Jason Arday, Cambridge Plagiarist, thread two

[Angeruish]

We are nearing our 1000-post limit on the original thread:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/education/5561878-jason-arday-cambridge-plagiarist?reply=153910946

I have now removed the question mark after "plagiarist".

I can't believe the sequel will be as good as the original, but you never know...

You may not be aware but that was from a long-standing poster and solicitor who often comments on legal matters on MN. I find their posts insightful and 'legally' reliable (I have a legal background myself).

I think they were speaking in a legal sense. They are technically correct that solicitors don't have the legal power to silence people short of applying to the court for an injunction and then it is the court which has the power to order 'silence'/non-publicaction.

But as the poster goes on to make clear, the express or implicit threat of legal action in a solicitors' letter, particularly one from a specialist firm such as Carter-Ruck well known for bringing aggressive litigation on behalf of their clients, may be enough to stop or at least pause publication.

It is correct that lawyers giving pre-publication advice would have advised that the journalist produce sufficient evidence to stand the story up in court. That evidence would have to be in the form of documents and signed statements from witnesses, preferably from multiple sources, prepared to go all the way and give evidence in court. It's a tall order and not one which can be fulfilled quickly. If the journalist hasn't done some very thorough homework already then the editor will spike the story, at least until enough evidence has been gathered to found a defence if legal proceedings are commenced.

ETA I see I have crossposted with@prh47bridge !

There is a good thread on the Carter Ruck letter by Dan Neidle on Twitter. It’s a classic SLAPP letter, designed to scare off all but the most battle hardened journalists (eg Daily Mail). TES is a very small operation that won’t have extensive legal insurance and also has to balance any action with the fact that they need cooperation from universities for their rankings survey and other journalism. Cambridge/Arday bulldozed them. The CR letter also states that Arday was being advised by the Cambridge comms team. So even if they didn’t pay CR, they were orchestrating his defence.

https://x.com/i/status/2087095547479945612

I agree that legally speaking that a threatening letter from CR would not have legal weigh - However I think it needs to be looked at in the context of the pressure that JA was whipping up to silence critics with a criminal complaint for harassment against the journalist Jack Grove, for e-mailing some questions he didn't want to answer. Plus the prevailing "cancel culture" that seems to require no legal basis.

If it was being suggested that solicitors don't in themselves have some legal power to force someone ro be silent, that is obvious and correct.

If it was being suggested that, in practice, threatening letters from solicitors can't have the effect of preventing recipients from saying things (except untrue things), that is obviously wrong.

Theory on the Carter Ruck letter

https://nitter.net/BrianSpanner1/status/2087239071110189561#m

Has anyone considered he may just have copied a different Carter-Ruck letter and changed a few details? Pay attention people.

I'm quite sure it wasn't him behind the Carter Ruck threats but the panel who decided to appoint him who hold powerful jobs and positions and have no intention of giving them up. Utterly despicable.

Start a PGCE or a BEd in primary school education. Announce that you’re not very good at maths and find simple division difficult. You think you might even have dyscalculia. Then relax as a bunch of lecturers fall over themselves to tell you that that’s ok, as you will therefore better understand how it feels to be a child who is also not very good at maths.

I am not joking.

Essentially, the woke liberals have taken advantage of a vulnerable fantasist to further their agenda and careers. Not expecting any heads to roll there, though.

We were sued by Carter Ruck in my first publishing job.

The author pulled a fast one and ‘borrowed’ an unpublished ms to present as his own. We didn’t know, couldn’t have known or found out.

We asked for proof - photocopies of the unpublished notebook, rescued from
an attic, appeared in office. The notebook had belonged to the family of a dead historian who the current author knew. Very specialist subject, bloody easy for the family to spot their dad’s writing when they got a copy.

Cringeathon - we apologised and busted the author. CR were AWFUL. They kept on being aggressively rude, ringing up howling further threats. We pulled the book (took it off shelves) and delivered them in crates to CR office.

CR are really savage - idiotically in this case cos we would have paid for the stolen work and credited it. It was quite a good book.

I’ve been rewatching this excellent BBC documentary which, in light of the Jason Arday suit, is really insightful about some of the history that got universities to this place where, i suspect, colleagues who had concerns felt unable to raise those concerns: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002v2w6

The Vice Chancellor of Cambridge has done a U turn and is now facing the other way. Deborah Prentice says:

'I fully understand the concerns being raised across the university and well beyond it, regarding Jason Arday's appointment and I share them. I know there is anger and anxiety around this damaging and difficult case.
'We will now investigate the circumstances around his appointment by the Faculty of Education back in 2022 and his time here in Cambridge since his appointment nearly four years ago.

Wasn't she one of those screaming racist witch hunt not so long ago and talking about how wonderful Arday is? I wonder what's changed her mind. The possibility that she - and her job - may come under scrutiny?

Cambridge University to investigate faculty over 'damaging' case of 'Professor Plagiarism'
(The Mail via MSN)

It would be a foolish brave person who suggests that @prh47bridge doesn't know what they're talking about. I certainly wouldn't be that brave or foolish.

Strictly

The planet where they’re correct in law, perhaps? Though SLAPPs do have a fair amount of practical clout.

I wondered when this doc would come up. It is indeed excellent.

If I had kids I was paying £k for to be taught by liars like this (how many others are there?) I’d be bloody furious. I hope students sue the uni

@Lougle "It would be a foolish brave person who suggests that prh47bridge doesn't know what they're talking about. I certainly wouldn't be that brave or foolish."

Thank you for your Pythonesque comment 🤣

Seems in 2012 Tory MPs raised the uni fees to £9,000 and made DEI a legal requirement of unis and everyone!!!

https://www.theguardian.com/education/ng-interactive/2026/aug/01/playbooks-plagiarism-pigs-head-new-claims-surrounding-cambridge-professor-jason-arday

"When Arday was asked about his claims by the Guardian, he stood by them. “To be honest with you, I thought you’d just believe me,”

Perhaps, instead of saying that, JA could have told the Guardian journalist "I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition." Then we could all chorus "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

I have zero knowledge except what was in the guardian article about his speech. But ‘being the class clown and singing in silly voices’ (I’m paraphrasing) sounds like an echolalic kiddo who others are laughing at or who can make sound to get a reaction but doesn’t know how to properly communicate.
I know quite a lot of non verbal children or pre-verbal children. Some are quiet but some are quite loud repeating odd phrases of the TV or singing a jingle. They couldn’t communicate what they want for lunch or where the pain is or what their name is even.
So I didn’t find even then description of his supposed lie particularly an issue. I haven’t read any of the plagiarism stuff so perhaps that is more of an issue. But on this one point, it sounds like a reporter who doesn’t understand echolalia.

I wonder if JA was appointed to an advertised post?
I find it hard to believe that his list of publications wasn't scrutinised in any case.

WTH. The university was supporting this legal letter nonsense? And who paid for Carter Ruck? I really hope it wasn’t the university.. ?
Because even senior Cambridge academics aren’t that well paid are they, to afford the Carter Rucks of the world who normally represent celebs and bazillionaires?

And just as importantly why on earth and under what policy are a university/employer’s admin staff supporting a staff member with this utter non- case, of a journalist asking that person some questions?
This is a really appalling thing to waste university time and money on. Not a legal issue. Really very odd that a staff member can’t just reply quickly and transparently to straightforward questions like this.
Cambridge investigating itself seems to be looking less and less helpful now.

I don't think this is correct. We had a coalition government in 2012, of which the Tories were the larger party, but the LibDems were also involved and may well have been the source of any DEI initiatives. However, although university fees were indeed raised to £9,000 in 2012, I can't remember DEI being made a legal requirement. It is true that the EHRC issued guidance for further and higher education providers in 2012, but they are independent of the government and their guidance was based on the Equality Act 2010, which had been brought into law by the previous Labour government. Happy to be corrected if I've missed something, though.