The site is slow, for which we apologise. There are now unprecedented numbers visiting the site each day.
Employment Judge Graham has re-confirmed that this is an open hearing. Anyone who wishes to attend may do so in person at Bury St Edmunds or follow the proceedings via CVP.
Arrangements are being made to accommodate increased attendance at Bury St Edmunds.
Please be patient if you have emailed Watford Employment Tribunal and are awaiting a CVP link. Staff are currently dealing with a very high volume of requests. If you require a link and have not yet received one, please email [email protected].
The Claimant has developed Java code to make the witness statements and document bundle publicly accessible online in a read-only format (not downloadable or printable).
This system is being tested today. Further details on how to access the materials will be provided tomorrow.
It is like the Vet School all over again. These people just never fucking learn. They think they are always right. Jesus, the place is in perpetual crisis.
Even as we speak I am sure they are planning some new plan to shut the Vet School so they can pay their endless legal bills, forgetting that this will immediately trigger 10 new court cases and an even more massive bill to come, with one more department lost. Cui bono? Follow the money – the only thing certain is that it won’t be students, society or the university.
Wyn we are all Spartacus thanks to you! This is truly like the slave revolt in a decaying Roman empire! UCam is totally decaying and you are exposing it with your brave stance! The oligarchy is treating you with the desdain that not even Don Quixote deserved! They know they are not windmills! They are corrupt crooks and your case will reveal that to the whole world! THANK YOU! Long live academia! Down with the American Queen regime!
“The oligarchy is treating you with the desdain that not even Don Quixote deserved!” 😂
The fact that they did not want to settle and prefer to go ahead with the hearings shows how delusional they really are. They already lost and do not even understand why! The final verdict has relatively little meaning when compared to what it means for all the victims of abuses to be able to see these people being cross-examined in public. No more enforced confidentiality that is used to manipulate and cover up.
Wyn is my hero. I had raised a grievance with the Uni and could not get anyone senior in my institute to accompany me. Reason – conflict of interest because my grievance was against my HoD. In the end I went with a friend. It was scary and lonely until someone introduced me to 21percent and Wyn. I then realised what a cesspit my employer and Alma mater is and that I wasn’t alone. Sadly there are more that cannot fight because they cannot afford the time or money. I am now waiting for my own ET hearing. Justice will prevail but Wyn is already the WINNER!!
I’m just astonished that after reading the bundles and doing her background research, the barrister agreed to defend someone who – only a short while ago – was strung up before High Court to explain why she thought she had the personal authority to ban student rights of protest. I’m not saying it is relevant to the case – and should absolutely not be – only that it does seem like surprisingly poor judgment in the context of one’s broader public roles and duties.
I have just received the CVP link for the 3 time now. The hilarious thing is that in the last version, I was put in a list of people who also received the link, which includes many admin staff from UCam, namely from the Communications Office. There are also others who use @cam addresses and do not seem admin. Someone should tell them that the Praetorian Guard is watching!
Would have thought Comms would be too busy arm-twisting editors to not print the incredibly damaging events. Like they did over the Foa case.
At least, Comms realise that what they’ll be hearing is really bad, HR probably still believe they’re perfect.
Comms were directly involved in that case! And we should call it what it is – the POLIS case – rather than name it on the victim of their awful behaviour.
There were lots of victims in the POLIS scandal. Foa’s only crime was to stand up for them, instead of looking the other way like all the rest.
From the volume of recent stories in The Times and Guardian, it pretty seems clear that their ability to “arm twist” is getting ever and ever weaker. The press is no-one’s friend, and they have burned valuable trust, to the extent it ever existed.
“Would have thought Comms would be too busy arm-twisting editors to not print the incredibly damaging events. Like they did over the Foa case.”
@FF, it is my understanding that are waiting for updates from BreakerMorant, “BreakerMorant will update on what he knows on 7 June 2026”. (https://21percent.org/?p=3618)
Looking forward to hearing from BreakerMorant in the next couple of days!
This must be excruciating for comms… Who wants to be known forever for choosing to defend characters like Rampton?
Feel free not to approve this for moderation – but if you have email addresses and access to Cambridge systems then Lookup.cam.ac.uk is an amazing source of information as to where people are based. But if you have Cambridge email then you can do some wonderful stuff to look people up, and find out their role, and their line management chains.
As I was reading old articles from Varsity to know if they had ever covered Employment Tribunal cases on victimization and whistleblowing retaliation, I found this:
https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/28000
“The new legislation strongly discourages reporting any wrongdoing to anyone external to the SU, and states that members of staff should “very rarely, if ever” find it appropriate to alert the media to a concern.”
Where have we seen this before? Check the Whistleblowing Policy of the University itself and you will find this statement on page 5:
“It will very rarely if ever be appropriate to alert the media.”
I hope that Varsity is planning to cover the case Evans versus Cambridge and others because this case is not relevant just for staff members. This case exposes how the University addresses reports of misconduct more generally, and students need to know what can happen to them if they persevere with their reports of misconduct regarding senior staff. OSCCA is no different from HR and this issue seems often overlooked.
I am fairly sure that Sharepoint/Microsoft/Institutional-tools enable one to upload .pdfs in a secure server and prevent downloading or printing of the materials. In fact, this is used to share grant applications to help junior staff (with the consent of all involved, of course!).
I would recommend considering this, both from a practical and a liability-oriented perspective.
Any tips appreciated.
Google drive does this too
BOOOOOOOOOOM!
“World-leading classicist resigns after sexual misconduct investigation
Simon Goldhill, a professor of Greek literature and culture, informed Cambridge University of his decision to leave as it considered sanctions against him”
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/education/article/cambridge-professor-simon-goldhill-resigned-cambridge-sexual-misconduct-zp329rhmd
“Gillian Tett, provost of King’s College, said on Thursday night: “I came to King’s with a personal commitment to build a community where every member is valued, protected and treated with dignity. The recent reporting has been deeply painful — for those directly affected, and for all of us who care about this community.
“I am grateful to those who have had the courage to come forward. I want them to know that they are heard, and that action is being taken. I am personally committed to ensuring that every member of King’s is treated with dignity and respect.””
But here comes the shameful statement: “A university spokesman said Cambridge could not comment on employment matters concerning individuals.”
“A university spokesman said Cambridge could not comment on employment matters concerning individuals“.
Why use the moniker “a university spokesman“? Let’s have his or her name
Great statement from Gillian Tett — “I am grateful to those who have had the courage to come forward. I want them to know that they are heard, and that action is being taken“. This what we need.
My God, someone at Cambridge who knows how to speak human. If victims can confirm that they received comprehensive support without fail, then perhaps we have already found our new Pro VC
Of course, one question is how the journalist Sean O’Neil knows what Gillian Tett said last Thursday night, and to whom she was talking to when she said what she did. I did not understand the article as if it was an interview of Gillian Tett to The Times but I may be wrong. Regardless, it will now be interesting to see what happens to the Fellowship of Goldhill, and to the Fellowship of other Fellows from King’s involved in other cases. Surely, Dr Tett is not expecting that only Simon Goldhill and Herbert Huppert were involved in scandals. We are just in June yet!
Surely she is aware of the other cases, and that is why she knows she has to set a firm line from the outset. Otherwise she might have complied with their usual insistence upon HODs and HOH to “ride it out”?
I do not know what she knows, but I would be very surprised if she had not been told about what had happened in her own SCR before the investigation started and the report being leaked. What I do know is that people having been talking about the “POLIS scandal” for a while namely in the comments above. Is there any Fellow from King’s that works in POLIS and was involved in that scandal? Let’s see what Dr Tett will do about that one when we get updates in the near future.
Another one bites the dust! Keep working down the list 🙂
OK! Down the list:
Prof Smallman
Prof Crookery
Prof Teflon
Prof ViciousWoman
American Queen
“grateful to those who have had the courage to come forward”
Am sure we’ll be hearing a lot more about how the university treated people who had the “courage” to come forward
Ssssssssh, it is confidential!
A previous questioner asks how much the university spends each year on lawsuits and lawyers.
Unusually, the university legal services do not publish any budget: instead, legal costs are absorbed into the catch-all category of “other operating expenses”, and this figure has risen significantly over time, from £862m a decade ago, towards eye-watering figures exceeding £1.2bn (each single year) in 2024 and 2025.
As is widely known, last year Cambridge spent a total of £1.4m on one single matter, namely, to obtain legal advice on breaking up pro-Palestine protests.
It is likely that many of the “Golden 50” ultra-high salary employees (above £300,000 annually) are employed within the University legal team.
In spite of the increased spending on lawyers to fight claims, the university has not succeeded in defeating staff lawsuits and associated payouts, and in fact, these numbers have exploded higher..
In 2025, the University spent a record £6m in payouts to staff who left the organisation.
This compares to just £2m a year spent in 2017 and 2018.
The 300% increase in payments to staff over settlements is mainly driven by the number of staff bringing claims, but in addition over past five years the average staff pay award has increased by 1/3, suggesting a greater severity of allegations in unresolved cases.
Finally, any “golden parachute” awards to senior departures, such as former Registrary Emma Rampton, will appear as part of the 2025-26 accounts and be reflected in that number.
“In 2025, the University spent a record £6m in payouts to staff who left the organisation.”
Very interesting, do you have a link/source?
While I have a detailed breakdown of internal budgets, including consultancy contracts to Peters Elworthy & Moore, KPMG, Deloitte, PwC, Eunomia Research & Consulting, PA Consulting, and individuals such as the interim Vice-Chancellor, now is not the scheduled time to disclose this information, and I cannot provide you with a reference link.
In regards to the item you request on severance payouts, you will find these in the annual reports under the search key “Compensation for loss of office”.
Thanks.
We look forward to more from @Auditwatch
Why so many huge contracts? Do the individuals commissioning such large consultancy contracts stand to make any kind of direct or indirect gains from doing so – e.g. via commissions, donations, personal connections, consultancy contracts, or expectation of future benefit?
>> In 2025, the University spent a record £6m in payouts to staff who left the organisation.<<
Something has gone very, very, very wrong with a university (or any employer for that matter) that is happier to pay people money *not* to work there than to work there.
If the only way to get paid is to take things to court and then leave, can the last one out please switch off the lights?
Here’s how the Munir-Hudson staff bonus scheme works:
1. Make a whistleblower complaint
2. Await retaliation
3. File to Tribunal within 90 days
4. Collect early retirement pension
I don’t know how much you think are awarded at Tribunals, but I couldn’t retire on any realistic payout!
Late 2025 – grievances against Cambridge Head of HR (Hudson) upheld on investigation and dismissed by HR committee headed by Kamal Munir.
December 2025 – Head of Cambridge administration resigns following concerns over accounting and overspend from independent auditors and failure to appoint independent CFO.
February 2026 – Parliamentary backlash against attempted closure of Veterinary School / proposed redundancies.
February 2026 (same week) – Cambridge declared “Employer of the Year” (?) by Statista after failing to make top 500 list at all the previous year. Staff very confused; Munir and Hudson delighted.
April/May 2026 – Waves of trade union strike action begin over low pay and longstanding discontent over executive payouts.
June 2026 – Senior executive team taken to tribunal over allegations of whistleblower retaliation and systemic cover-up.