Cover Up by Federal University of Wales - Queen Ignored
The Visitor to the Federal University HM the Queen has written to the First Minister of the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) regarding the lack of any complaints procedures. Because of the OIA she no longer has jurisdiction over these issues and because the Federal University refuses to implement any complaints procedures the OIA cannot intervene on a complaint either! The WAG has also covered up this unconstitutional mess for fear of the inevitable run on Welsh Universities once the corruption is made public.
Federal University of Wales
Secretary and Senior Vice Chancellor Personally Liable
The only means of complaint to the Federal University is the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) which according to the financial regulations covers students making a complaint, that is until a student makes a complaint then it is ignored. Its an example of all these grandiose claims to the highest standards being for display purposes only. In forcing the issue by taking them to an employment tribunal as a degree trainee under PIDA the Secretary Dr L E Williams lied to the Audit Committee by making up the preposterous claim that I was alleging to be a member of staff. This has been reinforced by the Senior Vice Chancellor Professor Anthony Chapman, Vice Chancellor of the University of Wales Institute who colluded with Williams to conceal this act of fraud. Chapman’s response is indicative of the way complaints are dealt with at the Institute and Welsh Universities in general which are.
- Denigrate the complainant by any means of personal abuse; claims they are paranoid is the usual trick, after all who would think that a University would do such a thing!
- Ignore or destroy all the written evidence and make up a pack of lies.
- Make all kinds of threats of legal action to conceal their own corruption at taxpayers expense who incidentally have been banned by the WAG under the Wales Public Audit Act 2004 from making any kind of complaint on this issue.
- Refuse to enter into any further correspondence, why should they as these individuals have acted in their own personal interest to conceal fraud what’s the point?
Please note that Professor Anthony Chapman has survived one vote of no confidence by his staff, I wonder if he is going to survive another?
