Extraordinary events are unfolding at a Newspaper. A hugely damaging story about Consigliere University is about to be published. The Vice Chancellor of Consigliere University sanctions its silencing. The Editor of the Newspaper calls his CEO once the implications of taking on Consigliere University become clear. The CEO orders the story be pulled.
The fable goes like this:
Prominent and newsworthy Professor Molloy has been accused of plagiarism.
The evidence is overwhelming. His students are speaking out. The press sniff the scandal. Predators smell the blood. A feeding frenzy is about to begin.
Professor Molloy was appointed with much fanfare and trumpeting. Though never much of an academic, Molloy is a media megastar beloved by bosses at the top of Consigliere University.
A huge scandal is about to break. It will do enormous damage.
The Office for Research Integrity was informed some years ago of serious problems with Molloy’s work. It carried out its customary policy of denial and institutional hand-washing.
In this instance the research that your concerns relate to was carried out before Professor Molloy joined the University and it would normally be for the institution at which the work was done to consider any research integrity concerns. As such we do not consider it within our remit to investigate the papers to which you refer. [Dr Alexander Twist, Head of Research Integrity at Consigliere University]
The corridors at Consigliere University are lined with posters: “Ignorance is Rigour. Conformity is Integrity. Silence is Transparency“.
What to do? The Vice Chancellor conferred with the other senior capos.
“We cut them off, we bury the lot,” the VC said, in the kind of voice you hear in the Sopranos — ruthless, amused, smiling.
“Let’s break their legs”, said a young and excitable pro-VC.
“We need to isolate the bastards and make sure they stay isolated. We put our best operators on this. There’s no law too binding, there’s no price too high. Get the lawyers, get the hitmen”, said the VC quietly.
At Consigliere University, silencing is the norm.
And what the VC wants, the VC gets.
The story is unstoppable. All that has happened is that the scandal has been deepened, with institutional complicity added to incompetence. Remember, though, it’s just a fable.
46 Comments
DestroyingAngel · 26 September 2025 at 08:42
Shocking, truly shocking
But you’re right. When the story now comes out, the matter will be far more damaging for Consigliere University, and those who run it.
TheResearcher · 26 September 2025 at 09:07
Isn’t the VC of Consigliere University a Fellow at St Machiavelli’s College? I was told that yesterday she received an email from a member of St Machiavelli’s College asking for a urgent meeting before the member shares his experience of institutional corruption at Consigliere University to the entire college, fellows, staff and students. It may lead to another fable.
I do not envy the Chancellor of Consigliere University. What a decaying place.
21percent.org · 26 September 2025 at 09:22
For the avoidance of doubt, Professor ‘Soapy’ Molloy and Dr Alexander Twist are fictional characters
Their imaginary doings are described elsewhere [Money in the Bank, Money for Nothing]
SPARTACUS · 26 September 2025 at 09:47
Consigliere University is mired in scandal and corruption. It has lost all sense of dignity and fairness. It runs like the Mafia. Dictators, drunkards and crooks thrive in the place!
TheResearcher · 26 September 2025 at 11:04
The sad thing is that these words seem inflated for most people as it is impossible that the situation is that bad, but they are not. And if you want to stay in the university, you have to accept this situation in silence otherwise you are in big troubles.
The worst feeling of all, at least for me, is seeing close people that we trusted, not least for being responsible for our wellbeing, finding all possible reasons to not get involved.
Not just Oxbridge · 26 September 2025 at 13:22
Sounds like Kent
Mario · 26 September 2025 at 14:31
Sounds like Goodfellas
The Director of HR making the tomato sauce, the pro-VC cooking the steaks and the VC slicing the garlic with a razor blade.
Anonymous · 26 September 2025 at 16:07
At least the characters were in jail during that scene.
21percent.org · 26 September 2025 at 18:24
They were in jail & running the jail 😉
3 · 26 September 2025 at 10:18
“Dictators, drunkards and crooks thrive in the place!”
and psychopaths…
Curious · 26 September 2025 at 11:59
Yet another case in clinical medicine?
IMAGINARY · 26 September 2025 at 18:42
Only in some parallel Universe would Consiglieri University exist!
In this Universe where we live in at the present it would impossible to have a University where:
1- a drunkard runs a multi-million pound Institute.
2- a known liar about their own professional qualifications becomes head of a College
3- a Head of School knowing about 1+2 buries their head in the sand like an ostrich.
That is why the terrible things at Consiglieri University are only imaginary!
Eileen Nugent · 26 September 2025 at 22:27
Alcoholism is treated as a disability in some countries – people are still expected to sober up to keep their employment – treating alcoholism as a disability allows reasonable adjustments to be made the employee to give them a chance to achieve a state of being continuously sober on the job. Alcoholism can emerge at any stage of life.
Eileen Nugent · 26 September 2025 at 23:03
It’s great that in that parallel universe head of Colleges can themselves recognise the emergence of a situation where they may need to resign their position – it’s part of a specific legal obligation that a head of a college owes to the college – if the head of a college is unsure about the options available to them within the context of a specific situation the head of college can always consult the Charity Commission which is responsible for regulating the college for some advice as can any other trustee in the same college or any head of School who is responsible for making decisions in relation to the beneficiaries of a charity regulated by the charity commission that are the product of both school and college governance systems.
TheResearcher · 26 September 2025 at 19:09
“The Editor of the Newspaper calls his CEO once the implications of taking on Consigliere University become clear. The CEO orders the story be pulled.”
Can someone illuminate me here? This is bothering me. If the evidence is overwhelming, what were the consequences for the Newspaper in reporting the truth? The Newspaper does not consider the case of sufficient public interest? Can’t the story go to another Newspaper? Of course, I understand this is just a tale…
21percent.org · 26 September 2025 at 19:27
In the UK, libel laws work for the super-wealthy
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/08/the-worst-law-on-earth-why-the-rich-love-london-reputation-managers
You can get be telling the truth and still get be bankrupted — or as Private Eye say, Carter-Fucked.
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2023-12-01/carter-ruck-britains-fiercest-libel-firm-will-pursue-anyone-anywhere-reputation
See the OneCoin crypto scam run by Bulgarian fugitive Ruja Ignatova, for which a partner of Carter-Ruck is now finally facing a reckoning.
TheResearcher · 26 September 2025 at 19:55
I see now why they say, “The UK media law is the worst law on earth.” Some of us can start thinking about immigrating just to tell our adventures in the Consigliere University or alike.
I wondered if the “UK media law” only applies in the UK, and ChatGPT says:
• Inside the UK:
Journalists, broadcasters, publishers, and individuals must comply with UK laws when producing or distributing content in the UK.
• Outside the UK:
Strictly speaking, UK law does not apply abroad. However, there are two important caveats:
1. Publication accessible in the UK: If a media outlet publishes material abroad (e.g., on a website or in a newspaper) but it is accessed or distributed in the UK, then it can be subject to UK law (especially for defamation and contempt of court).
2.Companies operating in the UK: International broadcasters, newspapers, or platforms with UK offices or distribution channels must comply with UK regulations for their UK operations (e.g., Ofcom rules).
Depressing, but I reckon the Consigliere University cannot use the same suppression always, regardless how rich it is, namely if many people are willing to uncover their independent stories. This needs to be considered seriously. Collective action will be key.
TheResearcher · 26 September 2025 at 19:57
emigrating…
Buona fortuna · 26 September 2025 at 19:59
“Namely if many people are willing to uncover their independent stories.”
Good luck convincing people to put themselves on the firing line; sadly, you will need it. Most people are very cowardly when all is said and done.
TheResearcher · 26 September 2025 at 20:27
The reason I use “TheResearcher” always and reveal things that I am explicitly told not to is because I could not care less about their threats. The university knows who I am, and that I am deliberately ignoring what they say. Of course, I can be expelled at any time, likely the next stage after having “Precautionary Measures,” “Urgent Precautionary Measures,” and “Special Precautionary Measures,” but showing fear to these people is the worst thing we can do.
We do not need that many stories if people are not comfortable for whatever reason. 10-15 independent stories should rock the boat. Consider telling the 21 Group if you are game in participating in a collective action.
Buona fortuna · 26 September 2025 at 20:35
Good luck…
21percent.org · 26 September 2025 at 21:45
Buona fortuna,
You are correct that some people will need to bravely challenge what is happening. You are correct that most academics are frightened of their universities and are frightened to speak out …. unless they are part of a large group of people all speaking out at the same time.
They are then protected by large numbers.
How did the East European Communist dictatorships fall? They fell because finally there were large groups of people speaking out & demonstrating at the same time, who protected each other by their large numbers. And their opponents were small in number, their grasp on power feeble.
Power in universities rests with a few Nicolae and Elena Ceaușescus and their entourage. HR are the analogue of the Securitate. They are small in number. They can be easily outnumbered.
Of course, a plan is needed to bring this about. And we have a plan to hold those who run Consigliere University to account 🙂
Remember too no-one likes university senior management any more, they have the credibility of bankers at the height of the 2008 GFC.
Eileen Nugent · 26 September 2025 at 21:32
For the Onecoin crypto case : Representing the interests of a client suspected of fraud in a fraud case is valid legal representation. A legal representative permitting a law firm to which you owe a legal obligation to be used by an individual actively being investigated for fraud to run a legal process to suppress the emergence of information that could be relevant to an active fraud case is not valid legal representation and not in the in the interests of the law firm.
I would report Onecoin to the FCA – closest matching regulator and drive a concern even if the Onecoin is not yet regulated as a financial service. I would contact the police and notify them of the correspondence from Carter-Ruck as it is relevant to evidence gathering in relation to the case. I would contact the management of Carter-Ruck and inform them of a referral of the solicitor sending the letter to the SRA if the legal process is not halted for the duration of the active fraud investigation. I would get in contact with my MP and inform Carter-Ruck of contact with my MP.
I would point out that it is not in the national or international interest for a law firm to take funds which are potentially the by-product of financial fraud and to use those funds to drive legal processes on the behalf of the person suspected of committing fraud that will be applied to those who have already been left in a vulnerable position as a result of that financial fraud and whose chances of receiving any financial compensation to reduce their vulnerability are being reduced by the continued existence of the legal process that is being applied to them.
I would give Carter-Ruck the opportunity to improve itself as a law firm and to stop Carter-Fucking vulnerable individuals already at an increased risk of a preventable death before it makes a significant contribution to a preventable death and its behaviour as a law firm is cited as a factor in a coroner’s report. Protecting individuals from defamation is a valid legal activity. I have nothing against law firms that prove capable of altering organisational actions in response to new information and ultimately make the right decision in relation to the cases they are handling.
Carter-Ruck now seems to be encountering fuck-carter-fuck operations – perhaps this will drive organisational performance improvements, who knows what levels of legal prowess are attainable for Carter-Ruck with the addition of the fuck-carter-fuck operational feedback loop.
Eileen Nugent · 26 September 2025 at 21:57
Carter-Ruck could try to establish a pattern of attacking national regulators, members of the public might then start showing up in court to testify on the importance of national regulators, how essential it is that national regulators are enabled to prevent law firms with deep-seated regulatory faults like Carter-Ruck from being periodically hijacked by fraudsters to be used as vehicles to commit further criminal offences against extremely vulnerable members of the public. The Carter-fucked-with the wrong national regulator on the wrong fucking case-fuck operation.
Eileen Nugent · 26 September 2025 at 22:07
The thing to bear in mind is that in a high-profile law firm that has been around for 40 years there is sound legal judgment sitting somewhere in that law firm. Might not be the person who took on the case but somewhere buried deep inside that law firm there is an individual who can recognise the makings of an organisational fuck-up at its earliest stages.
Vile · 26 September 2025 at 22:12
This is just like Jimmy Savile. The whole establishment protected him. Even when victims started telling their stories on the comments to his BBC obituary page the BBC initially protected him by removing them even though they all knew it was true.
Nothing has changed. Those who failed to report abuse were part of the abuse. They were directly responsible for the abuse of each next victim and they knew it.
reality · 26 September 2025 at 22:49
Welcome to the real world
Eileen Nugent · 27 September 2025 at 00:31
When I look at the post office case – to me this is change in action – people who have overcome exceptional challenges & fears to get to the stage where they refuse to put up with any further abuse and take action to put a stop to it, an MP capable of recognising and responding to injustice, a judge who will not be recused and who stands their ground, a legal firm that is capable of resourcing a legal case and forcing a successful legal intervention in an organisation lead by a group of people and advised by set of legal advisors that are in such a dysfunctional state that they are no longer capable of acting in their own best interests never mind the interests of the organisation they owe a legal obligation to – a whole legal system on the move – changing, adapting to increase the complexity of the cases it can handle – moving towards holding large multinationals to account for the negative impact of their systemic organisational faults and individuals and national interest, moving towards recognising new types of abuse & new preventable deaths in an effort to develop mechanisms to prevent them in future. It’s a case of drive that change harder and changing faster.
Eileen Nugent · 27 September 2025 at 02:47
It’s not that the victims who had the courage to speak up in the Jimmy Savile case did not drive change, they drove change when driving change on that societal problem was a complete unknown which takes some courage – it’s that so long as a societal problem persists society relies on individuals to discover that same courage to speak up in order to drive the necessary societal change to eliminate the societal problem.
SPARTACUS · 27 September 2025 at 08:32
Consiglieri University does not exist! We are all delusional!
Bloody right · 27 September 2025 at 13:19
Bloody well said ! Bloody right!
Journo · 27 September 2025 at 09:43
The scandal here is that the University is using public money to pay a very expensive law firm to suppress information. It won’t work.
Such a decision must have been signed off at the most senior levels of the University, either by the VC or by the Registrar of Consigliere University.
So now, when the scandal breaks, it will not be about plagiarism.
It will be about institutional corruption, and whoever signed off this wrong decision.
The management of Consigliere University needs a clear-out. Almost all the top positions are held by people who are not very good, yet pull down huge salaries.
TheResearcher · 27 September 2025 at 14:42
“Such a decision must have been signed off at the most senior levels of the University, either by the VC or by the Registrar of Consigliere University.”
You probably noted that Nurse Emily was unexpectedly active on the internet this last week when she should be on leave? I wondered if she was either packing her things or signing off important stuff.
Father Ted · 27 September 2025 at 18:31
And where was old Teddy then?
TheResearcher · 27 September 2025 at 20:24
I did not check but I can always ask him directly. Teddy is one of the few people I can still contact as he is not in my ‘no contact’ list. My list was recently updated but does not include him yet. Of course, if I decide to contact him, I cannot use my @cam account as otherwise I will be in very big troubles…
Scandalous · 27 September 2025 at 15:45
A big part of the problem here is that the university has access to public funds yet without being subject to the same scrutiny, rules, and accountability mechanisms that operate elsewhere in the public sector. This allows an organisation to engage in corrupt actions insofar as they can spend taxpayer funds on covering abusive conduct that should be in the public domain.
This is a genuine scandal. In the NHS if a manager of a trust was alerted to a scandal they would know very well not to hire lawyers and PR firms out of taxpayer funds to cover up, but their duty to report and then let investigatory and disciplinary authorities do their functions.
SPARTACUS · 27 September 2025 at 18:20
Spot on! It is not just public money, it is also money from public donations to CRUK and from a tax-exempt organisation like the Welcome Trust! The stories are truly gory! But it will inevitably become public knowledge since some of the scandals will play out in Tribunals and the Courts…
reckoning · 27 September 2025 at 18:36
A huge reckoning is coming for Nurse Emily and the American Queen.
Bloody right · 27 September 2025 at 19:24
Bloody right, bloody right!
IMAGINARY · 27 September 2025 at 18:27
Remember this is all at Consiglieri University in the parallel Universe! It would never happen at a real University run by an American Queen!!!
TheResearcher · 27 September 2025 at 21:22
I was searching past stories of the 21 Group before I joined, and just found a very interesting and appropriate one to mention here, “Thoughts of a Vice Chancellor” (https://21percent.org/?p=1697).
“Six Tips to Flourish as a Leader” according to Prof. Deborah Prentice:
“1. Don’t let other people frame your agenda. Everyone will try, whether they intend to or not. Listen and respond, but then reflect on what you want to take on board.
2. Know your time and place. Ask yourself, why am I the best person to lead this organisation now? And if you cannot come up with an answer, freshen up your resumé.
3. Don’t be afraid to repeat yourself. Clear communication is your most important tool and your biggest challenge. If you want to get a message across, say it again.
4. Make all your behaviours count, even the casual, spontaneous ones. People in your organisation will pay much more attention to your behaviour than you realise. Make sure what they see is what you want them to see.
5. Set goals for where you want your organisation to be in one year, three years, and just after you step down. That is the best piece of advice I received when I took my current job. I would add, update the goals each year.
6. Remind yourself and others what is best about your organisation. It is easy to focus on the challenges and overlook the things that are going well. Take time to enjoy the good parts and don’t be afraid to cheerlead.”
I wonder what Prof. Prentice thinks now after 6 additional months of scandals, and counting.
SPARTACUS · 27 September 2025 at 21:28
What Prof Prentice now thinks: I am an American Queen!
TheResearcher · 27 September 2025 at 21:35
You do not imagine how tempted I am to contact her and ask about her 6 tips, namely my favourite, “Ask yourself, why am I the best person to lead this organisation now?” I think we all want to know the answer!
Ella · 28 September 2025 at 04:35
She has 577,000 reasons
Correction · 28 September 2025 at 08:14
Surely point 2 should finish: “If you cannot come up with a good answer, have the decency to resign and let someone else take the lead.”
I actually think that is how that management platitude normally ends, and she changed it to something nonsensical.
TheResearcher · 28 September 2025 at 09:29
“She has 577,000 reasons”
Prof. Prentice expands on that idea here (1:22:10):
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002jfys
“I do not set my own salary… I am very well paid, and I try to work very very hard for it.”
In doubt, please remember, “I try to work very very hard for it.”