If Vicky Tuck's Decision was 'WRONG' it clearly needs REVERSING!

If the Board of the International School of Geneva know any decisions of Vicky Tuck were wrong then it needs to reverse them - & hold all those responsible to account!

A Board member (and lawyer) from when Vicky Tuck was Director-General of the International School of Geneva wrote in 2022 of the "wrong decision Vicky Tuck made" in her capacity as Director-General in 2013. That decision was apparently endorsed by at least the executive committee of the Board of Ecolint (Poole, Ogden, Ras Work & Thornton) and by the President of its Staff Association who were also seemingly content for Pascal Emery (Geneva state representative on the Board) to unilaterally assess complaints about Vicky Tuck at her behest, in apparent breach of the Board Complaints Policy.

This Board apparently had no qualms in failing to address the "wrong decision Vicky Tuck made". This Board apparently had no qualms about Pascal Emery insulting, defaming and medically diagnosing a woman he never even met in order to exonerate Tuck of having, amongst other things, concealed documentary evidence through a formal grievance process. This Board apparently had no qualms about potential impacts for the whistleblower's family in Geneva, including? irreparable?health, reputation, career and financial impacts and impacts in a judiciary which Pascal Emery and the school lawyer, Francoise Markarian are members of.?

But which "wrong decision Vicky Tuck made" was this Board member writing about?

Was it that Vicky Tuck did nothing about her written extreme 'concern' about the work climate in a division of a school she oversaw?

Was it that Vicky Tuck apparently removed a paragraph from a document expanding on this extreme concern of hers, including about a small group of staff?

Was it that Vicky Tuck became personally involved in three cases in which staff in this division claimed to have been mobbed before losing their jobs, including two whistleblowers - & apparently protected the management (& HR) involved?

Was it that Vicky Tuck concealed the key evidence during a formal grievance process about a proven defamation of a whistleblower (and the context), even though it had been provided in hard copy and emailed to her - and (it turns out) that she had emailed it to the management (same as above) who had accepted written responsibility BEFORE the grievance process even started?

Was it that Vicky Tuck never applied the disciplinary procedure she wrote she would be applying?

Was it that, after the whistleblower raised concerns about Vicky Tuck, she was subjected to an escalating alleged campaign of 'psychological terrorisation'/stalker harassment?

Was it that Vicky Tuck repeatedly ignored written requests from the whistleblower that she be provided with a safe working environment?

Was it that the Geneva Labour Inspectorate investigated in 2014, 2015, & 2016 (following disclosures by several) and that the Swiss Federal Police referred the case to the FINANCIAL BRIGADE of the Geneva Police?

Was it that Vicky Tuck unilaterally asked the Geneva state representative, Pascal Emery, to assess complaints to the Board about her in 2015 and had no qualms about this man insulting, defaming & medically diagnosing the whistleblower so that she could be exonerated?

Was it that Board member, Mark Poole, invested in the start-up business of Vicky Tuck's son in August 2015 - in an apparent conflict in interests?

Was it that Vicky Tuck dismissed the whistleblower in April 2015 (in what has been confirmed to be a non-CCT dismissal), coincidentally within days of the Board agreeing (in principle) to mediation and within days of Sussex Police requesting permission to contact the school in connection with illegal accessing of an email in Brighton?

Was it that Vicky Tuck subsequently joined the then head of human resources & a manager (who had both accepted written responsibility for a damaging defamation process against a whistleblower), and a small group of staff in making certain allegations about two whistleblowers in response to the whistleblower's civil claim.

Was it that Vicky Tuck failed to clarify any of this, including in a court of law?

In any case, subsequent Boards have failed to address the irrefutable fact that Vicky Tuck did conceal evidence during a formal procedure.

Has the "wrong decision Vicky Tuck made" had irreparable impacts for over a decade? It seems so, as the whistleblower has substantively evidenced allegations of serious ongoing white-collar crime and judicial harassment.

As more evidence has become available to the whistleblower, she has sought clarification from the Board over confirmed criminal proceedings and records held in several jurisdictions in connection with the case.

In September 2021, the whistleblower filed two further complaints. One was a complaint of blacklisting (legal) supported by written evidence provided to the whistleblower after her legal insurer unilaterally cancelled her contract. The second was alleged legal corruption connected to a property development which is now looming over her home (dating back to 2016).

The Geneva Police apparently referred these these complaints (as well as numerous complaints dating back to 2013) in file P/17792/2021 - relating to the International School of Geneva.

Within weeks the whistleblower found herself subject to interrogation and charges in an alleged SLAPP procedure which she feels has been beset by corruption, foul play and procedural faults, and has been written about in a letter from the EU COMMISSION PROCEDURAL LAW UNIT labelled 'non_comp'. At the very least she feels that access to data and justice has been denied and that the Ministère public

Why would this Board member (lawyer) ask the whistleblower, in 2022, if she could she see herself "agreeing to disagree" or was she insisting on a reversal of Vicky Tuck’s decision”? Why shouldn’t Vicky Tuck’s decision be reversed if even he admits it was ‘wrong’, especially given the impacts.

The Board met and it seems a 'quit claim' was being suggested. The WB was asked about undertakings not to seek "vengeance on the school or anyone else", and was she willing to "live with the wrong decision Vicky Tuck made"? Did she only want Hawley and members of the Board to hear her story - and then drop matters? Could she see herself agreeing to disagree or was she insisting on a reversal of Vicky Tuck’s decision? He suggests that "they" may feel safer and justified in letting the judicial process play itself out, and that this is a way of properly shielding new management and board members for the consequences of something Vicky Tuck decided ..."As a lawyer (mediation) surely he knows that trying to access justice is not a "schadenfreude" & that Vicky Tuck's actions (as Director-General) were apparently unlawful!

No surprise ‘they’ might feel safer in a judiciary which seems to have proven its lack of impartiality, not least in prosecuting the whistleblower instead of her criminal proceedings! Those who have faced criminal proceedings, which Olivier Jornot is keeping ‘top secret’ and who may have records in several jurisdictions.

Who would benefit from a quit claim? Only one party and those who have faced proceedings, it seems!