This site stems from my dissatisfaction with the way that Hancock dealt with a particular grievance of mine - a grievance against Newcastle University, specifically the Mathematics Department.

Nowadays, Universities are left as a classic example of a monolithic, unaccountable organization - which would make any assistance from an MP extremely valuable.

Instead of helping me, Hancock opposed me to the extent that Newcastle University started quoting his atitude against me. You might expect discussions with an MP to be confidential, but Newcastle University could only have been aware of Hancock's attitude if Hancock himself had actually informed Newcastle of his position on the matter).

So I would actually have been tangibly better off if I had not approached Hancock.

B. Daugherty


At the time Universities in Britain had three levels of accountability. They differed slightly from institution to institution, but not too much.

At Newcastle, the said levels were (starting from the 'bottom')

  1. External examiners are supposed to supervise the courses. They are employees of other Universities and are appointed by the very same department they are to 'supervise' (very much in the way that owners of oil tankers can choose which country is to supervise standards on their ships)
  2. The appeal structure involves writing a letter to the Dean of Faculty, who considers it in secret
  3. The Visitor acted as a last resort of appeal, and was usually someone like the Queen etc. At the time, the Visitor at Newcastle was the Lord Chancellor. Again, the procedure just involves writing a letter.

Problems with this 'Accountability'

Level 1 - an extra feature at Newcastle was that the identity of these external examiners was kept secret. Some other Universities made their identity known, whereas in the Polytechnics their 'Moderators' actually met with the students in person in the absence of any lecturers. .

Level 2 - in my time the Dean was a Professor of Mathematics, a colleague of the very Professor of mathematics I was complaining about. Hancock described this entire procedure as 'the best way to do it'.

Level 3 - the post of Visitor started having problems because it infringed the European Bill of Human Rights. Additionally, the Lord Chancellor stated publicly he was unable to carry out this duty in a proper manner. Hancock treated the idea that it involved the Human Rights with absolute disdain.

Additionally a University Ombudsman Office (with limited powers) has now been inaugaurated, but it does not deal with cases retrospectively. It is worth pointing out that Newcastle were one of the few Universities to exclude themselves from the Ombudsman procedure when it was voluntary. Nowadays, it is compulsory for all Universities.


He treated my problem indifferently and achieved no result He made unnecessary use of the word 'fucking' He shouted at me (briefly) He applied status-determined justice He was extremely patronizing, in a manner that suggested he would routinely talk down to people When I produced strong 'counter-evidence' to his point of view, he responded not by making reference to this 'counter-evidence' but by just completely ignoring me

Investigation into Mike Hancock, MP for Portsmouth South
Investigation into Mike Hancock, MP for Portsmouth South

Investigation into Mike Hancock, MP for Portsmouth South

Mike Hancock, MP for Portsmouth South, General Election 2015

Mike Hancock, MP for Portsmouth South, General Election 2015