Lambeth Child AbuseBelow are the spurious and unfounded allegations purportedly authored by Maryn Murray, a white South African female teacher who Brian Pead was forced to sack after she had been found to have been sexually grooming female pupils and having been racist to black male pupils.  This document was authored some eight weeks after she had been dismissed.

These allegations have been annotated in italic typeface to provide FACTS.

• Murray was an unqualified supply teacher.

she had not been CRB checked by Lambeth HR

• Maryn Murray – on her own admission – was not her birth name

• she was extremely close to Anya Hiley, the Connexions Personal Adviser who had access to the contact details of vulnerable children in the Borough of Lambeth

• aged around 30

• claimed to live in Morden

• claimed to have been a head of the IT department at St. Augustine’s School in Ealing


[Page 1 of 8]

1) Identity

• I witnessed Brian Johnson (BJ) operating under multiple identities, i.e.:

o Brian Johnson

o Brian Pead

o Steve Goodfellow


During the interview process in July and August 2005, Brian Pead has sought Lambeth Council’s permission to use the name ‘Brian Johnson’ in his role as Head Teacher of the Old library Centre Virtual School in West Norwood. He had spoken to his daughter, Sorrel Pead (now Sorrel Birch), about a possible change of name. Lambeth Council – through Barry Gilhooly, his line manager – agreed to the use of this name.

Brian thus disclosed the names of ‘Brian Pead’ and ‘Brian Johnson’ to Lambeth. Both names were CRB checked, using the Enhanced Disclosure. The CRB check returned “None Recorded” in all possible categories. At this time, Brian was 52 years old and had no convictions against him.

In September 2005 he commenced a counselling course at the Centre for Professional and Personal Development (“CPPD”). His tutor, Jenny Sandelson at CPPD, had told the trainee counsellors a story in which a client had once pitched a tent in the counsellor’s front garden in order to be closer to her, and there was a discussion around counsellors using a name which was different from their birth name, especially when working with clients whose lives were chaotic. Brian consulted with his daughter and a number of friends and chose a third name “Steve Goodfellow”, so that any clients who were minded to contact him at home or work would not be able to.

Brian did not commence using this name, however, until May 2006, when he volunteered as a counsellor at Whitefield School in Barnet. He was CRB checked (Enhanced disclosure) by Barnet Council. Nothing was recorded against Brian. Evidence: CRB record number 001133462788 dated 06 July 2006, counter signatory Sunitaben Chotai.

In August 2006, Brian volunteered as a counsellor at the Community Drug Service, South London (“CDSSL”) and again was CRB checked (Enhanced Disclosure) with the name of ‘Steve Goodfellow’ and, for a third time, no incidents against him were recorded. He had been continuously CRB checked since 2002, when they came into force. Evidence: Disclosure number: 001148358644 dated 08 December 2006, counter signatory Franco Toma.

At no time was the person calling herself Maryn Murray ever CRB checked by Lambeth. In fact, Lambeth’s Rosa Vaz stated “…We wouldn’t know if agency (or overseas) staff are CRB checked…”

Thus, Murray, who was claiming ‘concerns’ about Brian’s legitimate use of names, had not been CRB checked herself throughout her time at Lambeth.

THE MURRAY ALLEGATIONS: Brian offers counselling and often hands out his business cards showing ‘Steve Goodfellow – Life Coaching’. On several occasions I had to take messages for Steve Goodfellow.

• Murray failed to provide such evidence for these alleged telephone calls to Steve Goodfellow, despite there being a Telephone Calls Log book at the OLCVS.

• At no point did Cathy Twist – the Investigating Officer – ask to see evidence of the frequency, times or dates of these calls.

• Upon Brian’s unlawful suspension, his office was cleared and all of his files removed.

• This pattern was repeated in the unlawful dismissal of Lambeth Headteacher James Walker.


THE MURRAY ALLEGATIONS: I am not aware of any more identities, but am concerned about whether all his identities have been CRB checked and whether his counselling status is legitimate.

Lambeth HR failed to CRB check Murray

• Brian Pead had been training as a counsellor since 2003, where he started at Level 1 at Sidcup Adult Education Centre under the tutor Brenda Green.

• He completed Levels 1, 2 and 3 at Sidcup, but then completed Level 4 at CPPD in Hornsey.

•  At no point did Cathy Twist make contact with CPPD or Brian’s tutor Jenny Sandelson to establish whether Brian’s counselling status was legitimate.

THE MURRAY ALLEGATIONS: Brian has very little knowledge of normal school procedures, e.g. exam procedures, curriculum development, planning etc which often surprised me in light of his claims to be a teacher with a vast amount of experience. In addition, he would often refer to himself having managed people since he was 18 whilst his management in practice does not reflect this experience.

Brian has never claimed to be a teacher with a vast amount of experience. He prefers to allow the facts to speak for themselves.

• Brian qualified as a teacher at Greenwich University (formerly Avery Hill College in Eltham) in 1985. He stayed on for an Honours degree and obtained a First Class honours in 1986.

• In 1986, he was also awarded the Else Haydon Carrier prize from the Principal of Avery Hill College for “excellence in teaching”.

• Also in 1986, Brian had his first book published entitled, “Liverpool: A Complete Record 1892-1986” [Breedon Books]. He had started this book at the age of 14.

• His tutors throughout university commented on his excellent teaching methods (sometimes highly unusual, but effective), his research, his planning and his curriculum planning). The evidence exists in letters and reports from his tutors (copies of which will be made available elsewhere on this website)

• Throughout his teaching career, he had been commended by various colleagues, including Heads of Department, Head Teachers and OfSted inspectors for the quality of his teaching and his planning. He had been invigilating exams since 1986. The evidence for this comes in the form of reports from various colleagues.

• In 1999 he gained 7 out of 7 ‘Excellent’ grades from an OfSTED inspection team. The evidence comes in the form of the OfSTED report.

THE MURRAY ALLEGATIONS: 2). Professional Conduct – Students

Anya Hiley (AH) and Brian had a disagreement (I was present) about his treatment of one of the (not so attractive) female students, Melissa Whitrod (MW). MW would speak her mind to him and he did not get along with her. The disagreement was about arranging a separate area where MW could write her GCSE public exams. AH had been contacted by victim support that alerted her that MW expressed concerns to them that the perpetrators of a mugging (where she was the victim) would be present at the same GCSE exams and in the same room at the school. The person from victim support tried to contact Brian several times and AH left several messages for Brian concerning this as well, but Brian never responded to either of them. As there were concerns regarding MW’s safety, AH suggested to arrange for her to write her exams away from the other students. Brian said that MW is manipulative and that he is not going to allow her to write the exams separately. He said that AH is not realising that she is being manipulated despite AH saying that she had been contacted by an external source regarding this.

Miss Murray’s comment that pupil Melissa Whitrod is ‘not so attractive’ is extremely worrying.

• At no point did Cathy Twist ask Murray why she described pupils in such a way.

• Brian – a parent and experienced teacher and trainee counsellor – did regard Melissa at that stage in her life as ‘manipulative’. It is a trait common to many teenagers (and such adults). Melissa’s own mother agreed that her daughter could be manipulative.

• Neither Melissa nor her mother were interviewed by Cathy Twist to confirm or deny this allegation by Murray.

• The ‘person from victim support’ was never named by Murray and Twist never asked for the name to prove this allegation.

• Murray provided no evidence to show that Brian did not respond to either (I) Anya Hiley or (ii) Victim Support.

• Brian asserts that he contacted both parties.

• The evidence was in the Telephone Log book which was unlawfully removed from Brian’s office after he was suspended.

• Where is the evidence to support the fact that Melissa Whitrod was, in fact, the victim of a mugging?

THE MURRAY ALLEGATIONS: As far as I know Melissa Whitrod did not sit her exams.

• The official Lambeth Council records for the exams taken by Melissa Whitrod in 2006 are incomplete. A Freedom of Information request was served on Lambeth Council and the General Teaching Council (separately). Neither body provided a complete set of lists of students who had been entered for, or taken, exams at the OLCVS.

• However, one record shows that Melissa Whitrod was entered for her English Foundation exam by the WJEC Examining Board. Her candidate number was 0012 and she received a ‘U’ grade.

• In any event, Cathy Twist failed to provide evidence in her Investigation Report to show that Melissa Whitrod had been entered into the exams for Maths and English by Brian Pead.

THE MURRAY ALLEGATIONS: In light of the above I could not understand Brian’s justification of the following:

Cassandra Trimmings (CT) (a very attractive young female student, with whom he spend [sic] a lot of time chatting and in serious one to one conversations outside the office) arrived early in the morning to sit one of her GCSE public exams. However, this particular GCSE public exam session was in the afternoon. Brian went to great lengths in arranging for her to sit the exams in the morning in our office. Her reason why she wanted to sit the exam earlier is because she said that she had to attend a hearing about her boyfriend’s probation.

•  Maryn Murray’s use of the term ‘very attractive female student’ is worrying.

•  Cathy Twist allowing Murray to use such terminology is also extremely worrying.

•  Her use of the term ‘young’ is redundant since all pupils are by definition ‘young’.

•  No evidence was provided by Murray to show that this event occurred.

•  Murray provides no details of the examination taken, the time or the day or even the Examination Board.

•  Where is the evidence that Brian spent a lot of time ‘chatting with Cassandra’?

•  No times or dates or lengths of conversations were recorded by Murray, despite her claiming that she ‘kept a diary on Brian from the first day I arrived’.

•  If she had failed to record these times and dates, why did she not consult with her close friend Anya Hiley, who also appears to have kept such data about Brian’s conversations with female (but not male, it seems) pupils.

•  Could it be that NEITHER Maryn Murray nor Anya Hiley did actually keep such data, and if they did not, then how are they able to make such claims given that they are unable to substantiate their claims with hard evidence?

•  Barry Gilhooly – Brian’s line manager – stated in his interview that there were no private areas in the Old Library Centre (where Brian could have had private conversations).

•  Duane Maddison stated in his interview that he was often present when Brian discussed important matters with pupils of either gender.

•  Duane Maddison stated that when Brian met with Cassandra, her grand-mother was often present.

•  Colin Hill stated in his interview that it was necessary for Brian to have in-depth conversations with pupils because they were highly vulnerable.

•  Nadia Al-Khudhairy (of King’s College, London) a research therapist described the OLCVS as the best pupil referral unit in London (of the 20 she had seen) and that it was such a success because Brian had successfully integrated teaching and learning with therapeutic interventions in order to facilitate the emotional development of the pupils.

•  She suggested that Brian write a paper on his successful methods for publication in psychological and psychiatric journals.

•  At no point did Cathy Twist interview the pupil Cassandra Trimmings.

•  At no point did Cathy Twist interview Cassandra’s grandmother.

•  At no point did Cathy Twist interview Nadia Al-Khudhairy.

•  At no point did Cathy Twist ask to see records of the dates and times of examinations.

THE MURRAY ALLEGATIONS: During the same GCSE public exams there was another incident where a student (Kerrie Hamilton, also a very attractive female student whom Brian often pulled out of her classes to engage in long conversations in private) arrived very late for her exam. Once again, she received preferential treatment in that she was also allowed to sit the exams in the office.

•  In making this allegation, Murray again disturbingly refers to Kerrie Hamilton as a ‘very attractive student’.

•  Disturbingly, Cathy Twist failed to ask Murray why she used such language when describing pupils.

•  Murray fails to provide details of how late Kerrie Hamilton was for the exam.

•  Murray fails to provide details of the alleged ‘long conversations in private’.

•  Murray fails to provide evidence of the alleged improper exam conduct.

•  Barry Gilhooly, Colin Hill, Duane Maddison and Sandra Roach had all stated that there were no private areas in the OLCVS in West Norwood.

•  The centre was covered by CCTV.

•  Brian’s office faced the Reception area and had a wall of clear glass and clear glass doors, so he could be seen at all times.

•  At no point did Cathy Twist interview the 16 year old Kerrie Hamilton or her parents.

•  When Kerrie Hamilton left the OLCVS, her parents thanked Brian for having helped her.

•  At no time did Cathy Twist ask Murray to define the word ‘preferential’.

•  All late-arriving pupils (male and female, attractive and not so attractive) are allowed to sit their exams (within certain time constraints of course. Kerrie Hamilton’s lateness fell within acceptable boundaries permitted by the Exam boards, not Brian Pead).

THE MURRAY ALLEGATIONS: I questioned Brian about these incidents as these were public exams and there are very strict rules governing public exams. I was also worried that it might affect the other students if our centre were to be deemed as conducting malpractice.

•  Murray fails to provide evidence of this alleged meeting in which she claims she questioned Brian Pead.

•  Murray claimed to have kept a diary about Brian Pead from her first day working at the OLCVS in November 2005.

•  At no time did Murray contact the examination boards to complain of malpractice.

•  At no time did Twist contact the examination boards to complain of malpractice.

•  Colin Hill – the examinations officer for the OLCVS – stated that no rules had been broken at any time.

•  Late pupils are allowed to sit exams.

•  How thoughtful of Murray to be concerned about examination procedures at the OLCVS whilst she was grooming female pupils and being racist towards black male pupils.

THE MURRAY ALLEGATIONS: There was another student that Annabel Field (English Teacher) wanted to be entered for exams, Rickkardo Crawford-Burrows (RCB), but Brian was very reluctant to enter him for the exams and treated him totally different from the above-mentioned girls.

•  The Examination Board records show that Rickkardo Crawford-Burrows (candidate number (0026) was entered for the WJEC Foundation exam in English and that he gained an ‘F’ grade.

•  The Examination Board records show that Rickkardo Crawford-Burrows (candidate number 0026) was entered for the Edexcel Entry Level exam in Maths and that he gained a ‘3’ grade.

•  The records show that Rickkardo Crawford-Burrows’ birthday was in April 1991.

•  He was therefore only 15 (and in Year 10) when he took these exams (a year below the usual age).

•  Brian had therefore taken a risk by entering him for both exams a year early.

•  It costs a school money to enter pupils into exams and thus Brian took the risk of ‘wasting’ money to enter Rickkardo a year before he was officially due to sit the exams, but he tried to provide Rickkardo with a (legitimate) early opportunity to obtain some qualifications to give him a better chance of getting into a Vocationally-based centre

•  At no point did Cathy Twist interview the pupil or his parents.

THE MURRAY ALLEGATIONS: Ashleigh Mills (AM) (very attractive, female, year 10 student)

Brian engaged in hours of long conversations with her, after school and sometimes pulling her out of lessons. On occasion this took place outside the school office in a more private area of the centre.

•  It is disturbing that Murray continually uses terms such as ‘very attractive’ and ‘not so attractive’ when describing pupils. Her placing pupils into such categories is remarkably similar to that used by paedophiles when describing/ identifying victims.

•  In his statement to Cathy Twist, Barry Gilhooly, Brian’s line manager stated that there were no private areas in the OLCVS or the Redfearn Centre in Vauxhall (both Centres had CCTV in operation)

•  All Head teachers have the right to withdraw a student from any lesson in order to speak with them on important matters.

•  Duane Maddison told Cathy Twist that he had been present on some occasions when Brian spoke with Ashleigh Mills about her home life. (Her mother had been sectioned under the Mental Health Act and Ashleigh was extremely vulnerable.

•  Duane Maddison told Cathy Twist that Ashleigh’s aunt had been present during many of these meetings.

•  Brian had to withdraw Ashleigh from lessons in order to meet with her and her aunt in his office.

•  Murray fails to provide a log of the dates/ times and length of these ‘long conversations’.

•  Any meetings would have been on CCTV.

•  Notes made by Brian of any meetings were removed from his office during his unlawful suspension and illegally disposed of.

•  At no point did Cathy Twist interview Ashleigh Mills, her aunt or her mother.

THE MURRAY ALLEGATIONS: Brian offered her [Ashleigh] an office job at the school as an admin person and said she could gain a qualification through it.

Whilst I regarded her highly, giving her preferential treatment seemed inappropriate.

•  The records show that ALL pupils were offered jobs at the OLCVS.

•  When interviewed by Cathy Twist, Colin Hill (the examinations officer) stated that all pupils could gain an ASDAN qualification for undertaking various roles around the Centre.

•  Cathy Twist failed to interview all the pupils or their parents/ carers.

•  Cathy Twist failed to ask Murray why she regarded Ashleigh Mills ‘highly’. Could it have been that she found her ‘very attractive’?

THE MURRAY ALLEGATIONS: Chloe Gordon (CG) (very attractive, female, year 10 student)

o I was present when Brian and CG had a conversation.

•  Murray described Chloe Gordon as very attractive, not Brian Pead.

•  Murray failed to provide a date or time or venue for this conversation, despite claiming to keep a diary on Brian Pead “…from Day One…”

THE MURRAY ALLEGATIONS: Chloe Gordon was working part-time at a hairdresser’s salon and was mentioning that her worker’s uniform top was cut too low and that she did not want to wear it.

o Brian said that she should as she could get more tips if she wore a low cut top.

o CG said that she knew, but felt uncomfortable showing her cleavage.

•  Chloe Gordon sought Brian’s advice about what she perceived to be a problem.

•  Chloe Gordon trusted Brian enough to seek his advice.

•  At no point did Brian tell Chloe that she should wear a low-cut top.

•  Brian actually did discuss the possibility of her leaving the hair-dresser’s and finding alternative part-time employment.

•  In a Facebook message of 24 September 2012, Chloe Gordon stated: “…I do remember this conversation, but it’s not like she said it was in her report. You were just a lovely teacher and made me feel safe and determined to learn. There was nothing out of line…”

•  At no point had Cathy Twist interviewed Chloe Gordon or her parents in order to ascertain a different perspective of the conversation from Murray’s.

•  He also quite often pulled some of the girls out of my lessons to chat.

•  Brian also used to withdraw male students from lessons to meet with them to discuss issues. Why has Murray not noted this in her report?

•  She claimed to have ‘kept a diary on Brian from Day One’ – so why was this ‘diary’ never adduced at the Hearings?

3) Professional Conduct – Staff General

• There has been a higher staff turnover than I have experienced at previous schools. In this regard the following is of concern:

o People who have left within less than a year after expressing concerns about BJ (all young females):

– Ellie Whitmore (EW) around 28

– Jenny Foster (JF) around 40-45

– Annabel Field (AF) aged 25

– Maryn Murray (MM). around 30

In addition, Anya Hiley (AH), also a young female (aged around 30) , who has remained at the Old Library Centre, has also expressed concerns about Brian.

• Since when do people aged between 25-45 constitute the term ‘young people’ when used in the same report where ‘young people’ has been used to describe pupils under the age of 16?

• the use of the term ‘young people’ demonstrates the obvious defamatory mindset of the author(s)

• Cathy Twist failed to ask Murray to provide a copy of her CV or CRB checks

• None of the four people mentioned here by Murray (including Murray herself!) had ever raised a single complaint against Brian Pead until after (i) he reported to Barry Gilhooly and Lambeth HR that SHE was bullying HIM (ii) that she had been grooming young girls and (iii) that she had been racist towards black male pupils

•  Eloise ‘Ellie’ Whitmore left because she failed her probationary period

•  Jenny Foster left to return to the primary sector

•  Annabel Field left to pursue an acting career in Bath

•  Murray was dismissed because of bullying, grooming and racism

THE MURRAY ALLEGATIONS: I felt as if he was slowly but surely grooming me into Ellie Whitmore’s job. I can remember telling him that for the last five years I was head of department at St. Augustine’s in Ealing.

•  Note Murray’s use of the word ‘grooming’ – it has obvious sexual connotations and is designed to create doubts about Brian Pead in the reader’s mind

•  note how Murray claims she was working at St. Augustine’s school in Ealing.

•  Cathy Twist failed to ask Murray for evidence of her position at St. Augustine’s in Ealing.


JF had a few disagreements with Brian. There was one particularly big disagreement about an incident in the classroom where she felt that he treated her unfairly and that he did not support her.

JF had a strong personality and was an outspoken person who stood for what she believed in. She later left.

•  note that Jenny Foster never made a complaint about Brian

•  note, too, that she left the OLCVS because she wanted to return to the primary sector

•  note that Murray has conveniently omitted this important fact

•  in his statement in interview, Barry Gilhooly stated: “…I believe Jenny Foster would have complained to Brian if she had needed to…”

•  since she did not complain to Brian herself, why has Murray complained on her behalf here?


AF felt that she was being bullied by Brian.

•  On 17 April 2006, Annabel Field sent Brian an email in which she thanked him for his support and that her experience at the OLCVS had been her “…best teaching experience in London…”

•  Annabel Field never made a single complaint against Brian

•  Annabel Field never complained to any third party that Brian was bullying her. She could have complained to Barry Gilhooly, but Gilhooly claimed he had never received a single complaint from any member of Brian’s staff.

•  She might have complained to the English consultant, Marion Richards, but she was never called by Cathy Twist to interview and besides, had she been approached by Field, she would have had a duty to report it to Lambeth HR and Barry Gilhooly

•  Lambeth HR (in the form of Rosa Vaz) stated that they had never received a complaint against Brian Pead from any member of staff or pupil

THE MURRAY ALLEGATIONS: Annabel Field mentioned to me that she felt violated and vulnerable after being in conversation with Brian.

•  In her email of 17 April 2006, Annabel Field said: “…Thanks for the chat. As you predicted, this has been a very reflective time for me…”

•  Annabel Field never made a single complaint against Brian

•  Barry Gilhooly and Rosa Vaz stated in interview that they had never received any complaints against Brian from either members of staff or pupils or parents of pupils

•  thus there is no evidence to support Murray’s claims

THE MURRAY ALLEGATIONS: On one particular occasion ANNABEL FIELD invited all staff to attend a play that she was performing in.

Brian went with a young female.

•  from earlier comments made by Murray, ‘young’ could refer to anybody from 14 to 45.

After the performance Annabel Field had a conversation with a fellow cast member. The cast member told Annabel that his wife was sitting next to Brian (whom she knew was Annabel’s boss) and the female. During the performance Brian and the female performed sexual acts, one of which she described as the female giving Brian a ‘hand job’. Annabel was embarrassed and shocked and told me about this very soon after the performance.

•  Notice how Murray fails to produce a date or time for this play. Or even names the play.

•  She uses the term ‘young female’ to describe a 25 year old, highly intelligent, assertive, articulate and autonomous individual (Ipek Yylmaz)

•  Murray fails to name the alleged cast member

•  According to Ipek Yylmaz, she and Brian did not sit next to anybody

•  Murray fails to name the ‘wife’

•  Murray fails to tell how the ‘wife’ knew that Brian worked for Lambeth, since they were never introduced

•  Murray fails to describe the other ‘sex acts’

•  Murray fails to provide details of the ‘theatre’ (a back room in the White Bear pub in Kennington

•  Murray fails to say why the police were not called

•  Murray fails to record why the Pub Manager was not called

•  Murray fails to record why the play’s Producer and/ or Director were not informed

•  Murray fails to record that there was no stage and that the actors perform on the floor. Thus EVERYBODY would have been able to see these alleged acts had they occurred

•  Murray fails to record why not a single person appears to have commented on these alleged acts – no-one, for example called the police or mentioned it to the theatre manager or pub staff. No-one called the police from their mobile phones

•  Ipek Yylmaz was never interviewed by Cathy Twist, who liked to claim that her investigation was “thorough”

•  Ipek Yylmaz was prepared to fly to London from her home in Turkey to attend the investigation meetings and speak on Brian’s behalf

•  Cathy Twist failed to visit the White Bear Theatre in Kennington, a little over a mile away from her office in Brixton. Such a visit would have shown that the allegations could not have happened.

•  Just prior to the matter going to a full Disciplinary Hearing, this allegation was mysteriously dropped. No reasons were provided.

•  Upon going to the Employment Tribunal Hearing, this allegation continued to be included in the documentation, despite

(i) it being untrue

(ii) it having been dropped as an allegation

(iii) despite it casting doubt on all of Murray’s allegations and

(iv) despite Cathy Twist being guilty of

(a) perverting the course of justice,

(b) deceiving a court or tribunal, and

(c) misconduct in public office.

THE MURRAY ALLEGATIONS: Annabel Field [AF] frequently stood up for the students that Brian disliked (which he made known), e.g. Melissa Whitrod and Rickkardo Crawford-Burrows. Both were quite headstrong students that would speak their minds. AF experienced no problem with either of them in teaching English, whilst Brian did in Maths, which he was teaching at the time as Fraser Hall was on a three-month tour. AF pushed very hard for them to be entered for exams but Brian was strongly opposed to it.

•  Brian Pead did not dislike either Rickkardo or Melissa. In fact, he liked Rickkardo so much that he tried – after talking with him in a face-to-face meeting outside of Rickkardo’s lessons which Murray fails to note – to get Rickkardo moved to a different type of centre which focussed on Vocational Studies because he wanted to train as an electrician

•  Brian did not experience problems with either pupil and certainly not in Maths (but how would Murray know of this since she was not in attendance during his Maths lessons?)

•  The official Examination Board records show that these two pupils were entered into the exams

•  Cathy Twist failed to interview either of these pupils or their parents

•  Brian had met both the mothers of both pupils. They had never made a complaint about Brian or his treatment of their offspring.


ANYA HILEY was the school’s Connexions Consultant whilst the school was situated in the Old Library Centre. Her office was upstairs.

•  The office was not merely ‘upstairs’ but two floors above the Old Library Centre Virtual School in Knight’s Hill, West Norwood

ANYA HILEY was very involved with our students and Brian would often refer them to see her for career advice, employment and available courses, etc.

•  Hiley was not very involved with the pupils at all.

•  Brian had received complaints from students that she didn’t offer practical advice.

•  Male pupils complained that she cancelled meetings with them at the last possible opportunity and when they tried to negotiate a new date on which to meet, she would set it far into the future

•  Brian did not ‘often refer’ students to her

•  In her interview, Hiley claimed to have ceased speaking to Brian Pead from around January 2006. She claimed this unilateral unprofessional action was because she “…felt uncomfortable around him…He could see things about me… He was insightful…”

The students were well acquainted with her and would often request to see her.

•  This was not true whatsover.

•  Cathy Twist failed to interview any pupils to ascertain the veracity of this comment by Murray.

•  Why did Twist not require Anya Hiley to produce a log of all the meetings she alleged to have had with students from the pupil referral unit?

Anya Hiley filed various concerns about BJ.

Where is the evidence for these ‘various concerns’?

Barry Gilhooly claimed in his interview that Hiley had made only one complaint, that it lacked evidence and that there was no case to answer.

Jenny Foster, Colin Hill, Derek Langan, Sandra Roach, Rosa Vaz, Anya Hiley, Annabel Field, Eloise Whitmore and Maryn Murray herself also stated that they had never received a complaint about Brian from any other member of staff or pupils or parents

their interviews had been with Cathy Twist

• She felt him to be intrusive and he made her feel uncomfortable.

•  Anya Hiley claimed in her interview that Brian was “…insightful and I had no idea how he could possibly know so much about me without my telling him…”

•  No wonder she felt uncomfortable – Brian could see right through her

She was concerned about seeing him in hour-long conversations with the more attractive young female students.

•  so concerned was she that she failed to ever speak with Brian about this

•  so concerned was she that she failed to bring this to anyone’s attention

•  why would Murray not identify the conversations that Brian had with “unattractive” female pupils or male pupils?

• after all, she was ‘keeing a diary from Day One’ on Brian

•  if Anya Hiley worked two floors above the Unit, how was she able to note the length of time of the conversations that Brian had with ANY pupil, let alone “attractive” ones?

•  by her own admission, Anya Hiley did not even work full-time at the Old Library. She was often out of the building on Out-Reach work.

•  Why did Cathy Twist not ask Hiley to produce a timetable of her working practices?

•  Why did Cathy Twist not ask Hiley for the log book and records of these alleged “hour-long” conversations?

•  So what if Brian HAD had such conversations – there were extremely vulnerable and emotionally damaged pupils at the Unit and they needed such attention (as identified by Nadia Al-Khudhairy a research therapist from King’s College, London)

•  Would Hiley have been so concerned had Brian been a FEMALE Head?

•  Why are these “attractive, young” female students not named?

•  Why did Cathy Twist never ask Murray to identify them when she interviewed Murray in January 2007 on two separate occasions?

She saw inconsistency in his treatment of the students.

•  Where is the record of these inconsistencies?

•  Why did Cathy Twist not ask Hiley to produce the records of these alleged ‘inconsistencies’? The official record of the interview between Twist and Hiley shows that this question was never asked.

•  Refer to the comments above about how she could possibly not such inconsistencies when she worked two floors above, was not full-time and was often out of the building on Out-Reach work.

•  Since Anya Hiley was not even a member of Brian’s staff, his running the OLCVS had nothing to do with her. This is akin to the Chairman of ICI criticising the Chairman of Shell on his/ her running of their business.

THE MURRAY ALLEGATIONS: There are various other aspects around these and other concerns which she discussed with her line manager and then with Brian’s line manager.

•  Where is the evidence?

•  Cathy Twist never asked Anya Hiley to provide such evidence.

•  Cathy Twist never asked Brian’s line manager – Barry Gilhooly – to provide such evidence either.


o On my first day at the OLCVS, Brian gave me his home telephone number and invited me to go walking with him in a park / woods near where he lives. I did not take up the offer as it made me feel uncomfortable.

•  There is no evidence to support this.

•  Why is she uncertain whether it was a park or a woods? If this had occurred, why didn’t she simply refer to the ‘diary’ that she stated she kept on Brian ‘from Day One’?

THE MURRAY ALLEGATIONS: Brian also gave me his business card and offered me life coaching. He told me to keep the card private.

•  There is no evidence to support this.

•   Brian had no time to Life Coach her and significantly he had no inclination to Life Coach her

•  She was unable to provide the card she claimed she was given (just as Hiley and Whitmore also failed to provide the business card that THEY claimed they were given. For a man allegedly telling people to ‘keep it private’, he appears to have been handing out these cards like sweets!

•  Nobody would hand out a business card and ask it to be kept ‘private’ – the whole idea of business cards is to promulgate one’s business

THE MURRAY ALLEGATIONS: During the following week whilst I was doing Supply Teaching at the school, Brian invited me out for dinner and drinks, but I never accepted these invitations.

•  Presumably – had this occurred – she would have recorded it in her diary that she claimed to be keeping on Brian “from Day One”.

•  She failed to produce this Dairy

•  Cathy Twist failed to ask her to produce this Dairy

•  “During the following week” refers to which date, precisely?

•  Brian asserts that he never asked her out for dinner or drinks

THE MURRAY ALLEGATIONS: Brian also gave me a poem that made me feel very uncomfortable and which I found inappropriate.

•  Brian circulated copies of poems to ALL members of staff to be used as professional and personal development

•  Sherine Thompson – manager of the Old Library Centre but not the Old Library Centre Virtual School – used to hand out poems to ALL service users of the Centre

•  Murray fails to note these important FACTS

•   Murray fails to state WHY she felt uncomfortable and the poems inappropriate

•  Cathy Twist failed to ask her during two separate interviews

•   Cathy Twist failed to ask other members of staff whether Brian had also given them copies of poems

•  Cathy Twist failed to ask other staff members whether Sherine Thompson used to circulate poems or homilies throughout the Old Library community centre

•   Cathy Twist failed to interview Sherine Thompson

•   Where, therefore, is the evidence that the poem Murray refers to was given to her by Brian or Sherine Thompson?

•  So what IF a poem had been given to her (and other staff) by Brian?

THE MURRAY ALLEGATIONS: The current staff team

o There are other, members of staff that have raised similar concerns with me about Brian’s conduct. However, as they are still employed, I do not wish to document these without their permission. Through personal experience I know that Brian would victimise them if it came to light. In the past he has called people in for one to one meetings finding a way of tricking them into believing that they have been mentioned in a conflict between him and someone else. In doing so he would try to extract information from them and place them under great distress.

•   note how Murray – again- fails to name these people.

•   note that the modus operandi so carefully documented here by Murray is actually one she employs herself

•  at the same time as these allegations occurred, Brian was highly praised by all of his counselling colleagues as being honest, open and transparent in all his dealings, yet Murray appeared to know better

•   note how Murray claims she does not have their permission to document their concerns (attempting to create the illusion that she is a caring, thoughtful and considerate person: this is a personality trait of most narcissists and paedophiles)

•   Cathy Twist failed to ask for names

•   Cathy Twist therefore failed to interview these staff members (how could she without knowing their names?)

•   Why did Cathy Twist NOT interview ALL of Brian’s staff in her “…thorough…” investigation as she likes to claim?

•   Barry Gilhooly stated in his interview with Cathy Twist that he had had never received a single complaint about Brian Pead from any member of staff, any pupil, any parent or any third party (except Anya Hiley, the extremely close friend of Maryn Murray).


Bearing in mind all of the evidence provided AGAINST the Murray allegations, why did Lambeth Council waste thousands of pounds of Taxpayers’ money in carrying out an inadequate investigation, and then a Disciplinary Hearing and then attendance at an Employment Tribunal?

In the Public Interest, you might like to write to Lambeth Council to seek disclosure on this important matter.

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: You are not being invited or incited (nor is this an attempt to incite) to harass Lambeth Council. You are merely being invited to seek the above information in the public interest. You are legally permitted to request this information in the public interest.

© 2013 – 2017        All Rights Reserved