Savitri (Savi) Hensman ViaMedia.News Far-right Threat: Why the Bishops’ Take on “National Unity” is not enough – Part 2
Stephen Parsons Surviving Church Reflections on the CDM Disciplinary Tribunal and the Case of Andrew Cornes
Robert Thompson ViaMedia.News What is Christian about Vengeance?
Nigel Biggar Spiked Is this the Church of England’s Arday affair?
Prof Biggar’s “Colonialism” should be mandatory reading for those ill-informed members of the CofE who lemming-like rush towards the brink of a wholly misinformed attempt to redress history. USPG who actually inherited slaves at Coddrington, made financial reparations in its tercentary year but continue to seek to assuage historic guilt with study and future financial payment.
Bp Arora should recognize that the church is all to ready to cry ‘guilty’ to many a charge afteer his years in communications!
SPG (as it then was) piously had its slaves branded “Society” on the chest, and ran their Codrington estates with slaves right to the bitter end. There was no early emancipation for their slaves, even while sailors of the Royal Navy were fighting & dying to suppress the slave trade. So no, I do not have any time or sympathy for today’s USPG.
The death of Jason Arday is such a sad tragedy. Very unfortunately, the horrible pile-on which seems to have led to it is carried over even beyond his death. Quiet and sober decency would be a better and kinder response. For that reason Nigel Biggar should not have used the Arday story as some sort of prop to his main discussion about Project Spire.There was no need to bring Jason Arday into the discussion at all because all the relevant points could have been set out directly and have been equally persuasive. No, the Commissioners’ flawed logic and decisions over… Read more »
Thank you for phrasing it this way, I was struggling to articulate how disgusted I was by the post. Biggar’s recent blogs have become increasingly insensitive and inflammatory.
Seconded.
Thank you for this. The more I have read and re-read the Biggar article the more appalled about such disgraceful – much of it unfounded and unproven allegations against Jason Arday. If this is the face of the Christian Tory party – then I want nothing to do with it. At what point do some of these people realise they may have been part of the cause of Arday’s suicide, and that they may have black blood on their hands.
deleted.
So has Jason Arday been deleted – by conscious or unconscious toxicity. May he Rest in Peace.
I just wrote something which on reflection I did not wish to post!
If you ask us nicely, one of the editors can remove such comments.
Indeed, I have done so and have been grateful for the understanding. However, I wonder whether I am alone in wishing that the editors would totally close further discussion about a recently deceased man which has been so widely disrespectful of that fact, whatever he might, or might not, have done. Some of the commentary here must have been among the most uncharitable and inappropriate that I can ever recall reading on TA.
I agree, Rowland, but when the articles themselves are the most uncharitable and inappropriate I too can ever recall (as well as vile) – it tends to unleash equally strong held opinions.
Yes, but largely in the wrong direction. Now there is to be an independent review (not a C of E one). Is it too much to hope that people will wait to find out what it says?
Apart from the disrespect, there have been examples of how moral issues can feed absolutism. The pity is that the Church has the vocabulary to speak to this without collapsing into either moral relativism or denying someone their humanity.
If Jason Arday had just been a private individual, you would be right.
He was not a private individual. He held a leading academic position at a public institution which is in receipt of very large amounts of public money.
Furthermore, he was involved in the training of teachers who would, for the most part, work in state education. In other words, they will directly influence many, many thousands of people for two or more generations.
It is therefore absolutely a matter that demands public attention and debate.
Spot on.
There Is to be an independent inquiry by Cambridge University and an inquest into the death. The former will address the issues authoritatively and it would be courteous of people (with no apparent standing) to leave it to the reviewer, whoever that might be and comment afterwards.
Obviously no one can know what might emerge at the inquest, but having pointed out that the family has retained a KC I might have expected TA contributors to ponder on its possible relevance.
Our standing, Rowland, is that we pay taxes.
This is a free country. If a group of private individuals wanted to employ Jason Arday to offer lectures on sociology, they could have done so.
That did not happen.
The issues surrounding his appointment are matters of public concern because the public largely pay for the education services in this country.
There is not the remotest justification for the assertion that tax payers must defer to whoever might be appointed as a reviewer.
Nigel, You are entirely missing the point of Biggar’s piece. I am not saying I agree with him, but his argument needs to be recognised for its actual content. His point is that Arday is the victim of an ideology which left him in a position beyond his competence. That same ideology – Biggar argues – is also the basis for Project Spire. His logic is perfectly reasonable. The reason for the “pile-on” as you describe it is that one of the supposedly best universities in the world has been revealed to be appointing people for reasons other than academic… Read more »
Peter, the problem for a lot of us is that the press ‘pile on ‘ was directed at the person who if he had been promoted beyond his capability for reasons other than his academic merit – and I am not convinced that there is total certainly over this- then the pile on destroyed the person who was the victim, not the villain.
May he rest in peace, and may his family find comfort in their grief
I’m afraid that is simply not accurate or fair.
There was a huge focus on the decisions made by the academic authorities at Cambridge and elsewhere.
Hi Peter, which bit do you think inaccurate and unfair? I agree that there was a ‘huge focus’ on decisions made by academic authorities but I was far from satisfied that those focusing had sufficient information to reach the conclusions they did, and the subsequent character assassination of the unfortunate Professor Arday was in my view entirely unjustified and probably just an attempt to keep the story running in the silly season . After all , ‘Fat white ex public school boy accused of plagiarism’ wouldn’t sell many newspapers! It also sounds as though Professor A’s original accuser is in… Read more »
I have a family member who makes this all rather personal for me. Martin sewell is my cousin (not the Martin Sewell known on TA). He has a web site https://www.martinsewell.com/ which has a link ‘academia’ where he talks about intelligence, race and gender. I thought he had grown out of it,but I recently saw some of his posts on LinkedIn expounding discredited views on race and intelligence. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/tragedy-jason-arday-english-oscar-hammerstein-mbxje/ https://martinsewell.substack.com/p/the-tragic-case-of-jason-arday The response to the article by Edmund Price is worth studying. Also see https://substack.com/@eprice31/note/c-316265326 Not surprising, my mixed race children and black wife do not talk to him at family… Read more »
I thought I read that the man in Ghent had been suspended by the university there. I was also under the impression that Cambridge was undertaking its own investigation, and yet people chose to comment and condemn without waiting and without any substantive evidence.
Yes, the other Nigel (Biggar) starts by saying he was serially dishonest. A few days after his suicide.
Replies to both Nigel and Rowland. Nigel I’m so sorry. It must be hard for you and your immediate family .
Rowland you are quite right. My brother is a well respected Cambridge emeritus ( NOT a theologian !)who has views on the press coverage which are among the reasons why I am so sceptical about many of the conclusions jumped to . And of course it provides an excuse to rubbish Cambridge as well .
It is wonderful that so many people enjoy 20:20 vision when they are applying hindsight
thanks. We are well used to him. He decided to work in Dubai after his father’s death, so we try to keep in touch with his mother. He has some history at Cambridge. I think my point is that these kinds of people who have racist/eugenics agenda can have convoluted private lives. They also illustrate the ability of some to make what seems to be sense, but actually after digging a bit it turns out to be garbage. Hence why I found Edmund Price responses of interest. It takes a lot of expertise to demolish these arguments. I have a… Read more »
This might provide helpful details of the Ghent academic accused of initiating the Arday pile-on. It seems he himself had been accused by other Ghent academics of being a diversity hire with insufficient academic credentials. And some of his work has a racist, almost eugenicist, flavour.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/aug/27/ghent-professors-challenged-expertise-jason-arday-plagiarism-accuser
Read this. It is obviously a matter of public interest
https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/jason-arday-and-the-church-of-england/
Just came across this from Andrew Gelman, who is a leading authority on statistics.
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2026/08/27/258/
Thoughts?
I don’t think it’s “pearl clutching” (there’s an accusation we now seem to hear all the time) to object to rhetoric lacking even a shred of everyday decorum, and with not a crumb of Christian charity.
Have you actually read Biggar’s article ?
He begins it with a clear sense of recognition of the personal tragedy at the centre of the story.
In he first paragraph he accuses hm of serial dishonesty.
Arday said things that are not true. Biggar is entitled to reference that fact
Yes, I have, and was appalled, for the reasons other contributors have highlighted.
I am old enough and conservative enough to remember a time when we all knew that the dead should be treated with care, that their mortal remains should not be tossed about. “Send not to ask for whom the bell tolls.It tolls for thee.” And it tolls too for thee, Nigel Biggar. I understand the point that Biggar is making but I strongly object to his casual commandeering of Jason Arday’s story in this way. (Which is not to say that I am unconcerned about the way Arday was lionised beyond what was reasonable by people who should have known… Read more »
His point is that the same ideology which gave rise to the tragedy of the death of Jason Arday, is now at work in the systemic tragedy of Project Spire.
You, presumably, disagree. However, he clearly cannot advance his argument without reference to Arday’s death.
My opinion about Project Spire is likely much the same as Nigel Biggar’s but it was wrong that he chose to critique it in the way he did. Obviously it is regretable that a person of Nigel Biggar’s stature felt the need for his position to be underpinned by a bandwagon but there you are. The issues about Project Spire are much too important to be mangled in this way. You cannot be correct in saying Biggar cannot advance his argument without reference to the late Dr Arday. If that man had not died how would Biggar have advanced his… Read more »
You have mis-represented me.
I did not say his argument cannot be advanced without reference to Arday.
I have made an entirely different point.
Biggar’s article is logically coherent and merits consideration. That is the only point I have made if you actually read my words.
Telling people they should not be saying something is a road to nowhere – or worse.
Peter, what we are questioning is Biggar’s (and yours) assumption that it is now proved that Arday’s was a diversity hire beyond his competence.
That has not been proved. Arday had many supporters as well the well known detractors.
The arguments against him have been put forward by an academic with known racist views and a social media agenda, and a series of right wing newspapers whose motivations might be questioned.
Meanwhile any number of white male academics who actually have been promoted beyond their competence, or accused of plagiarism, never grace the pages of the Daily Telegraph.
Even racists and people motivated by agendas sometimes tell the truth.
Which male white academics do you have in mind?
The stopped clock argument. But the rest of the time the clock is telling the wrong time (and is stopped all the time). A racist can only be judged to be ‘telling the truth’ if either a) there is no racist aspect to their statement (which may be as likely as a stopped clock telling the ‘right’ time or b) the one doing the judging deems their racist statements to be ‘true’. Which did you have in mind?
I don’t think the truth value of Cofnas’ tabulation of Arday’s alleged (and to me plainly demonstrated) plagiarism could possibly be affected in any way by Cofnas’ worldview.
The motivation seems to me vengeful, but the truth laid bare is actually objective.
If anyone really believes that this was not plagiarism, then the entire disciplines of NT source and redaction criticism (for starters) go up in smoke.
The words – copied or lightly edited (in obfuscatory ways) from another person’s work (nowhere referenced by Arday) – simply speak for themselves.
Is Thinking Anglicans really the place to litigate plagiarism in Cambridge? And is academic rigour really the ‘truth value’ that you think is at issue here?
‘Stopped Clock’?
That’s a woefully inadequate analogy.
A stopped clock only says one thing all the time.
People whose ideas may be morally or philosophically faulty can say all sorts of different things all the time, some of which may be patently true.
A racist might expound integral calculus brilliantly.
A critical race theorist might have an unimpeachable grasp of plant genetics.
Yes, and they might make the trains run on time also. But pray tell the relevance of this to Christian ethics — I won’t say Christian charity — for surely that is the context of this discussion on Thinking Anglicans.
I fear it was Nigel Biggar who set the ball rolling. I really did not want to comment, but felt I had to to balance certain posts.
We could all quote lots of relevant scripture..
Openmind.
“Even racists and people motivated by agendas sometimes tell the truth.”
Agreed. But one of the great insights from Michel Foucault is about the power of institutions such as the press or academia to create and impose a discourse which becomes widely accepted as truthful, even when the discourse has no basis in fact.
Such discourses are often used by the powerful to maintain their own position and suppress minority groups.
In this case I think Foucault’s explanation is more helpful and more likely.
With best wishes.
Cambridge University used its power to create a discourse in which Arday was portrayed as a star scholar.
Sadly, his own collusion with that disastrous narrative led to nemesis.
Seriously ?
Arday made a public claim that he was in the Television Series Seven Up.
I have watched him make the claim with my own eyes.
He was born two decades after the series was started and the people in the series never change. That is the point of the series.
He should never have been appointed to a position of public responsibility.
Stop muddying the waters with the notion it’s all being got up by people who have no grasp of the facts.
I have seen Farage lie with my two eyes on national television. You remember, the ‘let me tell you some facts’ regarding NHS tourism and HIV.
He conveniently ignored people who were British and were born outside the UK.
When I examined the government statistics, NHS tourism was at the level of about 0.04%.
When do you know when Farage is going to lie? When he says he is going to tell facts.
What on earth has Nigel Farage got to do with it
Because calling out farage as a liar is much more important than calling out Arday as a liar. I have yet to see many here calling out farage. not even on the posts about the church and right wing movements. Maybe I missed it. Or maybe Farage’s reputation as a litigant plays a role. The danger, when defending someone, is that one appears to be aligning with others who are clearly beyond the pale. I hope you fight racist views such as Cofnas and my cousin (who also explicitly attacked Arday). Do not confuse trying to treat Arday with dignity… Read more »
Why is Farage relevant as a response to Peter? “As Farage was a liar so too Arday?” I don’t follow.
“The arguments against him have been put forward by an academic with known racist views and a social media agenda, and a series of right wing newspapers whose motivations might be questioned.”
And also the Guardian, who undoubtedly have their faults but are neither of the above.
If people don’t like the tone or ideological track records of Cofnas and Biggar, and thus dismiss what they say about Arday a priori, do have a look at what Tina Beattie, Ian Paul and Kathleen Stock have to say. Unless they too are automatically beyond the pale. If folk still think Arday was a credible academic and public figure afterwards, then I wish them good luck in navigating the reality of the world.
i don’t like the track record of Cofnas, I certainly think he was biased and had a clear agenda (just look at his writings), but I can judge situations for myself without being influenced by these kinds of bad actors.
You are digging. Questioning Arday’s competence. Questioning his academic merit. What is missing is common sense. What is the chance of finding academic fault with a random professor at any UK university? Quite high, given enough scrutiny. What is the chance of finding academic fault with a professor who admits neural divergence and was not raised in an academic culture and was subject to intense scrutiny? Think about it. Next, think about criteria for appointment. Are professors only judged on academic work and research breakthroughs? Maybe they are appointed because they are good teachewrs? Maybe because they bring something to… Read more »
Almost as a side-note, you raise an important point, Nigel. Cambridge isn’t ‘any UK university’. The press has a particular obsession with Oxford and Cambridge. Imperial gets far less coverage despite being higher rated in many disciplines, And a university like Warwick, which is really good, is covered hardly at all.
Cambridge does well out of the enhanced coverage, sufficiently so that it could afford to make its recruitment processes robust enough that when questions are asked, the case for an appointment is already clear and doesn’t need investigating.
Quite. It might also help if we considered the criteria for making this appointment. We don’t need to know the criteria, but many commentators seem to think it was purely published quality academic work. I would expect there to have been other criteria as well. It’s like appointing bishops – there are certain things that a diocese needs at various times, maybe sometimes a kick up the ****, maybe sometimes more of an integrator to a disruptive staff, but what if all bishops were appointed on the basis of deep theological published books? Here is a thought – students at… Read more »
The criteria are in the public domain. https://www.hr.admin.cam.ac.uk/files/educationprof.pdf
You are being a little too condescending, Nigel.
Are you seriously suggesting that Arday’s appointment was entirely on the basis of merit ? Cambridge went to very considerable lengths to highlight other matters.
I was taught by a Nobel prize winner, Maurice Wilkins, though quite why you reference Nobel laureates is a mystery.
Biggar’s article is a perspective that needs to be considered.
No mystery at all. There is a spectrum between those appointed for academic excellence and those appointed for teaching ability.
Some manage to be outstanding in both spheres.
Thank you, my thoughts exactly. It also seemed to me to be unchristian & judgemental. Let hewho has no sin…
…gripe on TA.
RIP. Concerning the Arday cae. enough has been written, so I won’t directly discuss. but I will look at the Sally Clark case for inspiration. which also resulted in death. The similarity is striking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark 1. The prosecutor fallacy. Sally was not an independent sample, She was prosecuted. So no analysis should have treated her as an independent sample. 2. Probabilities should always be compared. Chance of two murders in Sally’s case need to be compared with the probability of two sudden infant death syndrome. In each case the probability is very small. The fact that the probability of a… Read more »
Sadly, you are wrong about the Sally Clark case. Legal sources all agree that the 1 in 73 million remark was not what convicted her, nor was it what made her second appeal successful. My opinion is that she was probably guilty, but she got off. After that we have hagiography, “Poor Saint Sally, hounded to death by evil doctors”. And, she was an alcoholic before all this kicked off, and not one only after the time in prison. And since we are talking vengeance, look at what happened afterwards with the disgraceful pursuit of Prof Meadow, aided and abetted… Read more »
What a strange response. It is very well established that probabilities should only be used to compare two different cases. Denis Lindley was very clear about this. The ‘prosecutor fallacy’ is very well known.
It is kind of obvious to anybody involved in statistics and probability.
I won’t say how it applies to Arday, it should be obvious.
Or maybe you have a strange sense of humour, and your post was not meant to be taken seriously?
We don’t have to attack each other in such a polarised way, because two things can be true at once. It is true that Meadows’ statistical evidence was plain wrong and he should never have given it. It is also true that it was not the statistical evidence and the prosecutor’s fallacy that were the core reason Clark’s second appeal was successful – that was the microbiology evidence that Alan Williams had withheld at trial (and the generally unsatisfactory handling of the pathology). You and I may feel so outraged at the abuse of statistics (and at the failings of… Read more »
i agree of course that misuse of statistics was only one of the issues, albeit an important one. But I don’t like being told I was wrong, nor the rest of naughtiest’s post. I have read quite a lot about the case, as I have used it in my teaching to reservoir engineers. I never said nor implied that misuse of statistics was the main reason for the conviction. I was simply saying there was some misuse of statistics, and that misuse may teach us regarding Arday. I tend to be very careful what I write, don’t assume things I… Read more »
No! It was not an issue at all. Just an error which it is agreed did not sway the jury. The fact that you persist will now make me view any of your comments with circumspection. Her kids had injuries of the nai sort.
No- misuse of statistics was NOT one of the issues; it was peripheral. I’ve read a lot about it too and was working when it all kicked off, and the appeals and the witch-hunt of Prof Meadow afterwards, aided and abetted by the rabidly anti-doctor GMC.
I’ve met a lot of autistic people in my work btw.
And there is no prosecution of Arday: he’s dead.
I suggest waiting till as many of the facts as possible are available.
Meanwhile, Saint Sally Clark is in the early stages of canonization.
So Wikepedia and the quotes from the judges at the appeal court in the second appeal were fabricated?
Wikepedia directly contradicts your statements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark
I will leave it there unless you persist in your misfacts.
I’m not talking about Arday. I am pointing out your error in referring to the Sally Clark case.
Ever read what Profs Spiegelhalter and Hill wrote about the case? Ever read the letter from the Royal Statistical Society?
The topic is prior Bayesian beliefs, which is directly relevant to Arday.
It is also relevant to most matters of public debate.
No, because the stats didn’t influence the verdict. And I make no comment about Arday here and probably never will, as we will never have the whole story. But what do you think about the witch hunt perpetrated against Prof Meadow?
Nope, and don’t intend to. Everyone has their opinion. I’ve read enough of it over the years.
The question of whether a job applicant satisfies the essential requirements has nothing to do with Bayesian statistics. Nowadays all academic published papers (required for criteria such as research assessment) can be accessed on Google Scholar. Since many or most of the people you reference are my friends and colleagues and I have been an elector for more than one Cambridge chair I have some knowledge of the system. Please don’t confuse “established chairs” with those who hold professorial titles. I am confining myself to facts not opinions.
i don;t have a clue what you are talking about or what post you are responding to. Maybe if i replaced the word ‘prior Bayesian beliefs’ with ‘prejudices’ it may help?
The Andrew Cornes case has more to do with the abusive canning culture widespread and legal in private schools until 1998, than churches. In the early 1980’s. It would have been very difficult to even consider challenging this culture which was so ingrained in the higher echelons of British society, and then taken to an extreme under Smythe into Christian summer camps with such horrific consequences and with no direct line of accountability to the church. Where would one start? Scapegoating is something the church should know an lot about.
Only one of the beatings actually occurred at Iwerne. The rest were on private property, mostly in Smyth’s shed. As a lay reader he did of course have some accountability to the C of E, and in any case almost all of the Iwerne leaders who knew about the beatings were Anglican clergy and certainly accountable to the Church. The rationale for them was specifically ‘Christian’ and quite distinct from public school practice, though of course that culture provided a context.
Scapegoating- a common strand to the pieces feeding this TA thread. I call to mind the Holman Hunt’s ‘other’ picture located in a side chapel at Keble College Oxford. To ‘see’ it requires on to ‘switch on the light’ to provide illumination- a reminder of much that is involved in ‘seeing’- sorry for my poor powers of expression. Savi speaks with feeling of blaming ‘others’; Stephen sees Andrew Cornes as ‘standing in’ and carrying the can for his ‘superiors’; Robert brings compassion to those erring and straying; Nigel sadly sees fault in Prof Arday, a neurodivergent individual given understanding by… Read more »
To be clear, I think you are referring to Nigel Biggar?
Being clear I hope. Indeed Savi, Stephen, Robert and Nigel are the Christian (?First?) names of the authors of the four Opinion pieces at the head of this now rather extended thread. and to whom I was making reference. <Control F> takes me to 78 uses now of ‘Nigel’ in this thread, including of yourself (and ‘replies’ thereto), Nigel Ashworth, Nigel Farage and Prof Biggar.
I think it’s more helpful to point to the actual failings of what happened rather than claiming that these things are somehow theological or indeed that conservative evangelicalism is shallow or unintellectual. (I’m not convinced either are true by the by, I’ve found it quite rigorous in comparison to theological liberalism personally). That isn’t why Smyth abused people. Smyth abused people because of a massive abuse of power, class based elitism and a cult of personality. All of which should be rooted right out. The Titus Trust camp idea that we should find the most influential people to share the… Read more »
Gareth,
You seriously mis represent the work of The Titus Trust.
It seeks to take the Gospel to young people attending Independent Schools.
It does so because there are quite a lot of them and they need to hear the Gospel – not because they may be influential at some future point.
Why do you think Nash explicitly limited entry to pupils from the top 30 public schools to begin with?
Feeding this elitism created the environment at these camps, when really the good news of Christ is for everyone.
There’s zero reason why we should have created that culture.
Male only elite as well
Nash died 42 years ago
Let’s people not even born when he died – and Smyth was engaging in his iniquitous behaviour – move on
The entire culture of these camps is hugely influenced by him to this day.
The culture of these camps is still driven by this idea.
Why move on?
The better thing is to root out toxic cultures like this that do the gospel a disservice.
Particularly when at a minimum it’s fair to say they enable abuse.
It’s done a lot of damage to conservative evangelicalism in the UK.
The literature I have read suggests that at least at some stage others who applied to attend would be politely excluded. The targeting was intentional and intentionally exclusive.
But this was not uniformly the case – John Smyth, for example, came from beyond this narrow pool, though I think he entered the circle as a leader rather than an attendee.
The abusive caning in question was not administered in school. It was not administered by an employee of Winchester College. Mr Cornes has not claimed that he saw the abusive caning as an acceptable part of public school culture. He simply did not see it as any of his responsibility to take steps to avoid further abusive caning did not take place.
He wasn’t an employee of Winchester College.
I worked in the nhs. Even now whistleblowing is a career ending move. So much more in the 80s. I saw things perpetrated by one consultant that would have had him struck off now. Am I to be dragged before a GMC kangaroo court for not doing anything in 1982 when a lot of people more senior to me knew what was going on. The bloke in question ended up with a CBE and lots of laurels. Should have been in prison.
Sorry, I didn;t see your little word ‘not’.
That is the point I was making.
I really wonder about the value – or even the point – of digging up the past to make apologies or reparations. Every organisation has historical skeletons in the cupboard as a result of what were seen to be normal actions and views at their time. Should the Presbyterians apologise and make reparation to the monarchy for the beheading of Charles I? I could go on. Fortunately ‘Time like an ever-rolling stream bears all its sons away.’ Let us work to make the Gospel available and relevant to the N million inhabitants of England for whom the C of E… Read more »
Thank you. I won’t unpack ‘normal’ here, but I think that righteous indignation is most usefully channeled into challenging and addressing similar current abuses. I have in mind exporting our ‘too difficult’ waste to places where we can’t see the damage it does, ranging from waste clothing on African shores to dead ships in India. Or perhaps spare a thought for plastic residues in the oceans? And recall the heartless historical exploitation of the un voiced here: children in mines for a start? We congratulate ourselves on our reforming zeal, often gospel driven, but the wealth so created does linger… Read more »
Presbyterians? More the Independents and Congregationalists, if anybody, although I do seem to be missing the point.
I too wonder about the point of these reparations, and if it is thought to be right and appropriate why just one issue.
The Church of England was complicit in the harrasing, pursuit and execution of Catholic priests and lay people in England in the 16th and 17th century. Does this not, then, call for apologies and reparation?
The Church of England’s record in relation to Protestant dissenters is not all that wonderful either.
But that would involve painful stuff like handing back Canterbury Cathedral and York Minster, with would make our Archbishops feel less important. Much more fun to spend £100 million of other peoples’ money.
Listening to Gordon Brown on the Today programme this morning he points the finger at the break down in social capital, of time invested in social gatherings and volunteering, as driving the rise of extremist views and divisions. The ‘silent generation’ was particularly good at meeting up and volunteering, but without this investment in social capital only governments can fix individual grievances, whether on the far left or far right. Ideas of National Unity cannot just point the finger over divisions at the far right, the far left are equally culpable, Just as unity as a theological objective conjured out… Read more »
Yes Gordon Brown wrote a piece in The Guardian today which is worth reading.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/aug/26/world-people-dangerous-politics-global-public-human-rights
It’s interesting to be able to read Nigel Biggar’s piece, but I regard Spiked! as a sort of online, downmarket, Daily Wail and never now read it. (I subscribed for a year, but found it a sandpit for trolls, Putin supporters and outright racists.) Having read Robert Thomson’s article, where he seems to be saying, “No more fuel on the fire”, yet seems to be sprinkling just a little himself, I think it adds nothing much really. I doubt we’ll ever hear the whole story.
I unfortunately also clicked on the link to the article on Spiked by Julie Burchill re. Harry and Megan. No, not everybody feels a disgust for them, many admire them. I am one of those. Forgive and move on.
Is there an “edit” button? DOI- mildly dyslexic, or perhaps just bad at writing and spelling, and/or as my Grammar School teachers seemed to think- lazy.
Other than in exceptional circumstances (which would have to be justified) any future disciplinary proceedings in situations similar to the Church’s response to the Makin Report will have to be held in public under the Clergy Conduct Measure. It seems that we could be witnessing the final fling of the CDM hearings in private.
Thank you Rowland for making this important point. Bishops often tried to tidy away their dirty linen by insisting that even the existence of a complaint under the CDM was confidential. This was very difficult to enforce with complainants who were voluble about their grievances and over whom the bishop had little sanction. It inhibited respondents who needed to secure evidence in their defence. I seem to remember, though I may be mistaken, that lawyers had suggested that the secrecy requirement might have been overturned by the higher courts if a challenge had been brought; as the principle of open… Read more »
This is the Clergy Conduct Measure 2026 as now passed into law: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukcm/2026/1/contents The best answer I can give to your question is to refer you to section 31 (3) and (4): (3) The tribunal or court is to sit in public except— (a) in circumstances in which the tribunal or court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to sit in private, or (b) in such circumstances as the rules may specify. (4) Where the tribunal or court is to sit in public, it may exclude such persons as it decides from the whole or part… Read more »
A follow-up to my earlier reply. I have now located the Rules (they are very lengthy) and quote verbatim below: Tribunal or court sitting in private 57.—(1) The circumstances in which the tribunal or court may sit in private for the purposes of section 31 (3) (b) of the CCM are those in which it is satisfied that doing so is necessary— (a) to protect the privacy of a child or protected party giving evidence in person, or (b) to prevent prejudice to the proceedings. Where it is ordered that the hearing is to be in private, the press are not included in the list of those… Read more »
My cynical mind wonders whether the powers-that-be in the C of E are waiting for the legal challenges to Project Spire to bring it to a halt so that they can shrug their shoulders and deny any responsibility for its demise. One wonders how much will be spent in legal costs before those legal processes have run their course.
I think that’s likely. If legally scuppered, the powers can say to the supporters of spire that they were trying to do something, while agreeing with its detractors that, in fact, it’s proper that they can’t.
The personal tragedy suffered by Jason Arday and his family cannot be appropriated to shut down public comment on matters of public concern.
University professors hold positions of public influence and trust.
There has to be a public debate over the obvious grounds for concern in regard to the role that Arday occupied.
Nor can the debate be shut down on the grounds that “nobody actually knows anything”
Arday made public statements in regard to his public roles. They are in the public domain.
Sorry- Why? Surely that is for the University in the first instance ? And should never have been piggy backed by Nigel Biggar in the way it was . It’s funny that very high ranking
politicians making totally misleading statements don’t seem to whip up so much moralising , even in August …
The University is the subject of the public concern.
University professors hold positions of public influence and trust.
Since when?
Apparently there are about 22 full time professors in the department of education at Cambridge, out of 48 academic staff.
Thank you to Savi Hensman for her second thoughtful article in which, among other things, she spells out very clearly her use of the terms that triggered much discussion after her first blog. However the impression is that interest here has quickly moved elsewhere.
There is a relentless insistence on this thread that Biggar had no business commenting on Arday.
Ian Paul comprehensively repudiates this claim
https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/jason-arday-and-the-church-of-england/
Ian Paul does a poor job debunking Conas’ claims regarding race. His link leads to an article which seems to support Conas, or at least not critically review it. Something funny going on. There are certainly scholars who easily debunk Conas. Oh yes – East African runners – consider the altitude training, consider monetary rewards, and consider Lassie Viren and Ingebrigtsen and Josh Kerr. Maybe even my hero David Bedford, who still helps out at NALmatches at Shaftesbury Harriers. Also consider the variety in East Africa. I worked with Kikuyus, and nobody would say they had the same physicque as… Read more »
Interesting, dad coached athletics in Uganda 60 years ago. He also worked in the education dept at L-JMU. They would have been very proud to have produced a Cambridge professor, and the university has a good tribute here – https://www.ljmu.ac.uk/about-us/news/articles/2026/8/14/ljmu-statement-professor-jason-arday Isn’t this unbearably sad? It’s about someone we’ve lost far too early, and about technical issues to do with recruitment processes. Cambridge University will get through it. It’s brought us research by Newton, Maxwell, Stokes, Rutherford, Bose, Dirac, Chadwick, Salaam and Hawking – and that’s just in one field. Perhaps best to let them get on with it and trust… Read more »
No one is saying that Peter. What is being criticised is his tone and content. I have similar concerns about Ian Paul’s blog, who, perhaps predictably, is on Biggar’s side in all this. For me the most profound reflection was by Rowan Williams. But, like Rowland Wateridge, I think most of us are not qualified to comment.
David,
I think you need to re-read the comments. There are repeated claims by multiple commentators which say the matter should not be the subject of public comment.
If you are a tax payer and/or expect to live in this country in the future (subject to the influence of teachers in state schools) you are qualified to comment
In addition to the University’s independent inquiry mentioned below, the Coroner has appointed an inquest and Professor Arday’s family are to be represented by a KC. Let’s leave this to the proper legal authorities.
Nobody is commenting on the cause of death, Rowland.
You are conflating two entirely different matters.
The public debate is on matters in the public domain and in regard to public policy and the use of public money – with reference to the quality of teacher training in this country and the appointment of people to well paid jobs in the public higher education sector.
I do wish you would acknowledge there is a distinction between the two matters.
i could have been more blunt and said “common decency” and “respect for the deceased’s mourning family”.
The Coroner’s powers extend beyond merely determining the cause of death and recent experience shows that Senior Coroners are using those powers.
I find your last sentence offensive, and it is not the first time from you. So I politely close this exchange as my final word.
Rowland,
I obviously have no wish to offend you personally.
You have repeatedly asserted that further comment on Arday was inappropriate.
Tax payers money is being squandered by people who should know better in higher education.
Public debate is therefore essential. Hence my admonishment in the face of your calls for silence.
On your point about the powers of the Coroner, their prerogative to comment on public policy does not mean it ceases to be public Policy.
Again, taxpayers can and must be part of the debate
I have just learned, and think the source is reliable, that Cambridge University has decided that their internal investigation is to become an independent inquiry – whether by an academic or a lawyer was not indicated. But this, I suggest, should call a halt to all comment until something authoritative is available.
Why is there this insistence that comment is in some sense inappropriate until some “expert” or other has given an “authoritative” ruling.
What possible grounds are there for claiming the proper course of action is for everybody to wait in silence until one person (or a very small number of people) tell us how we should understand the situation.
Facts are in the public domain, Rowland.
Furthermore, deference to “experts” is long since passed as a public sentiment – almost entirely for the good.
I am going to wait for the outcomes of the inquiry and the inquest. I suggest others do the same. It must be significant that a KC has been retained by Professor Arday’s family.
I am sure we all agree that is the right thing to do in regard to the cause of death.
The public debate is on an entirely different matter and therefore can and will continue.
In regard to the university inquiry – it is the University that is the subject of the central complaints.
You cannot expect public debate to be suspended until the University tells us the conclusions it has reached about itself.
(Yes, I know, the inquiry will be “independent”. A healthy skepticism is needed when organisations set up their own “independent” inquiry)
Leaving aside the echoes of Michael Gove ca 2016, the consequences of which it might be argued have not been ‘almost entirely for the good’, I wonder how you square your dismissal of public deference to “experts” with episcopal authority (as I take it from your very active presence on this site that you are an Anglican)?
‘The facts are in the public domain’. So we are all experts now are we?
We are all – or at least the vast majority of us – are tax payers.
We are perfectly entitled to consider and reach conclusions on public expenditure.
It’s called democracy, David.
Quite. Whether on Arday or on propagating the unedifying and unsupported views of Conas.
An inquest into Professor Arday’s death has now been opened and adjourned to a further hearing. Professor Arday’s family have instructed a prominent legal firm and a KC has been retained.
Thank you for this news, Mr Wateridge. Can we now leave matters to the coroner, or is he or she to be dismissed as one of Peter’s ‘experts’?
Alan,
The Coroner will reach conclusions on the cause of death. Nobody is commenting on the cause of death.
The debate is on public policy as it relates to higher education.
Rowland has conflated two entirely different matters
I’ll put it this way, Peter. If the coroner decided to summon a jury (possible, if unlikely) and you were one of ‘the twelve good men and true’, would you survive a challenge from Jason Arday’s counsel given your views? I suspect your argument of being a taxpayer would fail to impress.
Alan,
I have never at any point offered a view or commented on the cause of death of Jason Arday.
Please do not insinuate that I have done so.
I can only pray that none of Professor Arday’s family and particularly his children ever stumble across this thread. A non expert if rather coarse view of some of the posts is that there is an attempt by a few contributors to piss on Professor Arday’s grave.
This is the point at which I part company with the site – I can bear it no longer
Susanna, I have had similar feelings, and with some sadness. However, I have stated my position clearly, feeling that I have been beating my head against a brick wall and insulted in the process. Please don’t leave TA. You have valuable specialist insights to counter some of the, shall we say, less thoughtful or knowledgeable contributions here.
I’ve been on the verge of making the same decision. There are some very informed voices on this site, and while I might find some of their views difficult, they are certainly thoughtful, and recognisably Anglican, and they help me to think through my own difficulties with the wider Church of England today. So I am grateful for them, as indeed I am for this site. However there have been an increasing number of contributors of late who seem more interested in antagonism than dialogue. Again, the problem is not that I might disagree with their views, but rather that… Read more »
* do not
“…but rather that I do experience them as thoughtful, or even Anglican, frankly.” Or perhaps even Christian. However, the editors of TA remain commendably dispassionate and patient, at least within the limits of their original terms of reference. Though at times their patience must surely be strained to the utmost. Whereas two other prominent ‘Anglican’ blogs (one of which is now happily defunct) have functioned as clearing houses for some of the most malignant and repulsive people anywhere on the internet, at least as far as I have experienced it to date. If those other blogs and their BTL commentary… Read more »
I have my differences with the moderators of TA, but I have nothing but admiration for the time they put into moderating the site. They have also resisted the temptation to monetise the site with adverts for tee shirts and coffee mugs etc. It is the only reason it is a functioning and useful public forum within Anglicanism. To the best of my knowledge they all have lives and jobs and much else to do with their time. Perhaps we can all agree on nothing else, but we should at least unite in appreciating their sacrificial service.- now over a… Read more »
Well Said! I have learnt a great deal from TA and am grateful to the moderators and contributors.
I originally stumbled across TA as a useful place to find assorted bits of news gathered together in one place. I sometimes wonder whether this site might be better if it just published the links to assorted articles and turned off the comment facility. My observation of blogs generally is that the comments can often degenerate into unpleasantness. I wonder if anything useful would be lost if the ability to comment on here were removed.
Given the obsessive and repetitive nature of the threads on this site, perhaps we should give thanks that the Anglican blogosphere is no larger than it is.
Someone was recently asking the editors (of whom I share your admiration) for a ‘like’ button. I’m beginning to wonder whether an ‘ignore’ one might be more practical.
Susanna (no ‘h’ ), please stay. You bring practical, thoughtful and insightful experience in response to some challenging matters and subsequent comments. Your meaningful responses are valued. Best wishes.
Even stronger words have been used by academics at Ghent in a letter written some months ago.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DBWrDsF1k38Kqw1ToaZf4Os4rWAtmPcU
That link didn’t work for me, but this one does:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VvFG1Y-ZhHV0NvkJ1iaq94TX_-qYj7NuGZVtrax3G2g/edit?tab=t.0
Thank you for fixing that. As you know I have written some other posts which have not appeared. Given the Cambridge enquiry, the Ghent enquiry and the coroner’s involvement, it is understandable that we should be reticent – these are litigious times. Nevertheless, the above link covers most of the points I was trying to make, and most on TA have enough intelligence (black or white!) to connect the dots. I heartily recommend thorough reading of this link, plus all the links and references within it. I would also suggest reflecting on Savi’s message regarding the right-wing threat, and what… Read more »
Bingo!
Nigel Biggar was a signatory of a letter which concluded ‘Therefore we urge Ghent University to protect Dr Cofnas from being punished for exercising his academic freedom.”
On checking Simon your link does not work for me, whereas my link does work.
Another source may be
https://veryironica.hotglue.me/?start.head.178307018850&download=1
Thank you, and others, for the recent comments of support. I ought to have pointed Peter to the sad case of Fr Alan Griffin. The Senior Coroner served formal statutory notices known as Prevention of Future Deaths Reports (these are not mere letters) requiring responses from the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London and the RC Diocese of Westminster. It was that action which brought to light all the unhappy details of the ‘brain dump’ and its consequences, eventually leading, in the case of the C of E, to a formal apology.
I am sure you are right, Rowland.
In regard to the cause of death we must all hope and expect that the Coroner will use their powers to the full extent.
Nobody is commenting on cause of death.
The debate is about public money and policy.
‘Nobody is commenting on cause of death’. Actually, the author of the article you are so busy defending did in his first paragraph: ‘…the hand that killed him was his own. Yet his death was still a tragedy. He’d become so trapped in a fantasy about himself, it seems, that when reality finally broke in, Nemesis came with it. A terrible reckoning caused the self he’d invented to disintegrate. It must have seemed to him that black nothing remained.’ And while on the subject, I doubt I am the only one to find his choice of words in the last… Read more »
You mis represent me.
I am not defending Biggar’s article. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
I object to the claim that he should not be heard.
Furthermore, my comment that nobody is commenting on the cause of death is a response to the repeated attempts to shut down comment on this site on spurious grounds relating to the Coroners Court.
Please get your facts straight
In my day job I try to distinguish between causes and root causes regarding failures in industrial plants.It is not easy.
Thank you Rowland for remembering Fr Alan in this context. It was the circumstances surrounding his death that led me to Thinking Anglicans, and I have found it a helpful place to try and think through my difficulties with the fact that many of these circumstances have not been resolved. And while these circumstances are of course different to those surrounding the death of Prof. Arday, there are some disturbing parallels. These include the uncharitable nature of some responses to their deaths. I am not naive and do not expect either a Church of England Diocese nor an Anglican online… Read more »
Thank you. I mentioned the sad case of Fr Griffin as an example of the role and jurisdiction of the modern Coroner. Professor Arday’s inquest will, indeed, be held by a Senior Coroner.
I think that Black people in our country suffer to a degree – to an unfair degree – from social attitudes towards them which reflect long-standing racial prejudice and, beyond that, the legacy of the days of slavery, an institution which the Church did not sufficiently oppose. I thus think that if steps are taken to help Black people of this generation over the humps they face in their careers – which is another way of saying ‘positive discrimination’ – they will blossom more and contribute more, thus bringing a great long-run benefit all round. This view of what would… Read more »
Thanks Martin, a voice of compassion and sense amongst the sludge and mud of the Anti Spire imperialists. We basically know who the usual suspects are and the loudest voices. It’s unlikely that the rear guard white anting from the Conservative right wing elements will put a stop to the Project Spire inititiative, but like many projects within institutional religion they are often doomed if hearts and minds are not convinced. The ant Spire brigade are a small but vocal minority who may have deep pockets to continue the misinformation, historic denialism and of course the unconscious bias, and racist… Read more »
Perhaps we could drag the discussion back to the article posted by the Thinking Anglicans editors for comment – and reverse out of the cul de sac of the matter of a coroners court. Biggar’s central thesis – that the ideology which lead to the scandal and tragedy of the Arday case is driving the Church of England over the precipice of Project Spire – remains. The absence of any clear rebuttal and the resort to claims of poor taste speaks volumes. If Biggar is wrong, a proper rebuttal should be forthcoming – not further ad hominem claims he and… Read more »
The rebuttal is obvious if you read Cofnas’ work. The Church of England should move as far away as possible from Cofnas and his views.
I see Nigel Biggar has been a signatory of a letter supporting Cofnas in the name of ‘academic freedom’. Quelle surprise.
I had never heard of him until I looked him up an hour ago.
There is an error which is often committed and we have all experienced in such settings as PCC meetings or committees connected with our place of work, which is to assume that the silent parties have nothing to say. A skilled chairman might help them vocalise their thinking and when that happens so often we find that the better way is discovered. I think Peter, as you have chatted along, batting one objection here, another there, you may have failed to take account of the quiet or absent voices. I mentioned some while ago that I would not further comment… Read more »
Ad hominem is a logical fallacy
Sadly I find myself ‘replying’ to two Nigels (Goodwin and Ashworth) while also making reference, (again), to Prof Nigel Biggar, his ”Opinion’ piece and responses (and lack of) to it and to (what I find repugnant) views within it and comments made in support of them. I refer here to the ‘Opinion’ piece by Robert Thompson relating to ‘vengeance’. The NT reading for the 13th Sunday after Trinity this year (ie last Sunday!) from Romans includes the reminder ‘vengeance is mine, says the Lord’. As other contributors to the TA thread have noted, ‘discussion’ here has taken an unpleasant, and… Read more »
If I may, with trepidation…there are excellent monitors who are in charge of listening in and evaluating comments at TA. For individual commentators to take over their judicious oversight seems wrong. If they judge Peter’s comments out of line, OK. But others, it just seems like the conduct he is seeking to avoid. Did he say something you did not like? well OK. There are “determined terriers” all over this TA terrain. OK, pile on me now! But free exchange of ideas — including those we do not like — has been one of the good hallmarks here. Bonne nuit.
I take the liberty of responding although your challenge is addressed to Nigel Ashworth. I’m afraid you need to read the whole history, including all of the earlier comments on this site, to understand the disgust expressed by Nigel Ashworth and others. The following might also help:. (1) There are now two pending inquiries by Cambridge University, the terms of reference yet to be announced although the reviewers will include members of other universities. (2) There is a current petition calling on the UK government to initiate a public inquiry. This largely refers to media reporting before and post Professor… Read more »
Nigel Ashworth very much enjoys himself at my expense in his post above, which I am sure adds to the general gaity of life. I need to be clear, given the level of animus directed at my position. I am not convinced by Biggar’s article that there is a meaningful parallel between the chaos at Cambridge and Project Spire. There are some similarities, but also some major differences. It needs to be debated to get to the bottom of the matter. Thinking Anglicans is – or has been – a place for reasoned discussion which is all to absent in… Read more »
It maybe useful to ponder that any supposed connection between Project Spire and Jason’s case depends on what exactly happened in Jason’s case. Regardless of how much trust one has for experts, there are well established processes within universities for measuring academic progress, and for determining who is the most suitable candidate for a post. Bernard Silverman usefully demonstrated this by providing a link to the person-specification for Jason’s post. There are also well defined differences between positive action, which is practiced within and beyond academia, and positive discrimination, which is illegal in Britain. These differences address some of Martin’s… Read more »
I am grateful to Anglican Priest for his defence of free speech. I hope the moderators will allow me to respond to Nigel Ashworth’s highly personalised post targeted at me. I have made only three brief substantive posts on the subject of the Arday affair. I have also responded to comments directed at me, but if people choose to direct a comment at me, then I am perfectly entitled to respond. There are then perhaps two or three comments which I have made to others. All this in the context of 167 comments. Furthermore, I have at no point made… Read more »
I’ve decided it is time to call a halt to any further comments on this article.