Universally of Salford: "We're Sorry" Say Amnesty International

Monday, 12 September 2011

"We're Sorry" Say Amnesty International

Internal emails seen by UoS have revealed that graceless Irene Khan - Chancellor of the University of Salford and former Secretary General of Amnesty International - has made quite the stir in the corridors of her former employer's HQ after she "negotiated" the sum of over £500,000 in a compromise agreement.

The emails describe Amnesty International as being "very shocked and upset by the payments" and explains that Peter Pack, the former head of AI's International Executive Committee (the body which approved the payment), has "stepped down" from his role over the fiasco.

An internal review - due to be made publicy available in October - conducted at AI has been led by former HM Inspector of Prisons, Dame Anne Owers, and has concluded both that "the payments were excessive" and that "mistakes, bad judgements and poor systems" led to the decision.

We are sure that will come as cold comfort to AI's generous supporters.

No comments:

Post a Comment

What is 'Universally of Salford'?

The openness of any social structure can be validated by how it treats criticism. A democracy would never be described as open or liberal if it failed to encourage a climate in which criticism and opposition to the ideas of an executive body can flourish. A University is no different.

During our experiences with the University of Salford, there has never been an effective outlet for the sort of objections to executive policies and decisions raised in this blog. Almost every attempt we have ever made to investigate any controversial decisions, activities, spending or events has been met with threats, derision and concealment.

The Students' Union – the obvious forum in which to raise these issues – remains silent owing to virtually the entirety of its funding being conditional upon donations from the University.

It is our opinion that the University of Salford can never improve if it, as an institution, cannot distinguish between good and bad decision making. Achieving this is conditional upon both the student and staff bodies being kept informed about both the good and bad within the University.

Since the University have a monopoly over their internal publications (including, we would argue, the Student Newspaper), and since this 'monopolised' publicity is almost without exception propagandist, it is our opinion that a purely critical alternative ought be available to staff and students to balance out this inequity and assist in keeping both parties informed.