"Here I post the representation on the occlusion from studies I have been suffering for seniors at the University of Edinburgh conceal their breach in the University regulations as explained in the EdinburghGate case."
The University of Edinburgh has failed to adequately respond to this representation or provided adequate review to the Principal decision since 11/9/2009. Please write to the Principal@ed.ac.uk and request formal request from the University of Edinburgh to verify what is incidental at the University of Edinburgh.
Representation on the University sanctions to exclude me from my studies:
Despite I am requesting from the Principal to review his own decision since 11/9/2009, no review was conducted up to its date. I assumed he made this decision on urgent basis hence requested a review within five days, but no review was conducted. Please inquire from the Principal about the unreasonable delay to conduct a review in line with section 5.1.9. I am requesting court review since 25/9/2009, up to its date the Rector has not authorized a court review. Please write to the Rector to request explanation on the unreasonable delay to authorize the court review in line with section 5.1.8.
I shall deal firstly with the decision of suspension as conveyed by the 25 June 2009 letter, as subsequent decisions made by the University appear to stem from the terms of this initial communication. I object this decision on the following grounds:-
1- There is no justification for use of powers provided in Section 5.1.7 of the University’s Code of Student Discipline.
2- The procedures provided for in Section 5.1.6 of the said Code of Discipline were not correctly followed.
3- The decision to suspend has been based on allegations which are unfounded. No evidence has been provided to substantiate these allegations.
4- I was given no prior warning of the fact that the University held concerns in relation to me which might lead to the following case.
This can be details in turn as the following:-
1.There is no justification for use of powers provided in Section 5.1.7 of the University’s Code of Student Discipline.
Section 5.1.7 of the University Code of Student Discipline states that “In cases of great urgency, the principal (or his deputy) shall be empowered to suspend a student with immediate effect, provided that the opportunities mentioned in paragraph 5.1.6 are given and the matter is reviewed within 5 days”. There was no justified reason to invoke the urgent mandate conveyed to me in writing. Indeed, all allegations in the letter of 25.6.2009 were vague and are unfounded. The university never provided justification for categorising this issue as ‘urgent’ and evoking the powers under paragraph 5.1.7 of the said Code of Discipline. Moreover, the University Secretary is not typically entitled to this claimed power to suspend me on urgent basis under the invoked 5.1.7 code of disciplines as well (he is neither the Principal nor his deputy). The University should provide explanation for invoking section 5.1.7 to impose this sanction on me.
2. The procedures provided for in Section 5.1.6 of the said Code of Discipline were not correctly followed.
Section 5.1.7 of the Code of Discipline provides that if the powers to suspend a student with immediately effect are utilised, the opportunities mentioned in paragraph 5.1.6 must be given. Section 5.1.6 of the Code provides that “no student shall be suspended or excluded unless he or she has been given an opportunity to make representations in person to the principal (or his or her deputy). Where, for any reason, it appears to the principal that it is not possible for the student to attend in person, he or she shall be entitled to make written representations”.
In my case, at no point in the proceedings the University has given me an opportunity to make representations in person to the principal (I was never invited for such a representation and I declined it). The university never explained why I have not been given this opportunity in terms of Section 5.1.6 and it is mandatory to provide proposals to rectify this.
3.The decision of suspension has been based on allegations which are unfounded. No evidence has been provided to substantiate these allegations.
The University letter of 25 June 2009 addressed to me cites two grounds for the suspension:
(i) That my anxiety is making it difficult for other colleagues to work normally:
(ii) That I have sent emails to members of the university staff “making serious unfounded allegations about specific members of the academic staff”.
In relation to point (i) I refutes any suggestion that I have impacted on the ability of others at the university to work. I consider that the statement in the letter is vague and it has never been substantiated. The University has never explained how my behaviour has allegedly impacted upon or how my behaviour has allegedly impacted on these unknown individuals.
I accept that I have suffered from some level of anxiety. I initially sought assistance from my GP and now manage any anxiety I experience by non-medical techniques (e.g. physical exercise). I confirm my anxiety has not resulted in any behaviour which could impact on others at the university and the University did not provide evidence of otherwise. In addition, I work alone in an office at the university which is only used by me i.e. my presence does not genuinely impact on other members from the University of Edinburgh.
The university is called upon to substantiate the allegations levied against me on these terms.
In relation to point (ii) I have not sent emails containing any unfounded allegations to university staff. I note my complaint cannot be categorized under this item, as this is a subject for the University full investigation and consideration. Once again, the university’s allegation remains unsubstantiated as the emails referred to have never been produced. The university is called upon to produce the emails on which the second ground of my suspension is based.
4.I was given no prior warning of the fact that the University held concerns in relation to me.
I was given no prior warning that the university had any difficulties with my attendance at university before the suspension was enforced. I was only advised of any problem when I was told to leave the university premises on 25 June 2009, by security personnel, which was extremely distressing to me (then I am being penalized on having some levels of anxiety). I had not received anything in writing from the University by this date, thus was unaware of any concerns. Moreover, an inappropriate email was circulated in the department by Professor Amanda Amos requesting all staff and students to call the security if noticed me and to prevent me to access my office space. This was inappropriate as I have never been notified by such a decision then did not comply to take such an aggressive and embarrassing procedure to implement it. The university is called upon to explain why matters were not discussed with me prior to any sanctions being imposed.
I turn now to the university’s decision for not to allow me to enrol for the academic year 2009/2010. This was intimated to me by letter of 11 September 2009, just one week before the start of the new academic year. The letter states that Edinburgh University declines to register me for the new session. The sole ground stated that I have not been cooperative to assure the University that my presence will not be disruptive to staff and students. The Principal provided opportunity to review this decision in case I am cooperative in this aspect.
There are several points I need to adequately underscore before proceeding in this matter further. The Principal used the statement “I have concluded” and he then added “I have asked the University Secretary to take necessary measures to ensure that you are not a registered student”. This is adequately confirms this is a decision made and arranged by the Principal. It is typical for the Principal to require his subordinates to implement his decision e.g. University Secretary acting in accordance to the Principal’s instructions to exclude me from this academic year registration. Moreover, there is no student code which states that student should be automatically excluded from their studies when the new academic year commences and/or suspension for over two months. This makes the Principal decision a new one and cannot be rectified as subsequent to the University Secretary earlier decision. Also, my current status cannot be suspended as by which power the University will suspend me while I am not practically registered or how else the Principal’s letter cannot be explained? The University of Edinburgh is called upon to explain various contradictory letter which describes my current status as “suspended” and “not registered”.
The Principal offered an opportunity to reconsider this decision i.e. this clearly indicate this decision is subject to a review according to the capacity indicated in the Students Codes. The Students Codes are clear that it is only the Principal of three court members (with at least one lay and one academic) can review such a decision – sections 5.1.9 and 5.1.8. This means, with all the respect neither the Vice Principal for equity and diversity nor the court VC can act on this requested review. Moreover, your letter did not address any of the points I raised, besides being not eligible to conduct such a review according to the Students Codes.
I turn again to the grounds of this decision. The decision was based on a request to verify that my presence will not be disruptive to staff and students. The University called upon to rectify how my physical presence in a private office would be disruptive to others. Clearly I have mutual agreement with the University that I am able to finish my degree successful in relatively short time once all the support is available (although this support is not settled yet).
My position is that the decision to prevent me from enrolling for the new academic year should be overturned with no delay as I have accepted my re-enrolment according to the Students Codes in the letters of 25/Jan and 4/Feb/2010. The Principal clearly stated my cooperation will lead to solving all this issue to be able to accomplish my degree successfully. I am herby fully cooperative with the University to achieve this aim. Nevertheless, the University is required to substantiate and rectify any conditions on my re-enrolment from the Students codes.
The decisions made by the University have clearly prevented me from completing my PhD, which was clearly at a very advanced stage with enormous documented success. This has a direct effect on my future prospects and career path.
Tuesday 30 March 2010
The Case of EdinburghGate as sent to the Principal of the University of Edinburgh
This letter was addressed to the Principal of Edinburgh but he is unable to refute any of the facts listed in this letter up to its date. To verify yourself, please send to Principal@ed.ac.uk and request a response regarding this blog from the University of Edinburgh. You will never have an a response to adequately nullify this case as it did happen at the University of Edinburgh.
Professor Sir Timothy O’Shea
Principal and Vice Chancellor of the University of Edinburgh
Old College, South Bridge, Edinburgh, EH8 9YL
Oct/6th/2009
Dear Professor O'Shea,
Re: Edinburgh Gate – a developing draft - to be appended for the exclusion of studies representation for the Principal’s kind reconsiderations.
Prologue
In the early 70s President Richard Nixon thought when a president breaks the law; it is not illegal because he is the president. He was aware by a break into the DNC building and covered-up for this operation, a scandal known as Watergate. Although his own benefit from this operation the history remained debatable about, his knowledge by such serious break-in led to his resignation for office; to be the only American president who resigned during his term time. The investigations took very long time, but at the end he was told there is enough majority at the Congress to make a decision to force him leaving office with possibility of legal responsibility. He made a proposal to his Vice President – at its time – Ford to issue him the known general pardon that removed any possibility for legal execution in return for his resignation and nominating Ford as the next President of the United States. Many political analysts think this indecent proposal might have been a main reason for which Ford did not succeed in the following general election; whilst all the publics were made aware by the ongoing investigation of Watergate and its results.
I referred to my case as Edinburgh-gate as it seems many seniors at the University of Edinburgh have misused their authority to break my confidentiality and impose severe sanctions against me, but have some very reasonable explanations to why this happened. It seems, the same assumption that it is fine for senior academics to break the University regulations was made. But, I believe it will not be accepted as it was rejected when the President of the United States of America acted similarly.
As a current student and the person who massively suffered because of their actions, I believe this will never be accepted from the greater good of the University of Edinburgh Community.
In this draft I am urging the Principal to alleviate all the unlawful sanction that has been imposed – as of late - on me immediately without any delay. I propose to move onto a sincerely looking-forward approach to find a fair way to exit the whole background issues which led to the current situation, instead of misusing the University sanctions without any mandate to conceal these issues.
Background
The matter is related to a complaint I have formally submitted to the Head of School Professor David Weller but he failed to apply single role of the University regulations in its course. I can submit elaboration of this, if requested. I believe he and Professor Campbell has misinformed a very respectable senior academic whom I used to respect even without knowing him, who is the Head of college Professor John Savill. My speculations are Professor Weller might have done some indecent deal with Professor Campbell to have some authorship advantage to violate my complaint process in this way. I cannot provide you with this benefit at the moment, but time will prove my speculations. Also, he would be required to provide a reason for his failure to deliver the University regulations in complaint process to me like all other students. He needs to provide a reasonable explanation to this. There will be no reasonable explanation for what he has done other than some advantage he had with Professor Campbell.
I believe I am studying in a University whereas I cannot claim I have suffered discrimination because of being a Muslim or from minority ethnic background. To the opposite, despite my main dispute started with Professor Campbell, I acknowledge he gave me an excellent opportunity to be the first person at the University of Edinburgh to conduct a genome-wide copy number variations study (and among the pioneer of this area in the world). Thus, being a minority was never an obstacle for me to move to the top, based on my hard work and achievements. So, when I find myself have no access to equal opportunity at the University, I should question some benefits others might have in return to the pain and lack of equal chance I had.
Here I am raising reasonable doubt about benefits and conflict of interest all those seniors had to act the way I will describe later. I will try to elaborate my speculations for such a benefit in the place where my current knowledge/speculations are possible and available.
The Head of College made serious violation as he made a decision by not to consider my complaint at his end before he received my points for his consideration April/9th. He also made this decision even prior to me receiving the complaint report. As I used to respect Professor Savill according to his position as the Head of College despite I never knew him before, I believed at its time he was misinformed. I have sent him several emails to explain the truth of the story. However, Professor Savill never revised himself through his new knowledge of all the facts I illustrated to him. Moreover, he never told me what others claim about me to be able to defend myself. He made several implications which I believed they mean malicious rumors have been made about me.
My confidentiality was compromised in different places at the University of Edinburgh with either complete knowledge of Professor Savill or a picture which invites to a reasonable doubt that this was done by his personal instructions. I can briefly outline these places but very ready to elaborate what happened with providing evidence to what I will claim. These places included: 1- College PG office formal paper work; Counseling service; EUSA. The latter two was the most devastating events. I was passing by sever situation and was in deep need to help. However, I found the Counselor aware by things I never told her about. I was experiencing many people spying on me, so I refused to go there again with a polite excuse that I do not like to talk about the problems I have. Certainly, I need to talk about what I was going through. But I needed to be certain what I will say is completely confidential. I have nothing to be afraid of people to know about me in my life. Nevertheless, it is my right to have confidential counseling service. The EUSA advisers (Lynn Allan and Sarah Purves) both deliberately misled me in the complaint process. The first was aware by many things I never told her about. EUSA advisers cannot break student confidentiality without instructions from a very senior staff e.g. Head of College! At the first I thought perhaps Professor Savill is indirectly investigating the issues by this way. But I realized he is not investigating anything, but rather he is trying to make the case as he made the right decision i.e. working out his personal benefit to cover-up for what he violated in the University regulations.
This is not only what happened. I believed my confidentiality was compromised at my GP practice at 10 Minto Street (Southern Medical group) and have evidence to provide about this. Moreover, I have reasonable doubt that the same thing happened with two specialist doctors I have seen during these sever circumstances. I needed access to some medical service which is confidential as for all people, but I never had at its time. Now I am being penalized that I am saying I have some levels of anxiety due to the sever circumstances I have passed by.
I started a public protest in front of the QMRI and food strike for Professor Savill to fairly deliver to me the University regulations, he never did. He was much focused to conceal his mistakes rather than acting on his role towards a PhD student in his College and how she is being affected by his actions. In the middle of this Professor Savill has sent me a letter to state he suspended my complaint on health grounds. I refused his letter. First, he does not have the right to make any judgment on my health or ability to pursue issues. Secondly, he is the one who is making the decision on my complaint. As he did not indicate otherwise, I should assume he was healthy enough to inspect my complaint fairly. Thirdly and most important, when he made this decision my stage-two complaint was already exhausted as this was after his letters of April/9th and 30th. But he used the EUSA advisers to misinform me that stage-two can be extended by some means if the Head of College sees this. However, the Head of College does not make the University regulations, but rather he should only deliver them. This was an attempt to exhaust my time outside a fair chance to review to my complaint process. These are my current speculations.
The serious oscillation in Edinburgh-Gate
As early as I had Professor Savill’s letter to refuse looking into my complaint, I have contacted the Principal’s office to raise the issue that I was denied a stage-two while I never had a complaint report and the possibility to raise my issues to the Head of College. The Principal’s office responded to me that I will have a chance in stage-two and Professor Savill will look into my complaint. Since then I was keen to bring all the incidental issues in my growing problems to the Principal by writing to his policy officer Ms Jane McCloskey. Therefore, the Principal at all the times was aware by growing violations in the University regulations and never interfered to provide me with a fair chance from the University regulations. Moreover, Ms McClosky clearly misinformed me that April/9th will not count as a final decision on my stage-two complaint and I can still have this fair chance. However, in April/30 Professor Savill has sent me a very traumatizing letter to say he already has made his decision on April/9th and this is his final decision. To be misled by the Principal’s policy officer is very unacceptable issue I should question its reason. But this is not the only matter where the University regulations were seriously violated and the Principal of the University of Edinburgh was either aware of this occurring or involved in its execution as will be described later.
In my public protest I started to tell people the truth about my story and what happened in my complaint. Thus I started to form a threat for seniors who are trying to conceal the violations they committed in the regulations. They did not care about my studies and life to be at hold while I am a high achieving student (enclosed to this are two manuscripts both have many novel ideas and work I have done in a cutting- edge research).
I am married and have three children. In the morning of June/25th while I was helping my three children to get ready for school, the University Secretary claimed he has the power to suspend me on urgent basis and made such a decision. I wonder what urgent offence I have committed while just getting my three children to get ready for school and then walk them to school for such a sever decision to be taken against me? As this is submitted to the Principal, I will not elaborate the events as he has complete knowledge of this through various correspondences and his personal affirmation of his awareness by everything happened at its time. However, I should question what urgent thing happened while me getting my children ready for school for any member of the University community to make a decision to prevent me going to my department. Moreover, a very insulting email was circulated by the Head of Department. The email was clearly sent by instructions from Professor Savill to conceal the truth of the story I started to tell and make the case as if the University found something against me to make such a serious decision. I have started to tell the truth about what he and the Head of School have done in my complaint process and had evidence for everything I claimed through formal correspondences. Again Professor Savill acted with all the authority he has against a PhD student who has no authority to defend herself. Moreover, no fair chance is being given me to use the University regulations to defend myself. I was never given any reason with clear grounds from the University regulations to have such a sever penalty.
The alleged suspension of study was staged to force me bringing a letter of wellbeing (I have elaboration to explain how the postman was able to bring a recorded letter sent to a wrong address after several days to my current home address so as why I found the alleged email was sent from the University Secretary mobile email rather than the University account. Perhaps the later can allow manipulating the date backward to stage as if an email was sent, but the truth there was never email to be sent at its day because there have never been any reason to suspend me or exclude me). The alleged suspension, clearly, was staged to force me brining a letter of wellbeing. I have sent the Principal my speculation for what such a letter might be used in. However, I am not a senior academic who is manipulating the University regulations and might make unlawful use by such a letter. First, this is a discriminatory request which I was not prepared to comply with, as there is no single University regulation which entitles any member of the University community to question my ability or any student to study or pursue issues. I never consented (or will ever) for any member of the University community to evaluate my health status and/or my fitness to pursue issues. I should question, why this is requested from me. As I discussed, I would never think I am facing discrimination because of being a minority, but I might face this because of others benefit. Second, I really have some levels of anxiety, but it does not preclude my ability to study. Third, although this is a discriminatory request, there is no medical screening test to define my ability to study other my own judgment. Finally, anxiety is not a case of insanity. In other words, if I have committed any offence, then I should be informed by this and have full responsibility for it. The reason for the alleged suspension leads to reasonable doubt it was a mere blackmailing and pressure game to support professor Savill concealing several serious violations he has committed at the University regulations.
I was saddened to receive a letter from the Principal, personally, in August/6 to affirm his complete knowledge by the events of the unlawful suspension and extending it further four weeks. At this point, I should question what the Principal might have as a benefit from doing this. This as we agreed I cannot believe I will be subject to discrimination in a place as the University of Edinburgh for no reason. I should think of a clear conflict of interest and sadly it is a conflict with the University regulations at the same time!
I am an epidemiologist, my work relies on observing and interpreting the events and I use both skills in my whole life. I studied the University hierarchy to find out the highest legal authority in the University are represented in seven curators of Patronage. I was not surprised to find that Professor Savill is one of them (at the moment there is a vacant position, so only six are nominated). While seeing the Principal of the University of Edinburgh fully aware by my misery since last April and even getting involved in the execution of more grieving situation as for June/25th, I should question if the authority of the Curators of Patronage to nominate the Principal has a clear role to explain his actions through all this period.
Moreover, the Principal has made a decision to exclude a PhD student who developed a novel theory to explain how a genetic marker might predict the risk of worse prognosis among one of leading causes of cancer death at the UK (Colorectal cancer) for this academic year and sent me this decision on Sept/11. The letter did not provide any reasonable cause for such a sever action according to the University regulations. Moreover, the Principal did not implement the University regulations in his decision (in addition there is no logical reason for this decision). This as he did not warn me several times by such a possibility before making such a sever decision. I have assumed he made this decision on urgent basis (clearly there is no reason to have an urgent mandate) so submitted a representation for his review within 5 days as in the University regulations, the Principal did not review it.
The only reasonable thing that remains is the Principal has supported one of the Curators of Patronage in his unequally balanced trials to conceal the violations he committed for personal interest. A PhD student with such achievement should be invited in different places at the University to talk about her work and accomplishment rather than to be excluded for whole academic year. I believe many others will share the same views with me and find neither the letters of alleged suspension nor exclusion of studies have provided a single reason to suspend/exclude me from my studies.
I have provided further speculation to why this is happening in previous letters. But manipulating the University regulations is endless when senior academics think they are above these regulations in the same way Nixon thought in the early 70s. The only proof to show me this is not the case is to find the Principal’s support to resume my studies and be engaged in my work successfully as I should be. I urge the Principal to alleviate from me all the unlawful sanctions I am facing now and with no delay. I cannot find any reason to be prevented to be at the University of Edinburgh other than to satisfy one of the Curators of Patronage (Professor Savill) but against all the University established regulations. Please confirm to me the Principal will amend my case and deliver to me what I deserve from the University regulations by your decision from the University regulations.
Professor Savill is forcing me to work with Professor Harry Campbell to conceal his denial to my right to make harassment complaint against Professor Campbell. I never lied in my harassment complaint. I never said he did anything he did not do. However, he was forcing me into things I did not want or I will be faced to lose my work credit. This is a worst harassment when it comes from a supervisor to his own PhD student. The Principal is aware by this. I should question, why the Principal is not offering me a new supervision arrangement? Professor Campbell has been an extremely polite and respectable person from my personal experience, if ignored my dispute with him as of late. Although he breached the student-supervisor code, I never felt I cannot work with him as a supervisor before the last events lately. However, I was saddened to learn he made about me rumors of such nature. I have spent three years at the PSH department. Not a single person can confirm I can be involved in such rumors by any means. I hope the Principal will confirm to me he is to the side of the University regulations rather than supporting a member of Curators of Patronage by proving me with a new supervision arrangement. As I mentioned before, to acknowledge the support Professor Campbell has provided to me through three years of PhD and the fact he is one who gave me the opportunity in this outstanding PhD project, I do not mind he remains in my supervisor’s list. However, I am hugely uncomfortable for him to remain my sole supervisors afterwards. I request two supervisors; one epidemiologist and the second with genetic background. My problem is I have been in the circle of Professor Campbell’s Colleague, so I do not know other than them. I might suggest Professor Gerry Fowkes as an epidemiologist and an academic I used to respect and believe he was a decent person with me through the three years I have spent at the PSH, if he would accept giving me such a privilege. For the genetic part, I might suggest Professor Alan Right as an excellent geneticist, if he would accept providing me with such a privilege. I would be happy to hear alternative offers from the Principal, these were just some suggestions from the limited academic circle I have been in.
Involvement of other independent bodies in Edinburgh-Gate
I have outlined the involvement of my GP surgery and other two specialist doctors in these events. I can provide evidence of this. The serious thing is the SPSO has violated their established regulations to take my complaint. I think this might be explained by two factors. The first they might have been misinformed by creditable senior academic about the truth of my case. My duty will be to provide them with clear elaboration to what happened here at the University of Edinburgh to exclude this possibility. The other explanation, they might have some under-the-table offer or conflict of interest to delay my complaint at their review by this way. I am certain that they cannot violate the regulations as a high supervising body in Scotland, but it was clear they were manipulating my complaint to aide seniors at the University of Edinburgh concealing their violations. My duty is to fully inform them by the explanation of why what happened has happened and see how they would react. If they do not adhere to their regulations, then they are aware by their involvement in Edinburgh-Gate and I will start searching what benefit they might have to do such unlawful and illegal actions.
Epilogue
I love the University of Edinburgh and being active to prevent Edinburgh-Gate to arrive to its final establishment. Therefore, I am appending this document to the exclusion of studies’ representation for your kind considerations by Oct/8th. This is according to section 5.1.9 which requires the Principal to revise his decision every four weeks (but I very much hope neither the Principal nor someone else will need to revise my representation again for these events).
The only thing that will exclude these ideas from my mind is to find the Principal’s support to exit the current situation, despite Professor Savill is one of the Curators of Patronage. I propose immediate decision to return me to my studies while receiving all the support I should have to pursue my degree as a confirmation of his support to the University regulations rather than a member of the Curators of Patronage.
I propose an urgent looking-forward approach to resolve the whole situation afterwards. Part of this might be to discuss my complaint status and extension for external review as a very viable subject. I do not enjoy complaint or any one do. However, people tend to complain when they have problems and stop complaining when they do not have any problems! The Principal has a clear idea about me, but perhaps not in the best times of my life. Although I seem to be stubborn and insisting on my rights endlessly (and this is true), I am a team player and can always be involved in constructive attitudes to resolve issues. So far the University has been imposing sever sanctions on me to support Professor Savill concealing the violations he and the Head of School have committed. I urge the Principal to try different approach. The Win-lose approach is not a working one as events proved. I am waiting a win-win offer where all the involved parties will be satisfied by what the Principal will offer to exit the current grieving situation. I reconfirm, my complaint at the SPSO is subject to discussion, but what I am proposing cannot be interpreted as complaint mediation by any means. I am requesting from the Principal to deliver to me the rights I own from the University regulations to exclude he had any personal benefits from the misery I am going through. I will not find any reason to keep this exclusion on studies on me other than having Professor Savill as one of the curators of Patronage.
In summary, there is no rational reason to exclude high achieving PhD student while crude discrimination is not a possibility. Then, why this student is not an active and supported PhD student as she was supposed to be? I hope I will not have to ask this question to someone other than yourself.
I have appended the two manuscripts I have accomplished through my PhD project. The first is about the genetic marker (copy number gain) which I explained how it acts to predict the worse prognosis among colorectal cancer and the second is about mapping of copy number variations among two Scottish populations with different demographic history. The second has plenty of novel ideas and work that requires the Principal himself to support such superior accomplishment at his University rather than to exclude the PhD student who has been executing this successful PhD project.
Finally, when I had the dispute with Professor Campbell I started by addressing my problems and thoughts about my problems to him. He did not address a reasonable solution to my problems and we ended to where we are. I trust the Principal’s wisdom will led him to patiently accept my thoughts (about how unfairly I am being treated and my underlying explanation); whilst kindly reconsidering to look into a complete looking-forward approach to exit the current case.
Yours Sincerely,
PhD student experiencing the case of EdinburghGate
Professor Sir Timothy O’Shea
Principal and Vice Chancellor of the University of Edinburgh
Old College, South Bridge, Edinburgh, EH8 9YL
Oct/6th/2009
Dear Professor O'Shea,
Re: Edinburgh Gate – a developing draft - to be appended for the exclusion of studies representation for the Principal’s kind reconsiderations.
Prologue
In the early 70s President Richard Nixon thought when a president breaks the law; it is not illegal because he is the president. He was aware by a break into the DNC building and covered-up for this operation, a scandal known as Watergate. Although his own benefit from this operation the history remained debatable about, his knowledge by such serious break-in led to his resignation for office; to be the only American president who resigned during his term time. The investigations took very long time, but at the end he was told there is enough majority at the Congress to make a decision to force him leaving office with possibility of legal responsibility. He made a proposal to his Vice President – at its time – Ford to issue him the known general pardon that removed any possibility for legal execution in return for his resignation and nominating Ford as the next President of the United States. Many political analysts think this indecent proposal might have been a main reason for which Ford did not succeed in the following general election; whilst all the publics were made aware by the ongoing investigation of Watergate and its results.
I referred to my case as Edinburgh-gate as it seems many seniors at the University of Edinburgh have misused their authority to break my confidentiality and impose severe sanctions against me, but have some very reasonable explanations to why this happened. It seems, the same assumption that it is fine for senior academics to break the University regulations was made. But, I believe it will not be accepted as it was rejected when the President of the United States of America acted similarly.
As a current student and the person who massively suffered because of their actions, I believe this will never be accepted from the greater good of the University of Edinburgh Community.
In this draft I am urging the Principal to alleviate all the unlawful sanction that has been imposed – as of late - on me immediately without any delay. I propose to move onto a sincerely looking-forward approach to find a fair way to exit the whole background issues which led to the current situation, instead of misusing the University sanctions without any mandate to conceal these issues.
Background
The matter is related to a complaint I have formally submitted to the Head of School Professor David Weller but he failed to apply single role of the University regulations in its course. I can submit elaboration of this, if requested. I believe he and Professor Campbell has misinformed a very respectable senior academic whom I used to respect even without knowing him, who is the Head of college Professor John Savill. My speculations are Professor Weller might have done some indecent deal with Professor Campbell to have some authorship advantage to violate my complaint process in this way. I cannot provide you with this benefit at the moment, but time will prove my speculations. Also, he would be required to provide a reason for his failure to deliver the University regulations in complaint process to me like all other students. He needs to provide a reasonable explanation to this. There will be no reasonable explanation for what he has done other than some advantage he had with Professor Campbell.
I believe I am studying in a University whereas I cannot claim I have suffered discrimination because of being a Muslim or from minority ethnic background. To the opposite, despite my main dispute started with Professor Campbell, I acknowledge he gave me an excellent opportunity to be the first person at the University of Edinburgh to conduct a genome-wide copy number variations study (and among the pioneer of this area in the world). Thus, being a minority was never an obstacle for me to move to the top, based on my hard work and achievements. So, when I find myself have no access to equal opportunity at the University, I should question some benefits others might have in return to the pain and lack of equal chance I had.
Here I am raising reasonable doubt about benefits and conflict of interest all those seniors had to act the way I will describe later. I will try to elaborate my speculations for such a benefit in the place where my current knowledge/speculations are possible and available.
The Head of College made serious violation as he made a decision by not to consider my complaint at his end before he received my points for his consideration April/9th. He also made this decision even prior to me receiving the complaint report. As I used to respect Professor Savill according to his position as the Head of College despite I never knew him before, I believed at its time he was misinformed. I have sent him several emails to explain the truth of the story. However, Professor Savill never revised himself through his new knowledge of all the facts I illustrated to him. Moreover, he never told me what others claim about me to be able to defend myself. He made several implications which I believed they mean malicious rumors have been made about me.
My confidentiality was compromised in different places at the University of Edinburgh with either complete knowledge of Professor Savill or a picture which invites to a reasonable doubt that this was done by his personal instructions. I can briefly outline these places but very ready to elaborate what happened with providing evidence to what I will claim. These places included: 1- College PG office formal paper work; Counseling service; EUSA. The latter two was the most devastating events. I was passing by sever situation and was in deep need to help. However, I found the Counselor aware by things I never told her about. I was experiencing many people spying on me, so I refused to go there again with a polite excuse that I do not like to talk about the problems I have. Certainly, I need to talk about what I was going through. But I needed to be certain what I will say is completely confidential. I have nothing to be afraid of people to know about me in my life. Nevertheless, it is my right to have confidential counseling service. The EUSA advisers (Lynn Allan and Sarah Purves) both deliberately misled me in the complaint process. The first was aware by many things I never told her about. EUSA advisers cannot break student confidentiality without instructions from a very senior staff e.g. Head of College! At the first I thought perhaps Professor Savill is indirectly investigating the issues by this way. But I realized he is not investigating anything, but rather he is trying to make the case as he made the right decision i.e. working out his personal benefit to cover-up for what he violated in the University regulations.
This is not only what happened. I believed my confidentiality was compromised at my GP practice at 10 Minto Street (Southern Medical group) and have evidence to provide about this. Moreover, I have reasonable doubt that the same thing happened with two specialist doctors I have seen during these sever circumstances. I needed access to some medical service which is confidential as for all people, but I never had at its time. Now I am being penalized that I am saying I have some levels of anxiety due to the sever circumstances I have passed by.
I started a public protest in front of the QMRI and food strike for Professor Savill to fairly deliver to me the University regulations, he never did. He was much focused to conceal his mistakes rather than acting on his role towards a PhD student in his College and how she is being affected by his actions. In the middle of this Professor Savill has sent me a letter to state he suspended my complaint on health grounds. I refused his letter. First, he does not have the right to make any judgment on my health or ability to pursue issues. Secondly, he is the one who is making the decision on my complaint. As he did not indicate otherwise, I should assume he was healthy enough to inspect my complaint fairly. Thirdly and most important, when he made this decision my stage-two complaint was already exhausted as this was after his letters of April/9th and 30th. But he used the EUSA advisers to misinform me that stage-two can be extended by some means if the Head of College sees this. However, the Head of College does not make the University regulations, but rather he should only deliver them. This was an attempt to exhaust my time outside a fair chance to review to my complaint process. These are my current speculations.
The serious oscillation in Edinburgh-Gate
As early as I had Professor Savill’s letter to refuse looking into my complaint, I have contacted the Principal’s office to raise the issue that I was denied a stage-two while I never had a complaint report and the possibility to raise my issues to the Head of College. The Principal’s office responded to me that I will have a chance in stage-two and Professor Savill will look into my complaint. Since then I was keen to bring all the incidental issues in my growing problems to the Principal by writing to his policy officer Ms Jane McCloskey. Therefore, the Principal at all the times was aware by growing violations in the University regulations and never interfered to provide me with a fair chance from the University regulations. Moreover, Ms McClosky clearly misinformed me that April/9th will not count as a final decision on my stage-two complaint and I can still have this fair chance. However, in April/30 Professor Savill has sent me a very traumatizing letter to say he already has made his decision on April/9th and this is his final decision. To be misled by the Principal’s policy officer is very unacceptable issue I should question its reason. But this is not the only matter where the University regulations were seriously violated and the Principal of the University of Edinburgh was either aware of this occurring or involved in its execution as will be described later.
In my public protest I started to tell people the truth about my story and what happened in my complaint. Thus I started to form a threat for seniors who are trying to conceal the violations they committed in the regulations. They did not care about my studies and life to be at hold while I am a high achieving student (enclosed to this are two manuscripts both have many novel ideas and work I have done in a cutting- edge research).
I am married and have three children. In the morning of June/25th while I was helping my three children to get ready for school, the University Secretary claimed he has the power to suspend me on urgent basis and made such a decision. I wonder what urgent offence I have committed while just getting my three children to get ready for school and then walk them to school for such a sever decision to be taken against me? As this is submitted to the Principal, I will not elaborate the events as he has complete knowledge of this through various correspondences and his personal affirmation of his awareness by everything happened at its time. However, I should question what urgent thing happened while me getting my children ready for school for any member of the University community to make a decision to prevent me going to my department. Moreover, a very insulting email was circulated by the Head of Department. The email was clearly sent by instructions from Professor Savill to conceal the truth of the story I started to tell and make the case as if the University found something against me to make such a serious decision. I have started to tell the truth about what he and the Head of School have done in my complaint process and had evidence for everything I claimed through formal correspondences. Again Professor Savill acted with all the authority he has against a PhD student who has no authority to defend herself. Moreover, no fair chance is being given me to use the University regulations to defend myself. I was never given any reason with clear grounds from the University regulations to have such a sever penalty.
The alleged suspension of study was staged to force me bringing a letter of wellbeing (I have elaboration to explain how the postman was able to bring a recorded letter sent to a wrong address after several days to my current home address so as why I found the alleged email was sent from the University Secretary mobile email rather than the University account. Perhaps the later can allow manipulating the date backward to stage as if an email was sent, but the truth there was never email to be sent at its day because there have never been any reason to suspend me or exclude me). The alleged suspension, clearly, was staged to force me brining a letter of wellbeing. I have sent the Principal my speculation for what such a letter might be used in. However, I am not a senior academic who is manipulating the University regulations and might make unlawful use by such a letter. First, this is a discriminatory request which I was not prepared to comply with, as there is no single University regulation which entitles any member of the University community to question my ability or any student to study or pursue issues. I never consented (or will ever) for any member of the University community to evaluate my health status and/or my fitness to pursue issues. I should question, why this is requested from me. As I discussed, I would never think I am facing discrimination because of being a minority, but I might face this because of others benefit. Second, I really have some levels of anxiety, but it does not preclude my ability to study. Third, although this is a discriminatory request, there is no medical screening test to define my ability to study other my own judgment. Finally, anxiety is not a case of insanity. In other words, if I have committed any offence, then I should be informed by this and have full responsibility for it. The reason for the alleged suspension leads to reasonable doubt it was a mere blackmailing and pressure game to support professor Savill concealing several serious violations he has committed at the University regulations.
I was saddened to receive a letter from the Principal, personally, in August/6 to affirm his complete knowledge by the events of the unlawful suspension and extending it further four weeks. At this point, I should question what the Principal might have as a benefit from doing this. This as we agreed I cannot believe I will be subject to discrimination in a place as the University of Edinburgh for no reason. I should think of a clear conflict of interest and sadly it is a conflict with the University regulations at the same time!
I am an epidemiologist, my work relies on observing and interpreting the events and I use both skills in my whole life. I studied the University hierarchy to find out the highest legal authority in the University are represented in seven curators of Patronage. I was not surprised to find that Professor Savill is one of them (at the moment there is a vacant position, so only six are nominated). While seeing the Principal of the University of Edinburgh fully aware by my misery since last April and even getting involved in the execution of more grieving situation as for June/25th, I should question if the authority of the Curators of Patronage to nominate the Principal has a clear role to explain his actions through all this period.
Moreover, the Principal has made a decision to exclude a PhD student who developed a novel theory to explain how a genetic marker might predict the risk of worse prognosis among one of leading causes of cancer death at the UK (Colorectal cancer) for this academic year and sent me this decision on Sept/11. The letter did not provide any reasonable cause for such a sever action according to the University regulations. Moreover, the Principal did not implement the University regulations in his decision (in addition there is no logical reason for this decision). This as he did not warn me several times by such a possibility before making such a sever decision. I have assumed he made this decision on urgent basis (clearly there is no reason to have an urgent mandate) so submitted a representation for his review within 5 days as in the University regulations, the Principal did not review it.
The only reasonable thing that remains is the Principal has supported one of the Curators of Patronage in his unequally balanced trials to conceal the violations he committed for personal interest. A PhD student with such achievement should be invited in different places at the University to talk about her work and accomplishment rather than to be excluded for whole academic year. I believe many others will share the same views with me and find neither the letters of alleged suspension nor exclusion of studies have provided a single reason to suspend/exclude me from my studies.
I have provided further speculation to why this is happening in previous letters. But manipulating the University regulations is endless when senior academics think they are above these regulations in the same way Nixon thought in the early 70s. The only proof to show me this is not the case is to find the Principal’s support to resume my studies and be engaged in my work successfully as I should be. I urge the Principal to alleviate from me all the unlawful sanctions I am facing now and with no delay. I cannot find any reason to be prevented to be at the University of Edinburgh other than to satisfy one of the Curators of Patronage (Professor Savill) but against all the University established regulations. Please confirm to me the Principal will amend my case and deliver to me what I deserve from the University regulations by your decision from the University regulations.
Professor Savill is forcing me to work with Professor Harry Campbell to conceal his denial to my right to make harassment complaint against Professor Campbell. I never lied in my harassment complaint. I never said he did anything he did not do. However, he was forcing me into things I did not want or I will be faced to lose my work credit. This is a worst harassment when it comes from a supervisor to his own PhD student. The Principal is aware by this. I should question, why the Principal is not offering me a new supervision arrangement? Professor Campbell has been an extremely polite and respectable person from my personal experience, if ignored my dispute with him as of late. Although he breached the student-supervisor code, I never felt I cannot work with him as a supervisor before the last events lately. However, I was saddened to learn he made about me rumors of such nature. I have spent three years at the PSH department. Not a single person can confirm I can be involved in such rumors by any means. I hope the Principal will confirm to me he is to the side of the University regulations rather than supporting a member of Curators of Patronage by proving me with a new supervision arrangement. As I mentioned before, to acknowledge the support Professor Campbell has provided to me through three years of PhD and the fact he is one who gave me the opportunity in this outstanding PhD project, I do not mind he remains in my supervisor’s list. However, I am hugely uncomfortable for him to remain my sole supervisors afterwards. I request two supervisors; one epidemiologist and the second with genetic background. My problem is I have been in the circle of Professor Campbell’s Colleague, so I do not know other than them. I might suggest Professor Gerry Fowkes as an epidemiologist and an academic I used to respect and believe he was a decent person with me through the three years I have spent at the PSH, if he would accept giving me such a privilege. For the genetic part, I might suggest Professor Alan Right as an excellent geneticist, if he would accept providing me with such a privilege. I would be happy to hear alternative offers from the Principal, these were just some suggestions from the limited academic circle I have been in.
Involvement of other independent bodies in Edinburgh-Gate
I have outlined the involvement of my GP surgery and other two specialist doctors in these events. I can provide evidence of this. The serious thing is the SPSO has violated their established regulations to take my complaint. I think this might be explained by two factors. The first they might have been misinformed by creditable senior academic about the truth of my case. My duty will be to provide them with clear elaboration to what happened here at the University of Edinburgh to exclude this possibility. The other explanation, they might have some under-the-table offer or conflict of interest to delay my complaint at their review by this way. I am certain that they cannot violate the regulations as a high supervising body in Scotland, but it was clear they were manipulating my complaint to aide seniors at the University of Edinburgh concealing their violations. My duty is to fully inform them by the explanation of why what happened has happened and see how they would react. If they do not adhere to their regulations, then they are aware by their involvement in Edinburgh-Gate and I will start searching what benefit they might have to do such unlawful and illegal actions.
Epilogue
I love the University of Edinburgh and being active to prevent Edinburgh-Gate to arrive to its final establishment. Therefore, I am appending this document to the exclusion of studies’ representation for your kind considerations by Oct/8th. This is according to section 5.1.9 which requires the Principal to revise his decision every four weeks (but I very much hope neither the Principal nor someone else will need to revise my representation again for these events).
The only thing that will exclude these ideas from my mind is to find the Principal’s support to exit the current situation, despite Professor Savill is one of the Curators of Patronage. I propose immediate decision to return me to my studies while receiving all the support I should have to pursue my degree as a confirmation of his support to the University regulations rather than a member of the Curators of Patronage.
I propose an urgent looking-forward approach to resolve the whole situation afterwards. Part of this might be to discuss my complaint status and extension for external review as a very viable subject. I do not enjoy complaint or any one do. However, people tend to complain when they have problems and stop complaining when they do not have any problems! The Principal has a clear idea about me, but perhaps not in the best times of my life. Although I seem to be stubborn and insisting on my rights endlessly (and this is true), I am a team player and can always be involved in constructive attitudes to resolve issues. So far the University has been imposing sever sanctions on me to support Professor Savill concealing the violations he and the Head of School have committed. I urge the Principal to try different approach. The Win-lose approach is not a working one as events proved. I am waiting a win-win offer where all the involved parties will be satisfied by what the Principal will offer to exit the current grieving situation. I reconfirm, my complaint at the SPSO is subject to discussion, but what I am proposing cannot be interpreted as complaint mediation by any means. I am requesting from the Principal to deliver to me the rights I own from the University regulations to exclude he had any personal benefits from the misery I am going through. I will not find any reason to keep this exclusion on studies on me other than having Professor Savill as one of the curators of Patronage.
In summary, there is no rational reason to exclude high achieving PhD student while crude discrimination is not a possibility. Then, why this student is not an active and supported PhD student as she was supposed to be? I hope I will not have to ask this question to someone other than yourself.
I have appended the two manuscripts I have accomplished through my PhD project. The first is about the genetic marker (copy number gain) which I explained how it acts to predict the worse prognosis among colorectal cancer and the second is about mapping of copy number variations among two Scottish populations with different demographic history. The second has plenty of novel ideas and work that requires the Principal himself to support such superior accomplishment at his University rather than to exclude the PhD student who has been executing this successful PhD project.
Finally, when I had the dispute with Professor Campbell I started by addressing my problems and thoughts about my problems to him. He did not address a reasonable solution to my problems and we ended to where we are. I trust the Principal’s wisdom will led him to patiently accept my thoughts (about how unfairly I am being treated and my underlying explanation); whilst kindly reconsidering to look into a complete looking-forward approach to exit the current case.
Yours Sincerely,
PhD student experiencing the case of EdinburghGate
What is EdinburghGate?
This letter was sent to all members of Senatus Academicus to introduce Edinburgh Gate to the University of Edinburgh Community
All the supporting letter are available upon request, if there is legal basis to verify the information in this blog
"Protesting is a statutory right for all human being to challenge injustice. With advent in technology, it is very typical to move those protest actions from streets to cyber ones. I am planning an extending cyber protest campaign to Senatus Academicus members. I have taken utmost care to attach email addresses to members of the Senatus Academicus. Given this campaign will extend till the below outlined injustice will be alleviated, please inform me if you are not the intended recipient. In a maximum frequency, you might receive one email/day not more than this. According to your role at the Senatus Academicus you have obligations to fully read my protest emails and adequately consider its contents as a member in Senates Academicus. I am hoping to have your support to conclude this extended misery fairly.
According to the Universities 1858 Act, the main role of the Senatus Academicus is to: "regulate the teaching and discipline of the University, and administer its property and revenues, subject to the control and review of the University court, as herein-after provided". I am listing here a clear case where all the regulations at the University of Edinburgh have been disrespected. I am making those protest actions, because:
1- I have sustained hardship at the University of Edinburgh starting by actions which Professor Harry Campbell took against me, passing by inappropriate formal complaint procedure, arriving at inappropriate occlusion to my studies.
2- I am facing statutory discrimination at the University of Edinburgh which I will detail in further letters. Briefly I have no access to a fair review process according to the Students Codes and have no access to clear my name from indecent and unfounded rumors Professor Harry Campbell has spread about me to all the people around me. I hold myself from making harassment complaint against him to avoid any damage to him, however he did not leave any effort to tarnish my name and damage me to cover-up for his own unacceptable misconduct.
In this introductory letter, I have attached most of the important documents which I will be discussing later on. Please keep them in a folder in your PC e.g. R. Rahman. I will go through all these files in later letters, so please keep them to make sense of what I will explain later. If for any reasons you lost them, I would be happy to resend them, but please let me know.
In today’s action, I am requesting from you to read the file of Edinburgh-Gate case. Please write to the Principal principal@ed.ac.uk and request an answer for those simple questions (after reading: Edinburgh-Gate case, letters on suspension and exclusion from studies, and my representation against those events):
1- How my physical presence in my private room disturbed others in my department.
2- Who are those unknown people whom my presence has disturbed?
3- What was the urgency that happened on the morning of 25/6/2009 to invoke the power under section 5.1.7.
4- Is there a student code which would require decline to register students when the New Year commences? Hence the Principal has based his decision on 11/9/2009 upon?
5- Is it possible to suspend a student who is not registered for certain academic year? This as I have received some correspondences which of high concern claims that my current status is suspended by the University Secretary! Then what the Principal’s decision means in this context?
The Principal business at the University of Edinburgh requires immediate change to act according to the University regulations; not otherwise. I have been out of my studies by formal decisions since 25/6/2009 to force me accepting the inappropriate procedure which was carried in my formal complaint process. My mental health was raised in a failed trial to justify the sustained hardship I am facing at the University of Edinburgh. No human being can be left in this sustained injustice and hardship. Please join me to reject this and write to the Principal to deliver to me my statutory rights according to the Students Codes. Please write to the Head of MVM College (Professor Sir John Savill) and request from him to deliver to me acceptable circumstances as per my request to achieve my degree successfully. Please write to the Rector and request from him authorization of the court review to my case in line with section 5.1.8 to review the Principal decision to exclude me from this entire academic year. Please request from him adequate justification from the continuous infringement in my statutory rights by delaying this review.
Please read this summary of my PhD project:
I would like to outline my PhD work to you. This is to illustrate I am a high achieving PhD student which makes it irrational and unfair to be left for this extended time in such circumstances. I have done a novel work in my PhD project. My PhD project has unraveled the first blood based genetic marker to predict worse prognosis of colorectal cancer patients; one of the leading cancer death in the UK. I have personally provided the explanation of this marker to be somatic (arise after birth) and not germline (inherited from parents) as the rest of my research group and other collaborators thought similar to worldwide conception. I have provided supporting evidence that this marker is somatic and arise by a mechanism called “adaptive amplifications”. This was described before in unicellular organisms but I was the first person worldwide to describe this dynamic among human beings. This makes it high intellectual explanation that is not subject to routine statistical or laboratory work as several research groups have reported this marker before but none of them was able to explain its origin the way I did with the vehement support I provided. This explanation has been received by international praise among experts and pioneer in the area at the ASHG2008 conference where I presented this part of my work.
I would like to explain briefly what my breakthrough work is about. First, I need to define adaptive amplification. Adaptive means it is a change we acquire to counteract some internal or external factors i.e. adapt to internal or external environmental factors. Amplification means increase or gain in DNA. Our genomes are formed of materials which are responsible to control all our body functions, various phenotypes e.g. shape and height, and to some extent our personality; which is called DNA. At each certain point of this DNA sequence, each person should carry two copies of certain DNA bases. The details are not of importance at the moment. My PhD in copy number variations, simply, indicates I have been looking into sites which people would have difference in number than the standard two copies we all should have throughout our genomes. I have examined if this difference in copy number is associated with increased risk of colorectal cancer, but also reported the general sites where there are variations between the populations.
I have described for the first time in the world and history of science, that human body fights cancer and other distressful situations (e.g. chronic disease) by increasing the number of copies of DNA at sites which defend us against our environment e.g. immune related sites in our genome which is responsible to encode (control) the immune mechanism in human body. The increase in DNA means more aggressive disease. Hence, I have showed in my PhD project, cancer patients with DNA gain (or amplification) at those sites have worse prognosis. This is a simple reflection to this cancer being more aggressive and hence our body immune exhibit more defensive mechanism against this disease. I need to bring for your attention that immune mechanism cannot fight cancer alone. But this can act as a marker and proxy to tailor certain therapeutic regimens in the future.
Moreover, I have described for the first time that copy number variations will have significant variations due to demographic history. I adequately illustrated that even recent separation would have major effect on the attribute of such variants in each population. This is significant finding in genome-wide association to be considered. I also provided supporting evidence to suggest copy number variations have recent demographic history as compared to SNPs. This would lead into the conclusion that SNPs (another type of DNA variation between individuals) cannot act as a proxy to test difference in risk associated with copy number variation. This is very important finding in genome-wide association studies. The work is full of other novel explanations and inference which this limited space cannot discuss it all.
This novel and outstanding work mandates the University to fully support accomplishing my degree as this is a standard practice for all other PhD students to have such support. The University of Edinburgh has formally occluded my work instead of supporting me as all other PhD students. To the extreme opposite the University of Edinburgh has suspended my studies on 25/6/2009 for vague and unsubstantiated reasons as conveyed to me by a letter from the University Secretary. The University of Edinburgh never substantiated its accusation and cleared me from all the charges in a subsequent letter from the University Secretary. However, the University of Edinburgh remained insisting on a letter to confirm my well being, which was never justified from its own regulations. I find this is inappropriate request as all other PhD student is not required to provide a letter of wellbeing at entry or to maintain their registration.
I enclose a letter from my previous GP in which she even refused to refer me to counselling at mental health and psychiatric facility and clearly stated such a referral would have been returned. Moreover, I have consented to the Head of College Professor Sir John Savill to send all his concerns, if any, to my GP. I indicated if my GP found what the Head of College mentioned of medical importance and sent me a formal letter to discuss this, I will go and discuss this matter with my GP. My GP has never sent me a letter to raise any medical concern which would require further medical attention or to be further discussed. Hence, the University of Edinburgh request was not accepted or justified from my GP as well, despite my full consent to the Head of MVM College to raise with them all the issues that might of concern to him. I am a person who was passing sever situation which was distressing me. The University was required to amend this sever situation rather than to deepen this misery. The University has extended the imposed sanctions on me by a new decision to exclude me from the current academic year on 11/9/2009. I enclose the University letter in this respect and my representation to defend myself against these actions. The University of Edinburgh refused repeatedly to act on its own regulation to respond to my various representations according to established review system in the Students Codes.
Since the last decision was made by the Principal, it is subject to the Principal review according to section 5.1.9 and Court review by three court members with at least one lay and one academic member according to section 5.1.8. The University has hitherto been refusing to conduct such mandatory review and I have been out of my studies since 25/6/2009. The University even failed to answer the simple question regarding the inappropriate procedure as followed with me and listed up.
While no justification/substantiation has provided to me, up to its date, on my representation which is enclosed, the University has imposed further sanctions based on this unsubstantiated accusation from the University of Edinburgh. I am certain the greater good of the University of Edinburgh community will find this unacceptable and reject this vehemently.
This is the first letter of this campaign. I would like to thank you for taking the time to read my letters and anticipated support even if delayed."
Yours Sincerely,
Agonizing PhD student with no access for her statutory rights"
All the supporting letter are available upon request, if there is legal basis to verify the information in this blog
"Protesting is a statutory right for all human being to challenge injustice. With advent in technology, it is very typical to move those protest actions from streets to cyber ones. I am planning an extending cyber protest campaign to Senatus Academicus members. I have taken utmost care to attach email addresses to members of the Senatus Academicus. Given this campaign will extend till the below outlined injustice will be alleviated, please inform me if you are not the intended recipient. In a maximum frequency, you might receive one email/day not more than this. According to your role at the Senatus Academicus you have obligations to fully read my protest emails and adequately consider its contents as a member in Senates Academicus. I am hoping to have your support to conclude this extended misery fairly.
According to the Universities 1858 Act, the main role of the Senatus Academicus is to: "regulate the teaching and discipline of the University, and administer its property and revenues, subject to the control and review of the University court, as herein-after provided". I am listing here a clear case where all the regulations at the University of Edinburgh have been disrespected. I am making those protest actions, because:
1- I have sustained hardship at the University of Edinburgh starting by actions which Professor Harry Campbell took against me, passing by inappropriate formal complaint procedure, arriving at inappropriate occlusion to my studies.
2- I am facing statutory discrimination at the University of Edinburgh which I will detail in further letters. Briefly I have no access to a fair review process according to the Students Codes and have no access to clear my name from indecent and unfounded rumors Professor Harry Campbell has spread about me to all the people around me. I hold myself from making harassment complaint against him to avoid any damage to him, however he did not leave any effort to tarnish my name and damage me to cover-up for his own unacceptable misconduct.
In this introductory letter, I have attached most of the important documents which I will be discussing later on. Please keep them in a folder in your PC e.g. R. Rahman. I will go through all these files in later letters, so please keep them to make sense of what I will explain later. If for any reasons you lost them, I would be happy to resend them, but please let me know.
In today’s action, I am requesting from you to read the file of Edinburgh-Gate case. Please write to the Principal principal@ed.ac.uk and request an answer for those simple questions (after reading: Edinburgh-Gate case, letters on suspension and exclusion from studies, and my representation against those events):
1- How my physical presence in my private room disturbed others in my department.
2- Who are those unknown people whom my presence has disturbed?
3- What was the urgency that happened on the morning of 25/6/2009 to invoke the power under section 5.1.7.
4- Is there a student code which would require decline to register students when the New Year commences? Hence the Principal has based his decision on 11/9/2009 upon?
5- Is it possible to suspend a student who is not registered for certain academic year? This as I have received some correspondences which of high concern claims that my current status is suspended by the University Secretary! Then what the Principal’s decision means in this context?
The Principal business at the University of Edinburgh requires immediate change to act according to the University regulations; not otherwise. I have been out of my studies by formal decisions since 25/6/2009 to force me accepting the inappropriate procedure which was carried in my formal complaint process. My mental health was raised in a failed trial to justify the sustained hardship I am facing at the University of Edinburgh. No human being can be left in this sustained injustice and hardship. Please join me to reject this and write to the Principal to deliver to me my statutory rights according to the Students Codes. Please write to the Head of MVM College (Professor Sir John Savill) and request from him to deliver to me acceptable circumstances as per my request to achieve my degree successfully. Please write to the Rector and request from him authorization of the court review to my case in line with section 5.1.8 to review the Principal decision to exclude me from this entire academic year. Please request from him adequate justification from the continuous infringement in my statutory rights by delaying this review.
Please read this summary of my PhD project:
I would like to outline my PhD work to you. This is to illustrate I am a high achieving PhD student which makes it irrational and unfair to be left for this extended time in such circumstances. I have done a novel work in my PhD project. My PhD project has unraveled the first blood based genetic marker to predict worse prognosis of colorectal cancer patients; one of the leading cancer death in the UK. I have personally provided the explanation of this marker to be somatic (arise after birth) and not germline (inherited from parents) as the rest of my research group and other collaborators thought similar to worldwide conception. I have provided supporting evidence that this marker is somatic and arise by a mechanism called “adaptive amplifications”. This was described before in unicellular organisms but I was the first person worldwide to describe this dynamic among human beings. This makes it high intellectual explanation that is not subject to routine statistical or laboratory work as several research groups have reported this marker before but none of them was able to explain its origin the way I did with the vehement support I provided. This explanation has been received by international praise among experts and pioneer in the area at the ASHG2008 conference where I presented this part of my work.
I would like to explain briefly what my breakthrough work is about. First, I need to define adaptive amplification. Adaptive means it is a change we acquire to counteract some internal or external factors i.e. adapt to internal or external environmental factors. Amplification means increase or gain in DNA. Our genomes are formed of materials which are responsible to control all our body functions, various phenotypes e.g. shape and height, and to some extent our personality; which is called DNA. At each certain point of this DNA sequence, each person should carry two copies of certain DNA bases. The details are not of importance at the moment. My PhD in copy number variations, simply, indicates I have been looking into sites which people would have difference in number than the standard two copies we all should have throughout our genomes. I have examined if this difference in copy number is associated with increased risk of colorectal cancer, but also reported the general sites where there are variations between the populations.
I have described for the first time in the world and history of science, that human body fights cancer and other distressful situations (e.g. chronic disease) by increasing the number of copies of DNA at sites which defend us against our environment e.g. immune related sites in our genome which is responsible to encode (control) the immune mechanism in human body. The increase in DNA means more aggressive disease. Hence, I have showed in my PhD project, cancer patients with DNA gain (or amplification) at those sites have worse prognosis. This is a simple reflection to this cancer being more aggressive and hence our body immune exhibit more defensive mechanism against this disease. I need to bring for your attention that immune mechanism cannot fight cancer alone. But this can act as a marker and proxy to tailor certain therapeutic regimens in the future.
Moreover, I have described for the first time that copy number variations will have significant variations due to demographic history. I adequately illustrated that even recent separation would have major effect on the attribute of such variants in each population. This is significant finding in genome-wide association to be considered. I also provided supporting evidence to suggest copy number variations have recent demographic history as compared to SNPs. This would lead into the conclusion that SNPs (another type of DNA variation between individuals) cannot act as a proxy to test difference in risk associated with copy number variation. This is very important finding in genome-wide association studies. The work is full of other novel explanations and inference which this limited space cannot discuss it all.
This novel and outstanding work mandates the University to fully support accomplishing my degree as this is a standard practice for all other PhD students to have such support. The University of Edinburgh has formally occluded my work instead of supporting me as all other PhD students. To the extreme opposite the University of Edinburgh has suspended my studies on 25/6/2009 for vague and unsubstantiated reasons as conveyed to me by a letter from the University Secretary. The University of Edinburgh never substantiated its accusation and cleared me from all the charges in a subsequent letter from the University Secretary. However, the University of Edinburgh remained insisting on a letter to confirm my well being, which was never justified from its own regulations. I find this is inappropriate request as all other PhD student is not required to provide a letter of wellbeing at entry or to maintain their registration.
I enclose a letter from my previous GP in which she even refused to refer me to counselling at mental health and psychiatric facility and clearly stated such a referral would have been returned. Moreover, I have consented to the Head of College Professor Sir John Savill to send all his concerns, if any, to my GP. I indicated if my GP found what the Head of College mentioned of medical importance and sent me a formal letter to discuss this, I will go and discuss this matter with my GP. My GP has never sent me a letter to raise any medical concern which would require further medical attention or to be further discussed. Hence, the University of Edinburgh request was not accepted or justified from my GP as well, despite my full consent to the Head of MVM College to raise with them all the issues that might of concern to him. I am a person who was passing sever situation which was distressing me. The University was required to amend this sever situation rather than to deepen this misery. The University has extended the imposed sanctions on me by a new decision to exclude me from the current academic year on 11/9/2009. I enclose the University letter in this respect and my representation to defend myself against these actions. The University of Edinburgh refused repeatedly to act on its own regulation to respond to my various representations according to established review system in the Students Codes.
Since the last decision was made by the Principal, it is subject to the Principal review according to section 5.1.9 and Court review by three court members with at least one lay and one academic member according to section 5.1.8. The University has hitherto been refusing to conduct such mandatory review and I have been out of my studies since 25/6/2009. The University even failed to answer the simple question regarding the inappropriate procedure as followed with me and listed up.
While no justification/substantiation has provided to me, up to its date, on my representation which is enclosed, the University has imposed further sanctions based on this unsubstantiated accusation from the University of Edinburgh. I am certain the greater good of the University of Edinburgh community will find this unacceptable and reject this vehemently.
This is the first letter of this campaign. I would like to thank you for taking the time to read my letters and anticipated support even if delayed."
Yours Sincerely,
Agonizing PhD student with no access for her statutory rights"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)