EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL

The complaint / claim before the Tribunal relates to and is founded on BLUNT RACIAL / RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION and not on a claim for unfair dismissal / termination of employment.

The respondents contained themselves to the presentation of an arrogantly concocted and wilfully argued case, as if one for a justified termination of a long established employment, albeit on constructively engineered and staged scenarios in contempt of the law on discrimination, denial of and obstructions to assured rights, preferential treatment to selected parties, all of which was presented and has been established before the panel in contempt of the facts stated and presented to the Tribunal by the Claimant.

The facts stated in the Claimant’s Witness Statement and the extensive documented evidence, presented in the course of the presentation and challenges by the respective parties, support the claimant’s case as covered in the concluding statement in the above paragraph. The well established principles on contemporaneous evidence, documented as the case was and remains, cannot and ought not to be flaunted at, on any grounds, in a case of National and, one dares say, International importance within the context of the law and the declared intentions of the signatory States / Countries to the European Convention of Human Rights (1948), the subsequent Protocols attached thereto, also the Charter of the United Nations.

The complaint that commanded of the Claimant to present his case to this Tribunal is, fundamentally twofold:

The evidence pointed to, as presented to the Tribunal, qualifies the fact that the Respondents, collectively and as individuals, they:-

5.1.

The above realities, and the Documented Evidence, as submitted and used by the Respondents, for the purposes of their defence, establish blunt contempt for the reasons of the case against each and every one of the Respondents. The documented, contemporaneous evidence, which the Respondents, themselves, submitted in support of their defence, which defence, in any event, lacks ANY REFERENCE TO AND ANY EVIDENCE in respect of their failures to address the issues attached to and born of ‘the offensive verbal assault on the claimant and the encouraged, through reckless defaults and failings in respect of the racist and Anti-Christian, Anti-Semitic proclamations by young pupils which the claimant raised with the Respondents ought to have been the priority of the Respondents instead of the malicious and wilful creation of scenarios far removed from reality and the facts raised by the claimant who reported the foul of the law proclamations by some of the young pupils in the care of the claimant and the Respondents who elected to ignore it all as if of no consequence and as immaterial to the development of responsible citizens in a diverse and multicultural society, where respect for the rights of one another and obligations to act within the remit of the law should be the priority of all persons who engage in education.

The joint promotions of all unsupported assertions, as created and promoted by the First Respondent, in the course of giving evidence and cross-examination amount to ARROGANT CONTEMPT FOR THE CONTEMPORANEOUS EVIDENCE. One cannot and ought not to overlook and or ignore the contemporaneous evidence, in the very First Respondent’s own writings, in any event.

Furthermore no one can overlook / ignore the fact that it befell upon the First Respondent, under her duties as head of the school, also under her Legal Obligations to instigate the actions referred to in paragraph 5 above and the sub-paragraphs, thereto. The documented evidence, and in particular document number 61 (in the bundle presented to the Tribunal), establishes beyond any doubt the reckless contempt to and for the rule of law, also the Legal Obligations to society, at large, by alleged servants of the public (as educationalists) and persons who elected to encourage and suppress foul of the law mentalities to the welfare and the wellbeing of society at large. Instead, the First Respondent, and other like-minded and irresponsible persons (within the school, the Local Education Authority and the London Borough of Tower Hamlets) ELECTED TO BE PARTY to concocted and created scenarios, arrogantly promoted, by one and all, in order to justify their failures / failings fully intending to misdirect the reported incidents from the offensive failures, on her part and on the parts of her subordinates, also the misguided who took part in the scenarios which others concocted and created with the blessings of the First Respondent, as the misdirected scenarios were created for, thereby further offending the claimant who, had, after all, been a teacher at Bigland Green Primary School for almost 12 years.

In evidence the First Respondent, who retired (scuppered the boat) conveniently in her Witness Statement gave / gives her address as that of Bigland Green School and asserted / asserts it to be ’her business’ address. In her aforesaid Statement she asserted that she did not complete the Declaration (document S5, downloaded from the Internet by the claimant’s brother) because she, allegedly, did not receive the recorded delivery posting; in fact the Post Office Internet Service (portal / presence) confirmed delivery of the relevant communication, as posted, the following day 12^th May 2009, when visited on the day. In essence, when giving evidence, the First Respondent was exposing herself to have been a person who habitually acts in contempt of the law and her duties as a public servant / educationalist. One need simply to consider her failures to submit a Racist Incident Report form to various parties, as stipulated and commanded of her, under the Guidelines for Schools in Tower Hamlets, as the entries on the submitted copy, document 61, evince. The panel’s attention is drawn to the fact that the form, as completed by the First Respondent, was handed to the Claimant on 3^rd October 2006. On the day the First Respondent called the Claimant, into her office, after she received the second letter from the Claimant, document number 63.

The Second Respondent, ex assistant head, Ms Margaret Coleman, who also retired (scuppered the boat), similarly gave / gives her address as that of Bigland Green Primary School and asserted / asserts it to be ‘her business’ address. When giving evidence on being questioned if she was made aware of the fact that ex head teacher Ms Jill Hankey failed to complete and return the Declaration (document S5) referred to above, in paragraph 9, she qualified that she was not made aware of such matters. When asked if she had been asked to sign the Declaration herself (after she referred to a copy of it) she qualified that she would do so ONLY IF HER SOLICITOR, indicating thus that she would seek advice, as to whether she had been acting within the law and as the law stipulates for a person in her capacity. When asked if she had read the Claimant’s Witness Statement, before committing herself to her Witness Statement, she affirmed that she had done so. Through her affirmation the witness was qualifying the fact that she had been made aware of the Claimant’s statements that she had been party to the suppression of the Racist Incident Report (document 61), which form / document the ex-head, teacher, Ms Jill Hankey acknowledged she (Ms Hankey) had completed herself, as submitted in evidence, but she was vague when asked to state if the form / Racist Incident Report had been submitted to all relevant parties and bodies, as stipulated under the Guidelines For Schools in Tower Hamlets and evinced by the provision for relevant / essential entries to be made by the person who complies with the guidelines. Interestingly, the witness qualified that she was not aware of or familiar with the aforesaid Guidelines for Schools in Tower Hamlets, imposing explicit obligations on schools to report all racist incidents to the school governors and the Local Education Authority, among other essential stipulations.

Notwithstanding the obvious FAILINGS / FAILURES by the two Respondents, (both members of the management team of Bigland Green Primary School) the two engaged in the creation of concocted scenarios through which to generate alleged need to discipline the offended claimant, Mr Nicholas Kafouris. The documented evidence lodged evinces the fact that the concocted scenarios were first referred to the offended claimant FIVE MONTHS AFTER the two Respondents were fully aware of the fact that a Racist Report Incident, had been submitted officially, after the Claimant was invited so to do, on 25^th September 2006, by the Second Respondent, Ms Margaret Coleman, as document number 62 evinces. The note / letter document was handed in, after the pupil who was REPORTED SOME DAYS LATER by the offended Claimant following:

The panel’s attention is drawn to the Claimant’s Witness Statement, (refer to page 4, under the heading "My Response and asst. head’s Upholding…") middle of the paragraph, underlined "Nicholas, I really don’t think…. If you want to….. you should do it alone with him". The Second Respondent interestingly was advising the offended Claimant to ‘take the pupil outside’ and not deal with the pupil in class; it is for the panel to seriously consider the implications attached to the day’s scenario, bearing in mind the fact that the Second Respondent, when giving evidence, in cross examination on 15^th February 2010, she referred to the fact that she, herself, did take a pupil out of the class in order to deal with the pupil privately; in fact she asserted that she took two children (at least one of the other children….) out of the class. The element of the additional pupil (or two) was challenged in cross examination as a new twist, on 15^th February 2010, just as was the fact that the Respondent’s Witness Statement:-

12.1.

In addition to the issue of the suppressed Racist / Religious Incident Report, there arose the element of the created and imposed need to investigate allegations founded on an incident reported by a third party / colleague / fellow teacher. The fact (not disputed) that the twin brother of the offended and concerned teacher, the claimant, dropped into the London Museum to see if his brother was coping with the pupils under his care, was used as a spring board in order to launch a malicious assault on the teacher whose wellbeing and psychological constitution had been adversely affected following the reckless failures, by the First and Second Respondents to address and deal with the elements of the offensive Religious Discrimination (established care of their five-month-long failures to address and deal with the issues attached thereto), also their failures to address the blunt RACIST, ANTI-CHRISTIAN and ANTI-SEMITIC proclamations (by some of the pupils). From NO CONSIDERATION for the Guidelines and the element of DUTY OF CARE, the two named Respondents simply set about to move on and pile up more inconsiderate and vile assaults (mental) on the victim of Racial and offensive Religious Discrimination. And for the additional assaults they relied on the use of others, to promote and support them in the new inexcusable and unjustified assaults on the offended claimant. Typically, no statements from such others were submitted for the purposes of the hearings at the Tribunal. In the circumstances the panel should consider the implications pointed to, irrespective of the outcome of a subsequent disciplinary hearing which the claimant did not attend. The Tribunal should also address the reckless and malicious investigation which the Second Respondent undertook, in contempt of the principle that ONLY NEUTRAL, THIRD PARTIES should act as investigators, without exception on any grounds.

For the purposes of the constructively engineered need for a disciplinary hearing the Respondents were guided / using the services of Mr David Subden of HR Solutions Limited. The Second Respondent on cross examination qualified that she had been concerned about the fact that she had been appointed to investigate the events she was a witness and party to and the only witness at that, as the children / pupils could not remember what happened on the day when allegedly the Claimant was out of his mind, shouting and screaming. But Mrs Coleman clarified that Mr Subden advised her to get on with the investigation as ‘she had been directed by the First Respondent to proceed with’. On cross examination Mr Subden confirmed the aforesaid and qualified also that he was not aware of, or familiar with the Guidelines for schools in Tower Hamlets. The panel’s attention is drawn to paragraph 12.4 above.

The constructively engineered need for a disciplinary hearing, begun with the blunt contempt for the law and thus the essential processes were born of and rested on the verbal assault, founded on the Claimant’s Religion. Through the aforesaid contempt, the imposed mental anguish and psychological trauma ensued and thereafter, the compilation of all additional pressures amounting to reckless contempt for DUTY OF CARE. In the course of the aforesaid developments the Claimant relied on his twin brother and the assistance of the NASUWT union, but due to the state of his health he was not at all material times in command of the processes / proceedings. One element that was raised / discussed in or about September / October 2007 related to negotiations in respect of a Compromise Agreement but nothing came of it. The panel’s attention is drawn to the copy of document number 127, the copy with all three paragraphs intact, the last one not tampered with. The panel is hereby pointed to the fact that the element of blackmail was laboured on, when cross-examining Mr Subden, because of his parts in the negotiations and the inconsiderate attitude attached to the contempt for the law and the blatant discrimination attached to and resting on the wilful failures / failings to deal with and address the offensive issues founded and resting on elements of substantive National interests and the personal concerns of the Claimant, as a teacher.

Further to the above considerations which the panel needs to address in the instance at hand, there was the issue attached to elements that raised questions as to the intentions of the Respondents, who represent / act for a public body through legally qualified professionals. One of the elements was and remains the invitation to ACAS to act as the government intended when the Service was introduced. Remarkably the Respondents advisors / legal team DID NOT WISH TO ENGAGE IN USE of the facility, and the claimant hereby begs the indulgence of the panel to draw attention to and emphasise the need to consider and address the sum total of the failings and the manufactured constructive termination of the claimant’s employment, the said termination founded and resting on the chain of events which the agents, representatives of the Third Respondent were and remain the architects of.

In view of the overall presentation by the First and Second Respondent, the Head teacher and Assistant head teacher respectively, adopted an air of street culture for the school as opposed to directors and implementers of government policies in terms of what constitute acceptable conduct of behaviour, while both set about to create a picture of incompetence about the Claimant who simply objected to the liberties young children were allowed to indulge in, as the evidence, both volunteered, established.

The Claimant begs to draw the attention of the panel to the unacceptable indulgence and the freedom the First and Second Defendants were encouraged and or allowed by third parties so to do, when / by endorsing their Witness Statements with the address of Brigland Green Primary School, allegedly as their business address and as if owners of ‘the said business, not an establishment for education, the establishment they had been employed at as head teacher and assistant head teacher, respectively. In the circumstances the claimant requests of the Tribunal to direct the Respondents to endorse their Witness Statements with appropriate addresses.

In view of the overall performance / attitude of the employees of a public body, the Borough of Tower Hamlets, the Claimant asserts the right to refer the panel and draw attention to the case of baby Peter (commonly referred to as Baby-P) and the fact that the recklessly irresponsible Social Services Executive Officer was dismissed without severance pay from funds contributed by the budget of the Borough of Haringey.

In the circumstances the Claimant submits that the Respondents breached a number of statutes and in particular the statutory provisions under the law of Discrimination at National and International levels and seeks an appropriate conclusion / decision on the issues aired in the course of the hearings.

human-rights.org

Apologies to the media for the delay in releasing the printed part of the closing submissions, due to circumstances beyond our control.
We trust and look to the media to ensure the public is properly informed and made aware of the states imposed on a concientious and concerned Christian, teacher.