UPDATE: CLASSIFIEDS section refreshed, redesigned, searchable: Go take a look
This is, I feel, where Cambridge Uni have to bear some responsibility. Maybe they were just too willing to believe/ignore some of the more fantastical claims. The life and death of Arday hasn't been a topic often discussed with my friends and family but any talk has been about the background stuff (early learning difficulties, pigs head and so on) rather than the value of his PHD. An early admission regarding these might have let the story subside before the tragedy.
Yep.
I completely agree that Cambridge have to take responsibility for their actions and explain why they either didn't due their due diligence or didn't do it well enough. That doesn't absolve Arday of his role in submitting work that no decent due diligence should have allowed through. ITs like saying all crime is the polices fault because they didnt solve and the criminal bears no responsibility.
Arday was a serial conman, I feel sorry for the students who had to pay good money for this 'teaching'. Even worse that he attempted to silence / intimidate journalists via carter ruck and the met police. Clearly not a nice guy. If he had never been so prominent in the press, on television etc for his achievements I don't think it would have been anywhere near as big a story.
It is obvious to anyone that most (if not the vast majority) of his claims were untrue, that he got away with it for so long at a prestigious institution shows a total absence of critical thinking or perhaps fear of being called a racist meant people just went along with it. (More questions to be asked about why LJMU ignored blatant plagiarism after investigating it). All of which confirms peoples suspicions that universities in particular are ideologically captured. That is also a factor as to why it is a big story.
I feel extremely sorry for the family he leaves behind (for some reason he is being described as a young man, he was 41 with two children). If as suspected it is a suicide then the blame lies firmly with the institutions that allowed this to happen and with Jason himself. Not with the media who reported truthfully on the case. To use this case as an excuse for limiting freedom of the press is outrageous.
The NY Times one was.
We're going round in circles now, I've already said this. I have no reason to doubt the NYT's integrity but the factual accuracy of their report can only ever be as good as their sources and to do a proper investigation rather than just taking people at their word would take months. And the fact of this matter is that the NYT doesn't need to do that to run a newspaper article.
Clearly not a nice guy.
There are many, many people who say differently. most of whom have - brace yourself now - actually met him.
Such as this one:
https://www.thenerve.news/p/jason-arday-remembered-sam-clark-carole-cadwalladr-childhood-friend-real
It is obvious to anyone that most (if not the vast majority) of his claims were untrue
If it were that obvious, we (and a lot of others) wouldn't still be discussing it.
or perhaps fear of being called a racist meant people just went along with it.
Aaaaaaaaaaand there we go.
To use this case as an excuse for limiting freedom of the press is outrageous.
No one in this thread has done this.
Some of us have questioned why this story was covered in the way it was. Questions that should be asked (as we have the freedom to question how media organizations function and why they operate in the way they do, especially as regards how what they work in the international social media space). I’ve been doing so since before Arday’s death. His death both increases the need to question how our media works… and also makes it harder to do so in the face of those happy to double down at cheering on what they have done and how they have gone about it (for reasons).
or perhaps fear of being called a racist meant people just went along with it.
Aaaaaaaaaaand there we go.
Hang on a minute - didn't someone try to expose him, and didn't he play the race card? (I'll stand corrected if I've misheard this of course)
No, someone tried to "expose him" and legal action was taken, which is not "playing the race card".
didn't someone try to expose him, and didn't he play the race card?
If you’re referring to his (quickly dropped) police complaint about Jack Grove, no, race wasn’t mentioned.
If you’re referring to comments about Nathan Cofnas… hard not discuss him without reference to race.
No, someone tried to "expose him" and legal action was taken, which is not "playing the race card".
A journalist received a tip off about plagiarism and carried out a significant amount of research into it, finding that the claim likely had merit or was at least worthy of further investigation. He therefore emailed Jason Arday some questions, to which Arday responded with "piss off" letter via Carter-Ruck and a police complaint of harassment.
The letter from Carter-Ruck specifically says that they the investigation "may be" racially motivated and that the journalist should "exercise caution" to avoid being "caught up in this narrative" (of racist investigations)
Oh Chris, and you were doing so well, briefly.
Oh Chris, and you were doing so well, briefly.
I still am thanks. I just have a different opinion to yourself on some subjects. Thats how the world rolls Im pleased to say.
If you can come up with another interpretation of "And there we go" in the context of this post was supposed to mean if it wasn't an implied racist slur then please tell me
Oh Chris, and you were doing so well, briefly.
I still am thanks. I just have a different opinion to yourself on some subjects. Thats how the world rolls Im pleased to say.
If you can come up with another interpretation of "And there we go" in the context of this post was supposed to mean if it wasn't an implied racist slur then please tell me
I do think we need some clarity here Cougar, for fear of assuming that you were jumping on the "he disagrees with me therefore he's a racist" bandwagon.....
