Ironically, The Only Thing About Him That Isn't Suspicious....

The Metropolitan Police said in a statement: 'Police were called by the London Ambulance Service at 3.12pm on Friday, August 14, following a report that a man had been found unresponsive inside a property. 

'Sadly, a 41-year-old man was pronounced dead at the scene. His next-of-kin have been informed and are being supported by officers. 'At this time his death is being treated as unexpected, but is not believed to be suspicious.'

After days of questions from all quarters, he said: 'There comes a point when the personal cost becomes too great. I have a family. I want to be present for them.'

Guess he lied about that too. 

The message that the usual suspects want to get out is not that he was a DEI hire from the get-go and that the questions asked were relevant, but that the 'racist' white establishment is responsible for his death. 

Arday’s family said in a statement: “Jason was subjected to a campaign of sustained abuse for more than three years since he accepted the role of professor at Cambridge University by those who would leave no stone unturned in their quest to undermine him.

“We are in shock to have lost this amazing father, partner, brother, uncle and son. 

“We won’t comment further at this point beyond asking the press to leave us alone now, and to stop the campaign of harassment which has been waged against Jason and his family for too long.”

Every inveterate race hustler is coming forward now to (literally) flog their dead horse before the spavined nag's body is even cold: 

The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said: “I’m devastated for the family and friends of Jason Arday. He faced an unacceptable public hounding and campaign of abuse. I know many Londoners will be angry and upset this evening. “Jason Arday was the victim of a pernicious public shaming that other people in his position simply wouldn’t have faced. His death was a tragedy, but once again it should be a wake-up call for all of us.”

What are we supposed to 'wake up to', Khan? The practice of tokenism and identity politics that led to this?

Speaking to BBC Newsnight, Professor of Black Studies Kehinde Andrews and friend of Arday described him as "very down" after resigning from Cambridge. "He was very upset. He felt that there was no way out. He effectively wasn't leaving the house. He had lost a lost of weight," Andrews said. "There should be a wakeup call to just how bad black academics actually have it in academia," he added.

Yes, very bad, I'm sure. And the undeserved lionisation of this inadequate fantasist and liar will have made things much more difficult for them, as Longrider points out.

A Difficult Choice For Bookstores....

 

Assuming it actually sees the light of day, where do you put it? On the 'fiction' shelves? Or with the other fantasy selection...

"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything."

A pity he didn't major in American Literatute, he might have come across Mark Twain's wise words.

In 2023, the then 37-year-old sociologist became the youngest ever black professor at Cambridge.In a statement posted by the Good Law Project on Wednesday, Arday said that being appointed professor had been "without question, the greatest professional privilege of my life".

One it now looks like you didn't deserve and only got for one reason.

Jovan Owusu-Nepaul, who describes himself as an associate of Arday, told BBC Newsnight on Wednesday that he found "the whole thing regrettable". "From, I think, how he's been treated and the quite obtuse spotlight on him about his CV - career - at Cambridge University," he said. "I think it's also regrettable that there may be some untruths that have come out about his CV."

On Saturday, Arday told the Times in an interview that he was accountable for those mistakes, but that "what I am not is a liar".

Sounds like something a liar woud say... 

He told the newspaper: "There has been, since I arrived at Cambridge, a very well orchestrated and co-ordinated campaign to unseat me from my position." He suggested that this was "racially motivated" and that he had become a "lightning rod" for criticism of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policy. 

"Disability card?... That'll do nicely!"

Arday said some errors in his early academic work was because of his autism, as he relied on using mimicry to make sense of information, and that similar scrutiny would find similar errors in work by other academics.

Ah, the appeal to 'everyone does it!'...

"We're talking about academia here. I didn't murder somebody. I think the cruelty that I've experienced and the positioning of me as this kind of liar and fantasist is totally unacceptable," he told the newspaper.

Most of us think the elevation of a liar and fantasist to this position purely to tick a box is what's 'unacceptable' .

I Don't Care That A Career Hammer-User Saw A Nail...

The BBC later apologised, attributing the outburst to involuntary verbal tics associated with TS and adding that the language was “not intentional”. This is now another very difficult moment for the BBC: what was its judgment, should the epithet have remained audible in a pre-recorded broadcast. Clearly, it should not. One hopes someone will apologise soon to Jordan and Lindo.

Yes, it's the BAFTA Tourettes thing again, an incident which has galvanised every race hustler and activist  out there... 

But what unsettled me most unsettles me still. I was disturbed by the word, of course. It remains abhorrent and I don’t use it. It carries, in this context, a history drenched in violence and dehumanisation.

And it was used by someone with a disability, a fact you yourself can't explain away: 

The medical facts are clear. Coprolalia, a symptom experienced by a minority of people with TS, can involve the involuntary utterance of socially taboo language. Neurologists are clear that such tics are not expressions of belief or intent. They are not intentional - and not deliberate. Disability advocates rightly warn against stigmatising those who live with the condition.

But you can't let an opportunity go to waste just because of a few inconvenient facts, can you? 

But two truths can exist at once. A neurological condition can be real and worthy of understanding, and yet the harm or hurt caused by a racial epithet such as this – at a time like this – can be real. I have reported on race throughout my 14-year career, from discriminatory policing and hostile environment policies to the creeping mainstreaming of xenophobic rhetoric as we heard, for example, in Keir Starmer’s island of strangers speech.

And you've spotted another nail to swing your hammer at. *yawns* 

“I Didn’t Get Free Money And Now I’m Traumatised!”

The chief executive of the British Film Institute has apologised to a prominent film-maker of colour for mishandling his complaint about racial discrimination.

What did they do, refuse him entry to a premiere? Call him something unmentionable? 

Qureshi had complained to the BFI that he was given incorrect information about accessing National Lottery funding and inappropriately discouraged from bidding for it, and that his subsequent complaint was handled inappropriately.

Oh. 

The BFI commissioned an independent report from Verita, the complaints reviewer for National Lottery-funded organisations. The report concluded there was not enough evidence to draw conclusions on Qureshi’s view that there was “systemic racism within the BFI”, but it said the organisation’s response to the complaint “fell well short of constituting a formal response”.

Roberts said: “The report clearly indicates that our handling of your complaint fell well short of both your expectations and ours, and we let you down. I would like to reassure you that we take the findings of the Verita report seriously.” He said that the BFI had made several improvements to its complaints procedure, including meetings and phone calls with complainants and stronger training for team members.

Typical reflexive cringing when ever the RaceCard™ gets pulled and waved around.  

Qureshi said it was “helpful” to get an apology, though it’s “not for what I wanted”. He has not yet decided whether to meet with Roberts. He said: “There is only so many times organisations can say they have learned from their mistakes, usually by inflicting trauma on ethnic minorities. That it took five years to get this far only for them to go ‘trust us again’ is not a reasonable reassurance. Maybe a more significant one is change in their leadership.”

Not getting free money isn't a 'trauma' for most people and I'd stick with the leadership that's grovelled before you if I were you, chum. The next one might just tell you to take a hike! 

No Great Mystery, They Are Exactly Who We Thought They Were....

The rabble-rousers, the racehustlers, the terminally woke...

But in the days and weeks after his death in September 2022, many big names from Jeremy Corbyn to Diane Abbott and the University of Greenwich called for 'justice' after Mr Kaba was gunned down and killed while trying to flee police.

But the truth is Kaba wasn't just an ordinary motorist going about his daily life on September 5, 2022. He was one of London's most feared gangsters fleeing police, high on cocaine and ready to run over anyone in his way.

No-one really believed he wasn't, surely? And the politicians, like the Mayor of London, would have known this. 

Not that the police themselves are free from criticism of their handling of this case: 

Scotland Yard was last night looking to scrap disciplinary charges against Martyn Blake following his acquittal. The police watchdog, who carried out a seven-month investigation into the shooting of Chris Kaba, decided last year that the sergeant should face a separate gross misconduct hearing relating to his 'use of force' after the conclusion of the criminal case. The Met backed the assessment with its Directorate of Professional Standards agreeing there was a disciplinary 'case to answer' on the 'available evidence'.

But now, they've changed their mind, because they can see that public favour is with them: 

But now the force has abandoned its support of the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC) decision and will be calling for the disciplinary process to be halted after the Met officer was acquitted of Kaba's murder. The revelation Met bosses initially backed the disciplinary will anger firearms officers who say they are not properly supported and face years of investigation if they pull the trigger to protect a life.

It should anger everyone, because it clearly reveals the Met Police top brass as honourless cowards who do whatever they think will garner them favourable headlines, and not what they believe is the right and lawful thing to do.   

The People 'Interested In These Matters', Judge? Why Don't You Be More Explicit About Who They Are?

On 22 January 2022, 11 boys entered a CCTV blind spot at the intersection of two roads in Stretford, Manchester. Only 10 left alive. Sixteen-year-old Kennie Carter was stabbed, his last words heard by his older brother to whom he was on the phone at the time: “They’ve stabbed me in my heart, bro.”

What happened in that CCTV blind spot has been the focus of a six-week trial at Manchester crown court, at which 10 Black boys, ranging in age from 12 to 16 at the time of the killing, stood accused of murder. Described as “a jigsaw with pieces missing” and “a net that had been cast wide” by lawyers defending the boys, the trial was the latest of several high-profile joint enterprise prosecutions involving large groups of Black youths in Manchester.

These trials attracting the attention of the usual suspects, of course, the ones who think that it's somehow 'unfair' that those whose hands aren't the ones holding the knife should be punished. Especially if - as is usually the case - they are black.

The controversial legal doctrine allows prosecutors to charge multiple people with the same crime. It can be applied even if a defendant played no active role but is found to have encouraged or assisted the main perpetrator. What it means to assist or encourage can fall to the the jury to interpret.

And the jury, mercifully free of critical race theory, seems to often take the view that if you're involved to the point of being part of the gang, you're just as guilty, which upsets the progressives. 

The contention surrounding the legal doctrine was not lost on the judge. Before the jury was even sworn in, Judge Julian Goose was heard warning the lawyers present about the term. “I’m not a fan any more of the words ‘joint enterprise’; it raises concern amongst people interested in these matters,” he said.

A coy and judicial way of saying 'activists and race hustlers', m'lud? 

But while the phrase was avoided, the principle behind the doctrine was clear. Despite the lack of CCTV at the moment of the stabbing, there was no question over who had caused the death. Everyone involved in the trial, including the defendant himself, agreed that the fatal blow was struck by Boy A, then 14, who cannot be named for legal reasons. He argued he was acting in self-defence after Kennie produced a knife. The prosecution said the knife was his own.

And if that won't work win over the jury, how about a bit of 'they was good boys, they dindu nuffin'? 

There was no evidence that any of the other nine defendants ever had any weapons or played any active role in the killing. Three of the boys said they were around the corner on another street and so did not even witness the events. Two of the boys, one of whom was just 12 at the time, were described as having abnormally low IQs. Another, who was 13 at the time, was autistic and had ADHD. And yet, Boy A was found guilty of murder and another three convicted of manslaughter after the Crown Prosecution Service argued that, through their presence at the scene, they intentionally assisted or encouraged Boy A in his actions. All nine boys had denied that suggestion.

And the jury clearly said 'pull the other one!'... 

“It’s collective punishment,” said Gloria Morrison, the founder of the campaign group Joint Enterprise Not Guilty By Association (JENGbA). “It messes with the whole idea of what young people, or anybody, thinks justice is. What benefits can there be of locking up a child who hasn’t actually done the crime?”

Pour encourager les autres, Gloria... 

Racism In Football - Is This An Own Goal?

Sentencing Quadri, from Dartford, District Judge Louisa Cieciora said: ‘You demonstrated hostility based on the victim's race and of course it was in a public forum.

‘I have to take into account the wider context - particularly that footballers have been taking the knee in all games to demonstrate their ongoing commitment to fight racism and all forms of discrimination, and the fact that the comment is likely to be seen by a wider audience, and the harm caused by racism is of course pervasive and should never be underestimated.'

He was upset a black footballer passed the ball to a white teammate, and clearly felt not a twinge of shame about stating it so clearly no-one could deny he was racist.  

Prosecutor Frances McCormack told Westminster Magistrates' Court Quadri used the the name @quadz19 on X when he made the post. This was reported to the football association and the police began investigating it.

Mr McCormack said: 'He stated in an interview that he didn’t think the comments were offensive because he was a black male himself, so he did make partial admissions but not full admissions.

'He made the comment because in that particular match at that particular time the previous four people who had scored a goal for England had been black, and he said that if Mr Wilson had scored a goal there would have been an all black scoring sheet.'

 His brief could only fall back on his age as a possible excuse. 

James Powell, defending Quadri, said: 'This is an indication more of immaturity rather than wickedness.

'There’s been no offending before or since this one act of immaturity which may be the only act of immaturity he’s ever committed in his life.'

Should have ended that with 'so far'.