The Vice Chancellor of Cambridge University’s Annual address was given on 1 October 2025. A written version is here.
This is the Alternative Vice Chancellor’s Annual Address.
“I came from 3000 miles away. When I arrived, I knew little about this University. Over the last three years, I have learnt a lot.
I have learnt that this institution systematically engages in the victimisation of early career academics, whistleblowers and survivors of misconduct, particularly when senior academics are implicated. Much of this victimisation is carried out directly by the institution itself — through Human Resources, Legal and Heads of School.
Such practices run wholly counter to the mission of our university and the values of the wider academic community it exists to serve. Institutional reform is now urgently needed to realign its ethics and practices with those of the academic community and its professional partners.
We must begin with cultural reform — placing genuine value on the careers, dignity and wellbeing of every member of our university community. This means coming together to agree upon principles that reflect who we are and what we stand for. But culture must be matched by action: we need modern, ethical grievance procedures that people can trust. We must guarantee protection from both individual retaliation and institutional victimisation. And above all, we must commit to transparency.
Without openness, there can be no accountability, and without accountability, there can be no reform.
Much remains largely concealed — even from those in positions of power — but especially from the wider community. Decisions are taken quietly, behind closed doors, by senior administrators and lawyers. This cannot stand. Accountability requires that the truth be brought into the open — that people are forced to see, to recognise and to respond. Every division must commit to publishing data each year: the number and type of formal grievances, the cases raised, and the cases resolved. Central HR and Legal Services must go further — publishing clear tables each year that show how many employment tribunals or legal cases were started, how many were settled or abandoned without judgment. Alongside this, they must disclose the costs: the total spent on settlements, on external lawyers, on internal HR and legal time, and on insurance to cover these battles.
We must continue with substantial pay reform. At our University, despite its global prestige, the reality for many academics is marked by a precarious employment landscape. A significant proportion of scholars —particularly early-career researchers, postdoctoral fellows, and junior lecturers — work on fixed-term contracts that offer little job security and limited prospects for permanent positions. Funding for research is project-specific and subject to competitive grants, leaving many dependent on short-term cycles that can disrupt continuity in their work and careers. This uncertainty affects not only financial stability, but also academic freedom, as scholars may feel pressured to align their research with funders’ priorities. While Cambridge stands as a beacon of academic excellence, for many of its staff, employment is fragile, desperate and contingent.
For example, fees for our Masters courses range from around £10,000 to over £17,000 for home students, and between £30,000 and £45,000 or more for overseas students. Yet despite these substantial sums, much of the teaching is carried out by academics employed on precarious, short-term contracts, often earning little more than the minimum wage once preparation time and marking are taken into account. These arrangements highlight a stark contradiction: while our University charges premium fees, the individuals who deliver much of the teaching face financial insecurity and limited job stability. This disparity raises questions about fairness and the sustainability of academic labour, especially given the lavish salaries of some senior administrators.
I understand that, as Vice-Chancellor, my own remuneration is a matter of public scrutiny, and I acknowledge the importance of aligning leadership with the values of fairness and solidarity. In light of this, I commit to voluntarily reducing my salary and redirecting a substantial portion of those funds toward initiatives that improve job security, support early-career researchers, and enhance teaching conditions across the University. This is a small — but meaningful — step toward addressing the inequalities within our institution, and I offer it with genuine contrition and a renewed commitment to ensuring Cambridge remains not only a centre of academic excellence, but also a place of fairness and shared purpose.
It is for the academic community itself to decide what kind of culture and policies it wants to embody. For too long, it has been all too easy to look away, to ignore, when the facts and the true scale of the problems are hidden. Will we be a place of silence, unfairness and concealment, or a place of truth, fairness and responsibility?
The choice is ours and the time is now.
I am your reforming Vice Chancellor and — with your help — I will lead you to the Cambridge University of the future.
55 Comments
SilentNoMore · 4 October 2025 at 10:51
The real speech is pitiful. The delivery is poor, the content is thin and any vision is completely absent. It’s completely uninspiring, largely about the University’s real estate. Even she doesn’t even look interested in what she is saying. The alternative speech … wow, just wow.
Dr O · 6 October 2025 at 10:37
The real issue is not the quality of the speech or the content.
It is the fact that having to look at someone in charge who is taking half your monthly salary every day makes us all question why we bother. At a minimum that undermines morale but at a maximum it reinforces a culture of people feeling justified in grabbing whatever they can for themselves because if the leadership is at it then why not everyone else?
21percent.org · 6 October 2025 at 10:59
Agreed.
The over-payment of Vice Chancellors & other senior management at Cambridge University and elsewhere has damaged the public perception of Universities. It is one of the reasons why the Govt has been so indifferent to the funding difficulties in the entire sector.
Irrespective of content, public speaking is difficult. It is not easy to enthuse an audience and take it with you. Prof Prentice does not have that skill.
$$$$ · 7 October 2025 at 12:23
The obvious major problem from the moment she arrived was the fact that we had just had a 1/4 pay cut because of inflation and are struggling to cover rent and bills. She had a long time to fix this but instead keeps pushing this line about how we do not need to pay people to come here while her own pay package is through the roof. It takes a real lack of social awareness to take that much in pay then tell your employees that salary is unimportant.
TheResearcher · 4 October 2025 at 11:37
I am pretty convinced that who wrote the VC’s Annual Address was Sam. She even quotes Teddy! But I noticed in particular, “The role of the Chancellor is to advocate for and support the University’s strategic aims and interests.” I hope that the Chancellor will do more than this, otherwise the current appalling state of things will continue.
21percent.org · 4 October 2025 at 11:49
Doubt it. Legal are short-staffed and absolutely inundated with all the court cases.
More likely to be someone with a keen interest in the University’s Estate & with lots of free time to drone on about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC-DShX4hi8
One of the comments on Youtube is just “Myalgic Encephalomyelitis”
“Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) is a complex, long-term illness characterized by profound, unrefreshing fatigue, post-exertional malaise (PEM) where symptoms worsen after exertion, sleep problems, cognitive issues like brain fog, and unrefreshing sleep. It is a multi-system condition affecting various body systems and can significantly impact a person’s quality of life, with symptoms often fluctuating in severity. While the exact cause is unknown, it is often triggered by infections but can also be influenced by overexertion, stress, or other medical conditions.”
Screenshotted it, as we expect the comment will be removed shortly.
SPARTACUS · 4 October 2025 at 11:58
Wow! Simply wow! American Queen has only one thing to do: RESIGN!
Chancellor needs to call, as Chair, an urgent Council meeting to put in place an emergency plan to rescue our University!
Bloody right · 4 October 2025 at 12:01
Bloody right, bloody right!
IMAGINARY · 4 October 2025 at 12:06
I made an effort to listen to the AQ ‘speech’! I could not bear the whole thing simply because I quickly realised it is not real! It is delivered to the parallel Universe where Consiglieri University exists! Can we please go back to the 800 year old institution that used to have academic excellence as its moto? Thank you for your attention to this matter.
DUDE · 4 October 2025 at 12:15
Pulp:
She came from Greece, she had a thirst for knowledge
She studied sculpture at Saint Martin’s College
That’s where I
Caught her eye
She told me that her Dad was loaded
I said, “In that case, I’ll have rum and Coca-Cola.”
She said, “Fine”
And then in thirty-seconds time she said
“I wanna live like common people
I wanna do whatever common people do
Wanna sleep with common people
I wanna sleep with common people like you.”
Well, what else could I do?
I said, “I’ll… I’ll see what I can do.”
I took her to a supermarket
I don’t know why but I had to start it somewhere
So it started there
I said, “Pretend you got no money.”
And she just laughed and said, “Oh, you’re so funny.”
I said, “Yeah
Well, I can’t see anyone else smiling in here
Are you sure?
You wanna live like common people
You wanna see whatever common people see
Wanna sleep with common people
You wanna sleep with common people like me?
But she didn’t understand
And she just smiled and held my hand
Oh, rent a flat above a shop
And cut your hair and get a job
And smoke some fags and play some pool
Pretend you never went to school
But still you’ll never get it right
‘Cause when you’re laid in bed at night
Watching roaches climb the wall
If you called your dad he could stop it all
Yeah
You’ll never live like common people
You’ll never do what ever common people do
Never fail like common people
You’ll never watch your life slide out of view
And then dance, and drink, and screw
Because there’s nothing else to do
Oh!
Sing along with the common people
Sing along and it might just get you through
Laugh along with the common people
Laugh along, even though they’re laughing at you
And the stupid things that you do
Because you think that poor is cool
Like a dog lying in a corner
They will bite you and never warn you
Look out, they’ll tear your insides out
‘Cause everybody hates a tourist
Especially one who, who thinks it’s all such a laugh
Yeah, and the chip stain’s and grease will come out in the bath
You will never understand
How it feels to live your life
With no meaning or control
And with nowhere left to go
You are amazed that they exist
And they burn so bright whilst you can only wonder why
Bloody right · 4 October 2025 at 12:52
Bloody right…
Hiddendragon · 4 October 2025 at 14:58
From the actual speech:
“In the narrative of Cambridge in the 21st century, problems with water, transportation, and affordable housing receive multiple mentions.”
“Narrative”? “Multiple mentions”? This does feel like the makings of a 50-60 marginal pass essay. Who on earth drafts this stuff?
SPARTACUS · 4 October 2025 at 15:17
This is what happens when a scholastic institution loses its ethos! It is no longer about excellence, discovery and teaching, it becomes a corporation, a service provider. In other words a business like others. It even calls it’s HR people business partners! Outstanding people disengage from the management layer and a mediocre oligarchy emerges. This oligarchy then ensures that VC becomes a meaningless but extremely well paid figurehead. It started with a Welshman with a Russian name and became disastrous with a second rate Canadian lawyer now followed by this clueless American Queen. Toxicity, rot and mediocrity now rule the place.
JJ · 4 October 2025 at 15:23
Awful, really awful.
After tens of paragraphs about buildings, sites, and infrastructure, the Vice Chancellor suddenly remembers that a university is made of people. The pivot feels perfunctory and unconvincing, a gesture designed to soften what is otherwise an estates speech. The balance is all wrong: people get five minutes; construction projects get fifty.
Real Estate · 7 October 2025 at 22:15
“Many years ago, a very successful real estate developer in New York, known as Donald J. Trump, I bid on the renovation and rebuilding of this very United Nations complex. I remember it so well. I said at the time that I would do it for $500 million, rebuilding everything, it would be beautiful. I used to talk about, I’m going to give you marble floors, they’re going to give you terrazzo. I’m gonna give you the best of everything. You’re gonna have mahogany walls, they’re gonna give you plastic.” – Donald J Trump, September 23, 2025
“The West Cambridge site, likewise, started out as a place to put new departments that had nowhere else to go. The first out there was the Department of Veterinary Medicine in 1955. Then came the Whittle Lab in 1973. Then the British Antarctic Survey followed closely by Cavendish II. There wasn’t much of a plan until about 20 years ago, when a critical mass of University activity had located there and the opportunity to develop the site more strategically became clear. West Cambridge as an innovation district came into view only recently with the opening of the West Hub in 2022. The Eddington site, in Northwest Cambridge, followed a different trajectory. Here, the plan preceded the development.” — Deborah Prentice, October 1, 2025
WeNeedHelp · 4 October 2025 at 15:44
The word “placemaking” appears repeatedly, as if a shiny new atrium automatically produces intellectual breakthroughs. This is a shallow import from urban planning jargon, not serious academic “vision” (a word that also appears a lot).
Research thrives on freedom of thought, resources, and mentorship — not on buildings with “best-in-class environmental specifications.”
There is constant meaningless drumbeat of “innovation hubs,” “industry partners,” “start-ups,” “scaling companies”, “stakeholders” and “corporate innovation teams”.
It reads like an annual report from an ambitious property developer. It mistakes buildings for scholarship, and infrastructure for intellect.
It’s one of the worst speeches I have ever read — both in terms of language, coherence and ideas. And worst of all, it’s long, meandering, structureless and has nothing to say. Painful to deliver, painful to listen to, painful to read. It’s clear third-class degree material.
TheResearcher · 4 October 2025 at 17:34
“It’s one of the worst speeches I have ever read”
Watching the speech makes it much worse. She is smiling throughout as if she was not aware of the current state of things, seriously disturbing. And the ProVCs in the back, as if they did not actively contribute to the situation, smirking and nodding… What will all these people say when the scandals start to get public and it is clear that many of them started or got amplified during their tenure? There is no hole where they can all fit.
Sheer Rage · 5 October 2025 at 08:47
@Hiddendragon
Just imagine if Starmer had gone and delivered his Conference speech this year with similar words:
“In the narrative of Britain in the 21st century, it appears concerns around immigration, low pay, and affordable housing receive multiple mentions.”
The press would absolutely tear him to shreds and rightly so.
Of course, Debbie is only paid 3x the salary we pay Starmer, so we can’t hold her to those standards.
And it is so noble she mentions transport and housing affordability when her accommodation is fully paid and the taxpayer covers her to travel around in first class at the public expense.
All the while lecturers at Cambridge must pay the entire net wage of their morning lectures just to cover the cost of their train fares.
Those are the real priorities. Follow the money.
Anon · 4 October 2025 at 16:06
There are sounds coming out of her mouth, and the look on her face is “what is this shit I’m talking?”
DUDE · 4 October 2025 at 17:59
It is what the dreadful mediocre oligarchy puts is front of her to read! She is clueless but makes >£600k p.a.!! What does she care! She is an American Queen!!!!
TigerWhoCametoET · 5 October 2025 at 15:32
I think the delivery was a lot better than previous times, like maybe she got some on the job training ahead of time for this one. But I did feel like during the speech she was also thinking to herself, oh dear, what have they given me for a script, why am I here today, really the same questions that I imagine the audience must have been thinking.
Al · 5 October 2025 at 16:09
But there were the strange facial expressions, the rolling of eyes and the raising of eyebrows & weird, expansive hand gestures. I’m not an expert in body language, but she looked uncomfortable and ill at ease.
TheResearcher · 5 October 2025 at 18:48
TigerWhoCametoET, your post made me read her past speeches. What a waste of my time, I know. But incidentally I noted that the 21 Group had already covered her very first speech here (https://21percent.org/?p=266):
“Much of the work of the university this year will focus on people, for people are at the heart of everything we do. People are the means and the ends of the work of a university. I have talked about the opportunities and challenges of aligning the academic and public sides of Cambridge’s mission, but none of that matters if people do not want to come to work here. It is people who animate the community of scholars, and people whose imaginations and ambitions fuel the impact of the public institution.” (Prof Deborah Prentice, 2 October 2023)
The people…
21percent.org · 5 October 2025 at 19:54
Nowadays she seems more concerned about hiring US academics at bargain prices (herself excepted, natch)
“For example, we had more interest from the U.S. for everything we advertised this year, from undergraduate places and postgraduate places to every level of academic and professional-services staff position. And we could recruit people, even when they had to take significant cuts in salary to come.” (Prof Deborah Prentice, 1 October 2025)
She has also mentioned this publicly elsewhere (a speech at the Cambridge Union last year).
It’s a long way from “we are a people organisation, we care about the people” from her early days.
TheResearcher · 5 October 2025 at 20:58
“we could recruit people, even when they had to take significant cuts in salary to come.”
That may well be true, but simply because they do not read this blog! She is making a fool of herself and she does not even know…
TigerWhoCametoET · 4 October 2025 at 20:18
I think it would be better if she set aside a portion of her salary to cover the hundreds of thousands of pounds of legal bills that are incurred by staff members earning a 10th of her income, simply because she ignored their reports of abuse by management, and they ended up having to take legal action instead to secure redress.
21percent.org · 4 October 2025 at 21:27
The ignoring of reports of abuse will become very difficult for Prof Prentice to explain & has the potential to cause real reputational damage
SPARTACUS · 4 October 2025 at 21:36
She has ignored gross abuse in more than one School! She is hopeless!
21percent.org · 4 October 2025 at 21:41
“The HR Director openly blusters that she’s untouchable. If the Vice Chancellor or senior management receives a complaint against the HR Director, it is passed to the HR Director to write the response. She exonerates herself. The HR Director’s exculpatory text is sent to the complainant under the VC’s name.”
https://21percent.org/?p=1239
TheResearcher · 4 October 2025 at 21:57
Please let this sink in you: The HR Director is the designated safeguarding lead of the University of Cambridge, and this week I was told in a FOI request that I had placed that the university does not hold any data on the number of safeguarding referrals made. What this mindblowing statement means is very simple, do not waste your time making a safeguarding referral because it will go directly to the bin.
21percent.org · 5 October 2025 at 07:36
This FOI request should be appealed. There is a clear public interest in knowing this data.
Blown · 4 October 2025 at 22:39
I can list for you more than one safeguarding referral she received and was ignored.
Thus far the rate is 100% for the number of such referrals this group knows about, that resulted in no action.
Eileen Nugent · 5 October 2025 at 01:16
No taking much time for that to sink in. The Samaritans may have better safeguarding referral stats for the University of Cambridge as that seemed to be where the HR Director thought it appropriate to direct people in any type of safeguarding situation irrespective of how that safeguarding situation arose. I pointed out to the health and safety executive how I thought they were the more appropriate organisation to contact in my particular as the health and safety executive had the potential to assist me in complying with a legal obligation owed to the organisation to have concerns on the regulation of work-related stress addressed by the organisation which would have removed a major work-related stressor – active whistleblowing situation – from my life and with it the corresponding significant health and safety risk that was being generated.
Clear Them Out · 5 October 2025 at 08:22
Let’s not forget that this is the very same University of Cambridge that forced medical doctors to include – against their will – the following passage in every letter sent back to the university in bold letters and presented as if it were their own opinion (https://21percent.org/?p=1418):
“recommendations provided by the Occupational Health Service… are not prescriptive and will need to be considered and discussed in relation to the requirements of the role and the operational needs of the department, to enable a management decision to be made on final working arrangements.”
This is also a university that has terminated contracts for staff who were terminally ill, refused to investigate suicide cases even when instructed to do so by occupational health, and whose HR have time to organise and attend mindfulness seminars for themselves- but not respond to staff emails reporting concerns around the mortality of colleagues.
DangerZone · 5 October 2025 at 09:55
At what point does the misuse of confidential medical and OH information to maliciously create an acute health and safety emergency become attempted murder?
If a rogue medical practitioner maliciously arranges (e.g. through third parties) for a substance known (from medical records) to be lethal to a patient to be administered, they would eventually, when found out, be charged with a criminal offense.
What would happen if rogue HR personnel, with knowledge of specific vulnerabilities based on medical records or OH reports, arrange (e.g. through third parties) for the vulnerable staff member to be subjected to treatment which could ultimately endanger their lives?
Eileen Nugent · 6 October 2025 at 00:15
I think an important element of the effective management of this type of health and safety emergency by individuals, organisations and society is finding the language that allows an individuals to talk about the situation in ways which make it possible to find a solution which is in everyones best interest – that of the individual, organisation, society. Another vital element is finding thinking that when applied to these situations enables the effective management of the situation – reducing the health and safety risk, stabilising the situation, enabling health improvements, exiting the situation, everyone be able to move forward with their lives.
I found this language to be helpful in these situations : health and safety accident/emergency, preventable death and possibility of an organisational/societal failure to prevent a death. This language allows an individuals in this type of health and safety emergency and everyone else handling that situation to talk about the situation in a way which maximises agency – individual, organisation, society – and cooperation the combination of which maximises the probability of finding a solution to the situation. I found this thinking to be useful in these situations : I’m being exposed excessive and unnecessary work-related stress, this is an ongoing work-related stress accident, there is the possibility of a preventable death in this situation, no one in the organisation wants the preventable death of any other individual in the organisation, no one in the organisation has anything to gain from a failure to prevent the death of any other individual in the organisation, just like medical staff treating a patient can unintentionally make the medical condition of a patient worse if they do not fully understand the problem so too can staff dealing with one of these health and safety emergencies unintentionally make the situation worse i.e. the fact the situation worsens and more harm is incurred after it is raised with another individual does not mean that the individual had an intent to cause harm.
“At what point does the misuse of confidential medical and OH information to maliciously create an acute health and safety emergency become attempted murder?”
I think using the language of “attempted murder” in relation to HR staff actions taken in this type of health and safety emergency instead of “failure to prevent a death” has the potential to generate more health and safety risk and lead to worse outcomes in these situations. I think the base assumption has to be that HR staff want to be able to effectively manage these health and safety emergencies in ways that allow people to recover their health and to move on with their lives. This is the base assumption we make for medical staff – they intend to help patients and not to harm patients – and the extremely rare occurrence of medical staff intending to cause harm/attempting murder does not change that base assumption we make about all medical staff because an extremely rare occurrence relating to very few medical staff is not representative of medical staff as a group.
I think a significant part of the problem is this : before there was any legal obligation to regulate work-related stress HR/Legal were not forced to think in terms of the stress/health impact being generated by organisational employment actions. In theory employment actions were constrained by employment law but in practice they were being constrained not by employment law but by the financial costs of not complying with employment law. Organisations seem to face no extra penalty for knowingly not complying with employment law as opposed to making a genuine compliance mistakes. This permitted a culture of premeditated non-compliance with legal obligations relating to employment. I think for HR/Legal work-related stress regulation was seen as an additional aspect of employment and not a ‘real’ health and safety issue and they therefore saw no incompatibility between how they were handling employment and this new health and safety obligation. They seemed to think they could carry on handing employment cases as before with some additional types of employment grievance.
The problem with the above thinking is that once employment actions are constrained by health and safety law knowingly not complying with health and safety law is a criminal offence. What this new health and safety regulation means is that employment actions now have to be constrained both health and safety law [new] and by employment law [old but not happening in practice] as to not constrain by employment law [and constrain as previously by the financial costs of not complying with employment law] generates unnecessary work-related stressors, an organisational health and safety risk. If employment actions had been being constrained by employment law before this change in health and safety regulation (a) the organisational health and safety risk would be lower as significant amounts of work-related stress are being generated by the organisation knowingly not complying with employment law and (b) the impact of this introduction of a legal obligation to regulate work-related stress on those in HR/Legal roles would have been far less. As it stands those working in HR and in Legal roles relating to employment will need to relearn every aspect of their role to ensure they are now handling cases in a way which is compliant with this new health and safety obligation. I think this is the root cause of the staff safeguarding problems that the organisation is currently experiencing.
Eileen Nugent · 5 October 2025 at 01:26
One organisation – two annual addresses – it’s the boundary-matching phase of the reform process where the task is to match the internal state of the organisation to the representation of the organisation in the external world.
Concerned · 5 October 2025 at 09:03
It would be informative not only to compile data about lack of action subsequent to a safeguarding referral but also to investigate whether any action was taken that made the lives of those involved in the referral worse (increasing any health and safety concern).
It could then be established whether safeguarding referrals are ignored (neglect) or whether, and how often, they lead to further detriment (no word for that).
TheResearcher · 5 October 2025 at 09:49
I am not sure how one can compile that data with the current Information Compliance Office. The FOI I made was very simple, I asked the number of safeguarding referrals made in the last 10 years, the number of these investigated and the number upheld. I was planning to follow up with a more detailed FOI request if the data merited further investigation. However, I was told the university does not even hold data on the number of referrals. Unless they send referrals to the bin immediately after they receive them, this does not make any sense as otherwise they would be able to count them if they still had the records. I appealed, but I already imagine what the response will be.
Incidentally, not only they did not have the data on safeguarding referrals, but also gave me different figures regarding student complaints than those published by the 21 Group here (https://21percent.org/?p=2628), where the 21 Group had used data from the official annual reports of OSCCA. When I asked OSCCA to clarify if their annual reports were incorrect, they did not reply. All this is very normal, I know.
Eileen Nugent · 6 October 2025 at 01:28
I left citing an ongoing health and safety violation as the reason for leaving. I was in a compound safeguarding situation which is where a person initially raises concerns in relation to the safeguarding of others which if inappropriately handled by the organisation generates excessive unnecessary work-related stress creating a safeguarding risk for the person raising concerns themselves. It’s like a firefighter trying to rescue others from a fire and then ending up at risk in the same fire only in this case the firefighter is working in a fire station that doesn’t believe in fires and treats every death in a fire as an unexplained death.
When I left it was at the end of years of serial mishandling of safeguarding concerns. I was deep into the runaway escalating concerns phase of raising concerns i.e. deep into the runaway work-related stress regime and I left because the response to concerns was getting more and more incomprehensible and the response to my own health and safety situation more and more bizarre.
I worried excessively about the negative impact of losing all employment on health instead of just doing a straightforward prioritisation of health over employment which meant I stayed in that situation well beyond the point it made any sense to stay. Leaving the organisation was the right decision in that particular situation because the longer it went on the worse it got and it is in no one’s best interest for a person to stay in those circumstances and to die a preventable death. Leaving the organisation enabled stabilisation of stress levels in ways that were not possible when I was in the organisation.
Eileen Nugent · 7 October 2025 at 11:47
I have previously said that I emerged from this situation – mental health in tact – but it’s more accurate to say I emerged with an enhanced ability to stabilise mental health which is the basis of being able to function at higher level than before this situation but it is not the same as exiting functioning at that higher level. I didn’t exit this situation with a high level of functioning – and ready to go work for another employer – and in fact in many different ways I unable to function even in the everyday situations that I was encountering which is one of the reasons I didn’t seek employment with another employer after being in this situation. I opted instead to build up to that higher level of functioning in everyday life and in a form self-employment where the potential impact of any problems on others is low and the potential impact of having to pause or stop that employment on others is also low. This has been a slow process because a surprisingly high number of areas of functioning were impacted by being in this type situation for so many years and it is also not a case of going back to a previous level of functioning, it’s a case of getting to a significantly higher level of functioning than was previously possible with the new knowledge that emerged in the situation.
BreakerMorant · 5 October 2025 at 13:17
*** CARTER-FUCKED ***
Sunday Times delays plagiarism story after pressure from University
They’re going in really hard, will they kill it?
TheResearcher · 5 October 2025 at 13:44
“Delays”!?!?!?!
It seems the Consigliere University will again be very busy this coming week. Poor Pro-Vice Chancellors, another stressful days ahead. And poor me, I was planning to contact the Head of Research Policy, Governance and Integrity early this week asking for an update on my report of research misconduct, but I should expect no response. Perhaps it is better to send the documents directly to the Royal Society. They may want to know how behavioural and research misconduct are addressed in the Consigliere University.
JJ · 5 October 2025 at 14:29
You’re pinning your hope on the Royal Society, OMG 😱
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly08l9vlpyo
“After Prof Octopus FRS ran amok in the centre of the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics with a heavy machine gun, the President of the Royal Society commented that the Society’s Code of Conduct had not been violated. The view of Council is that making judgments on the acceptability of the actions of Prof Octopus might do more harm than good.”
TheResearcher · 5 October 2025 at 14:42
No hope here, just publicity. I am very willing to know how many more people will be involved in my case, and I would not be surprised if the university added another line to my ‘no contact’ list saying “Any member or staff from the Royal Society.”
Funny that you mentioned the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics (DAMTP) as that just makes me contact the Royal Society even more!!! I will wait for the publication of the plagiarism story, and will take the opportunity to send them the link.
Eileen Nugent · 7 October 2025 at 15:08
If you choose to avoid violence there is at lease some chance that violence is not coming to you whereas if you choose violence there is no chance that violence is not coming to you.
TheResearcher · 7 October 2025 at 15:27
That is an important point, Eileen. Thank you. The issue is that UCam has this tendency of threatening people implicitly or explicitly to silence them. We cannot accept that.
Anon · 7 October 2025 at 15:50
The issue is that UCAM encourages violence via communications drafted by HR and Legal to generate anger and aggravation, and to exacerbate disputes among staff which could often be resolved amicably with a chat – while pontificating about “appropriate behaviour” and respect.
There is much evidence of HR revising aka vilifying previously collegial email or messaging, rendering it toxic, humiliating and offensive, while presenting their redrafting as an essential improvement.
The violence contained in the messages then comes back to the wrong people, who didn’t author the communication, possibly didn’t realise how offensive it was, but agreed to send it out in their own names.
The Researcher’s previously quoted “inappropriate manner of [your] correspondence, not least the baseless personal attacks on the integrity and professionalism of members of the University” sent to him by HR is a perfect description of what HR do all the time, with catastrophic consequences for coexistence, collaboration and collegiality.
TheResearcher · 7 October 2025 at 16:17
Let me stress that phrase came from a Lead HR Business Partner, the most discussed Lead HR Business Partner of the 21 Group to be sure whose name I believe rhymes with snake after knowing what she had done to me and many others, dared to send me that ridiculous phrase with the hope that I would just accept it and move on. Obviously, I did not accept it, as I do not accept it from anyone. This person is an absolute liar, who for some reason expects people are afraid of her. If we accept these behaviours from these people, they will continue doing them to others and unchecked. I got the point of Eileen, and she is right. I could have chosen another path and get less violence. Instead, I am being investigated for alleged abusive behaviour against hundreds of people. But I hope that UCam at least realizes they cannot manipulate and frighten everyone they want.
Anon · 7 October 2025 at 17:06
The point Eileen makes is a good one, and she is right. Most people would choose the path of no or at least lesser violence. But when abuse and threats are made (whether directly or indirectly though others) that path becomes less obvious and less open.
HR too (e.g. the most discussed Lead HR Business Partner of the 21 Group) have a duty to choose a path (in the communications they make and actions they take) which does not lead to violence or to needless escalation of a situation.
TheResearcher · 7 October 2025 at 17:19
They do not choose another path because they are used to the fact that this one works and has the backing of the senior management who close their eyes at best or actively promote it. They humiliate people and expect they simply accept it, forget and move on. Unfortunately for the Lead HR Business Partner most discussed in the 21 Group and her friends, HR and other, not everyone accepts that. I hope they do not mind because they advocate for diversity in perspectives and values. My values build on personal dignity.
Eileen Nugent · 7 October 2025 at 18:35
If you choose to avoid violence there is still a chance that violence it coming for you, the you will have to resist violence with all your strength working at your full capability to resist it and that you will have to find ways to overcome violence and to get violence out of your life. The difference is that if you choose to avoid violence and you are dealing with others who also choose to avoid violence then violence is definitely not coming for you. If you choose to avoid violence and you are dealing with those who choose violence then even though in that case violence is coming for you as soon as those who choose violence realise the full implications of that choice – that choosing violence guarantees that violence is coming to you – and say as much and start acting in accordance with what they say then the violence stops.
Most people would interpret “violence is coming to you” as others coming to commit violence against you but I would interpret that statement more broadly to also include you going to commit violence against others. It is in that sense I would say that choosing violence guarantees violence is coming for you. Irrespective of whether the violence is being committed by you or against you, once there is violence being committed and it involves you then violence has come for you and it has got you, it’s in your life and at point you are going to have to get that violence out of your life before your life is completely destroyed by it.
TheResearcher · 7 October 2025 at 19:02
“if you choose to avoid violence and you are dealing with others who also choose to avoid violence then violence is definitely not coming for you.”
I interpret this as leaving to a place where violence does not exist may limit violence on and from us. That is a sensible view. I should say that the reason I did not leave is because that is exactly what the university wants from us. They want to break people and make them decide either to leave or to stay silent. They do not want people here who know what is happening and are willing to talk about it openly, even though they should be silent “to enable a full and fair investigation to be carried out.” That does not mean they cannot kick me out—and that is what they are trying now—but the situation is becoming increasingly ridiculous, with hundreds of people involved (even without knowing!!!). I am either the worst person in the world and should go to jail immediately, or this is just the last moments of a decaying institution whose managers lost their dignity.
Eileen Nugent · 7 October 2025 at 22:41
“If you choose to avoid violence and you are dealing with those who choose violence then even though in that case violence is coming for you as soon as those who choose violence realise the full implications of that choice – that choosing violence guarantees that violence is coming to you – and say as much and start acting in accordance with what they say then the violence stops.”
Should have read :
If you choose to avoid violence and you are dealing with those who choose violence then even though in this case violence is coming to you as soon as those who choose violence realise the full implications of that choice – that choosing violence guarantees that violence is coming to you – and that choosing violence is unsustainable and incompatible with life and say as much and start acting in accordance with what they say then the violence stops.
I avoided raising any grievances against individuals. I raised health and safety concerns because I had a legal obligation to do that. I tried very hard to avoid escalation, to avoid any dispute with the university, to find a way to raise concerns internally so as to avoid any situation where concerns would have to be raised externally. I don’t really see what else I could have done, you can’t accept a financial settlement to not comply with a legal obligation so financial settlements were off the table & if a health and safety concern is not being dealt with that is a breakdown in trust and confidence and an employment relationship is then no longer possible so it becomes necessary to leave.
Had I wanted to bully/harass others I could have engaged the most aggressive employment solicitor I could find and set them on the university to become a permanent faculty member when the department was dismissing me from the lectureship. The employment solicitor would have had a field day and gotten great entertainment out of ‘beating the University of Cambridge in a legal game’ whilst draining the University coffers of its funds and robbing multiple PhD applicants of the funding they need to do a PhD. Had I wanted to bully/harass I could have done what my head of department did to me, accused others of harassment, and gotten a permanent position in the process which would have made my life much easier. I could then have hired some brilliant but naive students and postdocs – bullied/harassed and generally overworked them all to generate the required level of continuous research output in their miserable working conditions – and built an academic career on the back of all their hard work. That way of building an academic career didn’t appeal to me and it was also not how I was treated by a supervisor as a PhD student and postdoc so I wouldn’t have been able to claim that I didn’t know any better.
When I raised concerns it really was a case of recognising a significant risk to others and to the organisation and the existence of a set of legal obligations to do something about that risk. Raising concerns was not something that I wanted to do because I already knew that whistleblowing is exceptionally stressful and that a whistleblowing situation is a potentially lethal situation even in cases where an individual enters into it with exceptional fault-free performance. I had just managed to extract myself from one of the paradoxical performance situations where attempts to improve performance had the opposite effect on performance – with new information relevant to the understanding mental health – but not with exceptional fault-free performance. It seemed nearly impossible to do an effective whistleblowing from that performance position but this is the problem with having a set of legal obligations, you have to try to comply with them even if it proves impossible to comply with them in the end.
Eileen Nugent · 8 October 2025 at 03:49
That above message should not be taken to be read that my former head of department got their permanent academic post by bullying/harassing others because I don’t know how my former head of department got their permanent academic post or what it was like to be a PhD student or postdoc under their supervision – for all I know people could have had very good experiences under their supervision. Before this end of lectureship contract situation and subsequent whistleblowing situation I had no bullying/harassment concerns in relation to them.
My comments are limited to their handling of a new type of health and safety whistleblowing situation [an extremely high pressure situation] – the context in which this accusation of harassment against me arose. I can’t say that I understand the actions taken by them as head of department in relation to whistleblowing situations in general because there was no obvious way for them to personally gain from handling a whistleblowing situation by pretending that it’s not one.
https://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2019-20/weekly/6577/section6.shtml
When a previous whistleblower in the same department raised concerns around the university setting expectations through statements like this ‘…what you should expect during your study in terms of supervision, support and assessment…’ and those expectations not being met with significant gaps in the case of some supervisors I don’t understand why the head of department did not just use the whistleblowing situation as a chance to drive some improvements in the standard of supervision across the whole department. The whistleblower was pointing to problems like this :
“I want to emphasise openness here. Lack of transparency is not only a problem, it is actively used as a tactic. As one example, if graduate students are not told about funds which are part of the grant to support their specific project, they will not apply for them. What happens to these funds? There is a way for graduate students and also postdocs to find out the exact funding terms of the grant. This is to make a Freedom of Information or a Subject Access Request, in the case where they are named on the grant, if not to the University, then to the funding body. If any member of the public can find out about the exact funding terms, why would the University not want to be transparent to the very people directly affected by them?”
The head of department was already a head of department and was already on course to be the head of a college. What then would asking a whole department to deal with a whistleblowing situation that relates to the whole department have personally cost them – nothing – and what did they personally gain from not dealing with that whistleblowing situation – nothing. The students and postdocs were left to pay the price of problems with supervision, the department was left to pay the price in increased workload in handling the fallout out of problems with supervision, the university was left to pay the price of an employment relationship breakdown and there was no personal gain. Had the department learned how to handle these types of whistleblowing situations when it had that relatively low-risk opportunity to do so it would have been in a better position to handle the next whistleblowing situation which because it’s one of these new hybrid HR-health and safety risk whistleblowing situations is a high-risk situation and pretending it’s not happening is not an option.
I don’t know how much training university staff get in relation to handling whistleblowing situations. I don’t remember having any training that would prepare individuals for a whistleblowing situation. After more than two years of whistleblowing on safeguarding in the university I was put on a safeguarding training course designed for those working in a social care setting which did at least train individuals to raise safeguarding concerns with a national regulator – the care quality commission – but unfortunately that national regulator doesn’t regulate in higher education settings and therefore cannot accept any safeguarding concerns from those working in a higher education setting. When you are already choking in the smoke of years of pent-up unaddressed safeguarding concerns and get assigned a mandatory safeguarding course that generates even more safeguarding concerns – it is an unusually complex form of extreme mental pain and that does push you with some force towards to a complete mental breakdown.
The HR staff member who assigned the safeguarding training course tried to argue that it was appropriate safeguarding training for those working in a higher education setting – it covered the covert administration of medication – but I persisted in raising concerns and the course was withdrawn. The same HR staff member also told me that I was ‘more rational” after taking an anti-anxiety medication despite the fact I was saying the exact same thing after taking medication as I had been saying before taking it. I was permanently trying to find new ways to say the exact same thing to that HR staff member over and over again. If HR staff understand that these types of situations are high-risk situations then it is possible to work effectively with HR staff in one of them but if HR staff don’t understand that these types of situations are high-risk situations then it is not possible to work effectively with them in one.
This was not a straightforward HR-staff relationship either because I was a trustee of an organisation that employed me in a safeguarding role so any significant HR errors on safeguarding automatically triggered a legal obligation to raise concerns internally and to have them addressed. That included any errors in safeguarding training materials and any errors in organisational work-related stress regulation and it is not possible to exclude any errors in the handling of your own work-related stress situation when it comes to a legal obligation to raise concerns in relation to organisational work-related stress regulation.