The Tribunal has ended. The Panel is now considering its verdict. We wish them clarity and sound judgment in their deliberations.
Stuart Brittenden KC (acting for Prof Wyn Evans) made two closing submissions with regard to the ‘protected disclosures’ (or whistleblowing) here and the consequent detriments here. These are public documents. The burden of proof is on Prof Evans for the protected disclosures. If established, the burden switches and it is for the employer to demonstrate that the detriments were not caused by the disclosures. (We remark that an external barrister employed by the University, Mr Jeremy Scott-Joynt, already stated that one of the disclosures was ‘protected’ in his opinion).
We pick out a few points of general interest from closing submissions. First, during the Tribunal, we learned that all letters and outcomes are initially drafted by HR, with little or no involvement from the Responsible Persons. Many of us had already guessed this, but it was surprising how readily this was admitted by many of the University’s senior witnesses.
The group-think analysis has particular salience here in light of the rather surprising evidence given by a number of the University’s witnesses as to who drafted each of the correspondence and outcome letters to Prof Evans. The evidence consistently confirmed that these were either drafted by HR and/or Legal.
- Ms Rampton confirmed that others were responsible for producing first draft decision letters (although she checked them).
- Dr Glover accepted that all correspondence sent to the Claimant was “likely” to have been drafted by someone else, including his decision letters.
- Prof Prentice also confirmed that all correspondence was drafted by either HR or Legal (evidence in chief).
- Ms Akroyd’s evidence was clearer still. In her witness statement, she explained: “Further delays are attributed to the level of input required from various members of the University when drafting correspondence. Any correspondence from the senior members of the University, for example, the Academic Secretary, the Registrary or Vice-Chancellor, would not be drafted by themselves in isolation, and would instead be drafted with input from HR, and sometimes Legal Services as well. This is standard practice. In all, this means that multiple members of HR, Legal Services, and the direct recipient were required to consider the correspondence, draft replies, and consider next steps…” There is a good example of Ms Akroyd drafting an outcome letter for Prof Munir in relation to an appeal submitted by Prof Gilmore in the Bundle. Ms Akroyd confirmed that this was “fairly typical” and more or less standard practice. [Stuart Brittenden KC, written closing submission]
Mr Stuart Brittenden KC followed this up in oral submission by saying: “The decision-making in relation to all decisions remains opaque. We haven’t seen any drafts; and, secondly and materially, there are no notes of any meetings between any decision-maker and HR setting out the decision-maker’s analysis and asking HR to draft it up. Ms Rampton said: “yes, HR did the first draft and I approved it”. She did not say: “I had a meeting with HR, set out my views, and they took them up. However it is analysed, what we have is a very small group of individuals drafting the outcomes and steering the outcomes. Those outcomes neglect or minimise criticism, and the closed nature of the decision-making has, on occasion, led to embarrassment in their evidence – trying to justify the unjustifiable.”
Letters signed by those who do not write them undermine both transparency and accountability. As was seen in the Post Office scandal, the routine use of letters drafted by others but signed by senior figures became part of a wider systemic failure with grave consequences, including wrongful prosecutions. Correspondence was issued under the names of senior management, then civil servants and finally politicians, repeatedly asserting that there were no problems with the Horizon system, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. The effect was not merely procedural: the content was misleading or dismissive of legitimate concerns, amplifying the harm suffered by those affected. This approach diffused responsibility, insulated decision-makers from scrutiny and reinforced a culture of complete institutional denial.
Secondly, there was the way in which the University decided to fight the case. Prof Kamal Munir stated that there was no institutional animus against Prof Evans for raising bullying issues. However, as Mr Stuart Brittenden KC in oral submission stated:
The credibility challenges, on a scale of seriousness, weren’t just mild chipping at the edges; they were integral. If this trial were about institutional mindset, the closing submissions cut very close to the bone for Professor Evans: they make a large number of serious allegations of dishonesty against him.
Professor Evans underwent four days of cross-examination, which were hard and intense — you will have noticed it ran roughly from 10.00 am to 4.00pm each day, a gruelling exercise. It is fundamentally dishonest to suggest [as Ms Akua Reindorf does] that he did not genuinely feel emotion — that he affected tears in order to avoid difficult questions, and that his motivation was to damage McMahon. Ms Reindorf’s statement accuses him of “faking emotion”. These are all highly serious allegations. I appreciate they are put on instruction; but if there is any doubt about institutional animus, that is evidence of it. Professor Evans would invite you to reject those allegations. When he demonstrated emotion, it was only out of genuine concern and immediate distress, and he needed to take a break when it was put to him that he had shed “crocodile tears.” I would say that was inappropriate in this case. [Stuart Brittenden KC, oral closing submission]
In the way it fought the case, the University seemed to demonstrate the very thing that Prof Evans was himself alleging — namely, that he was being punished for raising bullying concerns by a University whose senior figures had come to dislike him intensely. This stance was felt by many neutrals (such as some of the listening journalists) to be over the top and counter-productive. ‘Crocodile tears’ was an extremely unpleasant allegation in the circumstances.
It must be remembered that Ms Akua Reindorf KC was acting on instruction from the Respondents (namely Legal Services represented by Ms Gardner, Ms Rampton, Prof McMahon and Prof Prentice). Therefore, Ms Reindorf was not presenting her own views, but rather those of her clients, in the use of phrases like ‘crocodile tears’.
98 Comments
Cato · 27 June 2026 at 09:14
I was shocked by the statement by Akua Reindorf KC (acting for University of Cambridge) that is was “normal” for solicitors to write the witness statements and ask the individuals to sign them. I thought a witness is someone who testifies to facts in their own words?
Eileen Nugent · 2 July 2026 at 01:07
There is this mistaken belief that with enough money alignment of interests in a situation can be bought but alignment of interests in a situation is a fact of a situation, something that can evolve as a situation evolves and not something that can be bought with money. If a person isn’t actively protecting their own interests – retaining control over their own witness statement – there is no guarantee that a legal representative will always be actively protecting a persons interests. That is especially the case in one of these situations where there is a fault at the level of the organisation – systems level fault – which slowly emerges over many decades.
The interests of a person and legal representative can diverge in a situation in which case people who go for aggressive legal representatives with a tendency to apply undue pressure on opponents in a legal case could be in for quite a shock. If the client-legal representative relationship breaks down and the person needs to mount a legal challenge against an aggressive legal representative then the unfair advantage that the person was taking advantage of could suddenly start operating in reverse. It might take a situation like this for a person to come to appreciate the value of instructing a fair & reasonable legal representative.
This is a general statement. It’s not being made in reference to this case in particular.
TheResearcher · 27 June 2026 at 10:53
Some people have asked why the University did not settle and instead decided to go through this embarrassment. The reason is that settling would require to assume a very large number of faults, from many senior people, and they knew that Wyn Evans would hardly sign any NDA. In a culture that rests on secrecy and cover ups of misconduct, people unable to assume faults have only one alternative, to deny, and deny and deny, while in parallel flip the script. We have seen clear examples of DARVO in this case, namely during the hearings. Even in the closing remarks Wyn Evans was accused of having sat “aggressively” near [REDACTED], which was disturbing from those who do not know the real Cambridge, but not surprising for those who do. Their remarks regarding the 21 Group were particularly telling. They rambled about how Wyn Evans used the 21 Group against the Respondents to stress their framing of the case as a “personal vendetta” but they failed to notice in open court that many people come here to talk about their experiences independent of the case of Wyn Evans.
The case of Wyn Evans is just one among very many, and when a large number of people decide to come forward to tell their story publicly, degrading counter narratives such the one we saw in this particular case from the University and their legal representatives will fall. When the public at large becomes aware of a few cases, they will quickly realize that the patterns among them are very clear and undeniable. On that day, the University will be unable to isolate individuals, and that day is approaching. Stay tuned.
21percent.org · 27 June 2026 at 10:57
There are many more cases coming up. The University (or the Press) have been almost continuously in Employment Tribunals this year.
nc · 27 June 2026 at 11:30
What is the calendar like for upcoming cases? Would be helpful to know better in advance.
TheResearcher · 27 June 2026 at 11:37
I know. But unfortunately not everyone could afford ET when they went through the problems and their experiences will be lost if we do not act as a collective. We need a collective story that will be much more powerful than any individual case. When the collective story is out, it will persuade other people to join the movement and some will be willing to share the details of their own story publicly. When the collective story is out, the University cannot afford to say that the individual cases are isolated, namely when they happened across campus in different Departments and Schools. And I have a gut feeling that the press will like the collective story as well 😉
Eileen Nugent · 30 June 2026 at 00:12
I didn’t see the logic in the “personal vendetta” arguments that were advanced by the respondent. If an organisation builds itself functioning work-related stress regulation then an organisation builds itself an escape route out of any cycles of dysfunctional organisational dynamics that are unnecessarily stressing an organisation & making it harder for the organisation to compete as an organisation.
The logic people are actively trying to harm other people by doing the practical work necessary to get a particular type of health & safety regulation to work in a real-world situation seems less plausible that the logic people are actively trying to prevent harm to other people by doing the practical work necessary to get a particular type of health and safety regulation to work in a real-world situation. Is a person who points out a laser safety problem & then goes and buys some laser safety googles to deal with that laser safety problem being driven by a “personal vendetta”?
EtonMess · 7 July 2026 at 22:16
Let’s hope.
Lessons Learnt · 27 June 2026 at 12:31
Reposting from the previous blog.
While this tribunal was on-going, there were reports about training provided by HR for colleagues in leadership positions
1. If there is dissent, contact HR, even at informal stage
2. Do not write email, leave no trace
3. Do not refer to the parties by name, to disable future DSAR searches
4. Letters will be composed on Sharepoint, so there is no draft history.
5. Do not worry about Employment Tribunals, HR will sort that for you.
These are the lessons learnt from this case, delivered in training by HR case managers who care about nothing other than embedding a culture of harm, suppression of evidence and cover up, and the disabling of future legal action.
21percent.org · 27 June 2026 at 12:36
Already much of this is embedded and it is clearly unlawful.
“We have made some small changes to the suggested draft from us to G (I’m afraid a history of freedom of information requests is leading us to use G. and A. in correspondence, if you could do the same). Please let us know if this is acceptable.” (Cambridge Head of Department)
nc · 27 June 2026 at 12:46
GDPR covers both direct and indirect attribution or references to a person. Failure to comply with GDPR because a shorthand was used is illegal, but this is worse because it shows prior conscious intent and forethought of breaking the law.
TheResearcher · 27 June 2026 at 12:52
As I noted in my earlier posts, this story is telling:
https://21percent.org/?p=1608
Cambridge Legal ”Sued University of Cambridge and Dr James Knapton, Information Compliance Officer, for refusing to disclose an employee’s personal data in breach of GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) resulting in a pre-hearing settlement and the provision of previously withheld information.”
Dr Knapton continues to work as Head of Data Protection and Information Compliance.
EtonMess · 7 July 2026 at 22:54
One moment
Dr Knapton was sued for refusing to disclose an employee’s personal data, in breach of GDPR, and still is the current Head of Data Protection and Information Compliance?
How would the requestor know if information is being withheld, such as, in the linked article, when all parties are withholding it?
If they all deleted the emails, can Dr Knapton see them despite this fact?
TheResearcher · 7 July 2026 at 23:07
The requestor may be sure that specific emails, minutes or letters exist, and were not provided under GDPR. It happened to me multiple times at UCam, and yes, the responsible is the same, Dr James Knapton who continues business as usual and comes up with all sorts of excuses for not providing the data. If you complain to his line manager Dr Regina Sachers, she will ignore you. You can, of course, complain to ICO and wait over 6 months for the first follow up.
21percent.org · 27 June 2026 at 13:16
Exactly. It shows intent to break the law.
SeeyouatFH · 27 June 2026 at 13:32
Criminals
- · 27 June 2026 at 14:08
It definitely does not look good from the perspective of inferred motivation. Deliberate attempt at concealment rarely goes down well at court in any context, frankly – but especially not in regards to the evidentiary determination of relevant matters of fact. Meanwhile as regards GDPR, I cannot see how the ICO would not have to impose a fine at the very minimum, as intent of breach is far, far, far more serious than mere accidental failure of compliance.
Eileen Nugent · 30 June 2026 at 11:44
“These are the lessons learnt from this case, delivered in training by HR case managers who care about nothing other than embedding a culture of harm, suppression of evidence and cover up, and the disabling of future legal action.”
This type of systemic fault eventually self limits because unsustainable stresses start to accumulate on those with access to information on what is being done to others in the organisation. If a culture of harm is being built up in an organisation no one in the organisation is isolated from the culture of harm that is being built up in an organisation. A culture of harm is a maximum stress organisational state, the stress in the organisation is tending to a maximum, no one in an organisation escapes stress impact in a situation where the stress in an organisation is tending to a maximum.
EtonMess · 7 July 2026 at 22:29
Thanks for this information. Were any of these reports posted online?
I’ve commented to many that the admin seems trained on how to create false paper trails via email and to leave out names. It’s clear in the writing of particular admins they write every word with an awareness of being on record. There’s one who somehow makes [themself] look completely appropriate and above-board, but [they] are the exact opposite. The most corrupt, manipulative and likely illegal content is not recorded b/c it’s spoken during in-person meetings and/or over the phone.
#3 the omission of names to disable future DSAR searches is certainly being adhered to.
I don’t see how any of this conduct is legal. It’s a public institution that’s intentionally erasing or making ephemeral information the public has a right to know.
‘…HR case managers who care about nothing other than embedding a culture of harm, suppression of evidence and coverup, and the disabling of future legal action’ is correct.
SeeyouatFH · 27 June 2026 at 13:40
Judge made a very good question to Rs solicitor: WHY? “My client has not instructed me on that.
And the details…. What an annoyance.
CloistersWatch · 27 June 2026 at 16:43
Reindorf has been involved with Cambridge University for well over a decade & she had cross-examined a number of claimants against the University in her usual manner.
Reindorf’s webpage says “Repeat instructions to advise and represent the University of Cambridge in relation to its labyrinthine internal policies and procedures and employment disputes, in particular those relating to its unusual Employer Justified Retirement Age Policy.”
Reindorf has also advised on how public bodies and service providers should respond to last year’s Supreme Court ruling on legal definitions in the Equality Act.
Those taking the University to Tribunal contesting EJRA can expect to face her.
TheResearcher · 27 June 2026 at 17:04
I can safely say that I am looking forward to it. I can even share that I contacted Shakespeare Martineau regarding my case(s) and requested them if they could ask their client to appoint Ms Reindorf as the KC for my cross-examination when the time comes. Hopefully, it will be public as well and you guys can see her performance again this time with me.
SeeyouatFH · 27 June 2026 at 22:18
I would love to see her defending the respondent in my case too .
TheResearcher · 27 June 2026 at 22:54
I do not know if the University will choose her for my case or not, but I do know that a few people will be cross examined again when those hearings come. Let’s see if they will repeat the same narrative of “personal vendetta” and alike. Luckily we kept detailed notes from these cross examinations so that we can compare them with future ones!
reine vs. angewandte · 27 June 2026 at 23:26
I was kind of amazed that during the final statements she seemed not to have read Wyn’s KC’s statement and wasn’t able to respond in full. Instead she requested to be able to come back in for final comments a second time.
I mean, seriously? You expect a highly paid barrister to have prepared better than that. It gave the whole impression of being too important to have even been there, but if she felt that way then why even accept the case?
Plus the legal arguments were pretty vacuous. She kept saying she wasn’t going to address the details of the case, but isn’t that what legal cases are all about? The details of what happened and why?
ZZ · 28 June 2026 at 08:36
Her entire argument seemed to be Wyn Evans is a very bad person. Presumably that is what she was instructed to do by HR & Legal Services. Not sure the Tribunal enhanced AR’s reputation,.
? · 27 June 2026 at 18:37
I would be amazed after last week if she ever wanted to work with the university again, but maybe there’s a price for everything (even defending the old white boys’ club)
Bruno · 27 June 2026 at 21:40
Na…. Ish dont tink so
Ubuntu · 28 June 2026 at 09:10
I had the feeling by the end (maybe even by the middle) she had more respect for Evans than for her own client. After all he embodies the values she espouses – standing up for women, for freedom of speech, and simple sheer fucking resilience, endurance, and tenacity. He was prepared to stand for his beliefs. Her client was hiding behind others until the end, including Reindorf herself. I bet she saw in Evans someone who was on her own level of grit and determination – while the people giving her instructions were lowly never weres and has beens.
Eileen Nugent · 30 June 2026 at 12:31
The fact the Employer Justified retirement Age is still in place is due to Regent House. Regent House has continuously given the university permission to put any academic through a substantive unfair dismissal & then to opt to pay the academic off instead of reinstating them. This is the new ceremony to mark decades of service to the university – the employment tribunal farewell.
This is the policy that Cambridge is proposing to use to teach early career researchers about “intergenerational fairness”, “effective succession planning”, “innovation and creation of knowledge” and “academic freedom and autonomy”. If the HR catastrophic disaster zone that is the EJRA happens to a persons PI they won’t be sticking around any more sessions on “academic freedom and autonomy” from Cambridge.
I don’t think there is a university in the UK where the EJRA policy is more incompatible with the culture of the university. Trying to force a Cambridge academic to retire is like trying to force a farmer to retire. If a farmer wants to retire there is nothing to stop a farmer from retiring. If a farmer hasn’t retired by retirement age it means they are not interested in retirement and they are going to keep going until they reach the limits their own body imposes on them of how long they can keep working.
Eileen Nugent · 30 June 2026 at 13:40
The EJRA is one of these policies that looks great on paper. It looks like the whole “established” university – Regent House – is continuously behind early career academics because it continuously keeps voting to maintain this policy at which points in time Regent house is there pouring its heart out about the sacrifices the “established” generation are willing to make to create permanent vacancies for the “unestablished” generation but the reality is that this policy is operationally unstable & disrupting the operation of the environment early career academics are embedded in – i.e. generating more problems for early career academics – & it is doing this without doing very much to remedy the specific problem for early career academics it’s designed to target – the increasing ratio of fixed-term contract PIs to permanent contract PIs in academia which is not good for academia and academic dependents – PhD students & postdocs.
? · 2 July 2026 at 09:57
Is EJRA still a thing? I thought it had been struck down years ago by the Oxford case as discriminatory.
Eileen Nugent · 3 July 2026 at 01:51
Regent House keeps voting to keep the EJRA in Cambridge despite every other university in the UK having got rid of this type of policy & despite the practical implementation of employment law in Cambridge meaning there is no effective protection from a substantive unfair dismissal in Cambridge something the application of this type of policy to a person increases the risk of happening to a person.
Regent house keeps voting to keep this policy without taking the necessary precautions to ensure that the university had a practical implementation of employment law in place that offers effective protection from substantive unfair dismissal i.e. without seeking a written statement from the university that it is prepared to remedy any proven case of substantive unfair dismissal of a person arising from the application of the EJRA to a person by complying with reinstatement/re-engagement orders from an employment tribunal in such cases. It might take a person naming every person who was a member of Regent House when it last voted to keep this policy in an employment tribunal for Regent House to get sense on its approach to employment.
A person having a long drawn out disagreement with Cambridge on issues of substance where significant ambiguity exists fits with the Cambridge culture. What doesn’t fit with the Cambridge culture is the case of Dr Catherine Mackenzie where even after there is agreement on substance – university conceded a substantive unfair dismissal – and there is no significant ambiguity in the case up to an including what an appropriate remedy for the case is – employment tribunal judges it appropriate for Dr Catherine MacKenzie to be re-engaged as a way to remedy the situation – there is still a long drawn out disagreement.
Anonymous · 2 July 2026 at 06:46
It is rather funny that even the university’s own barrister writes of the university as having “labyrinthine internal policies and procedures and employment disputes”. We are therefore all in agreement on that!
TheResearcher · 27 June 2026 at 21:02
New article on the case…
https://www.academicjobs.com/higher-education-news/cambridge-university-bullying-case-accuser-denies-vendetta-or-academicjobs-25109
“Broader Context of Bullying and Harassment in UK Universities
Cambridge is not alone in facing scrutiny over workplace culture. Internal staff surveys at the university have previously revealed low satisfaction with how departments handle bullying and harassment complaints. Similar issues have arisen at other institutions, prompting calls for improved reporting mechanisms, independent oversight, and stronger protections for those who speak out.
Whistleblowing in academia carries unique risks because of the close-knit nature of research groups, funding dependencies, and long-term career implications. Evans’ decision to stand as a candidate in the Cambridge chancellor election last year underscores his commitment to addressing these systemic issues at the highest levels.”
Eileen Nugent · 30 June 2026 at 13:19
I think one of the main challenges of whistleblowing in academia is that it can be more difficult to estimate the protections to be had in a whistleblowing situation in academia – particularly if academic freedom is engaged – because there is no universal set of whistleblowing protections that can be applied in every case of whistleblowing. The whistleblowing protections are dependent on the whistleblowing situation itself and would need to be as dynamic as the whistleblowing situation itself to be effective.
If the whistleblowing situation is unique so too will be the risks of the whistleblowing situation and the protections in the whistleblowing situation and to successfully navigate any whistleblowing situation it is necessary to see both – the risks of the whistleblowing situation and the protections to be had in the whistleblowing situation – clearly.
BG · 28 June 2026 at 10:04
I did not get to see more than a few days but what shone through for me was the condescending attitude of the university towards the tribunal system of our country
JB · 28 June 2026 at 11:00
I watched most of it and that got that impression as well. Some examples: the coordinated drafting of statements for the respondent witnesses, then refusal to call any of Wyn’s to the stand, the obviously missing evidence from tribunal disclosure orders, the initial week-long delay to proceedings, and then how when the VC was called, they began with a song and dance about how “busy” she was, like they should be honoured to even have her (when the case has been running for her entire duration in office and she was a named respondent!)
The general message was that Cambridge is too important for Bury St Edmunds & ET should “know its place” . Frankly I bloody well hope they are set straight on that (just like High Court did last year too)
Libertas · 28 June 2026 at 19:06
Don’t forget a few more things (certainly as regards contempt for open justice)
a) failed attempt by university to secure a gagging order
b) failed request from university at the opening to restrict public commentary
c) university wanting ET to provide a list of attendees so they could “monitor” (?)
d) requests by university for comments to be removed during case….
Remember this is a university, folks. A place that is meant to be in dedication to open debate, free thought, and willingness to debate freely and fairly with others. And yet, repeatedly engaging in actions to intimidate, shut down, and restrict people from knowing or sharing what is going on.
TheResearcher · 28 June 2026 at 20:08
Those who did not realize yet that there is no free speech in UCam when the topic is criticism of the practices of senior members and the University itself, must be sleeping! Remember that there are students in UCam forbidden from contacting hundreds of university members, including co-authors of their research and even people who no longer work in the University. This place became a joke!
EtonMess · 7 July 2026 at 22:45
I too bloody well hope they are set straight on that.
All this deference (‘they began with a song and dance about how “busy” she was, like they should be honoured to even have her”) is disgusting. There is deference, and there is respect. The university administration and their enablers have no respect.
The deference culture goes back to the question of who is the university, who speaks for the university. What we have is an administration who has taken over and seems to believe they are royalty who are above scrutiny or accountability. Everyone must defer to them and their judgment, to their corruption.
It’s the same problem of ranking/the old public school boys’ club. Wyn has been quoted in a few interviews saying if an early career researcher brings a case forward against a more senior faculty member, that faculty member will almost certainly not be held accountable. He’s written about older faculty members blocking grants to younger researchers out of jealousy.
Deference culture makes a fertile breeding ground for these problems and the admin’s cover ups.
Eileen Nugent · 30 June 2026 at 14:04
A “condescending attitude” is mechanism to apply undue pressure in a situation. That type of undue pressure has the most impact in a situation where the person that type of pressure is being applied to is unsure of themselves or in a situation where that type of pressure is being applied to the system when the system is in a state where it is unsure of itself.
ABM · 28 June 2026 at 14:53
I thought my head of department was bad, but jeez astronomy is a complete basket-case. The head of department was tracking his staff with eduroam logs. Scarcely believable what was going on.
Snoopy · 28 June 2026 at 16:44
The ICO were of the view that there had been inappropriate access to personal data.
McMahon, who had been in charge of IT, had had inappropriate levels of access to the logs (erroneously put into place) for many years.
As far as we are aware the University never investigated whether there had been any other inappropriate levels of data-related access. Nor are we aware of any disciplinary action taken in this case.
Roman · 28 June 2026 at 21:16
Did this mean it could be seen from where they log in, or what they were looking at or searching?
MyHRStory · 28 June 2026 at 14:59
https://kateclanchy.substack.com/p/my-hr-story?r=qj1s9&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true
But HR was interested in them. All their stories sound the same. One of their colleagues raised a complaint that at first seemed too trivial to be taken seriously: a ‘manner’ in meetings, a ‘feeling’ in general, a tangle of seniorities. HR took the complaint seriously, citing new guidance on microaggressions and patterns of bullying, the need for everyone to be heard. Soon, my neighbours were horrified to learn they might have been guilty of discrimination.
Then came months of mortifying investigations. More and more colleagues became involved, and it often felt as if HR were fishing for evidence. The investigators seemed to think themselves rather grand. LinkedIn posts were cited, then Facebook photographs. After all, it was the whole self that came to work. Progressively, my neighbours became cynical and reserved. Why should they go through such tests of character? Wasn’t it enough if they just brought the working part of themselves to work? Who were these people set in judgement over them who only yesterday were Colin from Accounts?
Then came the quasi-judicial decisions and reports with multiple initials: ZE found ML difficult in one-to-ones. The decisions differed—one of my neighbours was at first excited to be noisily exonerated—but that didn’t seem to matter because next, for all of them, came counter-grievances, more investigations, and appeals extending into years. Enemies emerged, then camps formed across the whole organisation. Previously quiescent colleagues suddenly wanted blood—and my neighbours’ jobs. Soon, every interaction in these previously happy and productive workplaces was absorbed into the dispute. Finally, management intervened.
Now none of my neighbours is at work. One went to tribunal and won, one is on the way but might settle, and one is off sick. Their special little projects at work are flailing or dead. Now they are reading my Substack and pruning the rose bushes on weekday mornings, stretching their pale and trembling hands out to me as I pass in the street. At least, they say, I can talk about it—the HR story. The albatross. It helps.
21percent.org · 28 June 2026 at 15:11
Great spot!
“And yet the rapid increase in HR —1.6% of all employees in the UK now—has coincided not only with new ideals of workplace harmony but with a vast increase in employment tribunals, with 72,000 currently waiting to be heard. Thousands of others settle out of court. Behind each case is gross distress and hundreds of hours spent trawling through old emails: vast archaeologies of fault, agonising blooms of shame.”
Hard to know what to say really.
Eileen Nugent · 30 June 2026 at 14:26
If HR enters into a grievance multiplier state where grievances are being multiplied instead of being resolved, hiring more HR into that grievance multiplier state will only resolve that grievance multiplier state if the new HR are kept separate from the existing HR in the grievance multiplier state & specifically tasked with getting HR out of that grievance multiplier state.
David Dunbar · 28 June 2026 at 19:15
Here is one published academic expert view of cases often seen in Universities, and which maybe gives a summary of some of the aspects of this case, in agreement with many of the comments here and previously –
David C. Yamada [Professor of Law and Director, New Workplace Institute, Suffolk University Law School, Massachusetts, USA (and, according to this extract from the Forward of the book from which this is taken, referenced below, is – ‘an internationally recognised authority on workplace bullying, mobbing, and abuse. Among other things, he is the author of leading law review articles on workplace bullying and of model workplace anti-bullying legislation known as the Healthy Workplace Bill. His Minding the Workplace blog [ https://newworkplace.wordpress.com/about/ ] is a popular source of commentary on employee relations and dignity at work.’ He says –
‘Here’s my short take on bullying in academe:
Academicians are adept at intellectual analysis, manipulation, and argumentation. When applied to the tasks of teaching, scholarship, and service, these skills reinforce the most socially useful aspects of the academy. But many of us who have worked in academe have seen what happens when they are applied in hurtful or even malicious ways.
Of course, exquisitely rationalised actions and explanations occur in many organisations, but in dysfunctional academic settings, they often rise to an art form. After such repeated bludgeoning, we may become accustomed to, and sometimes all too indifferent towards, intellectual dishonesty and rhetorical “mal-manipulation.” Call it Dilbert in Tweed.
Because this kind of mental facility often is at the heart of both perpetrating and defending bullying, academe becomes a natural petri dish for such behaviours, especially the covert varieties. After all, so many decisions in the academy are based upon very subjective judgments. This can create a particularly attractive setting for the passive-aggressive bully and the quiet-but-deadly mob (Yamada, 2009).
I readily confess that my deep immersion in this subject matter has made me skeptical about the role of human resources in effectively responding to bullying at work. Time and again I have heard stories from targets of workplace bullying, sharing that their human resources office was either complicit in the mistreatment or indifferent to their plight. In other instances, sympathetic HR professionals were unable to render meaningful assistance, hamstrung by their place on the organisational chart.
Indeed, in institutions rife with bullying behaviours, the most well-intentioned human resources practitioners often face significant challenges when asked to address workplace abuse, especially when the alleged perpetrators enjoy considerable internal power. Academe is an especially challenging milieu for HR, with a mix of personnel who enjoy widely varied protections, ranging from tenure to at-will employment. When allegations of bullying arise, these considerations quickly come into play, especially given the many potential aggressor(s)-to-target combinations, such as:
• Administrators bullying administrators/faculty/staff;
• Tenured faculty bullying non-tenured faculty;
• Tenured faculty bullying other tenured faculty;
Faculty bullying mid-level administrators/staff/graduate students;
Staff bullying other staff.’
Eileen Nugent · 30 June 2026 at 18:40
If an organisation comes to rely on bullying/mobbing as a way to deal with difficult human relations situations it can be a real shock to the system if the organisation subsequently has to deal with any significant whistleblowing situation.
A whistleblowing situation is like a moving object, the details of the whistleblowing situation will determine how massive that moving object is & how fast that moving object is moving.
If an organisation has come to rely on bullying/mobbing as a way to deal with difficult human relations situations the sudden appearance of this massive high speed object in a whistleblowing situation is what generates the shock. The shock is that applying what the organisation has come to rely on – bullying/mobbing – to deal with difficult human relations situations in this particular type of difficult human relations situation is the equivalent of trying to “bully” a person in a high speed train of the train tracks by standing on the train tracks or trying to “mob” a person in a ferry sailing the high seas off the high seas by swimming as a group in front of the ferry.
ZZ · 28 June 2026 at 20:21
The University cynically thought that no newspaper would send a journalist to cover a 4 week Tribunal in Bury St Edmunds. Expensive. So, they gambled that there would be minimal publicity.
This changed when the Judge permitted online access (non-downloadable, non-printable) to all the witness statements and the document bundle, and Wyn Evans then set up a drive to enable this. Now journalists could get the material without a trip to Bury St Edmunds.
This changed the odds in favour of a PR disaster. All the participants knew (or should have done) that there was very difficult material in the witness statements. There was material which, if the press got hold of it, would do serious damage. No-one in the University seemed to realise this danger until too late.
God bless the Judge and his commitment to open justice.
Kafka's D · 29 June 2026 at 09:39
Thanks for the Kafka reference. That’s exactly how internal procedures at Cambridge function. The point is not for the grievance to end but to progress through the maximum number of stages over the longest possible duration until everyone just leaves or passes away.
Anon · 29 June 2026 at 12:23
It is worth producing a ranking of the longest-running grievances at the University of Cambridge.
I suspect the current winner is probably the Catherine MacKenzie case – which started in 2013, but as of 2026, is apparently still ongoing – 13 years later!
It could have all ended in 2015 when she won her unfair dismissal claim and the court ordered for her to be reinstated. But instead in 2016 the University refused to re-engage her, resulting in a judicial review, a 2019 appeal, and fresh claims in 2021-22, followed by further claims in 2024 and hearings in 2025.
There is no justification for this madness.
Then of course there is the Gillian Evans case, which ran from 1986 to 2003 – no less than 17 years. That case was immensely damaging for the university as it set in motion the initial controversies of the early 2000s over failure to promote staff, and ended when Evans was given a professorship in 2002 and the university committed to reform its internal procedures, with obviously mixed results.
21percent.org · 29 June 2026 at 12:32
“There is no justification for this madness”.
This is a huge waste of public money on lawsuits. This point now needs to be made to our politicians.
The university says it is trying to save money to reduce its deficit, but its legal expenses are ballooning & are a significant fraction of the deficit.
! · 29 June 2026 at 13:04
When we are talking about the university acting like it is above the law and not accountable to the tribunal system, the MacKenzie case is a landmark example.
The tribunal ordered her reinstatement, yet Cambridge flat-out refused to obey that order. So we are not just talking about refusal to comply with disclosure orders. Even hearing outcomes they have defied. There needs to be a hard line. Otherwise it merely validates their belief that they exist above the justice system.
J. · 29 June 2026 at 13:47
What this shows is the danger when a precedent is set that allows an employer to get away with bad behaviour. Just as the McMahon case at high court sent the message that heads would be covered for defamation in future, the MacKenzie outcome led the university to let cases spin out to ET, out of experience of losing and then having its own way. If the law had been consistently upheld from the start the university would have complied and all the future cases could have been avoided.
Lefty · 29 June 2026 at 14:18
Times have changed and the universities are nobody’s darlings. They have little or no support in any of our main political parties. After the debacles at Dundee, Cardiff & Nottingham Universities, VCs and senior management are in a very bad place. They’re widely seen as over-paid and incompetent. They are disliked by parents and students as responsible for high tuition fees (whether fair or not). They are disliked by staff as responsible for the mismanagement leading to redundancies.
Scandals have a cumulative effect. Cambridge has had a really bad 6 month run, starting with the botched appointment of a new CFO, the mistaken attempt to close the Vet School, the cosying up to Reform, Simon Goldhill, the POLIS scandal, Herbert Huppert, the McMahon Scandal …
I don’t think the University can continue to act as though it is above the law. We’re quite close to “questions being asked in the House” in my opinion. And it suits politicians to blame mismanagement by VCs, as it obscure their own role in what’s happening to universities. The danger for Cambridge is that we know there are still a lot of scandals to come out (eg CRUK-Cam).
Righty Tighty · 29 June 2026 at 14:38
They are unpopular across the spectrum. For the right-wing press they are merely hypocrites, who talk about equality and free speech – but also tolerate abuse of young women, gagging orders on misconduct, and take home huge salaries, while virtue signaling about regional inequality or intergenerational justice. But there’s also a broader issue for UK Plc, which is why universities are falling in the global rankings and losing young talent to Europe and North America. Ultimately that’s about mismanagement, not resources- just like with the BBC, Post Office, Carillion or Windrush scandals.
S.H. · 29 June 2026 at 15:04
“Scandals have a cumulative effect. Cambridge has had a really bad 6 month run, starting with the botched appointment of a new CFO, the mistaken attempt to close the Vet School, the cosying up to Reform, Simon Goldhill, the POLIS scandal, Herbert Huppert, the McMahon Scandal”
Yes, scandals have a cumulative effect, but only because each one serves as piece of jigsaw that brings out the underlying common picture. The image coming in to view is one of institutional hierarchy, covering up, and retaliation to protect the “image” and “reputation” of those in charge at the expense of addressing serious wrongdoing. In that sense it is no different from the NHS scandals (Lucy Letby, Staffordshire, infected blood scandal) or those at the BBC (Savile, Bashir, Panorama), in that these, too, all showed a failure to process victim and whistleblower complaints, and engage legal retaliation to keep people quiet. There is a broader question here for parliament about integrity in British public life, but the first step is making sure that the public knows and understands the truth of what is going on.
LeftyLucy · 29 June 2026 at 15:11
“Cambridge has had a really bad 6 month run, starting with the botched appointment of a new CFO, the mistaken attempt to close the Vet School, the cosying up to Reform, Simon Goldhill, the POLIS scandal, Herbert Huppert, the McMahon Scandal ”
Yes, there is a sense of complete drift as though no-one at the top is actually in charge or directing anything. And there is a feeling time is now running out for Prentice. Stephen Toope left after the misjudgment of his micro-agressions policy, which is small in comparison.
And the ‘King of the North’ is not an obvious candidate to continue the (in my opinion misjudged) Oxford-Cambridge Growth Corridor. He’s more likely to see votes in a Manchester-Liverpool-Leeds Growth Triangle.
21percent.org · 29 June 2026 at 15:50
Three of the loudest defenders of Toope’s micro-aggression policy were Prof Eilis Ferran, Prof Tim Harper and Prof Nigel Peake.
They all made an appearance at Bury St Edmund’s Tribunal, when something much more serious than a subtle slight was being weighed.
Direwolf · 29 June 2026 at 15:46
Right. Team Burnham has no incentive to protect Oxbridge. The path to election victory is to consolidate the north as Reform aren’t contesting seats from Labour in either London or university towns like Cambridge. Moving government to Manchester is a sign of where the Oxbridge Corridor is headed; it was always the Starmer/Reeves’ equivalent of HS2.
Disgusted · 29 June 2026 at 17:54
There is a surprising correlation between sensitivity to “micro aggression” and willingness to tolerate macro aggressions resulting in staff breakdown, resignation or suicide.
Eileen Nugent · 30 June 2026 at 22:24
“Right. Team Burnham has no incentive to protect Oxbridge. The path to election victory is to consolidate the north as Reform aren’t contesting seats from Labour in either London or university towns like Cambridge. Moving government to Manchester is a sign of where the Oxbridge Corridor is headed; it was always the Starmer/Reeves’ equivalent of HS2.”
Sustaining high levels of independence requires sustaining high levels of self regulation. That is what political parties are going to have to develop higher levels of – self regulation – the ability to announce a long term infrastructure project and to follow through on that long term infrastructure project.
“And the ‘King of the North’ is not an obvious candidate to continue the (in my opinion misjudged) Oxford-Cambridge Growth Corridor. He’s more likely to see votes in a Manchester-Liverpool-Leeds Growth Triangle.”
Discontinuing projects is not an option now, it’s an all or nothing situation now, drive it hard all over now or watch it fail all over. Have to drive the two growth corridors and also drive the link between the two growth corridors to drive flow between them. There is no option but to push through to a higher state of self regulation now in order to focus sufficient drive and energy on solving these big systemic problems and start taking the load of national systems which cannot cope with the current load being placed on them.
Eileen Nugent · 1 July 2026 at 13:34
“And the ‘King of the North’ is not an obvious candidate to continue the (in my opinion misjudged) Oxford-Cambridge Growth Corridor. He’s more likely to see votes in a Manchester-Liverpool-Leeds Growth Triangle.”
Short-range synchronisation links of two growth triangles coupled to a long-range synchronisation link between two growth triangles.
Healthy people are more likely to show up to vote than people in a state of chronic ill health. Where there is growth that sustains overall improvements in health coupled to flows of people between different regions where regional voting culture is in different states of functioning an increase in the overall number of people voting is more likely.
Perhaps the votes that need to be seen are the votes that are never seen.
Eileen Nugent · 30 June 2026 at 19:32
I don’t know how the implications for all who work for the university of the university decision to not comply with a re-engagement order from an employment tribunal in the Catherine MacKenzie case were never discussed in Regent House. I think people in Cambridge really do believe that it is possible to have academic freedom & autonomy and all the rights set out in employment law with an implementation of employment law in the university that offers a person no protection from substantive unfair dismissal. This practical implementation of employment law in the university is not compatible with academic freedom and autonomy and also not compatible with guaranteeing all the rights set out in employment law to people in Cambridge.
21percent.org · 29 June 2026 at 12:26
It is of course especially damaging for postdoctoral workers or those on field term contracts. The University plays for time, everything runs very slow and the fixed-term contract ends. Now no need to continue any internal Grievance as you’re no longer employed by the University
TheResearcher · 29 June 2026 at 13:16
There are exceptions to this pattern that forced them to escalate to the next level of madness where they expel students for sending emails 😉
Game of Consequences · 30 June 2026 at 05:16
I notice comments about a certain small-time lawyer have been removed from this blog. Preserve all records of pressure he has applied to restrict free speech. Believe me, there is already a lot. In this game, everyone faces accountability in the end. The only way to win is to stop doing what he does.
TheResearcher · 30 June 2026 at 08:56
Not only about the small-time lawyer but also, and perhaps mainly, about [REDACTED], as if people did know yet … [REDACTED]
I should say that the claimant and his KC could have used our comments in the 21 Group blog in their favour. The University’s KC used the 21 Group against the claimant, framing it as part of the “personal vendetta” against the University and Professor McMahon in particular, when I do not remember Professor McMahon being ever mentioned here before June 2026 and I check the blog regularly. What the University’s KC forgot to note, however, is that the comments in the 21 Group are done by multiple people, staff and students, many of them current or former members of University of Cambridge who experienced abused in the same institution of the Respondents, some by the very same individuals who were involved in Wyn’s case. Our comments support and indeed reinforce the claim of Wyn Evans, not the other way around, but of course, the University’s KC was not instructed to disclose that in open court.
TheResearcher · 30 June 2026 at 10:09
Ssssssssssh, it is confidential!
Anonymous · 30 June 2026 at 10:15
Those who have spent their life hiding behind legal privilege to mask their deeds and acts, have no right to complain about anonymous online commentary, when such acts are finally exposed.
AntiQ · 30 June 2026 at 11:37
You can find the membership of the Cambridge Legal Services Division online here, as per the last public listing on March 2023:
https://web.archive.org/web/20231130235900/https://www.legal.admin.cam.ac.uk/who-we-are
After that point, the Legal Services Division removed their names and profiles from the public domain.
TheResearcher · 30 June 2026 at 12:49
This is actually hilarious, now there is a permission request, “These pages are only accessible to members of the University of Cambridge with a University account.”
Sssssh, it is really confidential!
nothing to see here · 30 June 2026 at 13:00
Not exactly reassuring when the lawyers for an organisation are not prepared to allow the public to know what they are to the extent of taking down their profile pages from the website
q. · 1 July 2026 at 05:33
Out of curiosity, how “normal” is it for the in house legal division of a UK university (or any large organisation) to turn around one day and choose to delete all their public bios, profiles, names and contact info? I am presuming this is very bizarre activity, not least of all as they were once happy to be known and identifiable.
David Dunbar · 30 June 2026 at 17:30
The very strange and disturbing aspect, noted by many others, is the targeting of very competent staff members who are highly regarded in their department and are working conscientiously and very productively, thus fulfilling the institution’s requirements of its academic and professional services staff. When someone feels there is cause to complain about an issue, there is usually a good reason to do so and there is the structure to deal sympathetically with it – the department administrator, the senior staff members and head of department, Faculty/School manager and Head, plus other senior Faculty who could be asked to talk to the parties concerned. Then HR, locally and at the mid-level, are there also if needed early on, or if things appear to have got out of hand or someone more locally has ignored or added to the issues. Why then do senior HR and the Legal Dept. intervene and lead a ‘disciplinary’ approach? We’ve all come across persistently difficult people, persistently arrogant individuals who feel they are above the need to consider reasonable processes and other colleagues, but in the majority of the cases we are not dealing with such individuals. That is until the senior disciplinary machine bulldozes into town. It is then you can meet the particularly difficult and arrogant individuals who have chosen or been forced to take a hard line when, in most cases it is unnecessary. Questioning anything at this stage appears to be considered being difficult, obstructive and above one’s role.
I have been involved in – a university re-organisation process, surviving but up against the individuals involved in the questionable people-processes, then walking away from the offer of a much inferior post where one would have to answer to the same individuals running the re-organisation; directly up against numerous individuals from junior to senior HR, union, CEO and Board level NHS individuals, over a number of years on behalf of someone treated very badly; followed a major redundancy process, communicating with the University hierarchy in support of the academics with whom the University in question were communicating in a disreputable fashion. I have felt and seen the effect on not only the individuals directly targeted but those around who fear for their own positions or who are involved on the ‘opposing’ side, put under considerable and increasing stress in dealing with a double work load and confrontational situations.
As Liza Collins, MA, FRSA (Healthcare Culture Strategist, NHS Confed. Expo ’25 Speaker, Leadership Development Expert explains –
‘When leaders micromanage, gaslight, bully, or ignore harm, it doesn’t stay in the office. It follows people home. Into their bodies. Their relationships. Their sleep.
Leadership is a mental health intervention. Every single day.
So if you are in charge of people, you have a responsibility to lead like it matters.
Because it does.’
TheResearcher · 30 June 2026 at 19:03
“When leaders micromanage, gaslight, bully, or ignore harm, it doesn’t stay in the office. It follows people home. Into their bodies.”
It came to my attention that members of OSCCA are currently on sick leave. It is not just HR that brings misconduct home. Please do not forget that.
https://21percent.org/?p=2628
Ender · 1 July 2026 at 04:32
And also to their families, partners, children and loved ones. Those who bring forth evil to the world perpetuate a cycle of suffering that lasts longer than they may ever know and will affect countless others.
Wadjda · 3 July 2026 at 10:50
Exactly. Behind every angry man is an even angrier woman. And rightly so.
Princess of Monaco · 30 June 2026 at 23:38
CRUK
MRC Epidemiology
UIS
Astronomy
DAMTP
POLIS
Biochemistry
Press and Assessment
Time for a Grace vote of no confidence in the Council.
TheResearcher · 1 July 2026 at 10:22
Do not forget the Humanities!
History
Classics
Philosophy
…
This is a never ending saga! Surely, all these are based on “personal vendettas”!
I have the gut feeling that a Grace is with the Draftsman already 😉
Eileen Nugent · 2 July 2026 at 00:02
How does the “personal vendetta” argument work in the Dr Catherine MacKenzie case. Dr Catherine MacKenzie did what any chair of the board of scrutiny should have done in that situation – got an independent judgment from an employment tribunal on whether a substantive unfair dismissal had occurred. What was the alternative – leave that situation without any external scrutiny? As bad as that situation is/was for the university, the Chair of the Board of scrutiny did do significant amounts of legal work to try to get the university back into a more functional governance state – employment tribunal/application for a judicial review – which shows that the university did have the right person in that key governance position.
21percent.org · 1 July 2026 at 10:28
On legal advice, we have now had to hold back ~ 50 posts.
We apologise for this.
Rest assured, we will publish all posts as soon as we can.
François-Marie Arouet · 1 July 2026 at 12:46
The phrase: “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise” – may have been incorrectly attributed to Voltaire (it alas derives from a sadly more dubious source) – yet the tendency for those of rather more sensible political orientations to mis-attribute it to the French Enlightenment philosopher, likely derives from the fact that, shorn of context, it captures an essential truth about power, truth, and the genealogy of knowledge (plus, it is the “kind” of thing Voltaire could easily have said, whether he in fact ever did so or not).
In our case, it is clear that who rules over us is the legal department. We have become a university practicing a system of governance by the lawyers, of the lawyers, and for the lawyers.
The most thorough critique of the Council, Vice Chancellor, or administration passes without objection. But obviously the moment one even dares do so much as name the true source of executive authority – the legal division – the legal threats arrive, the intimidation starts, the machinery of the “charity” is brought down upon you.
Let us not be afraid to speak the truth. Let us name those who rule in silence behind the shadows of legal privilege, and use the rest of us like their marionettes. The puppet show must end.
TheResearcher · 1 July 2026 at 18:12
“The puppet show must end.”
Incidentally, whenever I email the University now, I contact the Head of the Legal Division Mr David Parsons directly, or at least cc him, regardless of the topic, because, as I explained to him, I should not be expected to interact with puppets that sign the letters that he and his colleagues write. I think it is more transparently to interact with him directly and it would be a shame if he stayed in the background given he is such a central figure in UCam. I am not sure if he likes the idea but is what it is, and the University forgot to put him in the list of hundreds of people that I cannot contact. Of course, that list can always be updated! 😅
Eileen Nugent · 2 July 2026 at 00:19
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise”
If an organisation cannot self-criticise an organisation cannot rule over itself.
If those others are not allowed to criticise cannot self-criticise then they cannot rule over themselves and by extension they cannot rule over others.
Gamekeeper · 1 July 2026 at 18:38
And Land Economy.
The Catherine MacKenzie unfair dismissal case is the Land Economy Department.
David Dunbar · 1 July 2026 at 19:00
What should happen now, given the number of cases running at the moment, is that the head of HR and the head of Legal Services, plus two independent individuals, one internal, one external maybe, should meet with perhaps three of the current complainants/representatives of the complainants at a time (so, given the list above, maybe four meetings of 3 complainants in each), in an open and honest forum and listen to each in turn give a professional and, as collegiate as possible, explanation of their predicament and treatment. They would then see directly how reasonable you all are, rather than being swayed by the intervening officials and processes (which on paper, at present, have incorrectly presented you all as ‘unreasonable’) and it would give them a chance to reset those processes and take an overall view of the combined extent of the problem. They could take a note taker in with them and then subsequently could distribute those notes to you all for any amendments, and go back to the HR department and the senior management team/Council and ask any specific questions of them, as necessary.
TheResearcher · 1 July 2026 at 19:18
@David Dunbar
Trust me, that will never happen! Ms Andi Hudson and Mr David Parsons have other things to do, namely drafting letters for the puppets to sign. They are very busy people, and I doubt they know what “open and honest forum” really means. Indeed, given that HR and legal like the 21 Group so much, they probably will read your comment and will laugh, as our dearest Prof. Kamal Munir laugh in open court when he was asked if the senior leadership had anything against Wyn Evans.
UCam only knows how to deny. And they will deny, and deny, and deny, and deny, until the day a large enough number of people step forward and show that the patterns are the same across campus. That cannot be done with Ms Hudson and Mr Parsons, they showed they cannot handle it. MPs and the press might have the power that is needed. On that day, UCam will start to change, and it will be an embarrassment for HR and the legal division.
Anon · 2 July 2026 at 15:06
David, I think this is a highly praiseworthy suggestion. If there is indeed to be any form of truth and reconciliation, it has to be in this spirit of openness, willingness to dialogue, and admission of fault without presumption of blame. By channeling all grievances in to legal avenues the unfortunate effect is an adversarial dynamic in which mutual trust, understanding, and forgiveness are entirely absent. That also prevents any form of reflection or discussion on how things went wrong and how they can be improved going forwards. There desperately needs to be a forum in which people from all sides – the administration, victims, and all those caught in the middle – can acknowledge one another and come around for the shared purpose of settings things right and working together to repair the damage.
Eileen Nugent · 3 July 2026 at 00:08
A work-related stress minimum cannot be found by taking an adversarial approach – adversarial approaches tend to drive work-related stress to a maximum. If a person is concerned with improving work-related stress regulation in an organisation then taking an adversarial approach is incompatible with working with others to address that particular type of concern. If a person is asking others to care about their work-related stress regulation they are creating a reciprocal obligation to care about the work-related stress regulation of the others they are asking to care about their work-related stress regulation. Those working in HR and legal roles cannot be excluded from the reciprocal obligation to care about the work-related stress of others. If an organisation wants to build a culture of care that culture of care has to extend to every person in the organisation.
Now shifting back towards the cultural dynamics that would be more typically seen in a family business where people make more of an effort to talk through problems & find solutions to keep the peace and where people are more likely to care about the lives of their co-workers/bosses. This is a correction to corporate culture that went too far the other way, it was too heavily weighted towards adversarial competition aimed at creating the conditions for individual success and advancement and insufficiently weighted towards collective discussions/efforts aimed at sustaining the conditions for collective success and advancement. There was too little concern for the impact on peoples lives of not being able to talk through problems and find solutions – of not being able to keep the peace.
TheResearcher · 1 July 2026 at 20:50
Great news, it came to my attention that the key members of HR are all on leave, as if they knew that something is about to happen and they do not want to be asked about it as it is too embarrassing…
What shall it be?
Tick tock tick tock tick tock