It’s a now-familiar pattern.
A junior researcher discovers work and ideas have been incorporated into a senior colleague’s publication without proper credit. The researcher raises the issue internally. The process is slow, procedural and opaque. They are reminded — sometimes subtly, sometimes directly — of the importance of collegiality, references and future prospects. Months stretch into years. The senior academic continues to prosper. The researcher, on a fixed-term contract, moves on — occasionally with a settlement that includes a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). Formally, the system has worked, as the problem has disappeared.
Since the 2010s, universities have increasingly come to resemble large, risk-managed corporations. With that shift has come a set of moral and financial hazards that echo the dynamics seen in the Post Office scandal.
Both the Post Office and universities underwent a shift from public service institutions to market-driven organisations.
Before the Post Office Scandal became widely understood, the Post Office Limited had already undergone a reorientation. It was expected to perform as a business. Targets mattered. Financial performance mattered. Reputation mattered. Within that environment, admitting an error became costly. The Horizon system was defended not because it was believed to be correct, but because conceding its flaws would have carried huge institutional consequences — financial, legal and reputational. And so the burden of doubt shifted downward, onto individuals with far less power to resist it, the sub-postmasters.
Since the introduction of higher tuition fees and the intensification of competition for funding and rankings, universities too have come to operate in a market. Students are framed as customers; research is measured in income and impact; institutional standing is tracked, compared and sold. These pressures do not simply change how universities are funded — they change how they behave.
Reputation becomes an asset to be managed. Internal processes become systems that must be seen to work. And when disputes arise, the cost of acknowledging failure can outweigh the incentive to resolve it transparently.
At the heart of both lies institutional self-preservation. In the Post Office case, the organisation defended the integrity of its systems long after credible doubts had emerged. In universities, reputational risk management plays a similar role. Complaints — whether about authorship, plagiarism, funding allocation, bullying or internal misconduct — are filtered through processes that prioritise containment over transparency. Just as everyone knew of the corrupt processes at the highest levels of the Post Office, so everyone knows about this at the highest levels of our Universities.
A second parallel lies in the asymmetries of power. Just as sub-postmasters struggled to challenge a national institution armed with legal and technical authority, academics (especially early-career scholars) today often face opaque decision-making structures controlled by senior administrators. The cost of dissent — loss of funding, stalled careers, reputational damage, even dismissal, can be prohibitive. Both the Post Office and universities have access to enormous legal resources which can be used to pervert the course of justice. For example, criminal acts by senior administrators can be covered up by threats and NDAs, just as the sub-postmasters could be despatched to prison on the basis of lies by the Post Office’s in-house legal team.
Third, there is the question of epistemic authority: who is believed? In the Post Office scandal, the system’s outputs were presumed correct, and individuals were required to prove otherwise. In academia, institutional processes — internal investigations, reports by nominally external companies, promotion committee decisions, outcome letters — acquire a similar presumption of correctness, even when those subject to them raise substantive concerns
Finally, both contexts demonstrate the slow grind of accountability. It took years for the truth of the Post Office scandal to be widely acknowledged. Meantime, Paula Vennells prospered with a huge salary and honours. In universities, too, systemic issues have persisted for some time not because they are invisible, but because they are hard to confront and expose. The wrongdoers are still collecting their winnings.
The next few months start the process of confronting.
(The image of Paula Vennells is reproduced under the United Kingdom Open Government Licence v3.0.)
58 Comments
21percent.org · 10 May 2026 at 04:40
Well, just as Dr Roberto Foa versus University of Cambridge ends, there is a new case coming along.
The 21 Group has no information on this, but is always happy to learn more — email to contact@21percent.org. The participants seem to be at CRUK-Cam and/or the Department of Oncology.
Newcastle Upon Tyne
Cambridge
Jean Mullin
Masuma Harrison
Tracy Kerr
Libby Cooke
St. Albans
DDA is disability discrimination (failure to make reasonable adjustments), RRD is racial discrimination and VIC is victimisation because of protected act (whistleblowing)
21percent.org · 10 May 2026 at 05:31
Does anyone know who currently pays for legal costs and settlements when departments end up in court?
Some departments seem to be perpetual bin fires at the “FT Employer of the Year.” 😉 One way to address badly run departments would be to ensure the financial consequences sit directly with them. If the bill lands on the department or school responsible, it creates accountability—especially if budgets are impacted as a result.
Enhanced financial transparency should mean that departments bear their own legal costs and any settlements incurred. Otherwise, there’s little incentive to improve management or avoid repeat issues.
Yet we keep seeing the same names—POLIS, CRUK-Cam—back in court again. If the costs were clearly attributed, would that change behaviour?
TheResearcher · 10 May 2026 at 06:45
“The researcher, on a fixed-term contract, moves on — occasionally with a settlement that includes a non-disclosure agreement (NDA)”
I would like to remind everyone that no one is forced to signed NDAs. If they do, what they experienced may happen with others. Of course, this is not a problem in UCam because they tell us that “The University 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.”
UCam will continue to damage the lives of people if they are not exposed. Please do not sign NDAs. Please show that UCam does not have that power over you.
ISpy · 10 May 2026 at 08:20
Tom Welchman, the “independent” member of the HR Committee, looks to be a real “independent”
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7432035175640985600/
Tom Welchman: “Delighted that the University of Cambridge has been ranked as the #1 Employer in the UK in 2026 by the FT. Huge congratulations to the whole team and especially Andrea Hudson”
Andrea Hudson “Thanks Tom. Kamal Munir and I are so proud of what we have achieved with our colleagues from right across our University community to enable a positive employee experience. This outcome is very much the result of a huge collective effort!“
TheResearcher · 10 May 2026 at 08:40
It is messages like this that made me above asking people who experienced or witnessed abuses to not sign NDAs, namely at UCam. People like Kamal Munir and Andrea Hudson need to be exposed for what they really are, and victims have much more power than they think they have. The silence of people in UCam contributes to these humiliating messages.
Collective Effort · 10 May 2026 at 13:53
Will staff be sharing individual examples of their “positive employee experience” on LinkedIn?
Comms · 10 May 2026 at 14:55
Great idea! James from Comms will just need to look over that before you post it 😉
TheResearcher · 10 May 2026 at 11:19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K74ts7C2H0A
Imagine this being asked to people in Cambridge… They will stop coming by bike!
Eileen Nugent · 11 May 2026 at 03:26
“Before the Post Office Scandal became widely understood, the Post Office Limited had already undergone a reorientation. It was expected to perform as a business. Targets mattered. Financial performance mattered. Reputation mattered. Within that environment, admitting an error became costly. The Horizon system was defended not because it was believed to be correct, but because conceding its flaws would have carried huge institutional consequences — financial, legal and reputational. And so the burden of doubt shifted downward, onto individuals with far less power to resist it, the sub-postmasters.”
If the aim of building systems is to maximise financial profit people are less likely to be sensitive to a case where a public service is not being maximised by a system being built to deliver that public service and/or a case where public services risk being overwhelmed by people being put at increased risk of becoming heavily dependent on those public services by systems that are being built to maximise financial profit and not to maximise public service.
A health system built to maximise financial profit and a health system built to maximise health are two different health systems. In a health system built to maximise financial profit, maximum chronic ill health is maximum financial profit & not a state of maximum failure of this health system. In a health system built to maximise health, maximum chronic ill health is a state of maximum failure of this health system. One health system maximises overall dependence on itself by maximising chronic ill health whereas the other health system minimises overall dependence on itself by minimising chronic ill health. A health system that maximises overall dependence on itself by maximising chronic ill health is at increased risk of being overwhelmed in the event it faces a significant new health challenge.
21percent.org · 11 May 2026 at 08:31
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2026/may/11/cambridge-university-judge-business-school-saudi-defence-ministry
“Darragh O’Reilly, a student representative on the university’s governing council, said: “Cutting a deal with a foreign military is a very serious error of judgment. Cambridge’s unique university democracy, with its delicate checks and balances, is on the verge of collapse.
“I am deeply worried that the university regulator is asleep at the wheel. Our governing statutes are being constantly reinterpreted by senior staff, there is an increasingly uncomfortable atmosphere in our council meetings [and] the accountability mechanisms are broken.”
Super comment by Darragh O’Reilly — he is more attuned to the huge dangers facing the University than most academics
Note again, leaks from Council. The 21 Group knows that there is now a lot of leaking from within the system — it is the sign of an organisation run badly in which internal dissent is suppressed. It is the sign of a boat that is sinking.
The 21 Group is always happy to receive information. We do not provide the names of our sources to anyone.
TheResearcher · 11 May 2026 at 09:01
Perhaps I should talk to Darragh O’Reilly…
UCam is really crashing and no one stops it. What a shame for the senior leadership. Their names will be in the history books for the worst reasons and they did not realize it yet!
Longtooth · 11 May 2026 at 09:13
I seriously doubt this came from Council. As with the Reform story prior to Emma’s departure, this is more likely senior figures offering alternative stories to the press in exchange for delaying covering of their own scandals. A classic media ploy.
21percent.org · 11 May 2026 at 09:30
Interesting.
Evidence for your point of view comes from the fact that no-one on Council was ever identified as source of the Reform leak (to best of our knowledge)
Risk Premium · 11 May 2026 at 09:44
It’s a technique as old as The Sun, and in this case all signs – motive, means and timing – point to figures at POLIS who are now against the wall, with the intended target our business school. Seems like a desperate ploy to buy time, and only likely to make things worse.
Seneca · 11 May 2026 at 10:01
Scoundrels at POLIS seem very possible. Certainly, they’re facing awkward questions just when they’d like to get a big slice of the Rokos pie.
Also HR, Academic Secretary and ProVC for C&E under massive pressure with all the scandals. So many possibilities …
margin call · 11 May 2026 at 13:18
more likely a response to being cut out of the pie and not a very mature one. the problem with spending other people’s money is that eventually it runs out.
Anonymous · 11 May 2026 at 14:12
I don’t think this is strategic at all, though, can more easily believe instead that a few journalists at Guardian and Times have a few senior figures caught red handed, so can go back to them again and again and again for ‘tips’ whenever they need ‘friendly advice’ on new stories. The same method used internally to suppress leaks is exactly how papers keep them coming out…. it seems there is a pretty steady supply in the recent weeks coming from some place inside and maybe several places.
TheResearcher · 11 May 2026 at 15:05
There are many sources of information in UCam willing to talk. A key challenge, however, is overcoming the University’s gagging ability at different stages of the process, so these recent articles in newspapers are encouraging in that they show that the gagging is weakening. It does not look good for the “UK’s best employer” but perhaps Financial Times and still reevaluate their data and publish a new ranking…
TheResearcher · 11 May 2026 at 15:07
“Financial Times *can* still reevaluate…”
TheResearcher · 11 May 2026 at 09:49
“A classic media ploy”
How can it be counteracted? Both stories could be published… 😅
CharlieMullins · 11 May 2026 at 09:01
Need help with a bad leak. Ask a plumber. Charlie Mullins recommends Signal
https://proton.me/blog/is-signal-safe
Eileen Nugent · 11 May 2026 at 10:46
I do think university democracy does have delicate checks and balances. I found that I did need to finely balance two sides of an equation to get them to match. I needed to precisely balance a duty to myself with a duty to others in the university/the university while holding a duty to the public in place as an additional constraint. Doing this forces a higher complexity of self-regulation of the self, one that then being matched to be compatible with self-regulation of the university that is also then being forced to a higher state of complexity. This means personal self-regulation can be shaped by organisational self-regulation and organisational self-regulation can in turn be shaped by personal self-regulation. Both levels of self-regulation – personal and organisational – can increase in complexity in tandem in response to a series of external stressors on the organisation.
Eileen Nugent · 11 May 2026 at 11:05
I think it’s a mistake to assume that systems of governance other than democracy don’t have their own set of delicate checks and balances or that the set of checks and balances is any less delicate in other systems of governance to continuously minimise the overall risk of collapse.
Eileen Nugent · 11 May 2026 at 12:10
It’s not just how a system of governance performs in stable environmental conditions, it’s also how a system of governance can evolve in unstable environmental conditions where there is the possibility of a system of governance taking a jump in complexity to enable it to effectively navigate unstable environmental conditions. If the environmental conditions are then subsequently stabilised that leap in complexity can then enable advancement at higher pace than was possible before.
Eileen Nugent · 11 May 2026 at 12:24
If an organisation is effectively self regulating the most delicate set of checks and balances is done by the organisation itself and the organisation itself has the highest probability of getting that most delicate set of checks and balances right.
Eileen Nugent · 11 May 2026 at 13:17
Every person in a university makes a contribution to the overall governance in that university. University governance is not something that senior management can do alone for a university and that everyone else in the university can be exempted from doing for a university.
In the post office senior management alone could have ensured an accounting system was accurately analysed and that any problems with it were fixed for the post office. In the post office senior management alone could have stopped prosecuting post masters when evidence emerged that there was a problem with an accounting system that needed to be fixed for the post office.
That is not the case with the current set of problems facing universities e.g. bullying/harassment, maintaining academic standards – senior management alone cannot ensure these problems are fixed for a university and exempt everyone else from having to do anything to fix these problems for a university. Every person in a university has to learn how to resist bullying/harassment in a university without resorting to bullying/harassment in a university. Every person in a university has to learn how to maintain academic standards in a university.
Eileen Nugent · 11 May 2026 at 14:51
I don’t understand the current reasoning of universities on choosing whether to interact with an external organisation or not. The reasoning seems to be don’t interact with any external organisation that has any potential to do any harm – every organisation – as that interaction could result in more harm that good being done and in more overall harm being done than is currently being done but that seems to neglect the possibility that the interaction could also result in more good than harm being done and in less overall harm being done than is currently being done.
It is possible to take the external organisation out of this equation altogether. This is a university that is concerned about ensuring that any interaction it has with any external organisation does more good than harm. This is a valid for concern for a university to have about any interaction with any external organisation and this is something which anyway should be being monitored for any interaction a university has with any external organisation throughout that interaction.
It’s not surprising that people in a university would have much more significant concerns about a university interacting with a military organisation in comparison to e.g. concerns people would have about a university interacting with another academic organisation. Maintaining academic freedom under the normal pressures of academic life is one level of challenge but maintaining academic freedom under the types of pressures a military organisation could put a person under is an entirely different level of challenge. That is not to say that military organisation would put a person under anything other than the normal pressures of academic life, it’s to say that a military organisation could put a person under an entirely different set of pressures than the normal pressures of academic life, ones where it would be more challenging for a person to maintain academic freedom.
Eileen Nugent · 11 May 2026 at 15:06
A university does not have control over any external organisation it interacts with. A university only ever has control over whether it chooses to interact with any external organisation that wants have an interaction with it & whether it makes continuing any interaction with any external organisation conditional on the impact of the interaction with the external organisation being continuously monitored and that ongoing interaction doing more overall good than harm.
Eileen Nugent · 11 May 2026 at 16:37
A university does not have the option of having any external interaction with any military organisation without the agreement of the military organisation that is responsible for defending the territory that the university stands on.
Eileen Nugent · 11 May 2026 at 18:11
The university is a legal entity in its own right, it stands on a territory, a military organisation is responsible for defending the territory that a university stands on.
This means that a university owes a reciprocal obligation to the military organisation that is responsible for defending the territory that the university stands on not to interact with any other military organisation without its consent as that could create unmanageable military risks for a military organisation from the territory that it is tasked with defending & make it harder for that military organisation to defend itself, the territory that it is tasked with defending and the university that stands on the territory that it is tasked with defending.
Eileen Nugent · 11 May 2026 at 19:31
Forcing an interaction between a university and a military organisation or between a person and a military organisation assumes that a university and/or a person can withstand the pressures of interacting with a military organisation but these pressures could differ significantly from the normal pressures that a university and/or a person are able to effectively manage. It is not necessarily the case than a university and/or a person can withstand the pressures of interacting with a military organisation.
Academic freedom relies on a university and/or a person having a basic level of control over interactions with any military organisation. If an organisation or a person cannot withstand the pressures of an interacting with a military organisation it is not rational and makes no common sense to force an interaction between an organisation and a military organisation or between a person and a military organisation.
The reciprocal obligation is for a university to not interact with any military organisation without the consent of the military organisation that is responsible for defending the territory that a university stands on.
Eileen Nugent · 11 May 2026 at 20:05
The normal operating state of a university is that a university has high levels of self regulation and also high levels of control of its interactions with external organisations. The further a university gets from its normal operating state the more difficult it will be for a university to function as a university.
Eileen Nugent · 11 May 2026 at 21:34
Regent House – that is the ultimate source of high levels of self-regulation in Cambridge.
Eileen Nugent · 13 May 2026 at 01:28
If you look at some of these organisational governance transitions they are essentially organisational cultural transitions where every person in organisation could be changing in tandem with an organisation that is also changing.
When we think about alienation we tend to think about a person becoming alienated from others or from an organisation but there is also the possibility that a person can become alienated from their own past self i.e. if a person is changing during one of these governance/cultural transitions there could be a discontinuity – abrupt change – of the self where the person could then feel separated from their own past self – auto alienation.
Others may also changing so even if a person is not changing a person could still feel alienated from others because others are changing. The organisation is also changing so even if a person is not changing a person could still feel alienated from the organisation because the organisation is changing. When people and organisations change in tandem relationships between people and between people and an organisation also change so it’s a very disorientating experience for people if a governance/cultural transition does occur.
Transitional states have their own set of feelings people might take to be a permanent new reality but which may in reality persist only for as long at the transitional state persists and then lessen or disappear once an organisation makes it through that transitional state.
XYZ · 11 May 2026 at 11:15
Could easily believe this was someone on Council, it’s a topic which arouses strong passions amongst many academics
abc · 12 May 2026 at 06:15
Could easily believe it was a head of department / school preparing to claim to their peers that they were fired, not for repeated lies, bullying and mismanagement, but really because they alone were ready to “expose the patriarchy” (goldhill, Saudis, etc etc….)
21percent.org · 12 May 2026 at 18:39
Golden browne, texture like sun
Lays me down, with my mind she runs
Throughout the night
No need to fight
Never a frown with golden browne
Wendi · 12 May 2026 at 18:55
This blog is so confusing
TheResearcher · 12 May 2026 at 19:35
Can you find a way to put “Responsible Person” in that poem of Golden Browne? I was told she is pretty good at that so it merits to be highlighted!
TheResearcher · 11 May 2026 at 12:00
“Senior academics described the proposal as “horrifying” and a betrayal of Cambridge University’s commitments to freedom of expression.”
I wonder if these “senior academics” know how and why members are being expelled from UCam. “Cambridge University’s commitments to freedom of expression,” seriously, who still believes this?
Anonymous · 11 May 2026 at 16:56
It’s sickening to hear about the expulsion of TheResearcher in the previous article, along with other reports in the press of Whistleblowers being forced out of their studies or jobs (here is another recent example, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx21n34n1nvo ).
The relevant individuals in authority do not seem to be getting the message, made all the worse if they are reading this blog and others like it.
Perhaps no single institution is capable of radical positive change on its own. The system across the UK may now be far too entrenched for that. All UK universities look to each other to set standards, which have been chipped away at for a long period of time (I’d say from before the fees increase – I witnessed some brutal targeted bullying back in the early 2000s), which is very difficult to reverse quickly. So unless this problem is tackled hard across the sector, and in a relatively short period of time, then significant change may not happen.
The academic community needs to push for a national inquiry.
Among other things, victims can submit evidence outlining their individual cases all at the same time and place. The numerous Employment Tribunal cases will expose the problem, but they are siloed somewhat.
TheResearcher · 11 May 2026 at 17:23
@Anonymous, do not worry, they just made the scandal worse in my case. I am contacting even more people now and of course telling them that I was expelled for “unreasonably persistent behaviour” at Cambridge University which only embarrasses the people involved even more. The current leadership will be known in the future for the worst reasons, and they continue to cover up because it is the only thing they know how to do. It is really disturbing and hard to believe. The reason I exposed myself so much was because I wanted to know their limits and the character of the people around me. It turns out that they do not have limits, but unfortunately for them, I also do not.
Let’s see what May 15 brings 😉
q. · 12 May 2026 at 16:54
What is happening on May 15th? Don’t see that in the list of cases above?
TheResearcher · 12 May 2026 at 19:25
I have until May 15 to “appeal” against the University’s decision, but they already expelled me and removed my rights before the appeal, as if the appeal is irrelevant… Classic from Cambridge, but can people imagine could would happen if UCam couldn’t actually expel a student they really want to expel? How embarassing would that be for the leadership?
Incidentally, I was told that another event will happen on May 15, but that one is “confidential” for now so let’s wait and see what the next coming days bring!
TheResearcher · 12 May 2026 at 19:27
“can people imagine *what* would happen”
Insanity · 12 May 2026 at 19:31
It is definitely confusing if they want to hold you to confidentiality but already expelled you, surely that releases you from any such obligations internally?
TheResearcher · 12 May 2026 at 20:58
They simply copy/paste the same information from respondent to respondent. In the decision letter where it was said I was expelled, and they already took my rights before my appeal, it reads:
“You should avoid discussing the contents of this letter and the attached minutes (as well as all information previously shared with you as part of this process),or sharing them with anyone except those from whom you are receiving professional or welfare support. It is necessary that all parties feel able to engage fully with the procedure without concern for the wider sharing of information disclosed within the investigation process. I note that following the conclusion of the procedure, those involved may wish to discuss their personal experience of the procedure with others. However, regardless of the outcome, you should not identify or provide details that might identify any individual involved in the investigation or subsequent decision-making process.”
Sure thing, I will keep all this just for myself! These people are pathetic.
Andreas · 13 May 2026 at 10:26
Doesn’t sound legally enforceable any more if it ever was. In fact probably breaks current legislation to make such a demand -regardless of whether a person was still enrolled or not? Are you getting advice?
TheResearcher · 13 May 2026 at 11:33
It is obviously not legally enforceable. This was the result of an investigation done against me to primarily silence me, but as it did not work, it was extended to expel me because it was the only thing they have left. Note that people in general would not be willing to share the fact they were investigated and eventually expelled from their work and/or degree, and I am very happy to share all the material upon request so that you can see what UCam is willing to do. Any person interested just needs to ask the 21 Group to be in touch with me. My CRSid (nmdso2) works at least until May 15, by the way, but I am pretty sure that UCam is checking my @cam account for the last many months so have that in mind if you decide to contact me via @cam…
Yes, I am having advice, the issue is that with UCam everything is possible. They may very well be willing to pay a major compensation in a few months/years but avoid that I do speak as a Cambridge member now, namely before the Employment Tribunal of June. That is useful for both UCam and Christ’s College given the people involved.
21percent.org · 11 May 2026 at 19:10
There have been longstanding problems at the University of South Wales
https://nation.cymru/news/university-seeks-to-defuse-bullying-allegations/
Eileen Nugent · 12 May 2026 at 02:09
A spokesperson for Medr said: “Universities are independent charities and, as such, matters relating to staff disputes are generally for the institutions to investigate internally in the first instance. Issues relating to employment largely sit outside Medr’s regulatory remit.
I think the difficulty with this type of case is this. If a person’s health is strong enough to progress towards an employment tribunal and that is what the person does in this type of situation then it is possible for the principal regulator of the university to classify the issues as issues relating to employment but if a person’s health is not strong enough to progress towards an employment tribunal and a person instead goes to the health and safety regulator then it’s very difficult for either regulator – the health and safety regulator and/or the principal regulator of the university – to classify the issues as anything other than health and safety issues.
The reality of these work-related stress regulation situations is this : a breakdown in trust and confidence between a person and an organisation on work-related stress regulation may be irretrievable but there is more chance of a health and safety regulatory process facilitating a restoration of trust and confidence in this particular type of situation than there is of an employment tribunal process facilitating a restoration trust and confidence in this particular type of situation. If there is a breakdown in trust and confidence on work-related stress regulation, the health and safety executive is better placed to support improvements in organisational work-related stress regulation than an employment tribunal. It’s not that an interaction with the health and safety executive could guarantee a restoration in trust and confidence between a person and an organisation in this particular situation, it’s than an interaction with the health and safety executive could offer the highest probability of a restoration in trust and confidence between a person and an organisation in this particular situation. If such a restoration in trust and confidence between a person and an organisation did occur as a result of an interaction with the health and safety executive that could then result in an improvements of an organisations overall ability to precisely regulate work-related stress.
Eileen Nugent · 12 May 2026 at 02:26
If a person has any interaction with a health and safety regulator then a person needs to be able to maintain trust and confidence with the regulator throughout that health and safety regulatory interaction. If trust and confidence is not maintained between a person and a health and safety regulator throughout a health and safety regulatory interaction then a health and safety regulator cannot facilitate the restoration of trust and confidence between a person and an organisation on work-related stress regulation.
Eileen Nugent · 12 May 2026 at 03:15
If there is a significant breakdown in trust and confidence between a person and an organisation on work-related stress regulation, the person feels that breakdown in trust and confidence to be irretrievable and the person leaves the organisation as a result of that particular type of breakdown in trust and confidence a person could raise concerns with the health and safety executive as with any other health and safety issue. It is then up to the health and safety executive to take a decision on whether to follow up with an investigation of any health and safety concerns that are raised.
If there is a breakdown in trust and confidence between a person and an organisation on work-related stress regulation and a person does not feel the breakdown of trust and confidence to be irretrievable then the person could approach the health and safety executive to request a health and safety regulatory interaction to facilitate an increase in the precision of a person’s and an organisation’s work-related stress regulation in a particularly difficult situation with a view to restoring trust and confidence between the person and the organisation on work-related stress regulation.
Eileen Nugent · 12 May 2026 at 04:18
A health and safety regulator cannot perform any of the functions of an employment tribunal – make an order for a reinstatement/re-engagement, award any financial remedy to compensate employees for losses caused by unlawful employer actions – during any health and safety regulatory interaction on work-related stress regulation.
Any health and safety regulatory interaction on work-related stress regulation is aimed solely at increasing the precision of work-related stress regulation in an organisation in a particularly difficult and/or serious case.
An organisation is free to reinstate/re-engage a person or not & to award financial compensation or not during any health and safety regulatory interaction but any external regulation of the organisation in that respect is through an employment tribunal process and not through any health and safety regulatory process.
TheResearcher · 13 May 2026 at 11:48
The 21 Group posted something interesting in X, a document from a SAR with a message that reads,
“Creative use of the black highlighter pen! Here’s a minimalist extraction. The artist has boldly stripped away everything. Courtesy of a Russell Group university ahead of a forthcoming employment tribunal”
The owner of this document should feel lucky because at least they can see the redacted document. UCam has blocked all the SRAs that I have done since July 2025, namely the material that Professor Kamal Munir and Dr Michael Glover have on me. They always find an excuse for not sending me the material, always, and the DPO always agrees. It is surreal to state of things at UCam now.
Juvenal · 13 May 2026 at 12:03
Pretty obvious it says something like this
Dear HR,
Deny everything.
This policy has been approved by the Ethics Committee, led by the Pro-Vc
Yours, Legal.
TheResearcher · 13 May 2026 at 12:47
Funny, the webpage of the Ethics Committee of UCam says “Vacant – external member.” Can I apply now that I am not a member? Can one of you put my name forward? It would be hilarius to see their faces with that idea…
TheResearcher · 13 May 2026 at 12:49
https://www.research-services.admin.cam.ac.uk/manage-risk/research-ethics/university-research-ethics-committee-urec
Research ethics…