When our press and broadcast media hound a person to death, doesn't that
mean we need more press regulation? Or would that be "censorship" and
does the nation have the "right" to know all the allegations, all the details, whether proved or unproved?
This is an interesting summary of how the Press has reported on the topic.
https://newscord.org/editorials/jason-arday-pile-on
quote
249 articles in 22 days, outlet by outlet
We counted every distinct article substantively about Jason Arday
published by the national outlets below between 24 July 2026, when the Telegraph brought the allegations mainstream, and roughly 10pm on 14
August 2026, the day he was found dead. News, features, columns, leaders
and letters pages all count once; a passing mention inside a piece about something else does not count at all. Every article is listed, with its
link, in the table at the bottom of this page. Death-day figures are
floors: the census was taken hours after his death was announced, while
the follow-ups were still landing.
One honest finding up front: this was not a red-top phenomenon. The
Mirror ran two pieces and the Daily Star one; the BBC and Sky covered it
as news, at news volume. The pile-on was led from the top of the market:
The Times, the Telegraph, the Mail, the Spectator and the Express
account for 158 of the articles counted here.
When our press and broadcast media hound a person to death, doesn't that mean we need more press regulation? Or would that be "censorship" and
does the nation have the "right" to know all the allegations, all the details, whether proved or unproved?
This is an interesting summary of how the Press has reported on the topic.
https://newscord.org/editorials/jason-arday-pile-on
quote
249 articles in 22 days, outlet by outlet
We counted every distinct article substantively about Jason Arday
published by the national outlets below between 24 July 2026, when the Telegraph brought the allegations mainstream, and roughly 10pm on 14
August 2026, the day he was found dead. News, features, columns, leaders
and letters pages all count once; a passing mention inside a piece about something else does not count at all. Every article is listed, with its link, in the table at the bottom of this page. Death-day figures are
floors: the census was taken hours after his death was announced, while
the follow-ups were still landing.
One honest finding up front: this was not a red-top phenomenon. The
Mirror ran two pieces and the Daily Star one; the BBC and Sky covered it
as news, at news volume. The pile-on was led from the top of the market:
The Times, the Telegraph, the Mail, the Spectator and the Express
account for 158 of the articles counted here.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
When our press and broadcast media hound a person to death, doesn't that
mean we need more press regulation? Or would that be "censorship" and
does the nation have the "right" to know all the allegations, all the
details, whether proved or unproved?
This is an interesting summary of how the Press has reported on the topic. >>
https://newscord.org/editorials/jason-arday-pile-on
quote
249 articles in 22 days, outlet by outlet
We counted every distinct article substantively about Jason Arday
published by the national outlets below between 24 July 2026, when the
Telegraph brought the allegations mainstream, and roughly 10pm on 14
August 2026, the day he was found dead. News, features, columns, leaders
and letters pages all count once; a passing mention inside a piece about
something else does not count at all. Every article is listed, with its
link, in the table at the bottom of this page. Death-day figures are
floors: the census was taken hours after his death was announced, while
the follow-ups were still landing.
One honest finding up front: this was not a red-top phenomenon. The
Mirror ran two pieces and the Daily Star one; the BBC and Sky covered it
as news, at news volume. The pile-on was led from the top of the market:
The Times, the Telegraph, the Mail, the Spectator and the Express
account for 158 of the articles counted here.
A quick count-up until boredom set in found over 20 articles in The
Guardian. Any particular reason the paper wasnrCOt listed in the survey mentioned above?
Perhaps itrCOs just a case of The Guardian not being included in rCOthe top of
the marketrCO?
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
When our press and broadcast media hound a person to death, doesn't that
mean we need more press regulation? Or would that be "censorship" and
does the nation have the "right" to know all the allegations, all the
details, whether proved or unproved?
This is an interesting summary of how the Press has reported on the topic. >>
https://newscord.org/editorials/jason-arday-pile-on
quote
249 articles in 22 days, outlet by outlet
We counted every distinct article substantively about Jason Arday
published by the national outlets below between 24 July 2026, when the
Telegraph brought the allegations mainstream, and roughly 10pm on 14
August 2026, the day he was found dead. News, features, columns, leaders
and letters pages all count once; a passing mention inside a piece about
something else does not count at all. Every article is listed, with its
link, in the table at the bottom of this page. Death-day figures are
floors: the census was taken hours after his death was announced, while
the follow-ups were still landing.
One honest finding up front: this was not a red-top phenomenon. The
Mirror ran two pieces and the Daily Star one; the BBC and Sky covered it
as news, at news volume. The pile-on was led from the top of the market:
The Times, the Telegraph, the Mail, the Spectator and the Express
account for 158 of the articles counted here.
A quick count-up until boredom set in found over 20 articles in The
Guardian. Any particular reason the paper wasnrCOt listed in the survey mentioned above?
When our press and broadcast media hound a person to death, doesn't that >mean we need more press regulation? Or would that be "censorship" and
does the nation have the "right" to know all the allegations, all the >details, whether proved or unproved?
This is an interesting summary of how the Press has reported on the topic.
https://newscord.org/editorials/jason-arday-pile-on
One honest finding up front: this was not a red-top phenomenon. The
Mirror ran two pieces and the Daily Star one; the BBC and Sky covered it
as news, at news volume. The pile-on was led from the top of the market:
The Times, the Telegraph, the Mail, the Spectator and the Express
account for 158 of the articles counted here.
On 2026-08-15, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
When our press and broadcast media hound a person to death, doesn't that >>> mean we need more press regulation? Or would that be "censorship" and
does the nation have the "right" to know all the allegations, all the
details, whether proved or unproved?
This is an interesting summary of how the Press has reported on the topic. >>>
https://newscord.org/editorials/jason-arday-pile-on
quote
249 articles in 22 days, outlet by outlet
We counted every distinct article substantively about Jason Arday
published by the national outlets below between 24 July 2026, when the
Telegraph brought the allegations mainstream, and roughly 10pm on 14
August 2026, the day he was found dead. News, features, columns, leaders >>> and letters pages all count once; a passing mention inside a piece about >>> something else does not count at all. Every article is listed, with its
link, in the table at the bottom of this page. Death-day figures are
floors: the census was taken hours after his death was announced, while
the follow-ups were still landing.
One honest finding up front: this was not a red-top phenomenon. The
Mirror ran two pieces and the Daily Star one; the BBC and Sky covered it >>> as news, at news volume. The pile-on was led from the top of the market: >>> The Times, the Telegraph, the Mail, the Spectator and the Express
account for 158 of the articles counted here.
A quick count-up until boredom set in found over 20 articles in The
Guardian. Any particular reason the paper wasnrCOt listed in the survey
mentioned above?
... it was? It's number 6 on the chart at the top of the page?
You appear to have a point though that that editorial sentence lists the newspapers in decreasing order of number of articles, but excludes The Independent and The Guardian for no obvious reason.
When our press and broadcast media hound a person to death, doesn't
that mean we need more press regulation?
Or would that be "censorship" and does the nation have the "right" to
know all the allegations, all the details, whether proved or unproved?
This is an interesting summary of how the Press has reported on the topic.
https://newscord.org/editorials/jason-arday-pile-on
quote
249 articles in 22 days, outlet by outlet
We counted every distinct article substantively about Jason Arday
published by the national outlets below between 24 July 2026, when the >Telegraph brought the allegations mainstream, and roughly 10pm on 14
August 2026, the day he was found dead. News, features, columns,
leaders and letters pages all count once; a passing mention inside a
piece about something else does not count at all. Every article is
listed, with its link, in the table at the bottom of this page.
Death-day figures are floors: the census was taken hours after his
death was announced, while the follow-ups were still landing.
One honest finding up front: this was not a red-top phenomenon. The
Mirror ran two pieces and the Daily Star one; the BBC and Sky covered
it as news, at news volume. The pile-on was led from the top of the
market: The Times, the Telegraph, the Mail, the Spectator and the
Express account for 158 of the articles counted here.
Because, ultimately, this story isn't really about Arday. It *is* primarily about serious leadership failures at Cambridge University. Jason Arday himself would never have been a major story if it were not for what was, in retrospect, a badly msjudged appointment.
And those aren't my words. Professor Priyamvada Gopal, hardly a candidate
for being tarred with the racist pile-on brush, is quoted in the Guardian as saying that "An independent investigation must scrutinise how such an early-career appointment to a very senior and prestigious professorial chair was made and what both the faculty of education and university management
may have got very badly wrong." and "This requires accountability now from those responsible, not a cover-up."[1]
Arday hmself has been caught in the crossfire here. The real pile-on wasn't aimed at him, it was aimed at his (former) employer. And it would not have happened if the university hadn't been so utterly desperate to massage their ethnic minority employment stats that they deliberately neglected to carry out due diligence on a high profile appointment.
That failure has now not only blown up in their own faces, but has led to
the tragic death of the pawn in their game. There will be no justice for Jason Arday if heads do not roll at Cambridge.
I agree 100% Cambridge is to blame. Arday appears to have been an
extreme Walter Mitty type,
but Cambridge should have had a duty of care
towards him. Cambridge thrust him into the limelight.
There is also the involvement of Nathan Cofnas, a man apparently kicked
out of Cambridge for telling the truth, or at least he presented a
defensible version of it. Academic freedom should have protected him.
The media dog piled on him too.
It is worth listening to Cofnas.
On 8/15/26 21:39, Mark Goodge wrote:
That failure has now not only blown up in their own faces, but has
led to the tragic death of the pawn in their game. There will be no
justice for Jason Arday if heads do not roll at Cambridge.
I agree 100% Cambridge is to blame. Arday appears to have been an
extreme Walter Mitty type, but Cambridge should have had a duty of
care towards him. Cambridge thrust him into the limelight.
There is also the involvement of Nathan Cofnas, a man apparently
kicked out of Cambridge for telling the truth, or at least he
presented a defensible version of it.
Academic freedom should have protected him. The media dog piled
on him too.
It is worth listening to Cofnas.
On 2026-08-15, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/15/26 21:39, Mark Goodge wrote:
That failure has now not only blown up in their own faces, but has
led to the tragic death of the pawn in their game. There will be no
justice for Jason Arday if heads do not roll at Cambridge.
I agree 100% Cambridge is to blame. Arday appears to have been an
extreme Walter Mitty type, but Cambridge should have had a duty of
care towards him. Cambridge thrust him into the limelight.
Cambridge deserves blame of course, not least in failing to
protect him, but a great deal of blame lies with the media also.
There is also the involvement of Nathan Cofnas, a man apparently
kicked out of Cambridge for telling the truth, or at least he
presented a defensible version of it.
By "telling the truth", you mean "Black people are stupid"?
That is not the truth, nor is it defensible. Nor, for that
matter, was he "kicked out of Cambridge" for it - he resigned.
(It is true that Emmanuel College terminated their association
with him as a result of his writings, and in return he sued
them and comprehensively lost.*)
Academic freedom should have protected him. The media dog piled
on him too.
Hopefully it is just getting started. (Obviously I don't wish him
dead, but he should be persona non grata in all academic circles.)
It is worth listening to Cofnas.
It absolutely is not worth listening to Cofnas, except perhaps
to collect evidence to condemn him.
* https://bfsp.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Cofnas-v-Emmanuel- College-judgment.3.26.pdf
On 15/08/2026 10:51 PM, Pancho wrote:
I agree 100% Cambridge is to blame. Arday appears to have been an
extreme Walter Mitty type,
I don't think so. He must have been the main author of his own position
as "professor".
Cambridge University didn't award him a doctorate. They
didn't make up all the stories about being illiterate until 18 but being able to pass some GCSEs at 16.
Or the one about having been to Brazil,
installing water pumps or the part about having run 600 miles in six,
later expanded to twelve, days. There were other parts of the claimed back-story equally as likely.
but Cambridge should have had a duty of care
towards him. Cambridge thrust him into the limelight.
Was he headhunted? Surely he must hav e filled in an application form?
There is also the involvement of Nathan Cofnas, a man apparently kicked
out of Cambridge for telling the truth, or at least he presented a
defensible version of it. Academic freedom should have protected him.
The media dog piled on him too.
It is worth listening to Cofnas.
What did he say (link)?
On Sat, 15 Aug 2026 17:34:17 +0100, The Todal wrote:
When our press and broadcast media hound a person to death, doesn't
that mean we need more press regulation? Or would that be
"censorship" and does the nation have the "right" to know all the >>allegations, all the details, whether proved or unproved?
This is an interesting summary of how the Press has reported on the
topic.
https://newscord.org/editorials/jason-arday-pile-on
How many of those articles were primarily about Arday, and how many
were primarily about Cambridge University? The article doesn't say,
but it is a key data point.
Contrary to assertions made by some commentators, Arday is hardly
unique. There has been strong media interest in other people who have
been caught inventing parts of their life story or indulging in
plagiarism. Raynor Winn, Johann Hari and Rachel Dolezal are three
which come to mind. But the difference here is that Arday's fantasies
were facilitated and even promoted by one of the world's leading
academic institutions. It's that aspect which has amplified the story
far beyond a simple tale of one person's wrongdoing.
One honest finding up front: this was not a red-top phenomenon. The
Mirror ran two pieces and the Daily Star one; the BBC and Sky covered
it as news, at news volume. The pile-on was led from the top of the
market: The Times, the Telegraph, the Mail, the Spectator and the
Express account for 158 of the articles counted here.
Plus, of course, the Guardian and the Independent, which don't get
mentioned in this paragraph. The Times/Sunday Times is,
unsurprisngly, at the top, because they initially broke the story and
because one of their journalists was first threatened with legal
action by Arday and then reported to the police for harassment -
tactics previously employed by the likes of Noel Clarke and Laurence
Fox, among others.
But most of the rest of the reporting was, as the article accurately
states, from the top end of the market. The BBC ran 50% more stories
prior to Arday's death than did GB News, which doesn't quite fit
with the latter's general eagerness to run anything they can that's "anti-woke".
Because, ultimately, this story isn't really about Arday. It *is*
primarily about serious leadership failures at Cambridge University.
Jason Arday himself would never have been a major story if it were
not for what was, in retrospect, a badly msjudged appointment.
And those aren't my words. Professor Priyamvada Gopal, hardly a
candidate for being tarred with the racist pile-on brush, is quoted
in the Guardian as saying that "An independent investigation must
scrutinise how such an early-career appointment to a very senior and prestigious professorial chair was made and what both the faculty of education and university management may have got very badly wrong."
and "This requires accountability now from those responsible, not a cover-up."[1]
Arday hmself has been caught in the crossfire here. The real pile-on
wasn't aimed at him, it was aimed at his (former) employer. And it
would not have happened if the university hadn't been so utterly
desperate to massage their ethnic minority employment stats that they deliberately neglected to carry out due diligence on a high profile appointment.
That failure has now not only blown up in their own faces, but has
led to the tragic death of the pawn in their game. There will be no
justice for Jason Arday if heads do not roll at Cambridge.
[1] https://tinyurl.com/2s4m4wxw as shortened from https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/aug/06/jason-arday- cambridge-dons-demand-accountability-grotesque-racism
Mark
The irony is that Cofnas might actually be right about the narrow point
of there being some element of plagiarism in work by Arday. Liverpool
John Moores investigated that in his PhD and were satisfied that it was unfounded. We can't know for sure until there is a detailed enquiry
But given the obnoxious nature of some of his accusers I am inclined to
give Arday the benefit of the doubt for now. Cambridge painted a big
target on his back by appointing him as the youngest ever black professor.
And more importantly Cambridge University as his employer failed to adequately protect him when he was under such extreme pressure from
external forces and the media witch hunt that he felt he had to resign.
His untimely death is a great tragedy for Arday and his family.
I am reminded of To Kill a Mockingbird.
On 16/08/2026 10:14, JNugent wrote:
On 15/08/2026 10:51 PM, Pancho wrote:
I agree 100% Cambridge is to blame. Arday appears to have been an
extreme Walter Mitty type,
I don't think so. He must have been the main author of his own
position as "professor".
He probably applied for the vacant post along with others and clearly interviewed well enough to convince the panel to offer him the post.
Cambridge University didn't award him a doctorate. They
Liverpool John Moores University did.
didn't make up all the stories about being illiterate until 18 but
being able to pass some GCSEs at 16.
That isn't unknown either. One of my contemporaries at university was functionally illiterate through dyslexia in English but so brilliant at mathematics that he still got a scholarship and PhD. His way of thinking
was different but just as effective. He was seldom wrong.
He went on to have an impressive career alongside top tier
mathematicians. His exam questions had an interesting twist - there was invariably a quick way to solve them if you had *really* understood the course and a hard way to slog through the algebra if you didn't.
Or the one about having been to Brazil, installing water pumps or the
part about having run 600 miles in six, later expanded to twelve,
days. There were other parts of the claimed back-story equally as likely.
It seems to me like the interview panel didn't do basic due diligence.
I'm particularly concerned with the claimed published book that wasn't. Checking publications on an academic CV is a basic verification step.
I don't care if he took 6 days or 12 to run some insane distance.
but Cambridge should have had a duty of care
towards him. Cambridge thrust him into the limelight.
Was he headhunted? Surely he must hav e filled in an application form?
There is also the involvement of Nathan Cofnas, a man apparently kicked
out of Cambridge for telling the truth, or at least he presented a
defensible version of it. Academic freedom should have protected him.
The media dog piled on him too.
It is worth listening to Cofnas.
What did he say (link)?
A self styled "race-realist" and former fellow of Emmanuel College and
this is a contemporaneous article in Varsity about his departure:
https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/27420
The irony is that Cofnas might actually be right about the narrow point
of there being some element of plagiarism in work by Arday. Liverpool
John Moores investigated that in his PhD and were satisfied that it was unfounded. We can't know for sure until there is a detailed enquiry
But given the obnoxious nature of some of his accusers I am inclined to
give Arday the benefit of the doubt for now. Cambridge painted a big
target on his back by appointing him as the youngest ever black professor.
And more importantly Cambridge University as his employer failed to adequately protect him when he was under such extreme pressure from
external forces and the media witch hunt that he felt he had to resign.
His untimely death is a great tragedy for Arday and his family.
I am reminded of To Kill a Mockingbird.
On 2026-08-15, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/15/26 21:39, Mark Goodge wrote:
That failure has now not only blown up in their own faces, but has
led to the tragic death of the pawn in their game. There will be no
justice for Jason Arday if heads do not roll at Cambridge.
I agree 100% Cambridge is to blame. Arday appears to have been an
extreme Walter Mitty type, but Cambridge should have had a duty of
care towards him. Cambridge thrust him into the limelight.
Cambridge deserves blame of course, not least in failing to
protect him, but a great deal of blame lies with the media also.
There is also the involvement of Nathan Cofnas, a man apparently
kicked out of Cambridge for telling the truth, or at least he
presented a defensible version of it.
By "telling the truth", you mean "Black people are stupid"?
That is not the truth, nor is it defensible. Nor, for that
matter, was he "kicked out of Cambridge" for it - he resigned.
(It is true that Emmanuel College terminated their association
with him as a result of his writings, and in return he sued
them and comprehensively lost.*)
Academic freedom should have protected him. The media dog piled
on him too.
Hopefully it is just getting started. (Obviously I don't wish him
dead, but he should be persona non grata in all academic circles.)
It is worth listening to Cofnas.
It absolutely is not worth listening to Cofnas, except perhaps
to collect evidence to condemn him.
* https://bfsp.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Cofnas-v-Emmanuel-College-judgment.3.26.pdf
On 8/15/26 21:39, Mark Goodge wrote:
That failure has now not only blown up in their own faces, but has led to
the tragic death of the pawn in their game. There will be no justice for
Jason Arday if heads do not roll at Cambridge.
I agree 100% Cambridge is to blame. Arday appears to have been an
extreme Walter Mitty type, but Cambridge should have had a duty of care >towards him. Cambridge thrust him into the limelight.
There is also the involvement of Nathan Cofnas, a man apparently kicked
out of Cambridge for telling the truth, or at least he presented a >defensible version of it. Academic freedom should have protected him.
The media dog piled on him too.
It is worth listening to Cofnas.
On 15/08/2026 10:51 PM, Pancho wrote:
I agree 100% Cambridge is to blame. Arday appears to have been an
extreme Walter Mitty type,
I don't think so. He must have been the main author of his own position
as "professor". Cambridge University didn't award him a doctorate. They >didn't make up all the stories about being illiterate until 18 but being >able to pass some GCSEs at 16. Or the one about having been to Brazil, >installing water pumps or the part about having run 600 miles in six,
later expanded to twelve, days. There were other parts of the claimed >back-story equally as likely.
but Cambridge should have had a duty of care
towards him. Cambridge thrust him into the limelight.
Was he headhunted? Surely he must hav e filled in an application form?
On Sat, 15 Aug 2026 22:51:32 +0100, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/15/26 21:39, Mark Goodge wrote:
That failure has now not only blown up in their own faces, but has led to >>> the tragic death of the pawn in their game. There will be no justice for >>> Jason Arday if heads do not roll at Cambridge.
I agree 100% Cambridge is to blame. Arday appears to have been an
extreme Walter Mitty type, but Cambridge should have had a duty of care
towards him. Cambridge thrust him into the limelight.
There is also the involvement of Nathan Cofnas, a man apparently kicked
out of Cambridge for telling the truth, or at least he presented a
defensible version of it. Academic freedom should have protected him.
The media dog piled on him too.
It is worth listening to Cofnas.
Cofnas is part of the problem. He is widely, and with some justification, regarded as racist.
Which has made it easy for some of Arday's defenders to
dismiss his claims on the basis that "a racist made those claims, so they can't possibly be true". Which is pure ad hominem, but it's a difficult line to rebut.
On 8/16/26 14:08, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-15, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/15/26 21:39, Mark Goodge wrote:
That failure has now not only blown up in their own faces, but has
led to the tragic death of the pawn in their game. There will be no
justice for Jason Arday if heads do not roll at Cambridge.
I agree 100% Cambridge is to blame. Arday appears to have been an
extreme Walter Mitty type, but Cambridge should have had a duty of
care towards him. Cambridge thrust him into the limelight.
Cambridge deserves blame of course, not least in failing to
protect him, but a great deal of blame lies with the media also.
Arday was a public figure. I'm not sure what it is the media are
accused of doing wrong?
There is also the involvement of Nathan Cofnas, a man apparently
kicked out of Cambridge for telling the truth, or at least he
presented a defensible version of it.
By "telling the truth", you mean "Black people are stupid"?
No, that is a strawman. The issue is far more nuanced.
For instance, Cofnas claimed recent African immigrants to the UK had
above average intelligence. Cofnas stated that there were benefits in positive discrimination, but that an assumption of equality led to it
being applied inappropriately.
That is not the truth, nor is it defensible. Nor, for that
matter, was he "kicked out of Cambridge" for it - he resigned.
AIUI, He was suspended, until his contract ran out.
His position was defensible because empirical evidence shows IQ
differences correlated with race.
The idea of absolute equality would be very surprising, given we know intelligence is genetically heritable. Intelligent people tend to have
more intelligent kids.
Scientific ideas should be discussed.
(It is true that Emmanuel College terminated their association
with him as a result of his writings, and in return he sued
them and comprehensively lost.*)
Academic freedom should have protected him. The media dog piled
on him too.
Hopefully it is just getting started. (Obviously I don't wish him
dead, but he should be persona non grata in all academic circles.)
Why, because you don't like his ideas? It would be better to listen to Cofnas himself,
because the media do appear to be misrepresenting him.
It is worth listening to Cofnas.
It absolutely is not worth listening to Cofnas, except perhaps
to collect evidence to condemn him.
* https://bfsp.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Cofnas-v-Emmanuel-College-judgment.3.26.pdf
This was a case about protected beliefs, a very subjective topic, and employment law, why is it relevant? What should we infer from it?
On 15 Aug 2026 at 17:34:17 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
When our press and broadcast media hound a person to death, doesn't that
mean we need more press regulation? Or would that be "censorship" and
does the nation have the "right" to know all the allegations, all the
details, whether proved or unproved?
This is an interesting summary of how the Press has reported on the topic. >>
https://newscord.org/editorials/jason-arday-pile-on
quote
249 articles in 22 days, outlet by outlet
We counted every distinct article substantively about Jason Arday
published by the national outlets below between 24 July 2026, when the
Telegraph brought the allegations mainstream, and roughly 10pm on 14
August 2026, the day he was found dead. News, features, columns, leaders
and letters pages all count once; a passing mention inside a piece about
something else does not count at all. Every article is listed, with its
link, in the table at the bottom of this page. Death-day figures are
floors: the census was taken hours after his death was announced, while
the follow-ups were still landing.
One honest finding up front: this was not a red-top phenomenon. The
Mirror ran two pieces and the Daily Star one; the BBC and Sky covered it
as news, at news volume. The pile-on was led from the top of the market:
The Times, the Telegraph, the Mail, the Spectator and the Express
account for 158 of the articles counted here.
It just goes to illustrate the voracious appetite for the appeasement of racism that these publications' readers have.
On 2026-08-16, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/16/26 14:08, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-15, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/15/26 21:39, Mark Goodge wrote:
That failure has now not only blown up in their own faces, but has
led to the tragic death of the pawn in their game. There will be no
justice for Jason Arday if heads do not roll at Cambridge.
I agree 100% Cambridge is to blame. Arday appears to have been an
extreme Walter Mitty type, but Cambridge should have had a duty of
care towards him. Cambridge thrust him into the limelight.
Cambridge deserves blame of course, not least in failing to
protect him, but a great deal of blame lies with the media also.
Arday was a public figure. I'm not sure what it is the media are
accused of doing wrong?
Er, hounding him to death with utterly disproportionate coverage?
There is also the involvement of Nathan Cofnas, a man apparently
kicked out of Cambridge for telling the truth, or at least he
presented a defensible version of it.
By "telling the truth", you mean "Black people are stupid"?
No, that is a strawman. The issue is far more nuanced.
It is not. This is a direct quote from his blog:
In a meritocracy, Harvard faculty would be recruited from the best
of the best students, which means the number of black professors
would approach 0%. Blacks would disappear from almost all
high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment.
https://ncofnas.com/p/a-guide-for-the-hereditarian-revolution
For instance, Cofnas claimed recent African immigrants to the UK had
above average intelligence. Cofnas stated that there were benefits in
positive discrimination, but that an assumption of equality led to it
being applied inappropriately.
That is not the truth, nor is it defensible. Nor, for that
matter, was he "kicked out of Cambridge" for it - he resigned.
AIUI, He was suspended, until his contract ran out.
That appears to be untrue. The University decided his blog posting
was covered by "freedom of speech" and took no action against him. https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/30360
His position was defensible because empirical evidence shows IQ
differences correlated with race.
As far as I am aware that is also untrue.
The idea of absolute equality would be very surprising, given we know
intelligence is genetically heritable. Intelligent people tend to have
more intelligent kids.
Scientific ideas should be discussed.
... and then dropped, if they turn out to be false.
(It is true that Emmanuel College terminated their association
with him as a result of his writings, and in return he sued
them and comprehensively lost.*)
Academic freedom should have protected him. The media dog piled
on him too.
Hopefully it is just getting started. (Obviously I don't wish him
dead, but he should be persona non grata in all academic circles.)
Why, because you don't like his ideas? It would be better to listen to
Cofnas himself,
It would be better to consign him to the dustbin of history.
because the media do appear to be misrepresenting him.
If they are misrepresenting him, it is in that they are being overly
generous to him. He had better hope they don't stop misrepresenting him.
It is worth listening to Cofnas.
It absolutely is not worth listening to Cofnas, except perhaps
to collect evidence to condemn him.
* https://bfsp.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Cofnas-v-Emmanuel-College-judgment.3.26.pdf
This was a case about protected beliefs, a very subjective topic, and
employment law, why is it relevant? What should we infer from it?
It was not about employment law.
College to be fair to you, because you were almost completely wrong
about almost everything, and that was one of two reasons the word
"almost" appears in this sentence.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 50:13:01 |
| Calls: | 1,100 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 275,859 |