1. When the Education UK website bombed in January 2002, who feared he could see a cloud over a gong?
2. In January 2002 the British Council announced on its website that it had a contract with a consortium of Hotcourses, UCAS, CSU and Yahoo! This was not true. Who in the organisation had the authority to instruct the organisation formally to misrepresent itself?
3. In January 2002 Dr Neil Kemp of the British Council emailed all British Council accredited English language providers, and told them that the Council had contracted Hotcourses, UCAS, CSU and Yahoo! He knew this to be false. Who in the organisation had the authority to instruct Dr Kemp to broadcast this perverse puff?
4. It has taken 7 years for the British Council trustees to entertain a complaint first made in 2002. Who in 2002 had the authority in the organisation so to order things that there would be no genuine investigation of my complaint, and has therefore obliged me to escalate matters to this point?
5. In June 2004, who issued a stitched-up report to mislead serving member of the Cabinet, the Rt Hon Charles Clarke?
6. In February 2005 the British Council’s Freedom of Information officer formally declared that there had been no changes to the contract the organisation had signed (with Education Websites Ltd) in 2001. That was not true. The contract had expired in September 2004 and been switched to another company, and burial arrangements were being made for Education Websites Ltd. Who in the organisation had the power and authority to make the FOI officer Chris Campbell perjure himself?
7. The Education UK website, the flagship of the “Prime Minister’s Initiative” has been a great British disgrace for 8 years, frustrating international students, and obstructing international student recruitment to our educational institutions. See, for example our videos on how it works for Glasgow Caledonian, Wales or EFL. Who is responsible for the mess?
8. In the present investigation, the investigator declines to address the contractual issues, the web announcements, emails, the FOI responses and other matters, did not interview any Council staff and avoided all contact with management, and produces no evidence or any statement from the British Council. Who is being protected? [Answers below]
Can the British Council trustees embrace the spirit of the age and deal with the issue head-on, or will they – in the name of loyalty or perhaps even invoking that old favourite “the national interest” - make themselves formally complicit in this tawdry business? We have senior government ministers embarrassed by porno expense claims while many MPs have resigned or been deselected in this scandal, and we have emerging evidence of how an illegal war was waged, while our soldiers die in far-off places for uncertain benefits. Surely the country can stand the truth about the British Council.
Season’s Greetings to all readers.
1. Santa 2. Santa 3. Santa 4. Santa 5. Sir Santa 6. Sir Santa 7. Sir Santa 8. Sir Santa