I get that from this very article:

“When complaints filtered through to the Sabbatical Officers from students attending Friday prayers, concerned about the content of Pankhurst’s sermons, evidence suggests that full knowledge of the situation was not shared with the Islamic Society, as he never made his membership of Hizb ut-Tahrir explicit. In any situation involving the propagation of a potentially controversial ideology, the complaint of even a single affected individual must be taken seriously. As part of this process, a dialogue between all concerned should be the default position. According to our coverage of these incidents, it would appear that this dialogue was not forthcoming, hence why Pankhurst’s appearances at Friday prayers did not cease, and were not scrutinized to any great degree, and why these allegations fermented on campus until an anonymous, disaffected society member chose to reveal all to a journalist at the Times.”

I would like to know how you can make the assertion that the ‘Islamic Society failed to address the concerns of some members’, are you a committee or an executive member of the ISoc? I highly doubt that you are. Therefore you have no knowledge or any substantiated evidence that the ISoc did not address concerns about Pankhurst’s Friday sermons.