The 21 Group runs an occasional series on the fictional doings of the Masters of the Colleges. Readers may remember the controversial election of Kerris Bowles-Ottery as Master at St Judas, as well as a spot of bother for Wendell Lacksworth over at Slaughterhouse College.
Now comes news of the slippery behaviour of Lord Glossover running St Machiavelli’s College. Of course, this is just a story. No real Master of a real College — when presented with evidence of wrongdoing — would behave like this.
Lord Glossover, the Master of St Machiavelli’s College, sat in his oak-panelled study, staring at a decanter of port as though it had passed its Finals with high honours. The portraits of dead Masters glowered down with disdain.
He had settled into the agreeable business of congratulating himself for sitting on University Council — an achievement which reminded him of the old days only a few inches short of the Cabinet Office.
There was a knock at the door. It opened to reveal the Postgraduate Student.
The Master grimaced, as if seeing a questionable Stilton. He remembered he had agreed to a meeting with this pest.
The Postgraduate Student began, “I need to report something very serious. There’s evidence of bullying and research misconduct …”
The Master raised a hand and interrupted, oozing what he believed to be benevolent authority. “I am on the University Council. I know precisely what goes on in this institution. Far more, I should say, than you could possibly imagine.”
The Postgraduate Student pressed on, colour rising to his cheeks, “What has happened is hugely dishonest. This could damage the reputation of the whole university. Please take a look at my evidence”
“Reputation!” The Master gave a brittle laugh that rattled round the bookshelves. “Reputation is built on centuries of tradition, not on the whinings of a Postgraduate Student with an excess of conscience. We are in the business of excellence … not truth nor decency.”
“Let me show you the evidence, the problems go right to the top of the School and beyond”, said the Postgraduate Student.
The Master refilled his glass. He spoke sharply: “ I’m sorry I can’t help you if you want to talk about bullying or misconduct or if you want to besmirch the name of University Officers. Just because you have caught something nasty, why do you have to wander about breathing over everybody? Now if you’ll excuse me, the Council papers require my immediate attention. Matters of governance, strategy, vision and the big, broad, flexible outlook … ”
The Postgraduate Student stood for a moment, before gathering his papers and turning towards the door.
“Master” he said quietly, “you may sit on as many Councils as you like. But you’ve no idea as to what is actually happening beneath your nose in this institution.”
The Master gave a smile of condescending indulgence, already half-dreaming of bon mots to share with his media friends at the BBC and The Guardian. Perhaps, perhaps there might be an opportunity to present Bake Off next series?
“Nonsense. I am on Council. I know everything.”
The 21 Group emphasises that this is a work of fiction. Any similarities to actual persons, whether living or dead, or actual events are purely coincidental.
One of the inspirations for the TV series ‘Yes Minster’ was the classic book on Cambridge academic politics, Microcosmographia Academia , by Francis Cornford.
The members of the University oligarchy look after each other! They know the place is toxic but they love power and protect each other! Once the stink of what they do becomes unbearable within the University they are moved to head Colleges, lead UKRI or become Regius Professor somewhere. The only one that so far, despite being on a desperate hunt for a new job, remains stuck is the Head of a School that is hiding one of the most horrific scandals. Tic tic tic tic tic…
Bloody right!
Ironically, in the buttery bar of St Machiavelli’s College by the Master’s Lodge there is a large digital signage that reads:
Public Notice
St Machiavelli’s College has a legal duty to protect its students and its academic and non-academic staff from sexual harassment, abuse and other inappropriate or unwanted behaviour. We will take immediate and appropriate action to address any such incidents.
Strong rumours that Teddy Bear and Concerned Face are on the lookout for Head of House positions
Colleges — please take care over whom you appoint as Head of House and don’t get dragged into the Whirlpool of Doom
That is very concerning but makes complete sense. If they get these posts, they will be shielded from what they had done as colleges are independent and do not intervene in university matters. Hopefully their potential elections will not happen before June 2026.
“sexual harassment, abuse and other inappropriate or unwanted behaviour”
This phrasing is interesting. The emphasis on the sexual nature of the behaviour excludes de facto most of the behaviours exposed in this forum, which are grossly abusive, most certainly unwanted, include psychological violence and are sometimes life threatening. And albeit perverse in many ways, these behaviours are not perpetrated by sexual predators, but by predators all the same, who are allegedly in charge of ensuring the safety and wellbeing of all staff.
The behaviour of HR and of those operating in collusion with them is clearly inappropriate and unwanted, in some cases it is borderline criminal. But somehow there is “no place in our institution” for such behaviours because those who have their fingers in every phrasing and re-phrasing of every policy and process and in every draft of every response, have arranged for such behaviour to become invisible and un-punishable either as a matter of principle or (via strategic manipulation and erasure) after the fact.
Though rarer than bog-standard bullying, sex harassment is still pretty common.
One College, St Erogenous, is currently grappling with a big sex scandal. As usual in Cambridge, the cover-up is now in full swing.
We’ll be breaking the details shortly here.
Over at Oxford there is a gagging order in place at St Epstein’s — we can’t presently disclose what we know.
St Bedmunds?
What is the standard outcome of gagging orders that prevent the disclosure of this and related incidents? Just delaying the inevitable or there is the possibility that the public will never know about these cases? No one finds suspicious in tribunals or courts that the same institution is associated with so many gagging orders?
Absolutely. Note, however, where this sign is and how it is presented. “Public Notice” is in bold and in a font size much larger than the one of the main message. It is in the buttery that is open to the general public, not in a space dedicated to the members of the college. This sign is a luring response to the scandals of sexual harassment that happened in some colleges of the institution and eventually became public. This notice is for the general public and aims to highlight that St Machiavelli’s College is different. Of course, this is just a story, and if you find this public notice in the buttery of one of the Cambridge colleges for example it is purely coincidental.
This said, I have learned from a reliable source—the Lead HR Business Partner of the most discussed case of the 21 Group—that harassment in this institution only counts as harassment if it is associated with the protected characteristics (age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation). For example, repeated and false accusations of research misconduct or health and safety concerns that are made as a retaliation against junior members are not considered harassment. If you report them as such, HR will not even use the word “harassment” in their outcome letter.
If so, then the Lead HR Business Partner is incorrect
True, harassment is used in the Equality Act 2010 for workplace discrimination cases linked to protected characteristics like race or sex, etc.
However, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 indicates that someone’s actions amount to harassment when they make the victim feel distressed, humiliated, threatened or fearful of further violence. The main goal of harassment is to persuade victims either not to do something that they are entitled or required to do or to do something that they are not obliged to do.
Sounds like it probably should be renamed the Protection from HR Act 1997 🙂
This was the very first time I met her. I remember vividly because she was on the left and the Head of Department was on the right of a large table in his office, and they both reassured me firmly that in Cambridge, harassment only counts as such when it is associated with the protected characteristics. This blew my mind, but at the time I had no reason to not trust them. Eventually I learned in the outcome letter, that not only they did not consider my evidence, but that they even inverted the story. In the end, I was the one to blame! Where did we hear this change in script before…
You went alone to a meeting with the Head of Department & the HR Business Partner… NOOOO
The 21 Group knows that there are still some innocent, sweet and naive people, but you should always go to a meeting with HR accompanied by a work colleague or trade union rep. They would have immediately challenged this BS from the HR Business Partner.
Going to a meeting with HR on your own is like strolling into a snake pit without anti-venom -— brave, naive & almost certainly not walking out
You must always, always, always, take a companion or a Union rep to University HR meeting
If you don’t have anyone, the 21 Group will find someone to accompany you.
Not only I went alone to a meeting with HR but even went alone to an Appeal Hearing with several HR in the room. At the time I did not know how systemic the problem was. I thought that if I have the evidence and the facts were on my side, it should be fine going alone to these meetings and did not have to bother other people. I now know that was a major mistake. The 21 Group is absolutely right. Please never go to these meetings alone even if you are sure about your convictions. These meetings are not to discuss what really happened, but on how to conceal and manipulate information. If you go alone, whatever you said there will be ignored. In my case, the Head of Department managed to change his version of the facts one day after the meeting anyway by contacting the Chair of the appeal committee directly and arguing that he was very nervous on the day of hearing and did not answer my questions properly. I went alone, and he brought the Business and Operations Manager of the Department with him. The multiple HR in the room were on his side, and he was the one nervous…
So, the Chair of the Appeals Committee allowed the HoD to change his evidence after the appeal?
What a question 21 Group!!?!? Not only the Chair, Prof. Flowers, who incidentally had been involved in the investigations of the most discussed case of the 21 Group but dropped out because it was too complicated for her to handle, but she also inverted one of the Terms & Conditions of my UKRI grant to justify her decision on my appeal.
Naively, I contacted Fireman Mike and asked him, “Is it appropriate in the University of Cambridge that a respondent contacts the Chair of the Appeal Committee to change his version of the facts one day after the appeal hearing? I would expect that this behaviour invalidates the hearings, but I would like to know your views about the matter.”
I guess we all know what happened, right? No one ever replied!
I just noted I missed two words above, “did allow”
Not only the Chair, Prof. Flowers, who incidentally had been involved in the investigations of the most discussed case of the 21 Group but dropped out because it was too complicated for her to handle, did allow, but she also inverted one of the Terms & Conditions of my UKRI grant to justify her decision on my appeal.
“but she also inverted one of the Terms & Conditions of my UKRI grant to justify her decision on my appeal.”
Most probably she didn’t – the HR Business Partner did it for her. And she acquiesced. And signed.
That may well be true. But the HR Business Partners of UCam I know do not write very well and their way of arguing is very basic. The outcome letter produced by Prof. Flowers did seem written by an academic. She is actually an excellent teacher, and I attended several of her lectures because I supervise one of her courses. Of course, Prof. Flowers only partially considered my case, and in particular removed my report of harassment from her assessment deciding—unilaterally! —to consider that aspect separately at a later stage. This aspect may well have been a “suggestion” by university HR. Months after, when I received that outcome, more than half of my evidence was not considered and the letter states explicitly that it was a final decision and that I could not appeal.
You may wonder, if I have the evidence, someone will consider it eventually, right? I keep trying but my attempts have been described as “unreasonably persistent behaviour” and more recently as abusive behaviour against all those who I had contacted about these issues but recurrently ignored my urgings. These are very many people, including even those who are on a long sick leave and those who are already retired! But of course, I must be imagining all this bizarre scenario. It is only happening in my head!
Letters are often written by a mysterious figure called “Sam“. There are letters in existence that end …
“Blah, blah, blah, the University says no, blah, blah, blah, the Head of Department says no, no, no, blah, blah, blah, the Head of School says no, no, no, no, no, blah, blah, blah.
Thank you for your touching belief that this institution might ever say yes.
Yours Sincerely
Sam
Louise”
The letter was written by someone called “Sam” and then sent by someone called “Louise” who forgot to delete the name of the true author
Oh, that is funny. I thought it was the other way around. I thought that letter had been written by someone called “Louise” but sent by someone called “Sam.” Of course, these are fictious names and any resemblance with real names is coincidental. Anyways, what do I know, I am just a random guy with “unreasonably persistent behaviour,” a lot of it.
You missed out the ending of the letter”
“You may appeal this decision by writing to the HR Committee within 14 working days, which will enable us to say ‘no’ again.”
Yours sincerely
Sam-lou“
“The letter was written by someone called “Sam” and then sent by someone called “Louise” who forgot to delete the name of the true author”
Intriguing. Is that plagiarism or impersonation?
It is not plagiarism because it was not done without consent. It can be impersonation, but I think we can call it institutional corruption to keep things simple.
The exchanges here could be perceived by some as indicating that UCam somehow has a process that conforms with the Statutes and Ordinances and the law of the land! Well guess what- it does NOT! The oligarchy together with Registrary and Head of HR run the show with only one aim: to ensure that the outcome is what the oligarchy wants! It is worse than the Post Office scandal. Get real! The regime of the American Queen is toxic and rotten!
“The exchanges here could be perceived by some as indicating that UCam somehow has a process that conforms with the Statutes and Ordinances and the law of the land!”
Only by those who never made a report of misconduct at Cambridge. My guess is that the vast majority of the people who read this blog are aware of the situation. The real challenge is reaching those who do not know it yet and can be potential victims…
I did not even have that ending! They may have chosen a special ending for me:
“Finally, the Committee felt it would be remiss of us not to highlight it felt that on occasion, the tone and content of your correspondence was aggressive, intimidating and upsetting for its recipients. In addition, the Committee felt some allegations, regarding a lack of professionalism purportedly displayed by those seeking to support you, was frequently baseless and lacked evidence. While we appreciate this has been a difficult time for you, with many contributing factors, the Committee would like to recommend that you measure your responses and focus on the facts, rather than making unmerited personal attacks. The issue is now closed from the University’s perspective, having been properly considered, and it does not intend to engage in further correspondence on the matter. The University would like to wish you every success in your future endeavours and research.”
Lead HR Business Partner of the most discussed case by the 21 Group
“the tone and content of your correspondence was aggressive, intimidating and upsetting for its recipients…“
…please understand that we cannot deal with evidence which contradicts our arguments, nor with the persistence of some of our staff to uphold standards of integrity which we then appear to be lacking…
TheResearcher, your letter can be summarized:
“We will not tolerate aggressive, abusive or threatening behaviour while we are treating you like shit,
Yours Lead HR Business Partner”
That section actually had a specific purpose, to embarrass me so that I did not share that letter with anyone else. It did not work very well though. When I complained about the Lead HR Business Partner of the most discussed case by the 21 Group, her line manager specifically quoted that section in her response so that I did not share our exchange of emails and did not follow up with the complaint, but I distributed the letter and my response showing how the concealing and manipulated information. The logic is the same regarding the sudden “investigation” of the student for his allegedly abusive behaviour against Vice-Chancellor, all the Pro-Vice Chancellors, the Academic Secretary, the Registrary (who is on leave!), all the senior HR, his previous Department (yes a full department!), the Head of the Education Services (who is retired!), the Head of OSCCA, a Case Handler appointed by the Academic Secretary, etc. The expectation is that the postgraduate student remains silent and does not share this investigation with anyone, as well as the reports of misconduct he had done and that had been ignored by the very same people who now complain about him. Guess what, this expectation will also not work very well. As soon as he has new developments on that “investigation” he will share them here. I reckon that after the scandals that are about to engulf Cambridge, the press will be keen to know this unfolding in real time.
UCam is a toxic place that runs a corrupt process to ensure oligarchy always wins! Very simple! Until this oligarchy is removed the rot will continue! Lord Smith wake up or the maelstrom will drown you!
My main concern is that I am not sure if removing the oligarchy is enough at this stage. There are many people out there outside the oligarchy who see individuals struggling, being crushed by the institution, and do absolutely nothing to help them. It is possible this “silent majority” changes if the oligarchy changes, but I worry about double-faces.
Some of the readers of this blog may find interesting, perhaps important, to know the “University Safeguarding Statement” that is relatively hidden:
https://www.governanceandcompliance.admin.cam.ac.uk/governance-and-strategy/university-safeguarding-statement
This document is a must read at many levels so take a look if you can, namely if you are a Senior Tutor of a College that may need to make a safeguarding referral regarding one of your students. For example, who should we contact to report any matter relating to Children or Adults at Risk? The disturbing answer is the Head of HR, “the designated safeguarding lead.” For those who have strong views about university HR, this information may come as a shock, but it is very true!
Thank you for pointing out that document.
It states if a member of staff is creating a health and safety emergency for another member of staff, then the correct policy to follow is Whistleblowing.
Andrea Hudson, Louise Akroyd, Nigel Peake and Mike Glover spent many, many weeks denying this.
This is a useful document for Bury St Edmunds Employment Tribunal Jun 1-28 2026 — showing the University does not take safeguarding seriously and never follow their own policies.
People in this blog seem to naively believe oligarchy/senior management care about Statutes and Ordinances, Policies or the Law!!! They don’t! They use the Chest to hire top law firms to protect them while acting like the Post Office! Get real! We are dealing with institutional crookery!
I would agree.
Worse still, “safeguarding” is perverted, to create justification for violating trust and privacy – as in the message below. Who decides when “safeguarding considerations require” the handling of concerns to be taken out of your hands? And what routes, support or reporting options are appropriate or safe? Not HR by any chance?
“The [Department] and the University has (sic) a zero-tolerance approach to all forms of harassment and bullying. If you experience or witness unacceptable behaviour, please do consider making use of the support and reporting options available. There are informal and formal as well as anonymous routes. Your concerns would be treated in strict confidence, and no action would be taken if you do not wish this (unless safeguarding considerations require this)”
You are very welcome.
I am not surprised if the names you mention denied this document Prof. Evans. I have interacted with them all for months and I am very familiar with their behaviour. What is perhaps more concerning is a Senior Tutor of a College sending a safeguarding referral to a person who has conflicts of interest and was directly involved in the abuses, namely after the victim alerted the Senior Tutor in advance and showed him the evidence.
It just came to my attention the Anti-Bribery and Corruption training Course that the university is offering:
https://www.finance.admin.cam.ac.uk/Compliance/anti-bribery-and-corruption-training
I wonder if they will discuss institutional corruption broadly construed. One can read, “The Anti-Bribery Policy is a key area of concern for the Audit Committee because the University has a legal obligation to prevent bribery. The Act is not just limited to financial transactions but is about receiving or giving any unlawful advantage.”
The students at the University of Cambridge just received this very interesting statement full of truths about reporting abuse, freedom of speech and wellbeing. Thank so much senior management, I feel much safer now!
Welcome to Michaelmas Term – and if it’s your first term at Cambridge I’d like to offer my congratulations and wish you every success. The beginning of a new academic year is always exciting, and I send you my warmest wishes for a productive, fulfilling and enjoyable term.
This email contains several important points from the University that we want to bring to your attention:
• Support available to you
• Information and training regarding harassment and sexual misconduct
• Freedom of speech.
There is also some online training mentioned below that we ask you to complete.
Support available to you
We want you to enjoy your time here and feel safe and supported, which is why we are taking this opportunity to make you aware of some important assistance should you need it. There is always someone who can help at Cambridge if you are struggling, whether in the University or at your College. Please reach out if you need to, but in the meantime, there is useful information via the links below:
• Academic support
• Financial advice
• Wellbeing support
Harassment and sexual misconduct
The University and Colleges are fully committed to ensuring that everyone can live, work and study without fear of harassment. Cambridge is a safe, supportive place, but it’s important that you are aware of what constitutes harassment and sexual misconduct, and what the University is doing to prevent it.
The Office for Students, the body which protects the interests of students, requires all universities to make this information available to students in a single place. You might hear this referred to as ‘Condition E6’. Cambridge’s information is on our Student Support pages, and we ask that you read these and complete the accompanying new training by 2 October before the new term beings. This will ensure that you know how to recognise harassment and sexual misconduct, how to report it if you experience it, how you can expect the University to respond, and what support is available.
If you have been affected by the topics covered in the course, and feel concerned about the impact this training may have on you, please refer to the exemption section of the training FAQs. There is also support available within your College and you can speak to your tutor if you have any concerns.
Freedom of speech
The University of Cambridge is committed to upholding freedom of speech within the law. Our Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech and the accompanying guidance outline our commitment to promoting free speech for staff, students and visiting speakers in all activities related to academic life. This includes academic freedom, which is the ability – within the law – to question and test received knowledge, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions.
Both the E6 Condition and the Office for Students’ guidance on freedom of speech make it clear that the exercise of academic freedom is unlikely to constitute harassment.
During the course of your study, you may encounter materials or opinions that you disagree with or find offensive, even though they are lawful. We encourage you to be tolerant of others’ lawful views, even if you find them unwelcome. Asking questions, testing conclusions and challenging each other’s viewpoints is what makes a great university like Cambridge such a powerhouse for advancing knowledge. Disagreeing well is a skill we hope you will learn and practise while here at Cambridge and into the future.
Please look out for another email from us in a few weeks’ time, which will be called Key Information for Michaelmas Term. It will contain practical information, links and reminders that will be useful for the coming term.
Once again, best of luck for the coming academic year.
Very best wishes,
Professor Bhaskar Vira
Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Education and Environmental Sustainability)
“Once again, best of luck for the coming academic year”
Good point. Luck is needed to survive in this environment.
“Disagreeing well is a skill we hope you will learn and practise while here at Cambridge”
😂