Image shows mallow and vetch on the wayside by Bury St Edmunds Tribunal.
There is one more day of cross-examination on Monday 22 June. The witnesses include the Vice Chancellor, Prof Deborah Prentice. It is the last day in Bury St Edmunds for me and my legal team.
The barristers will present their closing submissions on Friday 26 June. This is done remotely. It can be followed via CVP.
Employment Judge Graham and his two panel members will take some time to evaluate the evidence and come to a judgement. The panel are deciding on two specific questions: did Prof Wyn Evans make a series of protected (or whistleblowing) disclosures, and (if so) was there retaliation against him by some or all of the Respondents.
The judgment is not expected until September 2026, or later.
Thank you for all the comments and emails.
Any comment on the blog that has been held back will be released after Friday 26 June 2026 at the end of the public hearing. This is so as to ensure legal compliance.
If a comment is embargoed for the moment, please be patient. Your voice will be heard
108 Comments
Xerxes · 21 June 2026 at 09:37
“A Cambridge University employment tribunal is unraveling a shocking saga of institutional cover-ups and toxic leadership at the Institute of Astronomy, where accusations of misogyny and bullying have led to a female scientist’s psychological collapse — and a director’s desperate bid to deflect blame. Professor Richard McMahon, facing claims he acted “wickedly” by weaponizing a colleague’s distress, instead launched a retaliatory smear campaign against whistleblowers who exposed the culture of fear. Despite his grievances being dismissed without evidence, McMahon continues to fight — even blaming his own words on a bad GCSE English grade — while the whistleblower, Professor Wyn Evans, who once championed anti-bullying, now stands vindicated after settling a defamation case. Dr. Tausch-Pebody, the victim at the heart of it all, has publicly thanked Evans for his courage — as the university’s silence grows louder.”
This is from Daily News Now . It’s obviously been a huge PR disaster.
newsfeed · 21 June 2026 at 09:53
Do you have the link?
TheResearcher · 21 June 2026 at 10:33
They produced 3 podcasts, “Cambridge Astronomy Whistleblower Case” “Cambridge Astronomy Scandal Deepens” and “Cambridge Astronomy Toxicity Trial.” I reckon there will be more…
Only a blind could not see the impact that this case would have but those who are responsible for addressing reputation risk, namely the Council, have been on leave 😉
EtonMess · 23 June 2026 at 07:55
Applauding Daily News Now
and Wyn Evans
R · 21 June 2026 at 09:41
I have watched this most days. I retired from the University and had direct experience of many of the witnesses during my career there. I have been deeply disappointed to see the ways in which some witnesses have performed verbal contortions to try ro justify and normalise sustained and wholly unacceptable behaviour in any workplace.
ZZ · 21 June 2026 at 10:16
Agreed, one witness, loudly proclaiming her “independence”, had to be asked the same question four times, without ever answering
I think the panel notice these things.
TheResearcher · 21 June 2026 at 10:43
Very true. I would put it like this: Not only this witness evaded the same critical question 4 times but then decided to highlight that she has a track record of “independence” when acting as “Responsible Person” and showed ZERO evidence to support that claim as if her word alone was sufficient. The fact she is a lawyer and was clearly very nervous in an environment she should be very used to, more than any other witness who was cross examined, is telling.
TheResearcher · 21 June 2026 at 11:49
An interesting article about Prof. Deborah Prentice as manager:
https://unherd.com/newsroom/meet-cambridges-lockdown-loving-new-vice-chancellor/
“Speaking to UnHerd, Arif Ahmed said that Cambridge’s governing body had ensured “there can be no compromise whatsoever on our fundamental values of free speech and academic freedom for all our students and staff. I am sure Prof. Prentice understands these points and I wish her all the best.”
calamitybear · 21 June 2026 at 11:59
She’s even worse than Toope & he was very bad. And she’s more expensive. The only good thing she’s done is dismiss Rampton
MUSKETEER · 21 June 2026 at 13:35
She did not dismiss Rampton! She lauded her! Go and look!!! £570,000 per year buys complicity!
EtonMess · 23 June 2026 at 07:59
‘£570,000 per year buys complicity!’ is a good way of putting it.
EtonMess · 23 June 2026 at 08:02
Don’t forget her partner got quite a deal from Cambridge too. So add that deal to package
art of the deal · 23 June 2026 at 16:13
What was in it – how much money? Are there figures?
Eileen Nugent · 21 June 2026 at 20:20
“In late 2020, Cambridge’s governing body rejected a new set of speech codes, requiring members of the university community to maintain ‘respect’ for the views and identities of others. A group of academics, led by philosophy professor Arif Ahmed, successfully proposed an amendment which substituted the word ‘tolerance’ in place of ‘respect’.
Deborah Prentice, not a figure widely known in the UK, will surely begin her tenure with more goodwill. Speaking to UnHerd, Arif Ahmed said that Cambridge’s governing body had ensured “there can be no compromise whatsoever on our fundamental values of free speech and academic freedom for all our students and staff. I am sure Prof. Prentice understands these points and I wish her all the best.”
The governing body thought it could effectively defend the fundamental values of free speech and academic freedom for all students & staff by more accurately wording the speech codes while it let the university substantively unfairly dismiss the Chair of the Board of Scrutiny & not comply with the re-engagement order from an employment tribunal to remedy that substantive unfair dismissal.
The governing body thought it had ensured “there can be no compromise whatsoever on our fundamental values of free speech and academic freedom for all our students and staff” by more accurately wording the speech codes but the reality is that in order to ensure no compromise it would have had to make sure that not only was the governing body actively scrutinising the speech codes but also that the governing body was also actively scrutinising the employment processes relevant to the defence the fundamental values of free speech and academic freedom for all students & staff and picking up on outcomes that threatened to compromise the defence of the fundamental values of free speech and academic freedom for all students & staff.
Eileen Nugent · 22 June 2026 at 01:18
If people can be said to be victims of a lack of understanding and of gaps in knowledge then it is possible that the only oppressors that can be identified in a situation are a lack of understanding and gaps in knowledge in relation to a situation. If people cannot collectively learn how to handle these oppressors – a lack of understanding and gaps in knowledge – in a university then where can people collectively learn how to handle these oppressors?
Peter · 21 June 2026 at 14:58
Thanks 21pcg for the clarification that Professor Evans
is not a Whistleblower yet since the ET will make a judgement on this.
21percent.org · 21 June 2026 at 15:07
An investigation by an external barrister hired by the University concluded Prof Evans’ disclosures were whistleblowing
The matter is now being reconsidered by the Employment Tribunal.
EtonMess · 23 June 2026 at 08:04
How can Wyn Evans not be a whistleblower? The very question is absurd. Didn’t know the tribunal was about it
TheResearcher · 21 June 2026 at 15:35
If Wyn Evans will not be considered a whistleblower in this case by the tribunal, it changes little the importance of this case for revealing what Cambridge University is willing to do to those who report misconduct and the culture that sustains it. Of course, that decision will affect the legal implications of the case, and that is why the University seems so desperate to show that this is not really whistleblowing but instead an ‘obsessive vendetta’ towards a colleague. It is why they only called Wyn Evans as a witness, and in particular why they did not call the person who he tried to protect.
The members of the University who are supporting that rhetoric are embarrassing all the others who do not support the culture of secrecy and cover up of misconduct that we have at Cambridge. I can safely say that they are embarrassing me.
21percent.org · 21 June 2026 at 15:56
To be considered a whistleblower, the disclosure must concern:
– a criminal offence
– failure to comply with legal obligations
– financial or non-financial maladministration or malpractice or impropriety or fraud
– academic or professional malpractice
– a risk to the health or safety of any individual
– environmental damage
– a miscarriage of justice
– sexual harassment (unwanted conduct of sexual nature)
– attempts to suppress or conceal any information relating to any of the above.
TheResearcher · 21 June 2026 at 16:12
I know. And the University knows it as well. That is why they should have settled before the hearings but strikingly decided an alternative narrative that just embarrasses them even more. Everyone can see what is happening and the behaviour of their witnesses. From a personal perspective, I liked that they chose this option so that everyone can see what we have to put up with on a regular basis at Cambridge. It is extremely frustrating and draining to interact with people who do not know how to assume fault and instead prefer to lure members and the general public with “breaking the silence” campaigns or the “dignity at work” youtube video that are everything except sincere.
++ · 21 June 2026 at 17:00
Yeah, well said. The hypocrisy is one of the worst things about it. You have a VC in charge who is known for her work on “spirals of silence” but is paying lawyers to threaten the newspapers, retaliate against whistleblowers, request gagging orders from the courts, and refuses to respond herself on any of these issues. We have a Pro VC who is even more thick in the middle of it but releases sanctimonious HR videos about “breaking the silence”. And then all the senior figures who talk about gender and power but aren’t prepared to stand up for vulnerable women, and instead side with the perpetrators over harassment whistle-blowing and silencing of victims. You can’t make this stuff up, it is worse than fiction.
Eileen Nugent · 22 June 2026 at 02:57
If an organisation sets itself a standard that it then finds more difficult to meet than it expected because attaining that standard is more complicated to do that it anticipated it could end up saying and doing things that don’t match that standard it has set itself for quite a significant amount of time – it could end up in a hypocritical phase and depending on what the standard relates to that could also be the sanctimonious phase – these can be phases in a trajectory to meet a standard that is difficult to meet.
I think hypocritical/sanctimonious phases of organisational behaviour are not uncommon after an organisation has gone off the rails and is in the process of trying to re-rail itself.
Eileen Nugent · 22 June 2026 at 03:59
I think the “spirals of silence” work on inhibition of people speaking their mind when they hold what they believe is not a majority view neglects a competing effect operating in an academic environment which is the “obsessional interest” disinhibition effect of people speaking their mind when they have spent significantly longer amounts of time forming a view & as a result integrated significantly higher amounts of the most accurate information available in forming that view than the majority of people have in forming a view.
“Spirals of silence” is not just about whether a person holds a view that significantly differs from a majority view, it’s also about a persons confidence levels in the view held which differs from a majority view – confidence levels will be higher if the view is formed over longer timescales and with higher amounts of information of higher accuracy.
Eileen Nugent · 22 June 2026 at 04:53
I make no comment on the university in relation the VC or on what the VC in relation to the university. If an organisation is off the rails and in the process of re-railing itself and the organisation is going through the hypocritical/sanctimonious phase of organisational behaviour in the process of re-railing itself after having come off the rails then the reputation associated with the organisational behaviour – of being a hypocrite/sanctimonious – is likely to transfer to the individual reputations of the people in leadership positions in the organisation during that phase of organisational behaviour even if it is incongruent with the established reputations of the people in leadership positions.
Some people are far more or far less hypocritical & sanctimonious as individuals that other people but the reputation transfer from an organisation in the hypocritical/sanctimonious phase to the individual reputations of those in positions of leadership won’t differentiate between these individuals.
EtonMess · 23 June 2026 at 08:05
Thanks for this info.
Just confirms my point.
EtonMess · 23 June 2026 at 08:06
This info from 21percent.org:
To be considered a whistleblower, the disclosure must concern:
– a criminal offence
– failure to comply with legal obligations
– financial or non-financial maladministration or malpractice or impropriety or fraud
– academic or professional malpractice
– a risk to the health or safety of any individual
– environmental damage
– a miscarriage of justice
– sexual harassment (unwanted conduct of sexual nature)
– attempts to suppress or conceal any information relating to any of the above.
Eileen Nugent · 24 June 2026 at 23:50
“Thanks 21pcg for the clarification that Professor Evans
is not a Whistleblower yet since the ET will make a judgement on this.”
An ET judgment a person is a whistleblower means a person is a whistleblower from the time the person made a public interest disclosure & not from the time the ET makes its judgement.
Professor Evans applied his own judgment and concluded the disclosures were whistleblowing, an investigation by an external barrister commissioned by the university concluded Professor Evans’ disclosures were whistleblowing, a second barrister is willing to represent Professor Evans in an ET case where all claims relate to whistleblowing which means the second barrister concurs that part of the judgment – disclosures were whistleblowing – of the first barrister who investigated the case at the request of the university – respondent in the ET case, the employment tribunal allowed the case to proceed & the university did not move to strike the claims out.
Does saying with certainty Professor Evans is not a whistleblower now make significant more sense than saying with certainty that Professor Evans is a whistleblower now? Is Professor Evans more likely to not be a whistleblower now or more likely to be a whistleblower now?
q. · 21 June 2026 at 17:04
Quick question, when is it allowed to start voting on our picks for the most comical moments of the entire 10-day cross examination drama?
TheResearcher · 21 June 2026 at 17:24
Few things can beat the explanation given to “counter complaint” used by HR as “It must be an error,” pretty much instantaneously when the subject was brought up. That witness did not disappoint as even gave us others like this.
Exercising the Fundamental British Right to Humour · 21 June 2026 at 18:06
Oh goodness gracious is that going to be quite the competition. Let me get the ball rolling here?
1. those torturous fifteen minutes spent desperately trying to find some (any!) other definition of “zero out” than the screamingly obvious one (to “remove”) which finally ended mid-sentence in a sort of magical eureka lightning bolt (“what I meant was to zero out ……… of my mind!!!”)
2. the moment the temperature clearly dropped by 5 degrees because Rampton had entered the room…
As I know comments are getting blocked please take these as factual observations meant in no way to influence the case. Though truly I don’t think anyone could influence this case other than those who gave the testimony themselves, and certainly not a peripheral attendee trying to figure out whether this was tragedy or comedy or both. If anyone thinks anything else matters than the events at tribunal they have a probably bad idea of the degree of integrity of the judicial system and a massively inflated idea of what a few random tweets or comments can do.
Duper's Delight · 26 June 2026 at 16:40
For me it was when Munir was asked if any of the HR /legal / Registrary team were motivated by ill will towards professor Evans, and he almost laughed as he said oh no, no, I never recall hearding anything like that. It was as if in his head, he could hear the whole Council roaring in laughter at his words, and couldn’t help but laugh along.
Anonymous · 26 June 2026 at 17:23
I too laughed out loud when he said that. Am glad my microphone was off.
Huis Clos · 26 June 2026 at 18:25
I mean surely the most hilarious moment was when Prentice said: “how do I get out of here?”
To be fair she was referring to the file on her screen– but it really sounded like a kind of Freudian slip about the whole cross examination nightmare ordeal.
ToR · 21 June 2026 at 18:50
One of the issues discussed at the Tribunal was the Terms of Reference (ToR). I had no input into the ToR of my investigation. I would like to know if we could run a poll on:
1. How many claimants actually had a say in their ToR because I now see it as another method where UCam had control what can be investigated as a protection mechanism
2. How many of us in UCam have investigations done either by Responsible Persons or external independent investigators and had our grievances been upheld?
I tried to obtain the info under FOI but unsuccesful.
Grieving · 21 June 2026 at 19:18
The rate of internal grievances upheld is below 10%, as per information from the union. As this group knows very well, the length taken to complete investigations is often over two years, and many people report the behaviour continuing or worsening during that time.
nc · 22 June 2026 at 08:05
Also how many grievances fail to complete because after two years people have given up and moved on to another job? That seems to me an important part of the culture too and probably a reason why things are dragged out as they are. The purpose of the process is more about wearing people down than actually investigating misconduct.
EtonMess · 23 June 2026 at 08:09
Interesting.
Thanks for this info.
Eileen Nugent · 25 June 2026 at 02:20
I think in a standard grievance process run in a university there is no intent to wear people down but without any intent to wear anyone down people do typically get worn down in a standard grievance process run by a university.
Grievance processes in universities are typically high volume of information affairs & as a consequence have the potential to last much longer than grievance processes in other employers. The length of a grievance process in a university doesn’t scale as a function of the length of a persons fixed-term contract – grievance processes are no quicker whether a person is on a one year fixed term contract or on a permanent contract.
If a grievance process would mean a person gets exposed to significant amounts of stress when already at close to the typical life-stress maximum in academia – e.g. having young kids + trying to take the last step to a permanent academic post – a grievance process is something that a person might actively be trying to avoid. If a person is a PI on a fixed-term contract with students a grievance is also a risk to more than the person themselves, there is also a risk that all the people under a PIs direct supervision could get exposed to significant amounts of stress too.
The problem is that universities & people in universities have gotten used to this higher probability of active avoidance of grievances by those on fixed-term contracts. This means that significant problems with fixed-term employment are left under-reported. People in universities – HR, senior managers – more readily accept deeply entrenched problems with fixed-term employment because of this higher probability of active avoidance of grievances. HR, senior managers can then point to the majority of people accepting the sub-standard fixed-term employment as it is and without complaint & having no problems attracting new people into sub-standard fixed-term employment as a valid reason for leaving sub-standard fixed-term employment in place.
The problem in the current environment is that universities are coming under extreme and/or unusual external pressures. Those pressure are being directly transmitted to people in universities including those on fixed-term contracts. People in this type of employment are now being pushed in extreme and/or unusual ways which means there is now some probability of a person being forced to switch from a position of actively avoiding grievances straight to a position of having to raise concerns.
Universities are used to people raising grievances giving up and moving on to another job but people raising concerns are both less likely to give up – as they may feel an obligation to others to raise concerns until there is a rational organisational response – and also less likely to move on to another job because one significant risk of whistleblowing is significant disruption to an employment trajectory including a high probability of a prolonged period of joblessness and/or prolonged ill health.
If a person has a mental health breakdown during one of these concerns raising situations it can be extremely difficult to get back to any kind of normal life especially if one impact of the whistleblowing situation is that normal working life is now inaccessible. It’s like being in a car crash, loosing the ability to walk & having to go through an extremely painful process of learning how to walk again. Something that cost no pain before – walking – & may eventually cost no pain again is nonetheless extremely painful to do in the relearning to walk after a car crash phase. It’s extremely painful to get back to normal life again and to do the things in normal life that a person was easily doing before the mental breakdown in one of these whistleblowing situations especially if it’s not resolved, if it has not been brought to any kind of resolution.
Part of the problem seems to be the attachment of significant meaning to the concerns being raised otherwise it doesn’t seem to be possible to go through this process of raising concerns. The more painful the concerns are the more meaning a person has to attach to the concerns in order to start raising them in the first place. The more resistance a person encounters to the concerns being raised the more meaning a person has to attach to the concerns in order to push through that higher resistance to get the concerns raised. As resistance to raising the concerns increases, the meaning attached to the concerns has to increase to keep raising the concerns. At some point it’s very difficult to stop raising the concerns because it would involve a process of starting to strip something with high meaning attached to it of its meaning.
The problem with this is the meaning attached to all that existed in a persons life before the concerns is not changing so all that existed in a persons life before the concerns existed starts to loose meaning. That loss of meaning is not because there has been a change in the meaning attached to all that existed before the concerns but because the meaning attached to everything except the concerns is being dwarfed by the meaning that it was necessary to attach to the concerns to push the concerns through a high-resistance concerns raising process. This meaning effect can distort a persons life, past life can start to lose meaning, current life can gain no meaning, future life can gain no meaning. In the meaning blackhole stage a person has attached so much meaning to the concerns that everything else has effectively lost its meaning.
Returning to normal life can be extremely painful in the recovery phase from any kind of mental breakdown. If the mental breakdown is during a whistleblowing situation normal life can also have been left in a state of feeling extremely meaningless. It’s extremely challenging to do extremely painful things that feel extremely meaningless – this is a significant barrier to returning to normal life. Concerns raising is also extremely painful but concerns can have a high meaning attached so it can continuously pull a person to invest time in it despite it being far more mentally challenging than normal life. There is a high risk of recurrent mental breakdowns due to persistence in raising concerns without any return to normal life in between mental breakdowns – a person can reach a state of complete detachment from normal life. Without learning to dynamically shift the meaning attached to concerns to effectively balance between pushing concerns forward & maintaining some tether to a normal life a person can lose everything in one of these whistleblowing situations including the ability to effectively raise the concerns that nucleated the whistleblowing situation in the first place.
TheResearcher · 21 June 2026 at 20:03
“I tried to obtain the info under FOI but unsuccesful.”
Welcome to the club ToR!
Sunk Cost · 22 June 2026 at 09:53
Oh great. So Cambridge blew all that money on Starmer’s Oxbridge corridor plan and now it is about to be axed. Whoops.
Eileen Nugent · 25 June 2026 at 03:26
The current thinking in the UK is impractical. The thinking seems to be that if a strong region is allowed to emerge all other regions will suffer as a consequence and not if a strong region is enabled to emerge then all the people who contributed to the strong region emerging – from all regions – have the potential to go and do an Alex-Ferguson-in-Aberdeen type transition in other regions.
There is too much emphasis on levelling up regions – an extremely good aim – based on thinking that has the potential to actively damaging all regions – an extremely bad unintentional outcome – & not enough emphasis on getting any region possible fired up & energised – an extremely good intentional outcome – to start producing a flow of fired up & energised people out into all regions to nucleate getting all regions fired up & energised – an extremely good unintentional outcome.
The Oxbridge Corridor is a matter of when not if, that kind of linkage between cities in the UK is the future – people can lose their nerve now, chop, change & axe but all that is doing is wasting time, money, energy & momentum – it’s not changing the future, it’s just changing who gets to see the future first.
Waiting for Godot · 22 June 2026 at 11:18
When is the VC on? Was hearing it would be 2pm but was worried she might sneak in earlier.
`Xerxes · 22 June 2026 at 12:41
VC from 1.15
Anon · 22 June 2026 at 13:05
This is the cross examination of Vice Chancellor Prentice, scheduled to begin at 1.15pm London time.
While I presume everyone has got the link from Watford by now, it is always useful to have it on hand in case misplaced.
https://meet.video.justice.gov.uk/go/4feaa41a-ace0-471a-9006-76d8ba33ab71/
guest pin: 2358
TheResearcher · 22 June 2026 at 13:31
The Vice-Chancellor Professor Deborah Prentice started by admitting that HR and members of the Legal Division draft their letters…
TheResearcher · 22 June 2026 at 13:47
The Vice-Chancellor Professor Deborah Prentice claimed that to understand the history of the case it was not necessary to read documentation of the case but instead discussing the issue with colleagues would be sufficient, namely with the former Registrary Ms Emma Rampton.
TimmL · 22 June 2026 at 14:29
What kind of omnishambles did I just watch?
Xerxes · 22 June 2026 at 15:55
It was a mess. If I was the VC, I’d be furious with my staff for inflicting this on me
331 · 22 June 2026 at 17:31
Right though she kind of signed up for it. She did seem visibly rattled that alleged relevant evidence about her personal claims had somehow been “missed” from the final bundle. God knows what kind of 4 dimensional chess is going on between her, Munir and HR/legal.
New Joiner · 22 June 2026 at 17:56
There were two key facts disclosed in today’s cross examinations, both pertaining to how the university from the outset uses its grievance procedures to “frame” its legal cases in advance of any prospective case.
The first was from Halls, who opened by stating that as soon as legal action was either taken or “foreseen” (words to that effect) then legal services get involved. I was surprised by this admission of pre-emptive legal priming of what are supposed to be neutral and separate procedures.
Then the second, bizarrely, came out in Reindorf’s reexaminstion of the VC, by getting her to state that in reality the correspondence was being done by legal (Gardner) and HR (Hudson). Not sure what the intention of that was. To my eye it only shows that everything was really coordinated to provide leverage at court, not follow any kind of procedure under Statutes at all.
Eileen Nugent · 22 June 2026 at 21:27
You don’t have to raise a grievance, it’s enough to raise concerns that you have no option but to raise and you can wave goodbye to all your normal interactions ….. as soon as legal action is “foreseen” and HR/legal services get involved that’s it …. none of the problems HR/Legal generated are getting fixed and HR/Legal are the ones writing all the words everyone is saying to you in relation to all the problems HR/Legal generated.
HR/Legal want a person to get a legal advisor so they can deal directly with another legal advisor who can “guide” a person through the standard employment “remedy processes” & convince the person that what’s being done to people in these “remedy processes” is entirely “normal” when nothing is being remedied with the “remedy processes” & normal interactions are nowhere to be seen.
Eileen Nugent · 23 June 2026 at 00:12
The problem with the reasoning is that it assumes that a person will either drop a legal case or take a legal case forward but if a person cannot take a work-related stress regulation health and safety legal case forward because it’s a risk to their own health and safety or drop a work-related stress regulation health and safety legal case because it’s a risk to the health and safety of others then where is the person going with the work-related stress regulation health and safety legal case – the person is going to the health and safety regulator because that is the only rational way left open to the person to exit that particular situation.
Eileen Nugent · 23 June 2026 at 02:46
I think if HR/Legal want to understand why the typical employment dispute “remedy” of significant financial compensation being offered through a stressful process that significantly increases the probability of severe mental ill health is unlikely be seen as a remedy in a subset of these cases it is necessary to understand what people do with money in severe mental health crises – throw it all into a raging thunderstorm to appease the lighting Gods, give it all away to the first charity fundraiser who happens to knock on the door, bet it all on an outsider at the Newmarket races, spend it all on designer clothes before burning all the designer clothes in a fit of rebellion against the existence of overpriced designer clothes, eat bank notes in different currencies to compare the taste and texture, explore the sex industry in a Pretty Woman inspired search for a soul mate, go on a drug discovery expedition ending in a what-drug-was-that overdose, buy a first Ferrari only to crash the first Ferrari mid test drive out of a mistaken belief that all cars were now self-aware like KITT from Knight Rider. Prevention of severe mental ill health is more protective of a persons life than suddenly being awarded a significant amount of financial compensation at the end of a protracted legal process the stress of which has significantly increased a persons risk of experiencing a manic episode, an episode that could then be powered by that financial compensation.
EtonMess · 23 June 2026 at 08:12
Great comment
TheResearcher · 22 June 2026 at 18:06
One key conclusion of all these cross examinations is that none of the University’s witnesses felt remorse or assumed fault. It is simply mind-blowing that they all think they behaved properly with so many unbelievable issues that this case had, and it clearly suggests that they intend to continue with the same practices after all this. We clearly need an open letter to be sent to the Chancellor Lord Chris Smith directly, ideally with the notes from the Vice-Chancellor’s cross examination so that he sees how Prof. Prentice represented the University today.
Eva · 22 June 2026 at 18:49
The total lack of remorse or self-reflection is the biggest red flag for credibility in my view. I mean, it is obvious something went very wrong. Normally in that situation you would say, I acknowledge that I did a, b and c wrong, I see that now and I regret it, but d, e and f are untrue. In this case they were just in flat denial mode. Rampton was maybe the most extreme but they were all basically just denying any tiny amount of regret, remorse, reflection or responsibility.
Anon · 23 June 2026 at 04:33
What we heard at this tribunal was not only lack of remorse, but more fundamentally, a lack of responsibility.
We heard it stated plainly (all the way up to the Vice Chancellor): “I am not responsible”, and: “this was not my responsibility”.
It is the exact inverse of the responsibility shown by a colleague who leans in to defend a vulnerable woman, raise awkward questions, or insist that those in positions of duty and authority explain their acts and decisions before a tribunal and the general public. We are not a country that was built on the renunciation of responsibility.
Grotius · 23 June 2026 at 05:18
The term I felt was absent from discussion was not just responsibility, but duty, and specifically, duty of care. What would it mean to act consistent with that duty? Wyn showed that through his actions, but did anybody else?
exCam · 23 June 2026 at 07:53
I must admit I was hoping for some words of contrition from the VC on behalf of the institution. This is what good, highly paid leaders do. They carry the can for the whole organisation, even if directly intervening was “outside their jurisdiction”.
The more interesting question is why can’t Ucam hire the leaders it deserves? It’s a highly devolved, collegiate place. Consequently those at the centre have much responsibility but little actual authority. Competent outsiders see this and sense a trap. When held to account, the leaders we do have are structurally compelled to deny responsibility.
EtonMess · 23 June 2026 at 08:14
Terrible Wyn had to go through that
Or anyone
Terrible
Lay Observer · 22 June 2026 at 18:20
All the university witnesses seemed like comic book versions of themselves. The only ones who appeared to have any credibility at all were the two today before Prentice came on.
Raven · 23 June 2026 at 16:27
On the subject of comic book versions: it’s now official – the University in run and represented by a pantomime horse.
Probably busy, as we speak, lending a hoof with the writing up a final summary for the judge.
And what might that be? A pantomime horse creating havoc and writing itself out of the story? Surely not!!
SeeyouatFH · 22 June 2026 at 18:25
Could anyone be speaking to VC through a earplug? Are any checks made at tribunal for devices.
? · 22 June 2026 at 18:37
In theory though I doubt it. She didn’t seem very well prepared.
EtonMess · 23 June 2026 at 08:14
Good point
m · 22 June 2026 at 19:59
What came to mind watching DP under questioning was kind of like watching the goody two shoes girl of the class being gently questioned by the headmistress after she did something wrong, and both know it is true, but the headmistress doesn’t want to push her too hard, while DP is still struggling because she has never been caught before and never had to spin her way out of a similar dilemma.
EtonMess · 23 June 2026 at 08:22
That’s how she presents herself as.
The 2022 article linked above, in it she looks like a goody two-shoes girl who never grew up. It’s all part of the manipulation. You don’t become VC of Cambridge and some head of Princeton without strategy and intention. You don’t climb to those roles by blindly following orders and submitting yourself to everyone else’s will. You know what you’re aiming for and doing.
There was an American film with Anne Hathaway where she plays a goody two-shoes woman who is never suspected of anything but up to no good. Playing a goody two-shoes role means not being held accountable b/c the world likes pliable women.
I didn’t want this person as VC and knew when I saw her exactly why she was hired. Like this blog said, if you fly in someone from overseas who’s got no clue how the system works or what’s going on, you can control her. And as long as there’s hundreds of thousands of pounds, many people have no problem with being controlled, while also controlling to get what they want or shield whoever they want from accountability.
S. · 23 June 2026 at 09:46
It is strategic vulnerability same way Krushchev rose to power… by seeming like most harmless person in the room. But being drawn up before court is just stupid there is no master plan to explain that.
Eileen Nugent · 23 June 2026 at 11:28
“b/c the world likes pliable women.”
What the world looks for in people and what Cambridge looks for in people are not necessarily the same thing.
Life shapes people, life bends people, life moulds people but life doesn’t necessarily break people. Being pliable to life is not the same as being pliable to the whims of other people and a person can shape life, bend life, mould life and not break life so with life it’s a reciprocal pliability.
Eileen Nugent · 23 June 2026 at 11:41
“if you fly in someone from overseas who’s got no clue how the system works or what’s going on, you can control her.”
If the system works then maybe but if the system doesn’t work then I don’t see how the system is supposed to control anyone much less a person in that position and if the system did work it wouldn’t need to control anyone because it would be supporting people to develop high levels of self control
Perhaps she’s got no clue how the system works but if the system doesn’t work anyway a person in this position would need to do observations of the system in any case so not knowing how the system works is not making much difference
Eileen Nugent · 23 June 2026 at 12:26
Cambridge won’t turn away a goody two-shoes but it will also accept those for whom the goody two-shoes state remains elusive. Obedience/strictly following the rules is a double-edged sword and the protection it offers depends on the rationality state of the system. What could be virtuous behaviour/being well behaved in a system could deviate from rational behaviour in a particular environment that the system has not yet matched itself to.
Anonymous · 22 June 2026 at 21:22
Does anyone else find it odd how a huge bunch of extra people tuned in right on cue before the Prentice cross examination – yet before Munir and Rampton, there was no similar coordinated wave?
Puzzled · 22 June 2026 at 21:36
I am really confused about the final 2 minutes of the case, where Akua requested to reexamine the VC and got her to state on the record the one thing that literally every other witness (including Debbie) had been studiously avoiding to state for the whole entire 10 days – that all these emails were really being ghostwritten by Andi Hudson and Sam Gardner.
What was the purpose of that? Is there some legal argument I am missing? I am puzzling over why this was so important to get out there at the last possible moment of the hearings.
- · 22 June 2026 at 21:51
ro ensure that three months from now the VC still has a job and they do not
Plotinus · 22 June 2026 at 22:15
In my view this shows why Reindorf is a KC-grade barrister. She obviously realises by this point that the other respondents are toast so at the last possible minute throws a lifeline to try save her final one if she can.
EtonMess · 23 June 2026 at 08:24
That’s corrupt
TheResearcher · 23 June 2026 at 08:49
21 Group, do not forget to tell us if we can attend the remote meeting between the Judge, his team and the lawyers later in the week. I reckon that some folks would like to watch that if they could.
Meanwhile, what should we do at 10am today? Life will not be the same without these cross examinations…
SeeyouatFH · 23 June 2026 at 16:51
It is good that it is over for those who had to be there.
Anon · 24 June 2026 at 14:03
Indeed. It has been something of a low point for the University. The fact that this case progressed all the way to final hearing, and the expenses incurred to do so, demonstrates the phenomenal hostility with which they regard Professor Evans. In any ordinary circumstances the obvious and logical course of action would have been to settle the outstanding defamation costs, make amends, and commit to help support him in his new research projects. I really cannot see any explanation for not doing so that does not logically entail a deep spirit of animosity.
Anonymous · 23 June 2026 at 16:04
Thanks for the update about comments. I felt like some seemed to have disappeared since I checked this morning and was wondering why
21percent.org · 23 June 2026 at 19:15
All comments will be restored on Friday 26 January, as the Tribunal will have finished its hearing.
Annoyed · 23 June 2026 at 20:01
We must be at the point for a no confidence Grace in the VC, or even entire Council. Maybe it should wait till the ET verdict is in but Cambridge needs a senior leadership clear out and in my opinion reversal to academic leadership – rather than the ineffectual idealogically led school boys in charge at present
TheResearcher · 23 June 2026 at 20:09
There is another Grace coming and that is an important one. But I agree with you that the one you suggest would very important as well. Note, however, that the Council has the power to change/block Graces as they have done in the recent past. Of course, the Chancellor could act, but he chose to take a nap during all these weeks of embarrassing cross examination from several members of the University.
Meanwhile, another article about the case just came out, but only covers the first week so we should expect more articles in the coming days:
https://www.academicjobs.com/uk/higher-education-news/cambridge-astronomy-institute-tribunal-misogyny-and-bullying-claims-or-academicjobs-24486
“Stakeholder Perspectives and Sector-Wide Lessons
Supporters of Evans view his actions as a necessary stand against a toxic departmental culture. Critics, including university representatives, portray the claims as exaggerated or motivated by personal animosity. The tribunal will ultimately determine the credibility of the competing narratives through cross-examination and documentary evidence.
Whatever the outcome, the proceedings are likely to prompt renewed discussion within UK higher education about the adequacy of dignity-at-work policies, the speed of grievance resolutions, and the safeguards available to those who raise concerns about colleagues in positions of authority. Universities UK and other sector bodies have in recent years issued guidance on creating respectful workplaces, yet individual cases continue to test the practical effectiveness of those frameworks.”
Eileen Nugent · 24 June 2026 at 12:04
I think the reason why people find no confidence votes attractive is that they are seen as something to be held in relation to others, something painless, something involving very little effort/work. If a person/group has no confidence in relation to another person/group that doesn’t require the person/group having no confidence to feel any pain, that doesn’t require the person/group having no confidence to do any work to remedy that no confidence situation, it just requires the person/group having no confidence to get rid of the other person/group, install a new person/group and to keep cycling through that process that while problems persist labouring under the false illusion that significant changes can be made while the majority of people remain resistant to significant changes being made & unwilling to look at their own role in the making of significant changes and what it would take to fulfil that role.
No confidence votes don’t have to be held in relation to others, Regent House could hold a no confidence vote in relation to itself, that wouldn’t be painless, that wouldn’t be without significant work because Regent house would then have to do the work needed to restore confidence in itself.
Apple Blossom
The first blossom was the best blossom
For the child who never had seen an orchard;
For the youth whom whisky had led astray
The morning after was the first day.
The first apple was the best apple
For Adam before he heard the sentence;
When the flaming sword endorsed the Fall
The trees were his to plant for all.
The first ocean was the best ocean
For the child from streets of doubt and litter;
For the youth for whom the skies unfurled
His first love was his first world.
But the first verdict seemed the worst verdict
When Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden;
Yet when the bitter gates clanged to
The sky beyond was just as blue.
For the next ocean is the first ocean
And the last ocean is the first ocean
And, however often the sun may rise,
A new thing dawns upon our eyes.
For the last blossom is the first blossom
And the first blossom is the best blossom
And when from Eden we take our way
The morning after is the first day.
Louis MacNeice
Eileen Nugent · 4 July 2026 at 02:37
I would say Cambridge has the lowest failure tolerance of all UK universities, a culture of no examination resits, a culture of no second chances. This might be an additional reason why no confidence votes are appealing when seen as something that can only be held in relation to others and not in relation to the self. A no confidence vote in relation to others that can be painless, effortless, not require any second chances to be given but a no confidence vote in relation to the self is painful, effortful and could require … second … or third … or forth … or nth chances to be given – it could turn into a painful, effortful routine of repeatedly taking binary confidence votes in relation to the self before finally switching to an equally painful and effortful but more useful routine of taking graded confidence votes in relation to the self, of taking more confidence or less confidence votes in relation to the self.
FML · 24 June 2026 at 07:13
So are the names Andrea Hudson and Sam Gardner banned from this forum too? But they have no objection to every other person – up to and including the VC herself – being subject to public exposure?
21percent.org · 24 June 2026 at 09:28
Any posts held back will be released after the Tribunal ends on Friday.
Matters can be discussed freely after that.
TheResearcher · 24 June 2026 at 13:20
On the “incredibly low” success rate of whistleblowing claims reaching employment tribunals:
https://www.halborns.com/more-whistleblowing-claims-zero-success-why-are-they-failing-at-tribunal/
The section “What should employers and their People Teams be doing now?” discusses 5 topics, and UCam does precisely the opposite of what is being suggested here, “Make sure your policies actually work,” “Train managers properly,” “Create safe and flexible reporting channels,” “Focus on culture, not just compliance,” and, my favourite, “Get your investigations right.”
C. Hughes · 24 June 2026 at 14:44
True but I really don’t see what more of a test Wyn would have to pass to qualify as a whistleblower, I mean if you look at the issues raised on this site over the past three years, run for office on an anti-bullying platform, and support staff through a network to deal with HR and legal retaliation, what more does it take to qualify? They’ll say Andy Burnham doesn’t pass the definition of a politician or that Mother Theresa wasn’t really Catholic.
Twinklestar · 24 June 2026 at 21:18
Wyn is the whistleblower we were waiting for for years.
Eileen Nugent · 27 June 2026 at 16:41
I think one challenge in distilling useful information on whistleblowing is that many of the information sources available in the public domain on whistleblowing have some form of bias – either because the thinking of the author is biased or because the author is writing the article to appeal to a certain audience/market for specific services that can introduce a bias in the writing. This particular information source seems to be written by a person who has thought in some depth about how to “protect” employers from workers making whistleblowing claims but possibly not thought in any great depth about the utility of whistleblowing to society.
The problem with “protecting” employers from workers by applying undue pressure to bias employment cases in favour of employers & against workers is that employers can learn vicariously through the mistakes of other employers but for that learning to be accurate the judgments being made with respect of an employer and being learned from by other employers need to be accurate – unbiased. Workers can also learn vicariously from the mistakes of other workers but for that learning to be accurate the judgments being made with respect to a worker and being learned from by other workers need to be accurate – unbiased. A winning at any cost mentality might appear to offer “effective protection” to well resourced employers but the winning-at-any-cost-mentality may in reality prevent effective protection from employment disputes/problems emerging for every employer and for every worker. This mentality may prevent accurate information emerging & hinder the continuous learning necessary to keep working relationships across a society in a healthy & functional state in highly dynamics societies.
The analysis in this article of why whistleblowing claims are rising but failing in employment tribunal seems to be based on the implicit assumption that the right balance is being struck in the employment tribunal in making judgements in relation to these cases and that the main problem is that workers misunderstand what constitutes whistleblowing and/or frame claims that do not constitute whistleblowing as whistleblowing in order to “get around eligibility hurdles”.
“Misunderstanding what qualifies as whistleblowing
A lot of claims we see are, in reality, workplace grievances dressed up as whistleblowing. They’re often concerns about management style, personal treatment, or internal disputes. Even if genuinely felt by the employee, they don’t meet the legal threshold. That misunderstanding is driving case volume, but not success.”
The reality is any claim that is ultimately successful in an employment tribunal would technically satisfy the three elements of the current whistleblowing test. Information is disclosed i.e. a claim is being made in a court, it points to a specific type of wrongdoing i.e. a breach of employment law, it is in the public interest employment law is followed by employers & therefore it is in the public interest to bring a claim to an employment tribunal if employment is not being followed. If it is not in the public interest employment law is followed then employment law is in a sub-optimal state & employment law would then need to be brought back to an a more optimal state where it is in the public interest for employment law to be followed.
“Whistleblowing isn’t just about raising a concern or feeling unfairly treated – it must meet three key elements to qualify as a protected disclosure:
There must be a disclosure of information
That information must relate to a specific type of wrongdoing (such as illegality, health and safety risks, or failure to comply with a legal obligation)
The individual must reasonably believe the disclosure is in the public interest
If any one of those three elements is missing, the claim can’t succeed. And that’s exactly what I think we’re seeing at tribunal.”
People are being told whistleblowing claims are being judged by testing claims based on these three elements but I think the reality is this : the way whistleblowing claims are being judged has less to do with whether the claims being made satisfy the three elements of this whistleblowing test & more to do with judging the depth, utility & value to society of the information contained in the claims once the accuracy of the information contained in the claims has been verified.
If a person is making a standard claim – e.g. an unfair dismissal claim – in an employment tribunal there is a base level of whistleblowing inherent in making that standard claim, there is information of some depth, utility & value to society being entered into the public domain as a result of a person making that claim and that claim being subsequently upheld in an employment tribunal. If in adding the whistleblowing claim on to the standard claim no additional work is being done above the work being done to bring the standard claim & no additional information of depth, utility & value to society is being entered into the public domain then there is nothing to justify the addition of the whistleblowing claim. There is no whistleblowing activity above the base level of whistleblowing activity inherent in making the standard claim of unfair dismissal in an employment tribunal.
The addition of the whistleblowing claim is not in the public interest because no additional information of depth, utility & value to society is being generated in the case above that being generated in a standard unfair dismissal case to justify adding an additional whistleblowing claim in addition to the base claim of unfair dismissal. The action of adding the claim itself is not a public interest action. Since there is no return for society – additional information of depth, utility & value – the extra expenditure from the public purse – court time, additional financial compensation paid out by e.g. a public body – cannot then be justified.
I think the main reason why people misunderstand what qualifies as whistleblowing is that any successful claim in an employment tribunal would satisfy the current test for whistleblowing the way it is currently constructed. The thresholding of whistleblowing cases is not in reality being determined by whether the claims being made satisfy the whistleblowing test. The thresholding for whistleblowing claims seems in reality to be determined by whether the depth, utility & value of information being generated by the claimant in their claims extends significantly beyond that generated in making any of the standard claims that can be made in an employment tribunal.
“Tactical claims
We also see a more strategic angle being used. Whistleblowing claims don’t require a minimum length of service, unlike unfair dismissal. So we’ll see claims framed this way as an attempt to get around eligibility hurdles. The good news for employers is that tribunals are alive to this. They will apply the legal test rigorously, which is why we see so many claims failing.”
In that sense consideration of what are being labelled as “tactical” claims in this article would need to be separated into whistleblowing claims that are added in the case of a person with minimum length of service to bring a claim in an employment tribunal and a person without minimum length of service to bring a claim in an employment tribunal.
If a person adds a whistleblowing claim tactically to other standard claims they already have the minimum length of service to make in an employment tribunal & there is no additional information of depth, utility and value to society in the claims above that contained in making the standard claims then adding the whistleblowing claim is not in the public interest.
If a person cannot make claims – does not have the minimum length of service – but has claims of egregious mistreatment and it is felt that it is in the public interest for claims to be brought to the employment tribunal a whistleblowing claim could then be argued because the person is bringing information of depth, utility and value to society into the public domain that could otherwise not be entered into the public domain.
If those without minimum length of service cannot bring a claim for a particularly egregious unfair dismissal to an employment tribunal then the information about how new hires are being treated in the current employment environment is being lost from the public domain – new hire working conditions are then an employment working conditions information blackhole for society.
In these cases it may make rational sense to raise a whistleblowing claim where that is the only mechanism available to raise a claim because the use of public resources – court time – could then be justified. Additional information of depth, utility and value to society could then be being added into the public domain about how employers are currently treating new hires and potential problems arising with the treatment of workers by employers at the very earliest stages of workers trying to establish strong working relationships with employers, information that would otherwise have no pathway to enter into the public domain.
Some of what are being labelled “tactical claims” in this article could in reality have a stronger claim to being valid whistleblowing claims because those claims are pointing to a group of people – new hires – who have more limited access to in depth employment analysis in general & who are bringing forth information of depth, utility and value to society. It makes very little rational sense for a society to block the treatment by employers of a specific segment of the workforce – new hires/workers at the very earliest stages of trying to establish a strong working relationship – from any in-depth analysis by society. The information is of utility not only to public and to workers but also to employers as employers could learn vicariously from the mistakes of other employers and by working out how to avoid those same mistakes find better ways of establishing strong working relationships with new hires.
exHR · 24 June 2026 at 13:33
People talk about how slow the university investigates grievances. But I have seen them move very fast when they wanted to get rid of someone. If a case takes years it is by design not lack of resources. (After all, just look at the resources they had available to throw at fighting this case at tribunal.)
TheResearcher · 24 June 2026 at 21:34
“But I have seen them move very fast when they wanted to get rid of someone”
I can confirm this is true; they can get rid of members even before of their appeal regarding the investigation that was done against them. I believe that they do this when they realize that one of the main reasons for them to run these investigations—to frighten and silence members—does not work.
Mannequin · 24 June 2026 at 13:46
The final letter to Wyn dismissing his appeal, the one allegedly written by the VC and cited on Monday.
I received exactly identical wording – about not providing any further response to your query, and not that any lack of a response should not be seen as agreeing to the request sent by you etc etc – in a letter refusing to answer health and safety risk reports. But not from the VC. I think both were drafted by Gardner. Word for word identical.
Cancel Reply · 24 June 2026 at 22:45
It’s a professional passion of his. Albeit a highly historical one.
Anonymous · 26 June 2026 at 08:37
I think what the Astronomy High Court case did was to establish the belief among university senior officers that they had a license to defame with guaranteed impunity. The principle at stake here is not the individual case but rather whether that should rule persist as a general principle, because right now, that is the standard in effect.