Untitled Document

This educationist, was appointed by Charity Commission as an independent trustee at Small School at Red House Limited in July 1997, until Receiver Managers Coopers and Lybrand took over in December 1997.

Note: Legal advice

The trustees took legal advice from a QC with a view to suing Tvind for financial irregularities, lack of fiduciary duty and use of undue influence - relating to the inflated rents paid for the schools and various leasing arrangements with companies which emerged to be other manifestations of Tvind. They were advised they had an excellent case and would probably win but it was not worthwhile pursuing it because the costs would outweigh any financial gain to the charity.

Trustees ‘left in the dark’

The trustees did not want to close the schools - their aim was to keep the charity and schools open as a sound going concern under proper management.

At the outset the trustees had some inkling of Tvind and cult allegations, but did not necessarily believe everything they had heard. ‘The people we had dealings with were so respectful, charming and pleasant and they all denied any knowledge of any financial dealings at all, let alone irregularities.’

The trustees - herself, Jim Hyland (expert in residential care), David Crimmens (University of S Humberside) and Jane Robson (financial expert) - were given very little information by the Charity Commission and could only work with what they were told. There was a strong air of paranoia surrounding the school, ‘fairly dark machinations’. Only ever more questions, no answers.

They eventually advised the Charity Commission that the schools could not continue open.

The board of trustees are still in existence. They ‘remain puzzled at the lack of enforcement activity by the regulatory bodies in the past and are frustrated that all the investigations of and discoveries about Tvind seem to lead to no resolutions.’

The board of trustees has absolutely no connection with anything which may be happening at the properties in Norwich or Hull - including attempts to re-start the schools on those sites.

Complaints about Charity Commission’s handling

‘I have registered a protest with the Charity Commission over the way the trustees were dealt with - we walked in with some [fairly normal] assumptions [about what problems they were likely to encounter] and were not told what questions to ask or anything.’

She asked if there was so much evidence of financial impropriety, why was the case not referred to the police Fraud Squad? She was never given an answer.

She was told (by a former member of staff) that the North Norfolk MP, David Pryor, had said the affair had been referred at a high level both to MI5 and to Interpol. She wondered if this could account for the apparent cloak of secrecy and failure to get answers to their questions.

They [the Receivers?] dilly-dallied, got enough evidence, but nothing happened - instead the saga slowly unfolded. All the Scandinavians were left in place. It was only when it got to the annual general meeting [when?] that we realised they were a limited company. We had not been aware of the Scandinavian connection - not only that they were trustees, but [company directors?]

‘We found out by default that the Scandinavians still felt they ‘owned’ the charity and were entitled to the money. Nothing had changed since May. They anticiaated they could remove the Scandinavians and tried to do so.

She couldn’t understand why the receivers didn’t do something. They were trying to save the school. But ‘we didn’t know the full horrors.’

Tvind got the message for a long time that Tvind was ‘still in charge’. ‘We would go away and nothing would happen. They thought they were not subject to any British regulations or standards. Mikala Gottlob, who had been removed as school adviser, was in fact still advising both the heads.

If the Charity Commission had acted properly and promptly the charity might still have £500,000 assets left. But £1m was spent on the advisers, Coopers & Lybrand, together with refunds to local authorities, paying off staff, and a financial deal with Tvind (who wanted to make a claim for £5m compensation).

Attempts to reopen the school blocked.

They came under subtle pressure from the Charity Commission to ‘chuck it all in’

We waited and waited for the ‘off’. The Charity Commssion kept asking whether we really did decide we wanted to keep the school going. They wanted a partial arrangement.

Allegations of abuse

East Riding and Norfolk CCs both received allegations about some members of staff and wanted written assurances that information on this was properly passed to the Area Child protection Committee and to the Police.

There was an allegation that both J and R had been ‘visited’ and told that the allegations would be withdrawn….[?] None of the allegations will be pursued. ‘I don’t want to be accused of failing to do what we were supposed to do.’

Norfolk and the HMI had received verbal evidence which suggested the schools were not viable and that they could not guarantee the health, safety and welfare of young people. [That led to the closure].

There have never been any written reports made available to the trustees on this - they could only rely on their own interviews with staff etc.

Norfolk Social Services Inspection Unit was in Red House and the trustees have not been allowed to see their report. There was a strong indication that if anything happened, no quarter would be given….there were quite advanced plans…..

Norfolk said they had ‘a mass of evidence’ and a draft report had been sent to Francis Runacres at Coopers & Lybrand but they were never given access to this report, though they had asked for it many times. Social services said anything to do with activities on the sites were nothing to do with the trustees. They are still dithering [about whether or not to allow them to open up again…]

‘None of it is rocket science…..There are several points. We want to start on a level playing field. In future we don’t want to have anything to do with this Scandinavian business. There is now no chance to set up a new school but we would have like to.

‘Signally, we seem to be failing. It was being indicated to me that we were being unreasonable in having these commissions [?] But we are saying once burned, twice shy. We are not prepared to get into that again.

The cult

The Charity Commission knows these are suspect charities. Their response has been to put more English members of the board [to outweigh the Danes]. They are the most plausible, most charming, most devious conniving bastards.

‘Social workers would arrive in high dudgeon, they would be given a coffee, taken on a boat trip and in a short while they would have forgotten what it was all about. You have to be tough as old boots all the way. It’s very easy to be persuaded by them that they are the good ones and you are the odd one out. It would take a very clever person to find it all out.

They have been in a cult-like mode. What I can’t find is to what purpose?

Financial irregularities

She eventually learned that both schools and four [Humana] shops were leased at huge cost. She believes this information was discovered by the Receiver Managers.

The cult built up a kitty of £1½ m for ‘the next project’ - whatever that was.

90% of salaries were going into the teachers fund - hundreds of thousands of pounds had been milked from this country. For what purpose? What are they doing with it? This remains to me the ultimate mystery to which there is no answer.

Four members of the Charity Commission spent 4 days in Denmark. They knew all about it. They failed to alert the members of the board. They failed to translate reports. They failed to say there had been a meeting with the HMI setting out the situation. They failed to properly warn the Danes of the new situation.

A meeting with Francis Runacres and with an educational adviser had taken place. Trustees were not involved.

Lack of investment

There was an ‘absolutely startling’ lack of inward investment over many years in the school

Closure

A decision was taken to close the schools but there was confusion. Some people went to work at the schools on January 1st. When the closure happened so suddenly there was trauma, but ‘nothing compared with the trauma suffered by many of the children and staff…’

The schools were closed on January 7th. One of the things we wanted to do was put out some notification saying we, the trustees, would like it to be known the schools were closing and any activity on either site was nothing to do with us. [This was not allowed].

They wanted it to be called ‘The New Small School at Red House’

They are in discussions about the future of the charity. There are a number of ideas.

Reopening the school

Winestead Hall could reopen as a young offenders institution. How can this be allowed? Who would run it? Karen Barsoe? R - known as a ‘hard man’? She met him and ‘there would be no way I would want him near any young person - offender or otherwise.’ He had a very ‘Germanic’ attitude and there had been unsubstantiated allegations of child abuse against him.

There is a problem how to prevent young people being drawn into damaging experiences at the hands of this organisation.

‘I just don’t think that people should be allowed to get away with it. They still appear to be letting Humana wend its way….. They won’t keep it on the straight and narrow. They will look you in the eye and say this is so, and then do the opposite.

‘I feel an impotent fury at people getting away with it and a rage about how it came about. If there is any justice in the world then somebody will answer for it. One of my concerns is that there is a lot of exploitation of young people who have been volunteers. Anybody with any commitment has to sign up.