The story at Retraction Watch here is the most damaging yet.
Once allegations were raised, the issue ceased to be a matter solely for the individual academic. It became a test of Cambridge’s commitment to academic integrity and transparency. The involvement of Carter-Ruck, a firm known for reputation management and high-profile litigation, inevitably raises questions about whether the priority was discovering the truth or controlling the damage.
Who paid for Carter-Ruck? If Jason Arday, then he is not an innocent.
If Cambridge University, then this is corruption.
A university’s first instinct when faced with serious concerns about academic integrity should be openness, independent scrutiny and a clear public account of the facts. When the senior leadership instead move quickly towards legal containment, protecting reputations has taken precedence over protecting standards.
That does not by itself prove a deliberate cover-up … but we are now very, very close.
The central questions are unavoidable: who knew what, when did they know it and why was the response not more transparent?
26 Comments
Resign · 28 July 2026 at 08:18
Either way it is corruption. Either Cambridge paid Arday and Arday contracted CarterFuck, or Cambridge contacted bullyboy lawyers direct. Either way everyone who signed off on it needs to be immediately fired.
21percent.org · 28 July 2026 at 08:52
If someone in Cambridge University signed off on payment for this, they need to be sacked.
Logistics · 28 July 2026 at 09:00
This didn’t happen by chance. There would have had to have been many meetings, discussions, emails, contracts, and then the contracting pipeline would run more than one stage. I would not rule out that the VC was involved, and definitely the Head of Legal and Communications, and perhaps others from the Council too.
21percent.org · 28 July 2026 at 09:08
Meanwhile, Gillian Tett delivers a masterclass in how to fire-fight a scandal
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/28/gillian-tett-sexual-harassment-oxbridge-college-provost/?msockid=24d5ba5b947262c22349a91d95c96333
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/education/article/cambridge-kings-college-gillian-tett-inappropriate-behaviour-zgfhmhf9j
It would be nice to know the name of the senior barrister — please post if you know.
TheResearcher · 28 July 2026 at 09:38
Tett obviously knows what is coming and other scandals. I was told recently, “We don’t live in a world of angels. But sometimes the good fight requires a few gray allies.”
21percent.org · 28 July 2026 at 09:53
Tett is a really class act. Unfortunately King’s College won’t be able to retain her, she is just too good. She’ll get much better offers
TheResearcher · 28 July 2026 at 10:05
Perhaps Tett can focus on FT after she leaves King’s and encourage FT to change their ranking? Is UCam still “UK’s Best Employer” after all these scandals or it is necessary more?
It would be funny if she hired Ms Akua Reindorf KC as barrister 😂
Delphine Roux · 28 July 2026 at 10:33
Oh please! A masterclass in how to virtue signal. Tett has no interest in or understanding of how to do her current job and is focused entirely on what comes next. Smart move for her that takes zero guts.
21percent.org · 28 July 2026 at 10:43
There will be elements of the King’s College Fellowship against this. After all, there are 2 names in the public domain (Goldhill & Huppert) but there at least 2 further names of abusive King’s College Fellows to come out. There will be Fellows unhappy with this & plotting against her to remove her, because that is what a Fellowship does.
So, it does take some guts. Maybe also reading the room — but she has at least read the room. Look at the other HoHs (eg Simon MacDonald, Lord Glossover) or the central university administration.
Agreed Tett looks bloody brilliant, and is probably thinking of a big media appointment. She’ll get it
TheResearcher · 28 July 2026 at 10:55
Note that Simon MacDonald asked Tett if I could move to King’s! Here are his last words before he realized that I had audio recordings of what had happened in Christ’s College:
“I wrote to Dr Tett and she replied. As the University has expelled you, we agreed that the request to switch college is moot. We will take no further action unless the decision to expel is reversed.”
Of course, Lord Glossover did not say why the University expelled me:
https://21percent.org/?p=3618
Delphine Roux · 28 July 2026 at 11:10
Tett was not part of the academic community before and she won’t be afterwards, so she is actually in a very straightforward position. She’s a media operator through and through (probably why she has been said to be a disappointing HoH in many important ways). As if she cares less about a faction among the King’s fellowship in the long term. Any attempt to oust her will be grist to the mill. This decision might be a good one, but in general having HoHs with no real skin in the game is not a good thing for Colleges or the Uni.
Longtooth · 28 July 2026 at 13:04
Tett wins whatever happens. If the Fellowship of Perpetrators manage to take her down prior to being exposed (and at this point, it seems there is no feasible doubt they will be exposed), then she exits as the heroine whistleblower and martyr. And if she succeeds in “cleaning house”, then she is heroine who set Cambridge back on the path to decency, transparency and integrity. I suspect the latter and it will be interesting to see how fast allegiances switch once others finally understand which way the wind is blowing.
Fennelfly · 28 July 2026 at 09:13
Agreed, massive scandal here.
For your knowledge, the standing committee of the University Council that handles these matters is CBELA, the Committee on Benefactions and External and Legal Affairs.
Under Reg. 22.1, sign off comes from David Parsons, Emma Rampton, and CBELA, chaired by Vice-Chancellor Deborah Prentice.
If CBELA indeed signed off, without proper diligence, then yes, it is a resigning issue for Prentice.
If CBELA did not sign off, then it is rather a resigning issue for David Parsons and Rampton (except she has already resigned, after acting without Council instruction in last year’s High Court and protest injunction saga).
In the meanwhile I would also suggest:
1. Asking THE to share the Carter-Ruck client-identification in any pre-action correspondence sent onward to them (the “Our client” line should name the actual instructing party)
2. An FOI request to Cambridge for their total external-solicitor spend on Carter-Ruck and any related counsel by financial year, and for any indemnity or fee-payment arrangement between the University and Arday for legal costs incurred in connection with reputation-management letters, noting that Cambridge does routinely respond to legal cost FOIs (e.g. Coombs FOI, which disclosed a specific external-legal-provider invoice total)
10days · 28 July 2026 at 10:07
Alastair Campbell’s “10-day rule” is that if a negative news story dominates the headlines for 10 days, the politician involved is finished
Scandal is now entering day 8 . More and more, this is looking like someone senior will have to carry the can & resign
Way too late for Cambridge University just to announce the old “We will have an independent inquiry” shtick
Silence · 28 July 2026 at 10:19
The continued silence remains defeaning. The fact that Cambridge have nothing to say – even as it is exposed that they hired lawyers to bully journalists – speaks volumes. It tells the world everything they need to know.
AllaMakka · 28 July 2026 at 10:38
Campbell’s other rule is: Never become the story. Once you do, it is over (as he also experienced)
Right now, Helm and Parsons are both squarely in the frame. I’d say their days are numbered.
TheResearcher · 28 July 2026 at 10:21
The 21 Group is asking in this post who hired Carter-Ruck, Jason Arday or the University. I think the answer is trivial but let me ask a question that may help us.
Can someone remind me why the University decided to pay the legal costs of Richard McMahon but did not pay the legal costs of Wyn Evans regarding the Whistleblowing Tribunal and defamation case from Astronomy? Perhaps if we know the answer to this question, we can infer what the University decided to do regarding Jason Arday’s case.
If I remember correctly, the rationale of the University to pay the legal costs of Richard McMahon was that Richard McMahon was accused of defamation in his condition of Cambridge Professor. Am I right? If that is the case, wasn’t Jason Arday accused of plagiarism in his condition of Cambridge Professor?
Temple · 28 July 2026 at 10:27
I wouldn’t be surprised if all the SLAPPing and defamation tomfoolery was the personal pet project of David Parsons. He’s an ex defamation lawyer who obviously never lost the taste. Cambridge had given him a big taxpayer credit card.
Sam Davies · 28 July 2026 at 10:34
Intriguing to see the article by Professor Hilary Cremin in the new edition of CAM. Is this what you’d call doubling down?
https://www.alumni.cam.ac.uk/magazine/issue-108/this-idea-must-die-%E2%80%98the-school-system-is-broken-beyond-repair%E2%80%99?utm_campaign=alumni&utm_medium=email&utm_source=2316374_M34730%20CAM%20issue%20108%20Easter%20edition&dm_i=6DCH,1DNBQ,1XVGUG,6HODZ,1,0,0,0
Critical Reader · 28 July 2026 at 10:52
“We need them to question what they’re seeing online, to know what an echo chamber is and how to get out of it”
Yeah big time. Those sound like the words of a woman who knows that, two weeks hence from that statement, she is about to land herself and the university in the biggest social media shitstorm it has ever known.
TheResearcher · 28 July 2026 at 11:21
I would like to share an email that I sent to Professor John Aston on 24 September 2025 when I became aware of Carter-Ruck as a reply to an email that he had sent me on 19 September 2025. My email read:
“Dear Prof. Aston,
Great news! At least from the point of view of the University. It seems that Carter-Ruck solicitors were hired to address the jaw-dropping scandal of plagiarism. They seem very good, judging from the webiste of some of their collaborators. I liked this profile from Ms Claire Gill:
https://www.carter-ruck.com/lawyers/claire-gill/
“Claire gives urgent trouble-shooting advice before publication or broadcast. Often working alongside PR advisers, she helps companies and high-profile individuals to deal with unwanted media scrutiny, with a view to preventing publication of material that would infringe their rights to reputation, confidentiality and privacy.”
It must be expensive, however, and I wonder who is paying the bill. Importantly, it is a pity that the general public will have to wait a bit to know the story, but we are confident that with the number of cases piling up, together with those being held up not just about plagiarism and cover up, that the media will find all this situation increasingly valuable. They just need a person who is really keen to talk and is not afraid of consequences.
This being said, now the stress has been temporarily avoided, I would be very keen if you or someone from your team could give me an update on my situation as I did not have any since last week when I highlighted, again, that the case was urgent and affects many people.
Respectfully,
Nuno Oliveira”
Professor Aston never replied, but do you know what happened one day after on 25 September 2025? I received “Special Precautionary Measures” from OSCCA, I was forbidden from using my @cam account and had more threats to silence me from the Head of OSCCA Ms Sarah d’Ambrumenil. It must be a coincidence! Professor Aston knows about this at least since my email of 24 September 2025.
TheResearcher · 28 July 2026 at 12:00
New article in the Telegraph! What is the senior leadership doing…
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/28/calls-for-cambridge-professor-to-face-plagiarism-inquiry/
HorrorShow · 28 July 2026 at 12:19
Telegraph also indicates that Arday was the client for Carter Ruck, one of the world’s most expensive and aggressive anti free speech companies. For a guy who is supposed to represent the subaltern, or something, kind of mind boggling how he came to pay their fees. Surely Cambridge picked up the tab?
If so that puts Cambridge in some great company. Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about the other clients:
Carter-Ruck has represented several Russian oligarchs, a practice that drew scrutiny especially after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The firm acted in legal actions related to Catherine Belton’s book “Putin’s People”, representing Russian individuals and companies close to Vladimir Putin, prompting criticism in the UK Parliament and media that it was helping powerful figures intimidate journalists.
This is truly a horror show.
TheResearcher · 28 July 2026 at 12:44
One of the comments to the post of the 21 Group on X says:
“He was a professional footballer and snooker player, so he probably has lots of money.”
I would think that Carter-Ruck is more expensive than Shakespeare Martineau and the University paid the latter for McMahon and would not pay the former for Arday. It does not make any sense!
Sojourner · 28 July 2026 at 13:47
It is a grim situation. The racist far-right, which includes Cofnas, are all over this; the University is doubling down and hoping it will go away, which it likely will given media attention span, and those many of us who can see exactly what is going on here, which is anything but ‘anti-racist’ are publicly silent because caught between a rock and a hard place. Who wants to keep company with the ‘Race Realists’ at Cambridge and beyond?
It ought to be fairly simple to say that this appointment should never have happened EVEN if there was no plagiarism. Arday could very reasonably have been appointed as a senior lecturer at the time and supported until he reached the stage suitable for a professorship. The quantity and quality of the work simply does not match the appointment at that level. It is not at all unknown for senior people at other universities to take a rank cut when they come here.
This means that the far-right racists are actually sadly right on this appointment, a brazenly cynical one. Well, a broken clock is right two times a day. Already other non-white members of staff at the University are receiving hate mail mocking them for being ‘DEI hires’ and being not fit for the job. What a great win for antiracism at Cambridge! Anyone would think that senior management don’t actually care about racism per se…..
21percent.org · 28 July 2026 at 13:59
There are no good endings for anyone from here.
If the University are doubling down, they are really digging an enormous hole for themselves.
Desperately sad to hear that “other non-white members of staff at the University are receiving hate mail mocking them for being ‘DEI hires’ and being not fit for the job”