Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:How long until the HOS gets fired? Either release their “independent report” or resign. What a coward.
You’re clueless about privacy laws. And more.
Why not provide it to the victim? Why deny their requests?
Read page 46 - the posting at 8:41.
The factually untrue twaddle probably posted by T&M spinning the meter for social media management you mean?
There is no reason that a redacted version of the report could not have been provided to the victim’s parents. Their lawyers will now get it. Any sense of trust in the school around safety issues is now broken, and not just for this family and former student.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:How long until the HOS gets fired? Either release their “independent report” or resign. What a coward.
You’re clueless about privacy laws. And more.
Why not provide it to the victim? Why deny their requests?
Read page 46 - the posting at 8:41.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:And exactly how would you propose that these details be released in a way that complies with privacy standards?
I don't think most people understand how privacy rights work. A private school can later be sued even if a parent wants sensitive information disclosed. I am surprised they even allowed this article to be published with details about the student such as the student withdrew from the school last winter and that they were assaulted. Since students rarely leaves in the winter the student is identifiable not only to the school community, but now to members of his new school community. Even if a parent waives confidentiality for their child, that pre-teen / teen still has privacy rights a parent can't waive. Schools are expected to protect minor identities in sensitive cases, and if they don't they can later be sued.
Parents can't force a school to issue a statement in cases were privacy has to be protected. Schools also can't give police a list of names of all the boys in the school, all the boys who had classes in that hallway, or all the boys who had discipline issues. The school would get sued by those parents. Police can't go on a fishing expedition. Private schools don't provide names to police without a subpoena, court order, or warrant. If they did they could be sued by those parents. Affluent parents aren't letting their kids be interviewed by police.
This really is a terrible situation for the boy and his family but publicizing it this way can be harmful in the years to come for the victim. I think this post should be removed, not because I have anything to do with GDS, but because it discloses way too much information about the victim.
That is complete horse manure.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
If the older boys thought about masking, then they probably did not leave other forms of evidence. And since the assault was months ago, what evidence could there be?
At this point, Met Police needs to clarify whether the allegations are credible or not, separate from whether they found evidence. If the allegations are credible, then the Head, who did not technically lie, must be brought to task for not taking this seriously enough. He's making it seem like the assault did not happen at all.
Who on the Board selected T&M? It will all come out in discovery, which seems to be where this is headed.
That's another irony. GDS was apparently so concerned about liability and reputational risk that they created a scenario in which they opened themselves up to liability and harmed their own reputation.
Anonymous wrote:
I am not sure if the victims family thinks there is evidence that the Police have rejected but I doubt that the school is not cooperating with the police. This publicity is enough, never mind someone being able to point to not cooperating.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
If the older boys thought about masking, then they probably did not leave other forms of evidence. And since the assault was months ago, what evidence could there be?
At this point, Met Police needs to clarify whether the allegations are credible or not, separate from whether they found evidence. If the allegations are credible, then the Head, who did not technically lie, must be brought to task for not taking this seriously enough. He's making it seem like the assault did not happen at all.
Who on the Board selected T&M? It will all come out in discovery, which seems to be where this is headed.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:How long until the HOS gets fired? Either release their “independent report” or resign. What a coward.
You’re clueless about privacy laws. And more.
Why not provide it to the victim? Why deny their requests?
Anonymous wrote:
If the older boys thought about masking, then they probably did not leave other forms of evidence. And since the assault was months ago, what evidence could there be?
At this point, Met Police needs to clarify whether the allegations are credible or not, separate from whether they found evidence. If the allegations are credible, then the Head, who did not technically lie, must be brought to task for not taking this seriously enough. He's making it seem like the assault did not happen at all.
Anonymous wrote:I have never seen a worse response by a HOS to an incident like this. Worst of all time.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:How long until the HOS gets fired? Either release their “independent report” or resign. What a coward.
You’re clueless about privacy laws. And more.
Why not provide it to the victim? Why deny their requests?
Anonymous wrote:can someone post the email the family sent to to the gds community?