University of Wales Lampeter Newsletter

Student Rights & Whistleblowers UK

Bringing Light to Injustice and Maladministration

Student Support Site

False Accusation of Malicious Harassment ‘Damaging’!

May 25th, 2008 · No Comments

Date: Monday, 17 April 2006 

To: Eversheds Solicitors

Cc:
The Bishop of St David’s
The Vice Chancellor University of Wales Lampeter
The President of the Council University of Wales Lampeter
The Registrar and Secretary University of Wales Lampeter
Head of School Prof. David Austin University of Wales Lampeter
Examinations Officer Dr. Jill Venus University of Wales Lampeter
The External Examiner University of Wales Lampeter
Kathryn Worsey – HEFCW Observer for HEFCW
The Education Committee Welsh Assembly as Evidence of the failure of the Student Complaints Scheme under the Higher Education Act 2004.
Friends of the University of Wales Lampeter

Re: The University of Wales Lampeter 

I am not going to thank you for your letter concerning the despicable behaviour of Prof David Austin, as it is only a repeat of the abuse and betrayal of his position and trust that I as a student at the above University received from this man. In my opinion his admitted actions are just as morally and professionally bankrupt as are the other players in this sick and twisted game of deceit to conceal their own gross misconduct.

I am not going to enter into an argument as to what constitutes libel as I have already informed the Bishop that I will withhold any court action against Prof. Austin until after a Hearing, to avoid any further delay to the 28 months it has taken to get this far. Besides there is obviously more to this than I currently know about and it seems that libel is the least of Prof. Austin’s worries.

I was however interested in your admission that Prof. Austin’s false and contrived accusation of malicious harassment against my self for making a complaint was in fact ‘damaging’. It is also in effect an admission to the rest of my allegations and the subsequent attempted concealment. Perhaps the Professor should in future carry a health warning for prospective students; it is known as ‘The Lampeter Experience’ it’s what happens to you when you make a complaint.

Your comments seem to be somewhat contradictory to the evidence you supplied to the court, clearly you are no longer dismissing my complaint as simply being a trivial dispute over marking. You are also no longer referring to a letters from the Vice Chancellor and Secretary as evidence that procedures were fully completed, that the matter was taken seriously and subject to the fullest professional scrutiny, that I was sent a report according to procedures.

We all know these are lies and that procedures never happened, that fact was known before you submitted that information a sworn witness statement, it seems somebody somewhere knowingly made a false statement to the court to conceal Prof. Austin’s actions and that they did it in the name of the Bishop.

You are wrong in saying my complaint to the Chair of the IT Department Tony Corner resulted in a letter from the Vice Chancellor. My complaints to Tony Corner went the same way as his complaint to the External Examiner; absolutely nowhere, who is responsible for this is a matter for the hearing.

The letter from the Vice Chancellor dated the 2nd of December 2003 was in response to a pack of lies told to him by Prof. David Austin. The Vice Chancellor allowed himself to be ‘suckered’ into a situation to avoid the consequences of my allegations being true as such would be a PR disaster for this vulnerable institution. Instead he chose to dismiss procedures and my complaint, and to prevent any investigation he refused to enter into any further correspondence to make my complaint go away.

Subsequent challenge led to the very real threat of legal action against myself with the use of taxpayers money for making a legitimate complaint and concealing his own misconduct. It seems the threat of legal action is the only procedure he actually knows about when dealing with student complaints. However I have submitted so much information into the public domain via the court I can now say what I like in the believe it is true and that such action has enabled me to get around this very real threat.

You are also seemingly contradicting the evidence contained in the so called ‘letter of completion’ from the Secretary. We all know that his assertion that procedures were fully complied with is a pack of lies; but he had to cover- up for everyone else involved.

Please correct me if I am wrong but you seem to also be directly or indirectly confirming the above comments in defence of Prof. Austin. In that respect while I came upon the documents by legitimate means, the disclosure of his emails may well be a breach of confidentiality, and perhaps he could sue? I am sure you will agree that you just cannot trust anybody involved with this University. On the other hand being ‘suckered’ by this man for a second time does seem to be somewhat careless.

If I am a witness then the intimidation of myself during an examination conducted by Zed Zorichak the lecturer whom I previously complained about on several occasions would have constituted an act of harassment. He sat less than six feet away and stared at me in an intimidating manner for most of the one and a half hours it took to sit the exam.

His conduct was literally overseen by the Examinations Officer Dr. Jill Venus who stood and watched him do it and failed to intervene, I can therefore only assure that they both made arrangements for this to happen and that she was a party to his actions. This act fits the well documented stage two in the modus operandi of the serial abuser, which is the elimination of the complainant.

I will require the presence of the External Examiner (and have sight of his report which should have contained my complaint and the complaint made by Tony Corner), as well as the other people mentioned at the Hearing to be arranged by the Bishop. I also need contact details to call Tony Corner as a witness.

I can appreciate that the delay in arranging a hearing has obviously been caused by the fact that you can no longer instruct the Bishop to decide my complaint was fully considered according to the stated procedures, and that the Vice Chancellor found they were without foundation as we all know this is a pack of lies. He on the other hand cannot readily go along with it because of the threat of a Judicial Revue.

It is perfectly understandable that the people involved are going to need a bit of time to come up with another pack of lies and this time get their story straight. Having worked with delinquent kids for sixteen years I can assure you I have heard some stories in my time and this one was truly woeful. I would be grateful for further details of the constitution of this Hearing because as things stand it would make a kangaroo court blush with embarrassment.

That is because we all now know that procedures never happened, that the people involved in this cover up are all liars and unfit for any form of public office, least of all the education of others. We all know that my complaints have substance and a firm basis in fact for which I am professionally qualified to make, and that explains why my complaints were never heard and you are still not making any effort to do so.

I repeat my point that Eversheds as solicitors have been retained to act for the University of Wales, you are therefore duty bound to act in the best interests of the University as defined by the rules and legislation relevant to its articles of association, an exempt charity and a civil corporation. In my opinion it is highly questionable that you have actually done this, and you are acting on behalf of office bearers to save their own skins at the expense of the University.

It would appear that the University Council has also allowed itself to be ‘suckered’ by these people for fear of the consequences, and there does not seem to be a quorum of members left after those responsible for this debacle have declared an interest. There is the issue of the University as a corporation being impersonated. I believe that both Prof Austin and Dr. Jill Venus were members of the Council when they perpetrated these acts and are therefore have a double personal liability.

Under the circumstances of complaints procedures being totally disregarded, it is perfectly reasonable to ask for copies of minutes as proof that proper procedures were followed under the Charity Act 1992, the Company Act 1985 and as amended 2004. The University should ask the Auditors and HEFCW to verify the situation. There is also the connivance of the Federal University in this cover-up in particular the former Senior Vice Chancellor and the General Secretary; I also request their presence at the hearing. Unfortunately the Federal University does not have a complaints procedure which is why they never have any in direct violation of the Higher Education Act 2004

I shall of course be submitting all my costs in bring the truth of what has been going on at this University into the open, and overcoming unbelievable obstruction in attempting to make a complaint.

Tags: False Accusations