Harvard Business School is well-known for its case-based learning model, which includes real-world examples of companies and organisations that failed.
Universities are brand-driven institutions. Brand-dependent organizations unravel quickly when misconduct and corruption is exposed. The 21 Group predicts in ten years time, there will be Harvard Business School MBA course on “The Decline and Fall of Consigliere University”.
This is what the next few months hold
Two leading members of Consigliere University’s Human Resources and Legal divisions are facing charges of defamation and malicious falsehood after doctoring references in a promotion case involving a junior Professor. The matter throws into question the integrity of promotion processes at Consigliere. Junior faculty who don’t toe the line can be managed out of contention for promotion through reputational damage inflicted under the guise of due process.
A major whistleblowing scandal is about to break involving the two most senior administrators at Consigliere University, the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar. Instead of protecting the whistleblower who intervened to protect the life of an individual, they pursued him with the help of trumped-up allegations from a Professor “in their pocket”. When the whistleblower sued for defamation, the University paid the legal fees of the compliant Professor, while distancing itself from any responsibility for the harm caused. They lost. The senior administrators are now facing allegations of misuse of public funds and governance failure, as well as violations of the Public Interest Disclosure Act.
Another major scandal is poised to erupt following the dismantling of a leading medical research group on the basis of completely false allegations. Consigliere University’s Human Resources department aligned itself with the bullies and perpetrators, as usual. The senior Professor concerned has initiated High Court proceedings after severe disruption to his research career. The contracts of multiple postdoctoral researchers and graduate students were terminated when the University shut down the entire research group under false pretences.
The HR Director at Consigliere University has stated she doesn’t believe in getting evidence before launching a major disciplinary process. She prefers instead to let the machinery grind first and find the evidence later. Elsewhere, this might raise concerns about procedural fairness, but at Consigliere it’s deemed to fall comfortably within accepted custom, requiring neither explanation nor remedy!
A major plagiarism scandal is on the brink of breaking at Consigliere University. One of the institution’s celebrated young ‘media stars’, widely promoted as a story of redemption and intellectual brilliance after a difficult start in life, is now at the centre of serious allegations. Like other stories people were eager to believe, the myth has eclipsed the evidence. The Professor’s PhD thesis contains substantial plagiarism; several published papers lack supporting data; and there are claims of routine appropriation of students’ and other academics’ work. Despite this, the pro-Vice Chancellor of Narrative Control at Consigliere — invested in the cultivated image — has continued to support him vigorously. The University has retained high-profile legal representation and reputation consultants to burnish the image.
The ever-gullible pro-VC of Stakeholder Engagement at Consigliere breezily reassures everyone that there is “nothing to see here,” all the while keeping one eye on the exit. He’s marking time, hoping a VC post elsewhere materialises before all the scandals finally surface and blow his career to smithereens.
Meanwhile, salaries at Consigliere have gone through the roof — for those at the top, not for those doing teaching, mentoring & research, natch. Over the five-year period from 2019 to 2024, the total of staff on basic salary above £150,000 increased from 35 to 170. This has resulted in an increase in total compensation to senior staff from ~£7 million to ~£35 million — a nearly 5-fold increase. The Vice Chancellor of Consigliere University has benefited handsomely from this era of fiscal enlightenment.
We are coming to the end of 2025, which was the ‘Year of the Snake’.
2026 is the ‘Year of the Fire Horse’. Let the Fire Horses be unleashed at Consigliere University.
I would be very happy to contribute to the MBA course of the Harvard Business School “The Decline and Fall of Consigliere University”. I hope it will be available shortly!
Of course, the 21 Group could have mentioned many more stories, namely regarding the pathetic “free speech” that exists at Consigliere University where some members were forbidden from contacting hundreds of people, their ability to use their @cam account was limited, their posts were deleted, and the topics they can discuss with some members were pre-determined, all this on the watch of tens of people, including the most senior members of the University and those expected to upholding freedom of speech in the Consigliere University. What a pathetic place the Consigliere University became!
Please do not forget to contact your MPs regarding your experiences, namely at the Consigliere University. You may want to consider contacting sooner rather than later so that it may be consider in the upcoming debate on the merits of a statutory duty of care for universities:
https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/202/backbench-business-committee/news/211081/mps-to-hold-a-debate-on-potential-merits-of-a-statutory-duty-of-care-for-universities/
Oh yes indeed — there are many, many more problems at Consigliere University.
We will all be lecturing on Harvard’s MBA course.
If they manage to somehow turn this mess around that would be an amazing Case Study too though
This is very true. If they pull it off, I would be willing to do the converse Harvard’s MBA course, “Consigliere University and the survival of the corrupt,” namely if the classes were given by the Director of HR of the Consigliere University and her best friend, the most discussed Lead HR Business Partner in the 21 Group. I promise I would attend all lectures and ask some engaging questions! They would love me as a student.
Please consider reporting your experiences publicly in 2026 if you have not done it yet. The Consigliere University will only survival the coming year if we follow the enforced confidentiality they expect from us. Follow the advice of the Pro-Vice Chancellors of the Consigliere University and “Break the Silence”!
Bloody right!
Literally laughed out loud: Consigliere University
First part = brilliant part.
Second part = hilarious and prophetic.
‘Universities are brand-driven institutions. Brand-dependent organizations unravel quickly when misconduct and corruption is exposed. The 21 Group predicts in ten years time, there will be Harvard Business School MBA course on “The Decline and Fall of Consigliere University”.’
And that graphic with the fire horse!
Agreed. Truly a landmark Case Study. Up there with the Post Office, Boeing, Tesla and Theranos. All not only assigned reading in business school but public interest too (Netflix documentaries etc). “Consigliere” case compelling for just how much it generalizes to broader cultures of management failure. Poor internal communications, rampant conflicts of interest, lack of oversight mechanisms, depressing management complacency.
The TumourResearch UK and the WellDeparted Trust must be very happy with the huge amounts of funding they send to Consiglieri University!
The Tweeter/X of the 21 Group has a new post “Voice of Victim” that really smells Consiglieri University. Can someone tell the victim the next stage? It is rather straightforward. If they continue complaining, they will be investigated for abusive behaviour, the University will try to silence them and ultimately will try to get rid of them. My response to the Consiglieri University has been to become increasingly more vocal and if you can afford doing it, please do it as otherwise Consiglieri University will continue the malpractices, namely against whistleblowers. The list of incompetent and corrupt people at Consiglieri University is much longer than the one mentioned by the victim below and equally concerning is the number of people aware of the malpractices that look the other way.
“My grievance went from the HR Business Manager
to the HR Director,
to the Registrar,
to the Pro-Vice-Chancellor,
and finally to the Vice-Chancellor herself.
Each time I thought: ‘now the adults have entered the room — now this will be sorted’
It never was””
“Each time I thought: ‘now the adults have entered the room — now this will be sorted’
And each time the “adults”, entered the room they allowed the “child” to excuse its misdeeds, its lies, its abuses of trust and explain them away.
The child’s excuses and explanations became their own, for which they took responsibility in their responses, so the complainant would go away.
And so, the child could go on with its misdeeds and its lies and its abuses of trust, and now add to it retaliation with more lies and even more detrimental abuse, so the complainant would or could complain no more.
I wish the behaviours seen in Consigliere University were just childish. Children can apologize when they are shown that they did something wrong and do not engage in organized retaliation against those who report misconduct. We do not see this in the Consigliere University. Unfortunately, it is pretty clear that the managers of this University lost core values, namely dignity and ethics, and there is no more hope for them in the University. If they had any self-respect, they would “step-down” as their Registrary recently did, unlikely for having self-respect to be sure, but for being pushed out or to limit the impact of her actions that will hopefully become public in 2026.
The antics of those in charge have infantilised us all
There is immaturity, and there is sociopathology.
Bless the children.
Get the sociopaths out of leadership positions.
This refers to yet another example of Gross Institutional Negligence in a Formal Grievance procedure at Consigliere University.
We heard it at a New Years’ Eve Party … teeming with interested journalists 😉
The people responsible for this corruption at Consigliere are there for the taking. We can do this.
The “funny” thing is that the behavioural patterns of Consigliere University’s managers are so basic and repetitive that it is now easy to predict what they do when they receive a report of misconduct, whatever the evidence that comes with it. My main question when I read the victim’s report was if the “HR Business Manager” is the Lead Business Partner more discussed in the 21 Group. If it is, I can even predict her discourse to the victim. Someone should tell her that the year of the Snake is now over… I am tempted!
What they do turns on one question: do we like the accused?
If the accused is a friend and/or an academic on a pedestal who could play the race card, they will dismiss the case no matter its merit and no matter the number of less powerful university members affected.
If the accused is an enemy, they will advance the case, however frivolous or retaliatory, whitewash professional bullying and either fire the academic or destroy his/her health in the ‘investigation’ process until he/she cannot practice anymore.
There is a saying in education that the worst teachers are the best at keeping their jobs. It applies to Consigliere except usually they are promoted.
A number of journalists are circling. Names of many of these people are well-known.
This could happen very quickly — it just takes one trigger
Really hard to read all this. I’ve been here for 20 years and it’s so sad to see how far we have fallen
From @21percent X:
“The University hired an independent investigator to look at my Grievance
The investigator upheld 5 out of 6 of my allegations
Nonetheless, the University dismissed my Grievance
Process is crooked, place is corrupt”
This modus operandi is what has been the norm at UCam! They just copy Consiglieri University!
In the School of Clinical Medicine gigantic scandal ongoing since 2020 this template was repeated several times!
@For Justice, I like the use of “copy” in UCam “copy Consiglieri University”!
When I read that “Voice of Victim” in X, I thought this smells like UCam….
Another Voice of Victim in X. The 21 Group is on fire in 2026! Let’s go! The question is the same: is the “HR Business Partner” mentioned by this victim the Lead HR Business Partner most discussed in the 21 Group? How many people already complained about her and the HR Director, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for University Community and Engagement, and all the others keep protecting her? How is it possible they do not see this is seriously pathetic and they cannot cover it up for much longer?
“I raised a Grievance about the HR Business Partner at my University with the HR Director
Then the Pro-VC. The Registrar. The VC
All of them asked the HR Business Partner to draft their responses
Universities — where ‘procedural fairness’ goes to die””
If there is evidence that others, especially conflicted individuals, have been drafting responses of the Vice Chancellor, then the VC is in very, very serious trouble.
We don’t pay £500 k a year for poor behaviour like that.
@Xerxes, it is not clear to me that the VC ever drafts her own letters in the context of reports of misconduct, namely the formal representations under Statute AIX. The one I received from her seems to have been drafted by the Director of Legal Services as given by its metadata, a person who I contacted multiple times in the last 30 months asking some questions and he never replied. This response from the VC was nevertheless striking as I had been told that I could not contact the VC for any reason, not only by OSCCA but also by my college (including the Master, the Senior Tutor, and 3 other Senior Fellows; later, all the College Council became aware of the situation as well), and I had further reprisals after I submitted my representation under Statute AIX. When a member of the University Council became interested in my case after I talked in the Senate House in early November and enquired the Pro-Vice Chancellors and the Director of Governance and Compliance, namely about why my formal representation under Statute AIX had not been addressed, a few days after the “VC” replied, dismissing all my claims, including the issue of a whistleblowing disclosure and safeguarding referral that had been dismissed by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for University Community and Engagement without any investigation and following the word—yes, the word!—of the most conflicted person possible, the most discussed Lead HR Business Partner in the 21 Group.
Guess what. I asked OSCCA, my College, and the VC’s office why I had been given incorrect and misleading information about my ability to submit a formal representation under Statute AIX and the fact I even had further reprisals after I submitted it. No one ever replied. OSCCA not only ignored these (and my past) questions but continued, and continues, to harass me with their sham investigation against me for “vexatious behaviour.”
I am expecting a cease-and-desist letter from Carter-Ruck at any moment. Stay tuned as I will let you all know once I do. We need to know who will pay that bill!
How many others have been told not to contact X, Y, Z person who is in a position of authority and is accountable?
It’s a mystery where the university gets these strategies. They use the same ones over and over on different whistleblowers.
To a certain extent universities have always struggled with reciprocity, setting up an academic community that is based on reciprocal relationships between the organisation & every one of its individual members & between individual members in the organisation. As increasing numbers of people have entered into universities increased demand for permanent academic posts has been generated and this has not been met with an increase in permanent academic posts. The precarious early-career stage of academia has therefore increased in length, the percentage academic work done by those who will never be permanent academics has increased and the percentage of people who work in academia for significant amounts of time – decades – before being left with no viable option for continuation in academia without getting a permanent post in academia has increased. Now degree(s) bring less opportunities for a person overall & universities are prepared to make permanent academics redundant so the end goal itself – stability of working conditions & academic freedom to pursue an academic interest over a longer timescale (decades) – looks increasing unattainable and also unsustainable if ever attained. It used to be possible to achieve the optimal conditions for academic work in a university but now universities are continuously draining the mental energy of significant numbers of people by training people to do things for them that they will then actively resist a person doing. It’s unclear where there is currently any advantage to being in a university in terms of achieving the optimal conditions for academic work.
What this combination of factors means is that reciprocity in academia is at an all time low – an individuals probability of setting up a reciprocal relationship with a university and other members of the university where a mutual benefit is derived from the relationship is decreasing. If a person is sensitive to the needs of a university & responds to them, the university is now less likely to reciprocate. That then sets the overall culture, if a person are sensitive to the needs of other members of the university, other members of the university are less likely to reciprocate. Remaining sensitive to the needs of the organisation or other members of the organisation when everyone in the organisation is becoming insensitive to the needs of the organisation and the needs of other members of the organisation then poses a high health risk as the person starts encountering increasing levels of unpredictable work-related stress from an increasing numbers of sources in the university. The current conditions mean that it is much harder to build a functioning academic community. Being inside a university used to mean being a member of a functioning academic community but now it just means choosing between two options (i) either isolating yourself to protect your health or (2) accepting a high and increasing health risk to stay part of a functional academic community that is continuously shrinking and a smaller and smaller proportion of the total membership of the university.
Brilliant.
Cambridge is reliant on having significant numbers of fixed-term researchers that it forms relationships of low reciprocity with – i.e. people in employment positions where the university will take very little account of a person’s academic trajectory when taking employment decisions in relation to the person & where the university will be fairly insensitive to the persons needs – that this skews the reciprocity of the whole organisation. The central university also finds it difficult maintain reciprocal relationships with its constituent colleges & solve common challenges for the mutual benefit of the university, college, staff & students. Some colleges are left without permanent academics in certain subjects which impacts the strength and stability of the college community in that subject. The central university will block college efforts to support people to correct that imbalance whilst also taking very little action to correct that imbalance itself. It is possible that some of the colleges have better functional relationships with all the other colleges in the collegiate University than the central university currently has with all the colleges – i.e. maintain relationships with a higher reciprocity with all other colleges than the central university does with all the colleges.
If a person is on a fixed-term contract in Cambridge & wants to make it to a permanent academic post anywhere (including Cambridge) one move that can cause significant problems is to be responsive to the needs of Cambridge University. This is taken as a sign of weakness, replaceability & low value to the university. Being responsive to the needs of a college in Cambridge is different & it’s possible a college will reciprocate but being responsive to the needs of the central university has the potential to degrade a persons working conditions & reduce a persons overall probability of making it out of fixed-term contracts & having a successful career in academia. Organisations typically tend to value the people who are responsive to the needs of the organisation but in Cambridge it’s the opposite, not being responsive to the needs of the organisation is seen as a sign of higher strength, irreplaceability & value to the University.
” in Cambridge it’s the opposite, not being responsive to the needs of the organisation is seen as a sign of higher strength, irreplaceability & value to the University”
People who don’t care about the values of the institution or its mission statement won’t make a fuss if they’re not adhered to, so long as they keep their jobs and get a perk or two. They’ll be the darlings of HR and senior management, compliant, potentially useful hands against those who dare to speak up – against the abuses of HR and senior management, which go against the values of the institution.
It’s perversion in the truest sense of the word.
“People who don’t care about the values of the institution or its mission statement won’t make a fuss if they’re not adhered to, so long as they keep their jobs and get a perk or two.”
They get it to work a few times & then think it’s a sustainable strategy going forward but I don’t think that it is a sustainable strategy in Cambridge. Look at the history of Cambridge and the people that it has historically attracted & try to imagine any one of them being compliant. Being conscientious can often be mistaken for being compliant until a particular situation breaks that underlying symmetry & distinguishes between the two, lifting that degeneracy.
Wittgenstein signing a non-disclosure agreement to receive financial compensation to stay silent in a whistleblowing situation.
Is it possible to influence a person who has already given away a fortune and who is not afraid to quit any prestigious role if that is what their conscience demands? Is it possible to control a person who is actively engaged in a constant complex struggle for self-control? Is it possible to silence a person who has already acquired an ability to continuously live in the presence of exceptionally strong emotions? It is possible to overcome the will of a person whose depth of will to live has been constantly challenged & increased by the internal workings of their own mind?
Nothing has really changed in Cambridge, Cambridge doesn’t tend to attract people who are compliant. While the people Cambridge tends to attract might gravitate towards environments with a set of rules that is continuously maintained in a highly rational state & where it is therefore possible to continuously be compliant & to also maintain a mind in a healthy state this is fundamentally different to being compliant i.e. tending to accept & obey a set of rules irrespective of the rationality state of the particular set of rules something what has to be continuously evaluated with respect to the ongoing environmental conditions.
It is important for HR to realise when they are applying a strategy that temporarily works but contains a contradiction which implies that it is unlikely to be a sustainable strategy over longer timescales. Most people in universities understand that money can be obtained more easily outside a university that in one, that prestigious positions come in many different forms & can also be gained more easily outside a university than in one.
A rational environment where it is possible to keep a mind in a health state, to have an original thought & to share that original thought with others who might also be interested in that original thought is more difficult to come by outside a university. A bribery process the destroys the only effective bribe for the group of people it is being applied to – a safe space to think, a place for a mind to be as free as possible to embark on the discovery of new information – is unlikely to function well as a bribery process.
The Director of HR approaches Isaac Newton to apply its new dignity at work process – Newton responds with the underlying physics of dignity as a property of an interaction between humans. Carter Ruck contacts Silvia Plath to silence a complaint against the university – Platt responds by immortalising the legal correspondence in a new literary work.
In the year of the fire horse, we should get on with the Cambridge Fables!
They come with envelopes,
Nazis are
Clicking their jaws on vowels.
Carter-Stuck:
Tongue pinned to the floor
Like a moth under glass.
Their stationery is enough—
Cream paper. Colour of bone,
A watermark like ash
This is not censorship,
This is a managing,
This is a tidying.
We are protecting
The fragile porcelain,
Already cracked, priceless.
We beg to inform you …
Conscientiousness is acceptable and appreciated only if the recipient of the conscientiousness is a friend of the administration rather than an adversary. When conscientiousness is shown toward a person/group considered to be adversarial by the administration, conscientiousness will be seen as a negative characteristic in anyone showing it. So conscientiousness equally applied is not considered to be acceptable at Cambridge by the admin.
The word could also be replaced with ‘commitment to research integrity.’
It’s surprising the number of different aspects of the functioning of a university its overall reciprocity structure impacts. For example ‘widening participation’ is typically thought of as something that an organisation does for a person but a person with a ‘widening participation’ background can also choose an organisation that optimises their overall probability of success by looking at the organisations overall reciprocity structure and evaluating it for the specific career stage they are at and future career stages. Effective widening participation is about an organisation setting up a reciprocal relationship with a person, not over-exploiting a person for organisational gain nor making a person unnecessarily dependent on an organisation, it’s about achieving the right balance & a continuous reciprocal relationship with the person.
This organisation is more capable of responding in situations where a persons health needs change significantly – offers a further first opportunity for examination in case of a health emergency – than this other organisation. The first organisation has a higher capacity overall organisational capacity to set up and maintain a continuous reciprocal relationship with a person & all other factors being equal is where someone with a “widening participation” has the higher probability of success. Continuously maintaining health is crucial to continuously maintaining relationships with high levels of reciprocity.
Relationships low on reciprocity – being overexploited by an organisation [or another person in an organisation] or becoming overly dependent on an organisation [or another person in an organisation] – both have the potential to cause significant problems for a person because there will then be a gap between a persons true ability/effort & outcomes in relation to them on paper & in life.
If a person becomes overly dependent on a high competitive organisation this has the potential to cause the most significant problems because a person can then acquire a high inflated estimation of their value to others. Errors in a persons estimation of their value to others is something that its much easier for a person to correct in one direction – revise up – than in the other direction – revise down.
To make precise measurements with a microscope that reflect the real physical characteristics of the objects being imaged it is necessary to first calibrate the microscope i.e. to image a precise micrometer slide with the microscope & then link the distances being seen under the microscope [imaged distances] with the real world distances.
To align a system of work-related stress measurement – individuals, organisations, regulators, courts – & calibrate it to accurately examine work-related stress cases it is necessary to examine a precise legal case to link the work-related stress measurements been made using the system of examination with the real world stresses & health impact in the case.
For work-related stress regulation to be beneficial for society & for it to dramatically improve the overall functioning of society the system of measurement of work-related stress has to be accurate otherwise this type of regulation has the potential to increase societal stress & reduce the overall functioning of society.
When calibrating a microscope with a microscope slide the interest is not in the features of the microscope slide, the interest is in linking the features observed in the image of the slide – distances between points – with the real physical features of the slide. Similarly the examination of a precise legal case to align a system of work-related stress measurement & to calibrate it when it is first being introduced has a completely different set of interests & aims to the examination of other legal cases.
Examination of a calibration legal case does not produce legally binding judgements or result in any legal precedents being made – the function of this type of examination is to set the system up to make more precise legally binding judgements & legal precedents. The conditions for this type of examination are therefore different to the examination of a legal case where a legally binding judgement is being made and a legal precedent could be set.
The examination of a calibration legal case is done in conditions that reduce the overall probability of any form of bias entering into the examination of a calibration legal case. The evaluation conditions are : maximisation of trust in examination of a calibration case, maximisation of cooperation in examination of a calibration case, maximisation of independence of judgement of each individual involved in the examination of a calibration case with respect to examination of the calibration case. Minimisation of the probability of external interference in the examination of a calibration case.
The examination of such a calibration legal case is done purely in the public interest – i.e. in conditions where every individual interest can effectively filtered out because no legally binding judgment is being made & there is no possibility of any legal precedent being set – to set the system to make the most precise judgements possible with the overall aim of minimising stress on society by maximising the probability that every judgement made with the legal system with respect to a particular issue is accurate something which would improve the overall function of society.
It is particularly important to do this calibration of the legal system for work-related stress regulation cases because whilst accurate work-related stress judgements will will minimise work-related stress in society & maximise societal productivity inaccurate judgments have the potential to do the exact opposite. In addition the evaluation of mental health impact is a significant component of measuring work-related stress & it is crucial that any information with respect to mental health that enters into a legal system is as accurate as possible otherwise the rationality state of society will start to decline, societal stress will then increase & the overall function of society will decrease.
The ultimate aim is to minimise the risk of this type of legal case – work-related stress regulation – being generated for the legal system i.e. to prevent the occurrence of a particular type of injustice by having a legal system in place that can accurately measure & explain that particular type of injustice and which can further rationalise its judgments in relation to that particular legal problem in a form that individuals/organisations can analyse & internalise to avoid subjecting other individuals/organisations to similar injustices to those that have already occurred in other cases. This type of feedback from the legal system forms the basis of improving workplace politics & effective workplace politics forms the basis of delivering continuous justice in the workplace.
Law is now moving to a new higher level of precision & politics must then follow suit and also move to a new higher level of precision. The principles of both will stay the same i.e. in some ways everything will stay as it ever was (the substance of law and politics is not going to change) – but the level of precision that can be applied in both law and politics is now changing & how things are done (legal and political processes) will thus need to change to support that new higher level of precision possible in both i.e. in some ways both law and politics will change dramatically, both will advance driven by the availability of new technology & that will make it possible for societies to reach a higher state of societal functionality.
There is now an opportunity for a society to set up a tailored/functional reciprocal relationship with every member of society & for members of a society to set up better reciprocal relationships with each other. Inaccurate law & politics operating in a society has the potential to cause unnecessary individual suffering for members of that society but accurate law & politics operating in a society has the potential to minimise unnecessary individual suffering for members of that society. The more accurate the law & politics operating in a society the higher the ability of that society to solve its societal problems, meet the needs of every individual member in that society & give every individual the maximum freedom possible to pursue individual interests without getting in the way of other individuals also pursuing their individual interests in that society.
There are two ways to dispense with law – precise politics (law not needed because the political processes are so efficient) or grossly imprecise politics (law no longer possible because the political processes are so inefficient) – one way yields a far better level of societal functioning than the other.
Politicians can make mistakes, this does not mean they intended harm anyone or that they are not capable of learning from these mistakes & improving their society above what would have been possible had they not made those mistakes and engaged in that new learning as a result of making these mistakes.
Politicians operate in different societies, each society has its own set of challenges & it is more challenging to be effective as a politician in some societies than others depending on the state the society is in when the politician gets elected & the complexity of the society & the state and complexity of its relationships with other societies.
People in different societies need & want different things from their society, expect a different relationships with society, need & want different things from other members of their society & have different expectations as to their relationships with different members of society.
Efficient political processes with low reliance on legal processes for the smooth functioning of society = highest level of societal function. Lowest societal energy expenditure to run in this state.
Inefficient political processes but legal processes remain efficient with low reliance on military/coordinated police processes for the smooth functioning of society = next highest level of societal function. Next lowest societal energy expenditure to run in this state. It is possible for society to return to a state of efficient political processes from this state.
Complete reliance on military processes/coordinated police processes = lowest level of societal function & last remaining safeguard for a society to keep functioning as a society until legal processes can be restored to an efficient state of function followed by political processes being restored to an efficient state of function. Highest energy expenditure to run in this state – most unsustainable state for any society to run in.
References to the rule of law – I think what that really means is staying in this efficient politics regime i.e. precise political processes operating in a society that are producing accurate political decisions so that society remains in a high functioning state & continuously runs with the lowest energy expenditure.
If a society has efficient political processes i.e. manages to set up a functioning reciprocal relationship with every single one (or high fraction) of its members (a reciprocal relationship that is unique to each member) and most of a societies members also manage to set up functioning reciprocal relationships with other members of a society the overall functioning of that society will tend towards a maximum & the energy cost associated with achieving that high level of societal function will tend towards a minimum.
People in a society running in such state are prepared to work with society and with other people to ensure societal needs are met with the minimum of societal effort thereby maximising the probability that everyone then has their maximum freedom to pursue their own individual interests & do so in ways that also allow others to pursue their own individual interests & that are not detrimental to the overall functioning of society.
Military (if society has one) has : to be sufficient in number, actively maintain its capability & continuously update its equipment to ensure continuous ability to defend of the societal territory in the event of an invasion i.e. in the event placed in a reciprocal threat situation in the societal territory by the entrance of an external military force into the societal territory.
Military personnel have absolute human rights that a society also needs to respect in addition to respecting the absolute human rights of all its civilians. Military are differentiated from civilians in that particular type of situation – invasion of societal territory – as unlike civilians they are the ones that are being placed in a reciprocal threat situation & considered legitimate targets by any external military force.
Make no mistake a war state is an inefficient societal state for any society to become stuck in & there is nothing that a society could achieve in a war state that it could not more easily & efficiently achieve in a peace state.
I think what is typically missing from human rights analysis is the absolute frame of reference.
If a person was the only human on this earth and there were no other humans to uphold their human rights then there is no other option but for the person to work to the best of their ability to set up the most reciprocal relationship possible with their external physical environment. That is what enables a person to continuously uphold their own absolute human rights & to maximise their own right to life i.e. the length of their own continued existence in that external physical environment.
The person basically has to get to know their external physical environment in great detail to be able to accurately predict it in order to live their longest possible life in it. That basic task underpinning the upholding of absolute human rights doesn’t go away when there are more humans, it just becomes a collective task for the whole of humanity. People working to the best of their ability to take good care of each other and also of their own physical environment is rational, it’s common sense.
Societies may need to extract significant amounts of natural resources to continuously become more advanced societies but this should not come at the expense of allowing the physical environment to continuously degrade because that unsustainable approach to natural resource extraction will make it more difficult for the whole of humanity to continuously maintain an ongoing reciprocal relationship with its physical environment which is the basis of the most fundamental task for collective humanity – continuously upholding the most fundamental absolute human right – the right to life.
Information transfer energy gains made possible by technology – the development of fast media networks that are capable of transferring accurate information at scale & at speed – would have a more significant impact on the overall quality of peoples lives if these information transfer gains were concentrated on tasks that every nation can engage in autonomously at the level of the nation & which if undertaken simultaneously would produce and improvement the overall health of both humanity and its physical environment.
Some feel that continuously maintaining a reciprocal relationship with the physical environment is an overly difficult task. In some sense it is now an unnecessarily difficult task due to the significant amounts of false/inaccurate information that have accumulated in relation to this task because of imprecisely regulated systems i.e. the task is now a two-fold task (i) clean up the information in relation to the task to accurately determine the extent of the problem & (ii) find the most precise solutions to the now accurately determined problem.
Others in addition think that this is optional task & therefore not worth doing as it is also in the category of overly difficult tasks – but this is only an optional task for those who have no interest in living and in life itself – anyone with a strong will to live naturally understands that this is not an optional task.
This statement is nothing new in substance, it’s just a very formal way of stating what has already been stated in countless societies & cultures. This includes Native American tribes some of whom had quite advanced reasoning with respect to this particular fundamental survival instinct. This is what you would expect of any group of people who are continuously forced to work to the maximum of their ability to survive in the increasingly harsh/unpredictable physical environments they are encountering in the process of trying to escape external threats that are continuously driving them from more optimal physical environments. The harsher the physical environment, the greater the depth of knowledge people have to acquire about the physical environment to learn to continuously survive in it, the stronger this particular survival instinct becomes which is then followed by an increase in ability to reason with respect to the survival instinct.
“Military personnel have absolute human rights that a society also needs to respect in addition to respecting the absolute human rights of all its civilians. Military are differentiated from civilians in that particular type of situation – invasion of societal territory – as unlike civilians they are the ones that are being placed in a reciprocal threat situation & considered legitimate targets by any external military force.”
One would think that the most precise moral reasoning in a society should be found in the legal profession but it is the military where the most precise moral reasoning is demanded to effectively safeguard any society. Selecting military personnel for moral reasoning capability is what offers maximum protection to any society as this is what maximises military capability to effectively stabilise a society in any societal crisis. It is the possession of the most precise moral reasoning during times of societal crisis that enables those in the military to bring a society back to judicial stabilisation & towards full political stabilisation as quickly as possible – i.e. to get a society back to a state where it can run efficiently as a society again as quickly as possible thus exiting any high-risk societal situation in the most efficient manner possible.
In any rational society – one focussed on maximising the probability of its own continued existence – the highest moral precision should be found in military personnel & this is only possible if military personnel are trained to continuously sustain exceptionally high levels of physical & mental health. Military personnel would need to be tested in a range of situations from low-risk civilian situations where absolute moral sensitivity – moral precision – can be tested to exceptionally high-risk situations where ability to maintain exceptional moral precision under extreme pressure is tested. This is the section of society that should be most capable of dealing with every form of abuse from another individual without resorting to any form of abuse of another individual i.e. of efficiently stopping the propagation of any form of abuse through a civilian population. It is only possible for a person to stop the propagation of every form of abuse through a civilian population if the person is capable of recognising every form of abuse, of understanding every form of abuse, of working across different moral scales where the severity of abuse in a situation is varying, of varying moral sensitivity to a particular form of abuse in response to the particular needs of a situation, of precisely counteracting abuse.
Military personnel should be the most unbiased people in a society, the least likely to subject anyone to any form of unnecessary discrimination in a society, the least likely to subject anyone to any form abuse in a society, the most mentally stable individuals in a society & the most physically fit individuals in a society. The ability of military personnel to maximally defend all life in a society continuously rests on the ability of military personnel to maximally defend their own life. A life not continuously defended by continuously working to maximise health – both physical & mental health – cannot be defended with weapons. A weapon that is not coupled to a continuously healthy mind is not a weapon that will ever defend a life – not the life of the person coupled to that weapon themselves nor the life of any other person in the same society.
Some people look at those who unnecessarily kill, imprison, torture, rape, beat, abuse, intimidate, kidnap, starve, bomb & terrorise others & think that is what real power looks like but this is what power incoherence looks like, this is what power dissipation looks like & this is what power decay looks like. Real power is coherent power & coherent power does none of these things, coherent power has no such power dissipation events, coherent power permits a society to grow and advance & coherent power grows & advances with a society as it grows and advances.
Past actions cannot be changed but past actions can now be more accurately understood than what as possible in the past which means that future actions need not be prisoners of past actions and better future actions are possible.
International communication services & infrastructure offer a valuable additional layer of robustness in the communication services & infrastructure of any country but are not a direct replacement for critical national communication services & infrastructure. For a country to derive the intended benefit from international communication services & infrastructure – increased accuracy & robustness of both national (internal) and international (external) communication – international services and infrastructure would need to operate as an additional layer – a checking layer – on top of & running in parallel to critical national communication services & infrastructure and not as a direct replacement for critical national communication services & infrastructure.
The worst position any country could end up in is to become completely reliant on international communication services & infrastructure because these were seen as a direct replacement for critical national communication services & infrastructure by people in that country & were therefore allowed by that country to directly compete with critical national communication services and infrastructure. Direct competition of international layers of communication with national layers of communication will starve critical national communication services & infrastructure of the continuous ongoing resources necessary to maintain a country in a state where it can continuously ensure the accuracy and robustness of its national (internal) communication independent of any international communication services & infrastructure. This is the exact opposite of a country having a robust national communication system because the operation the national communication layer is then vulnerable to the operation of the international communication layer whereas in a robust national communication system this would not be the case.
It’s the same principle for national information storage systems.
It’s the same principle for national energy systems.
International systems that operate as an additional layer – checking/buffering layer – on top of & running in parallel to national systems increase the robustness of national systems. This enables a country to build more accurate national systems i.e. international systems provide a buffer for national systems to continuously learn without the risk of an existential crisis being triggered if the learning that a national system does proves to be inaccurate and a correction to a national system is then required to return that national system to a more accurate and functional state.
International systems that operate as direct replacements for national systems decrease the robustness of national systems because the operation of national systems is then vulnerable to the operation of international systems and instead of having a more accurate and robust national system all a country has is a system that is less accurate national system & one which is entirely dependent on & vulnerable to the operation of international systems.
International systems can be used by a country to greatly increase national independence & national sovereignty or they can be misused by a country something which has the potential to result in a complete loss of national independence & national sovereignty.
It’s like entering a university learning environment that also offers access to the most cutting edge AI available during the university learning process – that combined opportunity if used well could maximise a persons learning accuracy & independence of thought but if misused could do the exact opposite – reduce a persons learning accuracy and robustness of learning with the further potential to induce a state of complete dependence on the thoughts of others leaving a person more vulnerable to the thinking errors of other people.
Each person has a learning system that operates at the level of the self [an auto-didactic learning system] and a learning system operating at the level of the university and/or an AI learning system can be used to tune that learning system operating at the level of the self to increase its accuracy – i.e. maximise a persons learning accuracy and independence of thought – so long as these systems run on top of and in parallel with the auto-didactic learning system operating at the level of the self and not as a direct substitute for the autodidactic learning system.
Human rights, high levels of independence of thought, high levels of self-regulation – these are all compatible with the operation of strong, stable & healthy societies. A person does not have to be told to care for others in a society, that people should care for a society or that a society should care for its people for a person to do so.
A mind that is free has the flexibility to find the most efficient internal governance states for itself. In going through that process of discovering the most efficient internal governance states for itself the mind is also building the capability to evaluate the efficiency of external governance states – those of an organisation or a society – and to recognise the existence & characteristics of governance states that are extremely efficient to run in.
A society where people care for each other, where people care for society and where society cares for its people is a society operating in an efficient governance state.
That is energy minimisation, that is the hard sciences, that is physics.
Generating a rational argument to underpin something a person has always strongly felt to be true doesn’t make a person a cold or uncaring person who is without strong feelings and who in the absence of that rational argument would not feel the exact same way and also act in accordance with those feelings – it just means that a person has taken more care to understand the rational basis of any feelings they have and any actions they take on the basis of those feelings to ensure that they are taking the best actions possible in any situation.
Societal power is maximised by maximising the number of independent thinkers (self regulators) a society can raise within itself because this is what maximises the amount of true information a society holds about itself. Societal structures that support the development of self-regulation at all levels of society are what is required to maximise the absolute power of any society.
True self regulation is possible if a person holds true information about themselves, about other people in a society they are interacting with & about the society they are interacting with. A state of self regulation is something a person must continuously discover for themselves, it is not a state that one person or group of people can impose on another person by force, it is instead a state that one person or group of people can demonstrate to another person by example.
Freedom is a state of interacting with others in a society, with a society and with a physical environment on the basis of true information, of having frictionless interactions with the external world.
A state of freedom is a state that a person must continuously obtain for themselves, it is not a state that others can give a person.
Societies can try to prevent a person in a society from accessing the “information” available to a society but this “information” that society can control a persons access to is a tiny fraction of the information a person already has access to, the information inside each and every person.
The idea that a subsection of society can prevent all its people from accessing “information” and can in that way control “truth” in a society, that this will improve the overall functioning of a society & that this will increase the speed of advancement of a society fails to take into account that each and every person has access to far more information internally than any “information” a society chooses to make available or unavailable to a person. If the “information” being presented as “true” to a person does not correlate with all the other information a person has access to internally then the person will sense that the there is a problem with this information i.e. that there is inaccurate information somewhere.
Controlling access to “information” in a society makes very little sense because all this will do is lead to greater information inaccuracy in a society. Building education systems where people have access to all the information a society has access to and are free to explore for themselves whether this information is accurate or not makes more sense because this is what will ultimately lead to greater information accuracy in a society & to the continuous elimination of inaccurate information.
It can take years for a person to build an accurate representation of e.g. an atom at the level of the consciousness such that is possible to sense whether the information being generated at that level correlates with all the other information available to a person internally. Education is not something that a person can achieve overnight.
Did anyone bully or harass Einstein, did anyone threaten him with a gun, did anyone imprison him, did anyone torture him, did anyone physically beat him, did anyone rape him, did anyone starve him, did anyone mentally abuse him to get his greatest scientific works out of him – no – because human progress cannot be made by people applying these type of actions to other people. Einstein was free to work on what interested him – which happened to be physics – and it was in those conditions that new scientific knowledge emerged & that human progress was made.
The same reasoning can be applied to Marie Curie, the greatest scientific works are born & the most human progress is made in conditions of freedom to pursue individual interests and freedom to be oneself.
If a society gives a person the freedom to pursue their interests and the freedom to be oneself – provides that level of care for an person – a person won’t have to be told to care for the society that has given them that level of care as a person. No one has to tell a person in that position to care for others in that society or to care for that society as whole. If a whole society treats a person with dignity and respect that will be reciprocated and the person will treat that whole society with dignity and respect.
If that person then travels to other societies that person will then understand this principle & will apply it in respect those other societies.
For those who have not experienced the increase in resistance – change in harshness – of the physical environment, who’ve have not therefore formed this survival instinct by direct exposure to changes in the physical environment there is the development of advanced reasoning with respect to the survival instinct formed. There are the stories that people tell to plant the seeds of the same survival instinct in others so that others will then recognise an increase in resistance of the physical environment for what it is & act sooner than they would have without exposure to that advanced reasoning to get to know their physical environment in greater depth – stories that are passed down through the generations – a form of protective inoculation to reduce the risk to the lives of future generations in similar circumstances.
Sometimes people can feel that a new constraint is coming into play in their lives without being able to identify the source of that constraint. Sometimes people can feel that the level of control they have over their own lives has decreased, that their individual freedom has decreased without being able to fully understand why that has happened. Some people can only conceive of decreases individual freedom as the intentional acts of other people but a change in the state of the physical environment can constrain the actions of an entire group of people all the way up to & including the leader of that group and reduce all their individual freedoms in synchronisation. People typically look to other people for the source of authority but sometimes the authority at play – the one driving all the changes in peoples lives – is the physical environment.
A negative shift in a physical environment can push around a whole group of people and have no mercy on any of them. It is necessary to understand the physical environment in great detail in order to continuously exist in the physical environment and effectively respond to the physical environment as it continuously changes.
Sometimes it is necessary to follow a situation & not the actions of other people in a situation in order to fully understand whether a situation is the source of decreases in individual freedom or whether peoples inaccurate understanding of a situation is what is limiting individual freedom. Physical environmental constraints are hard constraints & no amount of inaccurate representation of a hard physical constraint can change it but precise physical modelling of hard physical constraints can enable precise sensing & navigation of it enabling human responses to changes in the physical environment that maximise individual freedom & ensure a continuous upholding of absolute human rights during them.
War states have the potential to change the physical environment faster & in greater dept making it much harsher & more difficult to predict far above any corresponding changes that would have occurred during peace states. The aftermath of a prolonged war state – widespread chaos & disorganisation – is not conducive to the in-depth modelling of the physical environment that would be required to restore the physical environment to the habitable state that it would have been in had the war state not been entered into & a peace state been maintained. War states can result in many generations of whole groups of people struggling to ensure that even their most basic absolute human right – the right to life – is upheld without which other less fundamental human rights cannot be upheld.
Having problems at UCam? Then go to the website to learn how to boost your life! Feeling better now? Good- the American Queen is delighted! So are all the crooks!
Is this the joke you mean?
https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/boost-body-and-mind-2026
If I had to guess, it was written by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for University Community and Engagement. As he does not seem to have time to address whistleblowing disclosures and safeguarding referrals for months, I am sure he has been doing something really important such as writing this web page during all this time!
Prof ViciousWoman
Prof Drinkalot
Prof Teflon
Prof Crookery
Prof Smallman
They will continue to boost the life at UCam in 2026. Prof Bullshitmore is sorry to be gone!
UCAm is holding a “Discussion of the Regent House” on Tuesday 13 January regarding the Future of the Vet School. Incidentally, 13 January is also the day when the MPs will hold a debate in Westminster Hall on the merits of a statutory duty of care for universities. Do we know if it was HR/OSCCA/Senior Leadership who suggested the date for the debate about the future of the Vet School and when it was suggested? I know for a fact that they already know that several Cambridge students contacted the MPs regarding their upcoming debate…
[…] 21 Group predicted that 2026 would be the Year of Scandals for Cambridge University. Those scandals are now arriving thick and […]