There are now articles in the Daily Mail, The Times, the Telegraph and the Independent.
The most damaging new facts are as follows. The Times Higher Education journalist Jack Grove was working on a story about Prof Jason Arday when lawyers and the Metropolitan police became involved.
One day last September, a five-page letter landed on the desk of Chris Havergal, the editor of Times Higher Education. It was sent by Carter-Ruck, a famously combative law firm whose roster of clients has included various Russian oligarchs, crypto fraudsters and scandal-affected celebrities, along with the ultra-litigious Church of Scientology. This time, they were representing a different sort of complainant: Jason Arday, a man the letter described as a ‘distinguished and highly respected scholar of race, inequality and education’ at Cambridge University. [The Daily Mail]
In a sign of the toxicity of the row, a journalist investigating the sceptics’ claims was reported to the police by Arday for alleged harassment. The Metropolitan Police investigated but closed the case. [The Times]
A crucial set of questions remains: who advised Prof Jason Arday to take this course of action? Why did he contact Carter-Ruck, and who suggested involving the Metropolitan Police?
This was a complex, high-risk legal intervention prepared at very short notice to prevent publication by Times Higher Education. Carter-Ruck’s fees for such work are likely to have been in the region of £12,000–£20,000. Did the University pay or contribute to these legal costs, as it did in the case of Prof Richard McMahon’s defamation defense, as revealed in the Cambridge Whistleblowing Tribunal?
Was the decision to contact the Metropolitan Police encouraged or facilitated by the University? The institution has publicly stated that Professor Arday was the victim of a “vile campaign to undermine his credibility” and has repeatedly framed the matter as racially motivated.
The University’s Director of Communications, James Helm, previously worked for the Metropolitan Police.
There must be complete clarity on these issues from both Prof Arday and Cambridge University. It is regrettable that such questions need to be asked at all. However, recent history at Cambridge has too often involved the suppression or mishandling of misconduct claims, making transparency essential.
These questions carry additional weight given that Prof Arday is autistic and may have sought advice in navigating a highly complex and sensitive situation. That context makes it particularly important that any guidance, processes, and institutional involvement by the University are clearly understood.
Finally, the Telegraph’s reporting brings attention back to an individual who has remained largely invisible in this discussion — but should not be.
The Telegraph has learnt that a draft resolution, known as a Grace, is circulating among senior members of Cambridge’s academic staff, stressing the importance of academic integrity and requesting an investigation into alleged shortcomings in the Research Policy, Integrity and Governance division (RPIG).
The RPIG has attracted criticism from professors at other universities for ignoring warnings about Prof Arday’s work as long as three years ago, and insisting his PhD is a matter for Liverpool John Moores University, which awarded him his doctorate.
If the Grace is submitted to the Regent House – effectively Cambridge’s parliament – and is passed by it, it would be “virtually a no confidence motion in the vice-chancellor”, in the words of one academic source.[The Telegraph]
The role of the Vice-Chancellor is to provide clear and principled academic leadership.
We need an unequivocal statement from Professor Prentice addressing three points. First, it should reaffirm that the University stands firmly by its core values of academic integrity and the highest scholarly standards. Second, it must confirm that any investigation will proceed with full respect for due process, including fairness to Professor Arday. Third, it should clarify the University’s role — if any — in the apparent use of legal and policing channels in relation to a journalist.
Finally, it is striking that there has been no coverage of this matter from the BBC or The Guardian
“Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
“To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
“The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
“That was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes. [Silver Blaze by Arthur Conan-Doyle]
Their silence on the Jason Arday story is telling. It’s a negative fact, but it’s the most significant of all.
Their lack of response strongly suggests they have accepted that the allegations are largely true. There’s no plausible defence.
35 Comments
Whistle · 1 August 2026 at 09:46
The scandal here is that it is not the only time the university has used the police to crack down on whistleblowers by filing vexatious reports. We are looking at a story of institutional corruption on a systemic scale.
EtonMess · 1 August 2026 at 10:01
Question: Why don’t more victims come forward about research misconduct by celebrity professors at Cambridge?
Answer: ‘The Times Higher Education journalist Jack Grove was working on a story about Prof Jason Arday when lawyers and the Metropolitan police became involved.’
As for vile campaigns, there seems to be at least one. It’s not the Arday case.
D-nightmare · 1 August 2026 at 17:59
“As for vile campaigns, there seems to be at least one. It’s not the Arday case”
Several former POLIS staff have cases against the university that — once public — will absolutely hammer the final nail in the coffin.
Crooks · 1 August 2026 at 18:50
Then CRUK will read the final rites
Jay · 1 August 2026 at 10:16
Comms 101: You kill a story with a sympathetic interview accepting mistakes
You do not kill a story with an interview by an unsympathetic or critical journalist from the Times
You do not kill a story by making a whole new set of very damaging admissions and further allegations against others
Infocheck · 1 August 2026 at 10:19
Questions:
1. Who was on the Cambridge “committee” that allegedly “cleared” Arday of plagiarism?
2. Who advised to use Carter-Ruck to threaten the press? Who signed off? Who paid? Are they still being paid now with client on account?
3. Have the full contents of the 5-page letter been published yet? If not why not?
4. Did the police make an arrest? How many arrests have there been at the university’s instigation?
5. Has a complaint been filed to the Met for making a vexatious police report?
6. Have any members of his hiring committee yet made a statement?
7. Does the university stand by the category of “unreasonably persistent behaviour” as a basis to expel students and staff?
8. Have Varsity been asked why they refuse to cover this and related cases?
TheResearcher · 1 August 2026 at 10:37
I can answer the last two questions:
7. Does the university stand by the category of “unreasonably persistent behaviour” as a basis to expel students and staff?
8. Have Varsity been asked why they refuse to cover this and related cases?
I confirm that the University expels students for “unreasonably persistent behaviour” when they report cases of misconduct, including plagiarism, by senior Professors. And I confirm that I already asked twice the editors of Varsity why they did not cover the Arday case, and if they are getting pressed by the University, but they did not reply. The answer is bluntly obvious. Their silence is more telling than BBC’s and Guardian’s because this topic is of major relevance for students and alumni of Cambridge University and had to be covered by them.
Our focus should not be understanding the Arday case only because it is just another case in a degrading culture of cover up. There needs to be an external investigation on how reports of misconduct, research-related and other, are addressed at Cambridge. Focusing on Arday will allow University to rest on the race card. When multiple cases are analysed in parallel, however, the picture is unambiguous.
21percent.org · 1 August 2026 at 10:38
Our understanding is the answers are
1 If there is a committee, no-one has admitted to being on it.
2 Unknown.
3 No.
4 Our understanding is yes, there was an attempt to arrest.
5 Unknown.
6 No. The committee is: Baroness Sally Morgan, F ;Professor Anoop Nayak, Newcastle University; Professor Louise Archer, University College London; Professor Jo Dillabough; Professor Tim Harper, M; Professor Michalinos Zembylas, Open University of Cyprus; Professor Karen Coats, HO; Professor Martin Mills, University College London Professor Paul Ramchandani
7 Yes.
8 Story is out of control, so no-one cares about Varsity (though they have suppressed repeated stories about bullying & misconduct over the last 2 years)
Xerxes · 1 August 2026 at 11:48
Teddy Bear is back. He’s in trouble again. Naughty Teddy
TheResearcher · 1 August 2026 at 11:51
Do you mean this Teddy Bear?
https://21percent.org/?p=1608
I think he never left 😂
- · 1 August 2026 at 12:20
Hilariously he spent years enmeshed in a plagiarism saga in his own department and then hired a plagiarist who surpassed all boundaries
EtonMess · 1 August 2026 at 18:25
@InfoCheck
Exemplary.
How to not be distracted by a race war.
These are the questions Cambridge doesn’t want us to be demanding answers to.
Varsity published two articles (‘the Plagiarising Professor’ and ‘Copycat Don’) attacking the professional reputation of historian William O’Reilly years ago. The stories had the same author, Erik Olsson. I wouldn’t know who him or the accuser. Maybe a history undergrads. If so I’d suspect conflicts of interest.
Mr Olsson openly mocked claims of a homophobic bullying campaign behind the plagiarism allegations. If it was anger in the name of research integrity, why has the Varsity been silent on the topic when many other members of Cambridge have emailed and been emailing them to report egregious cases like Dr Arday’s?
A betting man would put money on the Varsity never reporting on Dr Arday and surely never mocking his claims of a racialised smear campaign. Correct me if I’m mistaken that Varsity have not posted one serious piece of journalism about research integrity. They are like a miniature FT, meaning abysmal, in serving the public interest w/ facts and holding the administration to account on research integrity.
A · 1 August 2026 at 11:04
On 2 , if Arday’s Bluesky post was real, it suggests CR are still being paid on account.
On 4, there was more than one arrest / attempted arrest.
5. At least one investigation ongoing.
7. Yes. Cannot find UPB in the DSM; but this provides a strong case for mental health abuse on the diagnostic criteria for autism.
8. Varsity seem to have had some internal dissent around this. The last term appears to have been the phase of maximum silence, when even the donor scandals and student abuse cases were barely covered.
TheResearcher · 1 August 2026 at 12:18
This old YouTube video of S. Baron Cohen in Cambridge tells me that he would be keen to participate on the Netflix version of the current saga:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJBVEfY015o
3:00. The student says, “This is a serious University”
BreakerMorant · 1 August 2026 at 13:07
**** BREAKING ****
James Orr in the Byline Times
https://subscribe.bylinetimes.com/edition/88/reform-uk-and-big-tech-palantir-co-founder-peter-thiels-political-pipeline-recruitment-project-at-the-world-renowned-university-revealed/
TheResearcher · 1 August 2026 at 13:13
Thanks BreakerMorant!
In case people got tired of Arday’s, now we can focus on Orr’s. What is the excuse for this story?
But the Guardian finally woke up regarding Arday!
https://www.theguardian.com/education/ng-interactive/2026/aug/01/playbooks-plagiarism-pigs-head-new-claims-surrounding-cambridge-professor-jason-arday?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Jussie Juicy · 1 August 2026 at 13:26
The Guardian piece is a bombshell. It strongly implies, without saying as much directly, that Arday made up an entire fable of racial harassment that he submitted to the police and they found no evidence to confirm any part of it.
FYI · 1 August 2026 at 13:35
“Arday confirmed in an interview with the Guardian that the “mutilated animals sent to his family home” mentioned in the open letter was a severed pig’s head, delivered in a large cardboard box to his parents’ home address in south London. He claimed to have intercepted the package and immediately thrown it away, only telling the police several months later.
In a subsequent interview he claimed the police investigated, checking with butchers in south London if they had sold a pig, eventually finding one that had sold a “whole hog” on the morning the head was left outside the family home.
When the Guardian checked those details with the local butchers Arday named, they said no police officer had come in to ask them about a pig. When asked if they were sure, the butcher said “that’s the kind of thing we’d remember”.”
TheResearcher · 1 August 2026 at 13:36
“Some of the audience thought it was strange. Keynotes are usually places where academics talk about their work and discuss breakthroughs, yet here was Arday talking about racism and harassment. Some felt he must have been saying this for a reason.”
“When asked if the £5m figure was accurate, Arday clarified to the Guardian that the money was raised with the help of “many fundraising collectives over a two-decade period”. When asked to identify other people who took part in these efforts, Arday said he had signed NDAs preventing him from disclosing that information.”
“Doctors have told the Guardian that running nine marathons with a hairline fracture in a fibula would be incredibly painful, though technically not impossible. In his forthcoming memoir, Arday says he completed the distance by taking painkillers and despite his right leg swelling to twice its normal size. He previously said in a 2012 interview that he used ice baths to ease the pain between his runs.”
“The intruder was not picked up by CCTV on either occasion and no one in the faculty reported seeing anyone suspicious. Arday did not report either intrusion at the time, telling the Guardian that after the second incident he continued his working day and even conducted a PhD viva for a student less than two hours later. He did not inform colleagues that a masked man with a knife was in the faculty building.”
“When the details Arday gave about the pig’s head investigation were checked by London’s Metropolitan police, the Guardian was told they were “categorically” incorrect and no investigation had taken place. Arday took no photographs of the bullet, the banana, the corrosive substance or the pig’s head.”
“When Arday was asked about his claims by the Guardian, he stood by them. “To be honest with you, I thought you’d just believe me,” he said. “Why would I lie?” He would be jeopardising his career.”
21percent.org · 1 August 2026 at 13:41
It seems clear that Arday is not well and cannot distinguish what is true from what is false.
Time for Cambridge University to focus on how we have made such serious mistakes.
Concentration of all the power in a tiny handful of senior leaders of no real ability is one problem.
Autocomplete · 1 August 2026 at 13:59
“Concentration of all the power in a tiny handful of senior leaders of no real ability” who also cannot distinguish what is true from what is false?
Many of our senior leaders appear to use retreating into a fantasy world as a way of coping with the stresses of jobs beyond their capabilities. This does not improve stress levels further down the food chain. (One could argue that the same phenomenon exists in Westminster too, where CVs also undergo inflation.)
TheResearcher · 1 August 2026 at 14:00
“It seems clear that Arday is not well and cannot distinguish what is true from what is false.”
Interesting. I wonder if that will be the strategy. If a student had made all that, namely hiring Carter-Ruck and calling the police, what would happen to them regardless of their mental health?
TheResearcher · 1 August 2026 at 14:53
The 21 Group wrote on X,
“Liverpool John Moores University have questions to answer too
After inadequate supervision, LJMU granted Arday a PhD for a thesis that was of low quality
LJMU then dismissed plagiarism charges, as they were “well within accepted range of compliance with academic standards””
21 Group… Knowing UCam as you do, don’t you think that it is plausible that UCam contacted LJMU in the background and discussed the matter as they do with “Responsible Persons” in internal investigations? Do you think that UCam could afford that LJMU found misconduct of their rising star? Remember what Dr Morgan said to Professor Harris, “If you do choose to approach the institutions at which this work was done we would be content for you to let them know that you have also written to us and to provide my name as a contact point.”
I bet that if Professor Harris makes a SAR at LJMU (not in UCam because they will find a way to cancel it), he will find correspondence between Dr Morgan and LJMU.
21percent.org · 1 August 2026 at 16:00
“... we would be content for you to let them know that you have also written to us and to provide my name as a contact point”.
Like you, we find this phraseology suspicious.
TheResearcher · 1 August 2026 at 16:13
I fear that Dr Morgan will have a problem if his office gets an external audit.
21percent.org · 1 August 2026 at 17:05
The matter has clearly done enormous damage to
1 British Universities (who have few friends and desperately need more),
2 the reputation and standing of Cambridge University,
3 Black scholars & researchers,
4 Sociologists,
5 Research integrity,
6 EDI,
7 the senior leadership team of Cambridge University (many of whom are hopelessly compromised).
There must be an external inquiry. We must not allow one of the Cambridge ‘cover up’ inquiries, where the HR Business Manager or an insider takes charge and directs everything
TheResearcher · 1 August 2026 at 17:13
“We must not allow one of the Cambridge ‘cover up’ inquiries, where the HR Business Manager or an insider takes charge and directs everything”
We also need to ask ourselves what we have done when we saw this happening in front our eyes with colleagues or students, and what we are willing to do moving forward. Many people knew that Cambridge University is the cover-up University, and still were silent when junior members were abused perhaps convincing themselves that was not their business. That mentality too needs to change. But one thing at a time. First, we have to expose those who actively participated in the farce that Cambridge University became, and that will only happen with external audit.
- · 1 August 2026 at 17:27
At this point there is more than enough evidence to take a few obvious decisions, in addition to whatever not-very-independent investigation the university wants to run to somehow absolve itself of all blame.
BLP · 1 August 2026 at 17:44
Of all the surprises in this crazy story one of the biggest ones for me was to see the “Good” Law Project working hand in glove with Carter-Ruck
TheResearcher · 1 August 2026 at 19:21
The number of signatures froze at 12.7K early this morning. However, their website says “Nicolas signed less than 1 minute ago; Georgia signed less than 1 minute ago; Benjamin signed 1 minute ago; Helen signed 1 minute ago.” Not clear what is going on… I will quote Prof. Arday here as it seems appropriate:
“Could I have ever guessed that somebody would literally come through every single word I’ve ever said on that? There’s no way because I never, ever guessed I’d ever be in this position.”
Foot, Meet Mouth · 1 August 2026 at 20:14
I think after the Guardian story they must have frozen it. Even Cambridge and the GLP have a limit to self-humilation (albeit an astonishing high one).
TheResearcher · 1 August 2026 at 20:33
The last 3 years thought me that UCam does not have limits when it comes to cover up and thus I would be surprised if this was their limit. I hope so, but I will assume for now that they will try other cards before throwing in the towel. They cannot afford an external audit and thus they will try everything they can. Keep a close look to those who will be against the idea because they will have a lot to lose when these external audits happen. There are people who will lose much more than Arday because they were involved in many cases.
21percent.org · 1 August 2026 at 20:35
Agreed. The Guardian article ended the first cycle of the story. Almost everyone has now conceded there is serious evidence for extensive plagiarism. There never was a “vile campaign” as the University asserted.
Utter humiliation for Cambridge, can’t think of anything like it. Someone is losing their job.
The Orr story is beginning to break. We can only hope they handle it better.
TheResearcher · 1 August 2026 at 20:54
Of course, it did not end… another from The Telegraph:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/08/01/professor-jason-arday-university-plagiarism/
Archived: https://archive.is/RADub
TheResearcher · 1 August 2026 at 21:20
Key lesson UCam: Bullying and harassing students and staff is one thing, but doing it to journalists as well, and systematically, it can backfire. Where is Carter-Ruck now?
I trust this is the world record of negative press that one single University ever got…