Only Regional Office would know that a suppression order was applied for and granted by a teacher who was targeted by Bathurst Regional Office and subjected to corrupt behaviour by them. The general public and even principals of schools would not have received that information. Proceedings of the ADT are not publicised in any newspaper.
This person 'defendthetruth' has received information within the last 24 hours from Carole McDiarmid herself, the only person who would have been contacted regarding the application for a suppression order since she was the Regional Director at the time and since she was a witness in the case. She would have been contacted by the court and asked if she wanted to have any input into the suppression application.
So Mr Marley, what are you going to do about THAT? Your Regional Director of Education is supplying information for publication on Sydney Indymedia.
I have been told a very serious complaint has been made relating to those court proceedings, a complaint accompanied by irrefutable documentation that perjury was committed during that court case and that lies were placed on this victim's employee file by Janice Anderson under instructions from Carole McDiarmid. Both McDiarmid and Anderson gave evidence during the case, as well as former principals Graeme Viles and George Peacock.
The government medical officer was sacked last year over his involvement relating to this matter, after the former Deputy Police Commissioner was brought in to examine some aspects of the case.
Grant Marley, if you really are an 'investigator' into serious misconduct and not just another lackey who is there to cover up for senior officials of the State Labor Government which is what is strongly suspected, I would suggest you save time by getting the report written by David Madden, the former Deputy Police Commissioner, because I am told that the whistleblower didn't just give information about Dr Peter Dodwell, the person also gave David Madden all the information about Carole McDiarmid and Janice Anderson of Bathurst Regional Office as well, because what Dodwell did in denying the person a job was directly related to the lies placed on the person's employment file all those years ago. Dodwell quoted from these lies when writing referrals. In a way, Dodwell was not entirely responsible for the mess he got himself into with this matter. I often wonder why he won't come forward and tell his story of how he was pressured by the DET in Bathurst to prevent the person from working. When the person was interviewed, everything was recorded, so you don't even have to interview this person, David Madden already has.
The victim of all this has told me he/she has protection from being dismissed via a letter from you, the Serious Misconduct Unit, stating that the person has made a protected disclosure.
PROTECTED DISCLOSURES ACT 1994 - SECT 19
Disclosure to a member of Parliament or journalist
19 Disclosure to a member of Parliament or journalist
(1) A disclosure by a public official to a member of Parliament, or to a journalist, is protected by this Act if the following subsections apply.
(2) The public official making the disclosure must have already made substantially the same disclosure to an investigating authority, public authority or officer of a public authority in accordance with another provision of this Part.
(3) The investigating authority, public authority or officer to whom the disclosure was made or, if the matter was referred, the investigating authority, public authority or officer to whom the matter was referred:
(a) must have decided not to investigate the matter, or(b) must have decided to investigate the matter but not completed the investigation within 6 months of the original disclosure being made, or
(c) must have investigated the matter but not recommended the taking of any action in respect of the matter, or
(d) must have failed to notify the person making the disclosure, within 6 months of the disclosure being made, of whether or not the matter is to be investigated.
(4) The public official must have reasonable grounds for believing that the disclosure is substantially true.
(5) The disclosure must be substantially true.
4 comments:
It goes to show that DET is protecting the Klan at Carenne.
So this is not the first case where Marley has made major mistakes.
This is interesting regarding Grant Marley. I suffered reprisals from staff and management after making public interest disclosures involving animal welfare at Ultimo College TAFE. Marley refused to investigate the reprisals. He is a management tool and has a history as such it would appear.
Not by a long shot.
Post a Comment