Mr Anthony Doudle: Who Are You? Brunswick Park Primary School Leadership: Abuse of Public Trust?

Currently waiting for a response from Brunswick Park Primary School, London, they should respond promptly and normally no later than (details).

Dear Brunswick Park Primary School, London,

As a mother and a member of the public I am horrified that the Chair of Governors, who plays "a key role in the leadership and management" of your school, feels he can evade public scrutiny. No one presiding over our children is exempt from public accountability and scrutiny.

As a school and therefore a public body, you are required to be both honest and transparent. As a school leadership you hold collective responsibility for any abuse of positions and power and of public trust. 

Your recent Ofsted report states further improvement was needed to: "Continue to develop effective parent partnership as an effective means of raising outcomes for pupils by ensuring that parents of all pupils are fully engaged with their children’s education".

Your unacceptable behaviour in failing to respond to entirely reasonable FOI requests demonstrates that you are not learning the required lessons.

1) Can you please provide me with a full response to all the questions contained within the first link below?

2) Can you please provide me with a full response to all the questions contained within the second link below?

3) Can you provide me with a copy of the contract between Brunswick Park Primary school and People Matter?

4) Can you provide me with a copy of the contract between Brunswick Park Primary school and Children Matter (if different to People Matter)?

Yours faithfully,

Suzie Newman

Data Services,

3 Attachments

Dear Ms Newman,


Thank you for your Freedom of Information request made under the Freedom
of Information Act 2000.


Section 8 (1) (b) of the aforementioned Act allows a public body to
request identification of the requester where they believe that a request
is being made on behalf of another person, in accordance with the Office
of the Information Commissioner’s guidance, paragraphs 40 through to 44 of
Recognising a request made under the Freedom of Information Act (Section
8); in addition to paragraphs 28 through to 31, entitled Pseudonyms.


Because the request that you has made is a repetition of one denied by the
school, in accordance with 14 (1) of the FOIA 2000, which the original
requester has been made aware of, as well as the application of the
judgement found in Information Commissioner vs Devon County Council &
Dransfield  [2012] UKUT (AAC), we believe that this may be a pseudonymous
request and thus, in line with our legal obligations we have acknowledged
receipt of your request, but have deemed it invalid until such a time as
we have formal identification from yourself.  An example of which would be
a scan of a photo ID, such as the biometrics page of you current passport
or a valid UK driving licence.  The threshold application of this is that
the school has to be satisfied as to the identity of the data requester,
and if BPPS are not then this application will be deemed invalid and thus

Therefore, please can you provide the aforementioned ID at your soonest
convenience to both BPPS’ Headteacher, Susannah Bellingham and to the
above data services email.  Once we have received confirmation of your
identification and the school has informed us that they are satisfied that
they are happy with it, then we will be able to complete your data request
with their assistance.


Kind regards,




Will Blanchard BA Hons Dunelm, LLM, LPC, PC.dp. (GDPR)

Data Services Manager

Judicium Education


Tel: 0203 326 9174

Email:[email address]

Web: [1]


Judicium Consulting Ltd

72 Cannon Street




[3]cid:image002.png@01D046A9.BB066440  [4]cid:image003.png@01D046A9.BB066440


[5]Legal Support| [6]HR Advisory | [7]HR Admin & Payroll| [8]Occupational
Health | [9]Health & Safety| [10]Leadership Recruitment | [11]Financial
Management | [12]Training | [13]Data Services

show quoted sections

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[19][FOI #618477 email]

Is [20][Brunswick Park Primary School, London request email] the wrong address for
Freedom of Information requests to Brunswick Park Primary School, London?
If so, please contact us using this form:

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.




Visible links
14. mailto:[email address]
15. mailto:[FOI #618477 email]
16. mailto:[email address]
19. mailto:[FOI #618477 email]
20. mailto:[Brunswick Park Primary School, London request email]

Dear Data Services,

You have requested specific personal ID from me because you believe my FOI request "may be a pseudonymous"? 

Did you not stop to think and ask yourself: if my request was indeed pseudonymous, why would I include the links from the very persons who originally submitted the questions?

While your silly suggestion did bring a smile to my face, this is no laughing matter. 

Rather, it is worrying that the Brunswick Park Primary school leadership appear eager to pay you to write such silly responses instead of simply fulfilling their public duty and answering simple questions. 

It is indeed worrying that the Brunswick Park Primary school leadership appear willing to pay you to write silly responses in order to shield themselves from public scrutiny while wasting money and scarce resources that our schools and our children so desperately need in the process.

Of course, I included the links because I have nothing to hide (and because you have failed to answer the questions they contain). This is known as transparency. It appears to be a attribute distinctly lacking from the Brunswick Park Primary school leadership repertoire. 

Returning to the matter of my personal ID. It is unreasonable to expect that I may send a scan of the required ID via a public forum. 

Unless you have a guarenteed secure electronic method for me to share my ID, I will send Mrs Susannah Bellingham a copy of the ID required via the post as soon as I return from leave (this weekend). 

As soon as Mrs Bellingham receives my ID I expect no further delay relating to the release of the information I have requested. 

I expect this flagrant abuse of public trust to cease immediately.

Yours sincerely,

Suzie Newman