Not our judgement. Just the record.
A sourced record of things that went wrong and were then established — in sport, in business, in public life. What was alleged, what was actually found, and what followed. Every entry links to the published decision it comes from.
22 cases, 1970 to 2026, across 6 sectors — sport, banking, construction, manufacturing, government and healthcare. Some of it is very new: the Manchester City decision is days old, and the tracker on that page follows it as it moves. What is never new is the source. Every entry is a decision, finding or statement issued and published by the body that made it — a court, a tribunal, a public inquiry, a regulator, a governing body. This site does not investigate, does not break stories and makes no allegation of its own. What it adds is that the cases sit in one place, in order, with their sources attached.
Page generated 2026-10-01 11:58 UTC
This page is a summary of published, publicly available documents — decisions of independent commissions and appeal boards, official statements by governing bodies, and reporting by established news organisations. Every factual claim carries a numbered reference to its source. Nothing here is original allegation, inference or speculation.
Findings are labelled by status, and those labels are the point of the page. A matter that was alleged and never tested is not the same as one proven before a court, tribunal or regulator, and this record does not treat them as if they were.
Where a case is subject to appeal, or where sanction has not yet been decided, it is marked as such and should be read as unresolved. The organisations and individuals named here are entitled to the presumption that undecided matters are undecided.
This is a factual record compiled for information. It is not legal advice, not a statement of opinion about any individual, and carries no affiliation with any of the regulators, courts, companies or governing bodies named. If you believe anything here is inaccurate or out of date, the sources are listed in full at the foot of the page so the record can be corrected against them.
The cases the record is currently following
Not yet decided
Read the case →Public inquiry findings; compensation scheme recommended
Read the case →Policy held unlawful
Read the case →$4.3bn
Read the case →Convictions quashed by statute
Read the case →Every case by the year its finding landed, across all sectors
Ordered by the year the finding was made, not the year the conduct began — several entries run for decades before anyone established anything. Where the conduct started earlier, the span is shown.
Stating the exclusions is not modesty. It is the only way a reader can tell a record from a campaign, and it is the test to hold this site to.
What the record covers, and what is coming
Several cases appear under more than one sector, and that is not tidying. A national postal service and the company that built its software; a government department and the private suppliers in its procurement lane; an auditor and the contractor it signed off. The same organisations recur across government, banking and construction, which a single label per case would hide.
What the labels mean, and what they deliberately do not claim
This page tries to present what is established, not what is popular. Those are different things, and the difference is worth setting out plainly before you read any of it.
The standard applied here. A claim is carried if it rests on a primary document — the decision, the arbitral award, or the regulator's own statement about its own action — or on at least two independent secondary sources. Primary documents are marked in the source list. A tribunal's own words do not need a newspaper to confirm them; a newspaper's summary does.
Corroboration is not verification. Five outlets carrying the same agency copy is one source wearing five mastheads, and counting it as five is how repetition gets presented as confirmation. The tracker below tries to tell those apart — near-identical wording is treated as one source, independent wording as more than one — but it is a crude test and it is set to understate corroboration rather than overstate it. Where it says a story has a single source, that means we could not match independent reporting. It is not a judgement that the story is wrong.
Something can be unchallenged and still untrue. A claim that no-one has contradicted is not thereby established; it may only be a claim no-one has examined. Where the evidence for something is that it has been widely repeated, this page says so rather than dressing it up as a finding.
Quotations are reproduced exactly. Headlines in the tracker and the titles in the source list appear as their publishers wrote them, including abbreviations and shorthand. This record uses each organisation's full name in its own text — Manchester City, not “Man City”; it does not tidy up anyone else's words, because a quotation that has been silently corrected is no longer a quotation and cannot be checked against its source.
Where sources conflict, the published decision governs and the reporting is removed. The commonest failure is not a lie but two accurate numbers being treated as one: a regulator's headline figure and the figure in the decision itself often measure different things, and a report that merges them is wrong even though neither source was. Where this record carries two figures, it says what each one counts.
This record is not neutral about accuracy, but it is neutral about outcome. It takes no view on what any organisation deserves. It sets out what was alleged, what was found, and what followed — including the cases where the answer was that nothing was found at all.
This page tries to present what is established, not what is popular. Those are different things, and the difference is worth setting out plainly before you read any of it.
A claim is carried if it rests on a primary document — the decision, the arbitral award, or the regulator's own statement about its own action — or on at least two independent secondary sources. Primary documents are marked in the source list. A tribunal's own words do not need a newspaper to confirm them; a newspaper's summary does.
Five outlets carrying the same agency copy is one source wearing five mastheads, and counting it as five is how repetition gets presented as confirmation. The tracker below tries to tell those apart — near-identical wording is treated as one source, independent wording as more than one — but it is a crude test and it is set to understate corroboration rather than overstate it. Where it says a story has a single source, that means we could not match independent reporting. It is not a judgement that the story is wrong.
A claim that no-one has contradicted is not thereby established; it may only be a claim no-one has examined. Where the evidence for something is that it has been widely repeated, this page says so rather than dressing it up as a finding.
Headlines in the tracker and the titles in the source list appear as their publishers wrote them, including abbreviations and shorthand. This record uses each organisation's full name in its own text — Manchester City, not “Man City”; it does not tidy up anyone else's words, because a quotation that has been silently corrected is no longer a quotation and cannot be checked against its source.
, the published decision governs and the reporting is removed. The commonest failure is not a lie but two accurate numbers being treated as one: a regulator's headline figure and the figure in the decision itself often measure different things, and a report that merges them is wrong even though neither source was. Where this record carries two figures, it says what each one counts.
It takes no view on what any organisation deserves. It sets out what was alleged, what was found, and what followed — including the cases where the answer was that nothing was found at all.
Every claim above is referenced to one of these
Legal notice, corrections & right of reply →
It will not be forgotten.
v1.0.9 · build 20261001-1202 · 22 cases · 48 sources · 11 languages
Corrections are welcome and will be made against the primary sources listed above. Where a published decision and a news report disagree, the published decision governs and the news report is removed.