We reproduce an interesting contribution from poster Review below
The poster suggests that Cambridge University is facing problems over transparency and governance, with concerns about unchecked administrative spending and unclear budgets. The post raises questions about accountability and oversight.
The Board of Scrutiny called for greater openness in its Thirtieth Report published in The Reporter here
Comments, criticisms and corrections are welcome.
“I welcome input from those able to provide correction or clarification.
1. The function of the Board of Scrutiny is to provide independent oversight over university operations in particular accounts and spending, which feature prominently in recent reports (https://www.scrutiny.cam.ac.uk/). Legitimacy derives from an electoral mandate from the university body that makes it autonomous from control of the senior university management.
2. There have been recent concerns in relation to lack of transparency and authority over central budget accounts. These have been accentuated following a recent decision to abort the appointment of an independent financial officer who had sought a direct capacity of audit in line with standard practice and their role mandate and was denied this request (https://21percent.org/?p=2909).
3. BOS concerns also relate to spending by the administrative bodies that do not deliver upon the university’s public service missions of teaching and research excellence. The scope and purpose of external consultancy contracts, legal fees, administrative overhead, executive compensation and broader expenses are unclear. These costs have risen significantly over time. There are reports of hiring lawyers to threaten former members of staff (e.g. the recent Paul Pharoah tweet) and cases that reached tribunal for funding disruption. It is unclear if there is now public relations spend over upcoming tribunal cases (it is not clear from this blog the university or universities in question as media reports of harassment so far appear to focus more on Oxford).
4. These issues have become salient as a result of failures to balance the operating deficit and management response to cut service delivery (academic hiring and wages) at the expense of administrative budgets (which are being ringfenced). There is also a question around infrastructural spend and its management. One such question relates to spending within HR on IT systems that have been missed deadlines in spite of significant cost. These could easily be addressed via more transparent budgeting.
5. Many of these questions have the potential to be awkward for the university senior management. The head of the registry office, who retains authority over accounts, is on extended leave.
6. There is a well-documented case of unfair dismissal in relation to Catherine MacKenzie followed by failure to comply with court orders for reinstatement. It is unclear why the university would fail to comply with a clear judicial order but the fact that MacKenzie was formerly Chair of the Board of Scrutiny raises concerns in relation to motive. To reassure such concerns this should invite further investigation and clarification.
7. There is another upcoming tribunal case brought by a further member of the Board of Scrutiny, (Professor Wyn Evans). This case is also widely known following his candidacy for Chancellor this year. The campaign brought press attention that led reporters to uncover his status as a whistleblower and some of the circumstances surrounding that case – though, much remains pending on the final hearing. Again the question of underlying motive is salient, given the prominence of Evans in campaigns for greater public accountability, and the protracted duration of his case.
8. Other recent scandals have thrown the matter of university governance and accounts in to the spotlight. For example, hearings earlier this year by the Scottish Parliament that address accounting mismanagement as well as excess executive compensation. There are comparisons in social media and press discussions to the Post Office scandal, in which a public service entity had operated without proper ministerial oversight or judicial accountability. We know in that case that these resulted in large amounts of money spent in the effort to disrupt public accountability and delay judicial review.
I welcome the input of the forum in correcting or appropriately sourcing these points.”
Image is from Robert Hooke’s Micrographia (1665).
86 Comments
Los Gatos · 22 November 2025 at 08:58
A Netflix version would be amazing
Lights, Camera, Action · 22 November 2025 at 16:06
[SCENE 1] Fades up over image of Cairo. Sepia hues with yellow tinge show a dry, dusty city.
Caption at bottom: Cairo, Egypt, 2016. Cambridge PhD student Giulio Regeni, who has been working on labor unions and workers’ rights under dictatorship, has been abducted and killed. A body is shown lying in a ditch alongside the Cairo–Alexandria highway.
[SCENE 2] Smash cut to English summer garden party. Tones are leafy and green. All around are Cambridge academics, clinking glasses and engaging in happy chatter.
The key protagonists for series 1 are in frame but in the background. Camera pans to Academic 1 speaking to Lawyer 1.
A1: “Aren’t I allowed to at least say something to the police?”
L1: “No. I thought we were absolutely clear on this. The rule here is that you stay quiet.”
Quiet on Set · 22 November 2025 at 16:24
[SCENE 1]. Image of Fishmongers’ Hall, a listed building adjacent to London Bridge
Caption at bottom: London, 2019. A man invited to a Cambridge University conference on prisoner rehabilitation arrives at the hall wearing a fake suicide vest. He then attacks attendees with a knife, injuring several people. Two of them tragically die from their injuries.
[SCENE 2] Drinks before the Feast at a Cambridge College. All around are academics and University administrators merrily clinking glasses containing aperitifs.
Camera pans to Academic 1 speaking to Lawyer 1.
A1: “Aren’t I allowed to at least say something to the police?”
L1: “No. I thought we were absolutely clear on this. The rule here is that you stay quiet”
Anonymous · 22 November 2025 at 20:18
For reference this is the London Bridge attack story:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-59952809
MO · 22 November 2025 at 21:17
As per media reports it was explicitly reported that Cambridge in-house lawyers instructed the faculty not to assist the police with investigations over the Regeni case. His family never received a satisfactory explanation as to why.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160608123655/http://espresso.repubblica.it/inchieste/2016/06/07/news/caso-regeni-anche-la-facolta-di-cambridge-sceglie-di-non-collaborare-1.269973
Anon · 23 November 2025 at 10:17
Some of the quotes in that BBC article are absolutely brutal.
Prof Acheson, a former prison officer, stated it was:
“”the plainest case of negligence”
“a totally reckless programme that didn’t achieve anything”
“a mixture of incompetence, naivety and hubris”
“a vanity project that went disastrously wrong, resulting in the completely preventable deaths of two students”
Nothing in the article stating explicitly that lawyers instructed the university not to comply with the inquest, Though given the obvious potential for a negligence case (as flagged by Acheson), together with reports of similar conduct in relation to the Regeni case, there is reason to merit suspicion and further investigation.
SamGoldwyn · 22 November 2025 at 10:01
It’s heading into ‘Mr Bates versus the Post Office’ territory, which is fine for British TV
For Netflix, the story needs a complete rewrite,
“Rhett Langley is a handsome American student spending a year at the University of Cambridge on a Gates scholarship. On his first day at Trinity College, he is immediately struck by the ancient buildings and the self-important, gossiping dons.
At his first supervision, he meets the beguiling and inscrutable Professor Seraphina Hawthorne, the College’s Professor of Victorian Literature and an exacting member of the Board of Scrutiny.
At formal hall, Rhett nervously navigates the strict seating plan, the precise order of toasts and the quietly judgmental glances of the Master. Afterwards, Seraphina invites him for a late-night stroll across the misty backs.
Between laughter and kisses, she confides in him about the shadowy machinations at the very apex of the University—plots concocted by the devious, impeccably dressed, Lord Blackwood, known as ‘the Sniffer’.
Though small in stature, the Sniffer’s shadowy influence reaches from the Senate House all the way down to the tiniest pigeon-infested cloister.”
I think we have something
TheResearcher · 22 November 2025 at 10:03
I already made a comment to Review in their original post, but I would like to add the following. On 4 November 2025, I contributed to a Discussion in the Senate House and made a remark that was published in The Reporter last week. Since then, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for University Community and Engagement, Prof. Kamal Munir, confirmed that he was aware of the remark, and that he would still not do an investigation about these and related matters. UCam is currently a circus, and until the senior leadership leaves, it will remain a joke. I reproduce my remark in the Senate House below:
I have been a member of the University since 2016. I am currently a member of Christ’s College and the Department of History and Philosophy of Science, but between 2016 and 2024 I was a postdoctoral research fellow at DAMTP, the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics.
As this is my first time speaking at a Discussion, I paid special attention to the rule that “Remarks should aim to be accurate and must not be defamatory.” As I am sure you know, truth is a complete defence to defamation, and I can support every statement I make here with documentation.
My remark concerns the People section of the Thirtieth Report of the Board of Scrutiny, though I wish first to commend the Board’s broader efforts to identify areas of concern across Cambridge. Given the University lacks an independent Ombudsman, the Board’s work is especially valuable.
I strongly agree with the Board’s points on openness, transparency, and accountability—particularly regarding the Staff Culture Survey of February 2024. Like the Board, I am troubled that previous survey data remain largely unanalysed. More concerning still, the University held the results for a year without publishing them, and only a Freedom of Information request revealed part of the findings, as reported by The Guardian in April 2025. When I shared that article on Viva Engage on August 4, my post was deleted by the Head of Internal Communications one day after. My complaints about this censorship—an issue of both transparency and free expression—remain unanswered.
Point 48 of the Report resonates deeply with me. It reads, “The Board continues to be made aware of a range of human resources issues… The Board emphasises the importance of resolving grievances promptly to minimise stress and avoid unnecessary waste of time, money and resources.” Members of the Board know how my experience in DAMTP in June 2023 has harmed my career, education, and health. Despite whistleblowing and safeguarding referrals supported by detailed medical evidence, the University has taken no action. I remain restricted from contacting hundreds of people, cannot use my @cam account freely or have access to my research materials that remain at DAMTP against my will, and am blocked from making formal complaints—including under Statute A IX. Importantly, these measures followed my reports of misconduct involving senior members of the University when I had never complained before. I understand the measures as a form of reprisal against me. My experience painfully confirms the Board’s view that unresolved grievances cause prolonged harm and waste.
I fully support the Board’s call for stronger communication and transparency. Regular open office sessions with senior leaders would help bridge the growing divide between decision-makers and staff. Leaders who understand the daily realities of their colleagues are better placed to build a safe and inspiring community. As I told recently the Chancellor, Lord Smith, the reputation of an institution should never outweigh the wellbeing of its members, but I feel it does so presently at Cambridge.
However, I must question the Board’s commendation of the Office of Student Conduct, Complaints and Appeals (OSCCA) in point 49. Although OSCCA publishes data on student grievances, it neither analyses nor corrects important errors. According to analysis by the 21 Group, while the number of investigated complaints has sharply risen, the proportion upheld has collapsed from 50% in 2016–17 to 13% in 2023–24—a trend that cannot be ignored as it undermines confidence in the system.
When I submitted a Freedom of Information request for clarification, the data I received from the Information Compliance Office conflicted with OSCCA’s published reports. More troublingly, I was told that OSCCA had received no safeguarding referrals since its creation, which is demonstrably untrue. Despite multiple requests, OSCCA has provided no correction or explanation about these issues. This experience shows that the Board’s call to “strengthen cohesion, improve communication and enhance transparency” must apply to OSCCA itself, despite its publication of annual reports.
lawgiver · 22 November 2025 at 16:56
“the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for University Community and Engagement, Prof. Kamal Munir, confirmed that he was aware of the remark, and that he would still not do an investigation about these and related matters”
– oh dear… sounds like you have had enough of the whole “judge dredd serious face” routine? 🙁
TheResearcher · 22 November 2025 at 17:41
The fact that they do not care does not bother me as much as these statements:
https://www.studentsupport.cam.ac.uk/harassment-and-sexual-misconduct
“As students, we want you to get the most out of your time at Cambridge, and your safety and wellbeing is our top priority. That includes ensuring you can live, work and study without fear of harassment, misconduct or abuse. Anyone should feel able to report this kind of behaviour believing they will be taken seriously, trusting we will take action, and knowing that support is available.” Professor Bhaskar Vira, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Education
“We are crystal clear that harassment and sexual misconduct are unacceptable. We have an obligation to prevent it, and everyone at the University has a role to play. That’s why it’s important that all our staff understand our policies and what is expected of them, including what to do if they receive a report.” Professor Kamal Munir, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for University Community and Engagement
And... action! · 22 November 2025 at 19:52
The hypocrisy is what makes this delicious material for a Netflix script!
When each character appears for the first time, they each can literally be quoted verbatim – verbatim! – for the things they have said in public about bullying, sexual harassment, feminism, employment law, mental health, and their top management tips.
Then the rest of the show is going to expose what they really do when the cameras aren’t rolling. Audience is in the fourth wall… lapping up every moment.
Juvenal · 22 November 2025 at 10:38
The really important question is: who’s pulling the strings, who’s orchestrating all this?
Someone with far too much power, obviously.
MUSKETEER · 22 November 2025 at 18:30
The oligarchy: American Queen and her senior management team, Council, Prof Smallman, Prof Teflon.
Raven · 22 November 2025 at 19:51
I’m not sure.
The American Queen and her crew are guilty of allowing things to happen which should NEVER happen, of refusing to intervene, to investigate and to draw obvious conclusions, and of delegating it to those who are causing the problems to “sort them out”.
It’s called dereliction of duty.
There is no oversight. Nobody takes responsibility. There are no longer any strings to pull. Not from above, at any rate.
In the words of the Registrary, “yes, I’m responsible for Health and Safety (among other things) but I’m not responsible for this mess [a serious mess created by a malicious HR individual several levels below].
In the words of the HR Director, “I wasn’t personally involved in this particular case, I’m not responsible”. But she was line-managing the malicious HR person creating the problem…
So they hire an “assistant director”, create a line-management-cum-responsibility buffer.
The malicious HR person remains in post, remains active, creates further havoc and destruction.
Every time a complaint is made, the malicious HR person gets to write the “response”, which is as malicious as s/he is, full of ambiguities and illogicalities. S/he knows the person sending it out in their own name won’t read it, won’t even get that it’s non-sensical, that it can be undermined by evidence. The person sending it out will be grateful it gets the complainant out of their hair. Thank you, malicious one, you’re being ever so helpful.
The malicious HR person remains in post, remains active, creates further havoc and destruction.
And so it goes on.
And then someone threatens to go public with all the shambles, all the crap, all the obscene abuse. So, the big guns come out, expensive (external) lawyers step in and silence is bought.
The malicious HR person remains in post, remains active, creates further havoc and destruction…
By now s/he’s having a ball, all this havoc and destruction and nobody comes after them! Of course not – nobody feels responsible for this great big mess, it wasn’t created by them!
Eileen Nugent · 22 November 2025 at 22:17
In order to understand what’s gone wrong I think it is important to understand that the system is set up with a default that effectively prevents senior management from intervening in an individual employment case. This default is to prevent senior management from biasing an individuals employment in one way or another – it’s a safeguard to prevent the personal feelings senior management hold in relation to any individual biasing that individuals employment in any way. The default is also to prevent senior management from being overwhelmed by individuals asking them to directly intervene in individual cases and to leave senior management in a position to concentrate on the overall management of the organisation using the standard governance processes that are agreed upon in the university.
The idea is that senior management get Regent House/Council to make decisions and then set up processes including HR processes and the administration team is left to run the agreed on HR/Legal processes. If the HR processes goes wrong HR/Legal manage the error-correction processes – grievance/concerns processes – and if that doesn’t work it needs to go through error-correction additional processes – ACAS, employment tribunals, other courts – for more detailed and careful checking.
With other health and safety concerns – e.g. laser safety – if there was a problem there would be no organisational barrier to senior management taking up concerns but it would never get to that stage in the organisation because that is a well known health and safety hazard, people already know how to manage it and if there was a problem with a laser safety officer and a person spotted it people would accept it and something would be done at all levels in the organisation. If the organisation failed the national regulator would quickly step in and force an organisational correction. The regulation is already well established.
With these hybrid HR/Health and safety concerns there is a catastrophic double-whammy dynamic at play (1) The organisational default prevents senior management from intervening in an individual employment case to protect the organisation and individuals from senior management allowing their personal feelings to influence organisational decisions on employment in relation to an individual (2) This is not a known health and safety hazard and not only is it not a known health and safety hazard it is exceptionally mentally taxing to understand this hybrid HR/health and safety hazard but in order to get the regulation right in relation to this hybrid HR/health and safety risk you have to understand it.
This is a real problem now because these HR/legal processes need to be updated to enable handling of employment that is compliant with the new legal obligation to regulate work-related stress which means that a subset of individual employment cases will now need to be analysed to work out how to overhaul the HR/legal processes whilst other individual employment cases would not get the same level of individual case analysis and it may be difficult for people to understand the differential treatment in the handling of individual employment cases that arises as the HR/Legal processes are being overhauled. It may be difficult for people to accept that some individual cases get the attention of senior management while other individual cases don’t but the reason for that differential is that some individual cases – complex cases at higher risk of mishandling – are generating an unacceptable organisational health and safety risk and also burning organisational resources and both of these are now impacting the overall function of the organisation which is something that impacts those whose cases are not getting further analysis.
Eileen Nugent · 22 November 2025 at 22:50
I think the other important thing to understand is that when an organisation is judged, more weight is given to its treatment of people when things are going wrong than when things are going right because being fair and reasonable when things are going wrong is a much more difficult challenge than being fair and reasonable when things are going right and it has much more impact on peoples lives. When things are going wrong for a person they will remember the people who treated them fairly and reasonably.
When things are going ‘right’ in an organisation no one notices unfair and unreasonable treatment in an organisation because unfair and unreasonable treatment can look like this – massive financial bonuses, snorting cocaine at the ‘work’ events and engaging in every type of misconduct with no immediate consequences – no one notices when they are on the side of unfair and unreasonable treatment that gives them everything they want without having to care about the impact of that on other people. It’s only when things start going ‘wrong’ in an organisation – organisational collapse – and they are on the other side of unfair and unreasonable treatment – homelessness and denial of access to medical treatment – that they notice unfair and unreasonable treatment when they are in pain and not in a position to have their basic needs met.
I think it’s important to recognise an organisational fault for what it is and to evaluate the individuals who happen to be caught up in that organisational fault fairly and reasonably, to look at the systemic constraints they were working under, to look at the pressures they were working under, to look at whether they were continuously trying to do the right thing. If there is a problem with a particular HR staff member that cannot be ignored by the whole organisation, that cannot be allowed to continue to impact future individual cases, that does have to be dealt with by the organisation.
Eileen Nugent · 23 November 2025 at 00:11
For the avoidance of doubt and defamation claims I have never seen anyone snorting cocaine at a work ‘event’ in Cambridge or at any other university – the references above are in relation to the investment banking sector and are to events that are exceptional even in that sector. I had always found physics departments to be safe environments to study and work in until this work-related stress accident occurred and the root cause of that work-related stress accident seemed to be the product of a collection of organisational employment coping mechanisms.
By a safe environment I mean an environment where the major risks – e.g. high-risk experimental physics procedures – in the environment were collectively controlled and any problems with the collective control measures were collectively learned from and where the risks that were not collectively controlled I felt I had control over. If when someone from a working environment wants a more intimate relationship and they can take no for an answer and this has no subsequent impact on the working relationship in that working environment then the working environment is safe. If when someone uses abusive language towards you and when you ask them to stop using abusive language towards you they stop doing that then the working environment is safe. If when you are suffering from burnout and your supervisor responds by giving you more control over your submission deadline then the working environment is safe.
Eileen Nugent · 23 November 2025 at 00:48
When your life is in critical condition you will remember whether your head of house was an effective responder and by that I don’t mean sending an empty email quickly to register a response to protect themselves in the situation or spending lots of time with you without ever understanding the situation and what an effective organisational response looks like – I mean using exceptional judgment to intervene in an individual case when that is the right thing to do, I mean taking action to give an effective organisational response in the situation. But you will be conscious of the fact that your head of house owes a duty of care to the whole college not just you so you won’t put them in that position unless your life really is in a critical condition. You will remember this head of house, this is not a person that you will forget, you will always remember the people that were capable of being fair and reasonable to you when things were going wrong.
Eileen Nugent · 23 November 2025 at 01:02
But even if you are fortunate enough to have such a head of house if the university generates one of these work-related stress accidents and your head of department won’t work with your head of house to determine an effective collective university-college response in the situation, the college will eventually run out of adjustments that it can make to compensate for the impact of the organisational faults at play in the university and it is not then possible to put a stop to the work-related stress accident and it will then be necessary to leave the whole collegiate university to safeguard your health and safety.
Eileen Nugent · 23 November 2025 at 01:16
And you will not think less of your head of department, you won’t think they were unfit to be a head of department because you are aware that it was an exceptionally complex situation but you will realise that you have been fortunate enough to have encountered some exceptional heads of house and some exceptional heads of department and that you will always remember them.
Eileen Nugent · 23 November 2025 at 02:34
Professor Stephen Toope, Professor Deborah Prentice – these are not people where I would have a concern about their ability to treat a person fairly and reasonably even when things were going wrong. These are not people who I would feel unsafe dealing with in one of these complex employment situations but the current setup of the system means that is not possible to deal with these people in an individual employment case unless the head of college and head of department are willing to work together in the situation to determine what an effective university-college response looks like – there is a whole army of people to actively prevent a person from interacting with the head of the university in an individual employment case with very few exceptions such as a collective request from the heads of a college & a department to intervene in an individual employment case.
Even if you are fortunate enough to have a head of house who is is an effective responder, if the head of department cannot work together with the head of house to determine an effective university-college response in the situation then it’s not possible to work together with the head of the university to intervene in the individual employment case and to take effective organisational action in the situation because this is the way the organisation is currently set up. That is especially the case if the department is an experimental department like physics because the head of department is the one with an overview of departmental constraints in any situation relating to the department including things like e.g. lab resource allocation that can have a significant impact on other members of the department.
The problem is with the constraints of the system in handling individual employment cases – if the head of house and the head of department cannot work together to determine an effective university-college response in the situation then you end up dealing with HR and legal staff in the situation. Not only is there nothing HR/Legal can do in that situation given the way the system is currently set up, they also don’t yet understand how to integrate this new legal obligation to regulate work-related stress and the existing processes for handling individual employment cases because this is something that genuinely is exceptionally difficult to understand let alone implement in an organisation as complex as collegiate Cambridge.
The problem is not with the leaders of the university – it’s with the kinetics of the individual case handling in the middle of the organisation. It’s an operational problem at that level : head of HR, head of Legal, heads of Department and it’s operational kinetics that I think HR/Legal would have been more sensitive too had this new legal obligation to regulate work-related stress not thrown off the individual case handling in ways that genuinely are exceptional difficult to understand.
Raven · 23 November 2025 at 13:51
…soon s/he’ll be training up the new HR recruits, to make sure they have
“A comprehensive and up-to-date understanding and practical application of UK employment law with significant experience in dealing with complex high-risk employee relations cases in a large complex organisation”
…an understanding on how to misinterpret employment law so high-risk employees can be dealt with in the most destructive manner. S/he may have a relevant degree or be on super special terms with the in-house employment lawyer, so s/he would KNOW!
“Experience managing large bundles of information and cases through ACAS conciliation and Employment Tribunals”,
…understand which parts of the “large bundles” should be dealt with and how, and which fingerprints are to be found where and when.
“Are resilient and confident in dealing with ambiguity and risk”
…be confident that in case of “ambiguity” the correct interpretation is always that which generates the greatest detriment to the complainant, and that risk includes what comes with free speech, disambiguation and the general pursuit of truth… regardless as to what any Statue might say.
Current HR colleagues are all reading this blog. Perhaps they’re cautious, or literally sick of the abuse. Others have already left for pastures more pleasant and more secure, and taken their witness accounts with them.
Known · 23 November 2025 at 21:46
“Who’s pulling the strings”
There are multiple separate reports of requests for GDPR disclosure being blocked on grounds of legal privilege.
This little fact can imply one and only one thing. Key figures in legal services – most certainly including the head of employment law – are either responsible for the coordination, or have been copied in to every communication, thereby making them complicit in retaliatory conduct.
21percent.org · 23 November 2025 at 23:50
A perceptive post
Corruption thrives where consequences don’t exist.
There are no consequences (so far) for the Head of Employment Law.
That’s why nothing changes.
Ben Foat · 24 November 2025 at 10:43
No consequences and no accountability. The head of legal services knows about retaliation against litigants and attempts to manipulate evidence yet he too denies the obligations of officers of the court to take appropriate action in response.
21percent.org · 22 November 2025 at 12:28
While academic jobs are shrinking because of budget cuts, opportunities are opening up elsewhere in the university. HR is expanding
https://www.cam.ac.uk/jobs/hr-business-partner-ah47852
https://www.cam.ac.uk/jobs/hr-case-manager-ah48001
Note especially the description of the case manager’s role:
” – A comprehensive and up-to-date understanding and practical application of UK employment law with significant experience in dealing with complex high-risk employee relations cases in a large complex organisation.
– Experience managing large bundles of information and cases through ACAS conciliation and Employment Tribunals.
– Resilient and confident in dealing with ambiguity and risk.”
Of course, the best way to deal with Employment Tribunals is to ensure that problems do not escalate and staff are not then compelled to raise matters at Tribunal.
TheResearcher · 22 November 2025 at 12:48
These adverts are missing a key line:
– Experience in delaying internal appeals regarding unfair dismissals beyond the 3-months deadline of the Employment Tribunal and not addressing the questions of dismissed staff while they wait for their appeal hearings, namely regarding the delay. This experience should be combined with the ability to write in the ET3 form when the process gets to the Tribunal that the claimant could have done a “Google search” to know the fixed deadline of the Employment Tribunal and that a waiting time of 6 months for appeal hearings related to unfair dismissals is not unreasonable at Cambridge.
Of course, they can also be trained on these skills at Cambridge, namely by the Lead HR Business Partner of the most discussed case in the 21 Group!
qwertzuio · 22 November 2025 at 15:39
For the university to waste even more money on lawyers and HR “case managers” is like a heart attack survivor stuffing his face with burgers while still in the emergency ward
asymptotic equilibrium · 22 November 2025 at 19:14
eventually there will be no academics left and it will just be HR filing grievances against each other
WITNESS · 22 November 2025 at 18:18
Prof Paul Pharoah witnessed the gigantic scandal at the School of Clinical Medicine and CRUK.
He wrote to the oligarchy:
1- that demonstrably false allegations had been made against a colleague.
2- when he reported this he was told he was biased and unreasonable.
3- when the University at the end of its own internal process exonerated his colleague he again wrote to the oligarchy and was again dismissed.
4- he was do disgusted by what he saw that it contributed majorly to his decision to leave UCam.
5- he continued to try to reason with UCam and also told the hierarchy that during the long process he had witnessed serious bullying committed by some of the main actors in the wrong process instigated against his colleague.
6- given continued dismissal of his concerns, including his reporting of very serious bulkying committed by senior members of the faculty, he decided to go public with a fraction of what he saw.
7- he was then threatened by the University lawyers paid by the public purse.
Collective trypanosomiasis · 22 November 2025 at 19:00
Outrageous.
the whole place is sleepwalking to disaster
TigerWhoCametoET · 22 November 2025 at 19:29
Is the information he made public still available somewhere? I was not aware of the details about the scandals at cancer research and clinical medicine.
21percent.org · 22 November 2025 at 19:39
https://21percent.org/?p=1371
It’s a huge scandal, slowly drifting through the courts and the tribunals.
We will be publicising the cases in due course.
TigerWhoCametoET · 22 November 2025 at 20:02
Thanks for the link. Still from the post is not clear exactly what happened and who was involved. Did Professor Pharoah remove his public statement after being threatened?
21percent.org · 22 November 2025 at 20:33
@Tiger, because many of the principal actors in the story are now lawyered up, the names of those who are involved can’t be disclosed at the moment on a public blog. They can be reported once the court cases begin.
Professor Pharaoh’s Twitter and more recently BlueSky account still give some details. On April 20th 2023, he tweeted
https://x.com/paulpharoah/status/1649129610779455490
“I have had a 30 year relationship with the University of Cambridge – 7 as a student and 23 as an employee. I had been proud of that association. Yesterday they abruptly terminated my visiting researcher status because I have had the temerity to speak out for the truth with regard to an investigation into research misconduct of a colleague. The actions of senior individuals in the University have been despicable. I was once proud of the University. No longer. DM me if you want the full story“
TigerWhoCametoET · 22 November 2025 at 20:55
When do the cases begin?
21percent.org · 22 November 2025 at 21:03
2026 … which is going to be a difficult year in the Employment Tribunals for the University
TheResearcher · 22 November 2025 at 21:31
One would think that by knowing these dates, UCam would refrain from further misconduct at least at this stage, but no, the senior management behaves as if they did not know what is about to happen and actively contribute to the decaying state of the institution. Very sensible!
21percent.org · 22 November 2025 at 21:51
Oxford West MP to challenge Oxford University Vice Chancellor Irene Tracey over sexual harassment failings
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-11-21/politician-to-question-oxford-university-over-harassment-record
We should be aiming to do the same to Deborah Prentice. She has a dreadful record of doing nothing and her university is about to be engulfed by multiple scandals.
Bullying & harassment in universities now warrants substantial parliamentary scrutiny by cross-party MPs. The sector has shown it cannot police or reform itself.
TheResearcher · 22 November 2025 at 21:59
“We should be aiming to do the same to Deborah Prentice, She has a dreadful record of doing nothing and her university is about to be engulfed by multiple scandals.”
Just tell me where I sign the petition! I am also happy to double check in her college if someone there wants to sign it too, but those I know do not seem keen. How odd!
Eileen Nugent · 23 November 2025 at 04:32
Work-related stress overwork type cases are one level of difficulty that organisations are struggling to deal with. Bullying/Harassment cases are a level of difficulty above work-related stress overwork cases. Sexual Harassment cases are the most difficult of all because that includes a class of cases where there might be a duty for someone other than the victim to report to the police and a victim might have a strong preference for not being alive when faced with a situation where they could be forced to acknowledge that an offence took place – not because the offence didn’t take place or that they don’t think people will believe them if they acknowledge that the offence took place but because they feel unable cope with the particular set of pressures that have been generated for them in that particular situation.
This is a fundamentally different situation to one where it is the victim who is reporting an offence to the police as in that case there is no loss of control associated with reporting the offence to the police to get a judgment of the situation. In the other case, where someone other than the victim is reporting to the police, the person thought that the loss of control they had to endure was limited to the loss of control in the offence situation and that this was all they had to survive to survive the situation but now there is the possibility of having to endure and survive a further loss of control in the situation in a high-profile public legal process that could drag out for years. These are not situations people want to have to relive in great detail in a high-profile public legal process, these are not memories people want to have, these are memories that people cannot erase even if they wanted to. It’s very difficult to comprehend the scale of the emotional pain that can be generated in some of these situations.
I see no problem with MPs challenging the leaders of organisations when there are problems that have the potential to have such a profound impact on peoples lives but people should understand that these are exceptionally difficult organisational challenges, it is exceptionally difficult to get effective case handling in place in an organisation that is capable of handling some of these situations and the organisation has to get it’s organisational response right in every individual case.
Eileen Nugent · 23 November 2025 at 04:59
I don’t think that people know what it is that they are dealing with when it comes to handling some of these cases because if they did know what they were dealing with it then would be clear that some of these cases cannot be handled in any other way than by engaging in effective cross-party collaboration to find effective collective responses in these cases.
Some cases demand political unity because they demand an exceptionally high level of political care and that can only be delivered when people across all political parties agree to work together in those cases that clearly demand an exceptionally high level of political care.
Eileen Nugent · 23 November 2025 at 05:10
Anyone could be impacted, there is no reason for there not to be political unity in the efforts to find effective collective responses in these cases.
MUSKETEER · 23 November 2025 at 06:43
21percent.org post:
“We should be aiming to do the same to Deborah Prentice. She has a dreadful record of doing nothing and her university is about to be engulfed by multiple scandals.”
It is not just her (a.k.a. the American Queen, also known as ‘Clueless’), is is the whole oligarchy cadre that rules as part of her regime:
-Pro-VCs
-Council
-Registrar
-Head of HR
-some Heads of School (including Prof Smallman)
-the cast of rogues (Prof Drinkalot, Prof Teflon, Prof Crookery, Prof ViciousWoman). Prof Bullshitmore is now gone but he was a member of the gang.
Eileen Nugent · 23 November 2025 at 06:59
These people are drowning in poorly organised information, in meetings, in committee commitments – the system is not caring for them and by that I don’t mean they are not being financially well compensated I mean they are not being given the systemic conditions in which they can do their job effectively and maintain their own health. The whole system needs adjustments and that demands a high level of political care and a high level of political unity – the system needs to be able to deliver effective responses to individuals when things are going wrong something which is unable to do now but could do with systemic adjustments.
Eileen Nugent · 23 November 2025 at 07:07
I’m not saying don’t find another head of department if a department is unhappy with the current head of department but don’t do that and not look at the conditions the head of department is working in because if there is a problem with the conditions the head of department is working in then finding another one might not then solve the problem.
21percent.org · 23 November 2025 at 10:22
The article by Katherine Griffiths about rampant sexual harassment in Oxford University has struck a chord.
We know of a number of victims of sexual harassment in Oxford are now writing to Layla Moran MP for Oxford West and Abingdon — who has taken an interest in this matter.
Where is Anneliese Dodds MP for Oxford East by the way? Has she commented on this matter yet? There is absolutely nothing on her Twitter feed.
We want to begin a concerted attempt to raise awareness of this issue of bullying in universities with MPs — this should be cross-party for maximum effect.
Please post suggestions here. Let’s strike while the iron is still hot.
TheResearcher · 23 November 2025 at 10:57
As I suggested when you first mentioned the article of Katherine Griffiths, we need an equivalent article for bullying and harassment in Cambridge as soon as possible. Waiting for the court/tribunal cases of 2026 allows UCam to continue their practices unchecked, which means more victims and damage. People who experienced serious abuses could sign a petition that could be brought to the MP, or be willing to contribute to the article similar to Katherine’s. As the 21 Group knows, I am very happy to contribute, and I have a lot to talk about. I could not care less about the enforced confidentiality of UCam as confidentiality is key to keep their system running as it does.
Uoo · 23 November 2025 at 12:16
If Annaliese Dodds refuses to speak out, perhaps you should reach out to whoever is challenging her in that constituency. I am sure they would now be very interested.
- · 23 November 2025 at 14:05
One very simple and practical suggestion I have is a change of language – we need to switch from talking about “bullying” (which is vague and gets little press interest compared to sexual harassment) to more concrete examples of the kind of awful conduct we are dealing with.
What we really mean is:
**** Retaliation against whistleblowers who called out violations of the law – including harassment, corruption, and abuse – and instead of being taken seriously, were instead subject to vexatious grievances, removal of grants and scholarships, and other awful acts by insiders within the system. ****
**** Cooptation of senior faculty, lawyers and HR to participate in acts of retaliation. ****
**** Refusal of management to listen to complaints when such behaviours were clearly brought to their review. ****
That is what we mean by bullying – not a few nasty words being said – but systematic and organised retaliation from high in the institution.
TheResearcher · 23 November 2025 at 14:29
I agree 100%. “Bullying” can mean many things, namely much softer than what many of us have/ had to put up with from UCam. “Systematic and organised retaliation” is far more appropriate. Incidentally, when I asked the Research Misconduct Office how exactly they defined “reprisals” that is in their own policy, namely “Improper dealing with allegations of misconduct: failing to address possible infringements, such as attempts to cover up misconduct and reprisals against whistleblowers, or failing to adhere appropriately to agreed procedures in the investigation of alleged Research Misconduct accepted as a condition of funding. Improper dealing with allegations of misconduct includes the inappropriate censoring of parties through the use of legal instruments, such as non-disclosure agreements,” the Head of Research Policy did not know!
21percent.org · 23 November 2025 at 10:39
Anneliese Dodds was a lecturer in Public Policy at King’s College London from 2007 to 2010 and a senior lecturer in Public Policy at Aston University from 2010 to 2014
She is a Visiting Fellow of Nuffield College, Oxford
https://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/people/profiles/anneliese-dodds/
Some reaction to what has been revealed at Oxford University might have been expected
Eileen Nugent · 23 November 2025 at 12:58
The change here is not that people won’t be dismissed from an organisation for doing things that are unacceptable and/or unsustainable in an organisation, the change is that a higher standard of care is applied in analysing a situation to understand its systemic context and ensure that the organisational actions being taken in relation to every individual are fair and reasonable.
If there is a major risk being generated for an organisation that major risk needs to be collectively regulated in the organisation. If in a particular situation there are people in key positions in the organisation in that particular situation who cannot work together with the rest of the organisation to collectively regulate a major risk for an organisation this is both unacceptable and unsustainable and dismissal in such cases can then be fair and reasonable. If the head of HR, the head of Legal and others handling a case e.g. head of department cannot work together in a situation to collectively regulate a major risk being generated for an organisation and that particular type of case handling fault also blocks the rest of the organisation from collectively regulating the major risk that then results in a significant problem for the whole organisation.
Eagle · 23 November 2025 at 13:20
The common theme running through all of these reports is that of negligence – of the institution as a a whole and members of the senior leadership specifically. I quote Raven above:
—————————-
“The American Queen and her crew are guilty of allowing things to happen which should NEVER happen, of refusing to intervene, to investigate and to draw obvious conclusions, and of delegating it to those who are causing the problems to “sort them out”.
It’s called dereliction of duty.
There is no oversight. Nobody takes responsibility.”
—————————-
1. There are multiple reports of cases referred to the Vice Chancellor and Pro-VCs (e.g. under Statute A IX) which did not receive appropriate consideration and may have resulted in subsequent further harm. This is failure to act reasonably in the face of foreseeable harm, and therefore, can be seen as acts of negligence.
2. Cases in which senior faculty were found guilty of sexual harassment by internal tribunals, let off the hook by disciplinary panels who had refused to take evidence from victims (e.g. the Andy Orchard case that is in the public domain), and may have contributed to additional acts of abuse against the same or other parties. This is failure to take reasonable action in the face of foreseeable future harm, and therefore, can be seen as acts of negligence.
3. The Regeni and Fishmongers’ Hall cases referenced above are new to me but they seem to suggest similar concerns around failure to act on foreseeable harm, and were also subject to negligence accusations (e.g. that made by Prof Acheson to the BBC).
4. Reports of internal grievance cases lasting more than 3 years at the University of Cambridge — a practice that seems clearly unreasonable in relation to any standard of due process, and if it has resulted in harm to the complaints, including career disruption or damage to health, has done so in an entirely foreseeable manner. This too would be negligence.
TheResearcher · 23 November 2025 at 14:18
@Eagle, I can confirm that the Master of my College, who is also a member of the University Council, told me that he does not know Statute A IX—despite being ceed in my representation to the Vice-Chancellor—and thus did not understand my concerns about his Fellow who ignores these representations. He also told me, “I urged you to focus on your studies and your health and to accept the help of people trying to help you,” right after telling me, in the presence of the Chaplain, that the world of the Senior Tutor was more important for him than my word and the evidence I sent him. What a leader!
Toxicologist · 23 November 2025 at 14:29
This is the guy who wrote a book on leadership ?
https://www.amazon.com/Leadership-Lessons-Diplomacy-Simon-Mcdonald/dp/1913368688
Amazon Review: “Promised a lot but didn’t dish the dirt”
TheResearcher · 23 November 2025 at 14:38
We can all write books about whatever we want. However, that does not mean we know anything about the topic. It seems that Amazon reviewer understood the book as disembodied, which does not surprise me at all.
Oversight · 23 November 2025 at 14:46
I was told from a well-placed source with an excellent record of public service that if there is a case that going to tribunal, then the VC will not get involved as a matter of policy – due to fear of being named herself in court (especially after failing to take appropriate action). Admittedly that is only hearsay so I would await authentication from origin before taking this as definitively true, in case of any misrepresentation. For now I note others are reporting that the VC was rendered aware of their own experiences and I hope can offer evidence of this. I hope any parliamentary hearing on this matter would address the matter of what information was known by her and what actions were taken in response, including holding accountable those delegated by her to handle such matters.
Any deliberate action or omission to act in order to avoid evidence of having been informed of a situation and/or taking responsibility in line with one’s duties should be viewed as a major oversight. The recent hearings in the Scottish Parliament dealt extensively with the issue of failure by VCs to exercise their duties of managerial diligence and audit. The same is true of the more extensive hearings concerning the Post Office scandal. Executives are paid high salaries on the expectation that they take ultimate responsibility for the actions of their delegates and this duty is one that can never be delegated.
21percent.org · 23 November 2025 at 15:00
“I was told from a well-placed source with an excellent record of public service that if there is a case that going to tribunal, then the VC will not get involved as a matter of policy – due to fear of being named herself in court (especially after failing to take appropriate action) … Admittedly that is only hearsay so I would await authentication from origin before taking this as definitively true, in case of any misrepresentation.”
We believe that this is incorrect.
Our understanding is that one of the Tribunals that will be heard in 2026 has the Vice Chancellor as a named defendant. Not merely will she be named in court, she will be cross-examined in court by a KC.
“Executives are paid high salaries on the expectation that they take ultimate responsibility for the actions of their delegates and this duty is one that can never be delegated.”
Excellently put.
Eileen Nugent · 23 November 2025 at 16:06
It is to preserve the operational stability of a whole organisation when it has autonomous subunits, one autonomous subunit can have a problem but that is contained in that subunit by those in the subunit and by the middle operational level of the organisation. If there is an intervention in an individual case it’s collectively controlled by the subunit to preserve the operational stability of the whole organisation.
N/A · 23 November 2025 at 16:29
This could actually explain a lot. If leadership knows there is a culture of retaliation and got burned in the past for failing to intervene properly and then referred to court then the lesson taken might have been to “delegate everything then feign ignorance” paula vennells style. But that’s the wrong lesson because it is a worse dereliction of duty – the right approach would be to get involved further and identify and fix the issues properly as should have been the case first time around. The consequence of that failure is to have allowed ever more and even worse cases pile up.
Eileen Nugent · 23 November 2025 at 16:31
This is the way it works, I work to preserve my own health and the health of others in the high risk situation. I go to the level of the organisation where there is the optimal chance of determining an effective collective response in the situation – e.g. the head of department/head of college level – because that is the level that has the collective control of the high risk situation. To preserve the operational stability of the organisation that is the level that is named. I have to care about the operational stability of the organisation if I want to care about the health of others in the organisation. If I am expecting others to care about my health then I have to care about the health of others.
Eileen Nugent · 23 November 2025 at 16:38
This isn’t about getting executives to take ultimate responsibility for the actions of their delegates – it’s about getting people in an organisation to take responsibility for their own health and helping people to understand that in order for others to care about our health we have to care about the health of others.
Eileen Nugent · 23 November 2025 at 17:14
This is a real culture shift, every member of the organisation has to understand it, every member of the organisation has to know that the right approach to handling an individual case. This is why I tried so hard to raise concerns internally in the department because regulation of the risk at that level was critical to dealing with the high-risk situation and to unlocking an intervention from the VC in a way that minimised the risk of destabilising the operation of the whole organisation.
It’s not about feigning ignorance and it’s not about dereliction of duty it’s about collective organisational learning of how to manage collective organisational health risks. A VC should never be put in this position by an organisation. Cambridge can throw the statues and ordinances at people when there is an organisational problem but in the end if doing that does not fix the organisational problem then what are the statutes and ordinances actually being used for.
Eileen Nugent · 23 November 2025 at 17:47
Knowing what I know now if I were in that situation again I would have gone to the Cavendish Professor in Physics and pointed out the risks to the department and the risks to the organisation in that situation and it’s possible they could then have agreed to help and then accurately represented the department in the situation for the purposes of working together with the head of house to determine an effective university-college response in the situation and then asking for an intervention from the VC that didn’t put the VC in a position that they should never be put in. That could have been a temporary solution to deal with the situation whilst the organisation was collectively learning how to manage these organisational risks in ways that are sustainable for the organisation.
This is a real culture shift, every member of the organisation has to understand these risks at every level in the organisation, the risks an organisation can create for an individual and the risks an individual can in turn create for an organisation.
Eileen Nugent · 23 November 2025 at 18:06
That was my gut instinct of who I should go to in the department at the time but at that stage I couldn’t explain all the risks – individual, department, college, university – in that situation which is what stopped me from doing that.
This is a real culture shift because had I understood all the risks in that situation then I could have explained them to others and that would have enabled others to collectively help in the situation in ways that didn’t put others in difficult positions. Had others in the organisation understood all the risks in the type of situation I was in then I would never have been put in that situation.
Eileen Nugent · 23 November 2025 at 18:24
Organisations have nothing to fear from someone who values their own health and also values the health of others, if an organisation is fair and reasonable to them they will be fair and reasonable to the organisation and if they don’t make it in the high-risk situation then there is nothing more the organisation or anyone in the organisation could have done in that high-risk situation. I live the life I have and I go wherever life takes me and I don’t worry too much about what my life could have been and where life could have taken me.
Eileen Nugent · 23 November 2025 at 19:15
This is a real culture shift, there is significant learning required in this culture shift but when that learning is done a person is safer in any organisation they are in, others are safer in the organisation and the whole organisation is safer. Had I done this learning before I entered Cambridge I would have had the ability to prevent this high-risk situation from emerging in Cambridge and that would have been one less individual case for Cambridge. This was extremely useful learning to have done and I am glad that I have done this learning.
Eileen Nugent · 23 November 2025 at 20:17
Cambridge is not the post office, it is capable of analysing and rectifying its own internal organisational faults and there is no Paula Vennells in Cambridge. Cambridge is not Dundee University, it is capable of managing its own internal financial affairs. Cambridge is capable of collective organisational learning in a high-risk situation because people in Cambridge are capable of learning in a high-risk situation. If you miss key differences in a situation you can miss key solutions in a situation. The organisation can handle this situation but it must collectively learn how to value health in the situation in order to handle the situation in a safe way.
TheResearcher · 23 November 2025 at 16:32
“the VC will not get involved as a matter of policy”
@Oversight, just to be clear, the representation under Statute A IX is to be sent directly to the Vice-Chancellor. She is expected to reply and cannot simply ignore it because she is concerned of being involved. Of course, if the University does not want to investigate the matters because it will require more concealing and manipulation of information, the best approach from their point of view is simply ignoring the formal representation under Statute A IX, as well as ignoring whistleblowing disclosures or safeguarding referrals.
21percent.org · 23 November 2025 at 16:43
There is evidence here about what is happening
https://21percent.org/?p=1239
The HR Administrator who gave the 21 Group this information formerly worked at Cambridge University
21percent.org · 23 November 2025 at 16:58
Any members of University HR who are unhappy with what is going on are welcome to contact the 21 Group in complete confidence
As in the UKRI scandal, we suspect there are bullying victims within HR itself.
We never make information public without explicit permission.
We never, ever divulge names without explicit permission.
TheResearcher · 23 November 2025 at 17:08
Yes, I know that story. It is very unfortunate that there are not more people from HR (and from OSCCA!!) contacting the 21 Group to report their experiences. I do not doubt there are good people working in these divisions, but all those who I know from there, and I have interacted with very many in the last 29 months, have actively contributed to the cover up with further concealing and manipulation of information. Sooner of later the circus will end, and those who choose the silence now will one day be asked ‘HOW Could You Not Have Known?’ as Paula Vennells was asked.
Blown · 23 November 2025 at 18:48
Those quotes (https://21percent.org/?p=1239) are wild. Once they and others are ready to speak out to the press like that the Cambridge whistle-blower retaliation scandal is going to be an earthquake and probably long overdue.
Eileen Nugent · 23 November 2025 at 14:09
The organisation was relying on someone in an operational role having the time and being able to do the analysis that I did just to get started on fixing the organisational problem. It took me more than a decade and multiple mental breakdowns just to understand the organisational problem.
Eileen Nugent · 23 November 2025 at 14:22
I am not in Cambridge. I am neutral with respect to Cambridge. I am offering an independent judgment as someone who was in one of these high risk situations in Cambridge and who had to learn how to effectively manage the risks in that high risk situation to successfully exit it in a way the both minimised the risk to my own health and the risk to the health of others in the organisation. I value my health and I value health of others.
Eileen Nugent · 23 November 2025 at 14:36
I had legal obligations to the university, that meant I had to continuously balance the two sides of the equation in that high risk situation, I had to continuously reach this point of neutrality with respect to Cambridge. I had to protect both myself and others in Cambridge in that high risk situation and I had to find a way to effectively manage the risks in that high risk situation.
Eileen Nugent · 23 November 2025 at 15:10
Clearly something has gone wrong in that department where the whole group was impacted. The head of department didn’t value their own health and the health of others in that situation. Speaking as someone who has had to learn these lessons in prolonged conditions of high-risk – how to value your own health and the health of others – these are not easy lessons to learn in conditions of high-risk. If there is a problem with a PI, that PI is not their group and their group are members of the department and that situation needs to be managed in a way the values the health of all members of the department. Departments in Cambridge want to manage their own affairs, they don’t want to listen to anyone else in the university when it comes to their managing their own affairs, well these are the lessons it takes for departments to be able to do that.
Eileen Nugent · 23 November 2025 at 15:26
Each college, each department, each institute has to sort itself out and put an effective head in place one that can accurately represent it in the wider university – the HR/Lead operational risk in the centre of the organisation then has to be dealt with and that will take all the heads of all the colleges, departments and institutes working together with the senior leaders in the university.
SPARTACUS · 24 November 2025 at 02:59
“That is what we mean by bullying – not a few nasty words being said – but systematic and organised retaliation from high in the institution”
This summarises the modus operandi of UCam perfectly! Once the oligarchy decides someone’s fate the machine will then start a systematic process of bullying and intimidation to break its chosen victim. And nothing will stop them, including destroying world-leading research and the careers of multiple young researchers! The School of Clinical Medicine/ CRUK scandal, which at some point will become public knowledge, is a prime example. ET and the Courts will reveal all!
IMAGINARY · 24 November 2025 at 12:36
Quotes from an earlier blig and how they apply to UCam:
“There’s a charmed circle of senior management and Heads of School. They’re untouchable as well. Don’t bother complaining about behaviour of members of the charmed circle. It is you who will be investigated.”
PROF SMALLMAN AND PROF TEFLON ARE PART OF THIS CIRCLE
“The HR Director doesn’t believe in evidence. She thinks that it’s not needed for an HR investigation into you. Normally, she appoints a patsy or ‘tame academic’ to conduct the investigation. The ‘right conclusion’ is whispered into the patsy’s ear.”
EXAMPLES OF PATSYS AT UCAM: PROF CROOKERY AND PROF BULLSHITMORE.
“The entire Grievance system is corrupt. The HR Director and other powerful members of the HR department have their favourites who will always be exonerated. And they have a blacklist of those who have crossed them. If you’re on the blacklist, heaven help you.”
PROF DRINKALOT, PROF SMALLMAN, PROF TEFLON AND PROF VICIOUSWOMAN ARE EXAMPMES OF THIS.
“We purposefully do everything slow. It’s not unusual for our HR investigations to take 2 or 3 years. We know it grinds our victims down. Whatever timescale is written in the policies, it’s fantasy.”
INDEED. SCHOOL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE USES THIS STRATEGY THIS EXTENSIVELY!!
Absolutely pointless · 24 November 2025 at 13:01
As the founder of this group points out in the Times Higher Education article, bullying is a feature of UK research institutes, not a bug. Therefore, it is almost impossible to change toxic cultures or bring perpetrators to account.
It is a colossal waste of time and energy to try to do so, because these institutions do not want change and will resist it at every moment. Tragically, there will be more victims and more suicides, but that is what these institutions actually prefer rather than change.
Invade Mecum · 24 November 2025 at 14:29
“Impossible to change toxic cultures or bring perpetrators to account””
Understand your frustration. But given the wave of resignations and widespread coverage of harassment scandals at Oxford this week I would say it is both possible and actual
TheResearcher · 24 November 2025 at 15:44
“It is a colossal waste of time and energy to try to do so, because these institutions do not want change and will resist it at every moment.”
I strongly disagree with the first part of this statement, even though I agree with the second part. It is precisely because institutions do not want to change that we cannot let it go, not necessarily for us who already experienced the malpractices and know how the system runs, but because of all those who do not know yet and can be victims of it. We may well not be able to force institutions to change, but I strongly believe that it is our responsibility to expose them at the very least, even if it comes to detriment to us. I can give you a long list of reprisals that UCam is currently doing to me, but I can assure you that I will never let this go regardless of what they do to me.
Please consider contributing to the moment and share your experiences at least to the 21 Group because it is vital that we show the systemic nature of the abuses.
Anon · 24 November 2025 at 18:44
Put yourself in their position for just one moment. You know there is all this bad stuff from the past. When you joined the university maybe you felt uncomfortable about the ways things were done and you knew for a fact that it was wrong. You knew in your previous institution that things were not done like that because if they had, then there would have been consequences.
So ok, you felt like that during your first year. But everyone reassured how things had always been done this way and it was always fine. Eventually it seemed that must be true, because by your second year you had seen a few cases come and go and just like people said, nothing got exposed. They told you a few stories about the cases of yesteryear and the near misses. So now you are involved in the same activities you felt bad about. The lying, the poison pills, the concealment of evidence, and culture of retaliation.
But still, a part of you remains worried. Was it really always like this? Was it this bad? What happens if someone on the inside speaks out? How do I explain myself if so? What if the university is not able to settle these or people simply say “no”? What if the press really digs in? What if we cannot control the social media and global narrative? What if the law disallows NDAs? What if people are able to join the dots from one case to the next?
Imaginary · 24 November 2025 at 20:14
Booooooooooooooooom!