Post

Interested in your reference to "his interests rather than the commercial interests of Simon & Schuster". Was it they who engaged Carter Ruck? I gather that Cambridge has denied doing this.

Viner is dragging the Guardian down!

Mr Maugham—most sportingly—proposes that others should take up the white man’s burden; but he strangely neglects to reflect on whether the spectacle of a high-profile KC’s credulity and denial of the obvious could have been of any use to racist tabloid hacks in inflating the importance of the story.

The Guardian did excellent reporting on various elements of Arday's life that were implausible which other outlets didn't touch. Are you seriously suggesting that journalists should ignore lies?

Translation: the Guardian also accurately described the situation. What's needed is more academic rigour, not more censorship.

Long time Guardian subscriber here. They have claimed their coverage gave due proportionality and importance. I think, for one example example, their repeated references to his running was snide and wouldn’t have happened to anyone else.

Arday tragically seems to have had mental issues, this plagiarism is now well established, he was tragically elevated to a point where catastrophe was going to happen

Sadly, this is unsurprising

The Good Law Project freely denied what most people could see was true. Please understand how that dynamic is part of what helps the racists/right-wing turn things into bigger scandals?