We stand for truth without fear or favour. We’ll challenge hypocrisy, question the powerful and demand accountability regardless of politics, wealth or status. Got something that needs exposing? Tag @TruthToPowerUK and bring the receipts. We’ll take it from there. #TruthToPower

This puppy taking a shit will get more likes than Netanyahu speaking shit

I know loyalty isn’t valued in today’s society but this price increase from @virginmedia is absolutely disgusting.

I waited all my life time to hear a Prime Minister say this in parliament. Today, it happened.

ITS TIME!! #BOYCOTTGOOGLE

RT @IndiaWilloughby: In any decent country, Julia Hartley-Brewer would be sacked tomorrow. @TalkTV @TheSun

There were legitimate questions about Jason Arday’s record. Cambridge was investigating them. That investigation had not concluded. What is not established fact is that DEI “manufactured” his career, that a “cult of diversity” put him there, or that his downfall was inevitable. That is commentary dressed up as certainty. Journalism has every right to scrutinise people. But when a man has died and an unfinished investigation is turned into ammunition for a pre-existing culture war narrative, journalism deserves scrutiny too. Truth to power also means holding the storytellers to account.

No, Julia. Because you didn’t “point out facts”. You took an unverified claim about a £1.4m book advance one his publisher has never confirmed and used it to sneer at people donating to a grieving family. That’s not factchecking. That’s weaponising an unverified claim to justify cruelty. You can scrutinise a man’s life without losing your humanity when he dies.

“Your willingness to reflect is welcome. But one part still troubles me: ‘overpromoted’ is being stated as though it's an established fact. Cambridge's independent inquiry into his appointment hadn't reached that conclusion, and LJMU did not uphold the plagiarism allegations against his PhD. Perhaps the lesson here is that allegations, however serious, should never quietly become established facts through repetition.”

Lukas, twelve personalised pieces from one outlet rather undermine your claim that the media didn’t hound him. Legitimate scrutiny and disproportionate pursuit aren’t mutually exclusive. The question is whether the volume, framing and known risks to his wellbeing were handled responsibly. Do you feel any responsibility?

No conviction. No completed investigation. No established motive for his death. Yet you declare him a criminal, pronounce sentence and then condemn an entire race. This isn’t evidence led accountability it’s racial hatred dressed up as legal analysis. The mask didn’t just slip it came off completely. This stopped pretending to be about academic standards and revealed itself as racial grievance dressed up as legal analysis.

This warning is deeply concerning. Are you able to share which broadcaster contacted you, when this exchange occurred and most importantly whether they acknowledged or acted upon the warning about Jason’s wellbeing? More context would help the public judge whether it was handled with appropriate care.

The Times and The Sunday Times published about 44 articles about Professor Jason Arday. The Telegraph published 43. The Daily Mail published about 38. The Independent published 24. The Spectator published around 21. The Guardian published about 19. The Daily Express published more than 10. The Sun published 9. It was a disproportionate media pile-on.

Diane arrived preaching “Truth and moral virtues,” offered a playground insult, then blocked me before I could reply. Nothing says confidence in your convictions quite like making sure nobody can challenge them. Her bio really does write the punchlines for us.

You rightly identify Arday’s vulnerability and the institutions’ duty of care. But claiming they appointed him merely to display a “Black wunderkind” prejudges the inquiry. If his vulnerability was so obvious, why did coverage shift from scrutinising Cambridge to publicly dissecting every aspect of his life? Institutions must answer but so must the media! @Telegraph @DailyMail @thetimes @GBNEWS @LBC @SkyNews @BBCNews @timeshighered @Independent @itvnews @TimesRadio @TalkTV @guardian #JasonArday #MediaAccountability #PressEthics #CambridgeUniversity #AcademicIntegrity

Your coverage didn’t stop at legitimate questions about his academic work. It turned almost every aspect of his life into a public “debunking” and branded him the “Plagiarising Professor” before investigations concluded. Will the Daily Mail now examine whether that was proportionate? #TruthToPower

Caroline Flack’s death should have taught us the consequences of relentless scrutiny, online abuse & public judgement. Jason Arday’s death is a painful reminder: behind every headline is a human being. How many tragedies before we remember that words have consequences? Be kind!

Jason Arday was hounded by the British media to death. 188 articles in 9 days. 249 articles in 22 days. Over plagiarism controversy. Nathan Cofnas—a sacked Cambridge race-theorist—started the allegations. As someone who has experienced a smear campaign, I can tell you with full certainty that it can take you into total darkness. They forget they are dealing with a human being. They forget it is someone's entire life they are tearing apart. This is what sinister journalism does. Shame on the British media.

🚨 GRAVÍSSIMO 🚨 Consta no regulamento da FIFA a EXPULSÃO do torneio para a seleção que fizer manifestação política E os jogadores argentinos festejam a classificação à final com uma faixa sobre as Ilhas Malvinas violando o regulamento da FIFA. A seleção argentina deve ser expulsa do torneio ? @FIFAcom @FIFAWorldCup