serious case review - Tiffany Sellman Burdge

kreynolds made this Freedom of Information request to Kent County Council

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was refused by Kent County Council.

Dear Kent County Council,

I wish to ask some questions under FOI legislation to Rosalind Turner, Managing Director, Children Families and Education (Kent County Council) or any other council executive who wishes to answer relating to the recent murder/manslaughter of a 25 day old child named Tiffany Sellman Burdge in Kent in November 2008. (Victim under one year).

1) Can you provide a copy or at least a summary of the serious case review as neither the Kent County Council site nor the KCSB (Kent Safeguarding Children Board) website has any information whatsoever in respect of this matter. People in kind and the wider community have a right to at least see the summary

2) It is claimed “"An independent review of this case identified a missed opportunity within children's social services to share information. This was an isolated example of human error.”

Could you describe the error in further detail so people can understand this a bit better.

3) In an interview conducted on BBC News found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/... you claim “children had been removed from his care for neglect” – this is the first thing you say. You follow this up with “the trouble was there was no conviction as I say”. But all newspaper reports suggest two convictions one for ABH and a second being caution for child cruelty. Can you explain how “the trouble is there was no conviction as I say”? It would appear according to police records there is a conviction so were you still unaware of this when you did this interview or are you simply trying to mislead the public?

4) At 02:45 in this interview Ms Rosalind Turner again claims the man has no conviction. Is this statement correct? I have read various newspapers and claim the man has two convictions so is this statement not highly misleading, dishonest and fraudulent?

5) In your justification of the councils conduct you use the term “human error” to explain why the concerns were not noted on the system or acted upon. For the purposes of clarify if the social worker had not made a “human error” what procedure or protocol would that social worker have followed in Kent?

6) What is your procedure today if a concerned father, fault member and so on reports concerns? Please provide the procedure or protocol to be followed. Does any document or referral form exist?

There is a news report : http://www.kentnews.co.uk/kent-news/Labo...

This suggests Mike Eddy called for an independent review of Kent’s child protection services in the wake of the Baby P tragedy in Haringey, North London.

Mr. Eddy said his Labour group wanted to ensure that child protection services in Kent were robust enough to stop this happening in Kent, so moved a motion at a full county council meeting in December 2008 for an independent review.

This was a month after the death of Tiffany Sellman and he feels councillors should have been made aware of the case when the review was conducted.

The review concluded that social workers were being restricted by the amount of paperwork required by central government.

But Mr Eddy – who lost his seat at the recent county elections and saw his Labour Party decimated at County Hall - argues that this paperwork was needed, as was shown in the Sellman case, for different agencies to share information.

He said: “Perhaps if the paperwork had been done in this case then we would not be in the position we are in now.

“I also find it hard to believe there was no mention of a case of this severity in the review. There was a lack of openness and transparency in the way the county council dealt with this issue.”

It is then stated a KCC spokeswoman said: “KCC could not brief councillors on the case of Tiffany Sellman as it was subjudice and this could have harmed the criminal investigation. The details were highly confidential.

7) Why were the details highly confidential? Persons charged are normally named in newspapers and even on police websites?

8) How would naming the person prejudice his trial?

9) Why could the members not be told in confidence that this appalling crime had taken place?

Yours faithfully,

k Reynolds

DA left an annotation ()

Can anyone explain or point me in the direction of why manslaughter instead of murder in this case? This is all so wrong. My Gt nephew was murdered by a violent offender, this has to stop and I have been trying to get this addressed since 2007!

Kent County Council

Dear Mr Reynolds

Thank you for your email below.

I acknowledge your request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. Assuming we hold this information, I will endeavour
to supply the data to you as soon as possible but no later than 21st April
2010 (20 working days from date of receipt).

I will advise you as soon as possible if we do not hold this information
or if there are exemptions to be considered and/or any costs for providing
the information. Please quote our reference - FOI/10/0343 in any
communication regarding this particular request.

Best regards

Corporate Access to Information Team, Chief Executive's Department
Kent County Council, Legal & Democratic Services, Room B.48, Sessions
House, County Hall, Maidstone. ME14 1XQ.
Tel: 01622 696265 or 01622 694261 - Fax: 01622 696075
[1]http://www.kent.gov.uk/your_council/have...

show quoted sections

kreynolds left an annotation ()

If you go to the Kent Police website: http://www.kent.police.uk/News/Latest_Ne...

I will copy this out as they may well change it but you will find out some quite astonishing information.

It claims Kent Police began an investigation into the death and arrested Christopher Sellman on suspicion of murder on 2 November 2008. Of course on 1 November 2008 Tiffany died, just 25 days old, at Kings College Hospital in London.

He was later released on bail pending further investigation until 2 February 2009.
3 MONTHS ON BAIL FOR MURDER?

The news article then claims “Christopher Sellman previously from Greggs Wood Road, Tunbridge Wells, was charged on 4 June 2009.”

So it took Kent Police six months to charge Christopher Sellman with murder and it appears for at least three of these months he was out on bail to do as he pleased and give out six different versions of what happened

One would question the pace of Kent Police’s investigation here. It is also quite possible further offences were committed on bail as according to this article the man was out at leisure on bail for the crime of murder for at least three months?

The bottom of the article states “A CT scan was carried out at the hospital which revealed a fractured skull and bleeding in the brain. Tiffany was taken to Kings College Hospital the same day, where she died.”

He should have been charged the following morning with murder, put it to the jury – justice delayed, justice denied. It looks to me like they never even wanted to charge him. How can you explain the ridiculous delay? If the man has six different stories you take him to the charging desk. I’d say the charge ended up getting dropped down due to a botched Kent Police investigation looking at that press release and he may well have committed offences whilst on bail. Kent Police have him out for at least three months on bail then it looks like he is finally held in custody (breach of bail conditions or crime committed whilst on bail?) before finally being charged on 4 June 2009. That is one very slow investigation into A CT scan result at the hospital which revealed a fractured skull and bleeding in the brain and a man giving six different stories of how it happened

Copy of Kent Police Press release:

Man found guilty of the manslaughter of his daughter
Christopher Sellman will be sentenced in April

A 24 year old man has been found guilty of the manslaughter of 25-day-old Tiffany Sellman Burdge.
Christopher Sellman previously from Greggs Wood Road, Tunbridge Wells, was charged on 4 June 2009. He pleaded not guilty and a trial began at Maidstone Crown Court on 1 February 2010. Sentencing has been adjourned until 28 April 2010.
Investigation led to Sellman
On 1 November 2008 Tiffany died, just 25 days old, at Kings College Hospital in London.
Kent Police began an investigation into the death and arrested Christopher Sellman on suspicion of murder on 2 November 2008. He was later released on bail pending further investigation until 2 February 2009.
Throughout the investigation officers established that Sellman could not give an accurate account of what had happened to Tiffany prior to his 999 call. The court heard how Sellman had told a number of people at least five different accounts of what had happened.
Sellman unable to provide a consistent account
Detective Chief Inspector Dave Chewter said: 'I'm pleased the courts have found Sellman guilty for the death of a defenceless child. He has never been able to provide a consistent account of what happened to Tiffany and I am pleased the jury has delivered this verdict.
DCI Chewter continued: 'Tiffany was a well cared for baby, her mother Pamela looked after her with love and devotion. She left her daughter with Christopher, Tiffany's father, on just this one occasion while she visited family for the first time since the birth. When she left the house, Tiffany was well and had just been fed. She left her daughter in the hands of someone who should have been there to protect and keep her safe.
'Pamela's life has been turned upside down and to this day, she continues to struggle with her terrible loss.'
Sellman called an ambulance just after 3pm on 1 November 2008 claiming Tiffany was losing colour and had gone 'all floppy'. An ambulance arrived at their home in Greggs Road and treated Tiffany before taking her to Kent and Sussex hospital for further treatment.
A CT scan was carried out at the hospital which revealed a fractured skull and bleeding in the brain. Tiffany was taken to Kings College Hospital the same day, where she died.
Posted on: 17 March 2010

kreynolds left an annotation ()

Ok just to update this again. I have read on Kent News: http://www.kentnews.co.uk/kent-news/Chil...
“He was released on police bail while the probe continued, but on February 2 last year he was charged with manslaughter.”

It would appear the Kent Police press release fails to mention this fact which is obviously rather unhelpful for us people wanting to find out what happened and why? So just for clarity it now appears he was charged with manslaughter on 2 Feb 2009 then charged with murder in June? Why can’t the Kent Police press office put this in the press release it would be useful.

The charge was reduced to manslaughter on the direction of the judge; the jury was not given the option to convict him of murder. I can’t explain DA why the charge got put down to manslaughter but it was on direction of the judge. So if you really wanted to know would have to perhaps check the court record, it could be legal argument, not enough evidence or there may have been an error somewhere in the charging process. It’s notoriously difficult to find out after the case as you usually have to be what’s known as an “interested party”, that means family member etc. Obviously the reporter’s who were at court might know a bit more. I personally myself think it’s wrong and again it would be interesting to know the reason why the charge was downgraded but it is not reported in any news article that I have seen.

Regards

KR

DA left an annotation ()

Thx KR

This perp has not been sentenced yet, reading through. Sentences can be referred to the AG, and anyone can do that within 28 (I think) days of the sentence. I appreciate knowing as much as poss on this. Not sure what ur connection is but the more people question these types of dealings the better.

DA

Dear Kent County Council,

Can Kent County Council clarify what “law” is being used to delay the response in respect of this matter? The person concerned in this case is convicted; sentencing is not a reason to delay disclosure.

Delayed due to “law”, what law? Please provide further detail and explanation.

This request is for every child in Kent under a care or supervision order including my boy.

There is no corporate responsibility or accountability within Kent County Council.

Yours faithfully,

kreynolds

Kent County Council

2 Attachments

Dear K Reynolds

Thank you for your request for information made under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay
in sending this information to you. I appreciate we have not complied
with statutory timescales on this occasion.

We have answered your questions below in the order they were raised.

1) Serious Case Review Executive Summaries are public documents and can
be obtained from the Kent Safeguarding Children Board (KSCB) on request.
The KSCB website provides a list of cases which have been the subject of
a Serious Case Review. The address is www.kscb.org.uk. To navigate to
the Serious Case Review site you will need to follow 'About KSCB' then
follow 'sub group', then 'SCR Panel'. On this occasion I have done this
for you and attach a copy for your information.

2) The 'independent review' referred to is the Serious Case Review
attached and explains the circumstances of the case and the findings of
the review.

3 & 4) Ms Turner was referring to convictions of physical assault in
respect of Mr Sellman's children as described in the Serious Case Review
. Please refer to the Serious Case Review summary attached, Section 2,
third bullet. The independent report states that Mr Sellman was
cautioned for neglect.

5) When a social worker, or any professional, is given information that
a child is at risk of harm they are required to refer the child to
Children's Social Services. An investigation of the information will
then be arranged. This procedure is set out in the Kent and Medway
Safeguarding Procedures which you can find on www.kscb.org.uk.

6) The procedure is set out in the Kent and Medway Safeguarding
Procedures. Professional referrers are asked to complete a referral
form.

7, 8 & 9) Local Safeguarding Children's Boards (called the Kent
Safeguarding Children Board in Kent) and partner agencies are given
guidance on how to conduct Serious Case Reviews. The guidance in this
case is contained in Working Together 2006 published by the Department
for Children, Skills and Education and is obtainable on their website.

Serious Case Reviews are independent reviews of the child's
circumstances and how agencies worked together to protect the child.
The purpose of the review is to understand what happened and to make
recommendations where appropriate to the Local Safeguarding Children
Board and partner agencies about what needs to be done to improve
services to children. The final reports are anonymised to protect the
confidentiality of the child, his or her siblings and family members.

In some circumstances when it is believed by the Police and the Crown
Prosecution Service that a crime was committed against a child there may
be criminal proceedings running at the same time as the Serious Case
Review is being coordinated. In these circumstances it is often the
case that the Serious Case Review Executive Summary will not be
published until after the trial . This is to so as not to prejudice the
outcome of the criminal proceedings by making information about the
alleged crime available to the public through the Serious Case Review.
The Kent Safeguarding Children Board is advised by the Police and the
Crown Prosecution Service in these circumstances.

Serious Case Reviews take approximately four months to six months from
start to finish. Kent County Council Members are briefed at the
conclusion of the review when the facts are known and the review is
ready to be published.

If you are unhappy with this response, and believe KCC has not complied
with legislation, please ask for a review by following our complaints
process; details can be found at this link
http://www.kent.gov.uk/your_council/have...
s/complaints_procedure.aspx on our website. Please quote reference
FOI/10/0343.

If you still remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you can
appeal to the Information Commissioner, who oversees compliance with the
Freedom of Information Act 2000. Details of what you need to do, should
you wish to pursue this course of action, are available from the
Information Commissioner's website
http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom...

Regards

Michelle Hunt
Access to Information Co-ordinator
Communication & Information Governance
Children, Families & Education Directorate
Kent County Council
Room 2.35, Sessions House
Maidstone, Kent, ME14 1XQ
External: 01622 696692
Internal: 7000 6692
Email: [email address]

show quoted sections

Dear Kent County Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Kent County Council's handling of my FOI request 'serious case review - Tiffany Sellman Burdge'.

Getting down to the nitty gritty let’s go “back to basics” as our old PM John Major would say.

Re my questions that is 3) which were as follows:

In an interview conducted on BBC News found here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/... you claim
“children had been removed from his care for neglect” – this is the
first thing you say. You follow this up with “the trouble was there
was no conviction as I say”. But all newspaper reports suggest two
convictions one for ABH and a second being caution for child
cruelty. Can you explain how “the trouble is there was no
conviction as I say”? It would appear according to police records
there is a conviction so were you still unaware of this when you
did this interview or are you simply trying to mislead the public?

And No.4 which was as follows: At 02:45 in this interview Ms Rosalind Turner again claims the
man has no conviction. Is this statement correct? I have read
various newspapers and claim the man has two convictions so is this
statement not highly misleading, dishonest and fraudulent?

I must respond to this. Ms Turner does not mention this man’s convictions in a news report to the BBC. I fail to see how she can mislead the public like this. It is quite clearly stated the problem is “the man has no conviction as I say”. Please watch the news report and get back to me with an answer. It is stated very clearly and in a quite robust/arrogant type fashion “that the trouble is the man had no conviction as I say” or words to those effect. The independent report to my knowledge states the man was not just cautioned but additionally convicted for a serious violent assault on a family member. So why did Rosalind Turner seek to cover this information up in her interview to the BBC when it is quite clear the man has prior convictions? That is dishonest and my question has not been answered or addressed. Please explain why Rosalind Turner Director of Kent Children services believes that this gentleman has “no conviction as I say?” This is a dishonest pack of lies.

Question 5: In your justification of the councils conduct you use the term
“human error” to explain why the concerns were not noted on the
system or acted upon. For the purposes of clarify if the social
worker had not made a “human error” what procedure or protocol
would that social worker have followed in Kent?

My Response

This KCSB website is an absolute shambles everything you click on is a broken link. I asked you for the Kent County Council procedure not a link to a website domain. Please provide the information requested. I have no interest in website domains, I want to know what the procedure is. Answer the question!

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/se...

Yours faithfully,

kreynolds

kreynolds left an annotation ()

Sorry my link in the above article does not seem to be correct, I used the link provided by KCC but appears they have altered the address (what a surprise). : The correct link is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/...

Corrupt dishonest Rosalind Turner makes a laughing stock of the death of
Tiffany Sellman Burdge

Systems taking to each other apparently it’s a “holy grail” says Rosalind Turner. So what is the Birchard report then?

Disgrace.

kreynolds left an annotation ()

About 00:50 “They had no reason to work with this family”.

No shame. No accountability, nothing

DISGRACE

Kent County Council

4 Attachments

Dear Mr Reynolds

Thank you for your email.

I am sorry you are unhappy with my colleague's response to your request
for information (copy attached).
<<FOI/10/0343 - CFE Response to request received 22 March>>
The purpose of an internal review is to investigate and ascertain whether
the public authority, in this case KCC, has complied with Freedom of
Information legislation, namely to confirm or deny that whether KCC holds
the information requested, and if it does, to supply it to you within
20-working days subject to any exemptions to disclosure that may apply.
Therefore, on behalf of the interim Chief Executive, I have revisited your
request to see if KCC has satisfied its obligations under the Act.

As your request was received on Monday 22nd March, you should have
received a reply as soon as possible but in any event, no later than 21st
April. The response to your request was not emailed to you until 4th May
so I accept that KCC failed to comply with statutory timescales on this
occasion and I therefore uphold this element of your complaint and offer
my sincere apologies on behalf of the Council.

With regard to whether KCC complied with your request, you asked for a
copy or summary of the serious case review (Q1). Ms Hunt explained to you
where on the KSCB website you could find the Executive Summary. I have
followed the links she provided and concur with you that there is no
mention of Tiffany's (alias "Brooke") Serious Case Review on the KSCB
website and that web links do indeed appear to be missing or broken.
However, as she provided a copy of the Serious Case Review Summary anyway,
it would appear to me that this element of your request has been
satisfied. Steps have been taken to ensure that the KSCB website is
corrected.

You asked for a further details about the "human error" mentioned in a
quote you'd provided (Q2). Ms Hunt advised you that the information to
answer this is contained within the Serious Case Review Summary which it
is. However, for clarity, please see the bullet points on page 7.

You queried the validity/accuracy of statements made by Rosalind Turner
regarding Mr Sellman's caution (Qs 3 & 4) as they appeared to differ from
other sources of information which suggested he'd previously been
convicted. Again, Ms Hunt directed you to the relevant section of the
Serious Case Review Summary namely section 2, third bullet point, which
says :

Both Mr S and his partner accepted cautions for charges of neglect;
neither parent was prosecuted on charges of physical assault following
representations from Cafcass to the Crown Prosecution Service.

This explains where Ms Turner obtained her information from, and the
rationale for her comments to the media which were based on this
information, so again I conclude that these elements of your request have
also been satisfied.

The fact that you do not believe that the information held by KCC relating
to Mr Sellman's background is correct I am afraid falls outside the scope
of an FOI review.

You asked for the procedure or protocol that should have been followed by
the social worker had they not made a "human error" (Q5). Ms Hunt referred
you to the Kent Safeguarding Children Board Procedures 2009 on the KSCB
website and this document can actually be found on there quite easily (go
to [1]http://www.kscb.org.uk/ - click on the Policies & Procedures link on
the left hand side of the page). However, for clarity, I have provided a
direct link to the actual document
[2]http://www.clusterweb.org.uk/UserFiles/K...,
please see section 6, Referral and Assessment. Please note that as this
manual is 474 pages, it will take quite a time to load up.

You asked for the procedure or protocol should a family member report
concerns (Q6). Again, Ms Hunt referred you to the above manual. For
clarity, please see section 4.6, Referrals from Public to Agencies.

With regard to the final three elements of your request (Qs 7, 8 & 9), Ms
Hunt provided a comprehensive explanation as to why details are kept
confidential and referred to guidance issued by the Department for
Children, Schools & Families on how to conduct a serious case reviews as
well as refer to the DCSF website where it can be found. I have attached a
copy now for your ease of reference.

<<Working_Together_2010_chapter_8.pdf>>
I therefore consider that KCC has fully satisfied your request for
information by providing you with answers to all nine questions using the
information it holds and has supplied copies of all relevant policies and
procedures where applicable. The Act does not place any obligation on KCC
to create information to satisfy requests.

I trust that this explanation now satisfies your complaint. However, if
you are still unhappy with the decision, you can appeal to the Information
Commissioner, who oversees compliance with the Freedom of Information Act
2000. Details of what you need to do, should you wish to pursue this
course of action, are available from the Information Commissioner's
website [3]http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom... or
you can phone the ICO Helpline on 08456 30 60 60.

Best regards

Caroline Dodge
Corporate Access to Information Coordinator, Chief Executive's Department
Kent County Council, Legal & Democratic Services, Room B.48, Sessions
House, County Hall, Maidstone. ME14 1XQ.
Tel: 01622 221652 - Fax: 01622 696075
[4]http://www.kent.gov.uk/your_council/have...

show quoted sections

D. Speers left an annotation ()

My heart goes out to the people seeking justice in this case and we seem to have a system of dealing with complaints which encourages all to dive for cover not resolve it!
Failures do occur but why are we spending a fortune supporting systems which fail to deal with this!

We need to have resolution and that involves seeking that it wont happen to others! Sadly, the current system seems to say "this cant happen again" and means 'until the next tim....when we'll review it and investigate again and come to the conclusion that this must never happen again!'

Make the systems work or scrap the lot and fund us through the courts!

DA left an annotation ()

Agreed D Speers! I try to follow these cases and well if there were 50 hours in a day I'd still be sat here. Fact of the matter is what you say in your note - it will sadly happen again.

Dear Kent County Council,

No I am sorry this is not acceptable.

Watch carefully: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/...

Please watch the news article again. It is stated the “the trouble was there
was no conviction as I say” is the quote made. It is a matter of fact that the person responsible for the crime had a conviction for ABH against a family member. Was Rosalind Turner unaware of this or trying to mislead the public?

The fact that you do not believe that the information held by KCC relating
to Mr. Sellman's background is correct. But the information is the man had a conviction.

On that basis I once again ask why did Rosalind Turner mislead the BBC and public in the TV interview.

Yours faithfully,

kreynolds

D. Speers left an annotation ()

It may well happen again and again but its still unacceptable!
As the saying goes "There will be times when we are powerless to prevent injustices but there must never be a time when we fail to protest!"

DA left an annotation ()

I am indeed one to 'protest'.

Last week I received note back from the Attorney General's office, as I asked for the Christopher Sellman sentence to be appealed as unduly lenient. I have been informed it isn't unduly lenient.

If either of you good people would like to email me on here I will be glad to let you know the full response.

I believe this to be an unduly lenient sentence in the light of information available. I will carry on questioning such processes.

kreynolds left an annotation ()

The words of Lord Laming- 'Respectful Vigilance/Respectful Scepticism,"

Child protection procedures in Kent are a complete scandal. Even if one child can be protected/and/or saved our work on here is worth while.

D. Speers left an annotation ()

As you rightly say DA we need 50 hours in a day to deal with all the injustice out there! I am involved in challenging poor mental health services......on reflection.....maybe more than 50 hours are needed!

Thank you for your protests DA and KReynolds, keep growling because as we are finding, its not the size of the dog in the fight....but the size of the fight in the dog!

As you say one life protected is worth every minute of our time.
Kind Regards
Dee

kreynolds left an annotation ()

We also need protection in place for “whistleblowers”. This is something that has been addressed to some degree within the NHS.

Kent County Council

5 Attachments

Dear Mr Reynolds

Kent County Council has provided all the information it holds to explain
the rationale behind Ms Turner's comments to the BBC several times now,
and it is regrettable you choose not to believe this. We have no further
comment to make on this issue.

As you have now exhausted KCC's internal complaints procedure, you should
now pursue the following courses of action if you remain unhappy.

If you consider the Council has not complied with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 with regard to the handling of your request for
information, you should escalate your complaint to the Information
Commissioner
[1]http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom... and/or if
you consider the Council is guilty of maladministration with regard to how
Tiffany's case was handled or reported, you should raise your grievance
with the Local Government Ombudsman
[2]http://www.lgo.org.uk/making-a-complaint/

I am sorry I can be of no further assistance and future communications on
this subject will be considered vexatious.

Best regards

Caroline Dodge
Corporate Access to Information Coordinator, Chief Executive's Department
Kent County Council, Legal & Democratic Services, Room B.48, Sessions
House, County Hall, Maidstone. ME14 1XQ.
Tel: 01622 221652 - Fax: 01622 696075
[3]http://www.kent.gov.uk/your_council/have...

show quoted sections

Dear Kent County Council,

What an absolutely outrageous response from Kent County Council.

Ms Rosalind Turner’s claim that Mr. Burge had no conviction is quite simply wrong; this is a matter of fact. It is listed quite clearly in the review that Mr. Burge was on a “Referral Order”. You cannot be on a referral order unless you are convicted and have a conviction.

That the Director of Kent Children’s Services continuously go on about this man having no conviction is absolutely disgraceful.
I have asked why the Director and Kent County Council continue to lie on this matter. I am then accused of being vexatious. I put it to Kent County Council you have got it the wrong way round. You are vexatious as you continue to refute a claim which is a matter of absolute irrefutable fact. That is that Mr. Burge was convicted long before the death of his daughter. So the problem was not there was “no conviction” and I have serious issues understanding why the Director makes these false and misleading statements.

Kent County Council respond to me: “it is regrettable you choose not to believe this”

But how many times the man has a conviction, you are the one being vexatious. I am asking why the Director (Rosalind Turner) claims Mr. Burge has no conviction and I being told this dishonest pack of lies. The report produced by KCSB claims clearly Mr Burge is convicted and on a “referral order”. Even if the order was expired he is still convicted.

Kent still tries to claim this man “has no conviction” but he does. How stupid is this? So the problem is the man has no conviction when he does have a conviction plus the cautions for child cruelty and their main defence against their appalling practice is the “man has no conviction”.

I am not vexatious it is Kent County Council who are vexatious. The public have the right to know the truth and someone asking genuine questions about very serious matters has the right to answers. You then say scare public resources but if we can avoid this incident from happening again millions could be saved.

So to summarise Mr. Burge does have conviction this is clearly evidenced within the SCR published but apparently I am still wrong and even vexatious for simply asking for the matter to be corrected. If you watch the BBC clip the Director makes considerable effort in claiming “the problem is there is no conviction" not just at the start but later on. As quoted in my earlier request At 02:45 in this interview Ms Rosalind Turner again claims the
man has no conviction. Is this statement correct? I have read
various newspapers and claim the man has two convictions so is this
statement not highly misleading, dishonest and fraudulent?

The best response from Kent is “it is regrettable you choose not to believe this”. But how can you believe something that is plainly untrue?

There is only vexatious person here and that is Kent County Council.

Watch again: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/...
(Bottom far right)

Even with a video recording they still lie.

Yours faithfully,

kreynolds

DA left an annotation ()

I share your frustration K Reynolds. If the matter about the conviction/s is correct and the interview misleading, intentional or otherwise, I believe this should be rectified. I suggest it is pointless, Kent CC, to antagonise by using words that can indeed be used against you. If you have exhausted your avenues of reply, then it is probably best purely to refer K.Reynolds to the appropriate complaints procedure.
Society will not grasp these social problems if we miss the fact that offenders are re-offending and we keep 'missing' warning signs. I am fed-up, to put it lightly, where SCR's cover 'the detail' by only printing summaries and the statement 'learning lessons' should be banned. More accountability in ALL areas needs to happen, including the areas of probation and parole. Reinforced multi-agency working needs to happen. These are babies lives, we as a society, should be protecting. As long as we release violent offenders back into communities we are putting the risk onto vulnerable people.

Kent County Council

Dear Mr Reynolds

Whilst Ms Turner was aware that Christopher Sellman had a prior conviction for assault against an adult family member, the comments she made in her interview in relation to Mr Sellman were intended to refer to the fact that his conviction was not for physical assault against a child.

We hope this clears up any misunderstanding caused.

Best regards

Michelle Hunt
Access to Information Co-ordinator
Communication & Information Governance
Children, Families & Education Directorate
Kent County Council
Room 2.35, Sessions House
Maidstone, Kent, ME14 1XQ
External: 01622 696692
Internal: 7000 6692
Email: [email address]

show quoted sections

Dear Kent County Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Kent County Council's handling of my FOI request 'serious case review - Tiffany Sellman Burdge'.

[ Kent County Council

4 May 2010
3 & 4) Ms Turner was referring to convictions of physical assault in
respect of Mr Sellman's children as described in the Serious Case Review
. Please refer to the Serious Case Review summary attached, Section 2,
third bullet. The independent report states that Mr Sellman was
cautioned for neglect.

Please explain?

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/se...

Yours faithfully,

kreynolds

Dear Kent County Council,

On 4th May you told me it was physical assault against a child. The you attempt to describe me a vexatious. Be careful with your wording. Read your own response before making such statements!

Yours faithfully,

kreynolds

Kent County Council

Dear Mr Reynolds

Thank you for your email requesting that Kent County Council conducts a
second internal review of this request for information.

As I explained in my 18th June email, your next course of action if you
remain dissatisfied with the outcome of the initial review, is to pursue
your complaint with the Information Commissioner (and/or the Local
Government Ombudsman if you believe KCC is guilty of maladministration).

Best regards

Caroline Dodge
Corporate Access to Information Coordinator, Chief Executive's Department
Kent County Council, Legal & Democratic Services, Room B.48, Sessions
House, County Hall, Maidstone. ME14 1XQ.
Tel: 01622 221652 - Fax: 01622 696075
[1]http://www.kent.gov.uk/your_council/have...

show quoted sections

Dear Kent County Council,

So the brutal death of an innocent child is explained away by “the problem is the man has no conviction” when in actual fact he does in any event. A caution is exactly the same as a conviction for your information. For a caution to be administered a person must admit their guilt. So Mr. Burge admitted that he did assault children but hey that’s okay “problem is there is no conviction” that explains away the issue

SHAME ON YOU

Yours faithfully,

kreynolds