Talk:University of Bedfordshire/Archive 1

Earlier debate

 * This section is mainly in reverse chronological order

There are lots of ways of verifying information and one can not expect everything to be online. I have not received any information from Bedfordshire denying any of the points that I have raised, until they do I intend to persist.

Here are some questions to ask Bedfordshire (and check with HEFCE etc):

i) How many students did Luton have on its third semester programme (by year) and of these how many were: a)	new students? b)	staff? c)	current students doing an extra free module?

ii) How many complaints of a) racism, b) bullying and c) how many whistleblowers, they received information from. These broken down by year, outcome and faculty.

Asking direct questions about the Head of Technical Staff etc might also be worth perusing.

Why is everyone else hiding their identities?

Alfred Vella alfred_vella@hotmail.com ---

sounds like propaganda of a decrier...

show me your proves and i may change my opinion but the right now it sounds like nonsense

--- In its first week of existence Bedfordshire is showing that its just Luton going by another name. I hope that anyone who can will send information to me (addresses below) and call for the public enquiry into the corruption at Luton ASAP.

Alfred ---

I do think it is amusing that the (somewhat desperate?) defenders of the University of Luton are so concerned with trying to outweigh all the bad news about that institution that they now simply repeat University PR verbatim, with quotes such as:

"The Government has also chosen Luton as a Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning in 2005, and awarded it £3.3m in recognition of our outstanding work in helping and supporting student learning"

Of "our" outstanding work?

Surely they must realise that is this kind of spinning that encourages others with a more realistic view of this institution to persist in this editorial dispute? -

Ian,

I agree that my comments are negative. This is because lots of hype is written about them by people who know little of what actually went on there. Unlike, HEFCE for example, I was party to the meetings that discussed the overtime that was being paid to the admin staff so that they could come into the university to prepare documents that should have been given to students 6 months earlier. I saw documents regularly being doctored or fabricated. Minutes of meetings being misreported, evidence of errors being ‘lost’. I found unsat exam papers on the public area of the network etc etc.

I witnesses the bullying of staff and students and attempted to mitigate against this as best I could until the senior manager involved offered my Headship to three others, with only the third, the least qualified and one who had failed to make the original second interview for the post thought that he could have it. He was mistaken.

I interviewed the senior management team and told them what was going on only for nothing to be done. I had many meetings with the others that had formally complained about the same Dean as I had and later were found to have been bullied. I was told by these that the bullying continued so that one left of her own accord and the other was eventually sacked.

I could (and will elsewhere) go on but if you want to be balanced you might get my drift!

I have one qualification that many others do not – I was there, I saw, I complained, I was offered cash to shut up.

I wont!

Alfred ---

Alfred,

You make the point that "except for a few 'advertising' type statements the statements seem mainly to be facts". That may be true, however, your additions consist of negative points picked out from an equally balanced document... Placing your views at the top of the page (above the fold) in a block could be seen as unfair.

In reply to your quote from the rector of Imperial College London: Professor Les Ebdon, vice-chancellor of Luton University, was suprised by the remarks:

"It's an absolutely extraordinary comment to make, not least because we don't do a maths degree at Luton, so he didn't quite get his facts right."*

In a letter to Hefce, which the organisation has released, with Sir Richard Sykes' (rector of Imperial College London) permission, he clarified his position and comments:

"My unfortunate allusion to mathematics at Luton was intended to illustrate the diversity and differences - in mission, purpose and courses offered - within our higher education system and the way they are funded," he wrote.

"The unreported part of my comment on that issue was 'Universities shouldn't all be treated the same. A few stand on the international stage and need to be funded differently'.

"Certainly, I intended no slight or damage to Luton and I have since made this point both to the vice chancellor, Professor Les Ebdon and to Sir Robin Bingham, chancellor of Luton."+

In March 2006 Sir Richard Sykes' salary became the center of attention amongst Imperial College staff and students after the University paper, Felix, published a front page article highlighting how much he was paid. Sir Richard Sykes receives a pay-packet £305,000 a year, the highest of all Rectors of government funded univerities.±

Kris [*see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3502920.stm] [+see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3589409.stm] [±see http://www.felixonline.co.uk/v2/article.php?id=3040]

Ian,

As far as I can see, except for a few 'advertising' type statements the statements seem mainly to be facts. I appreciate that this and probably any article about what the rector of Imperial College London refered to as a 'third-class' institution*, will be controvercial but balance is needed so that readers do not get the view that Bedfordshire is one of our great universities.

Alfred

[*see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3502920.stm]

Alfred,

Yes I am, I have had previous (pleasant!) experiences of Luton though...

Tim

Tim,

are you independent of Luton/Bedfordshire?

I mentioned that I have discussed the bullying issue with the person who was deputy vice chancellor in 2000. I have spoken to many students and staff as well as the Health and safety executive and others on these topics.

I was one (of many) who was bullied by a Dean of Faculty. I will make the evidence (at least that which is not confidential) available on the internet in due course but of course I would prefer for evidence that was agreed with the university.

Alfred

Alfred,

Touché!

I wouldn't want you to be concerned about me, I am in fact a Wiki...

Tim

Tim,

'you have an irrational vendetta' I hope that you have proof of this!

I am concerned that you do not say if you are a Wiki or a Luton/Bedfordshire person. I am unable to post personal details of others without knowing whom I am posting to.

Alfred

Alfred,

Is is becoming increasingly obvious from your persistence and times of posting that you have an irrational vendetta towards the University. I shall be requesting information from the University regarding the issues you have raised as well as other relevant information.

Tim

Tim, and all,

The University has not denied (at least to my knowledge) that:

a)	those mentioned in my contribution have indeed complained about bullying. b)	Staff and students (including a Greek) have likewise complained of racism

When I talked to Professor Robinson about a) she did not deny my statement.

The Health and Safety Executive confirmed that bullying had apparently taken place and the bully went unpunished.

I think that it is a pity that you are too embarrassed to identify yourself and your affiliation. Anyone can claim to be ‘Tim Moyles’.

Alfred,

Tim Moyles, as stated on my login...

Tim,

can you identify yourself?

Alfred

Alfred,

Were you one of the people 'allegedly' bullied? That appears to be the only conclusion I can draw as to why you appear to have such a vendetta against the University? Please elaborate on what you feel is 'the truth'? If you have evidence, please publish it!

Tim,

I was one of 3 who complained about the same person (Mr Mortimer Dean of Science, Technology and Design, and whos compliants were 'investigated' in April 2000. I and another were sacked, and the third left after claiming that the bullying continued after the complaints of the other two were upheld. I also know of other complaints.

Tim,

I know about the bullying and racism, as I have spoken to many witnesses. I have evidence but I want the university to provide all the evidence before I publish mine.

Sorry but I will continue until the truth is out or I am silenced by the courts

Alfred,

As stated below you have submitted a Freedom of Information request to validate your accusations of racism and bullying at the University. Until you are able to provide this evidence please leave any unsubstantiated claims off the University of Bedfordshire's entry, without accurate and relevant evidence to back up your claims your comments are liablous. As mentioned before, as the accuser, it is your responsibility to provide this evidence, not the University's.

Many thanks,

Tim

-

Tim,

Apologies, I will try and keep your edits in.

I was hoping that the anonymous editor would use email and/or talk to put messages but it seems that Luton staff are not able to use the technology properly.

Alfred - Alfred, if you do insist on continually changing this listing please add your content to the page rather than cutting and pasting from your outdated archived version. There are other changes and additions being applied and I am growing tired of having to correct these after you have over written them.

Tim

-

Wikipedia is not an advertising service but unfortunately this 'university' is attempting to con potential students into joining it.

The statement from the times that 40% of Luton students would not recommend alma mater speaks for itself.

The 1999 Mori poll, commissioned by the University, gives a good view of what the then staff thought of their management, I will make some of its findings public in due course but a copy was available in the Library for those wishing to see it.

I am happy to expand on my views and give evidence in public, under oath, with free questioning and on the record for my statements. I challenge Les Ebdon to do the same.

I have asked (28th July) the University to provide me with data under the freedom of information act and am collecting the statements of ex staff and students to be made available in due course.

Dr Alfred D Vella CMath, CEng Alfred_vella@hotmail.com

[Formerly Visiting Professor then Head of Computing then Head of Computing and Information Systems then Associate Dean, Computing Research and Development, The University of Luton, UK]

01908 648566 194 Buckingham Rd Bletchley Milton Keynes  

The original article appears to have been deleted. What replaces it is a blatant blast at the school. It must be replaced with what was there before.

It's a shame to see such a school be blasted in the face of it's brand new plans and new ambitions considering it's new budget.

as long as i dont see any evidences, i wont trust you

Quality issues
I have added back in the section on quality that I composed for the old Luton entry. This is important material, which is all verifiable. I agree with one or two other editors that it is important to keep to the facts. It is only a few weeks ago that we had someone who claimed to be a Luton employee deleting reference to the redundancies that have occurred at his/her own institution. Unfortunately much of the previous discussion where I exposed this seems to have been deleted. NT 195.93.21.137 14:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

deletion of repetition
I have deleted a repetition (Ebdon's response to the Times tables). NT 195.93.21.137 16:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Editing by University of Beds staff?
I have discovered where the old discussion went.

Its at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Luton&oldid=35377561 During this discussion, one 'Pdean', who claimed to be university employee, was caught editing out material on the Luton redundancies. He also seemingly predicted that the University would try to intevene to bend the entry.

I do hope it does not.

NT 195.93.21.137 16:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a biased condensation of an prolonged extensive discussion, moderated by an independent wikipedian. Only factually inaccurate material regarding redundancies was removed.

The above comment is in itself inaccurate.The material in the thread specified fully supports the interpretation offered. It is notable that the Wiki mediator did not uphold Pdean's complaints. --Mythpuncturer 08:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

'The neutrality of this section is disputed' box
Just so the rest of us know, please will the person who inserted the 'The neutrality of this section is disputed' box please outline exactly what they feel is controversial here? The procedure is as follows:

How to initiate an NPOV debate If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article.

Incidentally, my recent addition (see above)contains accurate and fully verifiable data, and is careful to quote relevant University responses to QAA and newspaper criticism. NT Mythpuncturer 21:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

A few days ago, I asked the person who inserted the 'The neutrality of this section is disputed' box to follow the correct Wikipedia policy when there is a neutrality dispute.

They have not done so.

Some contributors (including myself) have problems with Alfred's insertions. If the box was placed above these, that would be one thing, because it would accurately reflect a real difference of opinion, which has been debated in this thread.

But as it is placed at the moment, it calls into question the whole Quality Issues section, which I think is unjustified, particularly as no-one has challenged the bulk of the material.

I therefore give notice that, unless the correct procedure is followed within the next seven days, I will be applying for the box to be removed. BV Mythpuncturer 16:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I was the first to add any tag to the article, however it was not in the same place in the article at that stage, and as you can see since then the article has come on a long, long way. At that stage it read as a significantly slanted rant, airing the university's washing in public, really. I added the tag in order to try to get some other wikipedian's input and generally draw attention to the article, to try to make sure it is a representative picture of the university.
 * I'm happy to confirm that I feel the issues which lead me to add the tag have been adequately addressed, but I think that a close eye needs to be kept on it to ensure that the content is fair and balanced. Ian3055 21:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. In that case, I will move the box to where it belongs. If anybody disagrees, please indicate. Mythpuncturer 07:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

After my exchange with Ian3055 this morning, I moved the box so that it is directly above the disputed section. Later, 194.80.219.38 moved it back without comment (it's subsequently been moved again). If 194.80.219.38 is unhappy with the new placement, would he/she like to explain why? Mythpuncturer 16:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement and information
In the light of recent editing of this page, I would like to appeal to all contributors to follow Wiki policy, and only include information that is relevant, factually accurate, and verifiable by others.

Second, I note that someone has recently added the allegation that the university has 'forced' its staff 'to take Luton courses to boost student numbers and inflate the University's record on widening participation'.

I very much hope the person who added this will justify it, but meanwhile I would like to point out that the Times Higher Education Supplement ran a story headed 'Luton asks staff to enrol on its courses' on 3 January 2003 which contained the following:

'Staff at Luton University have been encouraged to enrol as students on its courses in an apparent attempt to maintain numbers.

In a memo to all staff at the end of November, Luton's deputy vice-chancellor...warned them that it could lose funds for teaching because "substantial numbers of students are not yet properly enrolled... and students we don't know about we don't get paid for". She added: "If you have not yet registered on your own courses, you must do so by the end of next week."

Luton's vice-chancellor...this week strongly denied that there was any concerted attempt to artificially boost student numbers through mass staff enrolments'...

195.93.21.137 11:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A member of STD admin staff approached me, almost in tears, and complained that she did not want to sign up for a Luton University course. I was shocked when she told me that she was being forced to.

Alfred [alfred_vella@hotmail.com] Alfred Vella 12:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC) -- you claim that you are a whistle blower? was there any institution which supports that? was there any court hearing?

Controversy
There are far too many claims and assertions in this section and it is heading for deletion unless external references can be referenced for the claims. It is not enough that an editor asserts that he made them as this falls foul of the Wikipedia policy no original research. Please also see Wikipedia policy wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Concrete Cowboy 12:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I am with Concrete Cowboy on this. Material placed on Wikipedia must be verifiable - that is, someone else must be able to go away and check it. However, the right way to resolve this issue is as posted above. Mythpuncturer 13:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Citations don't have to be online. They just need to be available from an independent source with information about how to find them. --Concrete Cowboy 19:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite. Boat swain 19:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversy (2)
Hi Alfred, I've read your comments which are posted at the top of this thread, but I think that you are being a little bit unreasonable. Many people - most probably including yourself - would be exercised if the Luton/Bedfordshire management consistently published something here that was unverifiable by an average person. You can't have it both ways. Anyway, Wikipedia policy is clear on these matters. If you dispute this, please do now call in a mediator. If you go back to the old University of Luton discussion thread, you'll see it has been done before, and with illuminating results. This entry has had a troubled history already, and seems to have been targetted by some who are really averse to the truth. The only people who suffer in these circumstances are the readers. Please respect the rules. Mythpuncturer 16:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC) PS people are quite within their rights to post anonymously, and may do so for lots of different reasons.

Hi,

Menbers of the public are of course at liberty to put in a PID request to Bedfordshire and see what they get back. Much of the information that Bedfordshire, HEFCE and even the THES, publish about Bedfordshire is NOT independent but stems from reports and returns etc from Bedfordshire.

Alfred Vella 21:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

any evidences for this allegation? 212.99.213.94 14:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Governance
Hi guys, I'm new round here, but captivated. I'm just putting together a section on governance. Should be ready in a couple of days. As readers of the THES will know, there's lots of interesting stuff! Boat swain 19:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

A taster
Hi Guys Just coudnt resist. Here's a little taster:

Times Higher Education Supplement

Whistleblowers: Luton 'misreported' student numbers

Phil Baty Published: 21 March 2003

Luton University "misreported" its student numbers to funding chiefs at a time when it was struggling to meet recruitment targets. Documents seen by The THES show that auditors from the Higher Education Funding Council for England concluded after a May 2001 audit that they "could not provide reassurance" over the reliability of Luton's student number returns, which are used to determine teaching funds...

Best wishes 'The Boat' Boat swain 20:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The odd thing is that in early 2000 I had an interview with a Tim Boatswain, then a Dean at Luton, where I told him what was going on. I do not know if he did anything about what I told him.

Alfred Vella 21:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, why not contact Boatswain, I believe he's at Huddersfield now, another up and coming institution? Hail the Boat! Boat swain 21:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversy (3)
Hi Alfred, Ive read your latest. I'm afraid that I still think you are being unreasonable. First, the points of fact. I grant you that, to the outsider, HEFCE has sometimes seemed loath to castigate Luton/Bedforshire in public. But there have been the odd very revealing flourishes. Thus, for example, when the HEFCE Chief Executive met the Luton/Bedfordshire Board of Governors in November 2003, he indicated that he had 'some considerable nervousness concerning the financial strength of the institution, over its student recruitment and forecasting record, and its estates strategy' (UL810), and this phrase was repeated in the press. So the record is not black and white. As to the THES, I think you are being unfair. It has regularly printed stories about Luton/Bedfordshire, and explained the anxieties of critics. But journalists should not be mouthpieces, and so it is entirely right that the university's views should be reported, too. Second, the points of procedure. Your mode of arguing is that you make an accusation, and then when challenged, tell the challenger to dig the evidence out for him/herself. Its like if I called you a thief, and then said, well, prove you're not. Absurd. But anyway, regardless, this is not how Wikipedia works. Its not an advertising space, or bulletin board for those with grudges (even reasonable grudges). Its a place where we collectively try to say something truthful about our subjects. And that means that evidence must be verifiable. That is, if you say something, I must be able to go away and reasonably easily locate the source, on the web or in a public library, so that I can check that the way that you have referred to it is accurate. As Ive already pointed out, if the Luton/Bedfordshire management insisted on posting unsubstantiated allegations here, those of us who post in good faith would be (and have been!) rightly incensed. If there is a rule for one, it must apply to all. So please, either provide the evidence for your accusations, or withdraw them. --195.93.21.137 15:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC) -- i second that! -- I couldn't agree more, if Alfred Vella's claims of racism/bullying can be backed up with evidence then they belong on the Wiki page. If they cannot, they should be removed, this is not the right place to air your grudges...

Edit of 22 August 2006
I have: (a) made it clear that the QAA subject reports were evaluating quality of education, and not teaching per se, by changing the word 'teaching' to 'courses'in line 2 of the Quality Issues section; (b) added in a relevant balancing comment re the QAA Dev.Eng reports; and (c) italicised newspaper and reference book titles. Mythpuncturer 16:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Irony
Just added a little on. Hail to the boat. Boat swain 21:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with Luton/Bedfordshire is that...
...you're never too sure what it is talking about.

Consider the following.

At any time for the past three years (at least), and as of five minutes ago, you could find the following on Luton/Bedfordshire’s website, under the ‘Why choose us?’ banner (press ‘Why choose us?’, then ‘Teaching quality’).

"The University’s record – and hence reputation – for excellent teaching is due to its outstanding performance in official inspections, conducted on behalf of the Government by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). The QAA has awarded us no fewer than six ‘excellent’ teaching scores in a row for Building, Media, Biosciences, Nursing, Psychology and Design."

(see http://www.beds.ac.uk/aboutus/facts/teachingquality)

It is possible to check this statement, as the reports are online at

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/reports/archive/oldInstReports.asp?instID=H-0026 and

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/reports/archive/instReports.asp?instID=H-0026

It turns out that there are some surprises.

First, the way the statement is written implies that these are recent assessments (NB the construction ‘has awarded us’). They are not. The dates are as follows: 1997 (Building), 1998 (Communication and Media Studies), 1999 (Molecular Biosciences, Nursing, Organismal Biosciences, Psychology), and 2000 (Art and Design). It is worth noting, too, that here have been other QAA assessments subsequently.

Second, the QAA did not use the word ‘excellent’ (and the implication of putting it in inverted commas is surely that it did?).

Third, the QAA assessments in fact measured ‘quality of education’ not ‘teaching’ per se. However, as part of this, they did each include a section and rating on ‘teaching, learning, and assessment’, which is presumably what the paragraph is talking about when it refers to ‘teaching scores’.

However, in four of the six cases, Luton did not in fact gain the top mark. The results were as follows (with the QAA explanation of the mark appended afterwards):

Nursing, Psychology 4/4 (‘This aspect makes a full contribution to the attainment of the stated objectives. The aims set by the subject provider are met’).

Building, Communication and Media Studies, Molecular Biosciences, Organismal Biosciences, Art and Design 3/4 (‘This aspect makes a substantial contribution to the attainment of the stated objectives; however there is scope for improvement. The aims set by the subject provider are substantially met’).

It’s a strange old world.

(with thanks to you know who) TB195.93.21.137 07:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this kind of thing is a problem when it comes to accurately painting a picture of what is going/has gone on. It seems to be endemic right across the university sector. However, I did purposefully add in the dates of the QAA assessments to the main entry, and the word 'teaching' was also corrected. Incidentally, I have taken up this issue with the current VC, Mr. Ebdon, and await his response (he told me a couple of days ago that the page is being checked). NT 195.93.21.137 07:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Modification of quotation
88.107.95.63 (from Milton Keynes)

I understand that it is not always possible to check your facts but in the case of your 'modification' how about looking at your reference?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8164-2279500,00.html, says 'But a spokeswoman for the university says that its lawyers are on the case, adding that Vella left the university six years ago.'

I am happy to acknowledge that I was offered cash to go quietly but chose to fight on - and that's what I am doing. How about looking up the Employment tribunal records to see what Luton is accused of?

Alfred ps Unlike you I am not afraid to give my name, though I understand that many ex-Luton staff are!

Overseas students
There was an interesting piece in the Guardian on 29 August 2006 about the way that UK universities treat overseas students.

It contains quite a lot on Luton/Bedfordshire, including the following:

Some have tried and failed to get support from university services. Ting Zhao, a biological science undergraduate from China, worked part-time as a concert steward. "I wanted to relieve the burden for my parents and to break from my isolation in Luton," she says. There she met a 20-year-old colleague who moved into her flat.

Six months later, when Zhao became pregnant, he left her. Unable to tell her parents about her pregnancy, and evicted by the landlord, she became depressed and unable to cope with her studies.

Zhao went to Bedfordshire's international student advisers for help. "They referred me to the local law centre, which couldn't help me. They also accommodated me at a 'host family' who refused to keep me because I was pregnant."

The university lost contact with her and never followed up her case. Zhao wandered around the streets, where she was found by her midwife a month before the birth. The university's international advisory service told Education Guardian: "The university has offered support to Ting Zhao, but we cannot discuss her case. As she has deferred her studies, the university is currently not responsible for her situation."

See http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1859929,00.html

NT 195.93.21.137 13:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Student body section
I have added a section on the student body. Please feel free to bulk out. 195.93.21.137 15:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with Luton/Bedfordshire... (2)
I was interested to read a piece by Lucy Hodges in the Independent on 3 August 2006, which began with the following:

"Five years ago Luton University was on its knees. It was failing to recruit enough students for its courses and was forced to produce a drastic recovery plan by the Higher Education Funding Council (Hefce). That meant axing the whole of its humanities faculty…Academics were in revolt because of job losses, and rumours flew about a merger with the nearby University of Hertfordshire. As an institution with few cash reserves that languished towards the bottom of the league table for research, Luton was more vulnerable than most to a new funding regime that introduced a marketplace to higher education…"(see http://education.independent.co.uk/higher/article1210272.ece)

Ho, hum, I thought, five years ago, lets have a look. And sure enough, there’s plenty in the press, including some forthright comments by one Dai John, then Luton/Bedfordshire’s Vice Chancellor.

But hold on a minute, Mr. John isn’t talking about Luton/Bedfordshire being on its knees, etc.. Far from it. According to him, the university has just ‘had one of its best ever years, and has leapt 21 places in educational league tables in just three years’. And there’s a whole lot of other stuff, too, about Luton hitting targets, and doing this and that. Seems like the only flies in the ointment, for Mr. John, at least, are some ‘educational snobs’, who are ‘orchestrating’ a campaign of vilification… (see http://www.lutontoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=541&ArticleID=279567).

What comes around, goes around? My head is spinning.

Controversy section - templates applied
I have applied the importance and cleanup-rewrite templates to the 'controversy' section, as the current content is completely unsuitable for wikipedia. I was tempted to delete the entire section on sight, but that would probably get reverted, so I will leave it for other editors with more knowledge of the issues to clean the article up.

In order for this to be in any way encyclopaedic, the section needs to comply with WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NN at least. The section appears to be filled with original research, apparently from some guy called Alfred Vella. The article needs to explain why the opinions of this person ("former Associate Dean") are important, and why they deserve a place in an article about this university. Then, if they are notable enough for inclusion, they need to be appropriately sourced and even-handedly dealt with. DWaterson 17:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You are by no means the first person to have problems with this section. It is to be hoped that Alfred Vella will provide credible and verifiable evidence for his claims. By the way, this whole controversy started when people who claimed to be, or appeared to be, connected to Luton/Bedfordshire unilaterally edited out valid information and/or inserted advertising puffs. --Mythpuncturer 08:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit of 31 August
I have added in a link to the Times Good University Guide tables. --Mythpuncturer 14:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit of 31 August (2)
I have slightly re-written the fist paragraph in 'Investment' to make it more reader friendly. And I have then appended a second paragraph. --Mythpuncturer 15:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversy section - templates applied (2)
Can whoever put in the tags for importance, neutrality, citation needed etc be even handed. Much of the first part is un cited and much of the rest depends upon what Luton/Bedfordshire has told others. For example ' Hand in hand with financial viability, the university became much better at attracting students.'.

My comments are based on what staff and students have told me, what they have told employment tribunals and internal investigations. I have seen documents supporting my claims and my comments have not been denied by Bedfordshire as far as I know. If they do deny any then I will seek to publish evidence against such denials as widely as possible. Many who know Luton (and thus Bedfordshire) will only show their hand if necessary!


 * But, Alfred (I assume this is you; please sign your comments with four tildes), this is an encylopaedia, not your personal website. You don't say what relevance these "claims" have to the article, and in any case Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for you to publish original research. Unless you can explain why it is essential that your comments remain, you should take them off and publish them elsewhere, such as your own website, where they will not harm the integrity of this article. Oh, and I agree that the beginning of the text is also uncited, though considerably less in dispute; please feel free to be bold and improve it with citations if you can. :-) DWaterson 16:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

well...show us the evidences. if they are public, someone should have them.

plus:

alfred, the way you act here is very childish. if kris doesnt want to give you his full identity, its his right. he has a right to be here like you, and he has a right to keep his identity to himself or post it when and where HE wants to. its not up to you to decide who should let their pants down or not.

Controversy section removed
I have been bold and deleted the "controversy" section, due to a lack of assertion of its importance or notability to this encyclopaedia article. It appeared to be mainly unsourced tittle-tattle and gossip, focussing on one individual of minor importance. I would like to make it clear that I have deleted this section as an interested Wikipedian - I have no connection with the University of {Bedfordshire/Luton} - indeed, I have never even been to Luton in my life. However, it was quite clear that this section was unsuitable for inclusion in the article, per the above talk page discussions. DWaterson 20:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been equally bold and added some bits back. If you wish to edit, try adding, and try to be even handed! Much of what is written by Luton has been equally unfounded and since much of the praise that they got from QAA was be fabricating documents, it is not substantiated.

Though you have claimed to have no connection with Luton (do you mean the 'university' and its staff?), you have not declared your interest. I have first hand experience in thier dishonesty.

thanks

Alfred
 * Alfred, you do not seem to be getting the point here, which is disappointing in someone who is apparently an academic of some sort. This is an encyclopaedia - not your personal complaint board. If you open the Encyclopaedia Britannica, would you expect to find articles about unsubstantiated claims of bullying and other such miscellaneous gossip? Of course not. So why here? I see that one remaining quotation in the article is, "Alfred Vella, the university’s former associate dean for computing research and development told the Times “Wikipedia is not an advertising medium," - perhaps you should reflect on this, as it clearly doesn't extend to your own agenda at the moment. You are always free to set up your own website and take your complaints elsewhere, but please do not foist them inappropriately on wikipedia.
 * I have to say, your most recent edit is even more inappropriate. You have removed quite correctly applied "" tags from unsourced statements, in a clear attempt to avoid the need to source statements in a reliable and academic fashion. This is contrary to Wikipedia policy. I suggest that you read the Wikipedia policy on maintaining a neutral point of view and the associated tutorial, in addition to the policies on verifiability, original research, the use of weasel words, and on citing sources. Those should give you a clear guide on how to make valuable contributions to Wikipedia in an appropriate way. Good luck.
 * Finally, I clearly have declared my interest - that I have none. I have no connection to the university, its staff, undergraduates, postgraduates, finances, governance, or buildings whatsoever. I am merely a Wikipedia editor with too much little time on my hands to waste. DWaterson 23:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule violation
User:Alfred Vella is now in breach of the three revert rule, having reverted text within this article four times within a 24 hour period: No other editor is in breach. This revert war should cease immediately as it is contrary to Wikipedia policy. DWaterson 11:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * at 00:17, 12 October 2006
 * at 10:12, 12 October 2006
 * at 10:47, 12 October 2006
 * at 12:33, 12 October 2006

Quality/Staff issues
reading these two sections the tone and style appears to be mainly a personal attack on the university. Whilst there probably should be a section on these issues for them to dominate the article so much turns it into a review rather than an encyclopedic article.

Any thoughts as i am tempted to slash most of it out.GazMan7 16:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds itself rather one sided. How about taking all of the unfounded advertising materials out first?

Alfred Vella 00:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with User:GazMan7. DWaterson 14:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Do they really believe what they say?
I have found this a very interesting experience as I have never (outside political debates) seen such a clique defend what I know from experience to be indefensible!

Do DWaterson, Concrete Cowboy, Kevin Doran and GazMan7 etc really believe that a Durham degree is worth the same as a Bedfordshire one? I do not know what Durham is like, but I had a high opinion of it before DWaterson came onto the scene. I know what a Luton one is like as I have given lots of Luton ones away (BSc, MSc and PhDs) and lots from good universities too!

I guess some of the posters have connections with the ‘University’ but may be too shy to own up (I know some staff have been so embarrassed).

Anyway please keep up the myths, we need lots of people with duff degrees to do all of the jobs that the rest of us do not want. And maybe one day Bedfordshire will give you an Honorary degree – that will do your street cred lots of good ;)

By the way, as far as I am aware, Ebdon has not denied any of my statements! I would be happy to debate these issues with him but I guess he cannot afford to tell the whole truth. Alfred Vella 17:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I can recall, I have not "said" anything whatsoever about the university, either positive or negative. Indeed, I am unable to do so as I know nothing of the University of Bedfordshire. I have only deleted or reworded existing text contributed by other editors which failed to comply with Wikipedia policy. DWaterson 17:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Same here. Not sure I understand being included in the complaint, since I have reverted some arbitrary deletions back to Alfed Vella's version. For example, my last copyedit reinstated his claim to be a whistle-blower. --Concrete Cowboy 17:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Alfred read what i have written. I am unconnected with the Uni, i curerntly live in Luton and am clearly aware of its reputation. However reading most of what you have written it is clear you have a personal greivance with the University which you wsh to play out on Wiki. Clearly that is unacceptable. There are plenty of places to review Universities etc but this in not one of them.GazMan7 10:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Umm, what? I don't believe i've ever said anything about this uni -- which, yes, i do attend -- on Wikipedia. I don't even know how you included my name in this. I've only ever said negative things about the uni, on my blog. I don't think i've ever even edited this article or discussion page. . . . No, really, how did my name come into this? Confused. Do point me in the right direction, because if you're not mistaken, then someone else is posting as me. Kevin Doran 16:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violations
You cannot simply copy entire sentances from a source you must retell the sourced information in your own words. Those sections need to be completely redone.-- Birgitte§β ʈ  Talk  19:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

copyright
Perhaps whoever raised the issue about copyright could make their reasons known. The QAA report is a public document, so the only problem that I can see is with the quote from the THES, which might be a tad too long. But that is easily sorted out. By the way, I intend to add a lot more material in the next few weeks, as there is much else that is in the public domain, and is of direct relevance. Spursman 16:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about the quotes. I am talking text being lifted verbatim from the source.  For example this source is clearly copyrighted.  Yet the article before my blanking contatined these sentances exactly copied (and maybe more as I stopped looking)

"The latest performance indicators show that Luton was above its benchmark for the number of young students it takes from low-participation neighbourhoods (where there are few people going to higher education). Its intake is 18.2 per cent against a benchmark of 14.2 per cent."

"Its proportion of state school students is 99.5 per cent against a benchmark of 95.6 per cent and it admits 43.4 per cent from the lowest social classes against a benchmark of 35.7 per cent. Hand in hand with financial viability, the university became much better at attracting students."

"It has also become better at retaining students. It increased its home and European recruitment of students by 59.9 per cent. 'We made ourselves a more welcoming and friendly university,' says Ebdon. 'We really transformed our open days. We became much more customer-focused.'"

"But the vice chancellor is not resting on his laurels or on the unsolicited praise he received from Charles Clarke when the former Education Secretary said 'Everyone knows that the teaching quality at Luton is bloody brilliant'. It will be a challenge to find students this autumn with a combination of the new name, the arrival of top-up fees and with applications from mature students taking a hit. Forty-three per cent of Luton's student body are mature."


 * A cursory look at other sources showed other examples of copyright infringement. This is unacceptable, which is why I reported it as a copyright violation.. -- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  19:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to remove the copyvio template as the matter has been dealt with by deletion, and the copyvio does not apply to the whole article such that total deletion would be required. The template was also incomplete, lacking a cited URL for the copyvio. DWaterson 19:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda
Where is it all? The stuff Les Ebdon mutters in the hallways, over and over, like a malfunctioning robot; recites in his sleep; re-re-re-reinforms when you say hello to him. 'Did you know how much money we spent last year, and how great everyone says we are?! Do you know?!' Seriously, though, where's the mention of it? Things like being 4th in Media a few years ago, etc. Kevin Doran 15:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

huh?GazMan7 08:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * bleh? Kevin Doran 13:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair Play Please
To quote from above:

In the light of recent editing of this page, I would like to appeal to all contributors to follow Wiki policy, and only include information that is relevant, factually accurate, and verifiable by others.

This surely includes sections on: 1 History 2 Campuses 3 Faculties 4 Educational partner institutions 5 Alumni

or do the rules not apply to friends of Bedfordshire? Alfred Vella 23:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Alfred, i have added some references into the article. Im sure you would have been just of capable of doing so. There is no need to have an agenda to demonstarte the university is not a top uni. Clearly people know this. This is an encylopedia rather than a review site. As i understand its some years since you worked there maybe you should relax a little and work positively on Wiki. As far as i can see you have no(or very little) editing on any other articles, rather you spend all your editing time on Luton Uni. I have no connection with the uni of luton, although i do currently live in the town, so i have no agenda to promote The Uni of Beds. You ask people to play fairly but contribute little to wikipedia. GazMan7 16:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

a) I notice that you are quoting from Bedfordshire’s own web site to add credence to what you say. I though that self reference like this was not allowed?

b) I have made my intentions clear and all reading this page will know why I write here. Its not clear why you do but you seem unprepared to divulge all of the reasons.

c) The University has not, as far as I am aware, owned up to the dishonest behaviour of some of its staff. Some of these staff are still benefiting from the damage that they have done to others. Until the university does admit the wrongs of its past, I intend to do my bit to publicly and on the world stage let others know what they have done. I have had no item by item rebuttal from the university, just a note saying that I cause distress – they are causing distress to many!

d) The lives of many thousands of those who entrusted their education in the University have had their futures blighted. You are helping it to con more into the same situation. I will try and alert them. Alfred Vella 07:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Alfred, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not your personal soapbox. It is inappropriate, disruptive to the production of a quality encyclopaedic resource, potentially libellous, and contrary to Wikipedia's stated policies for you to seek to "try and alert" people to perceived "dishonest behaviour" through this medium. Please take any campaigning you wish to do to your personal website where you will not expose Wikipedia to potential libel action. If you don't have a personal website then there are many places on the internet where you can obtain free website hosting. DWaterson 16:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * DWaterson, Likewise, Wikipedia is not your soapbox where you can con potential students into joining what has been called a 'third rate university'. Unlike you I know what goes on in real universities and what went on at Bedfordshire's predecessor.

Nor is Wikipedia an advertising medium, where false pictures, like the one that you paint above are encouraged. The University is most upset when people add facts that they know to be true. They get especially annoyed and tested when reference is given as asked for! I do not believe that I have made any libellous statements. All my statements are true and the University knows that!

Why do you not ask Ebdon what happened to the Head of technical services in 2000? But I guess you would not want to know would you and he may well decline to confirm the truth or even claim ignorance!

Alfred Vella 23:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I paint no sort of image at all and I don't care in the slightest whether students want to join this university or not. That is not the point. Furthermore, I do not ask "Ebdon" your question because a) I don't know who that is, b) I don't care, and c) it's irrelevant to the article. This article should not seek to paint any image of the university, whether positive or negative, whether you believe either to be truthful. Reporting basic facts about the university such as its name, location, size, history, facilities, etc, scarcely counts as the rabid "advertising" you seem to suggest; on the other hand, your previous contributions to this article (eg have been POV in the extreme - your own particular form of self-promotion.


 * I am rather perplexed and exasperated by your attitude demonstrated throughout the discussion on this talk page. I'm not sure whether you are incapable of understanding Wikipedia's policies which I and other editors have drawn your attention to on numerous occasions, or whether you are intentionally ignoring them in order to grind your axe. Either way, I think it is important that I notify an administrator as to the potentially libellous content on this page, and thereafter withdraw from further discussion on this subject as I am no longer sufficiently interested in this minor and petty dispute. DWaterson 00:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Alfred, details of campus, courses etc are not self promotion. Which strikes me as a very odd accusation.

Why do i need an agenda to want to help improve Wiki. I enjoy working on Wiki, and which is why i do it. I try to stick to the rules and not bang on about issues i believe in, which are not what Wiki is about. As everyone has told you this is an encyclopedia, you need o understand that. If you cant join in in a constructive rather than petty way maybe Wiki isnt the place for you. Why do you think Wiki editors are the university? from your page i see its 6 years since the uni perted company with you, maybe you should move on?GazMan7 11:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Required
The article has many faults, ranging from technical (twin systems of notes - there are two "notes 1" in the text; refs come in random places with respect to punctuation etc) to POV based language instead of proper reportage. A simple and swift cleanup exercise will cure most of these. Fiddle Faddle 00:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

University ratings
(I'm posting this to all articles on UK universities as so far discussion hasn't really taken off on WikiProject Universities.)

There needs to be a broader convention about which university rankings to include in articles. Currently it seems most pages are listing primarily those that show the institution at its best (or worst in a few cases). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities. Timrollpickering 22:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

A Waste of Time
Can't you guys see the personal sour-graping of Mr. Vella against UBed? He has gone nuts and used Wiki for his own personal purpose. What a loser who needs professional help. Obviously, there is no logic on his concerns with UBed. And indeed, there is a thin line between being a genius and being insane. One can easily identify who from who. This topic is a waste of time. Lucky I don't have to read all this because I already smelled the rubbish at the start.Ferrari2006extreme 11:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Ferr

It’s a shame that you, unlike me, hide behind anonymity. Its probably you more than I that needs professional help – get yourself a permanent mate and a proper education, it may help! Also (probably) unlike you, I have had intimate knowledge of the workings of Bedfordshire’s previous existence as Luton and many of those with questionable ethics remain in positions of influence. I have also had much experience in many other universities and know that Luton at least was far from a good university. Trying to change it from the inside made no impact, I continue therefore to make changes from the outside! If staff need to be bullied in order to toe the party line, if documents need to be fabricated in order to convince tribunals and the quality watchdogs – and I know they have been – then there IS something very worrying, that’s what Luton was like. I have yet to be convinced that Bedfordshire is any different. Of course I am happy to communicate with ANYBODY about these issues. My email address is Alfred_vella@hotmail.com.

Alfred, surely your time there was quite some time ago, so your intimate knowledge is rather dated? It is clear to anyonw who reads this that you have a grievance with the uni and do not have a neutral POV which is a strict Wiki policy. Wiki is supposed to have balanced articles, not reviews of universities or your opinion.GazMan7 09:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

And of course you do not have a NPV, choosing to reply to me and not to the previous post by Ferrari2006extreme. Sorry you failed the test! Alfred Vella 13:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Its not a test dear, i try and keep my posting neautral and sensible. Something which you are obviously not able to do. Your lack of interest in anything but a single page demonstrates the obssessive nature of your campaign. I understand you 'parted ways' with Luton Uni, so the phrase 'axe to grind' jumps to mind. I did not attend Luton, and being honest i would not have wanted to, however Wikipedia is not a review site, such sites do exist so surely your campaign would be better off there....?GazMan7 17:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Funny but you sound far from 'neautral and sensible' maybe you have a degree from a Luton type university! Statements with '... and being honest ...' suggest that this may not be your normal behaviour - a pity. Alfred Vella 22:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Alfred, a single page of interest upon which you only post one view is not neutral. There is no way to defend this, so you try and make personal attacks. Wiki is not a review site, and using it for your own agenda is a pity, you appear to try to justify your 'rants' by validating them with comments about working at Luton. This was 5/6 years ago? so really not very relavant any more. It really appears to me, and any rational person that you are rather bitter at being sacked, did you win your tribunal...

Anyway these issues have been discussed before - see the archive. You need to accept that Wiki is not the place for your 'campaign'GazMan7 09:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope that the "small number of" staff are thankful that you put their allegations of racism in context, clearly you feel that it makes a difference! I have been contacted in 2007 by ex-staff and students of the 'university' so it is not just me that intend to keep campaigning for the truth. However we need apologists for dishonest behaviour, so keep it up! Alfred Vella 10:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Alfred, whether you have been contacted or not, this is not the place, it would be considered personal or original research, which i'm sure you are aware is not acceptable on Wiki. The issues you raise and are fighting for may or may not be valid or reasonable, but there is a time and place for everything. As you repeatedly fail to recognise Wiki is not a review site or a place to fight a campaign.

As to the racism claims, although they are on the article page, i'm not really sure these are even worth mentioning in an encylopodia. And that is not to belittle anyones valid problems or concerns, but it should be remembered what Wiki is for, and not turn it into a soapbox. If the university really had as many of this kind of problem then I would have expected this to have more local and even national news coverage, especially given the local media in Lutons love of bashing the university. These issues are not regularly covered, now unless you are claiming the press is all part of some huge conspiracy maybe the issues of which you allege are not as serious as you suggest?

This is fast becoming a circular argument, i have no agenda to push the university - why would I? but you have an agenda to critise it. I would suggest you have a read through the Wiki policies etc GazMan7 10:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the article should mainly focus on the QAA review (even though it is a 2005 review so older than the UoB after the merger. You can find loads of positive feedback as well, not only "areas for improvement". For instance, this uni is rated excellent when in comes to relationships with employers who would employ graduates. Article is highly POV, should be rewritten completely. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.86.48.2 (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

i think the new guardian 2007 ranking is interesting for wiki and for Beds, too. it shows that beds raised by few points. next to this, their media (3rd in the UK) and sports department (12th in the UK) seem to be very very good. at least worth checking out.

Especially if you have money and time to waste;) Alfred Vella (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a complete waste of time
Luton/Bedfordshire caught the brunt of anti-new university sentiments as it was both last one in in the big creation of universities in 1992/93, and is sited in a town often treated as having a particularly low reputation. Being stuck at the bottom of league tables, it has acted fairly agressively to combat its bad press - but naturally that just makes things worse. The UK HE sector suspects that it has cut corners - something its QAA Audit report shows, as well as its regular citations in the Times Higher. Naturally, if you read their web site, or their prefered version of this article, all is perfectly ok. Corporate PR might not like balance - but it should be aimed for here.

The reference at the top of the article to the cost of buying the Bedford campus of De Montfort university might not be far wrong - De Montfort report that the site had a value of £20.8 million and that it made a historical loss of £4.5 milion on the transfer. Bedfordshire appear not to have published their annual accounts on line (not a crime, but unusual).

--Registrarmike 15:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The reputation of the University of Luton was nothing to do with its last entry into the system. It had more to do with the fact that staff and students often saw much unethical behaviour of its senior staff. Bullying and fabrication of documents are facts, not just prejudices of those observing! Or has the Orwellian nightmare happened? Alfred Vella 08:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to confirm the price of Bedford - The 2005/06 accounts say that the University paid De Montford £15M on 1 August 2006. --Registrarmike 10:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Photos of the university
I think that the photo gallery that is present in the article should be revised. The photoes of the Luton and Bedford campus are done in such an angle that the buildings are almost entirely covered behind the trees. A photo of the Business School and Luton SU should also be included here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.86.48.2 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Current Ranking
According to the article's ref 4 ^ The Times Good University Guide 2007 Top Universities 2007 League Table 108 Luton 14.1 1.8 185.7 23.2 606 229 48.4 41.7 74.8 302 and there is no item under 'Bedfordshire'. Can the appologists for Bedfordshire either give the correct reference or the correct position?

Alfred Vella 06:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Afred, rather than insult people, how about just correct it. The table quoted shows the 108th position, which i have updated. If anyone has the correct reference for the 84/113 figue quoted then update the ranking and use the correct reference in the article.GazMan7 11:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reversed the edit removing rankings in subjects. The Nursing ranking is referenced. I have added reference tags to sport and media. Whilst theses are currently requiring a reference, i suspect they have been added in good faith. The uni is heavily involved in media so it sounds reasonable. It is good practice to add the fact tag where approriate, without of course over-doing it.--GazMan7 09:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The reference to Nursing ranking does not lead (at least directly) to confirmation - yet another biased post by GazMan

Alfred Vella 11:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

How is it Biased? this is a 3rd party stating the ranking. Therefore verifyable. Everything you post Alfred is biased. If you check the history i reversed the ranking for 84th as the reference was incorrect, (although it has now correctly been referenced) Im sure it upsets you that the Uni is ranked 84th. I think the NHS in Bedford can be used as a reliable source for the nursing rank or do you think they are part of the consipracy as well?GazMan7 11:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at the source? On what line does it make the claim? I am not at all upset by its position - though universities lower down might well be! I would certainly, and have advise anyone contemplating going to Bedfordshire, to avoide it like the plague until it acknowledges its doddgy past. I am sure that you went to a reasonable university - or did you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alfred Vella (talk • contribs).

Alfred Vella 11:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I have checked the references for media etc, its on the guardians current listings. The 4th place on Nursing is quoted by Bedford hospital as well as the uni itself, so is enough to quote on wiki. 84th isnt an impressive score, but the uni should be quoted accurately and fairly.

I didnt go to Luton, so have no reason to appologise for it. The Uni i did go to, which im not sure the relavance of but as you ask, was Leicester which consitently is around position 20 on most of the rankings I have seen. As i have stated before i have no connection with Luton Uni, or Media/Sports science etc, but i feel that the uni should be portrayed fairly. Anyoe who has read through this talk page will know you have an axe to grind. I dont doubt you feel strongly about the subject, yet the university has not (correct me please if i am wrong) been subject to significant adverse findings, it has probably over-egged its acheivements, but that is simply advertising - and not somehting that Luton/Bedfordshire is alone in doing.

Wiki isnt the place to have a personal campaign against the Uni. If i understand correctly you lost your various tribunals etc against Luton. Which to any third party would suggest your cliams were of limited merit. To complain of bias against anyone else strikes me as being rather ironic, does it not? GazMan7 11:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

To give the fuller picture and in line with many other university pages on here i have added the Guardian rankings. This shows position 95 out of 150 institutions listed. Not all of these appear to be universities as such but other higher eductaion institues. GazMan7 13:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess that fits in with your wish to promote that second rate university. Alfred Vella (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Times Education Supplement - University of the year Shortlist
Along with University of Derby, Edge Hill University, Essex University, Exeter University and University of Glamorgan the University of Bedforshire has been nominated for the Times University of the year 2007.

The entry in the shortlist document reads as follows.

BEDFORDSHIRE UNIVERSITY Just over a year ago, the former Luton University and De Montfort University’s Bedford campus combined forces to create Bedfordshire University. It has enjoyed a 41.2 per cent increase in applications for 2007. In its first year, the university also achieved a top score (grade 1) from Ofsted for Initial Teacher Training. Both the Bedford and Luton campuses are undergoing redevelopment, at £34 million and £50 million respectively. Bedford has built an £8 million physical education and sport science centre, a 280-seat theatre, a new meeting and dining area for staff and students and ensuite accommodation for 500 students. The university’s Business School is launching a new suite of “business pods” — small areas designed to allow lecturers to deliver the curriculum to team-based groups of students. Some 79 per cent of the additional income generated from fees in 2006 is currently going back to students in the form of bursaries.

The uni responded on this page on their website http://www.beds.ac.uk/aboutus/thes

--GazMan7 (talk) 09:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

As an unbiased observer I am sure that you would want to update this statement - they did not win! Alfred Vella (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Redundancies
Alfred, please quote a source before adding in unsubstantiated comments to the University of Bedfordshire entry. The text regarding redundancies has been quoted directly from the THES website, no mention of 'forced' redundancy has been made. 194.80.219.38 (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

How about asking Ebdon - I am told that he might tell the truth. Or ask your boss - less likely of the truth there I guess! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfred Vella (talk • contribs) 12:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see that the University of Bedfordshire is following on the less than completely honest practices of its predecessor - Luton! Its staff and/or students editing Wikipedia but I guess that is a price that has to be paid! Alfred Vella (talk) 11:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how 30 redundancies is encyclopedic? Unless it was part of a major restructuring, in which case its a footnote to the restructuring. I will not remove it as I'm sure you would feel it was in some way biased. What do other editors think? relavant, notable, encyclopdic or not?GazMan7 (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

At best it could be classed as a footnote however, previous redundancies have no mention on the page... 194.80.219.38 (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

PoV issues here Alfred - should your sacking for gross misconduct be included ?
A quick search online reveals the following:

Dr Vella made complaints about reorganisation and cuts in his department throughout the late 1990s. In October 1997, he complained to his faculty dean about a reduction in staff and the withdrawal of technical support.

In September 1998, Dr Vella signed off with a stress-related illness. He was on sick leave for more than a year. During this time, he alleges, the university removed him as head of department and bullied him. The university counter-accused Dr Vella of damaging its reputation with public attacks.

In May 2000, the university's appeal body rejected Dr Vella's claims that he had been bullied, unfairly removed from his post and that the university had failed to support him.

In June, the university's disciplinary committee found Dr Vella guilty of gross misconduct and of not performing his duties properly since his return from sick leave. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=154908&sectioncode=26

The entry also notes that the university dropped from 74th place in 2004-05 in The Times Good University Guide to 118th in 2006-07, cites its low ratings for student satisfaction and includes negative comments from Alfred Vella, Luton's former associate dean for computing research and development. This week, the university said some of the comments were libellous.

Dr Vella told The Times Higher that he had contributed to the Bedfordshire entry. "I have been contributing to the article on the University of Bedfordshire (and Luton before that) to redress its balance," he said.

"Wikipedia is not an advertising medium, and Bedfordshire is still the Luton of old. My motivation is simply the truth."

But a Bedfordshire spokeswoman said: "This case is in the hands of our lawyers. The gentleman concerned was sacked from the university for gross misconduct more than six years ago. "He subsequently lost his case at a tribunal and at an appeals tribunal. We find his behaviour and his ongoing campaign against the university and individual members of staff most worrying. He continues to be banned from university premises."

Other entries highlight positive quality inspection results and praise Luton's "reputation for excellent teaching". 18 August 2006 http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=204850

The one-man campaign by Bedfordshire University's former associate dean, Alfred Vella, against his former employer shows no sign of letting up.

A few months after The Times Higher reported on his less than flattering contributions to the university's entry on online encyclopaedia Wikipedia, it has emerged that Dr Vella has set up a petition on the Downing Street website calling for a public inquiry into the institution, citing unspecified "complaints" about the university. But while a similar petition against road charging on the site prompted almost 2 million signatures, Dr Vella's, at the time of going to press, had attracted nine. (to be fair i think it is now up to 34) 20 April 2007 Times Higher Education http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=208654

So, made complaints, sacked for gross misconduct, complained some more, unfair dismisal claim, lost claim, feel upset, 8 years on still moaning. Get over it.--GazMan7 (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Do hide behind your anonymity! I am proud that I was sacked by Luton for blowing the whistle! It’s a shame that you are not honest enough to admit your bias! The Bedfordshire page has had lots of editing by people at Bedfordshire but of course your too biased (or maybe just too thick) to be even handed.

The bully who went on to bully people in New Zealand and insiders tell me that the bullying at Bedfordshire is still going on – but what would you care?

Alfred Vella (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Alfred, as has been mentioned many times previously this is not the place to wage your war against the university. Wikipedia is supposed to be a reliable online encyclopedia not a place for biased, and from the sounds of things, third party facts. It has been almost 8 years since you were asked to leave the university surely you will admit that things can't be the same as your perception after that amount of time? Kriscollins (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course I am happy to let the world know what happened at Luton. I was offered money to go quietly but chose instead to decline and to continue the battle against the corruption and bullying that was their and I am told still continues to this day. It is a shame that there are so many dishonest people around to lend their backing to what is going on there. Of course as one church minister once told me 'it will all come out in the wash'. That Bedfordshire relies on its staff or students to edit Wikipedia anonymously indicates just how honest they are!

Kriscollins how much are they paying you? Is it worth it? Alfred Vella (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

ps Does Ebdon approve of your editing this page - or is he happy as long as he does not know? Why not ask Maple and Keech how they got their headships at Luton?

Alfred Vella (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Alfred, I fear we may be straying into familiar ground again, speculation, un-substantiated claims, 8 year old views, etc... This is an encyclopedic entry regarding the University of Bedfordshire, as such your personal views are not required.

Kriscollins (talk) 11:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

and lots of advertising hype put up by employees who are too dishonest ! to admit it Alfred Vella (talk) 08:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Alfred, there's nothing to admit, there is no conspiracy and like many other people who have tried to reason with you, and have realised you can't be reasoned with, I am also getting bored of repeating the same points over and over again... You have already had 4 Vandalism warnings as well as a 24 hour block on editing for persistent revertion of legitimate edits. This is an encyclopedic entry regarding the University of Bedfordshire, please do not treat it as a soap box for your personal views. Kriscollins (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Alfred, please read the following
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOAP#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox
 * GazMan7 (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes (July 2012)
Thank you to those who have recently pointing out concerns about changes to this site. We would like to clarify that it is the University of Bedfordshire that is updating this page and we are happy that this is known. Our original intention was to enable any of our webteam to do the work but on the suggestion of Favedizard have changed this to more clearly identify who is doing it, something many others don’t do.

We are currently updating and adding to the information about the University ourselves because no one else appears to be doing it in a comprehensive way. It has not been overhauled recently and so contained broken inks and out-of-date information which had little relevance to the current institution, although was possibly of historic interest.

Before making changes we looked at many other University sites and have adapted some of the formats they use and have drafted similar content, so that readers have as full a picture of Bedfordshire as they do of others. Please see these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_hertfordshire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Northampton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Montfort_University http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglia_Ruskin_University

We can understand the concerns that some people have about these changes, but as Wikipedia is an open-access format you are able to change anything that you feel might not be suitable – however I’d ask you to look at the University sites above and compare our content with them, so that we are not represented differently from these. We do not see this as a conflict of interest as much of the information we have used is ready available and could easily have been drawn upon by someone who wanted to overhaul our site for us. Unfortunately no one has.

I think we would consider including the information that we now offer the opportunity for people to study for part-time degrees in the evenings at our campuses to be a fact rather than an opinion so we’d like to keep that in please.

We also understand your concerns about information critical of the University which was removed – we will reinstate this. However as it relates to a former incarnation of this institution and events eight years ago we feel that while these are a matter of historical record they have little contemporary relevance and give an out-of-date impression of the University of Bedfordshire as it is now.

Hopefully you understand where we are coming from here, if no one in the wiki community is working on our site we cannot see why we should not. Equally anyone is at liberty to amend our information in a fair and honest way, but, in many ways who has the best insight into an institution than the people who study, teach and work here?

Please continue to monitor our changes and suggest ways we can both make it more useful for readers and ensure we do not infringe upon your rules in the future.

Thanks again for your help.

FryerPaul
 * Thank you for disclosing your COI. I took a first pass at cleaning it up, but there is more to be done. Please review WP:NPOV; to ensure the article does not not appear to be an advertisement I suggest discussing controversial edits on the talk page prior to making them in the article. One thing you could do that would be helpful is to replace as many primary sources, especially press releases, with sources from independent sources instead. This is particularly important for quotes and subjective assessments of the subject. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You also need to avoid puffed up verbiage that we call 'peacock phrasing' - in fact why not read all of Manual of Style/Words to watch because it will improve your copy no end. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggested rewording
Hi there

Can we have one more go at this please. The more I read of your conventions the more I feel some of our amendments are justified.

Rather than just keep putting the same information back could we agree to modify the information to remove any undue weight from certain comments and actually make it more balanced as some of the information you’ve put back could itself be considered opinion rather than fact.

Firstly the paragraph on redundancies –

"In 2008 Professor Les Ebdon said that he had accepted voluntary redundancy from 30 staff members. The university said that less than half were academic staff. Professor Ebdon said: "I don't know of any university in the East of England which isn't making some adjustment to staff numbers. Most of us have squeezed other expenditures as much as we can. Staffing is the area left where expenditure can be taken out, and it is the biggest cost." According to the same article "Relative to many other universities, Bedfordshire spends a low proportion of its income on staff." "

This does not seem suitable for a section on Academic Reputation and seems out of place altogether. Except for the fact that the TES published an article about it this doesn’t seem even a particularly earth shattering fact. To include this would give this matter undue weight and I think it should be deleted. If it is kept in perhaps some of the many other articles to TES has published about the University should be included and cited?

Secondly further undue weight has been given to our involvement with the Institute of Optimum Nutrition, which ceased in 2009. I would suggest a re-write of this section along these lines:: The university was criticised for its association with the Institute for Optimum Nutrition,[20] an organisation whose founder, Patrick Holford's advocacy of vitamin C as better than conventional drugs to treat AIDS was described as 'very scary' by the British Dietetic Association.[21] During the mid-2000s the University did offer a Foundation course in Nutrition with the Institute of Optimum Nutrition but dropped this in 2009.

Thirdly – “Worst University in Britain” – fact or opinion? I think you’d find it hard to verify this as a “fact”, so it must be an opinion. Just because a Daily Telegraph journalist said it, it doesn’t make it true. We countered this at the time (8 years ago) and certainly think it does not relate to the present institution (see our independent league table rankings). As a matter of record I can see why you’d want it in, but as a matter of fact it does not stand up.

The Times, an equally respected source, called us “New University of the Year” at the same time - so are they both right or both wrong? Which should be cited and which given prominance?

Below is my suggested rewrite that quotes from newspaper stories of the time and that keeps the matters of record in the frame. It also expands on what a QAA “confidence” rating means – again this is a fact, not opinion, so why not leave it in?

Suggested repost: Thank you once again for your time and trouble - hopefully together we can make this item truely representative.

FryerPaul — Preceding unsigned comment added by FryerPaul (talk • contribs) 14:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * So I'm not going to comment on any of the sourcing and such right now - but I've gone though your suggestion and done a bit of a general edit to give it more generally wikipedia-like language... can we make this the version under discussion... (I've also removed the stuff sourced to, which I don't really think we can consider as independent (certainly not in the way the phrasing would suggest)

I'm making on comment on if this version is better or worse than the current content of the article, but I think it's important for your development that we go though this iterative process...


 * I find myself with a little more time to look at this... I do think the redundancy stuff is out of place, but the Patrick_Holford stuff I would definately keep, and probably expand considerably as well - Holford was given [more or less a whole chapter in Ben Goldarce's book], and much of that focused directly on Bedfordshire's role in accrediting his program. I would suggest it's one of the largest controversy's in the university's history and it's recent enought that your students who just graduated would have been studying at the time.Fayedizard (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks once again for your comments and suggestions, which I've used as a guide to the re-write I've now uploaded. I have added in the comment that we ended our relationship with IOM in 2009 just so people know that following criticism we acted.


 * I have taken out the redundancy paragraph.


 * Finally I have removed the following – see reasons below:


 * According to the THES in 2008 the university threatened legal action against a web site after one of its course was labelled "shocking" because of its staff-to-student ratio.


 * If you read the article the issue is much more complicated than this. UoB did do this but in the same article the HESA say the site “was not considered by Hesa to be operating on a basis of good faith and was not an organisation that Hesa believed was in its best interests to enter into a contractual relationship with”. The article also says that “many in the sector complained that the data were "skewed" and the comparisons they allowed were inaccurate.” I think it is unfair to give undue prominence to this article for reason’s I’ve mention previously unless Wikipedia references every article in the THE that UoB appears in. FryerPaul — Preceding unsigned comment added by FryerPaul (talk • contribs) 09:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I undid some of your changes including the rewrite of the reputation section. There were too many non-neutral modifications (such as reordering sentences to make favorable material prominent). Please allow other editors to make controversial changes. Time permitting I will work on rewording it this week if no one else gets to it sooner. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Futher comments
I do appreciate your efforts but I wish you'd stop just reverting to old information and make new changes. Balance works both ways - why put the negatvie in front of the positive? Why not try it the other way for a change? I look forward your amendments. FryerPaul (talk) 09:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)FryerPaul

Alumnus section
Whilst editing this page the link to the stand alone Alumni of the University of Bedfordshire has disappeared and so, it seems, has that page.

Can anyone explain how I can find this again?

FryerPaul (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)FryerPaul

Do you mean the category? Category:Alumni_of_the_University_of_Bedfordshire (apologies for briefness, just running out the door...)Fayedizard (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The category can be found at Category:Alumni of the University of Bedfordshire. The section in the article is at University_of_Bedfordshire; I pared it down significantly the other day. VQuakr (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Why? What was wrong with it?

FryerPaul (talk) 09:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)FryerPaul

Sources...
I wandered thought the history section and lead just now checking to see if the content matches sources... and ended up removing quite a lot of content that didn't match the source at all]. I had hoped it would be a closer match that this (in places it is quite a close match - the line "Putteridge Bury can be traced back to Edward the Confessor's time and has links to the Domesday Book. The current building was completed in 1911 and was designed by architects Sir Ernest George and Alfred Yeats in the style of Chequers, having had various redesigns and rebuilds over the years."    is so close to "Putteridge Bury can be traced back to Edward the Confessor's time and has links to the Domesday Book. It was built in the style of Chequers by architects Sir Ernest George and Alfred Yeats and completed in 1911, having undergone renovation and reconstruction over the centuries" from the university website that it borders on a copyvio). This is unfortunate for a couple of reasons and I suspect means that there is much more work to do on the article than I first though. I'll have another poke at some of the other sections and see what happens. Fayedizard (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I do know where you're coming from and I suppose its pointless to say the university won't mind if you use text close to what's on the website. Does everything just have to use a different arrangement of words to say the same thing?


 * How about this:


 * Dating back to the time of the Domesday Book and Edward the Confessor the current building at Putterridge Bury was the creation of architects Alfred Yeats and Sir Ernest George. Completed in 1911 it is modelled on Chequers, the British Prime Minister’s official residence, though there have been several additions to it since then.

FryerPaul (talk) 09:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)FryerPaul


 * Just to note that the University's site is not a reliable source for this, in any case. A history book would be better. In any case why is there a need to refer to the Domesday Book and Edward the Confessor? If it is that the site is mentioned in the Domesday book then that is true of roughly half the locations in the country. I suggest just dropping that bit and looking for a better source on the 1911 building.--  SabreBD  (talk) 09:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please answer me this - why is the University's site not a reliable source? Yet press articles are? The press are often criticised for their biased reporting. The bits about Edward the Confessor and the Domesday book add a little bit of colour to the article. Or are the articles supposed to be dull and uninteresting? Our problem is no one has written a book about the University, it's a bit new for that, and it doesn't feature heavily online in third party sites. Does this mean our entry should be short and lifeless? Shouldn't knowledge be poetic as well as accurate? As long as we don't put anything untrue up what's the problem? Having been a long time user of Wikipedia I find all this a bit odd - there are longer, less rigourous articles about pop stars than this about a respect educational institution. FryerPaul (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)FryerPaul
 * The relevant policy can be found at WP:PRIMARY. Short answer, primary sources can be used in limited ways but should not be used as a source for subjective statements about the subject or form the basis of the article. The goal of the article is to be a clear and concise summary of the verifiable information available about the subject; being poetic should not take priority over avoiding editorializing or using idomatic language. VQuakr (talk) 04:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I do understand this but where else would YOU go to verify information about the University? Who else but CERN could give the best insight into their work?


 * Thank you again for those who have been helping shape this page. I'll let you continue your work on it and continue to seek external citations for information about the institution.


 * FryerPaul (talk) 07:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)FryerPaul

Morning everyone...

A couple of things...To cover the "the university won't mind if you use text close to what's on the website." issue - If you would like to (and I think it's within your power given your role at the university) release the whole content of your website under the relevant licences  then wikipedia can copy paste all manner of things without fear. I personally would be quite impressed, it would be a very bold, future-orientated move and would persuade me that there really was something special about the university (would be worth a section on the wiki page on it's own really). On a related note - could you tell me when your web team put this up? Lastly - I'd support the removal of the domesday book stuff unless we can find a decent source... To answer the the "but where else would YOU go to verify information about the University?" question, my answer would be - if nobody else except for the university felt that the information was important enough to talk about, then the information probably shouldn't be on the wikipedia page... -- Fayedizard (talk) 10:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Use sources independent of the University of Bedfordshire
FryerPaul. Wikipedia stands out from the rest of the internet because it doesn't work the way most people think it does. Wikipedia isn't interested in verifying information about the University. Wikipedia is interested in ensuring that the information in the article comes from a Wikipedia reliable source. See WP:V. Wikipedia isn't interested in the truth about the University of Bedfordshire. See No original research. Instead, Wikipedia is interested in an article being a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature where claims are verifiable against high-quality, Wikipedia reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate. If you use sources that are connected to the University of Bedfordshire, this article will continue to have problems and not move up in the quality scale. Wikipedia articles should reflect what others say about a topic, not what a topic says about itself. That helps keeps the length of an article on the topic in check and is what makes Wikipedia stand out from the rest of the internet. I suggest removing any information in the Wikipedia University of Bedfordshire article that comes from sources that are not independent of the subject. For example, as a start, remove all material from the University of Bedfordshire article that is sourced to http://www.beds.ac.uk. Instead, use books, magazines, and newspaper articles that are independent of the University of Bedfordshire topic to develop the article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Time to move on?
Having spent some years arguing that reliably sourced bad news should stay in this article I think some of the issues dealt with here now look a bit dated. I think a plan for redundancy made in 2008 looks pretty irrelevant now. The quality issues from 2004 may be more significant, even if further in the past, but I welcome views on that. Also does this still read like an advert - or has it been sufficiently improved to remove this tag?--  SabreBD  (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on University of Bedfordshire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100522102525/http://extras.timesonline.co.uk:80/tol_gug/gooduniversityguide.php? to http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/tol_gug/gooduniversityguide.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100522133308/http://extras.timesonline.co.uk:80/stug/universityguide.php? to http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/stug/universityguide.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on University of Bedfordshire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926121409/http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/reports/institutional/Luton1105/RG162UniLuton.pdf to http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/reports/institutional/Luton1105/RG162UniLuton.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.ubsu.co.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

No clue what this means
"During the 2016/17 academic year the University of Bedfordshire, tendered its lease from Butterflied Business Park, with students being moved to either Luton Park Square campus or Bedford campus." I don't understand the word 'tendered' in this context. Was 'ended' intended?Cross Reference (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)