Statement on CQC Video

In Light of the recent public statements by David Behan and Andrea Sutcliffe of the CQC with regard to Des Kelly OBE, I will be publishing all the three hundred pieces of Independent factual evidence that proves what Mr Kelly knew, when he knew it and what he did about it. All those who have harboured Mr Kelly and allowed him to rise to such a powerful position will have to answer for the stance they have taken in protecting a man who denied and covered up abuse and consistently called the whistle-blowers liars. Mr Kelly recently featured in a Guardian Newspaper article by David Brindle, this article said Mr Kelly brought up the case of the BUPA 7 and said he was anguished by what happened. The suffering inflicted on defenceless elderly people is real anguish and the article concluded “The truth May never be known” I stopped fighting the injustice in order to help others but realise the best way to help them is for the truth to be known and for all whistle-blowers to be protected by a full inquiry by jury into all historical whistle- blowing cases starting with first case under the whistle-blowers law, that is the BUPA 7 case. The truth will be known and shame on all those who stood with Kelly, we stand with Edna.

The conclusions of Ashford Employment Tribunal all depended on the credibility of Mr Des Kelly. This section deals with the just the issue of the re-deployment of the abuser Maria Keenahan. Referred to as MK

Mr Kelly’s Evidence.
( Note: After the exchange of evidence took place and Mr Kelly had seen the applicants statements, he submitted a further statement changing his evidence)

Mr Kelly’s First Statement.
This contains no reference to the first attempted redeployment of M.K at Anne Sutherland Care Home, No reference at all to any home, or to any possible re-deployment being stopped.

Mr Kelly’s Second Statement.
Paragraph 53
“On 14th of December 1999 I was advised of concerns by RIU ( The registration and Inspection Unit) of the redeployment of Maria Keenahan to Faircroft another Home in the Care First Group registered with Bromley but not operated as part of the Bromley contract.”
Mr Kelly makes no reference at all to the earlier attempted redeployment of MK to Anne Sutherland House.

The Bupa 7 Whistle-blowers all included in their witness statements the following evidence.
1. At the end of August 1999 the 7 whistle-blowers discovered that MK was to be redeployed to another care home Anne Sutherland House after the August bank holiday weekend. They disclosed this to the Regulator, Richard Turner who immediately took action to stop this happening.
2. Early December 1999 The Whistle-blowers discovered MK was working at Faircroft Care Home, they immediately informed the regulator who was completely unaware of this.

When there are two different versions of events I would expect any independent expert evidence to be considered.

The Independent Evidence from Richard Turner of The RIU (Who were the “Proscribed Regulator” under PIDA ( The Public Interest Disclosure Act)

Richard Turners Evidence.
Paragraph 46 “On 27th August I received information via one of the managers of another residential care home in the Care First Partnerships limited Group who reported to Monica Handscombe ( Regulator Inspector) that Maria Keenahan was to be re-employed at Anne Sutherland House another home in the group in a similar capacity to that she had had at Isard House. It was on or around that date that I also received a call from Eileen Chubb to say that Maria Keenahan was to be re-employed at Anne Sutherland House as a team leader on their unit for the elderly mentally infirm. At that time, Maria Keenahan was under arrest and on police bail whilst we were making further inquiries regarding theft from residents”

Paragraph 47 “We managed to ascertain that Maria Keenahan was due to start work first thing on Tuesday, 31st August after the bank holiday Monday. On the evening of Friday, 27th and over Saturday 28th and Sunday 29th I contacted Mr Kelly at his home and said that the re-employment of Maria Keenahan at Anne Sutherland House was Unacceptable to us, especially as she was on bail with regard to allegations of theft and secondly that in our view she was implicated in both abuse and neglectful behaviour either by herself and members of her team that she was managing on unit three Isard House. He ultimately agreed to prevent her from commencing employment at Anne Sutherland House on the morning of 31st August. Which I understood that he did because I phoned Anne Sutherland House to confirm that this had happened”

Paragraph 48 “ On 1st of December 1999, Eileen Chubb and Karen Hook came to the civic centre and spoke with Monica Handscombe and Carl Sewell, the Chief Executives Monitoring Officer and informed them that Maria Keenahan had been at Faircroft a home in the management of Care First Care Homes Ltd and not under direct contract to the London Borough of Bromley”

Paragraph 51 “We looked at the records at Faircroft from which it appeared that the rotas had been altered and the name, Maria, Tip-exed out on at least one of those I had seen. This rota was hanging up in the office upstairs. Further rotas were held in the managers office in the basement which we did not have access to that evening. We returned at 8.30 the following morning and waited for the manager to arrive at 9.15. We interviewed Mrs Edmonds at that time and finally agreed that Maria Keenahan had worked there since September “

Paragraph 53 “Carol Newton ( BUPA Regional Manager) had brought Maria Keenahan to Faircroft at a time when the manager was not on duty. We Subsequently ascertained that this had occurred on August 31st immediately after she had been Prevented from working at Anne Sutherland House. Mrs Edmonds had not raised the issue of Maria Keenahan with anyone else. Her view was that there was not a shred of evidence to back up the allegations which had been made against Maria Keenahan.

Paragraph 56 “I received replies from Mr Kelly to my letters who stated that Maria Keenahan had been re-deployed at Faircroft because he had insufficient evidence to continue her suspension due to the fact that the written allegations made by the Whistle-blowers had not been able to be released to him and therefore he felt that the balance of evidence against Maria Keenahan was insufficient to keep her from being employed. I made it abundantly clear in correspondence that I did not agree with this view. She had been on bail at the time of her re-deployment for theft and that with the other allegations of such a serious nature that we had received we Demanded that her suspension continue”

Paragraph 60 “Care First Partnerships Ltd received the first draft of the completed inquiry report on August 3rd 1999 and the final version after correspondence between by 5th November 1999 . We considered that we had made our position abundantly clear with regard to all those members of staff who were implicated. It was made clear at the time when attempts were made for Maria Keenahan to be employed at Anne Sutherland House that this was not appropriate and Mr Kelly finally agreed that this was the case. I have a Full Record of the communications that took place between myself over the weekend of 28th August and Mr Kelly over the possible redeployment of Mrs Keenahan at Anne Sutherland House”

The Verdict Page 33
Paragraph 96 “It was decided to place Ms Keenahan in Anne Sutherland House, another home run by the respondent at the end of August. Mr Turner learnt of that intention and told Mr Kelly that the proposal was unacceptable to him. Mr Kelly agreed not to place Maria Keenahan at Anne Sutherland House”

Paragraph 102 “Towards the end of November Mr Kelly decided that it was now appropriate to employ Maria Keenahan at Faircroft another home run by the respondent. Mrs Hook and Mrs Chubb became aware of this fact and brought it to Mr Turners attention Mr Turner wrote to Mr Kelly and complained about Maria Keenahan re-employment”

Summery by Eileen Chubb
The verdict finds also that this fact in not connected to the resignations of the whistle-blowers, that stated
“We feel that as we have had to report the Carer Maria Keenahan to the Civic Centre three times and with regard to three of your care homes, this has made us realise how hard it would for us to continue to work for you as if we had to report abuse in the future we know no action would be taken to stop abuse.
We feel we can no longer work in care as a result of the abuse we witnessed.
We feel that all times we did our best for the residents in our care and we know if we had to fight abuse again we would not hesitate to do so and as a result of this we feel we have no place in your Employment”

However the evidence clearly contradicts this conclusion in the verdict.
In order to judge Mr Kelly’s credibility consider the following,

Mr Kelly attempted to place Maria Keenahan in the first care home Anne Sutherland House on August 31st 1999 and was stopped by the regulator. Mr Kelly then placed Maria Keenahan in Faircroft On August 31st 1999. The same day he was prevented from placing her in the first home. The verdict can not reconcile this fact and find Mr Kelly credible. The evidence available is completely Ignored and instead a conclusion is reached that is totally contradicted by the facts.
This is not the only issue as over three hundred other issues are contradicted in the verdict conclusions by copious independent factual evidence.
Had the verdict been a magazine citing such content the whistle-blowers could have sued for libel however because a judge tampered with evidence he is immune and unaccountable. The fight for the truth left no stone un-turned but there was no accountability then and there is no accountability for others who have suffered the same fate.