The controversy surrounding Jason Arday now extends across multiple institutions and is causing significant damage to confidence in UK higher education. At a time when universities face intense financial pressures and increasing political scrutiny, public trust is essential. The handling of this matter by Cambridge University’s leadership risks damaging not only one institution’s reputation, but confidence in the governance and accountability of the wider sector.
Universities rely on public support and political goodwill. Cases that raise questions about academic standards, transparency and poor institutional decisions make that support harder to sustain. No-one will fund us, unless there is an investigation into these sorry events.
For this reason, any further investigation must be genuinely independent. The Office for Students should commission an external investigation into the decisions and processes at Liverpool John Moores University and the University of Cambridge, whilst University of Glasgow falls under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Funding Council.
Liverpool John Moores University
Jason Arday’s PhD supervisor was Prof Phil Vickerman, who also serves as a Pro Vice-Chancellor for Student Experience.
Supervision arrangements provided during the PhD appear to have been inadequate. Arday has stated that he had only a single formal supervision meeting, with most guidance delivered via text or phone. If accurate, this falls far short of accepted academic practice. While supervision requirements vary, sustained engagement — typically weekly to monthly meetings — is a basic expectation for doctoral training. A depleted supervisory team and minimal direct oversight raise serious concerns about how Arday was supported, and whether deficiencies in the thesis derive from this lack of supervision.
Further questions remain about the examination process. Who were the internal and external examiners who approved the thesis? Even without the plagiarism, the work is of low quality. How was the work judged to have met the standard required for a doctorate?
Allegations of plagiarism in Arday’s 2015 PhD have been in circulation since at least 2023, with Liverpool John Moores University formally opening an investigation in September 2025. The university ultimately concluded that the issues amounted to “honest and reasonable” citation errors and fell “within acceptable academic standards at the time“, according to The Times. Who served on this investigation panel? What evidence was considered? How was this conclusion reached?
Turnitin would have immediately revealed extensive problems, as noted here.
Taken together, the lack of meaningful supervision, poor standards in the examination process, and the dismissal of extensive textual overlap as “acceptable” point to systemic problems in the doctoral training program at Liverpool John Moores.
Glasgow University
Jason Arday was appointed Professor of Sociology of Education at the University of Glasgow in 2021, at the age of 37.
A key unanswered question is the composition of the appointments committee that selected him. The University of Glasgow’s regulations here indicate that such a panel would typically include the Principal or their nominee as convener; the Head of College/Vice-Principal; the Head of School or Director of Research Institute; a professorial member of the relevant School or Research Institute; an external assessor; and, unusually, the Director of Human Resources.
The full membership of the panel has not been publicly disclosed, but some members can reasonably be inferred. Unless a nominee acted on his behalf, the convener would have been Professor Sir Anton Muscatelli, Principal of the University of Glasgow. The Vice-Principal/Head of College role was held by Professor Sara Carter, Head of the College of Social Sciences. The Head of School role was held by Professor Margery McMahon, Head of the School of Education.
The remaining members, including the external assessor and professorial representative, have not been identified publicly. Given the significance of awarding a professorial title, transparency about the appointment process would help establish the level of academic scrutiny and due diligence applied. Did the members of the panel read the works? How did they decide it was of Professorial standing?
Cambridge University
Jason Arday moved to he University of Cambridge in 2023 on his appointment to a prestigious named chair.
The appointments committee was headed by Baroness Sally Morgan, Master of Fitzwilliam College.
It comprised: Professors Anoop Nayak (Newcastle); Louise Archer (UCL); Jo Dillabough (Cambridge); Tim Harper (Magdalene); Michalinos Zembylas (OU Cyprus); Karen Coats (Homerton); Martin Mills (UCL); Paul Ramchandani (Wolfson). Zembylas is the most highly cited, whilst Harper is a Fellow of the British Academy. All have established scholarly records in education, sociology and history. Which raises a stark question: did they actually engage with the work? And if they did, how did they convince themselves it met the standard for a Cambridge named professorial chair?
Concerns about possible plagiarism were raised with Professor Hilary Cremin and Dr Rhys Morgan in 2023 by Professors Martyn Hammersley of the Open University and Dave Harris of Plymouth Marjon University. Why were these concerns not treated as an opportunity for closer scrutiny and, if necessary, early intervention? A timely response might have allowed Professor Arday’s research deficiencies to be addressed privately and constructively.
When further concerns were raised in 2025 by Times Higher Education journalist Jack Grove, the matter was reviewed again, under the oversight of Professor Manuel Eisner, Director of the Institute of Criminology. The review concluded that the issues were outside its scope. Again, another opportunity to help Prof Arday was missed.
However, and concerningly, Jack Grove was himself targeted by Carter-Ruck and the Metropolitan Police. Who advised Professor Arday to pursue such an aggressive legal strategy? Why was a high-profile firm like Carter-Ruck engaged at speed? And who suggested escalating the matter to the Metropolitan Police?
These were not routine decisions. They formed part of a rapid, high-stakes legal intervention designed to prevent publication by Times Higher Education. Such action does not happen in a vacuum. It requires advice, coordination, and resources. Carter-Ruck’s involvement alone suggests costs likely running into tens of thousands of pounds. It is therefore entirely reasonable to ask whether the University of Cambridge contributed financially, as it has done in previous cases (for example, in the case of Prof Richard McMahon’s defamation defense, as revealed in the Cambridge Whistleblowing Tribunal).
Equally significant is the decision to involve the police. This represents a serious escalation, transforming what might otherwise have remained an academic or reputational dispute into a potential criminal matter. Was this step encouraged or even endorsed by the University? Cambridge has publicly framed Professor Arday as the victim of a “vile campaign” and has repeatedly characterised the issue in terms of racial hostility.
The presence of senior communications leadership (James Helm) with prior ties to the Metropolitan Police intensifies the need for clarity. At minimum, it raises questions about how decisions were made and whether informal channels or prior relationships played a role.
This is not simply about one case. Cambridge has, in recent years, faced repeated criticism over its handling of misconduct allegations — often marked by opacity, defensiveness, and a reluctance to confront the truth.
There is also an important personal dimension. Professor Arday is autistic and may well have relied heavily on advice when navigating an exceptionally complex and high-pressure situation. That fact does not diminish the seriousness of the decisions taken — it heightens the responsibility of those providing guidance. If advice was given, it must be scrutinised. If institutional processes were involved, they must be made visible.
Only an independent, external inquiry will now do. Given the potential ramifications for the whole sector, it is a job for the regulators, the Office for Students and the Scottish Funding Council.
70 Comments
:Der Untergang · 3 August 2026 at 08:39
(Meanwhile, somewhere in a basement underneath Cambridge Old Schools in July…)
SS Munir: I have bad news mein Kanzler. To the East, the Byline Revolutionary Guard have linked up with the 21st Group division. To the West, there are rumors that dissident fascists from the Cofnas squad have switched allegiance, and are instead preparing sabotage operations with the Times and Telegraph.
Richkanzler Prentice (for it is she): It will be fine. The Guardian and BBC divisions will save us. And we have recruited a whole new wave of poster children with impeccable fighting credentials.
SS Munir: Mein Kanzler, I fear it may be worse.
Richkanzler Prentice: Speak.
SS Munir: There are reports that the two fronts have already linked.
Richkanzler Prentice: From East and West? Impossible, they hate each other. We were going to switch side like the Italians and join our new western allies and finally crush those bolsheviks once and for all.
(Silence; furrowed brows; scattered glances around the room)
SS Baldrick (hesitant, nervous): Have no fear, Richkanzler, for I have a “cunning plan”.
Comms Officer Goebbels: Mein Gott Baldrick not another cunning plan. Let’s hear it.
SS Baldrick: For years we have been working on a secret wunder-weapon. It is called the “Arday”.
Richkanzler Prentice: Tell me about this “Arday”.
SS Baldrick: He is our best and brightest – but they think his claims are fantasy. How wrong they are. We will deploy the Arday to lure them in with racist attacks on his unblemished academic record.
That will draw them all in – the dissident Cofnas fascists from the West, then the Telegraph and THE divisions, and also those traitors from the 21st East – for the final pincer attack.
When we have them where we want them – they will be trapped. And then, we counterattack.
Richkanzler Prentice: A counterattack? Yes, yes! (foaming and frothing at mouth)
SS Baldrick: Yes mein Kanzler. A petition from our Lords and luminaries will rally support from around the world to our cause. Millions will sign. We will overpower them with our armies of new volunteers. The world will see them for the racists they are. They will be shamed and powerless. Then the Guardian and BBC divisions will pile in and crush them all.
Unterling Cremlin (ignored, breathless): Yes, yes, this is it… And we can shock them with the intellectual force of an interpretative dance series on Tiktok! While they unfairly attack us as intellectually lightweight – we turn it around by criticizing their engagement of racial stereotypes!
SS Baldrick: Quite right. And also, for their lack of rhythm.
Richkanzler Prentice: This is an excellent plan.
(Everyone): This is an excellent plan.
Richkanzler: It cannot fail… We will be drinking martinis in Dover in no time…
(BOMBS GROW LOUDER)
21percent.org · 3 August 2026 at 09:00
Very good.
Next please, the Comms office, using the Thick of It.
Out of the Loop · 3 August 2026 at 14:57
Hard to do, Helm is no Malcolm Tucker! “Hugh Grant” playing the role of James Helm is the obvious casting choice
But could be hilarious to see him getting serially bollocked by a Malcolm Tucker figure who was brought in by the university to de-fuck the situation
21percent.org · 3 August 2026 at 15:44
The whole Jason Arday story reads like a script by Armando Iannucci.
That’s why it’s destined to end up as a mini-series
Sandy · 3 August 2026 at 16:12
Haha Helm as Hugh Grant is already prefigured in the script from “In the Loop” right? Where MacDonald (Tucker’s enforcer) is ranting at Toby Wright:
Jamie MacDonald: “Shut it – Love Actually!”
Truth stranger than fiction!
Nate (no not that one) · 3 August 2026 at 09:07
“And also, for their lack of rhythm”
HAhahah classic. Cambridge hypocrisy in a nutshell.
Concerned of Tumbridge Wells · 3 August 2026 at 09:31
It appears the Guardian will not save them, looking at their recent article on the matter.
--extra · 3 August 2026 at 13:48
@ Concerned of Tunbridge Wells
“It appears the Guardian will not save them, looking at their recent article on the matter”
So I think the next meeting goes like this:
SS Munir: I have more bad news mein Richkanzler. The BBC division is unreachable.
Richkanzler Prentice: The BBC. They were always spineless nothings. They didn’t even invite me back to Private Passions or Strictly Come Dancing. The Guardian division will save us. Save us. And sort out all this mess (swirling hands around)
SS Munir: Sadly… The Guardian division… The Guardian division… The Guardian division… appears to have mutinied.
[LONG SILENCE, nervous glances and swallows]
Richkanzler Prentice:
Baldrick, Hudson, Aston, leave the room. (Pause). No – Munir, Vira, Helm, Parsons — you stay.
[even more nervous glances and swallows]
Richkanzler Prentice:
#%�@)��#��&=%@%�=##�%)&)�&=)@=%&#%�@)��#��&=%@%�=##�%)&)�&=)@=%&
#%�@)��#��&=%@%�=##�%)&)�&=)@=%&!!!!!!
- · 3 August 2026 at 14:16
More likely Sachers than Prentice chairing these meetings but that just makes the Downfall comparison even more apropos
TheResearcher · 3 August 2026 at 09:40
Meanwhile,
Automatic Message of Professor Deborah Prentice: “Out of office until 04/08”
Automatic Message of Mr James Helm: “I am out of the office on annual leave until Tuesday 4th August”
Automatic Message of Professor Kamal Munir: “I am currently on leave and will be slow to reply.”
No, it is not a joke… Professors Bhaskar Vira and John Aston are around but it is not clear what they are doing. I reckon that who is running the place now is Dr Mike Glover, Dr Regina Sachers, Ms Andrea Hudson, and Mr David Parsons.
Jay · 3 August 2026 at 09:53
Like putting five rabbits in a cage with some wolves. Full-scale media storm
Old Schools Refugee · 3 August 2026 at 10:34
The likes of Prentice and Helm will not be worrying themselves over this. It’ll be some poorly paid functionary on a short term contract sat in the Old Schools, awake since Thursday, desperately trying to figure out how to handle it.
Anonymous · 3 August 2026 at 12:24
So right now there is no one in charge, right in the middle of the biggest crisis in the university’s history.
Remember these are people receiving 10,000 pounds a week in salary – even while they are on holiday. That’s an entire year of student fees.
Since the crisis started they’ve racked up the better part of another 15,000 pounds each.
Are they worth it?
21percent.org · 3 August 2026 at 12:31
Fishmonger’s Hall was probably a bigger crisis. Otherwise, spot on.
https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Fishmongers-Hall-A-Preventable-Tragedy-1.pdf
TheResearcher · 3 August 2026 at 12:37
21 Group, this crisis is not over. We are just in the first scandal of the summer!
( ) · 3 August 2026 at 12:41
True. This is the year of the Fire Horse. We are 6 months in to the full 12 month rollout. Enjoy the rest of the show
Johnny · 3 August 2026 at 13:28
Can you imagine how hilarious it would be if they really are on holiday right now with phones and social media off, and simply chillaxing on a beach somewhere completely unawares.
First office meeting, Tuesday August 4th…
“Phew I feel refreshed! Really earned that vay-cay.
So, team — what did I miss?”
Wicked · 3 August 2026 at 13:55
Comms Director: “Phew I feel refreshed! Really earned that vay-cay. So, team — what did I miss?”
Team [swallowing hard]: “There have been a few … err … problems”
Comms Director [breezily]: “But nothing serious. It must have blown over. I mean I’ve been away weeks”
Team: “Err … No”
Comms Director [still confident]: “Just say ‘The University takes this matter very seriously’. Comms 101”
Team: “We’ve said that four times”
Comms Director [forcefully]: “Then say it a fifth time but much angrier”.
Team [slowly]: “It’s trickyish … I mean, frankly, it’s everywhere. Twitter, LinkedIn, Times, Guardian, Telegraph, BBC … even Mumsnet. The good thing is we don’t think Debs has heard about it yet””
TheResearcher · 3 August 2026 at 09:53
I would like to remind people of this passage from one of the earlier articles:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/24/cambridges-diversity-poster-boy-in-plagiarism-row/
“Prof Sir Simon Baron-Cohen, the director of Cambridge’s autism research centre, and cousin of the comedian Sacha Baron-Cohen, and Ricardo Sabates, professor of education, circulated an open letter under the heading: “URGENT PLEASE SIGN ANTI-RACISM LETTER FOR JASON ARDAY.” It referred to an earlier letter that “was sent to the Minister of State and to which there has been progress in terms of how to tackle these issues” and warned of a “potential public attack on Jason”. Parliamentary records show that on Sept 15 last year, Jacqui Smith, the women and equalities minister, met a “range of academics to discuss the harassment of black academics”.
Who were these “academics” and why they do not come forward to explain their behaviour?
TheResearcher · 3 August 2026 at 10:19
ChatGPT says,
““The single most commented-on article in The Telegraph in 2026 is an opinion piece written by Allister Heath titled “We’ve lost the war against climate change. Time to scrap net zero.”Published on July 31, 2026, the highly controversial essay generated over 4,160 comments from subscribers within just three days.”
The last one from The Telegraph has over 8500 comments in a few hours…
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/08/02/cambridge-diversity-poster-boy-claims-he-was-in-seven-up/
21percent.org · 3 August 2026 at 10:55
See
https://dailysceptic.org/2026/08/02/bloody-awful-work-creeps-in-when-standards-are-relaxed/
Anon, PhD · 3 August 2026 at 10:58
“Who were the internal and external examiners who approved the thesis?” I have always considered this a weakness of the British system. Just two people examine the thesis, one is internal and expected to be somewhat supportive, and neither name is put on public record. So examiners can gain friends with minimal risk to their reputations by passing rubbish. For extra points, at least in some areas, one can then decree the thesis to be commercially sensitive, and place it under an embargo.
Although one could argue that the amount of moderation for undergraduate degrees is also slight, at least there the process is somewhat anonymised. For PhDs, the identity of the candidate, and, more importantly, the supervisor, are well known to the examiners, and the supervisor will have selected the examiners (subject to the approval of a committee). If the supervisor is particularly senior, and the field narrow, appointing an internal who effectively reports to the supervisor is not impossible. Indeed, there are cases in which appointing an internal who does not effectively report to the supervisor could be very challenging. Compromising the external takes more skill, but some supervisors are quite skilled.
In practice, the system mostly works well. But it does have obvious flaws. A permanent record of the examiners’ names might increase trust in the system a little.
In this particular case, the criticism is a little odd. Very few professors are appointed on the strength of their PhD theses. Conventionally appointments at that level are made based on work done post PhD, preferably work done whilst working much more independently than a PhD student would.
!!!!! · 3 August 2026 at 11:06
Fucking hell.
So Karen Coats was on the panel that hired Arday and ALSO running the faculty panel that awarded promotion to Hilary Cremin – her line manager – immediately afterwards for her work promoting diversity leadership blah blah blah?
[REDACTED]
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! · 3 August 2026 at 17:54
AND Tim Harper. A historian who doesn’t read?
TheResearcher · 3 August 2026 at 18:01
Do you mean this Tim Harper?
https://21percent.org/?p=1608
- · 3 August 2026 at 18:16
Harper is like this kind of Where’s Wally character who somehow made it in to the background of every one of these crises
TheResearcher · 3 August 2026 at 18:22
Is he applying for a Master position somewhere? He has what it takes to be a great Master! He just needs to be in the Council as our beloved Lord Glossover:
https://21percent.org/?p=2655
TheResearcher · 3 August 2026 at 18:24
By the way, remember that Lord Glossover said that he knew everything because he was in the Council… What a great leader!
TheResearcher · 3 August 2026 at 11:07
Myths & Legends…
https://bristoliver.substack.com/p/myths-and-legends
TheResearcher · 3 August 2026 at 11:40
New article at The Telegraph:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/08/03/jason-arday-is-merely-a-symptom-of-academias-moral-disease/
“Jason Arday is merely a symptom of academia’s moral disease “
Blacktivist · 3 August 2026 at 11:53
Why I don’t get is why they chose Jason Arday. I mean, guys, if Cambridge wanted to appoint a genuine Gen-Z hero for anti-racism, they could have given an honorary professorship to a real hero like Niko Omilana instead.
Here’s who I mean for those who don’t know…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umNjlp2LObM
Niko is the GOAT and someone who really exposes racism, whereas Arday is a fucking disgraceful grifter. Not only should he resign but all of the people who protected and promoted him.
TheResearcher · 3 August 2026 at 12:06
“Why I don’t get is why they chose Jason Arday.”
Do you mean Cambridge or the press? If the former, Cambridge obviously chose Arday because of his story-telling capabilities and alleged life history, which they never bother to check because they could not care less about the truth. He ticked all the boxed that matter for them, and truth is not one of them. The press is clearly not happy with the fact that journalists were bullied, harassed and silenced by the University, namely through Arday. That is the real reason why we are getting so many articles every day. I hope the focus will turn to the University now because there is a lot to uncover there. I think they would have done that by now if Arday had assumed what he did, as opposed to provide explanations that do not fly if you look at the available data
Anonymous · 3 August 2026 at 12:26
An interview between Omilana and Cremin would be absolute gold, can just imagine him baiting her along to admit to all her passively racist assumptions, and her leaving the room thinking it was the best interview of her life.
Blacklisted · 3 August 2026 at 12:51
“Why I don’t get is why they chose Jason Arday.”
This is most likely connected to a talented black academic who spoke out and was retaliated against and victimised.
Quoting earlier post by ?
“Then they take it a step further by hiring someone else, less qualified, at a higher grade, just to run salt in the wound. It is dysfunctional, counter-productive, toxic and stupid and no sensible, rational person who cared deeply about the organization’s best interests would do it. But they are none of those things and that is how they took the uni to where it is now.”
There is definitely a pattern of this sort of “strategy” in Cambridge.
TheResearcher · 3 August 2026 at 12:58
I agree. This aspect is also important. This is the kind of humiliation that the University likes to do to whistleblowers, while luring the public with their alleged good intentions.
Proof of Concept · 3 August 2026 at 16:29
““Then they take it a step further by hiring someone else, less qualified, at a higher grade, just to run salt in the wound. It is dysfunctional, counter-productive, toxic and stupid”
Quite. If the university learns even one lesson out of the week gone by – though I think there are a lot to learn – perhaps it should be that deliberately humiliating smart employees is …. a rather unwise move.
TheResearcher · 3 August 2026 at 16:46
Specially when the employees have friends in the press!
Anon · 3 August 2026 at 13:17
“This is most likely connected to a talented black academic who spoke out and was retaliated against and victimised.”
Indeed. This is the real story, and the ultimate proof of their racism.
Illusions... flying pigs · 3 August 2026 at 18:02
“The talented black academic who spoke out and was retaliated against”= Dr Calbert Graham.
Dr Arday’s subsequent hiring was another hit back against him. It creates the illusion of: “Dr Graham is wrong– we don’t racially discriminate in our hiring practices. Look, Dr Arday!!!”
Definitely was hired for his storytelling capabilities, at least partly. When pigs can fly, I’ll be convinced Dr Graham wasn’t discriminated against. When pigs can fly
Exactly · 3 August 2026 at 18:30
This. They already had a Black academic who broke all the stereotypes. A computer scientist who was well-published and furiously intelligent. But no, they wanted someone who parroted their own lame tropes, and this was the result.
Skepta-cal · 3 August 2026 at 22:30
He was an academic who happened to be black. Sadly, there was no place for that at Cambridge.
Cambridge needed a “Black academic” – someone who could be used to cover for the absence of any other such faculty across the university.
100% · 3 August 2026 at 13:08
“Jason Arday is merely a symptom of academia’s moral disease“
Exactly. Arday is a symptom of a humanities culture in which:
– white women can parade Black men on the BBC as examples of their “higher civilisation”
– wealthy Anglo-educated Indians gnash teeth over “post-colonialism”
– academics who have never written a line of code proffer thin waffle about “AI regulation”
– hereditary peers whine about the dangers of “populism”
– feminists bully vulnerable women out of work while fawning over “erudite” abusers
Arday is just tip of the iceberg. It is a shame he became the scapegoat for a much bigger rot.
Anon · 3 August 2026 at 12:47
One possible explanation of the decision of Liverpool John Moores University’s Academic Misconduct Panel is that under their Academic Misconduct Policy, academic misconduct is narrowly defined as including only intentional wrongdoing. The policy states: “Academic misconduct is deemed to cover all deliberate attempt(s) to gain an unfair advantage in assessments. This includes cheating, plagiarism…” (my emphasis). The policy can be downloaded here: https://www.ljmu.ac.uk/about-us/public-information/student-regulations/academic-misconduct
The University of Cambridge has correctly stated that any issue of plagiarism is normally investigated and dealt with by the institution at which it is alleged to have occurred. But Cambridge’s own student disciplinary framework does not make intention a requirement of academic misconduct. Plagiarism is simply defined as “using someone else’s ideas, words, data, or other material produced by them without acknowledgement”.
https://www.studentcomplaints.admin.cam.ac.uk/files/2023-10-01_revised_sdf_and_sdp.pdf
At Cambridge, in other words – in common with many other leading universities – plagiarism is in effect a strict liability offence. Accidental plagiarism is still plagiarism, is still academic misconduct. The question of whether or not there was a deliberate intent to deceive will go to the question of how the matter is dealt with: whether it is something that can be dealt with by the Examiners, lowering the mark to reflect the poor scholarship involved in lack of proper referencing, or whether it is treated as a disciplinary matter, with the possibility of a more serious penalty being applied.
Having looked at Professor Arday’s PhD thesis and that of Dr Zwozdiak-Myers, as well as the Turnitin report on Arday’s thesis, I cannot escape the conclusion that Arday’s thesis contains evidence of plagiarism as it would be understood in the University of Cambridge. Yet there is no evidence that the thesis was sent back to the PhD Examiners for review following discovery of the alleged plagiarism, nor that the thesis has been corrected to add into the text the appropriate acknowledgments to the work of others where that work is currently unreferenced or inadequately referenced. The thesis is still published, uncorrected, on the Liverpool John Moores University website: https://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/4552/1/158222_Jason%20Arday_%20Final%20PhD%20Thesis%20Vesrion%20Final%20Draft%20Oct%202015.pdf
TheResearcher · 3 August 2026 at 13:09
The University of Cambridge would not evaluate Arday’s work through the policy for their students, but for their staff and that is why Dr Rhys Morgan and the Research Misconduct Office were contacted. When I recently contacted them, including Professor John Aston, I wrote:
“I am rather concerned about this statement [Morgan’s statement published in several articles] because it does not follow from the Procedure for the Investigation of an Allegation of Research Misconduct (https://www.cam.ac.uk/sites/default/files/procedure-for-the-handling-of-an-allegation-of-research-misconduct-20260212.pdf) that I know very well after the recent experience with Dr Morgan and his team. The procedure itself is drafted broadly. It provides that it applies to allegations of research misconduct against “any person undertaking research either as a member of or whilst connected to a University institution or using University facilities or funding.” Importantly, it does not contain any provision stating that Cambridge lacks jurisdiction over allegations concerning research carried out before an individual joined the University. Paragraph 2.2 expressly states that the University may also consider allegations relating to research undertaken while an individual was employed by or otherwise associated with Cambridge, including former members, and that allegations concerning individuals who have left the University may still be investigated, taking into account the seriousness of the allegation, its credibility and the prospects of conducting a fair investigation. Although this provision addresses former Cambridge members rather than future employees, it demonstrates that the procedure does not define institutional remit solely by an individual’s current employment status. The procedure also expressly anticipates cases involving more than one institution. Rather than excluding such cases from Cambridge’s remit, it provides that where research involves another university or partner institution, “an appropriate investigatory procedure will be determined between the relevant institutions”, following the principles of the Russell Group Statement of Cooperation where possible, and that this “may, where appropriate, include a joint investigation.” This provision recognises that research misconduct allegations can span institutional boundaries and envisages cooperation rather than automatic disengagement.”
Anonymous · 3 August 2026 at 18:11
The standards for students are higher than the standards for professors. Student essays are put through TurnItIn plagiarism detection software. The work of professors is not put through TurnItIn. Most journals don’t use plagiarism detection software either. The best plagiarist professors know their work isn’t going to be checked and exploit this vulnerability. A question: why are students held to a higher standard of research integrity than professors?
This double-standard is backfiring. Now Cambridge has X users putting Dr Arday’s work through TurnItIn. It’s going to open the doors to the work of more professors being put through TurnItIn and exposed. If Cambridge had higher, more equal standards and more oversight, they wouldn’t have this scandal.
TheResearcher · 3 August 2026 at 19:15
That is a good point. I guess one reason is because Cambridge is responsible for evaluating the work of students directly but expects that external publishers or reviewers from journals evaluate the work of staff. Regardless, in this case, the work of Arday should at least be examined by the Policy of the Research Integrity Office. Obviously, the misconduct is so obvious that Cambridge/Dr Rhys Morgan did not want to be responsible for the investigation, and would be hard to find a “Responsible Person” who would put their name in a report clearing Arday from plagiarism. The obvious choice was to push the problem to where the PhD was done, when nothing prevents Cambridge from doing its own investigation. What the “spokesperson” said to the journalists does not follow from our own policy, as I reminded Dr Morgan and Professor Aston.
Anon · 3 August 2026 at 21:36
Thanks for your thoughtful response, TheResearcher.
By my reading of Cambridge’s procedure for handling alleged research misconduct by staff, research carried out by staff before they had any association with the University is almost certainly not covered. And in any case, research misconduct by staff appears to be defined as requiring either deliberate wrongdoing, recklessness or gross negigence. (As others have pointed out, lower standards apparently set for staff than for students.)
This is why my comparison was between the student academic misconduct process carried out at Liverpool John Moores and Cambridge’s student disciplinary procedure. I was not suggesting a procedural way forward for Cambridge, but raising in broader terms the defensibility of accepting at face value the outcome of a procedure at another institution which apparently sets lower ethical standards for scholarly practice than Cambridge would expect of their own PhD students.
TheResearcher · 3 August 2026 at 13:38
A new story at The Telegraph:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/08/03/cambridge-university-jason-ardays/
” In my Cambridge days, Jason Arday’s ‘truths’ wouldn’t have lasted five minutes “
AJG · 3 August 2026 at 15:46
The Good Law Project have taken down the petition. You can still find a cached version but it’s gone from their main site.
TheResearcher · 3 August 2026 at 16:05
What about this video? It is ageing well…
https://www.tiktok.com/@goodlawproject/video/7667880913975463190
PQ · 3 August 2026 at 16:07
Interesting. I heard one reason they weren’t retracting it sooner might have been fear of legal action, but most likely I suspect they had to delete it now because so many more signatories were asking to be removed.
???? · 3 August 2026 at 16:20
The scandal here is around the total failure to conduct any form of due diligence. Jason’s word was taken as enough (he says so himself that this is what he expected of the newspapers). But also, that of his supporters at Cambridge was taken as enough (and they had simply taken Jason at his word in turn).
How hard would it have been for someone – and I mean, anyone – just one single time to ask:
Hey Jason, can you send us some evidence to back your claims?
Can you send us your analysis defending against allegations of academic plagiarism or fraud? Can you send us the names of people who can testify that xyz?
Literally no-one did this, not the senior academics at Cambridge, not the Good Law Project, no-one, and apparently not Carter-Ruck either, otherwise they wouldn’t have claimed to THE that the assertions were false (a violation of SRA guidelines).
Anonymous · 3 August 2026 at 18:13
No due diligence is definitely the scandal.
TheResearcher · 3 August 2026 at 16:59
And another from The Telegraph
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/08/03/cambridge-professor-accused-plagiarism-loses-key-ally-uk/
“Cambridge professor loses key ally from letter of support “
TheResearcher · 3 August 2026 at 18:56
It is hard to keep track of everything but I am trying…
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/26433564.glasgow-university-denies-jason-arday-visiting-prof-claim/
“Glasgow University denies Jason Arday visiting prof claim”
TheResearcher · 3 August 2026 at 18:57
And another, now from CAF:
https://afcomm.org.uk/2026/08/03/cambridge-response-jason-arday-roshaan-khattak/
“Cambridge’s response to Jason Arday threats raises fresh questions over Roshaan Khattak case”
TheResearcher · 3 August 2026 at 20:04
And another from The Telegraph:
“Charity casts doubts on volunteering record of Cambridge professor. WaterAid disputes claim by Prof Jason Arday, who is at centre of plagiarism row ”
But the link is faulty as it goes to another article. They have so many on him…
anna · 3 August 2026 at 20:45
Is he really autistic? It’s probably yet another lie.
TheResearcher · 3 August 2026 at 21:03
The last article at The Telegraph summarizes the claims:
“Prof Arday’s claims:
PhD thesis from Liverpool John Moores University
Analysis of Prof Arday’s thesis found 188 passages that were identical or very similar to those in another student’s 2009 thesis. Prof Arday says because he is autistic his method of learning relies on mimicry.
Thirty marathons in 35 days
Prof Arday says he ran 30 marathons in 35 days, despite suffering a hairline fracture on day 21 that made his leg swell to twice its size. His feat was reported in local newspapers, but there was no mention of his injury.
Three-hundred miles in three days
Prof Arday maintains that he ran 300 miles in three days on a treadmill to raise money for charity. He has not yet produced any proof of this.
Six-hundred miles in six days
Prof Arday has made repeated claims in the past that he ran 600 miles in six days to raise money for charity. He now says it actually took him 12 days.
£5.5m raised for charity
Prof Arday has said that he personally raised £5.5m for more than 70 charities. His fundraising earned him a place as a 2012 London Olympics torch bearer, a stint on the Daily Mirror’s Pride of Britain Awards judging panel and a trip to New York to meet Sir Andy Murray, courtesy of ITV’s Surprise, Surprise. He now says the money was raised by a syndicate of 100 people, none of whom he can name as he had signed non-disclosure agreements.
Seven Up
Prof Arday said in 2022: “I was part of a programme, actually, which – it doesn’t really exist any more – but it was called Seven Up at the time. And Seven Up is basically when they follow you over the duration of your life, so they follow you at [ages] seven, 14, 21. I was pulled out of the project when I was 14.” The acclaimed ITV series Seven Up began 20 years before Prof Arday was born. He now says he was referring to a community initiative and was not referring to the TV series.
WaterAid
Several biographies of Prof Arday have referred to him installing clean water projects in South America and Africa for the charity WaterAid. The charity never sends volunteers abroad, and references to WaterAid have been removed from Prof Arday’s biography page on the website of his speaking agency.
Masked knifeman
Prof Arday claims to have been confronted at his faculty building by a masked man threatening to kill him if he did not resign. On the second occasion the man had a knife. The intruder was not picked up on CCTV and Prof Arday did not tell the police or colleagues that a masked knifeman was in the building.
Pig’s head
Prof Arday told The Guardian that a severed pig’s head was sent to his family home, and that the police had investigated, finding that a “whole hog” had been sold by a local butcher on the day of the incident. Police said the claim was “categorically” incorrect.
Illiterate until 18
Prof Arday has described many times how he did not speak his first word until a few days before his 12th birthday and did not learn to read or write until he was 18, despite passing two GCSEs. He has also described having a brain tumour removed two weeks before his PhD viva. He stands by those claims.”
It is not mentioned autism or other health-related topics but only doctors could confirm and it should be confidential.
- · 3 August 2026 at 21:46
Cna you imagine the scandal that would erupt if even one of his claims turned out to be true lol
researcher · 3 August 2026 at 21:02
I have been searching his name + Durham, in many of his papers he lists his affiliation with Durham differently each time. I find a paper that lists his affiliation as Warwick. In Durham it appears he was a visiting professor but in one of his academic papers he lists himself as assistant professor. Google also returns a search with associate professor at Durham – I do not however find any Durham webpage that links to him. I also find a paper where he says he was in the MP shadowing program that was started by Simon Woolley [this final paper is titled Fighting the Tide, you can check the bio listed towards the end of the paper].
TheResearcher · 3 August 2026 at 21:16
And another from The Times:
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/education/article/jason-arday-professor-dame-ijeoma-uchegbu-withdraws-backing-5qt3zgxn5
“Cambridge academic loses backing over plagiarism claims”
? · 3 August 2026 at 21:34
When will Cambridge finally fire lying Jason?
TheResearcher · 3 August 2026 at 21:45
It is not trivial because he knows the people in the University who protected him. Who connected him to Carter-Ruck and the Met police for example? I already asked Mr Parsons if he knows the answer and if he is learning anything with this scandal so that the same does not happen with the following ones. My impression is that he and his team are learning little because they continue to make the same mistakes with others in the background while the Arday’s story unfolds. Cover up does not compensate but they do not understand this fact. Most likely, Arday will not be sacked, but will do like Goldhill who “resigned” so that the decision was not from the University.
21percent.org · 3 August 2026 at 21:49
Not sure that Cambridge have any legal grounds to sack him.
He was elected by a distinguished body of scholars who have said he’s the best in the world. Any research misconduct (if proven) was not carried out in Cambridge. The Statutes & Ordinances are clear that research misconduct carried out elsewhere does not count. He has told untrue stories about his life and background, but that is not illegal.
Perhaps you could argue he has brought the university into disrepute — though it is arguable that it was the appointments committee, Prof Hilary Cremin, Prof Bhaskar Vira et al that have done the real bringing of the university into disrepute.
The only possibility would be to sue him for fraud by false representation, but that would be highly embarrassing and make Cambridge University look even stupider than it already does.
They could pay him off, but he’s young and is giving up a Professorial salary for 30 years. He could reasonably expect a huge pay-off, millions.
No good options, standard for the fuck-ups of our senior leadership team.
.
Old Schools Clerk · 3 August 2026 at 21:50
It’s likely they can’t, without a formal misconduct finding. Cambridge has strong tenure protections. The appointments committee and LJMU’s sham investigation have put Cambridge in check mate.
B.S: · 3 August 2026 at 22:14
Bullshit. When the university wants to get rid of someone, they will spend the same amount they spent trying to protect Jason on the same lawyers to make their lives hell.
He is being protected because he can take down half the university with him immediately when he goes, whereas if he stays, he will take the whole university down only very slowly.
206 · 3 August 2026 at 22:51
A part of me feels sorry for Arday because his lies, though fucking insane, were only an attempt to bolster his own fragile ego. On the other hand, I feel less sympathy for the many Cambridge academics who lie and distort out of a deliberate intent to cause hurt and pain to others. There are a lot of these and they belong in their own special burning circle of hell.
The Professor · 3 August 2026 at 22:29
If he misrepresented information during the hiring process, which seems not only possible but likely given his numerous false statements, then surely it would be grounds to fire him.
D-Day · 3 August 2026 at 22:36
Yeah but it’s Cambridge so who knows how long all that will take. Committees need to be formed, won’t meet until October, have to pretend to review the evidence for a few months… and by then the press will have uncovered scandals about half the committee members probably (along with everyone else)
Anyway IMHO it is not such a problem. Arday in a weird way is kind of doing a service to the university by opening a window to start investigating all the people who were responsible, not only for his hire, but for half of the other scandals yet to see the light of day. If he sticks it out, maybe we’ll even raise a statue of him one day.