> Two hours to get through immigration (15 minutes for US Citizens I timed it)

I have the same experience at U.S. customs, had it just two days ago in fact. And I also have the same experience as a non-Briton at British airports and a not EU National in Europe.

In fact, the only customs and immigration service I have seen that does not give a substantial preference to its own nationals is Canada's. When I get home, we all join the same line-up. No favourites.

As for fruitbats, well, power to them, as it's unlikely the president of UCC will be able to intervene.

Hmmm....no doubt all those teaching medicine in Cork will be looking over their shoulders every now too!

I would like to add feminism to the list of f-words above. If you take the time to read Dr. Evan's colleague's complaint, you'll see that it is about much more than sexy fruit bats. I don't know either party, but I am wary of dismissing a woman's sexual harrassment complaint as absurd.

In the interests of completeness, Demure Lemur's blog published the complaint and the response. The entry and links are here. I don't see anything on the results of the internal inquiry which Dylan says found there was no harassment. My view was based on that statement - if an inquiry showed no harassment then its wrong for the Head of the College to take such direct action.

And for those who want to go through it -

here is the full audit trail (I haven't been through it yet)

I've been through the docs, and there is disagreement over whether or not Dr. Evans was cleared. He think he was cleared of all sexual harrassment charges. The president of the university believes that one charge was cleared and one upheld. The inquiry document itself is ambiguous. I am inclined to agree with the president of UCC.

Umm, well for a start I assume your real name is not Demure Lemur? I think you need to declare whether you have any knowledge or involvement with the people involved in the case before your judgement can be taken at face value.

As I'm a sex blogger, I prefer to remain anonymous. If you e-mail me privately, I'll be happy to tell you my real name. I have no knowledge of or involvement with any of the people involved in this case. As an ardent feminist, I just think it's deplorable that a sexual harrassment case has been spun as a case about academic freedom. As I've stated already, I don't know if Dr. Evan's colleague's complaint is true, but I do feel very strongly that it is wrong to dismiss a sexual harrassment case as absurd, especially on the word of the person accused.

I just wanted to check if you knew the individuals involved or the case, or were just responding to the evidence. You did after all publish the complaint.

I went through all the material and it seems to me that the investigators found that there was no sexual harassment but that the presentation of the paper could constitute a joke which went wrong. Neither party is held to have behaved maliciously. There is also one key fact - the presence of a third party at the meeting which would be critical, and the individual was not interviewed.

Given that the response of the President is draconian and disproportionate. (The Jennings letter makes this point well). It is also the case that the article in question is peer reviewed and it much quoted in the context of a long standing debate (much wider than Cork) about the uniqueness of humans as a species.

So unless there are other facts, on the face of it, the seems to be that the petition remains valid and the University has messed up the whole process in the way that things have been handled.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I find it very difficult to recognise the validity of a petition that presents itself as battling infringements on academic freedom when the issue at stake is sexual harrassment.

I must admit I am getting curious about this one. Mention of "senior staff" and the like. I agree that if the issue is sexual harassment then its on an issue of academic freedom. So it hinges on the claim, its validity, possible other issues relating to status within the University etc. Overall it looks messy and the Principal does not look to be handling it well. Most of this material should never enter the public domain.

Human communcation is multi layered. Sexual harassment is seldom a blatant display of vileness. More often it is 
behaviour that is intended to disconcert, but also appear innocent, maintaining a kind of "plausible denialbility". "I only said..." it was only a joke" etc. The victim is placed in a position where complaint is seen as lack of a sense of humour,   Or hysteia.
It is the manipulation of this grey area which so often results it the complainant being blamed.  
Perhaps dr Evans behaviour was taken up wrong. But he was not fired or publicly censured in any way. Nor was his Career threatened. And yet somehow a viral "fruitbat political correctness gone mad" story has blitzed the media. Any look at dr Evans cv will confirm that he is media savvy in the extreme. Today was his second appearance on national radio this year. Radio, Twitter, YouTube, and his numerous websites now call for a petition to change to college's approach to sexual harrassment. Confidential documents have been placed in the public domain and his colleague has been outed and is been vilified for not putting him in his place, not being able to take a joke etc. A familiar tale played out on a global scale.
Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.

latest update - looks like it a little more complex