Website ban for academic bailed on harassment charges

I sympathise with Dr Fredrics. I am well aquainted with people who have been chewed up and spat out by the University machine for trying to highlight the truth. However, people ought never to do the wrong thing for the right reason, and if he had had any sense he would have realised that a well structured and timed question can be far more incisive - and, might I add, legal - than his website. The law on Protection from Harassment is very clear on this, and the burden of proof will be on Sir Peter Scott to demonstrate Harassment of some order and magnitude. The power structures in some of these Universities is simply ludicrous, and has a tendency to enhance the probability of these kinds of things happening. I hope that changes in due course.

I feel sorry for Dr Fredric. He is an honourable academic. He has been treated very badly because he stood up and fought against corruption and deception to enhance the quality and standard of the product the university offers. Is this against the law? Dr Fredric is a very agrieved person who has lost everything because of his honesty and integrity. He raised legetimate concerns, in good faith, and followed the university procedures to maintain and enhance quality and standard of the degrees offered. Thousands of people in this country and abroad understand Dr Fredric's grievance and frustration, and support his fight against corruption and deception. The truth is more or less is out now and what is right and proper will prevail, eventually. Academics are duty bound to stand up to corruption and deception in higher education. Thousands of academics respect and admire Dr Fredric's courage and resolve.

We are familiar with numerous cases of workplace bullying in academia both in the UK and elsewhere. The 'error' Dr Howard Fredrics committed, is that he decided to fight back in a very public manner. Naturally, the system will use all its resources - funded by the taxpayer - to defend the indefensible, i.e. the elimination any academic who stands up for what is right. This pattern repeats itself over and over again all over academia. It is time for a government backed public enquiry: How much money do HEIs waste every in dealing with such cases? We should be grateful to Dr Howard Fredrics who at a huge personal cost, continues to highlight a major problem: workplace bullying in academia.

Looking at the older memos/emails on his website (from before it all blew up) I suspect Dr Fredrics might have had as strong a case against Kingston under the Disability Discrimination Act for failure to recognise and adjust to his neurodiversity in the first place as he had for victimisation later on.

To Paul. Yes, you are right. Dr Fredric might have a strong case against management at Kingston University under the Disability Discrimination Act for failure to detect and consequently make reasoable adjustment. Instead, Dr Fredric was victimised and sacked. This very similar to what happend to Professor El-Sayed at Liverpool John University. He was medically certified disable since 2000, then suffered from "Major Depressive Disorder" because of the treatment he encoutered at the unversity till 2007 when he was summarily dismissed January 2007 following hs revelations about plagiasim! Ironically, the University made a concession to the Empolyment Tribunal that Professor El-Sayed was disable under the Disability Discrimination Act since 2000. It is not only Dr Fredric but several other academics suffred for years not only dsabilty discrimination but also other discriminations which employers vigotously endeavour to cover up and brush under the mat through the so called compromise agreement with confidentilaity clauses attached! What a crime!

It is time for a government backed public enquiry: How much money do HEIs waste every year in dealing with such cases? This is insane, and in any other industry/sector somebody would have stepped in. Why are HEIs immune from real accountability?

It is astonishing that Melanie Newman writes her story from the point of view of the University, to judge from the title of her article. She knows very well that Dr Fredrics' case is far from unique. She is aware of similar cases around the UK. Like Pierre Proudhon, I have previously signalled the scandal and travesty of 'compromise agreements' and silencing of bullied academics. The sums involved in the MP scandal are risible compared to the staggering amounts being offered to academics to keep their mouths shut. The ones who stand on principle, impervious to sizeable amounts of cash, are the ones who suffer the most egregious victimisation. In my view, Ms Newman and THE are complicit in the cover-up of what is going on in academe all over the UK, because they are fully aware of it and yet choose to turn a blind eye. I wholly support Pierre Proudhon's call for a government backed public enquiry. Given the extent to which HEIs are protected by THE, though, not to mention the incestuous connections between government officials (local, regional, and national) with the VCs and senior management of HEIs, I would not bank on the impartiality of such an enquiry.

To gobsmacked. I could not agree with you more. However, you forgot to mention the quangos: HEFCE and QAA as the main players in the scandleous conspiracy to protect failing HEIs. It is a cover up! If an inquiry is launched, similar to that, conducted recently by IUSS Select Committee (students and universities), a substantive, indisputable and complling evidence would come to light to expose the cuture of fear and intimidation at other universities such as Liverpool John Moores University and Manchester Metropolitan University to name a few.

If we can effect any change for the better (if), then focusing on one case alone - however tragic such cases might be, and certainly Dr Howard Fredrics and many others have suffered and continue to suffer immensely and deserve our support - will not be of any significant help. There are studies that identify the cost of workplace bullying in general, in the UK at about £2.5 billion p.a. and in the USA at about $180 million p.a. These figures are likely to be conservative. There are no studies that identify the cost to the taxpayer in terms of workplace bullying in academia. Politicians are likely to listen to the financial argument. There are certain HEIs in the Uk that are serial offenders, i.e. the end up in employment tribunals on a regular basis, or offer significant amounts to the victims through compromise agreements. These figures are hidden from the public and yet they are enormous when added up. One again the taxpayer pays the damage. We need to keep pushing the case for a public enquiry into this situation with immunity offered to those who signed compromise agreements, otherwise the truth will never come out.

To Pierre Joseph Proudhon. You are absolutely correct. Collectivity and cordination are pivotal to expose the truth about serial offenders in HEIs such as Liverpool John Moores University. According to THE there were 27 Tribunal cases against this university over the last three years. How much the human cost? How much the financial cost? It is eagerly anticipated the publications of an important comparative academic survey on rate of dismissal per annum, grounds of dismissal, tribunal and soliciors and barristers costs, compromise agreement settlement cost etc among universities in the North West of England. However, it should be recognised that the validity of the results of such a survey would depend on the integrity and cooperation of the HEIs in question. Would they tell you the truth? Or would they lie to the skin of their teeth as it is commonly the case? It seems that victims of the corruption and deception in higher education are trying to do something, but they are isolated and their efforts are not coordinated to have the desired impact on the government to launch an inquiry. Unless this is established endeavours in this vein would be wasted and more victims would join the queue! The message is loud and clear!

Serial offenders like LJM should be exposed (and it seems they have been). The myth that needs to be demolished is that this kind of thing happens only in universities in the Northwest of England and/or in post-92 universities.

Please note that despite fears to the contrary, many compromise agreements are legally unenforceable. Employers routinely impose confidentiality (aka 'gag') clauses, which employees are fearful will mean that they will have to pay back the entire settlement amount if they talk about the case to the press or if they publicize their case on a blog. This is entirely false! The UK Courts have ruled that such agreements are unenforceable where the amount of ACTUAL loss to the employer does not reach the level of the settlement amount paid to the employee. In other words, if breaching the agreement costs the employer £10k but you've settled for £100k, then the most you'd have to pay back is £10k. And if the breach costs the employer an intangible monetary damage, something they can't exactly prove or account for, then there may be no repayment required at all. More importantly, where an employee signs a compromise agreement, he/she is exempt from detriment/being found in breach if he/she testifies in a civil/criminal case involving another employee, as when a court asks you to testify, you have a legal obligation to do so, and cannot be held liable for any damages any truthful testimony causes to the employer. http://www.addleshawgoddard.com/view.asp?content_id=1658&parent_id=1650

I find the comments of the previous poster illuminating. These gagging clauses are covering up all kinds of skeletons (including an allegation of physical violence being employed by the Registrar at our institution). I have no idea if the allegation described is true, but the very fact that the suspicion exists surely warrants investigation. A woman is physically abused in the work place and then is silenced with a buy out. This alone warrants public inquiry.

Gagging clauses are not enforceable if the issue in question is in public interest. For example, UCU Solicitor signed a compromise agreement on behalf of Professor El-Sayed !, however, Professor El-Sayed's revelatins about plagiarism at the School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University are widely publicised by the House of Common; IUSS Select Committee and enjoy the House's "Protection Privilege" because the issue of plagiarism is of interest to the public. Confidentiality clauses in the compromise agreement signed by UCU solicitor!, in this instance, are void (PIDA).

Like some other academics I have been challenging dignity at work practices in my university for years. I have files of evidence. I add my voice to those who ask for a collective approach to address what is happening in our universities. THE have done so much more than UCU to expose what is happening. UCU's lack of engagement is a scandal at both local and national level. It is impossible to find one person in my university who will support me. I remain a lone voice.

I went to a UCU meeting this week. The Rank & File members were very eager and very enthused to see useful action undertaken. The elected officials, however, were utterly useless.

No use to waste any time and energy trying to engage UCU with workplace bullying in academia. The current leadership only pays lip service. We need to rally around cases such as that of Dr Fredric, AND keep an eye on any potential for expanding and widening the struggle. We do lack - it is true - any united effective front, but the many voices will find a natural common front if they continue to be voiced. Nobody was talking about workplace bullying in academia just a few years ago. We have moved forward just a bit - still a long way to go. Keep speaking out... tell everybody about the case of Dr Fredrics AND use it as a springboard to highlight the wider problem.

"Peter" Scott and the management he has supported at Kingston have caused considerfable distress and alarm to many academics and students in Kingston University. I second the calls for a public enquiry. The institution is positively stalinist in its outlook and employs the full range of New Labour bullying tactics to silence criticism. As an aside - the psychology lecturers at the centre of the bullying of students last year have both I believe been promoted since.

Kingston is not the only university with stalinist tendencies which are alive and well, but I would like to add that UCU is as good as its members. There are two absolutely horrendous cases of abuse of academics are going on at Warwick now and UCU has taken a stand. One head of department has been blacklisted and in another case the use of redundancy procedures as a form of victmization has been condemned. However, I agree that a more decisive and comprehensive action is needed to combat this particular culture Making the cases public is a good start.

When there is a vast difference between what the head of a University earns and what the average academic in that same University earns, and when there is an even greater lacuna between what the head of the institution can exercise in terms of authority and decision making versus the academic's capacity to do the same, or even to hold the executive to account, the natural consequence will be one of centralism and, inevitably, abuse. These terrible power structures in what are largely publically funded institutions need desperate revision. I am doing everything I can in my institution to set the ground toward evening up the balance a little more. One can imagine the kind of hostility I am being greeted with as a result. I am honestly not sure what the solution is - there seems to be nobody to lobby and nobody who particularly wants to listen. I am just amazed that nobody draws the links between constitutional governance and performance. Oxford performs so well in part because everybody is free to question everything. When did questioning become such a tabboo?

Damien - I agree that the sort of Stalinist - collectivist centralisation of power and control does no-one any favours. I also agree that walking around one's institution asking people to give he power back to where it belongs is not really likely to be well received, nor have any effect. Sadly, I don't even think a peasant revolt would do the job, and workers' co-operatives only really come about when times are simply too lean for commercial ventures (i.e. established universities) to operate. About now, though, i would like to see the union taking an interest - and the key, I think, is workloads. All the attempts at time allocation data gathering and workload-and-performance assessment and monitoring are provably wrong. Not just "could be improved" but downright mendacious. We should expose that for a start. Right here, though - I'm not sure that this situation came about because of that. It seems a bunch of colleagues (who clearly had more time on their hands than we do at my institution) were doing the 'ganging up' in the first place. the subsequent hushing and shushing and sacking and so on seem to be the actions of a poorly organisation. There seem to be an actual lack of leadership here. Trying to keep a lid on it all is really a tacit admission of organisational incompetence.

Oh, just had a quick lok at the forbidden site - actually, though, it does clearly say "Welcome to the Website of Sir Peter Scott Vice-Chancellor of Kingston University" - although it becomes obvious that no VC could speak that frankly, it ought to have been clearer that the VC was the subject, rather than author, of the website.

Re Don Quixote. One would wonder why Kingston University staff members would be banned from a site ran by the Universities vice chancellor. It is clear as soon as the page loads up that it is not run by the Vice-Chancellor of Kingston University. The Welcome to the website of Sir Peter Scott Vice-Chancellor of Kingston University is supposed to be an ironic sneer,a parody.

...there seems to be nobody to lobby and nobody who particularly wants to listen... why? Why this collusion? I cannot believe the wall of silence in my university. No-one has the courage to take any action. One senior member of staff who did listen to me is now back peddling fast.

Immediately below the welcome message and photo is a section that reads as follows: "What is this site about? This site tells a story through documentary evidence, images, music and video. It paints a picture for the reader/viewer to judge for him/herself, rather than putting forth a particular point of view about relevant events, by asking difficult and important questions to consider about what it means to work and study at Kingston University." Does this sound like the kind of site that is intended to put across personal criticism about Sir Peter? Then, near the bottom of the home page, is the following statement: "Site maintained by L. J. Fredrics." Doesn't this suggest that the site is not the work of Sir Peter? How could anyone possibly be confused by this?

Aphra Behn, read Victor Klemperer's diaries and you will find out why academics behaved so badly in Nazi Germany and why they are not that much different today.

"A criminal court has banned an academic from adding material to a website criticising Kingston University’s vice-chancellor." Presumably evidence was presented, a jury deliberated and a judgement reached.

@Andy, excellent reference and point very well made. I actually attended my postgraduate studies with one of the Klemperer family members, a marvelous saxophonist and composer, Paul Klemperer, and have heard some rather chilling stories. @Aphra, do read these diaries, as it does make one realize the environment of extreme intimidation that forces academics to do things that they might not otherwise do.

Re Alt Legal Voice Where did you get your law degree from, Kingston? bail conditions are not set by a jury but by a magistrate. No evidence has been heard yet as the order banning the posting of further material on the website has been enforced before the trial. The case is also taking place at Kingston Magistrates court and will be tried by a magistrate, not a jury.

Public inquiry backed by the government/UCU/THE is urgently needed to expose the truth about the corruption and deception taking place at some HEIs that adopt a culture of fear and itimidation. The problem is not going to go away and ignoring it would be severely damaging to the British higher education internationally. Is there anybody taking note? I wonder!

Perhaps somebody may wish to start a petition for a government backed public inquiry at: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/new - if somebody starts this, we will promote it from the bullied academics blog. Make sure that the petition makes the financial case against workplace bullying in academia, and the petition requests immunity for victims who signed compromise agreements. Please can somebody start this at: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/new

Is it not a cause for concern that the 31 responses to this article to date derive from barely a dozen people, most of whom have posted more than once? The story has been posted for fully five days now. It seems as if only those who have direct experience of such situations have any interest in the topic at all. Given the alarming apathy of UK academics generally, most of whom want to keep their heads down, their mouths shut, and their jobs intact, I do wonder whether such a petition would attract the kind of critical mass of support necessary to draw serious attention to the problem. I suppose there's only one way to find out.

gobsmacked. I'm not sure it's accurate to charaterise academics' response to bullying as apathetic. I think it may be more of a realistic assessment of what we have to lose and who holds the power. In today's economic climate and given my own particular set of circumstances if I lose my job I think it very unlikely that I will get another one. I will however have a small income, not enough to pay my mortgage, but too much to qualify for benefits, so I will most likely also lose my home. The cost is simply too high. I don't want to keep my head down, I don't want to keep my mouth shut, but I need to keep my job to survive.

More likely that bullying isn't as widespread as this group like to make out. Only precious academics would whine and whinge like this.

To argue - as 'sensible majority' is stating above - that bullying isn't as widespread and only precious academics whine and whinge, is to ignore a huge volume of research coming out of many countries such as UK, USA, Australia, Germany, Canada - to name some. Such research has identified the frequency of bullying incidents, the costs to the economy and the victims, and the characteristics and patterns. More specifically, research exists that deals with workplace bullying in academia. The position that 'only precious academics would whine and whinge like this', is sadly based on ignorance. Such lack of awareness is anti-academic! It is indicative of the kind of struggle we have to deal with.

I'm not a whining and whinging academic, neither am I a whining and whinging non-academic. Just somebody who was recently forced out of his job in the public sector two and half years after originally complaining about favouritism, which turned to bullying and then high-level bullying and lies from senior managers and directors - who closed ranks and protected each other. I am also somebody who knows half a dozen others in my immediate locality going through similar experiences. I was lucky in that I was 50 on the day the trumped up disciplinary charges were levelled ('malicious intent', 'threatening and intimidating behaviour', 'causing the bond of trust to break down irretrievably', 'gross misconduct through some other substantial reason) and the employer, engaged in brinkmanship, not having anything of substance and fearing the tribunal, offered me redundancy and my pension. The irony is that the disciplinary charges had nothing to do with my behaviour, and fitted the employer's actions perfectly. I had done nothing wrong - unless fighting to make the employer adhere to their own policies and procedures (in other words exposing them as frauds) is somehow deserving of the sack. 'Sensible Majority' can only be either wet behind the ears or a bullied / bullying individual himself stirring it up for a reaction. Whatever you are, I hope you're not woken out of your stupor by being bullied out of your livelihood the way I, Howard Fredrics and several others have been. When you're an honest and able individual, trying to bring up a young family and the world of corrupt, dishonest and self-serving 'management' (ably assisted by HR) descends upon you because your ability and your honesty are a threat to them, it's a desperate and lonely place to be.

Yet another thread about workplace bullying... we are getting close to anti-bullying week. I hope THE will invite UCU to make a statement about how they are dealing with workplace bullying in academia... the approach of UCU in my university is shocking.

The power in higher education lies with the minority of an elite who are largely unaccountable, hidden by each institution's jealously guarded autonomy. This opens the way to serious abuses of power,precisely because the universities are not currently held accountable to anyone. The failings of any particular department can then be hidden behind the bulwark of the university's reputation as a whole. In social work, as an example, the close relationship between a social work department and the agency that offers placements is the university's sole concern, if problems arise the fault must always lie with the student. 'keeping agencies sweet' is the only important issue. If bullying occurs in the placement, this is commonly overlooked, and ignored. In a degree where 50% of the course is placement related, where a student can be failed on the say-so of a single individual on day 200 of the 200 days of placement, the enormous disparity in power between the university, agency and student is clearly revealed. Who cares if a student's career is ruined? Nobody.

Perhaps a lot of people don't realise that it's not just academics who are victims in the bullying culture at Kingston University. Admin/Support staff including those in KUSCO (the service company wholly owned by the university and set up by them to save money - joke) bear the brunt of stalinist diktats. I for one wholeheartedly support Dr. Frederics in his continued fight against the mindless morons who run this institution. Cripes, am I allowed to say that??

if the Law allows the truth to speak out & shine past the darkness of lies, Dr Fredericks will remain a free man if the Law cowers behinds the skirts of powerful schemers, Dr Fredricks will be confined to cold confinement & a time of hell on Earth this should not be allowed to happen Linx

@Betty Boop - write to us on blowthewhistle@sirpeterscott.com, and we'll try to help.

What appears in the website 'sirpeterscott.com' is a factual presentation of irregularities, bullying and harassment that take place at Kingston University. It is not only Dr Fredrics who says so, a survey conducted by the university lecturers' union, UCU, awarded to Kingston University the second position for being among the worst in the United Kingdom in harassing its staff. This 'recognition' means something REAL. What appears in the website is factual. If it were not, Sir Peter and / or Kingston University could take legal action for Defamation. They don't because they know that they would fail. So they try instead to gag Dr Fredrics through other means. Sir Peter tried before through a complaint to WIPO but he failed. He has renewed his attempts by instituting the present criminal charges at the Kingston Magistrates court. It is rather shocking that he has succeeded as far as he has with these proceedings. I wonder why.

It's staggering to think that these 'criminal' charges have reached even Magistrates' Court. I'd hope Dr Fredrics is cleared - and quickly. One of the tests for these cases under the law is would a 'reasonable person' declare that Dr Fredrics' actions amount to a campaign (i.e. two or more incidents) of criminal harassment? Clearly not - unless there's something we're not being told. So how could it have got to this stage? I feel there may be unseen movers involved here, applying pressure and pushing for a custodial sentence. If an example is made of Dr Fredrics, what better way to tighten the screw, protect the status quo and deter potentially thousands of bullied employees from speaking up in the future?

The 'tightening of the screw' is helped by the silence that surrounds workplace bullying. This blog has been an interesting space to observe responses to alleged bullying by academics...

Another nail went into the coffin of 'justice' yesterday when Dr Fredrics lost his 'harassment' case. It is an outrageous verdict and now time for THE to report the case properly without fear of the consequences for itself. The police have made this easier by conducting an investigation which found that the website contains nothing deemed to constitute 'harassment'. Over to you...

Since the police reported that Dr Fredrics website contains nothing deemed to constitute harassment, why did the Kingston Magistrates' court hold a hearing on 22/12/09, let alone uphold the criminal charges of harassment against Dr Fredrics? An article in the Surrey Comet about the 22/12/09 hearing reported that, according to Sir Peter Scott's testimony, Dr Fredrics had falsely alleged in his website (sirpeterscott.com) that Sir Peter had been knighted because he 'was a firm friend of Tony Blair'. I chedked the above website and there is no such allegation. I wonder where in that website did Sir Peter find this allegation and whether the Magistrates checked the accuracy of Sir Peter's claims.

Many thanks to 'sensible minority' for reporting the outcome of Howard's case here. I do hope that this case can be promoted by THE as has been suggested - those of us who have kept asking questions in our universities - refusing to be silenced - refusing to be bought off by compromise deals that silence us - are thinking of you today Howard.

Pending THE taking an active interest in this appalling turn of events, here is an update on Dr Fredrics' situation posted at bulliedacademics blogspot: http://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2009/12/whistleblower-ex-lecturer-convicted-of.html On 22 December 2009, Dr Howard Fredrics, former Senior Lecturer of Music at Kingston University, London, was convicted in absentia of harassment against Sir George "Peter" Scott, Vice-Chancellor of Kingston University for having operated a website that revealed evidence of misconduct by the University. The conviction was handed down by the Kingston Magistrates Court despite a compelling police investigation report that indicated that there was no evidence that the site contained anything that could lead to such a charge. [see URL link above for a facsimile of the official police report] Dr Howard Fredrics failed to appear in Court on 22 December to answer charges that by virtue of operating a website, http://www.sirpeterscott.com since July 2007, he had breached Section 6 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The Act, which was devised to deter stalking, was, in this case, applied for the first time ever towards the dissemination of musical works contained on the website. In addition to the songs and song parodies that refer to a number of widely-publicized scandals at the University in the past few years, including the National Student Survey Scandal, and the External Examiner Scandal, whereby staff were recorded pressurising students into falsifying their responses to the Survey in order to inflate Kingston University's position in the League Tables, and whereby an External Examiner in the now defunct School of Music was found by the Quality Assurance Agency to have been pressurised by School administrators into changing her damning report on academic standards. In May of 2009, the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) ruled on a complaint made by Prof Scott concerning Dr Fredrics' alleged use of his personal name in the domain name of the site. WIPO, however, issued a strong rebuke of Prof Scott's claim of trademark infringement in finding that Prof Scott held no trademark interest whatsoever in the domain name in question, and that Dr Fredrics had properly registered the domain name. Following that ruling, Prof Scott filed a complaint with the Kingston Police, alleging that Dr Fredrics' site allegedly constituted harassment of him personally, despite the fact that it contained no references to any matters relating to the personal or private life of Prof Scott, and the fact that the vast majority of the site did not relate at all to Prof Scott. Indeed a police report produced in September 2009 after a thorough investigation of the contents of the site, showed that there was no evidence whatsoever of any material that could sustain a charge of harassment. Despite this finding, however, the Crown Prosecution Service refused Dr Fredrics' solicitor's application for discontinuation of the prosecution, and the Court further refused an application for postponement when Dr Fredrics' solicitors were forced to withdraw from the case for reasons related to a separate professional matter on the day before the trial was set to begin. As a result of the refusal (in breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights) by the Court to postpone the case so that Dr Fredrics could locate suitable representation for the trial, and because both Dr Fredrics and one of his key witnesses both suffered from documented illnesses and were unable to appear, the trial went ahead in Dr Fredrics' absence. It was, however, only after the Court found Dr Fredrics guilty of harassment that the Clerk of the Court informed the presiding Magistrates and courtroom observers that Dr Fredrics' lawyers had withdrawn. By this time, however, the ruling was issued and Dr Fredrics' guilty verdict stands. Following the trial, a warrant was issued for Dr Fredrics' arrest for having failed to appear in Court. His whereabouts are unknown, however, a spokesperson indicated that he intends to contest the verdict through the appeals process. If, however, he does present himself to authorities, it is likely that he will be held without bail pending his appeal, notwithstanding his ongoing poor state of health, and his current lack of legal representation. Dr Fredrics is due to appear along with representatives of Kingston University at a Pre-Hearing Review on 6 January 2010 in the Employment Tribunal, followed by a seventeen-day full merits hearing in April-May 2010 of his case for unfair dismissal, whistleblower victimization, disability discrimination and wrongful/automatically unfair dismissal. The efforts by the University's lawyers to, in the name of Prof Scott, launch various civil and criminal proceedings against Dr Fredrics are seen by Dr Fredrics as thinly veiled attempts to silence his right to free speech and artistic expression, with the ultimate goal of preventing him from receiving a full and fair hearing of his ongoing Employment Tribunal case.

Might seem like a silly question, but why didn't Dr Fredericks exercise his 'freedom of speech' through a website with a less provocative title? If the legal outcome had been the same, then his supporters would have a stronger platform of attack against those they argue are inhibiting freedom of speech.