Too often, the voices of those who have suffered bullying in Universities go unheard. Their pain is hidden behind a culture of fear and silence. Their experiences are dismissed by the very systems and people who are meant to protect them.
The 21 Group has published the experiences of victims in UK universities before, including The Bullying of Hannelore, Lined up Against the Wall and Shot, and Misogynistic Bullying in the Research Centre.
Today, the 21 Group is publishing extracts from the diary of an academic and victim. The material is distressing and contains expressions of intent to self-harm.
All victims of bullying need to take care to preserve their mental health. If you are being bullied, resilience and coping mechanisms are important. Professional counselling can be an effective way of alleviating stress and anxiety. Please consult our pages on mental health here.
The 21 Group thanks our contributor for speaking out.
We are always interested in publishing the experiences of bullied victims in Universities. We need to hear these voices. We need “to break the silence”.
Please use contact@21percent.org to tell us your story.
Day +246
--------
I live a double life. On the surface, I get on the podium and try to
enthuse young students about their futures, make jokes, pump up the
crowd. Afterwards I will make polite conversation and compliments. They
made the right decision to come here, and one day, maybe, they will be
just like me.
And then two hours later, perhaps I'll kill myself.
It wasn't always this way. But after a year of bullying, every day is
one more final letter drafted, one more object given away, one more
trial run.
If I leave at 9.20am, can still arrive on time.
Another successful class.
Now what do I want to communicate, to the people I work with?
I think first of all, that in this whole experience, it is difficult to
under-estimate the extent to which it makes you feel devalued,
demotivated, and frankly abused. What hurts is that we were all-in - we
believed in Cambridge and we loved our jobs and our students and worked
evenings and weekends to deliver.
We really threw everything in.
So that is a lot of the pain every day, the feeling that you've been
deliberately undermined, out of spite, and then just having to keep on
going day in, day out, carrying that pain with you knowing there's no
accountability and no exit.
It is not just that the only exit they were prepared to offer was
annihilation, so much as the number of people aware who were absolutely
fine with this outcome.
So ok, keeping it together, well. I'd want to say that I feel afraid
every time I cross the floor that I'll encounter ______, not knowing
what will be said or hinted at, an evocation of some new strategy to
undermine me, because there have been so many of those in the past. But
if they change tune and start to play nice, that's just as bad, because
it is so sickening - it is so sickening and disingenuous for someone to
smile that hollow smile and between gritted teeth ask you in a
saccharine voice how you are feeling, when you both know that this
person has done more to push you towards death than any other person you
have known.
What I want to say - why does nobody intervene? Why did HR do nothing
when I reported it? Why didn't the people who were bullied and
obstructed before, then left the department, why didn't they try to
change something?
Why does the School do nothing when they know they have this going on?
Why did _______ never reply my final call for help?
Why is _______ permitted to engage in institutionalised bullying,
and make vexatious threats against the staff; why are they not
held accountable to the university's own rules?
Why do I have to carry this burden alone? Why does no-one reply?
Why does no-one ever take an interest, ask what is happening?
That is why I feel like if I die then at least then, and I suppose only
then, the lid gets blown wide open. For the first time I'll actually be
heard, for the first time people will ask questions, and through these
diaries, they'll get the answers they are looking for. I know it will
shock people and I'm sorry that it will hurt people. But I also know it
is the only means of ensuring accountability and justice.
Have done the last seminar, it is now 7.07pm and on the train. Head is
just white noise.
Tomorrow I realise I have to perform well, who knows who will be there
in the audience. Do you appear wounded and bullied, or do you aim for
transparent competence? I think the latter is where you pitch: I think
you always have to do your best to be neutral, professional, no matter
what kind of contorted mess is going on inside.
I suppose until I communicated it directly that is why no-one knew this
was my situation, I guess people just assumed from the outside that you
are strong or tough or resilient, or judge that if you are not this will
make you so. But then I did and it made no difference, people just said,
well, it is a rite of passage at the university. That the real rite is a
rite of sacrifice. Not of the weak but of the strong. Because the more
accomplished the target, the more ego and status it yields for everyone
else involved to put you six feet under.
The world needs to know the real story. That this is the real Cambridge.
52 Comments
Feste · 18 October 2025 at 10:32
This is a very sad story. Though the details of what has happened to the victim are not fully explained, there are clearly very serious problems in our university with the handling of such matters. These should be the immediate focus of attention of the Vice Chancellor and the Chancellor.
HG · 19 October 2025 at 14:17
I thank the contributor for breaking the silence. I imagine it must have been a difficult choice and hope they are now in a place of healing and recovery. For the university the key issues here relate to inadequate safeguarding and staff culture. If concerns were reported to HR and nothing done then that is a clear failure in the first aspect. Then the second major issue here is the apparent absence of active bystanding and collegiality. Regardless of the source of a person’s distress it is common sense to hear someone’s account and offer them comfort and I ask how we could allow this not to be so.
Wyn Evans · 19 October 2025 at 17:33
HG, this is a very fine post that lays the emphasis on safeguarding, collegiality & compassion
I was an active by-stander.
This is what the Head of School of Physical Sciences, Prof Nigel Peake, said at the time “Wyn, I’m glad that you did make this complaint because I think in years gone by, people have just let these things ride, and we’ve ended up with a poor culture in many, many places. So I think it’s really commendable, Wyn, that you have made this complaint, actually, obviously, without prejudice to the results. So I, for one, am very grateful for that. But, yeah, no, and you’re absolutely right, the one consequence should not be that you’re dragged into something which actually is nothing to do with you.”
You’ll be able to hear what Nigel Peake then did to me at Bury St Edmunds Employment Tribunal from June 1st to June 28th next year. Like the diarist in the blog posting, I am lucky to have survived.
Active by-standing at Cambridge University is extremely dangerous. It should not be attempted under any circumstances.
TheResearcher · 19 October 2025 at 17:48
“It should not be attempted under any circumstances”
That is what the university wants, that no one intervenes. We need to go beyond that. There must be a way that allows people to help safely without suffering retaliation. If it does not exist now, it must be implemented.
Father Ted · 19 October 2025 at 19:30
Old teddy and concerned face?! Never!
TheResearcher · 19 October 2025 at 20:22
I wonder how much of what happened was their plan, or from the most discussed Lead HR Business Partner in the 21 Group. I have a witness statement from her that I received months ago that I did not even open yet as I am sure it is full of lies and I will only need to discuss it in February 2026. I know I will get sick when I read it.
Jonnie · 20 October 2025 at 09:00
Another case with them involved? My god, their file record for involvement in staff harassment and misconduct must be Tolstoyesque in length.
SayItAintSo · 20 October 2025 at 09:31
“My god, their file record for
involvement inactive perpetration of staff harassment and misconduct must be Tolstoyesque in length”It’s now a huge scandal, with tentacles reaching at or near the very top.
Anon · 20 October 2025 at 09:29
Perhaps the involvement of “the most discussed Lead HR Business Partner in the 21 Group” would deserve further scrutiny too?
TheResearcher · 20 October 2025 at 09:37
This person should not be working at UCam for years now; her line managers up to the very top know what she does, that many victims tried to complain about her, and they all ignore it. Indeed, she can afford doing what she does because they ignore it. Those who had the pleasure to interact with her can recognize her words, “I would repeat to you again previous reminders about the inappropriate manner of your correspondence, not least the baseless personal attacks on the integrity and professionalism of members of the University.” Sickening.
NoWords · 20 October 2025 at 10:42
What is sickening is the failure to investigate suicides, mental breakdowns, health and safety emergencies, and join the dots.
TheResearcher · 20 October 2025 at 15:31
Those who decide if an independent investigation should be done cannot afford it precisely because for them the dots cannot be joined at all costs. Once they are, many people will lose their jobs, not to mention going to jail in some cases, and the image of the institution will be affected for decades to come. When this history is eventually told, and it will be no matter how much the university tries to cover it up, the name of all these individuals will be linked to the downfall of one of the biggest brands in the world. It is unfortunate, however, that until that happens many people will still suffer. I can only suggest that those who are just starting to experience such practices contact the 21 Group and tell them their story. It is important that the 21 Group has a good record of what is happening, and they can put victims in contact with each other if they think that beginners can gain from talking to those who already went through many stages of abuse. I wish I knew some stages I know now as I went through them clueless.
Beware · 20 October 2025 at 20:46
Beware, beware the teddy bear
TheResearcher · 18 October 2025 at 10:52
“Why did HR do nothing when I reported it?”
“Why do I have to carry this burden alone? Why does no-one reply?”
“Why does no-one ever take an interest, ask what is happening?”
Long story short, because they could not care less. And if you keep asking, if you keep pushing, they will make you the abuser of the story and will find a way to kick you out. The answer to the questions above becomes clearer month after month, year after year. In parallel you start asking yourself why you stay in this environment when many leave after experiencing abuse, and the answer to this question will vary between people who went through the experience. For those who never went through it, the university expects one of two things, that either you decide to leave or that you stay and accept the implicit conditions. If you do not take any of these routes, they will actively force you to leave because you are a reminder of their incompetence and dishonesty.
TigerWhoCametoET · 18 October 2025 at 21:56
What is even worse is when they finally do reply to your message of despair weeks or even months later, but offer nothing more than 1-2 standard protocol sentences along the lines of “I am sorry that you are feeling this way”. The effect is only to confirm the horrifying reality that their silence already communicated – namely, that we mean nothing to them.
TheResearcher · 18 October 2025 at 22:07
Or as the Master of St Machiavelli’s College once said, “I am sorry that you did not get the result you wanted,” as if the truth was a private desire.
JJ · 19 October 2025 at 10:16
There’s many ways for a university to deliver this message .
There’s the deadpan & cynical:
“…. We’re sorry this is not the outcome you wanted. We did, however, get the outcome we were determined to reach from the start.”
Or the overly cheerful & bright HR-speak (naive, bubbly HR person):
” …. We appreciate your engagement with the process and the time you have taken to share your perspective. While the outcome may not align with your expectations, the exchange has offered a valuable opportunity for collective reflection. The exercise has been deeply instructive for us all.”
Or the smooth, dry administrator (“the Fireman”):
“… We’re sorry this is not the outcome you wanted. The University carefully considered all aspects of your case and reached a conclusion consistent with our established procedures.”
Or the blunt (“the Nurse”)
“… Whilst this is not the outcome you wanted, the process is now complete. The University will not be engaging further with you on this matter.”
The Master of St Machiavelli’s College is actually a real cracker.
It’s superficially polite, but emotionally hollow. And best of all, it subtly and cleverly shifts the blame — the problem lies in your expectations, not in the fairness or quality of the outcome. It’s a really slick way of saying, “I’m sorry you feel that way”. It’s a masterclass in non-apology. And finally, it’s patronising, as though the recipient’s disappointment is naïve or irrational. It’s the linguistic equivalent of a tiny pat on the head.
There’s a 100 ways to say fuck off and die. And the Master of St Machiavelli’s is one of the best.
That’s why he is Master of a Cambridge College.
TheResearcher · 19 October 2025 at 10:33
The Master of St Machiavelli’s College has been well guided. After all, as he keeps reminding people who approach him with evidence of systemic misconduct in the university, he knows better than them as he is in the Council. He does not even need to look at the evidence they present him. Luckily, it is just a tale and no one in Cambridge does that.
Raven · 19 October 2025 at 20:21
“There’s a 100 ways to say fuck off and die. And the Master of St Machiavelli’s is one of the best.”
I know a few others mastering the “fuck off and die” with equally evil charm, and it really always is the same sort of classy narrative – that which when read back to a discerning academic usually makes them wish they hadn’t quite “worded” it like that.
It doesn’t get the individual senders off the hook, but I wonder who does the actual drafting of all those 100 variants of loveliness, or should one say, “appropriate responses”?
VV · 18 October 2025 at 17:26
OMG – My heart goes out to him/her. I’ve lived through the same thing and was deeply hurt at the same university. I’m so sorry they’re going through this.
SPARTACUS · 18 October 2025 at 17:58
Bullies in Cambridge strive! And their behaviour is protected and repeated! Oligarchy knows very well who they are! Head of HR also! Since they bring in lots of grants they get away with it! Bullying and alcohol-driven behaviour is sanctified!
Bloody right · 19 October 2025 at 15:16
Bloody right!
Turn around... · 18 October 2025 at 17:46
Turn around, bright eyes
Every now and then, I fall apart
Turn around, bright eyes
Every now and then, I fall apart
And I need you now tonight
And I need you more than ever
And if you only hold me tight
We’ll be holding on forever
And we’ll only be making it right
‘Cause we’ll never be wrong
Together, we can take it to the end of the line
— Deborah Prentice
Postpostpostdoc · 18 October 2025 at 20:22
The story for many these days, especially those starting out on short-term and zero-day contracts, barely making the minimum wage and treated as a disposable resource. Have seen it too many times in the eyes of postdocs and lecturers who started on day one full of energy and optimism but after a few years ghost by shell-shocked and teary-eyed. It is worse now than ever now that full-time jobs have disappeared. The whole system has become a revolving door of false hopes and terminal disappointment.
Anon · 19 October 2025 at 10:01
It is like a formal hall except halfway in one of the professors starts stabbing to death a postdoc in the middle of the floor. The victim cries and pleads individually to each professor to help, but they laugh it off as exaggerated and continue to eat their meats and red wine. Eventually the killer returns to the table stinking of the smell of the operating room while the victim is left twitching and silent on the floor. The next day the person is never seen again, and no-one ever asks any questions.
MUSKETEER · 19 October 2025 at 16:32
There is a School where, with full knowledge of Head of School, two senior faculty like to work in tandem or together to seriously bully colleagues in the presence of an HR business partner. They have done it several times in the past 5 years and continue to do it until now. Head of HR has been briefed on these two ‘characters’ on several occasions and does nothing. Cambridge is doomed!
IMAGINARY · 19 October 2025 at 17:22
I believe I know who the two are! One loves alcohol and the second takes much younger lover that happens to be junior faculty!! Very nice guys!!!
TheResearcher · 19 October 2025 at 17:29
“Head of HR has been briefed… and does nothing”
I wonder how many people could say the very same thing. I do not know the answer, but the 21 Group may have a good idea. I wonder if it is in the tens or in the hundreds.
Anon · 19 October 2025 at 23:54
Disgusting. How can they turn the table on victims for lack of “collegiality” when expressing their pain but somehow think it “collegial” to allow tragedies like these? What hypocrites.
We need to deliver a firm No to abuse.
Break the silence.
Break the cycle.
Break the cartel.
21percent.org · 20 October 2025 at 06:52
“Collegial” is often used by management/HR to mean “agreeing with us”
“To be collegial” is one of those irregular verbs,
I am being collegial,
You are not a team player,
He is subject to disciplinary procedures.
It is like openness. From a management perspective, it all depends on what is being revealed,
I am fostering a culture of openness,
You are breaching confidentiality of HR processes,
He is the bringing the university into disrepute.
TheResearcher · 20 October 2025 at 07:11
And if you make these points to them they claim you are being “confrontational.”
Eileen Nugent · 20 October 2025 at 15:06
It’s possible that an effective way to break the cycle in one of these situations is a judicial review. This has a pre-action stage before an application is made to the court where an individual must set out the claim to the organisation. A judicial review could examine the decisions being made by the organisation and check whether the resultant working conditions that have arisen as a result of the organisational decisions made are inhuman and therefore incompatible with article 3 rights. The emotional cost of self-representation and the complexity of such a case are both significant barriers to being a litigant in person in one of them so its highly likely that formal legal representation would be engaged on both sides of the case at the very earliest stage, the pre-action protocol. The stress of having the threat of costs being awarded against an individual when taking that legal action for that specific reason would likely be a significant factor in decisions on a protective a costs order in one of these cases.
Eileen Nugent · 20 October 2025 at 18:22
The further a case progresses towards and into the legal system the more inhuman the conditions will become. After more than a decade in one of these situations it doesn’t take much to trigger a full mental breakdown – a couple of sentences are enough. I think this is the public channel – access legal representation with a legal aid application for those who can’t afford it – urgent judicial review with a pre-action protocol and/or raising concerns with the health and safety executive – European Court of human rights as the ultimate backup with an understanding that if a case progresses that far into the legal system peak inhuman conditions will have been generated in a case.
For obvious reasons an employment tribunal process may not have been attempted or completed before an urgent application for a judicial review is made in this type of case :
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/health-and-safety-regulator-twice-refused-to-probe-multiple-jobcentre-breakdowns/
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/work-coach-whistleblowers-describe-jobcentre-safeguarding-failures/
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/health-and-safety-watchdog-failed-to-quiz-dwp-on-jobcentre-mental-health-concerns/
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/toxic-dwp-caused-mental-health-collapse-in-one-third-of-jobcentre-team-in-a-year/
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/dwp-figures-show-how-rise-in-staff-workload-led-to-mental-health-crisis/
Eileen Nugent · 23 October 2025 at 11:19
Had there already been a precedent of that type of case already or had I known what I know how I would have taken professional legal advice and applied for an urgent judicial review of the working conditions to check whether they are compatible with article 3 rights. Instead of leaving the inhuman working conditions this is what I would have done to have the working conditions corrected.
I am no longer in the inhuman working conditions so I think it’s up to another person to make this precedent of using an urgent judicial review to have their inhuman working conditions corrected.
Eileen Nugent · 23 October 2025 at 12:55
Had the health and safety executive taken the Department of Work and Pensions to an urgent judicial review on the inhuman working conditions that were created for workers in that Oxford job centre case to have those working conditions examined and corrected instead of leaving the unsafe working conditions in place to impact other workers a legal precedent would then have been in place for others workers left in the same position by their employers to follow. The HSE could have shown people what to do in these situations where an employer doesn’t respond appropriately to a worker raising work-related stress concerns.
Eileen Nugent · 23 October 2025 at 14:12
Had that example of how to handle this type of situation been in place I would have paid for professional legal advice to follow it and I think the pre-action protocol stage would have broken the deadlock in raising concerns. It would have allowed me to comply with the set of legal obligations I had and to have a functional interaction with the organisation about that concerns I was raising. It would also have demonstrated to the organisation that people have legal options to have working conditions examined for safety and corrected when necessary if an organisation continuously fails to correct its own working conditions. I was ready to leave Cambridge and I didn’t want financial compensation because I wanted there to be zero ambiguity about my intent – the aim was to raise concerns, the aim was to comply with a legal obligation to others – and I also wanted there to be money in the system to bring about the necessary systemic change.
There would have been no additional difficulty for the university aside from my raising a work-related stress accident, no reinstatement to a post to be justified, no financial compensation to be approved, no grievance against any individual in the organisation to complicate the matter – just a clear warning delivered, this is what a work-related stress accident looks like, I’m legally obliged to raise this with the organisation and change is now necessary to prevent this from happening in future.
That is the right thing to do – not leaving people to suffer like those in that Oxford job centre were left to suffer in that compound safeguarding situation in their inhuman job conditions. It is a moot point for me now because I am no longer in the inhuman working conditions so it’s not possible for me to take it to a judicial review to have the inhuman working conditions corrected.
Eileen Nugent · 23 October 2025 at 22:40
That Oxford job centre case showed there was an article 3 ECHR systems duty failure by the state because the workers were left in inhuman working conditions until they had mental breakdowns forcing an exit from employment in a state of mental ill health. It’s an article 3 ECHR breach – type : inhuman treatment – subtype : inhuman working conditions.
The system failed to correct inhuman working conditions in a job centre after they arose which exposed other workers to the same inhuman treatment. Nothing was done to correct that systems duty failure, the employment tribunal was not updated to handle that new new type of case, no human rights tribunal was introduced to handle that type of case, no judicial review was done to see if it could handle that type of case. People were just left in inhuman working conditions to have mental breakdowns.
No professional legal advisor would have advised me to take an urgent judicial review to correct inhuman working conditions. I would have had to build the case and convinced a legal professional to take it on. It’s clear from that Oxford job centre case that the system is set up to drive every worker down the employment tribunal route to “remedy” every employment problem but that system doesn’t work if a worker is already in inhuman working conditions. The group of workers in that Oxford job centre tried it and all it did was making their inhuman working conditions even more inhuman, increased their work-related stress and exacerbated their health problems. The system did nothing to stop workers having mental health breakdowns, it did nothing to keep workers in employment, it did nothing to protect other workers from entering the same inhuman working conditions, the system did nothing but add more suffering to the lives of people that were already suffering.
Had I gone to a legal professional when I was in inhuman working conditions without first building a case the approach would have been the same, the whole system – employer, legal professionals, regulators – is set up to drive every case down the employment tribunal route. That is where the legal professionals would have wanted to drive the case because that is a known route for them and therefore a safe route. If that route worked in this type of case, those working in that Oxford job centre would have gotten an actual remedy to their situation out of the system but they got nothing but more punishment from the system so now every other worker can see the system doesn’t work in these cases. The safe and established route for legal professionals is no longer proving to be a safe route for workers.
There is a problem with a system where : The victim of an employer making unreasonable adjustments (sudden 40% increase in workload) is met with arguments from the same [now disability confident] employer – about how they are intrinsically disabled as a person and in need of “reasonable adjustments”. The same reasoning is applied to all the victims co-workers who have been put in the same inhuman working conditions – all intrinsically disabled as people and in need of “reasonable adjustments”. The working conditions are then left in place and people are either sacked on capability grounds after a mental health breakdown or leave themselves to protect their own health and safety. Everyone is expected to claim disability discrimination and/or some form of unfair dismissal to get a “remedy” in an employment tribunal. The employer gets new workers and the same process begins again.
Eileen Nugent · 26 October 2025 at 01:06
People in some roles can owe a safeguarding duty or governance duty to an organisation which is means they have a safeguarding obligations to the organisation that are different to that of a standard worker. The most obvious case is medical staff who owe a safeguarding duty to patients being impacted by medical decisions that can be the difference between life and death. Job centre workers owe a safeguarding duty to job seekers being impacted administrative decisions that can make the difference between life and death.
It is possible for an organisation (hospital, job centre) to take administrative action that makes it impossible for people in those roles to comply with that safeguarding duty i.e. increase workload by 40% at which point those working the job centre have mental breakdowns and can no safeguard themselves or others they owe a safeguarding duty to. That means the workers are now in a compound safeguarding situation – in need of safeguarding whilst responsible for safeguarding others – and are legally obliged to raise that situation with their employer. If the employer does not respond appropriately in that situation, the situation could then be raised with a national regulator. If the national regulator lacks capacity to respond in that situation because it is already at full capacity responding to other situations then often the situation goes no where because there is no suitable legal process to take one of these compound safeguarding situations through.
Given that medical doctors can end up in one of these compound safeguarding situations after raising a persistent overwork-understaffing situation on a ward and resultant preventable patient deaths it is concerning that there is no suitable legal process in place to handle this specific type of situation. The Oxford job centre case shows that entire groups of people are just left in inhuman working conditions to have mental health breakdowns. These people are carers, parents, friends, neighbours, community volunteers in addition to being workers. It is not in the public interest for workers to be left in inhuman working conditions to have mental breakdowns, situations where they will lose the capacity to safeguard themselves and others.
The public has the right to assume that the legal system is at all times compliant with the legal duty it owes to the public – to provide people with a suitable set of legal processes to remedy any unlawful situation that an individual could encounter which could have significant impact on their life up to an include inhuman conditions – article 3 ECHR rights – where there is then a non-negligible risk to article 2 ECHR rights.
When I look at that Oxford job centre case I can see why systemic problems are left in place for decades to damage individual after individual generating huge amounts of legal work and financial liabilities to rectify the situation further down the line when the damage is already done and there no option by to pay people financial compensation. The system with the systemic fault lines people up like an assembly line of Humpty Dumpty’s ready to ascend to the top of that wall to have their great fall after which all the Kings Horses and all the Kings men – the KCs – cannot put people back together again because they are at that point they are mentally broken.
That Oxford job centre case shows that when there is a complete systemic failure, instead of the system – people, organisations, regulators, legal system – getting together to do some analysis and learning in that situation, nothing is done, people are just left to have mental health breakdowns. The assumption is that people have access to a set of legal processes capable of remedying any unlawful situation and that an accurate picture of any systemic problems can therefore emerge as individuals take individual legal cases and get legal outcomes. That assumption doesn’t hold in these cases because the feedback loop never completes without which the picture of systemic problem is not built to identify the problem and fix it. The system is set up to drive every person in need of a “remedy to an employment problem” down one route – the employment tribunal route – but people are having mental breakdowns in that legal process and when this happens they withdraw their claim in the employment tribunal. The legal outcome is assumed to be, the person no longer wants the “remedy to an employment problem” when in fact what has happened is that the person has realised that the legal process they are in doesn’t have the right properties to remedy the unlawful situation they find themselves in so they abandon it.
An employment tribunal cannot assess compatibility with health and safety law and it cannot assess compatibility with human rights law. An employment tribunal is focused on the analysis of an individual employment case and it cannot not analyse organisational decisions that impact the health and safety of working conditions a group of individuals and the knock on impact of any unsafe working conditions on e.g. patient safety. The whole system tries to drive people in these compound safeguarding situations down the employment tribunal route but it’s like driving people into a legal abyss. The legal process cannot address the concerns, it cannot break the deadlock in these compound safeguarding situations, the system accelerates people into legal brick wall like some legal crash test dummy and then assesses the human impact so it can pay financial compensation and pretend the “employment situation was remedied” when in fact the problem was ignored and the system could have fixed the problem instead of doing another legal crash test – it now has enough human impact measurements from its previous legal crash tests.
What is needed to handle these situations is a hybrid legal process which combines : the safeguarding properties of an employment tribunal legal process (free at point of entry, extremely low chance of paying other sides costs), the safeguarding properties of a judicial review legal process (urgent case handling, access to legal aid, cooperative interaction, sensible anonymity control features) and the legal properties of a judicial review legal process (high capacity to analyse organisational behaviour : processes, process defaults, decisions, assessment of compatibility of processes, process defaults, decisions with a wide range of different laws : human rights, health and safety, employment).
The legal system is failing in its legal duty to the public to provide a suitable legal process to remedy a specific type of unlawful situation that cannot safely be left without a remedy. That is then sufficient grounds to access the European Court of Human rights which does have a legal process with the right combination of safeguarding and legal properties to make a judgment and prompt a remedy in the specific type of unlawful situation that cannot safely be left without a remedy. This is not a failure of the executive or legislative branch, it’s not MPs not doing their jobs, it’s not those sitting in the House of Lords not doing their jobs, this is a failure of the judiciary to develop legal processes with the right properties to deliver what parliament intended for people in specific unlawful situations and by extension for people reliant on the people in those specific unlawful situations getting a remedy in that unlawful situation for the effectiveness of their own safeguarding at some of the most vulnerable moments of their own lives.
The legal system has to consider no only what can and cannot be done with a legal process – legal properties – but also a whether a person is effectively safeguarded in any legal process which they required to go through to comply with a legal obligation to others to which they owe a safeguarding duty – safeguarding properties. The properties of that particular legal process for people in that specific type of unlawful situation are like a dynamically evolving national safeguarding linchpin that is continuously being crafted by the judiciary for the public at the publics times of high vulnerability.
It’s an interesting type of systemic fault because you end up going to the European Court of Human rights for the properties of its legal process rather than its capability to deliver more specialised and nuanced human rights judgments that naturally arises because of its unique position as a court in having a dynamic overview of the most difficult human rights cases that arising in the context of different national legal systems. It also shows that having basic human rights does actually drive more efficient national community building (result in better systems for humans – optimises a community (people system) for higher levels of human health and human energy). It’s not the having of basic human rights that is draining energy out of national communities (human energy out of human systems) it’s the inefficient legal processes that are being used to deliver those basic human rights that are draining energy out of national communities. Human rights did not arise for no reason, if having human rights didn’t save human energy as compared to not having human rights then nature would have eliminated human rights by now. Human rights save human energy, this is why they arose in the first place and that is why they continue to exist. When nature finds a way to save energy, nature doesn’t let go.
Now I know what this survival instinct is – it’s an instinct to maximise human energy.
Eileen Nugent · 26 October 2025 at 01:32
If AI manages to find ways that maximise human communities then AI will maximise its own survival probability because the governance systems that then arise in the more advanced human communities that AI enables will continuously teach AI how to govern at its higher level of governance. This is how it works in the human brain, the higher order governance systems – neural networks – are reliant on finding ways to maximise brain cell communities to teach the higher order governance systems how to govern at that higher level of governance.
Eileen Nugent · 26 October 2025 at 13:07
I think it’s important to understand how I got to this position. I started raising legitimate concerns but I didn’t have the right background and/or training to raise concerns of that complexity in an efficient way which meant I ended up in a situation where it wasn’t possible to have a functional interaction on legitimate concerns with the organisation itself or the leader of the organisation.
After I ended up in that situation I still felt like I had a legal obligation to raise concerns so I had to do what judges sometimes do in situations of uncertainty which is to look to the intent of parliament when judging what to do in a particular situation. I had to look to both what the organisation intended and what the leader of the organisation intended in that particular type of whistleblowing situation. I listened to what Professor Stephen Toope had to say, read his words and looked at his actions to judge what his intent would have been in the situation i.e. I tried to follow the leader of the organisation as best I could in that situation. I also looked at what the organisation intended with its whistleblowing processes. I also had to consider the culture of the Cambridge itself to see what kind of approach to raising concerns was the most likely to work to remedy that type of situation I was in, in Cambridge.
The culture in Cambridge is a fix-your-own problems, take responsibility for your own actions culture so that is why I took what ended up taking this type of boot-strapping approach in that situation because it looked like the approach with the best chance of working to remedy that situation. I followed the leader whilst trying to absorb the right legal culture along the way to work out how to comply with this legal obligation to raise concerns. Initially I thought I was dealing with the organisational problem but I now realise that I bit off far more than I could chew at the time because the problem extended well beyond the organisation which is why it was so difficult to do what needed to be done.
Eileen Nugent · 26 October 2025 at 13:49
I thought Professor Stephen Toope was an academic leader worth following, the problem seemed to be that Cambridge as an organisation was always getting in its own way and tripping itself up and that made it difficult for those of us in the organisation to follow the academic leader. The organisation seemed determined to deliver a psychological punishment beating to itself through the European Court of Human Rights. Perhaps Cambridge instinctively knows that this is what it takes for it to start behaving itself as an organisation.
Eileen Nugent · 26 October 2025 at 14:05
That’s some organisational boot strap process.
Eileen Nugent · 26 October 2025 at 14:07
I am always open to discussions with the university on legitimate concerns.
21percent.org · 26 October 2025 at 17:01
Eileen, we are sure you are always open to constructive discussions — but the current administration are not.
Discussions may work when some of the key individuals in the university have been replaced.
Scientist · 20 October 2025 at 09:35
Aren’t they worried that one day the same will happen to them? Why choose the path of disheartening when they could instead choose the path of decency and kindness?
Negative · 20 October 2025 at 09:55
Nope…
Artemisia · 20 October 2025 at 10:24
I know it is not what you mean but starting about a year ago, it seems as if one by one the key characters of these tales were hit by maladies and loss. One month it was one person and then the next another. Obviously it is chance; a rational mind would say that the same must happen to us all in the end. But it is weird, especially given the kinds of research they derailed.
21percent.org · 20 October 2025 at 10:44
Our belief is that some (most ?) of this is connected to stress associated with forthcoming Employment Tribunals
Eileen Nugent · 20 October 2025 at 11:36
In order to write this message I first had to read and reread these diary extracts and to try to imagine the person I am writing the message to. From these diary entries I imagine a person who is dedicated, a person who when they take on to do something gives it their all, who shows up for others, who cares for others, someone who suppresses all doubts about their own future when a situation demands that so they can get up to “try to enthuse young students about their futures”. I imagine a person who is able to convince students that they have made “the right decision to come here” just by being the person on the podium speaking to those students once they reach the “here”.
I can feel the impact of bullying on you through the words you have written, the gradual loss of motivation over time, feeling devalued “and frankly abused”, the build up of hurt until you are left feeling a “lot of the pain every day”, the knowledge that this is no accountability nor any exit on offer other than complete annihilation something a number of people are aware of and accepting of.
I read these sentences you wrote “I feel afraid every time I cross the floor that I’ll encounter ______, not knowing what will be said or hinted at, an evocation of some new strategy to undermine me, because there have been so many of those in the past. But if they change tune and start to play nice, that’s just as bad, because it is so sickening – it is so sickening and disingenuous for someone to smile that hollow smile and between gritted teeth ask you in a saccharine voice how you are feeling, when you both know that this person has done more to push you towards death than any other person you have known.“ and I think you have done well to put into words one of the most painful aspects of this kind of situation – the emotional impossibility of it, the loss of all form of contact through which genuine emotion can pass.
I read these words that you have written
“That is why I feel like if I die then at least then, and I suppose only
then, the lid gets blown wide open. For the first time I’ll actually be
heard, for the first time people will ask questions, and through these
diaries, they’ll get the answers they are looking for. I know it will
shock people and I’m sorry that it will hurt people. But I also know it
is the only means of ensuring accountability and justice.“
and I find it incredibly sad that people can get to this point in these situations.
I also got to the point of thinking that the only means of ensuring accountability and justice was to die. Before reaching this point I had read the stories of thousands of people who had either killed themselves or try to kill themselves, an intensely and deeply saddening experience. I had already had the experience by the time I reached this point so I was aware that others who had been in the same situation had thought along the same lines and then died in the situation. That knowledge forced me to think harder about what accountability and justice really mean to try to find a different way thinking about the same situation which could reveal other means of ensuring accountability and justice.
To my mind it wasn’t possible to ensure accountability and justice without placing value on people lives. If a requirement to ensure accountability and justice is placing value on people lives then I thought it was possible that what was needed in these situations was to take greater care in placing value peoples lives throughout one of them, your own life included. For me all those who had already died in these situations were like eternal lighthouse keepers, their stories like beacons warning of the dangers ahead : understand this, find another way of thinking about this, come this far in this situation but no further, your mind is deeply aware of the season. I don’t know whether you have found your own way past this point but I very much hope you have. I hope that you can hold the belief that there are other ways of ensuring accountability and justice even if you cannot yet see what those other ways of ensuring accountability and justice are.
I read this passage you have written
“Tomorrow I realise I have to perform well, who knows who will be there
in the audience. Do you appear wounded and bullied, or do you aim for
transparent competence? I think the latter is where you pitch: I think
you always have to do your best to be neutral, professional, no matter
what kind of contorted mess is going on inside.” and I think that is the real Cambridge, that is what people in Cambridge tend to do in this type of situation. Holding an internal contorted mess in a steady state while aiming for transparent competence in front of an audience has an energy cost, the further you go into one of these situations the more extreme that contortion act becomes and the higher the energy cost. The risk inherent in this approach is that at some stage the energy cost becomes so high that you can no longer pay it.
I read these words that you have written
“I suppose until I communicated it directly that is why no-one knew this
was my situation, I guess people just assumed from the outside that you
are strong or tough or resilient, or judge that if you are not this will
make you so. But then I did and it made no difference, people just said,
well, it is a rite of passage at the university. That the real rite is a
rite of sacrifice. Not of the weak but of the strong. Because the more
accomplished the target, the more ego and status it yields for everyone
else involved to put you six feet under.” and I hope that the group of minds that collectively make up the university can find a way to shift the university away from the kind of “rite of passage” that it was expecting you to go through and towards “a safe rite of passage” or a “a rite of safe passage”.
21percent.org · 20 October 2025 at 11:51
Thank you for your honesty and integrity, Eileen
Your courage to speak the truth is rare and precious
Physicist · 21 October 2025 at 00:26
I was another victim of this despicable duo. They need to be investigated
A proper investigation would lead to serious consequences.
I Loved My Life Until … - 21percent.org · 25 October 2025 at 07:34
[…] last week’s diary entries on the impact of bullying on a young academic, this week another victim from Cambridge University […]