Recent disclosures in The Times and Daily Telegraph concerning Simon Goldhill must have come as little surprise in King’s College or the Classics Faculty at Cambridge.
His aggressive pattern of conduct extended over many years — arguably decades — and was widely recognised among colleagues. It was remarked by a Fellow of King’s that any eventual wave of accountability, such as that associated with the #MeToo movement in 2017, would inevitably result in his downfall. This did not happen and Simon continued to act with relative impunity.
During the 2000s, Simon held a leading role in overseeing research governance at King’s, notably through the election of Junior Research Fellows. At that time, decision-making did not appear to operate through a formal committee structure; instead, it involved a small group of Simon’s close associates. Prof Peter de Bolla (English) and Prof Christopher Prendergast (French) both exercised enormous influence informally. Without Simon’s enthusiastic endorsement, a Junior Research Fellow at King’s was unlikely to prosper. Those who challenged Simon were often perceived to have paid a professional price, in some cases leaving academia altogether.
Simon’s inappropriate or aggressive behaviour towards those in subordinate positions was neither subtle nor concealed. It was apparent to anyone who spent even a short time in his presence. Everyone at King’s College or the Classics Faculty knew this.
Several individuals with whom he had close professional relationships were subsequently elevated as academic protégés and advanced through appointments and promotions. Despite this, a culture of silence prevailed. This was sustained by the collective inaction which prevailed at King’s, ostensibly a College proud of its self-declared radicalism. Simon was just too big to challenge. Such was the security of his position that he was able to put himself forward for the Provostship — the Mastership of the college — and to attract significant support.
The recent complaint of sexual impropriety brought by a university student is therefore best understood not as an isolated incident, but as a visible fragment of a much larger and longer-standing problem at King’s and in the University more widely.
Goldhill has also been active in the Cambridge Traditional Jewish Congregation, where he continues to hold a leadership role. Given the congregation’s substantial student membership and social setting, this raises further and legitimate concerns in light of what has now emerged.
The only surprising thing about the matter is that Simon Goldhill was exposed, after a Cambridge University investigation.
Cover up is ‘baked into’ the DNA of the University. Its desire for containment and discretion is well known, and such a public fall from grace is highly unusual. For an institution as skilled in dark arts as Cambridge, this would have been trivial to cover up. Simon is retiring at the end of this year when he reaches 69. All that was needed was to delay a little longer, then Simon would no longer be employed by the University.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this outcome has occurred with the backing, or at least the acceptance, of influential figures. The handling of the matter has borne the hallmarks of a coordinated and carefully managed process. Perhaps the most interesting question of all is how, and why, this has now happened? Who orchestrated this?
62 Comments
Zipser · 18 April 2026 at 09:16
In many respects, Colleges are worse than University Departments. It’s very easy for a College to become dominated by a small group, especially if the Master is poor or always absent. And grievance processes in Colleges are even more corrupt, as almost everyone knows everyone else and conflicts of interest can’t be avoided. Even the Research Fellowship competitions are not exactly models of impartiality.
TheRsearcher · 18 April 2026 at 10:03
@Zipser, I am pretty sure that many, if not all, Colleges have points like this in their Student Complaints Policy, “The Complaints Officer may reject a complaint on the grounds that it is frivolous, vexatious.” This is point 2.9 of Christ’s College’s Policy and guess what, the Master of Christ’s used this point multiple times with me. There was not a single complaint I did that was not considered “vexatious” by him, including the fact that he and the Bursar did not send me the data they have on me asked in subject access requests. For those who do not understand the implications, a claim that is considered “vexatious” is not investigated and thus the Ombudsman OIA cannot intervene because the institution is following its own policy. Obviously, I noted in my complaint he was conflicted, but he ignored. This is absolutely shameful, happens in the University too, and no one does anything about it. Unfortunately for Lord McDonald, I could care less about titles and power differences. In an email that I sent to all the Fellowship, students, porters and people from the bar, I included the following section:
“Lord McDonald used points 1.4 and 2.9 of the College Policy and labelled my complaint “vexatious” so that no investigation is done. He has this power indeed, I acknowledge it. But he does not have the power to prevent the people who read my complaint and his response below to understand his real character. That power Lord McDonald does not have. People simply need to read my complaint and his response, nothing else.”
They all now know the complaint, the evidence I submitted, and his response. Therefore, next time they see him, they may smile and pretend they do not know what is happening, but I doubt they will trust him.
Eileen Nugent · 20 April 2026 at 12:52
“I am pretty sure that many, if not all, Colleges have points like this in their Student Complaints Policy, “The Complaints Officer may reject a complaint on the grounds that it is frivolous, vexatious.” This is point 2.9 of Christ’s College’s Policy and guess what, the Master of Christ’s used this point multiple times with me. There was not a single complaint I did that was not considered “vexatious” by him, including the fact that he and the Bursar did not send me the data they have on me asked in subject access requests. For those who do not understand the implications, a claim that is considered “vexatious” is not investigated and thus the Ombudsman OIA cannot intervene because the institution is following its own policy.”
If the base claim is that – an institution is not following its own policy [x] – and there is strong evidence available to support that base claim then an institution considering the base claim “vexatious” and not investigating the base claim on that basis decouples this pair of institutional actions – considering a base claim “vexatious” and not investigating the base claim on that basis – taken in relation to a base claim from the institution being able to evidence that it is following its own policy.
The fact of whether the institution is following its own policy [x] remains undetermined by the institution as a result of how the base claim has been handled by the institution which means the institution cannot then evidence that it is following its own policy. The institutional handling of the base claim could imply the exact opposite of an institution following its own policy – i.e. the base claim is true – and even worse the institution not only not following its own policy [x] is unable or unwilling to follow its own policy [x]. In that case the institution has entered into a state where policy [x] is not and/or cannot be followed and that situation is generating claims the institution judges to be vexatious – causing it disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress. The same claims can also be vexatious – causing it disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress – for a person with governance role in the institution meaning they have a legal obligation to make the base claim – the institution is not following its own policy [x]. The institution has then entered into a vexatious state.
If the institution is willing to address the base claim the claim could still be persistent for those in governance roles – occurring again and again – but as the institution investigates the claim and works on policy [x] and/or following policy [x] the claim is occurring less frequently, the extent to which policy [x] is not being followed is decreasing and the substance of the claim is decreasing. If the institution is not willing to address the base claim the claim could then be obstinate for those in governance roles – occurring again and again – and as the base claim is being considered “vexatious” and not being investigated by the institution on that basis the claim could be occurring more frequently, the extent to which policy [x] is not being followed is being allowed to increase and the substance of the claim is being allowed to increase.
Since the base claim has not been investigated by the institution the base claim itself is undetermined and since the base claim is that an institution is not following its own policy it also remains undetermined whether the institution is following its own policy. This implies there is the possibility that the institution is unwilling or unable to follow its own policy i.e. there is the possibility the institution has entered into a vexatious state and its considering the base claim “vexatious” and not investigating the base claim on that basis is evidence of the entry of the institution into a vexatious state – i.e. it remains undetermined whether the institution has generated an obstinate claim. Since the institution has taken a course of action with respect to the base claim that has left the base claim in an undetermined state then the base claim – which remains in tact – can proceed to the Ombudsman OIA for an independent judgment.
With this type of base claim it is necessary for an evaluation – independent judgment – at every level – person, institution, ombudsman – and at every stage of the situation of whether the base claim is frivolous or not – is the base claim trivial or non-trivial? does the base claim have a serious purpose or value or not? does the base claim have substance or not? It’s not just whether an investigation now is proportionate in terms of predicted current time and cost it’s whether not doing any investigation now is proportionate in terms of predicted future time and cost if it means a potential problem with an institution – entry into a vexatious state with a non-trivial impact on a person – is not discovered and rectified at an early stage before it impacts a higher number of people.
It’s also not just time and financial costs that need to be considered when making a judgment about whether to do any investigation, health costs also need to be considered. Working in an institution that has significant amounts of policy that the institution is unable/unwilling to follow means that people are left keeping track not only of institutional policy dynamics – trainable on – but also of institutional policy deviation dynamics – untrainable on. People are left paying higher and less predictable mental energy costs – living with unnecessary and unpredictable mental stressors – to work in an institution that has drifted away from operating in an optimal governance state – institution setting policy it is able and willing to follow – which will over longer timescales translate to lower overall institutional performance resulting in lower institutional reward being obtainable. It’s higher institutional health risk coupled to increased probability of lower overall institutional performance coupled to increased probability of lower institutional reward. It makes more sense to work to remove this type of ongoing higher health risk than it does to continue to accept this type of ongoing higher health risk.
Eileen Nugent · 20 April 2026 at 13:51
This type of obstinate claim has a persistence timescale associated with it i.e. if the institution stopped labelling the base claim “vexatious” and not investigating it on that basis – generating an obstinate claim – and instead started investigating the base claim – switched a claim from being an obstinate claim to being a persistent claim – the claim could still persist over a certain timescale: persistence timescale.
If an institution falls in a dysfunctional state such that it starts generating an obstinate claim and there are not people who can persist on timescales comparable to the persistence timescale associated with the obstinate claim that is not going to increase the probability of the institution getting out of that dysfunctional state.
Eileen Nugent · 21 April 2026 at 21:55
It is possible for a whole institution to be obstinate with respect to its institutional problems, for an institution to be unable to calculate the persistence timescale of its institutional problems that then are left generating obstinate claims, for an institution to be unable to leave anyone with the necessary levels of persistence in place for the necessary amount of time to deal with its institutional problems. Persistent churning of people can be indicative of institutional obstinacy.
Eileen Nugent · 21 April 2026 at 22:56
Persistent churning of people is an exacting institutional phase with a high institutional energy cost as it’s an unexpected & unpredictable institutional energy cost. If persistent churning of people is not increasing institutional function it is then an activity that is burning the energy reserve of the institution for no institutional gain. If there is no increase in institutional function there is no prospect of there being any increase in institutional energy available in future to cover any past unexpected and unpredicted energy costs associated with the persistent churning of people i.e. for the institutional energy reserve to be restored to its normal state. It’s increased institutional energy reserve burn for no increase in institutional function.
If the function of the institution is decreasing as a result of the persistent churning of people there is then also less institutional energy available than expected to deal with expected & predictable institutional activity which then also start to deplete institutional energy reserve. That combination of persistent churning of people & decreasing institutional function burns the energy reserve of the institution at the fastest rate. Eventually – if the persistent churning of people is leading to either flat or decreasing institutional function – an institution can run out of the energy required to engage in the persistent churning of people i.e. burn its institutional energy reserve completely.
At that point the institution is forced – by the constraints of the situation – to deal with the same institutional problems that it could have dealt with at an earlier stage only now the institutional problems are in an even worse state – i.e. the persistence timescale of the institutional problems is even longer. The institution then needs to find people with even more persistence to stay in place for even longer times which the institution is then even less likely to find because the institution expended everyone in the institutions energy with all the unnecessary change in the churning of people phase & also possibly pushed the people with the highest levels of persistence out of the institution in that same phase.
21percent.org · 18 April 2026 at 09:18
OT, something for ‘TheResearcher’
“Sir Olly’s predecessor Lord Simon McDonald has defended the senior official, telling BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that “No 10 wanted a scalp and wanted it quickly”.
He continued: “I cannot see that there was any process, any fairness, any giving [Sir Olly] the chance to set out his case, and that feels, to me, wrong.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0kryzd8l7no
Maybe The Researcher’s problem is that he is not ‘SirNuno’
TheResearcher · 18 April 2026 at 10:16
Lord McDonald has enough problems in his own Cambridge House with me and other students (https://x.com/21percentgroup/status/2000501738617688285), and it is not clear to me that he has the character necessary to give advice on national matters. He is lucky that I did not yet contact the House of Lords and tell them my experience. This said, I wrote to him yesterday and asked him if I could change to King’s College 😉
“Dear Master of Christ’s College,
I am writing because I have a proposition for you that you may appreciate.
In the event that the University does not expel me following their “investigation”, I trust that you agree with me that my presence in your college will be unsustainable from now on. I highlighted this issue last December already, but you did not fully appreciate my personality and its implications. My personality will not change, trust me. I absolutely do not stand people who are fake regardless of their titles, and I could not care less about power differences to say what I think and stand for.
Based on recent events, I decided that a good college for me would be King’s College. Therefore, if you want to get rid of me, you just need to talk to the Provost of King’s Dr Gillian Tett, and their Senior Tutor Dr Myfanwy Hill, because there needs to be an agreement between both colleges. I am not sure how you will explain the situation, but given they have problems in their own house, I suggest you are transparent. I can proportionate a discussion and/or meeting if you want, and I am happy to explain why King’s specifically, but I am not sure if that makes any difference for both of you.
Of course, you may be lucky, and the University may decide to expel me. But if they did not expel Prof. Goldhill for sexual harassment, that decision against me will be rather striking and damaging for the University. This should not surprise you because as you told me in our first meeting, as a member of the University Council you know the state of Cambridge University better than I do. I am ccing here the Senior Tutor if you need his advice on this matter. For this issue, and this issue only, he can contact me.
Respectfully,
Nuno Oliveira”
Eileen Nugent · 19 April 2026 at 14:19
Gets into effective management of organisational risk/threat transparency & flow of information relating to organisational risk/threat up through a governance structure. If those with less overall governance responsibility transmit every low-level organisational risk/threat – organisational state of high organisational risk/threat transparency but low risk/threat selectivity – to those with most precise judgment & higher governance responsibility in an organisation that has the potential to overwhelm those with higher governance responsibility. If high numbers of those with higher governance responsibility are overwhelmed this increases the likelihood of higher governance structures becoming irrational which has implications for the interactions of the organisation with all its members and for how the organisation interacts with those external to the organisation.
Being more sensitive to organisational risk/threat – basis of the more precise judgment of organisational risk/threat & reason optimally matched to high-level governance role – has the flip side of paying higher mental energy costs to evaluate each risk/threat presented with – both low level and how level – as every risk/threat is being evaluated with higher precision. Evaluating a high volume of low level threats takes mental endurance whereas evaluating a low volume of dynamic high-level threats takes mentally agility. In combining the two types demands mental endurance coupled to mental agility – dynamic mental discipline – is being demanded. This higher mental challenge comes with a higher risk of being mentally overwhelmed.
It’s not just level of the organisational risk/threat – low or high – that needs to be considered in relation to the effective management of organisational transparency & flow of information up through a governance structure, it’s also the properties of risk/threat : dynamic or static, rate of change, direction of change, probability of replication at scale in organisation, atypical or typical risk/threat properties and/or risk/threat dynamics for risk/threat type, hybridisation of risk/threats types occurring or potential for this, rapid environmental conditions shift inducing a unmanageable/manageable switch inversion or vice versa of specific risk/threat, rapid societal learning burst inducing an acceptable/unacceptable switch inversion of vice versa of specific risk/threat.
Passing low-level organisational risk/threat up through a governance structure allows a more precise evaluation of the potential of a low-level organisational risk/threat to evolve into a dynamic high-level organisational risk/threat. Governance efficiency can be increased by passing the subset of low-level organisational risk/threat that has the highest potential evolve to a dynamic high-level organisational risk/threat to those with higher governance responsibility. If that subset is being correctly identified it is not then a case whether the organisational risk/threat will reach that higher governance level, it is then a case of the timing of the organisational risk/threat being brought to the attention of those at the higher governance level.
Early evaluation enables preventative action to be taken at an early stage to reduce the probability of an organisational risk/threat ever growing to a dynamic high level threat & reduce the overall organisational resource cost of handling the organisational risk/threat. Some low-level organisational risk/threat will in any case grow to be a dynamic high level threat. In that case it’s even more important for that low-level organisational risk/threat to receive early attention from those with higher governance responsibility to enable them to build sensitivity not just to properties inherent to risk/threat but also to how risk/threat is coupling to the organisation to generate organisation risk/threat with a distinct set of properties & also to the dynamics of the organisational risk/threat.
TheResearcher · 18 April 2026 at 12:12
The most discussed Lead HR Business Partner in the 21 Group working on Friday night and on weekends?!?!? Either the number of scandals in her school are out of control and need extra hours that only her can make, or she is sending many CVs to future employers because she knows what is coming in June. She should thank me because I made her famous across the University…
. · 18 April 2026 at 13:36
Everyone looking for jobs elsewhere now. Lots of people already left HR. Council is down on members. Goldhilll surely regretting not taking early retirement. Others like him considering their options. Only limited number of lifeboats on the Titanic.
TheResearcher · 18 April 2026 at 14:32
“Council is down on members.”
I would be happy to join and ask some questions that apparently no one is asking. Given my “unreasonably persistent behaviour” I could perhaps get some answers, or at least I could shake the boat further and kick some current members out. Unfortunately, I can think of at least 3 very senior members who would be highly against the idea.
SPARTACUS · 18 April 2026 at 18:23
“Perhaps the most interesting question of all is how, and why, this has now happened? Who orchestrated this?”
THE ANSWER: the American Queen ans her oligarchy decided to ‘execute’ Prof Simon! They have no principles or fairness or regard for the truth! They decide in some dark corner and then the machine, funded by the Chest implements. Simple!
So look no further! It was one member of the oligarchy! 21percent.org knows well who they are! The same that tried to destroy Prof Wyn Evans and others!
Princip · 19 April 2026 at 11:19
Spartacus is correct. Look at the entourage around the VC for those who are the assassins
TheResearcher · 19 April 2026 at 11:22
Do not forget her College…
GreekTragedy · 19 April 2026 at 18:33
Who orchestrated this? A law of large numbers- I would say. When you abuse tens and hundreds of people, most will remain silent due to fear but someone would eventually break and complain.
cylene · 19 April 2026 at 20:18
And then everyone does. Once the fear barrier is broken people can at last speak their ❤️
21percent.org · 19 April 2026 at 20:34
Both Twitter and Bluesky have been a revelation — his behaviour was well known outside Cambridge as well
TheResearcher · 19 April 2026 at 20:56
True, but the answer to “how, and why, this has now happened?” is hardly because this particular student complained, but how/why her complained was taken seriously when others before her most likely had complained and were ignored. There are two barriers here that had to be crossed, one from the victim who was brave enough to complain; and another, arguably much thicker, the “University” taking the student seriously instead of trying to cover up the case as they typically do. It does not make sense that people from the “oligarchy” would want this case to be investigated and released now when a number of high-profile tribunal cases are about become public. Moreover, if they had “orchestrated” it, they would not keep their silence now. They could simply dismiss him now that so many people are against him and looking at what the University does. Unless, of course, this was a diversion to show a picture of the University that is false.
Redacted Goat · 18 April 2026 at 19:06
“Perhaps the most interesting question of all is how, and why, this has now happened? Who orchestrated this?”
I’ve eaten all the evidence.
Sorry
Burp
The rest will be redacted. Like this goat.
Legal privilege…
TheResearcher · 18 April 2026 at 19:27
Today, I finally realized who Sam is, Redacted Goat! And I saw a letter that you drafted to my favourite Pro-Vice Chancellor where you exonerate your own misconduct. How striking is that? I wonder why you keep being protected by so many managers when you damaged so many people across your School. That mystery should be solved before you leave Cambridge after the summer… Keep us posted about your new adventures because there is a large number of people keen to know what you will do next!
21percent.org · 19 April 2026 at 11:21
Truth & Reconciliation begins on Monday at Bury St Edmunds Tribunal
Dr Roberto Foa versus University of Cambridge, listed for 2 weeks
TheResearcher · 19 April 2026 at 11:39
Was Dr Foa at POLIS? Perhaps invite The Guardian to be in the audience, unless, of course, there is a gagging order in place to prevent the public to attend…
- · 19 April 2026 at 12:04
It is Cambridge vs. the future of democracy… Pretty sure whose side most people are on, what a sad moment for the university.
Athene · 19 April 2026 at 12:24
As a former Kings student – we are talking a long back – who knew Simon Goldhill very well, I am finding it all weirdly upsetting. It seems that the explotitative behaviour which I had felt to be part of a post-Pill, pre-AIDS culture – also perhaps related to the fact, that at the time, women were still very new at Kings, is actually something that is systemic, , deeply embedded . It seems to me that it is a still a culture in which women are profoundly disadvantaged, and highly likely to be exploited. All the more irritating in view of the college’s radical posturing.
Wyn Evans · 19 April 2026 at 12:56
I was a former King’s student and fellow.
I left after the treatment I witnessed of the first female Provost of King’s (Judith Mayhew Jonas). King’s College now has its second female Provost in Gillian Tett. It will be interesting to see if she is able to change matters in any meaningful way. I agree that what has happened is worsened by the College’s radical image, we had a right to expect better.
TheResearcher · 19 April 2026 at 13:28
As a person who has spent substantial time at King’s in the last year, I can say that even people in the bar knew the behaviour of Simon Goldhill and were struck by the fact he was allowed to stay. Surely the Fellows and the Provost also knew about it but apparently did little to change the long-standing situation. If they act now following the published articles, they must be asked why they did not act before and what measures they will put in place so that similar issues do not repeat in the future. Their silence, together with the University’s, is increasingly embarrassing but they do not seem to realize that. Perhaps they expect that people simply forget and carry on their lives.
Former Student · 20 April 2026 at 01:07
I remember that treatment well. I am also a former King’s student and was also a Fellow Cambridge at this time–and also thought (whatever issues they had with her management style) that her treatment was disgraceful, not least given the College had only a few months earlier been preening itself on having made such an appointment. The Fellows’ behaviour towards her was cruel, childish, petulant, and –indeed — outright sexist. Her departure and that of the then Bursar shortly thereafter also led to payouts by the College heading towards £1 million, if I recall (the Financial Times certainly reported on it). That in, and of, itself should have led to significant self-critique and reform, but it didn’t.
TheResearcher · 20 April 2026 at 06:04
The Financial Times?!?! I guess their editor Dr Gillian Tett can find that article!
https://www.ft.com/gillian-tett
Droit du seigneur · 19 April 2026 at 14:17
The hypocrisy is what really riles people. Peterhouse is crusty, say, but in terms of conduct their fellows seem decent. Kings talk the talk about all these issues but they don’t walk the walk.
TheResearcher · 19 April 2026 at 14:59
There are decent and less decent Fellows in every college, and there is not more hypocrisy in Colleges than in the University itself. Ask Professor Kamal Munir about my name, what he did to me, and see how his expression changes:
https://www.studentsupport.cam.ac.uk/harassment-and-sexual-misconduct
“We are crystal clear that harassment and sexual misconduct are unacceptable. We have an obligation to prevent it, and everyone at the University has a role to play. That’s why it’s important that all our staff understand our policies and what is expected of them, including what to do if they receive a report.”
Professor Kamal Munir, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for University Community and Engagement
Teiresias · 19 April 2026 at 20:47
For those who want a vignette of Simon Goldhill’s general sexual ethics (as a serial adulterer), see p. 40 of Helen Morales’ 2014 book, Pilgrimage to Dollywood, where he is the thinly disguised ‘charismatic narcissist’.
21percent.org · 19 April 2026 at 22:02
Ordered from UL, we’ll check it out, thanks
TheResearcher · 20 April 2026 at 10:25
The 21 Group has an interesting post in X and cites a new BBC article:
“Cambridge University suppresses dissent on its Viva Engage — an internal social network for staff & the university community Articles linked to press reports of problems with bullying are removed Strengthening of free speech legislation is needed”
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm29dngvjqeo
The idea of free speech in Cambridge University is a joke, and for those who spoke and were then bullied and harassed for their views and complaints, it is a humiliation.
Anon · 20 April 2026 at 19:17
Is it 2% of university income fine for each instance of suppression of freedom of speech? I fear one could easily find 50 instances and end up with the government taking back the whole of the annual income.
TheResearcher · 20 April 2026 at 19:31
True, namely if we consider what happens with Varsity. Incidentally, I had an interview with them early this year that was never published… In parallel, there was an article on bullying and harassment that is still waiting publication. And yet, one hears that Cambridge upholds freedom of speech. What a hypocritical culture.
BreakerMorant · 20 April 2026 at 21:46
Encouraging News coming in from Bury St Edmunds.
Sshhhh … for now 😉
TheResearcher · 20 April 2026 at 21:53
We missed you BreakerMorant!
BreakerMorant · 21 April 2026 at 08:53
Thanks, TheResearcher
We’ll post the breaking news from Bury St Edmunds Tribunal, as much as we can.
Lots going on that can’t be reported fully at the moment.
TheResearcher · 21 April 2026 at 09:15
“Lots going on that can’t be reported fully at the moment.”
That is what HR, OSCCA and others told me and then yesterday the University Council, the General Board, the Board of Scrutiny, the Proctors and tens of other people from the University of Cambridge got my “”confidential appeal” regarding the sham investigation against me. Even Professor Simon Goldhill got my appeal! If after what I wrote, the most discussed Lead HR Business Partner in the 21 Group continues to write “witness statements” and manipulate people she is very brave. But anyways, keep us updated!
? · 21 April 2026 at 12:55
How was goldhill involved? Seems like a small group all working together time and time again.
TheResearcher · 21 April 2026 at 13:21
“Any “sanction” that I get from this sham investigation will backfire on the “University” sooner or later. If the “University” decides to expel me, they are expelling a student when this issue has nothing to do with his studies and there was not a single person from his department that complained about him. Indeed, he had been told for months that he could not complain about the senior staff that then aligned against him as the issues did not relate to his “student experience” even if the issues were affecting his studies materially because his personal belongings continue in the department where the abuses against him and others happened. Expelling a student for his “unreasonably persistent behaviour” in challenging misconduct of senior members while Professor Simon Goldhill is accused of sexual harassment of a student and is not expelled will be the downfall of these senior members, namely when what was published about Professor Goldhill’s case is just the tip of the iceberg. If they do not expel the student, they will have to put up with a junior member who openly challenged them all and will continue to do so regardless of the “investigations” they do against him. That moral victory no one will take from him. […] I am ccing here among others Mr Daniel Zeichner MP and the doctors of UCARMHSS/NHS as I promised to keep them updated about this issue, the Commissary Sir Patrick Elias so that he can have this update into account in his review about how the Vice-Chancellor Professor Deborah Prentice addressed my formal representation under Statute AIX that OSCCA tried to block recurrently, and Professor Simon Goldhill because I have the gut feeling that our futures in Cambridge are more connected than one could imagine a few weeks ago”
FF · 21 April 2026 at 13:53
Others in the ‘Responsible Person’ squad are Prof Lindsay Greer, Prof Beverley Glover, Prof Henriette Hendriks & Prof Eilis Ferran
They know what they are doing
TheResearcher · 21 April 2026 at 14:08
I confirm that Prof. Lindsay Greer was supposed to be the “Responsible Person” for one of my grievances in DAMTP and I had to explain to them that a member of the same School had conflicts of interest when the Head of the School was also involved…How naïve I was, at the time I did not know how deep the problem goes and they can always choose people from others Schools who do what they want. Prof Beverley Glover, for example, was the Chair of an Appeal Committee that I had and incidentally, she did not even follow the Terms & Conditions of my UKRI Grant, while allowing to change the version of the Respondent to my questions 1 day after the Hearing because. Essentially, he claimed he was very nervous in the meeting and she accepted the excuse! Yes, it was a Head of Department using that pathetic excuse. The others I do not know directly, but Prof Eilis Ferran is a Fellow of St Edmund’s College where there are a lot of problems!
Irresponsible · 21 April 2026 at 16:45
Is there a list of RPs? Seems like it is always the same usual suspects. Do they do anything other than sign off for HR?
21percent.org · 21 April 2026 at 17:13
“Do they do anything other than sign off for HR?”
They sign off for HR. Evidence to be presented at forthcoming Employment Tribunals will show the letters written by HR, and the RP “topping and tailing” the letters by adding a header from the Botanical Gardens and a signature.
HR write the letters, the RP just acts as postbox.
Xerxes · 21 April 2026 at 17:30
You must be completely without conscience to act as an RP
Look what they did to Magdalen Connolly
Or at least you must want to earn brownie points with HR & senior management. Maybe you want to become ProVc Chancellor for Punts and Feasts on a fat salary
MUSKETEER · 21 April 2026 at 17:47
Add to those Prof Crookery and Prof Bullshitmore! They were main players in the SCM scandal. Ask Prof Smallman.
TheResearcher · 21 April 2026 at 18:14
@MUSKETEER, the problem is that not everyone knows who those are, but I trust that one of them got my email yesterday 😉
A few months ago I asked Prof. Beverley Glover what she was after and if she was not embarrassed for contributing to the current degrading state of the University when it comes to addressing misconduct. Unfortunately, she never answered. Perhaps I hurt her feelings, not sure. What I do know is that I have been accused of creating a “humiliating environment” by calling people what they are. It turns out that many people in Cambridge are dishonest and do not want that others know about it. Ssssssssh, it is confidential!
dalek · 21 April 2026 at 19:21
Quite possible Prof Bullmore left because of the really shitty way he was treated by HR
One way or another, HR will destroy this University
BreakerMorant · 21 April 2026 at 19:04
Second Day of the Employment Tribunal
Notably, no cross-examination has taken place so far — an omission that raises eyebrows and suggests that one side may be feeling the pressure 😉
TheResearcher · 21 April 2026 at 19:30
I hope the media are present taking notes… It would be great to get at least 1 scandal out every month until Christmas so that 2027 can start without misconduct and cover ups. 8 scandals published until Christmas is possible with the Consigliere University!
https://21percent.org/?p=3097
21percent.org · 21 April 2026 at 20:44
We know a number of the lawyers working on Consigliere University scandals We know their caseload.
At any one time, our estimate is that there are ~ 40 serious legal cases on the go — it’s a huge scandal, where are they burying all this in the accounts
TheResearcher · 21 April 2026 at 21:08
Ssssssssh, it is confidential!
I would be keen to know how many are from the School of Physical Sciences and its relative impact in the big picture. Their Lead HR Business Partner is making crazy hours of work so she must be really busy with witness statements, drafting reports of investigations, etc.
Anonymous · 21 April 2026 at 22:10
Managed to observe mid way in a chat about university caving…. very disappointing not to see them up there facing questions.
21percent.org · 21 April 2026 at 22:16
Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, gave some excellent advice which the 21 Group will be following 😉
Anon · 22 April 2026 at 11:12
If the case didn’t go ahead it can only mean that the university conceded and had to discuss terms. From long and jaded experience I can assure you this is the the only time such a thing ever happens. It is unusual however that they didn’t concede earlier as is the normal pattern.
SPARTACUS · 21 April 2026 at 22:25
UCam is doomed! The number of scandals is enormous and at some point the whole ship will sink! The Chancellor Lord Smith failed to take action and now it is too late! The regime of the American Queen is so grossly incompetent and corrupt, that after the disaster of the Little Canadian Lawyer, the place is in total decay. My guess is that many millions of pounds are disappearing down the drain in legal costs, damages/compensation and paying to silence people with NDAs. It should never have been this way. British Universities have lost the plot.
TheResearcher · 21 April 2026 at 22:42
“The University [of Cambridge] does not use non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) or confidentiality clauses. We are committed to ensuring staff and students are not prevented from discussing their experiences of harassment or sexual misconduct.” 😉
What a bunch of liars… I really hope they do not dare to propose that idea to me.
SP · 22 April 2026 at 11:00
This is obviously false. Every grievance contains such a clause no?
21percent.org · 22 April 2026 at 11:26
https://www.cam.ac.uk/notices/news/university-of-cambridge-statement-on-use-of-non-disclosure-agreements-ndas
“The University of Cambridge will never use Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) to prevent individuals from reporting sexual misconduct or to cover up inappropriate behaviour. The University considers the safety and wellbeing of members of its community to be of paramount importance and supports the right of complainants to take the matter to the police or other regulatory agencies and warn others about proven perpetrators of abuse or inappropriate behaviour.
There are, however, rare occasions when non-disclosure agreements, made as part of the settlement of a dispute, can benefit all parties to it[1]. Where a complainant genuinely wishes a settlement agreement to contain an NDA, its terms are clear and the complainant has received independent legal advice about its effect, the parties should be free to reach a settlement on this basis. The University is unable to give a commitment that could be interpreted as preventing the use of NDAs in this sort of situation, however infrequently it may arise.”
Rare occasions … 🤣 … however infrequently it may arise … 🤣🤣
TheResearcher · 22 April 2026 at 11:44
One thing I can assure you, if anyone in the University of Cambridge even dares to suggest that to me, it will be immediately embarrassed. It is because of NDAs and alike that most people in Cambridge (and the public at large) do not know what really happens here. There is no money that can compensate what these people did to me.