Following his release senior management and, more worryingly, the Head of Security, Mr. Gary Stevens, were kept informed of Sabir’s academic progress [here]. The Head of Security, for reasons unknown,  requested Sabir’s undergraduate results from Manchester Metropolitan [here]. Why was  security  interested in these results? Were they looking for something? Sabirs dissertation was sent out to two external examiners despite the fact his internal markers were in agreement on his marks (75%). It turns out the externals were given the different marking criteria and awarded him 63%. The internal marks were completely ignored. Even the external examiner offered to “enter into dialogue on [the marks]” [here] but this did not happen. Sending a students work to one external when both internal markers are in agreement is not provided for in University policy and completely ignoring the marks from internal markers  is a definite breach of guidelines – you can read the relevant page [here]. When Dr. Thornton raised the alarm on this he was disciplined for defamation and the University concluded that it “found no evidence of malpractice” [here]. The leaked documents reveal that the decision to send Sabir’s dissertation to external markers was actually  taken months before he even wrote it. Earlier, in an email to the Registrar and the Head of Security (!), Steven Dudderidge (Director of Student Operations and Support) wrote: “Politics [School of] will arrange for his marks to be considered by the external examiners”[here] – note that he used plural. The email clearly show that his academic situation was being monitored. And there is plenty of evidence that is was not in the interest of his welfare.

When Sabir completed his final assessment some time after his release the Deputy head of the School of Politics Dr. Philip Crowley was  engaged in ‘confidential gossip’ . He learned that  Sabir ‘bombed’  on this assessment  [here]. This exchange took place an hour after Sabir’s assessment had been marked. The sender of the this ‘gossip’, Dr. Mathew Humphrey, clearly took steps to access this information and then work out that  Sabir was, overall, 0.2 per cent shy of qualifying for a PhD thanks in part to his lowered dissertation mark.  When Sabir decided to abandon his PhD studies and leave due to this untoward treatment, staff in the School of Politics sent celebratory emails and comments. For example, the University Exams Officer wrote: “Fingers crossed. Best thing for all concerned” [here]. The Head of the Politics Department wrote: ‘Nice to have some good news!’ [here] and declared that he was ‘both delighted and astonished!! What on earth are the ESRC [Sabir’s new PhD funders] thinking – but then who cares?!” [here]. All of this suggests that the close monitoring of this student was out of concern for his welfare.

See Dr. Thorntons report p95-104 for a more evidence [here]