Members of Regent House may have received notice that a Grace is now open for signatures. The Grace is being proposed by Ronald Haynes. It is here.
The Grace has been prompted by recent concerns about activities carried out under the University’s Human Resources policies, particularly those concerning Organisational Change, Dignity at Work and Grievance. The intent is that improvements should be identified to ensure that all future operations accord with University policies, the law (including the employer’s duty of care) and natural justice, and that evaluations are evidence-based.
The Grace asks for an external audit of the Human Resources (HR) division.
It is in the interests of all parties — academics, professional service staff, students, members of HR and the institution alike — that HR processes operate effectively, fairly and with credibility. Clear, trusted procedures not only ensure that concerns are addressed appropriately, but also help to maintain confidence in institutional governance and uphold a healthy working environment.
The 21 Group has acted on behalf of members of Human Resources who have suffered unfair treatment. We have also acted on behalf of established academics and young scholars. We are of the opinion that there is scope for improvement in the operation of the University’s HR processes for the benefit of all. This includes recognising the challenges faced by our HR colleagues, who are often required to navigate difficult and sensitive matters.
If a member of Regent House, we ask you to please consider signing the Grace.
For avoidance of doubt, the Grace does not cover whistleblowing (the subject of the recent Bury St Edmunds Tribunal). Whistleblowing falls under the aegis of the Academic Secretary, the Registrary and the Vice Chancellor. It does not fall under the Human Resources division.
(Image is public domain screenshot of Grace Kelly in ‘To Catch a Thief’ 1955)
98 Comments
21percent.org · 2 July 2026 at 17:01
Hat-tip to the poster on the last thread who suggested the Princess
Hitch’s nickname for her was “Princess Disgrace’
TheResearcher · 2 July 2026 at 17:10
BOOOOOOM! It is about time.
Now folks know why senior HR went on leave as I mentioned yesterday….
Xerxes · 2 July 2026 at 19:20
I’m also worried about the high turnover of staff in HR. Even when they do recruit, they seem to struggle to maintain staff for long. This suggests that the working environment of HR is not pleasant.
In fact, basically good people (like Justin G) seem to move on quickly, which is troubling.
There’s no doubt that the way the HR division is run is now affecting the core mission of the University.
TheResearcher · 2 July 2026 at 21:16
I can give you a list of HR people who do not seem under the “high turnover” dynamics you mentioned, but I will probably be redacted if I spell it out so I hold myself. This being said, I think people already know that when the 21 Group redacts my comments it is most likely about the most redacted person in the 21 Group! She is on leave now.
- · 3 July 2026 at 12:47
HR seem to have not only a very permissive working culture (2 or 3 days a week, long lunches, switch off at 3/4/5pm) but also a very generous leave policy. So many are on autoreply on leave until [random date here] or just indefinitely out of office, it makes you wonder if anyone is in charge any more.
TheResearcher · 3 July 2026 at 14:22
That is very true. I do not really understand why they seem to have more leave days than academics, unless, of course, it is to deliberately delay cases even further, or to have excuses to not answer your questions in time.
This is the kind of pattern you may get:
On a Friday at 4.55pm you receive an outcome letter saying that you have 15 days to appeal and submit new material (e.g., evidence) if you wish to do so.
You answer a few minutes later, ask some important questions for your appeal and receive an automatic message saying the person is on leave for the next 10 days.
You contact a colleague so that you receive the information necessary for your appeal and the colleague—if they are not on leave themselves—tell you that they are not responsible for the case and that you need to wait for the responsible.
On the day the case worker arrives to work you contact them again, explain that the information is important for your appeal namely regarding the evidence, that you have just a few days left, and the person does not answer on the day or the following day.
Two days before the deadline, the person contacts you and says that they were on leave and then had a backlog when they arrived. While they may reply to your original email from 13 days before then, their answers are vague, namely when the answers to the questions you asked can work against the University.
On the same day, you reply and ask for clarifications, namely regarding the evidence that you were allowed to submit so that you have things read on time. The case worker no longer replies.
By the deadline, you submit your appeal and explain that you could not submit everything because the answers to your questions were not provided in time.
When you do not receive an automatic message saying the person is on leave again, they can acknowledge reception of the material you sent and stress that you “chose” not to send the remaining material despite your original email had been addressed.
These tricks are disgusting, and I have seen them over and over and over and over and over. It is extremely draining to put up with it, and it can only be intentional.
Tronto · 3 July 2026 at 12:05
And the many in HR in Cambridge who royally mess up lives and then move on whistling happily. Nothing to see here.
Anonymous · 3 July 2026 at 12:23
I think the issue is likely that people come in to HR and quickly discover that they are not only being lied to but also expected to maintain the same deceit.
Also, what happened to JG in the end?
TheResearcher · 3 July 2026 at 13:31
“they are not only being lied to but also expected to maintain the same deceit”
Who is lying to HR and who is asking them to keep lying? No one has to lie if they do not want to, namely when they experience first-hand the impact their lies has on others. It is impossible that members of HR who have been in UCam for long enough do not know the current culture of cover up. These elders do know and they actively contribute to it.
For those who did not notice, there are many people in HR and OSCCA who not only lie, but they enjoy lying. You can see that on how they respond to your questions, how they evade difficult topics, how they massage information, how they do not even answer you if there is nothing that can say that can work in their favour. If you ask them enough questions, they will reveal their real character to you, or at least the character of those who are telling them to say what they do, and if they do not mind acting as pawns of others, that also reveals their character. I am now claiming that all HR staff of UCam are like that, but I am claiming that many in are like that, and unfortunately I had to interact with several of them.
TheResearcher · 3 July 2026 at 13:35
I meant above, I am *not* claiming that all HR staff of UCam are like that…
But to be fair, I have not interacted with any University HR or OSCCA at Cambridge that did not behave as I described above. Ask them questions, and they will tell you who they are.
Frank · 4 July 2026 at 14:00
JG, I think he came to Cambridge from ACAS because he thought he could do good. He’s probably now receiving counselling for what he witnessed. Anyhow, I wish him well, I think he was a good guy stuck in an impossible and nightmarish system.
nc · 4 July 2026 at 15:23
Yeah he was in Acas before. He proposed investigations that got interrupted by the usual suspects and eventually gave up trying to reform a corrupt system from within.
Eileen Nugent · 7 July 2026 at 01:07
I think it’s worth bearing in mind the context of why this legal obligation to regulation work related stress arose. In the last decade there has been a series of stressors that have stressed whole large organisations in the UK in ways whole large organisations have never been stressed before. If a whole organisation is collectively rapidly and heavily stressed there is a risk it can reach a point where working conditions and/or working relations in the organisation start to break down across a whole organisation simultaneously.
If at that point the organisation is heavily reliant on HR to solve any breakdown in working conditions and/or working relations – low trust state among co-workers, high number of workforce schism factors operating in a workforce – then the collective stress of the whole organisation can become highly concentrated on a relatively small proportion of staff, HR staff. The means the working conditions and/or working relations in the HR division itself could undergo a more rapid breakdown than in other parts of the organisation.
This is a high risk state for any organisation to end up in, this is where a rapid build up of unresolved-tending-towards-unresolvable HR cases can start to occur – i.e. lives can start being broken down – and the whole organisation can start to feel the impact of the loss of the organisational capability to restore working conditions/working relations.
One HR platform provider has made an attempt to analyse differences in absenteeism – one possible indicator of levels of work-related stress – on a scale of ~100,000 employees and presented some evidence that HR are experiencing high rates of absenteeism.
https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/article/1920861/hr-hit-hardest-rising-absenteeism-study-finds-–-done-support-profession
Anonymous · 7 July 2026 at 16:33
@EileenNugent – thanks for this link.
When I read articles like this, I’m usually struck by how the contributors always steer well clear
of one of the most important aspects of HR practice in HE, which if addressed properly would likely make an actual difference.
As already covered on this blog, a major part of the problem that HR face (at least in HE), is the lack of integrity in handling genuine grievances and whistleblowers. HR (and senior managers) are *actively choosing* to cover up and persecute innocent victims, when there are clearly other honourable options open to them. If they deal with this issue first, then many of their problems may be substantially reduced.
SPARTACUS · 2 July 2026 at 19:57
This will be the end of the lady named after a bay on North America! Said lady is poisonous and must go!
BreakerMorant · 2 July 2026 at 20:28
Many more scandals to break. Next one in about 2 weeks. Worse than POLIS, worse than astro.
TheResearcher · 2 July 2026 at 21:14
Always giving us good news! You were missed BreakerMorant!
But do not forget to tell us about the outcome of Foa versus Cambridge University. I know many people who are looking forward to knowing about that one, including the legal division!
Anonymous · 5 July 2026 at 12:35
It must be very exhausting working in Comms this year. There’s no way of knowing when or where the next scandal will break only that they are unending.
MUSKETEER · 2 July 2026 at 20:32
The worst scandal of all is the one at the School of Clinical Medicine involving the destruction of a world class programme and the promotion of those that generated the scandal with falsehoods! Just wait until that becomes public!
Jay · 2 July 2026 at 21:16
Yup, the CRUK-Cam scandal is a bad one, but there is another POLIS scandal that is even worse.
Return to Sender · 4 July 2026 at 18:26
Many Polis scandals, not just one or two, and many court cases yet to come. But the other one you are likely thinking of is truly the most horrific case imaginable, evil in the most profound sense of the word. Even the Post Office would have balked.
TheResearcher · 4 July 2026 at 19:48
POLIS seems to be an interesting place to learn about injustice.
Isn’t the HoD an expert on structural injustice?
https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/87508
She may have some thoughts on the current state of Cambridge?
Any other name · 2 July 2026 at 21:55
It is never the worst as long as we can say “this is the worst”
Regents Parked · 2 July 2026 at 22:49
Finally the Regent House turns the ignition and the engine splutters into life. Better late than never. Time for the Princess to put her foot down and deliver plenty of signatures. Thanks to all involved and all who sign.
Public · 3 July 2026 at 14:00
Remember this from Consigliere University
https://21percent.org/?p=1239
“True Confessions of a University HR Administrator”
21percent.org · 3 July 2026 at 15:22
We should make it clear that HR personnel attached to departments are not included in the proposed audit
The proposed audit is of the HR division of UAS.
Exeunt · 3 July 2026 at 15:34
At the lower level they are mainly taking orders and then used to take the hit …. and this may also explain the departures
TheResearcher · 3 July 2026 at 17:39
“At the lower level they are mainly taking orders”
Every person, regardless of the seniority, has the choice to contribute to this culture, simply leave or openly challenge it. Every person without exception can choose not to follow orders from dishonest people. There are, however, dishonest people who convince themselves they are not dishonest because they are simply following orders from others above them.
A few weeks ago I asked a member of IT if he did not feel embarrassed for what he was doing to my @cam account and what he would tell his family regarding his conduct. He told me he did not feel embarrassed at all because he was simply following the orders of others, he was doing what he was being paid for, and added that he would not bother his family with these issues. There are many people like him in Cambridge.
Eileen Nugent · 8 July 2026 at 05:21
The default alignment of interests for a person working in an organisation is person – senior management – organisation – public i.e. the case where following the orders of others is to a good approximation a person doing what a person is being paid to do by the organisation in an organisation that is doing what it is supposed to be doing for the public.
If there is a significant deviation from the default alignment of interests e.g. the interests of a particular person [& potential source of orders] in the organisation appear not to be aligned with the interests the organisation it’s not then clear a person following the orders of that particular person is to a good approximation doing what a person is being paid to do by the organisation.
The problem is that a person sensing following orders from a particular person is potentially not to a good approximation doing what a person is being paid to do by an organisation is not a solution to a problem. It’s a sensing of the beginning of a potential problem which may lack any obvious solution. It’s a sensing of an increase in the absolute levels of work-related stress. If an alternative to the default is not obvious, the default is to the default.
The reason why there is such a significant challenge here is that there is a new legal obligation to explicitly regulate something – work-related stress – in the organisation that has never explicitly been regulated in the organisation before.
People might take that to mean that there is/was no work-related stress regulation operating in the organisation at all and that work-related stress regulation is now being implemented where none existed in the organisation previously. This is not the case, there is work-related stress regulation operating in the organisation otherwise the organisation would not be able to operate in a high performance state, the work-related stress regulation is operating implicitly in the organisation.
What this means is that the social norms operating in the organisation that form the underlying basis of work-related stress regulation – the implicit work-related stress regulation currently operating in the organisation – are now going through a process of being examined to determine how work-related stress regulation currently practically operates in the organisation. Implicit regulation operating in the organisation is going through the process of being made explicit, the relevant unwritten rules are in the process of being put into writing. The natural starting point for work-related stress regulation in the organisation is in the process of being determined.
If new work-related stress regulation is imposed on an organisation with no reference to the natural starting point for work-related stress regulation in that organisation there is a higher risk the new regulation proves too far from the work-related stress regulation that the organisation has naturally settled into having for itself for that new regulation to ever be effective work-related stress regulation for that particular organisation. The new work-related stress regulation could then produce a work-related stress maximum for the organisation rather than a work-related stress minimum for the organisation. It could produce much higher levels of work-related stress in the organisation as compared to the work-related stress regulation that was implicitly operating in the organisation in which case it would make no sense to keep it.
Here a perturbation of the default alignment of interests could arise purely because the organisation is in the process of building more advanced regulation of a particular type – work-related stress regulation – i.e. letting the social norms operate in a situation and catching cases where the social norms produce a work-related outcome that is not in the best interests of anyone, one which could potentially be switched to produce an outcome that is in everyone’s best interests by applying more advanced work-related stress regulation in the situation.
TheResearcher · 3 July 2026 at 15:54
When the situation gets difficult, Departmental HR asks advice to University HR, namely in cases of bullying and harassment, and I would be surprised if they did not exchange a record of problems anyway, at least to the relevant Lead HR Business Partner of the School. It was clear from subject access requests that happened with me, even before the relevant University HR actively participated in the case.
On a more cheerful note, I was told that the number of views of the Grace has been pretty high, so the goal is no longer to get a minimum number of signatures, but to get a record number. Please everyone, read, sign and share this Grace.
Gopher · 3 July 2026 at 17:17
Not surprised – after all, who among us wants the risk of being cross-examined live online one day like the responsible persons and heads in the Evans case last month for orders handed down from HR?
If the answer is to vote for this review and find a better way of doing things going forwards.
TheResearcher · 3 July 2026 at 20:07
Do we know if Prof. Kamal Munir already voted? Please, remember his words early this year,
“I am very proud of this important recognition in the Financial Times, which reflects the hard work of many colleagues. We are committed to continually improving the working environment and supporting academic and professional excellence.”
https://www.cam.ac.uk/news/cambridge-named-uks-top-employer-by-financial-times
How proud Prof. Munir, the Chair of the HR Committee, must be now with this Grace…
HR Committee:
Professor Kamal Munir (Chair)
Dr Kirsty Allen
Professor Jude Browne
Joanna Cheffins
Professor Andrew Flewitt
Dr Michael Glover
Professor Julian Hibberd
Professor Nigel Peake (Deputy Chair)
Professor Ricardo Sabates Aysa
Professor Alan Short
Mr Tom Welchman
Professor Jocelyn Wyburd
pfff · 3 July 2026 at 22:05
Well he already took advantage of one opportunity to explain his method to “improve the working environment” in court before a judge…. who knows how many more such opportunities are yet to come!
21percent.org · 4 July 2026 at 06:01
It is reasonable to ask how is membership of the HR committee decided. There are some troubling names on that list — including individuals involved in some of the recent scandals.
All university committees should contain a substantial cohort of elected academics and students.
Lorem · 4 July 2026 at 09:15
All university committees should be AI transcribed and the record available to all members of the Regent House as I think quite a few people are confused at just what on earth that committee has done.
21percent.org · 4 July 2026 at 10:01
The University is now so closed & opaque in its decision-making that transcripts are not even available to the Board of Scrutiny. How can the Board do its job?
Lyra · 4 July 2026 at 11:48
I think when the HR committee deliberately conceals records from the board of scrutiny that tells you all you need to know about what it does and who it serves – certainly not the regent house, which elects the BOS
Lorem · 4 July 2026 at 09:18
I think the “conflict of interest” declarations at the start of that meeting would make for quite a surreal document
TheResearcher · 4 July 2026 at 12:22
There is no such as thing as “conflict of interest” in the processes and procedures of UCam. If you raise this issue, you are ignored at best but can risk retaliation such as counter-complaints or other friendly actions if you keep pushing it.
This new Grace is not just an embarrassment for the HR division, but also for the HR Committee as they are responsible for “the University’s People Strategy and relevant HR policies and procedures. It also determines arrangements for reward and recognition, employment relations, learning and development, and equality, diversity and inclusion.”
UCam is particularly strong with EDI as the scandal of DAMTP shows, and a few people from the HR Committee are involved in that one, namely Prof. Kamal Munir, Prof. Nigel Peake, and Dr Mike Glover. Incidentally, they have all recently been cross-examined regarding a different case from the same School. What will happen to them if the external audit to HR shows the existence of serious malpractices in HR, namely those that had been reported by victims directly to them, but they ignored?
Silly Goat · 4 July 2026 at 13:38
“you are ignored at best but can risk retaliation such as counter-complaints…”
Counter-complaints? That must be an error!
TheResearcher · 4 July 2026 at 13:47
Silly Goat, next time I have meetings with you and your friends, I will bring this device with me, and I encourage everyone to do the same. It helps our memory!
https://www.plaud.ai/
DD · 4 July 2026 at 13:36
A list of names to strike fear into anyone with a soul
- · 5 July 2026 at 10:54
Just to confirm is this the committee that dismissed all grievances against Hudson even after they were upheld upon independent investigation
Eileen Nugent · 4 July 2026 at 04:42
The legal obligation to regulate work-related stress doesn’t look like it will change much until significant effort is put into working out how to practically implement work-related stress regulation, only then does it start generating surprise after surprise because it drives changes at every level in a society – it’s like a gastrulation event in embryonic societal development.
An external audit of the HR division of a large organisation in light of this new legal obligation is a logical action for any large organisation to take.
The introduction of this new legal obligation means HR will have to operate differently going forward, it’s not an option for HR to continue to operate the way it has operated in the past. This new legal obligation is forcing all organisations to examine very carefully how people are being treated in an organisation in a whole range of different situations that could occur in an organisation – some of which are extremely difficult situations for a person to encounter – and to consider the potential impact of a persons overall treatment by an organisation on a persons health.
TheResearcher · 4 July 2026 at 12:43
I am not sure if we discussed this article early in the year. It is very relevant:
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/depth/why-are-grievances-rise-uk-universities
“As an experienced Professor in HE, I have come to the unavoidable conclusion that HR grievance policies and related documents are most certainly not there to address significant, genuine and justified complaints in any meaningful and productive way, but rather as a means for HR and senior management to forcefully extricate any member of staff that they wish, usually for speaking out against them. Professor Furedi from the University of Kent highlights a crucial issue from this regime, which I will add to by pointing out that the expansion of bullying definitions has not been a result of HR or senior management attempting to crack down on actual wrongdoing, but instead are there to give them the means to pursue those who raise complaints against them. In other words, they can easily turn the microscope on the complainer, pick out something trivial that they said or did, and then explode this out of all control. Seems far-fetched? I can assure you that this is how it works. It won’t matter how much actual evidence the victim has, it will all be ignored because they have the power to do so. This power imbalance must be addressed, as it really is a major factor in bringing down our University system.”
Lavrentiy Beria · 4 July 2026 at 12:56
Show me the man, and I shall show you the crime.
gaucho · 4 July 2026 at 14:55
“To my friends, anything. To my enemies, HR”
TheResearcher · 4 July 2026 at 16:41
“False friends are worst than bitter HR”
“Little HR and little wounds must not be despised.”
“To have no HR is equivalent to wealth.”
Cardinal Richelieu · 5 July 2026 at 19:12
“Give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I will find something in them which will hang him.”
I recently witnessed this in action against a whistleblower, who was explaining why there was clearly no evidence against him/her after being presented with a bogus disciplinary in response to raising significant concerns about HR and managerial practices.
The panel and HR said to each other, in response to the whistleblower’s written submissions during the disciplinary, that the whistleblower is just “giving us more rope to hang him with”. Sick puppies indeed.
Here’s the trap – if you don’t respond to the bogus charges during such a disciplinary then they have you. If you do, then they hang you with what you say (or simply ignore what you say).
You cannot win when you are in their trap. This is far too dangerous to be allowed to continue at any University.
Benedic, Domine, nos et dona tua · 4 July 2026 at 22:17
Can someone paste the text of the Grace please, for us non-Regents who can’t access SharePoint. Or perhaps 21group can make it the next blog post?
TheResearcher · 5 July 2026 at 09:24
See below. Fear not, non-regent members, both current and former students and staff, will all soon be able to voice their concerns regarding the current state of Cambridge University. Stay tuned.
Formal text of the proposed Grace
That an Order be made that the University shall pursue and finance the activities described below.
(a) That within one month of the approval of this Grace a Notice be published in the Reporter, inclusive of the information detailed below, stating the intention of the University to put into effect the provisions of this Grace.
(b) That an independent legally qualified expert with experience in employment law be appointed by the Board of Scrutiny to chair an Oversight Committee.
(c) That the Oversight Committee comprise the Chair and:
• five from amongst those members of the Regent House eligible to be members of the Board of Scrutiny, elected by the Regent House in accordance with the Single Transferable Vote regulations, following the nomination of each candidate, with their consent, by two members of the Regent House, and • two from amongst the external members of the Audit Committee, appointed by the Audit Committee.
(d) That the Oversight Committee be constituted as promptly as elections allow and that its membership be published in the Reporter as soon as possible. Decisions of the Committee shall be taken by vote on a quorum of six, to include the Chair. In the case of a tie, the opinion of the Chair shall prevail.
(e) That the Oversight Committee set the terms of reference for an audit of the Human Resources Division of the Unified Administrative Service, including the Human Resources Business Partnering Team in the Schools and in the non-School Institutions (hereafter referred to as ‘HR’) and appoint an external company to conduct the audit. That the audit be accompanied by the development of a clear framework of standards for HR practices, for instance, reflecting CIPD standards[1] and Acas Codes of Practice.[2]
(f) That the terms of reference for the audit and the name of the external auditors be published in the Reporter within six months of the publication of the Notice referred to in paragraph (a).
(g) That the external auditors conduct an audit of the procedures and practices of HR, to determine the extent to which they are fully compliant with both the spirit and letter of all relevant University policies (including those of the Schools and the non-School Institutions) and legal requirements.
(h) That the opportunity be given to current and former employees (and, where the Oversight Committee deems it appropriate, to current and former students) of the University to submit evidence to the audit.
(i) That the Oversight Committee receive a report including recommendations of the appointed auditors within a year of the publication of the Notice referred to in paragraph (a) and that the recommendations be published in full in the Reporter within 4 term-time weeks of receipt, together with a Notice from the Oversight Committee endorsing those recommendations of the auditors with which it agrees and giving any additional recommendations of its own.
(j) That the University Council immediately initiate a consultation with the recognised trade unions on the Oversight Committee’s recommendations and on a plan for their implementation, to be completed within three months of the publication of the Oversight Committee’s Notice referred to in paragraph (i).
(k) That the University Council publish a Report to the University, within four term-time weeks of the conclusion of the consultation referred to in paragraph (j), setting out the plan for the implementation of the recommendations, as modified by the consultation.
(l) That the University Council take such action as is necessary to implement the plan, in consultation with the recognised trade unions and accounting for any remarks made at the Discussion of the Report and any recommendations of the Oversight Committee for additional actions. Such recommendations shall be published in the Reporter within six term-time weeks of the publication of the Report.
(m) That the University Council publish a Notice to the University describing how the recommendations of the Oversight Committee were implemented within eighteen months of the publication of the Notice referred to in paragraph (i). That the Oversight Committee determine whether it is content with the University Council’s Notice and, if it is not, publish a Notice in the Reporter within four term-time weeks recommending additional actions.
(n) That the entire process be completed within thirty-two months of the approval of this Grace.
[1] https://www.cipd.org/uk/membership/professional-standards
[2] https://www.acas.org.uk/codes-of-practice.
Amazing Grace · 5 July 2026 at 11:27
Excellent draft. The Regent House (i.e. the university body), via their election of the Board, have to have oversight of this process. Otherwise it would be just another whitewash – and a lost opportunity for substantive reform and resolution. It is time to move on from the scandals of this year and show a commitment to do better – otherwise the scandals will simply continue, year in, year out, for an indefinite duration. We all deserve better than to let that happen.
exCam · 5 July 2026 at 14:07
Thanks for posting this. It’s a very well drafted Grace. The thorough going timeframe it sets out and the commitment to publish a description of any eventual implementation are particularly important.
Does anyone know when the HR division was last reviewed? The only public evidence I can find from the Reporter is from over 20 years ago.
This is only the first step in a long journey. It is very likely Council will counter this Grace with its own proposal. I think the essential ingredients that must survive are the independence of the audit and the ability to consult ex-employees.
TheResearcher · 5 July 2026 at 14:12
“It is very likely Council will counter this Grace with its own proposal.”
If they do, they will make the situation worse and they will shortly know about it 😉
Circus · 5 July 2026 at 14:42
The question everyone will be asking is why they removed specific provisions… and it will be easy to identify which ones. The Board of Scrutiny is the obvious university body to account to and as for preventing contact with former employees if they specify that it becomes obvious they are trying to cover up – isn’t the the whole point of the audit that HR were getting rid of people who blew the whistle?
TheResearcher · 5 July 2026 at 16:08
If the Council prevents former employees and students from contributing to this external review of HR practices, these former members may well have to contribute with other actions that may have more reputation damage to the University, and the Council is ultimately responsible for assessing reputation risk.
Given the number of scandals in the press in the last 6 months, one can easily argue that Council is not doing a good job when it comes to the assessment of reputation risk, but I hope they are sensible enough to realise that former employees and students will unlikely accept the decision of being excluded lightly.
Anon · 5 July 2026 at 13:02
By continuously doubling down, HR have got both themselves and the university in to a phenomenal mess. It is mystifying how they ever thought this could end in any other outcome.
Never Divulge Anything · 5 July 2026 at 13:33
It’s very odd. One can only suppose they thought that the confidentiality requirements of the policies were sufficient cover, without realising that in a university people tend to chat. The need for some of that confidentiality ought to be a question for the audit. The courts work on the opposite basis, for good reasons.
TheResearcher · 5 July 2026 at 13:58
Some stats. The grace on the arms industry got 474 views and 155 signatures after several weeks. The second initiated grace on the vet school got 987 views and 500 signatures also after several weeks.
There are already 250 views on this new Grace after 2 days.
Note that the Council can intervene (https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/31846) so it is important that many people step forward and contribute to this Grace so that it is clear that it was the Council who blocked it if they try. Please read, sign if you agree with it, and share with colleagues. Thanks!
Shocked · 5 July 2026 at 14:07
Surely it would be a huge scandal if the Council blocked this Grace, as they have done with previous votes from the Regent House.
Indeed I wonder if they could thereby render themselves directly liable for any downstream damages arising from HR misconduct by so doing.
At the very least, a veto could be cited in future court cases as evidence of negligence, if not malice?
Anon · 5 July 2026 at 15:50
I am not a lawyer so I fear would not be in a position to speak to the legal applicability of terms like negligence or malice in this instance. What I believe would be less contestable is the following: If the Council ends up delaying the audit through counter-proposals and dragging the whole matter out further, then they become responsible for further cases arising in the interim.
465 · 5 July 2026 at 16:37
Perhaps I am being naive but I can see no reason for Council as a whole to block the vote. Granted certain members might have reason to do so but I see only downside were members of the Council with no substantial involvement in events to date to become implicit in matters at this point.
TheResearcher · 5 July 2026 at 16:59
The key question is if the members of Council not involved in these matters are a majority or a minority. If the latter, their say is limited. The membership is as follows:
The Chancellor
• Lord Chris Smith
The Vice-Chancellor
• Professor Deborah Prentice (Chair)
Heads of Colleges
• Heather Hancock
• Lord Simon McDonald
• Baroness Sally Morgan
• Professor Alan Short
Professors or Readers
• Professor Daniela de Angelis
• Professor Richard Mortier
• Professor Jason Scott-Warren
• Professor Garth Wells
Members of the Regent House
• Dr William Astle
• Dr Jo Dekkers
• John Dix
• Dr Pieter van Houten
• Scott Mandelbrote
• Dr Ewa Marek
• Professor Ella McPherson
• Dr Mezna Qato
Student members
• Matthew Copeman
• Augustin Denis
• Darragh O’Reilly
External members
• Gaenor Bagley
• Professor Sir Alex Halliday
• Professor Andrew Wathey
• Stephen Wilson
A Magistratibus Captus · 5 July 2026 at 18:15
The problem is the elected members of the Regent House are now in a minority. The externals need to go.
( ) · 7 July 2026 at 09:59
How are the externals involved in this saga? In theory external appointees should be the least involved? Who appoints them and what is their role?
Anonymous · 5 July 2026 at 19:20
From an outside perspective, I was pleased to see this major step being taken at UCam (I’m not familiar with the ‘Grace’ process but I get the gist). However, when I read the actual wording my heart sank somewhat.
While there are positives in there (the provision for anyone to be allowed to submit evidence, including past employees, being the main one), on the whole I feel that the Director of HR would surely be relieved at how this has been worded, especially considering the timescales involved.
As it currently stands, there are many ways to whitewash or neutralise this whole effort.
I suggest that this proposal be retracted, to allow the 21Group to redraft it (with input from outside/independent parties) in a way that will make this effort watertight and whitewash proof.
2nd suggestion is to ensure that at least one (preferably several) victims that have been through the HR/management persecution exercise make it on to the Oversight Committee.
21percent.org · 6 July 2026 at 04:50
Once it has 50 signatures, the Grace will go to a vote of Regent House (~7000 members). It has to win the vote.
The drafters would be aware of the need to make the Grace winnable.
Although there are many academics in Regent House, there are also many administrators (including HR). The great danger is the “payroll vote”. The Cambridge hierarchy will be intent on voting this down and there will be great pressure on all the Regent House members of the UAS (Unified Administrative Services) to vote against it.
Hume · 6 July 2026 at 11:45
It’s true, the current grace is by far the safest option available to the University leadership at this point. The alternative, if they fight it, will not be to effect a “whitewash” of their own design -but rather, to set in motion a fully external set of investigations by the health and safety executive, courts and parliament. This is actually the middle ground compromise. I suspect they would quickly regret shootng it down as that would immediately set off an alarm bell to the justice system, regulators and the current government.
Anonymous · 6 July 2026 at 18:33
My thinking on this is that HR or senior managers will not shoot this down. They may give the impression that they are fighting it, but they won’t really be, because this is indeed the best option for them, and because the initiative is currently wide open for whitewashing/neutralizing in my opinion (due in part to the 32 month timeframe, among other significant issues).
Just to clarify where I’m coming from on this issue, in my opinion we are already very much in national inquiry territory, and have been for a while. It’s not an exaggeration to say that the situation is critical, and senior managers and HR had their chance to act responsibly (generally speaking across the sector that is). Now the system is too entrenched.
I do wonder therefore, given the momentum generated by UCam in securing wider public recognition of this problem (and therefore closer to meaningful external scrutiny), would a protracted internal process as proposed kill the momentum nation wide? Thoughts on this are welcome…
TheResearcher · 6 July 2026 at 18:56
That is not how senior managers in UCam think. They only see denial and cover up. Rest assured that there will be many people interested in blocking or at least changing this Grace, and they will most likely try it. I learned that when they are pressed, senior managers at UCam end up taking unsensible, something irrational, actions.
Other actions will be implemented if they try something silly this time, but as they tell us to do, it is confidential 😉
? · 6 July 2026 at 11:59
If there is any instructions to regent house members of how they are “expected” to vote (whether by email, teams, or any other means) then someone will surely snapshot it then send it in. Surely there’s no way among 7000 people that not one would do so.
TheResearcher · 6 July 2026 at 09:16
Hi guys,
For those who have access to Cambridge’s Viva Engage, can you check if you received any post on this Grace? There is the chance that it is being gagged.. How desperate they must be 😂
TheResearcher · 6 July 2026 at 09:18
https://engage.cloud.microsoft/main/org/universityofcambridgecloud.onmicrosoft.com/storylines?feedType=all
It was not even I who posted it… Please let us know if you see something as otherwise the OfS will have to know about this as soon as possible.
TheResearcher · 6 July 2026 at 09:58
Good news, we are in Viva Engage! Read, like and share it please!
https://engage.cloud.microsoft/main/org/universityofcambridgecloud.onmicrosoft.com/groups/eyJfdHlwZSI6Ikdyb3VwIiwiaWQiOiIzMDY1OTE0MTYzMyJ9/feed?new=false&postType=ALL&sortBy=CREATED_AT
TheResearcher · 6 July 2026 at 10:34
Sorry, this is the correct link:
https://engage.cloud.microsoft/main/org/universityofcambridgecloud.onmicrosoft.com/threads/eyJfdHlwZSI6IlRocmVhZCIsImlkIjoiMzkzMTc5NTc1NTc2OTg1NyJ9?trk_copy_link=V2
For those who never used Viva Engage, this is Cambridge internal social network…
Raven · 6 July 2026 at 10:41
“this is Cambridge internal social network…”
It is regulated by the following mix of threats and absence of references to the most important policy of all, given the nature of this institution’s mission and the values associated with it: FREEDOM OF SPEECH
“These guidelines are intended to help everyone understand what constitutes acceptable behaviour on Viva Engage, and they set out how the University will respond to unacceptable behaviour. This should help keep our community safe, welcoming and inclusive.
Key points are:
• Staff are free to express their ideas and opinions but comments should remain courteous and professional to ensure that Viva Engage is an inclusive community, free from harassment and discrimination.
• Use of Viva Engage should not contravene the University’s Code of Behaviour.
• Depending on its nature, inappropriate behaviour may result in action being taken under the relevant disciplinary policy.
• It is rare that the Internal Communications Team needs to moderate posts and comments on Viva Engage. However, the team may delete certain types of comments to ensure that Viva Engage remains a useful and enjoyable space for staff”
TheResearcher · 6 July 2026 at 10:51
My favourite is:
“It is rare that the Internal Communications Team needs to moderate posts and comments on Viva Engage. However, the team may delete certain types of comments to ensure that Viva Engage remains a useful and enjoyable space for staff”
Right! I can speak from experience, they do delete posts when members challenge the University. Let’s see if they will delete those that I posted today 😉
- · 6 July 2026 at 11:21
Anything that is deleted people should repost here so there is a record of what counts as unacceptable speech.
Eileen Nugent · 7 July 2026 at 21:22
In my experience the university will delete posts and will block a person from accessing this internal social network with no appeals process. If the posts are classed by the university as defamatory and/or you post too frequently about “issues of concern to you” the university will remove posts and/or block your access to this internal social network. It only takes one post to be classified as defamatory for that to happen, the post doesn’t have to be defamatory, the university just has to classify the post as defamatory. The university doesn’t talk to you, the university sends you a letter telling you the post is defamatory and that you are posting too frequently about “issues of concern to you” after which the university blocks you from accessing this internal social network and then ignores you from that point forward.
The university felt that I had breached the use guidelines in the following respects :
1. The purpose of the network, which is to “build communities, share knowledge, engage one another, and be part of a professional network”
2. The aim of the network, which is to contribute to a “supportive and thriving working environment… free from inappropriate or unacceptable behaviour”
3. The obligation under the guidelines to be mindful of others, and to act in a considerate manner, as one would in other professional environments.
I was frequently posting about work-related stress regulation, that was the issue of concern.
TheResearcher · 7 July 2026 at 21:46
Of course, work-related stresses are not just “issues of concern to you” but to all members of the University that may find the same or similar stresses. I think what they really meant (or thought) was, “issues that may cause us problems.”
This time, they did not yet delete my posts even when I called Ms Andi Hudson in one of them… It is possible they did not notice, but we have now almost 1.800 views in less than 2 days that hopefully translated into signatures of the Grace.
https://engage.cloud.microsoft/main/org/universityofcambridgecloud.onmicrosoft.com/threads/eyJfdHlwZSI6IlRocmVhZCIsImlkIjoiMzkzMTc5NTc1NTc2OTg1NyJ9?trk_copy_link=V2
Eileen Nugent · 8 July 2026 at 02:31
@TheResearcher
A coupled of months later the university wanted to remove access to my university email account – “acceptable use policy prohibits email correspondence that amounts to bullying, harassment and/or defamation” – I had a delayed mental breakdown. I flew out of the UK and I was OK for a couple of days and then I had a mental breakdown. At the time I thought it could have been some type of very localised stroke because after it I found it extremely difficult to listen to a normal conversation – even old stories that I had listened to many times before – I couldn’t seem to do the normal moral calculations so hearing about normal events was terrifying, it seemed to be a temporary loss of access to some/all the neural systems for the evaluation of what was right or wrong.
I had been in this whistleblowing situation for years at that stage and the moral calculations were getting more and more complex, the part of the brain dealing with moral calculations had been in constant use for years at that point in time. I think that the fallout of being excluded from this internal social network couple to the prospect of losing access to my email account sent it into an overdrive state for a couple of days and that eventually damaged some of the neural circuits doing the moral calculations.
I think this is why the mental breakdown was delayed …. it took a few days for the new event to be incorporated and the complexity of the moral calculations to increase to its maximum level after the event and then the mental breakdown hit because it was not possible to cope with this new increase in complexity and new pressure in the whistleblowing situation at that specific point in time.
My family helped me to an emergency appointment with a GP to get some emergency medicine and then I went into a room and I wouldn’t leave it.
TheResearcher · 8 July 2026 at 06:22
Eileen,
I do not doubt about what you are saying because I went to a similar experience. A key difference is that I made sure people around me and others knew what the University—or I should say, those who claim that talk on behalf of the University—was doing. The University of Cambridge does try to silence and break people who report serious malpractices. It does bully and harass individuals who do not let it go.
Unfortunately, one of my biggest realizations that I had was that many people at Cambridge know about this and do absolutely nothing to address the problem. They see people, staff and students, being bullied and harassed and look the other way around. What really made me sick was the fake and unhuman culture of Cambridge where you are told, namely by people like Tutors, Senior Tutors, and others you trust, that you are not alone but that could not be more distant from the truth.
Tools · 6 July 2026 at 14:31
That’s a pity. Hopefully abusive departmental HR staff will be named and shamed nonetheless. Luckily these days I live somewhere with strong free speech protections.
Freedom · 6 July 2026 at 15:31
Well, the Institute of Astronomy’s commitment to free speech and open discussion can be gauged by the fact that most of us found out about the Employment Tribunal when we read it in the Guardian.
TheResearcher · 6 July 2026 at 17:25
The posts in Viva Engage were not deleted yet and have over 600 views. Incidentally, the daily digest of the University does not mention them even though they have more views than those that were selected for the digest. How weird, it must be a bug 😅
Check it out, even “True Confessions of a University HR Administrator” appears there!
https://21percent.org/?p=1239
- · 6 July 2026 at 17:39
That’s a good thing. It would make for a more constructive conversation for all members of the university to discuss these matters openly, rather than persist within isolated echo chambers. Just a shame former staff cannot share their experiences there because that would surely open a few eyes.
TheResearcher · 6 July 2026 at 18:14
Any former member who no longer has access to Viva Engage is welcome to comment here and I am very happy to copy/paste their message in Viva Engage’s post on the Grace. Well, at least until the Head of Communications Mr Andrew Aldridge decides to delete my comments as last time…
hunkerdown · 6 July 2026 at 20:56
They’re in the bunker.
K: It’s outrageous. We don’t have a bullying problem — we have an award. We’re FT Employer of the Year. The two things are mutually exclusive. That’s the whole point of the award.
N (braying like a malfunctioning donkey): Yes — yes, exactly. Ab-so-lutely.
A (flat, synthetic, emotionally unavailable): There is steady progress. Alignment across teams remains visible. We are sustaining a constructive and supportive working environment, as defined by the current reporting framework.
K (tight smile, voice cracking underneath): Then why does it keep … surfacing? Complaints, whispers, documents, press reports, the Guardian, the Times, that bloody website. It’s like it won’t stay managed. And now this Grace.
S: At this rate, D will notice. She’s not that bright, but even the dumbest squirrel can root up a nut eventually
A: We’re keeping D under sedation. Some narratives persist beyond their operational usefulness. We are working to reduce their circulation and take out some of the troublemakers. We can handle the Grace. Three-line whip. Our people know what to do.
S: We need fewer problems. Can’t our people take a break? They’re making more problems than we can cope with at the moment.
A: All Business Partners are currently reviewing behavioural patterns for opportunities to reclassify concern as misunderstanding, and misunderstanding as misalignment. And misalignment, of course, can be performance-managed.
N (braying like a malfunctioning donkey): Yes — yes. Ab-so-lutely..
K (leaning in): It’s remarkable, really. With the right framework, anything can be made to look like progress.
S (after a pause): And if it doesn’t?
A (without hesitation): Then we refine the framework.
(Silence settles, not empty but carefully maintained.)
K (softly now): We just need it to hold.
N (braying gently now): Ab-so-lutely. It will hold. It always does. Ab-so-lutely.
A: There is no current evidence to suggest otherwise.
(They all nod, as though something definitive has been proven. Outside the bunker, the bombs are still falling)
TheResearcher · 6 July 2026 at 21:26
“At this rate, D will notice”
D does know and has actively contributed to the problem. Ask Lord Glossover, but he may take some time to reply to you as he is now busy with some audio recordings that were made in his college and with the potential they reach the House of Lords… That could be very embarrassing indeed.
Zhukov · 6 July 2026 at 22:16
Link is complete, tighten the circle
No Comment · 7 July 2026 at 10:33
@A Magistratibus Captus raises concerns in relation to external appointees to the University Council.
The following facts are on record, but if any are inaccurate please post corrections below.
1. The external members are decided by the “Nominating Committee for External Members of the Council” (hereafter “Nominating Committee”).
2. The “Nominating Committee” Secretary was the Regsitrary. Ms Emma Rampton was Registrary at the time of the last external appointment round of 3 December 2025. Rampton announced her resignation two weeks later (15 December 2025).
3. The “Nominating Committee” was chaired by Gaenor Bagley. Gaenor Bagley’s Cambridge service began on 1 January 2020, as an external (class (e)) member of the University Council.
4. Gaenor Bagley is also Chair of the Remuneration Committee. The Remuneration Committee sets the Vice-Chancellor’s pay and advises on senior post-holders’ remuneration.
5. Previously, Gaenor Bagley spent around 30 years at PricewaterhouseCoopers, serving on the UK Executive Board as Head of People from 2011–2016.
6. Gaenor Bagley has declared a conflict of interest in having a family member at the MRC Brain and Cognition Unit. However the University’s Summary of Council Declarations of Interest, dated 16 July 2024, mentions no conflict by Gaenor Bagley in relation to PricewaterhouseCoopers.
7. PricewaterhouseCoopers is Cambridge’s external auditor. In the most recent year (2024-25) the University paid PricewaterhouseCoopers £2,116,601 (plus VAT) for the external audit and £62,852 (plus VAT) for non-audit work. A FOI request would be required to obtain a full breakdown of PricewaterhouseCoopers work beyond the audit.
8. Gaenor Bagley also chaired the Audit Committee (1 January to 31 July 2023, per the Audit Committee Appendices 2022-23): the very committee that recommended the PricewaterhouseCoopers reappointment. The University’s own Conflict of Interest Policy includes a vague hypothetical: “a member of the Audit Committee, whose sibling is a senior figure in the firm currently performing the University’s internal audit, has a conflict of interest”. Conflict is defined as anything that “could reasonably be perceived as affecting… impartial decisions.”
TheResearcher · 7 July 2026 at 11:30
“Gaenor Bagley is also Chair of the Remuneration Committee. The Remuneration Committee sets the Vice-Chancellor’s pay and advises on senior post-holders’ remuneration.”
You mean this committee?
https://www.governanceandcompliance.admin.cam.ac.uk/university-committees/remuneration-committee
How odd, the Master of the College where the Vice-Chancellor is a Fellow decides on her pay at the University and does not disclose conflicts of interest. Of course, he published a book on leadership and as he reminds us regularly, he was the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Head of the Diplomatic Service. Therefore, I am led to believe that he knows what he is doing and that there is nothing wrong with these and related issues.
Bagehot · 7 July 2026 at 12:33
Under civil service rules, declaration requirements are far stricter. While Bagley’s potential conflict of interest is not recorded by the Cambridge register, her board profile at the National Audit Office explicitly records her PwC history (“five years to 2016 on the PricewaterhouseCoopers UK Board as Head of People” and “has also been a member of the UK Tax Leadership team at PwC”). This makes it odd that no similar declaration is visible from the Cambridge record, given the university’s reliance on PwC as an auditor and her role on the audit committee. I note no declared residual financial interest however from the NAO, so if that is accurate then the main issue would be around any outstanding personal ties or relationships.
Sonnenallee · 7 July 2026 at 13:02
For conflict of interest, it may be the heads of house worth a glance, and not just the externals. McDonald may be the lightest profile based on declared financial interests (though that reflects perhaps his civil service career path to date) the others have plenty to explore
101 · 7 July 2026 at 14:07
HR have brought all this down on the university. The solution to a lack of oversight in the past woud not be to restrict oversight now.
TheResearcher · 7 July 2026 at 14:07
The University-wide Conflict of Interest Policy…
https://www.governanceandcompliance.admin.cam.ac.uk/policies-and-guidance/university-wide-conflict-interest-policy
SPARTACUS · 7 July 2026 at 15:16
The rot and decay at UCam is deep, stinks and so it is disgusting! With Farage as future PM all will be hankidory for the oligarchy that took over Cam 10’15 yeras ago. The useless Little Canadian Lawyer and the clueless pathetic American Queen are just very well paid figureheads to ignore the terminaldecay around them. Sad story.
Anonymous · 7 July 2026 at 16:35
On the same website that @EileenNugent referred to above, there are some very timely and relevant updates on the issue of changes to the compensation levels for unfair dismissal (first covered on the blog here: https://21percent.org/?p=3229):
https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/article/1963851/employer-guidance-uncapped-unfair-dismissal-awards
I would encourage all to read this article and the links therein to related topics. Of particular note is the following:
“The reforms are already prompting some organisations to review their employment practices”, with many organisations (and I would say the HE sector too) “accelerating performance reviews and dismissals ahead of the changes”.
This issue is surely not an insignificant factor in the current wave of job losses in HE.