Here, we take a look at the role of external companies called into universities to assist in HR matters.
B3Sixty is a Human Resources (HR) consultancy firm that focuses on investigations, mediation and resolving workplace issues. The firm is led by senior HR practitioners (usually former HR directors) with backgrounds in universities and public bodies. They are often used by universities and public bodies to provide external investigations into workplace disputes.
Universities, who are their clients, view them as independent, experienced and useful for sensitive cases. People on the receiving end of their investigations often view them as aligned with the institution or as part of a process they distrust.
There are no easily accessible published financial accounts for B3Sixty. It appears to operate under a different registered company name and within a small group structure (called Direct Reports Ltd or Viewpoint HR). In practice, this means its turnover and profit aren’t publicly disclosed.
Even without hard numbers, we can make some estimates. The size of the team is given as ~2–10 staff on LinkedIn. The typical revenue range for this type of consultancy is between £1m – £6m per year. Workplace investigations firms typically charge £800–£2,000 per day per consultant. Depending on complexity, cases can run from between several days to several weeks. So, a single investigation might bring in between £5k and £60k (see for example here for investigations commissioned by the Nursing and Midwifery Council). Profit margins are healthy (20% to 40%) in such low budget environments.
The small size of the staff means that the B3Sixty investigator is often an “associate” of the company or even a freelancer or subcontractor from another HR consultancy. This pool of people is larger — maybe 20–40. It includes former University HR Directors/business managers, senior employee relations specialists and freelance mediators. A partial list of B3Sixty associates and investigators extracted from a LinkedIn search is here.
In our opinion, the “independence” of investigations conducted by any workplace investigation company such as B3Sixty is questionable. A better word is “external”.
What is clear is that any investigator from B3Sixty is drawn from the same professional milieu as the HR business manager commissioning the report. Given that shared background, the commissioner and investigator are unlikely to be strangers. In such circumstances, the distinction between independence and alignment begins to look thin. And after all, as the adage goes, “he who pays the piper calls the tune“. Of course, B3Sixty depends on a steady stream of commissioned investigations. HR can easily indicate their desired outcome. It is a truism that a company that persistently delivered awkward reports for its clients would go out of business.
Strong criticism also comes from people affected by investigations. For example, B3Sixty is listed among firms paid for investigations by the Nursing and Midwifery Council (which has been engulfed in difficulties). The overall system of outsourced investigations was criticised for lack of fairness, lack of neutrality and poor outcomes despite huge spending. B3Sixty is grouped with other firms (law firms, consultancies) and the generic claim is that investigations were not always conducted in a balanced or impartial way. Critics of the Nursing and Midwifery Council were ultimately vindicated in 2024 when an independent review led by Nazir Afzal, the former chief prosecutor for North West England, highlighted safeguarding concerns and found that people working in the organisation have experienced racism, discrimination and bullying for years (unsurprisingly, mainly by senior management). “Good nurses,” Afzal warned, “are finding themselves being investigated for years over minor issues and bad nurses are escaping sanction“, as reported in The Times here.
The 21 Group has acquired a number of B3Sixty Reports on investigations into matters at universities. As might be expected from a broad pool of investigators, the quality is very variable, though the Reports almost always support the university’s position. There are however some exceptions. One B3Sixty Report overruled an earlier internal investigation by a Cambridge University Professor. Another Report did find the actions of a Head of Department amounted to bullying (though this conclusion was ignored by the HR Business Manager).
Reports more commonly exhibit, in our view, a troubling lack of independence between the investigator and HR, or allow HR to exert excessive influence over the conclusions. One striking example at Cambridge University’s School of Physical Sciences involved the HR Business Manager commissioning the Report, assisting in drafting its Terms of Reference and subsequently giving evidence as a witness —an arrangement that represents an unmistakable and huge conflict of interest.
Here is another example. The black text is an investigator from B3Sixty, the red text is from the Director of HR at a UK university. Many would regard this level of collusion and direction as to the content of a Report as unhealthy, and potentially giving rise to miscarriages of justice. (Redactions are by the 21 Group).
As matters at the Nursing and Midwifery Council showed, the model of an “independent” investigator commissioned by an HR department is a recipe for excessive spending and poor outcomes.
Workplace investigation reports (whether internal or external) regularly get criticised or challenged in UK Employment Tribunals. Reports often reflect bias or too‑close ties to the employer — for example, when: conclusions seem predetermined, interviews are conducted unfairly and key witnesses aren’t properly questioned. This is a systemic problem of many of the practitioners in this field.
For avoidance of doubt, there is no suggestion that B3Sixty has done anything wrong. Our criticisms of apparent bias in investigations, value for money and perceived lack of independence apply to the entire sector.
We are interesting in acquiring more B3Sixty Reports into matters at universities — if you have one and are willing too share, please send to contact@21percent.org
74 Comments
TheResearcher · 21 March 2026 at 10:35
“One striking example at Cambridge University’s School of Physical Sciences involved the HR Business Manager commissioning the Report, assisting in drafting its Terms of Reference and subsequently giving evidence as a witness —an arrangement that represents an unmistakable and huge conflict of interest.”
This smells like the most discussed Lead HR Business Partner in the 21 Group! 😂
Revelespd is the equivalent of B3Sixty for student matters (https://revelespd.co.uk/) and UCam uses their services for “independent” investigations against UCam students. Ms Ele Wilson, the “manager” Revelespd knows me very well these days. Anything that comes from her regarding the “investigation” she is conducting about my “unreasonably persistent behaviour” goes straight to Mr Daniel Zeichner MP. UCam students who are being investigated by Revelespd are welcome to ask my contact to the 21 Group and I am happy to give advice on how these investigations work and how to deal with them.
21percent.org · 21 March 2026 at 11:14
“UCam students who are being investigated by Revelespd are welcome to ask my contact to the 21 Group and I am happy to give advice on how these investigations work and how to deal with them”
Very helpful
Is there any regulation of this sector ?
Can any old spiv or crackhead set up the ‘BoxTicker Investigation & Training Company’ to provide dodgy workplace investigation reports?
TheResearcher · 21 March 2026 at 11:45
“Is there any regulation of this sector ? ”
I do not know how the sector works, but how Reveles under Ele Wilson works in the context of UCam. It is irrelevant what you say and ask them as they will ignore if your questions work against the institution that hired them. Their approach to questions is exactly the same as HR’s and OSCCA’s so they all read the same guide. I can try to find any regulation of this sector but regarding your follow up question, their website says, Reveles “was formed in 2017 and provides workplace investigators comprising of former senior police officers and HR professionals with over 30 years’ of experience of conducting investigations. Reveles investigators are highly experienced and trained to investigate a wide range of equality issues including bullying, harassment and discrimination as well as breaches of policy and codes of conduct.” It is not even clear that they are specialized in issues related to students!
21percent.org · 21 March 2026 at 11:55
You should alert Dan Zeichner MP to the complete absence of any regulation in this sector and that individuals with no apparent background in Higher Education are being requested to provide reports on students.
This is also a waste of public money.
The events at the Nursing & Midwifery Council show truly astonishing amounts of public money being extracted by “workplace investigation” companies
TheResearcher · 21 March 2026 at 12:07
Dan Zeichner MP already knows Ele Wilson in particular and how she conducts her “investigations” for UCam. But I can see what I find regarding the regulation in this “sector” more generally. In this case, however, the money comes from UCam and it is likely minor when compared to the legal services that UCam hires!
21percent.org · 21 March 2026 at 13:32
The problems at the Nursing & Midwifery Council (which sound at least as bad as the ones at Cambridge University) show how this kind of spending can just get completely out of control
There is a vicious cycle of problems not fixed, investigations that don’t resolve matters, leading to more problems and more investigations with costs just skyrocketing
“Price Waterhouse and Cooper – £9million
Nazir Afzal OBE Rise Associates Independent Culture review – £96,000
Ijeoma Omambalu investigation £100,000 – decommissioned
During this investigation the following was also spent:
– Sally Cowan – £1,050
– Jessica Joels – £29,013
(Sally Cowan’s and Jessica Joels’s work was the investigation into Whistleblower 1’s grievance – but this was supposedly being covered by Ijeoma Review and then also Aileen McColgan work)
– Ijeoma Omambala KC – £100,000 contract value (we suspect the actual bill is higher otherwise there is no reason not to disclose on commercial interest grounds)
– Aileen McColgan KC – £84,000 (as part of Ijeoma Omambala investigation but only for Whistleblower 1 part of investigation, the part looking at Sam Foster’s treatment was funded in addition to this work)
– Capsticks support for the investigations – £75,000
– Victoria Butler-Cole KC & David Hopkins – £40,338 (who the contract was recommissioned to)
– Lucy McLynn – £86,214
Capsticks and Weightmans – £14.9million (in addition to above work)
B3Sixty – £30,063 (in addition to that mentioned in 3.)
Oct 2024 – June 2026 “legal services“ £84,000
25.11.25 – press office media monitoring services – £88,920 ”
This was only extracted off the Nursing & Midwifery Council after a huge FoI battle. Eventually, the ICO ruled it should be disclosed.
TheResearcher · 21 March 2026 at 14:52
“This was only extracted off the Nursing & Midwifery Council after a huge FoI battle. Eventually, the ICO ruled it should be disclosed.”
Luckily, at UCam such battles are not necessary because our Information Compliance Office is very transparent and sends us everything we ask… Of course, that does apply to me as Dr James Knapton and Dr Regina Sachers always find reasons for not sending me what I ask, regardless of the topic, but I am sure I am an extremely rare case and no one else has issues with UCam’s Information Compliance Office!
21percent.org · 21 March 2026 at 11:37
Revelespd has absolutely minimal information on its basic website and no LinkedIn profile whatsoever.
There is an email link for “a confidential chat” to someone called Ele Wilson.
More digging produces an article on the “Office for Students” with a picture of Ele Wilson
https://www.lexology.com/firms/1262508/ele_wilson
Further spadework shows she is a Retired Lieutenant Colonel (the picture matches)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyM29vwQ_cM
It’s not immediately obvious whether she is qualified to run any kind of investigation into students.
But as she was in the army, she knows how to obey orders 😉
UCAM: SPS HR want this guy taken out
REVELESPD: YES SIR
TheResearcher · 21 March 2026 at 11:51
Well, if Ele Wilson was Lieutenant Colonel , she is also used to give orders to others, but I can assure the 21 Group that I did not follow any from her 😅
Blacklisted · 21 March 2026 at 11:48
“One striking example at Cambridge University’s School of Physical Sciences involved the HR Business Manager commissioning the Report, assisting in drafting its Terms of Reference and subsequently giving evidence as a witness —an arrangement that represents an unmistakable and huge conflict of interest.”
Oh, and did she not, before she commissioned the Report, even determine the policy under which the matter should be investigated, incorrectly of course, so that she could rely on that all-important independence of an external investigation…?
Oh, and did she not also include into that independent investigation the matter of someone else, who had never actually formally complained – just so she could rely on that all-important independence to produce a detrimental report covering all of those matters she wished to see dealt with?
Tom · 21 March 2026 at 15:47
Bloody hell. This really is Post Office 2.0.
Hecate · 21 March 2026 at 16:20
This is extremely serious. If a limited company advertises itself as providing independent investigatory services and in fact can be shown to engage in practices of collusion, that is surely evidence of fraud and should ve reported to the relevant authorities.
This would be true of any company engaged in advisory services.
However it seems especially actionable if the core business model of the company depends upon maintaining such false representation in the course of its business. e.g. to secure cooperation of parties subject to illegal or otherwise malicious conduct by collusing actors. I welcome further viewpoints on this, but that would seem worthy of sustained investigation by the fraud office and perhaps further charges as well. If indeed MPs are aware then they should assist to secure appropriate guidance on the appropriate course of action.
Q. · 21 March 2026 at 16:31
In the document quoted, are the edits from the Director of HR those of the university under investigation, or another university? Either would involve obvious conflict of interest given the potential exchange relationship between serving directors. But in the former case it seems more evidently corrupt behaviour?
21percent.org · 21 March 2026 at 17:14
The edits are from the Director of HR of the university which commissioned the investigation.
TheResearcher · 21 March 2026 at 17:23
@Q, can’t you guess what “UK university” this post is about? Yes, that one! 🙂
@Hecate, this is extremely serious indeed but in this “UK university” the managers think they are untouchable and that gagging orders will save them from any abuse. How surprised they will be when they see the cases they are trying to gag in the news of another country! Tick tock tick tock tick tock
Prof Drinkalot · 21 March 2026 at 16:38
I love B3Sixty! I seriously bullied several people that were under my direction. It was excellent to interact with B3Sixty! UCam HR told me not to worry! They had already determined that me bullying people did not matter! I bring in LOTS of money in grants! So no matter what, I would be declared as innocent! I was still pissed of with the inconvenience of having a B3Sixty interview but I had no reason! B3Sixty treated me with white gloves and of course all complaints against me were white washed! I am a winner! I LOVE B3Sixty!
PantomineHorse · 21 March 2026 at 20:55
“We can stitch anyone up with a false report,” Lou said. Her voice was smooth, practiced—like a lie that had been ironed flat too many times. “We’re hired guns. We’re killers. That’s the job.”
“Yeah,” I said. “But even a hired gun’s got a soul to look after.”
She didn’t like that. I could tell by the way her jaw set—tight enough to crack glass, but she kept smiling.
“Here’s the thing,” I said. “You can stitch a man into a lie, sure. Wrap him tight, make it look official in the Report. But lies leak. Always do. And when they start dripping” I looked past her, into the dark.
“I don’t think of it as a lie,” Lou said. “I think of it as… narrative control.”
Anon · 22 March 2026 at 00:02
Responding to @Hecate. ‘Conflict of interest’ and ‘corruption’ are serious matters. I would defer to investigatory authorities and courts to render a final determination. The terms however must be used precisely.
(a) On conflict of interest, at first glance the evidence here does appear very strong, some might say, unassailable. Any HR Director has a vested interest in seeing allegations of misconduct dismissed, as their reputation depends on the rate being low. The document shows the investigator effectively taking direct instruction from this individual. For example in regards to altering Terms of Reference and securing approval for the final content. This also means that the claim of independent investigation is i) false. ii) misleading and at first glance potentially also iii) fraudulent, though I would defer to third party advice.
(b) ‘Corruption’ it seems requires a higher standard of evidence. However, it might pertain here, if it could be shown that the investigatory firm behaved in such a manner described in (a) above because they were (b) in expectation of financial gain. This might be shown if e.g. contracts were awarded on expectation of biased investigatory conduct, for example due to past similar conduct or reputation for so behaving, or that competing firms with higher integrity standards lost business as a result. If the party awarding the contract was or was influenced by parties with a conflict of interest this also evidences the same.
I also wonder what action is also possible under Bribery legislation, as if financial gain were pursued in exchange for influencing members of court, then that seems attempt to influence public officials to act improperly, in exchange for monetary gain. It seems right that tribunal judges criticise biased investigations but I wonder how they can react effectively.
21percent.org · 22 March 2026 at 09:05
“This also means that the claim of independent investigation is i) false. ii) misleading”
Agreed. On the evidence presented, there was clearly undue interference by the Director of HR of this Unnamed University. Other questions are raised, but we need more evidence to answer them.
TheResearcher · 22 March 2026 at 10:07
“Unnamed University” 😂
J · 22 March 2026 at 16:23
Bribery though would require showing there was some kind of inducement to a public official. Of all the claims bandied about fraud seems the one most obvious to look in to further.
Sad · 22 March 2026 at 09:01
Good nurses,” Afzal warned, “are finding themselves being investigated for years over minor issues and bad nurses are escaping sanction”
This sounds very like Cambridge, with nurses -> academics.
Anon · 22 March 2026 at 11:11
In your haste to talk about Cambridge, you forget something else which links back to toxic university connections, albeit at a different university.
The chair of the Nursing and Midwifery Council during the six years in which sixteen nurses under investigation died by suicide was Sir David Warren, who had previously served as the Chair of Council of the University of Kent, a time period which also saw several student suicides at the university, a notable example of which was also caused by toxic culture.
21percent.org · 22 March 2026 at 11:59
Thanks for that information.
We were not aware of the 16 nurses who died by suicide while under investigation at the Nursing and Midwifery Council. This is desperately sad news.
We were aware of matters at the University of Kent, including the very sad suicide of Jessica Small
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/canterbury/news/mums-bullying-claims-after-daughters-suicide-219678/
Anon · 22 March 2026 at 12:55
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/nurse-suicide-deaths-nursing-midwifery-council-nhs-review-b2587519.html
Anonymous · 22 March 2026 at 16:27
@Anon: thank you for posting this. And thanks to 21Group for the article above. This is shocking and blatant corruption. If the case involves whistleblowing, this could also amount to attempted concealment or neutralisation of protected complaints, which is unlawful. The central role these firms maintain concerning the state of the University sector must be fully exposed, and urgently so.
I also have evidence of HR blatantly co-writing the investigation report to unfairly attack the complainant in a serious misconduct case, along with clear evidence of pre-determined outcomes in investigations involving the unlawful dismissal of a whistleblower.
The situation in Kent will be exposed soon, in ways not possible previously. Although the press are aware of widespread and substantial discontent there: https://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/more-redundancies-at-uni-as-staff-say-working-here-is-a-hel-307861/
If anyone has further information about what has been occurring at Kent, please contact the 21Group, and the sooner the better. On so-called ‘investigations’, Kent’s weapon of choice is TCM Group (https://thetcmgroup.com/), among others, soon to be named. All will face some hard questions, for which they will have no defence. In the case of the TCM Group, look how far their tentacles reach: https://thetcmgroup.com/tcm-customer-list/
Scroll down for the section on Universities…
21percent.org · 22 March 2026 at 19:08
So they act for HR in:
University of London, King’s College London, Imperial College London, University of Kent, Loughborough University, University of Oxford, University of Central Lancashire, University of Greenwich, University of East London, University of Roehampton, University of Newcastle, University of Nottingham, Brunel University, Kingston University, University of Exeter, University of Birmingham, Canterbury Christ Church University, LSE, University of Southampton, Cardiff Metropolitan, St Georges University, University of Surrey, University of Bath
. · 22 March 2026 at 21:52
Interesting “qualifications and awards” these consultants have to tell academic institutions where to go…
Teva · 23 March 2026 at 07:57
If the HR manager was named as responsible for claims brought at tribunal, commissioned a phony independent report, was found to have edited it, and then sought to present it as “independent’, then how is that not considered as conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?
21percent.org · 23 March 2026 at 08:36
There will be an Employment Tribunal in April involving Cambridge University that will test this very principle
More generally, manipulation of reports could also expose HR personnel to (i) claims of defamation & malicious falsehood, (ii) personal injury claims
Any HR personnel engaged in such enterprises is playing Russian roulette, even if it appears to be standard practice in some places.
TheResearcher · 23 March 2026 at 10:07
“Any HR personnel engaged in such enterprises is playing Russian roulette, even if it appears to be standard practice in some places.”
As the 21 Group knows, the issue here is definitely not just HR-related, and their “Russian roulette” is biased when the senior leadership of their institutions pretend they do not know what is going on or actively contribute to the problem. For example, in a university that should not be named—hint: it participates in the Annual Boat Race in London, and it is not Oxford—the Pro-Vice Chancellor for University Community and Engagement dismisses, without any investigation, whistleblowing disclosures and safeguarding referrals, related to the behaviour of the most discussed Lead HR Business Partner in 21 Group, and followed her advice despite he knew that she had conflicts of interest. Surely, the Pro-Vice Chancellor was not forced to take that position and nothing prevented him from requesting an independent investigation (even if it was from B3Sixty!). When a ProVC refuses to do an investigation regarding a whistleblowing disclosure and a safeguarding referral, something must be really wrong in that place.
On a related note, a few days ago I communicated to all the General Board and University Council of UCam that the “University” had not told them about the extreme “precautionary measures” the “University” applied against me as the people involved should do if they followed the “special ordinance” they claimed they followed to apply the measures against me. I took the opportunity to tell the General Board and University Council of UCam other issues that have been happening in the last 33 months with me. The University Council should meet today. Let’s see if no one there finds these incidents concerning…
21percent.org · 23 March 2026 at 10:43
Do keep us posted on the actions of the University Council
Anonymous · 23 March 2026 at 09:26
The issue in the original posting is that of having a large organization in the public service, allegedly offering money to a professional company to prepare reports for use for that purpose, when its own employees serve official capacity as court advisory. It is payment of money and the routine expectation of the ability to mislead are what makes it conspiracy.
Lazarus · 23 March 2026 at 10:14
“Any HR personnel engaged in such enterprises is playing Russian roulette, even if it appears to be standard practice in some places”
I suspect this is likely the reason why there are so many resignations from HR and why so many senior figures (college heads, Pro VC, professors) also left over the last year. When one is asked to engage in such practices one’s employer cannot scarcely protect one from being named at court in civil proceedings (nor held individually accountable for more serious acts). The higher ups have shown limited capacity to protect those lower down the chain and then if you look at Post Office then the likelihood is to be blamed instead (as a means of absolving their own deeds and this is almost certainly the media strategy). This is the “few bad eggs” playbook (see what Oxford are doing) and the best response is to be open and honest because those at the top hold will be held to a much higher burden of responsibility.
21percent.org · 23 March 2026 at 10:34
“…the reason why there are so many resignations from HR …”
An interesting observation that we too had noted. Staff turnover is very high in the HR divisions, two prominent individuals have seemingly resigned over the last month or two.
In some respects, HR is also a victim. It suits our leaders (the Registrary, the Academic Secretary, the Vice Chancellor, Heads of School & the Pro-VCs) to push all these problems onto the Director of HR and the HR division.
From HR’s point of view, HR are stuck in the middle with all the problems, taking all the risks and getting all the blame.
Effective leaders understand that behaving morally and not breaking the law are sometimes two different things.
Cambridge has had too many leaders who did not understand this. And once you start behaving immorally, the next step is to break the law.
(BTW, we’d be interested to hear from any members of HR who have recently left, contact@21percent.org).
Trapped · 23 March 2026 at 13:47
I agree with this. HR managers secure a job offer from a famous university and the chance to live in a nice historical town with good schools and amenities. They arrive and feel they are contributing to something good – education for smart young individuals and the goal of scientific advancement. What happens next is a slow motion nightmare, like shadows piercing the dream. You see it in snapshots but once you’ve seen the whole thing what you’ve seen cannot be unseen. The resignations are by those who saw the nightmare in full and couldn’t wake up without taking the cold water shock of leaving entirely. But others are stuck with mortgages, school fees and a whole new circle of life, and have no easy exit. They are in some ways the university’s best hope because cultural change is their only solution.
TheResearcher · 23 March 2026 at 15:29
“have no easy exit”
Most people in this context do not have an easy exit, but every single person can choose between witnessing abuses and doing nothing or even actively contributing to them, or acting against them, regardless how small their contributions might be. There is nothing that prevents HR from the University of Cambridge, for example, from contacting the 21 Group or our local MP, Mr Daniel Zeichner MP, and tell them what they know. The same applies to OSCCA, and Senior Tutors of Colleges who witness abuses against students because most often they have to be cced in the communication from the “University.” There are a few individuals who are risking their career, education and health to expose these abuses and the responsible for them, namely to prevent that what happened to them happens with others, and it is really important in my view that people who are not happy with the current degrading state of things in the University step forward because it helps to show how systemic the problem really is.
Autoreply HR · 23 March 2026 at 20:04
I think the issue is that only a small number of people in HR know what’s really going on, in terms of the worst inicidents, the case managers and lead business partners especially. The rest spend their time designing slide decks and revising glossy documents and working from home (or not) and don’t interact with staff at all other than being spun a line from senior management. There’s a huge amount of deception all the way up and down the chain so that everything is ignored or sanitised. The people who know the real story are university counselling and occupational health. They are ones whose job is to hear the dark truth. Of course HR are meant to do that too but even getting them to respond to email is impossible, let alone securing a meeting to report abuse. You would be better off getting HR help from ChatGPT honestly.
TheResearcher · 23 March 2026 at 21:28
From personal experience, from several Departments and Schools, many HR staff know about the abuses and either ignore them or actively contribute to them. This does not mean that all do it, of course, but I have not interacted with any that challenged the abuses they were aware of. Incidentally, it is possible that HR already learned how to use ChatGPT too… https://21percent.org/?p=2593
21percent.org · 23 March 2026 at 22:07
I think the issue is that only a small number of people in HR know what’s really going on, in terms of the worst inicidents, the case managers and lead business partners especially
Arguably, the senior academics who know what is going on are at greatest fault. At the HoD or HoS or proVC level, it is not credible that these people — who are all intelligent — do not fully understand the corruption in the system.
Logos · 24 March 2026 at 08:00
“Better off getting HR help from ChatGPT”
You say that as a joke, but it is true. If we had just run all correspondence by AI first for legal, HR and ethical compliance it would have avoided a lot of the mess the university is in. It would have meant sensitive and mature decisions, constructive dialogue and no downstream liabilities. A subscription is $20 a month and could not only replace, but significantly improve, upon what is currently in place.
21percent.org · 24 March 2026 at 09:29
$20 a month .. a bargain
We do not know the cost of HR failures in Cambridge University, but it would not be surprising if it is the same order of magnitude as the debacle at the Nursing and Midwifery Council — so many millions a year
Mike · 23 March 2026 at 22:14
Looking at the LinkedIn list, there are people who work for both Cambridge HR and for B3Sixty. It makes the point that B3Sixty is best thought of as an extension of Cambridge HR.
DH · 24 March 2026 at 09:04
I would read very carefully the Fraud Act 2006, in particular Section 2, covering fraud by false representation. A copy is here.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2
I make no allegation of my own, only note the basis to do so among those with awareness of evidence. While the representation as independent may be false in itself, I can only suspect that the same would perhaps also be true of similar related descriptors (including “external”). The act applies to all domains, but indeed I think further current legislation would be applicable, if the intention of such representation included the misleading of courts or other public authorities. The broader point here is that the United Kingdom does not require additional legislation, only to uphold and enforce the laws that are currently in effect.
Steve · 24 March 2026 at 10:18
Once had dealings with a firm whose motto was, “Satisfaction guaranteed for employers”. It was written on every page of their website. Since removed, though I have to wonder if me being very loud had anything to do with that.
21percent.org · 24 March 2026 at 11:16
Wonderful. Ah, WWW never forgets
Wayback Machine reveals the company as Acrux Consulting Ltd based in Ireland ( https://www.acrux.ie ). Here is the Wayback Machine search
https://web.archive.org/web/*/acrux.ie
This will show all archived captures of the site’s domain, even if specific subpages aren’t archived. Once you open that, look at the timeline and calendar that appear. Choose a year like 2022 or earlier and you will get something like this.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210101005915/https://www.acrux.ie/
Scroll down to see
“OUR VISION
TO DELIVER EFFECTIVE HR & DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES FOR ORGANISATIONS.
SATISFACTION GUARANTEED FOR EMPLOYERS”
Well, it’s an HR consultancy you can trust, as it least it’s honestly saying what it will do. It will find for the employer 🙂
- · 24 March 2026 at 11:52
To be fair to Acrux though they cannot really be accused of false advertising
In some ways would be better if these companies were similarly honest instead of trying to mislead innocent students or decent members of staff
21percent.org · 24 March 2026 at 12:05
It would be interesting to get statistics on these workplace investigations
Our guess is it’s in ‘North Korea election’ territory
For the Employer, 99% : For the Employee, 1%
And large sums of public money are going to these sham companies — MPs should be aware of the spend
Anonymous · 24 March 2026 at 12:51
On the topic of MPs becoming aware of what is going on, it is also deeply concerning that these consultancy firms now have connections to our Schools, due in part to senior HR staff leaving Universities for School-based positions and bringing their contacts from these firms with them.
I have witnessed some very concerning practices at certain Schools recently, and in one case when I looked into it in more detail, I find that their new HR Director was from a local University on the client list of one of these firms, and the School concerned was now officially on the firm’s client list too.
So if this issue is raised with MPs and Parliament etc (in the form of a national inquiry for example), then it is perhaps also worth noting the potential impact on our children. I really hope other folks are also looking into this…
Samaritan · 24 March 2026 at 17:07
Agree completely. If children are at risk that is a matter of public urgency. That private companies exist to profit from assisting in coordinated dismissal of honest reports of health and safety risk is appalling, not least of all when it would be surely less costly to compensate victims and families for their loss. The decision to do the former over the latter would surely offer strong grounds to suspect corruption. Meanwhile the matter of private gain via professional connection between HR managers and private companies is horrifying. It could even mean such managers have a profitable motive to increase the number of grievances and then extend investigations to maximise the profit of related parties. Any legitimate reason to hold or even suspect such a scenario calls for urgent investigation.
Anonymous · 25 March 2026 at 12:33
@Samaritan: “It could even mean such managers have a profitable motive to increase the number of grievances and then extend investigations to maximise the profit of related parties.”
Indeed. On this theme, I recall a notable case being flagged on this blog recently:
https://21percent.org/?p=2979 (see comment from @Jobless).
TheResearcher · 24 March 2026 at 19:08
I will repeat what I stressed multiple times in the 21 Group. OSCCA, which deals with student matters at Cambridge, has the same practices with students that HR has with staff. Moreover, HR advises OSCCA on how to interact with students. Senior Tutors, Masters and the senior leadership of Cambridge know about this and look the other way, or actively contribute to the abuses. And no, this is not a tale.
TheResearcher · 24 March 2026 at 19:12
https://21percent.org/?p=2628
“Over the years I have served on many committees at the university tasked with the miserable job of handling student complaints. You may wonder what happens on such committees to produce such unfortunate results.
First, please understand: no complaint was ever taken seriously. As soon as it is handled the immediate discussion centres around how it must be dismissed. The student is immediately presented as “troublemaker” and the fact of their having made a complaint presented as evidence that this must be true. At no point has anyone ever considered whether we are the ones who need to reflect and learn.
Second, no evidence is ever taken from any person who raises an issue. Indeed no evidence is ever at all. Any person accused is asked for their account and this is immediately and durably assumed as fact (even if their account of the matter changes over time and is not consistent). We protect our own and the more senior the individual the more protection they deserve.
In the most comical episode I can recall, a student had made valid accusations against legal noncompliance. For this reason all mention of their complaint was not included in the agenda. When the chair of the committee turned to raise the issue HR handed out sheets of paper in small print with a highly edited summary of the matter. After the meeting they checked very carefully to ensure that each piece of paper had been handed back. It was agreed by the chair and all those present to exclude any note of having discussed the matter from the minutes. What the discussion agreed was to dismiss their complaint without evidence.“
SPARTACUS · 25 March 2026 at 11:55
Reading all the above is depressing but not surprising. As I stated many times @21percent blogs UCam is quite consistent: 1- with any complaint or allegation, from either students or faculty, the oligarchy, presided by the VC, decides what they want the final outcome to be; 2- your fate is decided at that stage no matter what the case itself is (meaning you are doomed if UCam oligarchy has decided against you); 3- the UCam ‘machine’ [HR, HR- appointed ‘independent investigators, such as B3Sixty, compliant Responsible Person] will start working to destroy you; 4- UCam Chest will pay for everything needed for the oligarchy to destroy you and of course you pay for all your expenses until you are broke personally.
In summary, the process is TOTALLY CORRUPT! It’s the Post Office scandal replicated!
TheResearcher · 25 March 2026 at 12:31
@SPARTACUS, the sad thing is that people who read the 21 Group and did not go throw this experience themselves may well read what you wrote and think that it must be an hyperbole because the situation at UCam cannot be that bad after all it is one of the best universities in the world, now the “UK’s best employer.” Yet, it is. There is likely a strong correlation between the reputation of an institution and what managers are willing to do to cover up misconduct. That does not surprise me. What surprises me the most is that very many people know about it and choose to ignore it.
This said, every single person can become a problem for managers if they decide to talk about what has been happening to them and ignore UCam’s enforced confidentiality. If victims keep the issues to themselves, there is no reason for UCam to change.
GamerGrrl · 25 March 2026 at 07:00
“UCam students who are being investigated…”
My mind is still spinning from that sentence
SPARTACUS · 25 March 2026 at 15:30
To TheResearcher: we are all like Spartacus! When the Romans asked ‘who is Spartacus’ the rebels one by one gave a step forward and said- “I am Spartacus!”. UCam cannot stop the surge! The American Queen and her regime will collapse! Be patient! Tic toc tic toc tic toc… BOOM!
Nano · 26 March 2026 at 12:28
I think what all this shows is the iniustice when legal mechanisms are privatised. For a fraction of the money wasted on private investigation companies and consultants the country could have invested in better courts and policing, then with fair and efficient justice, the number of incidents would rapidly decline over time.
TheResearcher · 26 March 2026 at 16:45
———— Beaking News—————-
“We write to inform you that your Subject Access Request (SAR) with reference number GDPR-2026-61 has been escalated to a Senior member within the DPO function for further review.
After an independent assessment of the circumstances, we confirm that the original decision to refuse your SAR as manifestly unfounded under Article 12(5) UK GDPR is upheld.
For the avoidance of doubt, this decision is not based solely on the frequency of your requests or the intervals between them. While these factors have been taken into account, the determining factor is the purpose and nature of your request. Your recent SAR continues a consistent pattern where requests are submitted following disputes or adverse interactions with specific members of staff. The content and framing of the request, along with the associated correspondence, indicate that the SAR is being used to pursue concerns about those individuals personally rather than to obtain access to your own data. The University has already provided you with a substantial volume of personal data to which you are entitled. Continued processing of requests of this nature would impose a disproportionate and unjustified burden on staff resources and falls outside the intended purpose of the right of access. In light of the above, we consider that your SAR meets the statutory threshold for a manifestly unfounded SAR under Article 12(5) UK GDPR.
This further review concludes the DPO’s assessment of your SAR. We consider your case closed now, and we will not engage in any further correspondence. Should you remain dissatisfied, you may raise your concerns with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)”
Can someone guess what is the information that the University does not want to send me and is breaching my rights under the UK GDPR, DPA 2018, and DUAA? Hint: It is associated with two of the most senior members of UCam!
21percent.org · 26 March 2026 at 18:24
1. The right of access is not contingent on the requester’s motives, nor is it invalidated by the existence of prior disputes or interactions with staff.
2. The claim that compliance would impose a disproportionate burden must be balanced against your statutory obligations. The volume of data previously disclosed does not extinguish any ongoing right of access, particularly where additional or specific data may exist.
3. The statement that “we will not engage in further correspondence on this matter” is improper. A data controller cannot unilaterally close engagement where a data subject is exercising statutory rights.
A good book is:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Freedom-Information-practical-Martin-Rosenbaum/dp/1739800540
Martin Rosenbaum is ex Cambridge University
It is in the UL (not borrowable), probably in many College Libraries (if not, request it).
TheResearcher · 26 March 2026 at 19:51
21 Group, UCam is so ridiculous. They sent me loads of documents today that they only allow me to see but not download so that I do not share with others… How am I supposed to share this with my witnesses and legal representation? Of course, they could not careless but check this out, they finished by saying “Please note you do not need to download or print these documents, as an OSCCA member will provide these in a PDF to you at a later stage. If you have any problems accessing the folder, please let me know.”
They are so afraid that they share all these… They know that I will! If any of you can help with this issue let me know because I want to share all the material with you. And guess what, who is their witness: The most discussed HR Business Partner in the 21 Group!
21percent.org · 27 March 2026 at 08:06
We suggest that you share more details of the platform on which the document is shared, so that we can advise.
Is it being shared on Google Drive, SharePoint, Moodle?
Obviously, when you can view a document on your screen, the data has already been sent to your device in some form.
This means eg it may be stored temporarily in your browser cache.
TheResearcher · 27 March 2026 at 08:54
It is OneDrive folder. They only gave me access to see the documents but not to download them. Can you guess why? 😊 They did not even share all the “witness statements” with me. It seems they have witness statements from Mr Michael Glover, Mr Kris Cressy, Dr Alex Pryce, Ms Sarah d’Ambrumenil, Ms Neya Omar, Prof. Colm Cauldfield, Prof. Ray Goldstein, Ms Rachel Plunkett, Mr James Wilcock, Ms Nikki Bannister, and Ms Louise Akroyd but they did not send me any of them with one exception, which I believe it was a mistake because it was in the wrong folder.
Can you guess what is the witness statement I have??? *******!!! Check this out, to the question of Reveles’ investigator “How did you feel when you were openly criticised you in email that he copied into a large number of UOC senior staff? How did it feel when it was repeatedly claimed that you manipulated information and sent him false information?” this is what ******* answered:
REDACTED
How surreal is this 21 Group? Even this simple text has incorrect and misleading information. As you know, whenever I contact people I sent them evidence of my claims, this has been dragging for 33, not 18, months, and ******* or any other person can always challenge my claims. You will be cced in the upcoming emails that I will send, stay tuned. While they did not allow me to download these documents, one can always do print screen of the most important and send them to multiple parties!
UCam decided to bully and harass the wrong person this time. All this sham investigation will be public and I strongly encourage all of you who went through the same experiences to share yours regardless of what they say in their reports and the number of people against you. If we keep it to ourselves, they will continue doing this for sure. Note they continue to do this even though they are aware of the number of tribunal cases running in the background! We really need to expose all these individuals to prevent that others experience the same. Please consider this request.
(NOTE ADDED by 21 GROUP: we have redacted a name — otherwise, our actions are governed by Freedom of Speech legislation and Office for Students protocols.)
(NOTE ADDED by 21 GROUP: pending legal clarification, we have now redacted a quotation)
TheResearcher · 27 March 2026 at 09:26
I trust the name of the person who wrote that witness statement is clear for everyone who reads this blog anyway! If not, please feel free to contact the 21 Group and ask for my contact details and I will give you the details you ask for. Some people already contacted me in the background asking questions about all this drama and I answered them.
Raven · 27 March 2026 at 12:42
@TheResearcher
“He has publicly, not just within the University but externally as well, questioned my professionalism and integrity, stating that I am manipulative liar whist not providing any evidence to demonstrate this to be true.”
“…stating that I am a manipulative liar whilst not providing any evidence to demonstrate this to be true” is an example of what this person does with the language she uses.
How does one provide evidence to demonstrate the truth of a statement about manipulative lying? One would have to demonstrate intent, which is difficult and possibly, the “evidence” is lacking.
That does not mean, of course, that there are not countless examples relating to this person, all of which can be fully documented, of her providing incorrect and/or misleading information which then results in action being taken (sometimes by third parties) which is unilaterally detrimental to the one(s) about whom the incorrect information was dispensed.
When this happens time after time after time, and in the absence of a relevant cognitive impairment, it would be fair to state that this amounts at best to manipulative use of incorrect information with intent to mislead and harm. Which certainly would exemplify neither professionalism nor integrity.
TheResearcher · 27 March 2026 at 13:08
“That does not mean, of course, that there are not countless examples relating to this person”
I thought the 21 Group redacted her name 😅
Yes, I know, for those who interacted with her it is pretty clear who the person is but guess what, she continues her work regardless the number of tribunal cases she is involved in. How striking is that? I really mean it, how striking is that? It would be hilarius if she contacted the 21 Group asking to delete my post. She can always sue me if she does not mind explaining the background of the story or ask their lawyers to send me a “cease and desist” letter. I am still waiting for that one!
Raven · 27 March 2026 at 15:08
The funniest statement we have on record from her is “We do not have a Conflict of Interest Policy”…
You couldn’t make it up!
21percent.org · 27 March 2026 at 09:35
The professional organisation representing Human Resources personnel is the CIPD (Chatered Institute for Personnel and Development).
https://www.cipd.org/uk/
Complaints about a CIPD member regarding breaches of the Code of Conduct and Ethics can be submitted by anyone, including other members, employers, or the public. The CIPD investigates whether a member has fallen short of the standards expected in their professional conduct.
How to Submit a Complaint
Verify Membership: Contact the CIPD Membership Team at +44 (0)20 8612 6208 or email cscomplaints@cipd.co.uk to confirm the individual is a current or former member.
Gather Information: Prepare details such as the member’s full name, workplace, and specific dates of the alleged incident.
Complete Complaint Form: If membership is confirmed, the CIPD will send a complaint form to be completed and submitted with all supporting evidence.
Submit Evidence: All evidence relating directly to the member and the matter must be sent to the Code Complaints team.
The Investigation Process
Initial Review: The CIPD will acknowledge receipt of the complaint within one working day, and aims to process or investigate claims within 15 working days.
Investigation Panel: If the complaint suggests a breach of the Code of Conduct, the case is investigated.
Conduct Hearings: If an investigation finds evidence of a breach, the case is referred to a conduct panel, which may include both members and non-members.
Sanctions: If a breach is found, sanctions can range from advice on future conduct to permanent expulsion from the CIPD.
21percent.org · 27 March 2026 at 10:12
We remind readers of our comments policy.
The policies of the 21 Group are consistent with the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, together with earlier laws, human-rights protections, as well as the most recent directives from the Office for Students on freedom of speech and the UNESCO directives on Higher Education.
The UNESCO document is here:
https://en.unesco.org/about-us/legal-affairs/recommendation-concerning-status-higher-education-teaching-personnel.
The key line is:
“B. Self-governance and collegiality
31. Higher-education teaching personnel should have the right and opportunity, without discrimination of any kind, according to their abilities, to take part in the governing bodies and to criticize the functioning of higher education institutions, including their own, while respecting the right of other sections of the academic community to participate, and they should also have the right to elect a majority of representatives to academic bodies within the higher education institution”
If you believe a blog comment should be removed, please use media@21percent.org to contact us, stating your reasons for its removal.
Feelings · 27 March 2026 at 13:39
I am so glad the investigators care so much about people’s “feelings”. So here are some more questions I hope they ask:
How did you “feel” when your bullying complaints were ignored, not only by HR but Pro VCs and the Vice Chancellor?
How did you “feel” to learn that your grievance was being turned against you?
How did it “feel” when you discovered the subjects of your complaints were involved in this process?
How did it “feel” when they refused proposals of mediation?
How did it “feel” when medical recommendations were ignored?
How did it “feel” when reports of extreme distress and suicidal ideation were ignored and instead resulted in the above responses?
How does it “feel” to go through a three-year grievance with no outcome?
How does it ‘feel” when complaints are upheld and result in no consequences for those responsible?
How does it “feel” to be told you cannot tell anyone about the things being done to you?
TheResearcher · 27 March 2026 at 17:49
@feelings,
No one has control over your voice except yourself. That is a power that no one can take from us regardless of power differences, even if it is an institution called University of Cambridge.
I just sent the new material to the University Council, General Board, all the people involved in the investigation, the “witness,” the “Disciplinary Committee,” the 21 Group, Mr Daniel Zeichner MP, the doctors of UCAR MHSS, among others. More will know next. UCam decided to silence, bully and harass the wrong person this time. My decision is taken, all the material they send me about their sham investigation against me will be public and the “University” cannot do anything about it. If we publish what they do to us, they will eventually stop, but we really need multiple victims to step forward and tell their stories.
Fun fact, the “University” just asked all the people I sent to material to delete it without reading it 😂 Good luck with that!
Eileen Nugent · 27 March 2026 at 19:23
@feelings
“How does it “feel” to be told you cannot tell anyone about the things being done to you?”
It can be hard to convey to anyone who has not been through one of these long drawn out HR situations how worthless it is possible for a person to feel themselves to be in one of them. It is important for anyone at risk of encountering this type of HR situation to understand that at some point a person might experience an unnecessary erosion of persons own sense of own worth & it may be necessary for a person to then strongly resist any further unnecessary erosion of a persons own sense of own worth & for a person to learn how to restore own sense of own worth in one of these situations to something more normal for the person independently of what any other person in the HR situation does.
Organisations telling people not to tell anyone about the things being done to them may have worked to bury organisational problems in the past. Now there are occupational health professionals, clinical psychologists & a long list of other health professionals whose job it is to work out why a person is struggling in order to work out how to best to professionally support those struggling. What sense then does it really make, an organisation telling a person not to tell anyone about the things the organisation is doing to them, if the organisation cannot prevent the person from telling the group of people working in professional roles with the highest chance of identifying any potential problems with the way an organisation is treating a person as such type of problems would then be a potentially significant source of a persons struggles.
Eileen Nugent · 27 March 2026 at 18:19
HR is not yet professionally regulated which means : both the reward & the source of reward are more explicit – HR salary/benefits provided by employer – than both the risk & the sources of risk in HR which remain largely implicit. HR are left to work out both the risk & the source of the risk implicit in any particular HR situation for themselves – what it means when a societal role of any kind is not yet professionally regulated.
If an organisation is continuously offering a significant reward to a person – e.g. salary/benefits – a person will tend to strongly associate their own interests with the interests of the source of that significant reward – organisation employing person – & with the interests of anyone else whose interests are as – if not more – strongly associated with the interests of the source of the reward i.e. with others in the same organisation particularly people in positions of higher relative power in the organisation that is continuously offering a significant reward to a person.
Two different types of scenario are then possible for those working in HR roles:
Scenario 1 : A person doing a HR role for an organisation is sensitive to the implicit risks in a particular HR situation & is therefore capable of managing the risks in a particular HR situation for an organisation. In this case when person in HR role strongly associates own interests with the interests of the organisation & all others in the organisation – excepting anyone who is a potential source of risk in the particular HR situation – this makes sense as that strong association of interests is then reciprocal. What a person tends to do in a situation – strongly associate their own interests with the interests of the source of that significant reward – then correlates with the right thing to do in a situation.
The person is competent to work in the HR role, the particular HR situation is being managed in a near optimal way for the organisation, any external examination of how the HR situation was being handled would reveal what is being done is rational, fair & reasonable in the HR situation, the overall alignment of interests in that particular HR situation is high. There is the highest chance of the HR situation being resolved in the most optimal way with the potential for complete alignment of interests – HR, all parties, rest of organisation – depending on the type of HR situation. In some HR situations, the type of HR situation itself may the barrier to the existence of any form of complete resolution that would result in any complete alignment of interests.
Scenario 2 : If a person in a HR role is not sensitive to the implicit risks in a particular HR situation & is therefore incapable of managing the risks in a particular HR situation for the organisation it is possible that the person working in the HR role will anyway yield to the tendency to strongly associate their own interests with the interests of the reward giving organisation & others in the reward giving organisation including anyone who is a potential source of risk in a particular HR situation. The true association state is the interests of the person in the HR role are then strongly dissociated from the interests of the organisation & any one else in the organisation. There is a competence state inversion between scenario 1 and scenario 2 – competence state goes from high to low – & that then inverts the interest association state from the true state being strongly associated to the true state being strongly dissociated.
This is where things can then start to get very difficult for an organisation. Take a particular HR situation where there exists a combined employment status disparity:power-imbalance between two parties. For example a temporary staff:lecturer raises a formal grievance in relation to a permanent staff:head of department line manager which is substantive. In the absence of there being any HR situation a neutral external observer would tend to more strongly associate the interests of the permanent staff:head of department with the interests of the organisation than the interests of the interests of the temporary staff:lecturer with the interests of the organisation. It is possible for the same tendency is exists for a person in a HR role.
This tendency then introduces an asymmetry in how strongly a person in a HR role associates the interests of the reward giving organisation (& own their interests erroneously strongly coupled to interests of the reward giving organisation) with the interests of each of the parties in the HR situation. The strongest association of interests tends to be assigned to the party with highest employment status & relative power in the organisation. That asymmetry then means that the HR staff member preferentially approaches – is biased towards – the person in a position of higher employment status & relative power who is potentially a source of the risk in the particular HR situation. It is possible that the person in the position of higher employment status & relative power who is being approached is also not sensitive to the implicit risks in that particular HR situation and is also incapable of managing the risks for the organisation.
It is then further possible that both the HR person & the potential source of the risk in the HR situation – head of department – both strongly associate their own interests with the interests of the reward giving organisation & all others in the reward giving organisation – except for the person making the complaint. The reason for that is that they have both failed to accurately estimate the state of their competence in the particular HR situation & a competence state inversion can flip the true interest association state. The true association state is that the interests of these two people are strongly dissociated from the interests of the organisation & all others in the organisation.
The same two people might then commission a report – biased towards the predetermined outcome that is judged to be in the best interests of the organisation as judged by the same two people – from an external HR investigation organisation that is also not sensitive to the implicit risks in a particular HR situation. That external HR investigation organisation might also strongly associate its own interests with the interests of the reward giving organisation that it also more strongly associates with the interests of the two people commissioning the report than the interests of the person raising the formal grievance. The net result is that a biased internal report is produced which is then coupled to a biased external report. That seems to be kinetics of the HR stitch up.
Professional regulation makes the risks and the sources of risk more explicit, in that way it sensitises a person working in a professional role to the risks in the professional situations they are handling more generally increasing the chances of the professional being sensitive to the risks in any particular professional situation. Professional regulation forces people in professional roles to regulate their own competence state in any professional situation – to maximally align interests in a situation – as this is what minimises the risk of a poor outcome for all connected to a professional situation. A professional can be reported to an investigatory body if a professional fails to regulate their own competence in a professional situation – this means there are checks and balances on those carrying out professional roles, society is not relying solely on the person themselves recognising whether or not they are a good fit for a professional role, it is also possible for others to recognise a case where a professional is potentially not a good fit for a professional role. There is no shame in a person recognising themselves to be not being a good fit for a professional role & in a person finding an alternative professional role that is a better fit.
The thing to bear in mind is that increased professionalisation of HR is not changing the core challenges of those working in HR roles – being able to talk to any person in an organisation in a range of circumstances including in extremely difficult circumstances, treating a person as a person, minimising the chances of a person ending up in a situation where its going to be hard for a person to feel human, minimising the risk of a person ending up in a situation where the person is a potential risk to self and/or others. Professionalisation is not changing the challenges, it’s better preparing HR to meet the core challenges, enabling HR staff to identify things that could potentially go wrong in any HR situation before they are left to handling HR situations such that if things start to go wrong HR staff are better prepared to quickly bring the HR situation back towards the closest possible sensible path forward.
Facts · 28 March 2026 at 09:26
For a organization now trying to present students as snowflakes it is fucking hilarious that their response to bullying and harassment cases is to reverse the process against victims as follows
1 -” in fact we broke the law…”
but
2 -” you hurt our feelings”