Professor Nigel Peake is scheduled to assume the Mastership of Darwin College on 1 October 2026.
His election took place before the “Cambridge Whistleblowing” Employment Tribunal, whose hearing was in June 2026, with further private hearings in July and August. The Tribunal’s subsequent judgment raises deeply troubling questions about Professor Peake’s conduct, decision-making, candour and institutional leadership. Those findings demand serious scrutiny of his proposed role as Master of a Cambridge College.
The 21 Group does not believe these matters should simply be brushed aside. Before making our concerns public, we sought to raise them directly with the Vice-Masters of Darwin College and give the College an opportunity to respond. Questions remain unanswered.
Accountability matters.
One of the fundamental problems facing Cambridge University is the absence of meaningful accountability when senior individuals make poor or damaging decisions with serious consequences for others. Too often, those responsible are able to move onwards and upwards without properly answering for what happened, while those affected are left to bear the consequences.
That cannot be allowed to become the norm.
The 21 Group will therefore be publishing a series of blog posts examining Professor Peake’s record and leadership during his tenure at the School of the Physical Sciences. We will set out the evidence, examine the decisions that were made in a. number of cases, and ask difficult questions about leadership, responsibility and accountability.
There are multiple incidents and multiple individuals whose lives and careers were affected by Prof Peake’s management of the School of Physical Sciences.
This is not simply about one appointment. It is about whether Cambridge University is prepared to hold people in positions of authority to the standards it expects of everyone else.
Cambridge deserves accountability. People affected by serious institutional failures deserve answers. And where a Tribunal has made significant adverse findings, those findings deserve to be examined openly rather than quietly forgotten.
Professor Peake’s lack of candour
One of the most significant criticisms made by the Employment Tribunal concerns Professor Peake’s evidence about the End of Contract letter sent to a member of the professional services staff at the Institute of Astronomy, Dr Gudrun Pebody, in June 2021. The letter initiated the process that would ultimately have led to her redundancy.
The contemporaneous evidence showed that the letter caused considerable surprise within the School of Physical Sciences. Professor Peake himself described the letter at the time as a “surprise” and “absolutely inexplicable”. The Tribunal also considered evidence concerning the availability of funding for Dr Pebody’s continued employment and noted that Professor Peake subsequently appeared to agree that the letter should not have been sent.
Yet, in his evidence before the Tribunal, Professor Peake described the End of Contract letter as “a routine letter”.
The Tribunal expressly rejected this characterisation as inconsistent with his contemporaneous reaction. It found that Professor Peake’s evidence on this issue was “not entirely candid”.
That is a serious finding.
The issue was not simply that the Tribunal preferred one witness’s recollection to another. It identified a clear inconsistency between Professor Peake’s contemporaneous reaction to the letter and his later account to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal also observed that Professor Peake, like most of the Respondents’ witnesses, was “very cautious” about saying anything in evidence that might potentially be detrimental to the University.
For a senior University leader, that raises an obvious question: what standard of candour and accountability should Cambridge expect when its senior officers are called upon to explain their decisions?
Professor Peake’s prior knowledge of bullying
Professor Peake received repeated warnings about serious problems at the Institute of Astronomy.
The Tribunal considered evidence concerning concerns raised with Professor Peake about Dr Pebody’s employment and wellbeing, the effect of Professor McMahon’s actions upon her health, and the potential consequences for her arising from the handling of her employment.
Professor Peake subsequently accepted in the Tribunal that Professor Evans’ concerns about health and wellbeing were exceptionally serious and warranted immediate action.
The criticism, therefore, is not simply that Professor Peake was unaware of the circumstances.
The evidence shows that serious concerns were brought to his attention and that he recognised the gravity of at least some of those concerns. The Tribunal subsequently found that Professor McMahon’s grievance against Professor Evans was retaliatory and that the University’s handling of the resulting process caused significant detriment to Professor Evans. It also has caused great damage to the Institute of Astronomy and the University itself.
The question is why, given what Professor Peake knew and the seriousness he himself attributed to the concerns, the University’s response was allowed to develop as it did.
Professor Peake’s handling of the retaliatory complaint
Another important issue concerns Professor McMahon’s subsequent complaint against Professor Evans and two other professors.
By this stage, Professor Peake was already aware of the situation at the Institute of Astronomy.
Nevertheless, Professor McMahon’s complaint was accepted for investigation despite containing limited particularisation and despite the absence of supporting evidence.
The Tribunal identified serious shortcomings in the way the process was subsequently handled. It found that an investigation by a barrister was allowed to continue for an extended period despite the absence of supporting evidence. It also found that Professor Peake and Human Resources (HR) were on notice of the potential for retaliation.
The Tribunal was particularly critical of what happened after the University’s HR Director, Andrea Hudson, described Professor McMahon’s grievance as a “counter-complaint”. No one challenged that characterisation, yet the investigation continued for almost another year before the grievance was ultimately rejected as unsubstantiated.
The Tribunal said it was unable to understand how the investigation could have been allowed to continue in those circumstances. It found that Professor Peake was aware that it may have been retaliatory, yet the investigation had continued for nearly two years despite nothing being provided to support the complaint. The Tribunal further found that Professor Evans had been subjected to an lengthy investigation contrary to natural justice.
These are not minor procedural criticisms.
They concern the prolonged investigation of allegations against an academic who had made protected disclosures, despite the lack of supporting evidence and despite Professor Peake and other senior University personnel being aware of the danger of retaliation against a whistleblower.
Professor Peake’s changing evidence
Perhaps the most striking criticism of Professor Peake’s evidence concerns his description of Professor Evans’s conduct.
At the time, Professor Peake described Professor Evans’s proposals for resolving the situation at the Institute of Astronomy as “very generous”.
He told Professor Evans:
“I’m glad that you did make this complaint because I think in years gone by, people have just let these things ride…”
He also described Professor Evans’s decision to raise the concerns as “really commendable”.
Yet by the time Professor Peake prepared his witness statement for the Tribunal, his description was very different. He characterised Professor Evans’s actions as “ill conceived”, “extremely inappropriate” and “aggressive”.
The Tribunal did not accept that this represented Professor Peake’s genuine contemporaneous view. It noted that he had not expressed those criticisms at the time and concluded that the later characterisation appeared to have been included “in order to discredit the Claimant”.
That is a significant finding.
It means that the Tribunal identified not merely a difference in recollection, but a substantial change in the way Professor Evans’ conduct was characterised between the events themselves and the Tribunal proceedings.
Overall assessment
The concerns about Professor Peake fall into two related categories.
The first are about his conduct as a senior manager.
The Tribunal heard evidence that Professor Peake was aware of serious concerns about bullying and about risks to Dr Pebody’s health and wellbeing. It also heard evidence concerning his knowledge of the circumstances surrounding Dr Pebody’s employment. Professor Peake’s response was both slow and ineffectual.
The Tribunal ultimately found that Professor McMahon’s grievance was retaliatory, that no supporting evidence was produced, that Professor Peake was well aware of the likelihood that it was retaliatory, and that the investigation was nevertheless permitted to continue for nearly two years. It found that Professor Evans had been subjected to an investigation contrary to natural justice. Professor Peake’s handling of this has exposed Cambridge University to serious reputational damage.
The second concerns Professor Peake’s evidence to the Tribunal.
Here, the Tribunal made specific adverse findings. It found his evidence was “not entirely candid” and identified a later characterisation of Professor Evans’s conduct which was at odds with his contemporaneous account and appeared to have been included in order to discredit him.
Taken together, the 21 Group considers that these findings raise profound questions about Professor Peake’s leadership, judgment, candour, integrity and accountability.
They concern the conduct and evidence of a senior University leader who is now scheduled to become Master of Darwin College.
What happens now?
The 21 Group believes that Professor Peake should, in the wider interests of Darwin College and Cambridge University, voluntarily step back from the Mastership.
If he does not do so, the Governing Body of Darwin College should independently review the Tribunal’s judgment and consider its implications for his proposed appointment.
Darwin College itself states that the Governing Body is the College’s main authority and that the Master is elected by the Fellowship and chairs the major College committees.
The question for the Governing Body is therefore straightforward:
In light of the Tribunal’s findings, does Professor Peake demonstrate the standards of candour, judgment, integrity and accountability that Darwin College should expect from its Master?
Cambridge cannot credibly demand high standards of integrity and accountability from its staff while failing to examine serious findings concerning those who occupy positions of senior authority.
Over the coming weeks, we will publish articles examining Professor Peake’s record and leadership during his tenure at the School of the Physical Sciences. We will set out the evidence in other cases known to us and ask what those decisions tell us about leadership and accountability at Cambridge.
The issue is whether Cambridge — and specifically Darwin College — are prepared to apply high standards of accountability to those who lead it.
(The image file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. The attribution is Darwin College by N Chadwick)
I would be very happy to contribute to this series. I have also contacted Darwin College independently, namely Professor Angela Wood and Professor John Nilsson-Wright, and would be happy to describe in detail not only my experience in the School of Physical Sciences, but also Professor Peake’s intervention and how Darwin College responded.
To be clear, Professor Peake has no capacity to lead others and it is striking that he does not understand that. He first needs to find himself and apologize to those whose lives he, or those he managed, have damaged.
I sent Professor Angela Wood and Professor John Nilsson-Wright an email on 13 March 2026 asking them to confirm whether Professor Peake had disclosed these impending difficulties as part of the appointments process.
Both candour and transparency might be expected from candidates for a Mastership with regard to any possible incidents that might embarrass the College.
I was surprised not to receive any confirmation or response on this point from the Vice Masters.
I was even more surprised when Professor Peake — who was not a recipient of my email — subsequently produced the email in the Employment Tribunal as evidence of alleged misbehaviour on my part.
Clearly, Darwin College’s Vice Masters have questions to answer.
Problem is that Cambridge is full of Professor Peakes
The concern is not that Cambridge has one Professor Peake. It is that the conditions which allowed these events to occur can be replicated elsewhere.
If seniority brings protection from meaningful scrutiny, if uncomfortable findings can be minimised or forgotten, and if those affected are expected simply to move on, then changing one individual does not solve the underlying problem.
Cambridge does not need another exercise in institutional self-protection. It needs a culture in which seniority carries greater accountability, not less.
The question we should be asking is: “Why was it allowed to happen, who was accountable for it, and what has Cambridge done to ensure that it cannot happen again?”
It’s like when profs at Cambridge are accused of something, the university responds by promoting them. They must’ve learned from the churches who moved pedophile pastors and priests around instead of addressing the problem of employing pedos, in positions of authority over youth. Cambridge has the same kind of problem, except they not only pay and move the pedos around but name them protectors of youth who you should go to if molested. Also the people responsible for the cover up say their hands are clean, their souls are white, and they shouldn’t be named.
Never thought I’d say I should’ve accepted the US offers, but I should’ve done. I can’t imagine any place more corrupt than Cambridge.
Looks like Cornell have momentarily taken the heat off Cambridge
https://people.com/cornell-student-alleges-frat-members-gang-raped-her-2-expelled-others-wrote-essays-lawsuit-12141236
Essays as a punishment for gang-rape is something only a senior university leader/HR person could come up with. Still, I expect normal Cambridge service will be resumed shortly
No, essays as punishment is a church thing. See my comment below.
Also read what MP Stella Creasy reported about her experience at Cambridge:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/11/stella-creasy-says-she-was-threatened-with-gang-at-university
You can’t attribute a witness statement to the witness though – I thought the norm was for legal to draft the entire batch and only ask staff to sign their names at the bottom before sending the whole package to court.
A witness statement is sworn testimony on oath
Nigel Peake affirmed (or swore on the Bible) that the evidence in his statement was true. He then proceeded to defend his statement under cross-examination in court. So he repeated these statements verbally.
Lying on a witness statement in court can be treated as civil contempt. A judge can refer this to the Law Officers, potentially resulting in immediate fines or a custodial sentence.
(Actually, Nigel Peake’s behaviour over his years as Head of School has been far worse, we just started with the Tribunal).
I am shocked by this- just like how court cases used to operate in Soviet Union. Party writes all statements and person only signs. Not how British justice should be at all.
@Alexander,
Not only does the “party write,” but in many cases it is the conflicted party that writes, while managers who know they are conflicted sign off on it. This is the real Cambridge at the moment!
Presumably the lawyers who do this — are obliged to inform the witnesses of the legal implication of signing a false statement to court prepared by somebody else?
Not sure they told Prof Prentice — who then failed to read her “own” turgid witness statement
Seems as though Darwin couldn’t find a liar to be Master without professional help from a recruitment agency
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/we-are-very-pleased-to-share-that-professor-share-7437427533769437185-Mi8F/
“We are very pleased to share that Professor Nigel Peake will be joining Darwin College, University of Cambridge as the next Master in October this year.
Nigel is a currently a Professor of Applied Mathematics, and Professorial Fellow at Emmanuel College, and Head of the School of the Physical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. His research interests explore wave motion, particularly as applied to acoustics and aerodynamics.
We very much enjoyed working with Darwin on this appointment.
Congratulations, Nigel!”
This is very odd… the purpose of using a recruitment agency is to avoid insider hires and conduct a broad search that can bring in external talent?
University used Perrett Laver & ended up with Deborah Prentice 🙁
This from the current 21percent blog post:
“One of the fundamental problems facing Cambridge University is the absence of meaningful accountability when senior individuals make poor or damaging decisions with serious consequences for others. Too often, those responsible are able to move onwards and upwards without properly answering for what happened, while those affected are left to bear the consequences.”
This is the modus operandi of UCam. You can simply cut and paste to the… oncology/CRUK scandal.
The eyes of the press are on Cambridge, they should be sorting the scandals out, not just stone-walling & promoting the perpetrators.
Thank you for this informative post. I know this is all information made public at the Tribunal, as well as in the final judgement which I have briefly perused, but I had not to date fully understood the issues raised here about retaliation and mishandling of grievances. Based on my distant experience of how things work, I always felt that there was a certain “banality of evil”. The hapless individuals used by this system to justify decisions were often rather ordinary people who had become compromised and accustomed to this way of operating, and either only dimly aware of how egregious it would appear if exposed, or repeatedly assured that “this is how we do things” and that it had never resulted in scandal before.
Responsible Persons are often exploited, they often are placed in a position in which they have to slit someone’s throat. Noone with any sense or decency would ever agree to take up the position.
For some individuals though:
“I am in blood / Stepp’d in so far that, should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o’er.”
I once commented to a HoD that I was seriously considering making a formal grievance against his Departmental Secretary for bullying. The HoD immediately responded that he knew that his DS was bending over backwards to do an excellent and fair job in difficult circumstances, and cautioned that if I made such a complaint it was very likely that the DS would be exonerated and that I would then be investigated for having made a vexatious complaint. Though, of course, if I wanted to submit a grievance, I was perfectly entitled to do so. I decided not to.
Later evidence showed that the bullying was worse that I had been aware of, that the HoD was aware of most of it, and that the HoD had been involved in instigating much of it. Central HR was also aware of a significant amount of it, but not all.
Both HoD and DS have long since left the University. The HoD was later shortlisted for a HoH position, but not elected. This happened before the current Director of HR joined the University. Retaliation via counter-complaints, and abuse of the grievance system by HoDs, is nothing new. It may reflect the poor quality of many HoDs. I would recommend reading Kipling’s “A Servant when he Reigneth.” Many of our barons lack blue blood, and are of peasant stock.
Agreed, many problems in the University arise from out-of-control HoDs, their powers need to be limited
We are aware of four current HoHs with track records of very serious bullying …
Both Heads of House and Heads of Department have terrifying power without accountability. Can think of a Head of House who received a report on his conduct and was able to have it dismissed, and several Heads of Department whose list of grievances is encyclopedic at this point, not least of all for the counter-grievances they launched to shut people up.
“Can think of a Head of House who received a report on his conduct and was able to have it dismissed”
Do you mean Lord Simon McDonald, the Master of Christ’s College? You should be aware that Lord McDonald does not understand the concept of conflicts of interest. It is very unfortunate. For example, he dismissed a formal complaint of a student labelling the complaint vexatious when he was explicitly named as a conflicted person. Incidentally, he also dismissed the fact that a Fellow of his College, Professor Deborah Prentice, was shown to engage in whistleblowing retaliation and when he was asked if she had disclosed any conflicts before joining the Fellowship of the College, he did not even reply.
Lord McDonald reminds me Lord Glossover, Master of St Machiavelli’s College (https://21percent.org/?p=2655). It can only be coincidence, though!
“Can think of a Head of House who received a report on his conduct and was able to have it dismissed”
A woolly accusation
Sounds like this yarn that will eventually unravel….
Is the wool being pulled over our eyes …
But he said it was all a stitch-up?
Things are rarely black and white.
This whole affair has become remarkably woolly, with the facts seemingly sheared down to whatever happens to fit the narrative. There’s plenty of fluff floating about, and a fair amount of fleece being pulled over eyes.
Still, the principal thing is not to get distracted by all the wool — or to lose the thread.
Two reports, I believe. Impressive really
HoH do leave suddenly 😉
https://21percent.org/?p=2746
I’m surprised there hasn’t been more written about the whistleblowing tribunal? All the attention to the Arday case distracted the focus. In my view it was a surreal “glitch in the matrix” moment when suddenly the curtains were pulled back, and the world could see the grim spectacle of the inner workings of the administrative machine.
Do not worry, there will be more written about it for sure. Remember that there will be a Damages Hearing in early 2027. The University promised to “reflect” on the outcome of the Whistleblowing Tribunal but continues with the same malpractices against others, who will be able to share their experiences in due course.
Stay tuned.
It sounds like rather a lot could be learned for those (like myself) who didn’t get the opportunity to attend. Are the statements, evidence and transcripts available somewhere? How does it work for cases like this?
Indeed, nothing is changing. The HR playbook is being implemented as before.
And the Institute of Astronomy are doing their very best not to do anything – least of all reflect on right and wrong and punish the perpetrator.
Those who will benefit the most are those taking Cambridge (or other Universities) to court or tribunal
There is now a permanent judgment on the gov.uk site that describes the institutional mindset, the groupthink, the ghost-writing, the stone-walling and the lying that is endemic at Cambridge University HR (& other university HR depts)
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a7c97d49cba0097fdd83239/Professor_Neil_Wyn_Evans_v_The_Chancellor__Masters_and_Scholars_of_the_University_of_Cambridge___Others_3307960.2023___others_FMH_Reserved_Judgment.pdf
The judgment can be referred to in other cases.
There are tonnes of Cambridge cases going through the Tribunals — God knows how the University actually hope to win any? Claimants will just need to say the disgraceful practices are already exposed in Evans versus Cambridge University, McMahon, Rampton & Prentice. And the practices are still going on. They are still doing exactly this
I have great admiration for Wyn Evans in taking this principled stand
Yes! A victory for the higher education sector but also a victory for the tribunal system as well. No more clogging up the ET process with cases that should have been settled in the first 5 minutes over a cup of tea and a few frank words.
Worth looking at Prentice’s wikipedia page to see how the events of the Summer have defined her. Short paragraphs on her research and time at Princeton, then much more material on her VC-ship at Cambridge, cosying up to Reform, Arday matter and the Tribunal
“In 2026, Prentice was one of the respondents to an employment tribunal brought and won by Cambridge Professor of Astrophysics Wyn Evans, who alleged the university had retaliated against him as a whistleblower regarding bullying and misogyny at the university.[25] Prentice gave evidence defending a letter which she said she had written to Evans regarding his grievance complaint with assistance from the university registrary, however the tribunal rejected Prentice’s evidence saying it had been written solely by the registrary and “Professor Prentice had very little to do with it, save for putting her name to it”.[26][27] The tribunal found that Prentice, amongst others, had overseen the “pattern of complaints being ignored or dismissed without examination”.[28][29] Following the judgement, Prentice ordered an independent review of “our HR procedures and practices”.[25]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Prentice
She’s ended up with some unflattering material that will define her legacy. And she still has all the problems to fix, which does not look easy.
Here’s one person who appeared at the Employment Tribunal, doing the reverse of what she said when she wrote to the Press : “…. we are providing a safe way to report concerns and tackle bullying and harassment …”
Didn’t Professor Ferran claim in open court that she had many years of “independence” acting as a Responsible Person, but fail to provide any evidence to support that claim? What a character.
Incidentally, Professor Ferran is from St Edmund’s College, where others, including Professor Gemma Burgess, Dr Alex Pryce (Senior Tutor), and Mr Kris Cressy (Domestic Bursar), seem to display a similar understanding of what it means to act independently. I can only imagine the problems that may arise at St Edmund’s if these individuals are involved in handling complaints from students and staff.
About as ‘independent’ as a one-way sign pointing straight to the Old Schools.
From the Employment Tribunal judgment:
360. We noted that Professor Ferran was asked four times in cross examination in the Tribunal hearing to confirm that at the time of making her decision there had been no evidence as to what allegations of the Claimant in the Delays Document had been false or unsubstantiated, or why. Professor Ferran, who had been an honest and a candid witness up to this point, was unable to answer that question and seemed to struggle. The question went unanswered despite being put clearly by Mr Brittenden KC on behalf of the Claimant. As it appeared that the question would remain unanswered, I asked Mr Brittenden to move on. We inferred that Professor Ferran did not want to say anything that might harm the University.
@DestroyingAngel – where is this from?
Letter to Daily Telegraph, when Eilis “Independent” Ferran was ProVC for Micro-aggressions
So many people interested in Micro-aggressions are not remotely interested in aggressions or Mega-aggressions.
I think Nigel Peake also wrote to the newspapers, will see if I can find.
Ferran was a disastrous PVC, whose reforms did lasting damage.
At the Employment Tribunal, she was asked why investigation of the Grievance took so long. Was this normal at Cambridge?
Like a good politician, she saw the opportunity to make the question all about her. “When I was ProVC, one of my actions was to introduce the use of external investigators to speed things up”
Rather ignoring the point that the external investigator, who was “guided” by the relevant HR Business Manager, took a long time to produce a travesty of a Report.
“by the relevant HR Business Manager”
Is there anyone at Cambridge University who does not know who this HR Business Manager is? For those who do, if you are aware of any member of the University who was positively impressed by how she handled their concerns, please let us know.
It would be good to rank the HR Business Managers according to their contribution to the University, and I have a feeling that this Manager would not be very well positioned on the list.
It’s worth remarking that the only person so far for whom there seem to have been consequences is Prof Kamal Munir, who has resigned as ProVice Chancellor for Community and Engagement
True. It is thus worth noting that Professor Kamal Munir may be very unhappy with the consequences of the Whistleblowing Tribunal and with how this important event has been discussed in the media, particularly by the 21 Group.
Sorry to be slow but is his resignation clearly a case of being pushed, and how do we know that? I think the consequences need to be rather more severe given all that has occurred.
Correct — we do not really know.
We are in complete agreement there need to be severe consequences against some of the senior leadership team over the serious matters of the Summer.
Those consequences will not happen without serious action from Regent House
💯 %
Agreed. There needs to be action from Regent House, especially once the ToR and membership of the investigation committees are chosen
RH came together over the Vet School, 100s of academics signed the Graces. We will need to do the same again.
The investigation committees must not be just packed with HR/senior executive types who will whitewash everything,
The PhD student Cambridge forgot
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/giulio-regeni-egypt-italy-court-case-verdict-cambridge-b3057632.html
Cambridge’s treatment of Dr Oliveira is its next major scandal (unless CRUK-Cam gets there first)
Master-elect of Disgrace College, Prof Nigel Peake, is implicated in mistreatment
Reputational damage this year has been enormous
Darwin College seems determined to compound it
Can’t wait. Meanwhile isn’t it time we watched this video again?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pizOGdQK4tE
A true classic. Peake’s performance as the guilt-ridden administrator, fretting over the body count, is a masterclass in institutional theatre.
This is one of the best frames of that video, with Professor Peake doing what he knows best and in DAMTP! How hypocritical is this?
Beast Challenge: successfully transit customs and immigration with that look on your face – and NOT have your bags searched 🙂
Bonus points if you connected in via Amsterdam or Bogota
All in good humour in context 🙂
In my view, no need for qualifiers. The relevant context here is surely the following: that when a judge has just determined your sworn evidence to be “not entirely candid” and rather intended “in order to discredit the Claimant,” then I think, by any reasonable standard, you have rightly set yourself up for a light-hearted touch of ribbing. And poking fun at those in charge is British justice by our oldest and most venerable tradition.
In my view, ribbing is the least Peake can expect.
Peake has done very serious damage to multiple individuals and has not even managed an apology. Astronomy scandal started in 2021, so you can imagine the desperate state of the place now, after a high-profile Tribunal loss.
It’s good this is his last day at School of Physical Sciences, but I am fearful for Darwin College
The astronomy scandal really started much earlier, with McMahon interfering in the management of a senior professor’s grants, then proceeding to remove those grants via blackmail (threats to make an entire team redundant) and force-retiring his colleague out of sheer spite, envy and vengeful cruelty.
Peake was the RP for the corresponding investigation and accepted as true conclusions he 100% knew could not be correct. Not only was McMahon exonerated and congratulated by Peake for the enthusiasm he brought to his directorship, he was allowed to go on the vengeful rampage which then led to a whistleblowing disclosure.
The very serious risks of retaliation were entirely on Prof Peake’s “radar” but he did nothing, nothing and nothing again, allowing the “relevant” HR Lead Business Partner to provide McMahon with all the one-on-one support required for the abject behaviour we now find documented in the Employment Tribunal judgement – which is really only the tip of the iceberg.
It’s cringe inducing. What compelled them to participate in such self-humiliation? They come across as condescending apparatchiks propagandising for HR.
This is my favourite, hands behind back, slightly rocking forward nervously and of course stressing the importance of a quick stitch-up, err, investigation
@Enlightened claims that the university dinosaurs have devolved in to chickens, but the ethology here is peak penguin!
He’s in his natural environment – flapping from side to side, wings retracted and back hunched over…
Peake, Rampton, Munir all heavily involved in Astronomy scandal
Ferguson-Smith, Rampton both heavily involved in CRUK-Cam scandal
Didn’t know about CRUK. So that’s basically all the main speakers who introduce the Dignity video? I’m amazed at the lack of insight involved in such a joint performance.
What about the Head of Gonville and Caius? After successfully closing down a world class lab based on false allegations, he left the scandalous CRUK CCC, SCM Onc and CRUK CI to be Master of G&C.
The current rumour is that the CRUK/Cancer Centre/School of Clinical Medicine litigation failed to resolve at arbitration and is proceeding to the High Court so it might be time to order some popcorn. Prepare for tales of woe where “my Whatsapp account was accidentally deleted when I bought a new phone” or “I dropped my phone into the Cam while punting my recently widowed mother to Grantchester for tea”.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/19/rebekah-vardys-agent-dropped-phone-in-sea-to-hide-evidence-trial-hears
This is a depressing pattern. The lawyers squeeze litigants as hard as they can — with the result that nothing is settled and everything goes to court. This costs the university vastly more money in the end, while grinding everyone through months or years more litigation circus. Not least of all in additional fees to the very same lawyers who provide such excellent “advice”.
Also, there’s a forthcoming Employment Tribunal next year concerning CRUK-Cam.
The Tribunal will bring into the open the names of those responsible for the horror that happened.
The 21 Group will be covering the proceedings in depth, day by day, just as we did with the Whistleblowing Tribunal.
Do not forget POLIS. BreakerMorant should be sending some updates soon, right? I trust there are already a few people updating their LinkedIn profiles because of that one, but we shall see.
You’ll be delighted to know Prof Peake is on the Board of Electors for the new Rokos gravy train as announced by today’s Reporter.
Seeing how much discussion there was here over other acts of possible misconduct, quite surprised at the silence on the patently special treatment received by James Orr, coddled by manageriate to all appearances. Not turning up at your own lectures multiple times! Imagine if a ‘DEI hire’ (so-called) had done that.
@Enough!
Well you are part of the 21 discussion too, so thank you for keeping Orr top of the page 😉
Anyway I agree, so let’s not be silent about the new details of his case!