{"id":4102,"date":"2026-08-01T09:18:02","date_gmt":"2026-08-01T08:18:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/?p=4102"},"modified":"2026-08-01T09:20:14","modified_gmt":"2026-08-01T08:20:14","slug":"dogs-in-the-night-lawyers-and-the-met","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/?p=4102","title":{"rendered":"Dogs in the Night, Lawyers and the Met"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

There are now articles in the Daily Mai<\/a>l, The Times<\/a>, the Telegraph<\/a> and the Independen<\/a>t. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most damaging new facts are as follows. The Times Higher Education<\/em> journalist Jack Grove was working on a story about Prof Jason Arday when lawyers and the Metropolitan police became involved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

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<\/a>. 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<\/a>. [The Daily Mail]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n

In a sign of the toxicity of the row, a journalist investigating the sceptics\u2019 claims was reported to the police by Arday for alleged harassment. The Metropolitan Police investigated but closed the case. [The Times]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This was a complex, high-risk legal intervention prepared at very short notice to prevent publication by Times Higher Education<\/em>. Carter-Ruck\u2019s fees for such work are likely to have been in the region of \u00a312,000\u2013\u00a320,000. 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?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201cvile campaign to undermine his credibility<\/em>\u201d and has repeatedly framed the matter as racially motivated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The University\u2019s Director of Communications, James Helm, previously worked for the Metropolitan Police.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, the Telegraph\u2019s reporting brings attention back to an individual who has remained largely invisible in this discussion — but should not be.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The Telegraph has learnt that a draft resolution, known as a Grace, is circulating among senior members of Cambridge\u2019s academic staff, stressing the importance of academic integrity and requesting an investigation into alleged shortcomings in the Research Policy, Integrity and Governance division (RPIG).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The RPIG has attracted criticism from professors at other universities for ignoring warnings about Prof Arday\u2019s work as long as three years ago, and insisting his PhD is a matter for Liverpool John Moores University, which awarded him his doctorate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If the Grace is submitted to the Regent House \u2013 effectively Cambridge\u2019s parliament \u2013 and is passed by it, it would be \u201cvirtually a no confidence motion in the vice-chancellor\u201d, in the words of one academic source.[The Telegraph]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The role of the Vice-Chancellor is to provide clear and principled academic leadership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s role — if any — in the apparent use of legal and policing channels in relation to a journalist. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, it is striking that there has been no coverage of this matter from the BBC or The Guardian<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cIs there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?\u201d
\u201cTo the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.\u201d
\u201cThe dog did nothing in the night-time.\u201d
\u201cThat was the curious incident,\u201d remarked Sherlock Holmes. [Silver Blaze by Arthur Conan-Doyle]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Their silence on the Jason Arday story is telling. It’s a negative fact, but it’s the most significant of all. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Their lack of response strongly suggests they have accepted that the allegations are largely true. There’s no plausible defence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4102","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blog"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4102","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4102"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4102\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4106,"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4102\/revisions\/4106"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4102"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4102"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4102"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}