There follows a guest contribution from a Professor at the pseudonymous “Poppleton University”.
Despite formal policies protecting the sanctity of academic freedom, an academic’s complaint was diverted to the Registrar’s Office, which dismissed it without following proper procedures. This is part of a common phenomenon in UK Universities, which allows non-academic administrators to overrule concerns on academic freedom, bypassing any policy-based adjudication.
“Academic freedom is one of the key characteristics that distinguishes universities from other sorts of institutions. It is an internationally respected set of principles, articulated most extensively in the 1997 UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel
But how are those protections put into practice in UK universities? A recent FOI reveals that in at least one university in the UK, the Registrar’s Office acts as a gatekeeper between academics and their right to exercise academic freedom. Poppleton University guarantees the right of academic freedom to its academic staff in its statutes, citing Sections VI and VII of the UNESCO Recommendation. Its policies have two references to how academics can make use of this right. First, academic freedom can be invoked as a defence in cases of discipline, grievance, capacity, and probation. Second, an academic can themselves raise concerns through the grievance policy, which states: “Where an academic colleague, as defined in the University statutes, raises a grievance concerning academic freedom, it will be heard by a panel comprising a senior member of academic staff nominated by Senate and a lay member of Council, neither of whom will have any connection with the colleague concerned.”
However, in a recent case, an academic at Poppleton University complained to Human Resources (HR) about an infringement of their academic freedom. Rather than follow their own policies, HR handed the case off to the Registrar’s Office, which decided that there was no issue of academic freedom being raised. The right to have the case adjudicated as spelled out in the policy was refused. To be clear, non-academics decided that an academic had no right to assert academic freedom.
Why did Poppleton handle it this way? Neither the statutes nor the policies make any mention whatsoever of the involvement of the Registrar’s Office. When queried about this through an FOI request, Poppleton University responded: “The available documents relating to the development and implementation of the grievance policy do not refer to the involvement of the Registrar’s Office (now known as the Executive and Governance Office) as their involvement is about how the policy is put into practice, not the policy itself. The Registrars involvement is justified as operationally they are responsible for academic freedom”. This is simply incorrect on the basis of Poppleton’s own statutes and policies. They are making it up as they go along.
Moreover, this means that the Registrar’s Office, rather than the properly constituted panel, judges the merits of a case, according to undisclosed criteria. (We make here the generous assumption that there are at least consistent criteria being used, even if they are kept secret from the academics they apply to, rather than assuming that the Registrar’s Office makes it up as they go along on this as well.) If the Registrar’s Office decides there is nothing to see here, the complaint disappears without a trace.
How many times have academics tried to assert their rights to academic freedom at Poppleton University? Poppleton University would rather not say, since unfortunately “the information requested is not held in a single, reportable or easily searchable format”. It is possible that within the more than 146 files containing information about grievances in the past decade that there are more cases where the Registrar’s Office has quietly stifled assertions of academic freedom, but we just cannot know for certain.
Is Poppleton University just leading the sector in avoiding bad publicity about academic freedom by simply refusing to hear complaints about it, or is this sort of thing common across UK universities? Maybe we need a league table. We certainly need more digging around and lifting of stones to see what crawls out. It will be interesting to see whether the new complaints procedure the Office for Students promises to open this autumn can deal with this problem. Regulating Universities UK might be one thing, but regulating the Association of Heads of University Administration might be quite another.” [Professor at Poppleton University]
This is a broader systemic issue across the sector.
Another instance occurred in the recent Cambridge Whistleblowing Employment Tribunal. All the academics (whether appearing for the Claimant or the University) agreed that a document regarding the treatment of grants by the Head of Department was a very legitimate topic for discussion at a Staff Committee meeting.
It was in any event appropriate and legitimate within the context of the Institute for these concerns about academic freedom to be raised as Reserved Business at a Staff Meeting (where only the Professoriate would be in attendance and not more junior staff):
(1) Prof Reynolds: “Do they have the right to raise it? Absolutely. Is it wise, that is a different matter”.
(2) Prof Challinor: “… Many academics do regard the principle of academic freedom as sacrosanct. It would be inappropriate for a Director to interfere e.g. demand a change of PI unless they had good reasons. In the context of what we know about Opticon, the information did not suggest there were sufficient grounds to do that”, He was clear: “It would be appropriate” to raise such concerns at a Staff Committee meeting.
(3) Prof Clarke emailed C on 26 July 2021 to confirm that this “is a very legitimate topic for debate in Reserved Business…”. [Quotation from Closing Statement of Stuart Brittenden KC]
This right was strongly disputed in oral testimony by the HR Business Manager.
It’s not just in Poppleton University that academic freedom is overridden by university administrators. It’s widespread across the sector.
(The 21 Group thanks our anonymous contributor from Poppleton University).
89 Comments
SMwatch · 8 July 2026 at 06:47
It is interesting that the Association of the Heads of University Administration is sponsored by Shakespeare Martineau! And here is an interesting AHUA Spring Conference meeting from some years ago
https://www.ahua.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/AHUA-April-2016-Conference-for-web.pdf
Notice all the law firms & recruitment agencies !
Eileen Nugent · 9 July 2026 at 00:26
I think universities have been naive in having become overly reliant on external expertise. The thinking seems to have been that the more money a university spends on external expertise the higher the quality of the external expertise and the higher the alignment of interests in a situation – one possibility – but another possibility is that the more money a university spends on external expertise the lower the alignment of interests in a situation and/or the lower the quality of external expertise.
External expertise can start to compete for how expensive it can make itself for universities to take advantage of the association that has been made – rightly or wrongly – between the price tag of external expertise and the quality of external expertise. One way to win that type of competition is to start bringing people in who can overvalue the expertise that is being provided – unknowingly or knowingly – with high confidence and keep ratcheting up the level of overvalue over time, an inflationary competition push.
If a person is unknowingly doing that there is an inability to accurately value external expertise which doesn’t bode well for the persons ability to accurately analyse the expertise that is being provided without which its very difficult to estimate its true value – there is a higher risk of lower precision external expertise. If a person is knowingly doing that it doesn’t bode well for alignment of interests in a situation something which cannot be bought with money and is a fact of the situation. The more an external firm is overvaluing the external expertise it is providing the lower the alignment of interests in the situation.
If an inflationary competition push environment emerges more likely to see cases with input from external expertise dragging out for longer and longer amounts of time either due to lower and lower precision expertise or lower and lower alignment of interests.
TheResearcher · 8 July 2026 at 07:04
“This right was strongly disputed in oral testimony by the HR Business Manager.”
If these views are defended in open court and they do not realize how concerning they are, one can only imagine what happens in the background when the cameras are off.
Hopefully, when the initiated Grace regarding the external audit to University HR is approved at Cambridge, these and other practices can be evaluated by people without conflicts of interest. Until then, we will have more denials and cover ups, namely at UCam.
Fml · 8 July 2026 at 08:04
No conflict of interest whatsoever in having a company that profits from the maximal extension and intensification of university legal disputes … sponsor the individuals involved in managing grievance processes which somehow drag out forever until, unresolved, being heard at court many years of legal fees later. This is corruption, pure and simple, and it is destroying the British academic system.
21percent.org · 8 July 2026 at 08:54
Agreed — huge conflict of interest.
We need a public inquiry into what has happened in UK universities.
TheResearcher · 8 July 2026 at 09:24
True, but it needs to start somewhere, and a sensible starting point is Oxbridge. The MPs of Cambridge and Oxford could, and arguably should, be doing more than they currently are; they received complaints from University members who are their constituents, and so far have decided to not be involved as if it was an internal problem of the institutions where malpractices happen.
CorruptionWatch · 8 July 2026 at 11:45
Don’t forget the revolving door from university administration to highly paid jobs at… Shakespeare Martineau.
From a previous post:
“the Registrar [Paul Greatrix] refused to engage with Sabir’s concerns. Lecturer Dr Rod Thornton later published a 112-page paper alleging that University management was responsible for the wrongful arrests and had then sought to discredit the men. Rather than engage with Dr Thornton’s legitimate concerns, Thornton was suspended in 2011, again under Paul Greatrix as registrar.
The following year, in 2012, The Observer reported that West Midlands police had “fabricated” elements of the case. Sabir was awarded £20,000 from Nottinghamshire Police for false imprisonment.
Paul Greatrix joined Shakespeare Martineau in August 2025.”
Eileen Nugent · 9 July 2026 at 05:21
If a person has an academic interest in preventing terrorism a person has to build an understanding of terrorism before building an understanding of preventing terrorism. Prevention of terrorism is the higher power, it requires the higher level of understanding, it yields the higher predictive capability in relation to terrorism.
This means that anyone with this academic interest – prevention of terrorism – is potentially at risk of this type of situation arising in relation to them because a person with this academic interest will likely be accessing material relevant to the understanding of terrorism, something potential terrorists and those who go on to commit acts of terrorism might also do. This is an enhanced investigation situation because the outcome of this type of case could rapidly flip 180 degrees & potentially do that more than once in the same case.
It requires extremely high sensitivity to a persons interests to differentiate between a person with an interest in terrorism and a person with an interest in preventing terrorism. On the university side a university registrar is highly unlikely to have the sensitivity to do this, an academic with an academic interest in preventing terrorism has a far higher probability of being able to do this accurately. On the police side, the police officer would need to have an extremely high interest in counter-terrorism to have the right level of sensitivity to handle such a case.
I think it is important to recognise here that an extreme life event has the potential flip a persons interest – an interest in terrorism could flip to an interest in preventing terrorism and vice versa in the wake of that extreme life event so this type of case will always involve a non trivial examination of a situation. An extreme life event could rapidly deliver the insight to a person that the higher power is not terrorism but the prevention of terrorism and increase a persons drive to push through for that higher power – a gain of power life event. A different extreme life event could cause a person to lose all hope of preventing terrorism and hence all interest in preventing terrorism and to fall back to an interest in terrorism and to the lower power of terrorism – a loss of power life event.
It is necessary to think in terms of probabilities. A person with an interest in preventing terrorism is significantly more likely to engage in acts to prevent terrorism and significantly less likely to engage in acts of terrorism than a person with an interest in terrorism. A person with an interest in terrorism who is not in contact with those planning to engage in terrorism and/or who is not planning to engage in terrorism is significantly less like to engage in acts of terrorism than a person with an interest in terrorism who is in contact with those planning to engage in terrorism and/or who is planning to engage in terrorism.
An extreme life event that flips a persons interest from prevention of terrorism to terrorism can create a window of vulnerability for a person – extreme life event stress impact + induced interest flip + potential for extreme disillusionment with academia and increased risk of abandoning studies/job. The creation of a window of vulnerability doesn’t necessarily lead to a situation where police intervention is warranted i.e. contact with those planning to engage in terrorism or the emergence of any planning to engage in terrorism. If at any stage a person has a high interest in the prevention of terrorism, the overall risk the person presents of engaging in acts of terrorism is likely lower than that of the general population.
Capability to prevent terrorism is the higher power not capability for terrorism. If something requires the higher intelligence – it is the higher power.
I think this type of situation is one of the most painful, stressful and life-altering situations a person can experience in academia. It is a situation that will test a persons faith in humanity.
Memory · 9 July 2026 at 14:29
Jonathan Nicholls was formerly Registrary of the University of Cambridge from 2007 to 2017, and then switched over to the position of Director of Strategic and Policy Services (Education) at Shakespeare Martineau immediately afterwards. There was no cooling off period. He started with SM in February 2017. So it was a straight switch from the position at Cambridge in charge of administration, including legal services, to the law firm engaged by the University to deal with staff and student legal grievances regarding bullying, harassment and misconduct.
The North Remembers · 9 July 2026 at 15:26
I suspect this was not widely known. So the month after Rampton started as Registrary, her direct predecessor joined Shakespeare Martineau?
For what it is worth, Rampton had very positive words to say about him (“an immense presence, bringing intellect, a deep understanding of the UK higher education system, and a formidable work ethic”). This suggests they retained a deep and ongoing professional relationship during the period when he was working for Shakespeare Martineau and Rampton was head of Registrary.
The link FWIW is here.
https://web.archive.org/web/20250523012128if_/https://www.emma.cam.ac.uk/publications/EmmaNewsletter_Spring22_SC_WEB_Singles.pdf
21percent.org · 9 July 2026 at 16:29
Indeed, not widely known at all.
In 2017, Jonathan Nicholls was appointed Director of Strategic and Policy Services (Education) at Shakespeare Martineau. Like many, we find this inappropriate & a conflict of interest.
Here is an article Nicholls wrote for “Wonkhe and Shakespeare Martineau” explaining that Universities lose money on research. They did not used to, before people like Nicholls created a vast administrative class that brings in no money and pays itself large salaries.
https://wonkhe.com/wp-content/wonkhe-uploads/2017/06/The-many-faces-of-the-university-SHMA-WONKHE.pdf
EtonMess · 9 July 2026 at 20:02
An administrative class is a good way to put it, 21percent.org
Anonymous · 10 July 2026 at 16:57
Thanks for the pdf link. It is a stunningly brazen publication.
Of all the titles that have aged badly, I think the prize has to go to the one entitled:
“The University as a Police Force”
To be fair the author is at least a little skeptical of this idea that universities should assume from the police the role of law enforcement over issues such as sexual violence – but it is regrettable that universities seem to think they have the sole authority to decide on such reports rather than pass them directly and immediately to law enforcement.
Evidence · 10 July 2026 at 21:50
The publication link you have provided (https://wonkhe.com/wp-content/wonkhe-uploads/2017/06/The-many-faces-of-the-university-SHMA-WONKHE.pdf) offers primary evidence of a paid content relationship between Wonkhe and Shakespeare Martineau.
Wonkhe personnel (Leach, Bagshaw, Morris) co-authored with SM personnel (Jamdar, Nicholls).
This is not disclosed in the pamphlet as sponsored editorial in the way modern journalistic standards require.
It sits alongside SM’s AHUA national sponsorship (in the main post) and its Halpin partnership as evidence that SM had, by 2017, built a network of paid editorial and consultancy relationships across UK higher education.
EtonMess · 9 July 2026 at 20:01
Thank you CorruptionWatch, Eileen Nugent, Memory, the North Remembers for this information
A former top administrator of the Office of Research Integrity went on to join the UK Research Integrity Office. He was either on the board or an advisor for those who ask for advice. What happens when the whistleblower is from Cambridge?
That was chilling to see.
just say no · 9 July 2026 at 21:43
So now we see, this is how it works. The registrar ensures that grievances become court cases, and ensures they are extended as long as possible at maximum cost to the University, taxpayers, students and parents, not to mention obvious victims of harassment and abuse. For this evil act they can await a highly paid position “advising” the law firm, most likely in order to maintain this foul practice. Disgusting.
Revolver · 10 July 2026 at 12:15
You are merely at the tip of the iceberg, and there are several other prominent cases of revolving door appointments. For now I will share one more, and others will come later.
Nicola Bradfield was Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor at Coventry University until April 2025), where she was leading the Legal Services and the Group Resolution Unit (responsible for student appeals, disciplinaries and complaints). She previously (2016-19) served as Director of University Legal Services.
The same month she resigned as Pro-VC at Coventry (April 2025), she was appointed Partner at Shakespeare Martineau leading the firm’s contentious education practice.
Bradfield’s Coventry portfolio directly covered student disciplinaries and complaints and she now receives income from Shakespeare Martineau as it charges universities to handle the exact same matters.
21percent.org · 10 July 2026 at 20:42
Thanks for this — we’d love to hear more examples.
We think this needs to be brought to the attention of MPs, it seems a serious breach of proper protocol.
No Comment · 10 July 2026 at 22:31
You are missing the big one. I was not sure you were planning it as a separate post.
Until last month, the CEO of Shakespeare Martineau was Sarah Walker Smith.
She was suspended in June 2026 following a complaint which is now being investigated (https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/shakespeare-martineau-group-ceo-suspended).
She had led the company from 2021 until June 2026.
An independent third-party investigation is now ongoing following her recent suspension.
While serving as CEO of Shakespeare Martineau, Sarah Walker Smith saw no conflict of interest in concurrently serving as a member of the Board of Governors of Nottingham Trent University, which she held from September 2017 to 30 September 2023. That is a six year period which included serving as deputy chair of the strategy, finance and policy committee. She was also a director of Nottingham Trent Students’ Union (Company No. 08738730) from 1 July 2018 to 1 June 2020.
So, in short: The CEO of a law firm that markets itself as one of the UK’s leading HE-sector advisers, and that acted (and continues to act) for numerous universities and university clients, simultaneously sat on the governing body of a higher education institution client for six years. Whether Walker-Smith recused from specific items involving SHMA clients or competitors during that time is not visible from the published NTU minutes.
For example, the published NTU minutes for 25 September 2023 record that “no conflicts of interests were declared” at the meeting recording her departure, and Nottingham Trent’s own board records do not treat her CEO role at a leading HE-sector law firm (which acted for many UK universities) as a declared conflict, though her SHMA/Ampa page identifies her as CEO of one of the leading HE-legal advisers throughout her tenure.
One may note the fact that in its latest legal procurement cycle, Shakespeare Martineau was awarded 4 out of the 8 lots of Nottingham Trent University – a large proportion of contracts for one single firm.
Meanwhile during the Shakespeare Martineau CEO’s time on the Nottingham Trent University board, the university saw no shortage of controversies.
Two key examples which may sound familiar to colleagues over at Cambridge are:
1. VC pay escalation, with Peck’s base rising from £272k to £321k across her tenure; bonuses continuing through deficit years; £623k five-year package for outgoing VC Neil Gorman disclosed in Oct 2017; and
2. Multiple Employment Tribunal cases ended up unresolved and instead spun out to court – notably Bradley (Equal Pay, Sex Discrimination, 2020), Taylor (2018/19), Eustace (2020/21, unfair dismissal found), Been (2022). It has not been disclosed whether Shakespeare Martineau was contracted by NTU in these cases.
Also worth noting in passing is that the Nottingham Law School Business Advisory Board still includes Alex Smith, Group COO of Ampa Group (parent of Shakespeare Martineau).
bye bye · 11 July 2026 at 04:56
“Until last month, the CEO of Shakespeare Martineau was Sarah Walker Smith. She was suspended in June 2026 following a complaint”
Whoops
COI · 11 July 2026 at 08:23
The key point here is this. If the Registrary of Cambridge University went directly to a new job at Shakespeare Martineau then it could not possibly have happened overnight.
They would have been discussing the move while still acting in the capacity as Registrary for the University, likely over an extended duration of time, in a manner that would influence their decisions in the role.
verbatim · 11 July 2026 at 19:44
Hahaha oh dear actually read the article about the suspension of SHMA CEO. It contains some wonderful extra nuggets:
“Shakespeare Martineau suffered the indignity of securing the lowest staff satisfaction rating in RollOnFriday’s Best Law Firms to Work At 2025 survey, landing it with the Golden Turd.”
“…under Walker-Smith’s watch, the firm installed a £25k self-playing transparent piano in the London office’s reception”
TheResearcher · 8 July 2026 at 09:51
I think we have not covered this issue given the number of scandals we had to cover in the last few months at Cambridge, but it is interesting: “The Rokos School of Government aims to prepare future leaders to be able to navigate the ever-more-challenging demands of both domestic and international politics in a new and complex world of great structural change.”
https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/rokos-school-of-government
Does Mr Rokos know what has been happening in POLIS to mention one example related to politics? Would he make this donation if he knew? I wonder if Professor Prentice told him these and related issues over that drink.
Anon · 8 July 2026 at 11:50
It is a fair question. There would have been a duty of due diligence to inform Chris (Rokos) of any risk liabilities prior to signing of contracts. I am sure he has very good lawyers of his own who could remind the university of this.
1000 · 8 July 2026 at 12:08
Interesting. There are internal documents that specifically cite the risk liability arising to POLIS from all the court cases, so no plausible deniability of foreseeable awareness. The issue would be whether RSG had been fully ringfenced against reputational contagion arising from acts by associated parties, but only if indeed due diligence and disclosure had not occurred (and presumably we do not know if this was so).
FutureApplicant · 9 July 2026 at 11:19
Where can we find more details on the POLIS cases?
TheResearcher · 9 July 2026 at 12:26
Ask the HoD 😉
21percent.org · 9 July 2026 at 13:41
We are planning to cover the multiple POLIS scandals later in the year. Some are still breaking.
TheResearcher · 9 July 2026 at 14:03
There are people out there who still hope that these scandals will never be known, while others try to silence people who know about them but will never sign any NDA. How silly and dangerous this situation became and the reputation managers have not realize it yet. I wonder how many of them started looking at other jobs as they know that sooner or later the shit will hit the fan.
ghost · 9 July 2026 at 14:15
Doubt NDAs from the past are valid any more anyway as changes in legislation last year rendered them void
it is a ticking bomb that goes back many many years
Raven · 8 July 2026 at 10:28
“This right was strongly disputed in oral testimony by the HR Business Manager.”
Seeing a mid-level entitled HR professional dispute the rights of academic staff is bad enough.
The real contempt has to be for those former academics turned senior managers in our universities, who receive inflated salaries to parrot HR and legal speak, and allow their names and academic titles to be misused to support methods and decision-making no academic should ever endorse.
Anon · 8 July 2026 at 11:54
Indeed. Academia lacks a formal oath and code of conduct similar to that which regulates, say, medical conduct or practice, and were such a code of conduct in place one may consider it to be highly doubtful whether academics engaged in disruption of student learning or research activity would be allowed to continue within the profession.
TheResearcher · 8 July 2026 at 12:07
Hi guys!
It happened, they removed my access to Viva Engage 😂
“Your sign-in was successful but you don’t have permission to access this resource.”
These people do not learn! They did not even justify their behaviour. Oh well, let’s see what will happen next…
https://engage.cloud.microsoft/main/org/universityofcambridgecloud.onmicrosoft.com/threads/eyJfdHlwZSI6IlRocmVhZCIsImlkIjoiMzkzMTc5NTc1NTc2OTg1NyJ9?trk_copy_link=V2
? · 8 July 2026 at 15:35
You could ask for justification for the decision so that they put this in writing, and exercise your free speech right to share here the content they found objectionable.
TheResearcher · 8 July 2026 at 16:11
This censorship was done as a retaliation, and they will hardly answer to anything I say because there is not much they can say. There is no possible defence to this and anything they say can be used against them. This is their most basic behaviour; if you ask them something that will uncover their malpractices, they will not reply.
Why was this a retaliation? I encourage people to read what I effectively wrote. As before, I encouraged people to read articles that criticise the University, namely the article in the Guardian of April 2025 and June 2026. I did not use Viva Engage since 4 August 2025 when they deleted my post and thus this action was a direct response to my recent comments regarding the Grace. Note that back then,Mr Andrew Aldridge, Head of Internal Communications and Deputy Director, wrote
“I am getting in touch about the message that you posted on Viva Engage on Monday 4 August as I am the responsible owner of the site’s acceptable use guidelines. You can view the acceptable use guidelines at the top right-hand corner of the site’s homepage. Among other things, they set out how posts and comments will be moderated, and the types of comments that we would delete if we felt that necessary… Having reviewed this post, I have decided to delete it on the grounds that it contravenes the acceptable use guidelines. I thought it appropriate that you should know.”
He never told me that I could not use the network. And by the way, he only “shared with me” because meanwhile I had complained to the Proctors who should uphold freedom of speech and the University needed an excuse to have in their pocket. Regardless, there is no free speech in UCam and those who think there is are being naive at best. Wake up!
- · 8 July 2026 at 16:16
Why does it contravene acceptable use? The articles are in the public domain. Anyone can read them.
TheResearcher · 8 July 2026 at 16:40
I think you know the real answer…
Comment in the link above of Viva Engage with a critique of the University and see what happens next to your post. If you do not remember any problems at UCam, namely related to bullying and harassment, I can help 😅
You are welcome to post my own case there (e.g., https://21percent.org/?p=3449) and see how they respond. It definitely has to do with the topic of the Grace, the need for an external audit of HR practices.
Anonymous · 8 July 2026 at 17:34
It feels like they should be asked to provide clarification as to exactly how and why the posts conflcit with the acceptable use policy. Otherwise the decision has no foundation in university policies and that should be made clear.
TheResearcher · 8 July 2026 at 20:57
“Otherwise the decision has no foundation in university policies and that should be made clear.”
Dear poster, this is standard practice in UCam! I will contact them and I am happy to post my email to them below, but I know they will not respond. This said, as I learned recently, it is important to complain or appeal not because the University will take it seriously because it will not, but to create a record. When the time comes to legal proceedings such record will be very important.
MUSKETEER · 8 July 2026 at 18:36
My dear co-21percenters you all seem to believe that UCam conforms to any decency, integrity, morality or legality. You are wrong! UCam is run by a Camorra/Mafia-style oligarchy. It has been so for 12 years. So what do you expect of them? The place is in free downfall. Hope the Grace will be a first step to rescue but seriously doubt it. In the meanwhile the pathetic and clueless American Queen will continue to collect 570,000 and Lord Smith will continue to be useless!
SeeyouatFH · 8 July 2026 at 19:22
All universities need to be investigated.
Ptolemy · 9 July 2026 at 08:04
21 Group is wining for one simple reason, which is that we have more energy than they do. While they sleep, we are hard at work. There is no amount of money that can compete with expertise, passion and determination.
21percent.org · 9 July 2026 at 10:58
Police allege ~ 60 dodgy transactions (2014–2025) at University of Greater Manchester. Up to £1.7m in university funds have been misused — including purchase of heated dog kennel
https://manchestermill.co.uk/breaking-three-people-arrested-on-suspicion-of-money-laundering-fraud-and-bribery-at-university-of-greater-manchester/
We saw this lack of compliance with financial controls at Dundee University too. There is weak regulatory oversight & lack of control in many universities – especially at senior levels.
TheResearcher · 9 July 2026 at 12:23
Heated dog kennels? But do they just heat or cool as well? That makes a big difference in price!
Sadly, no one cares about the current state of things. Even the press could be doing more. Why isn’t corruption, financial and other, in UK Universities not a major topic of concern? I have no clue.
Eileen Nugent · 9 July 2026 at 14:53
I think part of the problem here is that people might think it is possible to change one part of the system without the other parts of the system changing but that is not possible. If the system is changing, all parts of the system are changing. The press could be doing more but the press is also changing and one risk of change is not coping with change and of falling into a state of having lower caring capacity before pushing on through to a state of coping with change, of changing, of regaining former caring capacity and of then pushing on through to a state of having higher caring capacity.
I think another part of the problem here is that people might think that it is possible to bring a new organisations into existence and for these new organisations to be immune to the pressures on the existing organisations of that type currently operating because they are new, exciting & energising. Higher attention is then paid to novelty – analysing differences, emphasising differences real or imagined – and lower attention is paid to pressure resistance – analysing common challenges, understanding real constraints – in forming new organisations. Being different in ways that don’t increase the ability of the new organisation to withstand the pressures of being the type of organisation it is doesn’t bode well for the survival probability of the new organisation. Bringing new organisations into existence can be a solution to solving difficult problems but new organisations are not always more capable of solving difficult problems than existing organisations. Organisations already in existence can drive internal change by solving difficult problems, can have higher capability to withstand the pressures of being the type of organisation that they are than new organisations, can increase in capability to withstand the pressures of being a particular type of organisation.
Wonky · 11 July 2026 at 07:41
Well we know why WonkHE are not covering corruption, which is that they have ongoing financial relationships with sponsors who are at the centre of these events. As per the comment above:
“The publication link you have provided (https://wonkhe.com/wp-content/wonkhe-uploads/2017/06/The-many-faces-of-the-university-SHMA-WONKHE.pdf) offers primary evidence of a paid content relationship between Wonkhe and Shakespeare Martineau.
Wonkhe personnel (Leach, Bagshaw, Morris) co-authored with SM personnel (Jamdar, Nicholls).
This is not disclosed in the pamphlet as sponsored editorial in the way modern journalistic standards require.
It sits alongside SM’s AHUA national sponsorship (in the main post) and its Halpin partnership as evidence that SM had, by 2017, built a network of paid editorial and consultancy relationships across UK higher education.”
See It, Say It · 9 July 2026 at 12:57
I always thought this would end badly. But it is a step change to see UK university administrators placed under arrest.
I suspect a lot of other universities will be looking on to this story nervously.
With so many redundancies across the sector, that is a lot of people who likely feel that the time has come to tell the police what they know.
21percent.org · 9 July 2026 at 13:37
University administrators have ended up in prison before. Robert Smedley, pro vice-chancellor at Edge Hill University, was jailed for five years in 2017 for a long-running fraud involving over £500,000.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/oct/30/deputy-vice-chancellor-and-his-lover-jailed-for-500000
VC of Swansea University Richard Davies was suspended in 2018 amid concerns linked to a major development project (the so-called wellness village in Llanelli). After an investigation, he was dismissed for gross misconduct and gross negligence in 2019. There was a police investigation into aspects of the project, but ultimately Davies himself was not charged or jailed. It was a major governance scandal, huge waste of public money, but no criminal conviction.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-46572342
VC of Bangor University John Hughes became controversial due to financial problems and spending decisions, alleged nepotism (appointing his wife), criticism over expenses and leadership. He resigned early in 2018 after mounting pressure and allegations (including harassment claims from his ex-wife). Again, no criminal charges.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-46639721
It’s surprising that criminal charges have not been filed against administrators at Dundee University, following its near-collapse. There seemed to be zero financial or regulatory control at the highest levels.
We expect, given the financial pressures in the sector, we will see a VC in jail over the next years.
MCJC · 9 July 2026 at 15:10
We do not know whether criminal charges have been filed or not though right? In the Manchester case we know now because the arrests were made, but that means the charges were likely filed a while back. So could be possible that some are already under investigation?
21percent.org · 9 July 2026 at 16:10
Correct. The CPS has yet to decide whether there is enough evidence to bring formal charges.
So in short: arrests have been made, but charges have not yet been announced.
Facts · 10 July 2026 at 11:57
The key context for the Manchester police arrests concern a referral to the authorities following a commissioned PwC audit that found significant irregularities.
In relation to Cambridge, similar relevant facts were included in the Audit Committee Annual Report FY24-25. See the Cambridge Reporter 6809, 7 Jan 2026.
1. The Head of Internal Audit gave only “limited assurance” on the University’s internal-control system for the year to 31 July 2025. This is the second-weakest rung on a four-point scale.
In particular it flagged “a lack of clarity and consistency around expectations”, “fragmentation of approach”, “oversight of institutional compliance”, “a lack of data to support monitoring and reporting”, and a “culture of optionality” that “continues to hinder consistency and clarity.”
2. “In the 2024–25 academic year, there were two reports of financial irregularities in the University which are under investigation … including proposed next steps in relation to one.”
Five new cases were recorded under the Whistleblowing Policy since 1 June 2024; one of which remains ongoing.
3. This has been a longstanding matter for the university. The academic-University adjusted deficit was £105m in FY23-24, up from £73m in FY22-23 and £47m in FY21-22. The Board of Scrutiny 29th Report (Cambridge Reporter 6756, 5 Nov 2024) flagged the issue, and it was widely covered in the press, asking how the deficit reached a level with “no clear understanding of what has happened or why” (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c86qw23y5elo, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/28/cambridge-university-runs-up-53m-debt-without-knowing-why/).
4. This is taking place in the context of wider concerns around whistleblower retaliation across a range of areas, and the conflict of interest of the Registrary in having been responsible for handling whistleblower complains while also responsible for financial management.
- · 9 July 2026 at 12:24
What has been happening in UK higher education is the parliamentary expenses scandal but 10x bigger.
Woof · 11 July 2026 at 11:19
What is it with VCs and their dogs? They get far better treatment than staff, even treated to first class flights while the rest of us are being made redundant.
Check out this story from a few years back:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/university-surrey-dog-vice-chancellor-max-lu-australia-first-class-flights-a8229041.html
21percent.org · 11 July 2026 at 12:03
Woof, woof, there is a recurring criticism of UK universities around executive pay, perks and transparency, especially during periods of staff cuts or pension disputes.
Stories like this resonate with staff, politicians & the public because they symbolise a huge disconnect between leadership and staff experience.
Now more than ever, the universities need support from public and politicians. Instead, we are saddled with an avaricious class of senior leaders who are brought the name of universities into disrepute.
TheResearcher · 10 July 2026 at 10:31
Guess who is back from leave and is catching up?
[REDACTED]
s1gn1f1cant d1g1ts · 10 July 2026 at 10:57
“You have 10777 new emails”
TheResearcher · 10 July 2026 at 16:40
I have the gut feeling that issues associated with members of the 21 Group were her priority…
Anonymous · 10 July 2026 at 16:48
More likely the Grace – that’s surely the top issue on her mind.
TheResearcher · 10 July 2026 at 17:10
That is a related possibility indeed. I would dare to say that her hope is that the Council amends the proposal and drops the “external” in HR audit so that they can control the narrative, and prevents former students and staff from contributing to it. But as I noticed to the Council, General Board and the Board of Scrutiny, that move from Council may not be very sensible because these former members may come together and start actions that cause even more embarrassment than the Grace. The Council did not reply yet, but they will be meeting on Monday 13 so perhaps they can discuss the matter…
[REDACTED]
TheResearcher · 10 July 2026 at 17:31
We have said much worse things in the past and to be fair, it is impossible to ignore the great excitement about her return, even without mentioning her name. I am glad I could contribute to her success!
Blacklisted · 10 July 2026 at 17:00
The meaning of the Grace.
The reasons for the Grace.
The timing of the Grace.
The context of the Grace.
And how to erase all traces of Dolores in the history leading up to the Grace.
Wordsmith · 10 July 2026 at 10:58
[REDACTED]
You mean the shark circling [REDACTED] waters for droplets of blood? Busy “reviewing behavioural patterns for opportunities to reclassify concern as misunderstanding, and misunderstanding as misalignment. And misalignment, of course, can be performance-managed”?
misuse · 10 July 2026 at 18:12
The priority of HR should be to serve staff wellbeing and performance. It speaks volumes that the first thing on the list was to issue legal threats out of self protection.
Surely this act alone tells all anyone needs to know about who they serve. While receiving a large salary to serve us – not to spend paid working hours serving their own personal interests.
Northern Powerhouse · 10 July 2026 at 11:29
I hope that Team Burnham realise that existing universities are a lost cause and that the best route is to found a new Manchester Institute of Technology (MIT), led by individuals with impeccable credentials for integrity, honesty and meritocratic ethos. This new MIT could follow strict standards on the lines of elite US counterparts (e.g. the Massachusetts MIT or Caltech) – e.g. a strict ban on internal recruitment, including no tenure track hires from internal PhDs, open standards of objective performance measurement, incentives for top pier publication, and ruthless expulsion of senior figures found to have disrupted grants or to have engaged in plagiarism. It could also have a light administrative structure with commitment to an open and fully transparent management culture. Case managers failing to resolve grievances after a maximal period (e.g. 3 months) to be let go and all grievances to be included in a public open index. All costs including legal to be published in annual accounts with detailed breakdowns. High salaries will come with exceptionally high standards. I expect most recruits would be early career stage and this would only be cost efficient, but also ensure a constructive ethos and researchers at the cutting edge of their respective fields, with no dead wood to get in the way. Within 10 years it could displace the old dinosaurs at the top of the UK university rankings.
SPARTACUS · 10 July 2026 at 18:24
A system that pays £570,000 to a pathetic and clueless American Queen is corrupt and decrepit by definition! There are no ifs and buts! A University is a collegiate aggregation of scholars. It is not a corporation and surely it should not be an emulation of the Post Office. UCam and other Russel group universities need refounding!
Ergo · 10 July 2026 at 18:29
Let us all take a moment to reflect on what has been proven today. The HR elite have no problem with comments like this about the Cambridge Vice Chancellor. But within minutes of return to office they are able to issue threats restricting the right of free speech by third parties even indirectly and vaguely providing reference to the fact that they returned – a statement, one might add, that is presumably both factual and entirely neutral, with no implied negative connotation.
HR-victim · 10 July 2026 at 19:52
HR can only operate as University Stasi because VCs and leadership allow it.
? · 10 July 2026 at 21:29
Perhaps so but it is unclear what the VC gets in return, other than cross examination in court, and being used as a cover by signing off on her letters.
HR-victim · 11 July 2026 at 07:35
What do you mean? She gets her 570,000 salary and all the perks.
This is not a drill · 10 July 2026 at 23:41
21 Group may find this investigation interesting particularly as it pertains to safeguarding in Cambridge among many other serious issues
https://bylinetimes.com/2026/07/09/peter-thiel-and-reform-uks-cambridge-university-pipeline-project/
TheResearcher · 11 July 2026 at 07:09
While I do not have strong views about some of the topics discussed in the article, I recognise some patterns from UCam:
“Several complaints about Orr to the pro vice-chancellors and even the vice-chancellor were made by senior staff across the university. Yet, in all cases, no action was taken.”
“Byline Times contacted Professor Kamal Munir, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for University Community and Engagement; and Professor Bhaskar Vira, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Education, but did not receive replies.”
“When Byline Times contacted Cambridge University’s press office with confidential enquiries relating to its own standards and policies, the queries were not merely ignored but forwarded on in full without notice to James Orr and his representatives at Addleshaw Goddard, a legal firm which also represents Ben Delo.”
“Cambridge University issued only one response in defence of its refusal to engage with substantive queries regarding institutional failures around the safeguarding of students, conflicts of interest, and breaches of confidentiality.”
Contacting UCam with concerns at this stage is a waste of time. Contact relevant sponsors.
Anon · 11 July 2026 at 09:17
This is a consequence of a culture of secrecy around donations and conflict of interest that began at the University one decade ago, and has allowed private financial interests to dictate and distort academic excellence.
Since 1998, the Vice-Chancellor’s Guild of Benefactors has been the University of Cambridge’s honorific recognition for individuals donating over £1 million (or companies over £1.5 million). The names of members were originally public – literally carved into stone tablets around a staircase at the Old Schools – but from 2014 onwards, the membership list was made secret, and the staircase itself was designated a “secret area” inaccessible to the University community (https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/30552).
In June 2025, the Regent House initiated a formal Grace – the Regent House’s mechanism for putting a motion to the University’s governing body – under Special Ordinance A (ii) 5. Its wording was one sentence:
“That the list of members of the Vice-Chancellor’s Guild of Benefactors be made public.”
The Grace was proposed by Professor Jason Scott-Warren (English Faculty, Fellow of Gonville & Caius) and its signatories included Sir W. T. Gowers (Fields Medallist, Research Professor of Mathematics, Trinity College). Scott-Warren argued donor secrecy risked shielding “regimes that kill journalists in cold blood, autocracies that imprison protesters for decades on trumped-up charges, oil and gas companies, [and] people who fund climate change denying think-tanks”.
The ballot ran from 24 November to 3 December 2025 and both Graces passed decisively.
The Council then voted to ignore the vote outcome, instead opting unilaterally to maintain secrecy of dark money flowing to the university, in violation of the University’s longstanding principle of transparency established and maintained until 2014.
The establishment of a far right “cell” within Cambridge, funded by foreign interests, shows the consequence of their decision. This is what happens when a great university allows itself to be sold out to the highest bidder.
Up the junction · 11 July 2026 at 10:29
This is fascinating information.
On this right wing enclave in Cambridge, I hope Varsity and others will pick up on this, as students (particularly freshers) will be sitting ducks for indoctrination. And will students who push back against this (or refuse to do lectures for free!) face incidental and hard to prove repercussions in their academic careers?
There must be more academics involved with this in Cambridge. I have an idea of a few candidates.
MUSKETEER · 11 July 2026 at 11:08
What should matter but American Queen does not care.
In the last 2 years ERC Advanced Grants:
Oxford- 28
Cambridge- 7
Any serious academic institution would be alarmed by this stark statistic.
D'ARTAGNAN · 11 July 2026 at 11:12
21percent.org should ask Kamal Munir to comment.
Silence · 11 July 2026 at 12:18
They should. The news of extreme right-wing foreign-funded cell at Cambridge, as revealed by the Byline Times (https://bylinetimes.com/2026/07/09/peter-thiel-and-reform-uks-cambridge-university-pipeline-project/), ought to be read in conjunction with the collapse of university performance in securing European Research Council Advanced grants. It appears as if instead of fostering public research income from high integrity, public research agencies that are peer-reviewed and dedicated to scholarly excellence, the university is allowing a “free pass” to individuals filtering money from “dark pools” in the right-wing ecosystem and allowing them to shirk on their contractual duties and commitments. This is symptomatic of something very, very, very wrong in how the university is governed, and should be an immediate priority for the government, parliament and regulators to examine. There is no doubt questions are being raised by this, how could they not. So why are there no answers from the likes of Munir and co? Silence only gives the impression of tacit complicity, and if nothing else that is a very bad look for the university.
Dontcare · 11 July 2026 at 12:16
Kamal Munir does not care. American Queen does not care
So far, we have had the cosying up to Reform, the debacle of the Vet School, the over-ruling of Graces passed by Regent House, successive scandals at POLIS, sex with Simon Goldhill at classics, the Huppert scandal, renewed attempts to close the Vet School (with AQ having like the Bourbons learnt nothing and forgotten nothing), the debacle at astronomy in full view of the UK press, culminating in AQ’s own unimpressive showing at the Tribunal & now questions over the activities of James Orr with even a suggestion that the University may have received money from Peter Thiel of Palantir to fund James Orr’s position.
And that is just the last 6 months.
If AQ sees out her full term as Vice Chancellor, there will just be smouldering earth left where we once had a world-class university.
MCGA · 11 July 2026 at 13:19
The real paradox is this.
How, at the same time, can the university can be so paranoid about protecting its global image that it relentlessly goes after whistleblowers, journalists, and former staff to prevent them from speaking out – but meanwhile, somehow has so little care for its image that the senior leadership allows these kind of things to take place. At any other leading university the alarm bells would have rung out loud and clear from the first moment something potentially explosive was found to be taking place and then extensive efforts made to protect the brand. They would know that no amount of media management is better than simply having good risk management protocol and addressing scandals fully and early.
What is outstanding is that all of this is taking place just as Cambridge is presenting itself as a refuge from Trump’s America, and trying to woo students with its new “Centre for the Study of the United States” (https://www.cam.ac.uk/news/us-ambassador-visits-cambridge-as-university-launches-new-centre-for-the-study-of-america). But instead it seems the MAGA movement is more present in Cambridge than at Berkeley, Harvard or Columbia.
anonymous · 11 July 2026 at 17:00
Provides some context to donor secrecy: “In January 2019, the donation appears to have been sent from Thiel Capital to ‘Cambridge in America’ – a 501(c) US tax-exempt organisation that raises money for the university in the US. While the documents seen by Byline Times suggest that it was Orr who requested the donation be kept anonymous, it is understood from Orr’s lawyers that Peter Thiel himself requested anonymity”
Resist · 12 July 2026 at 11:53
The idea of MAGA taking over Berkeley or Columbia is hilarious. What sucks here is English universities presenting as escapes for hopeful Americans looking to exit Trumpworld, raking in the fees, yet still back-chaneling with his acolytes and giving them the airtime instead.
21percent.org · 11 July 2026 at 16:59
Things looking difficult for Vice Chancellor George Holmes at University of Greater Manchester
“Today, we can reveal that before 9am on Wednesday morning, GMP arrested the university’s longtime vice chancellor George Holmes, his partner Louise Burrows and the university’s executive director of facilities Derek Rout. On Wednesday evening, all three suspects were released on bail pending further enquiries. The arrest of Holmes marks an unprecedented moment in British higher education: it is thought to be the first time a university vice-chancellor has ever been arrested in the UK as part of a criminal investigation”
https://manchestermill.co.uk/exclusive-vice-chancellor-george-holmes-among-those-arrested-on-suspicion-of-fraud/
First of many, we suspect.
- · 11 July 2026 at 17:02
Link?
21percent.org · 11 July 2026 at 17:12
Added, thanks. The grifters are as usual senior members of the executive class.
- · 11 July 2026 at 17:13
Found this background story.
https://manchestermill.co.uk/the-university-of-greater-manchester-casablanca-deal/
It seems pretty incredible. Creaming off 30% commission of the backs of student fees from students from Africa via dodgy offshore deals. As you say, probably just the start of a massive wave of corruption investigations across the entire UK HE sector. Suspect this is going to be one of the big themes for the press in the next year to come as the arrests and revelations roll.
- · 11 July 2026 at 17:19
Have to say this is turning in to quite the comment thread. Somehow it manages to cover police arrest of a VC and university execs in Manchester, the suspension ans investigation of the CEO of Shakespeare Martineau, and a story on secret backchannel MAGA movement funding to Cambridge.
anonymous · 11 July 2026 at 17:23
Indeed. Not only that, but all backed by reputable third party stories and links! And to think, just last month, the university dared to call Wyn a conspiracy theorist for the “outstandish” suggestion that university admin might coordinate to retaliate against whistleblowers…. Compared to that (rather mundane and logical inference), the truth is more bizarre than fiction.
Eugene · 13 July 2026 at 00:56
Quite. A conspiracy theory ceases to be a theory once it is supported by “conspiracy facts” At that point, it is simply a question of evidence, proof, and reporting.
SPARTACUS · 11 July 2026 at 18:01
What amazes one is that the American Queen regime carries on! The Chancellor Lord Smith continues to hide his head in the sand. Frankly extraordinary. I wonder why many of the outstanding academics in Cambridge seem to be oblivious to all of the scandals ongoing and brewing. They must take a stand! Write a joint letter to the Chancellor asking him to accept the resignation of the whole Council and appoint an interim administration to sort the gigantic mess for 1-2 years and then resume regular governance. The American Queen and her cadre of oligarchs MUST go!
144 000 · 13 July 2026 at 03:37
Anyone who thinks they will escape accountability has clearly not been paying attention.