Edit 1: we can smell de fear already….”It is responsible for receiving, identifying and investigating reports of corruption and misconduct by government, public bodies, public officers and those who receive government money, including contractors and grant recipients.
Full article here: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-05/icac-nt-commissioner-ken-fleming-corruption-allegations-public/10584840
It also has the power to investigate MLAs, courts, tribunals, local government councils and independent officers — which were previously outside the jurisdiction of Northern Territory watchdog bodies.
“There are some serious allegations of real corruption. And it’s really concerning,” Mr Fleming said.
He said issues of contemporary, significant and systemic corruption were his top priority.
“Things like tampering with tendering, deliberately ignoring conflict of interest, obviously stealing money … anything that could constitute a crime and could carry more than a two-year maximum imprisonment penalty is corruption,” Mr Fleming said.
Coffees for Contracts: Hylton Hayes & Eva Lawler & Vicki Baylis, covering up for pedos: Rob Presswell, Hylton Hayes, teachers who did nothing, Police who threaten parents,
un-Education Department covering up for Jeff Parker principal who assaults Indigenous kids, heaps more & more ICAC is coming for uuuuuuuuuuuu :):):)
Northern Territory ICAC is open for business & accepting reports!
Now its time to report corruption & protection of pedo teachers & Police who threaten parents with Defamation Act.
Laurie Andrew is working HARD ON his retirement in WA.
NT DoE gave him $200,000 to pay out his contract. Bye-bye Tweedle Dumb.
& bye-bye serial liar & bully Marion Guppy. So many peeps r 🙂 🙂 to not see ur old face again.
We finish Hylton Hayes story & Ruth Billeter & Jarvis’s NT TRB luv-in soon…….first we must make sum ICAC reports!
GO TO: https://icac.nt.gov.au
Ken Vowles angry at leaks to NT News?
Well done whoever leaked dat. 🙂
More leaks please!!!
Dis payout happened in UK school but follow de same advice for payout from NT GOV for ur kids. Speak to good lawyer.
Read story here: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/21/parents-of-schoolchild-sexually-abused-by-fellow-pupils-given-payout
Another payout story becoz school failed its duty of care to students.
Same for NT schools in ‘BD’ cases (ask Julie Danvers in AEU NT) & ‘BCD’ (ask Ruth Billeter to help u), & lots other schools too!
Australia: Student awarded damages due to harm sustained as a result of bullying (substitute: kissing, touching, washing, hugging) at school:
In brief – School failed to apply its own anti-bullying policies
In May 2013, the NSW Court of Appeal upheld the 2011 decision of the Supreme Court of NSW that St Patrick’s College breached its duty of care to a student when it failed to apply its own anti-bullying policies when it became aware that the student had been bullied.
Student brings claim of negligence against school after being exposed to bullying
On 13 April 2011, in Oyston v St Patrick’s College  NSWSC 269, the Supreme Court of NSW released its decision awarding Ms Oyston, a former student of St Patricks College, $116,296 plus interest in damages arising from harm that she suffered as a result of bullying by other students of the school.
Ms Oyston attended at the school from year 7 to the beginning of year 10, from 2002 to early 2005.
In 2007 she brought a claim in negligence, alleging that she had been harmed as a result of being exposed to bullying by students of the school.
Did the school take adequate steps to satisfy its duty of care?
The issue before Justice Schmidt of the Supreme Court was whether the school took adequate steps to ensure that it satisfied its duty of care owed to Ms Oyston.
Ms Oyston gave evidence that she had been subjected to verbal and physical bullying over the course of three years, from 2002 to 2005, which included name calling, teasing, giggling, sniggering, physical attacks and exclusion.
Ms Oyston testified that she reported the bullying to a number of school staff members over that time period, but the school failed to respond reasonably to her complaints.
Ms Oyston alleged that in 2004 she became sad, anxious, depressed and suicidal. In February 2005, Ms Oyston made excuses not to go to school and her parents removed her from the school when she was 15 years of age.
School claims that student was not bullied or that it was unaware of the bullying
The school asserted that Ms Oyston had not been subjected to behaviour which amounted to bullying. In the alternative, if she had been, the school asserted that it did not have knowledge of the bullying behaviour.
The evidence revealed that the school had implemented two policies which dealt with bullying, contained in the school’s Student Conduct Policies & Procedures and in its Personal Protection & Respect Policy.
However, during the relevant period from 2002 to 2005, the Personal Protection & Respect Policy was under review and was in draft form. Further, the evidence of the school was that the published policies were not in practical operation from 2002 to 2005.
Supreme Court finds that school was aware of bullying and failed to respond appropriately
Based on the evidence, the Supreme Court found that the school failed to take adequate steps to deal with and respond to Ms Oyston’s complaints of bullying. In particular, it was found that in 2004 the school was aware that Ms Oyston had been bullied, noting that she repeatedly collapsed at school was taken to hospital in 2004.
However, the school failed to deal appropriately with Ms Oyston’s bullying complaints, as required under its policies. This was found to be a significant cause of the harm that she suffered.
It was found that the school clearly recognised the risk that bullying could lead to harm to students, given that it had implemented policies dealing with bullying. However, the school breached its duty of care to Ms Oyston when it failed to apply its policies when it became aware that Ms Oyston had been bullied by students.
Ms Oyston appealed the damages awarded and the school cross appealed liability.
Schools must apply anti-bullying policies consistently to prevent harm to students
On 27 May 2013, in Oyston v St Patrick’s College  NSWCA 135, the NSW Court of Appeal affirmed the primary judge’s ruling that the school breached its duty of care to Ms Oyston in failing to take reasonable steps to end the bullying that it was aware of in 2004.
This case demonstrates that the risk of psychological harm resulting from bullying is a foreseeable risk requiring schools not only to implement, but to apply anti-bullying policies consistently to prevent harm to students subjected to bullying.
Steps should be taken to ensure that staff and students understand, adhere to and enforce the policies.