Just when I thought Academia couldn't sink any lower.

Wow, I'd wondered what happened to Jess Bradley. This must be her:

find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/zYCaABZcWVpOFCS_OkA9x7mznMo/appointments

They always seem to only get ‘investigated’ when they go waaaaay too far - and then it still sounds like a ‘We hate to have to say this, but could you please please tone it down a tad? You know how these hysterical women can be, and they might be nasty to you. Best keep your head down for a little while - if that’s ok - and it will all just go away. Sorry if we hurt your feelings but we don’t want you getting any nasty women chasing you, do we? Thank you so much.’

Because people don’t seem to be canned for certain outrageous behaviour - even if the police are called.

Brunel pistol PhD student Andrea Cachia was 'under investigation' and all this time later, still has a Twitter account and the university hasn't been forthcoming about whether it lifted the suspension. It's not clear whether there was ever an outcome from the Met Police investigation.

mrchristyjones.substack.com/p/the-utter-minefield-that-is-trans

lilymaynard.com/the-curious-case-of-marion-millar/

I've only been told by someone who works there, there's an internal memo about it. I'll see if I can get the wording.

Do you have a link?

He's not an employee, he's a student, so I wasn't sure if a temporary suspension was possible.

Apparently he's been suspended 'pending investigation'.

Thanks for that link to the THES article, LaughingPriest. Like many of the posts on this thread, it questions the culture that allowed this article to be published.

twitter.com/madjane_/status/1557295894428413954

This thread, maybe?

I have to admit that I'd missed that development. Is it feasible to give a hint about the grant awarding body?

The Times Higher continues to write about this:
www.timeshighereducation.com/news/masturbation-journal-paper-exposes-deeper-problems-research

Linked in the article are tons of other articles, including the old Vice interview from 2012 and a more recent one, plus this Twitter thread:

twitter.com/madjane_/status/1557227882308665345

It will be on the dusty Jess Bradley shelf. The one right at the back of the office where nobody goes.

I see that exposing HER penis at HER desk and taking photos of it and posting it online, didn't stop HER from becoming a Director of a Manchester Community Grants company. It seems anything goes these days.

The university hasn't mentioned it, nothing from the Manchester police either AFAIA.

(If I've missed something please let me know!)

Surely a police investigation is ongoing?

Have been following this closely - so far no word from either the journal or the university about the results of investigations into Karl Andersson.

I hope it's being taken seriously and they aren't hoping people will forget about it.

I think it's a bigger problem though and they are related.

I have a relative doing Phd work. It's what's considered a professional subject, basically related to management. He's very keen that after it's done he'll be Dr Smith. Not in an asshole way, really but I have a hard time taking it seriously. He's a nice guy and quite good in his technical area, but the idea that he would have a doctorate is just ridiculous to me. He's less educated in a general sense than my grandmother who left school at 15.

Maybe I am a snob, but I don't think so, I have a lot of respect for technical education and think we need to do it better, as it deserves to be treated as a respectable and important kind of knowledge. But the masters level degrees they are handing out like candy is not the way to go about it, nor doctorates of the same kind.

both Elisabeth Lund Engebretsen and Sharon Kinsella seem to work in 'gender' and 'queer' studies.

www.gender.lu.se/nordiqueer-nordic-queer-revolution

Kinsella's work involves obviously a lot of 'gender' related issues. Her latest work is about cross-dressing in Japan - a film called Josō (2020):

twitter.com/james_welker/status/1462735368986324995

I'm sure this is all potentially legitimate research work. But it certainly does provide good cover for the wanking Phd chap.

So earlier on in the thread there was mention of queer theory corrupting culture and moral compasses so that people can’t see article’s like Karl’s for the immoral paedophilia legitimizing crap it is. So I just looked up the reviewer, Elisabeth Lund Engebretsen, thanked for commenting on an earlier version of the paper. She’s a gender studies professor with she/her they/them pronouns.

I think my point is that it should have been blindly obvious that this article was far from ‘business as usual’. This wasn’t a case of someone who had manipulated data, or plagerised or whatever. This was a case of a man masturbating to sexual images of young children! By treating it in the same way as someone who is suspected of conducting/ writing poor research or cheating to progress their career, they are still treating it as a normal part of the range of bad to good research practice . And it’s not. It’s something else entirely. And they STILL could not see that.

Speaking from experience as a reviewer, thanking "two anonymous reviewers for providing useful feedback" doesn't mean that

• the author has accepted your advice


• the editor has rejected/indicated that the author should revise the paper in line with your recommendations.

'I would like to thank Elisabeth Lund Engebretsen for commenting on an early version of this article, the two anonymous reviewers for providing useful feedback, and my PhD supervisor Sharon Kinsella for always encouraging me to go where my research takes me.'

Again, I'm making no assumptions. Just the facts.

Yup, as I said, another academic is specifically thanked for commenting on drafts. Kinsella is thanked for "always encouraging me to go where my research takes me", which could mean anything.

This two statements do suggest she wasn't involved in the paper, and it's standard practise to provide thanks to your primary PhD supervisor as technically your funding comes through them (and they lose out by you working on other projects).

that’s customary. It doesn’t say anything that suggests she helped with the paper specifically. What it does say sounds like she’s been generally encouraging. But we have no idea what she’s been encouraging about.

PhD students in the humanities are pretty autonomous. A supervisor will only know what the student is sharing with them. She might have had no idea at all about this.

I suspect they followed the usual process and then the publisher said it had to be pulled entirely.

Kinsella is thanked in the paper.

No not quite. Normally editors would slap an expression of concern over a paper, and then retract it (whilst leaving it online). Leaving it up doesn't mean they think it's still "suitable to be included", it's just a way of being transparent which is important in research.

I think that because in this case it's actually something illegal, they've decided it was better to go against standard protocol and actually remove it.