Later today protesters will demand ‘No Palantir in our NHS’    While they protest, someone, somewhere will get an operation scheduled earlier, a cancer diagnosis quicker, a loved one home from hospital sooner - thanks to the software that those protesters would switch off.   Here is what you won’t hear. Trusts using the software have recorded: • 117,000 additional operations • 14.3 per cent reduction in discharge delays for long stay patients • 5.6 per cent improvement in the number of people receiving a cancer diagnosis within 28 days     As a more articulate person once said: ‘certain facts, although in a sense known to be true, are inadmissible.’

Great to see you Sid. Fancy lunch again next week?

After six wonderful years at UK Music, I'm joining Palantir UK as Senior Vice President. Palantir is the most interesting company on the planet, doing work of real consequence: helping Britain and its allies defend themselves, helping police protect our citizens and helping NHS staff get patients treated and home sooner. London is comfortably its largest centre outside the US, home to more than one in six employees, the highest proportion among the world's largest technology companies. We have challenges. Some criticism is propaganda. Some raises legitimate questions about large technology companies and sovereign control. Both require answers. Part of my role will be to correct false information while working with our engineers to ensure privacy, security and respect for sovereignty are at the heart of everything we do.

James Orr is a serious scholar, and if you’d taken the time to read some of his work (as I have) you’d realise how ridiculous this comparison is. Do go ahead and examine his work. Embarrass yourself further.

The only difference being, of course, that James Orr is an accomplished scholar who knows what he’s talking about and enriches intellectual life at Cambridge. Read this in parallel with one of Jason Arday’s plagiarised displays of absolute drivel and then get back to us.

Question: how much media coverage will be consecrated to examining “ theologian and philosopher” James Orr’s position at Cambridge compared to Jason Arday’s? A pile-on of similar scale?

James Orr is a serious scholar, and if you’d taken the time to read some of his work (as I have) you’d realise how ridiculous this comparison is. Do go ahead and examine his work. Embarrass yourself further.

This is just a bit..stupid. Whatever the recent controversy caused by the C4 documentary, James Orr is an academic who, unlike Arday, didn’t lie his way to his position at Cambridge. Very odd comparison

James Orr is a serious scholar, and if you’d taken the time to read some of his work (as I have) you’d realise how ridiculous this comparison is. Do go ahead and examine his work. Embarrass yourself further.

What terrifies me is if it turns out Jason Arday’s DEI qualifications were fake, his DEI chair was fake, his DEI discipline was fake, and his faculty + college were DEI bootcamps. Imagine the backlash against hardworking DEI hires?

When I wrote about the Jason Arday case, the whole point of doing so was to question the pile-on and the high-handed outrage which I found appalling. I wanted to defend Arday by explaining that despite the allegations, I was rooting for him against the pompous voices of outraged academia. As someone who did not succeed in getting into Oxbridge when I applied, I felt a certain admiration for Arday, who had come from a humble background and worked the system to his benefit. ✍️ Melissa Kite Article | spectator.com/article/jaccus… | @melissakite1

'Professionally I erred, but ethically I really screwed up.' Novara Media co-founder Aaron Bastani has apologised for comments he made on X about professor Jason Arday.

Blacklists of journalists. From those who flaunt their 'be kind' lables & have the temerity to call themselves liberal. This assault on a free press is an illiberal act of censorship, deploying intimidation, moral blackmail & public shaming. It must be resisted. A lot at stake.

You can think Arday was mistreated by the media, and Cambridge, without completely obscuring very serious things - like having the police investigate a times higher education supplement journalist. Maybe you can’t do that anymore, who knows.

This article is irresponsible and borderline libellous 'journalism' from @nytimes The statement that Prof Arday was an 'early career scholar and underqualified' for the Cambridge job is simply untrue He was a professor BEFORE he went to Cambridge/ 1 nytimes.com/2026/08/15/world…

I hope I'm generally viewed as fair and even-handed in how I work (while being open about my own political commitments and views). I'm happy to talk to just about anyone, and I'm always looking to meet people who I disagree with. That isn't because I'm inherently like that as a person (anything but) but because I've seen the damage of a highly polarised media, where we only scrutinise our enemies and only defend the rights of people who we already agree with (ergo: "you can have free speech as long as I agree with what you're saying"; "you've a right to protest because we're on the same team"). That stuff is a problem. I especially know that because I've been a part of it in the past. But I gradually came to see it as corrosive to the things I really care about: free inquiry, debate, truth. If you want people with opposing views to take you seriously - and perhaps even to persuade them - you need to be regarded as fair. It took me years to understand that. The political implications of a media that collectively moves away from such a position is terrible. And that is why, sometimes, I'm happy to follow a story which has started with the right-wing press. A story is a story, and facts are facts. If I disregarded those things because of where they first emerged from I wouldn't be adhering to the kind of journalism and work I want to do. Something is true or false, regardless of who is saying it. That to me is the heart of the Enlightenment project. In the case of the Jason Arday story, we covered it a single time on Novara Live - our nightly show on Youtube. Our coverage, I think, was even-handed and well researched - words I generally associate with the show (it's online so you can judge for yourself). It's important to distinguish between what goes into NM shows, articles or social content - and what individuals might tweet (although, of course, we are rightly associated with the organisation). I say that because I also tweeted about Jason Arday - the first time being to make clear we had covered the story that same week and I that had previously not been familiar with him or his story. Most of my tweets concerning Mr Arday that followed, in my view, also adhere to the kind of debate I'm interested in: illuminating a subject rather than obscuring it, being fair regardless of sides, providing information and context rather than polarising people. One exception to that was a post where I referred to Mr Arday, who took his own life yesterday, as a 'conman'. Such a phrase is clearly more in keeping with hyperbole and sensationalism than getting to the truth and facts of the matter - which is what I'm interested in. I'm really sorry for writing that given what has subsequently happened. It was injudicious, unhelpful framing given the deluge of media coverage sent Arday's way. It was precisely at that moment that the opposite approach - of sober analysis - was needed. My personal view is that the Jason Arday story clearly met the threshold for coverage (and then some), and that there was a major public interest in reporting on it (although it's beyond doubt that a part of why it garnered *so* much attention was the time of year). Arday was a professorial chair at Cambridge (not simply a professor) and was set to publish a hugely consequential autobiography. The Times Higher Education supplement thought as much in 2025, and when they tried to get to the truth of the matter they received legal letters from Carter Ruck. The THE is a highly reputable publication, with strong, thorough journalists. Jack Grove, who contacted Arday from the THE, was subsequently reported to the police (for doing his job) and was investigated for 4 months. These aren't trivial, minor details. Arday was also a public figure hoping to shape the national conversation (he guest edited the Today program on Radio 4 in 2024, for instance, and appeared on BBC Question Time). As a result, he would have expected scrutiny. Again, if journalism - or just debate generally - is exclusively about scrutinising those we dislike and already disagree with, we are going to have major problems operating as a pluralistic, relatively free society. In many regards such problems are already visible. Shortly after that tweet someone I admire and respect got in touch to explain the situation with Mr Arday, and that he was personally in a very bad place. I said we had covered the story, and that I had already made my views clear. Given Cambridge had also announced there would be an investigation, I proceeded to say I would leave the story alone, both on my personal social media accounts but elsewhere too. He was a father of two - and as someone expecting a second daughter I immediately understood the significance of what I was being told. As already mentioned, I believed (and still do) that there was a major public interest with the story: British higher education institutions are regarded as some of the best in the world, with Cambridge itself regularly figuring among the most prestigious universities anywhere. Personally I'm proud of Britain's university sector - which makes me even more angry with its treatment for the best part of 30 years - and besides any political coverage think its important such places adhere to rigorous standards. But all that pales when compared to children potentially losing a father. Once Arday resigned from Cambridge, which was a few days later, such a conclusion was even more obvious. Frankly, it would have been wise for the whole media to take stock for a week or two after Arday announced that resignation. Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing. It's worth saying, nobody has asked me to write this. And I'm not doing so to change anyone's mind. I've not deleted anything (a personal rule, so that people can see what I've said for themselves). But, when something as tragic as this has happened - and two children have lost a father - I wanted to record it and make clear my reasoning for things.

To those calling for stricter press regulation in wake of the Arday case, what exactly is the regulatory action that should have been used in this case? Declare it an invasion of privacy? Declare it harassment not in the public interest? Limit the frequency of the articles?

This is very good by @Tom_Slater_ - sensitive about the human tragedy, however understands what is at stake for press freedom in terms of our reaction. Worth reading.