Freedom of speech was a defining issue in Cambridge University’s recent Chancellorship race. The victor, Lord Smith of Finsbury, told The Observer that it is “our touchstone”. He praised the Vice Chancellor’s passionate advocacy:
“It’s why I’m delighted that since she arrived at Cambridge as our Vice Chancellor, Professor Deborah Prentice has placed such emphasis on the free interplay of speech and ideas. She has introduced a series of Vice Chancellor’s dialogues as a forum for modelling constructive disagreement and encouraging engagement with different opinions.” [Lord Smith of Finsbury]
Too often, “freedom of speech” is invoked as the right to criticise others—never as the duty to tolerate criticism of ourselves or to examine our own actions. Notwithstanding Professor Prentice’s & Lord Smith’s passion, this is very much the case at Cambridge University.
Recently, an HR Business Partner circulated a link for yet another survey on staff experience on Cambridge University’s internal Viva Engage site!
A Student wrote a short post in reply suggesting the person to look at this article in The Guardian before encouraging members to fill out yet more surveys. It discusses the fate of the University’s own Staff Culture Survey, the results of which were so bad that they have never fully appeared.
Several people liked the post. Some members contacted the Student thanking him for posting. One day later, the post had completely vanished.
What happened? The answer came the following day by the Office of External Affairs and Communications:
“The guidelines explain that Viva Engage should be… a safe, welcoming and inclusive community in which users treat one another with courtesy and professionalism even when challenging others’ views and opinions. There is no place for bullying, harassment, discrimination, sexual misconduct or victimisation. Users of Viva Engage should ensure they follow the University’s Code of Behaviour when posting or responding to material on the site… Having reviewed this post, I have decided to delete it on the grounds that it contravenes the acceptable use guidelines.” [Office of External Affairs and Communications]
Another shocking example is provided by the events described in The Telegraph. A senior administrator commissioned an independent report by a barrister into bullying events at its Institute of Astronomy. Several staff members pulled out of providing testimony to the barrister over “fears they would face retaliation” (a direct quote from the barrister’s report). Staff actually feared to say what had happened to them, lest HR or central administration retaliate.
Curiously, senior administrators did not seem very concerned when they learnt of this.
It strikes at the very heart of a university if academics are frightened of speaking up because of retaliation. It is the opposite of Freedom of Speech. In fact, this is common in a number of Cambridge University investigations known to the 21 Group. Staff are unwilling to talk to the investigator.
Inspector TRUSCOTT brings his fist down on the back of Hal’s neck. HAL cries out in pain and collapses on the floor.
TRUSCOTT: If you oppose me in my duty, I’ll kick those teeth through the back of your head. Is that clear?
(The door chimes)
FAY: Would you excuse me, Inspector?
TRUSCOTT: You’re at liberty to answer your own doorbell, miss. That is how we tell whether or not we live in a free country. [From ‘Loot’ by Joe Orton]
You’re at liberty to agree with the senior administration. That is how we tell whether or not we enjoy Freedom of Speech.
The old idea of the university as a place of learning is over
For students it’s all about jobs; for academics, survival.
No-one dare rock the boat about misdeeds. Universities make sure such troublemakers are targeted and got rid of
The scandals UCam oligarchy are hiding will eventually be revealed! The School of Clinical Medicine is suppressing a gigantic one! World leading research has been destroyed by senior management! Public good has been seriously damaged and several outstanding careers compromised!
Every allegedly “troublemaker” should give them as much work as possible. It is in our hands to allow this farce to continue or not. The real problem is not in the School of Clinical Medicine, the School of Physical Sciences, the School of Biological Sciences, or any other School or department in particular. The problem is with who manages all these Schools and expects that members accept to be manipulated or else leave. If that is their golden rule, then at the very least this must be public so that newcomers know about it. We cannot stand hypocrisy.
It seem counterintuitive but placing a focus on finding a fair and reasonable solution to a problem that draws on the minimum amount of systemic resources possible is the thing that generates the maximum amount of work for a system that has reached a state of high unfairness and unreasonableness but the minimum amount of work possible for a system that is in a state of fairness and reasonableness.
The right thing to do is always the right thing to do independent of the state of the system, it’s just much harder to do the right thing when the system is in one state as compared to when the system is in the other & there is then the risk that the amount of individual effort demanded to do the right thing cannot be delivered if the system has entered into a state of high unfairness and unreasonableness. It’s very difficult to generate as much work as possible for others without generating as much work as possible for yourself.
There must be a misunderstanding with this post. Students at Cambridge were recently notified with “Key information for students and staff,” which has a section dedicated to freedom of speech. It reads:
“In line with the Office for Students (OfS) condition E6, the University will apply our policies to tackle harassment and sexual misconduct in a manner consistent with principles of freedom of speech. In case of any perceived conflict, the provisions within the Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech will take precedence as long as that is lawful and reasonably practicable. Staff will receive mandatory training to understand freedom of speech rights and responsibilities, including how these relate to the University’s policies and procedures around harassment and sexual misconduct… Exposure to research, course material, academic debate and discussion, or speakers’ views that may be experienced as offensive, contentious or unacceptable but are nonetheless within the law, are unlikely to be considered harassment, unless they are specifically intended to violate a person’s dignity or to create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them. The University does not use non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) or confidentiality clauses. We are committed to ensuring staff and students are not prevented from discussing their experiences of harassment or sexual misconduct.”
All this information must be true as the senior management would not dare to send to students and staff precisely the opposite of what they practice on a daily basis. I like in particular the section, “The University does not use non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) or confidentiality clauses.” Well… except if you are a student who is being investigated for allegedly bullying the Vice-Chancellor, all the Pro-Vice Chancellors, the Academic Secretary, the Registrary, all the senior HR, all senior members of his previous Department, the Head of the Education Services, the Head of the Office of Student Conduct, Complaints and Appeals, etc. In this case, but just in this case, you will have to be in silence “to enable a full and fair investigation to be carried out.”
“The University does not use non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) or confidentiality clauses.
This statement is demonstrably untrue. Who wrote, or sent, this email to students?
As far as we are aware, the University’s position on NDAs is here
It states: “There are, however, rare occasions when non-disclosure agreements, made as part of the settlement of a dispute, can benefit all parties to it. Where a complainant genuinely wishes a settlement agreement to contain an NDA, its terms are clear and the complainant has received independent legal advice about its effect, the parties should be free to reach a settlement on this basis. The University is unable to give a commitment that could be interpreted as preventing the use of NDAs in this sort of situation, however infrequently it may arise.”
Apart from the words “rare” and “infrequently“, this is a correct statement of current policies as of August 2025
It is in the new website of the University:
https://www.studentsupport.cam.ac.uk/harassment-and-sexual-misconduct
On cue, there is a relevant posting on HEPI today discussing research on student freedom of speech at the LSE
https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2025/08/13/draft-title-free-speech-lauren-amdor/
“This included fearing academic repercussions for articulating a converging perspective to their teachers, visa revocation and the social consequences of adopting minority viewpoints including being ‘judged’, ‘ostracised’ or ‘persecuted’. The most cited fear, however, was disciplinary action against students by the University which was also central in the Right to Protest theme. ”
“This included fearing academic repercussions for articulating a converging perspective to their teachers, visa revocation and the social consequences of adopting minority viewpoints including being ‘judged’, ‘ostracised’ or ‘persecuted’. The most cited fear, however, was disciplinary action against students by the University which was also central in the Right to Protest theme. ”
If students fear voicing their opinions, criticizing their study program, or being persecuted, then what the fuck is the point of freedom of speech at universities?! And what on earth are they paying the highest fees in the industrialized world for?!
The freedom of speech cost an individual needs to be able to bear is not measured in pounds and pence – it’s measured in the amount of existential risk an individual can tolerate in their life. If students/staff in universities think that the existence of freedom of speech/academic freedom protections in universities means that those inside universities can say whatever they want and invoke free speech/academic freedom at which point a university can magically protect an individual inside a university from any existential risk that the individual has generated for themselves by their individual freedom of speech they fail to understand how freedom of speech/academic freedom protections operate in a university.
Those working inside universities [as a result of an exceptional degree of individual specialisation that occurs during their research] can be the first to exercise new free speech – generate a novel argument for society. The absolute amount of existential risk that can be generated as a result of exercising new free speech can be exceptionally high. There is no getting round this, an individual [inside or outside a university] cannot play with arguments/research – something which could create an existential risk for others if incorrect information enters into society as a result of that play – in a way which could not also create a reciprocal existential risk for themselves. Freedom of speech/academic freedom protection is there to de-risk an already high-risk free speech situation [one that is particular to a university setting] where it is invoked to protect conditions which permit a reasonable amount of play in arguments/research (controlled tolerance of the generation of information that is potentially false/inaccurate/incorrect – information that the university has a duty to protect society from during that play process) to facilitate the generation of accurate information for society on matters that are of critical importance to society. Freedom of speech/academic freedom protection in a university is something that only kicks when a free speech situation is already high risk, in situations that arise in the course of the university performing its core function for society [the generation of accurate information that is of critical importance to society] & when there is a strong public interest factor.
It’s rational for individuals inside and outside of universities to have some fear of freedom of speech situations. University environments have the potential to generate exceptionally complex high-risk freedom of speech situations for individuals in which individuals will have to bear a high level of existential risk to their life. It is therefore rational that some individuals in universities have a high level of fear of freedom of speech situations. Some people choose to avoid voluntarily engaging in high-risk activities – this is one strategy to minimise overall risk to life and it is effective so long as life does not later demand high-risk activities of the same people in which case they are unprepared for the high-risk situations life later demands of them. Other people choose to voluntarily engage in high risk activities – whilst this strategy appears at first glance to always increase risk to life for this group of people above the group of people who choose to avoid voluntarily engaging in high-risk activities – if a person learns to survive in a high-risk situation that is not demanded of them and that they therefore can have more control over then should life later demand high-risk activities from the same person, the person can be better prepared for those high-risk situations than a person who does not voluntarily engage in high-risk activities and so the total risk to life can turn out to be less depending on the times the person lives in and what life demands of them. Those who engage in high-risk activities – voluntarily or involuntarily – will discover a bitter sweet fact of life that a person can be at their most alive at the exact point in time when their life is most at risk.
The reason why some people are prepared to pay high university fees is the same reason why some people are prepared to pay significant amounts of money to voluntarily engage in high-risk activities – some people are prepared to pay for the chance to be at their most alive, an experience which – if they survive it – can later offer them some level of protection during the times when their lives are most at risk.
It also possible that students’ fear of freedom of speech in universities is now too high – if a student is applying to e.g. Cambridge University to study e.g. physics it’s highly unlikely that Cambridge University will try to extract any e.g. legal free speech out of the student unless the student is mistakenly taken into a law admissions interview instead of the physics admissions interview and neither the student nor the law admissions interviewers notice that until half-way through the interview when the physics interviewers rescue the student and to put them back in their freedom of speech comfort zone with some classical mechanics questions. This is just an illustrative tale.
Freedom of speech at UCam????? Are you kidding? Oligarchy under America Queen ensures it does not exist!
Bloody right!
The two most common ways in which academic freedom is restricted in universities are
1. Young scholars often find grant applications can be blocked or hindered by Heads of Department, compromising the principles of academic freedom that we hold so dear. The motivation here is very often academic jealousy or the desire to assert or gain control over grants. Sometimes, Heads of Department will refuse to permit grants to go forward unless changes are made to the proposal, including their names added as co-investigators.
2. Human Resources departments and the central administration wield considerable power. Academics critical of the direction of the university can often face retaliation, with grants blocked or promotion denied. Investigations can be instigated into these targets and they can even end up dismissed
Retaliation? I think there is a misunderstanding again. I was told that if you ask the senior management the precise definition of the word “reprisal” that is given in the “Procedure for the Investigation of an Allegation of Research Misconduct” namely in the definition of research misconduct as “failing to address possible infringements, such as attempts to cover up misconduct and reprisals against whistleblowers,” they say they do not have a definition for it. If you insist and then ask if they could give examples of what they consider reprisals or ask them how they can review a claim of research misconduct on those grounds if they do not know the term, they do not answer. In short, one can be confident that retaliation does not exist in this institution, both for staff and students.
There is an Employment Tribunal from 1-28 June 2026 at Bury St Edmunds under the Public Interest Disclosure Act.
The defendants are two of the most senior individuals at Cambridge University. They presided over attacks on a whistleblower (and 2 others), leading to lengthy investigation.
Two years later, the lengthy investigation concluded that it was “unfortunate” that there was no evidence & there never had been any evidence. Carl Beech territory.
“Unfortunate” is the word used by Prof Eilis Ferran. Many might think other adjectives are more appropriate for what happened.
Retaliation is rife in Cambridge University. The Director of HR even stated it was not necessary to have evidence before she began investigating someone.
Administrative freedom…
“The HR Director doesn’t believe in evidence. She thinks that it’s not needed for an HR investigation into you. Normally, she appoints a patsy or ‘tame academic’ to conduct the investigation. The ‘right conclusion’ is whispered into the patsy’s ear. If the HR Director has really got it in for you, then she has access to a battery of external HR consultants, lawyers and barristers who can respond to a knowing hint. They can ruin your life while reaching the conclusion she wants.
The entire Grievance system is corrupt. The HR Director and other powerful members of the HR department have their favourites who will always be exonerated. And they have a blacklist of those who have crossed them. If you’re on the blacklist, heaven help you.
Where I worked, there was no pretence at following any of our written policies. They were routinely ignored. If anyone kicked up a fuss, we would just ‘revise’ the written policy on the web.”
https://21percent.org/?p=1239
I honestly do not understand why the most senior professors with the most prestigious Chairs do not challenge her, unless they tacitly agree with this way of doing things. All this blows my mind, and it is really unfortunate that I was not aware of how things work before experiencing the scheme myself. I feel that it is my responsibility to alert all those who do not know it, but I am not sure what is the best way to do it. As I had posted earlier, most people who read this blog probably already experienced some form of institutional abuse, but we may be missing all those who did not experience it yet.
TheResearcher – I completely agree with your views on this, and there are now many others that do too.
Indeed, it is entirely possible for even senior academics, and other experienced staff, to be largely unaware of the true scale of the problem. Those that are aware of the full extent of the corruption and abuse are those that have been subjected to it, or those that are orchestrating or are complicit with it. Simply knowing this may get you in trouble too, so the word must get out, as they can’t sack everyone.
When the full picture became clear to me, I was very shocked at how many senior staff and HR staff went along with the scam to abuse and even dismiss staff unfairly.
The situation has gone well beyond simply keeping your head down to stay safe. Anyone can still become a target at any time, and even just for the sake of it.
This is far too dangerous for all concerned. At some point this cycle must be stopped or severely limited, even though some of those that have spoken out may not directly benefit. I believe we are very definitely at that stage.
To other readers of this blog – if you choose not to speak out in a way that leaves you exposed, then that is understandable. But perhaps please support those that do, in any way that you can.
In the interests of wider dissemination, I feel that many more reports from outside Cambridge would be beneficial. Exposure of this blog in the press and in science journals (like Nature) has been a major positive step, and I hope this will continue.
The Researcher of “The Story of the Snake — A Fable” and “A Sum of Adders” was recently told that the senior management is well aware of the blog and that they will take it into account in the sudden investigation against him. At least in that fantasy, the Researcher, a student himself, is being investigated for allegedly bullying—alone—all the most senior managers of his institution, rather than bullying people with less power than him, and must be in silence for fairness. It may sound strange for some people, but in that institution, this scenario makes complete sense! I hope this tale gets eventually recounted in the next years to come to staff and students that arrive to the institution, added in their welcome pack…
The current working conditions in academia – high proportion of academic researchers on fixed-term contracts – significantly increases the risk of academic freedom being unnecessarily and abusively restricted i.e. of one individual in a university successfully abusing a position power within the university to align the university against both its own interests and the public interest for the sole purpose of ensuring that their own individual interest dominates over the combined interests of (a) another individuals individual interest (b) the university interest and (c) the public interest.
***BREAKING***
A senior individual at the Legal Dept of a UK University is now under investigation by the Solicitor’s Regulatory Body
***BREAKING***
Once upon a time, I had a cat. I fed and loved the cat, and gave him everything he needed to grow and be happy.
One morning, I found him dead in the kitchen. Nearby his fat mammalian mass lay a tiny scorpion: still quivering and in shock from the battle.
At first I was enraged. I would kill the scorpion, I thought. He must be made to pay.
But then, I realised, it was the scorpion who had behaved in justice. For he was only thirsty from summer heat, and had entered at night seeking mere drops of water. The scorpion meant no threat to anyone. He certainly meant no threat to the cat.
Yet the cat had attacked all the same. I had given him all the things that the scorpion did not have and his only motive was malevolence. The scorpion exercised his right to exist by the only means he had available – using his deadly tail as a last defence.
That day, I threw out the cat to the fields. Perhaps in death, I thought, he might nourish new life – rather than destroy that which exists.
I put water into the garden for the scorpion, who never entered the kitchen again.
Now the scorpion patrols the house nightly, ready to strike new predators. And from that day forth all of the peace-loving animals of the family estate – the mice, bats, toads and frogs – lived in peace, liberated at last from the cat’s reign of terror.
The absence of a true and accurate shared understanding of a high-risk mutual threat situation where two parties are capable of destroying each other are brought into an unforeseen and historically unknown type of contact i.e. ambiguous/false information in a shared understanding of a novel high-risk mutual threat situation – can lead to entry into a situation where a type of justice singularity can occur i.e. where ambiguous/false information makes it impossible for true justice to be done in the situation.
True justice is done when the amount of work both parties do to resolve a situation in a way which aligns with their own interests is at a minimum. In this situation both parties could have done nothing and achieved a better outcome for both parties i.e. despite both parties having the capability to destroy each other and entering into a situation where it was physically possible for them to destroy each other it was unnecessary for either party to destroy each other to resolve the situation in their own interests – the conflicts of interest generated by this particular situation (when accurately analysed) were negligible and the cat could have let the scorpion drink and leave and generated negligible risk to its own existence.
The failure to consider the emergence of a threat from the physical environment that impacts one but not both parties (unshared threat from a source external to either party)- lead to a behaviour change for one but not both parties that then brought the two parties in contact in a novel situation where it was physically possible for either party to destroy each other and where the intent of the party that was forced to change its behaviour (and hence not surprised by the emergence of the novel situation) was unclear to the party that was not forced to change its behaviour (and hence surprised by the emergence of the novel situation). Since the parties were unable to communicate in the situation – high mutual level of threat generated high fear levels which impeded communication and this coupled with the lack of any shared mechanism to accurately communicate – this prevented an accurate shared understanding of the situation from emerging. It was not then possible to build a shared understanding, resolve information ambiguities and the parties therefore entered into a justice singularity where it was not then possible for either party to do true justice.
The best chance for the avoidance of entry into this type of justice singularity is if the party who is not surprised by the emergence of this novel situation has the intelligence to appreciate that the other party will be surprised by the emergence of this novel situation and that it is therefore necessary for them to put maximum effort into rapidly finding some shared mechanism to accurately communicate with the other party to build an accurate shared understanding of the novel situation and prevent the emergence of a justice singularity which is not in the interests of either party as neither party can then do true justice in the situation.
True justice – the building of an accurate shared understanding on which rational decisions can be taken to accurately resolve any high-risk conflicts of interest situation – is done through politics, not law.
Law is the analysis of situations where there has been injustice – true justice has not been done – for the purpose of error-correction to increase the probability that true justice is done in a similar type of situation in future – law exists for the purposes of continuously improving politics to increase the probability of true justice being done in future.
When true justice is not being done (politics has failed) and analysis of injustice is too slow to restore the ability to do true justice (law has failed) it is possible to enter into a justice singularity where it is not possible to do true justice, where infinite injustice is possible and all parties can then perish.
When an individual acts in a state of diminished responsibility analysing accountability for actions taken in this state is a significant challenge for legal systems : the range of possible accountability outcomes can range from not being accountable for these actions to being fully accountable for these actions – the reason for this is that a state of diminished responsibility is an internal justice singularity (individual mind = internal governance system with its own internal justice state) and legal systems are then trying to find true justice in situation where true justice is not possible because false information in the individuals mind reached the level where this generated an internal justice singularity.
The focus of politics and legal systems should therefore be on learning how to support individuals to avoid situations where true justice is not possible and not on trying to find true justice in situations where it was physically not possible. In order for an individual to remain stable and to minimise the chances of entering into a state of diminished responsibility i.e. in order to avoid an internal justice singularity where an individual cannot do true justice an individual must hold the belief that they are responsible for all their actions. Any health diagnosis that leads an individual to believe that they are not responsible or less responsible for their actions (when they are not in an internal justice singularity) rather than the individual will have to work harder or in different ways to avoid an internal justice singularity is not in the interest of the individual nor in the interest of society.
If there is a communal support system for those in need and an individual happens to come to rely in it, it is rational for an individual to continuously work to try to minimise their individual reliance on that support system i.e. to maximise their own ability. This is because physical environments can shift in unpredictable ways and support systems can therefore come under strain and degrade from time to time – despite no one intending for this to happen – and in such a times an individual who has continuously maximised their own ability is in the best position to help themselves, help other individuals and to continuously work towards stabilising that support system – this maximises the probability of the support system remaining in place for all those who need it in times of environmental instability and continuously improving the support system in times of environmental stability such that it can expand to effectively support more individuals.
I think it is a mistake to believe that an individual who may have had individual moral failings in the past can never then be a great leader for a group of individuals in future. Any individual who knows who they truly are has the potential to be a great leader – a leaders past does have to be solely filled with goodness and success for them to become a great leader in future – it is enough for a leader to be able to face the truth about themselves whatever that truth is (and however painful facing the truth about themselves is) as a leader knowing the truth about themselves is what maximally enables a leader to continuously take the most effective decisions as a leader i.e. to take accurate decisions that are maximally in the interest of the group they lead and in the public interest. If a leader truly knows themselves this enables the leader to accurately filter out any irrelevant self-interest in situations when they are taking decisions on behalf of the group they lead and the public.
It is very easy for an individual not in a position of leadership to unfairly criticise a leader and to assume that they could do a better job than that leader in relation to a particular situation if they were in that leaders position but this misses a critical point – armchair critics analyse a situation from the position of someone jumping between two big flat stones separated by a safe distance in their garden where the worst that could happen if they miss the jump is falling onto some grass. Leaders analyse a situation from the position of someone jumping between two small uneven stones separated by a challenging distance on top of a high, narrow mountain peak where if they miss the jump there is no landing.
There are two critical differences between the environmental conditions of the armchair critic and the environmental conditions of the leader when analysing a situation and making decisions with respect to it – information complexity and pressure – a leaders decision making in a situation is more complex than an armchair critic can imagine and the pressure to get that decision-making absolutely right is far higher.
An individual can find the truth about themselves with little to no direct input from other individuals if they are capable of significant amounts of reading and engaging in critical thought in relation to themselves. In reading it is important to seek out the most accurate information, to work hard to understand what is being read and to resolve any contradictions that arise in the course of reading.
Interacting with other individuals, talking, is an alternative approach that can speed up the process of an individual finding the truth about themselves but only if interacting with other individuals who know the truth about themselves. Those other individuals don’t have to be therapists, mental health professionals or even formally educated – they can be autodidacts. Individuals who know the truth about themselves are found throughout society in all walks of life – truth cuts through all boundaries.
Any individual who has read enough history books will be forced to confront the grimmest reality of the worst that has happened to other individuals in this world in the past and to live with some amount of uncertainty in their lives over whether they too as an individual will encounter situations in their lives where they and their loved ones are – starved, imprisoned, tortured, approached by an individual/group of individuals with an intent to end their individual existence – and to question whether they as an individual will be able to withstand all the challenging situations that it is possible for this world to throw at an individual.
An individual who confronts this uncertainty for the first time from a position of not being in those situations can feel unsettled and fearful i.e. get a true impression of the feelings that would be generated if they really were in those situations. Whilst the feelings generated in an individual confronting this uncertainty from this position can be accurate, the magnitude of these feelings is eclipsed by the magnitude of feelings generated in those individuals who are confronting that uncertainty from the position of actively living through these situations and having to continuously resist an active threat to their individual existence with all the individual strength they have.
At times of great uncertainty an individual will instinctively look for sources of certainty to steady themselves. One source of certainty at times of great uncertainty is thinking about home – the family that will accept and care for us whatever state we end up in, the home nation that will accept and care for us whatever state we end up in. Some individuals have no family and no home nation – where then is the home they can think of at times of great uncertainty? where then is their source of certainty in times of great uncertainty? There is a home that will accept us whatever state we end up in, a home that will offer sanctuary to every atom made a refugee when we cease to exist as an individual – a home out among the stars. We see reaching for the stars as an act of leaving home only to find that in reaching for the stars we are reaching for home.
We can continuously resist threats to our existence with all our strength – something which enables us to live our life to the absolute maximum possible – with the certainty that there is a home that will always accept us whatever state we end up in – a family, a nation state and ultimately a home out among the stars.
In the words of Carl Sagan “We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself.”
Plot twist: the mice had removed the water to set up the cat with a scorpion
Luckily that is just a tale!
It would be good to know how many stories are currently running in parallel and how we can bring all of them together.
The 21 Group has a good idea of how many fables are being spun
Probably a better idea than the pro Vice Chancellors who are surely kept in the dark
It is worse than you could ever imagine.
I trust then that the 21 Group will be able to bring all these stories together as soon as possible and highlight their common patterns to whom must act immediately to prevent further victims. The writers of these fables have imagination, to be sure, but their main advantage is working in the dark. Once the light spots on them, they will run away. But it may be necessary a collective action from all victims, regardless of consequences.
Mice, cats, scorpions …. It’s the fault of the mice
Sounds like British justice.
The most defenceless are blamed 😉
Close.
In reality, the fields were full of snakes. The malicious cat had asked the snakes to remove the water so as to bring the scorpion closer and give him a new toy to abuse.
When the scorpion emerged safe and sound the mice revealed the communications that showed exactly how the scorpion was deceived and why.
So now the justice-loving scorpions work in partnership with the peace-loving mice and together as one, they have hunted down the last of the vipers.
I reckon these vipers are different than those in “A Sum of Adders” as those are pretty much impossible to hunt at this stage, regardless the evidence available against them. Now, it is good that in this story “the mice revealed the communications that showed exactly how the scorpion was deceived and why” but in these tales there is always a chance to flip the script. I would not be surprised if the mice would end up being investigated for allegedly bullying everyone and spreading false information in the farm. It will depend on the power and status of the vipers in that story…
As this outcast said before there is only one solution: to dismiss the oligarchy and get the University back to its scholastic ethos! American Queen and all senior management at UCam must go!
Bloody right!