Here we present  a convenient version of the latest University of Nottingham press statement given to us by our media-friends. It allows you to navigate directly to a relevant ‘mini-digest‘ of leaked documents. These shed a critical light on the accuracy each of the claims made. For example the ‘transparency’ link takes you to a digest of material that has been redacted, truncated and/or provides evidence that documentation is still being withheld by Nottingham University. Finally, we would like to point out that the University’s illegal and unethical conduct extends beyond the ‘risk assessment’ focus presented to the press- it also extends to spin campaigns and other irregularities in the months and years following the arrests. We hope users find this helpful: a leak of this size is difficult to navigate.

University of Nottingham Press Statement:

A University of Nottingham spokesperson said: “The University’s policy is not to comment on the situation of individual members of staff. Internal processes are ongoing, and are being carried out according to the University’s statutes. At all times since the incident took place, in May 2008, the University has acted in an ethical, transparent and fair manner, motivated by its responsibility to students and staff and its public duty to the wider community. “Academic freedom is a cornerstone of this University, but it is not the freedom to defame your co-workers and attempt to destroy their reputations as honest, fair and reasonable individuals. The article produced by Dr Thornton is highly defamatory of a number of his colleagues. The University rejects utterly the baseless accusations Dr Thornton makes about members of staff. “It is important to remember that the original incident, more than three years ago, was triggered by the discovery of an Al Qaeda Training Manual on the computer of an individual who was neither an academic member of staff, nor a student, and in a School where one would not expect to find such material being used for research purposes. The individual concerned was an administrative member of staff with no academic reason to possess such a document. The University became concerned and decided, after a risk assessment, that those concerns should be conveyed to the police as the appropriate body to investigate.” -ends

At this point it is worth noting that is relevant to this press release is this paragraph from Dr. Thornton’s report (p27-8):

[The Vice Chancellor] Sir Colin  had also not even been entirely truthful to [Minister] Mr Rammell. In his letter to him he refers to the original finding of “an electronic copy of an Al Qaeda Training Manual”. The first problem with such a statement is in the use of the article. It was not “an” Al Qaeda training manual, it was “The” Al Qaeda Training Manual. There is a world of difference between the two. The former implies a manual used to train Al Qaeda operatives, while the latter refers to a freely available library book. Thus the minister was being given a false impression.


The Unileaks documents corroborating  Dr Rod Thornton’s report have been released in the hope that the university management desist from making and repeating what they know to be problematic claims, and that they would start considering the possibility that serious mistakes might have been made in their handling of this tragic affair. Of course both we & Unileaks have revealed documents which touch on so much more than the University’s statement and we can offer exclusive access to our next phase of digests and documents. Each of which illustrate precisely why SWAN (Support the Whistleblower at Nottingham) is calling for a public enquiry into allegations of malpractice by university management, as detailed in Dr. Thornton’s paper.

Advertisements