To compare and contrast coverage and outcome of the Jason Arday scandal with that of Cambridge plagiarist William O'Reilly

[OneArtfulUmberSquid]

Partly due to being an academic, the slow news season and the sensationalism, like many people I've been following the Jason Arday story and have been appalled by the scale of the fabulation and the abysmal lack of due diligence by Cambridge when they appointed him - I've also been appalled by how he was presented by the University when he was hired in terms of the emphasis on his back story and what he represented rather than his scholarship.

It's interesting to compare/contrast with the case of William O'Reilly - who was caught plagiarising his own undergrad students' essays and was then found to have plagiarised other scholars' work a number of times before...see https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/27433

He also threatened to sue student journalists for exposing him - not as bad as Arday calling the police, but still pretty risible
https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/26105

A further issue relates to his witness for the accused in a rape case despite being involved in the investigation.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/feb/22/cambridge-university-sexual-misconduct-cases
https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/18747

I'd be interested to know what anyone else thinks of the two cases in terms of academic misconduct and outcomes, particularly anyone who works in Cambridge. O'Reilly claimed that the scrutinising of his work was due to homophobia.

More here but behind a paywall
https://www.ft.com/content/ae7f16ae-95ab-4aae-a676-0748e3e61b6d?shareType=nongift&syn-25a6b1a6=1

Yes, I think the fooling of an elite institution is actually the main interest in the story. These people are supposed to be highly intelligent, the finest minds in the country. Yet they fell for this because it suited their agenda. It's the Emperor's New Clothes in action.

Yes, I agree with this. All those commentators saying this was all about racism are missing so many aspects of what happened. I think a lot the interest is people wanting to have a pop at elite institutions and the deluded out of touch twits who staff them.

@Svelty Unless you mark the interview and evaluate each answer, you might have an issue. Storming an interview can easily be another term for bias. You like who you like and admire their style. All info about the candidate must be considered and I don’t think Cambridge did this. They were more concerned about ticking boxes.

Yes, experience is one issue but when hiring an academic there’s way more to it than an interview. Academic substance actually matters. Not lying really matters for any job. That’s basic.

@KatiePricesKnickers My reason for highlighting the Radio 5 attitude is that no one is querying their position. We just have this group who loudly jump on the racism bandwagon and don’t get journalistic questioning of any depth. Just agreement and hand wringing. I hope the press is journalistically more competent.

Yes, so many institutions like the BBC and academia and many others are hopelessly captured by this ideology. I don't see it changing any time soon.

England is very good at bullying individuals to compensate for the fact that it is very, very bad, wilfully bad, at holding anyone to account.

Look at the Post Office scandal - widely commented that it was very hard to get anyone interested in it. It took an ITV drama put out in the first week of January when folk were couch potatoes and sick of Xmas telly fare for the story to pick up - and even, then, one supposes because the main characters portrayed in that were not Asians but white working class folk.
Then it picked up, but only so folk could bully Paula Vennells - I don't want to see her bullied, I want to see her held to account, and aside from handing back a CBE or something, she hasn't been - she lives in the same luxury house she bought while on a bumper salary, as do all the other perpetrators living their lives.

Ditto Epstein Files - a lot of bullying of Andrew Windsor, his red-eye face on all the front pages, an arrest - but nothing will come of it.

@NewspaperTaxis I think your view is way too simplistic. I think AMW has a story that’s still running but should people be held accountable personally when doing their job and to what extent? If what they did was illegal, that’s another matter but not being the best at your job is not a crime and Paula V did not gain financially from lying. The company is liable for the mistakes and I don’t agree with the houses of people like PV being taken away in a vendetta of vengeance. Not sure Labour has escalated the payments much either!

Paula Vennells is actually an interesting comparison I think. She wasn’t hired to meet any kind of diversity need and didn’t have a spectacular back story, but she was clearly incompetent in her role. She was warned of the failures of Horizon, she was aware that people had been criminalised as a result, and she was paid £5m or so while employed by the Post Office. She received the CBE for service to the PO despite knowing all this, and the only sanction on her has been the revocation of that.

She has cost the country millions in the inquiry, court costs and compensation, let alone the human cost.

Some posters here have called for JA’s family to repay his salary since they benefited from it. Presumably you don’t agree with that either.

What crime was Jason Arday convicted of?

Very brave of you to smear a dead man who can no longer fight back.

I think you have taken that comment rather too literally @EverythingAIIAtOnce. It really meaning that some people only look at one aspect of a situation and not the whole circumstances. I rather suspect the book publishers might have looked twice if he had not died because they have printed fiction and not an autobiography. They are standing by their decision but it’s a big advance for discredited fictional account of a life.

I do feel the whole situation is desperately sad and could have been avoided. The usual suspects will jump on the race issue and it’s getting tiresome that there’s no good journalistic debate on the issues behind the book and his appointment. It’s just a race pile on as usual.

There’s been a fair amount of good journalistic debate imo, though can see you might have missed it among all the dross.

https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/2026/08/jason-arday-cambridge-professor-death/688304/

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/15/world/europe/jason-arday-cambridge-hiring-questions.html

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/i-was-reported-police-over-arday-case-i-was-just-doing-my-job

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/jason-arday-many-things-can-be-possible-same-time

The BBC coverage and interviewing the racism accusers has been abject. Newspapers as I said earlier, do employ journalists. Radio interviewers have been just agreeing it was all about racism.

This has been a gift for the BBC and their 'progressive' agenda. Their angle is a talented black academic hounded by racists who don't want black people to succeed in public life. Dismal stuff. Disappointing to hear LBC Radio taking the same line.

Finally, finally....thought it worth popping back to share this website set up by some of his former students who offer a different side to him than what a lot of the discussion and coverage has focused on:
https://leilacancode.github.io/everythinggood-about-jasonarday/

Having had a parent with NPD, I do wonder if this is a classic case.

My mother was very similar; she would embellish facts to the point of ridiculousness. Her version of events that we both attended would be wildly different. She would tell stories of how she saved the day/was the only person present who could help/had been identified as being of superior intellect/was highly qualified - none of which was true. She would be adamant I had said a particular thing and gaslight me if I denied it - so much so I often doubted my own sanity.

If challenged, she would either fly into a rage, accuse me of lying or having some sort of mental issue or burst into tears saying she was being victimised and bullied and always double down.

What I see all around me are Arday’s “flying monkeys” My NPD mother was very good at recruiting these individuals and I was always told by them what a charming, sparkling woman she was and how lucky I was to face her as a parent; they always believed her gobsmacking lies as she was very convincing and able to subtly manipulate others into believing her version of events. She also had the hurt look - again like Arday - down to an absolute T.

She regularly threatened suicide if anyone started to get too close to the facts, but her threats were all part of the performance and attention seeking.

https://www.verywellmind.com/narcissists-and-flying-monkeys-7552473

Thanks @OneArtfulUmberSquid for a very thoughtful post. It has ended in a tragedy unfortunately and I too hope his soul rests in peace.

The wider issues facing academia do seem pretty severe at the moment. One of my friends took voluntary redundancy and another is under seemingly constant threat. Unfortunately the sector has some real credibility issues (grading, contact time e.t.c.) at the moment and as per the spectator podcast I think we will see more closures...

Thanks for the debate.

Just possibly appointing a woman in the post is/was a diversity thing. In that, if anyone had a go at her, it could be initially branded 'sexism'. If the wheels later came off, then due to societal sexism, the get-out clause of 'incompetence' might fare better with a woman than a man - and again a sort of leniency might kick in, allowing them to be let off. Failing that - well, we are in witch-hunt territory suddenly. And I will out myself as a bloke here, but can't help but notice that the only name I retain from the Post Office scandal is that of Paula Vennells (and it took me a while to retain that) when of course she simply could not have done that stuff all by herself, it was a state crime. The solicitors who advised her? Don't have a scoobys.

A bit like Brexit was arguably sold on one basis when it was about another, so a woman's promotion to the top flight might just be a poisoned chalice - see arguably Thatcher and May as PMs.

"Yes, I think the fooling of an elite institution is actually the main interest in the story."

But I don't believe they were really fooled. They must have known he wasn't up to it. There were complaints from students even if it wasn't obvious to his colleagues.

💯 they knew

@NewspaperTaxis I agree with you about the fact Paula Venells was not acting alone. She headed up the PO but obviously that brought great responsibility with it. However the issue was bigger than her and maybe the manufacturers also were to blame? I’m not sure Venells is the right comparison at all but people are jealous of her salary. She wasn’t just employed to deal with Horizon and I don’t think that contract was let on her watch either. It’s difficult to know if she was the best person for the job or not but I don’t remember hearing much about her until the shit hit the fan. Whatever she was, she hasn’t been accused of lying about herself for advancement - unless I missed something.

Yes, i agree that they did know but in a way that's an even bigger story. Elite institution recruits and promotes someone into a highly prestigious role when they know that person is completely unsuitable.

it exposes that these institutions have an agenda. They need to reflect on their own behaviour (of course that won't happen).

So you think Cofnas didn't have an agenda? Nor Peter Thiel, the Daily Telegraph etc? https://bylinetimes.com/2026/08/18/the-peter-thiel-linked-race-science-network-that-penetrated-cambridge-university-and-targeted-jason-arday/

That’s normal though.

Individuals and newspapers are allowed to have agendas.

Public institutions are “allowed” to have agendas too, but must expect scrutiny.

The Guardian has an agenda that includes opposing tax-dodging by the rich and companies. They really run with the story when they find examples. What’s more they spend and money digging to find them. And that’s good.

If the Telegraph opposes the excesses of DEI and decries dumbing down of institutions, it can and should do the same.

So long as neither is twisting the facts, it’s all healthy scrutiny in an open pluralistic society.

What about the Guardian that did one of the biggest exposes?

Incidentally, the journalist Lanre Bakare (a black journalist no less), who was contacted by Arday a year ago to write a story and who over the course of that story realised that Arday was full of shit about his life and had to publish that meticulously researched story is now being massively targeted by people claiming that he basically is responsible for his death.

I'm not sure why targeting Arday with accurate press coverage is appalling and unforgivable hounding but setting a mob on journalists for doing their job laudable and correct.