This page is about an allegedly complex, multi-layered power-abuse case, in which I am the accuser. As the existence of this page suggests, I think, I have been the victim, within a power-imbalance context, who refuses to be gaslighted about what reason suggested, by "authorities" from a higher education setting of a developed country , and thus speaks up. And hereby, I am inviting the interested reader to reach their own conclusions with clear reasoning coupled with not less clear Conscience, rather than taking my word over power-possessors, or vice-versa, as I am claiming that there is a wider, seriously concerning power-abuse problem: ​ within the Sophia Centre, where academy meets with astrology, about how University of Wales Trinity Saint David is handling complaints against its own staff, about OIA’s, ombudsman of Higher Education, independence and accountability, ​ with equally serious implications for the students of higher education in the UK, which makes this a public interest case. A public interest case about the dark side of higher education in the UK, a massive economy, £41.9 billion of which is generated by international students, according to HEPI’s last report.(1) To encourage the spirit of enquiry, in this unpleasant topic, with some humour and creativity, you will also find UWTSD’s patron, (mini) Prince of Wales announcing his burning question in a short video. ​ My open letters provides a summary for why this sub-page exists. Both of them can read from relevant tab, alternatively pdf versions can be downloaded directly below: Open Letter to Vice-Chancellors of University of Wales Trinity Saint David (UWTSD), Professor Elwen Evans and Professor Melvin Hughes Re: Why did UWTSD endorsed, astrologer-director, Assoc Prof Nicholas Campion’s lie that can be disproven with basic mathematics, while also overlooking that he made-up an omission and admitted to it during UWTSD's “thorough and impartial” investigations, instead of asking “what else did Campion lie about?”? And more. Open Letter to Senior managers of Universities UK and Universities Wales, and senior members and executive teams of over 120 member universities operating in England and Wales, Re: Perception management with covert-silencing of growing student concerns about OIA’s impartiality and accountability Open Letter to Professional Astrologers Re: Invitation to investigate my power-abuse allegations against astrologer-director Assoc. Prof Nicholas Campion, and “Closet Use of Astrology” Open Letter to Scholar Associates of astrologer-director Assoc. Prof Nicholas Campion, UWTSD Re: Invitation to investigate my power-abuse allegations against astrologer-director Assoc. Prof Nicholas Campion, for lying, admitting to a made-up omission, and covering-up of a series of academic malpractices, and thus to conclude for yourselves whether that reveals “the Dark Side of Higher Education in the UK” To erase any doubts about accurate reporting, all the available evience, original documents, and respective reasonings of relevant parties, which happen to be wildly conflicting, are also publicized, via "Zooms". (1) https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2023/05/16/international-students-boost-uk-economy-by-41-9-billion/

Pdf version can be downloaded here: or here: https://www.academia.edu/102632276/OPEN_LETTER_to_VICE_CHANCELLORS_of_UWTSD_PROFESSOR_ELWEN_EVANS_and_PROFESSOR_MEDWIN_HUGHES OPEN LETTER TO VICE-CHANCELLORS OF UWTSD Professor Elwen Evans Vice Chancellor Designate University of Wales Saint Trinity David Professor Medwin Hughes Vice Chancellor University of Wales Saint Trinity David 01/06/2023 BY EMAIL Bcc: UWTSD Institute of Education and Humanities staff Re: Why did UWTSD endorse, astrologer-director, Assoc Prof Nicholas Campion’s lie that can be disproven with basic mathematics, while also overlooking that he made-up an omission and admitted to it during UWTSD’s “thorough and impartial” investigations, instead of asking “what else did Campion lie about?”? And more. Dear Professor Elwen Evans, Dear Professor Medwin Hughes, I write to express my deep disappointment about the handling of student complaints against university staff by UWTSD’s Academic Office (AO). Here, I specifically focus on handling of my complaint against astrologer, Assoc Prof Nicholas Campion, director of Sophia Centre for the Study of Cosmology in Culture and Harmony Institute, programme director of MA Cultural Astronomy and Astrology and MA Ecology and Spirituality, and a principal lecturer at UWTSD’s Institute of Education and Humanities. Not only because it was an effective violation of my rights but also because it is an insult, by AO to UWTSD’s duly advertised values and principles. And that is concerning, with serious implications for other students, and other universities of England and Wales, due to OIA’s unreasonable conclusions. Although, I assume, Prof Hughes, personally, had never been informed about my complaint, and although Prof Evans is starting her post only today, since you are the present and future Vice-Chancellors, I address AO, UWTSD, and you synonymously throughout this letter. Please also note, to erase any doubts about accurate reporting, I publicized all original documents, evidence, and wildly conflicting reasonings of relevant parties, and elucidate what is discussed here further at: www.gurdjiefftoday.com/speakup, in light of the available evidence. Please also note another open letter, attaching to and forming a part of this open letter, about “Perception management with covert-silencing of growing student concerns about OIA’s impartiality and accountability” that is addressed to Senior Managers of Universities UK and Universities Wales, will soon be in your inbox, as it will be received also by other Senior Managers and executive teams of member universities that are operating in England and Wales. You categorized my case as a “non-detrimental negligence” case and offered an apology for Campion’s six-monthslong “innocent omission”. I continue to argue that this is a four-and-half years long academic malpractices case, and offered apology is a farce. It is a farce, even only if what Campion had done (e.g. lying, making-up an omission, and admitting to it), during your official investigations, is taken into consideration. But, for some “reason” you preferred to act as if, those were not obvious, while misrepresenting different dimensions of my complaint, and then totally rejecting it, without a through, incident-by-incident investigation, and while denying me the chance to present my case in person, in a Formal Panel. You were even bold enough to endorse Campion’s made-up stories and his lie, which can be disproven with basic mathematics right away, as “reasons” to dismiss my claims, in your official records. Accordingly, in this letter, I first summarize some of our wildly conflicting reasonings about (mis-)handling and (mis-)representation of my complaint (in 1.1, 1.2, 1.3), elucidate why Campion’s lies and his admission to a made-up omission were obvious (in 1.4, 1.5), discuss implications of their non-acknowledgement by you (in 2), and lastly, I answer: What does make this a public interest case?(in 3), Why are you the primary addressee in this letter? (in 4). 1. Why UWTSD should not have appealed to the authority of Campion, during investigation of a power-abuse complaint, against Campion? 1.1. Because this is an effective violation of your Students Complaint Policy, and a logical fallacy that defined the scope and outcome of your investigations. UWTSD violated its own Students Complaint Policy, articles 3.5, 15.4.2. According to those articles, the investigations should have been referred to HR. However, rather than opening an investigation against Campion for alleged power-abuse, under HR procedure as the Policy demands, AO appealed to the authority of Campion, and preferred to act in accordance with a logical fallacy. Please also note, OIA, the “independent” ombudsman of higher education in England and Wales, whose primary function is to check whether university followed its procedures, refused to acknowledge UWTSD’s policy violation in its complaint outcome letter dd. 22.12.22. In a second letter, issued at my request, dd. 13.02.23, OIA apologized for this “omission”, but refused to acknowledge that the violation had any effect on the outcome of your “thorough and impartial” investigations, while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge existence of any lies, contradictions, logical fallacy, bias, or cover-up. I think OIA’s conclusions are in their totality another layer of cover-up, another layer of power abuse, on top of yours. Because, UWTSD’s policy violation would not have limited the scope and defined the outcome of your investigations ONLY IF, you, a. acknowledged that Campion’s "selected" statements: i. contradict with Campion's "overlooked" statements, and the other evidence (see 1.4), ii. while another, the one you endorsed as a “reason” in your official letters, can be disproven with basic mathematics right away (see 1.5). Accordingly, b. concluded that Campion, if not a liar and power-abuser, was at least biased, and cannot be accepted as the accountable authority, not in an investigation against Campion, and, c. conducted a thorough, incident-by-incident investigation, rather than misrepresenting and groundlessly dismissing the totality of my claims, while overlooking conclusive evidence. But you failed to acknowledge a.i and a.ii, which were obvious and instead acted in accordance with a logical fallacy (e.g. appealed to the authority of Campion), while even refusing me the right to attend a Formal Panel, and while misrepresenting my complaint. Hence, contrary to OIA’s conclusion that the apology you offered was “reasonable”, I do think it is a farce. 1.2. Because substandard tutor, astrologer Carole Taylor (MA), who did not even start her doctoral studies, taught, and marked in three postgraduate modules. Moreover, Taylor was the module-lead in the Researching Contemporary Cosmologies module. A module all about fieldwork, despite Taylor has NEVER conducted a fieldwork in her lifetime. And, despite three years long false marketing, Sophia Centre did not violate students’ customer rights, right? Because you approved Taylor's “expertise”. Is that so? Is Taylor, who is still not listed on university’s web page, an EXPERT in the fields she taught, and marked (e.g. like fieldwork)? 1.3. Because, despite, I repetitively highlighted that my complaint was essentially about non-academic markings and discrimination by biased astrologer-tutors, and despite I listed several self-explanatory cases (five of which summarised below), UWTSD, without an incident-by-incident investigation, dismissed them by claiming that all of them were about "academic judgement” and refused to consider discrimination and refused to get my work independently marked. And yet, still: 1.3.1. Plato was neither an astrologer nor an astronomer, this is not up to “academic judgement”. And yet, only five days after my queries to her about Plato’s astrologer/astronomer status due to her discrimination against me on Moodle, astrologer-tutor Dr Darrelyn Gunzburg (who, as “closet use of astrology” of astrologer-tutor Dr Frances Clynes indicates [see correlation analysis in Zoom 6. “Faith in Mathematics vs Faith in Campion” on the website] is the mastermind of many malpractices that followed) disagreed with her life-long partner and business associate, astrologer-tutor Dr Bernadette Brady, about the marking. 1.3.2. Even markers did not agree on their markings in two cases (e.g. in addition to 1.3.1, the sub-standard astrologer-tutor Taylor [MA] disagreed with astrologer-director Campion [Assoc. Prof]), what do those two say about “academic judgement”? 1.3.3. Sub-standard astrologer-tutor Taylor used a logical fallacy to discredit another essay. 1.3.4. Freedom of speech and having access to a welcoming learning environment has nothing to do with “academic judgement”, e.g. tutors has no right to delete a student’s Moodle posts, especially if they are about referencing. That is, I should have all the right to question the referencing advice that I was given, and I had deserved a detailed and reasonable explanation in return. Especially because I was making sounder arguments than astrologer-tutor Dr Frances Clynes and his employer Campion. But in return, I got isolated and silenced. Because, after my posts are deleted, all the forums were closed throughout the Module, in a distance-learning programme where Moodle is the only medium where students can interact with each other. Hence, that incident alone is one self-evident example of violation of my rights. Again, on what basis is this about “academic judgement”? 1.3.5. Campion’s comments prove that he did not read my dissertation before marking it. Because if he read my dissertation, he would have never concluded the following: “It was helpful to discuss the extent to which the Gurdjieffian concept of grace corresponds to the Christian concept of grace, so it appears to be a direct lifting by Gurdjieff from Christianity.” Here, Campion provides a misrepresentation of a key concept, in my dissertation. Because what I did instead was drawing parallels with “higher degrees of reason” according to Gurdjieffian cosmology, and “grace” as it is understood in French spiritual philosophy. So, although it is not clear where Campion got his idea from, it is indisputable that he did not get it from my dissertation. Hence it is clear that Campion was not fit to exercise “academic judgement”. Moreover, he was also biased. Because he was simultaneously reviewing my complaint about his staff. And, as if that was not enough, only a few months later, during your “investigations”, he admitted to a made-up omission and lied. And those are discussed directly below, in 1.4 and 1.5. 1.4. Because UWTSD preferred to overlook the fact that Campion made-up an omission, during your “thorough and impartial” investigations. And by that, you effectively refused to even consider taking disciplinary action against Campion, for lying to you. And thus, you effectively refused to investigate my six-months long victimization. Campion’s exchanges with Assoc Prof Thomas Jansen dd. 03.12.21, which I was able to gather from University's data-officer on 22.06.22 reveals that during UWTSD’s initial “investigations”, Campion lied about those earlier exchanges, made-up an omission and then, admitted to that non-existent omission. And yet, UWTSD preferred to overlook real contents of Jansen and Campion’s exchanges in follow-up “investigations”, and thus refused to acknowledge Campion admitted to a made-up omission. Hence no one asked: why did Campion made-up an omission, and admitted to it, during official investigations? Because only by “virtue” of that false-admission he was able to cover-up my six-months long victimization, as UWTSD preferred to also overlook another set of contradictions. That is, his contradictory positions, about his staff, Brady’s email dd 01.11.21 had never been questioned, as well. Because UWTSD refused to ask: did Campion was the authority in charge about Brady’s “action request”, as he presented himself during investigations? And at the same time, he neither had knowledge nor control about consequences of Brady’s “escalated action request”, as he misled the student to believe for months? Both? That cannot be. Hence, we have another unaccounted made-up story, that is covered-up by a made-up omission! And that means, UWTSD categorically refused to acknowledge my victimization. Victimization because those happened, after, I complained about prior academic malpractices of Sophia Centre’s astrologer-tutors, that span to 2018-2021 to Brady, while Campion was in cc. My victimization, by misleading me into the belief that my student status was in jeopardy, at the most critical time in my studies (e.g. when only two months left for my dissertation submission). My six-months long victimization, during the early resolution process, which according to OIA’s good practice framework should have involved on-the spot explanation, or immediate escalation to the formal complaint procedure. [1] That is, as a two-century-old university of a developed country, with full knowledge of its falsity, UWTSD preferred to partly repeat and partly overlook Campion’s made-up stories, despite the contradictory evidence.And by that groundless “reasoning” UWTSD explained away Brady’s sinister e-mail, and apologized for Campion’s months long passive aggressive-silent treatments that followed it (as if, that was just an innocent omission), while ignoring Campion lied, and served made-up stories, even during official “investigations”. And by that, UWTSD effectively refused to even consider taking disciplinary action against Campion, for lying to you and for covering-up my six-months long victimization. UWTSD did that while also grouping and dismissing various discrimination cases as “academic judgement”, without an incident-by-incident investigation, and by refusing me the right to attend a Formal Panel. Hence, (just?) to my reason, UWTSD joined the cover-ups of a four-and-half years long academic malpractices case. 1.5. Because UWTSD found Campion more credible than basic mathematics and endorsed his blatant lie. And by that, UWTSD effectively refused to investigate astrologer-tutor Dr Frances Clynes's "closet use of astrology". This phrase is coined by Campion, himself, and implies both personal data-breach, and harassment. And thus, it is both against GDPR and against the protocols of Sophia Centre, where academy and astrology meet. “Closet use of astrology” is a phrase coined by Campion, himself on 02.12.21, to define harassment and bullying via astrological symbolism, which he admitted is against the protocols of the Sophia Centre. Campion’s admission implies, “closet use of astrology” is an undesirable possibility, within Sophia Centre where majority of staff have been professional astrologers for decades, e.g. long before they become tutors. But you refused to acknowledge Campion’s admission, and thus its implications, and misrepresented what “closet use of astrology” is. On top of that, you paraphrased Campion’s blatant lie, and stated the following in your outcome letter as the reason to dismiss my related claims: "It (UWTSD) particularly noted that many of the messages you (I) rely on as indicative of harassment were sent to multiple addressees." Your statement is factually incorrect, and even that “escaped” from OIA’s attention. That is, in fact, 15 of the 20 emails (75%), I highlighted as evidence, were d-i-r-e-c-t-l-y sent to me. Moreover, in 13 of all the 13 emails (100%) that I provided as evidence, specifically for Clynes's "closet use of astrology", I was the d-i-r-e-c-t recipient. And thus, how you were able to "particularly noted that many of the messages you (I) rely on as indicative of harassment were sent to multiple addressees" has been a mystery (just?) to my reason. This 13-emails sample, although small, is an undeniably complete sample, for correlation and probability analyses, which I provided to prove my claims for Clynes’s “closet use of astrology”, beyond a reasonable doubt. An undeniably complete sample because it includes ALL the four essays in modules of which Clynes was a tutor (which were non-academically marked), majority of module evaluation questionnaires, and ALL four seminars that I made payments to attend. But the statistical impossibility for those series of independent events to occur accidentally and the 84.6% correlation on 39 points that are checked were out of reach for our discussions. After all, we even could not have agreed which one is “many” e.g. 25% or 75%?; 0% or 100%? Who is being unreasonable by making a false statement here? Should not we, in a higher education setting of a developed country, at least, be able to agree on what basic mathematics suggests? Is this, being a conflict, mind-eclipsing just to my reason? 2. What should UWTSD have done instead? Even only if what Campion did (e.g. lying, making-up an omission, and admitting to it, which are summarized in 1.4 and 1.5. above) during your investigations, is taken into consideration; for an unbiased investigation and a reasonable outcome, I think, you should have acknowledged the obviousness and importance of the following questions, instead of groundlessly dismissing my claims and endorsing Campion’s “selected” statements in your official records: 2.1. Why did, astrologer-director, Assoc Prof Nicholas Campion, lied about something that can be disproven with basic mathematics, while simultaneously admitting to a made-up omission, during UWTSD’s “investigation”? What else did he lie about? 2.2. are not those two power-abuse, in themselves, hence calls for staff disciplinary action, under the relevant HR procedure? 2.3. are not those two undeniable indicators that Campion was, to say the least, biased against the student and not fit to mark her dissertation? Especially because he was simultaneously reviewing a student's complaint against his staff, while marking it. 2.4. are not those two enough to imply consciousness of guilt of at least “something”, if not imply perfect awareness of prior academic malpractices, and an attempt to cover them up, as well as student’s victimization? Your refusal to ask those obvious questions, which is undeniable evidence that AO had never intended to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation, revealed another set of questions: 2.5. Was not, non-acknowledgement of those two misconducts limited the scope and defined the outcome of your investigations? Did not it steer your “impartial” investigations: 2.5.1. to an effective refusal, to even consider, to take disciplinary action against Campion for lying to you and for my six-months long victimization (see 1.4), and, 2.5.2. to an effective refusal to thoroughly investigate my allegations about a series of academic malpractices (non-academic markings, and other malpractices, [see 1.2, 1.3.]), which includes but not limited to a unique type of harassment and bullying (“closet use of astrology” [see 1.5]) that can only emerge from a group of astrologer-tutors? Does not the latter, if acknowledged, also indicate an intriguing academic subject of study both socio-pathologically and psychologically? 3. What makes this a public interest case? Your preference of logical fallacy over logic, lie over truth, Campion over mathematics etc., suggest that for UWTSD, its socio-economic relations with the Sophia Centre are stronger than university’s faith in truth, mathematics, logic, thorough research, and precise reporting. Not to mention your lack of scientific curiosity to learn more about the motivation behind malpractices of astrologers that act in an academic capacity. And since, I have more faith in mathematics than in Campion, and I do think Stanford University’s traditional definition of lying[2] is reasonable enough to spot a qualitative lie, as well, I find OIA’s “reasoning” for “lack of lying” in your investigations unreasonable, too. That is, due to reasons discussed in 1 and 2, (just?) to my mind, it is evident that there is a wider, seriously concerning problem: (1) within the Sophia Centre, where academy meets with astrology, (2) about how UWTSD is handling complaints against its own staff, (3) about OIA’s independence and accountability, with equally serious implications for the students of higher education in England and Wales, which makes this a public interest case. A public interest case about dark side of the higher education in the UK, a massive economy, £41.9 billion of which is generated by international students, according to HEPI’s last report. [3] Hence, I am disclosing the full case to the public here: www.gurdjiefftoday.com/speakup. To support the spirit of enquiry in this complex, multi-layered case, with some humour and creativity, you will also find UWTSD’s patron, (mini) Prince of Wales announcing his burning question in a short video, in which he asks: “Who is the Naked Emperor?” 4. Why are you the primary addressee? As highlighted in the introduction, I think you, personally, had no knowledge about my complaint prior to this letter. But you are the Vice-Chancellors, who know now and who have the power to do something about it. Not necessarily to right a wrong, which cannot be done anyways because you cannot give me my last five years. That is, what you will decide to do with this knowledge will either prevent or encourage similar cases happening in future, by preventing or bringing in some sort of justice for the sake of your Values and Principles. If I am a false accuser and I have no idea what I am talking about, this full disclosure can only prove the integrity of UWTSD’s values and principles, in actions of AO, to you too. Because it should reveal how, in full Harmony with the ancient connotations of the word Sophia, Campion renders his remarkable services with full integrity and of course without a single lie. But only with an “innocent omission”, for which you already offered a “reasonable” apology. On the other hand, since I am strong in my opinion that I know what reason suggests, I am inviting interested readers to reach their own conclusions by using their own reasoning skills and common sense, rather than simply taking my word against UWTSD’s (and thus OIA’s) official conclusions, or vice versa. I will continue to circulate this letter to your domestic and international network, as far and wide as I possibly can. And I will keep a fully disclosed case accessible via the website. Please note, I did not write this letter with an expectation of a reasonable response from you. In light of my prior experience, I am expecting the possible worst. Perhaps, the first option you will consider is going to court alleging defamation. After all, “independent” ombudsman of higher education in the UK (OIA) “reasoned” in the ways you did. But one problem with that approach is that truth is an absolute defence to defamation. Still proving “what is truth?” might be costly and hard in a court setting. And my resources are nothing when compared to yours. Hence, here I would like to thank Campion for lying not only in intriguing and complicated ways, but for being bold enough to lieabout something that can be disproved with basic mathematics, right away. Other thanks go to UWTSD’s “unbiased” investigators Dr Magdalena Ohrman, and Prof Kyle Erikson (who ironically is the Director of Academic Experience), who endorsed those in university’s official records, while misrepresenting and dismissing my complaint and ignoring conclusive evidence. Hence, perhaps, you will prefer silence instead. But then, there is also another alternative. An alternative, only in a true civilization. A true civilization where authorities do not only do lip service to values that they are supposed to serve but are bold enough to act in harmony with those values, even when things are tough and messy. I have my doubts that that alternative is likely. Not only because it would damage your business relationship with Sophia Centre and create havoc in AO, but also, because such a bold action would be your declaration that OIA, the “independent” ombudsman of the Higher Education in the UK, is neither impartial nor fair in its operations as its sole establishment purpose demands, at least was not in my case. That would be a real threat to the crystallized “system”. To conclude, you, as the Vice- Chancellors of UWTSD, do have the power to make a change for the benefit of the Values that made a civilization truly civilized by acknowledging wrongdoing, which come to light under your watch, and by that preventing its repetition in different forms. Real, massive change, in the lives of future students of Higher Education in the UK, and not only in the lives of UWTSD’s students. If you, as the authorities in charge, make your position clear in this case. I mean, if it is not “clear” already, as the way things are recorded in the “reasonings” and outcome of your “thorough and impartial” investigations. Whatever your free individual choices might be as the authorities in charge, at this stage, for me, being able to speak truth to power, fully disclose the case and publicize our respective reasonings, which happen to be wildly conflicting, although has amplified last five years’ toll on me, was also extremely necessary. And considering the multi-layered nature of the power-abuse that I had to deal with, it is good enough. Simply because doing the right thing rarely means doing the easy thing. And it goes without saying, if anyone, with clear thinking coupled with not less clear Conscience, spares from their precious time and as a courtesy explain to me, what I have not been able to understand, on an incident-by-incident basis and starting with the subject-question, I am fully prepared to adjust my perspective and offer a sincere apology with a such new understanding. Because what can be destroyed by Truth, should be destroyed by Truth. Yours sincerely, Ayşe Bilge Yılmaz İstanbul, Türkiye [1] https://www.oiahe.org.uk/media/2757/good-practice-framework-handling-complaints-and-academic-appeals.pdf, see pages 13-16. [2] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/ [3] https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2023/05/16/international-students-boost-uk-economy-by-41-9-billion/

pdf version can be downloaded here: or here: https://www.academia.edu/102688989/OPEN_LETTER_TO_SENIOR_MANAGERS_of_UNIVERSITIES_UK_and_UNIVERSITIES_WALES OPEN LETTER TO SENIOR MANAGERS of UNIVERSITIES UK and UNIVERSITIES WALES Professor Maria Hinfelaar Vice-Chair of Universities Wales Vivienne Stern Chief Executive of Universities UK Professor Elizabeth Treasure Chair of Universities Wales Professor Steve West President of Universities UK 01/06/2023 BY EMAIL Cc: Vice Chancellors of UWTSD, Professor Elwen Evans and Professor Medwin Hughes Bcc: Other Senior Managers and executive teams* of over 120 member universities operating in England and Wales (*In a few cases, instead of direct email addresses a general email address is used. If you received this email for that reason, please forward it to intended recipients. Thank you.) Re: Perception management with covert-silencing of growing student concerns about OIA’s impartiality and accountability Dear Professor Maria Hinfelaar, Dear Vivienne Stern, Dear Professor Elizabeth Treasure, Dear Professor Steve West, I write to kindly ask you, and your member universities based in England and Wales, to consider taking a measure to address perception management with covert-silencing of growing student concerns about OIA’s impartiality and accountability, which is shadowed with OIA’s dependence on your member universities’ regular financial contributions. This letter is addressed to you because of your potential role to address the issue due to your and your members’ shared values with OIA. OIA has been effectively preventing easy and mass accumulation and availability of student reviews, since OIA became the designated operator of the student complaints scheme in 2005, with the lack of an easily accessible on-line OIA-Review platform. An easy to establish review platform (like Google Reviews), which is also a cost-effective measure. Although a review platform is not compulsory, an easily accessible OIA-review platform essentially means furthering the interests of your members’ and OIA’s duly advertised shared values, which are pillars to be observed for a civilization to be civilized. With that measure: 1. Students who seek services of OIA will have an easily accessible platform where they can share their experiences. 2. Students' overall higher education experience will be improved because they will be given the chance to make informed decisions due to availability of data on prior student experience about free services of OIA. 3. If there are any doubts about whether there are growing student concerns about OIA’s impartiality and accountability, data that will accumulate on that OIA-review platform will erase any doubts, within a year or two. As one can also make an educated guess about how many student concerns had accumulated if OIA claimed a Google review profile since 2005. Please note, according to the hard to find, unclaimed, profile at Trustpilot[1], OIA’s current rating is 1.6 Stars (Bad). And in addition to several comments indicating that OIA does not even deserve 1-star, there is one 5-star review that is filed for a skin-care product company -as another result of unclaimed profile. And although there are 41 reviews in total and that is a small sample, considering only 3% of nearly 2.800 yearly cases are found justified, one can easily predict: if there had been a claimed and easily accessible on-line review platform, the rating is not expected to improve despite the most likely expected peak in reviews from students. Reviews which are shadowed with OIA’s dependence on regular financial contributions of your members. Under ideal conditions, OIA’s economic dependence on your members should not have caused any independence, impartiality, accountability problems in OIA’s operations and outcomes of its investigations. Only because of the values and principles you, your members and OIA share. And based solely on those duly advertised values and principles, I am asking you to consider taking a measure to address silenced student concerns. But, still, are those student concerns reasonable enough to take seriously? In that respect please note, although this letter aims to make sense independently, it is attaching to and forming a part of another open letter that is addressed to Professor Elwen Evans and Professor Medwin Hughes, Vice-Chancellors of UWTS (cc) on the following subject: Re: Why did UWTSD endorse, astrologer-director, Assoc Prof Nicholas Campion’s lie that can be disproven with basic mathematics, while also overlooking that he made-up an omission and admitted to it during UWTSD’s “thorough and impartial” investigations, instead of asking “what else did Campion lie about?”? And more. That is, I have been accusing university staff and even UWTSD’s Academic Office for lying and power-abuse, e.g. cover-up due to consciousness of guilt. And the only explanation OIA offered to explain its judgement of “lack of lying”, which can be noted below, is unreasonable: We do not agree with you(r) assessment of the evidence available that it demonstrates that (UWTSD) staff were lying, in the commonly understood sense of telling deliberate falsehoods. I would also add that as an Ombuds service we are not required to use legal or academic definitions of terms such as ‘lying’. We consider what it reasonable and make our decisions on the balance of probability. The only point that I want to prove in this letter is, notwithstanding the details of the full case (which is disclosed together with my open letter to Vice-chancellors of UWTSD here: www.gurdjiefftoday.com/speakup) OIA’s “reasoning” above is unreasonable. It is unreasonable in principle. Because: 1. Even if OIA can define conditions of “commonly understood sense of telling deliberate falsehoods”, which apparently will remain as another mysterious “reasoning” only known to OIA; to judge whether lying occurred, academic definition of lying that is suggested by me (e.g. the four conditions of traditional definition of lying according to Stanford University's Encyclopedia of Philosophy[2]) pose equal, if not higher standards, but not vice versa. And as such, related judgements will be beyond a reasonable doubt, e.g. eliminating all reasonable doubt and with a moral certainty (near %100), which is a higher standard for the burden of proof, than balance of probabilities (>%50). 2. What can be (dis-)proven with basic mathematics, being a conflict is simply mind-eclipsing. In one of those lying incidents, UWTSD stated the following in its outcome letter as a reason to dismiss my related claims: "It (UWTSD) particularly noted that many of the messages you (I) rely on as indicative of harassment were sent to multiple addressees." Considering the available evidence this statement is factually incorrect, and even that “escaped” from OIA’s attention. That is, literally, we could not agree which one is “many” e.g. 25% or 75%? Or better 0% or 100%? Should not we, in a higher education setting of a developed country, at least, be able to agree on what basic mathematics suggests? There is no doubt that the idea behind OIA is a fruit of a developed civilization. But unfortunately, it is a great idea that is not lived. After all, an ombudsman does not decide to go against basic mathematics over one incident. And neither its failure to spot lying, nor the unintelligible word-salad it offered to give the impression of sophistication and authority is a competence problem. There should be a history to those types of biased, and even malicious operations which OIA continues to get away with. Because I, and perhaps many other students, could not seek justice in Judicial Review. So, in fact, the real question is: Are your shared values and principles being insulted and violated by OIA, to cover-up some type of operations that you would never allow to happen under your watch? Or simply all concerned students are lacking reasoning skills, and they have no idea what they are talking about? In either case, are you willing to address the undeniable student concerns -without taking sides- simply due to your commitment to your values and due to the importance, you give to, at least hearing about, student experience, and making it transparently available for other interested students? In conclusion, I hope you will consider suggesting OIA to open Google Reviews, and/or to claim its profile on Trustpilot and to give a link to that profile on its website. Not only to help OIA prove that there is no intentional covert-silencing of student experience for the last two decades, and also there is no covert-agenda, e.g. perception management to prevent even beginning of any student and alumni movement against OIA. But mainly because an easily accessible OIA-review platform would be in line with your shared values and principles, in essence. And I sincerely hope, since you can see that how impossible it is for concerned students and alumni to unite (e.g. due to lack of a common platform, different timings of their cases) and ask that for themselves and future students, you are willing to take the lead for the sake of your shared values. After all, what matters most is that commitment, socio-economic concerns are always secondary to values, especially in higher education settings in the UK, as it should be, for a world where everyone is treated equally -free of gaslighting about reason and free of power-abuse. Yours sincerely, Ayşe Bilge Yılmaz İstanbul, Türkiye [1] https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/oiahe.org.uk [2] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/

pdf version of this letter can be downloaded here: OPEN LETTER to PROFESSIONAL ASTROLOGERS 03/06/2023 BY EMAIL Re: Invitation to investigate my power-abuse allegations against astrologer-director Assoc. Prof Nicholas Campion, and “Closet Use of Astrology” Dear Madam/Sir, I write to invite you to investigate and make up your own minds about my power-abuse allegations against astrologer-director Assoc. Prof Nicholas Campion, particularly about whether “Closet Use of Astrology” happened or not, due to your profession. “Closet Use of Astrology” is a term coined by Campion himself to define bullying and harassment with astrological symbolism, in a power imbalance context, which is against the protocols of Sophia Centre, UWTSD, and also violates GDPR. In that respect please note, although this letter aims to make sense independently, it is attaching to and forming a part of another open letter that is addressed to Professor Elwen Evans and Professor Medwin Hughes, Vice-Chancellors of UWTSD on the following subject: Re: Why did UWTSD endorse, astrologer-director, Assoc Prof Nicholas Campion’s lie that can be disproven with basic mathematics, while also overlooking that he made-up an omission and admitted to it during UWTSD’s “thorough and impartial” investigations, instead of asking “what else did Campion lie about?”? And more. That is, I have been accusing Campion for covering-up a series of academic malpractices and my victimization(including but not limited to “Closet Use of Astrology”, which was particularly committed by his staff, astrologer-tutor Dr Frances Cylnes), by lying and by making-up an omission and admitting to it during university’s “thorough and impartial” investigations, due to consciousness of guilt. All of which were later again covered-up; first by UWTSD’s Academic Office and then by OIA, “independent” designated ombudsman, in Higher Education in England and Wales. Hence all this is about an allegedly complex multi-layered power abuse case, in which power-possessors and my reasonings happen to be wildly conflicting. But since I have more faith in mathematics than in Campion, and I do think Stanford University’s traditional definition of lying[1] is reasonable enough to spot a qualitative lie, as well, and moreover for other series of reasonings that are discussed in my open letters, I decided to go public. Open letters are accessible here: https://www.gurdjiefftoday.com/speakup . Please note, to erase any doubts about accurate reporting, all the available evidence, original documents, and respective reasonings of relevant parties, are also publicized, via "Zooms", in the webpage. Particularly for interest of astrologers, in Zoom 6., under title, “Faith in Campion vs Faith in Mathematics: Investigating ‘Closet Use of Astrology’” I discuss the available evidence for Clynes’s “Closet Use of Astrology”. In that sub-section discussions are formed for people who have no knowledge about astrology, as main target of my publicizing efforts are senior managers of universities in England and Wales, and academics with no or little knowledge of astrology. Please note to prove my claims about “Closet Use of Astrology”, I followed principles below, all of which are a lot higher and tighter than the principles you, astrologers, use in your daily practice Only Conjunction is considered as an aspect, instead of all 5 major and other minor aspects Conjunctions only with -/+1 (rarely -/+2) degree margin is considered, instead of -/+5-10-degree margin. Only ASC, MC, and Lot of Fortune are checked from each event chart. After following those simple principles, I came up with probability and correlation analyses, for event charts of Clynes’s 13 direct emails to me. This 13-email sample, although astrologically speaking is big, it is also small -statistically speaking. But, more importantly, it is an undeniably complete sample, for correlation and probability analyses, which I provided to prove my claims for Clynes’s “closet use of astrology”, beyond a reasonable doubt. An undeniably complete sample because it includes ALL the four essays in modules of which Clynes was a tutor (which were non-academically marked), majority of module evaluation questionnaires, and ALL four seminars that I made payments to attend. Probability analyses indicate an impossibility for those series of independent events to occur accidentally, while correlation analyses indicate 84.6% of those event charts can be explained either my, Campion’s or one of his other staff astrologer-tutor Dr Darrelyn Gunzburg’s birth charts. A very significant correlation % - statistically speaking. I further discussed what that significant correlation indicates-within the context that unfolded throughout my four years in the MA. But, even, the statistical impossibility for those series of independent events to occur accidentally and the 84.6% correlation on 39 points that are checked were out of reach for our discussions with UWTSD. Because, to begin with, we even could not have agreed which one is “many” e.g. 25% or 75%? or better 0% or 100%? That is, in the higher education setting of a developed country, we were not even able to agree on what basic mathematics suggests. And according to multiple power-possessors this and other mind-eclipsing “reasonings” were unreasonable only to my reason. Hence the multi-layered power-abuse. If you are interested to make up your own mind about all or part of those allegations; everything is summarized in open letters and discussed in detail with available evidence under Zooms and its attachments -including but not limited to timings of the event charts, birth charts, relevant statistical analyses and details of the context about “Closet Use of Astrology”. To encourage the spirit of enquiry, in this unpleasant topic, with some humour and creativity, you will also find UWTSD’s patron, (mini) Prince of Wales announcing his burning question in a 1 min. video, which can also be accessed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UpGIQHmBFc ​ My apologies if this does not concern you. Yours sincerely, Ayşe Bilge Yılmaz İstanbul, Türkiye [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/

pdf version of this letter can be downloaded here: Dr Patrick Curry Sophia Centre, UWTSD Professor Alan Ereira Tairona Heritage Trust and UWTSD Professor Kim Malville Former Professor Emeritus University of Colorado Boulder Dr Fabio Silva Sophia Centre, UWTSD, and Bournemouth University Professor Michael York Former Professor Emeritus Cherry Hill Seminary 12/06/2023 BY EMAIL Cc: Professor Elwen Evans and Professor Medwin Hughes, Vice-Chancellors of UWTSD and Senior Managers of Universities UK and Universities Wales Bcc: Associates of Sophia Centre Re: Invitation to investigate my power-abuse allegations against astrologer-director Assoc. Prof Nicholas Campion, for lying, admitting to a made-up omission, and covering-up of a series of academic malpractices, and thus to conclude for yourselves whether that reveals “the Dark Side of Higher Education in the UK” Dear Dr Patrick Curry, Professor Alan Ereira, Dear Professor Kim Malville Dear Dr Fabio Silva, Dear Professor Michael York, I write to invite you to investigate and make up your own minds about my power-abuse allegations against astrologer-director Assoc. Prof Nicholas Campion, and thus my claims about “the Dark Side of Higher Education in the UK”, due to your proximity to Sophia Centre, UWTSD, and its internal and external dynamics. Please note, although this letter aims to make sense independently, it is attaching to and forming a part of another open letter that is addressed to Professor Elwen Evans and Professor Medwin Hughes, Vice-Chancellors of UWTSD (cc). That core open letter is on the following related subject: Cc: Institute of Humanities and Education Staff Re: Why did UWTSD endorse, astrologer-director, Assoc Prof Nicholas Campion’s lie that can be disproven with basic mathematics, while also overlooking that he made-up an omission and admitted to it during UWTSD’s “thorough and impartial” investigations, instead of asking “what else did Campion lie about?”? And more. And it can be accessed at https://www.gurdjiefftoday.com/speakup where I disclosed the full case. Please note, to erase any doubts about accurate reporting, all the available evidence (which are conclusive), original documents, and respective reasonings of relevant parties, are also publicized, via "Zooms", there. Zoom topics can be noted as follows: 1. Why is the apology UWTSD offered a farce? 2. UWTSD violated its own Student Complaint Policy, articles 3.5 and 15.4.2. 3. Lying about lying: Double bind of OIA 4. Sub-standard astrologer-tutor (MA) and Sophia Centre under the umbrella of UWTSD, and customer rights violations with false marketing 5. Non-academic markings, and other discrimination cases (in chronological order) 6. Campion’s made-up omission and my Victimization 7. Faith in Campion vs Faith in mathematics: Investigating “Closet Use of Astrology”. 8. Official Documents In summary, I have been accusing Campion for covering-up a series of academic malpractices (several discrimination cases and non-academic markings that were accompanied with “Closet Use of Astrology”, which was particularly committed by his staff, astrologer-tutor Dr Frances Clynes) that spread to my four years in the MA programme Cultural Astronomy and Astrology. And also, for my six-months long victimization in conspiracy with astrologer-tutor Dr Bernadette Brady (because I complained about those academic malpractices), by lying and by making-up an omission and admitting to that made-up omission during university’s “thorough and impartial” investigations (all in writing), due to consciousness of guilt. All of which were later again covered-up; first by UWTSD and then by OIA, “independent” designated ombudsman, in Higher Education in England and Wales. Hence all this is about an allegedly complex multi-layered power abuse case, in which power-possessors and my reasonings happen to be wildly conflicting. But since I have more faith in mathematics than in Campion, and I do think Stanford University’s traditional definition of lying[1] is reasonable enough to spot a qualitative lie, as well, and moreover for other series of reasonings that are discussed in my open letters (and further in Zooms), I decided to publicize my case. Topics and addressees of my other two open letters can be noted as follows: Open Letter to Senior Managers of Universities UK and Universities Wales Cc: Vice-Chancellors of UWTSD, Professor Elwen Evans and Professor Medwin Hughes Bcc: Other Senior Managers and executive teams* of over 120 member universities operating in England and Wales Re: Perception management with covert-silencing of growing student concerns about OIA’s impartiality and accountability Open Letter to Professional Astrologers Bcc: About 500 astrologers, astrological unions from around the World Re: Invitation to investigate my power-abuse allegations against astrologer-director Assoc. Prof Nicholas Campion, and “Closet Use of Astrology” As highlighted elsewhere, if anyone, with clear thinking coupled with not less clear Conscience, spares from their precious time and as a courtesy explain to me, what I have not been able to understand, on an incident-by-incident basis and starting with my question to Vice-Chancellors of UWTSD (which is the subject of my open letter to them and repeated above), I am fully prepared to adjust my perspective and offer a sincere apology with a such new understanding. Because, simply, what can be destroyed by Truth, should be destroyed by Truth. To encourage the spirit of enquiry, in this unpleasant topic, with some humour and creativity, you will also find UWTSD’s patron, (mini) Prince of Wales announcing his burning question in a 1 min. amateur-video, which can be accessed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UpGIQHmBFc It goes without saying but, what you are going to do with that understanding is up to yourselves. That said, due to last five years’ experience with multi-layered power-abuse, my bluntly put working hypothesis is as follows: When misconducts are committed by business-associates, power-possessors refrain from acknowledging and/or condemning any wrongdoing. And that is despite they can clearly see that the alleged misconducts -which violated their own duly ‘embodied’ values and principles- were in fact happened. But they prefer appearances over essence, socio-economic relations over values, and thus, the inertia of the ‘system’ overweight their commitment to what makes a civilization truly civilized. In such cases, silence, if not active participation in the cover-ups, rules the “harmony” of the system. From that perspective, a few lies and cover-ups of years-long misconducts are not all that bad in the grand scheme of things. My apologies if none of this concerns you. Yours sincerely, Ayşe Bilge Yılmaz İstanbul, Türkiye [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/

Re: Assoc Prof Campion's tongue performance during on-line lectures, captured by astrologer-tutor Dr Gunzburg (video) To whom it may concern (in to, cc, bcc), I’m here one last time, to ask a question that I haven’t asked before -partly due to my cultural conditioning and partly because I was thinking I had already presented more than enough to elucidate the power abuse and the series of malpractices for UWTSD’s investigations. My question is: “Does Campion’s tongue performance in this lecture has anything to tell about ‘the Dark Side of Higher Education in the UK?’” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4em2XBchkUY (1) Campion’s performance, during this 1,5 hours long lecture, was captured by his employee astrologer-tutor Darrelyn Gunzburg, who as the evidence from astrologer-tutor Dr Frances Clynes’s “Closet Use of Astrology” indicates had been the mastermind of many malpractices that shaped my experience in the MA in Cultural Astronomy and Astrology (for basis of those allegations, and for the greater context which involves Campion, please visit Zoom 4 and 6 in the web-site.(2) I am using the word “captured” because: I was present in one earlier on-line lecture (2018), which was also shadowed with Campion’s similar tongue performance -after which I decided it is better for me not to attend online lectures but just watch the recordings to catch up with the curriculum. Because on-line attendance and watching recordings were different not only due to less vivid impressions but also recordings were set to focus on presentation screen only -but this one. That is, normally, you cannot receive impressions from non-presenters via recordings. Please also note, this is the only recording that not only had a wider focus but, which was also uploaded to YouTube from that period (others can only be watched from Moodle). I do not know why, but I assume Gunzburg had her reasons. And thanks to her I am now able to share it with you all, and ask the aforementioned question. Having asked the question late, now I also would like to acknowledge the possibility that maybe what Campion was doing with his mouth during those lectures is entirely normal to your perception, and you cannot see why I bring that up, e.g. perhaps, in developed countries and within highly-learned members of society such acts are considered only as a form of creative self-expression, which are particularly fitting in educational settings, hence you are performing similarly from time to time. Considering how wildly conflicting our reasonings were with the power-possessors (e.g. even about basic mathematics’ reliability over Campion’s lies) I will not be surprised if someone comes up with such an explanation. Having said that, with reference to contents of my open letters that summarize my formal complaint, I would like to repeat one last time: if anyone, with clear thinking coupled with not less clear Conscience, spares from their precious time and as a courtesy explain to me, what I have not been able to understand, on an incident-by-incident basis and starting with my question to Vice-Chancellors of UWTSD (which is the subject of my open letter to them and repeated below), I am fully prepared to adjust my perspective and offer a sincere apology with a such new understanding. Because, simply, what can be destroyed by Truth, should be destroyed by Truth. Re: Why did UWTSD endorse, astrologer-director, Assoc Prof Nicholas Campion’s lie that can be disproven with basic mathematics, while also overlooking that he made-up an omission and admitted to it during UWTSD’s “thorough and impartial” investigations, instead of asking “what else did Campion lie about?”? And more. (3) Again, my apologies if none of these concern you. Yours sincerely, Ayşe Bilge Yılmaz İstanbul, Türkiye (1) in case the other link does not work: https://youtu.be/Pw1xw5F6C1w (2) for Zoom 4. Non-academic markings, and other discrimination cases (in chronological order) and Zoom 6. Faith in Campion vs Faith in mathematics: Investigating “Closet Use of Astrology”: https://www.gurdjiefftoday.com/speakup (3) for Open Letters: https://lamp.academia.edu/AyşeBilgeYılmaz

UWTSD categorized my case as a “non-detrimental negligence” case and offered an apology for Campion’s six-months long “innocent omission”, which according to OIA's Good Practice Framework should have involved on the spot explanation or immediate escalation to formal complaint procedure.[1] I continue to argue that this is a four-and-half years long academic malpractices case, and offered apology is a farce, for the following reasons: UWTSD violated its own Student Complaint Policy, and effectively refused to open a disciplinary investigation against Campion, as the Student Complaint Policy demands due to my complaint. Rather UWTSD appealed to the authorithy of Campion, in an investigation that should be against Campion, himself. UWTSD partly endorsed, partly ignored Campion's lies and made-up stories. Rather than opening another disciplinary investigation for lying to UWTSD during official investigations. UWTSD denied me the chance to present my case in person. UWTSD misrepresented my complaint. UWTSD ignored available conclusive evidence. UWTSD mishandled my complaint, and failed to conduct a through, incident-by-incident investigation. By "virtue" of all above, UWTSD limited the scope of its investigations, and reached an unreasonable outcome. And totally rejected my complaint, while offering me an apology, which is a farce. And since those were committed intentionally, UWTSD effectively covered-up its staff's misconducts. Screen shot below shows the outcome of UWTSD's "through and impartial" investigations, which is mind-eclipsing because: Para 1. covers-up the fact that UWTSD violated that Student's complaint policy, articles 3.5 and 15.4.2 (for evidence and discussions see Zoom 1). And without presenting a reason explains away, why I was denied to present my case in person. Para 2. covers-up the fact that UWTSD preferred to overlook conclusive evidence (e.g. cases that has nothing to do with academic judgement categorized and dismissed as academic judgement [for evidence and discussions see Zoom 4], real contents of exchanges of Campion and Jansen contradicts with how they are presented in official records [for evidence and discussions see Zoom 5], etc.). Para 3. misrepresents my complaint (for evidence and discussions see Zoom 3-6) and endorses a blatant lie of Campion which can be disproven with basic mathematics right away (for evidence and discussions see Zoom 6). Para 4-8. with a misplaced aplogy UWTSD covers-up the fact that Campion made-up an omission during official investigations and then admitted to it, to cover-up my six-months long victimization (for evidence and discussions see Zoom 5). Hence no-one even asked the most obvious question, let alone conducting a thorough and impartial investigation: Why did, astrologer-director, Assoc Prof Nicholas Campion, lied about something that can be disproven with basic mathematics, while simultaneously admitting to a made-up omission, during UWTSD’s “investigation”? What else did he lie about? In the end, although I have been telling the truth, I was left with nothing but multi-layered power-abuse and gaslighting about what reason suggests, ironically in higher education setting of a developed country, e.g. where everything should be about through research, precise reporting with Integrity, Reason and Impartiality. And thus, the apology UWTSD offered, below, is a farce. [1] https://www.oiahe.org.uk/media/2757/good-practice-framework-handling-complaints-and-academic-appeals.pdf, see pages 13-16.

UWTSD violated its own Student’s Complaint Policy and thus effectively refused to refer my case to relevant HR procedure, and thus effectively refused, to even consider, to take disciplinary action against its staff due to my alleged power-abuse complaint against astrologer-director Assoc Prof Nicholas Campion and his astrologer-tutor staff of the Sophia Centre. The violated articles of the policy can be noted as follows: 3.5. Complaints about staff will be referred to the appropriate HR procedure; this procedure will have separate timelines from those outlined in this policy. 15.4. The Case Officer shall undertake an initial evaluation to check that the complaint: 15.4.2. does not refer to the behaviour or personal conduct of a member or staff, in which case it will be referred to the appropriate process or procedure, whether informal or formal. OIA, the “independent” ombudsman of higher education in the UK, whose primary function is to check whether university followed its procedures, refused to acknowledge UWTSD’s policy violation in its complaint outcome letter dd. 22.12.22, by ignoring my answer dd. 08.11.22, to their question, which starts with enclosed para, and which lists the violated articles, which are listed above: Considering the primary function of OIA is investigating whether the university has followed its procedures, this "omission" of OIA made me recall many students' similar concerns about "impartiality" of OIA, which can be noted from here: https://www.trustpilot.com/review/oiahe.org.uk In a second letter, issued at my request, dd. 13.02.23, OIA apologized for this “omission”, but refused to acknowledge that the violation had any effect on the outcome of investigations, while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge existence of any lies, contradictions, logical fallacy, or bias, which I perceive as another layer of cover-up that I had to endure and thus another layer of power abuse, on top of UWTSD's. I think OIA’s is another layer of cover-up, another layer of power abuse, on top of UWTSD's. Because, UWTSD’s policy violation would not have limited the scope and defined the outcome of its "investigations" ONLY IF, a. UWTSD acknowledged that Campion’s "selected" statements: i. contradict with Campion's "overlooked" statements, and the other evidence (see Zoom 5), ii. while another, the one the university endorsed as a “reason” in official letters, can be disproven with basic mathematics (see Zoom 6). b. accordingly concluded that Campion, to say the least was biased, and cannot be accepted as the accountable authority, not in an investigation against Campion, and, c. conducted a thorough, incident-by-incident investigation (see Zoom 3-6), rather than misrepresenting and groundlessly dismissing the totality of my claims, while overlooking conclusive evidence. But, then, again to my surprise, OIA and I could not agree on the definition of lying, as well as on superiority of basic mathematics over Campion's "selected" statements, or for existence of any logical fallacy, or contradictory statements, which is discussed further in Zoom 2. If you want to check the violated Student Complaint Policy of UWTSD, please download:

SUGGESTED DEFINITIONS to SPOT LYING: "The four conditions of traditional definition of lying according to Stanford University's Encyclopedia of Philosophy are: 1. Statement Condition 2. Untruthfulness Condition 3. Addressee Condition 4. Intention to Deceive Addressee Condition"[1] "Lying means making a false or misleading statement or providing false or misleading information with knowledge of its falsity or misleading character or with careless disregard as to its truth or accuracy."[2] Cover up: This term is given to mean to hide a thing that is unlawful or to evade and impede investigations.[3] Consciousness of guilt means the defendants actions prove he knew he was guilty (at least of something).[4] DOUBLE BIND of OIA: Lying about lying, even if it can be disproven by applying academic definition of lying as the standard and/or right away with basic mathematics. Just because OIA can do that without fear of any consequences. Hence, students need to be protected from OIA’s operations, not advised to escalate their cases to OIA. According to my reasoning in order to judge whether someone (here astrologer-director Assoc Prof Campion or his staff) lied or not, the most solid and assuring way for all parties would be using an academic or a legal definition as the standard, hence I provided aforementioned definitions as the standard. And, I suggested to OIA that if an incident fulfills all the four conditions of lying, as it is defined in Standford University's encyclopedia entry, then it should be concluded that lying is occurred. I added, since, when those definitions are applied, it can be reasonably concluded that there were many instances in which Campion and/or his staff lied, and since UWTSD based its conclusions on Campion's "selected" statements which not only contradicts with Campion's "overlooked" statements, but also can be disproven with basic mathematics, this has further serious implications e.g. cover-up and cover-up due to consciousness of guilt. OIA insisted on their judgement of "lack of lying", and offered following explanation which is unintelligible to my reasoning: We do not agree with you(r) assessment of the evidence available that it demonstrates that staff were lying, in the commonly understood sense of telling deliberate falsehoods. I would also add that as an Ombuds service we are not required to use legal or academic definitions of terms such as ‘lying’. We consider what it reasonable and make our decisions on the balance of probability. OIA's explanation is unintelligible word-salad for one or all the following reasons: For all instances, academic definition of lying (e.g. the four conditions of traditional definition of lying according to Stanford University's Encyclopedia of Philosophy) poses equal, if not higher standards than “commonly understood sense of telling deliberate falsehoods” (if OIA even can define conditions of what that supposed to mean), but not vice versa. And, if referred incidents are checked against that equal/higher standard, any reasonable, unbiased person will easily conclude that astrologer-director Assoc Prof Campion and his staff repetitively lied. And as such, those conclusions I will be beyond a reasonable doubt (e.g. eliminating all reasonable doubt and with amoral certainty (near %100), which, again, is a higher standard for the burden of proof, than balance of probabilities (>%50).[5]. In one instance, UWTSD stated the following in its outcome letter as the reason to dismiss my related claims: "It (UWTSD) particularly noted that many of the messages you (I) rely on as indicative of harassment were sent to multiple addressees." This statement contradicts with what basic mathematics suggests, and even that escaped from OIA’s attention. That is, in fact, 15 of the 20 emails (75%), I highlighted as evidence, were d-i-r-e-c-t-l-y sent to me. Moreover, in 13 of all the 13 emails (100%) that I provided as evidence, specifically for astrologer-tutor Dr Frances Clynes's "closet use of astrology", I was the d-i-r-e-c-t recipient. And thus, how UWTSD were able to "particularly noted that many of the messages you (I) rely on as indicative of harassment were sent to multiple addressees" has been a mystery (just?) to my reason. Which one is “many” e.g. 25% or 75%?; 0% or 100%? Who is being unreasonable by making a false statement here? Should not we, in a higher education setting of a developed country, at least, be able to agree on what basic mathematics suggest? Is this, being a conflict, mind-eclipsing just to my reason? And since those lies, misrepresentations steered the investigations in a way that limited the scope and defined the outcome of “thorough and impartial” investigations of UWTSD, to my perception this is effectively lying about lying, and is a double bind, with very serious implications for impartiality and fairness of OIA. For evidence and discussions see Zoom 5. Campion's made-up omission, and also see "Lying for amusement" under Zoom 4. Non-academic markings, and other discrimination cases. But, do not take my word for it, check out the incidents for yourself and reach your own conclusions. After all, if OIA made its decision for "lack of lying" according to common sense and in line with basic mathematics, you will agree with its conclusions with clean Conscience, and it will be a proof that I am a false accuser who has no idea about what reason suggests, e.g. Campion never lied, hence UWTSD's endorsement cannot be disproven with basic mathematics and/or logic, hence no one maliciously manipulated the scope and the outcome of UWTSD's investigations. It should also need to be noted that according to pre-action protocol for Judicial Review in the UK, OIA should have released their response to my re-open the case request in 14 days, but for "some" reason they conveniently released it later, leaving me only 5 weeks for applying for Judicial Review, which I was not able to initiate, from Turkey. [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition [2] https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/lying [3] https://thelawdictionary.org/cover-up [4] https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/consciousness-of-guilt/ [5 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331454377_Legal_Burdens_of_Proof_Presentation

Sophia Centre staff, most of which are astrologers, are not directly employed by UWTSD but by Sophia Centre. Only astrologer-director Assoc. Prof Campion is directly employed by UWTSD. So, he is the only person from Sophia Centre who is employed according to the standard scholar-recruit procedures of the University. Rest of Sophia Centre staff are employed by Campion, and thus according to his standards, which, as the evidence shows, are not requiring the same level of academic expertise as university requires for direct employment. This resulted as an almost tribal (sub-group of astrologer-tutors' and their astrologer-director-tutor) and definitely non-academic mind-set dynamic and thus bias problem, which is evident from what is discussed in Zoom 4, 5 and 6. In a more direct and thus undeniable way, this customer service issue is most evident in employment of a sub-standard tutor, at Sophia Centre's two MA programmes ,as it is discussed directly below. Astrologer Carole Taylor (MA), who even did not start her doctoral studies, taught, and marked in three post-graduate modules, for three years (as I know of between 2019-2022). Moreover, Taylor was the module-lead in Researching Contemporary Cosmologies module. A module all about fieldwork, despite Taylor has NEVER conducted a fieldwork in her lifetime. And, despite three years long false marketing (as evidence below confirms), UWTSD and OIA argued that Sophia Centre did not violate students’ customer rights. Because apparently UWTSD approved Taylor’s “expertise”. And they updated the web-site, after my complaint, e.g. after three years of false marketing. So, according to their "reasoning" three years long false-marketing can be ignored, because the web-site is updated now. Moreover, also, now, I should be convinced that Taylor, who is still not listed on university’s web page, an EXPERT in the fields she taught, and marked, Because UWTSD said she is an expert. If UWTSD said so, then it is so, there is no need to be able to show evidence for Taylor's expertise. UWTSD said she is an expert. Period. Mind-eclipsing? Regressing back to autocracy? What is this? And this sub-standard tutor marked four of my essays. (see Zoom 4, non-academic markings for further discussions). Evidence for three-years long false marketing are included below. Those pages updated several times in those years, but not to accommodate Taylor or her "expertise" for post-graduate level of study.

Contents 1. INTRODUCTION to CONTEXT 2. UWTSD and "ACADEMIC JUDGEMENT ARGUMENT 3. NON-ACADEMIC MARKINGS and OTHER DISCRIMINATION CASES (excluding Victimization [see Zoom 5] & Harassment and Bullying by "Closet use of Astrology" [see Zoom 6.]) 2018 Plato was neither an astrologer nor an astronomer, this is not upto academic judgement First disagreement of the two-markers: PASS vs MERIT: Conflicting academic judgements? Campion's first intervention to mediate: DISTINCTION 2019 Back to PASS: Main perpetrator of "closet use of astrology" and the sub-standard tutor Disagreement of the two-markers: DISTINCTION vs MERIT: Campion intervenes again, sub-standard astrologer-tutor resists: Again, conflicting academic judgements? Campion offers PhD Supervision at my second year in the MA The only module in which my essays are academically marked: Cosmology, Divination and Magic Violating my Freedom of Speech and Alienation. Because I questioned the questionable referencing advice: on what basis is this about “academic judgement”? 2020 Repetitive Refusals to Meet by Brady Lying for Amusement - Dr Jack Hunter Another Non-Academic Marking - RCC Essay 2, settling in MERIT 2022 Non-Academic Marking of my Dissertation - Apperantly Campion did not read my Dissertation 1. INTRODUCTION to CONTEXT Please note this whole complaint process would have never started if astrologer-tutor Brady did not misled me to believe my student status was in jeopardy, when only two months left for my dissertation submission. Or astrologer-director Campion did not mismanaged the process, and victimized me for six-months, in conspiracy with Brady, but on the spot informed me that my student status was not in jeopardy. These misconducts are discussed in Zoom 5. After Brady's email I felt forced to elucidate my allegations about non-academic markings and other discrimination cases which are discussed below. in chronological order so that the reader can get a grasp of the greater context, and see how they are related, and how the academic malpractice conspiracy took its shape with contributions from some astrologer-tutors of the Sophia Centre. Those do not include harassment and bullying with "closet use of astrology"., which is discussed in Zoom 6. But can be linked to understand the context. Because of what the correlation analyses indicate. I am including here below two paragraphs from Zoom 6. for easy reference: That means total correlated points with three birth charts (mine, Campion’s and Gunzburg’s) explain %84.6 of these event charts. Statistically speaking this is a very high correlation. Moreover, %84.6 correlation is an intriguing % to ponder about, especially considering non-academic markings are started after Gunzburg's discrimination in 2018 which was followed with my argument that "Plato was neither an astrologer nor an astronomer”, to which Gunzburg did not directly reply. But indirectly replied, five days later by disagreeing her life-long partner and business associate astrologer-tutor Dr Brady, and by non-academically marking my essay. Due to that experience and what followed e.g. some other non-academic markings, and Campion's interventions after two non-academic markings to mediate, those correlations makes a lot of sense. 2. UWTSD and "ACADEMIC JUDGEMENT ARGUMENT UWTSD dismissed all of my complaints about non-academic markings and other discriminations by arguing they were about "academic judgement", while I claimed my complaint has nothing to do with academic judgement, and that is evident if they do one or both of the following: if UWTSD investigate above listed incidents in chronological order. Because it will reveal not only non-academic markings in my detriment but also non-academic markings in my favor. And that is because Campion has been fully aware of the non-academic markings in my detriment, and thus he intervened to mediate. And there were not only non-academic markings but also other discrimination incidents as well, which has nothing to do with markings but equality and freedom of speech. if UWTSD investigate "closet use of astrology", which I proved with probability and correlation analyses, and which accompanied incidents that are referred in (1) above. However UWTSD found Campion more credible than basic mathematics and endorsed his blatant lie. And by that, UWTSD effectively refused to investigate astrologer-tutor Dr Frances Clynes's "closet use of astrology". This phrase is coined by Campion, himself, and implies both personal data-breach, and harassment. And thus, it is both against GDPR and against the protocols of Sophia Centre, where academy and astrology meet. and it is discussed separately in Zoom 6. 3. NON-ACADEMIC MARKINGS and OTHER DISCRIMINATION CASES: with discussion and evidence, as to why are they not about academic judgement? 04.05. 2018 - Plato was neither an astrologer nor an astronomer, this is not upto academic judgement The topic of this incident was Essay 1 of the module, which should be a “compare and contrast the treatment of ONE astrological planet, star, zodiac sign or constellation, in at least THREE primary source documents”. When I asked if I could focus on Rodney Collin’s Theory of Celestial Influence: Man, the Universe and Cosmic Mystery, as one of my resources, astrologer-tutor Dr Darrelyn Gunzburg refused my request and stated that “We ask you to use primary documents by astronomers or astrologers. Collin is not suitable. Please choose another”. Since on the same day Gunzburg confirmed to another student (Michelle Holgate) that she can use a resource from Plato, I argued that if Plato is suitable than anyone who wrote about celestial influence (like Collin) should be also suitable. After all Plato was neither an astronomer nor an astrologer. But Gunzburg failed to explain why Plato is suitable while Collin is not, which I think reveals an explicit discrimination. Although this incident alone is not very significant, it initiated non-academic marking which started only 5 days later fro. that incident, as discussed below. Referred original exchanges can be downloaded here: 09.05.2018 - First disagreement of the two-markers: PASS vs MERIT: Conflicting academic judgements? I passed the Foundations of Astrology and Astronomy module, my first module in the MA, with PASS and not MERIT because of the second essay's marking e.i. 1st marker MERIT (Brady), 2nd marker PASS (Gunzburg). My argument is three fold: (1) Gunzburg gave this essay PASS not due to academic judgement, but because I highlighted her logical fallacy, 5 days before, e.g. Plato was neither an astrologer nor astronomer, which she refused to admit or explain. (2) Essay 2 was a better (or at least at equal quality) essay than Essay 1. However, despite that, it received a lower mark. (3) If all essays which were marked by Brady and Gunzburg are checked (which was at the discretion of the University, of course) there will not be any other essays in which these two astrologer-tutors have a disagreement about the marking with that significance, e.i. PASS vs MERIT. Because Gunzburg’ and Brady have been both partners and business associates for three decades.[1] [1] https://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Gunzburg,_Darrelyn 27.06.2018 & 02.08.2018 - Campion's first intervention to mediate: DISTINCTION I passed the History of Astrology module with DISTINCTION. Because Campion intervened, and Gunzburg, who was the lead module tutor and who should have marked my essays did not mark them. And yet, even marking of Essay 1 was non-academic (this time in my favor!). Because, Essay 2 was clearly better essay than Essay 1 but received same mark with Essay 1. I am confident that Essay 2 is much better essay because, only in that essay I had the chance to apply academic principles Campion highlighted in his comments to Essay 1. In other words, I think Essay 1 did not deserve DISTINCTION but, only MERIT. And yet, Campion gave it DISTINCTION to compansate for Gunzburg's prior non-academic marking. If Essay 1 deserved DISTINCTION than Essay 2 should have received high-DISTINCTION., etc. This non-academic marking of Essy 1 (this time in my favor) would become self-evident to anyone who reads both Essay 1&2, which are enclosed below: 08.04.2019 - Back to PASS: Main perpetrator of "closet use of astrology" and the sub-standard tutor Astral Religion was my third module. And, despite I was able to apply all academic principles I have learnt so far, Essay 1 of this module received PASS with the lowest grade I received in the MA. Markers were astrologer Carole Taylor, MA, the sub-standard tutor who did not start her doctoral studies, even in 2022 and astrologer-tutor Dr Clynes, who is the main perpetrator of "closet use of astrology". A careful read of the comments of those markers reveal not only superficial quality in markers comments, but also use of strawman fallacy to discredit my essay. Sub-standard tutor Carole's use of this logical fallacy can be noted from Comment 10. Because, simply, I wrote, 'Cumont resists to give astrology its due as a science of antiquity,' and I did so because according to Cumont (p. xii,) 'this sapling (astrology), which shot up among the rank weeds by the side of the tree of knowledge, sprang from the same stock and mingled its branches with it." That is, according to Cumont while sciences of antiquity is the tree of knowledge, astrology was the weeds. And I definitely was not arguing that was Cumont's aim in his introduction, As Carole claims. Hence the stawman fallacy. This essay marking is a typical example of non-academic markings that I had to endure, and that UWTSD refused to investigate, by getting my essay independently marked in comparison to other essays from same module. UWTSD also preferred to overlook the fact that after this module's non-academic marking, Campion intervened again, in Essay 2 of that module as discussed directly below, and gave it DISTINCTION to mediate. If you want to check the strawman fallacy, quality of astrologer- tutors' comments you can download it here: 21.05.2019 - Disagreement of the two-markers: DISTINCTION vs MERIT: Campion intervenes again, sub-standard astrologer-tutor resists: Again, conflicting academic judgements? After Essay1's non-academic marking in Astral Religion module, Campion intervened again and gave Essay 2 DISTINCTION. And yet the second marker, who was in her first year as a tutor, who did not even start her doctoral studies, disagreed with the Programme Manager/Lead Module Tutor and gave this essay MERIT with 7-points difference. What does this disagreement tells about academic judgement? UWTSD refused to answer. 28.06.2019 - Canpion offers PhD supervision at my second year in the MA Following Astral Religion module, while I was taking CMD module (was the only module that can be pointed as what Academic marking should look like, as discussed directly below) on 28th of June 2019, we had a skype meeting with Campion. In that meeting I told him that I was planning to take Sky & Psyche module as my fifth module. And, as a joke, I added that I am hoping to pass Sky & Psychemodule with PASS (despite tutors were going to be Clynes and Taylor, MA). I also added that I am confident about my academic potential, and rather than writing a MA dissertation, I would like to start my PhD instead. He said that, in such a case, he would supervise my PhD. And that WAS the ultimate encouragement that I could receive from Campion, at that time, and I appreciated that a lot in the coming months/years, because that meant all the discouragement and gaslighting of the four “tutors”/professional astrologers will ultimately come to nothing! Dr Campion is going to persist in his support, so, I just need to persevere, and with tenacity I could overcome all that unjust, illegal, unethical adversity that I found myself in. Overall, Campion’s support was very valuable for me, and it is a fact that without his support I would have given up my studies in the MA already at some point or the other since 2018. After all what was the point trying to continue my studies under such conditions, which have been creating so much emotional distress in me, despite I really enjoyed the contents of the MA programme -if there is no hope of overcoming them? And my hope of overcoming this adversity was fuelled by Campion’s support and encouragement, and importance of this cannot be overemphasized. Hence the repetitions. So, due to my bond with Campion, which was substantial from my end, I preferred to overlook some other issues which could have been complained about much earlier. I was just not comfortable pointing a finger. Also, I was not in a position to understand the totality of the situation, and I was confused. 08.07.2019 - 19.08.2019 - The Only Example of Academic Markings and a Welcoming Learning Environment:: Cosmology, Divination and Magic Module Tutors were Dr Crystal Addie and Dr Dorian Greenbaum. The module was excellent. This is the only module in which tutors academically marked my essays. In the first essay they gave it high-MERIT, provided very useful comments, and when I applied them in the second essay they gave it DISTINCTION. They helped me improve my academic skills with their sound and constructive comments. And I felt truly welcomed to participate in the module. I believe related marking assessments helped improvement of my future marks in the Sky and Psyche module which I, to my surprise, passed with MERIT and not PASS, despite all essays were marked by Clynes and Taylor. Fall 2019 - Violating my Freedom of Speech and alienation. Because I questioned the questionable referencing advice: on what basis is this about “academic judgement”? Although I think Essay 2 of this module's markings need to be checked. A lot more important misconduct happened during Sky & Psyche module. That is, first my Moodle post is deleted (which was about academic referencing), and then when I posted a detailed question (again about referencing) all weekly forums are closed which also blocked any communication with fellow students during the entire duration of the module. Since I could no longer post on the forum, in email exchanges, I questioned why all that happened and stated that what astrologer-tutors did is both against freedom of speech, and also again highlighted my referencing perspective is sounder than Campion's and Clynes’s questionable referencing advice, Campion allowed me to use my own referencing advice in my essay (but that was not shared with fellow students because the forums were closed). And despite Campion promised me to ask University’s policy about freedom of speech, he never returned with a reply or explained why all the forums are closed after my post. This incident is about freedom of speech, and student’s rights to have a welcoming learning environment. However, it was dismissed as an academic judgement case, which is simply mind-blowing. For details, please check enclosed document. Also, I am confident that any scholar would immediately see the soundness of questioning, which also means Campion (for some non-academic reason) saw it right to misled all students of the module with questionable referencing advice, rather than providding me a reason and an explanation, as a tutor should have done. And that is scary, considering it happened during a post-graduate study. This is the Moodle post that is deleted, and after which all weekly forums are closed. So the question remains: 2020 - Repetitive Refusals to Meet by Brady Upon delivery of marked RCC module Essay 1, I wanted to have a skype meeting with Brady, the lead module tutor and 2nd marker. Brady refused to have a meeting with me and asked me to have a skype meeting with Dr Jack Hunter, the 1st marker, and copied him in our email exchange. By highlighting the contents of the email, she sent, I repeated that I want to have a meeting with her, instead of Hunter. Referred content, which is the established announcement in all marked-essay return emails, is also quoted below for your easy reference: If you wish you can arrange a Skype session with your first marker or any other RCC tutor to run over our comments, please just ask.10 [my emphasis] Brady second time refused to have a skype meeting with me, this time copied Dr Campion in our email exchange and wrote: He (Dr Hunter) is your main tutor, if you do not wish to speak to Jack then I suggest that you have a skype session with Nick. After that incident, Brady did not mark my second essay in the module, despite she was the module lead. But Campion marked instead, so she left me no chance to ask again for a meeting. This incident should be considered together with my Victimization by Campion in conspiracy with Brady, who served me a sinister lie, at the most critical time of my studies, e.g. when only two months left for my dissertation submission. That is discussed in Zoom 5. 2020 - Lying for Amusement Dr Jack Hunter Dr Jack Hunter joined the co-conspirators in 2020, which can be easily discerned from the blatant absurdity of his misguidance and lies in our exchanges about RCC Essay 2. In fact, what Hunter did (e.g. deleting my footnotes and pretending he did not see them, and not answering some of my questions) can be easily checked by going through our email exchanges. Why did not the University and/or OIA spare five minutes to investigate if Hunter lied or not, and by doing so deliberately misguided me or not? How can it be argued that this allegation is about academic judgement? Related allegations can be noted from second section of the enclosed document: 2020 - Another Non-Academic Marking - RCC Essay 2, settling in MERIT It was interesting for me to note, five days before I received the marked Essay 2 on 03-09-2020, Dr Campion sent me an email in which he offered editing Essay 2 for peer review, e.g. for submission to Correlation. Email can be noted as follows: What was particularly interesting about that email was the fact that he did send it before I received my marked essay. Naturally, when I was reading that un-timely email, I was wondering: What about the mark? So, I waited till I received my marked essay. Only then after I thanked Campion for his consideration and wrote that I will be looking forward to hearing his advice, since surely, I would like to submit a revised version of the essay to Correlation. He never replied to my email, and he never provided his advice, despite he introduced the whole idea of submitting a revised version of the essay to Correlation for peer-review, with the help of his advice. I was confused. Please note the referred essay received MERIT (65%). It is my conviction that in non-academically marking that essay Campion assumed the role of the “moderator” between me and his employees, who for some reason were doing their best to ruin my studies and alienate me as a student, since 2018. This is the comment he provided for my essay: Idisagree with Dr Campion’s statement that “they” could not gave me high-DISTINCTION but they gave only MERIT because it is an explicit requirement of module to include qualitative research. Because, in my Moodle-post, which was dated 13-06-2020, I made it explicit that I was planning to do quantitative research by replicating Dambrun’s study, and I had no intention to include qualitative research in it, as Dambrun’s study focuses on quantitative research only. And thus, I asked for tutors’ comments on that intention of mine. And although, I explicitly asked for any warning neither Brady nor Hunter came up (via Moodle or during email exchanges about the essay) with the idea that I should include qualitative research in my study, otherwise since it is a breach of the requirements of the module essay’s mark will be negatively affected. So, I considered we had reached a successful negotiation with the tutors of the module about my essay’s explicitly stated focus on quantitative research to replicate Dambrun’s study. I completed my ethics form. Received an approval from Hunter for the ethics form, in which same details e.g. my research’s focus on quantitative analysis is explicitly stated. Started and finalized my research in line with the ethics form. And naturally, it was very confusing for me to see that which was previously approved by the tutors ended up as a disadvantage for me in the marking. I tried to highlight my position via email exchanges with Hunter. However, when Campion got involved in those exchanges, I gave up. I gave up, mainly because I did not want to upset Campion. Moreover, rather than furthering the debate (which I was going to lose any way due to power imbalance) with Campion on RCC Essay 2’s marking, I preferred to focus my energy on exploring my ideas about my dissertation. 2022 - Non-academic Marking of my Dissertation - Apparently Campion did not read my Dissertation Campion’s comments to my disertation proves that he did not read my dissertation before marking it. Because if he read my dissertation, he would have never concluded the following: “It was helpful to discuss the extent to which the Gurdjieffian concept of grace corresponds to the Christian concept of grace, so it appears to be a direct lifting by Gurdjieff from Christianity.” Here, Campion provides a misrepresentation of a key concept, in my dissertation. Because what I did instead was drawing parallels with higher degrees of reason according to Gurdjieffian cosmology, and “grace” as it is understood in French spiritual philosophy. So, although it is not clear where Campion got his idea from, it is indisputable that he did not get it from my dissertation. Hence it is clear that Campion was not fit to exercise “academic judgement”. Moreover, he was also biased. Because he was simultaneously reviewing my complaint about his staff. And, as if that was not enough, only a few months later, during UWTSD's “thorough and impartial" investigations”, he admitted to a made-up omission and lied. And those are discussed in Zoom 5 and Zoom 6.

Contents About highlights and repetitions Introduction Evidence and Discussions CAMPION's MADE-UP STORY #1: "Innocent Omission" CAMPION's MADE-UP STORY #2: Covering-up my six-months long Victimization Conclusion 1. About highlights and repetitions Please note all highlights below are mine . My apologies, if they are too much, and repetitive, like the discussions. Campion's made-up stories are grift, involves multiple parties and spans to a period that is over six-months. And UWTSD covered them up in their official records, as a way to explain away related misconducts. Hence, I just want to make sure that I did everything to present what available evidence reveals, crystal clearly. Because, I have been repeating same things over and over again, and yet highly educated "authorities", for some "reason", could not see spot any lies, misrepresentations or cover-up, which as below discussions of available evidence show are, in fact, all self-evident. 2. Introduction UWTSD preferred to overlook the fact that astrologer-director Assoc Prof Nicholas Campion made-up an omission and then admitted to it, during the university's “through and impartial” investigations. And by that, UWTSD effectively refused, to even consider, to take disciplinary action against Campion, for lying to the university and for covering-up my six-months long victimization, which he initiated in conspiracy with astrologer-tutor Dr Bernadette Brady. Campion’s exchanges with Assoc Prof Thomas Jansen dd. 03.12.21, which I was able to gather from University's data-officer on 22.06.22 reveals that during UWTSD’s initial “through and impartial" investigations, Campion lied about those earlier exchanges, made-up an omission and then, admitted to that non-existent omission. And yet, UWTSD preferred to overlook real contents of Jansen and Campion’s exchanges in follow-up “investigations”, and thus refused to acknowledge Campion admitted to a made-up omission. Hence no one asked: WHY did Campion made-up an omission, and admitted to it, during official investigations? So, here below in Evidence and Discussions, I first prove that made-up an omission, and admitted to it, during official investigations, and then elucidate WHY he did that. He did that, because only by “virtue” of that false-admission he was able to cover-up my six-months long victimization, as UWTSD preferred to also overlook another set of contradictions. That is, his contradictory positions, about his staff, Brady’s email dd 01.11.21 had never been questioned, as well. Because UWTSD refused to ask: did Campion was the authority in charge about Brady’s “action request”, as he presented himself during investigations? And at the same time, he neither had knowledge nor control about consequences of Brady’s “escalated action request”, as he misled the student to believe for months? Both? That cannot be. Hence, we have another unaccounted made-up story, that is covered-up by a made-up omission! And those are discussed directly below. 3. Evidence and Discussions a. CAMPION's MADE-UP STORY #1: "Innocent Omission" Here, in MADE-UP STORY #1, I prove that Campion made-up an omission and then admitted to it during UWTSD's investigations. I prove that by comparing Campion's and Jansen's actual exchanges with Campion's statement about that earlier exchanges with Jansen, during UWTSD's "impartial" investigations. This is the actual email from Campion to Jansen: Since the data-officer redacted some parts of the email, for easy reading it can be noted as follows: "No action needed, just putting on record. The student who had been emailing (Brady) continued (example below). I have now told the student not to email (Brady) except about strictly academic matters. This is one of the two cases recently. As I said, no action needed but just to report.’ 40 mins after this "REPORT, where he highlights that NO ACTION NEEDED, for my case", twice, Campion sends another email, for a general understanding: to which Jansen replies: Here, Campion presents my case to Jansen as if I do not have any complaint but, just, I was misbehaving towards Brady, why of this will be discussed in MADE-UP STORY #2. Here I only would like to draw attention to; the repetitive phrase of Campion, e.g. "no action needed, just to report", and to the fact since it was just to report, no action needed, Jansen did NOT suggested Campion send me the student code, and then escalate to Jansen. That part of the exchange was only for a general understanding. Not let's COMPARE this exchange with Campion's mis-leading statement during "investigations" of UWTSD, where he makes-up an omission and then admits to it, by twisting the real contents of the actual exchange with Jansen: "Nick Campion response: ... I sent [AY’s allegations] to Thomas Jansen [Academic Director Humanities] on 3 December 2021. He suggested that I send Ayse the student code. Regrettably I can’t see that I did this." Here, during "investigations", Campion misrepresents what he did months ago (e.g. seeking advice for what action to take from Jansen vs reporting to Jansen), and then by "virtue" of that misrepresentation, Campion makes-up an omission by twisting real contents of the exchange, and then admitts to a non-existent omission. This is self-evident, because, Campion's multiple highlights for ‘no action need’ and 'just to report' for *my case* in his email to Jansen confirms that Campion did not seek advice for what action to take from Jansen, not for *my case*. Campion only reported my case to Jansen. The difference is ALL important because in the actual case, e.g. reporting, Campion could not have committed an omission. So, he LIED during "investigation"s by twisting what actually happened, and MADE-UP an omission, and told UWTSD that he sought advice, and given one, but, he is regretful that he omitted to follow Jansen's advice about me, when there was none, e.g. not about my case, because it was just to REPORT. Moreover, even if Campion sought advice (which evidently, he did not, not for *my case*), and Jansen suggested him to send me the student code, then Campion should also have escalated the case to Jansen. But he did not. And this is because, Campion did not want to lose control of the situation, and risk escalation of my complaint about the original academic malpractice conspiracy to Jansen. This is why he did not present my case to Jansen as a complaint but as misbehavious on my part. Again, because he was fully aware of academic malpractices of his staff that spanned to four years, and he was confident that he could prevent its escalation. Because he knew I was trusting him, and a couple of times I preferred to not escalate, just because I was trusting him. If you would like to know "why was I trusting him?" please read "Trauma Bonding with the Programme Director" section in my formal complaint to UWTSD. In conclusion, with above discussion of available evidence, the fact that Campion made-up an omission and then admitted to that non-existent omission, during official investigations of UWTSD, is established, without a reasonable doubt. And yet, UWTSD preferred to act as if that conclusive evidence did not exist, and as if I did not presented them Campion and Jansen's exchanges and highlighted the contradictions. This is UWTSD's cover-up. And it can be noted, if my enclosed email to Prof Kyle Erickson, UWTSD's Director of Academic Experience and the final outcome letter issued by him are compared. He did not even mention I provided him those exchanges, and highlighted the non-existent omission! One wonders WHY Erikson did that, if it is not a cover-up? In the next section, I discuss WHY Campion made-up an omission and admitted to it, during offical investigations, b. CAMPION's MADE-UP STORY #2: Covering-up my six-months long Victimization Campion made-up an omission and admitted to it, during official investigations, because only by “virtue” of that false-admission he was able to cover-up my six-months long victimization, as UWTSD preferred to overlook another set of contradictions. To prove this very serious allegation, I will go back to Campion's statement during "investigations" which was compared with his exchanges with Jansen above. For your easy reference, I am quoting it again, below, with highlights to the first sentence which was not discussed above, but will be discussed directly below. "Nick Campion response: AY’s allegations were referred up by Brady [to NC as programme director]. I sent [AY’s allegations] to Thomas Jansen [Academic Director Humanities] on 3 December 2021. He suggested that I send Ayse the student code. Regrettably I can’t see that I did this." In addition to the non-existence of admitted omission that is discussed in MADE-UP STORY #1, the second problem with that statement is, here Campion argues that, my allegations were referred up to him by Brady. So, he was the authority in charge who just committed an "innocent omission". If, all available evidence is taken into consideration, this statement is a misrepresentation of facts by Campion to cover up sinister nature of Brady's email that is addressed to me. That email, sinister nature of which is covered up by UWTSD, can be noted as follows: Brady's statement above is a LIE, because, all of my emails that accuse her and her colleagues of academic malpractice have NOT been forwarded to the University's authorities and they were NOT asked to take action. Nonetheless, with full knowledge of its falsity, Brady addressed that statement to me, and in conspiracy with Campion, deceived me into the belief that my student status and my future academic studies were in jeopardy for six months. They did that because I complained about Campion's staffs' prior academic malpractices. And they did that at the most critical time of my studies, e.g. when there is only two months left for my dissertation submission. Hence, this email marks the beginning of my six-months long VICTIMIZATION by Brady and Campion. Victimization, because I complained about academic malpractices (e.g. non-academic markings, which were coupled with "closet use of astrology", and other discrimination cases) of the last four years. And I understood Brady lied, and my student status has never been in jeopardy, six-months later, upon receiving the first outcome letter of UWTSD on 08.06.22. Till that time I was in dark, e.g. being Victimized, because I insisted to receive a reply to my personal statement dd 06.12.21 (detailing my complaint with evidence), that is drafted after I received Brady's email -to protect my student status and my future academic studies, as I did not know I was being deceived by a Brady-Campion conspiracy. Although I should admit, by the time I submitted my formal complaint (on 04.05.21), I was suspicious whether Brady deceived me with her email dd 01.11.21 and Campion cooperated with her to cover-up Brady's lie , e.g. I was no longer sure there was an investigation against me. So I informed UWTSD accordingly, and wrote: "As I am writing this formal complaint, I am no longer sure that Dr Brady sent an email to UWTSD’s authorities, (and ask for their action for accusing her and her astrologer-tutor colleagues for academic malpractice) as she claims she did so." But UWTSD explained away sinister nature of that email by endorsing Campion's highlighted statement below: "Nick Campion response: AY’s allegations were referred up by Brady [to NC as programme director]. I sent [AY’s allegations] to Thomas Jansen [Academic Director Humanities] on 3 December 2021. He suggested that I send Ayse the student code. Regrettably I can’t see that I did this." That is, that highlighted sentence in Campion's TOTALLY-misleading statement is uttered only to cover-up my six-months long Victimization. Because; of the facts: There was no need for any referral from Brady to Campion, because Campion had already been in cc in all the emails to Brady (see Evidence 1 at the end of the page), moreover, Even if there was a referral that referral should have happened ON or BEFORE 30.11.21, after which Campion took action, e.g. one day BEFORE Brady's sinister lie. Because on 30.11.21, Campion asked me to stop sending emails to Brady and I, on the same day confirmed both to Campion and to Brady that I will comply with Campion's request (see Evidence 1 & 2 at the end of the page). So, the case was closed on 30.11.21. However, the next day, on 01.11.21 Brady send me that sinister email, stating the following: "all of your emails that accuse me of academic malpractice have been forwarded to the University's authorities so they can decide their action", which is a lie, while Campion was in cc. And that is where my Victimization starts. Because, Due to the facts discussed above (in 1.) I reasonably concluded that notwithstanding our agreement with Campion the day before, Brady escalated the matter above Campion, and asked from University's authorities for a non-academic misconduct process to be started against me. So, I started to think my student status was in jeopardy, at the most critical time of my studies. And thus, upon receiving Brady's email, I asked Campion what I should expect as the result of that process (in terms of worst and best cases, also about the possible process, e.g. what would be asked from me -to present a case?). The same day (on 01.11.21) Campion replied: “of this I am not sure but will keep you informed”. But he NEVER did *not about that particular topic*. And that is despite, I submitted to him a personal statement detailing my complaint (on 06.12.22) and made it clear that, I felt forced to write it to protect my student status and my future academic studies, due to Brady’s action request. I revised that personal statement and re-submitted it to Campion several times, which includes a section about Brady’s action request. But, even in his response to my personal statement (05.04.22), Campion did not mention (the non-existent!) ‘action request’ of Brady. Also, in some other emails (which did not contain versions of my personal statement, e.g. dd 12.01.22; 05.03.22) it was explicit that I was thinking my student status was in jeopardy due Brady’s ‘action request’, and I was expecting him to inform me, as he promised me to do so. We also had other email exchanges with Campion in the following months about other topics. In the first outcome letter UWTSD even presents those as evidence ‘that shows that staff went to considerable lengths to communicate with and support student regarding her concerns’. And that is despite, I had never been informed that my student status had NEVER been in jeopardy in relation to Brady’s ‘action request’. However, rather than informing me about facts, apparently, two days AFTER Brady's email Campion preferred to report my case to Jansen on 03.12.21, with a NO ACTION NEEDED highlight. And yet, he conveniently omitted to inform me about the same for months, despite he had numerous occasions, as discussed in 5&6. Campion not only intentionally kept me in dark about Brady's "non-action request", but also intentionally did not inform me that I can and should start a formal complaint process. It even took months for him to reply to my personal statement, which, according to OIA's Good Practice Framework should involve on the spot explanation or immediate escalation to formal complaint process. but of course OIA did not acknowledge that. Along the same lines, Campion even did not report my case to Jansen in an accountable and transparent manner. Because if he did, that would mean immediate escalation to formal complaint process. So instead, Campion selected one email from my several emails to Brady , and also did not send Brady’s email to Jansen. On the other hand, for an accountable and transparent reporting, which would mean escalation: in addition to sending Brady’s email to Jansen, either: Campion should have sent ALL my emails that constitute my informal complaint (starting from 01.11.21, in which I discuss the tyranny of Sophia Centre's astrologer-tutors) to Jansen or should have sent my last email to Brady, following our agreement with him (dd. 30.11.21), which can be noted as follows: 4. Conclusion Evidence and discussions above reveals, Brady and Campion conspired together to deceive and victimize me for six-months, with effect from 01.12.21, at the most critical time of my studies. Campion misrepresented the facts of the situation to Jansen, to cover-up Brady’s lie while also to retain control and thus to prevent escalation of my complaint with Jansen’s involvement. During the ‘investigations’ of UWTSD, to manipulate the outcome Campion misrepresented the facts of the situation and also lied about his exchanges with Jansen. And admitted to a made-up omission to cover-up my six-months long victimization. UWTSD preferred to overlook Campion's made-up stories, and Brady's sinister lie. UWTSD joined the cover-ups, while categorically refusing to acknowledge my victimization. Victimization and its cover-up because Campion made-up those stories after, I complained about prior academic malpractices of Sophia Centre’s astrologer-tutors, that span to 2018-2021 to Brady, while Campion was in cc. My victimization, by misleading me into the belief that my student status was in jeopardy, at the most critical time in my studies (e.g. when only two months left for my dissertation submission). My six-months long victimization, during the early resolution process, which according to OIA’s good practice framework should have involved on-the spot explanation, or immediate escalation to the formal complaint procedure. [1] And its cover-up because, as a two-century-old university of a developed country, with full knowledge of its falsity, UWTSD preferred to partly repeat and partly overlook Campion’s made-up stories, despite the contradictory conclusive evidence. And by that groundless “reasoning” UWTSD explained away Brady’s sinister e-mail, and apologized for Campion’s months long passive aggressive-silent treatments that followed it (as if, that was just an innocent omission), while ignoring Campion lied, and served made-up stories, even during official “investigations”. And by that, UWTSD effectively refused to even consider taking disciplinary action against Campion, for lying to the university, for effectively preventing my complaints timely escalation, for my six-months long victimization and for covering it up. Not to mention, all those are done while violating Students Complaint Policy. UWTSD did all those while also grouping and dismissing various discrimination cases as “academic judgement”, without an incident-by-incident investigation (see Zoom 4), and there is even more (see Zoom 3& 6). Hence, (just?) to my reason, UWTSD joined the cover-ups of a four-and-half years long academic malpractices case. A multi-layered power-abuse case, that is amplified with OIA's refusal to acknowledge existence of any lie. [1] https://www.oiahe.org.uk/media/2757/good-practice-framework-handling-complaints-and-academic-appeals.pdf, see pages 13-16. Evidence 1 Evidence 2

CONTENTS Introduction: "Closet use ofAstrology" is against GDPR and Protocols of Sophia Centre UWTSD's preference of Campion over basic mathematics Zooming into astrologer-tutor Clynes's "Closet Use of Astrology" with probability and correlation analyses Evidence: Event charts/timings of emails from astrologer-tutor Clynes Probability analyses of event charts Correlation analyses of event charts: Campion and Gunzburg emerges! More about "closet use of astrology" 1. Introduction: "Closet use ofAstrology" is against GDPR and Protocols of Sophia Centre UWTSD found Campion more credible than basic mathematics and endorsed his blatant lie. And by that, UWTSD effectively refused to investigate astrologer-tutor Dr Frances Clynes's "closet use of astrology". This phrase is coined by Campion, himself, on 02.12.21 with his enclosed email, and implies both personal data-breach, and harassment. And thus, it is both against GDPR and against the protocols of Sophia Centre, where majority of tutors have been professional astrologers for decades, e.g. long before they become tutors. This admission of Campion is important because it means "closet use of astrology" (1) is a possibility, (2) by virtue of that fact it can be proven, (3) is malicious, (4) implies personal data breach, and thus against GDPR, (5) is also a violation of the agreement between Sophia Centre and UWTSD, and thus, if happened would jeopardize their business partnership. Because, Sophia Centre has an agreement with UWTSD to render services under University’s umbrella. Sophia Centre staff are not directly employed by UWTSD (except Campion), but by Campion. And it is only logical that conditions of that agreement strictly require Sophia Centre’s own protocols to be observed (in addition to University’s protocols) by Sophia Centre staff and forbids them from going against binding protocols. Accordingly, the question is not "do you believe in astrology?", but "Did some believers of astrology, who happen to possess some power, (here, some astrologer-tutors of the Sophia Centre) used astrological symbolism (as a language) for harassment and bullying, and by doing so also violated GDPR? And if so, whether I proved this statistically, and by use of logic?" But UWTSD refused to acknowledge Campion’s aforementioned admission, and thus its implications, and misrepresented what “closet use of astrology” is, e.g. misrepresented my complaint. On top of that, as discussed directly below, UWTSD paraphrased Campion’s blatant lie, which can be disproven with basic mathematics, in its outcome letter as the reason to dismiss my related claims. Rather than asking "What else did Campion lie about?". Hence highlighted question above had never been asked. And hence, UWTSD effectively refused to investigate Clynes's "closet use of astrology". I elucidate those here under sub-headings listed below: 2. UWTSD's preference of Campion over basic mathematics UWTSD preferred to repeat a blatant lie of Campion, which contradicts with the evidence, and which can be disproven with basic mathematics. That is, UWTSD, paraphrased Campion's following statement: "In responses to AY the Institute has previously noted (NC 05.04.22) that the emails AY uses as evidence for this allegation include numerous emails to mailing lists, to Moodle forums, and multiple student recipients. There is therefore no evidence that the student would have been singled out." And concluded:"It (UWTSD) particularly noted that many of the messages you rely on as indicative of harassment were sent to multiple addressees." That is, according to Campion and UWTSD the evidence I provided consists of circular e-mails, which were not directly sent to me. However, in fact, 15 of the 20 emails (75%), I highlighted as evidence, were d-i-r-e-c-t-l-y sent to me. Moreover, in 13 of all the 13 emails (100%) that I provided as evidence, specifically for Clynes's "closet use of astrology", I was the d-i-r-e-c-t recipient. And thus, how UWTSD was able to "particularly noted that many of the messages you (I) rely on as indicative of harassment were sent to multiple addressees" has been a mind-eclipsing mystery for me, simply because it can be disproven with basic mathematics. And yet, UWTSD for "some" reason preferred Campion over basic mathematics, to dismiss my claims in their official outcome letter. It also means that either no-one read my complaint during "investigations" or preferred to pretend as if they did not read my complaint. Because otherwise how can it be explained screen shot from my formal complaint below, which highlights direct-circular distinction in % could have escaped UWTSD's attention? That is how UWTSD argued that "It (UWTSD) particularly noted that many of the messages you rely on as indicative of harassment were sent to multiple addressees"? Is not this argument can be disproven with basic mathematics? Is not stating something that can be disproven with basic mathematics malicious, an attempt to cover up, and thus power-abuse? I think, UWTSD instead of dismissing my allegations by endorsing the blatant LIE of Campion, should have acknowledged that Campion LIED, and deepened its investigations accordingly. And this is what I do, directly below. 3. Zooming into astrologer-tutor Clynes's "Closet Use of Astrology" with probability and correlation analyses: I think since Clynes appears to be the main perpetrator of "closet use of astrology, with 13 d-i-r-e-c-t emails, my allegations against her needed to be investigated in order to reach a reasonable conclusion about whether "closet use of astrology" happened or not. However, UWTSD never looked into my allegations against Clynes. So, here below, I am zooming into astrologer-tutor Clynes's "Closet Use of Astrology" with probability and correlation analyses. In order to follow my reasoning that supports my allegations about "closet use of astrology", the reader does not need to have any prior knowledge about astrology, as you do not need to believe in astrology. but you need to have faith in mathematics and logic, and have some patience and curiosity. The statistical analyses discussed below indicates to an impossibility for those series of independents events to occur accidentally and provides a highly significant correlation percentage (84.6%) on 39 points that are checked. That means it is possible to explain 84.6% of these event charts with my, Campion and Gunzburg's birth charts. And indicates, although it may be obscure to me and also to the reader, it is a fact that Clynes knew exactly WHY she was committing "closet use of astrology", when she sent those e-mails just at the ‘right’ time. a. Evidence: Event charts/timings of emails from astrologer-tutor Clynes The evidence that I presented to Campion and UWTSD for my allegations about astrologer-tutor Dr Frances Clynes’s “closet use of astrology” consists of event charts/timings of 13 emails. In all those emails (%100) I was the d-i-r-e-c-t recipient. This 13-emails sample, although small, is an undeniably complete sample, for correlation and probability analyses, which I provided to prove my claims for Clynes’s “closet use of astrology”. An undeniably complete sample because, it includes ALL the four essays in modules of which Clynes was a tutor (which were non-academically marked), majority of module evaluation questionnaires, and ALL four seminars that I made payments to attend. All time & dates are İstanbul (GMT +3) e.i. recipient's time-zone, as is the usual practice in astrology. DELIVERY OF MARKED ESSAYS: Astral Religion Essay 1: 08-04-2019, 17.36 Astral Religion Essay 2: 21-05-2019, 23.43 Sky & Psyche Essay 1: 14-12-2019, 20.36 Sky & Psyche Essay 2: 27-01-2020, 22.20 DELIVERY OF MODULE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRES: Foundations: 13-04-2018, 21.50 Foundations: 18-07-2018, 12.38 (reminder) Astral Religion: 19-06-2019, 12.46 Cosmology Magic Divination: 21-07-2019, 15.29 Sky & Psyche: 10-11-2020, 13.01 SOPHIA CENTRE SEMINARS & CONFERENCES, as replies to my emails: Cosmology Magic Divination, Key Concepts Lecture: 01-07-2020, 10.35 2020 On-line Conference: 09-12-2020, 19.47 2021 On-line Conference: 29-11-2021, 11.43 Dr Jack Hunter's lecture: 02-09-2021, 23.22 b. Probability analyses of event charts Since there are 360 degrees on the Zodiac. One degree’s probability to correlate one significant point is %0.28 (1/360 * 100). In the event charts listed above matching points/degrees, with -/+1 (rarely -/+2) degree margin, are as follows: Six times: 20 Scorpio [hereafter Event A] Four times: 25 Gemini [hereafter Event B] Three times: 26 Virgo [hereafter Event C] Three times: 18 Aries [hereafter Event D] Two times: 28 Capricorn, [hereafter Event E] Two times: 18 Cancer, [hereafter Event F] One time: 8 Virgo, 8 Gemini, 1 Virgo, 21 Libra, 11 Taurus, 28 Sagittarius, 3 Scorpio, 22 Leo, 16 Capricorn, 4 Pieces, 4 Virgo, 18 Capricorn, 28 Libra So, even if we leave one time occurrences out, and then conduct probability analyses for Events A, B, C, D, E, F by using: https://www.calculator.net/probability-calculator.html, results can be noted as follows: Probability of Event A occurring six times = 0.000482 Probability of Event B occurring four times = 0.00614656 Probability of Event C occurring three times = 0.021952 Probability of Event D occurring three times = 0.021952 Probability of Event E occurring two times = 0.0784 Probability of Event F occurring two times = 0.0784 Moreover, probability of all aforementioned six serious of independent events occurring accidentally cannot be calculated with my 10-digit calculator. Hence, probability analyses indicate an impossibility for these series of independent events to occur accidentally. It goes without saying but, we already know timings of these emails were not regular, as well. Hence the indisputable conclusion that Clynes carefully selected those timings for "closet use of astrology". Those were neither accidental nor regular. c. Correlation analyses of event charts: Campion & Gunzburg emerges! Each event chart consists of only three points. These three points are Ascendent (AS/ASC), Midheaven (MC) and Lot of Fortune (x). Since those imaginary points’ positions on a given event chart change minute by minute, and in a day, they visit all 360 degrees of the Zodiac, those three are the best tools to relay a message with “closet use of astrology”, due to their flexibility. So, for correlation analyses, three points (ASC, MC, and (x)) are checked from each event chart of Clynes’s direct emails. Correlation results are as follows: - Total points checked: 39 (%100) - Correlated points with my birth chart: 16 (%41) - Correlated points with Gunzburg’s birth chart: 9 (%23.1) - Correlated points with Campion’s birth chart: 8 (%20.5) - Total points correlated: 33 (%84.6) That means total correlated points with three birth charts (mine, Campion’s and Gunzburg’s) explain %84.6 of these event charts. Statistically speaking this is a very high correlation. Moreover, %84.6 correlation is an intriguing % to ponder about, especially considering non-academic markings are started after Gunzburg's discrimination in 2018 which was followed with my argument that "Plato was neither an astrologer nor an astronomer”, to which Gunzburg did not directly reply. But indirectly replied, five days later by disagreeing her life-long partner and business associate astrologer-tutor Dr Brady, and by non-academically marking my essay. Due to that experience and what followed e.g. some other non-academic markings, and Campion's interventions after two non-academic markings to mediate, those correlations makes a lot of sense. Hence, if you would like to see how fitting this is within the context in which my case unfolded, please also read Zoom 4. Non-academic markings and other discrimination cases. d. More about "closet use of astrology" To know more about my allegations about "closet use of astrology", that includes my allegations about disclosure of my personal data to a third-party and also Brady's "closet use of astrology", please read: To see what an event chart look like, and for details of the birth charts of me, Campion and Gunzburg, and how correlations work out, please check this:

If you want to dive even deeper into wildly conflicting reasonings of relevant parties official documents are disclosed below. 1st Later: EARLY RESOLUTION PROCESS with astrologer-director Assoc. Prof Nicholas Campion of Sophia Centre: 2nd Layer: FORMAL COMPLAINT PROCESS with Academic Office of UWTSD. First stage with Dr Magdalena Ohrman and second with Prof Kyle Erikson, Director of Academic Experience: 3rd Layer: COMPLAINT PROCESS with OIA. First stage with Assistant Adjudicator, Jess Meacham and second with Adjudication Manager, Claire Skelly:

..well, as it is extensively discussed our (my vs Campion's, UWTSD's and OIA's) reasonings are wildly-conflicting. So, it is now up to your reason and your Conscience to conclude.