Cynthia Stroud MBE

​Dear Lord Hannan,

 

An African proverb says: "Those who pick and clutch firewood to their chest without checking for ants should not complain when they get bitten."

I read with astonishment your extraordinary piece in The Telegraph on my husband’s suspension in which you implied heavily that the university was being used in a matrimonial breakdown and were in effect, stifling Free Speech etcetera, etcetera. You also repeated that it was an air pistol found, more on that later.

 

I knew you were friends enough with my husband to be invited to our wedding reception. I have met and spoken to you at a number of Free Speech events and had by default, respected you as a person. I respect everyone the same whether titled or otherwise.

However, upon reading that article you wrote, I marvelled at how you could write that for mass consumption without establishing some key facts you stated in your article:

 

Namely: what is the proof you have of an ongoing divorce or separation? Did you ask to see any documents such as court documents? Perhaps a Case number? These are typically issued by the courts within 1-3 weeks of a divorce or separation application.

Did you ask to see any divorce or separation letters sent or exchanged on matrimonial disputes prior to the suspension? Perhaps even a single lawyer's letter to me or a court document on said matrimonial dispute dated pre- 11 October 2024 (date of suspension)?

Today, 9 November 2024, I am yet to receive this official court issue notice of any divorce application.

 

Surely for you not to ask for this easy verification would be a glaring error in judgement before penning an article that so damages a person's (my) reputation. Your article garnered comments by people who assumed your opinion to be based on facts. Hundreds of comments by readers who took it at face value and metaphorically feathered and tarred me as a named villian in this fiction you appeared to construct. 

​

You see, even though you state something is your opinion, your position and title lend your article an implied veracity in the eyes of the audience which you ought to endeavour to deserve by ensuring you've checked facts carefully from all sides before immortalising your opinion in print.

​

As a supporter of free speech there is an increased responsibility to pen even opinions with care especially when one occupies a position such as yours as a member of the house of Lords. I would expect some level of verification, instead of a string of erroneous assumptions written under the cover of opinions.

 

If you had stopped to dig or ask questions, you would know:

 

• People who are in the process of any kind of divorce: acrimonious or otherwise; do not make financial applications together, which we had right up till the day of the suspension.

• They do not go on long weekends to a member of the House of Lord’s home literally weeks before.

• They do not host events like youth church at their home together, which we did 6 days before the suspension.

• They do not live together and offer to do favours for one another, like bring forgotten items to one another's office, which we did- the same day of the suspension. 

​
 

I lived in that Vice Chancellors residence until that date of suspension. A fact you would have known had you paused to ask any of the many witnesses.

​

In summary, it would have been prudent to ask to see proof of any ongoing divorce, which you would have struggled to find because it does not exist. It would have been cautious to contact someone you intend to write negative material about and say "could this be true"?

 

You see, I can show that as of that date of suspension, I was not in a marriage with a single paperwork about impending separation or divorce, let alone a 6 month long divorce process. And any police visit was not due to any sort of altercation.

 

These articles stating I'd been thrown out of my matrimonial home since summer were a total surprise to my children and I who lived there until that date of suspension.

 

I will not be drawn into the content of any concerns raised and the process. The authorities have acted based on their estimation of the seriousness of any concerns raised.

Let that be. 

I am led to believe that multiple external bodies are involved in monitoring propriety of process.

Ironically, a process which would have been kept much quieter were it not for articles like yours repeatedly announcing unverified information to the public; including a heavy inference that things were instigated by a vindictive wife in the middle of a divorce.

​

I have quietly borne these falsehoods written about me by journalists who are complete strangers to me so as not to jeopardise any investigations.

However an African proverb says “when a bird is silent, it is not because it has nothing to say, but because it is watching carefully”.

​

Don't confuse caution and respect for process with timidity.

 

I have never once attacked Free speech and indeed hosted Ms Ali  together with my husband for work purposes. I now politely and firmly request that you do not draw me into unnecessary political fracas which, to my own personal knowledge and intentions do not exist.

​

You claim to love the University of Buckingham and yet you publicly attack it so, citing unchecked information. Question: In what world would any university suspend someone simply to take sides in a marital dispute? Come on, let us not abdicate common sense here. I too love this university; I studied for an MBA here 20 years ago and have given quotes to press endorsing it long before I ever met James.

 

“Free” speech should not equal false information.

 

I am not afraid of your title Lord Hannan. I respect it but I do not fear it. I grew up raised by a grandfather who taught me not to fear. That is what I loved about the United Kingdom and that is why I moved here from Nigeria 20 years ago. I loved that there is a level-playing field in this country, it respects meritocracy and tries to treat all humans as equals. This means that I, like anyone else have the right to challenge anyone, regardless of their eminence, who speaks untruths about me in a public manner. Which, by definition, is me exercising my free speech.

​

I was briefly tempted to ignore your article too along with all the others but I shudder to think of the effect all this could have on others who are observing this treatment. We shouldn’t live in fear of powerful people writing whatever they like about us without regard for the truth.

​

Your article is still there for all to see. Every elevated position comes with great responsibility.

​

By the way, and not that the weapon was the primary or secondary issue in the concerns raised, you may also be interested to know that I have communication from the police about what they found. See photo. 

 

Think on that for a minute whilst you consider your next article lest you shoot yourself and your cause in the foot with what turns out not to be an "air pistol" or "nerf gun".

 

 

All of course, sincerely in my opinion,

 

Cynthia Tooley MBE

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​