls School - The site of child abuse allegations

Will 2017 finally bring justice for the victims of child abuse at Stanbridge Earls School?

It’s long been accepted that the worst kind of child abuse takes place behind “closed doors” and that is where the investigations into Stanbridge Earls School would stay if Hampshire County Council, Hampshire Police and certain politicians had their way.

Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on who you are, there are a few organisations and individuals who cannot be silenced or have their operations sealed.

As reported on this website back in May 2016 former Hampshire Chief Constable Andy Marsh is under investigation because he set up Operation Flamborough to protect the reputation of Hampshire Constabulary, and other organisations and individuals in Romsey, following claims he ordered a whitewash over the failure of police investigations into the sex abuse allegations at Stanbridge Earls School

Deputy Chief Constable Sara Glen - Under Investigation

I have now learnt that Hampshire Deputy Chief Constable Sara Glen and former Hampshire Assistant Chief Constable Laura Nicholson, who is now at Thames Valley Constabulary, are also to be investigated by a separate police force, following an appeal to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the IPCC.

Assistant Chief Constable Laura Nicholson - Under Investigation

The Appeal, which took 18 months, was upheld and now both Glen and Nicholson are being investigated for their involvement in the disputed Operation Flamborough Terms of Reference.

In addition to this, I can confirm that The Charity Commission, who withdrew its first 2 reports on Stanbridge Earls School has still not re-published its report into the School’s conduct and Trustee’s actions as investigations continue. Read the Stanbridge Earls Timeline of Abuse and Cover Up here:

It would appear that those who tried so desperately to cover up the child abuse at the school and did their hardest to shift blame and attention onto others to avoid detection and protect certain individuals are still being pursued, and rightly so.

Let’s hope that 2017 is the year the child abusers and those involved in the cover up at Stanbridge Earls School are exposed fully and justice is served, if not through the Courts, who after all act to protect their own in many cases, but by someone who has the courage to speak out publically for the sake of themselves and others.

Posted in Assistant Chief Constable Laura Nicholson, Avon & Somerset Chief Constable, Avon & Somerset Constabulary, Charity Commission, Chief Constable Andy Marsh, Child Abuse, Deputy Chief Constable Sara Glen, Hampshire, Hampshire Constabulary, Hampshire County Council, IPCC, Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in England and Wales, Operation Flamborough, Policing, Romsey, Stanbridge Earls School, Thames Valley Constabulary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Cork Pro Choice group apologise to Fathers4Justice and Matt & Nadine O’Connor for libel and pay damages

Cork Pro Choice, an organisation campaigning to Repeal The 8th Amendement in Ireland, has apologised to Fathers4Justice, and it’s principles Matt and Nadine O’Connor, for claiming they promoted domestic violence with their ‘Change The 8th’ campaign advertisement, ‘A father is for life not just conception’, which features a photograph of a father cradling an infant child.

The group has undertaken to pay €2,000 to F4J and discharge the legal costs of F4J.

Brophy Solicitors in Dublin remain instructed on this matter and any further false allegations made against F4J.


On 21st November 2016, Cork Pro Choice stated on it’s Twitter and Facebook feeds that an advert by the campaign group Fathers4Justice ‘promoted’ domestic violence. A link to the allegation was included in an article by the Irish Examiner, and the allegation repeated by supporters of the Repeal the 8th Campaign on social media. The same allegation was also made to Bus Eireann by Cork Pro Choice.

Cork Pro Choice sincerely apologise for claiming that Fathers4Justice, and its principles, Matt and Nadine O’Connor, in any way promote domestic violence, or that their ‘Change The 8th’ campaign advertisement ‘A father is for life not just conception’, which features a photograph of a father cradling an infant child, promotes domestic violence. Cork Pro-choice now accepts that this comment was wholly false, unwarranted and defamatory and they regret the hurt, embarrassment and damage caused to them

Cork Pro Choice acknowledge that Fathers4Justice is a respected advocacy group which campaigns on behalf of fathers, children and men’s health issues, and that the suggestion that they would support violence against women was wrong.

Cork Pro-choice has also undertaken to pay €2,000 to F4J and discharge the legal costs of F4J and its principals in responding to this unfortunate episode.

Posted in Brophy Solicitors, Bus Eireann, Cork, Cork Pro Choice, Defamation, Domestic Violence, Dublin, Eighth Amendment, False Allegations, Fathers 4 Justice, Fathers4Justice, Fathers4Justice International, Fathers4Justice Ireland, Ireland, Irish Examiner, Libel, Matt O'Connor, Nadine O'Connor, Repeal The 8th Amendement, Repeal the 8th | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Irish Examiner Comment Piece – Men will have a vote so they should have a voice in the abortion debate

OPINION: Men will have a vote so they should have a voice in the abortion debate


Democratic and informed debate is predicated on all sides and all viewpoints being able to make their point freely and that is why Fathers4Justice have launched a campaign calling for the Eighth Amendment to be changed to reflect what they view as the unrecognised rights of fathers in the constitution, argues the group’s International Campaign Co-Ordinator, Nadine O’Connor.

I read with great sadness Suzanne Harrington’s recent comment piece in the Irish Examiner in which she argued – among other things – that a new Fathers4Justice campaign around the Eighth Amendment was completely ill-conceived and one through which men were acting out ‘private psychodramas on the side of our public buses’.

I will come to Ms Harrington’s arguments in time but first let me explain who I am.

Nadine O'Connor, F4J International Co-ordinator

I am a woman and I am the International Campaign Co-Ordinator for a father’s rights organisation called Fathers4Justice (F4J).

Our campaign team are mostly women and a third of our registered supporters are women.

The women at F4J – and I would suggest the vast majority of women in general – have got involved in this campaign because we support equality for all, not just the few.

F4J are simply attempting to be a voice for the 100,000 Irish children living without a dad, the 77.9% of separated fathers who live without their children and the many courageous men who are fighting through secret courts every week just for the right to see their children.

Ms Harrington, however, offers no humanity, compassion or concern for these men and children. We would just ask why?

For our part Fathers4Justice are just attempting to start a democratic debate about the 8th Amendment. To do that we announced a six-week ad campaign on Bus Eireann buses in Cork beginning next Monday, December 5th.

A Father if for Life Not Just Conception, Bus Advertising Campaign

The advert features a picture of a father cradling an infant child with the words ‘a father is for life not just conception’ and calls for the Eighth Amendment to be changed to protect the rights of fathers which are not recognised in the constitution.

We are merely raising an important question that we feel should and needs to be debated, that is, should men and women have an equal say in whether they become parents or not?

We have said we would consult with the public (like the Citizen’s Assembly) before publishing our policy in early 2017.

Despite that the response from some in the pro-choice lobby has been deeply troubling. We have been subject to an abusive tirade of threats on social media and a range of irresponsible allegations about our campaign have been made.

It is clear from this response that for some ‘pro choice’ means no choice for anyone who dares to disagree.

To express your democratic voice is to leave you at risk of attack from an unpleasant minority who have explicitly stated that men should be denied any democratic right to have a voice on this issue, yet paradoxically concede men will have a vote, should a referendum be held.

Emerging from Ms Harrington’s narrative is a suggestion that dads fighting to see their children are doing this to ‘try to retain coercive control’ over mothers.

Nadine O'Connor at Family Conference

In the years that I was running the campaign in the UK, I never once came across the type of father described in Ms Harringtons’ article.

Now I work on an international level it’s even clearer that her stereotype is manufactured by some for cheap political propaganda.

One could argue that recalcitrant mothers who deny children access to their dads are actually the people who are controlling.

Equally controlling and coercive are people like Ms Harrington and others who are trying to shut down this debate.

Ms Harrington goes on to demands absolute rights for women but feels it is ok to deny fathers any basic rights or protection in the constitution on this issue whatsoever.

These are dangerous sentiments and dangerous times.

I can see that there are many valid points on both sides but it has come to something when democratic debate is shouted down by a minority too hostile to even consider there is another voice in the room.

Some in the pro-choice lobby are attempting to pervert the meaning of our language and twist it into a propaganda tool.

So let us be clear. Fathers4Justice represents the forgotten men and women of Ireland.

We represent over 80,000 families in both the UK and Ireland.

Our campaign objectives are clear: an equal voice and equal rights for men and fathers and a presumption of 50/50 shared parenting between mums and dads.

As a woman, and a mother concerned about the lack of rights for men, my message is simple:

It’s time to stand up for your rights.

They are rights that do not exist in the constitution and they are rights you will need to fight for.

You need to find your voice and find it soon.

Nadine O’Connor is the International Campaign Director of the Fathers4Justice group


Posted in A Voice For Men, Campaigning, Change the 8th, Cork, Cork Pro Choice, Eighth Amendment, Equality, Fathers 4 Justice, Fathers4Justice, Fathers4Justice International, Irish Examiner, Mens Rights, Repeal the 8th, Suzanne Harrington | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment