LBWF responds to its critics over Whitefield with what looks like an attempted smear and manipulation of the Freedom of Information Act. Can this be for real?
Two days ago, I sent the e-mail reproduced below to Cllr. Paul Perkins, the council Leader.
It speaks for itself.
It is certainly disappointing to find that the Greens are not stamping out the kind of tactics that have been practised by Labour for many years. Where is the ‘new kind of council’ that they promised? Where is the ‘decisive break with the past’?
It seems to be business as usual.
17 October 2026
Dear Councillor Perkins,
I am writing to you about two matters stemming from recent public interest in the Whitefield child abuse scandal.
On 3 October 2026, Andrew Kersley published an article in The Londoner headed ‘Dozens of children were abused at a Walthamstow school. Why didn’t the council stop it?’.
In this article, Mr. Kersley reports that LBWF responded to his findings twice, and on the second occasion included the following: ‘“But entirely unfounded speculation from individuals unconnected to the case does nothing to help victims”’.
In its context, readers will reasonably assume that this comment is aimed squarely at Mr. Kersley.
However, I am puzzled, because how does LBWF know if Mr. Kersley, or indeed anyone else commenting on Whitefield (including of course myself), is ‘connected to the case’ or not?
Does LBWF keep a data base of who is ‘connected to the case’, and if so what evidence does it use?
And what does the word ‘connected’ actually mean? What criteria are being used to differentiate those who are ‘connected’ from those who are not?
I would hate to think that LBWF is peddling mere smears in order to defend the indefensible, so please will you elucidate?
More broadly, wouldn’t it be better if LBWF responded to criticism by producing counter evidence, rather than simply dismissing the criticism as ‘unfounded speculation’? If LBWF really can ‘robustly and comprehensively refute’ allegations, as it claims in this case, why not publicly do so?
The second matter is perhaps more serious.
On 13 August 2026 I submitted a Freedom of Information request which reads as follows:
‘Re the joint inquiry that LBWF and the MPS set up in 2021 under the London Safeguarding Procedures to investigate ‘complex and organised abuse’ at Whitefield (see FOI666195683 (543846)), please will you:
- forward a copy of the joint inquiry’s terms of reference;
- state who was a member of the inquiry’s Strategic Management Group (NB sometimes referred to by LBWF as ‘strategic leadership group’);
- state how many times the Strategic Management Group met over the following years, with the the [sic] dates of these meetings;
- state whether the Strategic Management Group kept minutes, and produced papers; and…if it did forward complete copies of both’.
I submitted this request because, as I have pointed out to you previously (see e-mail of 13 October 2026), the LCSPR completely misunderstands what a London Safeguarding Children Procedures Chapter Eight inquiry entails.
However, as of yesterday, that is 45 working days later, I have not received a response, nor as the ICO guidelines require, any explanation as to why this specific request has not been answered, and that is despite the fact that I have raised the matter on multiple occasions with Mr. Hynes, copying in Ms. Linzi Roberts-Egan.
The result is that I am prevented from bringing important evidence about the London Safeguarding Children Procedures Chapter Eight inquiry to the special CFSC hearing this Tuesday, and thus prevented from being able to exercise my democratic rights.
Again, perhaps you will elucidate?
Yours sincerely,
Nick Tiratsoo
