When I have a bit of time I might have a bit of a dig into the funding claims. To put it broadly, Cambridge has money coming out it's ears and isn't going to be too bothered about someone who is one of 20 coinvestigators on a £2mill project, especially if they are not the lead institution.There is so much rot
“British universities are funded on assessed output. Careers are built on volume, and institutional income depends on it. Under that pressure the incentive to publish more than you can properly do is universal, which is why plagiarism is the largest single category of allegation in the sector's own data. Meanwhile a senior academic with grants, rankings value and a public protile is an asset on the books. Arday was a named collaborator on more than $10m of UKRI and NIHR funding. Investigating an asset is a write-down, and no external body exists to force it, so the rational institutional move is not to look. That is why the variable predicting who survives a misconduct finding is seniority and market value, and why Arday is being defended.
Class, funding competition and output targets. Unglamorous, and it explains Arday, O'Reilly, Latchman and Manchester with one mechanism.”
However, they are very concerned about their reputation.