Over the past five years, the culture of Cambridge University has deteriorated substantially, as judged by the numbers of Data Subject Access Requests. These are often used by individuals in dispute with the University. They are a rough proxy for the number of staff grievances. The same pattern is seen in the steady increase of staff referrals to Occupational Health.
The workforce has become increasingly stressed and unhappy. What about the students?
OSCCA is the Office for Student Conduct, Complaints and Appeals at Cambridge University. It remains far less known than it should be. Yet the volume of student complaints it receives underlines its significance. These figures, set out in OSCCA’s Annual Reports from the past five years here, reveal how student grievances are investigated and resolved.
OSCCA deserves praise for openness and transparency. The Annual Reports provide comprehensive data on numbers of investigations, average investigation length, outcome, as well as breakdown of complainants according to gender, race, disability and status. None of this is available for staff grievances. Why not?
Getting statistics off an HR department is like trying to get meat off a hammerhead shark. Freedom of Information requests are rebuffed by co-conspirators with claims that the data are too hard or too expensive to gather. Clearly, they are not. If they can be gathered for student complaints, then they can gathered for staff complaints
That said, let’s look at the data. The total number of complaints is not given much prominence in the Reports. What is stated is the number of investigated grievances. Many complaints are ruled out for reasons such as “out of time” or “out of scope”. This is troubling, since every grievance deserves proper consideration.
Reasons for not investigating complaints included students withdrawing their complaint, referring the complaint to local resolution or the complaint being referred to an alternative procedure, such as the individual College complaint procedure. It is noted that complaints are often complex and raise multiple issues. Therefore, the main issue identified has been counted in the data. For example, there are a number of complaints that may raise matters relating to College provision, alongside a substantive University complaint issue, but these elements are deemed ineligible for consideration under the Student Complaint Procedure. As a result, these cases are not taken forward [OSCCA Report, 2023-2024]
In 2023–24, OSCCA investigated 78 cases, down slightly from 84 the previous year. But 30 of the 2022–23 cases arose from the Marking and Assessment Boycott. Excluding these, the underlying picture is one of continuous growth: the number of complaints has doubled compared with 2020–21 and 2021–22. The most common categories were supervision or course issues and staff behaviour. The COVID peak at 2019-202 is clearly visible in the data, as students complained about the degraded university experience during the pandemic. However, complaints are now higher than at peak COVID.
There has been an increase in the overall number of cases compared to previous years, demonstrating a continuous upward trend. Cases continue to increase in complexity. The OSCCA team also continues to spend significant time providing procedural advice to Departments and Colleges, and in particular to Faculties and Departments in relation to investigating academic misconduct …. The OSCCA team increased from 6.8 FTE at the start of the 2022-23 academic year to 10.1 FTE by 30 September 2024, in recognition of increasing numbers and complexity of discipline cases. This includes two new Investigators (1.5 FTE) who joined the team in Easter Term 2023, increasing the team’s capacity for disciplinary investigations. [OSCCA Report 2023-2024]
Interestingly, most complaints concerning staff behaviour and course supervision come from postgraduate students. In 2023-2024, there were 24 investigated complaints from undergraduates and 54 from postgraduate. This pattern reflects the brutal power dynamics within Departments, where PhD students are heavily dependent on a small number of individuals — particularly their supervisors — for academic progress and career prospects. Undergraduates, by contrast, can rely more on the broader support structures of their Colleges, which reduces the risk of any single staff member wielding disproportionate influence. The data also show that females (59%), ethnic minorities (43%) and students with disabilities (32%) are all over-represented amongst those raising complaints — the latter figures being especially alarming given their low representation rates at the University.
Yet the most striking trend is that the number of (investigated) grievances that are upheld has not risen. On the contrary, the success rate for complaints has collapsed from 50 % in 2016-2017 to 13 % in 2023-2024. Such a dramatic change cannot be ignored. This raises serious questions about whether OSCCA’s thresholds for upholding grievances are fair, or whether some students’ concerns are being wrongly dismissed.
At the very least, the figures suggest a widening gap between the number of students who are unhappy and feel compelled to raise issues and the proportion whose voices are formally acknowledged, a gap that risks undermining trust in the entire process.
92 Comments
Digitalis · 7 September 2025 at 08:36
If they are colluding with our poisonous HR dept, then there is no hope
TheResearcher · 7 September 2025 at 09:32
There is a lot to say about these figures, namely that we need to know the total number of complaints received to have a better idea of dissatisfaction. One of the typical ways that OSCCA uses to dismiss cases is arguing that the issue is not part of the “student experience.” If you check this issue in the Student Complaints Procedure, this reason is not even there. If you ask OSCCA how they define “student experience” they do not tell you. If you ask many questions, they diagnose you with “unreasonable persistent behaviour” and close the case immediately.
For those who have never done a formal complaint at OSCCA, their automatic email says, “Thank you for completing the Student Complaints Procedure: Formal Complaint Form. Please find a copy of your form below. You will receive a formal acknowledgement of your complaint within 7 calendar days.” Guess what, there are cases when OSCCA never follows up with the complaint after this automatic message and does not even tell the student why. The student asks his college if OSCCA can ignore a formal complaint, and the college says that OSCCA cannot. The student asks OSCCA directly if they can ignore a formal complaint, and they do not respond.
The circus with OSCCA is the same when we interact with HR, and no wonder why. Yes, Digitalis, OSCCA gets advice from HR, namely the Lead HR Business Partner of the Department where the misconduct happened. You can see the arrangements they do if you make a DSAR including chats in Microsoft Teams for example, in addition to emails. The really striking thing is the power dynamics between OSCCA and the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA), the allegedly “independent” ombudsman for students. If you ever make a claim at OIA, do not forget to ask DSARs there too, including the phone calls between OSCCA and OIA. These calls are recorded, and students will want to know what OSCCA says about them, namely how OSCCA argues in the background how to avoid sending specific information for the investigations at OIA.
TheResearcher · 7 September 2025 at 09:48
People interested in these figures should make FOI requests. I have done one last week, but I reckon that the Information Compliance Office will find an excuse to not sending me the data I asked for. In addition to unpacking the total number of complaints received by OSCCA—these are likely hundreds!—it is important to unpack the wholly and partially upheld cases. From the annual reports, it seems that it is extremely rare that OSCCA upholds complaints wholly, typically 1 per year. Food for thought, namely to Tutor and Senior Tutors of Cambridge Colleges.
" " · 7 September 2025 at 10:16
“Yes, Digitalis, OSCCA gets advice from HR, namely the Lead HR Business Partner of the Department where the misconduct happened.”
What a surprise! The hallmark of some “Lead HR Business Partners” seems indeed a somewhat – err – “holistic” approach to all things grievance-related. They advise on and/or write every draft to every response at every stage of a complaints and appeals process, and beyond, informed by an amazing amount of – err – “confidential” (aka no fact checking possible) information to which they seem to have – err – privileged access.
All of which seems to be motivated essentially by self-preservation and increasing annoyance at someone’s Unreasonably Persistent Behaviour, when attention wants to be drawn to the spider in the web (with apologies for animalisation).
TheResearcher · 7 September 2025 at 11:40
“Yes, Digitalis, OSCCA gets advice from HR, namely the Lead HR Business Partner of the Department where the misconduct happened.”
Cherry on Top: The student had complained about that Lead HR Business Partner and other senior members of the Department that the Lead HR Business Partner was trying to protect. OSCCA does not know what conflicts of interest are. The student had sent OSCCA evidence that this Lead HR Business Partner—to be sure, the same Lead HR Business Partner of the most discussed case by the 21 Group—was an absolute liar and even dares to approach people who complain about her warning them about their “baseless personal attacks on the integrity and professionalism of members of the University.” There is never enough evidence to complain about this Lead HR Business Partner as many others tried to complain about her, and she is still around.
You may wonder, was this disturbing interaction done by a low rank of OSCCA? Not at all! It was done by the Director of OSCCA herself.
Victim · 7 September 2025 at 12:03
As poster IntheLoup stated on last thread,
“All these scandals have now become a game of “pass the potato”. No-one wants to be the last one holding when they explode. Needless to say those doing the passing know the explosive nature of the material but share nothing with those they pass to…”
HR has handed an unexploded bomb to OSCCA … tick, tock, tick, tock. The unpredictable element is that it can explode at any moment.
The bomb was passed to TeddyBear and it exploded with him in possession.
TheResearcher · 7 September 2025 at 12:20
Funny enough, if you track what different individuals of OSCCA say to each other in Teams—they are not all in the same building and that is why they use Teams to message each other—they do discuss how HR leave them potatoes to sort out… This said, OSCCA seems very happy to learn the techniques that HR had developed to deal with staff, and it is deeply disturbing to know that these can be applied to students.
JohnG · 7 September 2025 at 14:15
It is funny how the same names come up again and again and again. it just shows how there is no smoke without fire. First one report under the teddy months ago. then another. then all these new ones.
FYI · 7 September 2025 at 12:40
https://www.cambridgesu.co.uk/news/article/cambridgesu/disciplinary-procedures/
Usual tactic of talking the talk but not walking the walk
TheResearcher · 7 September 2025 at 13:11
“Usual tactic of talking the talk but not walking the walk”
https://www.breakingthesilence.cam.ac.uk/breaking-silence-university-statement
The text is recent, and it is a must read, but I like these passages in particular:
“There is no place for any form of harassment or sexual misconduct at the University of Cambridge. The University is committed to creating and maintaining a safe, welcoming, inclusive and diverse community that nurtures a culture in which we treat one another with courtesy and consideration. All members of the University community must be able to thrive without fear of sexual violence, abuse, coercive behaviour or related misconduct… Staff and students must feel able to make disclosures and report harassment and sexual misconduct without fear of reprisal.”
After reading the text, check the fables “The Story of the Snake — A Fable” and “A Sum of Adders,” and then the ChatGPT reply in “They have fangs, they have teeth.” Conclusion: We should all feel very safe in reporting behavioural and research misconduct in the University of Cambridge!
Yawn · 7 September 2025 at 13:18
Same as it ever was…
Victim · 7 September 2025 at 14:15
True, HR is Cambridge has always been bad. What is new is the levels of dishonesty involved in webpages like “Breaking the Silence”
https://www.breakingthesilence.cam.ac.uk/breaking-silence-university-statement
Apparently this statement was written by Kamal Munir and Bhaskar Vira. Or at least their pictures lie below it. They must know that the webpages contains deliberate untruths.
“I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself.”
The purpose of the “Breaking the Silence” webpage is to humiliate us.
Almost everyone knows that what is stated on ‘Breaking the Silence’ is untrue, certainly all the Professors, Heads of School, Heads of House, ProVCs and the VC do. They are making us assent to statements that we all know are self-evidently false.
VH · 7 September 2025 at 14:26
The time has come to live in truth.
No more shame, no more lies, no more half truths or qualifications, just the facts.
The passage from lies to truth is the only authentic liberation from pain.
Everything else only prolongs the suffering.
TheResearcher · 7 September 2025 at 14:34
“Apparently this statement was written by Kamal Munir and Bhaskar Vira”
Most likely it was written by HR, and ProVCs simply agree with the game. Students should expect a message from Prof. Vira early next term along the lines,
“I want to warmly welcome you to Cambridge – for those who are arriving at this University for the first time, and to those who are returning – for the start of the academic year. We’ve listened to student feedback on what you want to hear about from us… As the Vice-Chancellor emphasised this week in her October 1st address to the University, we need to look out for each other, and make sure that Cambridge is a welcoming and safe place for all, whatever our backgrounds. I would encourage you to take time to consider others within our community, and to provide empathetic support to each other – a little kindness can go a long way.”
Please remind Prof. Vira, Pro-Vice Chancellor for Education, when you receive that message the meaning of hypocrisy and that there is now an increasing number of members of the University tired of these ridicules messages.
Eileen Nugent · 9 September 2025 at 02:22
What matters is that this is an official statement of the organisation and it has now been made which means that if the organisation subsequently acts in ways which significantly contradict this organisational statement – organisational irrationality – that in itself can be the basis for raising concerns with national regulators and/or challenging organisational decision-making in a court of law.
Whether everyone knows statement to be true or untrue and whether anyone is made assent to the statement or not is less important than the fact statement itself has been made – the organisation as a legal entity in its own right has made this statement – and if the organisation subsequently takes decisions that are inconsistent with this statement – i.e. through its organisational decisions/actions generates evidence that an organisational statement it is making is untrue in an individual case – those organisational decisions/actions can be challenged in a regulatory/legal process to pave the way for further organisational decisions/actions that are consistent with this statement i.e. the existence of this organisational statement itself can be used by an individual to initiate regulatory/legal processes that prompt organisational decisions/actions to make this statement true in an individual case.
An organisation must either live up to the statements it is making or stop making those statements if it is unable to live up to them – it cannot continuously exist in a state of making statements that its actions repeatedly demonstrate to be untrue.
21percent.org · 9 September 2025 at 06:35
“An organisation must either live up to the statements it is making or stop making those statements if it is unable to live up to them – it cannot continuously exist in a state of making statements that its actions repeatedly demonstrate to be untrue”.
That is a brilliant way of stating it — agreed wholeheartedly
Eileen Nugent · 9 September 2025 at 02:41
I can understand the sentiment behind this statement : “The purpose of the “Breaking the Silence” webpage is to humiliate us.” but I found it helpful to think of this situation in different terms : the actions of some individuals in the University of Cambridge are humiliating the University of Cambridge – it doesn’t want to exist in a state where it is making statements that are untrue – and its relying on the actions of other individuals in the University of Cambridge to stop itself from being humiliated.
Eileen Nugent · 9 September 2025 at 03:41
When an individual works out the organisational decisions/actions that make the statements the University of Cambridge is making true in their individual case the individual is sparing the University of Cambridge from being humiliated.
SPARTACUS · 7 September 2025 at 15:00
I have said many times that under the current regime of the American Queen, which followed the disastrous Canadian little lawyer, the oligarchy of the University has a consistent process: 1- it decides a priori the outcome of any complaint or grievance; 2- Registrary and Head of HR spring into action to execute the process such that pre-determined outcome is arrived at; 3- oligarchy chooses a compliant Responsible Person*; 4- HR runs the process to ensure desired outcome; 5- HR, Registrary and senior management circle the wagons to ensure any appeal is quashed; 6- victim is muzzled (under the guise of confidentiality); 7- victim is left to personally pay any costs (including legal costs); 8- all members of oligarchy involved have legal costs covered by University Chest.
*A list of recurring compliant Responsible Persons is well known to top legal firms. Usually members on this list get eventually their recompense: promotion within oligarchy, top jobs at UKRI, Regius Professprships.
21percent.org · 7 September 2025 at 15:26
Agreed — the Responsible Persons all want something from the University.
It’s why they do the job.
TheResearcher · 7 September 2025 at 16:51
The other likely reason why the Responsible Person acts as such is to retribute the help from the university in cases where they had been involved in misconduct.
If you ask the university how they decide who the Responsible Person is for a given case, they come up with all sorts of explanations, such as they have “experience” in similar cases. Then ask them how they train these individuals for their first time as Responsible Person, or how many cases they had upheld in the past before your case, and see what happens. Silence.
TigerWhoCametoET · 8 September 2025 at 19:28
I found out after my own ordeal that the rate of complaints upheld is close to 0%. Maybe single digits… probably only then because of internal politics?
TigerWhoCametoET · 8 September 2025 at 19:31
Within the cases upheld I am not sure any senior figure ever faced sanction of any kind, while all records are conveniently buried. The only justice is public justice.
Bloody right · 7 September 2025 at 15:40
Bloody right!
Dee · 7 September 2025 at 19:36
Who appointed these Vice Chancellors?
There is a huge advantage for the existing administration if the VC comes from thousands of miles away and has no support base in Cambridge.
TheResearcher · 7 September 2025 at 20:37
That may well be true, but a Vice Chancellor who witnesses misconduct by her colleagues, namely those she manages, and does nothing to prevent it, cannot be excused regardless of their limited base in Cambridge. If junior members can confront senior members for their malpractices, she could surely do it as well, if she wanted.
Sculotte · 9 September 2025 at 09:15
This is very true. Doubtless many of these problems existed under Stephen Toope: who was also an outsider needing time to get to grips with the dysfunctional internal apparatus.
Yet in his defence he did try to serve a leadership role at the institution. For example he sent regular messages to all staff and students to keep us informed of events and plans for the university: sometimes providing such updates once a month, as would be expected of a person holding an executive leadership role with a responsibility to uphold a sense of trust and integrity with its members.
By contrast the current VC has never once done so. All we have are these silly Christmas videos. Which are largely viewed as condescending and irrelevant as well as self-centred and perhaps also somewhat pompous to boot.
I do suspect that if Toope had remained in the role he would have long since intervened to address the awful institutional failings that are now apparent. Even if it would have taken him a little time to finally learn the reality in the face of a clear and consistent pattern of concealment and cover-up he made at least some attempt to be in contact with those at the receiving end and be able to get their feedback directly.
Eileen Nugent · 9 September 2025 at 12:42
I think there is a problem with some of the logic being applied in this post. When Professor Stephen Toope was in office – there was an unusual organisational situation [response to unusual global external situation] and this situation temporarily forced a change in governance patterns in the organisation [increased need for collective action, increased governance connectedness, increased transparency in communication, increased governance speed] and organisational communication patterns including VC-organisation communication patterns were altered whereas by the time the current VC took office the organisation was already trying to revert back to its ‘normal’ organisational governance and communication patterns [patterns which have had problems the no one wanted to acknowledge for decades] so I think that situational organisational kinetics is playing a role in the differences in how the organisation is communicating with individuals including VC-organisation communication now as compared to then.
The university has a professional communications team – VCs are not being left to improvise their own communications when made in their official university capacity – the communications team is supposed to assist outsiders in quickly matching to their communication to their new environment i.e. the communications team are like communication translators for the VCs who enter from outside the organisation. The success of the communications team can be judged on how the VC is perceived in Cambridge relative to their perception in their previous environments and how the VC is perceived before an individual meets the VC in person relative to how the VC is perceived after they meet the VC in person – if there are significant differences then the problem is with the communications team.
I think one of the root causes of the problem is that the organisation tried to reduce stresses on a subset of individuals in the organisation relative to another subset individuals in the organisation but without any mechanism in place to measure the absolute collective stress of the organisation something which is distributed as an absolute stressor across all individuals in the organisation. It is possible to reduce relative stress in an organisation – even out stress on individuals in an organisation – in ways which increase the absolute magnitude of collective stress in an organisation instead of decreasing it i.e. produce a whole organisation that is collectively losing because of organisational actions up to an including all those individuals that the organisation is actively trying to ‘help’ with its organisational actions.
This is why when trying to reduce relative stress differences in a group of individuals it is important to measure absolute collective stress to make sure organisational change is going in the right direction i.e. producing situations where the whole organisation is collectively winning or at least not collectively losing through its organisational actions as whilst it may be possible to temporarily accept higher collective organisational stress en route to significant decreases in collective organisational stress continuously making changes that continuously increase collective organisational stress is unsustainable.
I think the trap organisations fall into when appointing new leaders – to ‘rescue them’ and/or to have a new individual to sacrifice should an organisation end up in a situation where it feels the need to ‘save itself’ – when the organisation already has in place these types of deeply entrenched organisational problems that cannot be solved instantaneously is this : A new leader cannot start intervening on day one to try to start fixing these types of organisational problems without also creating the risk of making that organisational problem they are trying to fix much worse. If a problem has already reached a critical state – the physical timescales for analysing that critical problem don’t just magically disappear and pave the way for an instantaneous intervention that is guaranteed to be a successful because one individual wills that to be the case. This is especially true in a university where problems play out over years and hence require careful observation of the problem over years for its proper analysis without which the probability of the intervention being successful is low.
Organisations in this situation risk falling into a pattern of abusing leaders who are capable of fixing these problems instead of just accepting that organisational kinetics places some limit on the timescale for a successful intervention and supporting a leader that is capable of fixing the problems. If an organisation falls into this organisational trap – it does nothing to increase the speed at which the actual problems are fixed and just leads to constant leadership churn without the fixing of any organisational problems reducing the speed at which the problems are fixed. How many leaders can an organisation hire and characterise as incapable before the organisation starts to look incapable itself and people start re-evaluating the capability of all the leaders that the organisation was characterising as incapable?
If you think about the timescale for gathering information and investigating and analysing problems in a university – it’s years, PhDs take years – that is an indication of how long the timescale for a successful organisational intervention can be in these situations. These are the organisational kinetics at play that are limiting the intervention speed.
Beatrix · 7 September 2025 at 20:53
Nurse Emily
Father Ted · 7 September 2025 at 23:15
Nurse Emily, eh? Is she responsible for the HR fuck-up, too?
TheResearcher · 8 September 2025 at 07:53
Nurse Emily has been on leave for months and things continue disgraceful. The current situation is the result of many people, not least fireman Mike.
CareQualityCommission · 8 September 2025 at 08:57
Suspect her nursing days may be coming to an end
Xyz · 8 September 2025 at 06:53
What about Nurse Emily? Did she (self-)appoint herself?
SPARTACUS · 7 September 2025 at 22:04
American Queen is a complete disaster! She should resign! She presides and is ultimately responsible for the rot and toxicity that now rein in Cambridge!
Burnt · 8 September 2025 at 08:42
TheResearcher, thanks for reminding us of Fireman Mike …
Fireman Mike never sees a difference between the burning and the saving. When the sirens call, he shows up with his jerry can sloshing like a Revivalist hymn.
Everyone screams as he douses the flames with rags soaked in gasoline, yet somehow — by dawn — the blaze has gone, leaving only the blackened ruins and charred bodies.
“Better ashes than hope,” Fireman Mike always mutters as he surveys the devastation at the end.
Fireman Mike’s already moving onto another call, humming through the smoke in a light baritone, making problems worse so they can be called solved.
TheResearcher · 8 September 2025 at 13:26
Incidentally, fireman Mike chose the most discussed Lead HR Business Partner in the 21 Group to coordinate a grievance, which was against herself! Surely that was a mistake as that choice would be associated with conflicts of interest, right? Not for fireman Mike! When the claimant highlighted that issue, no one answered… When later the claimant asked for an update, no one answered… When the claimant reported this responsiveness, no one ever replied.
21percent.org · 8 September 2025 at 13:54
It’s standard in the University sector. Here’s another case in the news right now:
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/university-of-limerick-whistleblowers-were-penalised-for-speaking-out-report-finds/a764638269.html
Paywalled, but here is the relevant bit
“The review — carried out by independent barrister William Maher following a string of controversies at the university — found that some whistleblower complaints were “weaponised” by senior University of Limerick (UL) officials amid a culture of mistrust. It said the university failed to offer appropriate safeguards to those who raised legitimate concerns. Conflicts of interest were also a significant factor in how disclosures were handled at UL, with parties implicated in complaints then playing key roles in investigating those same complaints.”
If ‘Concerned Face Nigel’ has done something wrong, it’s best that he looks into it himself so he can exonerate himself.
TheResearcher · 8 September 2025 at 15:52
I now understand why I was told today by a member of the University Council that Cambridge was not as bad as I pictured it. I was told that it is actually not bad at all and as all institutions, there are aspects that need to be improved… When I asked what aspects need improvement, complete silence.
Poor fireman Mike, he had to put up with so many emails from me reminding him about deadlines, conflicts of interest, or simply the fact that a Head of Department changed his version of the facts one day after an Appeal Hearing by contacting the Chair of the Committee directly. My bad, it turns out that these behaviours are the norm!!!
‘Concerned Face Nigel’… what a disappointment! I hope he arrives safely to the Bury St Edmunds Employment Tribunal in June 2026 on his bike because I want to see him there.
Eileen Nugent · 9 September 2025 at 00:40
“Parties implicated in complaints then playing key roles in investigating those same complaints” has the potential to generate significant organisational decisions that are not in the interests of the organisation. If significant numbers of significant organisational decisions are made that are not in the interests the organisation such decisions can lack the coordination that decisions made in the interests of the organisation would inherently have. This lack of coordination can produce : organisational contradictions = organisational irrationality = distortions of organisational behaviour away from the optimal for a particular environment = reduced organisational efficiency.
When the organisation is operating in a stable environment and in non-critical organisational conditions i.e. dealing with a lower rate of lower-complexity problems the level of organisational irrationality generated may not be significant nor the loss of organisational efficiency due to mismanaged conflicts of interest noticeable. If the conditions become more unstable and/or the organisational approaches critical conditions – the organisation can become increasingly irrational and at risk of a governance breakdown.
Ashes · 8 September 2025 at 18:42
“Incidentally, fireman Mike chose the most discussed Lead HR Business Partner in the 21 Group to coordinate a grievance, which was against herself!”
It’s the dousing of flames with rags soaked in gasoline… or the noose which tightens a little more every time you move to reduce the pain. There’s real expertise there. The only field of expertise.
TheResearcher · 8 September 2025 at 19:36
Trust me when I say that the real problem is not the American Queen, the Nurse Emily, the Fireman Mike, or any other person in particular, nor even the fencer Andi, but all those who are aware of what they do and pretend they do not know it. I had the most surreal meeting with a member of the Council who told me that he knows better than I the current state of affairs precisely because he is a member of the Council and that was unfortunate that I did not have the outcome that “I wanted” regarding my complaints! When I asked him if he was aware of the culture of concealing and manipulation of information in Cambridge, he told me that was my view. This was deeply disappointing because it is a person who was never mentioned here and you would think that he would at least admit the current state is poor.
Ashes · 8 September 2025 at 20:58
When there’s hard evidence and it’s uncomfortable, it’s “your view”.
As opposed to?
Summaries the state of the University, really.
Wistful · 9 September 2025 at 10:18
One of the benefits of this group for the university is that it provides an overdue sounding board to diagnose our problems, and get a handle on what has been going so terribly wrong for such a long period of time. This is something we can all learn from to improve and do better.
In my view, the root issues are not only institutional, but cultural.
This “culture” reduces to two factors: a) negligence and b) reactivity.
a) Negligence means issues being ignored deliberately. For example, tasking complaints to over-large committees ensures no-one bears responsibility. Worse, the agenda and process (and ultimately the outcome) are set by HR (who one suspects are either informally or directly told to see that any complaint is dismissed). No individual has the responsibility to see fair standards upheld. I understand those brave few who stand up for due process, themselves risk being called in to question (resulting in normalisation of negligent conduct once they finally give up or leave).
b) Reactivity. This is almost on the level of an institutionalised personality disorder. Automatic offence is taken simply from the act of raising a concern. As a result of this disposition, the innocent who experience one wrong, are then exposed to the additional wrong of being dismissed. Or even worse forms of retaliation, should they insist on their right to be heard and fairly considered, rather than belittled and ignored.
TheResearcher · 9 September 2025 at 11:45
“One of the benefits of this group for the university is that it provides an overdue sounding board to diagnose our problems, and get a handle on what has been going so terribly wrong for such a long period of time.”
That the university reads the posts of the 21 Group, namely OSCCA and HR, that is for sure, but it is not to make a self-critique, unfortunately. Instead, they use our posts to remind those who they can identify from what they say here that our posts “can” work against us, namely when we are under an investigation that must be confidential, when we must be in silence “to enable a full and fair investigation to be carried out.” These people live in a parallel world and do not seem to grasp that their implicit threats do not have effect on some members and just make the situation worse.
21percent.org · 9 September 2025 at 12:44
We can confirm that the blog is read by members of senior management of Cambridge University.
We reiterate — the 21 Group does not & will not disclose the names of posters to anyone. We also recommend use of a VPN when posting for additional security.
All posts are welcome — except those that are purely abusive or possibly libellous which are removed.
A few months ago, some members of Cambridge HR did frequently post here — giving valuable perspective.
LavrentiyPavlovich · 9 September 2025 at 13:01
“A few months ago, some members of Cambridge HR did frequently post here — giving valuable perspective.”
They’re now in the Lubyanka 😉
Anon · 9 September 2025 at 13:10
Anglia Ruskin?
Eileen Nugent · 9 September 2025 at 13:33
I don’t think individuals in these positions have fully thought through what maintaining organisational confidentiality means in the context of these situations otherwise they would not so readily take unnecessary actions that could push individuals into situations where an individual is left with no alternative option but to report to national regulators and/or take legal action. These unnecessary actions taken on behalf of the organisation are then forcing the organisation to enter into situations where the organisation has less overall control over its organisational confidentiality.
HR can threaten an individual – those threats do not change the fact an individual has a legal obligation to the organisation. What then are then is HR expecting to achieve with these threats? Is HR expecting to achieve that an individual who still has a legal obligation to the organisation feels threatened – I fail to see how this is helping the organisation. If a legal obligation to an organisation is triggered it means there is an active threat to the organisation – that threat to the organisation doesn’t just go away just because HR threatens an individual and the individual then stops trying to comply with a legal obligation to the organisation. This is like an organisation blinding itself to its problems – it doesn’t make the problems go away – it just makes the organisational problems even harder to see and even harder to solve.
Eileen Nugent · 9 September 2025 at 13:54
Threats – gross organisational distortions and inaccurate organisational representations of an individual – false allegations – the whole organisational works can be applied to an individual. It is an unfortunate fact of life that an individual can end up in the political situational equivalent of high-speed car crash and just as would apply in the case of any individual ending up in any type of high-speed car crash – the nucleation of that high-risk situation they ended up in may have very little to do with the drivers own driving capability which could – based on their previous driving history – be exceptional.
ExCam · 10 September 2025 at 12:00
besides VPN you can you also use TOR browser for credible anonymity, which has established record for use by whistleblowers operating in unsafe environments.
TheResearcher · 9 September 2025 at 13:09
“All posts are welcome — except those that are purely abusive or possibly libellous which are removed. ”
Surely the members of the senior management who are the subject of our comments think that our comments are abusive, even if they are made as fables… All my comments come from tales, and any resemblance to actual events or real persons is purely coincidental!!!!
Anon · 9 September 2025 at 13:15
“for the avoidance of doubt we are not diagnosing any individual member of HR, only what might be going on in a situation like this”
TheResearcher · 9 September 2025 at 13:37
Exactly! But fun fact, many of those who we describe in our fables have “Unreasonably Persistent Behaviour” (UPB) in that they continue with their malpractices regardless of the complaints we raise against them or against other senior members they protect. They truly display striking, perhaps the best, examples of UPB in the institution!
TigerWhoCametoET · 9 September 2025 at 08:05
It is perhaps a minor point, but why do HR describe themselves as “business partners”? That is to say, what is the “business” and who is the “partner”? And when did such bizarre nomenclature begin? It has always seemed symbolic of how deeply out of touch they are with the culture and values of a public service organisation.
TheResearcher · 9 September 2025 at 08:49
I think I know why they call themselves HR Business Partners. They are “partners” of Departmental HR, and the “business” is the local problems of each department. The name is rather ridiculous, but I think it is not that bad compared to what they actually do, or how they are presented to the exterior.
In my case, after months of “investigations” of a report of harassment, the university eventually had to discuss the matter with UKRI because UKRI wanted to know what was happening with me. Local HR reassured UKRI that the “Lead HR Business Partner” had recently been involved to address the “unfortunate situation” as if then an independent and experienced body would take over the situation. Later I learned through DSARs that the Lead HR Business Partner of my department, incidentally the Lead HR Business Partner of the most discussed case in the 21 Group, had been involved in my case since the very beginning because local HR were clueless on how to address the report of harassment that I had made. It was this Lead HR Business Partner who gave the advice on how local HR and the Head of Department should interact with me and my sponsors. This Lead HR Business Partner continues working as usual despite concealing and manipulating information, despite the fact that many people have tried to complain about her and it seems virtually impossible that our complaints about her are taken seriously. As if this was not enough, she even dares to contact me warning about my communication “not least the baseless personal attacks on the integrity and professionalism of members of the University.” She is a great “Lead HR Business Partner” for all the local HR she is partnering with.
Ade · 9 September 2025 at 09:26
There are indeed individuals among the HR Business Partners who should never be allowed to work in roles that entail “dealing with” other human beings, nor be let anywhere near vulnerable people.
It can be catastrophic for an institution when there is neither vetting in place, nor any action taken by those in positions to do so, when evidence emerges of repeated unprofessional conduct.
TigerWhoCametoET · 9 September 2025 at 14:41
Thank you for this very helpful and informative explanation.
Eileen Nugent · 9 September 2025 at 14:55
When I previously said that HR professionals did not have the power to remove constraints in my case what I meant was this : when HR encounter a difficult situation they are then often relying on organisational legal advice to determine the further actions they take – in the minds of HR legal advice that permits HR to take an action makes that organisational action lawful and therefore that legal advice will always offer HR professionals protection for having taken that action.
The problem with this HR reasoning is this : an in-house legal team and all other legal professionals are regulated – what that means is that it is possible for legal advisors to permit individuals and organisations to take actions that subsequently turn out to be unlawful – otherwise the need for professional regulation of legal professionals would never have arisen and such a type of regulation would not now exist.
HR professionals are therefore uniquely vulnerable in situations where an organisations legal advice starts generating risk for them as HR professionals – generating new types of HR situations that HR is struggling to solve, situations that HR cannot effectively cope with and that mean HR cannot meet standards set in the HR profession – as unlike an in-house legal team/external legal advisors – who have specialised regulators to advise them in situations where organisational actions are making it impossible for them to do their job to a specified professional standard – HR has no specialised regulator to take advice from in these situations and no confidential access to HR-specific legal advice that is independent of the organisation that they work for.
This is a real problem for those working in professional HR roles as now they can be left dealing with serious safeguarding situations in those roles and do not therefore have the option of ignoring a situation that has arisen where an organisation through its actions is making it impossible for them to do their job.
SPARTACUS · 8 September 2025 at 11:02
Press, tribunals and courts will have a field day with this unbelievable state of affairs! Lord Smith might be wishing that Lord BP had won the Chancellor election! He has two options: 1- bury his head in the sand; 2- exert his statutory role as Chair of University Council! He has to set aside tradition (e.g. Chancellor is a cerimonial role)!!
Lean In · 9 September 2025 at 08:30
Over the years I have served on many committees at the university tasked with the miserable job of handling student complaints. You may wonder what happens on such committees to produce such unfortunate results.
First, please understand: no complaint was ever taken seriously. As soon as it is handled the immediate discussion centres around how it must be dismissed. The student is immediately presented as “troublemaker” and the fact of their having made a complaint presented as evidence that this must be true. At no point has anyone ever considered whether we are the ones who need to reflect and learn.
Second, no evidence is ever taken from any person who raises an issue. Indeed no evidence is ever at all. Any person accused is asked for their account and this is immediately and durably assumed as fact (even if their account of the matter changes over time and is not consistent). We protect our own and the more senior the individual the more protection they deserve.
In the most comical episode I can recall, a student had made valid accusations against legal noncompliance. For this reason all mention of their complaint was not included in the agenda. When the chair of the committee turned to raise the issue HR handed out sheets of paper in small print with a highly edited summary of the matter. After the meeting they checked very carefully to ensure that each piece of paper had been handed back. It was agreed by the chair and all those present to exclude any note of having discussed the matter from the minutes. What the discussion agreed was to dismiss their complaint without evidence.
21percent.org · 9 September 2025 at 09:31
Thanks for this very interesting post which accords with what we have heard from individual students.
First, please understand: no complaint was ever taken seriously. As soon as it is handled the immediate discussion centres around how it must be dismissed. The student is immediately presented as “troublemaker” and the fact of their having made a complaint presented as evidence that this must be true. At no point has anyone ever considered whether we are the ones who need to reflect and learn.
This is true of staff raising whistleblowing concerns as well, of course.
TheResearcher · 9 September 2025 at 10:03
Thank you for this post. While it does not surprise most people who read this blog, it is very important that people like you speak up and I wish that more did, namely Senior Tutors and Masters of Colleges who do not see that the numbers of complaints upheld in this university, namely regarding the students they are responsible for, do not make any sense and must be manipulated. Students cannot be left alone dealing with this system, alone against an institution, and what colleges currently do is offering “welfare and wellbeing” instead of standing up for their own students if they have the evidence that the university conceals and manipulates information about misconduct.
If you know of anyone else embarrassed by the situation, please encourage them to speak.
Anonymous · 9 September 2025 at 10:32
I think there are many of us on the ground who teach and nurture our students as a matter of duty and care, and feel awful after our seeing good young scholars, say, barred from getting a degree to which we felt they were entitled, or a grant opportunity, or publication, or scholarship. If there ever were a class action as discussed in earlier commentary I do think there would be many staff willing to serve as witnesses of what they saw as a common pattern here because of these feelings of guilt and shame.
SPARTACUS · 9 September 2025 at 12:37
Summary of this blog: UCam is a toxic place and it’s senior management is totally disconnected from faculty and students and lives only to survive! The rot is so deep that it is difficult to see a way out.
This gladiator remains of the view that from within only the recently elected Chancellor can try to revert the situation by doing away with tradition and using what the Statutes provide for: exerting his role as Chair of University Council! If he decides to ignore the issues and just be cerimonial (as members of the oligarchy publicly stated once they realised their candidate -Lord BP- was going to lose) them only public exposure in Tribunals, Courts and the press will make things unravel.
TigerWhoCametoET · 9 September 2025 at 12:50
That is one read – though another aspect of this conversation that must not be overlooked is how it has highlighted the nature of deep-set problems causing pain to students and staff, and an idea of what to fix if and when the leadership is finally ready to begin down the long and hard road of doing so.
TheResearcher · 9 September 2025 at 16:28
The current leadership will never assume they made mistakes, that they actively contributed to the current state of affairs because they put the reputation of the institution and its senior members above anything else. What they may try to do is to keep passing the hot potato to their neighbour as someone already noted in a different post and hope that there is no track record that they played the game. But the potato will eventually burn someone, hopefully more than one player, and as there are many potatoes in this game at the moment, the players will not be able to avoid all of them. Only public exposure will speed this game up.
For those who are not aware, the whistleblowing policy of UCam says, “It will very rarely if ever be appropriate to alert the media.” Hilarious. Who should victims alert then if they had contacted the senior management and were ignored? I asked clarifications about this issue to the whistleblowing team and guess what, they encouraged me to contact central HR and ask them about questions regarding the whistleblowing policy. I contacted the most senior members of HR, and no one ever answered…
Eileen Nugent · 9 September 2025 at 18:14
I gave information directly to the organisation. When the organisation stopped responding I got in contact with a set of relevant national regulators. I considered alerting the media but decided against that course of action – the media seemed to be another potential source of conflicts of interest = potential for misrepresentation of information relating to the situation = potential source of inaccuracy entering into the analysis of the situation = potential for the emergence of a distorted image of the organisation and of individuals in the organisation due to the emergence of an unusual and complex organisational situation if such a situation is inaccurately analysed and the inaccurate situational analysis produced is then falsely portrayed as a characterisation of the normal state of the organisation when it is in fact a mischaracterisation of an unusual and complex state of the organisation – all of which could increase the stress of the situation and reduce the overall probability of an accurate case analysis emerging and an organisational problem then being fixed.
TheResearcher · 9 September 2025 at 18:59
It is true that media can distort events and amplify what they perceive as something that will attract more viewers, which does not necessarily correlate with the experiences of victims. Moreover, the university is typically consulted before articles are published, which gives them the opportunity to present the case as “defamation” as it is currently happening with some scandals. But victims do not have much left if they want to alert others, namely members of the same institution and cannot afford a lawyer. It is really important that we make an extra push as the university welcomes our silence. Their strategy rests on it.
Eileen Nugent · 9 September 2025 at 23:30
I am not saying that there are not extremely capable individuals working in the media space, people could be approached for their exceptional communication expertise in these types of situations – just that there is a potential risk of information distortion arising from conflicts of interest mismanagement occurring as information is propagated through media networks after it has entered into those media networks something which can occur even in cases where the information being entered into the media networks is accurate on entry as care has been taken to find the most capable individuals working in the media space to disclose information to.
Eileen Nugent · 10 September 2025 at 00:20
I can understand why individuals sometimes take a different course of action in these situations – find people in the media to work with. It’s not easy to understand what a national regulator is, what can and should be reported to a national regulator and how a whistleblower can work together with a national regulator and an organisation to fix an organisational problem and uphold the interests of the organisation and the public.
For me the operation of national regulators makes sense so I approached the relevant set of national regulators. For me it was logical to approach them : I am potentially in high-speed political car-crash territory – I am in a novel situation, there are situational risks that I need to understand, there is some situational risk to my own individual safety that I also need to understand – so I go directly for the national regulators as for me that action looks like the safest option. National regulators have specialised expertise in dealing with these types of high-risk organisational situations so that is where I go if I end up in one of these types of situations.
Whilst there is no absolute guarantee of safety in these situations – as the existence of a high-risk organisational situation is itself creating a safety risk – the national regulators pathway is the safest pathway to fixing an organisational problem.
Eileen Nugent · 10 September 2025 at 02:11
In approaching a national health and safety regulator I expect to find a group of people there who have common sense, can think rationally about health and safety situations and are used to managing high-risk health and safety situations. That group of people was my safest option and I had no doubts about approaching that group of people.
It helped that I worked in farming, experimental physics, and had caved in my spare time. I am used to being in communities that cannot afford to mess around when it comes to preventable high-risk health and safety situations. In those communities if an individual does something that generates a significant health and safety risk for others in the community that individual can expect a direct response. In those communities an individuals feelings will not be spared in situations where the sparing of an individuals feelings would result in compromised community health and safety.
Eileen Nugent · 10 September 2025 at 12:33
My case was unusual. I understood that I was dealing with a new type of high-risk health and safety situation and that in such a case the priority is the generation of an accurate solution to that health and safety situation. This is different to dealing with a known type of high-risk health and safety situation i.e. a high-risk health and safety situation that organisations are already well-trained to deal with = are prepared for and/or have experience of dealing with = where there are well known standards that organisations are aware of and expected to meet. Had I been dealing with this latter type of high-risk health and safety situation the priority would have been different – enforcement of standards – and resulted in a more straight forward type of whistleblowing situation.
I did not approach the health and safety or the organisation without having first analysed the problem and independently found some form of solution to it. I was not therefore reliant on the health and safety executive or the organisation to analyse the high-risk health and safety situation and generate a solution to it. I approached the health and safety executive in a way calculated to keep prompting it to generate an independent solution to a high-risk health and safety situation and I openly approached the regulator – kept the organisation informed of what I was doing – which was calculated to keep prompting the organisation to generate an independent solution to a high-risk health and safety situation. Keeping prompting both the regulator and organisation to generate a solution lead to responses that kept prompting me to rework and refine the independent solution I had generated. The generation of multiple independent solutions increases the probability of finding the right solution to a high-risk health and safety situation. Finding the right solution to a public interest problem is a higher priority than trying to prove to others that you are right all the time.
I didn’t go to the health and safety executive because I could not find a solution to the high-risk health and safety situation. I didn’t go to the health and safety executive because I thought that the University of Cambridge was incapable of finding a solution to the high-risk health and safety situation. I went to the health and safety executive because I knew that as the national regulator it has the expertise to provide an additional layer of checking – it can generate an independent solution to a high-risk health and safety situation that has the potential to work across a wider range of organisations [is more robust] as it knows in detail how health and safety regulation works in the context of many more organisations – and the extra independent solution that it generates therefore significantly increases the probability of the right solution to a public interest problem being found. I recognised the situation had implications for organisations beyond the one I was in which is why I approached the national health and safety regulator whose function it is to solve public interest health and safety problems to enlist their help.
Eileen Nugent · 9 September 2025 at 17:17
Whilst I do see the appeal of the approach of trying to find one ‘warrior’ capable of fighting all the organisations battles and acknowledge the fact that this approach could be applied to the University of Cambridge I fail to see how taking this approach at the University of Cambridge – an organisation that is populated with capable people – would yield better results than the approach of building a community of individuals who are capable of collectively defending the University of Cambridge.
Perhaps some people do feel safer in an organisation where there is one ‘warrior’ visibly fighting all the organisations battles. That origins of that feeling of safety may then be that this approach removes the need for those people to fight any battles themselves and this approach therefore makes the lives of all the people being shielded from the organisations battles easier whilst that one visible ‘warrior’ remains in place fighting all the organisations battles for it.
From an organisational resilience perspective however the one ‘warrior’ approach is the higher risk approach – an organisation could get lucky with the one ‘warrior’ approach in that it could get this approach to work for the organisation for a long time – but there is higher risk of this approach not working for an organisation than a collective defense approach [particularly in times of increased organisational challenges]. The problem is that an approach that makes people feel more safe can turn out to be less safe than approach that makes people feel less safe but is in fact more safe.
Start Real Slow · 9 September 2025 at 17:22
The advice on the university website is highly legally problematic, for the text “if ever”, implies there are potentially no circumstances in which an employee can ever make a public interest disclosure. That is in direct contradiction to the law and suggests clear intent to subvert current UK legislation and further provisions under review by the government. It is misleading to staff and could be used as evidence of retaliatory intent.
The following link makes clear that there exists a duty to disclose in a wide variety of circumstances.
https://www.acas.org.uk/whistleblowing-at-work/what-someone-can-whistleblow-about
Far from being inappropriate this is a public service obligation in many scenarios.
21percent.org · 9 September 2025 at 17:53
NHS managers who silence and scapegoat whistleblowers will be banned from working in the service, the shadow health secretary has said, as part of a determined drive by Labour to eradicate a culture of cover-ups.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/27/managers-who-silence-whistleblowers-will-never-work-in-nhs-again-vows-streeting
In an interview with the Guardian, Wes Streeting pledged to push through the formal regulation of NHS managers and warned the Care Quality Commission (CQC) that its inspectors must get much better at exposing risks to patients’ safety in order to regain the confidence of frontline staff.
“I think the only way in which we genuinely protect whistleblowers and create a culture of honesty and openness is if you have tough enforcement,” he said.
“I’m deadly serious when I say NHS managers who silence whistleblowers will be out and will never work in the NHS again. It is the number one priority for the system. And I want people to have the confidence to speak out and come forward”
Streeting’s Law — if applied to Cambridge University — would see much of the senior management team never working again
TheResearcher · 9 September 2025 at 17:58
As usual in this Seat of Learning the phrase “It will very rarely if ever be appropriate to alert the media” is left in the whistleblowing policy simply to intimidate members, in the same way that individuals are told that that investigations must be confidential otherwise they risk a disciplinary action. If you then ask them directly what the legal basis of that enforcement is, curiously, no one answers.
Thoughts · 9 September 2025 at 18:43
My mind is utterly blown by this. Not only does this appear as if the university is directly failing to acknowledge the rights of whistleblowers under UK law. It may be actually be far worse in reality, because if my understanding is correct, there is not only a legal duty to report criminal practices where there is reason to believe they exist, but also, it can be a misdemeanor to fail to report a crime.Hence, if this interpretation is correct, the official advisory could be seen to actively encourage staff to engage in this secondary lesser criminal act.
21percent.org · 9 September 2025 at 18:51
I think this is correct. There is a whistleblowing trial involving several senior managers at Cambridge University June 1-28th 2026 at Bury St Edmunds Tribunal.
Who wrote the possibly illegal advice on the Whistleblowing policy on the Cambridge University website?
Likely it was with the imprimatur of the Head of Legal in the University’s Legal Services division
TigerWhoCametoET · 9 September 2025 at 18:58
Am I the only person who seems to find it rather strange that a university with a reputation to uphold for education in qualifications of law could have a legal service that provides such advice to its own students and staff?
TheResearcher · 9 September 2025 at 19:12
I have asked about this issue many times, to many senior members, and I was always ignored. Please do ask around and let us know what you find. Do not waste your time with the Legal Services because, I was told, “the Legal Services Division does not advise students or staff members in an individual capacity.”
CatWhoCountedStars · 9 September 2025 at 19:41
Tiger,
Key members of the legal services department are under investigation by the SRA for falsification of evidence.
This is a criminal offence.
Barely believable, I know
TigerWhoCametoET · 9 September 2025 at 19:59
In regards to ongoing cases or those which already reached the courts?
Larry · 10 September 2025 at 09:41
It may seem “barely believable”, until one seeks to understand how such a state of affairs could come to pass.
For none of this happens simply out of the blue.
In criminology, the concept that we apply is called the “criminal career” i.e. how a perpetrator gradually progressed from initially minor infractions to commit more serious acts.
Perhaps it all starts with solicitors refusing to disclose information via GDPR. When regulators (DPO then ICO) tolerate this, it continues to denial of disclosure requests ordered by the court. When judges tolerate this, it sends the message that such behaviour is permissible.
The next stage is to dispense with the need to arrange witnesses, and instead provide them with statements pre-prepared by legal services. This too is against the spirit of a fair and neutral judicial process, but a judge condones such behaviour and this too, sends the message that it is permissible.
Perhaps then a solicitor may progress to asking members of staff to produce documents they can use in court, such as vexatious complaints against claimants, or preprepared letters for use in internal processes, containing the claims they need to cite for their case. No-one pushes back against this or exposes the practice, and so this too becomes viewed as permissible.
Before long this culture becomes institutionalised to such an extent that it is considered normal. So normal that it extends across HR, internal committees, external communications, and beyond and outside of the university.
But it is not normal: It is illegal. Those seeking to protect the institution, should have stopped this whole journey from the very first stage.
TheResearcher · 10 September 2025 at 10:52
Thank you, Larry. All this makes sense.
There is an additional issue, if I may add. This culture of concealing and manipulation as a way of dealing with problems has an extra layer of shame, namely the active propagation of the very opposite idea such as in webpages like “Breaking the Silence” (https://www.breakingthesilence.cam.ac.uk/breaking-silence-university-statement)
For me, this inversion of the reality is the worst. Not only it humiliates victims, but also lures potential victims that may feel safe with statements like this.
CatWhoCountedStars · 9 September 2025 at 20:02
Ongoing case, due early 2026
Anon · 9 September 2025 at 20:04
Either way seems pretty consistent with whistle-blower guidance for disclosures as per the Acas link above
TheResearcher · 9 September 2025 at 20:24
Those who bury mistakes, will be buried by them. A cliché that must apply to these incompetents who continue to cover up as their main way of dealing with problems. As others have said, tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock.
Kalos · 9 September 2025 at 20:34
There were suspicions like this in the past, e.g. evidence that was not disclosed and then mysteriously appeared in exactly the “correct” format. So perhaps only a question of time that something like this would transpire.
ExCam · 10 September 2025 at 11:56
University finds itself in an impossible situation:
– On on hand they know they are massively out of line with existing laws and need to realign the whole system if only to prevent a further wave of legal filings
– On the other there is already a wave of cases set to hit the courts and they are still hoping to somehow cover things up
– Seems almost impossible to comply with whistleblower regulations at this point without exposing a good number of people inside the organisation
– Not enough time left on the clock to turf out those responsible for this mess, many of whom continue to occupy senior roles
Strategy so far has been to attempt to isolate litigants by settling peripheral cases, but:
– New cases continue being produced by this system at a rate faster than they can be suppressed
– Victims of the past still want justice done and support this movement
– Now laws to revoke past NDAs and you have makings of a perfect storm
TheResearcher · 10 September 2025 at 13:22
“Not enough time left on the clock to turf out those responsible for this mess, many of whom continue to occupy senior roles.”
Is there anyone who had a senior role who doesn’t have it now? Perhaps I missed some cases, but the senior management continues virtually the same for some time. Sure, some left to take more prestigious jobs, such as senior positions in UKRI, but not because of their misconduct. I am not aware of any case where senior members of the university lost their positions because of their behavioural or research misconduct.
In an earlier post of February 2025, the 21 Group wrote “The university and its information officer (Dr James Knapton) have already been taken to court for failure to comply with GDPR and had to acknowledge fault.” (https://21percent.org/?p=1608) What were the internal consequences of this fault? Isn’t Dr Knapton “Head of Data Protection and Information Compliance” currently? Were members of the university informed about this noncompliance and were they explained what happened so that they can trust in the Information Compliance Office? I do not remember the university ever explained this and related noncompliances, but if I am wrong, please let me know.
BreakerMorant · 10 September 2025 at 13:52
Unless there is a gagging order put in place, there will be a huge Cambridge University scandal breaking next week.
The Uni lawyers are very busy, but it looks unstoppable.
TheResearcher · 10 September 2025 at 13:58
tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock