One of The WORST Humans To EVER Exist - Neil Foden

What is discussed, and when

1. 0:00 – 3:00: Neil Frederick Foden
2. 3:00 – 6:00: Marcus Rashford, SA referral center
3. 6:00 – 9:00: SA referral center
4. 15:00 – 18:00: Mold Crown Court

Notable quotes from "One of The WORST Humans To EVER Exist - Neil Foden"

• Meet Neil Frederick Foden. He was born in August of 1957, making him in his 60s throughout these events. Neil Foden had worked in Welsh education for more than three decades. His career began in 1988.

  about Neil Frederick Foden · at 0:17

• Meals. This caused huge backlash in the UK and drew condemnation from the English football player Marcus Rashford.

  about Marcus Rashford · at 3:14

• Record was ever created. In 2020, external agencies, including the NPCC and the SA referral center, made referrals about his behavior. Each was dismissed as not meeting the threshold for a child protection investigation.

  about SA referral center · at 4:56

• Remanded in custody. After pleading not guilty, a court date was set for the 22nd of April, 2024 at the Mold Crown Court, and the prosecution and defense got to work.…

  about Mold Crown Court · at 17:00

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

• Neil Frederick Foden — Person · 1 mention · first at 0:17
• Marcus Rashford — Person · 1 mention · first at 3:19

Companies & orgs

• SA referral center — Company · 2 mentions · first at 5:03
• NPCC — Company · 1 mention

Places & events

• Mold Crown Court — Place · 1 mention · first at 17:05

Full transcript with timestamps

0:00 You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defense if you do not mention and question something which you later align in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.

0:13 This case takes place in the UK and spans over a number of years. Meet Neil Frederick Foden. He was born in August of 1957, making him in his 60s throughout these events. Neil Foden had worked in Welsh education for more than three decades. His career began in 1988 as an English teacher and he quickly rose through the ranks. By 1997, he was a head teacher leading one of North Wales's largest secondary schools. He became a recognized figure in the region's education sector. He was known for his strong opinions and regular appearances in local and national media.

0:51 He was often invited to comment on school policy and funding issues and his voice was trusted by both politicians and journalists. Over time, this visibility turned into influence that matched his grandiose personality. Colleagues described him as dominating meetings and controlling decisions that were normally shared between senior leaders and governors. He even built structures that concentrated authority in his own hands. He did this by using short-term employment contracts and public criticism to keep control. He managed staff through fear. Employees later told investigators that they were worried that if they spoke up about anything, it might cost them their jobs.

1:32 And not only this, parents were worried that they might lose their children's place at the school. On one occasion, he was judged by an employment tribunal to have bullied a teacher. He was reprimanded with a 2-year warning on his record. It turned out that this 2-year reprimand had little real effect. He was still able to teach and run the school. Neil was accused of bullying because he was falsifying exam results to make his school appear better. When another teacher noticed, he spoke up and reported Neil. The whistleblower later testified that after raising the exam result issue, Neil harassed him for 4 years. During the investigation, Neil managed to get the support of nearly all of his other staff who signed a letter showing their support. Some may say that they were under duress due to the anxiety that they would receive the same treatment. But it turns out that he also had a group of sick fans working for

2:25 him. And it's this lack of push back that led to some horrendous crimes. It would be in 2018 that Neil's deputy head and safeguarding lead died. With this, Neil then put himself in charge of pastoral work and child protection duties. He had no safeguarding qualifications and had no experience, but no people dare to challenge him. This placed Neil in a position of absolute power, and he had access to the most vulnerable at the school. Whenever a vulnerable student needed support, he had an opportunity to exploit them. So, you can see where this is going.

3:04 Following this, Neil then made national headlines in the UK. He callously instructed that pupils with two pence of unpaid lunch debt must be denied school meals. This caused huge backlash in the UK and drew condemnation from the English football player Marcus Rashford. However, this would pale in comparison to what he was doing in plain sight and behind closed doors. Now, before we continue, it's important to say this. There was a review into this case, and it highlighted how warning signs emerged in early 2018. In total, there were 50 missed opportunities to stop this despicable man in his tracks. In 2018, staff observed him messaging a pupil at night from his personal account. The same pupil was later seen asleep in his office with her head on his desk. Around this same time, another pupil reported seeing him walking alone with a girl on school grounds before the girl got into his car. The police were notified, but

4:04 he just explained this that he was giving the girl a lift home. Neither pupil was interviewed and the case was closed. As I mentioned earlier, the school safeguarding lead had died and Neil appointed himself to take over that role. From that point onward, every concern about him was rooted back to him. Therefore, there was a clear conflict of interest, which should have been picked up. He began meeting pupils alone in his office and in other locations for what he described as support sessions. Colleagues later told investigators that he kept the lights off and the blinds closed, which he said was to protect confidentiality. In 2019, senior staff saw him accompanying a pupil to police interviews and to medical appointments without parental consent. They warned him about professional boundaries, but no formal record was ever created. In 2020, external agencies, including the NPCC and the SA referral center, made

5:06 referrals about his behavior. Each was dismissed as not meeting the threshold for a child protection investigation. During the national lockdown that same year, he kept two pupils in school without approval. Senior colleagues discussed their unease, but they said that they were just too afraid to report him. In 2021, he was promoted to an executive role at another school. While the concerns remained unresolved, complaints followed to the other school as well, including reports of inappropriate physical restraint and unprofessional contact with a female pupil. By early 2022, staff and pupils were openly commentating on how he was often left alone with vulnerable girls.

5:50 In March of 2023, his senior team issued a written warning instructing him to meet pupils only with the doors open and the blinds raised, although he just ignored their instructions. In the summer of 2023, a social worker raised concerns that he had hugged a pupil without consent. The report was moved between authorities for about 9 weeks without any action. During that time, he continued to meet with pupils privately. There were so many ways not mentioned where if people just slightly intervened and if the governing bodies had just scratched beneath the surface, they would have found a true scandal. But finally, on the 6th of September 2023, a pupil disclosed to staff that she had been in a relationship with Neil and showed messages and photos from her phone. Staff members, authorities, and more importantly, the police could not brush this one aside. It all started with a child referred to as victim A.

6:50 Before we continue, note these two things. Firstly, the victims were identified by coded initials in official documents because they were under 18 at the time and entitled to lifelong anonymity under UK law. And secondly, the following events come with a warning. Victim A entered Neil's school in 2017 with identified vulnerabilities. And so a safeguarding plan was put in place to protect her during the school day. The plan required that pastoral support be provided by female staff only. But in January of 2019, an incident involving victim A and a statutory agency required the presence of a responsible adult. Instead of a parent or an agreed female member of staff, Neil accompanied this victim to her meeting. For a head teacher overseeing a school of roughly 1,400 pupils, this was highly unusual and of course contrary to the agreed safeguarding arrangement. As part of the same event, Neil gave victim A his

7:51 personal email address so he could communicate with her directly. He then allowed the contact to extend beyond the immediate issue, sometimes failing to respond for prolonged periods of time, which increased her reliance on his attention. This is grooming. Neil subsequently took victim A to a GP appointment and then to an SA referral center. He began meeting her onetoone under the banner of pastoral care. He later took her to a gynecology appointment. All of these contacts took place without the knowledge or consent of victim A's parents. Medical correspondence was addressed to him as if he was the victim's guardian.

8:31 Colleagues noticed his increasing closeness to the vulnerable pupil and reported multiple boundary breaches on school premises. He spent extended periods alone with her in his office. Staff later said that she would rest her head on his shoulder. They held hands and he drove her to and from appointments. Soon enough, she had his personal phone number. Teachers told him to step back, but he didn't. He visited victim A's home and collected her for late night drives. Her mother was told by Neil that they were attending cake baking classes which finished at 9:30.

9:07 She became suspicious. Neil and victim A reportedly joked about how their interactions might look to others and over time everything intensified. They began messaging on WhatsApp and told her to delete their conversations. According to later accounts and digital evidence, the contact escalated. Whilst in the car, Neil would force victim A to perform oral on him. She later reported that when she asked to stop, he forced her to continue. Neil also had a lifelong fetish for urine. So when he was in the car, he made his victims drink liters of water and then forced them to push down on their bladders so they urinated for him. What he did with the urine wasn't disclosed. Messages showed him telling her to tell nobody and to take it to her grave. The victim's search history included phrases such as how to know if an older man likes you or is grooming you and questions about potential prison sentences for SA. Victim A did have an

10:10 awareness that she might be getting victimized. However, she was deep in and was young. So the abuse continued. Subsequent inquiries concluded that victim A was not the only pupil affected. Another very vulnerable female that Neil was grooming was victim C. In early 2018, school records showed that he frequently messaged victim C late at night on her personal email, and staff noted that she spent time in his office, including being seen asleep with her head on his desk. On the 9th of July 2018, a pupil reported seeing him walking with a girl who then got into his car. The school identified this girl as victim C, and we know exactly what happened to girls who got into his car.

10:57 The police did question him, but they accepted the explanation that she needed a lift home. The pupil was never interviewed, and again, no further action was taken. Less than 2 weeks later, on the 24th of July 2018, the manager of the assisted living quarters where victim C lived told the police and social services that victim C was frequently left alone with Neil after school hours. The agencies again took no action and the review recorded another missed opportunity. It's mind-blowing to think that these accusations of this strange behavior was going on with victim A. At the same time, during the lockdowns in April of 2020, he was known to have victim A and victim C in school without approval and he taught them alone. Another important victim in this case is victim E. Victim E was actually the second complaint to come forward when the case was blown open. Neil referred to victim E as his little sex

11:54 toy, and he made her call him Mr. P, not for PDF file, but instead for perfect. This man was nothing short of a vile creep. He would often take victim E in his car driving around the countryside under the guise of scouting out new hiking locations. Or at least that's what he later said. In fact, he was picking up victim E from school and taking her down quiet lanes so he could force himself upon her. The victim later said that when he did this, he would grip her tightly around the neck. Around the same time, Neil headed to a convention where he was a speaker for the children, young people, and education committee. However, the night before, he picked up victim E and took her to the hotel he was staying at and essayed her. Victim B was another innocent and vulnerable girl who was groomed using the very same tactics.

12:49 This victim had their own therapy sessions, as Neil would call it. Victim B was once grabbed her on the neck by Neil as he forced his hands up her leg and further up her thigh. Victim F was another who featured in the review, but not in the criminal case. He manipulated her into being infatuated with him. According to the review, she felt comforted by him. He would prepare her food, make her cups of tea, and host her alone in his office time and time again. Neil made her feel special, saying that she was important to him and that they had things in common. Victim F said that Neil was a good listener and always had time for her. But Neil would also often hug her and this crossed safeguarding legal and victim F's personal boundaries. She never gave permission for the hugs. This was a tactic that Neil deployed. He would hug the girls almost as a way to make his first physical contact before escalating the

13:48 contact further. This was to test the waters and to see what he could get away with. Another victim was victim G. On one occasion during the grooming process, he hugged her while her hands were down her side so she couldn't move. This might have been uncomfortable enough, claustrophobic even. But what makes it so much weirder is that he held the hug for over 5 minutes. As you can imagine, this left victim G feeling terrified. Events like this were reported, but ultimately they fell on deaf ears. Victim G avoided Neil at all costs. So eventually Neil demanded that she attend his office. She refused, but Neil just grabbed her and took her to his office by force. Victim G was incredibly young, and no one knows what happened in that room as it never made the criminal case. perhaps because she didn't want to talk about it. In May of 2020, another victim, victim S, complained that Neil was too physically

14:48 touchy with her. She spoke to two teachers about this and they both said that they would speak to Neil. However, it seems like it wasn't followed up properly. It seemed like Neil was pretty much unstoppable. We have only mentioned a few victims here, but as we know, this list in the review reaches at least S. So, at least 19 students experienced something that they never should have. It was only a matter of time before what he was doing finally caught up with him. On the 6th of September 2023, at the start of the school day, victim A disclosed that she had been in a relationship with Neil Foden and she showed WhatsApp messages and photographs to a member of the pastoral team. The messages were of a sexual nature and indicated that multiple crimes had been committed. At around 10:45, the authorities were contacted. Victim A was so scared that she hid in a school cupboard. And before too long, Neil

15:45 caught wind about what was about to happen, and so he went looking for the girl. In a panic, he then deleted 17 images from his phone that had been received from victim A. These images were of a graphic nature. Sure enough, finally, the evidence was inescapable and the Northorld's police arrested him and opened a criminal investigation.

16:08 Um, Mr. Fodden, um, unfortunately, I need to arrest you on suspicual touching of a child, communications with a child.

16:16 You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defense if you do not mention question something which you later align in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. Victim A then told the police everything. Devices were seized from Neil's home and his workplace. Calls, messages, and data were obtained. But also following his arrest, other pupils came forward. Victim E, victim B, victim C, and many others. Investigators mapped the sequence of communications to show patterns of contact and escalation.

16:51 During the police interviews, Neil gave no comment answers throughout, but evidence was mounting. It only took two days before Neil was charged and remanded in custody. After pleading not guilty, a court date was set for the 22nd of April, 2024 at the Mold Crown Court, and the prosecution and defense got to work. Prosecutors opened by saying that Neil Fodden used his authority to target pupils. They drew a clear pattern. private messages that turned sexual. Meetings are arranged off site and repeated instructions to keep quiet. Timelines were locked to phone data, travel checks, and school calendars. And even one girl kept records because she knew something was horribly wrong. The vulnerable girls took to the stand and filled in the rest of the gaps. However, the defense pushed back.

17:42 The defense urged jurors to doubt teenage memories and the meaning of the text messages. They argued that there was no decisive forensic proof and said that ordinary management decisions had been cast as sinister. Neil denied everything in court. He insisted his conduct was professional and that these allegations were false. But over 16 days, evidence and testimony accumulated. On the 15th of May 2024, the jury convicted him of 19 offenses, including 12 counts of child essay. He was also charged of possessing indecent photographs of the victims. Sentencing took place on the 1st of July 2024. He was sentenced to 17 years imprisonment and ordered that he served 2/3 before he be considered for release. In the sentencing remarks, the judge said that Neil had prayed on young girls, acted from an arrogant sense of selfworth, and had shown absolutely no remorse for the harm he caused. The police later

18:41 confirmed that he was barred from teaching indefinitely. Some may say after all justice was served, but many also think that too many people turned a blind eye and that the incompetence and rot go way deeper in the education system, child protection, and the police services. The case of Neil has to be one of the most infuriating cases in recent years. There are numerous victims right now, all because no one wanted to speak up. It's terrifying to think that in these modern times, someone like Neil can rise through the ranks and get away with this for so long. There were 50 opportunities to stop him and not a single person did.

Questions about this episode

What is discussed in "One of The WORST Humans To EVER Exist - Neil Foden"?

In order: 0:00 Neil Frederick Foden; 3:00 Marcus Rashford, SA referral center; 6:00 SA referral center; 15:00 Mold Crown Court.

What is mentioned in this Disturban episode?

5 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including SA referral center, Neil Frederick Foden, Marcus Rashford, Mold Crown Court, NPCC. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "One of The WORST Humans To EVER Exist - Neil Foden"?

The episode runs 20 min; the transcript is about 3,119 words in 25 timestamped sections.

More from Disturban

• All analyzed episodes
• People mentioned on Disturban
• Topics mentioned on Disturban