The neck-er bone connected to the arse bone....

Two Tuesdays ago I appeared before a judge in the Upper Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) in Manchester Crown Court. Due to one or two procedural issues, the judge is seeking further information from all parties before this matter progresses, so not much to report really. I'd like to emphasise the importance of the Human Rights Act 1998 in particular Article 6 and the right to a fair hearing which was worth persisting with in this matter. And as I spent a ruddy age preparing my appeal, I think it's worth visiting some of the issues in hand.

The Overriding Objective

There's something called the 'Overriding Objective' which is not a form deterministic satellite navigation fitted to tractors in the Soviet era. The Overriding Objective is a set of rules that must be observed and applied by courts and increasingly by tribunals in the UK. For example, the court should ensure that 'parties are on equal footing', and 'deal with cases justly', ensuring that cases and matters are 'dealt with expeditiously and fairly'.(1) Why is this important? Let's explore (in matters Duke pertaining  to FOI), the 'equality' at the heart of this matter, particularly the 'equality' in the resources of both sides. My former employer has vast financial resources to draw upon, and by its own admission has done so. My former employer has instructed a law firm to advise it in this matter. Senior managers at the University have access to advice from internal legal advisers. The University has trained staff who specialise in FOI matters. I have none of the above and I represent myself. Did the Information Commissioner and the First Tier Tribunal have this at the forefront of their minds prior to reaching their decisions?

Making an Appeal

A Peel

Appeals are often necessary and as a litigant in person and because of the inequality in resources, lodging an appeal takes quite a bit of effort and not insignificant expense. There are some basic procedures our would-be jestee 'appellant' must firstly observe which in the preliminary stages involves entering into a deep fustian pact with the manufacturers of Lever Arch files and the diabolical bastard progeny of an interesting yet unprofitable experiment conducted by a capricious biologist into cross-pollination, incorporating two distinct elements: a post-dated Mayan calendar, and a bureaucratic mechanism that would leave a nascent Uncle Joe slavering with envy. Secondly s/he must be prepared to forego any form of exposure to a natural phenomenon known in meteorological circles as 'sunlight'. Lastly, our latter day Job(ette) must be willing to undertake a PhD in advanced astrophysics, develop the insight of a reverse-Erik von Daniken, and use spinning plates on sticks to synchronise their internal clocks with the 11.9 year Jovian orbit of our nearest star. This they must achieve whilst perusing the entire televisual output of Brian Cox on DVD with the subtitles set to Hindi. 

Contra-Galileo

It has taken roughly the same time as it takes for the Sun to orbit our planet, for this current appeal to reach the Upper Tier Tribunal. It has its long, stubborn roots in the matter of several Freedom of Information requests I made to a Public Authority - the University of Salford-Manchester.  For the sake of clarity and for the more befuddled afficionados of this blog, I'd requested this information through the Whatdotheyknow website in order to secure additional evidence for my Employment Tribunal claim of unfair dismissal. I'd lodged the claim at the ET in October 2009. Clearly, a far-sighted and diligent person would collate as much evidence as possible in order to build a foundation for a successful claim at the ET wouldn't they? The last thing a chap would want to do was waste the Tribunal's time. And as my former employer had alleged that the content of what I'd chosen to write about in those satirical Vice Consul's Newsletters was 'malicious', any additional evidence to corroborate and reinforce the allegations in the Newsletters would be useful for myself and useful to the Tribunal to help it inform its decision. Besides, it's a university and a PUBLIC AUTHORITY, and as such, receives the bulk of its funding from the state in one form or another. There's also a public interest in establishing precisely how our taxes are being spent by the University's Executive Committee.

The gatekeeper

  

Not much gets past this chap

It is an eminently interesting state of affairs when the employer you are taking to an Employment Tribunal is the gatekeeper to information you wish to access for the proceedings. The 'interesting' factor is raised by the power of six when such information legitimately requested is denied and your requests refused as 'vexatious', a position subsequently upheld by (after lodging your complaint to) the Information Commissioner. Titillation levels almost go through the roof when one is provided with a large number of documents by your former employer and the Information Commissioner under three Subject Access Requests, particularly an email from the fingertips of the University's second-in-command Dr Adrian Graves, that suggested in November 2009 (just after a chap had made several requests for information) that the University would be treating 'any' of my FOI requests as vexatious. I wondered what a reasonable person might think. Would s/he conclude that this indicative that it is the requester that is being deemed 'vexatious' and not the requests? Yet despite providing such evidence to the Information Commissioner, this chap decided not to uphold my complaint.

Appeal number one

Of course I'd appealed this to the First Tier Tribunal. During the 'papers only' hearing, the FTT decided in its wisdom to uphold the decision of the IC which is odd. It's odd because in my application for a hearing, I'd specifically asked for an oral hearing to present my case to the First Tier Tribunal. Keen-eyed readers will also note that the FTT substantively elaborated on the IC's decision. I shall deal with this further in the next posting. I thought that this posting, given that Dr Graves has taken such a personal hand in this matter, and given the large boxes of documents provided to me by the University and the IC, it might be fortuitous to delve into the type and quality of some of the 'evidence' the IC (and later) the FTT relied upon in reaching their decision. 

The cleverness of it all

The 'bubble' or 'relationship diagram' (or to give it its technical title, the Fortuitously Unabashed Cod-Kafkan Holistic Evidential Agency Determinator), is a wonderful thing to behold. Take the one situated at the head of this posting. To me, it's reminiscent of the map of the London Underground and serves a similar function - to confuse. I jest. It is of course designed with a simple end in mind: to help the reader/traveller/Information Commissioner negotiate what might on first view appear to be quite disparate terrain/linkages/relationships. Such a beautifully simple schematic has two purposes, one in the abstract and one in materiality: it can draw the intended recipient towards a desired outcome, helping plant in the mind of this individual the concept of  coordinated actions/motivations/connections among specific individuals. If the bubble diagram achieves its aim, it fulfils this second function: to establish a very real officially sealed barrier to what might be useful information. What's immediately apparent, is that a certain chap of some physiognomal follicleness is placed at the heart of this pretty bubble diagram. I wondered why I wasn't placed at the extremities of this diagram? Then it dawned on me that such positioning could have the potential to make the esteemed Registrar look silly, as claims that I was at the far-left of a wider vexatious campaign would in all likelihood not cut any ICE with the IC.

Enter the campaigner

What's particularly clever about this little diagram is that as I'm placed at the equivalent of Euston or St Pancras (top centre), it appears that I am linked with everyone in oval bubbles on the chart (even those with their names obscured) and thus extremely popular. I can state for the record that I personally know a lot of non-obscured people and I don't know a lot of obscure people. For the record I also personally know Stephen Kingston as he's interviewed me on several occasions for the investigative (and much under-valued) Salford Star. I also personally know Eric Longley. He's got a beard. He lives in Suffolk. It's on the record. Regular readers will recall with ease that this hirsute Suffolkian has acted skillfully as my lay-representative in many matters, such as Employment Tribunals, libel claims, and an internal appeal among others. Like myself, both Mssrs Longley and Kingston initially had their FOI requests refused. Unlike myself, both had their complaints upheld by the IC. The IC recommended the University release the information requested to both despite claiming that Eric was involved in the 'wider vexatious campaign' with me which is evidenced here:

"In relation to the further points that you make in respect of the University's decision to treat this request, as with the approximately 120 other linked and similar requests it has received, as vexatious, we would point out that in the majority of cases, including those from Dr Gary Duke, the ICO has decided that these are indeed vexatious... The University considers each request individually and has come to the view the five requests you submitted are vexatious and should be seen in the context of the use of FOIA requests as part of a campaign designed to cause harassment and distress to staff, in particular by the repeated implications that staff are guilty of a range of unacceptable behaviours whether corruption or bullying or ignoring legal responsibilities or similar. It has also taken into account the formulaic nature of your complaint and appeal which it is clear is simply a "cut and paste" intended to take up the time and effort of University staff with little regard to the relevance of the content..."(2)

Just how wide is wide?

Now I'm not quite sure why acting in a capacity as my unpaid representative or making bona fide FOI requests should label him a participant in a 'campaign' designed to harass and cause distress. It does provide a neat little rationale for refusing him information? Let's look at this sensibly. If I'd had lawyers representing me and they'd made use of the Whatdotheyknow website in requesting info from the University, would they be classed as being involved in a wider vexatious campaign against the University? At a conservative estimate it's a bit silly. But it set my mind on a collision course with a form of free thinking that was bound to throw up a question or two like how wide in absolute terms was this campaign? Did the University commission the services of external surveyors to determine precisely the extent of this alleged campaign or did they use in-house surveyors from the School of the Built Environment? Did they provide the IC with the measurements in easy to digest format?

Non-redacted evidence of an even wider obsessive campaign of time-series relationship forging

I pondered more recent developments. If the IC had reached his decision on the grounds that Eric Longley and others were also involved within this campaign (as alleged by the University), given that three key people supposedly involved in this campaign had had their complaints to the IC upheld against the University, what did this now mean for the Information Commissioner's decision? In the eyes of any reasonable person, this alleged campaign would be seen as 'less wide' or in technical terms 'more narrowerer'.

Just what the doctor ordered?

You're probably at the point now where you're thinking "why the whining hair-based flaggard..." and internally fuminating whilst bawling into your long-suffering batman's suppurating side-head additions: "this Duke is clearly a rummy bugger.... 'tis beyond the formidable powers of Gray Skull to even consider that the IC will not have diligently considered all the evidence, as will have those learned and beyond reproach First Tier Tribunal types.... in the long shadow of Odin's knees, these chaps are professionals after all!"

The Information Commissioner would have reached his decision after no doubt careful consideration of the statements, documents, emails and other correspondence supplied to him by myself and the University.  I'm not easily surprised these days, but I must say, I was quite taken aback by the extraordinary volume of the documents and emails exchanged between the Information Commissioner's office and the office of Matthew Stephenson, Head of Information Governance for the University. My own exchanges with the IC somewhat paled in comparison. Clearly there was an imbalance here. By the use of a slide rule, my Autumn Almanac and through reading the documents, I could see that both parties had not been treated on equal terms by the IC.

Redactions galore!

Many documents also carried significant redactions (blacked out or obscured names and information). The names of those I was alleged to have been involved with in the alleged vexatious campaign had been redacted for reasons of Data Protection. A heavily redacted version of the above bubble diagram was also included in the documents I received from the University. The IC had also supplied me with a letter and documents sent to him by Dr Graves dated 22nd September 2010. I encourage readers to read this in its entirety before moving on.

A snippet from Graves' letter to the IC. Redactions courtesy of the University of Salford

This thought-provoking letter and additional documents got me to thinking which is nearly always a bad thing. Firstly, I wondered why the second most important executive at the University such as Registrar Dr Graves would write directly to the Information Commissioner? Was it to add a certain authoritativeness to the University's case?

The accursed spot

Secondly, what was a 'blog spot'? My mind was pregnant with potentialities and in the eye of this mind, I pictured the aged hands of one-time dot-commers; where once lay unblemished skin stretched taught over long spindle-fingers, now in their forced retirement the rear-hand epidermis portrayed corruption, being highly barky and casually cankerous. Was it now so remarkably mottled with a myriad of brown nicotine-like stains, that innocent passers-by would put it down to prolonged exposure to low resolution reruns of Star Trek TNG on Virgin, overuse of unseasoned willow dowsing sticks and post-euphoric forms of victimless self abuse? But maybe the person who in professional terms is immediately subordinate to the Vice Chancellor was onto something? Did the facts and evidence confirm his claims?

A bell-end?

A 'wider campaign' must involve more than one person or it wouldn't be wide. It also has to not be narrow. His words 'former student and employee...' clanged around an empty cranial cavity like the harsh sound emitted by a misanthropic bell-end. It's bugger-luck that studying and teaching at Salford for a combined ten years has inevitably brought me into contact with more than one person. I blame the way universities are structured for this. As an eager undergraduate student, I found the possibility of regular zero-on-one kind of seminars had the potential to be remarkably convenient for a member of the teaching staff, but might ultimately lack educational value for a fledgling alleged vexatious requester. What's more, later, as a lecturer, it seemed however much I tried to avoid lecturing and teaching students they would always show up in the lecture theatres and seminar rooms demanding knowledge transference. There wasn't much I could do as I was contractually obliged to interact with them on a customer-service provider basis for which I was handsomely remunerated with money and a shared desk in an office on loan from someone on maternity leave.

Obsessed

Was there a deeper significance which on the eleventh reading I'd missed? Could it be that the very act of fulfilling my contractual duties almost fatalistically led to my involvement in this alleged 'wider obsessive campaign'? The evidence seemed to point that way. After all, my contract did say I was allowed to join a trade union. So I did. And being an active advocate of trade unions and having immersed myself within an academic trade union as a union rep at Salford, I found that despite my best endeavours, I kept coming into contact with sensient beings referred to in anthropological circles as 'colleagues', who could stand upright, sported opposable thumbs, could formulate rudimentary sounds into intelligible words, and produce within the dome-shaped thing located on the their necker-bones, abstract concepts. They also produced complaints. I'm laying my cards on the table here. I hadn't banked on this. At the outset, prior to joining the UCU, I did consider the alternative: combining by myself into an organisation with a membership ceiling of one. It wasn't long before I surmised that the utility of such an organisation would be severely hampered when it came to collective bargaining, and my language would regress.

The Sod's Law of trade unionism

I was worried that my continuing membership of the UCU might work against me in any future appeal. I was also angry with the trade union movement as a whole, particularly the Tolpuddle Martyrs. It's Sod's Law that trade unions campaign for and against things. The last thing I wanted when I joined the UCU, was to be a member of a trade union that actively fought for jobs and better working conditions. As an hourly paid part-timer on a yearly renewable contract, I was more than happy with not knowing if I was going to have a job come the new academic year. In my own mind, my membership wasn't premised on joining in acts of solidarity with other members with a common aim, but for the potential of singular actions of forlorn solitude. Any doubts I had were assuaged when I realised I would as a member, be entitled to take an active role in plying a bank account not of my own with my monthly subscriptions. All this and heaven too! Yet did I, by default, and through no fault of my own, become an unwitting campaigner for and against things? Could Dr Graves words be construed by a reasonable person and the IC to mean that my trade union activities were considered to be part of this 'obsessive campaign'.

Mea cuppa?

My union opposed the Project Headroom job cuts. By default and because of something called 'trade union democracy', so did I. Members of my union (also know as 'university staff') also helped organise and participated in demonstrations against job cuts. So did I. I was assured at the time that even if a senior manager read the out 1714 Riot Act from a hastily erected balcony on the first floor of the Ol' Fire Station, it was unlikely to carry much weight in a criminal court and wouldn't be acted upon by a draggle of pissed-up yet eager sabre-rattling yeomanry on horseback. Besides, we'd been assured that the European Convention on Human Rights guaranteed our right to freedom of speech and assembly. Moreover, as academics, we were allowed to drink tea, and speak out without fear of losing our jobs or privileges, weren't we? That's what it said in the University's Royal Charter.* Various UCU members of staff spoke at protests, wrote to the press locally, regionally and nationally, and spoke and wrote to councillors and MPs about the job cuts and other matters. I wondered if their names lay under the blacked-out sections on these heavily censored documents? What would the UCU have to say about this?

Invoking clarity

The impression I got from reading his letter to the IC was that Graves seemed to frown heavily on my involvement in such things. Would it not have been better if it simply stipulated in my contract precisely what I was allowed to do within my trade union and specify in what manner I could engage with liberal democratic process with a pen? It's no good the European Court of Human Rights handing down judgements that state that academics have the 'freedom to express their opinion about the institution or system in which they work' and can 'distribute knowledge and truth without restriction...' (3). Domestic UK contract law trumps the European Court of Human Rights every time when it comes to matters of Human Rights. It made me seriously consider voting UKIP at the next general election.

The width of a squared circle

But that wasn't all. Graves' words regarding student demonstrations also made me critically reevaluate what I'd been teaching international students for two and a half years. After all, many of them protested in my defence and organised a petition among their fellow students and staff after I'd been suspended in May 2009? Was I guilty of slipping it in through the back door?

Consider the evidence: I'd actively exposed them to a working knowledge of the Chartist movement and the wider campaigns for democracy between 1838-48. I'd plied them with a deep knowledge of the campaign against the tax on knowledge also known as the War of the Unstamped Press. Some may have become heady on the Womens' movement for emancipation and enfranchisement. How often did I and these young seekers of knowledge engage with the popular anti-fascist movements against Franco during the Spanish Civil War, the US Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, the anti-colonial movements in the Middle East, Africa and the Indian Sub-Continent, the social movements that recently exploded across Latin America, and imporantly the Anti-Vietnam War movement. Had my lectures on the Solidarity movement in Poland, the Hungarian and Czechslovakian Uprisings, the revolutionary movement in Iran which overthrew the US backed Shah, the Palestinian movement for liberation, the anti-Iraq War movements and the social movements that swept the former Stalinist states in Eastern Europe, been a bridge too far?

More importantly, did the evidence submitted by the University to the IC include photocopies of front pages from the Chartists' Northern Star and an A4 sized sample of the Peoples' Charter? Had my lecture notes been included?  I held my breath as I searched the bundles of documents once more for a copy of my module outline. I breathed a sigh of relief. It wasn't there.

Off with his buttock

The Registrar appears to make a compelling case. Words such as 'amusing', 'pernicious', 'unrelenting', 'very long', 'sully' and 'ridiculed' certainly had a 'wow factor'. Other phrases such as 'ring leader' and 'stalking members of the University staff both in person and electronically...' were powerfully evocative. I wondered, did such words help inform the Information Commissioner's decision? I also wondered how one would go about stalking a staff member electronically. Would having a pacemaker fitted and talking to former colleagues admit one into this celebrity world of cyber-stalking? Or was it a bit more involved. I pondered the possibility of donning camouflage and a pair of undersized 3-D pince nez whilst filming my alleged 'victims' on a full scale 4G stereo camera obscura. Despite its obvious appeal, I decided to put such fantasies to one side and buried myself in the boxes of documents. The words 'hate website' seemed to jump off the page and assault my by-now post-liberal sensibilities. I was desperate to lay my hands on the drawings of me in stalker-contrapcion. I wanted for myself, to finger the pristine photocopies of the evidence of such activities and the complaints Graves must have provided to the IC and the local fuzz. 'Stalking' electronic or otherwise is after all quite illegal as is running a 'hate website'. They weren't there either.

But Graves was right. I'd campaigned. I'd put pen to paper and signed it. I'd written to Ian Stewart who is an 'influencer'. He was my MP. Call me a fool, but I wanted him to lend weight to our campaign to save those 150 jobs. I didn't know it would be used against me as evidence. Maybe I should have written the letter to Mr Stewart anonymously? Could writing anonymous things be dangerous and end in a civil action? Yes, I'd signed that letter. Yes, I'd talked through a megaphone. Yes, I'd made posters advertising demonstrations. It was part and parcel of being an active trade unionist fighting to save the jobs of my colleagues. I thought because I worked in an institution that espoused enlightenment values that this would be fine and dandy. I wondered if Dr Graves had ever been on a protest against or for something?

Was evidence of a my being involved in a campaign to preserve jobs deserving of the opprobrium heaped upon my good name by Dr Graves? Moreover was it the oaken stocks situated conveniently outside the Crescent pub for me? The thought of having Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights blasted from my left buttock with cabbages on a Friday evening during rush hour made me wince? It was a powerful image.

Can a megaphone lead almost inexorably to this?

The cost of it all...

As I lay on the living room floor naked and exhausted, covered from head to foot in wode of the deepest hue, I surveyed the wreckage. Huge numbers of documents and correspondence from the University to the IC lay around me like so many unexploded cluster bombs after a precision raid by US Air Forces on a southern Afghan wedding party. I pondered the immensity of the undertaking. It must have taken an army of Infobots months of Bunyonesque perseverance to produce such a volume of refined and convincing arguments? Was the expenditure of £75,000(4) on staff costs alone on this case worth it? The result of such an investment and the fully evidenced allegations of criminal behaviour against me made by Dr Graves to the IC undoubtedly helped inform the decision of the IC finding in University's favour. As a consequence, I had to prepare and conduct my case for the Employment Tribunal without one shred of the information I'd requested. Would the disclosure of this information have helped my claim at the ET? Who knows? It may have helped inform the deliberations of the ET and it's possible that the Tribunal panel may have come to a different decision? As a litigant in person, I believe I was entitled to the benefit of the doubt over this matter.

But something niggled me. It was this £75,000. I wondered how did they arrive at this figure and can I see the breakdowns? I wanted to know precisely how many people worked on it, how long they worked on it and if they used Quink-soaked styli or Bic pens? How much did Dr Graves' letter cost? Did he ask lawyers to give it the once over? More importantly, did he write it with a quill and was it sent by carrier pigeon on a 0.6 contract? How much were the legal fees in this matter? It's public money after all and don't we have a right to know?

As I stared out into the brilliant sunlight just beyond reach, I contemplated the University's original reasons for refusing my first two requests - that the costs of complying with the requests would exceed the £450 statutory limit...

Notes and References

* The Charter does not contain any provision for the protection of tea drinking. I made this up for sheer comedic impact.

(1) Sourced at http://worklifelaw.co.uk/2012/07/new-tribunal-rules-the-overriding-objective-and-the-sift/ and http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/parts/part01.pdf
(2) Whatdotheyknow sourced at http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/freedom_of_information_requests_141#comment-26019
(3) see Sorguc v Turkey 2009,
(4) Justice Committee Post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, (page 116, 3.2.4) sourced at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmjust/writev/foi/foi.pdf


Usual disclaimer: This work is and expression of opinion on a matter of public interest contains the opinions of the author. It is intended to report current events that are of public interest and public concern. The reproduction and use of any documents, photos and video images herein is to provide humour and accuracy in order to avoid civil litigation and claims of misquoting. In reporting current events they are used within the context of Fair Dealing or Fair Use. The author is happy to provide further acknowledgement if requested. To make any such request press here.

The author also suggests that before embarking upon expensive civil actions for libel, contact the author. We have reams of documentary evidence which we are happy to provide. A right of reply also operates. We are also happy to make corrections and if necessary provide an apology. So, to save £££sss please avail yourself of this opportunity if you really feel it necessary, which you can do by clicking here or by emailing garypaulduke@gmail.com

Circle... square... square... circle...

On the tenth reading, it still left me feeling a little befuddled. It definitely said at the top of the webpage "Against the Cuts". Which cuts was he referring to I wondered? Could it be that he supports the job cuts at the University of Salford - Manchester yet doesn't support the job cuts? I could only liken the emergent paradox to that experienced by a dysphasic transporter operative on the USS Enterprise who's trying to explain to a justifiably pissed off Captain Picard, that a dodgy Romulan cloaking device is responsible for the disappearance of Geordie La Forge and Ensign Ro, not his sweaty business finger.

Textual analysis

I like Martin Hall's blog. It's always fascinating and full of interesting detail. But this week it seemed to be missing something. I'd concentrated my efforts on distilling from the text a single reference to the UCU Salford's ballot for industrial action against mass job losses. I couldn't find it but I put that down to the antiquated pince-nez perched forlornly on the end of my nose. A thought crossed my mind. Was he attempting to square a circle, which I find has the potential to be quite a dangerous manoeuvre, especially if one is prone to inguinal hernias. The evidence would suggest that he's publicly supportive of students in their 'Carnival Against Cuts'  protest last week against the cuts he's imposing. Will he, I wondered, support the trade union initiated anti-cuts strike action as publicly? I also wondered would he show his support by refusing to cross staff picket lines? Moreover, would he and Adrian Graves jog that extra mile and make a small sizeable contribution to the UCU hardship fund? Would he then join the pickets outside the Maxwell Building with acoustic guitar in hand for a few rousing choruses of Kumbaya? If so, can I film it?

Guff and nonsense

Like the Salford UCU, I also thought it apposite to try and de-link some of Hall's discourse from the guff that's doing the rounds on the BBC news and among the pro-market politicians of all hues about the inevitability of cuts. I'm quite interested in political economy which makes me interested in the global economic crisis that's engulfed most of the major Western economies since 2007-08. It's worth bearing in mind that a softening-up process has been going on for years in the press and media with all the talk of a 'rapidly ageing population', 'unaffordable gold-plated public sector pensions' etc.

The establishment would have us believe that our excessive demands for publicly funded health and welfare systems are the cause of this crisis and not the financial and banking system that encouraged personal debt levels to climb to the historically high levels in order to provide demand for consumer goods. The seeds of this process were sown in the 1980s under the Thatcher and Reagan governments. The shift towards debt as a means of financing the expansion of capitalism (based upon mass consumption of consumer goods), was hung on a large coat hook of depressed wage levels in the US and the UK. In the eyes of the new paradigmatics, credit (including mortgages) was the preferred mechanism in providing workers with an almost perpetual advance against future earnings. Since then, capitalism has in effect tried to have it both ways: to keep wage levels low to claim a larger share of the surplus workers produce, and to create a dependency on debt among workers to supplement low wages and provide a consumer base for this section of capitalism to expand and make massive profits. But like my monthly credit card bill, at some stage debt has to be repaid. Capitalism had made no provision for this, placing its faith in climbing property prices/values to provide a cushion for any immediate economic crisis in this sector. It hasn't worked.

An historical crisis with deep roots

Karpo Marx reciting Kapital
by karmonica to friends

The crisis we're experiencing today is not new but a continuation of the original 2007 crisis which in itself is far more deeply rooted in what Karl Marx saw as the tendency over time, of the rate of profit to fall over the entire system which we'll save for another blog. Capitalism cannot create a new bubble of consumer frenzy driven by debt as this is what brought this current prolonged crisis to a head. It's response is rather of a traditionalist hue: to depress wages, working conditions, protective legislation, create a 'reserve army of unemployed' and in the process depress wages further. Another way of guaranteeing profitability is to hive off public sector services to the private sector. More usually this is achieved through outsourcing where public taxes are used to provide guaranteed profits for middle-men type companies who act as intermediaries. These companies provide no direct services but take a large slice of public monies, bringing in third parties to supply services undercutting the public sector. It's what's known in the trade as a 'race to the bottom' as workers rights are trampled on. It's a veritable feeding frenzy for those successful 'bidders'.

Forward the cutters of cloth

So even if for a moment, a chap accepted (and he doesn't) the notion put forward by such paragons of humanity: including the IMF, David Cameron, Nick Clegg, bankers, the CBI, Ed Miliband, Angela Merkel and the other neo-liberealists; that in times of hardship, cuts are necessary due to the global economic crisis , it's worth remembering that it's a crisis of someone else's making; a capitalist class and their friendly bankers who don't claim benefits or use public services. A chap's of a mind to suggest as they made it, let them pay for it.

However, there seems to be a bit of an anomaly when it comes to cutting one's cloth at University of Salford - Manchester. Professor Hall says that '[m]any universities in Britain have less money. Since late 2010, we have had a range of funding sources removed...' Given the hundreds of jobs at risk, I thought this worth some exploration.

Project Headroom

Clear evidence if any were needed to show that there's many a job
still to be had by the BBC at Salford Quays

As any historian will tell you, it's always worth going back a bit. If a chap's memory serves him correctly, in 2008-09, Salford UCU and the campaign group SUDE among others, persistently warned as the West stood on the crest of the financial turmoil sweeping the globe, that common sense should dictate that the University could not afford its MediaCity presence. We argued publicly that the University should not sign the agreements that would bind them into huge levels of expenditure during an economic downturn. Given the global turmoil, sound advice one might posit? The trouble is that even though this chap 'common sense' has a loudish voice, it seems senior managers including the then Registrar, now Deputy Vice Chancellor, Registrar and Secretary, Freedom of Information 'Champion' Adrian Graves, as well as the then Vice Chancellor Michael Harloe, either didn't hear it, or chose to ignore it and sign on the dotted line anyway.

Payment by results or payment by peanuts?

It's unlikely that Peel Media would accept payment for the weekly rental costs in peanuts so the University pay them in non-peanut currency - £40,867 of this currency every week until 2020 which according to the fine, investigative Salford Star will cost in the region of £20 million. That's about the cost of the salary of one academic every week for the next eight years or so. And that's excluding the costs of fitting out the four floor building which are reported to have cost in the region of £30 million or 666 academics (at an average of say £45,000 per annum). Now that's a ruddy lot of scholars and money by anyone's standards. Or is it?

A ruddy lot of money (Part II)

Much has been made by angry members of the UCU (in the opinion of this writer justifiably so) threatened with unemployment, of the manner in which senior managers are pushing ahead with the 'Estates Master Plan' which in peanut-speak means the spending of even vaster-er sums on new buildings and refurbishments. The plan was published sometime 2008-09 and judging by the activity of construction workers on or around campus, it would seem to be moving ahead with some gusto.  I decided that as the holidays are approaching, a little currency conversion might help readers put this Master Plan into some perspective. For Phase One of the plan, if one peanut = one pound, in currency conversion terms the University would be looking at spending around 107 million of these tasty blighters. I did a further calculation and extrapolated from the results that that would give any reasonable person wind. The importance of spending these vast sums of money on 'excellent buildings' was emphasised by DVCRSFoI'C' Graves to the University Council recorded in the October 2010 minutes:

'The Registrar and Secretary and Deputy Vice-Chancellor emphasised the importance of the Master Plan to the University’s strategic aspirations; the ability to attract and retain high calibre staff and students was predicated on the ability to develop a high quality, welcoming environment. Given that MediaCity UK would place the University at the leading edge of media programme delivery, it was imperative that excellent buildings were designed and constructed elsewhere on the University campus.'(1)

Strategic aspirations

The almost inevitable consequence of either; a) being publicly 
excoriated in Morrisons by a penurous 
unemployed academic, b) self-fornication,
c) rising wheat prices

There's nothing wrong with aspirations, particularly aspirations of a strategic variety. My own strategic aspiration is premised upon being able to complete my daily shop in Morrisons without having recourse to publicly excoriate the manager in front of some pensioners, over the skyrocketing price of breadstuffs, which according to my calculations, is rising faster than a methane emissions in a Ukranian fart-catchery. But I was worried that Graves' words were being misinterpreted. The chap doing the 'consulting' over the current job losses was one Keith Watkinson who is a resourceful human all of which you can read about here. Watkinson of HR reports directly to Graves. And all the evidence at the moment seemed to suggest that Watkinson was doing the opposite of retaining high calibre staff. Would he be rigorously disciplined by Dr Graves I wondered, for deviating from the Master Plan? If so, can I film it?

Der Masterplan

This Master Plan interested me. Why? Well it's predicated upon a '24.5% continued growth in student numbers over ten years' according to the online blurb. Yet blogger Hall has stated for the record, that 'from this September onwards, we will be a smaller university with fewer students to teach...' And as we mentioned earlier he's also stated that since 2010, that 'a range of funding sources' have been 'removed'. Yet the refurbishments and plans for new buildings continues apace. I wondered why? With the relevant information to hand, I decided to let one go... another question that is. So I asked, given the evidence that the UK economy is in a recession and that the Tory government are convinced that even deeper and broader cuts to public expenditure is the solution to the crisis, surely prudence and pragmatism would dictate a hold on all major projects involving large capital expenditures? 

Pounds and pennies

I often find such talk of hundreds of millions of peanuts pounds overwhelming. So large are they that they can become difficult to grasp. There's an old saying that speaks of the focusing of one's attention on one's peripheral pocket currencies of diminutive denominations in order to secure financial stability in the medium and long term. We've already seen how prior to the imposition of Project Headroom in 2007-08, senior managers gave the green light to expenditure on consultants of £3,961,109. I decided to cast a figurative eyeglass over the finer detail of some more recent expenditures on consultants and other things, which readers can find ensconced on the Whatdotheyknow freedom of information website:

I did some more sums. It came to a total of £170,248.79. I then perused the University of Salford - Manchester's evidence to a recent Justice Committee report into the Freedom of Information Act. 

Yes... this 'particular case is me

Was this a good use of public money in a time of mass job cuts and tightening of budgets?

Pennies from heaven

I then mulled over the £402,000 spent recently refurbishing the Ol' Fire Station, and the £50,000 Hall and Graves have already 'invested in the libel proceedings against me with more to come. I considered the above in light of Hall's recent communication with staff:

'While we will do all we can to avoid compulsory redundancies, I have an obligation to ensure that the University remains financially sound, continues to achieve its objectives, and continues to improve provision of learning and teaching opportunities for our students. We cannot do that if our academic staffing bill exceeds the income we have available from student fees.'(2)

I wondered just how such expenditure would ensure 'that the University would remain financially sound' or how it would 'improve provision of learning and teaching opportunities for our students'. How would it save jobs? 

From fire stations to panic stations?

If anything, the sense I get from reading Hall's latest online missive, is one of panic. Clearly, the threat of industrial action and student anger from below is provoking a response from above. I'm firmly of the opinion that these job cuts - in fact all future proposed job cuts as there will be more if Hall's words are to be taken literally (see below) - can be successfully resisted. But this will involve rejecting the 'common sense' arguments that cuts to our services are necessary as well as strike action. As we should oppose the closure of every school, hospital, old peoples' home, or the cut of a single benefit to pay for a crisis not of our making, Salford UCU should oppose not just compulsory redundancies but every job cut and course closure at Salford. It is our University after all.

When all is said and done, students prefer lots of teaching and academic staff. First and foremost, a university is its academic staff and its front-line administrative staff. If you're in any doubt, ask the students. It's the academics that produce cutting edge research, advance knowledge and truth and in the process, produce the next generation of innovators. The front-line staff ensure this happens. I've yet to find a nice new shiny building that can achieve this.

Besides their logic doesn't convince me. If these jobs and courses were of value to the institution, students and society last year and the year before, they are of intrinsic value to the institution, students and society today.


 Notes and References

(1) University Council minutes October 2010 sourced at http://www.governance.salford.ac.uk/cms/resources/uploads/File/council_committees_minutes/Council%20mins%2010-11/Minutes%20-%20101005%20-%20confirmed.pdf

(2) The text of Martin Hall's communication to staff sent on the 25th May at 09:34

'UCU ballot for industrial action.

The UCU is asking staff to take industrial action in opposition to compulsory redundancies at our University. Whilst it is not yet confirmed that there will be any compulsory redundancies, I’m writing to give you the background and to explain why we cannot give this assurance. If you have not been notified that you are impacted by the current organisational change proposals, you are not part of the current process. Secondly, it is not yet clear that there will be any compulsory redundancies. We are doing everything we can to prevent this. I would, of course, prefer to give a guarantee that compulsory redundancies will be avoided. But we have had more than 400 funded student places removed by HEFCE and 100 more places will be removed in 2013. This is further compounded by the inclusion of international students in immigration controls. Because we will have fewer students to teach, and reduced fee income, we are forced to reduce the numbers of our academic staff. We are not alone in this situation. A significant number of universities are being forced to reduce their levels of academic staffing. More generally, more than 300,000 publicly funded jobs have been lost in Britain. There is no real prospect of things improving over the next few years. We have been exemplary in our consultation with the unions, sharing information about allocated student numbers as soon as we could, in early February. We have followed the full requirements, and spirit, of labour legislation and processes in consultation and mitigation, and have entered into discussions which have resulted in the mitigation of a significant number of the proposed redundancies. We will continue to consult with UCU over our proposals with a view to achieving them through voluntary means wherever possible, but also to discuss how we may resolve the dispute they have registered with us in balloting for industrial action. Our primary concern is, and remains, the future of our staff who are caught up in this process. While we will do all we can to avoid compulsory redundancies, I have an obligation to ensure that the University remains financially sound, continues to achieve its objectives, and continues to improve provision of learning and teaching opportunities for our students. We cannot do that if our academic staffing bill exceeds the income we have available from student fees. You will of course make up your own mind whether or not to support industrial action. However, were the UCU to succeed in moving from negotiation to confrontation, its actions may have a direct and damaging impact on the quality of teaching and the student experience. I cannot see how this will help anyone, or affect our circumstances favourably. You have, of course, the right to industrial action. I have the responsibility of ensuring that you are aware of the implications for you personally. I’ve asked HR to prepare a Q&A factsheet which you can access by clicking here. This highlights the key issues you need to consider. I had hoped that the UCU would continue to work with us in defending the principles of equity, access and the improvement of quality of learning and teaching, and I still hope that we can re-establish this common purpose. Yours sincerely

Martin Hall,

Vice-Chancellor

Usual disclaimer: This work is and expression of opinion on a matter of public interest contains the opinions of the author. It is intended to report current events that are of public interest and public concern. The reproduction and use of any documents, photos and video images herein is to provide humour and accuracy in order to avoid civil litigation and claims of misquoting. In reporting current events they are used within the context of Fair Dealing or Fair Use. The author is happy to provide further acknowledgement if requested. To make any such request press here.

The author also suggests that before embarking upon expensive civil actions for libel, contact the author. We have reams of documentary evidence which we are happy to provide. A right of reply also operates. We are also happy to make corrections and if necessary provide an apology. So, to save £££sss please avail yourself of this opportunity if you really feel it necessary, which you can do by clicking here or by emailing garypaulduke@gmail.com

Living with the Krell and other fantastical creatures of the mind

There are in life two worlds -  the ephemeral world or the world of the mind where we like to escape in order to relieve the stresses of the everyday - and there's the real world. It's a sobering thought to recognise that this inner ephemeral world exists as little more than a consequence of the process of natural selection. Mostly it's a place inhabited by iPodders, sci-fi buffs, as well as homicidal and a non-murderous variety of war-gamers. You might even find within this inner Nirvana, writers of blogs.

Grass pants - ecologically sound but the wearer
may fall victim to rampant knacker mite

How might such fleeting fleeting moments of escapism manifest themselves (so to speak). They might be a places of opulence, with expensive imported floor coverings, inhabited by a rug-less automata with diabolical intentions and a kettle. For others it may be a hackneyed version of Westworld where a Yul Brynner lookalike can, without fear of any comeback, roam freely with death designs on shag-happy weekend fornicators. For those who crave isolation, this inner-haven might be a place where a lonely desert island chap can assert his 'on trend-ness' and dress to the nines in a pair of plus fours woven from ryegrass and blue algae. Only here can he strut his stuff safe in the knowledge that he won't be attracting the attention of the fashion police, the real police or Countryfile's John Craven. In this Rundgrenesian Utopia, the only thing that might be lacking for our 'master of all he surveys' is luxury toilet tissue with a hint of aloe vera.

The redoubt of the timeless and the gormless

For most of us, everyday life is experienced within the mostly mundane and the palpable. Not so for Dr Morbius who has a proclivity for isolationism and access to a large library. He may well prefer to invest considerable sums in translating his local environment into a realistic interpretation of his inner 'Altair IV'. He might even have a mechanical chap called 'Robby' who can synthesize alcohol from a urinary tract reduction which is even better. Yet problems may arise for our metaphorical Dr Morbius.  Apart from drinking piss flakes, he may find that the creation of such an idealised fictional world can often lead to the creation of fictional view of the 'real world'. Within his Utopian autonomous zone, everyday rules and codes may cease to act as a constraint. Normal behaviours may be replaced by inappropriate behaviours, often appearing bizarre and random. He'll probably end up giving physical form to the Id of a long dead Krell and shredded alive for his efforts.

Constraints for the very ordinary dwellers of material world

Unlike Dr Morbius, who like his dreams lies in tatters, in the 'real' world, our lives and our behaviour are constrained and shaped in multifarious ways: through education, parental guidance, peer pressure, moral codes, custom, rules, the workplace, and ultimately through the mechanism of laws. Deference also remains a key factor in constraining our behaviour. I refer not to the cap-doffing deference of a bygone era, but a deference to the 'professional', particularly 'professional' managers, doctors, politicians, law-makers etc... Respect for the rules, the law and the professional arbiters of justice, is drummed into us from an early age. Fundamental to this form of deference is class.

Grass roots anti-deference Pentonville style

Take the anti-trade union laws. If any law epitomised  how the legal system is used to impose the will of one class over another it's Margaret Thatcher's anti-strike laws. They take the 'metaphorical 'gold'.* How does deference relate to these laws? There's no repealer of these obviously anti-working class laws in the Labour Party hierarchy. So called 'wildcat action' is vehemently opposed by trade union bureaucrats, terrified on one hand of taking on the courts and government of the day, and fearful of what the right-wing press will say about them. Another factor that ensures that these bureaucrats oppose 'wildcat' action is rooted in the nature of such action - it's mostly borne of grass roots organisation and activity. And if there's one thing trade union bureaucrats abhor is decisions made and initiated at the most democratic level. In toff language 'it's a jolly poor show' and gives other potential militants the wrong idea. Nevertheless, 'wildcat' action often pays dividends where an intransigent employer is concerned. The case of the Pentonville Five springs to mind and more recent examples include the grass roots industrial action in support of sacked Gate Gourmet workers by British Airways baggage handlers. Even prison officers, not known for their left-wing militancy, have adopted the use of such tactics.

The vastly superior Krell Complex and library: it's a place where one can extract
the piss AND get information at no cost

Customs in common

Codes, rules, customs and laws are interesting chaps. They're immaterial yet tangible. They can't be held in the hand. You can't sit on one whilst partaking of a fine Kentucky Nougat pipe combination of a summer's afternoon. They're all around us. So pervasive are they that most of the time we don't even realise that our behaviour is being shaped by them. Mostly they remain silent, whirring away in the background like a perpetual motion machine, their every whims tended to by a raft of lawyers,  barristers, and judges, backed by a rather substantial bureaucracy (including top ranking civil servants), drawn largely from a group or class  of people who have no interest in upsetting the status quo or losing their privileges.

It's by dint of something called the 'social contract' that we largely accept the way in which society is ordered, and we in turn are ordered around. With the exception of revolutionaries, anarchists and nihilists, most accept as legitimate and natural the political (and legal) authority that exists within society. We're constantly told by right-wing historians on BBC Four that these laws have been handed down through millenia. They must be part of the 'natural order'. Few recognise that this legal and political order is merely, an organised political representation of the current capitalist relations (and mode) of production, or that the 'impartial' legal system flows quite naturally and symbiotically from this order. In our travels, we can see just as the British Empire exported capitalism around the globe, it also exported the English legal system which provides the basis for the jurisprudence of many other countries.

The reassuring warmth of everyday expenses

By and large, the type of law that shapes and impacts on our lives on a daily basis are those Acts of Parliament or statutes brought into being by elected (and some unelected) representatives sitting in Parliament. One oft hears the maxim that MPs don't live in 'our world' or that they exist in a 'bubble' divorced from the everyday realities of those whom they are meant to represent. The MPs expenses scandal epitomised for many life within the rarefied atmosphere of Westminster.

The lampooning of public officials.
Not a criminal offence... 
well not yet

Hey boss... it's a plane... 

A statutory law or statute carries a lot of clout. The Human Rights Act (1998), the Data Protection Act (1998) and the Freedom of Information Act (2000)(1) are powerful pieces of legislation. Law is also made in the day-to-day dealings of the criminal, civil courts and Tribunals through the setting of precedent (caselaw). One or two of these areas of law have become somewhat central to a chap's life for one reason or another over the last three years and the postal delivery woman seems to increase the legal workload on an almost daily basis. One tries to resist the obvious temptation to be drawn into an hermetically sealed existence, but it's a largely futile exercise, as being on the receiving end of a libel claim ensures that one is almost inexorably sucked into someone' else's alternate reality. The up side is that evidence collation becomes second nature.

No it's merely some evidence given to a recent Justice Committee

Take the interesting evidence presented by the University of Salford in a report to a recent Justice Committee(2) (FOI 31, starts page 115) entitled 'Post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act 2000'. This report and the evidence contained within it are in the public domain and should be a matter of great public concern. I feel somewhat obliged to comment upon it given that a section of it focuses on my good self... £75,000 worth or so we're told. In their evidence, the University state that:

'1.2 It is the University of Salford’s view that serious consideration should be given to removing Universities from the ambit of the Freedom of Information Act because they are not “Public Authorities” in view of the now relatively small proportion of public funding to British Universities. Instead, robust and clear guidelines of best practice in access to information should apply. 

First things first. I won't speculate as to why the University would wish to not be subject to the FOI Act. Readers can reach their own conclusions on this matter. I will say that any attempt to allow universities to be removed from the 'ambit of the Freedom of Information Act' should be vehemently resisted.

Exploring the 'nexus' somewhere beyond Orion

In a previous article we touched upon what is in my opinion a rather idealist concept of how Vice Chancellor Martin Hall and his subordinate Adrian Graves, have claimed that their personal reputations (whilst acting in their professional capacity) are one and the same with the reputation of the University of Salford - Manchester. It's laid out on page four of their Particulars of Claim, where it states:

'That Dr Graves and Professor Hall and therefore the claimant have acted wrongfully and unlawfully and in a secretive manner by keeping from the students and the general public matters which both the students and the general public are entitled to know.'

For those new to this blog 'the claimant' is the University. Others including the Salford Star(3) and the Information Commissioner might have their own view as to whether the University have acted 'wrongfully' or 'unlawfully' or 'in a secretive manner' or not concerning the FOI Act and adherence to its provisions. I'll not dwell on it here as I'm going to dwell on it in court. In his submissions to the court on March 6th, the University's legal chap referred to the 'nexus' between the reputation of the University's officers Hall and Graves, and the reputation of the University:

'If defamatory statements are made against the University's officers (Hall and Graves) the University may maintain a cause of action if the defamatory words complained of are capable of being understood as referring to the University.'

Who's shitting who?

Would Lewis Carroll approve of the above statement I wondered? I also wondered if the reverse were true? Even if one agreed with such an assertion (which one obviously doesn't because it's tantamount to having your cake and eating it) in this so called age of austerity what's wrong with Hall and Graves using their own considerable financial resources to sue a chap if they believe they've been libelled? What the above statement seeks to do is to blur obliterate the line between the institution and its senior executives. Salford UCU branch officers might want to take note as potentially any strongly worded criticism of a senior type could end up being labelled defamatory. It allows Graves and Hall the convenience of using the institution as a front to bring a vexatious action for libel, a point I raised during the proceedings on March 6th. I'll be raising it again at the forthcoming appeal/trial. Yet I find I like the word 'Nexus'. It conjures up a fantastical creature, part silicon, part quartz, possibly a third cousin twice removed of the Crystalline Entity but a trifle more discerning in its choice of nourishment.

A new perspective for the Ol' Fire Station?

But custard-based desserts aside, I was concerned with more pressing matters such as how the University might physically remove itself from the 'ambit' of the Act. Their evidence wasn't giving much away as they hadn't provided a schematic to the Justice Committee. My mind went into overdrive as I started thinking, which is nearly always a bad thing. Was there a stellar plan I wondered? I conjured up an image of the Ol' Fire Station.  In my minds eye I pictured it in the process of being completely dismantled by querulous porters on time and a half over the summer recess. Could this be the first step in having it moved further east away from the seat of Parliamentary power and the jurisdiction of the UK courts? Would they be restarting knowledge production and the overall student satisfaction process in far-flung Siberia, safe from those who sought to make further Freedom of Information Requests thus cleverly avoiding spending another £75,000? I rejected this as impractical. Siberia wasn't next to the BBC.

Was there a plan to have it covertly smuggled bolt by bolt in holdalls (lockable from the inside), and placed aboard Branson's White Knight II? Might the decision then be made to have it blasted into a geostationary orbit adjacent to a BBC communications satellite? Was this what blogger Hall meant when he stated interestingly "It will enable us to offer our students the experience of being close to new directions in the creative arts, media and digital futures..."?(4) It would certainly make it a tad more difficult for staff to organise protests against redundancies outside.

I tried working out the logic behind this. Surely such a move would be prohibitively expensive? I did some calculations on the corner of a prohibitively expensive 2nd class stamp. By my calculations, a geostationary orbit could cost nearly £3 million a year in rental costs alone. It might also necessitate a complete refit of the Ol' Fire Station and lead to the introduction of air-locks instead of lavatory doors. But why the move upwards? There had to be more to this. When I reached this sort of philosophical impasse, I always found it best to shelve the material world for the immaterial and steep myself within the realms of metaphysics and cod-theology. I decided to don shabby cheesecloth and loons and light a joss stick which I'd managed to lay my hands on at a recent 1970s sale in Hebden Bridge. It wasn't long before I was freakin' out to 'Meet me on the corner' by Lindisfarne in a corner of a room filled to the ceiling with legal psychedelia.

Freedom of Information... up here?
Ho...ho...ho...

Ye God

The answer came almost immediately and it involved a chap called 'God'. Was escape from the 'ambit' of the FOI Act predicated on escaping the gravitational pull of planet earth? I thought it best to contrast and compare. I ended up doing neither. Speculation seemed far more fruitful. Although not elected, God is clearly a public official working for a Public Authority called 'Heaven', which apart from having charitable status and its own Celestial Charter, also has many commercial arms. It also probably receives lots of its funding from non-public sources, as Jesus was clearly hostile to the notion of tax collectors. Like the Queen, as a sort of 'universal', 'supreme being' type, God would not be subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This I know to be the case as according to insurance policies, we're all subject to his 'acts', even us atheistically inclined drivers and those corporeal elements who make up the Houses of Parliament. An Act of God trumps the lot. However, it wasn't long before the effects of the jossom wore off and my inner materialism kicked back in. I decided to reject the above as silly.

Dwelling in the Garden of Earthly Delights

I went back to the text. It certainly raised one or two questions like were the University's leading Freedom of Information theoreticians suggesting that the University of Salford - Manchester should no longer remain a 'public' university? That it should be transferred into the private sector and become a 'private' university a bit like Buckingham University? I was also interested in this notion that:

"Universities are now funded more from non public funding than from public funding with the proportion of public funding set to decline even further in the next few years."

It didn't give the figures for how much funding the University of Salford - Manchester received in state funding in 2011-12. Nor did it give the precise 'proportion' it received in 'public funding' which would have enabled me to calculate roughly the total funding received by the University in that year. This might have strengthened their argument. In fact, I wasn't sure exactly what 'non public funding' meant. I wondered if the money loaned to students via the government (ie 'taxes') through the Student Loans Company, and used to fund the student fees of close on £9,000 per annum next year at Salford were considered to be 'non public funding'? Maybe I'd got this all upper thigh about upper chest. Were they saying they wanted to free themselves from all forms of state funding with all the statutory obligations such funding entails; things like adhering to the FOI Act 2000? Or were they cheekily suggesting that they still continue to receive state funding but would like to not have to call themselves a "Public Authority" and abide by the Act? My mind was pregnant with the many potentialities.

The hinterland... the hinterland... or the real world from the perspective of a Vagrant

At the end of the day, there's the way we'd like the world to be and the way it is. In bourgeois society, unelected capitalists and lawmakers establish the overall framework as well as the legal framework under which we live and under which capitalism can thrive. It's backed by a substantial state machinery including the courts. It's almost impossible to carve out and dwell in an autonomous zone or exist outside this system for long. It's a harsh world out there. It's a Hobbesian 'all ag'in all' world and those who venture into this brutal hinterland will either perish or be physically coerced with a tazer or two back into the fold. I have to admit, I was completely confused. With this in mind I decided to read on...

1.3 In the event that Universities continue to be subject to the Act...' 

And there we have it. This sentence suggested that the University of Salford - Manchester, at the time of my writing this piece and by its own admission, is 'subject to the Act'. And who is it that is subject to the act..? Yes, you've got it P.U.B.L.I.C.  A.U.T.H.O.R.I.T.I.E.S. And the University of Salford - Manchester subject to the FOI Act must therefore be a public authority.(5)  Like the inhabitants of the Periodic Table, it would appear to be elementary.

Why dates are very important

I noted the date on the evidence as submitted to the Justice Committee by the University - January 2012.  I wondered why were the University stating to the Parliamentary Justice Committee that they were a "Public Authority", yet arguing forcefully before a Judge in the High Court (District Registry, Manchester) two months or so later on March 6th that they were not? I pondered this incongruity.

Ian Austin, who acts for the University in the matter of the libel claim against my good self, also sits on its governing body, the University Council. This case has so far cost well in excess of £50,000 (at a conservative estimate). It's not as if I haven't raised this matter with Mr Austin on several occasions prior to this hearing. Mr Austin clearly had plenty of opportunity to consult the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the bit about freedom of expression and Public Authorities. He could have asked Graves who is the 'Freedom of Information "Champion"' at Salford. Mr Austin must surely be aware that as a "Public Authority", the University has no locus standi to sue in defamation? It's clearly established in a piece of caselaw well-known among the legal profession as Derbyshire County Council -v- The Times Newspapers Ltd [1993].

Is this what happens when logic grinds to a halt?

Has logic ground to a halt? If I had access to the Krell library would I be able to theoretically formulate the location of some form of sub-light speed Carrollian counter-reality in which the University of Salford - Manchester exists as a "Public Authority" but not as a "Public Authourity"? I tried to find a fitting comparator in the real world. I suppose it would be a bit like being geographically located in Salford, but claiming you're not actually IN Salford.

In the final analysis, statute law will be the ultimate determinant of the University's status and the High Court will at some stage will wield its Solomonian sword. But as a piece of evidence, this report is very interesting and useful. And as if by magic, it's found its way into a chaps' bundle of documents freshly prepared for a future appeal hearing. It also found itself hand delivered to the court last week.

Now where did I put that pewter mug of mildly acerbic al-syntho-piss...

"Robby...!"

Notes and References


* Readers are entitled to an abject apology for the reference to the Olympics. It won't happen again.


1) Freedom of Information Act 2000, Schedule 1, section 53 sourced at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/schedule/1

(2) Sourced at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmjust/writev/foi/foi.pdf

(3) Stephen Kingston writes (Salford Star, April 30th 2012) "When the Salford Star tried to find out how much rent Salford University was paying to Peel Holdings for its new MediaCityUK campus, it took over 18 months for the University to respond, with the Information Commissioner eventually ruling that there had been five breaches of the Freedom of Information Act, with responses "very unsatisfactory" and that there had been "a significant failure to conform to the Code of Practice"...' '... Eventually the Star got the information, that the University was paying almost £20million in rent at MediaCityUK until 2020... This was very much in the public interest given that, with around £30million in fit out costs for the campus, the total came to £50million – at the same time that the University was making savings by axing staff, a process that's still continuing...' 

(4) See Hall 'Why MediaCityUK Matters' sourced at http://www.corporate.salford.ac.uk/leadership-management/martin-hall/blog/2012/04/why-mediacityuk-matters/
(5) The Royal Household  is deemed not to be a Public Authority despite receiving vast sums in tax payers money, and is therefore exempt from the FOI Act 2000. The so called 'Intelligence Services' are also exempt from the Act for obvious reasons. For obvious reasons, the University of Salford isn't exempt.

Usual disclaimer: This work is and expression of opinion on a matter of public interest contains the opinions of the author. It is intended to report current events that are of public interest and public concern. The reproduction and use of any documents, photos and video images herein is to provide humour and accuracy in order to avoid civil litigation and claims of misquoting. In reporting current events they are used within the context of Fair Dealing or Fair Use. The author is happy to provide further acknowledgement if requested. To make any such request press here.

The author also suggests that before embarking upon expensive civil actions for libel, contact the author. We have reams of documentary evidence which we are happy to provide. A right of reply also operates. We are also happy to make corrections and if necessary provide an apology. So, to save £££sss please avail yourself of this opportunity if you really feel it necessary, which you can do by clicking here or by emailing garypaulduke@gmail.com