The standard practice of any Russell Group University when confronted with serious allegations against someone senior is the four stage process.
Stage 1 is the Deliberate Stalling of investigations — especially when the accused is a Head of Department or a strategically important position. Delays occur through slow appointment of investigators, requests for further documentation from complainants, “paused” investigations during academic holidays or while staff are on sabbatical, repeated restructuring of complaint processes mid-case. This wears down the complainant who may give up.
Stage 2 is the Minimisation and Reframing. Bullying is often reframed as “personality clash,” “performance management,” or “misunderstanding.” Human Resources (HR) or senior leadership claim behaviour doesn’t meet the “threshold” for misconduct and suggest informal resolution (e.g. mediation) or they dismiss incidents as isolated, despite repeated patterns of behaviour. Senior staff benefit from the presumption of innocence without any meaningful scrutiny. The complainant’s grievance is then dismissed.
Stage 3 is the “Investigation” that lacks Independence. If the complaint persists and appeals, many universities rely on internal HR-led investigations or bring in contracted investigators (eg compliant barristers) with ties to university governance or legal teams. The reports are almost always an expensive sham to exonerate senior staff. A recent one at the Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge cost nearly £70,000 — lucrative work for the lucky barrister! Not so good for the department which had to stump up the money out of its own resources!
Stage 4 is the NDA. If the complainant has not yet been ground down and proceeds to take the matter to Employment Tribunal, then the University denies the matter until the day of the Tribunal and then finally offers up a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA). This is a financial settlement in exchange for victims’ silence. These settlements avoid any tribunal, hush up the many blunders by HR or senior management, prevent awkward publicity and allow the accused to remain in post or retire “with honour”.
Many universities use NDAs to settle cases of bullying, harassment, discrimination and sexual abuse quietly — prioritising institutional reputation over accountability. Between 2014–15 and 2018–19, nearly 11,000 NDAs were issued by 98 UK universities—an average of around 2,600 in 2017–18, up from 2,020 in 2014–15, according to the Times Higher Education here. These figures are an underestimate as some universities refused to provide any data (including the University of Cambridge).
Of course, NDAs reduce institutional responsibility, enable repeat offences by the perpetrators and silence victims. They undermine the very purpose of the legal protections in place. No university need ever fix its problems if it can rely on NDAs.
This may be changing.
Recent regulatory action in the UK has led to restrictions on NDAs in cases involving sexual misconduct. For example, the Office for Students announced in 2023 that universities must not use NDAs to silence students or staff in sexual misconduct cases if they want to remain compliant with funding conditions.
Now the range of offences looks like it will be very considerably extended.
Louise Haigh, MP for Sheffield Heeley, tabled amendments to the Employment Rights Bill at second reading in the House of Commons. As recorded in Hansard here, this will prohibit NDAs not just in cases of sexual misconduct, but also in cases of abuse, harassment, bullying or discrimination. The amendment gained cross-party support from dozens of MPs. It would render void any NDA or confidentiality clause that prevents a worker from speaking about workplace harassment or discrimination, unless the worker consents and meets conditions (e.g. independent legal advice, cooling-off period).
The bill is expected to proceed to the committee stage in autumn 2025, followed by a third reading and then passage through the House of Lords. So, it could become law very soon, in early 2026.
Thanks to Louise Haigh, the business model of many universities in dealing with bullying & discrimination will actually become obsolete in early 2026. It’s the end of the road for the four stage process.
Prudent universities should now be focusing much greater efforts on the effective prevention of bullying, discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace. This includes dealing with the allegations properly instead of demoralising the victims and relying on NDAs to hush everything up at the end.
There is no sign of any such prudence yet.
(The image is ‘Innocent’s Silence’ by Amparo Torres O and licensed under Creative Commons, see here.)
33 Comments
SPARTACUS · 2 August 2025 at 23:01
As a fighter for justice Spartacus hopes 21percent is right! If you are indeed right Head of HR and Registrar at UCam better start looking for a new job now! They know the gigantic scandals they have kept hidden using NDAs on behalf of the current senior management! When they go the current incumbents (American Queen VC, incompetent ProVCs, certain Heads of School (they know who they are), and dictatorial Institute Directors will also have to go. Let’s hope it happens soon so the rot stops!
Xerxes · 3 August 2025 at 00:21
It needs significant changes at the top of Cambridge University HR, as most of the current leadership are incompetent or corrupt.
The Director of HR is line managed by the Registrary, who is also highly contaminated by the scandals.
The Pro-VC for Community and Engagement is just not very good or not very smart (he talks a lot about zero tolerance to bullying but seems to have no idea about what is happening).
Eileen Nugent · 3 August 2025 at 02:52
I have never seen any evidence that the people in these HR-Centric positions are capable of organising a meeting and sitting down with an individual to work through a HR problem. They seem to think that if a problem is particularly serious all face-to-face interaction or indeed giving any rational organisational response should be completely avoided. The whole organisation seems to wait for an employment tribunal before it does anything half sensible.
I’m not sure how they plan to solve these HR problems going forward because if something is particularly serious it is necessary to organise a face to face meeting with an individual and work through a HR problem, look at how the most serious problems (prevention of war, stopping a war) are handled, face to face interactions. Whilst waiting for an employment tribunal is potentially rational, waiting that significantly increases the risk of a health and safety prosecution is not rational.
Eileen Nugent · 3 August 2025 at 05:18
I’m not sure what the HR-centric people expect could happen in a subset of these cases in future – if I have a legal obligation to the university to raise any serious health and safety concern there is never an individual financial settlement at play in this type of case, there is also never any NDA at play in the case because it’s not an NDA-able case and if I am the one bringing a private prosecution against the university – because that is the only option left open to me to comply with a legal obligation to the university – then the university is paying the costs of all the legal work required to bring that private prosecution.
There is no threat of having to pay any legal costs from my personal finances in this type of case just like there is no threat of any of the HR-centric people having to pay any legal costs from their personal finances in this type of case – the case is against organisation as a legal entity and not against any individual in organisation as the legal claim is that there is an organisational health and safety fault and not a fault with any particular individual in the organisation. The only reason I have not done this is because it’s a significant waste of organisational resources.
I would engage in the necessary legal processes as a litigant in person as the British legal system permits this. The first stage is an article 3 ECHR case [exceptionally high thresholding to identify a rare type of individual case], the next stage is conditional on the outcome of the article 3 ECHR case and is to seek HSE/DPP permission to bring a private health and safety prosecution against the university [HSE/DPP judges competence to bring prosecution and also organisational & public interest of one being brought], if permission granted by HSE/DPP to bring a private prosecution against the university then I run the private prosecution but the HSE/DPP retain the powers to stop that private prosecution or take it over at any time [power to protect the organisation and/or the public from an individual who subsequently proves unsuitable to run a private prosecution and/or is not acting in the interest of the organisation and/or the public]. There would be no legal costs on my side of the case [litigant in person – I do the legal work] but the university would pay expensive legal advisors to run its side of the case and it would therefore still cost the university significant amounts of resources – resources that it could spend more constructively on e.g. PhD studentships.
This goes to show how irrational the current HR approach is – when it gets to the stage where it’s possible (albeit by no means certain) that an individual could go to the high court and compel a face to face meeting with the HR-centric people for the purposes of the individual prosecuting the university for a health and safety violation as that is the only option left open to the individual to comply with a legal obligation to the university to raise any serious health and safety concern because the HR-centric people would not voluntarily organise a face-to-face meeting with the individual to work through a serious HR problem.
If I was one of the HR-centric people I would start organising face to face meetings to work through any serious HR problem with an individual (unless it is the individual who does not want this or there is a safety concern associated with a face-to-face meeting). Those who are not in HR-centric people roles should understand however that these changes are going to be extremely challenging for those in HR-centric people roles and that the people working in these roles are going to need all the organisational support they can get during these changes,
21percent.org · 3 August 2025 at 07:18
Whilst waiting for an employment tribunal is potentially rational, waiting that significantly increases the risk of a health and safety prosecution is not rational.
If the matter goes to an ET, then resolution is delayed by 2++ years. So, this increases stress for the participants, as you say. It is also a huge waste of time, money and energy for the organisation.
The rational thing is to sort the matter out as soon as possible between the participants, but no-one senior in Cambridge HR has this skill-set.
Those junior in Cambridge HR always look very unhappy (sometimes physically sick), so probably they just have to do what they are told no matter how they really feel.
Peter · 3 August 2025 at 10:17
It is my understanding that within certain circles, it is well known that in the Institute of Astronomy case, the individual—widely regarded for their collaborative nature—reported experiencing bullying behaviour.
Their primary requests were for an apology and for the inappropriate behaviour to stop—both entirely reasonable, even within the ivory towers of Cambridge.
I was also informed that mediation was offered, but declined by the party alleged to have engaged in the misconduct.
TheResearcher · 3 August 2025 at 13:00
What you say here “Their primary requests were for an apology and for the inappropriate behaviour to stop” was precisely what the Researcher of “The Story of the Snake — A Fable” asked in his institution regarding his original report of harassment. He asked for direct apologies either in person preferentially or via email or zoom from the other party. And do you know what happened? Many senior academics and HR told the Researcher in private meetings that the other party was very apologetic and that she would never do those behaviours again to multiple victims. Whenever the Researcher insisted for direct apologies, they always resisted saying that the other person was very affected by the situation. Long-story short, the senior management lied, and they did not even inform the other party that there had been a report of harassment against her as they expected the Researcher would just let it go. As he did not, they made him redundant. They were not protecting the other party to be sure as they could not care less. They were simply protecting a large number of senior members of the university that had been involved in the concealing and manipulation of the issue from the beginning. And guess what, when the Researcher confronted all these people regarding what they had told him, no one remembered. And when he found evidence in email correspondence, no one replied. First response: to conceal and manipulate information. Second response: to ignore.
🐍 · 3 August 2025 at 13:39
Apologies are no fun. The snake cannot then slither in and out of the fable and make it hers… Hers to manipulate, to complicate, to arbitrate… to pour oil on the fire and salt into wounds…
And then watch the outcome of the perversion – how the nasty one got away with it, how the victims and their supporters now suffer…
And how occasionally they develop UPB…
Wyn Evans · 4 August 2025 at 08:11
Events at the Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge are the subject of a 4 week Employment Tribunal from June 1 -June 28 2026 at Bury St Edmunds under the Public Interest Disclosure Act.
Four weeks is a lengthy trial — it’s indicative of the seriousness of what happened as well as the number of people caught up in the events.
TigerWhoCametoET · 5 August 2025 at 07:11
What is UBP? (Apologies if this was meant to be something obvious.)
🐍 · 5 August 2025 at 07:50
UPB has slithered from the previous post into this one: Unreasonably Persistent Behaviour, as diagnosed by those frustrated that their gaslighting, cover ups and covert advice for retaliatory action have not succeeded in shutting up a Researcher, a Student, or any Other – or made them lose the will to live.
Jay · 5 August 2025 at 08:27
The sub-postmasters were guilty of UPB.
Also Erin Brockovich, the Hillsborough Families, Harry Markopolos, Merope Mills, Maggie Oliver.
TheResearcher · 5 August 2025 at 11:39
Incidentally, the Researcher of “The Story of the Snake — A Fable” that had been diagnosed with UPB by his institution was just told this morning that he will be investigated. The university hired an “external investigator” to deal with the case now against him when the Researcher had asked an external investigation regarding his own allegations, and it was denied. Incidentally, they also told him that the investigation would have to be confidential. He replied briefly, ccing all the Pro-Vice-Chancellors, the Vice-Chancellor, as well as all the Masters and Senior Tutors of the institution.
21percent.org · 5 August 2025 at 12:48
Please include the 21 Group in any further cc
Happy Valley · 7 August 2025 at 07:54
Simon Wiesenthal was another sufferer from UPB… he just wouldn’t leave those poor Nazis alone.
So unfair…
Private Eye · 7 August 2025 at 09:26
At the hearing, the judge agreed with Gauleiter Arschbruck’s assertion that Mr. Wiesenthal’s actions constituted a form of Unreasonably Persistent Behaviour (UPB). Upon leaving the courtroom Herr Arschbruck declined to field questions, yet his solicitor read out the following statement:
“After many years of uncertainty, fear, and intimidation, today’s ruling brings to an end a long and difficult chapter for my client, his wife and children, and so many of our cherished former colleagues at the Waffen-SS (Seeloewe branch). We are relieved that the judge has sided with our view and that Mr. Wiesenthal will henceforth no longer be allowed to maintain this persistent and unreasonable campaign of investigation and harassment.”
SPARTACUS · 3 August 2025 at 10:57
This thread suggests that UCam works under some rational set of rules. The problem lies there- it no longer does! Top management (VC, ProVCs, Heads of School [some], Institute Directors [some], Registrar and Head of HR) form an oligarchy that has become totally disconnected from faculty and rules by arbitrary decisions and dictat! Decisions are taken by these oligarchs and then the whole structure disregards facts and circles the wagons to protect the particular member or members of the oligarchy. This has happened repeatedly in several instances over the past 5-6 years: first under the previous totally inept and grossly incompetent VC (which the oligarchy itself booted out) and now much aggravated by the new American Queen VC. She has now presided over a total rot and decay with no end in sight. That is why the establishment tried to get Lord BP in place- to see if he could stop the rot and decline. It failed! Lord Smith will either do like the ostrich, or he decides to take action by presiding, as the Statutes specify, over the Council via the consistent exertion of his role as Chair of said University Council. Let’s hope he does the later but I doubt it.
Bloody right · 3 August 2025 at 13:32
Bloody right!
ProfPlum · 3 August 2025 at 17:35
I think the posting is correct — if NDAs are banned, then this will force a huge rethink in universities.
So, I expect Vice Chancellors (and other representatives of the employers) are busy lobbying this Government at the moment to weaken the proposed legislation.
We must hope the MPs stand firm.
Lets be realistic · 4 August 2025 at 13:05
Even if NDAs are banned, other strategies will be leveraged by the powerful to silence “dissent”, like blacklisting, ostracism, and smear campaigns through the gossip mill. It never ends, and you always lose.
TheResearcher · 4 August 2025 at 14:59
I understand this view, but I do not fully agree with it because part of the power of institutions results from keeping their ways of addressing these issues confidential, during and after investigations. But let’s assume that this view is true and institutions will simply adapt their malpractices. What should individuals that experience or witness abuse do then? Should they simply accept it or move to a different institution? If a sufficient number of people speak up and share their experiences publicly, the senior management will at least think carefully if concealing and manipulation of information is the best option in future cases. The same strategies repeated many times are easy to spot, including by future victims themselves that are in early stages of reporting. If one cannot change an institution, at least one can change the level of awareness that victims have about how institutions address problems. I definitely wish I knew what I know now.
SPARTACUS · 4 August 2025 at 15:36
The rot at UCam must be exposed! Otherwise terminal decline will occur! Let’s hope the new Chancellor realises quickly that the current senior management (VC, ProVCs, Registrar, Head of HR, and other members of the oligarchy) is not fit for purpose! Or he might witness further decline in rankings, and mediocrity replace meritocracy! Not a legacy he will fancy from his 10 year tenure! He must act and use his considerable aura as Chair of University Council! He better do it as soon as he is invested.
Lets be realistic · 4 August 2025 at 15:50
“What should individuals that experience or witness abuse do then? Should they simply accept it or move to a different institution?”
Yes. Run, then heal.
TheResearcher · 4 August 2025 at 16:49
That is exactly what institutions want! That will not help future victims. I was once told that in cases of concealing and manipulation of information, institutions will generally adopt the same strategy, namely, “They will lie, and they will lie, and they will lie.” There is one response that all victims can do, and in sufficient numbers can be very powerful: We can embarrass them, and we can embarrass them, and we can embarrass them. With a sufficient number of public statements reporting the same practices, the senior management should really think twice before concealing and manipulating again. People who conceal and manipulate do not like the spotlight.
Lets be realistic · 4 August 2025 at 17:42
The house always wins.
21percent.org · 4 August 2025 at 18:54
Generally, the house wins, but perhaps not in Cambridge in 2026.
There are obvious & visible signs of stress at the upper levels of senior management in this University. Clearly, this is not caused by want of salary, as these individuals are all extremely well rewarded for their activities. There are grave problem piling up and little idea of how to fix them at the senior level. Some big storm clouds are:
1 The budget deficit is now becoming a very serious problem. Running a university — any university — in a time of cuts is difficult. The cuts will continue into 2026 (& probably beyond), and so some senior individuals are beginning to find awkward questions being raised, like why are we spending lots of money on all these transformation programs? It seems to be accepted by everyone now that embarking on all these change programs at the same time was a terrible mistake. Who will get the blame?
2 The MyHR transformation program (which falls within the remit of the HR Director) has been postponed again and (as far as we are aware) has no date on which it will become operational. This will be causing significant budgetary overruns in the millions for extra years of software development to get it working. The project has clearly been poorly managed.
3 There are a number of significant legal cases that the University is facing from a determined group of individuals who do not want the corruption in HR/Legal to continue and are prepared to fight in Employment Tribunals/County Courts. In our view, the trials have been caused by the extreme arrogance of a number of members of senior management, who clearly think Cambridge academics should just shut up and do what they are told. The trials will lead to much damaging material entering the public domain. (Remember, the University won the Magdalen Connolly case, but they still emerged with little credit given the revelations).
4 There are a number of huge fights ongoing between national newspapers and the University’s lawyers over the publication of extremely damaging material.
Our prediction is that some goats will be scaped in 2026.
TheResearcher · 4 August 2025 at 18:32
You may be right to some degree, but silence coupled with fleeing helps institutions more than victims. The reason I remain in mine, despite I was made redundant and thus remain without any salary, is because I am not doing this just for me. Change is slow but it can happen, and victims have knowledge that can contribute to that change. And even if change does not happen in our life time, it is important to show to senior management that there are people they cannot manipulate and silence, regardless of their power.
Lets be realistic · 4 August 2025 at 18:46
Don’t be a martyr. NOT worth it.
Eileen Nugent · 5 August 2025 at 02:21
Let’s be realistic and look at what really happens in these type of situations : If an organisation starts generating legal obligations for individuals to raise concerns that relate to preventable deaths – a subset of individuals then see “strategies leveraged by the powerful to silence “dissent”, like blacklisting, ostracism, and smear campaigns” as noise and compliance with a legal obligation as signal because a subset of individuals will recognise why legal obligations exist, how the life they have lead would not have been possible had others in the past not recognised and complied with legal obligations & the cost to society in future should individuals in the present not recognise and comply with legal obligations [stall and/or reversal of societal progress].
“The house always wins” is not true of every house – the house that always wins is the one not generating any serious concerns for individuals embedded in the house that the house itself cannot resolve, that one that is continuously self-governing, that one that is continuously autonomous in its environment. A “house” destroying a life for no rational reason when objectively evaluated cannot be said to be a house that is “winning” and full of powerful individuals exerting individual power – individuals who are extremely ill and have lost all power over their own lives can destroy a life for no rational reason – this is evidence of a transitional state – a power loss transitional state – not evidence of a continuous state of high power.
Every war ends, every dysfunctional governance system falls, every repression strategy stops being effective, every silence is broken. War/violence has an energy cost, dysfunctional governance systems have an energy cost, repression has an energy cost, active silencing has an energy cost – all that unnecessary energy expenditure is a continuous unnecessary existential risk to life. Nature does not care if a society has fatigued itself with unsustainable and unnecessary activity, it doesn’t pause its natural disasters to give society an opportunity to fix itself, it doesn’t bend its physical activity to fit the prevailing social narrative.
Sometimes it is possible to avoid/run from/escape a difficult situation and to reduce risk to life & sometimes that’s not possible and an individual is forced to understand & deal with a difficult situation. If an individual is too afraid of the negative consequences of a difficult situation is it not possible to live the best life possible in that situation. It is necessary to be free enough from fear of negative consequences to move forward and live in a situation but not so free as to open up actions that would increase of the risk of even more negative consequences. Every individual lives with a continuous and ongoing risk to life, the magnitude of this risk varies throughout life, this is life. Every individual is faced with a difficult situation from time to time, has to make tough choices, choices that will leave a significant imprint on the individuals life.
If an individual acts on the system this is unlikely to have a significant impact on the system. If the system acts on an individual this is likely to have a significant impact on the individual. The asymmetrical consequences of individual-system actions is naturally fear-inducing for individuals. The bigger the system, the bigger the possible fears induced by this asymmetry. There is however a natural counterbalance to that particular type of fear – the intuitive sense individuals have that if no individual acts on the system then no systemic progress can be made and societal progress can stall or reverse. This is why individuals have always acted on the system in the past [with variable outcomes for the individual] and why individuals will continue to act on the system in future [with variable outcomes for the individual].
SPARTACUS · 4 August 2025 at 21:40
My final contribution to this particular blog: Institutions are made of people not buildings or reputation. Cambridge is rotten and in decline not because it is a bad institution, on the contrary: it is managed by BAD people- incompetent, imoral and corrupt to the core! From VC, to ProVCs, Registrary, Head of HR to Senior Professors & Heads of Department. They are the reason for the decline in the rankings and the toxic environment! They promote mediocrity and undermine meritocracy! A spade should be called a spade!
TigerWhoCametoET · 8 August 2025 at 07:12
This would appear to be the key fact of the matter. Formerly, there was a story to be has about how this or that student or postdoc or professor had some grievance at the university. But the story being investigated now is that of a culture of institutionalised abuse. Hence the central characters are no longer the individual victims : but rather the VC, HR, lawyers and Registry. That is what is truly different this time.
Seokmaster · 8 August 2025 at 15:21
Really good article, it covered all the important points. I appreciate the value and effort that went into creating this. Keep up the great work, it’s really helpful.
UCL — Unethical Conduct Labs - 21percent.org · 10 August 2025 at 06:24
[…] In 2015, Dr Emma Chapman, then a PhD student, lodged a formal complaint against UCL astrophysicist, Dr Felipe Abdalla, for ongoing harassment, some of it occurring after she returned from maternity leave with postnatal depression. The process dragged on for nearly 21 months, causing significant stress. UCL initially offered a settlement that included a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), which Dr Chapman bravely refused as reported in The Standard here. Eventually, she settled for financial redress, accompanied by a confidentiality waiver rather than an NDA — meaning she could speak out about the case. It was an important milestone in the campaign to ban NDAs which is coming to fruition next year. […]