The modern university is a place where exposing misconduct is a disciplinary offence, and protecting senior professors is a core value.
The victimisation is usually performed by the institution itself –- either by the HR and Legal Departments, or the Heads of School, or the VCs and pro-VCs or the Head of Research Integrity. This stands in stark opposition to the very purpose of the university and to the values and aspirations of the academic community it exists to serve. The gravest cases are, at present, obscured from the broader community (and perhaps even from some individuals in positions of authority). Instead, decisions of profound and damaging consequence are being made behind closed doors — by senior administrators, bureaucrats and lawyers — rather than by those who uphold the principles of scholarship and integrity on which any university is founded.
One key way for accountability is to make the cases public and force people to recognise the reality. Fortunately, there are a number of determined individuals who are taking a number of universities to Employment Tribunals to expose repeated and serious misconduct. Matters at Employment Tribunals can be freely reported, as we already saw in the Magdalen Connolly case.
Journalists are sitting on a number of stories about egregious wrong-doing at universities, particularly by members of their HR and Legal Departments. There is a major sexual harassment case taking place at the University of WW, with the trail of wrongdoing leading to the very top of the institution. It presently cannot be reported as gagging orders are in place. At the University of XX, the legal costs of a bully were paid as they tried to bankrupt a whistleblower. There is a major plagiarism case at the University of YY. A very prominent academic with a high public profile is being protected by the University who have hired a fierce libel firm. Will the scandal still break? There is major corruption case at the University of ZZ, where the promotion process has been undermined by the falsification of documents and reference letters. The University has hired lawyers who are threatening journalists. If the scandal breaks, the University will be inundated with young scholars wanting their own promotion cases re-evaluated.
London’s top lawyers at firms like Carter-Ruck, Schillings, Mishcon de Reya and Harbottle & Lewis command rates of more than £500 per hour. So some universities are spending a lot of money to protect some misbehaving senior administrators/academics and to burnish their own reputations.
This is neither sensible nor sustainable. It is completely contrary to the mission statements and core values of universities.
Rather this makes the scandals much worse. The money that is being used to hush the scandals up is public money — money from students via tuition fees, money from overheads on research grants, money from donors. Neither students, nor the Research Councils, nor Government, nor donors will approve of their money being use to hush up institutional corruption. This has the potential to become a major public scandal. It’s even more unfortunate, as the reputation and influence of universities is low with the public and Government at the moment.
When oligarchs or crypto-queens engage libel lawyers to protect their own reputations, they are spending their own money (albeit acquired by fraud, as in the case of Ruja Ignatova). So this is fundamentally different from the behaviour discussed by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism here or here. Public money is being wasted by universities to hide misbehaviour.
There are only a very few cases in which public money has been used to hire libel lawyers — the only prominent example known to us is the case of Michael Martin. Here, the then Speaker of the House of Commons used more than £20,000 of taxpayers’ money on lawyers to challenge claims about his impartiality during debates. He was widely criticised and finally resigned as a result of diminishing parliamentary and public confidence owing to his role in the expenses scandal.
In universities, who is signing off this spending? Who is taking responsibility for these actions?
Who will carry the can?
69 Comments
TheResearcher · 12 October 2025 at 10:47
Naïve question: What exactly happens if the material that has been gagged is dropped on the internet, ideally all at the same time if the issues relate to the same institution? What is the alternative? Should one simply accept to be silenced and “move on” namely in a university like UCam that regularly tells students and staff how much it endorses freedom of speech, reporting abuse and how important wellbeing of members is for the institution?
For those who feel that their stories are being suppressed, please do not let it go. That is exactly what the university wants so that they continue to conceal and manipulate as a way to deal with research and behavioural misconduct.
Eileen Nugent · 12 October 2025 at 14:14
Prepare a case for the high court and submit it as an urgent case as it relates to ongoing safeguarding failures in an organisation and preventable risk to life.
TigerWhoCametoET · 12 October 2025 at 14:25
Surely nothing adverse would happen? I mean it is obviously a matter of urgent public interest so anyone seeking to delay disclosure would be acting against the public interest? The only obvious harm is that inflicted on victims by their being silenced.
Eileen Nugent · 12 October 2025 at 14:46
Adverse things are happening to people in the organisation without taking this action so even if taking this action did lead to adverse things happening, adverse things happening in the wake of taking this action does not make taking the action any less necessary.
TheResearcher · 12 October 2025 at 14:35
Yes, I would do it if I had the money for that. The good news is that if Carter-Ruck or other firms sue me for ‘defamation’, they will not get much out of me as I do not have much to give them. I would not be surprised if I received a “cease and desist letter” from them in the near future given how things are at the moment, but rest assured, I am happy to share it here when that happens.
Eileen Nugent · 12 October 2025 at 15:07
I am also limited by money at the moment and I am not sure that I will have enough money to complete the necessary legal processes in a British court. I am concerned about being financially bankrupted by this ongoing situation. One of my main concerns is having a charging order put on my home and my partner and child being further impacted by this situation by being made homeless. Since I am taking legal action to comply with a legal obligation to an organisation – one which neither my husband nor child share – I feel that it would be wrong if my family could be further impacted by this way by this situation. I am currently trying to work out whether it is legal in these circumstances for me to transfer my share of the home I own with my partner so that he is the sole owner of the property to isolate them from any further impact from this case.
Eileen Nugent · 12 October 2025 at 16:18
As far as I can tell there is no law against me transferring my half of a family home to my spouse to protect him and my child from the risk of homelessness – neither of them ever worked for the university, neither of them owe any legal obligation to the university and neither of them is responsible for any of my actions. Since it is possible for a charging order to be placed on a pension fund I will be now be cashing this in & using it to pay the fees associated with transferring ownership of the house as well as the costs associated with taking legal action as a litigant in person. I will also sell everything else I own to maximise the amount of cash available to me.
21percent.org · 12 October 2025 at 16:49
Eileen, two suggestions.
First, see if Legal Aid is available (we know of one student who is being ‘Legal Aid assisted’ to bring a case against Cambridge University under discrimination legislation).
Secondly, consider crowdfunding through
https://www.crowdjustice.com
The public interest in your case would be substantial. It is certainly possible to raise those kind of sums for action against universities, for example,
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/pilgrim-tucker-challenging-discrimination-at-ou/
Eileen Nugent · 12 October 2025 at 16:30
I am not asking for any financial compensation, I am not asking for any reinstatement order – it’s a legal process to comply with a legal obligation to raise safeguarding concerns. £25k should be enough to do it as a litigant in person.
Eileen Nugent · 12 October 2025 at 17:39
First, see if Legal Aid is available (we know of one student who is being ‘Legal Aid assisted’ to bring a case against Cambridge University under discrimination legislation).
Secondly, consider crowdfunding through
https://www.crowdjustice.com
The public interest in your case would be substantial. It is certainly possible to raise those kind of sums for action against universities, for example,
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/pilgrim-tucker-challenging-discrimination-at-ou/
I considered both of these options. These are my legal obligations – not the legal obligations of legal aid & not the legal obligations of crowdjustice – I will use every resource available to me and work very hard to try to comply with these legal obligations until every avenue for trying to comply with these legal obligations is exhausted and/or I have no resources left.
Eileen Nugent · 12 October 2025 at 20:34
I have a legal obligation to the university to raise concerns that relate to the regulation of work-related stress. If I am sued for defamation in the course of trying to comply with that legal obligation by any organisation whose primary purpose in suing me for defamation is to make it harder for me to comply with that legal obligation – this is additional unnecessary work-related stress being generated in an ongoing work-related stress accident and this legal action is therefore increasing the organisational risk that the initial concerns are being raised in relation to and as such this legal action can be included in the cumulative concerns going forward.
No legal advisor was ever instructed to argue a case on my behalf so the university never deemed it worthwhile trying to deal with any concern I raised because it could see no real consequences for itself in not dealing with them. If I am continuously open to engaging with the university on concerns because it is rational to try to avoid a court case if possible and the barrier to the legal obligation being complied with is therefore the university and not me then it is going to be very difficult to provide a legal justification for suing for defamation and issuing a “cease and desist letter” in relation to this situation.
To have the option to sue for defamation and issue a “cease and desist letter” in relation to this type of situation an organisation would have had to have handled it with care from the very beginning, engaged with it at the earliest opportunity and remained open to engaging with it at every possible opportunity. The organisation would have to prove that it was the other party that did not reciprocate in attempts to deal with the concerns and was the barrier to the problem being solved.
If an organisation has enough resources to sue for defamation then it has enough resources to deal with the concerns and to not sue for defamation. I would argue that suing for defamation and issuing a “cease and desist letter” in this particular situation implies that the organisation doesn’t have its legal priorities in the right order to maximise its own self-protection as an organisation.
Eileen Nugent · 12 October 2025 at 21:40
A breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 3 – inhuman conditions – can be argued on the basis that work-related stress is out of reasonable bounds [significant abnormal work-related stressors generated for an individual as a result of a work-related interaction with an organisation] for an unreasonable amount of time [> 2 years] and there is an ongoing failure of the organisation to attempt any form of correction of that ongoing situation. The result of that legal claim can then form the basis for a further claim in relation to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 in relation to the regulation of work-related stress.
Suing for defamation in this type of situation is adding an additional abnormal work-related stressor and pushing the conditions that are the focus of all the legal claims in the case even further out of bounds.
Eileen Nugent · 12 October 2025 at 23:30
If an organisation is actively and effectively dealing with safeguarding concerns then I think it would be very difficult to argue that the case was urgent and should be fast-tracked in the public interest. This is because in this type of case – safeguarding concerns – obligations to actively and effectively deal with the case are reciprocal, if one party is actively and effectively dealing with the concerns that triggers a reciprocal obligation for the other party to actively and effectively deal with the concerns. This makes sense because urgent cases are a more significant burden on the legal system than non-urgent cases and hence a higher risk to the public interest which is maximally served by maintaining the legal system in a state where it has sufficient capacity to take on any new legal case generated. More care should therefore be taken to avoid generating urgent cases for the legal system than is taken to avoid generating non-urgent cases for it.
Eileen Nugent · 13 October 2025 at 10:23
The emergence of a pattern of abnormal work-related stressors, that seems to be the crux of these work-related stress accidents. Dismissal for reasons of redundancy is a significant work-related stressor but it is not in itself an abnormal work-related stressor. Forcing an individual through a promotion process and an unfair dismissal process at the same time is an abnormal work-related stressor. Blocking someone from using and accessing equipment for their own research whilst continuously asking the same person to manage that equipment (not possible) and ensure that everyone else in the organisation has access to it (cruel) is an abnormal work-related stressor. Withdrawing critical employment from someone is not in itself an abnormal work-related stressor but withdrawing critical employment and then forgetting it has been withdrawn and emailing the same person multiple times as if they still have the employment (cruel) is an abnormal work-related stressor. Non-payment of wages is an abnormal work-related stressor and the list goes on …..
There seems to be no need to invoke discrimination legislation directly in one of these work-related stress accidents …. if a pattern of abnormal work-related stressors emerges and is not rectified and this leads to a work-related stress sickness absence that lasts longer than a year then the individual is likely at that point to be recognised as disabled and if at that point the organisation is still doing very little to rectify the pattern of abnormal work-related stressors it is generating for the individual a breach of discrimination law is implied in that situation. Whether it makes sense to invoke discrimination legislation directly in these cases seems to rest on whether the person is recognised as disabled and has an active reasonable adjustments process in place before the occurrence of the work-related stress accident.
Eileen Nugent · 13 October 2025 at 11:05
Had I known what I know now I think I could have avoided ending up in one of these work-related stress accidents but at the time I didn’t have the necessary functional understanding of mental health to do this. I didn’t realise that this combination of suddenly acquiring a relentless internal drive to understand something – mental health – whilst working in an external environment that continuously demands exceptionally high standards in building an understanding of anything would in itself continuously generate abnormally high levels of work-related stress.
Eileen Nugent · 13 October 2025 at 11:41
When analysing this situation I had to distinguish between whether Cambridge felt safe to interact with as an organisation in general and whether it felt safe to interact with in the context of its handling a particular type of situation. Cambridge in general felt no less safe to interact with than any other university internationally or UK employer and in some ways it felt more safe to interact with it. The problem seemed to be one of situational safety – it felt unsafe to interact with Cambridge in a subset of situations – situations that were draining it of significant organisational resources. That seemed like both a fixable organisational problem & one that was worth fixing.
wwxxyyzz · 13 October 2025 at 11:49
“I didn’t realise that this combination of suddenly acquiring a relentless internal drive to understand something – mental health – whilst working in an external environment that continuously demands exceptionally high standards in building an understanding of anything would in itself continuously generate abnormally high levels of work-related stress.”
A relentless internal drive to understand something is not unusual for a person working in academia and with a high degree of intelligence.
The demands within academia are generally high and a (satisfactory) response to those would stretch an individual anyway.
When these demands are then exacerbated by the need to understand or to explain additional processes or decision-making (e.g. HR processes) which are presented by others as “usual” or “necessary” but have all the hallmarks of something which would benefit from further explanation and justification, and where every attempt at further explanation and justification is met with more gaslighting and more covert humiliation and punishment by individuals who seem, on the surface, perfectly normal, or by third parties who are being advised by the perfectly-normal-seeming individuals, you have the recipe for a path that can lead to mental breakdown.
TheResearcher · 13 October 2025 at 16:07
Agreed. Not only a “relentless internal drive to understand something” but also to show that what one is saying is true and based on evidence. Ignoring the evidence and simply “move on” as victims are expected to do is simply not an option for some people. These issues are particularly disturbing when they happen in a university expected to educate individuals.
Eileen Nugent · 14 October 2025 at 11:22
“A relentless internal drive to understand something is not unusual for a person working in academia and with a high degree of intelligence.
The demands within academia are generally high and a (satisfactory) response to those would stretch an individual anyway.”
Yes – the mental load in academia is exceptionally high, academia relies on individuals with exceptional mental stamina and mental resilience and any academic is at risk of a mental breakdown. I think this is why both stable working conditions – tenure – and academic freedom emerged in academia to minimise both instability from sources other than the exploratory academic work and external influence on academic work creating the optimal conditions for accurate information to be found and an accurate understanding to be built.
What struck me on this academic journey is that there was far more to unpack on the workings of the mind and on mental health that I expected especially after involuntarily encountering one of these fairly unique life situations as someone who trained as an experimental physicist. I won’t bore people with the details which seem to be buried somewhere deep in my mind. I hope to get through this extremely stressful legal process and to experience a fairly uneventful life after it in which conditions I could coax the details out of my mind and put pen to paper but such is life that there are no guarantees.
Eileen Nugent · 14 October 2025 at 11:56
Agreed. Not only a “relentless internal drive to understand something” but also to show that what one is saying is true and based on evidence.
Yes, it’s like building a court case where in the building phase it is necessary to take into account what kind of pressures it needs to withstand
Eileen Nugent · 23 October 2025 at 17:08
Only the over 55s can access cash in a pension fund to use in a whistleblowing situation, younger workers cannot access these funds even if these funds are needed to to challenge their unsafe working conditions and protect their health so they can live long enough to retire.
QQ · 12 October 2025 at 15:39
If they send such a letter please notify contact@21percent.org. These are very costly to issue and the public needs to know how much money was spent in their production, whether they are vexatious (almost certainly so), who authorised usage of public money for this purpose and the date they commit to repay the Exchequer once found to have been used for personal protection at public expense.
TheResearcher · 12 October 2025 at 16:14
I can assure you that if I receive one of these letters, I will let you know. I was very clear to the university when I said that my case will not be confidential. If they want to make an investigation against me, I cannot prevent it, but they cannot prevent me from making it public. After all, I am the guy who allegedly abused hundreds of people and must be very dangerous! I can only imagine what they send to people to silence them.
NA · 13 October 2025 at 10:45
It is unlikely in my view. Has anyone received such letters? To be frank I would think lawyers with any knowledge of PR would avoid this route.
1. Lawyers do not like to take cases they know they will lose
2. They cannot form a judgement on that because the client never even bothered to investigate and they would quickly see this
2. Winning such cases when you are a big wealthy individual going after common folk fry is rare to never
3. obvious public interest defence for whisteblowers that would get these things dismissed early on
4.. letters can easily leak and this would become the story instead
5. It is public money…
6. Could easily be alleged as corruption if they knew their acts were vexarious at public expense
7. Raises due diligence bar higher for contractor
8. Once at court the press will be there and seeking fresh stories
21percent.org · 13 October 2025 at 14:04
The 21 Group is aware of at least one individual who received a ‘Cease and Desist’ letter from Cambridge University’s lawyers over one of the ongoing scandals.
It was regarding the posting of allegedly confidential information to Twitter/X.
This matter is coming to Court, so we expect the details will enter the public domain sooner or later.
As often happens, the individual now works for a prestigious university in the USA (why are we falling down the rankings?)
TheResearcher · 13 October 2025 at 11:06
“letters can easily leak”
Very true. Sometimes even the whole story can leak before the trial!
Eileen Nugent · 13 October 2025 at 12:43
Academic Freedom is not something I had given any thought to before suddenly experiencing a sensation of complete academic freedom in Cambridge, a spontaneous feeling of academic elation, a feeling of reaching the academic weightlessness stage of an academic parabolic flight, of working on exactly what I wanted to work on the way I wanted to work on it and paying no attention to anything but what I was working on – of letting go of all hopes and fears, of cutting away all expectations and comparisons, of forgetting about the past and not worrying about the future, of living in the moment building an understanding of something I wanted to understand …. academic freedom seemed to just burst forth at a time when I least expected it.
Unfortunately that sensation of academic freedom was a short-lived stage on the academic journey for it was followed soon after by an extreme constriction on academic freedom – awareness of the existence of a legal obligation to be complied with – which was like reaching the turning point in a steep rollercoaster where not only are you conscious of the fact that the rollercoaster is about to slam you downwards very hard into a black hole where you can’t see the track ahead but you also feel that this is about to happen. The difference is in this case was that it was not entirely clear the track ahead was being maintained or whether any track ahead existed at all.
It is one thing to sense that there is some kind of problem, it is an entirely different thing to work out exactly what that problem is and to find ways to fix the problem. That is particularly the case with systemic problems because sensing that there is a systemic problem takes significantly less effort than working out exactly what the systemic problem is and finding ways to fix the systemic problem. If you sense that there is a systemic problem and want to raise concerns in relation to a systemic problem as opposed to raising an individual case then it is necessary to do some work to accurately understand the systemic problem at play in order to lay the groundwork for finding ways to fix the systemic problem.
JJ · 12 October 2025 at 11:13
If this spending is occurring at Cambridge, then it should be signed off by the Pro Vice Chancellor for Community and Engagement and/or the Vice Chancellor.
They will carry the can.
In all the cases listed, the spend of university money on lawyers to bury the problems looks highly inappropriate.
Realist · 12 October 2025 at 11:21
Threatening the press with libel is also extremely fucking stupid. At best it buys you 6 months reprieve at the cost of a 6 year media frenzy once the first blood is drawn. It is basically putting up a giant red flag and telling hungry journalists “we have things we really, really want to hide, and we are making it hard, so that whoever gets the story out will now receive 5x credit from future editors and the public afterwards”
Bloody right · 13 October 2025 at 17:25
Bloody right!
ticktock · 12 October 2025 at 11:56
they can pursue victims to their graves but not beyond
you really have to wonder what kind of abysmal PR firm recommends such a course of action to clients
whose primary function is education and public service and depends upon fees from parents willing to send their children there
if anyone is setting up for a legal case it would be the PR firm recommending such toxic behaviour
Phobos · 12 October 2025 at 13:24
A public entity, spending public funds to cover its violations of UK law? They are setting themselves up for a very tough grilling in parliament – where anything can be said in open.
Fartercuck · 12 October 2025 at 13:33
Have to suspect Carter-Ruck will eventually be joining the by now very long list of organisations who regret ever taking on the university as a client.
For example…
1) the university insurers against legal cases (surely now in a massive loss on issuing the policy and demanding significantly higher premiums from now on)
2) the solicitors who the university asked to engage in rule-breaking and now want out
3) the barristers called out for conflicts of interest and exposed
4) Anyone else? I imagine there must be a few more orgs to add to this list
Bottom line, make sure to do due diligence before realising what an organisation is roping to in to, especially when there are skeletons in the closet and things smell truly foul…
Xerxes · 12 October 2025 at 13:58
Anyone else? I imagine there must be a few more orgs to add to this list
B3Sixty ?
Mark · 12 October 2025 at 15:51
As an alumnus I am thoroughly dismayed that our support goes to these companies instead of student scholarships and development as we are told.
Bagehot · 12 October 2025 at 16:06
The huge irony of all this is that, if the university systematically threatens whistleblowers, students, the media, and members of staff with legal threats, then regardless of the content of any individual accusation this fact alone proves the spirit of the accusations true – that the organisation is acting in a toxic manner that shows pernicious disrespect respect in relation to its own staff, student body, and the institutions of society as a whole.
TheResearcher · 12 October 2025 at 16:38
The issue is that the public at large does not yet know that these malpractices happen. It is even hard to believe unless you experienced it yourself. That is why it is so important that victims step forward and share their experiences so that the public can appreciate the systematic nature of the phenomenon. I trust that the 21 Group now has a good idea of how bad the situation is and how many people are affected, namely in Cambridge. They can put us in contact if needed and if they think it is a good option. I am confident that these stories will be eventually public and it will be a massive scandal, but this seems a rather slow process. We have to speed the process somehow, if nothing else, to prevent further victims.
fml · 12 October 2025 at 22:06
Hmm well I think a university that is about to be exposed for a) falsifying references and b) sending poison pill letters against its own staff
= not a very strong position to start making vexatious libel threats
Anonymous · 13 October 2025 at 12:52
We can add the University of KK to that list, who literally brand Whistleblowers as “dangerous” to “staff and students” (and even do so in writing such is their blind arrogance and greatly misplaced sense of complete impunity). They terminate the employment and careers of Whistleblowers without a shred of evidence of misconduct against them, using probably the most abused aspect of Employment Law, namely for ‘Some Other Substantial Reason’. This is corruptly exploited by this University and others when they do not have any evidence or a valid reason to dismiss an employee, and they have exhausted all possibility of acquiring it through corrupt HR processes and other malicious activity.
This is colossal corruption and abuse, requiring collusion right across HR and managerial leadership among others brought in, and this scandal will be exposed in full in due course. It is most certainly in the public interest to do so, and I feel that one particular case at least may be of national interest in tackling the overall problem of corruption and abuse at our Universities, and the untenable situation that has developed.
The grapevine · 13 October 2025 at 23:48
Where is this ? Kent? Kings college?
Anonymous · 14 October 2025 at 11:26
The use of ‘KK’ is purely coincidental, and merely in line with the theme of the article (and I’m assuming that the list held by the 21 Group goes well beyond ‘WW’).
But having said that, if anyone has witnessed similar activity at Kent or any other University then please come forward, anonymously if preferred. Sooner is better.
21percent.org · 14 October 2025 at 14:35
Our understanding is that there have been serious problems with bullying at some depts at Uni of Kent
TheResearcher · 13 October 2025 at 16:44
Please consider applying for this exciting new job that was just advertised in UCam, HR Policy Consultant. My favourite piece of information is “Provide responsive and accurate information.” I am sure that all those who interacted with HR can confirm that HR is in desperate need of these features!
Do you have exceptional writing skills and experience navigating complex regulatory environments? Do you have a collaborative mindset and the ability to engage effectively with diverse stakeholders? If so, we want you to join our HR Policy Team!
Key Responsibilities:
• Design, develop and promote new HR policies and procedures, ensuring compliance with employment legislation, good practice and strategic objectives.
• Develop clear, timely and succinct project plans and timelines to ensure that projects are delivered on time and to agreed success criteria.
• Lead and facilitate formal communication, consultation and negotiation processes with staff and trade union representatives, designing and presenting solutions with sensitivity and diplomacy.
• Seek approval through the University governance and committee e.g. prepare and present formal documents (e.g. committee papers, consultation documents, management information).
• Provide responsive and accurate information and guidance on policy and related matters, including the practical application and interpretation of HR policy.
• Prepare clear communications for stakeholders across the University.
What You Will Need:
• Exceptional written and verbal communication skills.
• Strong understanding of UK employment law and regulatory compliance.
• Experience of policy development and implementation.
• Proven experience in interpreting and advising on policy and procedures within a complex organisation.
• Excellent project management skills, skilled in managing multiple tasks and deadlines using project management tools.
Benefits of working at Cambridge include:
• Competitive rates of pay with automatic service-related pay progression and annual cost of living increases.
• Generous annual leave allowance of up to 41 days paid leave.
• Flexible and hybrid working opportunities.
• Generous maternity, adoption and shared parental leave entitlements.
• An auto-enrolment pension scheme, with a generous employer contribution.
• Travel benefits and retail discounts.
21percent.org · 13 October 2025 at 22:17
“Design, develop and promote new HR policies and procedures, ensuring compliance with employment legislation, good practice and strategic objectives.”
Surely this is the core responsibility of the Director of HR ?
TheResearcher · 13 October 2025 at 22:48
Perhaps the Director of HR is very busy addressing safeguarding referrals given she acts as the designated safeguarding lead. Oh wait, this does not make sense as FOI requests suggest that the university does not have any data on safeguarding referrals! The question is, the university deleted the data, or the Information Compliance Office does not want to share it? Not clear yet.
DestroyingAngel · 14 October 2025 at 08:28
What You Will Need:
• Exceptional written and verbal communication skills.
• Strong understanding of UK employment law and regulatory compliance.
• Experience of policy development and implementation.
• Proven experience in interpreting and advising on policy and procedures within a complex organisation.
• Excellent project management skills, skilled in managing multiple tasks and deadlines using project management tools.
No member of Cambridge HR seems to understand the existing policies. They routinely break them.
As for any legal requirements, why start now? HR have never bothered with this before — hence all the Employment Tribunals.
It is the Director of HR’s responsibility to ensure her staff are managed and trained to implement the existing policies and to comply with legal requirements.
Anon · 14 October 2025 at 11:53
“It is the Director of HR’s responsibility to ensure her staff are managed and trained to implement the existing policies and to comply with legal requirements.”
When the Director of HR receives compelling evidence that members of her staff maliciously misadvise on policies and processes, including on employment matters, and misuse their roles for the purpose of bullying and needlessly tormenting staff, she ignores it. When a complaint is made against her for ignoring the matter, the Pro-VC invents reasons for not taking the complaint further. The same happens again when the matter gets to the VC.
The corrupt members of staff are allowed at every stage, all the way to the top, to lead on the writing of the exonerating prose.
There is no sense of responsibility, and there certainly are no safety checks on how HR personnel behave and carry out their duties. The HR Director role is wholly redundant.
TheResearcher · 14 October 2025 at 12:19
“members of her staff maliciously misadvise on policies and processes, including on employment matters, and misuse their roles for the purpose of bullying and needlessly tormenting staff”
This really smells like the most discussed Lead HR Business Partner in the 21 Group! But of course, I understand she is not alone in that group of dishonest people.
TigerWhoCametoET · 14 October 2025 at 13:07
“There is no sense of responsibility”
This is really the thing. When all of these cases go public the greatest sense of shame will be felt by the conscientious yet negligient bystanders who saw abuse occurring, and were often asked for help, but chose to look the other way.
They will always carry the sting of shame within, and see it reflected back in the judging eyes of others.
TheResearcher · 14 October 2025 at 13:14
“the conscientious yet negligient bystanders who saw abuse occurring, and were often asked for help, but chose to look the other way.”
I can give you a long list of these, ranging from Tutors and Senior Tutors, to Senior Professors with some of the most prestigious Professorships in the world.
TigerWhoCametoET · 14 October 2025 at 13:31
Many senior professors are complicit.
And yet, in a secret ballot almost 4000 people voted for Wyn. There is a strong desire for change and I do think whoever delivers it will become a hero very quickly in the eyes of their colleagues.
TheResearcher · 14 October 2025 at 13:48
“There is a strong desire for change”
It may well be true, but you have to say, “There is a strong [SECRET] desire for change” at best. If a person with the most prestigious Professorship in the world says that they do not have the “bandwidth” for helping with the problem, I am not really sure how they expect things to change. Of course, no one is forced to help if they do not want to, but at least they could stop saying they care, that they are worried, and that we are not alone. All this verbal bullshit just makes the situation worse.
LookingTheOtherWay? · 14 October 2025 at 18:03
Trying to help can quickly become a very complex affair in an environment where it has become accepted that HR provide information which is deliberately incorrect or misleading, that HR threaten people with “legal implications” if their (misleading) advice is not followed, that HR use a language which is deliberately confusing and ambiguous, that HR communications make zero allowance for neurodiversity and that HR have a right to expect that everyone has the time and indeed “bandwidth” to engage with their sordid little games – so they can enjoy a sense of importance, if not a sense of power.
Before you know you’re sucked into a bubble of endless arguments, grievances, gaslighting, unnecessary messages, unnecessary meetings, unnecessary investigations, which waste everyone’s time, everyone’s resources, and only serve to aggravate people further, compromise their mental health, escalate matters which could have been resolved long ago and shield from accountability those who are responsible for turning a molehill into a spewing volcano.
Before you know dealing with HR matters has become a full-time occupation.
Before you know HR are recruiting yet more staff to deal with more people’s full-time occupation with HR crap.
Before you know, there is no University anymore, because those who haven’t fled to other institutions abroad are now too busy dealing with HR crap.
HR crap which never needed to exist, never needed to be fabricated, and then escalated, HR crap which is entirely due to the malice, corruption, and perversion of a few, and the incompetence of a few more.
The first step to a healthier working environment is independence from HR, a return to the Statutes (rather than an interpretation thereof by second rate legal), and if need be, reliance on external legal advice by competent and unconflicted lawyers.
How this can be achieved is up for debate. But free speech about this matter, and an end to gagging clauses, is probably a good place to start.
Anonymous · 14 October 2025 at 19:47
LookingTheOtherWay – To add to this, when HR and senior management are done throwing everything they have at their innocent target (be it Whistleblower etc), they will then blame the victim for this waste of resources and say ‘look at all the trouble you’re causing’, and ‘the University cannot sustain this’ etc, and then slap you with an SOSR dismissal on these grounds (see comment above on this – ’13 October 2025 at 12:52′). It may be hard to believe, but this has actually happened, and much more, and they know what they are doing. It’s truly depraved.
TheResearcher · 14 October 2025 at 20:39
LookingTheOtherWay, what you say makes sense, but there are people in Cambridge who cannot be threatened by HR, legal or other—yes, there are a few of these in this legendary institution—and they still do not act. If people are concerned about doing a whistleblowing disclosure alone, they can do it as a collective and ask a few senior colleagues to participate in the disclosure, for example, to make it less risky. They do not have to, of course. But the alternative is letting a junior member being crushed and looking the other way.
Eileen Nugent · 15 October 2025 at 11:44
Imagine organising a long-distance running event where different people are on different running tracks with different track properties – e.g. gradient – and some peoples hearts are starting to not cope with that – would assuming these individuals are cardiodiverse in the absence of checking the properties of the track they are on and responding with track adjustments solve that problem? Whether they are cardiodiverse or not is not changing what needs to be done in that situation, it is possible that extra information on cardiodiversity could be used to prevent such situations arising or enable those who are handling that situation to handle it with more care but fundamentally this is not changing what needs to be done in that situation.
Academia = mental long-distance event, different people are on different academic tracks with different track properties. If some peoples minds are starting to not cope – would assuming these individuals are neurodiverse in the absence of checking their conditions and responding to them in that situation fix the problem? If someone has spent years-decades working on [insert specialised academic interest] I think it’s safe to assume that in pursuing academic interests they have embarked on a journey the will leave them neurodiverse in the same way that athletes in pursuing their chosen sport have embarked on a journey that will leave them cardiodiverse.
Eileen Nugent · 15 October 2025 at 12:24
Academic specialism is a difference and it can interact with organisational policy in unusual and unpredictable ways to create a pattern of abnormal stressors for a particular individual. This is particularly the case when organisations are in the process of changing their organisational policies.
For example the introduction of a new organisational policy could may mean that an individual who doesn’t have a PhD – more typical for an accountancy lecturer – is required to get one and undertake a PhD workload concurrently with their typical workload which could effectively double their workload :
https://www.ucu.org.uk/article/11939/University-slammed-as-dismissed-lecturer-secures-settlement
The problem has very little to do with the individual, they just happened to be in the wrong academic specialism in the wrong organisation at the wrong time and that resulted in a pattern of abnormal stressors being generated for them. The organisation not having recognised the nature of the problem that it had generated exacerbated the situation by generating even more abnormal stressors – an employment tribunal situation – for the individual.
Eileen Nugent · 15 October 2025 at 12:42
A university that randomly introduces a new performance criteria for an academic job role [one not set out in their employment contract] – a research income target of £200k that must be obtained from a specific type of research grant whilst insisting that none of their existing grant income £135K counts towards that target as it is not the ‘right type of grant’ and which gives the individual less time to reach that target than it takes for their PhD students to complete their PhD is generating a pattern of abnormal stressors for an individual.
https://www.dcscience.net/2014/12/01/publish-and-perish-at-imperial-college-london-the-death-of-stefan-grimm/
Eileen Nugent · 15 October 2025 at 13:56
Some adversarial legal processes are inefficient – plagued with irrelevant attacks on a persons character and credibility. Some of these legal processes seem to even spontaneously break down into a kind of improvised high-pressure open-court medical-diagnostic process, a function – generating an accurate medical diagnosis – legal processes are not designed to perform. Legal processes are unlikely to yield an accurate medical diagnosis and/or an improved health outcome.
One good thing about this type of public interest case is that if a person is continuously showing up to comply with a legal obligation to an organisation this is already evidence that they are meeting the character requirements for their legal purpose – complying with a legal obligation to an organisation. Credibility in these cases then comes down to situational analysis, characterisation of the abnormal pattern of stressors generated and linkage to health impact.
Eileen Nugent · 15 October 2025 at 14:18
There is no ‘wrong person’ to point out that there is some RAAC in a building, is there? Sorry this person is not the ‘right person’ to point that there is RAAC in our buildings to us – we’re waiting for the ‘right person’ to come along to point out the exact same thing to us that the ‘wrong person’ pointed out to us before we take any action to remove the RAAC from the building.
Eileen Nugent · 16 October 2025 at 12:08
In this type of legal case the primary focus is not mental ill health and the impact of mental ill health, the primary focus is on the prevention of mental ill health and what it takes to prevent mental ill health. The focus is on questions such as : What level of organisational care is required to ensure that no member is left with a pattern of abnormal stressors for a prolonged period of time [a situation in which there is a high risk of a person suffering mental ill health]? What does it take for an individual to traverse a pattern of abnormal stressors generated for them by an organisation and to prevent mental ill health in this type of prolonged [years long] situation where there is a continuously high risk to mental health?
Malakh · 15 October 2025 at 08:37
DestroyingAngel, for those who would tolerate abuse, the Angel has already come.
Finis · 15 October 2025 at 08:11
“In universities, who is signing off this spending? Who is taking responsibility for these actions?
Who will carry the can?”
It is clear to everyone at this point that these scandals are going public.
If they continue to “hang together” then they will indeed “hang” together.
TheResearcher · 15 October 2025 at 12:31
“It is clear to everyone at this point that these scandals are going public.”
Unfortunately, that does not apply to those who contact editors of newspapers “asking” that their stories on research and behavioural misconduct are not published. I think the readers of this blog are all very keen to have an update on the university-media pressure dynamics associated with the Consigliere University, a university where freedom of speech is upheld, abuses are not tolerated and the wellbeing of members is a priority!
Ballinee · 15 October 2025 at 12:54
True but no editor exposed for putting the interests of lobbyists above approved copy from their reporting team is going to remain editor of any paper for long
TheResearcher · 15 October 2025 at 13:39
Unless the CEO of the newspaper agrees!
The good news is that there are many newspapers available in the UK, so if one newspaper delays the story after pressure from the university, others may be very keen to publish it…
SPARTACUS · 15 October 2025 at 08:21
Comment of a senior faculty member in the School of Clinical Medicine at UCam:
“The place is run like the former Soviet Union or GDR. And HR is like the Stasi.”
WalterU · 15 October 2025 at 12:36
The Stasi were ruthless and efficient. HR are bungling and incompetent. Just look at the mess they have created for everyone they have roped in.
Bloody right · 15 October 2025 at 12:46
Bloody right!