Lecturer 'intended to harass' v-c, court finds

Thank you, Melanie for reporting the fact that there was compelling evidence of my innocence. However, what the story fails to report is that my human rights were trampled upon as no others have been in recent memory in Britain. My solicitors were forced to withdraw the day before trial, due to an unforseen conflict of interest, and though an application to the Court was made in good time to postpone the trial to allow a reasonable period of time for me to secure new representation, as well as on the grounds that both my key witness and I were extremely ill, with copious medical documentation provided, the Court decided in an unprecedented fashion to reject my application. In other words, the Trial went forward in my absence, without my having right to legal representation, in direct breach of my rights under article 6 of the ECHR. Since then the police have raided my house repeatedly in the middle of the night and at other times, traumatizing my wife, all in an effort to apprehend me. Surely the police ought to have better things to do than to spend public resources to bring a purveyor of proven truthful and non-harassing free speech (as shown in the police report) to "justice?" What on earth has happened to Britain?

The simple fact that a man was convicted “in his absence” does not make him guilty of any crime. Moreover openly objecting to acts of discrimination, harassment, civil right abuses (or even the afore publicized alleged acts of anti-Semitism), does not equate to harassment or retaliation, nor criminal act of any kind.
Those with positions in authority, have an inherit responsibility and obligatory duty to their public, to act responsibly and respectfully, and in honor and respect to the titles they hold. For me it is down right ‘scandalous’ for a Knight of any realm, to present himself as any less than that.
Further the action(s) taken on his behalf, illuminate badly, presenting this Knight in such light to the public, that would make an everyday citizen think there is some manipulation of the jurisdictional system in bias toward the Knight, for sake of title, and in retaliation against someone whom he himself had (allegedly) outwardly offended in the first place (not to mention creating potential repercussions such as heightened racial tensions and concerns).
For any respectable person, (much less one endowed or imbued with the power or authority), it is expressly disdainful and distasteful that any person of title openly demonstrate a compulsive need to continue in every way imaginable, to persist in (allegedly) violating, bending or twisting the applications of law and order, as they are applicable to the Civil Rights of a nation’s people. Moreover, Counsel as agent for such a one, thereby (allegedly) endorsing the misuse of law (by its own alleged perpetuation of sustained abuses) as a further instrument of oppression.
I am saddened that this has happened in this new century, and am appalled at the immature behavior of great many number of adults in this instant case.
As a last comment, I note my own personal embarrassment for the Crown, that a man of title and therefore servant to his nation, has entertained his own interests so far above that of his nation and his people and at the expense of one mere man.

I am ashamed and dismayed by this assault on Dr Fredrics. This is a compelling case where hard earned dollars are used to persecute an individual for expression. This was NOT as harrassment as the police clearly state. Have we gone overly sensitive in our old age where political satire in comic form is approved in newspapers but blogging is not?
I am afraid England has regressed to times earlier than the occupation of the 13 colonies where witch-hunts were prevalent. I pray that some meeting of the collective minds out there will get the case revisited and in a calmer, more progressive and objective manner and demonstrate Dr. Fredrics innocent as other sources already state - let it be recorded properly.

Dr. Fredrics is an innocent man. In the US we have a document called the "Bill of Rights" that protects freedom of speach and expression. Guess those Brits need a lecture in American History.

www.harveymarsattorney.com

I urge all those who read this article to consult the sirpeterscott website in question and HONESTLY ask themselves the question: "is there anything on this site that could even remotely be construed as harassment?" If the answer, as I expect, is a resounding and derisive "no", please bombard the Prime Minister with emails and letters demanding the withdrawal of all charges against Dr Fredrics. Freedom of expression in this country is at risk as never before.

I have had the pleasure of knowing the very talented Dr. Fredrics for 25 years. He is a man of great personal and professional integrity, honesty and compassion, who would never harass or harm anyone. He also has the courage to stand up for what he believes is right and to speak out against injustice. Evidently, that is a problem in Britain. Peter Scott was harassed by a website? Wow, technology must really be extraordinarily advanced in the U.K. What did the website do, leap off the screen and bite him on the nose? It is Dr. Fredrics and his wife who have been threatened, harassed and abused. They are owed an enormous apology by the University of Kingston for antisemitism, by the police for terrorism, and by the British court system for bias, disregarding exculpatory evidence, and blatant stupidity. I guess being titled in Britain affords one some outrageous advantages over the falsely accused. Do they still wear those wigs in court? Perhaps they somehow overheat their heads, resulting in brain damage. How else could they so readily convict an obviously innocent man? My shock over this incident made me realize that I have taken for granted the freedoms and protections which we enjoy in the United States. Evidently, the justice system in Britain is as scary as their cooking.

How on earth can a Court disregard the fact that an accused person has no legal representation against their consent and beyond their control?
How can the court disregard solid medical evidence that the defendant is too ill to appear in court?

Otherwuise difficult to make out the profile of a complex case. But the website appesrs to just publish original source documents and state opinions. I did not see anything offensive. The complainant has not been accused of child abuse or rape or anything like that. There are clearly heated feelings and both sides may feel agrieved but legal harassment is not at issue.

I have followed this case with some interest over the past few years, as Dr. Frederics lost his employment under similar circumstances to myself. He is a talented, caring and superb educator, whose only fault was to be a true professional in his work as a lecturer and musician. He cared about his work and students, and as a consequence lost his role as a lecturer.

The circumstances in which he was convicted can only be described as a total pharce. What has happened to justice in this country? What has happened to freedom of speech in this country, in which Great Britain once prided itself?

Dr. Frederics is an artist and musician, whose talents would benefit many students and individuals under his tuition. Surely, he has a right to have the freedom to compose, perform protest as he choses, surely as individuals we all have. This case has sinister implications to all of us who are performers, creators, and artists. The heavy hand of censorship hovers above us all.

Something isn't quite right here. After a "compelling police report that indicated there was no evidence that the site contained anything that could lead to such a charge" and the independent findings that the "sites listed do not contain content that is consistent with any harassment", how can a court find somebody guilty?
Quite clearly the court has disregarded the evidence. One is left wondering also why Dr Frederics was tried in his absence.
It seems there is more than a whiff of harrassment, but not by Dr Frederics.
Is it something to do with the old boys network having influence with the judiciary?
I think history will judge the judgement. Meantime, what can an innocent man do to clear his name when the evidence is in his favour, but the judgement has gone against the evidence?

For a court to decide in a person's absence, when their legal counsel was not present in their defence, that an individual is guilty is plain wrong. There should be a retrial, and asap. 1997 Harassment Laws are out of touch with an Internet world.

A very worrying development. Surely if anyone believes that defamatory statments are being published about them then the appropriate course of action is for them to sue for libel in the civil courts where proper consideration can be given to whether the statments made are true or not. The right of each individuals to freedom of speechi is clearly under attack if the publication of statments (which are not in themselves criminal) by an individual are to be summarily dealt with by the criminal courts. .

@Dr Howard Fredrics - I haven't followed your case in detail but you do seem to have had a tough time. On a recent thread someone suggested you contact the blog Harry's Place with a view to posting a guest post on your experiences. Have you also thought of contacting Engage?

Absolutely insane - English (British?) justice gone mad! ...Bare in mind the objective here, defined in a classic article entitled 'The Conditions of Successful Degradation Ceremonies' as 'the ritual of destruction of the person denounced'. - Quoted from 'Eliminating Professors' by Kenneth Westhues. The only thing Dr. Fredrics is guilty of, is taking on against all odds the system that sustains workplace bullying. It is extremely worrying that not one person in place of authority, no politician, no MP, has stepped in to question how this particular University is wasting taxpayer money to pursue a vendetta against a lecturer who lost so much. Shame! What can we do? Spread the word. The world needs to know about this injustice. Only increased public pressure may cause some sanity to re-appear. Shame Kingston, shame. Shame Sir Peter Scott, shame.

My understanding of the criminal process is limited, but do courts have a choice in convincing somebody if they simply do not show up for the verdict? I am not sure about that one. I find it very difficult to believe that there is a massive conspiracy against an academic (really - there are bigger people to launch conspiracies against). Dr Frederics should respect the legal decision and turn himself in, less his wife's life be entirely ruined as his has been. However, I do hope Sir Peter Scott is pleased with himself - instead of being mature enough to allow the criticism to continue, he chose this legal route which has ruined a man's life and has probably cost the tax payer a huge sum of money. The clap trap about 'harassment' I simply do not buy - if Sir Peter Scott cannot face the prospect of being confronted in the street, then he should consider the plight of those among us who have been physically attacked in the street and have had no Harassment Act or even known aggressor against whom to seek justice. This is all in very poor taste.

Supposed to say "in convicting somebody" - typo.

The HPA 1997 is a law that was meant to protect individuals from stalkers. It came into place because of gross mishandling by this nations police force where victims (women at the time) could not be protected under the law from terror or injury from psychotic (men at the time). Prior to this act the law required that an actual act of violence be perpetrated before action could be taken against the perpetrator. Sadly it took a few rather predictable deaths (women of course) before this act came into existence as is often the case with changes in the law.

How galling now to see that this law has been hijacked by a Knight of the realm and the British legal system to break a decent and honest man, stop him from earning a living and cause him to flee in fear of his liberty. I am no expert at law but as I understand it to harrass someone you have to be actively involved in doing something to them: making phone calls, sending letters, sending emails, following them around. How on earth could posting a website (the intended purpose of which is to bring into the public awareness alleged wrong doings in one of our educational establishments) be termed as harrasment. It is not an aggressive involvement it is a passive one. You have to logon on and read a website it does not present itself under your nose. By this reasoning can I claim that I am being harrassed by my TV because it keeps trying to sell me wrinkle creams or anti fat pills. Take it step further am I being harrassed by the news which brings me tales of violence and hatred (purportedly) from peoples around the world. No of course not the response would be to tell me to change the channel or turn it off. Sir Peter, George, Alf whatever his flippin name is has the same choices. He didn't have to read that website and could have spared himself the embarassment and humiliation. Another question here is since when does causing someone to feel embarassed and humiliated a crime. Especially when the said person holds public office and should be held up to public scrutiny, embarassment and humiliation are the perfect tools for realing in the overblown egos of our ruling classes. Of course the chinless one has completely side stepped the real issue which is whether or not those things are happening. Did you know that the shiney suited one spent £4000 pounds worth of Uni money (tax payers money actually which is its source) on trying to get this site closed because he felt his name was a 'trade mark'. What arrogance.

The police report made note that after investigation there was no evidence to prove that this website was harrassing anyone, so why did the CPA decide to prosecute anyway. Another misuse of tax payers money). Even more peculiar that they decided to press on knowing that Howard Fredrics was unrepresented due to a last minute problem with his legal team.

This couldn't possibly be a case could it that the legal system has capitulated in favour of one man just because he has a Knighthood. No surely it couldn't be that such a person would have so much influence in our legal system. Surely Dr Fredrics is not being punished because he had the affront to question practices adopted by this Uni because if he is I don't hold out much hope for this country. Our educational system has been corrupted by the bean counters, please don't let our legal system fall prey to them as well.

The Bullied Academics blog has absolutely nothing to do with Dr Howard Fredrics. All material posted on our blog is already in the public domain and we rarely comment on posts. We simply disseminate info and moderate comments from our readers. If any comments on our blog are untrue, we are happy to moderate them. We have received no such request so far from 'Mills and Reeve'.

Lori - be that as it may, your husband is not doing himself any favours by evading the authorities.

The judge needs her arse kicking and the judgment needs to be appealed and reversed quickly - this deserves to go stratospheric

The adversarial legal system leaves very little space for ethical conduct. Adversarial means "win by any means", even if the other party is ill and absent, or disabled. Disabled people, in particular, get a very poor deal because there is NO mechanism to assist a person with a mental illness that impairs his ability to be a litigant in person - legally one has either Full capacity, or no capacity at all (like a person in a coma). If one has no capacity the court may appoint the Office of the Official Solicitor to act and take decisions INSTEAD of the person himself.
This is rather like telling a blind man that you will not help him shop at Tesco, and that he should give you the money and you will, at his expense, buy whatever groceries you see fit. This fits with a very extremely antiquated model of disability, in which disabled people were seen as completely useless and entirely unable to work or function at all.
Today we realize that disabled people can work and function in society, with appropriate assistance. Assistance that is entirely unavailable in Court. This is Social Exclusion of disabled people at it worst.
I know, because I am a Disabled Person involved in a Disability Discrimination suit against Kingston University and more than 70 appropriate organisations have failed to find a way in which I can be represented in Court. These organisations include the office of the Minister for Justice (Maria Eagle), The former Disability Commission (now the Equality and Human Rights Commission), the Bar Pro Bono Unit, LawWorks, Disability Law, the Legal assistance department of MIND, the Legal Services Commission, and the Office of the Official Solicitor.
www.sirpeterscott.com has been extremely helpful to me and others in helping us to find each other instead of each acting in isolation. Directly because of the web site I was able to help Hawa Hersi in court against Kingston University by acting as a MacKenzie Friend for her.

This is a scandal of the highest order. I hope the THES begin an immediate campaign on behalf of Dr. Fredrics. Frankly nothing less than a public Inquiry is needed at Kingston. Bullying of staff (and students) is rife not to mention a littany of very questionable goings on exposed by Dr. Fredrics and now this abuse of power by the Vice Chancellor in cohorts with the authorities. What exactly is behibnd this - Freemasonry? I am at a loss to explain how this 'trial' went ahead at all given the absence of evidence adduced by the Police Report. This is very sinister indeed and serves as a frightening example of just how far civil liberties have been trounced on in this country. Peter Scott should go now and this absurd verdict squashed. I would urge readers to write to their elected representatives forthwith and demand action.

Damien, I am sure that your comment was meant well, but you do not know the whole story. It would be nice if we could all trust in the system, but every system has holes. In every country in the world there are political prisoners and worse,. Howard did not want to risk his life. The case of David Kelley is still a mystery. So is the death of Kenneth Lay whose misconduct and conviction in the context of his being a Bush supporter made his exit from this planet very convenient.
I fully realize that comparing an academic who engaged in political art. parody and satire while exposing fraud at a university is more than a bit extreme. But some very puzzling and frightening things have been happening.
With the upcoming general election this government has a lot a stake in covering up the awful mess it has made of the higher education system. The powerful also would gain quite a lot of footing by making an example of someone who has inspired many people to speak out by incarcerating him.
Even a community sentence for someone like my husband who has suffered Post Traumatic Stress disorder due to the horrific bullying he and I experienced in the former school of music, (nicely timed to coincide witha time when he was dealing with the death and dying of both of his parents), would not have been tolerable or possible. My husband is now almost completely disabled and the magistrates are going to enforce unpaid work to shame him? Sometimes he can barely get up in the morning from the non stop trauma he has been put through by Kingston University,
Sir Peter Scott might have friends with influence in the CPS did not control the World Intellectual Property Organization that found he had not rights to the domain name he was seeking. Howard does not trust the "Authorities " in Kingston where KU is the largest employer for very good reason.

Lori - I understand all of that. You fill find few people of a similar degree of scepticism as to the effectiveness of the British Constitution as me, but none of what you have said detracts from my observation that Dr Frederics is doing himself more harm than good with his current course of action. If some of the claims are true about the way the case was handled, then there are courts of appeal to which Dr Frederics can turn. Evading the authorities creates different legal problems and it might be the case that Dr Frederics finds himself in a position whereby he is punished for something that has nothing to do with the original allegation. The circumstance you have described is awful - I have tried myself endlessly to secure justice for academics at my institution that have been mistreated for exposing wrongdoing and have been threatened in the process. But evading the authorities is not the right way to proceed here.

The persecution of Dr Howard Fredrics and his wife Lori is a national scandal. Dr Fredrics' website is a compilation of evidence of serious and profoundly disturbing behaviour at Kingston University. Almost all academic bullying is buried and the effects on lives go unreported. I was heartened to see someone shedding light on what really happens. Two talented and brave Americans rejected behaviour that brings shame on our university system. Write to Vince Cable who is the local MP in the first instance. Organise to bring on a roar of outrage from academia.

I agree that this needs to go stratospheric---what about also taking it to the European Court of Justice (if that is the appropriate place) or to an international organisation for free speech and human rights....? This really amounts to exemplary punishment of a whistleblower----who exposed corrupt practices in a publicly funded institution and in doing so, broke no laws according to the police and WIPO. The law should protect people like Dr. Fredrics who come forward with such information, or create a debate on it---not those who attempt to hide their corrupt practices from the public.

I am due to have dinner with Vince Cable later this month, so I will mention this case to him.

I continue to hope that Dr. Fredrics will be appropriately vindicated ! To convict anyone without apropriate legal counsel is a travesty.I am deeply ashamed of this decision.Apparently,the court ruled for money and power not justice.

I cannot for the life of me understand why my comment was removed. All I said was that Dr Fredrics had reason to fear for his life because of certain strange goings on - including a highly suspicious death - in his former professional entourage. Or has the dead hand of censorship reached THE as well?

Walter - what you are suggesting has potentially very severe legal implications. I would suggest you provide evidence to support your claim if you wish for it not to be censored.

I have followed Dr.Frederics case for some time and have become increasingly disturbed at it's progress.
The abuse of power and privilege is almost medieval.
As a whistleblower myself I know but a fraction of the cruelty that Dr.Frederics and his family are having to endure.
We all must support them in their plight and indeed flight (Damien - the fight/flight mechanism is a biological imperative.Dr.Frederics needs to do what he has to do ).

Thank you Times Higher education for reporting this profoundly sad story of an academic who have been honest, scrupulous and stood up with dignity against unwarranted practices at his former university. People have the right to speak out, within the law, and raised their concerns through legitimate channels. This Dr Howard Fredric has honourably done, but unfortunately at a very expensive price. He lost his career, he and his wife lost their health, and they lost their life saving. This is scandalous and flies in the face of natural justice. This is not fair in a free and democratic society which holds up high the slogan of, within the law, Freedom of Speech. This is a significant issue and I hope, for the sake of public interest, the truth and the whole truth comes out with full exposure. Clearly, there is far more to this sad story of Dr Fredric than can be described in one or two articles. I sincerely hope that THE would continue to expose the truth about Dr Fredric’s nightmare and the culture of fear and intimidation at some higher education institutions in which some academics have been harassed, bullied and defamed, while others such as Ms Helena Lunt, Professor Lewis Lesley and professor El-Sayed and tens more who have been victimised, hounded out and sacked at LJMU when they raised concerns about unwarranted practices.

Grievance procedures will cost the employer at least 1000 hours in staff time etc for each stage (usually three stages are involved). Employment tribunals will cost in excess of 10,000 per stage and may cost up to 1,000,000 if sex or race discrimination is involved. Tribunals can occupy three stages: pre-hearing review, employment tribunal, appeal tribunal. Employment tribunal proceedings may last several days but adjournments, delays and overruns may be spread over 1-2 years. The case of Yeboah v. London Borough of Hackney consumed 104 tribunal days - all at taxpayers' expense. A County Court action (eg personal injury where the claim is up to £50,000) will cost at least £50,000 and usually takes at least 3 years for the case to be heard. A High Court action (eg personal injury where the claim is over £50,000) will cost at least £100,000 and perhaps in excess of £1,000,000, and usually takes at least 5 years for the case to be heard. An appeal to the House of Lords will also cost over £100,000 and usually takes at least two years for the case to be heard, perhaps longer. A case which goes to Europe will cost over £1,000,000 and usually takes at least five years for the case to be heard, perhaps longer. While legal action is in progress, everybody involved is being diverted from the job they were originally recruited to do. - From Bully Online. Was it worth it Sir Peter Scott?

Martin - I am aware of the biological imperative. I am presenting what I think is a logical analysis, however. I am not saying that I do not empathise with Howard's position.

What has happened here is another blow against our freedoms and equalities - our right of free speech. Mr Fredrics needs support and legal counsel - some one must be able to help??

But as a society and a profession what we really need to examine is why this case ended up where it did - why did Howard feel the need to express him self (as he has very right to do) in this way. The process for complaints against bullying in universities is a sham. It has been bought up time and time again - we need national change. Universities post their staff charters and talk the talk - but dont walk the walk. Evidence is ignored, staff charters and due process is ignored, the complainant is sidelined and isolated further, out of court settlements, suicides, broken homes, mental health breakdowns.... Dr Frederics refused to look the other way.

So, the torch must be turned where it belongs - back on the University of Kingston and its process and procedures. Howard did not wake up one morning and simply decide to draw attention to Sir peter Scott - he was drawing our attention to his personal experiences within a flawed system. He did not want to scuttle away and let it continue for the next unfortunate.

As educators we must lead by example - we must show students that to speak up against what we feel to be wrong is the right thing to do and if we are not heard to shout louder..

"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing ..."

Howard is a brave and decent man - a hero - for speaking out and putting him self on line for his belief in right and wrong - none of us must turn away from what is happening to him and do nothing ...it is our duty as fellow human beings to support a colleague. One day it could be you.

I say lets shine the light back where it belongs - at Kingston University and Sir Peter Scott. Lets discuss and debate what Howard was saying and why. Its about time.

We can and should use what happened to Dr. Frederics to highlight the wider issue of workplace bullying in Higher Education. We suspect that Dr. Frederics will have no problem with this. This case is not an isolated one. It belongs to a wider problem that many descent academics have faced in the past and continue to battle with in the present. Dr. Frederics has given all of us the opportunity to raise our voices, our concerns. We must take advantage of this.

Dr Howard Fredrics is a friend of impecable character, who needs expert legal guidanceand representation NOW, without prevarication, to redress this wholly misguided judgement of a completely innocent man.

Hi again Damian,
Vince Cable is well aware of the case but speaking to him about it could only be helpful since he is a person of the highest character and also very courageous.
You are correct when you say"Evading the authorities creates different legal problems and it might be the case that Dr Frederics finds himself in a position whereby he is punished for something that has nothing to do with the original allegation". It happens all the time. In fact a very gentle retired school teacher in my village spent several weeks in jail on multiple occasions for disobeying an ASBO that said he could not cross the KIngston Bridge. The retired school teacher had found and exposed the fact that a woman (of high social standing) in the local debating society had misappropriated about £15. Millions of pounds were spend convicting him and imposing an ASBO and this harmless man was repeatedly locked up. Sound familiar? A person of higher social rank is embarrassed by their own wrong doing and the authorities jail persons of principle who expose wrong doing.
Howard has sacrificed plenty to stand up to corruption but he is not so invested in this society that he will throw himself on the mercy of a system that has treated him so unfairly and has a history of treating outspoken people unfairly.
This is the kind of thing one would expect in Soviet Russia, but obviously, today in the UK the act of challenging the higher education system makes you a dissident subject to imprisonment.
I will state again for the record. No effort was ever made to contact Sir Peter Scott personally, although he did in my presence ASK Howard to email him about a settlement offer(which Howard did not do). The website says nothing about Sir Peter Scott personally. The misconduct it has exposed has resulted in serious findings against the university, and have been very much in the public interest This is purely a whistleblower site. The CPS's charges of harassment are a misuse of laws that protect people that are personally harassed and are contrary to the principles of free speech.

The "sin" of blowing the whistle on corruption will never go unpunished, and Ingsoc is no exception.

The judgement against the honourable Dr. Frederics is outrageous, and a national embarrassment to all who have been following the case. Bullying, and the abuse of power and privilege, is all too clear. It is imperative that we support this courageous and highly-principled gentleman so that a strong light is directed at Kingston University and, more importantly, Sir Peter Scott.

This attack on the principles of free speech and the right to a fair trial in which the defendant has the real opportunity to be present and represented has implications that should frighten and outrage every citizen in the UK, the EU and Dr. Fredrics' native US.

Dr. Frederics is a gifted musician and composer as well as a caring teacher and principled man. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his specific opinions, a perusal of his web site www.sirpeterscott -- and of the legal materials in the case Kingston University's Sir Peter Scott has brought against him -- makes it clear that his opinions are well within the limits of the basic human right of freedom of expression.

Dr. Fredrics has used his talent to create and feature his art and opinion in a web site intended to bemoan the decline in academic standards at Kingston University, discuss the reasons for this decline, and expose what he regards as its underlying cause: malfeasance and misconduct at the university's highest levels. That is not just within Dr. Fredericks' right as an academic who cares specifically about his students and generally about education, it is arguably his duty.

The conduct of the Court in exercising prior restraint on Dr. Fredrics' art and opinion by issuing a Restraining Order to forbid him from updating his web site, should cause international outrage. Sending the police repeatedly to Dr. Fredrics' door - including at 4 a.m. - to apprehend him as a result of his disseminating his art and expressing his opinion - should scare every person who cares to preserve freedom of expression.

Good luck with your appeal, Dr. Fredrics. We are many who may or may not agree with your opinions, but who unreservedly support your right to give them expression.

Pierre Joseph.

Can I please ask for a slight amendment in your request. Not just higher education (which from my understanding is the world of the poly and the uni) but Further Education. It is happening there in equal measure as I can personally attest.

@Damien: there was nothing in the least libellous about my posting - all I said that Dr Fredrics may have had reason to fear for his life because a suspicious death occurred in an earlier professional environment. It pointed the finger at no-one - it merely stated a view in which I am not alone.

Sticking my head above the parapet here but I'm a bit dismayed by the general assumption that HF is a saint and everyone else involved is an evil agent of the devil establishment. And the implication that his life is in danger is frankly ludicrous. An English court of justice has convicted him of a crime and he's chosen to be a fugitive rather than follow the proper legal channels thereby causing additional upset to his family. If he's really innocent then he should turn himself in and use the legal system to show this.

I don't know where the 'reality' has gone, but frederics clearly presented a partisan, agressively sarcastic and directly damaging publication against an individual including personal attacks - yet frederics himself claims to be an anti-bullying campaigner. As for 'lessons that brits should learn' about American History in case people haven't noticed, the UK isn't America (neither is America actually, the USA is different from America and the billof rights equally doesn't apply in America as a whole).

Suzie / Hero: hear hear. Particularly on this absurd conspiracy theory that, because he has been convicted of something in a lowly magistrates court - a charge he did not contest by the sound of it, some unnamed evil authority is posing a threat to his life. Some of this lot have been watching too much Spooks.

So what happened to protection for whistleblowers? Howard Fredrics exposes some shockingly evident truths about KU, which have now been admitted in the ET and what does he get for his bravery? Certainly no protection from the UK Courts!

What has happened here is nothing less than scandalous. Not only should the CPS have never carried on with the case against Dr Fredrics for lack of evidence (as stated in the police reports), but the Courts should never have proceeded with the case against him without proper legal representation. This is NOT a case of someone trying to evade the law, just one individual asking for the right to be legally represented, something all of us would want.

This is a shameful episode in our constitutionally history, and whilst trying to avoid any histrionics or sound like a liberal fantasist, we should all be worried about our civil liberties. How can we berate China and other countries for trying people in their Courts without legal representation, when the UK Courts and the machinery of the Establishment do exactly the same thing in our country.

This case should be exposed in the greatest possible manner. The Courts should be embarrassed by their hypocrisy and the Judge should be forced to resign!

To clarify matters further, as I notice that some have questioned the matter of my personal safety. There have been explicit death threats made against me and my family members, and there is a formal criminal investigation by the Police that is ongoing. I cannot comment more on this at this time for legal reasons.

Hero/Suzie/Jed

Seems to me your scepticism is simply born of ignorance. There are many others making comments who find the situation all too credible. Those of us who have witnessed, or endured, the "juggernaut of collective will," as Ken Westhues puts it, when we have spoken out against irregularities, bullying, poor management etc. have no difficulty believing that a vice-chancellor and his institution would go to these lengths to eliminate someone.

I sincerely hope that none of you ever becomes a target in your workplace. One of the biggest mistakes targets make is to trust that the system is going to put it right. Mediation, which is very popular these days in universities, makes the fundamental erroneous assumption that there should be no blame, and that the two parties exist in a power balance. Taking out a grievance almost invariably results in a net loss for the grievor; many accusations of bullying and harassment end with the target being moved, dismissed or forced to resign. One of the worst outcomes of serial bullying in academia is that the bully is frequently upwards, away from the coalface, so to speak, but into the higher tiers of administration. This is how the culture self-perpetuates.

Before you start spouting about Spooks, get yourself informed. Google the work of Ken Westhues, a sociologist who has made academic bullying his life's research, nota bene, and then revisit Dr Fredrics case.

Hero/Suzie/Jed

Seems to me your scepticism is simply born of ignorance. There are many others making comments who find the situation all too credible. Those of us who have witnessed, or endured, the "juggernaut of collective will," as Ken Westhues puts it, when we have spoken out against irregularities, bullying, poor management etc. have no difficulty believing that a vice-chancellor and his institution would go to these lengths to eliminate someone.

I sincerely hope that none of you ever becomes a target in your workplace. One of the biggest mistakes targets make is to trust that the system is going to put it right. Mediation, which is very popular these days in universities, makes the fundamental erroneous assumption that there should be no blame, and that the two parties exist in a power balance. Taking out a grievance almost invariably results in a net loss for the grievor; many accusations of bullying and harassment end with the target being moved, dismissed or forced to resign. One of the worst outcomes of serial bullying in academia is that the bully is frequently upwards, away from the coalface, so to speak, but into the higher tiers of administration. This is how the culture self-perpetuates.

Before you start spouting about Spooks, get yourself informed. Google the work of Ken Westhues, a sociologist who has made academic bullying his life's research, nota bene, and then revisit Dr Fredrics case.

This case sets a terrible precedent for freedom of speech and criticism of public individuals Sir Peter Scott earns more than an MP he should be subject to the same level of public scrutiny.

Dr Fredrics made it clear that he would not engage in mobbing of his manager. What happened to him because all he wanted to do was to do his job, to concentrate on his teaching and research, to improve the quality of Kingston, to be helpful to his colleagues, is what happens to so many others who are honest, forthright, intelligent, perhaps outspoken, but believing in justice, in integrity, and standing up for something -- principles -- justice. He was targeted for being hit below the belt repeatedly. He was slandered. When some mean-spirited misanthrope didn't get his way, he made sure that the guy sticking up for righteousness would become a target of not only himself but others as well. And when even that was not enough "punishment" for the one standing up for what was right, a vicious lawsuit was launched.

Someday, God will be the judge of every one of us. There are no secrets from Him, and He is not fooled and has no partiality and is not afraid of mere humans and their vicious tricks. God will indeed come down on the wicked.

Profette: "ignorance", "spouting", "get yourself informed"? May I suggest that in fact the many overheated comments on this page suggesting dark and deadly forces are afoot here are, in fact, the ill-informed ones? I strongly suspect that the vast majority of commentators know very little of the actual detail of this case, yet seem quite happy to jump to the conclusion that a great miscarriage of justice has been done. As for your point that most would "have no difficulty believing that a vice-chancellor and his institution would go to these lengths to eliminate someone", I say again: come off it. A dose of reality is called for, so open wide.

Hi Hero, since when is sarcasm a criminal offense? I do not believe that it is a criminal offense in any western country. There are also no personal attacks at all on the site. None. The entire site has to do with wrong doing of a public body and individuals in the course of their jobs. What you have said is a misrepresentation. It is of course legal to publish things about the personal lives of public people, the papers do it all the time, but I believe it is wrong to do so. The is nothing about anybody's conduct outside their job responsibilities. Was breaking the student survey scandal personal? No. Fiona Barlow Brown instructed students to inflate their ratings for the benefit of KU's reputation and for their own benefit falsley stating that it would improve the value of their degrees. She also used foul language in the classroom. Nobody associated with sirpeterscott.com cares about her actions in her personal life. She could be a perfectly nice person outside of how she behaved in the course of her job. Their is nothing of a personal nature on the sirpeterscott website. Hero, I know who you are but I am not going to out you, you would probably think that was personal, but say hi to the family.
Susie R, it is very sad to see someone making assumptions about a situation where you do not have all the facts. I assure you that his family is not upset that he did not turn up to the kangaroo court. But rather that the system has treated unfairly. I am finding out more hour by hour more about the associations of the two out of the three on the panel of Magistrates and I find it despicable that they did not recuse themselves.

The fact that" an English court of justice has convicted him of a crime" when he was a whistleblower who was acting in the public interest only puts great dishonour upon this country that prides itself on principles of fairness.

@ Lori Fredricks "Since then the police have raided my house repeatedly in the middle of the night and at other times, traumatizing my wife, all in an effort to apprehend me." Quote of HF in first post on this page.

Lori you may be fully supportive of HF's not attending court - that's your business, not ours- but the legitimate actions of the police in trying to arrest him subsequently should not then be used to seek sympathy.

You are absolutely right that I don't know the full details of this case. I only know what I've read on THES and looking at the offending website. But I suggest that that is a similar level of ignorance to many of those commentating above in HF's support.

In my humble opinion I feel that the British Justice system is archaic and needs a total overhaul. Dr Fredrics is the victim yet only in good old blighty can he be classed as the accused and a warrant issued for his arrest while good old Sir Peter Scott walks away Scott free.

Only about 2% of bullying cases make it to employment tribunal due to the inadequacy of UK law http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/09Bullying/ When you complete the petition - it will email you a link which you have to click to actually have your name added to the list. Please do remember to check your spam folder if your email doesn't appear and make sure your name is on the list

Suzie,
As far as I am concerned any police that come by looking for Howard may be annoying but actually in the context of my situation police presence is very much to my benefit. Howard and I requested police protection due to events that happened at the beginning of December, but no matter how serious a situation is they are not able to guard individuals. It is rather sad and ironic that they are willing to come by to attempt to track down an academic who has done nothing more than embarrass Sir Peter Scott by exposing things he was desperately trying to cover up when they could not act on a much more serious matter.
Interesting that you refer to the 'offending' website, seems to me you would only be offended by it if it embarrassed you. Does it?
For your further information several of the supportive comments have come from legal experts who have thoroughly vetted the site.

Jed, honey, read the article. The police report found no evidence of wrongdoing. What makes you so invested in the system that you are prepared to ignore that?

And I repeat, get yourself informed about academic bullying before you decide that this kind of thing is impossible.

There is nothing so strange as reality sometimes. Hope you don't ever have it forced down your throat.

As an academic in America, it is saddening to see this fall in the state of affairs that the UK Higher Education system is not only accepting but fostering. No school is perfect, nor are any of its employees. That the scandal was brought to light by the webiste should be applauded by the institution, and correcting the blunder made the primary focus of the Kingston University. That this institution would instead choose to focus their energy on retaliation of the whistleblower rather than righting the wrongs that are occuring says a great deal about what they deem important -- and how wrong-headed they are in their approach. Inflating their reputation falsely will never remove the tarnish.

They can only remove the stain on their reputation by insuring that the work done exceeds expectations; by accepting that criticism is carefully considered and addressed when appropriate; and by insuring that diligence is applied to correct those things which are not working well (rather than inflating their assessment of marginal work until it 'succeeds'). But as long as they insist on focusing on the punishment of Dr. Fredrics, who did them the favor of exposing these areas which need attention, they will only succeed on assuring that their reputation will falter.

Perhaps the Chancelor should revisit Shakespeare's King Lear. The empty crowns in his hands hold no reputation, and Dr. Fredrics is the treasure that has been trown away in the name of vanity.

I hope that this sorts itself out quickly and that Sir Peter Scott does the right thing. It would be a shame if we had to re-evaluate the worth of the degrees we see coming from England, which should be held in highest regard of standards, not inflated ratings.

Well, it seems to me that all that money and effort spent to preserve the reputation of Peter Scott and Kingston University have backfired badly. If a business or an individual has to go to such great lengths to prevent documents and recordings that expose embarrassing material in order to preserve a good reputation, then perhaps their former "good reputation" is not deserved. If you have to conceal the truth in order to maintain respectability something is really, really wrong. Obviously, this situation has exploded into an international scandal due to the poor leadership of the Chancellor of Kingston University. How the University and the country at large can stand behind this is truly disgraceful. Previously Kingston University had a very mediocre reputation, but with Peter Scott as head it might as well close down shop.

To readers unfamiliar with the institution there is much more than even Dr Fredrics' website has managed to reveal. There is an institutional norm of bullying, training managers to bully using dubious psychological techniques, threats to staff and students, inappropriate and 'dodgy' procedures employed in hiring and promoting staff (relatives and friends of senior staff have reaped the benefs from this) who will follow the institutional norm. A climate of fear exists throughout the university. Sir Peter Scott is well aware of all of this. The appalling verdict against Dr Fredrics will only make matters worse - and as for Peter Scott's reputation - it is he who is damaging it and the university. He should go now. This smatter must receive urgent national attention.

Lori, glad to hear that you are not "traumatised" by the police attendance despite the claim of HF.

Sorry if you misconstrued the use of "offending", I couldn't think of another word to identify it as the website which has been the focus of the offence (alleged, taken, etc). And no, I have no connections with KU, Peter Scott or anyone else connected with this situation.

Susie,
Please don't put words in my mouth about not being traumatized. This whole situation has been traumatic. I said what I said and not how you restated my comments.
You may have no connection with this particular case but you clearly have complete trust in the system for some reason. This can only come from someone who has been blessed by not happening to ever end up on the wrong side of it. I wish you to never end up in a situation where you get slammed by powers that be but I also wish you to grow into a person who is capable of empathy or at least not the proclivity to pre-judge when faced with incomplete facts.

Dr. Fredericks' web site looked to me quite silly and in some way, harassing. Not harassing in any criminal way, though. Obviously, the law was interpreted wrongly - it is not supposed to protect anyone from criticism in ANY form. It obviously exposes something that authorities do not want to be exposed. And this is the sole reason for the persecution. How far the persecution can go? Currently, there are no limits. There are, therefore, no limits to what measures Dr. Fredericks can take to protect himself. This is a full-scale confrontation between unlimited power and a helpless individual who doesn't have a lawyer. And this inequality alone should have awaken human rights organisations that used to exist in Britain. I should say here that I don't know the details of the case and its history: namely, who provoked whom to go to such war in a basically academic situation. But, again, just from the inequality of powers, the blame is squarely on the enormous power of the officials that they chose to exercise to the full extent. They should never ever have done this, but they knew exactly how psychologically devastating their power works. Are there any laws that prohibit such criminal HARASSMENT of an individual? In this situation, any single act might not be a harassment, but a relentless use of all this power against a man who has a web site - is. ----------------- I have a web site that shows documents proving the horrific fraud in a university (www.universitytorontofraud.com). I do not harass anybody; I just call the professors and higher officials criminals, thieves, liars, scoundrels, etc., I don't remember all the attributes. Not a single time I was accused of harassment, defamation or any other unlawful behaviour. This is in Canada; they use another method of criminal provocation - not a single word is allowed to be reported in any media about me or my web site; they also made it impossible for me to go to court. I do not exist, that's what Canada has decided, and, I have no doubt, told to everyone else, again, I have no doubt, supplementing this opinion with bribes.

I am surprised and disappointed in the quality of Miss Newman's journalism on this occasion. That she has seen fit to report a biased version of events is both an outrage and a travesty. It is clear that Dr Fredrics has been found guilty in a Kangaroo Court. How in this day and age can a case go ahead (in his absense and without representation!) when police cleary confirmed that the content of the site did not contain anything that could be deemed harassment. By way of an apology I believe the Times should liaise with Dr Fredrics and report to the world the WHOLE STORY - the reasons why these allegations came about in the first place. It is clear that on this occasion his human rights have been seriously violated. I fully support Dr Fredricks and hope that everyone who has a sense of fair play will do the same.

I looked at your website Michael. The fact that your research was stolen is so unfair. This kind of thing happens in business all the time, and it is wrong, but it is so much worse that University of Toronto did this. I think having a website to expose this is the right thing to do. Be glad you are not in England or you would be in jail.

If Dr. Fredrics' site looks silly to you, remember, you are a scientist. He is an artist and composer. Your styles differ but the goal is similar. Farce and silly satire are not harassment. The law used against Dr. Fredrics was created to prevent people from being stalked. No individual can be stalked by a website containing press articles and actual evidence of fraud. The site also seems to be about Kingston University not Peter Scott, so that further confuses the matter. Is this a similar concept to the Queen and England being the same entity?

Michael you say "I do not harass anybody; I just call the professors and higher officials criminals, thieves, liars, scoundrels, etc". From the evidence you present , your low opinion of them seems justified. I would dare say that your website goes further than the Fredrics site because he does not offer negative opinions about people, just evidence that is really disturbing and then asks the readers to think. I like the style, he must be a very good teacher. What a waste.
In light of the actions by this university that go against academic freedom and free thought and expression, it is difficult to see how they are accomplishing the overriding mission of being an institution of higher learning.

I wonder if anyone has yet filed an FOI request asking to know how much Kingston has spent on lawyers in relation to this issue.

I wonder what 'I know who you are' and 'say Hi to the family' means?

I have known Dr Fredrics for several years and have heard his side of the story which no court in the country has yet. He complained long before Sir Peter decided to take him to court:

To the police that Sir Peter Scott had harrassed him.

To a tribunal that Sir Peter had ignored his vicarious liability to protect him when he was harrassed out of his job.

On both occasions Howard was denied justice by a spineless legal system with no time for him.

The law goes to money. I hope he gets his day in court.

There is only one area that Dr Frederics has perhaps not done correctly.

I am rightly concerned in regard to the issues that he raises bullying in the workplace is a terrible problem in many countries and wish him well in his efforts to clear his name and to bring justice to the issues he has told us all about.

The one thing that he has done wrong is to fail to turn up at court personally to defend himself against this stupid charge. Notwithstanding the rights and wrongs of the issue being tried and his problems with his legal advisors identifying a conflict of interest, he should have turned up to defend himself. He now risks arrest for the offence of Failure to turn up at court, a charge he may have difficulty overturning in due course.

Kingston University should hang their corporate head in shame.

This story needs a much wider stage. It is of great importance to anyone who values their freedom of speech and human rights - all of which appear to have been violated in this case.

I do hope that an able reporter picks up on this article and does a full indepth report of this, as many decent people are truly concerned about the way this case has been conducted.

Do none of the posters here work in universities with law departments, who might have explained a few things to you before putting your names to uninformed drivel? The basic underpinning of English criminal law is that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty and has no obligation to mount a defence - the onus of proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt rests with the prosecution. So, some defendants turn up and mount a full defence, some turn up but merely take the role of passive observer, whilst others don't bother turning up at all. If a defendant takes the latter course then he can't be too surprised that the prosecution have an easier job of convincing the court of guilt - no one to offer alternative arguments, cross examine witnesses etc. It sounds as though in this case witnesses made the effort to turn up but the defendant didn't. I've no doubt that most of the above posters if they were the victim of a crime and had to go to court as a witnesses would want it just this way. How many times would you want to go through the nerve racking process of preparing yourself to give evidence in court, taking time off work etc, only to be sent away because the defendant didn't show? I've no idea what the underlying legal rights or wrongs are of this particular case, but do know that academics with clearly zero legal knowledge should take the time to investigate what they are talking about before passing comment.

Dear HW ,
I wonder what 'I know who you are' and 'say Hi to the family' means?

It means that I can recognise the syntax of Workplace Bullies that I know personally who hide behind fake names on the internet.

Nothing sinister.

@Caroline. I totally agree with you. An able reporter has been running with this story for a while, Melanie Newman - but it appears her hands are tied. If she is being bullied, then getting a wider stage through her could be a struggle. Which is a growing problem with the UK's media. I'm hoping Vince Cable can do something about this now - but even that is not a given. He will do what's politically expedient, I'm sure.

Without commenting directly on Mr Fredrics' case, I just want to make some points about the incidence of bullying and other abuses in the UK. I am convinced that it is an enormous problem, affecting most people in some way. Not to say that the "war on terror" is unimportant, but in practical terms the number of UK terror victims is tiny while a large proportion of the UK population have had their lives seriously blighted by bullying or abuse. It also causes serious damage to the UK economy. There is at least as much justification for a "war on bullying" as a "war on terror" yet while the "war on terror" consumes vast quantities of taxpayers money, the only anti-bullying bodies I am aware of run on a shoestring depending on charity donations.

The media doesnt help by largely turning a blind eye to bullying. The understanding of most people of bullying and abuse is very poor, often based on mythologies.

To help with the general population's understanding of bullying and abuse, I have spent a lot of time improving many relevant Wikipedia articles based on sound scientific views and research. There is still quite a lot of ground for me to cover but the following are examples of my work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_bullying
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_manipulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism

The origins of the credit crunch and corporate greed, for example, can be easily understood in terms of narcissism, personality disorders and bullying.

Wow! British justice run a muck. And I thought things were bad in the USA. I find this story unbelievable, and would have thought it a bad joke, but apparently it's true. You Brits had better do something or you ain't gonna have a country left!

@ Harvey Mars. Bill of Rights? I have senn them being trampled by the Patriot Act on a person with no connection to terrorism. The best advice my friends received in respect of a court case is making a representation at the last minute even with any lawyer they could get.

@Damien. Vince Cable the self-styled economic guru who did not see the storm comng? Knowing Lib Dems , they talk a lot and do very little.
However, I agree that evasion leads to complication and stands out first and not the so called crime which is ludicrous.

I am sure a lot of tax payers money is spent defending bullies in prominent positions against legal action by their victims and it far outweighs the charity funds available to anti-bullying organizations or the funds of individual bullying victims. So while a vast amount of taxpayers money is spent fighting the "war on terror", perversely a lot of taxpayers money is spent reinforcing bulling rather than fighting "the war on bullying".

I am sure a lot of tax payers money is spent defending bullies in prominent positions against legal action by their victims and it far outweighs the charity funds available to anti-bullying organizations or the funds of individual bullying victims. So while a vast amount of taxpayers money is spent fighting the "war on terror", perversely a lot of taxpayers money is spent reinforcing bulling rather than fighting "the war on bullying".

@amazed lawyer. You're not a lawyer. If you are, then you are incompetent, lazy, fraudulent or all three. This wasn't a case of Howard Fredrics "not bothering to turn up". Also, as a lawyer, do you think it right that the case should go ahead without legal representation for the defendant? Did the possibility enter your head that the defendant went AWOL because HE felt bullied and vulnerable, after a chain of events which culminated in him being denied legal representation?

Dear Amazed lawyer,
Try to reconcile these two facts. your statement "proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt rests with the prosecution"

"The report, (the findings of the Police)seen by Times Higher Education, says the "sites listed do not contain content that is consistent with any harassment".

Seriously the system was not working because magistrates found a defendant guilty of harassment based on a website that the police did not find content consistent with harassment. The prosecution did not even present evidence of the defendants alleged connection with the website in question!
What did they have, a witness Sir Peter Scott, who felt embarrassed by the content. The content would not have existed without gross mismanagement on the part of Sir Peter Scott.

Surely an appeal can be l lodged against the magistrate's order. Is it not done already?

@Caroline. Where's Wooward and Burnstein when you need them! Or maybe its a case for Dan Brown?

What practically happens in multicultural university is that the establishment stops talking to you or they put out such lie that no talking after that is possible. Your complaint goes nowhere. University at once, knowing its guilt, goes to the procedures that are completely dominated by their own people. At this, the community is excluded: confidentiality rules, you know. And if by any chance they decide lying to the end, here you are.

Puzzled -an appeal is not appropriate here. The decision should be abrogated as soon as possible to mitigate the damage done to my husband and to preserve what is left of what is left of the quickly diminishing international reputation of UK magistrate courts.

The allegedly offending website ‘sirpeterscott.com’ contains factual and substantiated information about irregularities by Kingston University and its officers. The matters exposed are truly embarrassing and it is for this reason that the Vice Chancellor, Sir George Peter Scott, ought to feel embarrassed as he is the chief executive of Kingston University. A key question here is whether Peter Scott ought to be spared or even protected from such embarrassment. In this instance the answer is straightforward. Kingston University is a public institution supported by public funds so its conduct ought to be open to public scrutiny. Peter Scott should not be spared the well deserved embarrassment. In fact he ought to have been sacked, if he did not have the good sense to offer his resignation. This is what happens to executives of public organisations when they mess up. Howard Fredrics is a whistleblower. I believe that a reason why legislation protecting whistleblowers came into being is because whistleblowers can potentially perform a public service. The present saga presents several paradoxical features. We have a chief executive, Sir Peter Scott, who does not resign or get sacked, a whistleblower who is not protected by the law, and a legal system that, having decided that Sir Peter ought to be protected from the above mentioned embarrassment, uses an irrelevant law in order to punish the whistleblower for a crime that the police established was never committed. Kafka would have envied this plot.

Why an appeal to a higher court is not appropraite. How else a judgement can be abrogated? Let us keep with this case and not blame the UK judiciary in particular the magistrates courts as a whole. No country is free from mistrail by lower courts and we hear pletghora of lower courts even so called state supreme courts in US passing crazy judgements. We are not here to bear swords and remove the mad officialdom. I see very little point in discussion this issue in terms of abrogating the judgement. legal miscarriage must be met with legal rocedures and then we can discuss all we can.

To Michael Pyshnov: There is no Putin here to put an end to multiculturism. It is not even secretive Putin's followers. There you go opening the mouth and putting a large foot in it.

The persecution and prosecution of Dr Howard Fredrics by Kingston University is part of a much wider and largely hidden phenomenon of bullying culture in UK higher education, chronicled mostly in anonymity on the website Bullying of Academics in Higher Education (http://www.bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/). Dr Fredrics is a foreign academic--a distinguished American composer and musician recruited to the UK by Kingston--who was subsequently bullied and persecuted for whistle-blowing about issues of academic quality and shoddy standards as well as unlawful race, religious, and disability discrimination in the workplace. The victimisation, harassment, and ultimate sacking (on trumped up 'charges' heard by stacked, internal kangaroo courts) of vulnerable foreign academics in the UK who dare to speak out against bullying, harassment, discrimination, fraud, and other abuses of power by senior management in UK universities is sadly not unique to the case of Dr Fredrics. The profligacy of expense (and taxpayers' money) being wasted on the targeted elimination of outstanding academics of high integrity who pose a threat to the often complacent and arrogant status quo is a story of which Times Higher Education is well aware but has to date failed to investigate and expose. Pending this long overdue investigation, it is high time that the appalling treatment of Dr Howard Fredrics be brought to the attention of the wider international academic community, for it deserves nothing less than absolute and unequivocal condemnation by any international university and academic worthy of the name who cherish the most basic principles of academic freedom and freedom of speech. As a matter of respect for the Crown, for the reputations of all UK universities, for the tax-paying UK public, and above, all for the most basic tenets of the British justice system guaranteed by the UK Human Rights Act 1988 and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Governors of Kingston University should immediately and forthwith 1) intercede with the Crown Prosecution Service to drop all criminal charges against Dr Howard Fredrics; 2) issue a written, public apology to Dr Fredrics in the pages of Times Higher Education; and 3) demand the immediate resignation of Sir Peter Scott as Vice Chancellor of Kingston University. Having failed in his attempt to silence Dr Fredrics via a misguided WIPO action, and notwithstanding an exonerating police report attesting that no criminally prosecutable material resides on Dr Fredrics’ allegedly ‘offending’ website, Sir Peter Scott now resorts to the unthinkable: the unwarranted prosecution of an innocent and outspoken British academic and American national as a common criminal in the Kingston Magistrates Court. In so doing, the Vice Chancellor of Kingston University---- in the pursuit of his vindictive, personal vendetta against Dr Fredrics--has engaged in a most extreme and contemptible abuse of public power typically seen only in the most oppressive Third World regimes. The sheer folly of his ill-advised and reckless actions brings into shame and disrepute by association the international reputation and credibility of the entire British academy.

I agree with Rex. Peter Scott should be sacked. It is shocking that he did not sack the individual that was caught on a recording pressuring students to falsify the government survey on student satisfaction. Also, I think I am correct in assuming that he has chosen to keep the music lecturers who applied pressure to the external examiner to change critical parts of her report. The fact that these individuals are welcome to remain at Kingston University, while they persecuted a whistle-blower stinks to high heaven. If Sir Peter Scott was deserving of his title he would have thanked and rewarded Dr. Fredrics for his integrity. He is a disgrace to the Knighthood.

Of the two academics caught on tape bullying students re the NSS. One has since been promoted - the other kept their promotion. Why is not too hard to fathom.

If the Police report states there was no evidence that the site contained anything that could lead to such a charge then who took the decision to proceed and on what grounds?

The law seems to need updating to address bullying, as it already does all for aggression driven by race, gender or religion. Aggression is the problem for which society pays the price.

Is that price worth paying?

The case of Howard Fredrics adds to several recent incidents in this country (Peter Wilmshurst, Simon Singh) where legal bullying has been used to chill proper debate about science, politics, the functioning of academic institutions and the functioning of particular academic leaders. Instead of any proper answering of questions we have something approaching academic fascism.

As Vachlav Havel put it: "This little band of men have deposited in their own pockets the key to every door"

Major stakeholders, such as the general public are perfectly entitled to be fully informed of serious senior management and leadership failings at Kingston University. I have examined most of that website, and cannot find anything that appears to be remotely harassing. Some may regard it as strange that an academic would seek to collate in one place perfectly reasonable information about the failings of an institution. Some might well regard parts of it as uncivil. However, to quote my brave friend David Kern:

"When you're in an argument with a thug, there are things much more important than civility. I do not like incivility. Yet, I like thugs even less."

And the University of Kingston and Peter Scott ... shame and still more shame.

You can contact Dr Vince Cable, the local MP for Twickenham, by email at cablev@parliament.uk. Ask him to use his position to seek justice for Dr Howard Fredrics. Write to your own MP to express your outrage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse#Legal_abuse

@Amazed Lawyer -- With the greatest respect to your advice about turning up to court, and notwithstanding the fact that I was too unwell to attend, I was informed prior to trial in no uncertain terms that because of the "acrimonious history" between myself and Prof Scott, I would not be permitted by the Court to cross examine him myself. Hence there could be no viable defence.

There is a further development to the bashing Dr Howard Fredrics received from the legal system, this time from the Employment Tribunals. In a pre-hearing review held on 6/1/2010, the Employment Tribunal Judge struck out Dr Fredrics’ claim for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination arising from the time Dr Fredrics was employed by Kingston University. This claim was submitted in 2006 and has been the subject of case management but has never been heard for its merits. I am told that the ET Judge based his decision to strike out this claim on the existence of the website ‘sirpeterscott.com’ and ruled that the actual demonstrable truth of the content of the website was immaterial to whether or not it was unreasonable conduct to have posted the information. The Judge, instead, relied for his determination on the conviction of harassment by the Magistrates Court (described in the present THE article), notwithstanding the fact that the criminal case has not yet gone through the appeals’ process.

Some members of "the great and the good" are not so great and not so good this morning

You are not the only one. The problem is widespread and requires immediate action. Here is another example of an academic who have been bullied to complete and utter destruction of his career, his health and his family because he stood up and raised concerns about quality and standard in higher education institution. The Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee's report on "Students and Universities" accused the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) of failing in its duties. QAA declined to judge academic standards. The Committee also recommended that QAA should be abolished or transformed and given new responsibilities.

When QAA was asked, to use "cause-for-concern" processes to investigate allegations of plagiarism and research data falsifications at Liverpool John Moores University, the request was declined. When the same requst was made to HEFCE under Public Interest Disclosure, the request was also declined.

The IUSS Select Committee, Chaired by Mr Phil Willis, also recommended protection for academic whistleblowers like Professor El-Sayed who made true and honest revelations about the appaling quality and standard at liverpool John University. Professor El-Sayed had no protection whatsoever from either QAA or HEFCE. In fact he was continuously punished and victimised for over 2 years by QAA and HEFCE. The quangos endeavoured vigorously to cover up the revelations about plagiarism at Liverpool John Moores University and brush the case under the carpet.

Dr John Selby (HEFCE) and Mr Peter Williams (QAA) desperately endeavoured to cover up the case claiming that the revelations are not protected by the whistle blowing act. This is not true. The IUSS Select Committee brought the case into light and publicised, in its report and House of Common website, the corruption and deception taking place at Liverpool John Moores University regarding the quality and standard of the product the University offers. The Committee's report also warned: "The pressures within the system to protect the reputation of the institution are so strong that they risk not only sweeping problems under the mat, but also isolating and ostracising unjustly those raising legitimate concerns."

Following his revelations about plagiarism, Professor El-Sayed was suspended for nearly three years, then was dismissed. He lost his employment, he lost his career, he lost his health and he lost his family because of his honesty and integrity. Now professor El-Sayed is completely destroyed.

Mr Phil Willis questioned Professor Michael Brown; VC LJMU (Committee's session held at Liverpool Hope University March 2009); the VC was sloppy in his response and did not tell the truth about the way the university manage the deterioration of standard and quality and the way whistle blowers, such as Professor El-Sayed, have been treated. This is well documented in the uncorrected and corrected evidence published the Committee. In its report, the Select Committee called for legal protection for those who expose failings within universities, recommending that existing legislation should be strengthened.

QAA in collaboration with HEFCE, failed Professor El-Sayed and failed the public and further contributed to the failing standard and quality of higher education in England. Melanie Newman at THE has written a number of article about this case. An investigation should be authorised by Mr Anthony McLaran (QAA) into the allegations made against LJMU about plagiarism and research data fasification restore some confidence in the quality and standard of higher education in England.

The revelations made by Professor El_sayed are protected by the whistle blowing act and are in the public interest and the public has the right to know. The truth needs to come out!

From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk

The tin of worms is open with a vengence! Please access the link below and have a read. How come something like this be allowed to happen at Higher education!

From: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk

Something was bothering me. It's this. Sir Peter Scott would be HORRIFIED if Howard goes to prison. It cannot be otherwise. Everybody knows that the whole "bullying" was just that, nothing really serious, people just followed the tradition of scandals. Now, Sir Peter Scott would gladly accept APOLOGY from Dr. Fredrics. No life should be destroyed and everyone understands this. This is the moment when everyone got satisfaction and things must go full way back. A couple of letters ought to be written, anything offensive - removed, steps taken to get Dr. Fredrics back at his university. Just this example of noble behaviour can put more than one university on the right track. Go ahead people.

Well said, S. B. Anthony .
Come on, Sir Peter, hold up your hands and put an end to this ridiculous travesty of self-presevation. Just admit you have made a ghastly error of judgement and start the healing process, beginning with a whopping apology to Howard Fredrics.

Michael. I applaud your courage in posting your website with accusations of thieves, liers and scoundrels. In the UK you would be guilty of libel and if my own experience is anything to go by you would have a legal claim made against you and you could conceivably lose your home such is the size of payouts awarded by courts for the crime of libel here. As it was I did not use such overt language at all, my own site merely alluded to wrong doings in a style which I thought was satire but others in the legal profession felt fitted the description of libel. I settled out of court simply because I could not shoulder the responsibolity of losing our house and increasing the strain on my husband simply for my principles, he had also been dismissed from his job twelve months after I had because he made the mistake of sending a link to my website to someone who he thought was a friend but who it turned out had reported the offending blog to his superiors within minutes of having read it. It sounds to me as if you are describing a policy of censorship in Canada which I confess alarms me more than a little with its reminders of dictatorship and communist regimes. Hopefully this does not exist here in the UK although I have read someone mention that a reporter of this case may be experiecing some bullying. There is no going back here. This cannot be settled by apologies, pats on the back and a good old boy handshake. Personally I believe this goes so much deeper that there is only one course of action which is to bring this story so much into the public domain that the authorities have no alternative but to re-examine all the evidence and rule again. Even though HF may have caused himself and his family other problems by his absence from court I understand at a very deep level why he did this. What reason does HF have to believe that he will get any kind of justice from our courts. The truth is we have no idea just how deep these alleged threads of corruption go in the UK. May I remind readers of the Paul Burrel case. That man was due to be sentenced to around fifteen years imprisonment when at the eleventh hour HM QE suddenly remembered a conversation that she had had with him which brought to an end a 21 month high profile court case in seconds. Is it coincidental that this memory resurfaced after Mr Burrel expressed to the court that in giving his evidence he had been left with no other alternative than to go against the confidentiality agreement that he had previously signed upon his Royal appointment?

How could Judith Jewell, chairman of the bench, find Howard Fredrics gulity beyond a reasonable doubt when "the police said "sites listed do not contain content that is consistent with any harassment" ?
Furthermore as a Governor of Roehampton University which has close links to Kingston University she was clearly not in any position to be unbiased.

The public should demand an investigation.

Note that she is the same magistrate that was unconvinced that Cheryl Cole and her husband were speeding away from paparazzi.

From now on, the theme, cry, statement should be: "Sir Peter Scott Resign!"

Frankly I don't care what happens to Sir Peter Scott, he could spontaneously combust for all I care. In any case his resignation will not affect what is happening with HF however much it is warranted. I think the strap line should be "Howard Fredrics is innocent, free HF"!

It should also be reported that Kingston University's employment solicitors have written to my representative asserting that comments made in this section by my wife, Lori, in relation to my Employment Tribunal case are untrue. They have suggested in their letter that my representative is responsible for having communicated these allegedly false statements, and appear to me to be making rumblings to the effect that they are planning some sort of action in order to, once again, silence the expression of truth. It appears that THES has acquiesced to threats by Kingston's lawyers in connection with Lori's comments and has removed the relevant comment from this site. My position on this is clear: to the best of my knowledge, the statements made by my wife Lori are entirely true and any statements to the contrary made by Kingston's lawyers are false.

"Dr Howard Fredrics 7 January, 2010
@Amazed Lawyer -- With the greatest respect to your advice about turning up to court, and notwithstanding the fact that I was too unwell to attend, I was informed prior to trial in no uncertain terms that because of the "acrimonious history" between myself and Prof Scott, I would not be permitted by the Court to cross examine him myself. Hence there could be no viable defence."

As I know nothing about this case I cannot comment on specifics. However, speaking generally - if a defendendant turns up prepared to represent himself (which he has every right to do) then the court must allow this. If the court feels that there is a legal basis for preventing the defendant cross-examining a witness in person, then it should ensure that a lawyer is appointed to act - granting an adjournment if appropriate. As I indicated in my earlier post, if a court is faced with prosecution lawyer and witnesses ready to go and no defendant, then whilst the case has still to be 'proved' it is far more likely that this will happen if the court hears only one side of the story. Not turning up is never a good idea, in my opinion. As for illness, this should be an acceptable basis for an adjournment, as long as properly backed up with medical evidence. I would be extremely surprised if a conviction was not set aside on appeal in the face of medical evidence, with an alternative future trial date then set.

@Lori Fredrics 7 January, 2010. "Dear Amazed lawyer, Try to reconcile these two facts. your statement "proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt rests with the prosecution" "The report, (the findings of the Police)seen by Times Higher Education, says the "sites listed do not contain content that is consistent with any harassment...". //

Was this a private prosecution by Kingston/Scott? If not, the police and Crown Prosecution service must have considered that there was sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution. It is for the court then to decide in the adversarial environment of a court room whether the prosecution view is correct, normally hearing their version and the defence version, each with the opportunity to challenge the other. The word adversarial is key, it is a 'fight'. If in a boxing match only one fighter turns up, who do you think is likely to win? By all means criticise English law as a system (academic lawyers do it all the time), although it has survived for hundreds of years and been copied/kept by the Americans, Canadians (in part), Australians etc etc, but do it from an informed position. I'm sure that most of the academics writing here have at one time or another marked a student essay/exam answer which clearly is based upon no reading at all. The student has just taken the view that s/he might as well have a go, and waffles on in an uninformed opinionated way about the general area of the subject matter. The mark will be close to zero and the comment will be "rubbish" or some polite version of saying the same. Any lawyer reading some of the above posts is going to reach the same conclusion - that some of the supporters of Dr F are an ill informed bunch who can't be bothered to find out what they are talking about. As I've already said, I know nothing of Dr F's case and if it has underlying merit or not, but ranting, random, uninformed attacks at English justice won't help to convince anyone that the supporters of Dr F are an articulate group who are worth listening to.

Isn't it amazing that the defence solicitors were forced to withdraw the day before the appearance, and both Dr Frederiks and one of his witnesses were suddenly struck down with illness. It's also being reported in the local paper - http://www.kingstonguardian.co.uk/news/4816963.Sacked_Kingston_University_lecturer_guilty_of_harassment/

@amazed. How does a busy lawyer like yourself just happen randomly upon this random article in THE online? Most legitimate lawyers are so frantically busy they don't even have time to return phone calls for days at a time. Sounds to me as if you either have a) far too much time on your hands (which causes one to wonder how legitimate or good you are) or b) some tacit stake in the outcome of this matte, in which case you are being disingenous about your prior knowledge of the case. It's pretty obvious to any academic with half a wit, and notwithstanding how stupid you seem to think we are, that you are visiting this thread to promote someone else's anti-HF agenda. Is it merely a happy coincidence that you turned up on this thread late yesterday evening, just before it is announced this morning that Kingston's lawyers have been crawling all over this site, attempting further to censor the comments of HF and his wife? Are those of us who have supported/defended him next? Just how far will Kingston go to silence freedom of speech?

@Curious. I would have thought that my reference to academic law, essay marking etc might have given you a clue about my professional status and why I would be reading the THE. Why does trying to correct non-lawyers' misunderstandings about the legal process, whilst making clear throughout that I'm not commenting specifically about this case, put me in any camp? Have I accused you or anyone else of being stupid? My term was uninformed (about the law and the legal system). You don't say what your academic discipline is, but I'm sure that if you've spent six years or more undertaking qualifications in that area you wouldn't let it go without comment if I or anyone else started spouting off about things we knew little or nothing and you knew lots. A person doesn't need to be stupid to make themselves sound it. We can all do this very easily if we start to blunder around in areas about which we know nothing and choose not to find out about.

Hi Amazed,
For your information, at least three of the individuals who posted in support of Howard are very high powered lawyers and one is a law prof. The rest are mostly prominent academics. No one is ranting they are expressing outrage. I don't think they will be intimidated by your insults.

I am disappointed to see 'Amazed lawyer' expressing such confidence in the law and the legal process. Dr. Fredrics' own legal representative said that Dr Fredrics was subject to "summary justice". When the legal proces is operating in effect outside of the law how on earth can one have any faith in it? That is the question that anyone professing faith in the legal system must address. Surely it is easy to understand, given the obvious injustices on display here - denied legal represeantation, no police evidence - yet still prosecuted and found guilty in absentia - that Dr. Fredrics has no faith in it. No insults need to be hurled to grasp this basic point. Everyone concerned with fundamental justice should support Dr. Fredrics in this affair.

The master,
I think Amazed lawyer" is very young, naive and inexperienced. If he is a lawyer or will become a good on., he will have to learn to think outside the box. Anyone can quote procedures but it takes higher reasoning, and life experience, as well as, respect and empathy to respond in an appropriate manner to this kind of a situation.
It is frustrating because he is 20 steps behind. But H's solicitors was confident that the system was going to work as normal and we at first trusted them, and then things went in an unbelievable and extraordinary direction.

Of course I meant "solicitors were".

@themaster. "Summary justice" is the term used for all matters decided by magistrates' courts (a basic wikipedia search would have told you that). How do you expect to have a reasoned debate with lawyers when you lack even the most basic legal knowledge and don't check before commenting?

@Lori Fredrics.Hi Amazed, For your information, at least three of the individuals who posted in support of Howard are very high powered lawyers and one is a law prof.

That's fine, I have no issue with them if they are not making uninformed comments about the legal process. If they are talking about the legal process then perhaps they can identify themselves so that I can respond directly. As for thinking outside of the box, for all posters who comment on the substance of this case (in or outside of the box) I make no comment, as I know none of the detail. However, it isn't an excuse for someone to talk about 'outside of the box' when wanting to comment about a legal process and actual case in a magistrates court when they apparantly know none of the theory and were not there to observe the practice. I remain amazed that academic commentators don't get this. Do they do the same with their academic work, reviewing a book perhaps without reading it? I repeat that I make no comment about Dr F's actual case, but you'll need an incredible amount of luck if the best response you have to a centuries old legal system is that we don't like it, don't really understand it so we'll just critcise it from a position of ignorance. Dr F might even be pleasantly suprised at just how fair English justice can be, if he actually turns up to fight his corner.

Jayne, my case is different because the accusations are of different (criminal) nature. University cannot bring this matter to court because the crime will be proved. And they cannot generate any publicity - it again will only serve to prove the crimes. But with Dr. Fredrics I believe that there was nothing worth of such scandal in the first place. The matter should be returned to Sir Peter Scott in a proper manner. It's the courts and the lawyers, as you yourself know, that will give it the surrealistic twist. I feel that Dr. Fredrics actually wants to offer his personal apology, but again, the rules of this stupid game do not permit any human move. If these rules prevail in keeping things in the hands of lawyers, the results for everybody will be absolutely devastating, totally disproportional to the actual matter. That "unbelievable and extraordinary direction" of which Lori Fredrics speaks above is, to a large degree, the result of the inertia that she and Howard are too shy to break. The rules of scandal (and of any war for that matter) advise people to escalate it in order to win. People now live in a fourth dimension, hanging there on the web built by lawyers. It's difficult to break away, but this is the case that is crying for it, and time is precious.

It's totally immaterial what lawyers are saying. They may be right but their task is to escalate it for money.

My husband is certain to fight his corner. He has been standing up to this system and inspiring others for a few years already. But he is not obviously going to go like a lamb to the slaughter. Your naivity continues to amaze. I think you should preach your sermons about how fair this country is to a different audience. This one knows better.

The above comment was to Amazed, but I am not sure, Lawyer, and i think I have said all I need to say to him.

@amazed. Most of us on here have far more practical experience with the UK legal system than you would imagine--probably more than you have ever seen yourself, since you make it a point to underscore your academic credentials. Many of us have had own living nightmares with UK HEIs similar to that of HFand many of our lives and careers have been similarly destroyed in the process. There is no winning for aggrieved and unjustly mistreated academics in the UK judicial system, especially not where foreign nationals are concerned, and certainly not when a knighted VC is running the asylum. Whatever the much-vaunted British legal system was, it--like the former British Empire--no longer exists. It is sick-making to hear the complacent arrogance and smugly self-congratulatory vaunting of the bygone glory days (if indeed they ever existed) of the now moribund 'British legal system'. It is condescending, to say the least, to hear an academic lawyer--sitting in his ivory tower marking papers with no understanding or practical experience of what bullied academics in the UK have been through--pontificate to us about our 'positions of ignorance' and the unforeseen 'pleasant surprises' awaiting us down the road, should we only educate ourselves. If I may, you seem to be the utterly clueless one on here. Might I recommend that you spend a few hours on the Bullied Academics website (http://www.bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/) to educate and inform *yourself* about the stark reality of Kafkaesque elimination rituals in UK HEIs and the utter futility and uselessness of the UK legal system to redress the serious injustices, irreparable damage to careers, reputations, and families, serious illnesses, and even suicides perpetrated by the vile and unconscionable actions of the knightly cohort at the helm of many British univeristies.

@Lori Fredrics "My husband is certain to fight his corner." I thought that a central point of this story was that (in the criminal case) he didn't because he didn't attend. I appreciate that he might have good reason for this (illness) but he can only make use of this and engage (if he is allowed to) with a second trial if he engages with the appeal process first. Whatever those who comment from their ivory towers about the system and lawyers would like to think, the system WILL operate. Engage with it and you have a good chance of being found not guilty or, if found guilty, mitigating sentence. Don't engage and the following happens:
1. Found guily in absence
2. If don't attend for sentencing, warrant issued for arrest to compel attendance.
3. If don't take opportunity to provide mitigation, sentence likely to be harsher - prison at the extreme in this case.

"Your naivity continues to amaze". Exactly why am I the naive one? There are plenty of conspiracy theories floating around in the above comments, so why not take the opportunity to properly fight a case before a bench of magistrates (usually three members of the community, not lawyers, who are unlikely to have any pre-existing views about university hierarchies etc) or even better a jury of 12 randomly selected members of the community? If commentators here really think that the whole legal system is somehow conspiring over such a trifling matter, then they really have lost the plot and should get out of their ivory towers more. From this story, at least, the university may have taken a heavy handed approach to silence a critic. The courts are well practised at resisting the possible misuse of harassment legislation (I've seen plenty of examples of this) and it's perfectly feasible that Dr F would persuade them to do so in this case, if he turns up to defend himself.

to amazed lawyer

"Summary justice refers to the trial and punishment of suspected offenders without recourse to a more formal and protracted trial (for example a jury trial) under the legal system. It is also a term sometimes used to describe or justify vigilantism".

I also quote from the Times Nov 2008

"The rise of summary justice at the expense of formal court hearings in courts is worrying both magistrates and judges who fear it is making a mockery of justice."

My point exactly - and please I am not ignorant - I was aware of the different meanings to this term - but you only SEEM willing to grasp some things as having a single meaning - part of the problem here.
As an academic I am aware that things are rarely amenable to a simple interpretation - this is true even of the law - as this is one branch of social reality.

Well written/spoken S.B. Anthony. Indeed, the vast majority of those who are unable to even remotely comprehend the impact and long term effects of workplace bullying on academics (and other workers), tend to make naive and at times insensitive comments. Many of the victims - the majority - loose their health, their jobs and careers, their income, and much more. The figures, literature, statistics and studies are all there. There can be no excuse for ignorance anymore. To somehow argue that the legal system is in place to rectify and address such issues, is to reveal further ignorance. Tim Field (check it out if you do not know who he is), argued that the victim, in the state of mind he/she is, also has to go through a protracted legal battle - assuming the funds exist - often to have their case fail in court because the aggressor has endless funds to wear down the victim. Anybody on this forum that argues otherwise, is simply not in touch with reality. Dr. Howard Fredrics took on a massive battle. As much as we are concerned he is the victim. Billions are lost every year, yes, BILLIONS due to the effects of workplace bullying. The figures for Higher Education are not really known for no extensive study has ever been completed. The union (UCU) pays lip service. How many more good academics will loose their careers, jobs, health? It is a scandal. To argue otherwise - we insist - can only be so due to naivity, ignorance or one has a different agenda...

@S.B. Anthony. As it happens I have ongoing practical as well as academic legal experience. I have no misconceptions that the English legal process is expensive and so very difficult to properly access (not helped for academics that our trades uniion is not as generous as some others when it comes to financially supporting claims) but I would also respectfully observe that in an adversarial system there is always a winner and a loser. Being on the losing side isn't as of itself evidence of unfairness. If you care to provide actual detailed examples of unfairness operating, I'll tell you for each example whether I agree with you or not.

"to properly fight a case before a bench of magistrates (usually three members of the community, not lawyers, who are unlikely to have any pre-existing views about university hierarchies etc)"

Amazed - you seem unaware that one of the memebrs of the bench is a member of such a hierarchy! Board of Governors ofa closely affiliated institution. So might not exactly be the most impartial of people. Given the littany of miscarriages of justice in recent years in the UK I am puzzled why you appear to think it all operates fairkly and squarely - Are you reallly saying/belieivng everyone is equal before teh law. As a scientist I go by what the data says - and as the data says it is not.

@themaster. If you were aware of the different meanings of summary justice, why didn't you check with the solicitors you were citing WHICH meaning they had in mind and make that clear in your post? That was the basis of my response. I'd be very surprised if they didn't simply mean "the system for trying and punishing offenders in the magistrates' courts". You chose to ascribe to them a different meaning, apparently without checking, as a means to further YOUR agenda. If you are a research active academic you'll know that if you choose to manipulate ambiguous data to further the conclusion you wish to reach then you can't properly complain when you are caught out doing this.

Now I know you are simply being disengenuous. I was well aware of what the lawyer meant and the context in which it was said - which is conveyed by the meaning I indicated. That you didn't even consider that possibility -but launched into lecturing me that here was only one meaning indicates that you are being (perhaps purposely?) less than constructive.

themaster "you seem unaware that one of the memebrs of the bench is a member of such a hierarchy! Board of Governors ofa closely affiliated institution. " I was unaware of this, I've said many times that I don't know the detail of this case, but have had considerable experience in magistrates' courts and have NEVER yet had a bench (or member of it) refuse to recuse themselves if asked to do so when there is any whiff of possible (real or apparent) bias. The case is simply heard by a different bench.

"I am puzzled why you appear to think it all operates fairkly and squarely" I've never claimed absolutes, just that if you don't turn up it clearly is not likely to operate to your advantage.

"As a scientist" - are you an academic scientist? If so, do you think that the student examination process operates entirely fairly in every case? I don't, but do my best to make it as fair as any system reasonably can be. Does this mean that if a student points out to me that my system is not 100% fair, I should award them a high mark even though they didn't bother to turn up to sit the exam? Popper, Kuhn etc make similar observation about your findings of scientific 'fact' ,yet I presume that you don't abandon scientific method entirely just because it may not be 100% effective all the time. If you want to throw out a legal system because it sometimes goes wrong then you'd better be prepared to throw out pretty much all academic and scientific endeavour as well.

themaster "Now I know you are simply being disengenuous. I was well aware of what the lawyer meant and the context in which it was said - which is conveyed by the meaning I indicated." Solicitors are officers of the court (full title Solicitor of the Supreme Court) and it is therefore a rather foolhardy one who will openly criticise a court in the manner you seem to be suggesting (courts can impose unpleasant sanctions on their officers). Maybe he was saying what you think he was saying, but you should ask him to clarify exactly which meaning he intended before accusing me of being disengenuous. As a scientist you must want evidence, not mere supposition?

Amazed....I don't recall any comment of mine about throwing out the legal system. Dr Fredrics reasonably requested rescheduling to have legal representation. Tis was refused - Why do you think one of the magistrates would suddenly decide to recuse themselves if asked - when they have already overlooked the basic legal right of having representation? Dr Fredrics absence occurred after this not before it and therefore I perfectly understand why he should have at that point no confidence in gettng a fair hearing. You are treating each event in this affair as unrelated as if somehow there could not be a common explanation to tthe series of legal oddities and perverse judgements made and that somehow each new event is consdiered independently of the the previous ones - thisis just not tenable.

Hello guys. Let us stop quarrelling among ourselves. An academic is treated very badly by the CEO of a university and the magistrate of a court has appeared to have issued orders that goes against this victim's human rights. Let us strongly protest this holding up a banner at the gates of Kingston U and distributing leaflets to staff and particularly students and inviting the media to explain the victimisation. Count me in if such a protest is organised.
Instead of wrangling ourselves, let us do some postive to right the wrong.

excellent idea

Puzzled is right to point that there has been enough talk. It is time to consider what can be done to address the serious problems brought out in this forum. Distributing leaflets to Kingston University staff and students may not be the most effective communication. They are as much victims of the misconduct of Kingston University officers as H Fredrics, they are also relatively powerless to bring about a solution to this problem. The misconduct of Kingston University could well be used as the focal point of any protest, however the venue and the audience should be set so as to target those who have the power to address this problem. How about distributing leaflets to the members of parliament. Invite the press to watch. Of course anyone thinking of participating ought to consider the risk of being accused of harassing the MPs and being found guilty under the Protection from Harassment Act by a Magistrates’ Court (!!!!!!!??).

I am pretty convinced that Amazed Lawyer is working for Kingston University. He has spent much, to much effort trying to dampen the fire and the outrage. People on this forum are not stupid.
Really, engaging him is just giving him a chance to put forward his agenda. Anyone with any experience with magistrates courts knows that they almost never recuse themselves. When Amazed Lawyer wrote "I've said many times that I don't know the detail of this case, but have had considerable experience in magistrates' courts and have NEVER yet had a bench (or member of it) refuse to recuse themselves if asked to do so when there is any whiff of possible (real or apparent) bias". He exposed himself as an outsider to the British Legal system or someone spreading a lot of cow manure.

Thank you 'puzzled' for trying to restore some sense to this debate and dampening down the egos - or Pierre will start saying that Howard's case too is 'boring'. None of these cases... Howard's... Carl's... or mine are boring - they are about academics trying to grapple with situations that in one of the cases ended in suicide... Carl hanging himself from a tree. Carl cannot take part in any debates. He is dead. That is not boring. I remain working in my university trying to get the senior management to address the issues of alleged workplace bullying - for that I have been warned that if I continue I may face possible disciplinary action. My union skulk in the shadows... offering weasel words as I suspect they cosy up to the management.

@Aphra Behn - I would never say that Howard's case or your case or any case of workplace bullying for that matter is boring. What I would say is that they all follow a well established formula, articulated correctly by Prof. Kenneth Westhues. And those who dare doubt that this formula exists, are - sadly - naive and ignorant. One thing we should expect from academics is a basic attempt to do some research. On another issue, have no doubt that Kingston University lawyers are all over these comments, and - I had some recent information - are threatening some individuals with legal actions due to some of the comments here. Whatever it is that Kingston University and Sir Peter Scott have achieved, it is nothing more than a pyrrhic victory. In time we will all drift away from this forum, and Howard's case will become second-hand news, BUT the image/reputation of Kingston University is damaged and have no doubt that the case of Howard is not the only one. Such mismanagement is reflected in other actions/areas within the same university - they are cutting their own throat. This is were Howard's title on his web site 'Leadership for the 21st Century' is so appropriate.They are reaping what they have sown.

Keep fighting the f**kers.

It should also be noted that as far as recusal is concerned, the Magistrates were asked by my solicitors at the plea hearing on 20 October to transfer the case to another venue. They refused. Secondly, in the matter of my Employment Tribunal case, the Judge is a former chief legal counsel to an organization headed at the time by two board members at Kingston University, both of whom had direct involvement with and//or knowledge of my case. The Judge refused applications to recuse himself. So much for fair justice in Britain.

"Kingston University lawyers are all over these comments, and - I had some recent information - are threatening some individuals with legal actions due to some of the comments here"
One sure way to stifle freedom of speech. The problem for the individual is that they have limited money with which to fight these threats whereas institutions such as KU which have access to millions of pounds can afford to hire expensive hot shot lawyers who only have to send out a letter of threat of action to be able to ask for large sum of money in compensation. My own costs were £750 not a fortune but enough for someone on a modest wage trying to rebuild a life after academia. The alternative was to fight them and run the risk of losing my home which I could not live with.

"Institutions such as KU which have access to millions of pounds can afford to hire expensive hot shot lawyers who only have to send out a letter of threat of action to be able to ask for large sum of money in compensation". And where exactly does this publicly funded University get these obscene amounts of money and who exactly is authorising such expenditures to persecute dissident academics? Is this not a national scandal worthy of a full Parliamentary investigation? Where in the world is the UCU on this? Too busy cosying up to senior management to rock the boat, as others have suggested . . .

KU lawyers cannot threaten me I am a Time Lord - If you get the drift

At Bullied Academics Blog we can't wait to receive a threatening legal letter from KU solicitors. We are running out of toilet paper due to weather conditions :)

I can now safely and openly reveal that the reason we were both forced to leave Britain is because we were the subjects of death threats from an extremist terror group, accompanied by a physical assault against my wife. Since that time, we have been living in constant fear of our lives, particularly since there may be ties between the attack and threats and other individuals and/or organizations who have vested interests in our ceasing to breathe the air on this planet. For either of us to testify in open court in relation to the criminal charges against me or in relation to the Employment Tribunal case would have meant exposing information that might have placed our lives in further jeopardy, which were obviously unable to risk doing. I am only now able to report this because both of us are no longer present in Britain and are instead in a location which we believe to be safe and secure. Unfortunately, the various authorities, including Magistrates Court and Employment Tribunal were well aware of our situation, but chose to not take it into account despite the documented fact of the ongoing criminal investigation. I will not comment further on their possible motivations, but will leave this to the public to determine through the appropriate avenues.

It is worthwhile to note that in Britain, no legal qualification or knowledge of the law is required to become a magistrate. Any of the posters here, and indeed anyone off the streets, can become a magistrate. Whence some of the decisions made in Magistrates Courts.

I agree with Pierre Joseph Proudhon that the academic sector is not the only one affected by bullying and intimidation: many other sectors and departments are affected by it like catering, maintenance, security, etc.... It is however very frequent to hear about academics being bullied and their disclosure of such bullying because academics are more able to voice their concerns given the high grade of education and the high principle of justice they rely on. Nonetheless not all academics have the audacity to rebel to the powerful system. Other people working in the public sector might not know their rights, or find it difficult to communicate or it is for them difficult to seek legal advice and they might be however scared to rock the boat.
What we have been reading is about a ‘fugitive’, ex academic charged with harassment, hopeful of an appeal granted to him by the same system that has convicted him on wrong and unlawful grounds. Full stop! What we do not see is how the system is going to deal with the wealth of information provided (documented or satirical whatsoever – however “documents” and “disclosures”). If I steel an apple from a grocer or supermarket because I have to feed myself (OK, it is a crime – got it!) if found out, I could go to prison (good on me, the public opinion might say). Or if I have no money to pay Council tax or the TV licence I will be charged with whatever crime and possibly go to prison. Having said this, we do not certainly see behind bars people working in the Public Sector who manipulate events using the heights of their “reputation” and enjoying the benefits of influencing events or pulling strings derived by a higher status, who are allowed to investigate themselves (or whatever sense one can make of it) and who might have stolen more than one apple-worth of public money. The judicial system does not seem to see into issues of fraud and how some of these Public Sector people are actually ruining lives, or depriving people with the chance to work and failing instead to provide a harassment-free environment (healthy and safe workplace – it is not asking for the moon!). Some bully institutions have lead and still are leading people to the verge of desperation with these long redress procedures until a break point is reached. The party to break however is not the institution; the party to reach the breaking point is the individual who, believe it or not, is only human and with very limited resources like Jayne for example. With all these court cases to the Employment Tribunals costing to the taxpayers, someone said billions per year - and I believe it -, if the institution is found guilty or responsible of whatever claim (read between the lines: crime), they are bound to pay money which is not even belonging to the perpetrator of the bulling or to the person who has allowed or committed the fraud. There is no personal criminal accountability for having wasted taxpayer money, for creating unrest in the taxpayer welfare and in other honest people’s lives. What we see is that there is a sort of tacit immunity for those people: none of these rotten apples goes actually to prison! None of them, because the judicial system actually does not want to smell the coffee; yet, it is being aware of the untenable situation this work society has now reached; especially in a climate of crises where people lose houses and/or spend thousands of pounds in lengthy Employment Tribunal court cases or not being able to face all this (after having already lost the house), just simply kill themselves or “chose” to become mentally damaged forever.
For those who do not accept the fact, and actually condemn that Dr Fedrics has not turned up to the hearing, as a human being (not being a lawyer) I will say that after many incongruous events that Dr Fredrics has “found out”, and being forced to face with his ill health and the status of his family welfare, it should not be surprising to the eyes of a common man that he may want to appeal to the verdict of harassment and in the meantime would not want to be apprehended by the same police force which, ironically, has already stated that his website does not contain any elements of harassment. The satire comes willy-nilly very natural in the mind of any individual gifted with a gleam of common sense and find himself or herself to some extent to picture in the back of their own minds the funny and derisive yet tragic situation in which the institutions put the police force in ridicule: look you Howard, we are the police and although you have done nothing whatsoever we are gonna grab you, you criminal! this way you learn to voice your concerns! By allowing to treating Dr Fredric in such an appalling fashion - like a hunted animal – it will make us lose faith in the institutions which are vital to our society. It is “naturally obvious” that something is wrong there and it is not so much his state of “fugitive one”. Moreover, if you consider that a threat on him and his wife might have compounded his decision to leave no trace of themselves, it should make the authority think more carefully how to tackle Dr Fredrics. I am very sure the institutions have shown themselves more lenient on real criminals who might have committed far more atrocious crimes. Why being so merciless to a respectable person like Dr Fredrics.
The all story sounds indeed very Kafkaesque to me to cite an expression used by a dear friend of mine.
I agree with Walter Cairns about the petition to the prime minister and also agree with Puzzled and Rex-3 that we should start gathering at the gates of Kingston U and distributing leaflets to staff and particularly students and inviting the media to explain the victimisation and telling them also why there might not be enough resources to fund their studies and why we all should be paying more for course fees or tax whatsoever.
As Pierre Joseph Proudhon is mentioning we should raise our voices. The voices of human beings and as such, we should be protected by criminal justice also in the workplace.
Whether unsung heroes or unsung martyrs, let it not be a requiem of criticism for people like Dr. Howard Fredrics who chose to rebel to the “cosy system”. There it should be instead a glorious anthem and support to help them to unveil the truth of public sector bullying and spending (and spending over bullying).

In fairness to the British system (well, somebody's got to be!) it must be said that magistrates are put through a very intensive training programme before they are allowed anywhere near the bench. That is not to say that the system of lay judges is free from criticism.

The VC and his smug lawyers will in a short time not know what has hit them. Damning details of this travesty of justice will undoubtedly filter through to the various news organisations worldwide. Scotty might then bitterly regret winning his temporary victory, since it will be his (knighted) head on the block. It's just a matter of time.

@ Patrick Kirby: You are right. If there is one thing we can all do, it is to spread the word, let the world know about this injustice. It is encouraging to see how many posts on this topic have been contributed. It is only a matter of time before THES puts a limit to this sadly. We must spread the word now. You are all welcome to use the bullied academics blog if THES stops the contributions to this news item. In the meanwhile, please spread the word, let everyone know about this injustice.

There should be great public outcry at illcit and illegal censorship and perpetaution of these dastardly acts by the powers that be, who side with the offending party, a Knight in the kingdom.

Terrorist death threats now given as the reason not to appear in court. What happened to solicitors conflict of interest and illness? How deep does this rabbit hole go? Themaster wrote, "You are treating each event in this affair as unrelated as if somehow there could not be a common explanation to tthe series of legal oddities and perverse judgements made and that somehow each new event is consdiered independently of the the previous ones - thisis just not tenable." Aside from a massive and costly consipracy involving a university, the police, magistrates, tribunals and now terrorists, what other possible explanation is there for the endless series of dramatic and public misfortunes of this man and his poor wife? http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm#Attention As Dr Fredrics would say, YOU decide. Or are don't you need to consider all possible explanations? Would promoting this story as widely as some suggest REALLY do any good for people who have actually been bullied in academia, or would it turn them into a laughing stock? What about getting some FACTS before risking a libel suit?

@bullied but streetwise - now let me guess.. you work for?

@bullied but streetwise -- What you don't understand is that an application for postponement went to the CPS and Court on the basis of injuries caused by the attack against my wife, as well as on the basis of fear for our safety, and lack of representation, and an application for discontinuation of prosecution on the basis of the exculpatory police report and my ongoing and well-documented poor health. In addition, on the day before the trial, I came down with H1N1 virus, sent in medical documentation of that fact, and in all instances as described above, the CPS and Court denied our applications. So before you make judgments, know your facts, and if you still have doubts, stay tuned, and you'll soon be able to view copies of all said documents as well as the responses from the CPS and Court. BTW, the Court failed to even reply to my final application on the basis of my H1N1 diagnosis.

Dear Dr Fredrics - how was the H1NQ diagnosed? Was it by a medical practitioner, or diagnosed via the web HM Gov Flu site?

That annoys me: magistrates or judges, what difference does it make? There is no sense of justice in anyone. People act according to their affiliations with groups, ethnicity, "gender", politics. They use their positions in university, government, press, and on a jury to advance, joyfully, sadistically and with impunity, group causes. If a blind man comes before the court, the jury and the judge will only express their personal attitude to blindness, that's all. Stop maintaining stupid illusions, please. In olde England, 19-century, you paid money to a lawyer who usually was a relative of the judge, they split the money and you win in court. ---------------- What makes you think that now when people adopted all these ideas about "social justice", "past injustice", "gender", "affirmative action", "minorities", that they are guided by in everyday life, would retain the abstract idea of justice? In universities, how many times do you hear about these fraudulent ideas, and how many times you hear about the abstract idea of justice that must be blind. The ratio is somewhere around ten millions to one! I wouldn't be wrong to say that the idea of blind justice is deliberately suppressed. The only thing magistrates can learn is various "sensitivities". In Canada at least, judges are obliged to take exactly this "training", I am not kidding. You go to court or you go anywhere else, before anyone who has power to make a decision about you, and you not only play a roulette, in some cases, you know you will loose. Look at the method of jury selection. One out of ten or sometimes out of hundred, is picked. Lawyers are so well "trained" that they don't need to ask questions, they know who they need just by looking at the candidate. That's how the comedy of justice begins.

@H1N1 -- It really isn't any of your business.

Can somebody who knows Howard and is in touch with him, negotiate with him the content of a petition, and then start it at: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/

@ Michael Pyshnov: "That annoys me: magistrates or judges, what difference does it make? There is no sense of justice in anyone. People act according to their affiliations with groups, ethnicity, "gender", politics. They use their positions in university, government, press, and on a jury to advance, joyfully, sadistically and with impunity, group causes.That annoys me: magistrates or judges, what difference does it make? There is no sense of justice in anyone. People act according to their affiliations with groups, ethnicity, "gender", politics. They use their positions in university, government, press, and on a jury to advance, joyfully, sadistically and with impunity, group causes"

Hello comrade Michael Pyshnov. The above sounds like your friend Putin's Russia!!!

The only thing worse than messing up is messing up and not admitting it. The only thing worse than messing up and not admitting it is messing up, not admitting it and compounding it. The only thing worse than messing up, not admitting it, compounding it and using somebody else's money to extricate yourself is relinquishing your position and being 'thrown onto the scrap-heap'. Who can have been ignoring the above advice? Step forward Sir 'Peter' Scott, and prepare to meet your fate.

It would help if everyone here gave their real names and affiliations when making their comments so that others can better evaluate them. I am a former lecturer at the University of St Andrews with first-hand experience of the way in which members of a university administration bully and scapegoat academic staff who are whistle blowers and then rely on their unscrupulous friends in the legal system and the acquiescent academics’ union to support them. It seems to me that instead of simply making vague protestations of support to Mr Fredrics those who believe in his cause should do something practical to defend the integrity of academic institutions. I am prepared to mirror www.sirpeterscott.com on my own website (www.skorupskislaw.com) if Mr Fredrics sends me the appropriate files. I would urge all those who are sympathetic to his case and who have their own websites to do the same. If you don't have a website, start one. In this way magistrates’ courts may find it rather more difficult to curb freedom of speech in relation to abusive practices in higher education. I would, however, strongly urge Mr Fredrics to present himself to the police. He is doing his case no favours by going into hiding. He can be confident that his case is being carefully watched.

You just hit the nail on the head. Forced to sign a compromise agrrement with confidentiality clauses to cover up the crime and brush it under the mat appears to be the norm. Here is the hot potato! The only thing worse than missing up, not admitting it and cmpounding it when the Union's Head of the Legal Services signed the compromise agrrement when the victim was hystrically in distress is beyond any stretch of imagination. The victim honourabley served higher education in England for well over 30 years and contributed massively nationally and internationally to higher education and the United Kingdom! Please read the IUSS Select Committee recent report into "Students and Universites" inquiry 2008-2009 memorandum 99. Please read relevant information in Volume 1&2 published August 2009 and also the Government Response published October 2009. Similar to other cases at MMU, this evidence is protected by the House of Common "Protection privilege" against future ltigation, therefore have a read among the words and lines to fathom out what happened! Please note, the factual evidence within the memorandum only constitutes 5% of the true evidence related to the case. In comparison to other cases, it is widely believed that this case is the worst ever reported in higher education in England. But, the point is where the 95% of the evidence gone and why this remaining evidence has not come to light? What was the role of the University managers in this conspiracy? What was the role of the Union in this conspiracy? What was the role of the quangoes (HEFCE and QAA) in this conspiracy. Melanie Newman wrote two stories about the case employing approximately 1% of the actual evidence of the case. A tin of worms is eagerly waiting to explode.

Dr Fredrics may be staying alive and well by going into hiding. It nees to be remembered that there has already been one suspicious death at this institution...
While I can appreciate the sentiments behind asking people to reveal their real names here - that is just not practical from some people who fear reprisals from their instituion. If there is some other way to get organised then we must do it - but doing it publically on here I think carries dangers. .....Re above referrred document - is there a link???

Dear Dr Fredriks, re "It really isn't any of your business"; that would be self-diagnosis via the web, then. Good luck in your case - I think you may need it.

To the master: Here you are the link http:parliament.the-stationary-office.co.uk. By the way What do you mean by "suspicious death at this insttution". Could you please be more expansive.

To the master: Here you are the link http:parliament.the-stationary-office.co.uk. By the way What do you mean by "suspicious death at this insttution". Could you please be more expansive.

1. To Hot potatoe - Many thanks -
2. Look up Diana Winstanley on web - allegedly committed suicide. Research Interest in staff relations - very unhappy at treatment. Could say more - but best not here.

2. To H1N1 People with flu are advised explicitly BOt to go to their GP (hence not to infect others) - and to contact the NHS pandemic flu line who advise and arrange on treatment - a bit of thoughlessness seems to be present in your comments as well as lack ofknowledge as to how the swine flu epidemic is managed by the health authorities.

thanks Hot spud - makes grim reading...couldn't find Gov response - but initial IUSS report is enlightening.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmdius/170/17009.htm

here is link for others

Perhaps an open letter to the THES and a petition not just to no.10 but in the national press. To draw attention to the matters these posts have raised.

Thank you once again to THES for the space to explore and make public these issues that should concern every academic in the land. Those of us who try to speak out by using the grievance process within our universities are often faced with denial and threats if we dare to speak to anyone when the grievance process fails us. I cannot speak on here about the details of my case. I dare not give my real name. I am at the moment staring down a black hole in my university and UCU are doing nothing - are they Sally Hunt? Sally - what about writing a piece for THES about cases of workplace bullying and how UCU and its representatives respond? You - and those who work in the name of UCU- should be required to explain yourselves. Our thoughts are with you Howard and all those who have the courage to speak up and not take compromise agreements and collude with management in the silencing of their case. As the 'the Hot potato' says- ' forced to sign a compromise agrrement with confidentiality clauses to cover up the crime and brush it under the mat appears to be the norm and HP reminds us of the actions of a solicitor from UCU's Legal Services who signed the compromise agrrement when the victim was hystrically in distress. As HP says this is beyond any stretch of the imagination... But why not just stop a moment and think what this must have been like... Imagine the scene. So this is our union. Explain yourself please Sally - I abhor your silence on this matter and that of the accomplices who work in the shadows in your name.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmdius/170/17009.htm '...In our view the action of the Vice-Chancellor and the Academic Board of Manchester Metropolitan University on 18 March 2009 in removing Mr Cairns from the Board could be regarded as interference with a witness and therefore a prima facie breach of privilege. If matters had remained there we would have consulted the Liaison Committee and requested the House to refer the matter to the Committee on Standards and Privileges...' If there was any doubt about the extent to which universities are prepared to go, this says it all... We know of the case of Howard Fredrics, but also of the cases of Aphra Behn, Declan Quigley, Michael Pyshnov, and many more that we do not have the freedom to comment about in public... When will universities become truly accountable? If there ever was an open enquiry, we would all discover that we are looking at the tip of the iceberg. Firstly, provide legal protection to all those that were forced to sign compromise agreements, so they can come forward and tell their story, and then the real picture will emerge. It is a scandal and the union is useless. The question is how do we move on from here...

Pierre Joseph Proudhon, your are hitting at the sore spot and I would like to add a bit of seasoning to your already fully expressed thoughts. Targeting the whistleblowers and victimizing them has been a common and usual practice within the universities walls. The universities have been having “licence to kill” until now and have been burying their head in the sand by not wanting to deal with the matter when it arises at first and sweeping the inconvenient concerns under the carpet –there are plenty of examples. Until someone like Dr Fredrics arrives and challenges them all! The politicians should do something to better the situation if they want to avoid making look like Dr Fredrics et al. like Don Quixote against the wind mills and irritate so the voters at this delicate stage of elections time. The internet is very fast and as all of us know about the antics of Berlusconi and able to criticise him, all Britain and many countries are knowing about this shame second by second. What the world is witnessing here is the battle of one man against powerful institutions which have unlimited resources of spending and adopting draconian measures by using a sledge hammer to crack a nut in order to silence him forever. Right here, the country considered the promise land of freedom of speech. I like the quotes of Bullied academics http://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/ ----------"Nothing strengthens authority as much as silence." Leonardo da Vinci ---------- "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men [or good women] do nothing." Winston Churchill. I agree of course with you and others when you say that this is the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps the words of another truly and highly regarded English figure of history of humanity will proffer to the politician a better graspable cogency of our arguments: --------“I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me”.----------- [Brewster’s Memoirs of Newton, II. Ch.27]. I believe that each targeted person is feared to be that “scientist” who could immerse himself or herself in that ‘undiscovered ocean’ where the other ‘independent’ investigators or internal audit have failed and discover then some of those hidden rough pebbles and ugly shells of financial impropriety and cost of bullying. “By order of the management of Kingston University, staff are not permitted to access this site from University computers”. There must be a reason why Sir Peter Scott has forbidden staff members to browse the website within the university; however: "All our knowledge has its origin in our perceptions." [Leonardo da Vinci] and it appears that the perception of many posters has been of pain, sorrow, humiliation, desperation and of an unhealthy workplaces indeed and whatever they have perceived and how they have experienced it, I am sure they would not like it to be the case to happen to any of their dearest colleagues and family members... if only they could tell us their stories!.... This injustice is happening today to Dr Fredrics; tomorrow to you reader and, who knows when, to one of your family member sooner or later though. We need to break the chain. Someone said that any avalanche starts with few tiny stones gathering speed and moving enormous masses of snow.

And how the hell you are going to sign that petition? "Howard's friend # 51"? Or: "Suspiciously alive # 51"? If you cannot even name somebody who is dead? He/she had the name "suspicious dead"?

I have been updating the Wikipedia "Abuse" article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse

Seems as if this man's rights are being trampled upon given his illness and the fact that his representation was disallowed the day before the trial.

Sorry for the late comment re H1N1. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows the physical (and emotional) effecs of being bullied. There is only so much stress a body can take - and after that it has a detrimental effect on their health - the person feeling drained and their immune system weakened. So it's not surprising Dr Fredrics had the flu. He should be praised for keeping his germs to himself!.

Pierre Joseph Proudhon: You are right about my case. I would only add that the Select Committee was quite wrong to let MMU off the hook. They made their decision without due process of law, simply on the basis of an exchange of emails which were never intended as court evidence. There was no hearing, no exchange of submissions, no cross-examination - just the MPs in their cocoon thinking themselves above such mundane considerations.

Maintain the rage! Self-organise. "...Everywhere, life self-organizes as networks of relationships. When individuals discover a common interest or passion, they organize themselves and figure out how to make things happen. Self-organizing evokes creativity and results, creating strong, adaptive systems. Surprising new strengths and capacities emerge." - Margaret J. Wheatley. Maintain the rage!

..........we must insist that we do so in an environment free from fear........................................................................................................http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=199085§ioncode=26--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Why I think bullying in university departments is on the increase 14 October 2005

Dan Cohn-Sherbok Professor of Jewish theology, University of Wales, Lampeter. He has written extensively on anti-Semitism
The articles and letters on bullying published recently in The Times Higher have made me contemplate my experiences as head of department.

It was nearly 30 years ago and there were only six of us in the department.

No one thought of me as a "line manager", I was merely a young lecturer. I may have known about theology, but I had no training or experience in administration. That did not matter. In essence I was a paperpusher. I organised timetables, distributed lists of students, co-ordinated exams and sat on various committees. There was never any thought I might "manage" colleagues. They would have laughed if I had tried.

This was before the cult of Thatcherism. In many ways, it was a halcyon time for universities. We seemed to have enough students. Study leave was a regular occurrence. All of us had tenure. There was no research assessment exercise or Quality Assurance Agency. In general, we were free to pursue research that interested us.

In the 1980s and 1990s things began to change. The spirit of the market penetrated the groves of academe. We became competitive. Polytechnics became universities. Our teaching and research were quantified and assessed. Students evaluated classes, gave feedback on courses and produced student surveys. Pressures from above were combined with pressures from below, and we academics were caught in the middle.

Along with all this, administrators suddenly became managers. They had to supervise their departments; they became budget-holders; they were sometimes even required to institute disciplinary procedures. Yet the majority had as little training as I had. Individuals whose main interests lay in matters such as the Prophetic Books of the Hebrew Bible or the peculiar properties of magnesium were suddenly expected to follow complex personnel regulations.

Not surprisingly, there have been problems. As The Times Higher has revealed, academic bullying is on the increase. The reasons are obvious.

Vice-chancellors and other senior staff are anxious about university finances. They are preoccupied with league tables. They want results.

Departmental heads are only too aware of these demands. They want results, too. But most have no direct training in personnel management. With the Pre-Exilic Prophets (or magnesium) as their only guides, all too often they harass colleagues. Insecure themselves, some try to bully people into submission then issue warnings with no regard for employment legislation.

Others create a climate of intimidation, seeking to drive their hapless colleagues into early retirement or even an early grave.

I have seen it done at other universities. In one case, a head of department was aware that a member of staff was drinking too much. Students were complaining. Instead of dealing with the issue as a pastoral problem, discipline was immediately invoked. The person, a hugely talented scholar, was hounded out of his job. At another university, a lengthy grievance procedure was instituted against an unpopular member of staff with no justification and the victim eventually retired with a nervous breakdown.

We should not want to turn the clock back. It is right that there is pressure from the Government. Students should feel justified in complaining if their needs are not met.

We need managers - but we should not be overwhelmed by them. Bullying can be prevented by careful training and the implementation of policies.

Complaints can be tackled through proper procedures. Academic standards can be protected through official codes of practice. We can still embark on the brave new world of efficiency, accountability and excellence, but we must insist that we do so in an environment free from fear.

I am waiting for someone in my university to speak out and to have the courage to address the very serious issues that I am raising. I dig deep to find the strength and courage to keep going. Please help us to succeed. It is a very lonely path that we tread.

21 October, 2009 Liverpool John Moores Snark 18 August, 2009 An old friend of mine was subjected to savage and public bullying at LJMU, and as a visitor to the university I witnessed it. Over coffee, I was told that the public behavior that I had witnessed was quite normal. Compare and contrast with Newcastle, where a 'dignity at work' policy is taken seriously, and breaches are immediately acted upon. We have much my way of procedures and policies, but importantly we have genuine leadership, and senior colleagues who regard it as their job to behave as though leadership mattered.

"Bullying can be prevented by careful training and the implementation of policies." "...'dignity at work' policy is taken seriously...". More policies? More prevention? More slogans? More implementation? More taking seriously? More training?

you cannot train people to act morally. This is like saying a health and safety at work policy at Bergen-Belson would have made everytthng OK for the inmates.

It seems perverse that universities, which are supposed to be centres of excellence to improve people's minds and produce better people, instead seem to often generate bullies. I had to work with one manager who was an appalling serial bully, yet he ticked all the right boxes - getting all the right university qualifications. The fact that he was a serial bully, going around wrecking people's lives, didnt seem to be of any interest to anybody in a position of authority.

Personally i would prefer to deal with a non-bully who didnt go to university rather than a bully who did go to university and got the right bits of paper.

The idea of emotional intelligence (EQ) aka emotional literacy training has a lot of potential if it is done properly and not on the cheap. There is a scheme called SEAL with limited funding and resources operating in UK schools which has had positive results in reducing bullying etc. It should encourage mutual respect, control of anger and constructive behaviour. However, in my view it would be wasted on people with personality disorders who shouldnt be given jobs in positions of responsibility in the first place. People with personality disorders (such as narcissism or sociopathy) are often egosyntonic - meaning that they refuse to acknowledge that they have a problem, get angry if you suggest to them that they do, and much prefer to blame somebody else than admit a fault with themselves.

the problem is systemic not psychological. Bullies are selecteed for promotion - however tyou then train them is largely irrelevant - new ones will be selected because they suit the need of the hierarchy whcih favours a bullying culture

themaster - you are missing my point. It is a lot to do with psychology, group psychology or social psychology. It is to do with social attitudes and ignorance by most of the population about how bullies operate and manipulate people. See my Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_manipulation

I also said that bullies are usually untreatable and just shouldnt be given jobs in positions of authority in the first place. Much of the problem is too many of the general population act like sheeple, unwittingly supporting bullies. Something like emotional literacy training would help raise the consciousness of the "sheeple" so that bullies should not be supported by them and therefore should not thrive.

David2 11 January, 2010
I have been updating the Wikipedia "Abuse" article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse - You are doing a great job.

Wiki - thanks. It was bizarre that Wikipedia had very well written articles on talking animals and animals with diplomas but was so bad on things like "Abuse" which has a huge detrimental impact on the world. Most of the population dont have a clue about the mechanics of abuse or bullying and instead believe mythologies and fallacies. There are still some sections to do on the "Abuse" article covering common characteristics of abusers (for example personality disorders etc) regardless of the context. Check out also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_manipulation which i created. Other articles i am involved with are listed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Penbat

The increase in the number of policies in 80's and after was a calculated move by corporate lawyers. Explanation: before that time, a woman could sue her boss for rape, but after the moment the policy against rape was "in place", she can only sue for the violation of the policy against rape. There is almost no exaggeration here. ----------------- Some policies worked to replace court proceedings with institutional proceedings - i.e. to replace the law with the administrative law. And, some laws were enacted that oblige the plaintiff to go through the administrative complaint process before going to court. --------------- Currently, universities are trying to acquire jurisdiction over virtually anything that happens there. The pretext is - self-governance, self-regulation, academic independence. I am afraid they will be successful, simply because the protest does not exist. For a long time, unions became the worst enemy of an employee, and of a student for that matter. This is of huge importance to people; no wonder that the press ignores these developments or even makes them look like improvements. And, of course, the press does not miss opportunity to congratulate everybody with each new policy.

Can you say a bit more about what it means to sue against a violation of a policy of rape/bullying rather than the rape/bullying itself. What are the implications of this? It seems from what has been said on here that unions are still the worst enemy of the employee - maybe because of their hypocritical position? Why would the press ignore this?

"Interested", it means that the administration only deals with violation of policy, not violation of law. But then, they are crooks and they will try to present a crime committed by their own people as only a violation of policy. They will try to decide who is guilty and who is not by the administrative procedure. THE MORE THERE ARE POLICIES, THE MORE CRIMES ARE TAKEN OUT OF COURTS OF LAW. Yet, administrative law is not a law in a proper sense, and this has been shown 80 years ago. Since then, however, your boss became your father and mother, your policeman, your judge and your executioner. The rights of an organisation now completely override the rights of a person. This should have never happened, but it did. People do not understand law, period. Law is not taught in schools. Lawyers get their money from serving organisations, but they should be getting money from the law suits, suing organisations. --------------- The organisations (corporations, universities) established their policies which are a ridiculous substitute of the law. They made policies a condition of employment. It should have been this way: I do my job, you pay me for that job and about the rest - just ..... off. Yet, there is a social network at "your workplace", there is a network of organisations that pretend to be on your side, but in fact working against you as they support policies and develop more policies. You cannot break free of this net, you are made a "victim" and must, purely psychologically, continue to behave as "victim", often - to the rest of your life. ------------- Remember that policies are written by your employer, you just sign the contract and continue subscribe to policies that you actually do not understand. Consider now that no policy can define the outcome of a dispute without deciding on a concrete matter (for instance, who raped whom, or generally - what is called finding of facts). That, and a great number of other necessary steps, such as making decisions about what fits and what does not fit policies and procedures, all the interpretations, etc. boils down to making DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS, the decisions that are not following directly from the policies. The policies are written in such way that ALWAYS LEAVES EVEN MORE ROOM FOR THESE DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS. Notice here that it is your boss and the administration that make these discretionary decisions. They, as a matter of fact, take the ROLE OF A JUDGE in a dispute which in fact is the dispute between you and that boss and the administration! ------------------- About the unions. They are communist/feminist organisations. In cases with rape you have this: no case ever goes to the court of law; instead, you are invited to participate in the degrading demonstrations shouting "take back the night", chanting slogans and songs and... crying with "sisters". Your psychic is destroyed, but it works for the communists and it works for the administration. ----------------- In bullying - you are made to understand the inner world of a bully, really helpful, isn't it? -------------- About the press: who do you think the press works for? Certainly not for me. If it ever worked for you, that's because they were not afraid to air the details of your case which you yourself never were able to spell out correctly. In my case, however, honestly reporting just one document out of fifty can send a bunch of highly placed and very politically correct criminals to prison; they conspired not to say a word about this case.

so much

Oh jesus what the hell was that all about? Apart from the fact it is drivel, Michael's post starts from a false premis, that 'the law' (an overall law?) existed before organisations had laws to govern people and that institutions managing the behaviour and relationships of its people is new - it isn't! If a person breaks the law and that is within an institution the law can prosecute and so can the institution and the person can also raise a civil (personal) case as well using civil rather than criminal law. Situations can be resolved within the institution if all parties agree, and I do know of a rape allegation that wasn't reported to the police but was to the institution, but that wasn't the instiitution's decision, it was the person who raised the claim (in fact the claim turned out to be false, and unsubstantiated to a degree that wouldn't have made it to a criminal court in any case. I'm guessing Michael is drunk. I bloody hope so..

I had a better impression of the "hero". Of course the law existed for over a couple of thousands years before any "organisations" such as we know them now, appeared. And administrative law is a fairly recent invention, just a hundred years old, may be less. 80 years ago the Chief Justice of England complained of this new invention. The English law was made out of desire to stop people from doing justice by their own means. Curiously, this law stated that in cases where the law has no jurisdiction, the complainant can do justice himself.

@Michael Pyshnov - way to go in not responding to the points raised. hero was pointing out that adminstrative law did not over-ride criminal law or a civil case, whereas you had stated "a woman could sue her boss for rape, but after the moment the policy against rape was "in place", she can only sue for the violation of the policy against rape".

I wonder where is the Fredrics couple? Did they escape from what he called "an extremist terror group"?

@Michael Pyshnov -- Yes, we've gotten to a place of relative safety, we hope, though one can never be completely certain in such situations.

It seems fairly clear that reasonable behaviour such as Dr Fredricks' actions in pointing out, what can be described as fiddling the reporting of University performnce (as ultimately monitored by HEFCE and DBIS), is not appreciated by all those who supposedly safeguard honesty.
The people invloved in the system, Governors, HEFCE, the courts etc have no vested interest other than self preservation and not offending each other. Who will guard the guards themselves? No chance its just a gentlemans club and Mr Fredricks, as honest and reasonable as he may be, is of no importance to them.
The Chair of select comttee should investiagte bullying at Universities and inaction by HEFCE.

reasonable - unfortunately bullying permeates all levels of society including government. There is probably bullying in the select committee as well and they may feel uncomfortable about investigating bullying when they see a reflection of themselves in the bullies under investigation - much easier for them to brush it under the carpet. On the otherhand government feels OK about vilifying, demonising and spending a fortune on taxpayers money fighting terrorists and child abusers as they dont identify with them and they are "safe" targets. Some forms of abuse the government is very tough on but other forms such as bullying it tends to turn a blind eye.

Our friend Scott now appears to have his own wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Scott_%28academic%29

@David2. Re: 'Some forms of abuse the government is very tough on but other forms such as bullying it tends to turn a blind eye'. So true. Not sure why we have to read the Guardian, rather than THE, to learn what the European Court is saying about the UK government and its failure to address discrimination in the workplace: http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/dec/13/eu-discrimination-law-challenge-uk.

curious - Ironically It is that the government uses the excuse that workplace bullying legislation would be an unnecessary burden for businesses yet workplace bullying has huge costs in terms of loss of productivity and health problems. Also bullies if unchecked tend to rise to the top and we had a bunch of financial bullies who have now trashed the global economy with the credit crunch.

Also for abuse in the form of bullying there is a lot of "victim blaming" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming). We dont have victim blaming for other kinds of abuse, for example we dont say that child abuse victims or terrorist victims "had it coming". The whole thing is twisted and turned on its head.

Wow. Just Wow. Biased journalism? Outrage? Travesty? Fair play? Kangaroo Court? We Nevelson's know all about that. I think that true justice is a very rare occurrence. Most people support true justice only when it's no skin off them, no personal cost, no risk to their lives and livelihood. It's kind of wierd to see that type wailing about travesty of justice in this day and age when they themselves sold out the truth for the sake of their own petty career that would have never gotten off the ground were it not for the help of the subsequent target. Reality is so subjective and until your ass hits the pavement hard I guess most people just never will know what is real, true or fair.

Wow. Just Wow. Biased journalism? Outrage? Travesty? Fair play? Kangaroo Court? We Nevelson's know all about that. I think that true justice is a very rare occurrence. Most people support true justice only when it's no skin off them, no personal cost, no risk to their lives and livelihood. It's kind of wierd to see that type wailing about travesty of justice in this day and age when they themselves sold out the truth for the sake of their own petty career that would have never gotten off the ground were it not for the help of the subsequent target. Reality is so subjective and until your ass hits the pavement hard I guess most people just never will know what is real, true or fair.

Wow. Just Wow. Biased journalism? Outrage? Travesty? Fair play? Kangaroo Court? We Nevelson's know all about that. I think that true justice is a very rare occurrence. Most people support true justice only when it's no skin off them, no personal cost, no risk to their lives and livelihood. It's kind of wierd to see that type wailing about travesty of justice in this day and age when they themselves sold out the truth for the sake of their own petty career that would have never gotten off the ground were it not for the help of the subsequent target. Reality is so subjective and until your ass hits the pavement hard I guess most people just never will know what is real, true or fair.

On some of my internet browsing I have failed not to notice about Ms Judith Jewell: -------http://www.indigoassociates.co.uk/who.html ----------- Magistrate, Judith Jewell's company -- note her role as Governor at Roehampton University is referenced here…………. “[...] She likes to get involved in things - she is a magistrate on Kingston-upon-Thames bench, an Executive Member of Kingston Racial Equality Council, and a Governor of Roehampton University, as well as more creative pursuits like cooking and eating adventurously. ---------
Moreover……
http://www.westfocus.org.uk/westfocus/w47_Roehampton.aspx ---------- you will note the WestFocus consortium relationship between Kingston and Roehampton University shown at the bottom of the home page.--------
Furthermore, I have noticed:
http://www.kingston.ac.uk/aboutkingstonuniversity/howtheuniversityworks/partnerinstitutions/ --------- Kingston University and Roehampton University are listed as "Partner Institutions".---------
It is very well known that university governors and vice-chancellors are very much in contact with governors and vice-chancellors of other universities in order to exchange views and ideas on policies and performance for the goodness of the public interests and the pursuit of the perfection of the sector of education of our children: our future. Given the background information on links between Kingston University – Judith Jewell – Roehampton University, and Ms Jewell’s position as magistrate of Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) -which potential conflict of interests could be very easily extrapolated from the internet-, I must say that it is unfortunate that Ms Jewell has been appointed to make a decision on a case where a jail sentence could be ordered on a man who has informed the public with his website “sirpeterscott.com” on issues which otherwise would have been swept under the carpet as usually might happen in universities and other public sector companies where confidentiality is paramount. In addition, I would like to point out once more that the Police report has found no element of harassment in the website whatsoever. Although there are so many magistrates out there in the all UK who could have been chosen to decide on this case, it is however very unlikely that none of the parties like the CPS, or Ms Jewell or any of the board of governors of Kingston University and their lawyers has deliberately overlooked this potential conflict of interests and therefore unwittingly allowed this to however proceed in the circumstances; therefore, I really hope that in the light of the awareness of this disturbing conflict, for the sake of justice, public interest and freedom of speech, the authorities will reconsider the conviction of Dr Howard Fredrics and thus restoring to the public the faith that the juridical system of a democratic society deserves.

I read this comments thread, and "wibble" springs to mind.
http://www.radiotimes.com/content/features/galleries/blackadder/13/mainImage.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wibble

Did you know that Blackadder was probably a psycho:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictional_portrayals_of_psychopaths#Portrayals_in_television

Claudio, the information you provided above about Magistrate Judith Jewell is very upsetting to me indeed. When Howard attended the Magistrates Court , a few months ago while he was still represented to set the date of trial his barrister very strongly asked for a change of venue in part due to Kingston University's position in the local economy and community. The Magistrates refused the change. I must admit it certainly looks very bad that Judith Jewell did not recuse herself. I for the life of me, can not begin to imagine why she did not at that point come clean about her associations.

The Judith Jewell aspect of this story, as revealed by a previous post and perhaps not the only one, is a mockery of justice and a scandal. Equally, it is a scandal that there is no person of authority or organisation or body with appropriate powers and courage, to intervene and put an end to this tragic joke. They are all hiding behind the legal process and yet history shows that the legal process is at times wrong, and yet we still do not learn from history! The scars and pain are not only for the Fredrics of this world to experience, they are also for the rest of us for the lesson is that the mighty get their way. Disgrace... absolute disgrace...

Much as I sympathise with the victimisation of Dr Fredrics and am outraged the magistrate's connection and her judgement, instead of leaving the country and hiding somewhere ( probably in the US which has an aymmetrical extradition arrangement with UK in which US can freely extradict just anyone from UK while putting obstacles to UK for any such move), he should have complied with the judgement and then should have fought for justice. Now the crime that will matter now will be his non-compliance and leaving the country. His lawyers should have given him very bad advice. The purpose of this thread should be: For future , the lesson should be to fight the injustice through legal means by complying with the judgement however unpalatable it may be, and then fight it with all means legally available.

@To Pierre JosephProudhon -- What you fail to grasp is that we had two choices: Remain in the UK and face death at the hands of either an extremist group, which had made highly specific death threats against us OR remain in the UK and disappear into the legal system, where my death would have been ruled a "suicide," just as it was for David Kelley and Diana Winstanley.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_University

Get help man -- there are drugs for this sort of thing. They won't help cure the hyperzionism, but at least they can deal with the paranoia.

@To Pierre Joseph Proudhon. Welcome back, Amazed Lawyer! I see you're still as clueless as ever about the plight of bullied academics: 'fight it with all legal means available'. Do you have any idea how many academics in the UK have been virtually and literally bankrupted in their legal attempts to fight the powers? As many of us have seen (and there is an underground larger than many would imagine), there is almost no limit to the legal expenses HEIs under fire are willing to accumulate when it comes to silencing dissidence and whistleblowing.

Very well put “curious”: that should be just enough to keep our “To PierreJosephProudhon” on his sit for a while who wants to tell us what a hunted respected person should do in front of the law with a death threat on his and his wife’s head -having already spent a fortune- while the institutions and authorities are letting them down by not protecting their safety.

@David3. -----------I understand you want to take part to the debate about the well-documented and proven victimization of Dr. Fredrics operated by the institutions you seem very much keen to defend. I can also understand some of the posters who are using pseudonym to share their views on this travesty of justice when you consider that many of them are still working or have signed any agreement and are afraid that institutions like the one you are defending can actually victimize them. But when you, intriguingly, David 3 who are commenting hiding yourself by using such identification name and yet, only then feel courageous enough to defend the university and at the same time deride Dr Fredrics’ plight, I question to myself what harm you and other people behaving like you are fearing from us, us the victims of your powerful institutions. Bearing in mind these last points, perhaps you should consider now a bit yourself and then telling us who the real paranoid is.------------If you do not consider yourself paranoid, then I can only imagine that your post should have been signed by Sir Peter Scott or one of his sympathizers who want to belittle Dr Fredrics’ concerns and who are only able and enthusiastic to keep a lid on things; yet wanting to have both ways by being adamant in keeping a place running like a mad house…, making sure it gets the second place for bullying in all UK…, victimizing people if they do not sign grievances against unwanted staff….falsifying or manipulating reports or surveys and who gets distressed and feels “harassed” and EMBARRASSED ONLY AFTER someone like Dr Fredrics LETS US KNOW ON THE NET about their dodgy dealings for the sake of Public Interest and Transparency. ------------ I would like to remind you that Sir Peter Scott was appointed a Knight Bachelor in the 2007 New Year Honours list for SERVICES TO HIGHER EDUCATION. I wonder if whoever gave such honourable title has actually come across with the statistics and the information on Wikipedia alone and the parody in operation at full speed at Kingston University in order to evaluate the requirements for assigning such a royal recognition. You just have to read on Wikipedia about these issues before you post some comments like that you have posted yesterday: Anti Semitic Group on Campus - Workplace stress - National Student Survey exaggeration - External examiner controversy - Injunction to stop harassment of student - World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Complaint…. etc.... and all the money these people have been allowed to spend to get on with all these issues. ------------- Moreover, you are also suggesting to this honourable man, Dr Fredrics, to get some drugs. Let me tell you that this alone is the ultimate mockery to concerns voiced by many of us (academics and non) who have been let down –still are, and I am afraid will be let down by the academic institutions and who suffered great losses, one of them being peace of mind. I am very sure Dr Fredrics was OK before dealing with your Sir Peter and people like you in that institution, and did not need the use of your suggested drugs prior to death threat to him and to his family and prior to his “legalised victimization and harassment”. So next time you want to take part to this debate prancing around like a headless chicken on this website, pray come out with something more clever -if you can- to suggest to Dr Fredrics without insulting any of us who are still dealing with our grief... and still taking drugs! ------------- Finally, about the cure to the hyperzionism you are suggesting and your further insults to an entire race, I invite you to read information on sirpeterscott.com and about the play-down investigation into the allegations of anti-Semitism moved by Dr Fredrics, on http://westminsterjournal.com/content/view/241/30/ and again information on Wikipedia also. Only then, would it be more tolerable to read your REAL name associated with the deviating nonsense you seem so keen to suggest and force us down to read.

The fact that the webmaster of this website allows the comment by David3 to remain on this site is outrageous. I where did Zionism come into this case? Ever? What does a political movement about establishing a homeland for the Jewish people have to do with this case? Does this publication tolerate an accusation of incurable hyperzionism to be thrown at a someone because they are Jewish?
The comment's continued existence on this page disgraces this publication, and is yet another example of anti-Jewish statement and actions by academics in the UK.

Hyperzionism? What? Excuse me if I missed something, but, does being Jewish and speaking out against anti-Semitism equate with 'hyperzionism'? Very strange logic, indeed, Mr David3.

If 'this publication' (which you are using as a vehicle) is OK to publish your accusations of semiteism against people who disagree with you or your husband's views, or even those who correct your factual inaccuracies, why are you so outraged that they would allow the opposite (a non-jew accusing a jew of 'Hyperzionism' to stay)? perhaps Hyporcriticism would have been a better term to use? (Please don't now tell me that because some jews were once accused of being hypocrites that the use of the word Hypocrite is somehow evidence of anti-semitism)

Hero,
Zionism usually refers to the movement to that established Israel. Throwing that term at a Jewish person in the context not relating to Israel is troubling. Moreover the tone that David3 used when he mentioned drugs that cure paranoia is disparaging to all people living with mental illness. Howard has PTSD. David3 mentioned another mental illness that has nothing to do with Howard's problems which are a direct result of his having been attacked by a mob of bullies where he worked, never the less, the callous comments about paranoia are as discriminatory as David3's hyperzionism remark. Or maybe David3 is you?

@David3 -- PTSD is a psychiatric injury, in fact, rather than an illness. The distinction is that an injury results from a normal response to an abnormal situation/external event i.e. bullying and harassment. (see http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/reprint/31/3/327.pdf)

For years, I have been hearing that the loud voices emanating from England, and specifically from the lecturer's union were against Israel not Jews. Now, I am reading the term hyperzionism,whatever that is, thrown against a Jewish academic when the subject at hand has nothing to do with Israel. I carefully read this article and this entire page of comments and I agree, I see no connection to Zionism. The fact, this confusion between Jewishness and Zionism and that the term is used here as an insult throws water on all the protests that your union and your countrymen have made over the years that their feelings and actions against Israeli academics are not anti-Semitic. I hope further comments stay on subject.

With 'disagreeing with any opinion stated by a jew' being confused by Jews as 'antisemetic' is it any wonder that jews hear antisemitism when people disagree with Israeli foreign policy, or that refinement is not used the other way. I think in this case the term hyperzionism has been misused as also meaning irrational and overblown hypersensitivity to anti-semitism, such that even the mildest disagreement is seen as OK in one direction, but anti-semetic in the other. This hypersensitivity is shown by all hyperzionists and this is what often confuses the terms. There is not a confusion here between jewishness and zionism, merely between hypersensitivity (in fact I really mean delusional and paranoic sensitivity) to anti-semitism and zionism. The difficulty here is that assuming every non-jew who disagrees with any view whatever held by someone who is jewish must be anti-semetic and therefore only opposed to the view merely because the person holding the view is jewish rather than because the view is sensible/fits that persons view of the world is a paranoid view that assumes that all non-jews are not capable of distingushing opinion from knee-jerk racism. I think that this is what is meant here by hyperzionism. If so, it is certainly evident in some of the things said by Lori and Howard.

Personally I think its quite clear that Howard has been polarising the argument and poking the tiger for a long time, and now seems to be expressing surprise that the tiger has turned around and bit him. No doubt that will result in some hand-wrining and finger-pointing, and probably some depression and licking of wounds, but to say that its all the tiger's fault is pretty naive.

Hero, your post was a worthless attempt at confusing and distorting the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion

No! I can't believe it! You mean I was THINKING DIFFERENTLY TO YOU!!!!! Oh I'm really sorry sir, sorry sir, how can I make it up to you??! .. yeah right! do you really think I sound like someone who can be 'confused' into thinking I have a mental health disorder so you can win an arguument?!

Thanks David, but instead of addressing anything said, you have tried to point towards poor mental faculty. Nice try. Epic fail

Actually the link should have been to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion#List_of_distortions

Don't you start distorting your distortion references, please...

Sorry folks - too much nitpicking going on by some people who aim to confuse the original discussion. I believe Dr Fredrics was right to go with his instinct on whether to leave the country or not. He is a highly intelligent person (like yourselves!) who obviously made a decision based on his experiences so far. Whether the law would agree or not is regardless - he made the right decision for himself at that time. Only he and his wife know the true strength of the death threats - but I for one believe that a bully will stop at nothing to get their way. We only have to look at murder cases in the news to see how a moment of rage can cause someone to act this way. Look how determined sir peter has been to ensure underhand activity at Kingston has been kept secret. Dr Fredrics was wise not to remain in any situation that could leave hip open to anyform of attack. There is always the possiblity of a David Kelley, Diana Winstanley scenario - nothing would surprise me at the hands of a bully.

Sorry folks - too much nitpicking going on by some people who aim to confuse the original discussion. I believe Dr Fredrics was right to go with his instinct on whether to leave the country or not. He is a highly intelligent person (like yourselves!) who obviously made a decision based on his experiences so far. Whether the law would agree or not is regardless - he made the right decision for himself at that time. Only he and his wife know the true strength of the death threats - but I for one believe that a bully will stop at nothing to get their way. We only have to look at murder cases in the news to see how a moment of rage can cause someone to act this way. Look how determined sir peter has been to ensure underhand activity at Kingston has been kept secret. Dr Fredrics was wise not to remain in any situation that could leave hip open to anyform of attack. There is always the possiblity of a David Kelley, Diana Winstanley scenario - nothing would surprise me at the hands of a bully.

Thanks Clare.

@Hero -- I'd hardly call someone telling you that "Jewish lives are worth nothing" a mere matter of difference of opinion. And I'd hardly think that stating the fact that all six Jewish staff members in my department were forced out/sacked constitutes hypersensitivity on my part. I suppose all of these staff members just had a little 'difference of opinion.'

@Clare. Dr Fredrics , who? David Kelly was an inspector monitoring WMDs in Iraq, a scientist with exceptional expertise in the area of WMDs. His statements to newsmen were embaraassment to a govt which took this country to war by a leader who supported a dim wit president of Dr Fredrics' country. Why would terrorists want to warn an obscure sacked lecturer of music in a 3rd rate university in Britain? Stop peddling this nonsense. This person ran away from a due process of law, and should have stayed and fought and proved his innocence. Yes, his predicament was outrageous, yes he was bullied and yes, we supported him when he was in Britain. It is a pity because of his running away, his case will be long forgotten. Terrorists and Dr David Kelly. You can believe this, I would not. By the way, this country has no deathrows and no death sentence. Dr Fredrrics will be remembered as a 'runner' and the crime now will be that . It is a pity.

I am not suggesting anything other than that Dr Kelly and Diana Winstanley's deaths were highly suspicious - with sufficent evidence to suggest they were not "suicide". I believe Dr Fredrics has suficient fear for his wellbeing, safety and life to make the decision to remove himself from wherever he does not feel safe. I have not said "terrorists" are after Dr Fredrics - you have misinterpreted my thread. As for being treated fairly - well, it is pretty obvious that that isn't happening. No doubt Judish Jewell considers herself an intelligent person or MENSA calibre - and yet she failed to spot that a lecturer at Kingston University - her university - was before her in Court. She should have declared this and asked for the case to be deferred. The fact that she found Dr Fredrics "guilty" in his absence - and without representation - STINKS!

I think you are missing the point. It is not about Dr. Fredrics. He was able to go elsewhere, but we do not have such options. We all should be aware that the travesty that occurred will have repercussions for everyone who works in higher education. It is our problem now. We can kiss any prospects of settlements in exchange for our silence a fond goodbye. Management do what they like and we are powerless.

To get a mental disease in a university today is not that hard. You don't have to do anything for it yourself. They bring it to you and they watch your condition. They intentionally provoke you. They will provoke you for violence to escape blame or prison themselves. See the case of Prof. V. Fabrikant: http://pyshnov.wordpress.com/ Things happened to me too. Do I have PCRD or whatever it's called? I don't know. I know that soldiers who only witnessed some unpleasant scenes have post-traumatic stress disorder. I frankly laugh at them. My stress is not POST-traumatic, I am IN it since 1986. I am capable of thinking logically, but I don't sleep, could not eat because I was ashamed to eat, a lot of other things. Is this a disorder or a normal reaction? If you are bleeding, it's not normal, but it is a normal reaction. I sympathise with Dr. Fredrics, absolutely irrespectively of what he did or did not, or whether I think he is right on every particular point or wrong. ----------------------The central problem, at least for me, is that I never expected and could never imagined that UNIVERSITY can be what it is now. For years I could not believe that this is the reality. I wrote letters, having no clue that I write letters to criminals, simply - criminals. To reconcile the reality with what you think it all must be, is not possible - this is what makes you to live in a nightmare every day and every night, it does not matter what hour is it, you live a nightmare 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, all 24 years. You want to stop it for one or two days but you cannot. I repeat, you cannot reconcile the reality with what you think it should be. --------------------- I am an immigrant, Fabrikant is an immigrant, Fredrics too. I do not know about the other two, but I am simply unable to talk to Canada people. They don't talk to me if they know who I am. A couple of times here other posters said I was drunk, well, I had four beers last year and a 100g of cognac. I cannot drink because it makes me uncomfortable - I loose my thoughts that I must keep thinking, you know what about. I know in what world I live and what is my place; I cannot loose the coordinates. Any distraction is not permissible. I don't know if others have the same. On the other side, I absolutely believe that I will win and I wait for this moment. This is a question of who I am, what I actually have done in my life, simply, as the law books say - the person's name is more precious for him than his life. Very true, my goal is to restore my name, there is nothing else. This is an optimistic attitude, you simply do not die before you get it done. You live and you need to look over your shoulder, that's all you need. -------------------- I hope others in similar position have this attitude.

This thread is taking on a life of it's own as people misread the various comments. Please note Clare, from your post: "No doubt Judish Jewell considers herself an intelligent person or MENSA calibre - and yet she failed to spot that a lecturer at Kingston University - her university - was before her in Court. She should have declared this and asked for the case to be deferred. " Of course - but she's not a governor at Kingston, but an entirely different university.

Picking up from Michael Pyshnov - it begs the question just what is the point of universities ? They seem to turn relatively decent people into bullies, sycophants or sheeple. The objective of getting 50% of adults to goto uni is shear madness. To illustrate the point, the Tories have an election proposal saying that only teachers who qualify with a superior grade will be allowed to become teachers. {The Tories philosophy is that the quality of the teacher is the one most important thing to ensuring education standards). Yet people with high academic grades may quite easily be a horrendous bully who goes around wrecking other people's lives - not only is that fact not screened for, it seems to be something that is actively encouraged thanks to the prevailing uni culture. There actually seems to be an inverse relationship between academic qualifications and being a caring emotionally intelligent person. Take nurses for example - they are often widely criticised for having an uncaring attitude such as leaving patients unfed yet they have passed loads of exams.

Sumum Bonum - clare got that detail wrong but it does not undermine her substantive point. Anyway if you look again at the post of "Claudio Salvato 19 January, 2010" it explains that Kingston University and Roehampton University are "Partner Institutions". Also the fact that they are geographically close together reinforces the likelihood that they have close ties.

David2: Clare's substantive point was that Judish (sic) Jewell was a govenor at Kingston, but somehow hadn't even realised this when judging the case, and that she was therefore not as clever as she thought she was, and should have deferred the case. The fact that none of this is true does undermine the point somewhat. This thread makes me sad. Whatever the merits of the original case, they have now been lost under the weight of the (extensively encouraged) paranoia which floods this page.

Not unusual - you are hardly worth replying to. Judith Jewell clearly has a conflict of interest, ref "Claudio Salvato 19 January, 2010". The fact that Clare misstated what the conflict of interest was, is purely incidental.

David2, you are striking the root. University used to be a community of scientists, not teachers. But, people who wanted to do science and learn it, would join. There was never in the past a goal to give higher education. This was a free profession, even to call it a profession is wrong. We now cannot even comprehend how the free people lived before the industrial revolution. It was all a private initiative of free individuals. -------------- What is going on now? Please, follow these simple facts. 1) The process of production is in the hands of corporations. They, due to the machine technology, are able to produce all things far in excess of the demand, and, using a very small number of hands. 2) What the others (I believe about 95% of the population) are supposed to do? Government forces corporations to employ them. Govt. "creates" jobs. Corporations are kept on the minimum of profits, currently - without profits, often - in debt. Govt. supports them with taxpayers' money. Economy is a complete socialism. 3) Govt. keeps people busy, here comes higher education. This is all on taxpayers' money and, of course, "regulated". HE is a "sector" in a subjugated society. ------------------ Now, look at all these articles here. They are all to tell you NOT to take science seriously. Take seriously only your employment (as a teacher, as a student etc.) It's all about rules of employment, including The Fun of It. It's about communications and all the stuff that can attract you, a superficial illiterate, to this dead business that used to be called science. -------------------- No wonder that nurses are uncaring. They are not answerable to the patients. The patient is nowhere in the chain of money transfers that feeds the nurses. No regulation can force the nurse to make an injection properly. The employees don't care. ----------------- And university professors don't care. What do you think "excellence" stands for? Just an idiotic slogan among hundreds of other slogans, it was chosen because, as a slogan, it is incapable of meaning anything concrete whatsoever. It's the brainwashing to keep the employees from falling asleep, because if they fall asleep they will ruin the myth of education. ------------------- And of course there is a permanently going on war against everybody who takes anything (except the employment and the rules of employment) seriously.

Educated bullies do not exclusively reside in Kingston U or in any other universities. They are right here . They want every one to fall inrto line with what they think and argue. For example, like "To Clare", I also think that this person should have stayed in the UK and fight the injustice through legal processes. Leaving the country is not an option but as he has taken that option, the thread should be closed. The THE should open a new thread in which all manner of bullying by the great and the good in universities can be discussed.

OK OK David 1000, is it getting too uncomfortable to you and to "To Clair" too, harping on this subject? Are you one of them who want to put a lid on it and we should then start talking about some other bullying, and that will be it. Full stop? --------Dr Pyshnov was talking about policies on bullying: I believer that he intended that the bottom line, was that at the end they all treat the single issue as either out of date (for legal purposes), or out of remits, or already dealt with, or already raised by someone else... or to old, or even out of fashion perhps.... bla bla bla... making thus the policy a tool to defend the bully and to persecute the complainant------- This is the usual way how the university deals with concerns. Is it the ultimate goal for justice? The policy (AND LAW) should be to protect the individual harassed who provides documented evidence of wrongdoing and not the bully. Is it the end of it? Is it what we should be looking forward in the future? ------- It could be easy for us to forget what they are doing to Dr Fredrics now; as long as we are fortunate not to be attacked by the dangerous Tiger Hero was talking about (Hero 22 January, 2010)? We only need to act like all the other bullies not to be bitten and left alone. ------- It does not spring into your “eagerly impartial” mind that we should put such dangerous Tiger were it belongs: "in the cage"! ------- Of course, David 1000 and Hero, as long as there are some boot lickers out there milking on the system, the Tiger will always stay out to devour anybody who is poking at it. Nice prospective indeed. ------- Why should the thread be closed? What bit of the fact that some other people sympathize with Dr Fredrics is wrong? It has only been two weeks from the date of this article. Why David 1000…., are you impatient? Is anything bothering you? Dr Fredrics’ case is a reality which cannot be wiped away with a mere click of a button, especially now with this crises were some academic cuts are operated to “save” the economy: get the money out of the people who create lengthy redress procedure to induce and elicit bad response from the grievant to make them turn “criminals” and very “dangerous” to the university community: I think you David 1000, and people like you, would call them “persona non grata” or “outlaws”, won’t you? Get the money out of those who are paid huge amount of bonuses and who are still left in power to muck up and destroy other peoples’ lives and who are making of a glorious institution a cemetery; painful reminders of how something should have been and never was. Change the law and put them all in “the cage”, for fraud, were they belong! Only then do close the thread and open another one celebrating victory to decency and honesty.

@Claudio. Change your job . If you cannot you are a deadwood academic.
There is sense in what David 1000 says. Go ahead and rant a page worth. No one else except other deadwood academics take notice.

David2: you're abusing rhe word 'clearly'. Jewell is a govenor at an institution which jointly offers a taught doctorate in Education with Kingston. That is the nature of their partnership, which the link you (via Claudio) referenced makes clear. It has nothing to do with Jewell (or the govenors). There is no conflict of interest, Clare was wrong, you are mistaken. Hardly bothering to reply to me does not make you correct.

@Not Unusual -- To clarify matters, as a Governor, Ms Jewell has an interest in the reputation of Roehampton University AND its partner institutions, including Kingston University, in so far as it affects the reputation of her own home university. Indeed, there are more programmes and areas of cooperation/overlap between the two institutions than you have listed. She is likely to know Kingston's V-C personally and to have worked in tandem with him at official meetings between the institutions. On that basis, she has a vested interest in acting to preserve and protect the reputation of Kingston University against anyone who might present information, even if true, that might tend to cause some to view Kingston University less favorably. Ergo, she has at least the appearance of bias or conflict of interest in terms of her ability to judge a matter fairly that relates directly to the reputation of Kingston University, and by extension, Roehampton University. In judicial matters in the UK, actual bias does not have to be proven to justify recusal of a Judge/Magistrate. Judical matters must not only be fair, but must be seen to be fair, hence the appearance of bias must be avoided.

@ Dr Howard Fredrics

1. Have you lodged your appeal? If not you had better do so quickly or you will be statute barred by the Limitations Act.

2. Have you made a formal complaint about the conduct of the CPS prosecutor to the Director of Public Prosecutions?

3. Have you checked whether the prosecutor was a barrister or a solicitor and reported him/her to the correct regulatory body for professional misconduct?

4. Have you reported the District Judge/Magistrate to the Office for Judicial Complaints?

5. Have you made a formal complaint to the Governors/Trustees of the University?

6. Have you notified the Equality and Human Rights Commission about the 'driving out' of yourself and your fellow Jewish colleagues?

7. Have you complained to the local MP and asked him/her to raise this matter in the House under privilege?

If you have not yet done all of the above you should without further delay.

An outbreak of sense and sanity from Gladiatrix but something tells me it will not be appreciated.

@Gladiatrix - Thanks for your suggestions! I have been working with my MP for sometime on these matters, but have yet to achieve much by way of a concrete result on this line, though there could be things going on about which I'm not yet aware. As for an appeal, I was, at first, quite concerned about this, however there is no time barring in my case, as I'm told, simply because I've not yet been sentenced. I understand I have 21 days from date of sentencing to lodge an appeal. Without revealing my hand, rest assured that I'm cognizant of my rights. As for some of these other suggestions, while they're all very worthwhile, several of these options are to be done in consultation with proper legal advice and at the proper time. Otherwise, I am, indeed, going to look into several of your other suggestions for more immediate action. Thank you, again!!

God help us! I am getting confused. I cannot believe this is a true story..... Of course, I cannot believe that a similar scenario has been fixed also for Dr Fredrics and his other six Jewish colleagues at KU ---------- "[...] You must take a little more care who you brand as anti-semitic otherwise you too will be receiving a caution from the police as the young former student of Leeds did recently. One more reference to me and you will be reported. ----------Blessings -------- Stephen" ----- (Rev Stephen Seizer, that is) -------- http://www.hurryupharry.org/2010/01/23/anglican-vicar-uses-police-to-intimidate-blogger/ -------- NOTE the "Blessings" from a reverend.

I've spent an hour reading through all of this correspondence. At the end of it I've got a lot of sympathy with Sir Peter Scott. Which is a result I never expected when I read the actual article.

@This is all a giant conspiracy theory. ------------- In order to have a more informative idea, perhaps you should also spend a couple of hours to browse sirpeterscott.com and not only these comments and the actual article. After all Dr Fredrics has been convicted for having aired his concerns through that website. There is no mention in your post that you have visited also that website.

It is obvious that the aim of your comment is to convince those who have expressed support for Dr. Fredrics are just making PS look sympathetic. I would guess that you are upset by the comments in support of Dr. Fredrics and that you are simply trying to discourage support for him. Could that be because PS signs your pay cheque? No disinterested individual would still be on this link this many days into the comments. It is obvious that you have an agenda.

I know, I mean poor Sir Peter, having to scratch out his life on a salary that only gives him as much spare income as five of us need to live on in total. He must be really suffering. I mean having all that money to spend is so unfair, the least we can do is to keep him away from any nasty accountability, performance measures and horrible 'taking reponsibility' All that should be passed to people on junior grades.

Is Sir Peter Hall's role as Chancellor of Kingston Uni purely symbolic ?

@David2 - Alas, his role is, indeed, purely symbolic.

@Gladiatrix. I bet Dr Fredrics has not done any of those you listed but want us to bear arms and march to shoot the magistrate and Sir Scott on his behalf. He has skipped the country and is staying in a ranch near the crawford ranch of Dubya. He will face the music, if he ever visits this country. Soon Dr Fredrics will be forgotten and at Kingston U the life will be as usual. Strange his MP did not advise him to do as you have asked Dr Fredrics to do.

@To Gladiatrix -- Oh, yeah, all of us Americans are really big on guns. That's why I couldn't help but find these songs so inspiring:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB048j-6x3Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIZAVpS6nP8
It's so nice to see how welcoming Brits can be towards Americans.

@Howard Fredrics. Yes, scratch the surface and you see the real Howard Fredrics! And you want from us, the Brits sympathy for what you did!
If I did in America what you have done in the UK, not legally challenging a magistrate's order and trying to deal with it in alternative ways I would be in big trouble as the might of even Patriot Act would have come down on me. This act was used on some one I know who was not an American citizen and was blamed in an university on something he did not even do. He was given a jail sentence of 6 years and is serving it. We do not have deathrows and lethal injections.

The more you say things about Brits, the more you make many of us think that PS was right after all.

@ Dr Fredrics and colleagues

We may not be rightly happy the ways our masters in the univversities in Ktreat us, but it is much much better than what the American universities treat academics of foreign origin. The case of Prof Pradhan is not known here well.

See: http://archives.openflows.org/hacktivism/hacktivism00128.html

Prof Dhiraj Pradhan a very distinguished acaddemic of Indian origin was treated so bad with trumped up charges by jealous colleagues and authorities in Texas A and M University ( he was singularly successful as a researcher, teacher and in securing external funding) where he was chair of the Computer Science. He was put in jail harassed by the police.

He is so distinguished in his field that Bristol University has gained from his expertise by appointing him to a chair in the computer science department. Since then his contribution in terms of getting external funding and research in that university has been immense.

Read about him :http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/People/personal.jsp?key=3008

Dr Fredrics, I take exception to what you say about Brits. I can give other academic examples, but Prof Pradhan's example should shame the American university establishments and their judiciary.

I haven't looked infor a while - but the debate seems to be going off at a tangent. I thought it was about Dr Fredrics hearing at magistrates court - with people giving their opinon on whether they felt the outcome was fair or not - and not some sort of build up to a third world war.

@clare - I agree completely. My response above was addressed to "To Gladiatrix" only, and was in no way intended to reflect a negative view towards all Brits -- quite the contrary. @Prof Moriarty -- I agree, there are plenty of cases of atrocities taking place in US academia and within the judicial system. That fact does not change the circumstances in Britain, and specifically those related to my case.

Why is Dr Fredrics website called "sirpeterscott.com"?

Dr Fredrics, I know your comments were addressed to Gladiatrix only - but It seems as though rather than just "get at" you - (in my opinon) there is a suggestion that you are a moaning American who deserves whatever is happening because American Universities are being horrid to their lecturers also. It's pretty clear that peope are trying to steer the argument to make you look bad, as though you deserve everything that has happened to you - rather than looking at the legalities, the reasons behind your actions etc. I am waiting for the headlines to be "guilty of being an American".

@Dr Fredrics and clare. This is what Dr Fredrics said.

Dr Fredrics: "It's so nice to see how welcoming Brits can be towards Americans"

So it was addressed to me only, not to all Brits! What strange excuses! He is not guilty being an American, but guilty of skipping the country when a judgement is pending against him.

Yes, we are trying to steer argument to make Dr Fredrics look bad. What a load of nonsense again! By skipping the country and not staying and challenging the judgement and trying to find another way to circumvent it he already looks bad, and no one need to attempt to make him look bad. Whatever the actions that PS took and the background do not count until he is discharged of his shall we say misdemeanour by skipping from the arms of the law.

@Why
It is because as the old Indian saying goes 'he was twisting the tail of a tiger"!

As evidenced by the messages in this blog and elsewhere, bullying in HE is wide spread in the UK. This mistreatment does not only target Americans, or foreigners in particular. It affects everyone. Some individuals have dealt with it by putting their head down, keep quiet and take the mistreatment. Others cannot stomach it and take action, however difficult, expensive and soul destroying this action may be.--------------------------
I can understand that some of those who have kept quiet and suffered in silence, may resent that Dr Fredrics is now getting so much sympathy and attention. Contrary to what is suggested by one comment, Dr Fredrics and his wife have suffered very dearly both financially and emotionally for their intolerance to blatant bullying and injustice. -------------------------
Independently of whether you spoke out and protested, or suffered in silence, the sympathy expressed in this blog should be taken as sympathy addressed to all victims of bullying and injustice. ----------------
It is not a national trait of the British to tolerate injustice and insults to their dignity. A lot of the freedoms that are enjoyed by Americans and others were born in Britain. This is not an American problem alone. Independently of what happens elsewhere, this problem exists in the UK, it affects UK citizens and residents and it is up to the people of this country to see how they can resolve their own problem.

As evidenced by the messages in this blog and elsewhere, bullying in HE is wide spread in the UK. This mistreatment does not only target Americans, or foreigners in particular. It affects everyone. Some individuals have dealt with it by putting their head down, keep quiet and take the mistreatment. Others cannot stomach it and take action, however difficult, expensive and soul destroying this action may be.--------------------------
I can understand that some of those who have kept quiet and suffered in silence, may resent that Dr Fredrics is now getting so much sympathy and attention. Contrary to what is suggested by one comment, Dr Fredrics and his wife have suffered very dearly both financially and emotionally for their intolerance to blatant bullying and injustice. -------------------------
Independently of whether you spoke out and protested, or suffered in silence, the sympathy expressed in this blog should be taken as sympathy addressed to all victims of bullying and injustice. ----------------
It is not a national trait of the British to tolerate injustice and insults to their dignity. A lot of the freedoms that are enjoyed by Americans and others were born in Britain. This is not an American problem alone. Independently of what happens elsewhere, this problem exists in the UK, it affects UK citizens and residents and it is up to the people of this country to see how they can resolve their own problem.

As evidenced by the messages in this blog and elsewhere, bullying in HE is wide spread in the UK. This mistreatment does not only target Americans, or foreigners in particular. It affects everyone. Some individuals have dealt with it by putting their head down, keep quiet and take the mistreatment. Others cannot stomach it and take action, however difficult, expensive and soul destroying this action may be.--------------------------
I can understand that some of those who have kept quiet and suffered in silence, may resent that Dr Fredrics is now getting so much sympathy and attention. Contrary to what is suggested by one comment, Dr Fredrics and his wife have suffered very dearly both financially and emotionally for their intolerance to blatant bullying and injustice. -------------------------
Independently of whether you spoke out and protested, or suffered in silence, the sympathy expressed in this blog should be taken as sympathy addressed to all victims of bullying and injustice. ----------------
It is not a national trait of the British to tolerate injustice and insults to their dignity. A lot of the freedoms that are enjoyed by Americans and others were born in Britain. This is not an American problem alone. Independently of what happens elsewhere, this problem exists in the UK, it affects UK citizens and residents and it is up to the people of this country to see how they can resolve their own problem.

@Rex-4. Sounds like Dr Fredrics is keeping this thread in the first page of THE blog after it moved to the bottom of the second page! Nice try!
Dr Fredrics left the country so as not be touched by the British Justice System. Thanks to Bliar, there exists an asymmetrical extradition framework where by a British Citizen can be easily extradited to America but an American citizen cannot to Britain.

As To Why? says Dr Fredrics " twisted the tail of tiger". Bullying exists everywhere from Oxbridge to Kingston U. Very few have opportunity to skip to America. In my case my trade union sorted this bullying out, aided by my lawyer. But I did not open a website to insult my employer. I do not work in Kingston U. I suggest my academic colleagues approach the trade union reps in their universities, that is one of the resons we become members of the union.

By the way stop posting multiple copies.

To the individual who just wrote to "To Rex-4". -----------------The multiple posting was an accident because my pc was not responding when I clicked to submit my comment, so I kept clicking it to get it to respond. I suspect that must have happened to a couple of others who submitted multiple postings. (I hope the administratior removes the excess multiple copies.)------------------------

Your comments suggest to me that you are despeate to find something to criticise. For a reply to your comments, please re-read what I wrote in my earlier posting as Rex-4.

@To Rex4 -- I only WISH my union would have assisted me the way yours apparently did. On a local level, I did receive some support from my rep, however, when it came to obtaining legal support at the Regional or National level, there was dead silence, even when my wife and I received patently threatening and intimidating letters from my employer. This was one of those cases that could have been resolved at an earlier stage, before it escalated, had there been the will on the part of the union to do so. When unions fail to step up to the challenge, it creates the circumstances whereby targets of bullying are left with few other options than to go public. In my case, that only happened after the University crossed the line into threats against not only myself, but my family. Going public can sometimes become necessary in order to protect one's personal safety, as it creates a disincentive for the employer to cause harm to an employee/former employee when a large number of people learn about the existence of such threats. As to the matter of the disparity between the UK and US in extradition matters, as an example, I abhor the recent attempts by the US to extradite the man who is alleged to have hacked into a US military computer, and have spoken out publicly against such attempts. Again, my reasons for leaving the UK are complex, and are NOT simply in order to avoid prosecution (see my above posts for further details). Incidentally, the matter is now being dealt with from a legal standpoint with a firm of UK solicitors. I fully expect to be exonerated of all charges in due course, but have been advised that I do not need to return to the UK, where my life is at risk, in order to go through the proper legal processes for obtaining redress.

Well said "Rex-4".
Ref "To Rex-4" - I am aware of countless cases when trade unions have been useless in helping with bullying cases and in some cases actually initiated the bullying in the first place. I am sure in a few cases unions provide the necessary support but it is the exception rather than the rule. Incidentally I unintentionally double posted here myself a while back - it is easily done with this blog setup.

You may consider signing the following petition that has been posted on the government website under the address:----- http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Justice-Bullying/---------

“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to instigate an open enquiry into allegations of workplace bullying / harassment in institutions of higher education and concerns about the way the judicial system has dealt with complaints about such bullying and with those who protest (publicly or otherwise) about wrongdoing by their employers; the enquiry to be conducted with a view to addressing issues of concern that it may uncover.=============

Moe details:---------------------
Workplace bullying is a widespread problem wrecking health and careers and costing billions to the taxpayer. This problem is particularly serious in higher education. A recent survey by the Universities Colleges Union showed that as few as 45.1% of the participants were fortunate enough to never experience bullying. ----------
Existing legislation addresses some aspects of workplace bullying, but does not deal with this problem comprehensively. There is also a perception that the judicial system does not always enforce the existing legislation fairly. Dissatisfaction with the way bullying is dealt with has led some to go public. -----------
In response to the handling of a recent case by the courts, many academics and others expressed their indignation about the bullying that prevails in institutions of higher education, as well as the failure of the judicial system to deal with these problems satisfactorily. Similar concerns have been voiced before.--------
In addition to the obvious non-pecuniary benefits, addressing the problem of workplace bullying will bring about substantial pecuniary benefits in the form of improvements in the economy and cost savings to the taxpayer.”

In response to the comment that 'unions have 'been useless' in dealing with bulllying, I have been involved in a case where an ineffective and contemptuous manager (who read mens magazines whilst his team were working then bullied in sequence all the top performers in his team) was taken to task by a union that was officially unrecognised by the company that employed the bullying manager. Several complaints had been made by people who were not given exit interviews, the department had gone from overperforming to dramatically and dangerously underperforming, nine people had left out of a team of 20 in the three months after the manager started his job and results were so low that bonus structures had to be renegotiated, yet the company had failed to recognise that there was a problem. The manager had bullied a top performer such that he had told everyone in the team that the top performer was under investigation for fraud (he wasn't) and got 'his favourite' to 'advise' the top performer leave before the investigation 'foundhim out' the union was exemplary in trying to address the issue, negotiated aggressively with the HR director of a global company and obtained compesation for some of those affected (most had left and didn't want to be involved). The company kept the manager on, but the union made sure he was under a cloud and my information is that he was 'relocated out of the business' after several months. I wouldn't underestimate the ability of unions at all

I am uncomfortable with the term "bullying", it's a generic term that needs to broken into several others. There could be insulting, interference with the work of others, threats, etc. Bullying appears as least serious act and the word should not be used when more serious acts are committed. For instance, if someone's bullying is unnerving you, you must stop working and explain it to the administration. I guess this would make them act fast - this can go to court easily. You should not rely on existing policies and procedures, make one yourself. ----------------- The two unions (Grad. Students' and Faculty Association - CAUT) in my case are simply communist/feminist organisations, they would never care about a case where a crime is perpetrated by someone belonging to their cohort. At the time I asked them to do something for me, GSU was organising demonstration in support of democracy on one Pacific island. CAUT, Canadian Association of University Teachers refused to have my case on their web site, but published a minor case from Argentina. I have all this in the documents. Unions are of this kind all over Canada. They are always in collusion with the administration, and using public money for political propaganda. They organise strikes lasting several months to win pennies and - saving administration a million dollars and leaving people without salaries; they conduct fraudulent voting when, on the third time, no one comes to the meeting except their cronies. It's corruption in a big way. -------------------- The cause of double and triple posting - you must press "Add" button until a tiny border inside Add appears!

Bullying fills the vacuum that poor management creates - in environments that resist good management practice, bullies and the ineffective are rewarded - because no-one can hold them to account. It wouldn't surprise me at all that in one of the most poorly managed sectors, where an anti-management and anti-accountability culture predominates(don't sack mary, we all know she's useless, but she's nice.. promote Mike, even though he's failed in all his last assignments, because he's funny and deserves another go...etc etc) that bullying would raise its head AND remain unchallenged.

Michael misses the point on bullying - it is the relentless pattern of all the small things he describes being use to destabilise or undermine someone This can be (but not always) because a manager is unable to deal with a real issue (say underperformance) by having a real conversation, so the bully uses the 'get back at him/her' method instead. If you are training a dog and punish him a week after he dropped a ball, with punishment that is unrelated to the action, you can't blame the dog for not 'getting' that the two are related, yet bullying managers often don't address the real issue and instead address something obtuse - eg X thinks Y(target) is not completing work fast enough. X has no proof, and no system in place to measure performance - thus acting on this assumption will expose the fact that X isn't managing effectively, or put systems in place to check work throughput, or indeed, has any method by with his/her 'judgements' can be backed up. He daren't challenge Y on this, because Ys answer will be 'compared to what?', 'Yes I am', 'you have never asked for higher output' etc etc. X then develops a grudge that is really a projection of Xs anger at him/herself for being so ineffective as to not know what the hell he/she is talking about. x is aware that he/she needs something concrete, and so X gives a series of spurious tasks with a short deadline (because X can't manage long -timescale work because he/she has no system in place to manage time over long periods) designed to trip up Y and 'prove' that the sampled work represents all his work. Y can easily refute this, if he knew the nature of the 'invisible test' but is left on the back foot wondering why short deadlines have been used to 'prove' overall ineffectiveness.

Not sure if Dr Fredrics or his wife are still checking this exchange, but I raised this subject with Vince Cable last week and the concerns over the conduct of the Magistrate, and whilst we both agreed these are things that warrant investigation, evading the authorities has introduced entirely separate problems and has made it difficult for anybody to assist Dr Fredrics now.

@Confucious. You confuse people with your Xs and Ys. Anything longer is verbose and ineffectual.

I know Vince Cable from his Labour arty days in Glasgow. Thinks that he knows economics and a bit more but is highly overrated. Except norman Baker all the LibDem MPs are wishy washy.

Dr Fredrics is sure checking to see if we are doing his work for him here after running away from the country. Dr Fredrics, in his American jargon is a 'fugitive' from law after skipping the country and avoiding the authorities. He does not like us the Brits -read what he replied to "To Gladiatrix " who raised valid points and later try to shift it. As another poster says, he 'twisted the tail of a tiger' through his provocative website name, and why we waste time for this 'runner' is beyond me. Bullying is an issue in all universities and we should tackle it and not link it to this man who ran away from authgorities. Let him enjoy his evenings at the foothills of the Appalachian mountains, and we should leave him there.
I do not work in Kingston U and has never been near there in my life.

hero - you misrepresented my view on effectiveness of unions on tacking bullying. I did not say that unions were always ineffective and you are assuming that because you got good treatment from a union then they always or generally do.

@David2 " I am aware of countless cases when trade unions have been useless in helping with bullying cases and in some cases actually initiated the bullying in the first place. I am sure in a few cases unions provide the necessary support but it is the exception rather than the rule"

What do we understand by the bove. Hero does not always talk sennse, but this time he/she is spot on.

What remedy you suggest if unions are 'useless' and 'initiate bullying'? Opne up a website called SallyHunt.com like Dr Fredrics did and counter argue saying it is perfectly legal?

I never belonged to any union, but what Hero said was what you meant.

"I am aware of countless cases when trade unions have been useless in helping with bullying cases and in some cases actually initiated the bullying in the first place." is obviously not the same as saying that all unions are useless.

I rest my case. Don't try to wriggle out, it sounds pathetic.

is Dr Frederics' life really in danger? this is Kingston University not M15

@george "is Dr Frederics' life really in danger? this is Kingston University not M15" I don't think so. He raised this after Kingston U succeeded in a minor court presumably to make a run saying that his life was at risk. He has never given a satisfactory explanation about why he did not challenge the minor court verdict as Gladiatrix suggests while staying in the UK. He further adds that his firm of solicitors advised him that it is not necessary for him to return to the UK, eventhough he evaded the arm of the law by stealthily leaving the country. I have not heard of this advice as any solicitor will suggest to comply with the law and not happy if the client is hiding in a log cabin in Montana . He gives very unconvincing story about the union as most of us know whatever the union's shortcomings are they take bullying seriously.

confucious, your example of X v. Y and your advice how to turn it into Y v. X are not sound; this example has only one solution - X should fire Y and Y should find another job. It's either the employee is needed or not needed. The trouble with universities is that no one is needed, well, except in cases when Y is a good scientist and he allows X to sign his papers, i.e. in the words of Dr. Fabrikant, Y works as a prostitute. And, to make the long explanation short, I will say that society is at such point in corruption where no decent person is allowed to occupy a high position. ------------------- The talk about good unions and bad unions is totally useless unless we consider the POLITICAL circumstances in a given case. Unions are politicised and behave differently depending on political situation.

@George and @To George -- Yes, my life is in danger. On 6 December, my wife was assaulted and death threats issued against both of us. Whether Kingston University and/or Hizb ut Tahrir is involved or not is not clear, but the matter remains under investigation by the police. The advice we received was, however, very clear -- we were under direct threat to our safety, and irrespective of any charges against me, we were advised that we ought to leave the UK for our safety until and unless the perpetrator(s) are apprehended.

@To George - As for the advice from my solicitors, to clarify this, I'm sure you're correct that a solicitor would not advise leaving the jurisdiction, however, having already done so, my solicitors, being aware of the the threats to our safety, advised that there was no reason why I would have to put myself in jeopardy by returning to the UK in order to resolve the criminal conviction. This is something that they can handle in my absence.

@dr Fredrics. Fantastic account! "The advice we received was, however, very clear -- we were under direct threat to our safety, and irrespective of any charges against me, we were advised that we ought to leave the UK for our safety until and unless the perpetrator(s) are apprehended" who advised this?

Dr Fredrics----
Thank you for clarifying matters. Please do not feel you have to disclose any information that you feel is against your interests to disclose. You really don't have to respond to uncivil persons who insult you by disputing your integrity.

confucious 2 February, 2010 Bullying fills the vacuum that poor management creates - in environments that resist good management practice, bullies and the ineffective are rewarded - because no-one can hold them to account. It wouldn't surprise me at all that in one of the most poorly managed sectors... Confucious' account reflects my experiences. Bullying is the relentless pattern of small incidents designed to destabilise an individual both personally and professionally. None of the senior management in my university will act to support me. They are not prepared to hold anyone to account. I have submitted multiple grievances alleging workplace bullying - they have all been dismissed. A hallmark of the grievance process has been trying to ensure that no-one engages with the extensive evidence that I have submitted. From HR's perspective this has been a very effective strategy (along with the defamation of character from my line manager). These actions I believe have been a key factor in the dismissal of the grievances. Now I am threatened with disciplinary action if I submit any other grievance in relation to alleged bullying. The feeling of public humiliation is indescribable - a bit like a continuous gang rape with silent witnesses watching . I have gathered files of evidence. The UCU executive at my uni appear paralysed with inaction (why I wonder!) and I am not allowed to present my case to the chair of governors. I believe that Howard has described how the situation at Kingston escalated at this point - in part because of lack of effective action from UCU. When the last grievance was dismissed my line managers immediately continued the relentless attack upon me. The 'attack' is in the form of small incidents which would seem insignificant ... but it is the relentless pattern of these small incidents (and some not so small) which represents the bullying. Please sign the petition http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Justice-Bullying . This action would mean so much to those of us who struggle in our own small way to challenge workplace bullying which it has now been acknowledged is rife in our universities. I don't mean to sound pathetic - I try to be upbeat - and usually I manage it - but there are just those days when you wonder if you can actually get out of bed. It was maybe one of those days that Carl took the rope - walked to the woods and took his own life. It was a day in February a year ago. For Carl's sake and the others who could bear the pain no longer - please please sign the petition. Bullying can and does kill - it must be eradicated from our universities.

shall we start a third world war conversation again..maybe much safer than those bullying conversations.

If you have exhausted internal procedures - go to ACAS who will negotiate/mediate (but this will mean that they will present the organisations view to you and this might not be comfortable) and then go to tribunal. Try to remember that you probably won't make them change the argument - no matter what they really think - as they are putting a case to try to move the argument around rather than trying to present the truth. Your job is to prove that there is enough evidence that your case COULD be true - this should be enough to start negotiating towards a resolution. MOst cases fail because the person bringing them gets afraid of the process at a point where a resolution is not enforcable - they rely completely on this tactic and all you need to do is step one step further to win - going outside the organisation is that step - ACAS will actually aim to reach an agreement and I have made resolutions with ACAS before tribunal when a case is weak - tribunals are great for two reasons a) when you want the organisation to have the incedent recorded, and public so that you can talk about it and b) if you really want the organisation to be held externally accountable - good fro the moral types - for those wanting resolution, see if you are happy with the interim -0 remember the last thing organisations want is a list of publicly available tribunal cases they have lost! Its a big incentive for them to wake up and address. And if you are worried about your reputation - at the moment you are someone raising grievances who doesn't step up to the mark and is easily fobbed off - you'll gain more respect by casually progressing to the next stage each time you are ignored.

clare 31 January, 2010
Dr Fredrics, I know your comments were addressed to Gladiatrix only - but It seems as though rather than just "get at" you - (in my opinon) there is a suggestion that you are a moaning American who deserves whatever is happening because American Universities are being horrid to their lecturers also. It's pretty clear that peope are trying to steer the argument to make you look bad, as though you deserve everything that has happened to you - rather than looking at the legalities, the reasons behind your actions etc. I am waiting for the headlines to be "guilty of being an American".

Thanks Hero - I have been trying to work out what the next step should be - I have tried ACAS before but will try again...

I have just spoken to S at ACAS who listed all the options that I have tried. I explained to S that now I have been threatened with disciplinary action any further action that I take at my university in relation to bullying will mean that I face being dismissed for SORS - some other substantial reason - S. was sympathetic but couldn't really help...bullying is such a puzzle really... and no my union hasn't been at all helpful ... and solicitors are very expensive... and mediation didn't work...and there doesn't seem a lot of point in leaving the uni as that is exactly what they want me to do... they can't wait to see the back of me...so maybe Hero that is why we need a petition so that feeble types like me 'who are unable to casually progress to the next stage' can be helped....

You do need appropriate advice on this - but I would certainly consider writing back to a threat of disciplinary action urging them to take it forward if they have a case since you believe 'that all the issues should be addressed formally' - every single time I have seen the bluff of formal action be called, the person making it has withdrawn it - including one where an HR officer claimed that a colleague I was representing was 'being aggressive' every time he answered a question (this is a common blocking tactic). We adjourned then when we returned we insisted that the meeting not continue unless the very serious allegations of abusive behaviour were formalised and noted in the minutes. I have never seen a more amusing and stuttering backpedalling by an HR rep in my life - a joy to behold! That HR rep was fired in a few months because she somehow was less successful at 'mediation' once she was unable to stop people talking by accusing them of aggression!

I think we need a system that takes bullying seriously - and that will take some achieving but it is not impossible...Taking anything forward was not part of how S saw the role of ACAS - they are simply there - I was told - to offer advice. Workplace bullying is rife because it is very difficult to challenge - if it were easy to challenge then ... a viscious circle.... supported by a law that is very weak in these matters...a union weak and possibly in the pocket of management... HR departments who are there for the management - to keep those who challenge away from management ... ....look at what has happened to Howard's case. Workplace bullying is rife in our universities. Thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money is being spent on compromise agreements rather than getting to the root of the problem - which actually isn't that difficult As Confuscious says - weak management in universities is a huge factor.

Just had to respond to the *To Gladiatrix* and *To Howard Fredrics* messages of 30 Jan and 31 Jan. that put forward an unfair stereotype of Americans, namely that we are gun toters and an unfair characterization of Howard namely that he is anti-Brit. First of all, would an American chose to move to England in 2002 and then fight like hell to stay (switching ones immigration status from a work permit after being unfairly sacked is a monumental battle)really have something against British people? Please!. The truth is that Howard loved our home in England and out family and friends there and he wept when he had to leave. But that does not mean that he is going to further endure the nasty stereotype that some ignorant people in England hold about Americans loving guns *@Gladiatrix. I bet Dr Fredrics has not done any of those you listed but want us to bear arms and march to shoot the magistrate and Sir Scott on his behalf.* Just for the record, if an American is the type who wants to possess hand guns the chances of his moving to a country like England with strong gun control laws is nil. The gun lovers stay home with their guns. Howard and I are strongly in favour of gun control, have never owned fire arms and are insulted that anyone would lump us in with those who do. The closest that Howard and I have come to fire arms is was the theatrical prop that was used in his opera, and seen only on stage held by the character of a 1930's gangster. The mention of which was used by KU in their disciplinary action against him and tribunal bundle, which is outrageous and clearly designed to whip up anti-American sentiment.The healthy way to respond to a bully or an abuser is to expose their wrongdoing. The proper way to deal with a public figure who does wrong is through speaking out and that speech can include satire in a free society. Howard values the UK educational system and respects the procedures put in place to assure quality. That is why he displeased with attempts within the former school of music at Kingston University to interfere with an external examiner and also with the interference with the National Student Survey results through pressuring students to inflate their ratings. The culprits in these instances remain employed by Kingston University and fair-minded people should ask themselves why.

Character defamation - works on blogs too..... I am not being unkind. I think you have misread my post.

"bear arms and march to shoot the magistrate and Sir Scott on his behalf.* Just for the record, if an American is the type who wants to possess hand guns the chances of his moving to a country like England with strong gun control laws is nil."

I cannot help laughing at the above by Lori Fredrics as the original observation was euphemistically put and this literal interepretation of it is a smoke screen .

Whatever happened at the Kingston U, surely Dr Fredrics provoked PS by first opening a website in his name and when the court case went against hin, Dr Fredrics instead of challenging the court's judgrement skipped the country saying he is threatened by terrorists! As for work permits and permanent residency it is much simpler thn one faces ithe hurdles in America.

As for "The healthy way to respond to a bully or an abuser is to expose their wrongdoing. The proper way to deal with a public figure who does wrong is through speaking out and that speech can include satire in a free society.", why open a website in PS name and why not call it Dr "Fredreics speaks the truth.com"? Well Dr Fredrics has run away from the law and that will top anything else. As for bullying and anything else there are proper way of dealing with them. Dr Fredrics action is not lawful in any country.

Clare - The point I was making was that you were identifying the strategy of character defamation which is being used here against Howard by some people - I am with you!

Gladiatrix you would share your knowledge with us on 'the proper way to deal with bullying'. One effective way to deal with targets - as demonstrated on this blog- is to scapegoat them with a touch of defamation of character as has happened on here - for all to see.

@Hero -- Strange as it may seem, ACAS never contacted me even once during the entire process of my Tribunal case, from its onset to its conclusion. I phoned them a number of times, left messages for my supposedly assigned case officer and never received a reply. I tried everything to enlist their assistance in negotiating a resolution to the dispute, but there was absolutely zero response. The only conclusions I could reach were that they were either entirely under-resourced or that they were simply afraid for some unknown reason to become involved. It simply remains a mystery to me.

I could not help myself but I think you are talking nonsense. Sorry!

Aphra Behn, I think your petition will go nowhere. I collected 417 signatures under my petition to the univ. President: "Dear Dr. Birgeneau, The evidence that Mr. M. Pyshnov has presented to the University community makes us ask you to identify and release any document that may refute his allegations of fraud and cover-up (in: "Ruthless Science Fraud at the University of Toronto"). Mr. Pyshnov does not object to the disclosure of any evidence whatsoever. If such evidence does not exist, we urge you to take immediate measures to stop the crime. The present situation is worrying us and we welcome your detailed comments on the case. Yours sincerely, (417 signatures attached) ------------- The answer was: "Dear Mr. Pyshnov: In response to your letter to me of April 24, 2001 I have been informed that your complaint was fully investigated by the University and by NSERC. The University considers the matter closed. Yours sincerely, /signature/ Robert J. Birgeneau" -------------------- Therefore, he did not even answer the petition, but only my letter that accompanied the petition, that was the trick. Moreover, the fact is that my complaint was (AND REMAINS NOW) "investigated" by ONE man (D. Dewees) only. NEVER by anybody else. The university officials simply LIE and SPIT on you. --------------- I said it before that I believe that in the situation of bullying, the only correct way, after you went to their "procedures", is to stop working and see: either the administration will come to their senses, or they will fire you and you go to the real court - which they will hate to see happen for many good reasons. While you are still employed you have this option. It's a mystery to me why this is not being done (if you feel strong about your evidence that it proves that you cannot work normally). BTW, I know you don't carry a gun, but do you have a hidden tape recorder on you at all times?

The earlier message (re nonsense) was not addressed to 'Gladiatrix' but to 'To Gladiatrix'. It sounds complicated but you know what I mean.

The more you write your disparaging opinions about America the more your motives become apparent. " As for work permits and permanent residency it is much simpler thn one faces ithe hurdles in America. . How would you know? Have you applied for both and can therefore compare? From reading what Lori Fredrics wrote, she never made any comparison, but she did destroy your attempt to paint Dr. Fredrics as having animosity towards people in the UK.
Many of us have followed the Fredrics case for years and your statement "Whatever happened at the Kingston U, surely Dr Fredrics provoked PS by first opening a website in his name" is a joke because we heard about the details of the bullying that went on for years BEFORE the existence of the website. Your ignorance is as obvious as your prejudices.
You also said" when the court case went against hin, Dr Fredrics instead of challenging the court's judgrement skipped the country". Wrong again. The World Intellectual Property Organization decided that Peter Scott did not have any legal claim on the domain name. He did not have any claims on the trademark due to not having established the needed reputation and the good will. " Why don't you go to the website and read the decision? You wrote "As for bullying and anything else there are proper way of dealing with them. Dr Fredrics action is not lawful in any country. " Wrong yet again. There are many countries with protections for free speech, including the UK and what Dr. Fredrics did is actually not unlawful in the UK. The magistrates, who are not legally qualified made incorrect decision and it will be overturned shortly.

I wonder which universities might be under close watch at present -- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8496066.stm. But of course, individuals affiliated with such institutions couldn't possibly be involved in planning acts of violence, could they?

...impressed at the internet reception Dr Fredrics seems to be getting in his terrorist-proof bunker?

Dr Fredrics is a runner from justice instead of staying and fighting it legally. Stipendary Magistrates are leagally qualified. Go on support some one who ran away from facing the judgement and fighting it through legal means.

@To Gladiatrix -- A Stipendary Magistrate no longer exists in Britain. Since 2000, they were renamed as District Judges. The Magistrates hearing my case were a panel of three Lay Magistrates, and were NOT legally qualified. In fact, my barrister made a motion at the plea hearing for a Stipendary Magistrate (District Judge) to be appointed to hear the case precisely because such Judges are legally qualified and are therefore capable of comprehending the complex legal issues in relation to Freedom of Speech and Media Law that my case involves. Unfortunately, the panel of Lay Magistrates decided to deny our motion to have the matter heard by a qualified Judge. Who, in their right mind would want their fate decided by someone without the qualifications to understand the complex legal aspects of such a groundbreaking case? This is not much different than asking your local GP to perform delicate brain surgery -- it's just plain foolishness to expect him to get it right, and no right thinking GP would willingly undertake such an exercise unless there was no other alternative.

Interesting story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8499450.stm

Why can;t you f'in well stop trying to turn 'something with a jew in it' into an us and them anti-semetic argument. Would you think It was creible for me to post BNP articles over everything where a white british person were criticised? Piss off with your racist and naive attempts to start an us-and-them war - why do minority groups like Jews and Muslims see stirring up division and hate as a way to lever themselves up? It doesn't it levers us all downwards into bitching and fighting whilst pricks like david2 look on rubbing their hands.

@dr Fredrics. I do not think you are wholly right about lay magistrates decisions based on whim. Anyway, instead of sitting and fighting the judgement you skipped the country bringing in terrorism to buttress your deed and you should be ashamed of your action when many of us stay and rattempt to right the wrong. Your website from the start naming as it was was a mischief from the start. Your skipping the country will loom large and I do not want to talk to some who evaded the judgement mande in the name of the Queen. Move on , and grow another life in your country.

@Dr Fredrics I have read the postings here.

I would appreciate if you could answer the following two questions:

1. Who advised you to leave the country ( you said your advise was...)

2. Why did you pick that specific websirte name and as some one above suggested why was it not : Dr Fredrics speaks the truth.com?

Any one who is bullied will not act as you did setting up a website which has a name of the VC.

Please answer my above two questions.

If you think magistrates have integrity have a look at some who have been struck off for claiming legal authority, acting as legal advisors and claiming to be expert witnesses when at best they are all amateurs! I did some temp work for an organisation that deals with complaints and there are even examples of magistrates abusing the legal system to victimise individuals - many have distorted ideas of their place in society because of their magistrate status.

What does religion have to do with this?

Why should Howard Fredrics answer specific questions to you while he is in the middle of an ongoing legal case when you are too much of a coward to even reveal your identity?
Cervantes please reveal your identity immediately.

postings are starting to paint a picture of a morally bankrupt society. Don't we have some jolly news any more?

these - i cant think of much in society that isnt morally bankrupt. People in some more "primitive" non-materialistic communities in far flung parts of the world are happiest. Modern "advanced" culture has become a monster of its own making.

The more I read about this incident, the less sympathy I have for Howard Fredrics. The posts here are often self serving nonsense. Others are completely barmy badger.

spengler IMO reinforces my point. Hmm i must check out Bhutan.

@spengler. I agree with you 100%. THE should discontinue the postings and let the people concerned settle things in the higher court.

Only someone associated with Peter Scott would be still on this thread and desperately calling for it to be closed. An uninterested person would not care. As it stands the only people who used their own names were supporters of Dr. Fredrics, that means that many people have signed their names to support someone who is allegedly a fugitive. Yet, everyone who has written in support of the other side hides their identity. I guess it is really embarrassing to support a V-C who permitted such awful goings on, on his watch. Nothing can change the fact that so many people

To Dave666 --- I wonder why you think that swearing on a blog of this type and insulting decent people will make your argument stronger. It only shows that you might not be able to put across an argument by basing it on civilized foundation! That will certainly give also an indication that your entire reasoning behind your post could be very much derived by a thuggish attitude with the sole aim to vandalize the purpose of this blog -attempted also by some others previous posters but in a more refined and polite way. This blog and comments are about Dr Fredrics and the way he has been treated by Kingston University (together with six other Jewish colleagues of his): if you do not appreciate the evidence of the ordeals that some minorities are suffering and you are not even able to express your disappointment in a civilized manner simply because of your frustration, then you should not take part to this discussion in this venue and you should instead let your anger go wild in a pub with loud music heard only by friends of yours of the same level of yours. ----- Let me also tell you now that judging by your "portrayed poor level" of spelling and the low level of your degrading arguments, I do not even buy the fact that you 'casually' dropped into a 'bullying blog' or 'higher education' blog and thus by mere chance: someone with much stronger and interested intentions to discredit Dr Fredrics's situation must be behind your identity of a David666.

Thanks to those who sighed the petition at http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Justice-Bullying/ .---
Please spread the word so others can consider signing.

No swearing and no fudging the issue either with overloading of terrorism.. The court judgement must be obeyed first pending appeal and until them any peition is meanigless and any support is nonsensical. PS has won already thanks to the ill-advised venture of the person concerned..

Jason, if the thread does not concern you and you don't like the thread just go to another thread or don't look at it. If it concerns you why not let everyone know who you are?

Just consider this: I am from a country which does not recognise the International Court at Hague, my country waged an illegal war saying “ if you are not with us, you are against us”, created an outpost in a country which it created by force, invented a new illegal method called “rendition” and shipped any one who looked brown and wandering in Pakistan-lots of them! I create a website with a name of my ex-CEO, slang him for whatever because I could not do my job properly ( in my wonderful country I would have been fired much earlier) twist the tiger’s tail by posting comments which can be construed as harassment as it has a provocative name of my ex-CEO for a start, and am taken to a court as a result and handed down a judgement which I do not like ( lots of us accepted the judgements from such courts be it a fine or a reprimand ). Suddenly I create a smoke screen saying Bin Laden;s 6 cousins are after me and run away to my motherland, hiding in the Texas hinterland knowing fully well I cannot be shipped back through the “rendition” route to the country which allowed me to have a job for years. If some one questions my act of provocation, I insult the whole country by saying all of them “Brits’ do not like me an American! My name is Fredrcs! I can insult you, but I know you are all fools. You should support my illegal exit from your country!!! Lawfully opposing any injustice? What is it?

@PETITION: Unlke the cowardly facade of yours, my name is Jason, a real name, my name. I am a citizen of this country.. You do not lke what I said and you bully me for that? I thought this thread opposes bullying. not if it comes from a bunch of you! This is still a free country. You want only your kindof views to prevail? I suggest you open you own blog and threads. I have given my name, what is yours? No idiot calls himself/herself PETITON!

To Jason: 'This is still a free country' what does that mean? We in this country, like those in every other country, have the freedom to say/write what we like. However, here like everywhere else there could be consequences associated with that action - the only difference being the severity of those consequences. Access to this site could be blocked if the content of your posts was deemed unsuitable - Free country, don't make me laugh...

@whippet what is so funny about free country? Are you living in Cuba? As for unsuitability Jason did not insult any one and replied to some one who while hiding behind a false name accusing Jason to reveal his identity Pure wickedness. What Jason says is true. People like you are here sniping at the sides. others plainly bully and insult any one who disagree with their line of argument. Jason suggested closing this thread , I agree as this thread is used by the person concerned and his cohorts to abuse a justice system at the lower courts by rubbishing the judge. Hon magistrates are perfectly entitled to sit in courts as long as it is sanctioned by the legal system in this country. There is appeals procedure if anything goes wrong at the lower court. . I request THE to close this thread. As for my identity I am a school teacher and never lived near Kingston U/nr I know Sir Scott.

OK, I'll stand up and be counted: this is my real name, I have no connection whatever with this affair, and I've been following the thread simply out of vulgar curiosity. It's always interesting reading on the THE website about the unofficial stories behind the official version---but come on! I was irresistibly reminded of Henry Tilney's response to Catherine Morland's Gothic-novel version of his family history : "If I understand you rightly, you had formed a surmise of such horror as I have hardly words to — Dear Miss Morland, consider the dreadful nature of the suspicions you have entertained. What have you been judging from? Remember the country and the age in which we live. Remember that we are English, that we are Christians. Consult your own understanding, your own sense of the probable, your own observation of what is passing around you. Does our education prepare us for such atrocities? Do our laws connive at them? Could they be perpetrated without being known, in a country like this, where social and literary intercourse is on such a footing, where every man is surrounded by a neighbourhood of voluntary spies, and where roads and newspapers lay everything open? Dearest Miss Morland, what ideas have you been admitting?” I'm as ready as the next academic to believe the worst of vice-chancellors; but I really don't feel that this thread is doing the reputation of Dr Fredrics, or that of the academic profession in general, any favours.

Bella Millett - all too often Higher Education seems to be a bully factory churning out bullies. I have had to endure working for some of them. They have great bits of paper saying they have passed one or other academic exam yet they become ruthless bullies. There are serious problems with bullying cultures in higher education. In many cases it would be better if students didnt bother with Higher Education, they would be better people if they didnt.

Please sign the petition against workplace bullying in Higher Education: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Justice-Bullying

Its amazing teh cutrain-twitchers on here who think they have found a sirpeterscott agent everytime someonw posts without a surname! amazing too how often someone assumes that it is all about hating jews rather than a (what the same people are also claiming) 'typical' workplace bullying.. at least try to be consistent in your paranoia!.. as for 'people who swear are stupid' that isn't a truism. - its what your teacher said to shut you up, not a real indication of intelligence - swearing is a reflection of how f'in stupid your arguments are - so stupid that they are inexplicably stupid - and should ideally be dismissed with animal grunts - at least that would be dealing with your stupidity with the right vocabulary for the level of thinking you use

I think that (I) can hardly be accused of insulting decent people when the person I am insulting accuses all gentiles or whatever who disagree with a jewish person's views an anti-semite!!!.. people who accuse people of things just to fan and argument they can then watch deserve the hatred of all - they are the snivelling little kid who winds up bullies in school so that he/she can watch them fight and claim its nothing to do with them. Despicable little c&&t

Wasn't this website once remotely connected with higher education?