MP

[MP @MPbge7]

@moomarketHQ Watch out, heavily bundled scam!

[MP @MPbge7]

@rbthreek @rbthreek might want to check out $sue ca 0x2ab8a4dd2191989ac2898006df350b236d2b7777. A last attempt at BSC.

[MP @MPbge7]

@rbthreek BSC is Solana on steroids for me. Only difference is, BSC taught me a few words Chinese.

[MP @MPbge7]

@akachacolate @fomo Looks like a scam though. I did some digging, and it looks like this might be the real $pad ca JE8zmsKRivXggZsJxXHBdCkako85YawNtU5hqS4upump

[MP @MPbge7]

@akachacolate @fomo what happened here?

CkmiAEgmiKAUUCTMBUm5RTTdCzQFyZAgVwrtG9Wqpump

[MP @MPbge7]

@ProofOfEly Have they not learned from the “Official Trump” coin?

[2.0 @blixberrie]

I’m confused by the uproar from the media class about Nathan Cofnas suspension.

I thought the hounding …sorry… reporting on Jason Arday was to lift the lid on charlatans and failed scholars in the academic space?

Or are you now admitting there was a different aim? Can’t be

[Un Étrange En Terre Étrange @LoinDuTribu]

There is something almost majestic about the speed with which professional journalists turn into trembling dissidents the moment anybody suggests that journalism might involve professional obligations.

Alex Massie - or "that right cunt with the beard" - to his neighbours - tells us that press freedom remains a vital thing and it needs to be defended, accompanied by the stirring declaration that free speech is either universal or worthless. Wonderful. Nobody is proposing that Alex Massie should require ministerial approval before typing a column. Nobody is sending Special Branch through the offices of The Times. Nobody wants journalists imprisoned for writing unpopular opinions. What is actually being discussed is whether people who are paid to gather, interpret and distribute information to millions of citizens should be held to meaningful professional standards when they fabricate, recklessly misrepresent or repeatedly publish serious factual falsehoods.

Apparently this is where Magna Carta catches fire.

We live in societies where doctors, nurses, teachers, social workers, pharmacists, solicitors, barristers, care workers and countless other professionals accept regulation as the price of exercising institutional power over other people's lives. You can give medical advice to your mate in the pub. That does not make you a doctor. You can represent yourself in court. That does not make you a solicitor. You can publish every deranged thought rattling around inside your skull on Substack, X, YouTube or your own website. Nobody needs to stop you. But if you want the professional status, access, prestige and institutional authority that accompany employment by a major news organisation, why should society be forbidden from attaching professional responsibilities to it?

Because apparently journalism is the one occupation where accountability becomes totalitarianism approximately four seconds after somebody mentions it.

And the technological argument makes this more pressing, not less. We are no longer living in an age when a false story reaches twenty thousand breakfast tables and disappears into tomorrow's chip paper. A national newspaper can publish an allegation at 8am and by lunchtime it has been indexed by search engines, copied by aggregators, discussed on television, clipped for TikTok, reposted ten thousand times and permanently attached to somebody's name. A correction fourteen days later on page 37 is not meaningful accountability. The lie travelled around the world while the correction was still trying to remember its Wi-Fi password.

So yes, professional journalism should have a stick as well as all those delicious carrots. Independent adjudication. Public findings. Mandatory corrections with equivalent prominence. Financial penalties for serious institutional misconduct. And for the most egregious cases, deliberate fabrication, manufactured evidence, invented quotations, systematic dishonesty, professional disqualification.

That isn't “abolishing free speech”. The disgraced journalist remains perfectly entitled to speak, write, blog, podcast, shout through a megaphone or launch The Persecuted Truth-Teller Newsletter on Substack for £4.99 a month.

They have simply lost the privilege of saying: I am a journalist in good professional standing.

And frankly, we could stand to rediscover shame.

If a nurse is struck off for serious dishonesty, everybody understands what that means. If a solicitor is struck off, nobody starts screaming that jurisprudence itself has been abolished.

If a journalist deliberately abuses the enormous power entrusted to professional media, “struck off journalist” should carry exactly the same stink.

Press freedom is indispensable.

Press impunity is not.

[MP @MPbge7]

@EmperorAssad @Gold_Investing1 @TheCanaryUK No, bot.

https://t.co/DieASh024q

[GET A GRIP @docrussjackson]

🚨 We've heard a lot about "DEI" over the last few weeks.

Media including GB News, The Spectator, and UnHerd have massively amplified the acronym: the latter two are owned outright by billionaire Evangelical Christian hedge-funder Paul Marshall, and he's the biggest investor in GB News.

The Telegraph appears to have kick-started mainstream coverage of the Jason Arday story: on 24 July 2026, Gordon Rayner and colleagues reported a fresh statistical analysis finding over 100 (later cited as 188) sentences in Jason Arday's PhD thesis identical or near-identical to another academic's earlier thesis. "Near identical" is doing a lot of work here.

A typical humanities PhD thesis in the UK runs somewhere around 80,000–100,000 words. At an average of roughly 20–25 words/sentence for academic prose, that works out to something like 3,000–5,000 sentences in the whole thesis. That places the reported overlaps at roughly just 2–6% of the thesis. One independent Turnitin-style check later reported an overall similarity index around 4.2% for the thesis.

Liverpool John Moores University, which awarded the doctorate, had already investigated similar concerns and found "honest and reasonable error," not misconduct. Neither Cambridge nor LJMU has directly addressed the Telegraph's specific statistical finding, and Cambridge's own investigation into Arday's qualifications was still ongoing, and not completed when he died.

So while the allegations were real, contested, and unresolved, they were NOT settled fact, whatever the tone of the coverage that followed implied.

Much of the coverage that followed, however, moved beyond the plagiarism allegations into something else: allegations that Arday was a fantasist, a serial liar, and his professorship simply the result of "DEI". The strong implicit and often explicit suggestion was that he was only appointed because he was black.

In the UK, "DEI" (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) doesn't exist: it's "EDI" (Equality, Diversity and Inclusion), not "DEI." The distinction is more than cosmetic.

"Equity" (US usage) implies differentiated treatment to achieve equal outcomes, while "equality" (UK usage) means something quite different: judging everyone by the same standard, not adjusting treatment to engineer equal results.

"DEI" itself is rooted in a specific American policy tradition, affirmative action, disparate-impact remedies, and diversity as a "compelling interest" that US courts and institutions spent decades litigating, particularly in university admissions, before the Supreme Court struck down race-conscious admissions in 2023.

In the US context, "DEI" typically implies proactive intervention to correct group-level outcomes: demographic targets, representation goals, differentiated treatment aimed at equalising results.

In contrast, UK "EDI" starts from a different legal premise entirely. It's tied to the 2010 Equality Act's nine protected characteristics, a framework built on individual rights against discrimination, not group-outcome targets.

The Act simply says you should be judged on merit and conduct, not on immutable traits like your sex, race, or disability: a classical liberal principle predating any modern equality politics.

Crucially, the protections cut both ways, so white, straight, Christian men like Paul Marshall and Dany Kruger have exactly the same legal standing against discrimination as anyone else.

Universities, the #NHS, and most UK public sector bodies have used EDI as the standard term for years, predating the recent US culture-war salience of "DEI."

So when commentators reached for "DEI" to explain Arday's career, they weren't just using the wrong acronym. They were importing an entire American framework, quotas, group-outcome engineering, race-conscious appointment, that has no equivalent basis in the UK legal or institutional system Cambridge actually operates under: it was a substitution of one country's contested policy debate for another's, without anyone writing about it actually checking whether the substitution held up.

Kathleen Stock's 29 July UnHerd piece, which arguably originated the 'DEI' framing, was literally titled "Jason Arday: Cambridge's DEI darling." Not EDI.

Richard Dawkins, Brendan O'Neill, Toby Young, David Starkey and numerous others all then ran with "DEI" over the following fortnight, across Marshall's own outlets: Dawkins mocking Arday's thesis prose in UnHerd on 8 August, Young declaring in The Spectator that "Professor Arday is the gift that keeps on giving." GB News has long-running opinion pieces on "toxic DEI policies infecting our institutions" and "anti-racism ideology... killing white Britons."

Not one of them appears to have paused to check whether the acronym they were building an entire moral panic around actually matched the institutional language of the university they claimed to be scrutinising.

People who spent weeks attacking the academic credentials of a Cambridge professor, several of them current or former high-profile academics themselves, couldn't even be bothered to get the acronym right for the thing they now claim explains his career, and, by implication, his death.

None of this is to say EDI programmes are beyond fair criticism, they aren't. But criticising how a UK institution runs its own equality policy is a different exercise from importing an American acronym wholesale and using it to explain away a man's career.

The gap between "DEI" and "EDI" matters more than it looks. The "DEI hire" framing wasn't describing Cambridge's actual equality and diversity policies at all. It was a ready-made American culture-war attack template, pasted onto a British academic because the shape happened to fit, by writers and outlets who never checked whether the label matched the institution and individual they were supposedly holding to account.

By deploying "DEI" instead of "EDI," commentators effectively bypassed the actual statutory and institutional reality of UK higher education in favour of a pre-packaged, highly emotive American narrative template.

There's a broader pattern at work here: over the last decade or more we've seen how localised institutional debates are frequently subsumed by broader ideological narratives.

When imported culture-war talking points overwrite and overwhelm local legal and procedural contexts, the nuances of the actual story, and the humanity of the individuals involved, get lost in the noise.

[MP @MPbge7]

@ruviexo It’s really not all that he can do. Apologies need to be served with justice or they simply become useless. @AaronBastani can contribute with the financial aid for Arday’s family or the much needed investigations in the right wing media and their vicious campaigns.

[MP @MPbge7]

@EmperorAssad @Gold_Investing1 @TheCanaryUK Read. And you might learn one day.

https://t.co/PzNmoMZljv

[Carole Cadwalladr @carolecadwalla]

Culture wars are not natural phenomenon. This was man-made. First by Nathan Cofnas. A racist waiting for a cause. Platforms that enable these stories to go viral. And array of publications that understand that racism sells, whose business model depends on it

[Carole Cadwalladr @carolecadwalla]

There was a pivotal moment when a responsible & resourced news org could have investigated the race science network behind the Jason Arday allegations.

It is a tragedy that hasn’t happened until now but this is a much needed corrective from @NafeezAhmed & @BylineTimes

https://t.co/zwGUGSkh5S

[MP @MPbge7]

@Gold_Investing1 @TheCanaryUK https://t.co/uqDaBOJexL

[Sonam Collins @CollinsSonam]

@team_america84 @JeremyVineOn5 @MarinaPurkiss @jhansonradio @theJeremyVine Many white professors have been accused of plagiarism and found guilty but no interest from the press. Even when professors have raped their students, no interest from the press or public. So strange….

[MP @MPbge7]

0x8256762eac0a1182931c155eade0ad2d14777777

Another bundled scam token

[MP @MPbge7]

0x9464108666dc757ef6c55c5e1cb66c03bef57777

Bundled - scam

[MP @MPbge7]

@Moonerhigh Thank you buddy, you were right. The inside scammers dumped it hard, and are still holding significant supply.

[MP @MPbge7]

@Heccles94 They should. With haste.

[MP @MPbge7]

@mazerunner419 @sushicat_cto We should’ve seen a “sell the news” event coming. More time to load up!

[SushiCat @sushicat_cto]

Proud to have BrinkZilla on board, he is doing our designs at $SushiCat!