Our friends at the Good Law Project

Thank you.

This is just vile

During the hearing, at Bury St Edmunds this summer, lawyers for the respondents accused Wyn Evans of “shedding crocodile tears” and said he “weaponised” the death of a former colleague who took her own life to “use for his own purposes”.

The tribunal panel said that. while the lawyer was “acting on her client’s instructions”, “these were very strong accusations to have levied against the claimant and we have not been persuaded that they were true”.

Obviously, I don't know the basics of the case. It's possible, if perhaps unlikely, the bullied 'female' academic was actually a tw and Wyn Evans is a raging tra. I think it's more likely gender ideology has little to nothing to do with this case. The case is a symptom of a larger problem within HE that absolute fuckwits seem to get into positions of authority where they promote, appoint and protect the like minded and gang up on anyone who doesn't fit their world view or voices even the mildest criticism.

I read this in Unherd this morning, more finger pointing. Arday is mentioned almost in passing as a symptom

https://archive.ph/82Q6x

https://unherd.com/2026/08/blame-jesus-for-jason-arday/?edition=us

This bit made me snigger (my bold)

the college is certainly no stranger to such ethical self-indulgence. It conducted a quixotic, expensive and unsuccessful attempt to remove a chapel memorial to Tobias Rustat, one of its most munificent historical benefactors, due to his investments in the African slave trade. The campaign, spearheaded by Alleyne, failed when a church consistory court decided against the college, giving her the near-unique distinction of failing to convince the modern Church of England to abase itself over the historical slave trade.

It continues

The campaign was whipped up in an atmosphere of exaggeration and moral self-flagellation over historical wrongs, driven by a modish obsession with “decolonization”. The point, of course, is that removing a memorial is nice and symbolic and crucially cost free — unlike, for instance, refusing to accept or disperse the “tainted” money that is still paid out from Rustat’s bequest to fund scholarships and grants. This, of course, Jesus have failed to do.

You'd think if they really gave a toss they'd divert the money to some sort of scheme for reparations.

"Profoundly neurodivergent" is not a pairing I have encountered before. I assume it is supposed to draw on the connotations of well-established phrasing like "profound learning disabilities", and imply the existence of an educational psychologist or similar who issued the diagnosis. An unnamed one, natch.

If you are continuing to take Arday's previous statements about his childhood and adolescent learning delays on trust (e.g. that he couldn't speak until 11 and he couldn't read until 18), I would agree that the adverb profoundly is merited in that sentence, but I would substitute nearly every
other word. For example, "we know that Jolyon Maugham is profoundly clueless about NHS provision for children with learning delays and the outcomes for children with severe learning disabilities".

It's the combination of neurodivergent and 'profound' that makes me roll my eyes.

Somebody with a 'profound' condition would not just be diagnosed as 'neurodivergent' which covers a range of conditions and is often used to refer to people who would be more likely to self describe as 'different' than 'disabled'.

Using the adverb "profoundly" to preface the status that grants victimhood is perhaps the newspeak way to claim even more pity points. It's like the collocation of "radical" with the abstract nouns the current-day "progressives" so like to use: radical empathy, radical acceptance, ad nauseum. They think its signalling some sort of deep interpersonal or socio-political concept. All JM and his like are doing is insisting on imposing their uncompromising perceptions of what human behavior and thought are "worthy".

Exactly. Here, "neurodivergent" is hiding behind "profound". It's a lovely example of weasel wording that seems meaningful, but is designed to protect the speaker. No-one is diagnosed as "neurodivergent", so Maugham can never be challenged on a factual inaccuracy, but people will read it and unthinkingly assume he has knowledge of JA having been diagnosed with a neurodevelopmental disorder!

Without the quasi-disgnostic wording, the whole paragraph could be paraphrased as I think JA is socially odd and therefore not to blame for what he does. Leave him alone. Funnily, as a lawyer, he did not opt for such unconvincing wording.

I think profoundly neurodivergent is just word inflation in action. Look out for exceptionally or uniquely - and shortly, very uniquely - neurodivergent. Coming soon, to a funding appeal near you.

If I see very uniquely, I'm running amok with a red pen.

Very unique is our family joke.

How about uniquely unique?
Or, if the language is to be assaulted more vigorously.
"not unuinquely unique", although I'm not sure where the un does the most harm. Perhaps "not uniquely ununique". Perhaps both at the same time? Why settle for a double negative when you could make it a triple like Michael Crawford in Condorman.

It's just been reported that Jason Arday has been found dead. Tragic outcome regardless of any claims.

I’ve just seen this on The Times. How very sad, how awful for his family.

With my cynical hat on, I have a horrible feeling that anyone who criticised him is now going to be accused of hounding him to his death.

That is heartbreaking for his family.

And in my view, is the result and fault of Cambridge leadership in not realising the precarious position they put him in by publicising him as their success story.

His poor family. The whole thing is an awful tragedy.

Archive from the Telegraph: archive.ph/7FKJU

What a clusterfuck of a tragedy.

Guaranteed. Zero blame will be attached to the people who appointed him.

RIP. A tragedy for his family and friends.

I am beyond disgusted that Cambridge, and all the other academic institutions involved, failed to safeguard this obviously vulnerable man from day one.
I hope that his family can find some shelter from the media storm, to grieve his loss in peace.

Does anyone who works at a University have any insight into the duty of care that Cambridge will have had towards him?

I just can't help feeling that, even though he resigned, they must (morally at least) have had a duty of care in this situation.

Awful. What a shitshow. And yes, Cambridge had the duty of care, you can’t control people’s reactions on social media after the storm had been whipped up.

And that’s who bloody well should be held to account. Used as a way of signalling their progressive virtue and then left high and dry when they - and he - were caught out.

In terms of a duty of care, in a high profile case like this I’d say they absolutely do have a duty of care to protect and support a member of staff who is the subject of this level of media scrutiny at the best of times, let alone when facing serious allegations. But on the flip side, all the care and support in the world only goes so far.

I feel very sorry for the poor guy. What happened to him wasn't his fault. I can't imagine how his family and friends must be feeling right now. If there is an afterlife I hope he feels much better now.

Agreed.
Unfortunately when fantasits like Arday are caught out in their lies and are publicly exposed they often kill themselves and/or their families.
In this instance it would appear that he only killed himself

RIP and there'll be a better time for casting a cold eye on life, on death - but I think it's only fair to say that he had agency in the life he made for himself, until tragically he could no longer sustain it.
He was very good at convincing people, and it may turn out that some of them had a duty of care which they failed to carry out, but it's too early to say that for sure, and that his tragic death was anybody's fault.

For now, it's a huge tragedy for his family and friends, whatever the circumstances.

I was thinking the other day about the picture of him in the regalia, the hat and robe, that he looked like a rabbit caught in the headlights. I'm sorry he's dead. There was a way back for him. He had an extraordinary story to tell.

When a child burns their finger on something hot, they learn hot things can hurt them. It's a life lesson. Animals learn in exactly the same way. You learn from the outcomes of your actions. You adapt.
There's nothing wrong with being a fantasist, but it shouldn't be rewarded. Rewarding bad actions is teaching the wrong lesson. This poor guy was taught the wrong life lessons by one of the most prestigious learning establishments in the country. They hurt him far more than they helped him. I hope his family sue Cambridge for every last penny they have, they hurt him immeasurably.