The Maggie Oliver Foundation (TMOF) faces criticism after refusing to inform complainants about the outcome of its internal investigation into Rick Pendlebury. Pendlebury, a disgraced ex-police officer, has been embroiled in controversy due to revelations of his past misconduct. The Foundation’s decision to withhold the investigation’s findings contradicts its own complaints process. This choice has sparked concerns about transparency and accountability. TMOF claims it wants to keep the outcome from becoming public knowledge, leading to this refusal.
Rick Pendlebury’s Troubled Past
Rick Pendlebury, a former Greater Manchester Police (GMP) officer, was sacked for gross misconduct. His actions drew widespread condemnation, including accusations of hacking police computers and stealing sensitive data. Despite these serious concerns, Pendlebury secured a senior role at TMOF, ‘Head of Safeguarding’! He bypassed stringent vetting procedures, putting survivors’ personal data at risk.
A Failure in TMOF Vetting and Accountability
The Maggie Oliver Foundation did not properly vet Rick Pendlebury before placing him in a significant position of trust within the organisation. This oversight shocked many. Given Pendlebury’s history, any charity, especially one working with vulnerable individuals, should have exercised extreme caution in hiring. TMOF’s decision to ignore his past led to Pendlebury having full access to survivors’ private and sensitive data.
Lack of Transparency Reflects the Organisation’s Leadership
The leadership of TMOF, consisting of two ex-police officers (one being Pendlebury), adds another layer of concern. Both leaders display the same lack of transparency and accountability often criticised within police forces. This similarity raises questions about the overall culture within TMOF and its commitment to openness, especially when handling sensitive issues like sexual abuse and safeguarding.
Solicitors Instructed by TMOF to Keep Outcome Secret
In a further alarming development, The Maggie Oliver Foundation instructed solicitors to notify complainants of the refusal to disclose the investigation’s outcome. This action highlights the extraordinary lengths TMOF is willing to go to keep the outcome secret. The involvement of legal representatives raises even more concerns about the Foundation’s commitment to transparency. It suggests a prioritisation of secrecy over the interests of the survivors it claims to support.
Survivors of TMOF Kept in the Dark
The most troubling aspect of this situation is the lack of communication with TMOF’s beneficiaries—survivors of rape and sexual abuse. Despite the severity of Pendlebury’s past misconduct, survivors have not been notified of his past involvement with the Foundation. This omission is particularly concerning since Pendlebury’s role grants him access to their personal information and case details. Survivors deserve to know who has access to their data, especially when the individual in question has a history of misconduct.
Complaints and Legal Action
In response to these concerns, a complaint has been lodged with the Charity Commission. The complaint calls for an investigation into TMOF’s handling of this matter. Additionally, TMOF faces potential civil claims for the data breaches alleged by the complainants. These claims could have significant legal and financial implications for the charity.
Conclusion
The Maggie Oliver Foundation’s refusal to share the results of its investigation into Rick Pendlebury, due to concerns about public knowledge, raises serious questions about the organisation’s transparency and commitment to safeguarding. The decision to employ Pendlebury, despite his tainted past, reflects poorly on the Foundation’s vetting processes. The fact that TMOF is led by two ex-police officers, who seem to mirror the same lack of transparency and accountability often associated with police culture, further complicates the organisation’s position. The involvement of solicitors to inform complainants of the refusal to disclose the investigation’s outcome underscores the lengths TMOF is willing to go to keep this information secret. The lack of disclosure to survivors about Pendlebury’s role and the potential risks associated with his access to their sensitive information adds to the growing concerns. As the Charity Commission reviews the complaint, the Foundation may face further scrutiny and legal challenges.
To Past and Present Survivors.
If you are a survivor, and have concerns about the issues mentioned in this article, we encourage you to reach out to us at UKCP (contact us here). We will not ask for any private data, you can remain anonymous. We can assist you in making Subject Access Requests (SARs) to find out what private data The Maggie Oliver Foundation (TMOF) is processing of yours, and help you obtain a copy of it. Additionally, we can support you in taking lawful action to have your data erased. Your privacy and rights are priority, and we’ll help ensure they are fully respected.
Whilst at first glance TMOF appears to be using the ‘protection of an employee’s right to privacy’as a justification to withhold information it without doubt is being done in the name of the Charity. Such a statement has to be in the name of the Board of Trustees, that more than likely has to be ‘MO’ as she is both the Spokesperson and in this case the person responsible for employment of the ‘offender’ (as reported both ex police officers). It is clear that no such investigation in the name of the full Board is likely to have been carried out independently, that would be essential given the employment of that individual by their own representative in the first place.
Yes essentially the Charity Commission will need to call TMOF to demonstrate to them the full transcript of all matters relating to this matter. I also think this statement fails to openly state the full details of the Trustees in whose name this action was carried out.
Funders and those involved in providing resources to the Foundation must be made aware so that they do not become guilty be association, that be unforgivable.
Given the shocking contents it’s hardly surprising the public have completely lost all confidence in the police force. It seems more interested in protecting itself than the public who pay for them.
Good oh! ?? D201 939T RN Pusser H Deputised amen to that One Father amen ? God so be it okay for God is Great ? amen
NO TRANSPARENCY, ONCE A COP ALWAYS A COP