Total page views on the 21 Group website have now surpassed 400,000.
It took nearly two years to reach the first 100,000 views; that figure is now being added approximately every six weeks, reflecting a marked acceleration in engagement.
Plans are underway to further develop the website into an even more effective campaigning tool. The 21 Group believes it has already had a significant impact, with contributions and reports from universities including Keele, Nottingham, Anglia Ruskin, Cardiff, Bristol, Oxford, LSE, Newcastle, University College London, and Imperial College London. We continue to welcome further submissions, both nationally and internationally. Please send to [email protected]
The 21 Group also considers that its work has contributed to a notable shift in the climate at Cambridge University, offering both support and a sense of hope to those affected.
Well done!
How many of these pageviews are from HR and others who track what we say here? UCam must have a dedicated team just for that… what a sad job!
Laughing out loud
How many are from the VC?
Probably this is the best resource of information as to what is going on. If she is still listening to those around her, she’s getting a completely wrong picture
The VC just needs to read the emails that are sent to her directly, namely from victims.
If Prof. Prentice is using the 21 Group to get reliable information about the institution she should run, I think it would be fair if she could donate part of her salary to improve the platform. One idea of development could be to start a weekly magazine where cases of bullying and harassment in UK universities would be published, where victims could come together to “break the silence” and professional journalists could run investigations without fears of nonjudicial gagging.
You would need to have a way of controlling false accusations. In fact, these are very common at Cambridge University & have caused many of the serious problems.
Defamation and malicious falsehoods are endemic at Cambridge University. They wreck careers and lives.
And, worse still, they contribute to re-writing the history of academic discoveries.
That is why hiring professional journalists, who could check the available evidence before publishing the story, would be necessary!
The gross defamation of colleagues in Astronomy, and how this has been allowed to spread as “another side to the story” should remind us all that it isn’t just journalists who should check the evidence before proceeding with further “publication”.
UCam will not check any evidence while these managers are there. It has become very clear. That is not their priority. One question that needs to be addressed about these defamations is who suggests the original defamation claims. Is it the person who makes the complaints or someone else in the background who used that person to raise a counter-complaint and balance the situation, namely to make it seem a clash between colleagues?
False accusations of e.g. defamation sometimes imply information about the person making the false accusations that is unlikely to be true of the person. In building an inaccurate representation of another person a person can end up building an inaccurate representation of their own self. A person advancing false accusations might think they are causing a serious problem for another person/other people only to find they are causing a serious problem for their own self.
What difference does it make whether a person has an accurate representation of their own self?
A person who doesn’t have an accurate representation of their own physical dimensions is more likely to get irreversibly stuck in a caving expedition – series of tight physical situations. A person who doesn’t have an accurate representation of their own psychological dimensions is more likely to get irreversibly stuck in a series of tight psychological situations.
@Eileen — This is a very perceptive point.
@Eileen
That’s interesting.
Sometimes the person advancing a false accusation does cause a serious problem for another person/other people. If they have backing from the university and/or newspapers, it increases the damage of the serious problem for the other person.
In a case I’m thinking about, I only see the person who was falsely accused being persecuted. I have yet to see the person/people who advanced the false accusation being ‘irreversibly stuck in a series of tight psychological situations.’ How might that happen?
Thanks
VC would have to be clicking “refresh” a lot to generate 100,000 extra page views… also these are views, right, not “hits”, so even doing that would still only count as 1 page view? Though maybe her page view(or 5-10 views assuming she read a few different threads) is somewhere in the crowd…
Well, VC does not appear to be doing anything else (apart from her turn at Bury St Edmunds, where she was the star of the show)
And apparently wasn’t very well prepared for that either (at least based on the notes that went round, have no idea how it sounded in person but seemed pretty stream of consciousness)
“How do I get out of here?”
“Why did I trust Munir? He told me everything was fine…”
@Hmmmm – yes, she really said that! She didn’t say the following remark out loud (why did I trust Munir) but I’m pretty sure it was what she must have been thinking.
Apparently Munir made no secret of his goal of becoming VC, but if that is inaccurate hearsay then he is welcome to correct the record here.
He wish! Munir is an embarrassment for all members of UCam and should leave the University, not just step down as ProVC. And yes, I already told him that directly.
I believe that if he were awarded a Vice-Chancellorship, it would likely act as a catalyst for significantly more material to enter the public domain. In other words, the visibility, authority, and scrutiny associated with such a senior leadership position could prompt individuals or groups—whether insiders, whistleblowers, or external observers—to come forward with information that has not yet been disclosed. This could include documents, testimonies, witness statements from halted Employment Tribunals or other evidence that, for various reasons, has remained private or suppressed. The appointment itself might therefore trigger a broader process of transparency and revelation, extending beyond the immediate role and into the wider institutionall context.
Let’s hope he goes for it 🙂
You may want to be explicit and add “from both current and former members of UCam, staff and students.”
Let’s hope he goes for it indeed. I doubt he has the nerve though.
@Cat
Good thinking.
It’s a common tactic of the university to take one of their favourites who has been accused of something and promote him to a position of higher authority. For victims observing these promotions it can be distressing.
However, if promotions can act as a catalyst for more material to enter the public domain then actually victims have something to be hopeful about.
The VC was clearly selected b/c she is someone who is clueless about how Cambridge or wider England works and can be controlled. She should not be underestimated for her pearls and ‘I’m a kept woman’ appearance however because you do not become president of Princeton and VC of Cambridge w/o strategy, networking, playing the long game and quite possibly being protective of certain members of the lads’ club who ought to be banned from academia.
“Is it the person who makes the complaints or someone else in the background who used that person to raise a counter-complaint and balance the situation, namely to make it seem a clash between colleagues?”
Very perceptive
HR justify their budget based on the number of “cases” they have to manage. They deliberately maximise the number of conflicts for this reason by stirring staff against each other, then never resolving anything. By banning said staff from communication they ensure they will never achieve peaceful resolution but depend on HR indefinitely.
HR create the problem, then present themselves to management as the “solution”. It is fraud.
“It is fraud”
It is worse than that. Some of these individuals clearly enjoy the sparks that fly when people are set up against each other, as well as the resulting suffering – which can lead to life-changing health conditions or even death.
They fan the flames, as if stimulated by OH reports to create even more damage. All the while, feigning concern and setting up more traps into which to manoeuvre their victims.
The perpetrators are known, repeatedly flagged as dangerous. They remain employed, un-investigated and protected.
It is indeed worse. The Cambridge University NHS scandal was appalling, but ultimately a question of negligence: there is nothing to suggest that the management intended to cause physical harm to children, other patients, or most doctors and nurses.
By contrast, there may be much to suggest that HR managers intended to cause harm to staff who raised concerns about their conduct.
That may in the end make it a criminal investigation and a police matter, just as other universities are facing investigation on variegated grounds.
They are unaccountable and they know they are unaccountable.
21pc is the only form of accountability…. that and the press. Doctor in the previous thread (writing about CUH) nailed it. Internal complaints dragged out for years only when BBC covered it “suddenly” patients had to be heard. But the same hand-wringing managers had been washing their hand of it for years and years beforehand.
True. The 21 Group & press can be more effective than the internal procedures.
This said, do not ignore the importance of reporting the issues to MPs and sponsors as well when appropriate. Do not expect that they alone will solve the problem, namely if you report as a single individual reporting on a single case. However, if multiple people report, either individually or as a collective, you are creating a record in these institutions that at some point can no longer be ignored and signal to the University that we are not blindly following their enforced confidentiality.
People who are experiencing problems in Cambridge University Hospitals already reported the issues to Daniel Zeichner MP? Please do. He is now aware of a range of issues associated with UCam, and it is just a question of time until he and others intervene directly. We have to keep pushing.
It is empirically true – just consider the evidence.
For example, HR was happy to allow Goldhill to continue having contact-time with unaware young females, even as they knew all about his proclivities. His colleagues all knew it too and did nothing. It was only when the story broke in the Times that they finally enforced separation and his removal from this role. No amount of evidence would have made them act until he was exposed as a perpetrator.
The Cambridge University Hospital scandal went on for years – years – while everyone new about surgical malpractice. The CEO knew, and endless reports were made to management and ignored. It is only when the BBC and others broke the story that they had to acknowledge fault.
This is a pattern common to all toxic institutions. They have no internal accountability mechanism, no ethical standards or moral compass. The only thing they fear is shame – the shame of being exposed for what they have done – and the consequences that come from that when good people demand an appropriate and ethical response.
@TheResearcher
You might be right but I’m not sure about Daniel Zeichner. Actions speak louder than words. What’s he done?
Most of the time politicians and university admin are mates. Two sides of the same coin.
“Think Big, Think Positive, Never Show any Sign of Weakness. Always Go for the Throat. Buy Low, Sell High” [—Louis Winthorp III (played by Dan Akroyd) in the film ‘Trading Places’ (1983)]
Some authoritative individuals, who are not necessarily old in age, have an old-fashioned, conscious/subconscious approach and are still strutting around our work corridors. Some regularly oversell their positives and undersell their weaknesses as regards people-practices; they forget humility, and some ‘go for the throat’. They have inherited or created, and are handing down incorrect, uncivil and worse attitudes, modelling poor behaviour for younger colleagues to follow suit.
Why are we often ‘cluttering’ the management ‘innards’ of our organisations with difficult people? Some lethargic HR directors and their organisation’s leaders and senior managers should be focussing on ‘fitter’ staff-management approaches. Fortunately there are many commentators, researchers and a large collection of various sector people-managers who are ‘resolutely, if more quietly’, telling us how it should be done. Many University senior managers, HR directors and Legal advisors have clearly never bothered to read or apply these approaches and the simple lesson of ‘treat others as you wish to be treated yourself’. [Descriptors taken from a restaurant review by the excellent Grace Dent]
Not always knowing what the quality of the next work interaction will be is the experience of all of us, whatever job we have. Leaders and managers need to ensure, for the sake of their staff, themselves and for the organisation’s performance and progress, that the vast majority of interactions are of a high quality.
This responsibility which goes with the allocation of a varying level of additional power, should not be minimised. From Luke Chapter 12 – “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded”, via Voltaire, William Lamb, Winston Churchill, to Uncle Ben in Spiderman- “With great power comes great responsibility” (see Quora website), these well-known, related quotes are very much appropriate in this context. [from Dunbar D. (2024) ‘So You Want To Be a Manager?’ Chptr. 1]
The Cambridge central university HR scandal is just as bad as the Cambridge University Hospital HR scandal that has been breaking since the end of last year… and if managers try to cover it up, they won’t be coming out of this looking any better than those who covered up the hospital tragedies.
There is a lot more to find out about “Sinker” and his “transfer” from CUH to Cambridge University
Thanks for the tip, will get on to it asap.
REDACTED lurks over all of this HR shit! She is evil incarnate, corrupt to the core, mean, manipulative and almost for sure criminal in her acts! I know for a fact, Porthos told me (!), that on several occasions with different victims she was told of acts of serious bullying and harassment committed by members of the oligarchy or their protegees and she simply ignored or even worse threatened the victims with potential counterclaim. She is a viper disguised as a benign snake.
REDACTION by 21 GROUP
HR have brought this down on the whole leadership and it obviously isn’t stopping any time soon.
Yes, it is all out war against the HR bandits. We will win
Once a fire has started, it will keep burning until all the trees are gone. What is insane is just how long the university let this smoulder when it was obvious this would eventually break loose
Sinker’s last publicly disclosed salary was as CEO of Cambridge University Hospitals with a salary band of £310,000 to £315,000 for 2023/24, up from £295,000 to £300,000 the previous year, with total remuneration in the band £315,000 to £320,000, per the CUH Annual Report and Accounts 2023/24.
That is quite a lot for a public servant, and a lot more than the Prime Minister to state the obvious.
Most NHS Trust CEOs receive salaries in the 100-200k bracket. The “exception zone” for star performance runs to a cap of 309,000. Sinker seems to have been at the top or just above.
Non-Executive Directors are also paid very large salaries too. Perhaps you want to examine that too.
How could he be paid above the NHS cap? I thought that was what ‘cap’ meant (but perhaps the Cambridge English dictionary has a more creative definition?)
Obviously because he was doing such a “great” job. Why ia there no clawback clause? What evidence was presented in 2024-25 to justify his “star performance”?
Everybody know who the REDACTED lady is 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Well, actually, there is more than 1 who would fit to a T to that description and I am not even sure that the lady who was redacted above is the worst. Let’s just say that the lady above is not the one redacted in my posts, but they are friends!
False allegations are now routine in Cambridge University. Richard McMahon’s is in the public domain here
https://www.brettwilson.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Evans-v-McMahon-Approved-Judgment-24.03.2023-V1.pdf
Dear Nigel [Peake]
I am emailing you in your capacity as Head of School concerning a serious matter of concern affecting myself and, just as importantly, other members of the Department. Sadly, I felt that I could lead by example in this area, but I have to accept that there are some areas of culture and behaviour that I am not capable of improving in the Institute without more serious intervention. E.g. I am very proud of the Culture and Communication work that I have led with the support of my Departmental Administrator and two Deputy Directors.
I hereby submit a Grievance under the Dignity and Work policy against Professor Gerry Gilmore due to the impact of his unprofessional, bullying and undermining behaviour towards me since I have become Head of Department. The evidence and impact of his bullying behaviour on myself and others in the Department in more junior positions needs to be investigated. I also realise that more junior members may not want to be named or even provide evidence against Gilmore due to the power imbalance. It is also possible that witnesses outside the University may need to be interviewed.
Some evidence for his disrespectful and undermining behaviour is contained in the Investigation Report and Witness Statements that was commissioned due to his Grievance against me.
Another serious issue is that in his capacity as the Chair of the Faculty Board of Physics and Chemistry, he falsified draft unconfirmed minutes of the 23 October 2020 meeting of the Faculty Board of Physics and Chemistry in an attempt to undermine my reputation as part of a grievance against me. Gilmore submitted these false unconfirmed draft minutes as evidence in an attempt to substantiate part of a grievance claim against me. This action is in breach of many of the Nolan principles, particularly honesty and integrity.
Another example is that he has forwarded email to one of his team, Gudrun Pebody, with the result that this person has subsequently verbally criticised me. He has also encouraged her to challenge or ignore Departmental policy on recovery of IT staff costs on grants. She acts with impunity since other members of the PSS staff are afraid to challenge her since she is viewed as being sponsored by a senior member of the Academic Staff who treats staff with disrespect, and this goes unchallenged. The negative effects of his line management of Gudrun Pebody is a serious concern in two areas:
(i)the negative impact on Pebody’s mental health
(ii) Pebody exhibits unprofessional conduct and undermines the head of Department and Departmental Administrator to other members of the Academic staff.
There is some evidence of (i) and (ii) in the Investigation Report I refer to above and the witness statements.
I also want to submit a Grievance against Professor Martin Haehnelt and Professor Wyn Evans concerning their bullying behaviour towards me over the acceptance of the Opticon-Radionet Pilot grant and other false, unsubstantiated accusations which they proposed to share with all members of the academic staff in an attempt to bully and humiliate ,me. They have already shared this with Angela Macharia, Prof Chris Reynolds and Prof Anthony Challinor. Just as serious, Haehnelt and Evans also failed to request that the Department underwrite Pebody’s contract and instead used the stress and anxiety caused to Pebody to claim that I had behaved inappropriately.
This false allegation appears to have been orchestrated in collaboration with Gilmore since some of the allegations by Haehnelt and Evans pertain to previous unfounded allegations against me by Gilmore. The impact of Gudrun Pebody of this has been significant, and these members of staff seem to have mobbed me rather than make a request to myself or via by Deputy Directors that her role underwritten until the uncertainty of the grant was resolved. I had already paused the end of contract process and yet they continued to pursue this issue and sent an appropriate document to my DA and two Deputies about my alleged conduct to be tabled at a Staff Committee meeting. The action would have caused immense damage to the Department since it would have normalised inappropriate behaviour and I could have been forced to resign as a result of this bullying.
Previous incidents of professional misconduct, undermining or bullying by Haehnelt have been associated with my proposal to expand the membership of the Academic Staff Committee to include senior research fellows and his actions as a member of a Departmental Lectureship Appointments Committee.
In the case of Evans, I am aware that he has sent disrespectful emails to the support team for the Faculty of Physics and Chemistry Degree Committee as witnessed by myself and reported to me by another senior academic colleague.
I have found the situation that I have been working under extremely stressful, and after a bullying episode by Gilmore in 2019 I suffered an episode of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). I have been treated with EMDR for this condition. I find that, especially when under stress, I tend to avoid confrontation, which results in feelings of guilt and shame since I have high expectations of how I should lead and support staff and research students in the Department.
I, therefore, want to make it clear that I am submitting this Grievance just as much because of the direct effects on myself and how it affects my ability to lead the Department but also because of the impact of the behaviour of the three individuals, Gilmore, Haehnelt and Evans, on other members of staff including Gudrun Pebody. I would also draw your attention to the fact that UKRI now has a Bullying and Harassment condition in the terms and conditions of its grants.
Yours respectfully, Richard [McMahon]
It was investigated for 2 years before it was conceded that there was no evidence at all for any of the allegations.
The lesson is that Cambridge is not governed by sense or legal principles. HR and University administrators who lack common sense, judgement or expertise simply defer to false rumours, favouritism, hierarchy, and whichever senior people controlled the resources. Such malicious allegations are now very common, they also occurred in some of the cases in POLIS and CRUK — and even in the Human Resources division itself. Some of these are not yet in the public domain, though the Astronomy one is, which is why I have reproduced it to show its astonishing nature.
So, if you have someone you don’t like, or are jealous of, or maybe wish to replace, make up some shit (any old shit, the more improbable the better) and sent to to your Human Resources Business Manager. You can then watch your rivals or enemies be destroyed by the University.
“HR and University administrators who lack common sense, judgement or scientific expertise simply defer to false rumours, favouritism, hierarchy, and whichever senior people controlled the resources.”
While this may well be true, and may even be the norm, do not forget that HR and University administrators can create the false rumours themselves or actively encourage you to use the rumours you know as a counter-complaint.
In this particular case, was Professor McMahon who took the initiative of raising this complaint, or was he encouraged to do it by someone else? Did he meet with someone from HR before writing this email, and if so, who did he meet with? If you know the answer, please let us know.
@TheResearcher, you are very wise in the ways of Cambridge University Human Resources 😉
Let’s say that I have a looooooong experience with them, in particular with the most discussed Lead HR Business Partner in the 21 Group.
Please do take note in particular of the raging torrent of exceptionally serious abuse of the most senior of the professors mentioned, NONE of which has EVER been supported by evidence.
This is defamation on an industrial scale, supported by the institution.
This has to stop. Full stop.
He was right when he said at the end “I would also draw your attention to the fact that UKRI now has a Bullying and Harassment condition in the terms and conditions of its grants.” But I can assure Professor McMahon that Professor Peake is aware about how UKRI deals with reports of bullying and harassing in host institutions. For example, Professor Peake was cc-ed in my emails to UKRI when I reported what happened to me in DAMTP and also knows what UKRI—whose CEO at the time was a Professor of Cambridge—did about it, despite the Terms & Conditions of the Grant having a dedicated section just on the topic, “RGC 3.6 Bullying and Harassment.”
It’s worth making it clear that the allegations against Prof Evans & the others have been found by a judge to be defamatory, in some cases they are admitted untrue and in all cases (according to the University) they are without any evidence.
It’s worth comparing with Operation Midland
Operation Midland was a criminal investigation carried out by the London Metropolitan Police between November 2014 and March 2016 in response to false allegations of historic child abuse made by Carl Beech.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Midland
The operation focused on investigation of several high-profile British citizens—politicians, military officers and heads of security—over claims of historic child sexual abuse and murder. The 18-month operation found no evidence to support the claims, and an inquiry into the police investigation afterwards concluded that the people involved had been falsely accused, leaving them dealing with considerable damage to their lives and reputations. A report of the inquiry’s findings found that detectives and officers within the operation’s taskforce had committed several errors during the course of their work, and made calls for more effective checks on allegations and accountability by police.
Carl Beech went to prison. The police officers were subjected to a police conduct inquiry.
There needs to be an inquiry into HR and its repeated failures to deal with false allegations in Astronomy and elsewhere.
It would be very unwise for a reputable institution, held to high moral standards and endowed with public trust, to make or encourage false police reports as a means of victimising actual or potential whistleblowers.
There is a scandal incoming where they did exactly that. Yet to break
F***ing hell
@21percent.org
Any idea when?
“HR and University administrators can create the false rumours themselves or actively encourage you to use the rumours you know as a counter-complaint”
We have evidence of “redacted” being directly involved in such behaviour. Not simply responding to a rumour, but actually targeting a member of staff, identifying their closest colleagues and mentors, and then instructing them to file vexatious grievances and circulate defamatory statements against the target. The target is understandably confused as to why people whom they thought of as colleagues have suddenly turned on them. It is psychotic, evil, malicious behaviour and make no mistake where those responsible are headed. If you have been following similar scandals elsewhere, you ought to have a clue by now.
We’d be interested to hear more details if you feel able to share, please email [email protected] in confidence
Now, imagine that you are from a different department, but you know about that story you describe above and in particular about the involvement of the HoD in that story, and then the University suggests this HoD as the “Responsible Person” for a complaint that you had raised without knowing that you knew about that story. How would you react? And based on your knowledge of UCam, how would the University react when they realized that you knew?
Thanks for posting Ava.
Lots of people suspect this stuff is happening but can’t do anything w/o proof. It’s good you’ve got some.
@Ava – thank you for sharing this.
Indeed, this is precisely how this scam works, and it is thoroughly depraved and highly dangerous.
The full picture is actually much worse (my experience is at a difference University though).
The process of identifying those around any given innocent academic that could potentially be used to turn on that academic is a continuous one, and in all likelihood has already been well advanced before the target has presented themselves as a problem (for whistleblowing etc), or before the target even realises that they are being targeted this way.
I have compelling evidence that this has been occurring at this other institution (which will be named in an upcoming Employment Tribunal as part of a larger case that even readers of this blog will be shocked at).
It is vitally important that all instances of this activity are compiled, where strong evidence is available, and I hope the 21Group can help with this. The more examples of this (from ETs) that can be cited the better.
Btw, this very topic came up on this blog previously. Please see the comment here (and surrounding comments) for more details of the methods being employed:
https://21percent.org/?p=2554#comment-1980
Final note – HR and senior management usually have full knowledge of all workplace dynamics and areas of friction (or where dynamics can easily be developed into ‘situations’ when required – i.e. to provide the means for them to deal with whistleblowers etc). They may even encourage frictions to develop (or at least fail to stop or prevent them) so that they can be weaponised later.
I know about this “intelligence gathering” from a former Head of Department (and other sources), who are actually a major part of this machinery (although some may not even realise it).
From post above:
“So, if you have someone you don’t like, or are jealous of, or maybe wish to replace, make up some shit (any old shit, the more improbable the better) and sent to your Human Resources Business Manager. You can then watch your rivals or enemies be destroyed by the University.”
Well this is EXACTLY what happened in the SCM Oncology-CRUK scandal. Look it up! You can very easily identify the person in question.
There is indeed a link between CRUK and Astronomy.
https://www.cruk.cam.ac.uk/research-groups/imaxt-laboratory/
CRUK seems to sit at the intersection of a lot of cases somehow. Including Cambridge University Hospitals Trust, but not only.
Before there can be truth and reconciliation, there must first be truth. This is the hardest part for everyone involved. Never lose faith in the day of conciliation, when at last, good people will finally again stand openly together as one.
The American Queen is pathetic and dangerous at the same time. Unprecedented to have a UCam post on X congratulating PM as former student, but NEVER seen to include a picture of PM when he was Manchester mayor with Cambridge VC! And of course she is displaying her stupid smiling face. Ridiculous. What the hell is a picture of her doing on the congratulating X post?
You mean this post?
https://x.com/Cambridge_Uni/status/2079179823868530947/photo/1
The post with the King is also very interested. No wonder she does not have time to reply to students and staff or UCam… The question is, did Professor Prentice told the King that she was one of the Respondents in a tribunal case of whistleblowing retaliation and victimisation?
*interesting*
Thanks for the link. Did you see the comments below?
‘Not sure he’s the brag you think he is’ (Craig),
‘You know, @Cambridge_Uni, sometimes silence is the best policy….’ (Ian Simcock),
‘Thanks for producing yet another champagne socialist’ (FAN of the Prince and Princess of Wales)
Those are great.
Of course she’s going to post a selfie w/ him. She’s into status and elevation of status. Why else did this American come to Cambridge from Princeton? Besides getting the highest pay in the Russel Group. For which there’s no justification. She completed all her education in the United States and never seems to have left that country except recently to move across the pond. If anything she should’ve been a visiting scholar, to gain some international experience and perspective, not a VC of a top British university.
The Americanisation of British university education is a bad deal. They either come in with corporate, top-down, metric-driven American models of how systems work and run the institution into the ground or they play the role of a puppet and let HR and the surrounding admin make decisions for them. I don’t know one person who ever heard of the VC before she was appointed, and it’s clear the competition for the position wasn’t difficult. Or she’s very networked.
Cambridge ought to have a British VC.
Does he ever reply her texts? I’ve had matches like that
“Andy was everything Nigel wasn’t…”
Debbie Debbie Debbie… Let Andy go. Maybe he’s just not that in to you!
And think of all the amazing times we had. ❤︎
“I will always defend the fundamental right of every British human -and alien- to
take
the
piss”
~ Count Binface
Debbie: Hey [8.02, 07-16-2026]
Debbie: Hey [23.13, 07-17-2026]
Debbie: Hey [5.05, 07-19-2026]
Debbie: Hey [22.45, 07-20-2026]
Andy: fml debs busy rn ttyl [22.46, 07-20-2026]
Debbie: Hey [09.13, 07-21-2026]
21 Group, when will we have a follow up on the great series on the fictional doings of the Masters of the Colleges? You already covered Kerris Bowles-Ottery at St Judas, Wendell Lacksworth at Slaughterhouse College and Lord Glossover at St Machiavelli’s College, but I can think of at least one new Master that deserves a story too! 😅
Who do you have in mind?
We are interested in the circumstances surrounding the departure of Dotty Bollocks, former President of Murray Edwards.
If you have info, let us know at [email protected]
I was thinking about Professor Concerned Face from Lamarck College…
This does not look good at all.
https://ncofnas.com/p/dei-fraud-and-cover-up-at-cambridge
First Orr & MAGA. Then this. More bad publicity for Cambridge and its lacklustre senior leadership team
Interesting, it reminds me a story from the Consigliere University but it can only be coincidence https://21percent.org/?p=3097
“A major plagiarism scandal is on the brink of breaking at Consigliere University. One of the institution’s celebrated young ‘media stars’, widely promoted as a story of redemption and intellectual brilliance after a difficult start in life, is now at the centre of serious allegations. Like other stories people were eager to believe, the myth has eclipsed the evidence. The Professor’s PhD thesis contains substantial plagiarism; several published papers lack supporting data; and there are claims of routine appropriation of students’ and other academics’ work. Despite this, the pro-Vice Chancellor of Narrative Control at Consigliere — invested in the cultivated image — has continued to support him vigorously. The University has retained high-profile legal representation and reputation consultants to burnish the image.”
Yes that was Arday…
What appears to many the real scandal here, is that it took Cofnas – another Cambridge fellow (until last year) who got the university in to a bit of hot water over Bell Curve-y theories (albeit, perfectly cogently and politely argued) – to call out what appears rather obvious plagiarism and frankly fantasist claims. In a university supposedly upholding the “highest standards of academic excellence”, how was any of this allowed to pass?
PhD to Glasgow professor in 5 years; first publication to professor in three years. Extremely unusual and very likely unprecedented except in mathematics. Without a good explanation an obvious red flag.
One naive question: Why wasn’t this story published in a major national newspaper?
Is it possible that there was some form of gagging by the University? If so, what was their argument to prevent the release of the information? This is concerning because it reminds me another case at Consigliere University! (https://21percent.org/?p=2723)
And I thought we had free speech at UCam…
I was wondering the same thing!
It’s interesting to see what stories are gagged and which are published if not encouraged by the University.