Studio publicity still of Grace Kelly for the film Rear Window (1954)
The Grace has now secured more than the required 50 signatures to proceed to a vote of Regent House.
The petition will remain open for additional signatures until 5pm on 17 September 2026, and we encourage all colleagues who are members of Regent House to consider adding their support.
The Grace was motivated primarily by difficulties experienced by staff in the MRC Epidemiology Unit and within University Information Services (UIS), alongside longstanding concerns about the handling of Grievances. We see the Grace as a constructive opportunity to address these issues and improve current practices. The 21 Group also recognises the considerable pressures faced by junior HR staff in recent years and believes they stand to benefit from the proposed changes.
Epidemiology is the first MRC Unit to be reorganised following funding changes. Mitochondrial Biology, Toxicology, Metabolic Diseases and Biostatistics are to follow. This has already resulted in dozens of redundancies in Epidemiology, with ~100 likely to be put at risk in the other units. Likewise, UIS staff are being placed at risk of job losses, seemingly without proper procedures being followed
We would be grateful if colleagues could continue to raise awareness of the Grace, as we believe it merits the widest possible support in the University.
In separate news, Professor Kamal Munir has announced that he will step down as Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Community and Engagement in September. The announcement, along with the Vice-Chancellor’s tribute, is available online here.
We wish Professor Munir every success in his future teaching and research.
We believe this transition presents an opportunity for a reset. The next Pro-Vice-Chancellor should be a reform-minded leader, prepared to address areas of the University that are not functioning as effectively as they should, including aspects of the HR division.
Given the six-year term, this is a consequential decision. The University must take the time — and show the resolve — to appoint the right person for the challenges ahead.
121 Comments
Disappeared · 15 July 2026 at 20:56
The room had no windows. Stalin studied the empty chairs.
“Registrary, pro-VC, chief of staff,” he said. “All Gone?”
“Kamenev, Zinoviev, Bukharin”, countered.the Crimson Queen. “All Gone?”
Stalin said, “You removed your shield.”
“I removed redundancy.”
“I built systems where fear was explicit,” Stalin said. “Predictable. Durable.”
The CQ smiled. “I invest in systems where fear is internal. In Universities, people optimize themselves into submission.”
“And when they stop believing?”
“They don’t,” the CQ said. “I fund the belief.”
Stalin’s expression didn’t change. “Crude. I preferred confessions.”
“Messy,” the CQ said. “I prefer gratitude.”
Another pause
“Who is more dangerous?” Stalin asked.
The CQ said “People know to be afraid of you. They are not afraid of me, until right before they disappear.”
Stalin considered this, then gave a faint, approving nod.
“Yes,” he said. “Much cleaner.”
VCwatch · 16 July 2026 at 09:02
She’s more like Paddington Bear or Alice in Wonderland, a complete innocent abroad.
Cheshire Cat · 16 July 2026 at 09:30
She certainly acts that way. Discovering Britain and its rural court rooms.
MadHatter · 16 July 2026 at 09:38
The rabbit hole leads straight to Bury St Edmunds.
Sharper Than a Serpent's Tooth · 16 July 2026 at 09:36
Court of the Red Tsar? Madness of King George more like it!
TheResearcher · 15 July 2026 at 21:33
“Given the six-year term, this is a consequential decision.”
It cannot be consequential because the VC was so flattering to Munir’s contributions that she would not dare to make such a false and misleading statement, otherwise people will stop believing a single word that she says.
People who do not assume faults will continue with the same malpractices, and as he told us, Munir will continue to “contribute to the wider University through [his] roles at Homerton College and the Rokos School of Government,” which means plenty of opportunities for malpractices. For the records, I disagree with the 21 Group regarding the best wishes. Dishonest people should not remain in Cambridge, regardless of their function.
21percent.org · 16 July 2026 at 07:22
People can be good at research & teaching, and poor at management.
In fact, many academics fall into this category.
We agree with your characterisation of Kamal Munir’s tenure of the Pro-Vice Chancellorship. There was no possibility at all of progress until he went.
TheResearcher · 16 July 2026 at 07:45
I agree, but there is a big difference between incompetence and dishonesty. A person who damages people’s lives fully aware of what he is doing and still laughs in open court when he is asked by a KC if his institution has anything against one of the victims, is not just incompetent, far from that, and I cannot see how such a character does not percolate to his teaching and research.
Teacup · 16 July 2026 at 10:13
A few observations on the resignation announcement of Munir.
1. Prentice refers to “one of the most demanding periods in the University’s recent history”. This is a curious phrase. Why is it one of the most demanding periods? What has made it demanding and why?
2. As with Rampton, it is not Munir himself who has the final word. This is the telltale sign that his exit may have been less than entirely voluntary, for the person who speaks, is the person who has decided.
3. The quote from Munir contains a few clangers that may haunt him later. “I have been especially fortunate to work so closely with colleagues in the HR Division”. This is an odd statement to include when the said HR Division is up for a vote on conducting a full investigation. It also seems an admission of conflict of interest in his role in their supervision via the HR Committee.
4. Then there are the words: “five rewarding years in the role”. “Rewarding” seems a bad word to use when senior pay “rewards” are central to current concerns, and the University has failed to publish its annual senior remuneration report, which had previously implied it was Munir taking top dollar.
5. “His leadership has left a lasting legacy across many aspects of University life”. A statement we can all agree upon.
6. Prentice says: “he will continue to contribute to the University in a number of important and valuable ways” – this seems curiously passive praise – in other words, in no way at all that is currently assigned or anticipated.
7. There is no named successor. “Interim arrangements will be put in place” is the phrase used when the University does not yet have a plan, not the phrase used when a planned handover is happening. The decision was sudden and unexpected.
8. The University supplies scaffolding language but nowhere in the visible statement is there a quote from Prentice thanking him for his service. Compare with the standard institutional convention when a senior officer leaves at the end of their term: the VC’s tribute is normally the top-of-page quote. Prentice states that he gave exceptional leadership at the end, but this is phrased descriptively, not as one of personal gratitude.
Columbo · 16 July 2026 at 10:30
You raise the two crucial questions to which we don’t have answers
Did he jump or was he pushed?
Why now? Why leave with only one year to go?
TheResearcher · 16 July 2026 at 10:34
@Teacup, what you say is sound and I largely agree, but remember that we all know now that Prentice does not write her own emails and letters. She just signs them. Probably it was HR and Legal that wrote those words regarding Munir.
I cannot agree more regarding your “There is no named successor. “Interim arrangements will be put in place” is the phrase used when the University does not yet have a plan.” Of course UCam does not have a plan! They are all waiting to see what is the next scandal hitting the news. They know the scandals exist, but they do not know how many of these we know and the stage of their publication. It will be a fun ride until the end of 2026 😉
Tense · 16 July 2026 at 10:46
“Interim arrangements WILL be put in place”
is very different from
“Interim arrangements HAVE been put in place”
This implies it was extremely sudden and unexpected.
So much so that there was not even any form of succession planning.
JJJ · 16 July 2026 at 11:01
One thing is clear. A university as bitterly divided over the role of its Human Resources division cannot possibly thrive. The sooner this is addressed the better. That is why I have signed the Grace. We need external advice/oversight into what has been happening.
anonymous · 16 July 2026 at 12:24
Maybe a surprise to the VC.
But if Hudson knew that could explain her sudden return – lots of string-pulling required to appoint a pliable Pro VC replacement and terminate the Grace.
? · 21 July 2026 at 05:59
“Five rewarding years in the role”
This is a man who joined the Rewards Committee, a role for which he was not assigned, and is believed to have one of the highest salaries in the entire university.
Rewarding indeed.
Will he now be teaching courses on business communication?
David Dunbar · 18 July 2026 at 22:24
I agree you need to be polite about someone’s positive attributes but point out, when necessary, those behaviours or weaknesses which are causing serious problems; And – ‘laughing in open court when…asked by a KC if his institution has anything against one of the victims’, would be bizarre and worrying behaviour for anyone, especially if they had failed repeatedly to address someone’s wellbeing concerns. If they could not subsequently see a problem with such behaviour, you wouldn’t want them being the sole supervisor of any other staff.
David · 17 July 2026 at 08:38
I wonder if Chris Rokos is aware of this new development regarding Kamal Munir. In particular as Munir is one of the two trustees of the Rokos School of Government nominated by the University (not one of the two nominated by Chris Rokos himself).
TheResearcher · 17 July 2026 at 09:32
I already asked the University if Mr Rokos was aware of what was/is happening in POLIS before he made his donation but I did not receive any substantive reply. I can ask if they informed him about the sudden decision on Munir and wait a few more days. If they do not reply, I am happy to inform Mr Rokos myself cc-ing the relevant people in Cambridge.
Vice Squad · 16 July 2026 at 09:50
Who is on the selection panel for the new Pro VC?
21percent.org · 16 July 2026 at 10:13
Excellent question, this will tell us if there is any hope of a reasonable appointment.
TheResearcher · 16 July 2026 at 10:24
My guess is the following:
Prentice
Hudson
Glover
Browne
Peake
Nothing can go wrong with this team!
Old Schools Clerk · 16 July 2026 at 11:15
Nominating Committee
2. The Nominating Committee for the office of Pro-Vice Chancellor shall consist of:
(a) The Vice-Chancellor (or a duly appointed deputy) in the Chair, and the Vice-Chancellor elect (if any);
(b) a member of the Council in class (a);
(c) two other members of the Council;
(d) two members of the General Board in class (b), one nominated by the Board from among the members appointed by the Councils of the Schools of Arts and Humanities and the Humanities and Social Sciences, and one from among the members appointed by the other Councils of the Schools. Members in classes (b), (c), and (d) shall be appointed by the Council in the Michaelmas Term to serve for two years from 1 January following their appointment. A member in any of these classes who ceases to be a member of the Council or the Board (as the case may be) shall cease to be a member of the Nominating Committee.
3. The Registrary (or a person appointed by the Registrary) shall act as Secretary of the Nominating Committee.
OddsCheck · 16 July 2026 at 12:20
1. Chair: Deborah Prentice, Vice-Chancellor
2. Vice-Chancellor elect: (vacant)
3. (b) Class (a) Council member: most likely Baroness Sally Morgan of Huyton. If it goes to some of the other potentials I would want to a deep search check on those.
4. (c) Two other Council members: most likely Gaenor Bagley plus one of Richard Mortier / Pieter van Houten / Daniela De Angelis
5. (d) General Board A&H / HSS member: most likely Ella McPherson, but if it goes to Desai or Wyburd…
6. (d) General Board other Schools member: most likely Patrick Maxwell. If it goes to Peake that’s an odd choice given recent ET. Would have thought he had to recuse while awaiting judgment anyway (no obvious detriment from doing so indeed logically a benefit unless there were some unspecified “advantage” from being involved in the nomination)
7. Secretary: most likely Dr Regina Sachers, acting under the Council’s interim arrangements (with the formal appointment made by Glover in his capacity as delegate of the Registrary’s powers)
Thoughts?
lh · 16 July 2026 at 13:06
Abandon all hope — that committee will just elect another stooge & the damage to the university will continue
Old Schools Clerk · 16 July 2026 at 12:41
Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Office of, Nominating Committee for
The Vice-Chancellor or their deputy (Chair); [member of the Council in class (a)] Baroness (Sally) Morgan of Huyton, F, 2026; [members of the Council] Ms Gaenor Bagley, TH, Prof. Garth Wells, JE, 2026; [members of the General Board in class (b)] Prof. Timothy Harper, M, Prof. Nigel Peake, EM, 2026; Secretary: the Registrary, or deputy.
Good luck!
( ) · 16 July 2026 at 12:52
The easier question to answer is who would be protecting who, based on cases underway and their interpersonal connection. Hudson not eligible means she needs to lean on someone else. Meanwhile HODs and HOS will be lobbying like crazy to get someone in there to protect them. But these links will be easy to identify.
TheResearcher · 16 July 2026 at 12:54
Tim Harper and Nigel Peake in the same room? Well they were good friends!
https://21percent.org/?p=1608
ComradesTogether · 16 July 2026 at 13:19
Oh yes — Peake and Harper go way back. Proper trench mates from the old campaigns, the kinda shared history that doesn’t get written down but quietly explains everything. You cover for me, I’ll cover for you
Letter to Daily Telegraph, 12 June 2021
SIR – Douglas Murray has twice made unwarranted and highly personal attacks on the vice chancellor of the University of Cambridge, Professor Stephen Toope (Comment, May 22 and June 8). As heads of the university’s six academic schools, we are independent of the central administration, but we cannot stand by as Professor Toope is subject to such gross misrepresentation.
Cambridge is a democratic institution with roots stretching back 800 years. No vice-chancellor can impose their will on the university, and all policy decisions proceed through a finely balanced committee structure. While generations of vice-chancellors have doubtless found this frustrating, it is a fact of life at Cambridge.
Mr Murray makes the absurd suggestion that Professor Toope wants to limit free speech and push an agenda in which academics can be punished for raising an eyebrow at a student. The reality is more mundane. Errors were made during the launch of a campaign to introduce policies and procedures covering conduct in the workplace. The campaign website was taken down as soon as the mistakes were spotted, and the policy and procedures are now subject to further democratic scrutiny.
Professor Toope is an eminent international lawyer and experienced university leader. He is committed to championing freedom of expression and to making the university a welcoming place for our students and staff who hail from all over the world. The two aims are complementary, not incompatible. As a leader, he commands respect from across the university and as senior academics we offer him our unwavering support.
Prof John Dennis
School of Technology
Prof Tim Harper
School of the Humanities and Social Sciences
Prof Patrick Maxwelll
School of Clinical Medicine
Prof Nigel Peake
School of the Physical Sciences
Prof Anna Phillpott
School of the Biological Sciences
Prof Chris Young
School of Arts and Humanities
TheResearcher · 16 July 2026 at 13:33
Patrick Maxwelll and Anna Phillpott were there too?!?!? WOW! What a team!
na · 16 July 2026 at 19:29
The conflict of interest declaration at the start of this committee meeting would be worth an FOI request
TheResearcher · 16 July 2026 at 19:38
I can assure you that Dr Knapton would find a way to not send you the information. Early this week I sent to the 21 Group 3 FOI requests I did recently and the replies I received from Dr Knapton’s Office. Dr Knapton sent me ZERO data with the most ridiculous excuses ever. Of course, I had to remind him that:
Cambridge Legal “Sued University of Cambridge and Dr James Knapton, Information Compliance Officer, for refusing to disclose an employee’s personal data in breach of GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) resulting in a pre-hearing settlement and the provision of previously withheld information.”
And, therefore, I am not surprised that he refused to provide data associated with FOI requests. He always finds a way to not send me FOI or SAR. Yes, I cc-ed his line manager but she could not care less!
? · 16 July 2026 at 21:56
Why not post the FOI response here?
TheResearcher · 16 July 2026 at 22:15
The 21 Group is very welcome to post my requests and the responses I received. I think you guys will like to see what information I asked and indeed may want to ask yourselves. Perhaps you will be more lucky than I was!
21percent.org · 17 July 2026 at 06:00
We post one of the FOI requests. It reads
Your request was received on 23 June 2026, and I am dealing with it under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’).
You asked:
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, please provide the following recorded information for the financial years 2020-21 to 2024-25:
1. The number of claims (employment tribunal; County Court; High Court) in which the University notified an insurer and sought indemnity for defence costs and/or any award or settlement.
2. For those notified claims, in aggregate: (a) the total defence costs met by insurers; (b) the total defence costs met by the University itself (including amounts within any excess / self-insured retention); and (c) the total settlements or awards met by insurers versus by the University.
3. The number of occasions on which an insurer declined or reserved its position on indemnity (for example on grounds of late notification, non-disclosure, or that the conduct fell outside cover), without naming any individual or matter.
4. A copy of the University’s policy or guidance on when staff are indemnified by the University’s insurance for actions taken in the course of their work, and on the process for deciding whether to fund the defence of an individual member of staff who is a party to litigation.
Items 1–3 are aggregate and contain no personal data. Item 4 is a policy document.
Your request is refused under section 14(1) of the Act because the University considers it to be vexatious.
Even if this were not to be the case, your request would be refused under section 12(1) of the Act. You have requested a wide range of records that are not all collated. The University has estimtime required to determine whether all of the information is held and thereafter to locate, retrieve and extract it would considerably surpass 18 hours of staff time charged at £25 per hour, and therefore that your request exceeds the appropriate limit of £450 as set out in the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004. For the purpose of this application of section 12, the University has aggregated your three requests FOI-2026-533, FOI-2026-544 and FOI-2026-555 as permitted under Regulation 5 of the Fees Regulations so that the estimated cost of complying with this request is taken to be the total costs of complying with all of them. Your requests were received within a period of sixty consecutive working days and are requests that relate, to any extent, to the same or similar information.
query · 17 July 2026 at 06:41
Did they complete any part of the FOI? Part 4 would take seconds to comply with.
If they failed to comply with any part of the request it is basically a giant “FUCK YOU” from Dr Knapton to the regulatory authorities who enforce FOI legislation.
His response should be sent to them so that they can reply accordingly.
Reviewer 1 · 17 July 2026 at 07:14
The Response of Dr. Knapton is indeed vexatious. And you are right that this is a serious breach of UK laws and standards.
I see 5 issues with the response as provided. What is serious is not simply the flagrant refusal involved, but also, what his statements (if taken at face value) imply regarding systemic failures of basic legal and accounting standards at the University.
The five grounds are as follows.
1. First, they have applied two mutually inconsistent refusals in the alternative.
a) Primary refusal: s.14(1) FOIA – vexatious
b) Fallback: s.12(1) FOIA – cost exceeds £450 (18 hours × £25/hr), with aggregation of FOI-2026-533, FOI-2026-544, FOI-2026-555 under Regulation 5
Using both together is legally permissible but tactically revealing.
It usually means the authority is not confident either alone will hold, so they stack them. The ICO has repeatedly criticised authorities for doing this without proper reasoning (ICO guidance on s.14).
2. Ground 1 — the s.14(1) vexatious claim is unsustainable.
The leading case is Dransfield v ICO & Devon County Council. UKUT 440, endorsed by the Court of Appeal in Dransfield [2015] EWCA Civ 454. The Upper Tribunal set four indicia of vexatiousness:
i) Burden on the authority
ii) Motive of the requester
iii) Value or serious purpose of the request
iv) Any harassment or distress of staff
This request scores badly for the University on all four:
i) Burden — items 1-3 ask for aggregate figures over five financial years. This is exactly the kind of information Cambridge’s insurance and litigation function should already produce for annual budgeting and audit. If it isn’t collated, that itself would be a media story.
ii) Motive — even if you have an ongoing dispute with Cambridge, that is not a bar. The Court of Appeal in Dransfield expressly held that “the fact that a requester has been involved in litigation with the authority is not of itself sufficient to render a request vexatious”
iii) alue / serious purpose — indemnity spend by a Russell Group university is a matter of manifest public interest. It bears on how public money is used, on corporate risk, and on employment-law accountability. The ICO’s vexatiousness guidance treats this as a strong counter-weight
iv) Harassment — items 1-3 are explicitly “in aggregate … contain no personal data”. Item 4 asks for a policy document. There is no individual named, no distress vector
The University has not, on the face of this response, engaged with any of the Dransfield factors. A bare assertion that a request is vexatious, without evidence of the specific indicia, is a very common ICO decision-notice loss.
2. Ground 2 — the s.12(1) cost claim is unsustainable.
s.12 only covers time spent on: (a) determining whether information is held; (b) locating it; (c) retrieving it; (d) extracting it (Regulation 4(3) of the Fees Regulations 2004). It does not cover: considering exemptions, redacting, or providing advice and assistance.
Now look at what’s actually being requested:
Item 1 — number of claims notified to insurers, split by forum. This is a count from the University’s insurance broker records or the internal claims register. In a large university this is a quick spreadsheet lookup. It takes seconds or minutes. It is not a five-year archaeological dig.
Item 2 — aggregate financial totals. These will already exist in end-of-year insurance summaries produced by the broker for the Finance Division. The University files annual Financial Statements — insurance recoveries and self-insured losses appear at group level. They already have this information. They can share it but have chosen not to.
Item 3 — count of declined or reserved indemnity decisions. Again, a claims-register lookup.
Item 4 — a single policy document. Retrieval time: minutes.
For all four items to exceed 18 hours would require Cambridge to plausibly assert that its Insurance Section (part of the Finance Division) does not maintain a claims register or annual reporting. That is not credible for an institution of this size with statutory audit obligations under the Higher Education and Research Act 2017.
If such a claim being made by the University were true, then this would imply a far more serious failure of internal accountability and due diligence. It would mean there is a fundamental failure to uphold even basic standards for auditing, accounting and regulatory compliance. It would implicate bot internal and external university auditors for failure to complete basic regulatory protocols. Dr. Knapton if effectively arguing that the University cannot complete the request because the Legal Division /itself/ does not comply with laws on due diligence *even for its own internal purposes*, not mererly in /this/ instance but as a general practice.
The ICO regularly rejects s.12 estimates that are not underpinned by a sampling exercise or a written breakdown of hours. See ICO guidance on estimating costs — the estimate must be “reasonable” and “cogent”, not just asserted.
3. Ground 3 — the Regulation 5 aggregation is procedurally weak.
Regulation 5 of the Fees Regulations permits aggregation only where:
i) The requests are made by one person, or by different persons who appear to be acting in concert.
ii) Made within 60 consecutive working days.
iii) Relate to any extent to the same or similar information
To rely on aggregation, the authority must:
i) Identify the aggregated requests (the response does this — 533, 544, 555)
ii) Show that the “same or similar information” test is met
iii) Provide a cost breakdown across the three requests, not just an unallocated global figure
The response asserts aggregation but does not tell you:
i) What FOI-2026-544 and FOI-2026-555 asked for
ii) How much of the estimated 18+ hours is attributable to each request
iii) Why they are on “the same or similar” subject
iv) You have no way to test the aggregation without that information. Ask for it.
There is also a typo in the response — “estimtime” should presumably be “estimated the time”. That’s a drafting slip and worth flagging in your internal-review request because it suggests this was produced under time pressure or copy-pasted from a template. The generic nature of the content suggests the author did not engage with the FOI request made, or realise the implications their response would have as a statement regarding broader compliance failure were its assertions to be taken at face value.
4. Ground 4 — item 4 should have been disclosed even under s.12.
Even where s.12 applies to a multi-part request, the ICO’s consistent position is that the authority should consider whether it can comply with the request in part within the appropriate limit, or offer to do so as advice and assistance under s.16. Item 4 — a single policy document — plainly could have been disclosed inside 18 hours. The University’s failure to do this, or to offer a scoped-down alternative, is a s.16 breach independent of the s.12 point. See ICO guidance on section 16.
Long story short: This text evidences a clear FOI compliance breach. No reviewer could fail to uphold it. There is no possible justification for Knapton’s refusal on this point.
The document is primary evidence of the University acting in deliberate defiance of prevailing legislation. It potentially also indicates failure to maintain mandatory accounts and records, even within its legal division for internal use.
TheResearcher · 17 July 2026 at 07:43
I had to put up with this over and over and over. He always finds pathetic excuses to not provide the data associated with my FOI and SARs.
Knapton should not work for UCam at this stage and the reason he does is precisely because of these practices. UCam wants people like him to do it, and he has the required character to do it.
Caught · 17 July 2026 at 14:53
“For all four items to exceed 18 hours would require Cambridge to plausibly assert that its Insurance Section (part of the Finance Division) does not maintain a claims register or annual reporting. That is not credible for an institution of this size with statutory audit obligations under the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. ”
This is the key part.
Knapton has just revealed that the University is in breach of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017.
At a time when grave questions are being raised as to why the Legal and Finance Divisions fail to report its costs in the Annual Reports, and an external audit has flagged major auditing failures, the admission that they do not keep such records is tantamount to confession of guilt.
TheResearcher · 17 July 2026 at 18:08
@Caught, you are assuming that what they are saying here is true and factual! I do not trust a single word that these people say, ZERO! It would be great if multiple people re-used my FOI request to see if they would get the same answer. I doubt because I reckon that my answers are very personalised.
JK47 · 17 July 2026 at 22:49
@TheResearcher, I think the point relevant here for you is that, in order to defend the claim that they made to you when justifying refusal to comply with your FOI, they would have to admit to breaking a more significant law (the Higher Education and Research Act 2017). So now, they have to comply with your request, because maintaining that no such records exist, could simply trigger a full referral to government / regulators / police for investigation over auditing non-compliance or full-on charity fraud.
Chalice · 16 July 2026 at 13:40
Equally interesting is who the candidates might be. There still isn’t a fully confirmed permanent occupant for the Registrary, and that has been seven months now. It seems there is genuine hesitancy to pick up these roles, in fact for well over a year now.
TheResearcher · 16 July 2026 at 16:03
Wyn Evans? I am sure HR would love to have him as Chair of the HR Committee…
21percent.org · 16 July 2026 at 16:49
A relevant question is how are the members of the HR Committee actually chosen?
They comprise some of most severely compromised individuals in the whole University
TheResearcher · 16 July 2026 at 16:55
“severely compromised individuals” to put it mildly 😅
I am sure it takes conflicts of interest into account!
? · 16 July 2026 at 17:01
You say this as a joke, but objectively speaking, he is by far the best candidate for the role. No one else has proven their dedication to upholding the statutes and ethical staff treatment better than he.
TheResearcher · 16 July 2026 at 18:42
The joke was not about his ability for the job, but about the number of excuses the University would find for not choosing him.
I think he should apply! Can you imagine the panic of some people if he does apply, namely after winning the Whistleblowing Tribunal case?
New Order · 16 July 2026 at 21:29
The fact the university is so down on senior officeholders is part of the problem. It is run by HR and Legal. They have grown and grown and grown to fill the gap until they have become a parallel state within the state. If the VC finally leaves, we can at last cut the pretense of having a statutory order, and anoint Hudson / Parsons / Gardner to a joint triumvirate in perpetuo, and declare the Senate dead.
No Order At All · 16 July 2026 at 22:29
Regina Sachers more like it!
Between March 2024 and September 2026, Cambridge lost:
– 5 of the PVC/SPVC layer (Neely Feb 2024, Cardwell Jul 2024, Ferguson-Smith Aug 2024, O’Brien Sept 2025, Munir Sept 2026)
– Its Registrary (Rampton, 31 Dec 2025, with an unexplained “prolonged absence” acknowledged by the University itself before the resignation was announced)
– Its incoming CFO (Akushie, appointment revoked 11 Nov 2025 after being publicly announced 15 Sept 2025)
– The Head of the Vice-Chancellor’s Office (Gurría-Quintana removed from the public page some time between 2024 and 2026; departure not publicly announced)
This kind of a meltdown is a major red flag for any organisation.
Sachers is now jugging several hats and there are more shoes to fill.
If Vira goes, I guess that role goes vacant too.
Either way, things are going to come to a major head by start of Michaelmas, when we get:
– Munir exit on 30 Sept
– Innovation PVC still vacant since Sept 2025 (search closed 8 Dec 2025, no appointment 7+ months on)?
– Acting Registrary still in place 9 months in
– CFO appointment collapsed, Odgers running past his own scheduled Dec 2025 exit
– Head of VC’s Office silently unfilled
The 1 Oct 2026 Reporter Special will be the first time all of these gaps appear together in the University’s own statutory record of principal officers.
This is a sign of serious absence of executive leadership from the top and to say there is “no-one in charge” is no longer a figure of speech, but rather a literal description of how the university is being governed.
VC Data Processing · 16 July 2026 at 23:21
One possibility is that VC DP has seen the terrible state of the University and is trying to clear out the obstacles to reform. Another possibility is that it’s just a shambles. If it’s the former (doubtful) we should see two further PVCs and several Heads of Division and Heads of School go in the coming months.
Maybe.. · 16 July 2026 at 23:39
Well, if she had flown in a crack team from Princeton that might be true, but sadly, as things stand it just seems like rats departing the ship before it sinks. The way things are going we are looking at either a) a leveraged buyout from Peter Thiel or b) the new Burnham government placing the university in to civil service administration.
cc · 17 July 2026 at 00:08
It’s a shambles, no-one is in charge
Zhukov · 17 July 2026 at 15:27
This is like game of musical chairs in which half way through the participants suddenly realise all doors have been locked – and objective of game was not to be last person sitting, but instead, get out before building police encircled
Gott und Welt · 17 July 2026 at 00:08
Sachers is also running the West Cambridge building programme. I’m surprised she gets any sleep.
adman · 17 July 2026 at 00:21
Was that job ever advertised?
Sein und Zeit · 17 July 2026 at 14:40
No, and this raises very serious governance questions.
It is correct that Regina Sachers is currently running the West Cambridge programme. Her own LinkedIn profile records a new post, held concurrently with her existing Director of Governance and Compliance role: “Director Cambridge West project – University of Cambridge – February 2026 to Present… Responsible for strategic leadership for the development of the Cambridge West site (a campus for science, engineering and innovation).”
The previous holder of the role was Sian Nash, Director of Cambridge West Innovation District from September 2023 to September 2025. Lord Smith’s farewell message to Pembroke alumni in July 2025 confirms Nash was moving directly into the Pembroke Bursar role, and describes her outgoing title as “Director of the Cambridge West Innovation District.”
No appointment notice for a Cambridge West director appears in the Reporter, either as a vacancy advert or as a subsequent appointment notice.
Sachers is therefore now carrying (i) Director of Governance and Compliance, (ii) Acting Secretary to the Council, (iii) Secretary to the Trustees of the Gates Cambridge Trust, and (iv) Director of the Cambridge West project. Four senior roles, none of them advertised in the period in which they were added.
That is a lot of concurrent responsibility resting on one person in the Governance and Compliance Division, without following standard recruitment channels, conflict of interest checks, or a basic assessment of whether one single individual can feasibly deliver on so many independent roles simultaneously.
Old Timer · 16 July 2026 at 22:55
The problem is that internal (and external) reforms mean that academics no longer control the University, as they did when I was first appointed in the early 1980s. We urgently need a reformation to reimpose the lost constitutional foundations.
Despairing · 16 July 2026 at 23:10
Agreed. Unhappily, those who have acquired power (senior administrative class, HR & Legal) are unlikely to relinquish it. So we are stuck. We need to rid ourselves urgently of the liability that is Prentice, and find a much better replacement.
coup · 17 July 2026 at 01:07
Well how can academics “control” the university when they vote for measures via Regent House and then the Council refuses to implement them?
exCam · 17 July 2026 at 07:18
On Munir’s replacement, I think a likely outcome would be that HR oversight moves to the new COO role with Philpott taking it on for the interim. Munir’s staff culture and community engagement remits get distributed across the remaining incumbents or quietly dropped. The PVC for Innovation role has been folded into Research for this past academic year. PVC remits have often been carved up between appointments, and not appointing new PVCs is a good way to save money.
This would have implications for the Grace. Assuming it goes to a vote, you can imagine how the opposing flysheet would read: “We’re already paying for an external consultancy to advise on our professional services operating model (i.e. the proposed Registrary/COO reshuffle) and HR is in scope for that. We should wait until this concludes and the new structure beds in… or there’s no need for another expensive external HR audit, we’re already reviewing all this…”
Toussaint · 17 July 2026 at 07:57
“On Munir’s replacement, I think a likely outcome would be that HR oversight moves to the new COO role with Philpott taking it on for the interim.”
Hard to think of a worse option. The University will descend into ungovernability.
TheResearcher · 17 July 2026 at 08:23
If I remember correctly, Philpott is the ProVC who does not like idea of having a Vet School in Cambridge. It is not clear why she thinks that has any merits, but someone should ask her and place her answer here. Once we all know her answer, we can comment on if she can take Munir’s role as interim.
TheResearcher · 17 July 2026 at 08:47
On the Grace, do not worry, if they ignore this Grace, there are other collective activities planned that will make them re-think about that strategy. This Grace is the best option they have to avoid further internal and external embarrassment, and they were already told about it. Of course, they can ignore these voices and definitively crash against the wall.
Insurancepremium · 17 July 2026 at 13:42
“This Grace is the best option they have to avoid further internal and external embarrassment, and they were already told about it. Of course, they can ignore these voices and definitively crash against the wall.”
What do you call the past six months? If there were ever a car crash situation, this is it.
morris · 17 July 2026 at 16:32
Prentice is in serious trouble; she can’t survive another 6 months like the last 6.
She has a ruthless streak & has clearly despatched Munir. But, given the known scandals, I don’t think Prentice is agile enough. There are whiffs of real corruption, endless HR problems, James Orr & MAGA, all the Employment Tribunals, the deficit and all the overruns on financial projects. Also few people in Cambridge seem to like her, so it must be really disheartening at a personal level as well.
The end is near.
TheResearcher · 17 July 2026 at 17:25
“I don’t think Prentice is agile enough”
Yes, but because has been taking too many naps! Now all the scandals are around her and she will quickly run out of people to blame.
ZZZ · 17 July 2026 at 17:31
Napping?
That would at least imply occasional consciousness. In reality, she never responds to emails at all — communication is entirely one-way traffic. Reaching her is effectively impossible.
TheResearcher · 17 July 2026 at 17:43
True, but I think she reads emails occasionally. For example, I think she read the email I sent to Mr Daniel Zeichner MP and was not happy that I cc-ed her and the other leadership. I am sorry if she felt uncomfortable… Of course, Prof. Prentice is very welcome to contact me and explain her frustrations. I will gladly reply to her!
Democrat · 17 July 2026 at 18:00
If she wanted to resolve this mess, all she ever had to do was pick up the phone.
TheResearcher · 17 July 2026 at 18:14
Did you try the American or the British number? If you only tried the Office’s, forget it, no one is there. People from Old Schools “work” from home…
really? · 17 July 2026 at 22:38
“communication is entirely one-way traffic”
If only. She still has yet to write her first email to staff, even though she’s been in this job for three whole years.
TheResearcher · 17 July 2026 at 20:08
Meanwhile…
https://www.hsj.co.uk/cambridge-university-hospitals-nhs-foundation-trust/lives-destroyed-for-speaking-up-at-top-hospital-claim-doctors/8123848.article
TheResearcher · 17 July 2026 at 20:09
https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2026-07-14/doctors-raise-major-concerns-in-hospital-at-centre-of-surgeon-inquiry
Where have we seen these practices…
Samsara · 17 July 2026 at 22:14
A relief to see a scandal at Cambridge that doesn’t involve the senior university leadership!
Oh wait…
Sally Morgan: Chair of Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Member of University Council
Professor Patrick H Maxwell CBE: ex officio Director of Cambridge University Health Partners, Head of the University’s School of Clinical Medicine, CUH Board of Directors Non-Executive Director
“In February 2025, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust confirmed nine children were found to have received substandard care from the paediatric surgeon and an external review of a further 800 patients was commissioned”
“In a survey of hundreds of consultants and doctors at Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, approximately three-quarters of participants described fears about speaking up, concern around the repercussions of doing so”
Retaliatory culture has consequences for people’s lives. Children’s lives, staff lives, human lives…
… Openness and transparency save lives.
A culture of secrecy and cover-ups anywhere is a problem everywhere.
Soranus · 18 July 2026 at 11:41
I feel sorry for Sally Morgan. She has had a terribly unlucky run. She was a non-executive director of Southern Cross Healthcare from 2006 until it had severe financial problems in 2011, before the company declared insolvency the following year. Then in July 2017 Morgan was appointed as senior non-executive director of building and support services company Carillion, serving on the audit, business integrity, nomination, remuneration and sustainability committees. The company went into liquidation in January 2018 with the UK Government ordering a fast-track investigation into the directors to consider possible misconduct; though important to note that Morgan was not implicated in the findings.
Now she took up her role as Chair of Cambridge University Hospitals in January 2025, and the next month, the CUH Trust confirmed the scandal involving children receiving substandard care.
She must be wondering how she was cursed with this anti-Midas touch always to land in a new role just before some undisclosed calamity surfaces.
TheResearcher · 18 July 2026 at 11:52
Perhaps if she signs the Grace her luck may change? But even if her luck does not change, at least she can contribute to the luck of others if she signs and then approves the Grace without silly modifications, such as changing from “external audit of HR practices” to “internal audit of HR practices.”
ReverseMidas · 18 July 2026 at 12:20
Carillion announced an £845m profit hit in July 2017, causing the shares to lose around 70% of their value over the following days.
Very unlucky! And her luck isn’t changing anytime soon 😉
TheResearcher · 18 July 2026 at 11:39
https://techstory.in/the-academic-pipeline-cambridge-university-and-the-hard-right-political-conduit/
“Senior faculty members at Cambridge have raised serious questions about student safeguarding. Critics argue that when a professor uses their authority to evaluate students while simultaneously vetting them for a political party, it creates a massive conflict of interest. Yet, despite a six-month investigation, the university administration has remained silent on the matter, refusing to address the ethical implications of the Cambridge University Reform UK recruitment project operating on its campus.”
Hippocrates · 18 July 2026 at 12:14
“the university administration has remained silent on the matter, refusing to address the ethical implications of the Cambridge University Reform UK recruitment project operating on its campus”
Silence may avoid self-incrimination in the courtroom.
But in the court of public opinion, it is practically admission of guilt.
If they felt they had done no wrong they could simply state their view that political advisers of all ideologies (up to and including the far right) are permitted to supervise students at Cambridge.
But of course, they haven’t said that. They either do not believe it – or would be ashamed to state such a belief on the public record.
Alternatively, senior leadership could repudiate that position, if only in a personal capacity, and yet to my knowledge, they have not.
Do the many Labour Party luminaries in senior roles agree with it? Do Lord Smith and Baroness Morgan agree with it? Is this how they plan to welcome Team Burnham to Downing St?
Then how do civil service appointees at Cambridge – whose code of conduct enforces strict impartiality – feel about Reform UK infiltration?
Would Lord McDonald have tolerated it within the UK diplomatic service? Would Lord Woolley accept it within the Race Disparity unit? Would Sir Richard Heaton have accepted it within the Ministry of Justice? Would Lt Gen Douglas Chalmers let it pass within the British armed forces?
TheResearcher · 18 July 2026 at 12:31
I interacted with most of these luminaries and was not impressed
Ask Lord McDonald why he dismissed, without any investigation, a complaint against his favourite Fellow Professor Deborah Prentice, or ask Lt Gen Douglas Chalmers why he said that he would consider a complaint against Ms Sarah d’Ambrumenil and never replied again, or ask Lord Smith why many members of UCam contacted him reporting serious abuses and he did not act.
exCam · 18 July 2026 at 12:46
Smith refers to Prentice, then Prentice would send to Parsons and/or Gardner/Hudson. The mystery is why, at such a late point, no-one takes independent responsibility – and why they think this would not become widely known.
VCwatch · 18 July 2026 at 13:21
Chris Smith has behaved correctly. His job is to bring matters to the attention of the VC
The problem is with Deborah Prentice. She is being paid a tonne of money to carry out an independent assessment and take responsibility, not just take orders from Hudson/Gardner/Parsons
TheResearcher · 18 July 2026 at 13:40
I can only imagine that interaction. Something like:
Smith: Dear Professor Prentice, I would like to bring to your attention that I was contacted by multiple members of the University, staff and students, from different Departments and School who all share strong concerns about how the University addresses misconduct, namely regarding bullying and harassment.
Prentice: Dear Professor Smith, thank you for bringing this important issue to my attention. I was assured that all these reports are vexatious and result from personal vendettas. Do not worry, the University of Cambridge is in good hands.
Smith: Dear Professor Prentice, thank you for your carefully consideration. I noticed that you did not send me any evidence of what you are saying, but your word is more important for me than any evidence that I was sent about malpractices.
Prentice: Dear Professor Smith, thank you for your understanding. Have a lovely day.
TheResearcher · 18 July 2026 at 16:23
Having read my previous post, I can only apologise for the misrepresentation. I should have said Lord Smith, not Professor, but the good news is that the rest is exactly the same! Probably Lord Smith would finish with something like “See you tomorrow in Council!”
Herald · 18 July 2026 at 17:40
For that matter, is Prentice a Professor? Does she hold a Cambridge Professorship? Or even a Princeton one? If not, she ought to be Dr Prentice on official University business.
Hod · 19 July 2026 at 00:10
Prentice is formally a Professor of Social Psychology at the University of Cambridge.
This is purely titular. She has no research group affiliation, no teaching listed, no supervision listed, no publications section, no research projects. There is not a single peer-reviewed publication published from a Cambridge address since her 2023 arrival, no Cambridge-based research grant listed under her name, and no PhD student known to be supervised by her at Cambridge.
Peas in a 🫛 · 19 July 2026 at 12:23
“There is not a single peer-reviewed publication published from a Cambridge address since her 2023 arrival’
Sounds Deborah Prentice and James Orr have something to bond over then.
MUSKETEER · 18 July 2026 at 15:50
Cardinal Richelieu from his grave:
Chris and Deborah you are such wonderful nobodies that I wish in my time I had such insignificance people to deal with.
Former Chancellor the Duke of Edinburgh also from his resting place:
Oh boy! Lord Smith is really what I always thought- useless! As to the American Queen- Elizabeth would have been appalled! She was a real Queen, none of this fake American idiotic and clueless being!
Both Richelieu and the Duke are glad to be… dead.
King Indanorf · 18 July 2026 at 16:42
As VC, Prentice has been exceptionally naive, in a way that will damage Cambridge for a long time to come.
First, she allowed herself to be suckered by Chancellor Reeves in to assuming a significant portion of the cost of the Cambridge end of the Oxford-Cambridge Arc (Oxford did not), spending vast sums out of the University endowment on local infrastructure and construction plans. It was this naivete which resulted in the plan to close the Veterinary School, itself on prime land for such building projects. It is a primary reason why the Oxford endowment is now so much larger than that of Cambridge. This was driven by the Labour First (the name is telling) crowd close to Reeves and Starmer, whose loyalty was to the government’s planning agenda and not to Cambridge University. Prentice was delighted to laugh and smile and nod along, oblivious to the true agenda she was being presented with.
Now that the Oxford-Cambridge Arc is set to be slow-pedaled, those are now stranded assets.
Hence, the latest switch is for it to be replaced by a “Cambridge x Manchester” innovation partnership. Here’s a recent (February this year) pic of Prentice laughing along merrily to the change of focus (https://www.cam.ac.uk/news/momentum-builds-behind-groundbreaking-innovation-partnership).
It is being sponsored by Team Burnham. Make no mistake about the true intention of this initiative. It is not to save Cambridge’s investments. It is a resource transfer, asset stripping, pure and simple. Burnham plans to route infrastructure links from London direct to Manchester – not from Cambridge. To make that work, the partnership will facilitate a transfer of investment, talent and funding out of Cambridge to a new, better home in the North. There will be no Manchester-Cambridge linkage. The objective is to defund the privileged and overpriced Cambridge hub and allow it to secure a new home in city that – in every sense, has a better chance of providing a growth pole for investment-starved northern towns and cities.
As a matter of public policy, it is the right move. But Prentice, in her capacity as Cambridge VC, is being completely naive is she thinks the university will ever get its money back.
Sansa · 18 July 2026 at 17:36
In the battle plan for the next election, the East of England and Essex are considered acceptable sacrifices if required in order to retain Labour constituencies in the northern heartlands. Cambridge will be a solitary red dot in a sea of turquoise-blue; and left to swim for itself.
We wish y’all good luck. Thou’ll need it.
In the meanwhiles, have fun with your new friends from Reform UK and MAGA.
Battlebus · 18 July 2026 at 17:55
Visibly shafting Oxbridge would be a vote winner for Burnham, regardless of what (if any) tangible benefit it brings
Boomerang · 18 July 2026 at 23:46
Sounds like Cambridge could use an expert to advise them on the politics of resentment?
Election · 18 July 2026 at 18:00
Latest projection for Cambridge from Martin Baxter’s Electoral Calculus for Cambridge is here
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/
LAB 28.6%
LIB 14.4%
Green 29.3%
CON 10.3%
MIN 3.9%
Reform 13.4%
If true, it’s a green dot. Maybe Dan Zeichner should be paying a bit more attention to the chaos in the University.
Listen to Kamal Munir, lose your seat
Cambridge Zero · 18 July 2026 at 18:10
Perhaps Zeichner should be asking his colleague Lord Smith why he is getting buddy-buddy with Warren A. Stephens and shared the stage together for the recent CUSAC event.
In his time as ambassador, Stephens has repeatedly and publicly pressed the UK government to roll back on climate change and clean energy policy. Writing in The Telegraph in October 2025 he recounted that in his first meeting with Starmer, he advised him to ease “restrictions on North Sea oil and gas”.
DeSmog and Global Witness document that Stephens holds significant oil-and-gas interests, including Stephens Natural Resources, and that his $4m Trump inauguration gift sat alongside a broader wave of fossil-fuel donor money. This is the lens through which many critics interpreted his public campaign against UK net-zero policy and for North Sea drilling: an ambassador with personal oil-and-gas exposure lobbying the host government to expand fossil-fuel production.
TheResearcher · 18 July 2026 at 18:42
Is it necessary to contact Zeichner again? I am happy to comply. After all, he needs to know that Munir stepped down after his tremendous contributions to the University. Who shall I cc this time?
Zero · 19 July 2026 at 15:11
You could write a polite email asking for clarification of why Cambridge is hosting joint events and apparent fundraising initiatives with Stephens, a man who is not only a leading Trump donor, but also has vested interests in the oil and gas industry and has lobbied to water down UK environmental policy. You may include the links refeenced above (they are easy to find), remind him of the current polling numbers regarding the Green vote, and then, cc Smith and Prentice in case they are able to provide any clarification.
TheResearcher · 19 July 2026 at 19:54
My emails are always polite! Well, perhaps Munir & friends disagree, namely the most discussed Lead HR Business Partner in the 21 Group 😅
Jay · 18 July 2026 at 17:50
I clicked on the link.
Debbie is not just giggling … that is peak academic hysteria
TheResearcher · 18 July 2026 at 18:50
I think someone was reading her own first annual address as the new Vice Chancellor of Cambridge University and she found it a complete joke!
“Much of the work of the university this year will focus on people, for people are at the heart of everything we do. People are the means and the ends of the work of a university. I have talked about the opportunities and challenges of aligning the academic and public sides of Cambridge’s mission, but none of that matters if people do not want to come to work here. It is people who animate the community of scholars, and people whose imaginations and ambitions fuel the impact of the public institution.”
Jay · 18 July 2026 at 18:58
Very good 😉
I cannot remember a Cambridge VC held in such derision.
TheResearcher · 18 July 2026 at 19:11
I wonder if she is laughing now after all these scandals. Not with Munir at least!
The really funny thing is that, despite being the VC, she does not know which scandal will get to the press next. One must feel powerless…
Jay · 18 July 2026 at 20:33
Oh, it’s worse than that.
She trusted Kamal and believed his BS about Cambridge University is best employer in the UK. Debbie doesn’t know that there any scandals, let alone the huge number of them …
TheResearcher · 18 July 2026 at 20:40
“his BS about Cambridge University is best employer in the UK”
Good call! Does Financial Times know that Munir stepped down already? I was told that he got very frustrated by the fact that Financial Times decided not to do a second article on Cambridge regarding that pathetic 1st place. I hope that my multiple emails to Financial Times, where he was cc-ed and where I highlighted that ranking was a humiliation to all victims of abuse at UCam, contributed to their decision!
--- · 18 July 2026 at 23:09
More likely, she was buying BS from him about “having it all under control” as regards the ET cases, press coverage, looming scandals over funding, retaliation, police investigations etc etc. The grace vote was likely the final straw, though, one must wonder why it did not happen far sooner than that.
Eileen Nugent · 19 July 2026 at 19:44
Newton wrote “if I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”, a person can continuously see further by standing on the shoulders of those the person has continuously supported to stay standing.
Through the Looking-Glass · 18 July 2026 at 17:09
Perhaps the VC’s “Alice in Wonderland” behaviour is a reflection of the realisation that there is nobody around who can be trusted with guidance, truthful information or even professionalism.
There are no reliable instruments to steer the ship. Perhaps it isn’t even clear anymore how to get a reliable replacement for those that have been found to have failed.
There are levels of abuse of trust within the Cambridge management which are literally unbelievable.
snakecharmer · 18 July 2026 at 17:44
For someone who professes to be a psychologist, she has been exceptionally naive about human motivation. Whether in regards to internal politics or external stakeholders, that appears to be a consistent pattern.
TheResearcher · 19 July 2026 at 11:39
https://minhalexander.com/2026/07/17/transformation-partners-in-health-and-cares-review-of-consultants-and-sas-doctors-experience-of-whistleblowing-at-cambridge-university-hospitals-nhs-foundation-trust/
“This is a brief post to share a report commissioned by Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (CUH) into whistleblowing governance, as applied to consultants and SAS (specialty, associate specialists and specialist) doctors at the trust.
A low response rate and disturbing insights into the experiences of doctors raising concerns paint a dismal picture. Lowlights include a universal lack of faith that raising concern will lead to action, normalised patient safety risks due to this organisational inaction, passive aggressive managerial silence in the face of concerns raised and identification of several departments as managerial trouble spots. These are neurosciences, emergency medicine, paediatrics and some surgical specialities.”
If you change “patients” to “students” in “universal lack of faith that raising concern will lead to action, normalised patient safety risks due to this organisational inaction, passive aggressive managerial silence in the face of concerns raised” this institution could be UCam…
- · 19 July 2026 at 11:56
This scandal is very much a Cambridge University whistleblower / retaliation scandal. The hospitals are co-run by the university and as pointed out earlier in this thread is governed and advised by members of University Council and heads of house. The same practices applied to students and staff have been exposed as applied to patients, doctors and nurses, and with horrendous consequences.
TheResearcher · 19 July 2026 at 12:29
I do not doubt.
The link is also obvious in UCARMHSS, the University of Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Mental Health Student Service where “Treatment is provided by clinicians from Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust following funding provided by the universities and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Integrated Care Board.”
Some of the medical appointments with UCARMHSS even happen in the same building where the University has staff that bullies and harasses students.
These patients are welcome to contact the 21 Group and report on their experiences namely if they relate to UCam because our claims become stronger and harder to challenge by the University if more people step forward.
Uniservity Challenge · 19 July 2026 at 13:52
Cambridge University and Cambridge University Hospitals (CUH) are entirely hand-in-glove. They share almost the same leadership network. That is not a covert arrangement (it is publicly declared through Council DoI registers and CUHP’s own governance pages)..It is why almost every major initiative on the Biomedical Campus proceeds without meaningful institutional friction.
As a sign of how CUH reports to the University, consider that Vice-Chancellor Prentice in early 2026 asked Roland Sinker, CEO of CUH, to lead a review of “inclusive innovation and growth” for the University. This is striking and unusual: the University’s chief academic officer commissioning a strategic review from the CEO of the NHS Trust. It exemplifies how porous the leadership boundary has become.
The article is worth reading in full. It is a total condemnation of how Cambridge University handles
Fresh BS · 20 July 2026 at 05:07
What’s inclusive innovation and why are we paying for it to be reviewed?
🐂💩
Sinker · 20 July 2026 at 09:00
On 9th December 2025 the Vice-Chancellor announced that she had asked the then-CEO of Cambridge University Hospitals, Roland Sinker, to leave his Cambridge NHS Hospitals role and join the University(formally) from 1st January 2026 as full-time Chair of a 12-month “Inclusive Innovation and Growth Review”.
His transfer coincided with the fallout of the Verita orthopaedic-surgery investigation at Cambridge University Hospitals in which he had earlier refused to resign. He is now a full Cambridge University appointee, and no longer a Cambridge University Hospitals executive – though he continues to lead Cambridge University Hospitals-linked philanthropic activity in tandem with the formal University role. The arrangement is the clearest recent example of the leadership porousness between the University and Cambridge University Hospitals. It also showcases how the University provides a “soft landing” option for executives caught in public scandals who hold out from resigning in full.
Man Overboard · 20 July 2026 at 09:18
BBC covered this story, here is the link
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy5g0vxz7gko
“In October he said he would not resign after a report into surgeries under an orthopaedic surgeon that left some patients with life-altering injuries.
He will leave CUH at the end of the year and join Cambridge University, where he will lead a major review of inclusive innovation and growth in the city.”
Shuffling Deckchairs! · 20 July 2026 at 09:31
The initial 2024/25 review identified nine children as having had surgery falling below expected standards.
One case, that of a girl named Darcey, resulted in her leg being twisted almost 90 degrees inward after hip surgery, requiring further corrective surgery.
A senior source at the hospital was quoted in Sky News describing some cases as “horrendous” and children as “severely permanently harmed”.
The lawyer Radd Seiger, representing 25 affected families at the point of the Verita report’s publication and now over 50 families, coined the phrase that has come to define the affair: “This is not a surgeon – this was a rogue system”.
Coverups Cost Lives · 19 July 2026 at 14:02
If you want disclosures on bullying from doctors serving Cambridge University, just read some of the quotations from the report that was published (article link above).
Here are a few choice excerpts:
“I have seen colleagues whose professional lives have been destroyed by Cambridge University Hospitals for speaking up because it was easier to silence that person than address the actual issue”
“Many talked about often not even getting a response or acknowledgement when they raised issues… this silence is a form of passive aggression by managers, and is in effect a warning to desist.”
“I have no difficulty speaking up but have given up because nothing changes”
“Should the unfortunate member of staff press their concerns, the risk of active management reprisal increases.”
“Respondents described a picture of unsafe conditions becoming normalised”
“Cambridge University Hospitals prioritised financial and reputational considerations… organisational prioritisation is perceived to be driven more strongly by operational, financial and reputational pressures than by frontline clinical experience.”
“whistleblowing about serious matters which threatens organisations or senior individuals is more likely to attract reprisal”
And the final advisory, we should add take note of:
“I do not recommend that NHS staff [at Cambridge University] use internal mechanisms for whistleblowing. The likely gain for the public interest set against potential harm to the whistleblower is unlikely to justify such a course. Instead, directing disclosures to the media either anonymously or with agreement of anonymity is safer.”
TheResearcher · 19 July 2026 at 14:33
The Whistleblowing’ Policy of UCam says, “It will very rarely if ever be appropriate to alert the media.”
https://www.hr.admin.cam.ac.uk/files/whistleblowing_policy_06_04_26.pdf
Right…
doctor's orders · 19 July 2026 at 14:55
The quotation about going to the media first is from a doctor’s blog. So:
That is quite literally a medical doctor telling you that, **as a matter of safeguarding your health**, you should go first to the media — before making any internal report at Cambridge.
Cambridge may disagree with medical advisory, but then again, isn’t thst the whole story?
TheResearcher · 19 July 2026 at 15:20
Sadly, I am not surprised. I was told that Ucam could not care less about what doctors say, namely GPs of their staff and students. I am pretty confident that this one is true!
reminder · 20 July 2026 at 00:00
Not a surprise from the university that instructed doctors to include against their will a statement in their own name “advising” its own managers that they medical recommendations were not binding
TheResearcher · 20 July 2026 at 08:03
The fall of these managers has started and cannot be reversed.
Please report these incidents to the 21 Group and share details if you can.
If the incidents involve malpractices at NHS, you can contact the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) but for that you need to first contact the Cambridge MP for his referral. I can put you in touch namely if it involves managers from Cambridge University as well 😊
LSS · 20 July 2026 at 09:50
The Cambridge whistleblower retaliation culture has metastasized from the University to University NHS hospitals and now it is literally killing people.