Dr Oliveira posts as ‘TheResearcher‘.
Dr Oliveira has been associated with the University of Cambridge, including as a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics and as a PhD student in the Department of History and Philosophy of Science.
He has publicly raised concerns regarding his treatment, including in The Reporter here.
The 21 Group has reviewed certain aspects of Dr Oliveira’s concerns, including the conduct of individuals within the School of Physical Sciences, and has spoken with a number of relevant witnesses. On the basis of this preliminary review, the Group considers that there is material which appears to support many elements of Dr Oliveira’s account.
A whistleblowing disclosure was submitted to Cambridge University; it is understood that no further action was taken at that stage. In these circumstances, the Group considers that its actions fall within the scope of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.
In addition, information reviewed by the Group suggests concerns about the handling of multiple grievance cases within the School of Physical Sciences at Cambridge University over a number of years. These concerns are separate from, but overlap with, the matters raised by Dr Oliveira. They add further credence to aspects of his account.
This suggests a serious situation has been negligently allowed to develop at the School of Physical Sciences.
The Group notes that confidentiality in investigative processes is not absolute and may be outweighed where there is a clear public interest — particularly in cases involving potential systemic failings, miscarriages of justice, criminal activity, or risks to health and safety of others. At the same time, such considerations are generally stronger once formal processes have concluded.
If the ongoing investigation into Dr Oliveira’s case were to produce findings indicative of miscarriage of justice, the 21 Group may consider whether further disclosures are appropriate, including to relevant external bodies and MPs, in accordance with applicable law.
80 Comments
Jay · 1 April 2026 at 23:20
If you’re gonna start highlighting individual cases at Cambridge University where there’s been miscarriage of justice, then that’s a full-time job for a team of people 😉
Everything Must Go · 2 April 2026 at 09:44
It’s a full-time job alright. At any normal employer that would be the job of HR and they would fire managers responsible for misconduct instead of protecting and then piling in alongside them. They all must go.
Anon · 2 April 2026 at 09:59
I would encourage all readers to take note of the calm, mature, and reasonable manner in which Dr. Oliveira raised his concerns before the university:
https://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2025-26/weekly/6803/section6.shtml#heading2-12
And then to reflect very seriously upon the petty, immature, and thoroughly disrespectful manner in which it has responded to his entirely rational complaints.
This is a culture that erodes decency, kindness and mutual respect among staff. It falls upon the directors of HR and their supporters in the Council to take responsibility for their actions in the appropriate manner.
Eileen Nugent · 15 April 2026 at 12:38
University handling of the concerns raised by Dr Anita Faul – also raised by Dr Faul in a calm, mature & reasonable manner – further illustrates the point that the university is unable to reciprocate by responding to those raising concerns in a calm, mature and reasonable manner.
https://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2019-20/weekly/6577/section6.shtml
This is a culture where systemic problems are either not fixed or not fixed in a timely manner – not because systemic problems cannot be fixed – but because there is no willingness to examine a systemic problem and work towards fixing it when concerns are raised in relation to a systemic problem.
This culture not only erodes decency, kindness and mutual respect among staff, it also erodes the system [university] itself i.e. the system [university] stops working for people it did previously work for & as the erosion proceeds the system stops working for more & more people it previously did work for.
21percent.org · 15 April 2026 at 12:47
Eileen, you pinpoint exactly what has gone wrong in Cambridge. And why it is so deleterious
TheResearcher · 2 April 2026 at 10:28
I hope the 21 Group will not redact this.
It was not the “University” who dismissed without any investigation the whistleblowing disclosure that was made but the Pro-Vice Chancellor Prof. Kamal Munir and following the advice of a conflicted person who now writes “witness statements” against me. The Vice-Chancellor and the Master of my College were cced in the disclosure and also did not act. However, and I find this particularly concerning, Prof. Munir had the courage to tell Mr Daniel Zeichner MP that my health was the priority of “all of us.” The same Prof. Munir tells members of Cambridge to break the silence and report the abuses they experience or witness, that “it’s important that all our staff understand our policies and what is expected of them, including what to do if they receive a report.” But when Prof. Munir received a whistleblowing disclosure, had access to detailed medical records, he did not even conduct an investigation and followed the advice of people he knew were conflicted, people who are involved in many other abuses across the same School.
The culture of secrecy and cover up of misconduct is widespread at Cambridge, and this experience of over 34 months almost broke me. It is very hard to be calm, mature, and reasonable, to quote Anon above, when you tried everything you could and continued to be gaslighted. A few months ago, I considered suicide every single day (https://21percent.org/?p=2837). I refused to accept what I had witnessed and experienced, and I refused to simply leave without helping to address the problem because I know for a fact that what I experienced can happen with others, namely students. There are, however, many people in Cambridge who do not want the problem solved and they will do whatever it takes to silence and break you. They almost broke me because I felt completely isolated against a powerful institution who refused to listen and tried to silence me with an extreme number of “precautionary measures” on the watch of very many people, some of them I had trusted for many years prior to these issues. As I did not let it go, many of those who did not listen or concealed and manipulated information throughout many months now step forward to report on my abusive behaviour and how I hurt their feelings, perhaps with the hope that will make me stop raising my voice, that I will be afraid of further sanctions and that I will simply leave. That will not happen. The “University” may well be able to dismiss staff or expel students who raise their voice against the misconduct that exists in Cambridge and that many simply look the other way, but the “University” does not have the power to silence us. When I realized this fact, I felt better and that gave me energy to persevere. Please consider reporting your experiences at UCam or any other University for that matter to the 21 Group and externally as otherwise things will remain the same and what you experienced can happen with others.
Meanwhile, if you are interested in attending the Discipline Committee meeting against me, it is on Monday 13th April at 13:30, via Microsoft Teams. Please use the link below:
Join: https://teams.microsoft.com/meet/311919569704675?p=zMYnVbgA411ChblCmu I already confirmed that I will not participate in this investigation until the questions and issues that I and others have raised for months are addressed. In particular, until Prof. Munir explains why he dismissed, without any investigation, a whistleblowing disclosure and following the advice of a conflicted person, there is nothing that I can add to an investigation that has already the conclusion decided. You will not be surprised to learn that this topic of the whistleblowing disclosure that was dismissed without any investigation was not even covered in the investigation against me.
Horizonte · 2 April 2026 at 19:25
I admire your strength. You are strong. They are weak.
Joiner · 2 April 2026 at 20:12
What are the requirements to join this meeting? Can university members register as witnesses if we know of misconduct involving the same individuals engaged in Dr Oliveira’s treatment?
21percent.org · 2 April 2026 at 20:19
This is a good point
There are multiple people who can give evidence against the individuals responsible for the mistreatment of Dr Oliveira.
- · 2 April 2026 at 20:26
If you had evidence and remained silent how would you live with yourself?
M@shh1t · 2 April 2026 at 22:30
So let it be written, so let it be done
Blood, Running red and strong
Darkness three days long
I come for the rest
utawalabora · 2 April 2026 at 20:45
One day these scandals will be a landmark case study of academic misgovernance and institutionalized corruption that will be remembered for all ages
Eileen Nugent · 15 April 2026 at 14:37
The real problem for universities – including Cambridge – is that the employment grievance procedures that formed the employment grievance resolution system went through a very long evolution process – over at least three decades – from a state where the main focus was on resolving an employment grievance to a state where the main focus was on finding ways to rubber stamp/justify dumping an unresolved employment grievance.
This problem with the evolution of the employment grievance resolution system – once it reached a certain magnitude – then impacted the concerns procedures that form the public interest protection system. Public interest disclosures were viewed through the lens of unresolved employment grievances and since the focus had shifted away from resolving an employment grievance and towards dumping an unresolved employment grievances the focus of the public interest protection system then shifted away from – finding ways to examine public interest disclosures with a view to finding & fixing any systemic problems the public interest disclosures indicated the existence of – to finding – ways to rubber stamp/justify not examining public interest disclosures/systemic problems.
Dumping an unresolved employment grievance that is in essence a serious public interest disclosure relating to a systemic problem is not dumping a serious systemic problem out of a system. Systemic problems don’t go away by themselves, fix themselves or eliminate themselves from the system. Dumping an unresolved employment grievance that is in essence a serious public interest disclosure relating to a systemic problem means dumping information that relates to a serious system problem, making it harder to fix a serious systemic problem that is still not going away by itself, not fixing itself and not eliminating itself from the system. All this does is erode the system, what that erosion process looks like is that the system stops working for people it previously did work for before and as the erosion proceeds that system stops working for more & more people that it previously did work for.
People should not be surprised if a person – making a serious public interest disclosure – reaches a point where the person is considering suicide every day. People should be seriously concerned if a person – making a serious public interest disclosure – reaches a point where they are considering suicide every day but not surprised. If the system itself is entering into a suicidal system state – i.e. the system is entering into a state where it is potentially setting itself up for system self destruction and the system has not kept itself in a state where it is optimally set up for system self preservation – then a person – in making a public interest disclosure in relation to a system in such a state – may well be sensing a suicidal state in relation to the system rather than in relation to themselves as a person.
It is possible the systemic state the person is sensing – suicidal state – in this particular situation – whistleblowing situation – is then coupled to a persons internal mental state, the coupling being the mechanism through which a person can sense the overall state of an external system. That coupling can then lead to an increase in the risk of a person considering suicide – in proportion to the overall state of the external system – unless the person can develop the psychological skill to exert control over the coupling between the state of the external system and their own internal mental state for the duration of the whistleblowing situation.
If that is the case the emergence of that particular kind of suicidal state is a result of being left in a serious public interest disclosure situation for a long period of time – i.e. years – which is not an unlikely given the complexity of these situations and the timescales necessary to evaluate the systemic problems associated with them. It’s important to recognise this particular type of mental health risk specific to whistleblowing situations because what it might take for a person to be able to resolve this particular kind of suicidal state that can be induced in a whistleblowing situation could then be completely different to what it takes to resolve other kinds of suicidal states that a person could encounter in life.
Eileen Nugent · 15 April 2026 at 16:18
You are not alone Dr Oliveira in wrestling with a suicidal state in one of these whistleblowing situations. Extreme mental endurance, that is what is required in one of these whistleblowing situations, extreme mental endurance.
We tend to think of the university as relatively more powerful and of ourselves as relatively less powerful – relative power imbalances – in one of these public interest disclosure situations & it is certainly objectively true that a group of 10,000s people is at least 4 orders of magnitude more powerful than one person but I am not sure this if the best way to think of power in one of these public interest disclosure situations.
If the university enters into a state where in objective terms it has less absolute power in not effectively dealing with a public interest disclosure than a state it could have entered into had it effectively dealt with a public interest disclosure then the person in the public interest disclosure situation is a person with the power to increase the absolute power of the university. A person in a public interest disclosure situation is potentially bringing an increase in absolute power that could be distributed to 10,000s people – i.e. a public interest disclosure situation is potentially a power multiplication situation – in a university with a functioning public interest protection system. That is completely different set of power calculations.
I too felt completely isolated in this situation not because I wasn’t able to talk to people about the situation but because even the most patient & supportive of people eventually wanted any conversation about the situation to stop. The isolation in relation to the situation seemed to be due to a difference in interest and/or mental endurance in the situation. Talking to another person about this particular type of situation when still immersed in this particular type of situation is like inviting another person to go for mental run with you in the situation. It’s a type of mental run most people don’t even want to go for in the first place – most people don’t want to talk about any situation involving high suicide risk because aside from all the other aspects of that situation suicide risk is itself extremely complex, difficult & mentally taxing to understand. Most people don’t want to go for that type of mental run, never mind going for a long mental run of that type.
Eileen Nugent · 15 April 2026 at 16:59
There is a significant risk of the breakdown of all professional and personal relationships in one of these public interest disclosure situations – divorce, breakdown in relationships with children, other family members & friends – i.e. the complete & irreversible disintegration of a persons life to the point of complete social isolation.
If a person is left facing serious consequences as a result of a situation arising in relation to a group of 10,000s of other people – university – and the person cannot understand why they have been left facing those serious consequences in relation to a group of 10,000s of other people – university – that in itself can be enough to mentally break a person resulting in the person ending up spending the rest of their life in complete social isolation.
Blacklisted · 2 April 2026 at 10:29
@Anon
You draw attention to an essential point.
When a university is no longer able to value rational thought or, worse, considers it a threat to its foundations, it surely ought to reconsider its raison d’être.
Veritas · 2 April 2026 at 15:58
A university has as its core mission and mandate the service of the truth. A university that deviates from this mandate has no right to call itself a university.
SPARTACUS · 2 April 2026 at 11:28
Decency has disappeared from UCam. The process started with the now departed Registrary, was made terrible under the Little Canadian Lawyer and is now horrific under the American Queen. The case of Dr Oliveira is not the exception, neither is the School of Physical Sciences! The School of Clinical Medicine is the stage of the worst scandal of all! Litigation in Tribunals and the High Court will reveal the extent of the scandal! Tic toc tic toc tic toc… BOOOOOOM
onlylove · 2 April 2026 at 18:34
It is heartbreaking when you see the human faces of all this suffering and the brilliant people so full of potential who deserve better ❤️
Tina · 2 April 2026 at 20:02
When a university does this to students who cares for details
all we see is an institution failing to foster tomorrow’s beautiful minds
instead a place of darkness and torture
shame on all
TheResearcher · 2 April 2026 at 22:13
There are no requirements to join the meeting as far as I know and I already informed OSCCA and the Disciplinary Committee that I would share the zoom link with others. I already shared the link with the University Council, the General Board and the Proctors, for example. I hope that at least some of them will find this issue concerning. There must be someone who wants to know why a whistleblowing disclosure was dismissed without any investigation following the advice of conflicted people, and that this fact is not even considered in the investigation against the subject of that disclosure. Even though this may sound ridiculous, I am not sure if I am allowed to have witnesses in this case. I was told over and over for many months by multiple people that I could not discuss the investigation against me with anyone, including with my own witnesses, so you should not even know about it. I stop paying attention to their rules because they do not make any rational sense apart from seeking to silence and break you.
There is nothing that the University of Cambridge can do that will compensate what some of its members took from me during these 34 months, and I know for a fact that others went through similar struggles, some of them in the same School by some of the same individuals. These struggles will continue to happen with staff and students if we do not talk, if we accept misconduct or just leave to another place. The individuals who stay and contributed to the abuse will simply jump around between posts, some will become Bursars of colleges, others Senior Tutors, and others even Masters. How can these people be responsible for complaints of students in colleges, for example? Why do they even want that after contributing to the damage of others in their previous functions? I honestly do not know the answer to these and related questions. What I know is that these individuals will most likely continue their misconduct with others if we do not stand up and at least report what happened with us. That is the minimum we can do if we want to prevent that what happened to us happens again with others.
Wyn Evans · 3 April 2026 at 09:14
“There is nothing that the University of Cambridge can do that will compensate what some of its members took from me during these 34 months, and I know for a fact that others went through similar struggles, some of them in the same School by some of the same individuals.”
There is nothing that the University of Cambridge can do that will compensate what some of its members took from me these last 60 months
I am pleased that thIs matter will become public in the forthcoming Employment Tribunal on 1-28 June
The exposure of what has been happening in the School of Physical Sciences is necessary — for the good of the University.
We cannot continue as a world-class university without a great deal more honesty about what has been allowed to happen.
Thomas Davis · 4 April 2026 at 21:00
Will this case be livestreamed through CVP?
TheResearcher · 5 April 2026 at 10:18
I can imagine the distressed faces of the managers of OSCCA with that question! Thanks for asking, it made me laugh. No, it will not be livestreamed, and it is supposed to be “confidential” so you should not even know that it will happen. Note that I was not even given the “witness statements” produced against me and I have the gut feeling that they will not share them before the verdict so that I do not share it with my witnesses and/or get legal advice.
This said, I already told OSCCA and the Discipline committee that I shared the zoom link so that other members can attend the meeting if they wish so and/or if they have something to add to the investigation. Several people from DAMTP and my college already contacted me following this blog asking if they could attend and if I could give further details of what is going on with me so I should say it here. You are all welcome to ask OSCCA to attend. Consider asking directly the Head of OSCCA Ms Nikki Bannister or the Senior Investigator Ms Lizzie Holtham. They made tell you that you cannot attend to protect the reputation and the right of confidentiality of all the people who wrote statements against me. From my side, you can attend as I do not have anything to hide.
Anon · 5 April 2026 at 16:20
This is quite wrong. Britain is rightly proud of abolishing “star chambers” in favour of a system based on open hearings in which statements are individually attributed. I do not think anyone who signs their name to false allegations has any right to confidentiality and by contrast all should be prepared to defend their assertions openly. It also appears frankly naive, in our day and age, to think this would not occur eventually: but that may be another matter.
- · 5 April 2026 at 16:36
Guessing you are referring here to the tendency for things to leak online, but of course if Dr Oliveira took legal action over this then all the statements would get released anyway to any member of the public who requested to attend court, including obviously journalists too.
TheResearcher · 5 April 2026 at 17:47
The Chair of the Discipline Committee should know about that as he is a Professor of English Law, but the University of Cambridge is in a bubble of its own, so I am not sure if the law applies here as it does in other places. These meetings are a farce and those who went through one know what I mean. I am already planning to make a t-shirt that says, “I was expelled by the University of Cambridge as a student for ‘unreasonably persistent behaviour’ after reporting serious misconduct and I am proud of it.” I may bring the t-shirt with me to the upcoming Employment Tribunal public trial in the Bury St Edmunds Tribunal 1-28 June, unless, of course, the University of Cambridge places a gaging order so that the public and media cannot attend. In the very unlikely event that it does, it will be rather embarrassing for the “UK’s best employer” to try that tactic as it will fail anyway and people will know that it was attempted. I guess we will have to wait to see what will happen in June!
Eileen Nugent · 15 April 2026 at 17:24
“There is nothing that the University of Cambridge can do that will compensate what some of its members took from me during these 34 months, and I know for a fact that others went through similar struggles, some of them in the same School by some of the same individuals.”
“There is nothing that the University of Cambridge can do that will compensate what some of its members took from me these last 60 months”
I have been making reasonable adjustments for the University of Cambridge for more than 120 months/10 years. Reasonable adjustments is not just something an organisation can make for a person, it is also something a person can make for an organisation. If an organisation of 10,000s people makes reasonable adjustments for a person the cost to the organisation of reasonable adjustments is usually bearable but if a person makes reasonable adjustments for an organisation of 10,000s people the cost to the person is usually unbearable. There is a cost imbalance to reasonable adjustments.
Eileen Nugent · 15 April 2026 at 17:29
There is nothing that the University of Cambridge can do that will compensate what some of its members took from me these last 60 months
Should be quoted in the message above as it’s a statement from Wyn Evans.
MUSKETEER · 3 April 2026 at 09:43
In the School of Clinical Medicine there is a gigantic scandal that is continuing to damage people for 66 months and counting! Tribunals and Courts will be busy with that! Truth always prevails but suffering is never properly addressed. All of these cases should have never gotten to this in a properly functioning Academic institution! Shame on the oligarchy! Shame on Lord Smith who has decided to do nothing!
21percent.org · 3 April 2026 at 11:07
The 21 Group is well aware of this huge scandal with multiple victims.
As the material is made public following the principles of open justice in the Courts and Tribunals, the issues at hand will not and cannot remain obscured or confined to internal discourse. Transparency now demands accountability, and the weight of documented evidence invites not only scrutiny, but response.
Silence is no longer a neutral position. Those in positions of authority, oversight, and influence are compelled to address the matter directly, with integrity and without delay.
The public nature of the various forthcoming proceedings ensures that any failure to act will be visible, recorded, and judged accordingly.
These are not merely isolated controversies, but raise broader question of governance, responsibility, and ethical conduct that extends beyond individuals to the institution itself.
D'ARTAGNAN · 3 April 2026 at 19:11
Prof Smallman, Prof Teflon, Prof Drinkalot, Prof Crookery, Prof Bullshitmore and Prof ViciousWoman will be finally challenged by lawyers and barristers! It will be a spectacle to behold! Tic toc tic toc tic toc tic toc…
? · 5 April 2026 at 18:50
How can it be going for 66 months? That is over 5 years surely it should have reached court?
21percent.org · 5 April 2026 at 21:53
Very long backlogs because of COVID.
In some cases, events that happened in 2021 are just reaching Tribunals/Courts now.
D · 3 April 2026 at 10:01
The university is stuck in an escalation trap of its own making that was entirely avoidable and depressingly predictable
Member · 3 April 2026 at 11:43
It is too good business, though, so even though the order came down to resolve this chaos they pretend they cannot do so…
Anonymous · 3 April 2026 at 13:43
When the dust settles someone will have to answer for why they chose such a policy, and that will involve some searching questions about the incentives of those responsible, and whether or why they placed their own interests above those of the university, whom they were supposed to serve. There was clearly a change of policy under the previous Registrary that has been disastrous, but I wonder if the problem goes far deeper, in a manner that requires rethinking incentives, information channels, procedures and the organisational culture set from the top.
EmmaBasher · 3 April 2026 at 21:25
The previous Registrary has had a baleful effect on the university in almost every regard. She nearly destroyed it financially, she established the pattern of extreme disdain with which senior administrators deal with academics and she initiated or presided over many wrongful investigations. Mean, vindictive and secretive. A highly unpleasant individual. Her appointment was a catastrophe.
TheResearcher · 3 April 2026 at 21:46
“Mean, vindictive and secretive”
Interesting choice of words. I can give you a list of members of Cambridge that match that description. Note that Ms Rampton left in December and the abuses continue. Many people in this institution like this culture and will resist to change.
By the way, do we know who leaked already? (https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/30787) It seems there is an “investigation” happening at the moment and the Council members are asked to be extra secretive, as if it is not obvious who leaked and why.
Aurelius · 3 April 2026 at 23:10
I disagree with this insofar as it is too easy to blame one person. It would be nice to scapegoat one person and pretend everything is now fixed. But the sad history is that this culture predates Emma. In some ways it is not simply that she corrupted the system but that the system corrupted her. That’s important because whoever takes over will just follow the same sad trajectory unless there are real changes to introduce greater transparency and mechanisms of accountability. We design good institutions so that individuals don’t have to be (good).
TheResearcher · 4 April 2026 at 07:47
“whoever takes over will just follow the same sad trajectory unless there are real changes to introduce greater transparency and mechanisms of accountability.”
The person who made the formal complaint against me was the Academic Secretary who is now acting Registry. When I raised the issue that multiple aspects of the Special Ordinance D that he and OSCCA are using against me are being breached they did not even reply. When I raised the issue that the Chair of the Disciplinary Committee has conflicts of interest, this aspect was not even addressed. These issues only surprise those who have never experienced these committees. When in 2024 I appealed against my dismissal, not only the Appeal Committee did not consider the Terms & Conditions of my UKRI Fellowship despite they are bluntly clear, but the Respondent was allowed to change his answers to the questions I had posed him in the formal Appeal meeting, by simply contacting the Chair and telling her that he was very nervous in the meeting. I raised this issue to the Academic Secretary who was responsible for that Appeal, and he never replied. Going to these meetings is a waste of time because the decision is already set before we get into the room for any discussion. If the senior leadership does not find concerning that whistleblowing disclosures and safeguarding referrals are dismissed without any investigation, that bullying, victimization and whistleblowing retaliation has been reported by multiple members recently, and they continue to be reported with high profile tribunal cases are running in the background on the very same issues, then it is not clear how the current leadership will solve the problem.
TheResearcher · 3 April 2026 at 12:34
Please understand that these incidents, namely the extreme “precautionary measures” I have received for many months and the investigation against me regarding my abusive and “unreasonably persistent” behaviour are happening while tribunal and court cases involving the individuals I reported for misconduct are running in the background for cases not related to mine. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor for University Community and Engagement in particular knows about this overlap, knows that several members of the University tried to complain about these individuals namely from the School of Physical Sciences, and he consistently dismisses the complaints, to the point of not even doing an investigation and following the advice of the conflicted people. The same person who will be cross-examined by a King’s Counsel in a few months continues her misconduct and writing witnesses statements against those who reported her behaviour. People need to understand that even the policies that we have such as the “Whistleblowing Policy” or Safeguarding Statements are not being followed. This is not an issue of the School of Physical Sciences, Clinical Medicine or any other in particular but a systemic issue of our university because of the culture of cover up of misconduct that pervades this institution. The senior managers of the University think that the reputation of the institution is more important than the lives of some of its members, and until this issue is addressed seriously and openly, things will remain largely the same.
Students in particular need to know that their complaints will not be addressed properly if they concern the behaviour of senior members, and the consequences of persevering. Testaments such as those in (https://21percent.org/?p=2628) cannot be ignored and they are by very many. Please ask the Head of OSCCA how she explains this statement:
“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.”
Anonymous · 3 April 2026 at 17:04
As Musketeer observes, there seem to be a lot of cases going on right now, and it is hard to believe that (at least at the senior level) they do not all involve similar degrees or awareness or negligence (this being the most charitable interpretation, without making any specific allegation). The systemic nature of the concerns raised suggests a quite major problem, and I would take hope from that in your position. Whatever they seek to do to you now will inevitably be reopened later on.
TheResearcher · 3 April 2026 at 21:17
What the “University” seeks to do to me is to expel me as a student. They already dismissed me as staff, did not follow the terms and conditions of my personal UKRI fellowship, mistreated my students, took my research projects, withheld my belongings, and tried to silence and break me for many months with unprecedented “precautionary measures” that included forbidding me from contacting hundreds of people, limiting my @cam account use, screening/reviewing my emails, forbidding me from contacting co-authors of my research, ignoring my questions and complaints regardless the topic, among many other measures that were reviewed by conflicted people. Perhaps the most extraordinary of all the measures against me was trying to decide a priori what I and the Lucasian Professor can discuss in our private meetings to prevent us from discussing what had happened with me in DAMTP and the investigation against me promoted by his colleagues. As none of these measures worked and I keep raising my voice directly challenging the senior leadership, expelling me as a student is their last resort, even though I am a student in a different department that has nothing to do with the abuses. Rest assured because that measure will not limit my ability to speak. If anything, I will speak louder.
Wyn Evans · 4 April 2026 at 08:12
It’s worth pointing out the University behaves really badly towards untenured staff
What was done to me when I intervened in a whistleblowing case was horrendous and I am a UTO. I am looking forward to the matter being made fully public at the Employment Tribunal 1-28 June in the interests of open justice.
However, untenured staff like Dr Oliveira have absolutely no chance.
The full grisly machinery of revenge has been unleashed upon him.
It is a huge scandal and I salute Dr Oliveira ‘s enormous courage and tenacity in speaking out about what was done to him, and continues to be done to him.
In any decent organisation, the people responsible for this would be named and removed from the University.
His treatment should shame every University Teaching Office in Cambridge.
Zwarte Piet · 4 April 2026 at 10:49
One hole in the dam, will send all the cases flooding out.. That, is a problem our regents do not understand.
Nuno Oliveira · 4 April 2026 at 11:11
Powerful institutions like the University of Cambridge can take many things from us, including our jobs, degrees and health, but they do not have the power to take our principles. For many months I barely had money to eat and had to wait for the end of the day to get some leftovers from my college bar. My College Fellowship was discontinued after 5 years of consecutive college teaching because of what had happened in DAMTP, and I had absolutely no support from college despite being a student there as well. I was regularly told to put my health first and to take a medical intermission of my degree. What these people did not understand, or pretended they did not, is that the health of a person like me would not improve if the cause is not addressed, and the cause is the culture of cover up of misconduct of the institution. Accepting is out of question and leaving to a different place when I know for a fact that the people who did what they did to me and others will remain and can damage the lives of other members, is too out of question. If the University does not want a person like me as a member, they will have to expel me as a student because I will not leave regardless of what they do to me, and I will continue to raise my voice against the culture of secrecy and cover up of misconduct.
Solidarnosc · 4 April 2026 at 14:14
You are a hero for standing up to them. Never underestimate the power of a just cause. In Tunisia, one man, Mohamed Bouazizi, said no, and the whole system collapsed. Stay strong, stay safe, and always remember your life is valuable, however little regard they show for it. Do not let them win by persuading you otherwise. Together we will live through this, and celebrate a new dawn ✊️
Murray · 4 April 2026 at 20:46
I think an important point here about psychology. Those who think only in terms of power are shocked when the disempowered resist their domination for reasons of pride and dignity, while leaders who think in terms of money, are shocked that people resist at tremendous cost for reasons of altruism, duty and love. And all are astonished that others rally to their side instead of theirs when they see injustice happening.
TheResearcher · 6 April 2026 at 10:26
Someone noted above that I may have access to the “witness statements” of these people that now write against me through legal routes, which is true and will happen. But our university knows that this is a very slow process and there are people interested that I do not have access to these documents before the upcoming tribunal cases that involve members of the School of Physical Sciences.
In theory, I should have access to the documents through a subject access request, but it is pointless to ask because our Information Compliance Office has been denying me all by requests, namely when they involve the most senior members of the university. This should not surprise the readers because it is a common practice in Cambridge, namely when related to members of the School of Physical Sciences. Cambridge Legal “Sued University of Cambridge and Dr James Knapton, Information Compliance Officer, for refusing to disclose an employee’s personal data in breach of GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) resulting in a pre-hearing settlement and the provision of previously withheld information” as this post notes (https://21percent.org/?p=1608)
Importantly, if the 21 Group could let us know the upcoming tribunal cases and the Schools or Departments involved it would be very appreciated. The abuses that some of us experienced are observed across departments and these patterns need to be known.
21percent.org · 6 April 2026 at 11:38
Another example is the failure by Prof Nigel Peake to divulge important emails regarding the scandal at the Institute of Astronomy.
This failure of GDPR was investigated and the University gave the brilliant excuse that the emails were not divulged because they thought they had already been divulged.
This is a generic excuse that serves all purposes — we didn’t give you this information because we thought you already had it.
TheResearcher · 6 April 2026 at 11:56
I wonder if the families of these people know what they do at work. Clearly, many of their colleagues and line managers do not seem to bother but what about their families? Are they aware of the number of people they damage? Do they even tell selection committees of the new posts they apply for about their involvement in mediatic tribunal cases that are about to burst or it will just be an unpleasant surprise for their new institution? I am sure there will be a good excuse for that too, probably they will say they did not share the information because they thought the new institution already had it…
Blacklisted · 6 April 2026 at 12:52
What is most concerning about this very sad story is the amount of effort, time, energy and manpower put into the destruction of another human being. In a manner that feels almost personal.
They are being targeted, because they’ve spoken up, because they don’t give up, because they don’t collapse like a cardboard box at the merest hint of a threat, because they refuse to bow to power and follow the path of reason, truth and justice instead.
As Dr Oliveira states: “As none of these measures worked and I keep raising my voice directly challenging the senior leadership, expelling me as a student is their last resort, even though I am a student in a different department that has nothing to do with the abuses.”
The machinery behind the destruction is fearsome, like the tentacles of a monster manipulating every part of the University, drumming up the help of others, unconnected with the matter, in other departments, in other functions.
Regardless of the argument made, the goal remains the same: to destroy another person, their hopes, their ambitions, their career, their life, annihilate them because of who they are. Because one has power to do that, and because one enjoys the power one has to do that.
The University is not full of evil, unethical people who enjoy being mean, vindictive and secretive, and who would happily partake in the destruction of others.
The University is full of people who are keen to do the right thing, so as not to end up in trouble or with liabilities.
What is most likely explained to the battalion of little helpers all across the University, from Responsible Person to Head of School, is the necessity of the proposed course of action in line with the institution’s Obligations, with the Rights of others, with EDI, with Policy X or Procedure Y, or simply in order to follow the law.
To justify the investigation, the punishment, the safeguarding, the demotion, the redundancy, the forced retirement, the removal of funding, the expelling or the exoneration, the pantomime horses come galloping in, chiming away “advice from legal is…”, before dispensing that all important guidance on how to best resolve a given matter whilst staying this side of the law.
Advice, which is then redacted, of course, because of the privilege attached to the function. It calls itself legal, hilariously, but in this case, it is only ever entitlement to misuse a role for the pursuit of other interests which have nothing to do with legality or professionalism, to say nothing of ethics and human decency.
Anon · 6 April 2026 at 14:14
I think the mistake here is to assume that an employer’s legal services division works to ensure compliance with the law. Sadly, that is no more true that the (admittedly now rather implausible) belief that Donald Trump’s lawyer serves to ensure that he complies with the law, which obviously, he does not, and has been held accountable for.
The purpose of legal services, at least when working within an organisation, is rather more about ensuring they are not held accountable for breaking the law. Sometimes, of course, and as one might hope, this includes advising against decisions that are not legal, and thereby, complying with the law.
Sadly, it often includes masking such conduct in a manner that would prevent it from being exposed. The most objectionable such practice is that of having all discussions of conduct cc-ed or directed by legal services, and thereby abusing legal privilege to prevent such conduct from being disclosed to courts. We have seen from the Post Office scandal what happens when this becomes endemic and the abuses that it results in. I fear that academics are often extremely naive about this and rather slow to realise the true state of affairs.
TheResearcher · 6 April 2026 at 14:36
“In a manner that feels almost personal.”
It is personal. Many managers of the University of Cambridge are not used to the idea that junior members challenge their views and behaviours, namely in front of others. They feel embarrassed and humiliated because they know that what was said is true, someone said it in public not behind their back but in their presence, and they could do nothing to prevent it or deconstruct what was said. They felt powerless as victims feel when they raise concerns and are ignored or gaslighted by the same managers.
Why now? One good reason is that I will be particularly vocal with the upcoming tribunal cases, regardless of gaging orders, and the University can use this internal investigation against me to damage my credibility even if the people who wrote “witness statements” against me were those I had complained about before and no investigation was ever conducted about their behavioural misconduct. Here is the catch that the University did not appreciate. I will not be embarrassed or hide whatever they conclude, and will not forget to mention it in the coming months when the tribunal cases become public and people who now write confidential witness statements are shown to be dishonest.
Time · 6 April 2026 at 14:50
On your “why now” point do not forget that this is happening across the sector not only at Cambridge. An Oxford professor was sentenced to prison for 18 years only last week, and as we all know, more cases like that are still underway. Bristol were condemned at court last year for an entirely preventable suicide, and again, more cases like it exist. MPs held a session on it and surely there will be more as courts and parliament catch up.
TheResearcher · 6 April 2026 at 15:26
MPs are aware of my case as well and even contacted Cambridge about that. Prof. Munir, the person who had dismissed without any investigation the whistleblowing disclosure and safeguarding referral made by third parties about my case, kindly replied saying that my case was already in tribunal and that was the right venue to discuss the matter. Prof. Munir even described his alleged concerns about my health! Unfortunately, Prof. Munir failed to mention the internal investigation against me, that he and other senior managers ignored among many other things the letters from my GP and that the nature of the main claim in tribunal is whistleblowing retaliation. I do not think that Prof. Munir liked what I wrote next to the MPs ccing him and other Cambridge managers, and I would put him in the group of managers mentioned above, who are not used to the idea that their views and behaviours are challenged in public, namely by junior members.
Fred · 6 April 2026 at 17:02
I find if astonishing that barely a year after the Natasha Abrahart ruling, a university would, apparently, treat any student this way. Grounds for reasonable adjustment surely include acknowledging mental health as a reason for emotive responses, but, of course, in any event frankly if what you report is true, then these are acts that would provoke such responses from any person. They would then also be the primary cause of mental health damage and those signing any vexatious complaint would become individual parties to such acts. So that being so, would appear to entail breach of both discrimination and of health and safety law, and, any university lawyer is surely in a position to be aware of this, in advance. Even if you have a case in progress I would be keen to know the opinion of a court on your further treatment as described.
21percent.org · 6 April 2026 at 17:32
Agreed.
The Natasha Abrahart ruling should have caused a sea-change in the treatment of students, particularly those with disabilities.
In fact, the 21 Group is aware of at least three former students with disabilities challenging Cambridge University on its behaviour in the law courts.
Eagle · 6 April 2026 at 17:57
Well, not sure. I think the personal liability of those signing statements against doctor Oliveira here likely come down to two things. The first is whether their statements were honest accounts of their true experiences and feelings. Then, the second is whether these were either solicited by – or even worse, edited or written by – individuals who had prior reason to beleive that they might be liable for earlier acts of abuse they had delivered, and therefore plausibly intended the statements as a means to inflict further such harm. Those things are what would make such third parties culpable of participation in the earlier sequence of abuse. If doctor Oliveira had provided them evidence in this regard beforehand and those things were true, as seems to be the case based on the comments as stated and taken on good faith, then I imagine they could be argued to have acted as well with a similar intent to cause harm or at least a foreseeable awareness.
TheResearcher · 6 April 2026 at 18:24
Please understand that the letters of my GP were completely ignored for months, and by multiple people from the University. Last August my GP put it clearly when she wrote, “A resolution is required to this situation as soon as possible to prevent further damage,” and the University increased the “precautionary measures” against me while breaching the Special Ordinance used. They did not even follow the Ordinance properly as I had the right to appeal to the Pro-Vice Chancellor for Education and they prevented me from it. They ignored all my complaints and questions for months, dismissed without any investigation the whistleblowing disclosures of third parties on this issue and following the advice people they knew were conflicted people, dismissed without any investigation safeguarding referrals from third parties claiming that the “threshold” had not been reached despite the detailed medical evidence provided by my GP, and now they want that I attend their investigation against me to further humiliate me?
One of the worse things of all, and a major impact to my health, was realizing that very many people, including Tutors and Senior Tutors, witnessed these abuses in real time and they did nothing to help me. On the contrary, I was told that I had to follow what the University was demanding me to do. This responsiveness from others made me realize that I could only rely on me and on my voice, and this I cannot let that the University takes. The cases in tribunal are related to my status as staff, not as student, i.e., it is in the Employment Tribunal. However, as Fred points out, the university-student contract that I have with Cambridge was also breached and in multiple ways. Let’s first see what they will conclude regarding my abusive and “unreasonably persistent” behaviour.
Disgusted · 6 April 2026 at 18:36
Fucking hell. In the Abrahart case Bristol claimed as defence something like that they didn’t review the medical letters and still they lost. This seems ten times worse so have to wonder if more serious charges apply.
Blacklisted · 6 April 2026 at 18:40
I can only confirm this modus operandi.
There was an OH report in place, which stated clearly the risks of any further stress.
The further course of action adopted by those in charge (who had read the OH report) was to ensure further stressor were put in place and stress increased in every possible way.
Operating in such an environment becomes a real health and safety challenge.
Because of the genuine risks to one’s own mental health, and because of the risks of further HR actions, such as investigations, grievances, punishment and defamation resulting from potential reactions to the pressures on one’s mental health.
There is no compassion, no safeguarding, no mercy. Once you are on the black list they hunt you down like an animal.
TheResearcher · 6 April 2026 at 19:23
People need to understand that these practices that Blacklisted vividly describes are done to students as well, and Senior Tutors know about this because they must be cced in the communications between the University and the student when issues reach this point. It is really disgusting how individuals who should contribute to the welfare and wellbeing of students do nothing or actively contribute to the abuses. And if you complain in colleges for lack of student support, guess what, colleges have their own student complaint policy with points that explicitly state that the “complaints officer” (typically Senior Tutors) can choose to consider a complaint “vexatious” and deny an investigation about the issues raised, which prevents students from bringing the case to OIA. And if this was not shameful enough, Masters can tell you that the word of Senior Tutors is more important for them than the word of students and the evidence they had submitted to support their claims. Yes, this is done in Cambridge as well, and I had to go through it.
The Upside Down · 6 April 2026 at 22:02
The colleges are the worst for compliance!!! Once you walk through the gates you may as well be in Narnia
21percent.org · 6 April 2026 at 22:31
The 21 Group is aware of major scandals at Clare College — we can’t comment right now as a police investigation is ongoing, but we can say that this is as bad as it gets.
TheResearcher · 6 April 2026 at 23:05
Let’s just say that it does not help when you are a student at the College where the Vice-Chancellor is a Fellow and you criticise the state of the University under her leadership when it comes to bullying and harassment. Of course, it can just be coincidence.
Eral · 6 April 2026 at 23:37
Multiple scandals and it is almost darkly comical how they pivot to cover up. more surreal than fiction some of this stuff.
UNBROKEN · 7 April 2026 at 00:57
Nuno just to say that I really salute your courage to be open about your experiences and place the shame back on them. That is true moral courage and the meaning of honor. I was bullied too and wish I had your example to follow at that time. You are a model for us all. Keep strong and never ever give in to bullies.
Wyn Evans · 9 April 2026 at 08:09
I also want to put on record my appreciation of what Nuno has done. He has made a brave and principled stand against serious and persistent misconduct in the School of Physical Sciences at enormous personal cost.
TheResearcher · 7 April 2026 at 16:15
Dear all,
Some members from the School of Physical Sciences contacted me asking how they could attend the disciplinary committee against me mentioned above. The only thing I can suggest is that you use the Zoom link I was given. I will notify again the senior investigator Lizzie Holtham and will cc the Head of OSCCA Nikki Bannister about this but there is not much I can do and I have a gut feeling the University will find a way to prevent it. Anyways, thank you for the kind words above and the direct messages. Feel free to get in touch if you are going through similar experiences namely due to HR or OSCCA as there are things I wished I knew 34 months ago when all this started.
“Discipline Committee meeting for N Oliveira is on Monday 13th April at 13:30, via Microsoft Teams.”
Microsoft Teams meeting
Join: https://teams.microsoft.com/meet/311919569704675?p=zMYnVbgA411ChblCmu
Meeting ID: 311 919 569 704 675
Passcode: ye2fd9kB
Just Say No! · 7 April 2026 at 16:33
Thank you Dr. Oliveira. I hope people will see what is really going on. As a proud member of the university for many years of my career let me state clearly: Not In My Name. Cambridge deserves a higher standard than the abysmal mediocrity, mendacity and unabashed avarice of our HR hit squad.
Blacklisted · 8 April 2026 at 09:16
“Cambridge deserves a higher standard than the abysmal mediocrity, mendacity and unabashed avarice of our HR hit squad”
…who misuse their positions and the trust of others to pursue their own sick, vindictive and personal interests to punish those who shed light on the malicious falsehoods in the advice they provide to those in positions of power.
xx · 7 April 2026 at 22:27
“I wonder if the families of these people know what they do at work. Clearly, many of their colleagues and line managers do not seem to bother but what about their families? Are they aware of the number of people they damage?”
the divorce rate will go a lot higher once all this finally comes out
Disgusted idiot fisherman · 8 April 2026 at 19:02
I respect Nuno deeply for seeking the truth and justice in what is happening, even against some angry man in a suit (Christs master) or against the best chaplain in Cambridge, he will not be silenced.
¥€$ · 8 April 2026 at 19:35
We need a full investigation in to the administrative services
21percent.org · 8 April 2026 at 20:48
Our understanding is that a draft Grace calling for an investigation has been submitted.
TheResearcher · 8 April 2026 at 21:00
And I should note that the full Fellowship of Christ’s College is now aware of this post so I really hope that some of them will appreciate the seriousness of what is happening in the University of Cambridge when it comes to bullying and harassment, namely in the School of Physical Sciences where a shameful situation was allowed the evolve despite the complaints from multiple members. I really hope that people participate in that Grace. Thank you to all members who worked on it.
TheResearcher · 9 April 2026 at 15:14
For those of you who are contacted by HR a few minutes after they go on leave or on Friday afternoon regarding their “investigations,” check this out.
As noted above, I asked the Senior Investigator of OSCCA Ms Lizzie Holtham and the Head of OSCCA Ms Nikki Bannister regarding your attendance at the “Discipline Committee meeting” on Monday 13. As I expected, they ignored my email as they have done in the past regarding pretty much any topic. But it seems that Ms Holtham had to contact me for a different issue, so what did she do today? Ms Holtham started a new thread ignored my past emails namely where I ask the witness statements against me to seek legal advice. I made copy/paste of her email, put it in the previous thread that she had not replied to remind her of the issue and wrote:
“Why do you keep sending me emails and ignore what I ask you? You do not feel embarrassed by your behaviour? I understand that is the culture of OSCCA and the University of Cambridge more generally, but if you want respect from others, start by respecting them… Please note that I am expecting a reply to my email(s). Thank you.”
I can see now an automatic message from Ms Holtham stating that she is on leave until the day of the discipline meeting. A few months ago, this behaviour would really drain me, but now it no longer surprises me and it is another vivid illustration of the degrading state of the University of Cambridge.
Towards the Iceberg - 21percent.org · 14 April 2026 at 06:05
[…] the case of Dr Oliveira, the 21 Group awaits the outcome of the Disciplinary Hearing against him held on 13 April […]