University of Wales Lampeter Newsletter

Student Rights & Whistleblowers UK

Bringing Light to Injustice and Maladministration

Student Support Site

Board of Inquiry?

May 25th, 2008 · No Comments

Date: Tuesday, 09 May 2006 

To: The Bishop of St. David’s

Cc:
The Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA)
Eversheds Solicitors
The Vice Chancellor University of Wales Lampeter
The Secretary and Academic Registrar University of Wales Lampeter 
The President University of Wales Lampeter
Head of School Prof. David Austin University of Wales Lampeter
Higher Education Wales
The NUS – Wales & England
Friends of the University of Wales Lampeter
Kathryn Worsey – HEFW Observer for HEFCW.
The Education Committee – Welsh Assembly

You Will Hear All Of My Complaint!

You claim that you a going to ensure I get a fair and just hearing and yet you also claim that you can only hear the original complaint which is untrue. This is yet another attempt to make sure my complaint goes nowhere and I must tell you that my trust in you is non-existent.

I am entitled to and expect better than I have received from you and that so called University. I must insist that you get on with the task in hand with a degree of propriety instead of the duplicity I have received so far. Who is telling you what to do? Is it the devil? Because this is nothing less than evil! If, as you have claimed before that you are being misled by the University them I suggest you get independent advice, because the kindest thing I can say is that you do not seem to know what you are doing.

The Independent Adjudicator has confirmed that as papers were lodged prior to the 29th of March 2004 and matters arising from those papers are sadly and regrettably within your jurisdiction. Therefore, I shall be submitting all my complaint and if you reject any of it as you are clearly going to do under instructions from the University then we will simply have to go back to court.

Meanwhile, I wish to clarify the issues of plagiarism and again repeat my request that in the absence of any policy this issue should be referred to the University’s Academic Board for an opinion; however under the circumstances it is appropriate for the Secretary and Academic Registrar Thomas Roderick to absent himself from this process as frankly he is a liar.

The assignment in question was put through anti-plagiarism software and was diagnosed as being 100% plagiarism free. Therefore no reference to or definition of plagiarism should have been mentioned in that sick and twisted document written by Zed Zorichak known as assignment feedback In keeping with the plagiarism policies of honest and decent Universities’ if there was any suspicion of plagiarism I should have been consulted before any comment was made, whereupon I would have pointed out what was blatantly obvious to a seven year old.

It is an unacceptable practice for students to be marked down for plagiarism, then the accusation against them withdrawn when challenged. It totally undermines trust between staff and students and encourages students to commit plagiarism because they are going to be stitched up for it anyway. If they complain then they can expect to be stitched up again with further false allegations and threats of legal action against them. Policies on bullying are meaningless when it’s the Vice Chancellor who is not going to miss out on the opportunity to put the boot into a student’s life prospects just to show people who is in charge.

The matter should have been referred to the Academic Board when I submitted my complaint to the then Chair of the IT Department. However the morally, ethically and professionally challenged Head of School Professor David Austin intervened to stop that from happening as you can’t have students complaining; he would rather go to prison than allow such a horrendous thing to happen.

Furthermore, I fail to see how any fair and just adjudication can comply with my right to natural justice or 6.1 of the HRA until the facts of what has happened here have been established. Lets face it there is no way in which the above people are going to tell the truth, and in that respect I also have cause to doubt your own word.

Therefore I must ask you to initiate some kind of inquiry to establish the truth which is inherent within my common law right to natural justice and the HRA 1998 and something you seem hell bent on keeping from me. You cannot have a situation whereby the University can submit whatever lies it chooses to cover up the wrong doing of office bearers and that such lies are going to be accepted without question which it appears is exactly what you intend to do. I therefore urge you to set up an independent board of inquiry into these matters so they can report the full truth of what has happened before you make any decision. This is within the rules but you cannot have the Vice Chancellor involved because he too is a liar.

What I am asking for is a perfectly reasonable request and fair way of dealing with this matter by means of a process that already exists. Any right mined person would fail to see what the problem is; unfortunately the University of Wales Lampeter is not run by right minded people as I have said sick and positively evil is the kindest comment I can make. For you to refer this matter to the Academic Board and a Board of Inquiry is going to be an admission that contrary to the lies told by the Vice Chancellor, Secretary and Academic Registrar and Head of School complaints procedures were not complied with and my complaints were dismissed without any consideration. But we all know that anyway.

That puts you and Eversheds in a bit of difficulty in that false evidence was knowingly submitted to court in your name, and if as I suspect that false evidence was given by the Secretary and Registrar Thomas Roderick it was to cover up the lies he told in the so called ‘letter of completion’. Worse still I suggest he knew exactly what Professor David Austin had done and may also have been covering for him as well. The Vice Chancellor seems to have allowed himself to be suckered into a situation by these two and now due to his own corrupt practice is now in a hole too deep to get out of. However, Eversheds may well help him out as they are duty bound to report what has gone on to the appropriate authority, besides this has gone way beyond a student complaint.

To summarise, you have the jurisdiction to refer matters back to the academic board and set up an independent three person board of inquiry to deal with other matters as both are within the complaint procedures and rules. However for reasons already stated and as my complaint concerns the Head of School, Vice Chancellor, and Secretary they cannot be involved in this process. It is common practice under Judicial Revue for human rights issues to be referred back for proper consideration under existing rules and procedures where they have been ignored.

Moreover the fact that these people have not as yet been suspended according to disciplinary procedures is evidence that the entire governing body is corrupt. I cannot agree to a situation where you are being instructed by solicitors acting for these people and not the University. We seem to be playing another sick game of cat and mouse whereby you are going to do anything and everything possible to conceal gross misconduct, breach of trust and possibly a criminal offence. You and Eversheds are part of the problem and not the solution in that you are acting to save the reputation of Office Bearers.

If you ignore this request presumably on the instructions of Eversheds then by all means carry on. I will simply take appropriate action after I have been stitched up; again! You promised me a fair and just hearing; I am holding to that promise and what better way than simply playing it by the rules. I shall in due course publish all details of my complaints to the internet as I am entitled to do under the Higher Education Act 2004 at lamp-post.info

Tags: Board of Inquiry?