WHY ANDREW BOLT SHOULD BE SACKED

DEECD = Victorian Department of Education
VIT = Victorian Institute of Teaching

WHY ANDREW BOLT SHOULD BE SACKED

ALSO SEE: Mudslinging the Evil Hoon Teacher

Without investigating, interviewing, or doing any responsible journalism, Andrew Bolt (Herald Sun) made some pretty vicious statements against myself. It actually started with a reporter Stephen Drill (Herald Sun), who lied, that I was 90 minutes late on my first day of school, teaching at Vermont Secondary. So was I ? The evidence at VIT and VCAT do not show that I was 90 minutes late, on the first day of school. In fact, there was no evidence from the Vermont Secondary College daily organiser official record that I was seriously late at all, without legitimate reason (such as stuck in traffic), or great frequency, without sick note or other duty. And all points were contested, inside the school, at VIT and VCAT.

At VIT, Rod Williamson claimed that students had told him, that I had come to class late, yet he did not specify when. This had never been brought to my attention at these times, in meetings or as he revealed investigated. For all we know, he just made it up.

THE DAILY ORGANISER
In schools, it is the daily organiser who officially records this data on the system. I had asked for these documents to be presented to DEECD prior to VIT, but they were not from Carmel White's responses (Head of Conduct and Ethics).

Here is the record, from the daily organiser of semester one, as presented at VIT.
(The spreadsheet bit).

The 3 instances of latenesses listed, were always preceded by a phone call. For example, if I was stuck in traffic on Mitcham Rd (out of my control).
What is not noted, is that I had challenged the daily organiser on matters, because the school was listing legitimate lateness as "lateness," against DEECD policy.
So if you were sick in the morning in an emergency, they would list you as late/without noting the sickness.

In another case, I was getting my car serviced and borrowed a friend's car which broke down on the way to school, this was recorded as lateness too. These are the sort of issues that these principals, attempted to use, to implicate me as seriously incompetent, unfit to teach and guilty of misconduct.

I discovered later, that after the principal's extreme threats, blackmail and bullying, which drove me to suicidal desperation, that I needed to protect myself from this extreme behaviour. And after I had reported, that I would be taking time off for this. This was listed by Rod Williamson, as "absent without informing the school" as Tony Jacobs claimed further lateness.

Principals Rod Williamson, Tony Jacobs and Harry Ruff did not offer help, they did not inform of work cover procedures, or the availablilty of counselling, which seemed freely available to teachers. They did not reneg on their breaches of procedure and protocol, breaking numerous laws, which no one is prosecuting.

Note how on the first day of term 2007, there is no lateness.
So why does Stephen Drill make this claim, in his article and Andrew Bolt follow suit ?

Also note how Tony Jacobs editorialises, over the official school system (which is a legal document), at the school with his own notes, to create another picture, such as "rang on day after 8am," against the official record. The real circumstances were that a previously aranged duty (in my spare lessons) such as picking up sharpened blades or purchasing from Bunnings had been arranged, but my coordinator had failed to inform the daily organiser about this. At 8am I was ringing up to check, if Wolfgang had informed him, as Wolfgang was forgetful.

SO WHAT HAPPENED ?
Isn't it clear ? the principals Tony Jacobs, Harry Ruff and Rod Williamson, fabricated a story of lateness, which they felt, they could get away with, because some principals think that they can do whatever they want. Even if that includes bullying, lying, manipulating the system to justify megasalaries, despite their incompetence.

The newspapers and determination exaggerate these matters as so serious, yet Tony Jacobs, responsible for the daily running of the school, including timetables and daily organisation said:

Tony Jacobs admits that he had never raised any concerns with me before May 23:

“Was this the first time any of these issues were raised ? ‐‐‐ [JB] It’s certainly the first time
they were raised by myself, yes. (VIT: Day 1, pg 121, line 26‐27).

So why didn't he raise them, or anyone else raise them for that matter previous to May 23 ?
Could it be that the events alleged never actually happened ? He clearly did not care, that they happened, if they did. Or as the daily organiser informed me, this was common for staff at the school and there were teachers who were serially absent, who were not corrected by the principals.

INSTITUTIONAL BULLYING
It is clear then, that I was singled out for bullying by the principals. From reports, such phenomena is common in Victorian schools. This represents serious breaches of Victorian LAW.

VIT has taken extreme efforts, to cover the lies of the principals. For example, they tried to make out that my lacking memory of events, showed mental incapacity and unfitness to teach.

At VCAT, the judge asked, "Why didn't you remember the alleged events."
I explained, "because they probably didn't actually happen !"
Well obviously !

During the hearings, I was forced to give account for events that did not happen.
This was done, while in a state resembling PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), caused by the extreme bullying of the principals.

The judge at VCAT acknowledged that my perseverance in fighting this case and matter, without legal support demonstrates great resilience. It is sad that any Australian citizen needs to fight a $400 an hour barrister, funded by the public, to defend their innocence, when they cannot afford legal representation.

ADMINISTRATIVE INCOMPETENCE
Some principals, in their omnipotence, think that they can reinvent history, to cover their lies.

Why didn't Tony Bugden or Carmel White identify this. I understood that they were either complicit in it, or I suggested hab\ving an affair with one of the parties, as is common in Victorian school and union administration. These incompetent corrupt high ranking officials just barred me from working with DEECD and pushed the matter through VIT without true investigation. This is how much Government, DEECD and VIT respects the teaching profession and the training, experience and evidence that proves a person's professionalism.

Carmel White and Tony Bugden refused to appear at the original VCAT hearing, despite me calling them as witnesses. The previous judge refused to allow them to appear too. This would quickly have ascertained that they had acted improperly and that the matter prior to VIT should have been thrown out. This would have made the VIT determination invalid.

VIT, claiming to represent and regulate the teaching profession, seems it is only there as an instrument for principals to institutionally bully teachers. DEECD and VIT refuses to acknowlege its errors, non-compliance with VCAT orders

SO:
Despite this information, the allegation is considered proven by Terry Hayes in the determination, though there is no evidence, even if it were true (which it is not), from this that students were ever not supervised. This is an absurd assumption, and if true, shows that the school did not provide adequate supervision in the case of normal daily operations, as if they were aware a teacher was absent, why were students no supervised, any reasonable school has contingencies in place for this.

The evidence in my case shows that the most reasonable conclusion, is that the pincipals made up cases of lateness and did not investigate the true circumstances ! Also Wolfgang's additions, show he was cooperating with the corruption of the principals. A point made clear when witness statements are compared, which showed copy and pasted elements between them.


We will continue with the allegations one by one !