The Streisand Effect refers to the phenomenon whereby attempts to suppress information instead amplify it.
For Barbra Streisand, it arose from a privacy claim over a photograph of her Malibu residence. Image 3850 (shown) of the California Coastal Records Project had been downloaded only six times prior to Streisand’s privacy lawsuit, two of those being by Streisand’s attorneys. After public knowledge of the lawsuit, 420000 people downloaded it the following month.
Similar dynamics can occur in universities. In Employment Tribunals, when cases are particularly sensitive, institutions may seek to suppress information through gag orders, reporting restrictions, or complete anonymity for the respondents, departments, or the university itself.
Academia, however, is international. US media are not bound by UK gagging orders and the First Amendment offers strong protections for free speech. In practice, such orders often backfire, drawing more attention to the story. Canadian and EU media can similarly choose to ignore UK injunctions. Since Brexit, UK court orders no longer carry automatic force under EU law, and they do not even extend to the Republic of Ireland!
Historically, Oxford has been one of the top ‘gaggers’, at least according to The Times.
In late 2025, embarrassed by events at the Saïd Business School, Oxford University successfully asked an Employment Tribunal to grant anonymity to the institution and several employees. The order meant that media reports could not name the perpetrator or the university. The request was reportedly made to protect the institution’s reputation and the identities of staff involved. The order was granted without a hearing, without stated reasons and without giving media organisations any opportunity to challenge it, raising grave concerns about the principle of open justice.
Given the levels of mistreatment, it’s hard to be shocked about what goes on in UK universities, even Oxford.
However, events at the Saïd Business School were genuinely very shocking. Prof Soumitra Dutta propositioned a junior academic when she went to him for support having reported being raped. Rather than addressing its problems with sexual harassment, Oxford focused on suppressing the information.
After the order became known, it attracted criticism from journalists and legal commentators as a gross breach of the principles of open justice, especially given the context of harassment allegations. The gag was widely breached and most people knew or guessed anyhow, especially given Oxford’s long history of sexual harassment (see Al Jazeera here). Eventually, Oxford withdrew its request for anonymity, allowing the university to be named publicly in connection with the tribunal proceedings, as stated in The Times.
This episode underscores the difficulty of controlling information in an international academic environment. Media and commentators outside the UK are not constrained by UK legal or institutional pressures. Attempts to suppress information can backfire, drawing broader attention and calls for greater transparency and accountability, as recorded by Cherwell here.
“The Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor have serious questions to answer about the type of university they are running, whether it is one that protects its own students and staff, or its reputation.” [Quoted in Cherwell]
The Chancellor of Oxford has indeed come under increasing criticism. In 2012, William Hague teamed with Angelina Jolie to launch the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative, earning global praise and international awards (Champions for Change Award for Leadership from the International Centre for Research on Women and the Hillary R Clinton Award for Advancing Women in Peace and Security). Yet when grave sexual misconduct occurred under his watch at Oxford, he bravely said and did nothing. Fancy awards are one thing, action in the University quite another!
The 21 Group knows of further gagged Tribunals proceedings at UK Universities and we will report on them in due course.
As regards Cambridge, attempts to impose any ‘gagging orders’ would now be open to an obvious public interest defence. The astonishing performance of the University in The Financial Times employer’s rankings now makes it perfect defensible to argue that press coverage of bullying and victimisation are a matter of general public interest. After all, the FT’s top Employer of the Year — with a perfect score of 100 — should not be trying to escape any scrutiny. It’s perfect, so what on earth has it got to hide?
(The image is Copyright (C) 2002 Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, California CoastalRecords Project, www.californiacoastline.org. It is shared under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0).
45 Comments
TheResearcher · 14 March 2026 at 20:04
I think that the managers of UCam would not consider gagging the upcoming cases in the Employment Tribunal as they hopefully realized by now that it would be a waste of money and it would make the situation worse. They surely know that Cambridge is full of researchers who can publish the material in other countries not bound by UK gagging. But let’s wait because our managers have shown that they can surprise us! It would actually be hilarious if they genuinely thought they could gag what is coming.
MUSKETEER · 14 March 2026 at 20:31
Wait until Court cases will allow everyone to finally know who these characters are:
Prof Smallman
Prof Teflon
Prof ViciousWoman
Prof Drinkalot
Prof Crookery
Prof Bullshitmore
Tic toc tic toc toc toc tic toc
MalibuStacy · 14 March 2026 at 20:47
There is also a cumulative Streisand effect that is well known in journalism – that the more stories any individual or organization manages to get spiked, the bigger the eventual deluge.
ThickOfIt · 14 March 2026 at 21:09
Malcolm Tucker in Comms has spiked three or four huge stories in the last 9 months. There’s a biblical coming.
Crossest_Man_in_Glasgow · 14 March 2026 at 21:37
“There’s a fucking deluge coming. Not a drizzle, not a polite little Oxford sprinkle — a full-blown wall of water with all our fucking names written on it. And what are you doing? Exchanging Oxbridge pleasantries about whether there’s room on the Vice-Chancellor’s concrete canoe and whether you prefer sherry or port.
By the time you fuckers stop polishing each other up, the water will be up to your necks and you’ll still be asking whether it needs to go through the HR committee first.
And you know exactly what that means — six months of procedural bollocks and every last wanker saying we’re top of the employers survey whoopee before anyone even gets to the words “you’re fucking exonerated, you didn’t do all that fucking really bad stuff everyone knows you did.”
So let me simplify this for you: the flood is coming, the dam is cracking, and if you don’t move the fuck now the only thing left floating around here will be your internal body parts. Remember, she can piss off back to Jersey, but we’re all stuck here”
MrX · 15 March 2026 at 10:04
“you’re fucking exonerated, you didn’t do all that fucking really bad stuff everyone knows you did”
Jamie seems to be fully aware of the true function of the HR Committee.
S.O.S. · 14 March 2026 at 22:12
If they’d let one or two through it would have given time to learn, fix and course correct. What’s sad here is that leadership thinks it has course corrected- when the icebergs are now in fact right in view right now and they have no idea what’s coming
~Inf · 14 March 2026 at 22:31
I feel like the problem being illustrated is how in large bureaucracies, everyone follows a playbook and charges their fee even though the rules have completely changed and the strategy is terrible. The PR / legal consultants are still following this playbook in a world where it clearly doesn’t work and just made things worse.
21percent.org · 15 March 2026 at 11:34
It’s relevant to point out that the naming of Prof Soumitra Dutta in the US was important
It spurred American academics to point out that Prof Dutta had stepped down from leadership of Cornell Business School under abrupt & unusual circumstances
https://www.cornellsun.com/article/2018/02/former-business-dean-to-stay-at-cornell-as-professor-following-unexplained-resignation
This was finally confirmed to be due to sexual harassment.
201 · 15 March 2026 at 12:15
That is a very important ethical point. When you cover up one scandal then you are responsible for the pain of the next victim.
TheResearcher · 15 March 2026 at 15:32
One can, of course, wonder why the ex-Registrary of UCam Ms Emma Rampton stepped down abruptly in December 2025 and if it is related to the up-coming Tribunal/Court cases, but it is rather remarkable that we are not seeing more activity in Cambridge from other senior members as if they are thinking that what they did will not be known, or that they can simply jump to another position and the Cambridge community will ignore it. I really hope that people do not continue to look the other way after what is coming, but many have shown, over and over and with evidence in their faces, they have other priorities.
? · 15 March 2026 at 22:10
It wasn’t really abrupt, more like a slow motion train crash – off work, but not off, not resigning but not staying. I suspect it is the same saga with the rest except they are still on board as we reach Final Destination
n/a · 16 March 2026 at 09:48
How very apt. A series of catastrophic errors due to individual bungling and negligence. Pretty much sums up the state of the world these days. Not to mention the misdeeds of HR.
herpetologist · 16 March 2026 at 12:52
Problems were
1 Gradual realization in University that she was responsible for poor finances, having spent way too much,
2 Hugh HR messes which she countenanced,
3 No money meant no more ambitious plans for reimagining this or restructuring that,
4 Instead, there was increasing pressure to deliver on some of the promises,
5 Hardly anyone liked her, not even the VC in the end.
When work goes sour for a workaholic, it can hit much harder than it would for someone who doesn’t tie their identity so strongly to their job. They get emotional crash/identity crisis/depression
Hopefully, it’s an opportunity for a reset to a healthier & better life
TheResearcher · 16 March 2026 at 12:08
Why is our Chancellor criticizing the government but did not yet find the time to address what he has in his own University?
(https://www.ft.com/content/dc86ce80-86ab-45a1-83ff-abf7cc3a1fb2)
But this is the section that distressed me the most, “Asked about his hopes for his decade-long term as the 109th chancellor, Smith said he wanted to “make sure the university is as committed to freedom of speech and academic freedom as it is now”
Oh boy, I guess I will have to send another email to FT and cc Lord Smith!
Standards · 17 March 2026 at 10:11
To be fair, he could hardly admit to what he knows about scandals within the university. I sense the backdrop here was the embarrassment of the Vet school saga: if the government simply paid universities the true cost to educate each student then Council would never have come up with the silly decision to shut them down.
I am more concerned by why we have had no full apology or resignation from the Oxford Chancellor. If it happened in a government ministry then the minister would be out within the first 24 hours. Plenty of people took the can over Mandelson, so why are universities held to a lower standard of integrity when it comes to abuse of young women?
21percent.org · 17 March 2026 at 19:16
There’s far, far worse to come out at Oxford, implicating some very senior people in the hushing up of abuse.
There’s a very efficient injunction in place 😉
Agreed — William Hague should have spoken out, given his “strong stance” on these matters
Read All About It · 18 March 2026 at 08:30
Trying to suppress these things simply drags in out over multiple news cycles every time there is a pause in other news. Each time it is a fresh headline. It is like they have learned nothing from Epstein or the Post Office and are determined to make it a decade long rolling story.
21percent.org · 18 March 2026 at 08:58
One of the main problems of senior management at Cambridge University is arrogance (at least under the regime of the previous Registrary)
Any interaction between management and academics is characterised by extreme haughtiness. Regent House is treated with disdain, as a special interest group.
“We have nothing to learn, we can do what we want“.
All of us must really hope things improve under the new Registrary. The right appointment could transform matters.
TheResearcher · 18 March 2026 at 09:26
Blaming the ex-Registrary is exactly what the senior management want. I fully disagree with the idea that the current state of UCam is the result one or a few individuals. It was not Ms Rampton who told the Pro-Vice Chancellor Prof. Kamal Munir too dismiss, without any investigation, whistleblowing disclosures and safeguarding referrals to protect the most discussed Lead HR Business Partner in the 21 Group, or told the Vice-Chancellor Prof. Deborah Prentice to ignore a formal representation under Statute AIX for months and only reply (or to ask the Director of the Legal Services to reply) after a member of the Council enquired about the matter, nor told the Academic Secretary Dr Michael Glover to use the Special Ordinance D against a student and without doing it properly such as forgetting to tell the University Council and the General Board that he had decided to use this special ordinance and an extreme number of “precautionary measures” as it is expected from the rules of the Ordinance. Long-story short, these (and many others!) individuals are no better than Ms Rampton. It is an illusion to think that things in UCam will change while these people remain in power positions as they will continue to cover up the problems, namely those where they are/were involved.
It is really sad for me to see what is happening in Oxford because I had very good memories from it, namely from the College of their Vice-Chancellor, but Cambridge urgently needs the exposure of the allegations of bullying and harassment that have been covered up for years, not only by the University but by Colleges as well, namely the College of our Vice-Chancellor. Students and junior members really need to know that happens if they report on bullying and harassment from senior members, how policies are ignored or changed and how they became subjects of retaliation if they persevere.
Oubliette · 19 March 2026 at 19:52
I find it depressing that people cannot simply state the facts around the cover-up operation and who was involved. It seems obviously a public interest matter, because it is not about any specific allegations, but rather the integrity of procedures that are meant to protect students, staff and the law. I question why any judge this side of Moscow would approve a restriction on such matters? After all, the harassment scandals are public knowledge, so it seems highly undemocratic after that point has arrived to prevent an open dialogue about what went wrong and how to fix it?
21percent.org · 20 March 2026 at 07:24
… it is not about any specific allegations, but rather the integrity of procedures that are meant to protect students, staff and the law.
This is the core issue. It is not about badly behaving Professors
It is about the integrity of the procedures that protect students & staff
The Responsible Person in many of these Grievances is well aware that serious miscarriages of justice are occurring
The Responsible Person is usually highly intelligent — yet he or she just goes along with procedures that they can see are immoral, defective or unjust.
In many ways, the Responsible Persons are more culpable that the badly behaving Professors. They permit the system to run unchecked.
(In the Cambridge system, the Responsible Person is an uninvolved academic who is required to give judgment on any Grievance, after consideration of a Report (which in some cases they may have written, in some cases is written by another investigator).
TheResearcher · 17 March 2026 at 19:16
Lord Chris Smith knows that UCam is not “committed to freedom of speech” when the topic is bullying and harrassment. Therefore, he cannot simply say it is. Unless, of course, he thinks that a UCam student who is prohibited from talking to hundreds of University members, has his @cam accessibility limited, his emails screened and reviewed, his post in our social network deleted and the topics of his conversations with senior members pre-selected by the University, has “freedom of speech.” And yes, Lord Smith is fully aware of these and related incidents, from multiple routes.
Eileen Nugent · 20 March 2026 at 13:24
“if the government simply paid universities the true cost to educate each student then Council would never have come up with the silly decision to shut them down.”
Not even about deciding who bears the burden of paying for the education of critical national workers – individual receiving education or the state – it’s that not accepting the true cost of educating critical national workers at the expected & necessary high standard is not changing the true cost of their education. Not accepting true cost is just resulting in people – individuals delivering education – who should not be paying a persistent true-cost deficit in education being left bearing the brunt of that true-cost deficit of education through instability of working conditions, instability of housing, instability of finances, instability of health, instability in children’s education conditions – unnecessary school moves.
People persistently left in that position by the lack of acknowledgement of the true cost of education are more vulnerable to every profit shark in the country – abuse-of-fixed-term-contract-temporary-worker employers, no-fault-eviction-tenant-flipping profiteers, high-interest-high-aggression-high-probability-of-permanent-trapping-people lenders, overpaid-lower-than-NHS-care-standards private healthcare providers only made necessary by long NHS waiting lists & need for swift medical treatment at any care standard to prevent health from spiralling & continuously survive exceptional amounts of stress emanating from instability of working conditions.
Eileen Nugent · 20 March 2026 at 13:47
As soon as one profit shark e.g. abuse-of-fixed-term-contract-temporary-worker employer gets hold of person – university applies undue pressure to force person from being employee on £45k to being worker on <£10k – chances of another profit shark getting hold of person – no-fault-eviction-tenant-flipping profiteer increase, and then another : work-related stress ill health generated by working conditions instability takes person to private healthcare provider but overpriced interaction still not stopping person losing job for raising concerns on unnecessary work-related stress on which keeping other jobs also depends … which are then also lost … which increases work-related stress ….. cascade of increasing vulnerability & increasing probability of entering a state of dependence on others and/or state which is nucleated by a lack of acceptance of the true cost of higher education.
SPARTACUS · 17 March 2026 at 20:24
Lord Smith has decided to take Nero’s approach: play the lyre while watching Rome burn. He has lost already the opportunity to take a stand! He is now complicit with the oligarchy! Shame!
A. · 18 March 2026 at 12:53
The issue is that the behaviour hasn’t really stopped. It became institutionalised, and key figures of the status quo ante are still there. These things do not really change until it becomes clear that there are real consequences for all those who acted to suppress complaints or looked the other way. Otherwise the whole pattern simply repeats itself. When people joined HR they had the right instincts, but little by little were corrupted by the system. The good ones leave and it just gets worse. But even bad people act right when they know they risk eventual exposure.
21percent.org · 18 March 2026 at 13:29
Our view is that it needs some shocking cases to go to trial. Our understanding is that this is about to happen.
TheResearcher · 18 March 2026 at 15:48
To “it needs some shocking cases to go to trial” one needs to add that these cases have to become PUBLIC. If the University tries to apply gagging orders to protect “reputations,” these requests should become public as well, and those who asked for them should be exposed.
21percent.org · 18 March 2026 at 16:25
Gagging orders, chiefly associated with UK jurisdiction, have diminishing effectiveness in an era of global digital communication
Oxford gagging order was straightforwardly broken. First, US-based Bloomberg published the name of Prof Soumitra Dutta
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-09-11/leader-of-oxford-university-s-said-business-school-soumitra-dutta-resigns
Then the UK press just reported what Bloomberg said. The 21 Group did too, here
https://21percent.org/?p=2666
A few months later, Oxford withdrew the order.
All due to brave journalist Katherine Griffiths. In fact, it was the first of a torrent of articles on SH at Oxford that has given her much prominence. There’s an opportunity for an enterprising journalist to do the same with Cambridge.
TheResearcher · 18 March 2026 at 19:03
Please tell that to the managers of UCam in case they do not read this blog. I have the gut feeling that they still did not fully appreciate the issue…
Virgin Island · 19 March 2026 at 08:51
Has Griffiths continued to write on this since breaking it in November?
Entering an Oxbridge college is like entering a Saudi embassy. It is a gray zone outside of the law, where anything can happen. The police don’t enter unless invited. They do whatever is at the college’s own behest. There are no records or cameras. Most people are nice, but dark things happen in dark corners by the people society least suspects.
Cloister · 18 March 2026 at 19:17
You are right to point to arrogance. Though far worse I think is the degree of complacency. That is the pattern so often found in major systemic disasters – that almost everyone was aware of the problems, and the risks involved, but did not really care. As Oxford have discovered, there are decades when nothing changes, and weeks when everything changes.
TheResearcher · 19 March 2026 at 06:14
While arrogance and complacency are a problem, they alone do not explain active cover up of abuses and systemic retaliation against whistleblowers. These kinds of issues are clear examples of institutional corruption, and they result from decisions of corrupt people. I am not claiming that all managers are corrupt, but some must be; those who know the issue, decide to cover it up and influence the remaining to give the impression it was a collective decision, are corrupt, not just arrogant or complacent.
Anonymous · 19 March 2026 at 08:35
It is a corrupt workplace not just financially but at the level of basic human values and dignity. When I was there I became so used to people turning the other way whenever I called for help, or worse, joining the abuse, that by the end I too thought that was normal. I became afraid to ask anyone for help any more. I thought it was normal to be alone. I thought I would have to end my life or worse, take individual revenge, because there was no one and nothing to protect me.
I now see that is how deep the corruption goes. It is evil how an abusive environment corrupts victims as well as abusers. It took years to relearn that in the rest of society, when you ask for help, people step up and say something. Elsewhere people have moral values. Elsewhere if you express emotions people lean in to help instead of marking you as vulnerable and breakable. I genuinely believe what I experienced was evil. It is a place of genuine evil. I do not use such words lightly.
Blacklisted · 19 March 2026 at 09:58
@Anonymous
I fully agree with you. That has been my experience too. Except for the invaluable, life-saving support of a few colleagues, who were then retaliated against.
I have been trying to put into words what it is that caused the trauma that I’m still suffering from.
Encountering evil, unrestrained evil, in an institution that now presents itself to the world as a Sanctuary.
Because the evil spreads like a disease through the fabric of a department, as those in charge just do as they’re told and lend their names and responsibility to others, it destroys human relationships forever and creates irreversible resentment.
Like you, I would not use such words lightly.
TheResearcher · 19 March 2026 at 10:27
We may not be able to change corrupt people, but we can at least expose them and by doing that prevent, or at least limit, their impact on others. It is really important that people speak up because otherwise these individuals will continue their deeds and the silence of victims will reinforce their views on impunity. If you experienced these abuses as a member of staff, I can assure you that the behaviours towards students is the same and Senior Tutors, Chaplains, Bursars and Masters of Colleges look the other way. If you then put then in a situation where they have to act, they will contribute to the abuses while in parallel spread messages in the College that they do not practice, such as,
“Christ’s College has a legal duty to protect its students and its academic and non-academic staff from sexual harassment, abuse and other inappropriate or unwanted behaviour. We will take immediate and appropriate action to address any such incidents”
Unperson · 19 March 2026 at 10:30
I think the issue is that Oxbridge colleges are indeed “sanctuaries”, but not as they pretend them to be. What the recent Oxford cases (Dutta and Orchard) show, quite clearly, is that individuals with a history of abuse in North America have sought asylum here. They saw the Savile scandal and learned the wrong lesson – that one can take advantage of the British “soft touch” approach to crimes involving senior figures in positions of power, authority and prestige. It is the perfect place given the number of students on visas who need to avoid trouble simply to maintain residency.
Just as Britain gave sanctuary to oligarchs and crooks in the heyday of “Cool Britannia” it is now giving sanctuary to known predators at the expense of vulnerable students.
This has to stop. It is clear these institutions cannot govern themselves. The courts and government must take a hard line. Otherwise it is only a matter of time before Mandelson pilots in as the next head of an Oxford or Cambridge college – and though I say that as a joke, I think it certain that approaches have been made.
Eileen Nugent · 20 March 2026 at 11:04
“I think the issue is that Oxbridge colleges are indeed “sanctuaries”, but not as they pretend them to be. What the recent Oxford cases (Dutta and Orchard) show, quite clearly, is that individuals with a history of abuse in North America have sought asylum here.”
“They saw the Savile scandal and learned the wrong lesson – that one can take advantage of the British “soft touch” approach to crimes involving senior figures in positions of power, authority and prestige.”
“It is the perfect place given the number of students on visas who need to avoid trouble simply to maintain residency.”
Until one of the students prepared to take case right through to the European Court of Human Rights if need be, only takes one of student from “sanctuary” to be not “soft touch” – i.e. to resist significant any undue pressure re visa, residency etc from an individual with history of abuse who sought “sanctuary” – for that “sanctuary” to undergo a swift inversion from being “sanctuary” to being “not sanctuary” for individual with history of abuse.
Eileen Nugent · 20 March 2026 at 11:10
Individual with history of abuse seeking “sanctuary” i.e. expecting every student in Oxford to be “soft touch” barking up the wrong “sanctuary” tree, could try in Cambridge as an alternative “sanctuary” …. if individual with history of abuse really wants to maximise the absolute risk to their own life …..
Anon · 20 March 2026 at 11:26
In a system with many black spots, the colleges are certainly the worst. There is a long history of individuals within the institution who are known for misdeeds (harassment of students or serial bullying) retaining college affiliation, and even being rewarded with senior roles (up to and including head of house). The colleges are responsible for a good number of tribunal cases and perhaps half of all ICO complaints. But they are also where collusion is arranged to protect miscreants from scrutiny and ensure other college affiliates are brought in to hush scandals and coordinate retaliation.
21percent.org · 21 March 2026 at 09:58
“In a system with many black spots, the colleges are certainly the worst”
Notice how few Cambridge Colleges have signed the pledge not to use Non-Disclosure Agreements
https://www.cantbuymysilence.co.uk/english-unis
Just Murray Edwards, Fitzwilliam and Trinity Hall. And we know at least one of those Colleges has broken the pledge
Colleges survive on NDAs. They permit the cycles of bullying and harassment.
Eileen Nugent · 20 March 2026 at 14:06
“There is a long history of individuals within the institution who are known for misdeeds (harassment of students or serial bullying) retaining college affiliation, and even being rewarded with senior roles (up to and including head of house).”
Electing a head of house with a known history of harassment and/or serial bullying – if the people responsible for electing a head of house with a known history of harassment and/or serial bullying want to self harm that’s really up to them – but don’t expect anyone who was not responsible for electing a head of house with a known history of harassment and/or serial bullying to put up with any form of harassment and/or bullying from that head of house.
Eileen Nugent · 20 March 2026 at 14:23
“I thought I would have to end my life or worse, take individual revenge, because there was no one and nothing to protect me.”
This is the problem when a whole organisation enters into a dark intermediate state i.e. when a whole organisation is in transition phase as an organisation between two bright states : an organisational truth at a lower complexity & an organisational truth at high complexity. The intermediate dark state can bring people in the organisation to some very dark places. The challenge for people in the organisation is then to not yield to the darkness induced by the intermediate dark state in the organisation. People in the organisation not yielding to the darkness they are encountering in those very dark places they are being brought to by the organisation in a dark intermediate state is what it takes for the whole organisation to turn itself around. That is what ultimately gets the organisation out of the dark intermediate state it has entered as an organisation and into a bright state that is brighter than any bright state the organisation has ever seen before : an organisational truth at a high complexity.
Prof Teflon · 20 March 2026 at 19:03
What are you all talking about? I am a College Master! I lie all the time! I lied for years about my false medical speciality! I destroyed many lifes! I am a bully! I have a lover that is junior faculty! And I am a College Master! The American Queen loves me! I am invincible! And many love me! Who? Prof Drinkalot, Prof Smallman, Prof Crookery, and more. I am Prof Teflon!