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"