Jason Arday #2

[MooBelle]

Right, I'm going to say something and if it is awful then please feel free to report to mods etc.
I'm very sorry that someone has lost their life, that's awful. Especially as he has children.
However as the survivor of narcissistic abuse i have educated myself over the past few years. Threatening to take your life and actually taking your own life are the tools of a narcissist. Dying by your own hand is the ultimate 'win' for a narcissist. You can't try and justify or understand it if you don't have the experience.
Their brains aren't wired normally. To be dead and make others look bad is just one example how they 'win'. It's why estranged parents kill their children to spite the other parent.
I'm not sorry about anything I've posted on here. I have only ever mocked obvious bullshit, which is what I believe everyone else has done.
All we have done is called out the lies of an obvious fantasist. No one on here needs to feel bad about anything.
Just waiting for notadoc Jess and et al spinning shite that it was all Tattle's fault.

 

[FourSeasonSoupObsessive]

Succint and accurate from Kerry

 

[GabbyBeGone]

I lost my sister to suicide, and I can’t help feeling angry about the public outpouring of grief both at the vigil and on social media. It feels really, really irresponsible.

When a well-known figure takes their own life, there is a suicide contagion affect. The media are supposed to be extremely careful now how they report on suicide, and not to romanticise someone’s death by suicide.

I feel like the reaction to Arday’s death sends a message to vulnerable people of “if you die this way, loads of people will say lovely things about you and pour money into a Go Fund Me, and you get to be at peace with no obligations, future consequences for your actions or further pain, and you get to have revenge on those who wronged you”.

It doesn’t show the ugly side of suicide loss. The PTSD, the hundreds of calls to devastated loved ones, the ugly crying many years after the event, the christmases and holidays that are too painful to celebrate again, the intense feelings of betrayal and abandonment from one of the people you trusted the most in the world.

My thoughts go to Jason’s children, siblings and any other loved ones who have had a bomb dropped on their lives through no fault of their own

 

[Wu Tien]

Apologies, but I feel the need to unload on an issue that has been bothering me for some time. If you aren't interested in pedantry and ranting about pathological lies, you might want to scroll past this post.

I am a former academic who has a number of university degrees from several countries because I am a weirdo autist who collects university degrees for fun. Sad but true.

Anyone who thinks that the issue that brought down Arday was only plagiarism and that the only plagiarism Arday committed was in his PhD is not looking at the larger picture. In the UK, most (if not all) universities teach undergraduates about referencing and plagiarism. Many universities have plagiarism detection software like Turnitin installed on computers. Often, students are asked to run their course work through Turnitin to check for plagiarism before submitting their essays. (Some foreign countries have a different attitude to referencing and foreign students can have difficulty with understanding the need to reference. This is not a criticism of their home country's educational system; I am merely pointing out a difference.)

Arday was a British national who studied only at UK universities and would have been taught about plagiarism at undergraduate level.

I am willing to bet folding money that he plagiarised his work at both undergraduate and postgraduate level and that no one challenged him on this. In other words, plagiarising became dishonest behaviour without penalty and, therefore, Arday carried on this behaviour in his PhD thesis. It was remiss of Arday, his supervisor and, possibly, his PhD committee not to have checked.)

Arday carried on this behaviour in two journal articles (he plagiarised from an epidemiologist, Anjum Memon, about mental health in ethnic minorities). David Harris, of Plymouth Marjon University, identified the plagiarism in these two articles, which required post-publication corrections. Arday complained to the Devon and Cornwall police about Harris but the former, sensibly, declined to investigate Arday's complaint of harassment.

To me, this shows that Arday had a fundamental problem with honesty and integrity.

For Arday, lying had become such a core aspect of his character that he lied when he could be proved wrong about big issues, eg his 'broken' leg had swollen to twice its normal size by the end of the 30th marathon (photos taken of Arday at the finish line show two normal-sized legs) and that 2,000 - 3,000 were at Eros to cheer him on; and about small issues, like having naturally darker skin around his eyes when it is clear that in some photographs he is wearing eye liner while in other photographs he isn't.

Arday's whole life was like a human Potemkin village: there was an athletic, fashionably dressed, knee-length lok'd, eyeliner-wearing front that was the attractive front for a rotten inner existence. I believe that Arday lied so much, for so long, about so many things that he both believed his lies and became incapable of telling - or recognising - the truth.

(Sorry for any rambling or grammatical or spelling issues. I am deep in months-long insomnia.)

 

[TheStrawberryThief]

I am sure that many of you have already said this in a better way than I can. I just need to say it as I feel like I will explode with frustration if I don't, and there isn't anyone irl that I feel I can say it to without being judged.

I am finding it very disturbing how a lot of people are twisting the truth to try and push their own agenda. Trying to portray Jason as a simple college professor who was unfairly treated due to his race and was hounded to death due to it. As if he was just someone working at a normal college and just quietly trying to do their job.

The reason, imo, that it was such a big deal is that he had made himself a public figure through various media appearances, speaking engagements etc. Someone who was simply an academic would not have had a massive book deal to write an autobiography. If there wasn't a book coming out, people probably wouldn't have started fact checking everything he has ever said.

It is Infantilizing to put all the blame for his career on others. He was put into a job he was under qualified for, but he was happily taking advantage of the situation to accsept more paid work. He could have stayed under the radar and declined the invites to speak or go on tv, could have suggested someone who was better suited to go instead.

I saw someone elsewhere suggest that in another world, he could have stayed as a PE teacher and been one of those really charismatic and popular teachers that inspire students to greater things. Or someone who did a lot of work for the local community and eventually got an MBE. I honestly wish that he could have had this life instead of the one he chose for himself.

 

[nothanksbabes]

What a mess and how terribly sad to be so caught up in a lie.

I'm fascinated by fantasists and fabulists, but the reality is, they should never reach positions of influence when so clearly unsuited to them. The institutions that enable the likes of Arday and Jack Monroe et al because they present a palatable 'adversity against the odds' story have a lot to answer for.

I'm not inside anyone else's head, but when your sense of self is dependent on a mythology you've built which isn't particularly moored to reality, what happens when the myth starts to unravel?

This is really horrible though. I always want a redemption story, some self awareness. “I lied because I desperately needed to be exceptional and then became trapped maintaining it” is such a human story. Much more human and relatable than the immaculate inspirational hero we've been reading about.

There was an entire life available on the other side of that. He could have taught. Written a completely different book. Talked about why people construct identities? Talked about the seductive feedback loop when institutions start rewarding your mythology. Talked about being black and autistic without needing to be the most extraordinary black autistic person who ever lived. He could have been more interesting because he'd spectacularly fucked up and understood something about himself as a result.

I've experienced similar in my own life, with a person incredibly caught up in their idea of themselves with a similarly tragic end. My friend had countless opportunities for help - more than anyone I've ever known - but was so invested in the character she'd created it didn't matter. It was more important to her than her relationships, friendships and her children in the end. Like watching a car crash over and over again and not being able to change its course.

Death always shifts the narrative though. Understandably so, to a point. But a tragic end doesn't mean a career built on lies is acceptable or shouldn't be questioned.

 

[goldenrodshortbread]

It's disappointing that so few people seem bothered by the falling academic standards exposed here. Sociology and sociology adjacent isn't quite my academic experience but I assume the quality checks should be same as stem? Research proposals should go before and ethics committee, research methodology should be decided and justified before data collection, a viva should show your work was considered and fully justifiable and fulfils the research brief. For senior appointments you should have a substantial publication history, peer reviewed in reputable journals, you should be widely cited and experienced in your field and preferred methodologies. The most import thing though is being a grant writing, funding attracting machine. He didn't seem to be any of those things, lying about having those attributes to gain a post is fraud no? Background is irrelevant

Thank you! I’m sociology-adjacent and wrote on the first thread about how ludicrous this entire situation is. This is social science. It has rigour and standards, and is fiercely competitive. A man with no funding track record whatsoever, limited publications, a plagiarised PhD thesis with a typo in the title, no apparent teaching ability, no doctoral student completions, no contribution to knowledge, no outreach activity - just self-serving virtue-signalling partially-fabricated charitable endeavours which are all focused on furthering his name. I mean the man pretended to have written a book. To be handed a Chair at Cambridge on the basis of a fraudulent CV, and called “the best in the world” by Hilary Cremin… it’s grim.

The rest of us (largely female) have pushed and grafted and written lectures and marked 115 UG dissertations in a week and had our own original thoughts and birthed and raised our children knowing that this would directly disadvantage us in terms of promotion, produced high quality work that is correctly cited and in turn receives its own citations…

Spoiler: Me-rail

The vast majority of my work is single-authored, including three monographs, and a significant UKRI grant as PI. I am tenured and run a doctoral programme at a Russell Group University. Where’s my fucking Chair, Cambridge? And my Black female colleagues who have worked twice as hard as me to reach the same level? Why are they losing out to the Ardays of this world?

That a man has tragically died does not detract from the heinousness of his fraud in academic terms.

 

[maytoseptember]

It should not be a case of BE KIND - the most meaningless words in the English language, imo.

“Be kind” now means “be quiet”.

 

[InkHeart]

If he hadn’t Barbara Streisanded himself it coulda stayed as a Times Higher Ed story that would have stayed in a small bubble.

Yeah, when people talk about how terrible it is that this story got so much attention, they're ignoring the fact that Jason Arday himself was about to publish a huge autobiography in several countries. HE WANTED all this publicity. He just didn't want it to be critical. And when you get paid £1m+ to write an autobiography for an international audience and you choose to lie all the way through, you can't also ban people from saying anything bad about it.

Tldr: he wasn't a private citizen subjected to a media pile on, he was actively trying to get famous.

 

[MrsFawlty]

I'm so glad to be here, listening to the range of opinions and considering perspectives from people who have experience of the issues raised. It's enlightening to hear from the parents of non-verbal children, autistic adults, higher education professionals and many others.
I don't think I've seen any other places online where opinions are discussed in such a civilised manner. More than once I've read a comment and had to admit my own ignorance or that I simply hadn't considered that perspective.

 

[Yel]

Whenever something like this happens tattle is always pretty strict that commentary is respectful.

When there's nothing of public interest to be discussed, like Mrs Hinchs dad passing or Grace Victory in a coma then threads are locked. Although Grace Victory made up some fucking awful stuff about tattle that never happened in summer 2025 along with the rest of the influencers - https://tattle.life/threads/grace-v...ull-of-complaints.48678/page-23#post-22952091 and she has quite the history in her old posts.

All the influencers and ex-tattlers who have a chip on their shoulder (often from petty bickering on politics threads that had posts deleted for being disruptive) like to smear but we do try our best just to keep things running well for everyone with an impossible task.

I think there is a big public interest in this story, especially with how many people that end up running the country come from Oxbridge and how in today's word obvious lies spiral and spiral. But people should always remember the tragedy and be respectful.

 

[nothanksbabes]

Cambridge have an awful lot to answer for. This wasn't a nice little job anyone could have walked into, it was a position that attracted incredible status and prestige and the wild claims about his personal life were presented as part of the reason he was so exceptional.

If the fella you work with at Tesco tells you he's raised £5million for charity, been a professional sportsperson in not one but two sports, is an elite long-distance runner even with a broken leg and so on and so forth, that's primarily an issue between him and reality. His employer would have neither reason nor entitlement to audit his entire personal mythology.

But when an institution appoints somebody to a prestigious role and then actively promotes extraordinary childhood adversity, exceptional charitable achievements and sporting accomplishments, inspirational overcoming of disability, prestigious academic achievements and associations and an exceptional career trajectory... They're not just stories the employee tells at the pub. The institution itself is holding them up as reasons this person is noteworthy.

And there's a reciprocal part of holding a prestigious public position. You receive things ordinary employees don't. Authority, credibility, public platforms, invitations, awards, media interest and the reflected status and prestige of the institution's name. In return, there should be higher expectations concerning integrity, honesty and public conduct. And ultimately if you're willing to accept the many perks of mythologising yourself, the other side of that coin is that the scrutiny will be proportionate to that praise when it all goes wrong.

The public wouldn't have given a shit if it was just the academic stuff. Half of Oxbridge are there for little more reason than a name and a family tree. If anything I'd have been celebrating Jason for excelling at the very thing that's been rife in these institutions since the dawn of time but I don't understand why nothing is ever enough.

 

[IcanSpellBéchamel]

Cambridge Uni should probably have had a duty of care towards him following the revelations and his resignation.

I understand that being made to confront his plagiarism and lies may have contributed to his decision, but I don’t want to live in a world where we can’t call bullshitters and scammers out for fear of what they may subsequently do.

 

[Pineapple Eyes]

I’ve held off saying this, for fear of , but I have some ex-colleagues who dealt with him at <insert institution>.
According to them he was known for his bad attitude, poor work and being a bit prone to thinking he was gods gift. They were afraid to speak up about him and breathed a sigh of relief when he left and he became someone else’s problem.

 

[Cloffsandtings]

It's sad.

But it doesn't matter if JA was "gorgeous", what mattered was his behaviour. And as has been said many times on this thread, he lied, possibly manipulated, took opportunities from other people and gave false hope to those who found comfort in his "stories".

It's not racist to call out David Burke for the murder and abuse of Celeste. Nor should he be let off for his crimes because he's "gorgeous".

It's not racist for Axel whatshisface to be in prison for his crimes.

And before someone jumps on me, I know what JA has done isn't anywhere near as awful but my point is, it's not racist to question questionable behaviour and to expect someone to be accountable for their actions. You can't just excuse behaviour because of someones race (or disability, or any other protected characteristic..).

This person is writing like JA was murdered. Like he had no choice in his death. But he did. And this is what he chose to do. Nobody forced him.

If this is a genuine professor and OBE, it's easy to see how he got away with it for so long.

Couldn’t agree more with your take on this. What has happened is tragic and very sad for his family, particularly his children. Not one of the people commenting or reporting on him would have wanted this dreadful outcome. But he wasn’t murdered and chose to end his life.

My opinion is that it was a final act of control, he was clearly narcissistic and could not admit defeat. Dying by s***ide is his way of blaming other people for his death, in a “you made me do this” sort of way.

I’m really annoyed to see racism being banded about when public figures are discussing his death. He didn’t die because of racism. He died because of the lies he told and the way he handled the situation. Those lies got him all the way to a position as a professor at Cambridge, who were keen to promote his appointment as the “youngest black professor ever”. That’s what made this newsworthy, compared to other people who have fraudulently secured elevated professional/academic positions. But it is also a label he gladly accepted, happy to use race as an issue when it benefitted him and the fame/notoriety that came with it. Don’t forget he was publishing a book.

So if, in that position as the “youngest black professor ever”, it later transpires that the credentials and qualifications and various other claims that got you there turned out to be a load of crap, then you have to expect widespread criticism for the lies you told that led to you accepting that news-worthy appointment. That, in my view, is where the race issue comes in. It’s not simply because he was black, which is how some people are trying to spin this (and I’m sure JA would if he were here today talking about someone else in the same position). Some people have told stories of him using race discrimination to his advantage by claiming that to challenge him was to be racist. It cannot be a get out of jail free card to allow you to lie and cheat your way to such a position with no accountability.

I am surprised the uni that awarded his doctorate did not act on the blatant plagiarism in his PHD. They should have. Cambridge should have done more to not only scrutinise his achievements and ability to fulfil the role, but also to support him when it all came crashing down, after they were so keen to have him as their black professor poster boy.

I don’t think he was bullied to death. I think he realised his career was over, there was no coming back from it and he couldn’t see a way out.

 

[emm]

Seconded. I think the only thing to be said on this particular thread now is that someone has lost their life. A father, son, partner, brother & friend. That is a tragedy.

No, that's not the only thing to be said. He's taken his life, which is beyond tragic of course. There are still millions of questions to ask about the people who enabled him, didn't stop him etc. Blocking this thread is madness imo

 

[PurvyPanda]

It was probably her way of saying she couldn't find your booking. I assume the woman behind the counter doesn't give a shiny shite about you one way or the other.

The woman behind the desk of this ‘damp’ B&B could have had autism, and been exhausted after completing 30 marathons with a broken leg the day before. You just don’t know what’s going on in a person’s life. It’s not all about you. #bekind

 

[MavisBeacon]

Sadiq Khan and others have said Arday faced a disproportionate amount of public and media scrutiny. As others have already said - this is because of the book deal and the press release that led directly to journalists investigating the claims.
If a journalist had written an article about a Cambridge professor who had plagiarised someone else’s work and was a rubbish lecturer, it wouldn’t have received nearly as much coverage. It was only the ‘extra’ stuff about his childhood, disabilities and sporting / fundraising efforts that made it a much more interesting story.
Same as the Salt Path couple. They disguised their real names so the story took longer to come out, but it was only when a film was made of the book with Gillian Anderson in the starring role, that people really started to speak out about them. If they hadn’t accepted the film deal and all the money that went with it, it wouldn’t have been such a big story.

This needs to be said much more loudly.
Arday's plagiarism and shoddy academic work would be a nothingburger were it not for the fact he was held up by one of the top universities in the world as a paragon of black academia, and then wrote a book full of BS for a major publisher that had invested in a serious amount of publicity for it.
He chose for all of that to happen when he knew it was built on lies, and sicced the police on people who tried to invesigate. And then he experienced the consequences of those choices.

The actions of liars, grifters and frauds whose lies, grifts and frauds are uncovered are a consequence of their behaviour, not a reason not to question them.

 

[Burden of Jane]

I feel terrible about some of the harsh things I have said about him on this thread. I honestly didn’t think he’d end his life, I thought he’d sail through the accusations without any regrets, like other people who have been exposed as fantasists do. He obviously did feel shame. His poor family.

I’m not a massive contributor in posting but I read a lot (lurking as such) and you are one poster that always and I mean always comes across so levelled, true to yourself and so kind to others whilst being bloody funny with heart across the threads. Please do not reflect this! This man was deeply troubled xxx

 

[nothanksbabes]

There'll be the usual hand wringing "how do we prevent this" from the very same people who enable this behaviour, as usual.

The way we prevent it is by not elevating individuals beyond their capabilities because they present a palatable, individualistic triumph over adversity story that allows their enablers to ignore the systemic, structural ways we disadvantage people based on socioeconomic class, sex, race etc. and instead presents an old fashioned "pull yourself up by your bootstrap" narrative.

There is something so deeply conservative about this kind of supposedly progressive storytelling (see also Jack Monroe). If one exceptional individual can overcome poverty, racism, disability or educational disadvantage through sufficient determination and resilience, there is no need to ask why thousands of equally capable people facing the same barriers do not. Structural inequality becomes an obstacle course for exceptional individuals to conquer rather than a collective problem Arday's enablers are obligated to dismantle.

Institutions benefit twice. They get to present the exceptional individual as evidence of their inclusivity while avoiding scrutiny of the structures that made that person's story exceptional in the first place. The individual becomes both an inspirational story and proof that the system works. Look, he made it to Cambridge!

It creates perverse incentives. The messier and more mundane truth, that achievement is usually some combination of ability, work, opportunity, support, luck and circumstance, is less marketable than a heroic narrative in which every disadvantage is overcome by extraordinary personal qualities. People like Arday end up rewarded for how compellingly they can narrate themselves irrespective of their capabilities.

Then everyone expresses astonishment when some of those narratives turn out to have been embellished or fabricated.

The answer isn't to stop giving opportunities to people from unconventional or disadvantaged backgrounds. Equality should mean that an ordinary but academically talented working-class, black, disabled or otherwise disadvantaged person gets a fair chance to be as ordinary in their personal lives as anyone else.