Anna Kennedy has been ignoring abuse at her former school Baston School and threatened. autistic campaigner Emma Dalmayne. Kennedy is an anti-vaxxer and many other things.
She has threatened Emma with court cases but she fails to understand, that I am in the United States. Anna Kennedy, if you are reading this, BRING IT ON! My own parents hate me so there is nothing you can do to make me crack.
Anna Kennedy was born on March 12, 1960, in Middlesbrough to Maria and Antonio Sammarone. Her birth name was Dominica Ann Sammarone. She attended Sacred Heart School in Middlesbrough. She opened a dance studio that she ran for years before going to Italy.
Kennedy Married Sean Kennedy who was autistic himself. Sean is a barrister (lawyer) and is also from Middlesbrough. They have two sons together. They’re Patrick and Angelo. When they grew to be school-aged, they were diagnosed as autistic.
They already subscribed to the tragedy narrative by saying that it was so hard to find suitable education for them so they built their own after mortgaging their house. It sounds well and good but they did not even protect the students at a different school that Anna was a Director on the board. She did not even protect the children at this school from abuse.
Antivaxxer
Yes, Anna Kennedy is an anti vaxxer. According to her book “Not Stupid” (yes that is really her book title. Nice huh?), she talks about an organization called Justice Awareness And Basic Support (JABS).
She does not mention that it was formed at the same time their solicitor, also Wakefield’s solicitor, formed a partnership. Something to think about. It was also around the same time Wakefield’s study was retracted by The Lancet.
JABS spreads propaganda for the anti vaccine movement. She describes them in her book:
Members of JABS, a self-help group that neither recommends nor advises against vaccinations, has campaigned to sue the British Medical Council.
JABS was set up to promote awareness and understanding about immunisations and to offer basic support to parents whose children have developed problems with their health after receiving vaccinations.
The organisation has been battling for justice for vaccine-damaged children and for their rights to receive compensation.
I have to say I have some sympathy with it, particularly as its views seem to back up my own doubts about the safety of the triple vaccination.
Anna Kennedy in her book “Not Stupid”
Schools Were Big Business for the Kennedys
Baston House School was set up alongside Moorcroft Manor School by Moorcroft Manor Limited. Anna Kennedy was a shareholder from Moorcroft Manor Limited until November 10, 2008. She was then appointed a director of Baston house in 2009 and resigned on May 20, 2013.
Sean Kennedy was a shareholder from 2001 or 2002 until November 10 2008. He was appointed to be a director on November 23, 2001. He resigned on June 7, 2002. He was then reappointed on October 22, 2022 and resigned on November 10, 2008.
Anna and Sean were both paid directors and received dividends from the company from 2001 until 2008.
Summacare Limited provided temporary support staff. Anna Kennedy was appointed as a director on December 29 2000. Anna Kennedy was a shareholder from the company founding until November 10, 2008. She reassigned on May 20, 2013.
Sean Kennedy was appointed as a director on December 29, 2000. He was a shareholder from 2001 or 2002 until November 10, 2008. Sean Kennedy Resigned on November 10, 2008.
The shares of Moorcroft Manor Limited, Autism Consultants Limited and Summacare Limited were sold to Hillcrest Autism Services Limited on November 10, 2008. This is the parent company that owned Baston House.
Anna Kennedy was a shareholder of Hillcrest Autism Services Limited from start up on November 10, 2008 until May 20, 2013.
According to accounting records on December 31, 2010, Hillcrest Autism Services Limited owed Anna Kennedy 1,240,000 British Pounds and Sean Kennedy 600,000 British Pounds, in the year before.
It is unknown how much money Anna and Sean Kennedy received for shares in Moorcroft Manor Limited, Autism Consultants Limited and Summacare Limited.
Autism Consultants Owned:
- The Old Vicarage, a residential home
- West London Community College with locations at
- Courtyard Campus
- Colne Lodge
- Vinehouse
- Aston House
Anna and Sean Kennedy were both shareholders and directors from March 2000 until May 20, 2008.
The company documented the cost of the shares in its subsidiaries at 6,710,613 British Pounds. It is possible that Anna and Sean Kennedy could have received $3,000,000 British Pounds for the shares owned.
Anna received dividends for three years until Dec 31, 2011. Sean was paid interest for three years until December 31, 2012.
On May 20, 2013, all the shares of Hillcrest Care Limited was owned by the company. The cost of the shares of Hillcrest Care Limited is not known for sure. Anna could have received 39,240 British Pounds.
On May 20, 2013 Outcomes First Group Holdings Limited, the parent company of Moorcroft Manor Limited and Autism Consultants Limited set aside 42,857,142 B preferred shares to Anna Kennedy. These shares were worth 428,571 British Pounds.
Those shares were sold to Boston Holdco A Limited on March 7, 2016. It’s not known for sure what the cost of the shares were. Anna could have made 300,000 British Pounds.
Anna Kennedy Online Charity
Anna Kennedy founded the Anna Kennedy Online charity in April 2009. The trustees of this charity were Sean Kennedy, Marie-Luisa Davison (her sister) and Marie Robins.
The charity’s most current accounts show revenue of 24 thousand British Pounds and expenses of 29 thousand British Pounds. This means that the charity is insolvent, the main creditor is Anna Kennedy.
There are no employees and 25 volunteers. Sean Kennedy is the charity’s lawyer. He is registered as Vine House, Hillingdon. Lisa Marie Robbins recorded the same address when she joined the charity in 2014. The charity is using Brook House, located in Uxbridge, currently. This address also belongs to a company offering serviced offices. These offices can be rented short term.
Vine House is owned by Autism Services Limited, now called Options Autism Limited and is used b y Hillingdon Autistic.
All of this means that Anna Kennedy was directly involved in the management of Moorcroft Manor Limited and so would have been involved in any Ofsted inspection of Moorcroft Manor School and Baston House School until May 20, 2013.
May 20, 2013 until March 7, 2016, Anna Kennedy was indirectly involved in the management of the company that owned Moorcroft Manor Limited.
Anna Kennedy is currently renting at Vine House, Hillingdon. Vine House was previously owned by Autism Services Limited (now called Options Autism Limited).
Baston House School
Anne Kennedy was a director of the school and was a shareholder of the company that opened it. It was opened on June 9, 2011, and it has grown in size since then. She stepped down in 2019. It is a school for autistic children in South East England.
All children at this school have an EHCP(IEP).
Baston House serves children who have:
- a primary diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Condition
- complex needs and associated “challenging behavior”
- previous placement breakdowns
- a history of school refusal, periods of time out of school
- specific learning disabilities like dyslexia and dyspraxia
- issues with an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP)
What’s the Problem?
Mark Page
A parent of a child who attended Baston House came forward to AIM’s CEO Emma Dalmayne about the abuse he suffered. The student is now an adult and he wants justice for the abuse he had to endure and AIM is helping him.
He is not the only one.
Watch as Mark Page describes what his son, Domonic, had suffered attending this school:
Mark’s son was sexually abused by another child and was physically abused by a deputy head. When they tried to address it with Anna Kennedy, they were avoided and withdrew financial help in order to attend the school. She never bothered to help Mark’s son.
“Anna Kennedy avoided anything to do with trouble.”
Mark Page
Ben
Another victim brought the Baston House School to court but when in the news wished to remain anonymous. They called him Ben. He is autistic and Deaf. He was first placed in a mainstream school and he had a meltdown. It was then decided by his local school district that a placement in a specialist school would be appropriate. In 2014, he moved to Baston House School. At this time it was owned by Hillcrest Children’s Services.
Ben was known to have high levels of anxiety and was having a hard time coping. When he started at Baston House, there was a behavior plan. It was supposed to help him with strategies for helping him calm down.
Ben’s mother says that one of the agreed strategies was that he should be allowed to go outside and given space so he could run around. Ben found this helpful and his family also used this at home.
In 2015, there was an altercation with two other students. Ben was put in a room that the school called the “soft playroom.” It contained exercise equipment, including a large exercise ball. Ben told his parents that there were two staff holding the door shut so he could not leave.
When Ben was in flight or fight, he picked up the ball and tried to throw it out the window but miscalculated. He put both his arms through the glass by mistake. He had serious injuries to his forearms. It required treatment at the hospital and left him with permanent scars.
He did not return to school after this due to his anxiety and high levels of distress. It has been very difficult to go to any school since this time and now is being home-schooled.
Ben’s family told Kate Whiting from the abuse claims team at Leigh Day to bring a claim related to this incident against Outcomes First Group. This is Hillcrest Children’s Services subsidiary.
Safety glass was not put in this room and the school building was not safe or appropriate for educating disabled children.
The defendant did admit liability for this incident and there was expert evidence from an independent pediatric psychiatrist that was found by Ben’s legal team. The psychiatrist reported that the incident in question has increased Ben’s anxiety so much, it caused him to have PTSD.
As well as Ben’s appalling physical injuries, the psychological impact of this incident has left Ben unable to enter a school or classroom enviroment. Due to his PTSD diagnosis from the incident, he remains at home where we are trying to build his confidence and trust again. I chose Bston House School as it claimed it was a ‘pioneering leader in autism education.’ As a mother, my wish is that the authroties scrutinise the level of care of ‘specialist’ schools
Ben’s Mother
Daniel
Another autistic child who wishes to remain anonymous is called Daniel. Daniel had a spit hood used on him. His family called for better regulation of specialist schools following a court case they filed on behalf of their son.
They sought legal action after Daniel was removed from the school after they reported concerns about using a spit hood, physical restraint, and a seclusion room. Daniel is autistic and is learning disabled. He also has cerebral palsy which does impact his mobility.
His local school district placed him at Baston House School when he was 10 years old. Shortly after this transfer, his family was told by his teacher that they would be using a spit hood because Daniel was spitting. This is not something Daniel was doing at home. They were worried that this would be distressing to Daniel.
His family was assured that the spit hood would only be used as a last resort. They were under the impression that this was normal practice at specialist schools. The school told the family if they did not consent, he would not be able to attend the school. So of course they felt like they had no choice.
His family also said that they had concerns about how the school was dealing with him. They had a lack of safeguarding policies where Daniel was being taken from his class and put into a seclusion room, by himself.
Daniel told his parents that one of the rooms was too small and that he could not stretch his legs. Dogs have better accommodations in crates. The room was empty and the light switch was outside the room. He said he was terrified that there could be a fire and he would not be able to get out.
After the family approached the school and they attended numerous meetings, they were told they could no longer meet Daniel’s needs. This was right after Daniel won the award ‘Most Improved Student in Secondary.’ His teachers even said that he was making great progress.
After Daniel was removed and the lack of action from the school, they filed a complaint with the owners of the school, Hillcrest Children’s Services. During the investigation, Daniel’s family was horrified after receiving reports which described multiple incidents where the spit hood was used. They had never seen these reports before. They also found out that Baston House School had adopted its own internal “spit hood policy.” This allowed the staff to use it on the basis that it was in the “best interests” of everyone at the school.
Daniel’s family said after a visit to the school by a school district official, they were informed that a room was discovered. This room was the size of a closet with a peep hold in the door. It was also locked with a key. The school confirmed that Daniel was placed in this room once but Daniel said it was many times.
During an inspection in October 2013, it was reported that school staff said that the person who did this did not take the required action to keep students safe. The policies and procedures were not enough and that is what compromised the students’ safety. There were gaps in records showing which staff had participated in safeguarding training. There was also inconsistency in record keeping and reporting incidents that posed a risk to a student’s safety.
Not long after Daniel left the Baston House School on January 19, 2015, his family discovered that the spit hood policy was no longer used. There was an amended policy that caused this decision. It had been expedited by “negative perceptions’ about the use of the spit hood. Nonrestrictive policies were then adopted in the school.
Daniel is now attending a different school where he has never been physically restrained.
Anna Kennedy’s Response
Anna Kennedy was contacted by parents about the abuse and they were either blocked or ignored. Two other victims stepped forward after seeing Emma’s video on TikTok. That is the power of social media.
There were numerous accounts of sexual and physical abuse, use of restraints, etc. Physical restraints were used on children who were vocally stimming. They were met with four adult men who restrained them. This left the children with bruises and threats of restraint if they were uncooperative.
After posting this to social media, what did Anna Kennedy Do? Well, she threatened legal action of course!
![28. Your solicitors will advise you that it will be incumbent upon our client in any forthcoming High Court action to establish that she has suffered and will suffer serious harm as a result of the published defamatory allegations.
29. The publication of your false narrative has caused and is likely to cause our client serious harm.
30. Cooke v MGN Ltd [2014] EWHC 2831 (OB) Bean J took the approach that the most serious of serious allegations could give rise to an inference of serious harm and that some publications will be so obviously likely to cause serious harm that no evidence will be necessary.
31. In Lachaux o Independent Print Ltd & Anor 2019] UKSC 27 the Supreme Court acknowledged that inferences of fact in relation to the serious harm caused by the publications, can be drawn from the circumstances and context of the publication, including matters such as (i) the scale of publication, (ii) evidence that the publication came to the attention of identifiable individuals and (iii) the gravity of the statement(s).
32. Additionally in Doyle v Smith [20191 EMIR 15, [117] Warby ] approved the following words of HHJ Moloney QC in Theedom v Nourish Training (trading as CSP Recruitment) [2016] EMIR 10:
"Depending on the circumstances of the case, the claimant may be able to satisfy section 1 without calling any evidence, by relying on the inferences of serious harm to reputation properly to be drawn from the level of the defamatory meaning of the words and the nature and extent of their publication."](https://fierceautiecom.files.wordpress.com/2023/11/img_2696.jpg?w=725)
![33. In this case, it was found that if the allegations were indeed grave and had been published to a substantial number of members of a Facebook group (which had a particular interest in the subject matter) then an inference of serious harm could be drawn.
34. HH] Spearman QC states in Parris v Ajayi [2021] EWHC 285 (OB) "Although the Supreme Court stated the law differently from the Court of Appeal in Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2018] OB 594, the following passages from the judgment of Davis LJ appear to me to be consonant with the correct legal analysis of section !..)
"72... serious reputational harm is capable of being proved by a process of inference from the seriousness of the defamatory meaning ... there is no reason in libel cases for precluding or restricting the drawing of an inference of serious reputational harm derived from an (objective) appraisal of the seriousness of the imputation to be gathered from the words used.
73. ... The seriousness of the reputational harm is ... evaluated having regard to the seriousness of the imputation conveyed by the words used: coupled, where necessary or appropriate, with the context in which the words are used (for example, in a newspaper article or widely accessed blog)."
35. Your posts across the internet, accessible worldwide, containing the very serious, criminal allegations against our client, is clearly one to which inferential harm can be attributed.
36. Your publications are a perfect example of when it will be so obviously likely to cause continued serious harm that no evidence will be necessary. Your
10](https://fierceautiecom.files.wordpress.com/2023/11/img_2692.jpg?w=730)
After this Legal Threat, Kennedy Decides to Objectify Emma
Response from Kennedy’s Husband
There was a response from Kennedy’s husband to this situation. Instead of fixing the problems, they decide to go this route:
Anna has recently been contacted by a gentleman who goes by the name of Mark Page, seemingly seeking her assistance in investigating allegations made by his son concerning his time as a pupil at Baston House School, located at Baston Road, Hayes, Bromley, Kent, BR2 7AB. This gentleman claims to have met Anna on three occasions at what appears to be social gatherings and asserts that he has raised concerns with her previously. However, upon examining all available emails and letters, unfortunately she cannot find any correspondence from this individual. In any case, Anna has had no operational responsibilities in relation to this school for over a decade, she is clearly not able to conduct any investigation at Baston House School on behalf of Mr Page or anyone else, for that matter. Having said that, Mr Page and it seems his son are evidently in need of assistance, and it is only right that I attempt to provide them with some guidance that may prove valuable. Moreover, this guidance may also be of help to anyone else facing similar concerns about Baston House School or any other school.
It is evident that Mr Page is not the alleged victim; instead, it is his son who he claims to have been the subject of misconduct. Details about Mr Page’s son have not been provided. However, from an objective standpoint, it is perhaps concerning that Mr Page has chosen to raise matters on his son’s behalf in a public manner. It is difficult to see how such an approach could ever be beneficial or appropriate.
Furthermore, if Mr Page’s son is a young person, the default position is that he should be the one pursuing any allegations. Nevertheless, Mr Page, as well as any other parent, is free to explore issues such as deputyship and power of attorney. This does not imply that parents like Mr Page would be entirely disempowered; rather, the focus would be mainly on the alleged victim who should be heard.
I am not able to provide Mr Page with legal advice. However, I can offer the following guidance.
Mr Page’s son should consider addressing the matters he complains about directly with the Headteacher of Baston House School, who, as I have found through my investigation, is Ms Rachel Martin and there is a contact email on the school website. To assist Mr Page and his son, I have already contacted Ms Martin, explaining that concerns have been raised by Mr Page – and one can assume his son – and advising that they may get in touch with her directly to provide the relevant details, which have not been provided by myself. It is reasonable to assume that Ms Martin will respond appropriately to any approach from Mr Page and his son. I did not share Mr Page’s contact details as (amongst other things) these are not in my possession.
Whilst I cannot comment on the veracity of any of Mr Page’s claims of misconduct towards his son, if his son makes allegations that could possibly lead to criminal liability, the obvious next step would be to consider reporting such matters to the police, who have extensive powers to investigate such issues. Naturally, I cannot assist Mr Page’s son by contacting the police on his behalf. However, getting in touch with the police is not an onerous task, as they are always just a phone call away.
Mr Page’s son may also consider raising the allegations with the local authority. Although it is unclear who this would be in his case, finding out the relevant contact information should not be problematic.
For completeness, anyone wishing to pursue a complaint a school is always free to seek legal advice beforehand or at any time.
It is essential to note that addressing such matters on social media is not advisable, not least of all because to do so may incur civil and/or criminal liability. Setting that to one side, Anna believes that Mr Page also requires proper guidance and direction, which is why I am willing to assist in this regard.
When pursuing a complaint, it is strongly suggested that it is most effective to present it in a comprehensive letter format which is clearly drafted and contains all complaints and relevant evidence. A copy of any such letter should be kept. It is of utmost importance to raise complaints as soon as possible, following the relevant procedure.
Any allegations made by a school pupil, particularly those concerning mistreatment, deserve to be investigated assuming they are made in good faith. It is regrettable that Mr Page chose to address these concerns publicly. Nonetheless, I hope that he, his son, or anyone else in a similar position will find this guidance helpful, enabling them to proceed effectively and with focus. I have done my best to assist and cannot reasonably do any more as indeed neither can Anna. Having said, there is no need for Mr Page nor his son to thank me, it would be more than sufficient thanks if he/ they were able to pursue any evidence based complaints they have more effectively than has clearly been the case thus far.
In conclusion, in all such cases I always hope that the correct outcome is achieved.
Sean Kennedy, Barrister.
Anna Kennedy Online
Sean Kennedy, Barrister and Anna Kennedy’s Husband
You may have come after Emma and you are in the same country. Good luck trying to come after me in the United States, especially in the State of NY where entities such as the Justice Center to protect disabled people exist.
sources:
Anna’s book Not Stupid
An informant who is an accountant for over 40 years.
Aviva Seigler 
There is someone else involved you need to check out. Janet Willacott – a SEND “advocate” – one of Anna’s big mates.
LikeLike