Bury St Edmunds Employment Tribunal is currently hearing an ongoing whistleblowing case.
Prof Neil Wyn Evans is bringing claims against Cambridge University, Prof Richard McMahon, Ms Emma Rampton and Prof Deborah Prentice under the Public Interest Disclosure Act.
Cross-examination begins on Monday 8 June 2026. Prof Evans will be cross-examined by Akua Reindorf KC, acting for the University, followed by cross-examination of the Claimant’s witnesses. The Respondents and their witnesses will then be cross-examined by Stuart Brittenden KC.
The Tribunal Judge has confirmed that online access links should be made available to members of the public and the press wishing to observe proceedings remotely. We reproduce the standard instructions:
“Requests from the media and members of the public to observe a hearing remotely should be made in advance to watfordet@justice.gov.uk to allow for inclusion during the hearing set-up. The naming convention in the subject heading of the email request should read “MEDIA OR PUBLIC ACCESS REQUEST – AN Other v AN Other – Hearing Date.” (Courtserve website)
We understand that some journalists are now receiving access links.
Please allow up to 24 hours for a response; if issues persist, do let us know. We support the principles of open justice and will work to ensure access for all who wish to observe matters from 8 June onwards.
Commentary on the underlying matters should be avoided until they are presented in open court. Reporting may then proceed in accordance with the principles of open justice.
44 Comments
Unite · 1 June 2026 at 14:19
Confirmed. CVP links to observe remotely have been reported as issued.
If anyone fails to obtain one, please post here for advice on next steps.
We thank the judge and tribunal for their commitment to open justice and the civic right to attend and observe the British justice system in action.
TheResearcher · 1 June 2026 at 15:38
Thanks! I have just received my CVP link!
21percent.org · 1 June 2026 at 15:41
Excellent news
Casey · 2 June 2026 at 07:32
I’ve not received a link yet. I emailed a request last week and sent another one yesterday. Hopefully it arrives today.
Supporter · 2 June 2026 at 08:56
I haven’t received my link to join the tribunal remotely. Can links be shared?
TheResearcher · 2 June 2026 at 09:19
If someone could confirm that those who got the link can share it, I am happy to share mine. Just send me the email address to where I should forward the email I got from the tribunal with the link and instructions.
21percent.org · 2 June 2026 at 09:42
**** EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL LINK FOR REMOTE VIEWING ****
If you have contacted Watford Employment Tribunal & not had a response for the link for 8 June 2026, please send an email to this email address
TribunalLink AT proton.me
We will collate all the email addresses and ask Watford Employment Tribunal to supply the bulk list with the link, or to confirm that they are happy for us to supply the existing CVP link.
Please don’t post the link directly here.
The 21 Group will undertake to ensure that everyone who wants to view proceedings in this Tribunal can do so, in the interests of Open Justice.
The order of witnesses after 8 June is not presently known. Once this is public information, it will be provided.
21percent.org · 2 June 2026 at 09:51
And requests are already coming in !!
TheResearcher · 2 June 2026 at 10:03
Do not forget to send the link to all members of the University Council and the General Board. As this is a matter of major reputational risk to the University, it is ultimately a matter of their responsibility…
SPARTACUS · 1 June 2026 at 14:24
Wyn Evans is clearly a brave hero! He has already won even before the Tribunal decides! Everyone will now know the cesspit UCam has become under two consecutive VCs. It will reveal the gigantic problems within HR and Legal. It might (one has to keep hoping) lead to a ‘revolution’ where the many world leading academics in Cambridge get rid of the oligarchy that has been destroying an 800 institution over the past 8 years or so.
TheResearcher · 1 June 2026 at 14:32
It is funny to see who is the University HR staff currently “Out of Office” until the end of June judging from their automatic messages… How will Cambridge survive without their expert advice?!?!? And what will happen to them at the end of June? We shall see!
ohdear · 1 June 2026 at 14:59
Haha I suspect some of them may be “out of office” for a lot longer than that
Fido · 1 June 2026 at 15:20
I am salivating
Special Friend · 1 June 2026 at 17:33
I am looking for a new owner
minion · 2 June 2026 at 10:24
we need a new mini boss
fury · 1 June 2026 at 15:49
I assume the VC does know about this Employment Tribunal? Given the level of dysfunction, I can imagine no-one has told her.
I mean Gillian Tett (Provost of Kings) read in the newspapers that one of her Fellows is a sex harasser. Completely believable that Prentice will find out from the national press.
TheResearcher · 1 June 2026 at 16:00
I can confirm that the VC and all Fellows of Christ’s College know about this Employment Tribunal.
Astro · 1 June 2026 at 19:49
Everyone in astronomy thinks the university are going to lose this.
So, it looks like a bit of a Hail Mary.
They know they’re sunk, for some reason they don’t want to settle with Wyn, and so the only thing they can do is get a top notch barrister & just hope for the best.
The chance that this goes wrong, really very badly wrong, is huge
The Hard Truth · 1 June 2026 at 20:47
It’s not driven by the university’s interests – only the personal “ego drama” and career goals of the lawyers. They are smarting from last month’s catastrophic climbdown (after telling Pro VC etc for years that everything would “work out fine”), at risk of losing future university business to other firms, and desperate to avoid setting a precedent in a high profile case in which for a long time the reputation of the VC, Legal and Registrary has been at stake. No one gives a fuck about our university and its reputation only their own survival. Like Trump in Iran, like Putin in Ukraine, we are expending resources to save the egos of our leadership, who ultimately will only trash their own legacies along with ours – but two years later, we will left to clean up the damage while they have all moved on.
Flight 19? · 1 June 2026 at 20:55
For UK Universities it’s mainly about prolonging the persecution of a whistleblower for as long as absolutely possible, to deter others coming forward (good luck with that…), and their lawyers making a fortune out of it all. Yes, the tribunal stage itself and the run up to it is part of this campaign. They still think, and maybe even believe, that this is the better strategy rather than admitting error and fixing it early on. Or maybe they’re all under some kind of cognitive tunnelling spell (‘Flight 19’ style – Google it). I just can’t look…
Good night, MH 370 · 1 June 2026 at 22:22
It is not flight 19. The way the university leadership is behsvimg is more like MH 370 – after the first few minutes once the pilot had gone rogue, but before it is too late. At this time, he still knows he could turn around, admit his error, land, and let the passengers survive — but that if he does so, he will be arrested, shamed, and lose his job. So they double down and keep flying until the last possible moment, before plunging the whole craft and everyone on board into the deep blue ocean. That’s where this madness leads.
MUSKETEER · 1 June 2026 at 19:54
UCam has already lost! No barrister can win them public opinion! Wyn Evans will be vindicated! The regime of the American Queen is doomed!
Imagine... · 2 June 2026 at 10:56
Not a flight, not boat, but a pantomime show
It’s called the ugly sisters, the acting’s rather pro
The team in the horse-suit ready to run
The front end writes the script, the rear end puts it on
Funds are limitless, for the show to go on
Signed off by those blind eying the con
When the props drop off at alarming rate
Lawyers are hired, king’s counsels are paid
Defending trapped fingers, trampling hooves and much worse
There’s nothing to see, the show must go on
But why, oh why,
All the carnage, the grief?
The destruction, the scum?
Must you ask? It’s very brief
Playing ugly sisters is really too much fun!
TheResearcher · 2 June 2026 at 11:14
One thing is clear, after this employment tribunal, those in UCam who continue to trust the ugly sisters is because they want. If the ugly sisters remain in their posts after June, they will work in an environment where people know their real character. Their colleagues may continue to be polite, but they will know that they can no longer trust the ugly sisters. Let’s see if the ugly sisters decide to stay in such an environment. Unfortunately for them, they cannot simply become Masters of colleges as others are trying to do, but where will the ugly sisters find a job in Cambridge after this?
Angel · 2 June 2026 at 11:53
Don’t worry, TheResearcher. For all those who have done wrong, but did not face consequences, June will not be the end. It will be only the start of the next chapter.
The Path to Justice · 2 June 2026 at 11:00
Anyone who cares about justice – justice for key worker staff, justice for Palestine, justice for civil society, justice for victims of sexual assault, justice for our Medical School – should obtain a CVP link to watch this case live.
Cross examination starts next week, Monday 8th.
The time for change is now.
Anonymous · 2 June 2026 at 12:50
The previous thread refers to High Court rulings regarding restriction of pro-Palestine marches at Cambridge.
I suspect Cambridge academics are unaware of similar controversies at less prestigious institutions, of which I have a fair amount of information, and would like to share with this group.
You may wish to know, for example, that in 2022, Akua Reindorf led an investigation at Sheffield Hallam University against Dr Shahd Abusalama, a Palestinian academic.
Tribunal documents show that Dr Shahd Abusalama made counter-accusations of direct race and or belief discrimination (issue 4.2), indirect discrimination (issue 5.2(c)), harassment (issue 6.1), victimisation (issue 7.2.2) and whistleblowing (issue 10.1.2). Dr Shahd Abusalama also made accusation of victimisation, on the grounds of not being allowed to see a copy of Akua Reindorf’s report.
Observers of this case at Sheffield Hallam noted apparently inconsistency with the earlier free speech views expressed by Ms. Reindorf, in particular on matters of trans rights.
Reindorf owes her December 2021 appointment as a Commissioner of the Equality and Human Rights Commission to Liz Truss.
She was appointed by Truss on account of her strong anti-trans platform – a set of beliefs Reindorf expressed shortly before that date, in her self-titled “Reindorf Review” for the University of Essex in May of 2021, six months prior to the EHRC appointment.
Colleagues at Essex will tell you that this “Reindorf Review” was immensely controversial and damaging — notably for its recommendation that Essex cut all ties with the Stonewall campaign and trans-rights activists. It proved to be an immediate public relations disaster for Essex.
As a result, the University was forced to repudiate the report a mere one month later. In doing so, it apologised to its trans and non-binary staff for the “very negative impact” the report had upon them. It also reaffirmed its commitment to working with Stonewall and publicly repudiated Reindorf’s recommendations (see PinkNews).
Trans-rights campaigners have since repeated called for Liz Truss’s appointment of Reindorf to the EHRC to finally be rescinded, without success.
In the meantime, it seems the University of Cambridge has been one of Reindorf’s key clients instead. She is now deeply involved in (1) defending its implementation of the EJRA, as well as (2) internal confidential grievance investigations, and more broadly, (3) ongoing advice on how the university manages its grievance, disciplinary, and performance procedures.
Unrelatedly, the University of Cambridge has since suspended its participation in the Stonewall campaign. LGBT staff and students have petitioned the Pro Vice Chancellor, Kamal Munir, to reverse this decision.
Clearpath · 2 June 2026 at 13:27
I think I have found the document you refer to.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/660c04d067958c001f365a48/Ms_S_Abusalama_v_Sheffield_Hallam_University_and_Richard_Calvert_-_1802110-2023_-_Judgment.pdf
Let us all note this description of the Dr Shahd Abusalama, the individual against whom our Equality and Human Rights Commissioner conducted her investigation.
“Following the commencement of military action by Israel, the claimant’s family, including her mother, father, brother, his wife and children were forced to flee from the Jabalia Refugee Camp to the Nuseirat Refugee Camp on 13 October 2023… The claimant has lost dozens of members of her wider family and social circle as a result of the conflict”.
I shall make no further comment beyond the fact these facts are not new, but all in the public domain, and that I have no involvement at all in this new case (except, now, perhaps as an observer – if I receive a CVP link on time!)
ProPAne · 4 June 2026 at 10:19
“the claimant’s family, including her mother, father, brother, his wife and children were forced to flee from the Jabalia Refugee Camp to the Nuseirat Refugee Camp on 13 October 2023… The claimant has lost dozens of members of her wider family”
This is simply appalling. In this situation I would have firmly refused.
Then again it is often said that clients pick barristers who are like themselves – in this case, a total sociopath?
K. · 4 June 2026 at 12:30
I am sure Ms. Reindorf will do a professional job in the role – but all the same, it does seem odd to have someone play this function, who now has developed this kind of backstory. One really must wonder what Lord Smith thinks of all this? One must rather doubt that she is popular among his Labour Party peers, to say nothing of HE staff across the sector, or for that matter the LGBT community, and while that ought to have no bearing on the case, it certainly does suggest a need for better thinking about the values of one’s employees, students and alumni, especially when such factors played such a critical role in his winning the Chancellorship vote last year.
Eileen Nugent · 5 June 2026 at 14:13
These are exceptional cases that need to be handled with exceptional care.
This is a person who is extremely sensitive to what is happening in an ongoing war situation – to every single detail at every level of detail – otherwise the person would not have entered into academia with a research focus directly connected to that ongoing war situation. Having an ongoing war situation as an academic research focus is not going to decrease a persons sensitivity to that ongoing war situation over time, it’s going to increase a persons sensitivity to that ongoing war situation over time.
Others impacted by that same ongoing war situation who enter academia will have entered with different research focuses – e.g. engineering if they saw building physical infrastructure as their particular strength and their best chance of making their highest contribution to the world. A person in that position can deeply immerse their mind in an engineering problem to take their mind off – get a temporary mental reprieve from – all other ongoing problems in their lives, including an ongoing war situation and the impact of the ongoing war situation on them and on their wider family.
If an ongoing war situation is the research focus of a person in academia – on any side of an ongoing war situation – then a person has to fully immerse their mind in every single detail that ongoing war situation at every level of detail which, if the person and their family has been and continues to be seriously impacted by that ongoing war situation, is an absolute level of pain and suffering that even the most mentally resilient of people would seriously struggle to cope with.
Eileen Nugent · 2 June 2026 at 18:32
I think care needs to be taken here because certain areas of law seem to currently be operationally unstable which means any professional currently working in these areas of law is at higher risk of being labelled as a problematic legal professional when the real problem is that the area of law itself is operationally unstable and in need of significant attention from the legal profession as a whole.
If every person working in these areas of law ends up being labelled as a problematic legal professional with no consideration for the persons competence in law in general and in the areas of law that are currently operationally unstable in particular then the risk is that the legal professionals with the highest competence – i.e. most likely to be able to get the area of law back to being operationally stable – are taken out of the system which is then left at the mercy of those with the lowest competence who were not prepared to take on any of the risk – difficult legal cases – necessary to work out how to fix the problems with the area of law – i.e. least likely to be able to get the area of law back to being in a state of being operationally stable – at which point the area of law could become even more operationally unstable.
The more operationally unstable an area of law becomes the more difficult the legal cases it is going to generate and the higher the risk that even the most competent legal professional will fail in a case because the complexity of the legal cases is continuously increasing as a direct result of the legal knots the area of law is tying itself up in without any legal professional being able to undo any of the legal knots. Eventually there comes a point where there is no choice but to leave the most competent legal professionals in the system – i.e. the people with the lowest risk of failure in a case – despite the risk of them failing in a case and to let them learn from any failure because that is the only way to work out how to get the area of law back to being operationally stable.
Eileen Nugent · 3 June 2026 at 17:07
I think if a person is being deeply personally impacted by an ongoing war situation and that has somehow made its way in to a dispute with an organisation employing the person then the situation is beyond standard employment mediation. The situation then calls for enhanced person-organisation mediation to work out how to resolve that situation in a way which minimises the additional stressors being placed on a person who is already being impacted by a prolonged series of extreme life stressors. A person on any side of an ongoing war situation could end up in this position with an organisation employing them.
Applying standard employment dispute resolution thinking to one of these situations is unlikely to lead to a durable resolution because these are not standard employment disputes. If the person is an academic whose academic research is essentially one continuous lifelong attempt to build the most detailed and accurate understanding of the history of the cycle of violence that precipitated the ongoing war situation then the situation is even less like a standard employment dispute and presents an even higher risk of precipitating an irretrievable breakdown of trust and confidence between a person and an employer.
A persons whole existence could then be deeply intwined with an ongoing war situation in which case no matter the physical distance between the person and the ongoing war situation, the mental distance between the person and the ongoing war situation is always infinitesimally small.
If any person feels an existential threat to their own existence and to the existence of the people they hold most dear due to an ongoing war situation – which they are not separated from with any mental distance – then not making “any disparaging or derogatory statements” about a university is unlikely to feel like something that is of significant importance & worth expending significant mental resources on. If a persons mental resources are in short supply & high demand due to the fact the person is continuously using their mental resources to work out how to deal with the ongoing existential threat to their own existence & to the existence of the people they hold most dear a person will only expend mental resources on things they feel to be of significant importance.
If a person is making true statements about a university that are negatively impacting the reputation of the university care needs to be taken that these are not automatically being placed in the category of “disparaging or derogatory statements” about a university without any detailed examination of the statements. If that is what is happening in a situation like the one above then the person is even less likely to feel that not making “any disparaging or derogatory statements” about a university is something that is of significant importance & worth expending significant mental resources on.
Having an extremely formal discussion with an organisation – i.e. a discussion with an organisation at a high level of legal detail/to a high legal standard – to work out exactly what it means for a person to not make “any disparaging or derogatory statements” about that organisation in the context of the ongoing dispute with an organisation is already extremely mentally taxing. If that ongoing dispute is somehow coupled to the existence of an ongoing war situation that the organisation is paying the person to understand in great detail then it requires the highest level of legal detail/highest legal standard possible – it is maximally mentally taxing.
If an organisation is capable of being fair and reasonable with respect to a person in this type of situation there is some chance of a person in this situation having an extremely formal discussion with an organisation. If an organisation is not capable of being fair and reasonable with respect to a person in this type of situation then there is no chance of a person in this situation having an extremely formal discussion with an organisation. There is also the possibility that a person in this type of situation is simply unable to pay the mental costs of an extremely formal discussion with an organisation – which will scale with the unreasonableness of the organisation – because life events have left a person in this type of situation in a state of continuous mental exhaustion.
The reality for UK universities is that the UK maintains diplomatic relations with most countries in the world which means the UK can often find itself in the position of maintaining diplomatic relations with all sides of an ongoing war situation external to the UK. It is also the reality that UK universities attract academic scholars from all over the world. This means there is a high probability of a UK university finding itself in a position of managing relations with an academic on one side of an ongoing war situation whose academic research interest is the history of the cycle of violence that precipitated that ongoing war situation – a specific academic position for an academic to be in. There is also some probability that a UK university could end up in a situation where it is managing relations with academics – in that specific academic position – on all sides of an ongoing war situation.
Any academic in one of these situations would need a much high standard of care from a university in managing its working relationship with the academic. Any academic in one of these situations would be at risk of extreme stressors that are particular to being in that specific academic position : having to live with constant existential threat in their own lives and the lives of the people they hold most dear, living with little to no mental distance between them on the ongoing conflict despite there being a significant physical distance between them in the ongoing conflict, working on highly politically sensitive academic research where extreme levels of accuracy are essential to minimise the absolute risk of being criminalised/jailed, the risk of which – even with extreme levels of accuracy – may still remain high.
An academic in this academic position on one side of an ongoing war situation may find it emotionally impossible to be in the same academic community as an academic in this academic position on the other side of an ongoing war situation. It would take two exceptionally emotionally resilient academics working with extreme accuracy on each side of an ongoing war situation to be able to be in the same academic community as each other during an ongoing war situation. Being in the same academic community as an academic working on the other side of an ongoing war also introduces additional complexity – in an already complex situation – for each academic in managing all their relationships, both those inside the university and those outside the university. The level of mental challenge in these academia-specific situations is extreme, they have the potential to push a person to the limits of mental challenge that it is possible for a person to endure and overcome.
People tend to think academia is a tame profession and there is some truth in this thinking – academia can be a tame profession – but it’s also true that academia can be as wild & untameable as the academic interest the person has which means there is no limit either to how tame or to how wild & untameable academia can be as a profession. People have often applied the statement “Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low.” to academia because they misunderstand academia to be a highly homogenous profession when it is in fact the most inhomogeneous profession of all. The stakes in academic can be low or they can be the highest stakes possible – a persons life and the lives of all those dearest to them.
People tend to think of academia as exceptionally slow and there is some truth in this thinking, academia can be exceptionally slow but academia can also be ultrafast – where ultrafast takes on its real meaning. Academia can be a lifelong low-stakes chess match in an intergenerational-chess-match relay played out to its conclusion over many generations but academia can also be a high-stakes ultrafast poker match. Academia could switch from ultra-slow intergenerational chess to ultrafast poker on ultrafast timescales which is an absolute level of wildness that would not be possible in any other profession and one that most people would not expect of academia.
“O the mind, mind has mountains; cliffs of fall
Frightful, sheer, no-man-fathomed. Hold them cheap
May who ne’er hung there.”
No worst, there is none. Pitched past pitch of grief
Gerard Manley Hopkins
Anon · 3 June 2026 at 08:40
“the only thing they can do is get a top notch barrister & just hope for the best”
Indeed, and it rather appears as if they could not even get that part right. The logical choice would have been someone with an impeccable record of standing up for equality and human rights – not someone bringing this kind of undeclared baggage to our very doorstep.
CuriouserAndCuriouser · 2 June 2026 at 13:24
It is certainly true that Ms Reindorf has strong views on protecting women from men.
So she’s a strange choice for barrister in a case where the victims were all women, allegedly bullied by a male.
Oldhand · 2 June 2026 at 13:41
What concerns me more is some clarification of the exact role played in design and oversight of Cambridge internal grievance procedures. That seems like an obvious potential conflict of interest in this case, given the alleged failures in relation to that matter specifically, and also the need to disclose previous ties to key individuals accused of misconduct, in order to clarify the nature of any (if applicable) prior or expected future business arising from those relationships.
Crassus · 2 June 2026 at 13:51
Thank goodness for that. If we are relying on Liz Truss’s recommendations then surely nothing can possibly go wrong.
Eileen Nugent · 2 June 2026 at 19:50
If as PM, Liz Truss had appointed Professor Andrew Wiles as a special government advisor on proving Fermat’s last theorem because 100% of the British public had indicated to Liz Truss that they were interested in being educated on how to prove that particular mathematical theorem ….. would anyone be prepared to give Liz Truss credit for getting one thing right as PM or would everyone still want to put their maximum effort in to minimising the probability of anyone publicly admitting the possibility that Liz Truss could potentially have got one thing right as PM?
If Professor Andrew Wiles was working in mathematical research before Liz Truss hypothetically appointed him as a special government advisor on proving Fermat’s last theorem and could be evaluated independently of Liz Truss in relation to his ability to prove Fermat’s last theorem at that point in time then why after Liz Truss hypothetically appointed him as special advisor on proving Fermat’s last theorem does he now also need to be evaluated on the basis of – an evaluation of the performance of the person who hypothetically appointed him as a special government advisor in the role they appointed him from – an not independently of this person in relation to his own ability to prove Fermat’s last theorem as was the case before the hypothetical appointment.
Society could function at a higher level without this particular type of unnecessary reputation entanglement.
Eileen Nugent · 2 June 2026 at 23:02
This particular type of unnecessary reputation entanglement is a sign of an unhealthy political environment. If a society truly wants to sustain high levels of meritocracy then it needs to be able to avoid this particular type of unnecessary reputation entanglement to enable people to make an unbiased assessment of a person with a particular expertise in society and an accurate assessment of the political skill of a person who whilst not ultimately successful in a political role may still have demonstrated political skill in some political decisions taken in that political role. Those in political roles cannot be excluded from any meritocratic society, they too require an accurate assessment of their political skill.
This is not an endorsement of any person or of any decision taken, it’s an observation on the health of the political environment and how unnecessary reputation entanglement is not conducive to sustaining a high functioning society.
It is one thing for people to make accurate observations about the state of a society and its problems in order to be in a position to make a contribution to precisely solving problems for a society, it’s another thing for people to make inaccurate observations about the state of a society and its problems as (a) any inaccurate information generated about the state of society and its problems has the potential to generate even more problems for society and to increase the complexity of existing problems and (b) if people are not making accurate observations about the state of a society and its problems then people are not placing themselves in the optimal position to precisely solve problems for society.
Society is in whatever state it’s in, making inaccurate observations of the state of society will not change the state of society or increase the probability of the state of society improving in future. The problems of society are whatever the problems of society are, making inaccurate observations of the problems of society will not change the problems of society or increase the probability of solutions being found to the problems of society.
Eileen Nugent · 5 June 2026 at 12:07
I think one of the biggest challenges in politics is that it is difficult for a person to make accurate observations about the state of politics in general and about the state of political problems in particular without continuously being accused of being something as a person – e.g. an apologist. Significant effort in then invested by others in proving a person is something as a person – e.g. an apologist – rather than in making independent observations to check the accuracy of the observations the person is making, that type of significant effort by others is not then increasing the accuracy of the observations about the state of politics in general and the state of political problems in particular.
If a physicist makes an observation about the quantum state of a rubidium atom the physicist is not an apologising for the rubidium atom and the quantum state the physicist happened to find the rubidium atom in …..the focus is solely on taking care to make the most accurate observations possible.
Without accurate information it is not possible to identify and solve political problems, to continuously function at a higher level as a society and to sustainably advance at a faster pace as a society.
Circe · 2 June 2026 at 14:20
In order to assess one’s conflict of interest, and manage it, one would need to have been fully informed about a matter, ideally by – err – unconflicted individuals?
xx · 2 June 2026 at 18:55
@curioser
Oh please. This isn’t about women and men. It’s about women’s rights and human rights. And Wyn has done more to defend the right of young women to speak up about sexual harassment than any of the men, or women, currently in charge.
See you at FH · 2 June 2026 at 15:58
I sent a link to ET. They ask for the reference. Can anyone share – either this or the link.
Thanks!
21percent.org · 2 June 2026 at 16:06
You should give the case reference to watfordet@justice.gov.uk. The case is Evans v Cambridge University and others (case numbers: 3307960/2023 and others)
Alternatively, email us on TribunalLink@proton.me and we’ll contact the Tribunal collectively on behalf of everyone to whom the Tribunal has not yet replied.