The Spectator opinion piece, by Andrew Gilligan, on UK Politics, 11 September 2026

6.0out of 10Serious

Exposed:

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.4 findings

A man called Lester Holloway has written a savage attack on black reporters who covered the Jason Arday scandal, saying they “have blood on [their] hands” and . In a piece for the Voice newspaper, Holloway says: “Jason told me and others that articles written by black people had hurt him most…. We as a community need serious introspection, because our people – his people – wounded Jason most deeply….

Some of our community have blood on our hands.” He also claimed there was “emerging evidence that Jason’s amazing achievements could actually be true” (we have previously dealt with some of this evidence .) Perhaps all this low-gradery is just what you get when you replace academics with activists What you wouldn’t know from the article, because his interest is nowhere declared, is that Lester Holloway is the official spokesman for Simon Woolley, Lord Woolley, the race activist inexplicably elevated to principal of Homerton College, Cambridge and one of the key people who helped create Jason Arday.

Holloway, a fellow race crusader who has a long relationship with Woolley, has under his leadership been made head of communications at Homerton, a staff position with a cam.ac.uk email address. Perhaps unusually for a PR, Holloway has also been made a fellow of the college. We have previously covered Woolley’s unsuitability for his post, including – in his words, the victim of a “lynching” and “public assassination” by people who had decided that “Jason doesn’t deserve to be alive.”

Woolley has since doubled down on these comments, saying he was “speak[ing] truth to power,” an interesting conceit for a Cambridge college head and peer of the realm defending obvious falsehoods. Most popular Amol Rajan Now I’ve left Today, I can finally say what I really think… Natasha Hausdorff The Israeli settlements lie Tim Shipman Meet the most powerful woman in Britain Holloway goes even further than Woolley, however, in arguing that the black reporters on the Arday story were not just killers but, it would appear, traitors to their race – and that they should somehow not be proper journalists but “our people,” owned by the black community, or “his [Arday’s] people,” .

This strikes me as itself racist, casting wholly unwarranted aspersions on the professionalism of black colleagues. Holloway claims that the “250 national legacy media articles” published about Arday “contrast” with the fact that “the UK media mentioned Peter Mandelson just 119 times after the Epstein files were released.” The 119 figure comes from an activist group called NewsCord, which purports to enforce truth and “accountability” on the press.

NewsCord’s version of truth and accountability is sadly not the same as the actual truth, or as actually being able to count. In just the first month after the release of the files, the Factiva press database shows almost 3,000 mentions of Mandelson in UK national papers alone. Holloway singles out “one particularly damaging article [about Arday] in a so-called progressive newspaper” which Arday told him “was worse than ‘100 articles from the Telegraph .’”

This is presumably the piece by Lanre Bakare of the Guardian , to whom Arday claimed that he had been twice confronted at work by a masked man who threatened him, the second time with a knife, and that a severed pig’s head had been sent to his parents’ home in a further act of hate. Alas, Bakare made the mistake, common to professional journalists of all races, of checking these picaresque allegations. Finding no evidence for them, finding that Arday couldn’t produce any evidence either, and learning that they had not been reported to anyone at the time, he wrote that – instead of the stenographic endorsement of .

His reward was an attack from the reliably awful Jolyon Maugham and a social media pile-on. But even Maugham didn’t accuse him of having Arday’s blood on his hands. Bakare has now had to take down his X account, make his other social media private and hasn’t written for the Guardian for more than a month. So much for protecting people from harassment. Alongside Woolley, the lead signatory, Holloway also signed Maugham’s notorious letter claiming the accusations against Arday were “baseless” and racist and praising his “remarkable scholarship.”

Again, he didn’t mention his connection with Woolley or Homerton. His Voice piece was written in a “personal capacity” and his Maugham signature was given in his capacity as a “columnist for the Voice .” No doubt because he has been so busy with all this, Holloway has for more than a fortnight been unable to respond to The Spectator ’s questions about a false statement made by Homerton to justify Woolley’s appointment . Homerton’s official announcement of the job said that “in 2018 Lord Woolley was appointed by prime minister Theresa May to create and lead the UK government’s pioneering Race Disparity Unit.”

This is not true. The unit was actually created in 2016 and led throughout by a career civil servant, Marcus Bell. Woolley’s role, starting two years later, was as the chair of its advisory group. The falsehood about Woolley’s CV has not been corrected and remains live on Homerton’s website. The college continues to refuse to say whether it was or whether it was made up by Homerton. Lester Holloway’s other scholarship in the field of media studies, by the way, includes attacking the press for “demonising Robert Mugabe.”

Perhaps all this low-gradery is just what you get when you replace academics with activists. But what on earth is going on at Homerton? What on earth is going on at Cambridge? What on earth is going on in Britain?

Read the original article on spectator.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (4)

Andrew Gilligan's Spectator column puts views in Lester Holloway's mouth that Holloway's quoted words do not contain, and calls him racist on that basis. It also calls Jason Arday's unverified allegations a fantasy. Its headline loosely presents a personal column as an attack by Cambridge University's PR.

The model scored this article automatically, as part of a NewsCord staff review of this reporter's recent articles. Staff did not tell it where to look.

Opinion piece: read for false claims of fact and for fairness to the people it names, not for its opinions.

  1. Smears a named person

    Serious

    “suggesting that they should put their supposed loyalty to their race above their duty as journalists”

    Why this matters
    The Spectator says Holloway suggested black reporters should put loyalty to their race above their duty as journalists.
    The impression it gives
    Holloway openly argued that black journalists owe their race a duty that overrides honest reporting.
    The context
    The words the article quotes from Holloway say that articles by black people hurt Arday most and that the community needs introspection. They say nothing about loyalty overriding journalistic duty.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“We as a community need serious introspection”
    • Elsewhere in the article“articles written by black people had hurt him most”

    Show it in the article

    “prepared to promote lies if someone has the right skin colour”

    Why this matters
    Gilligan says Holloway wants black reporters to be prepared to promote lies for someone with the right skin colour.
    The impression it gives
    Holloway called on journalists to lie on racial grounds.
    The context
    Nothing Holloway is quoted as saying asks anyone to promote lies. The column hedges with "it would appear" but still pins this position on a named man, and it uses that position to call him racist in the next sentence.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“Some of our community have blood on our hands”
    • Elsewhere in the article“This strikes me as itself racist”

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    Holloway wrote in the Voice that Arday told him articles by black journalists hurt him most, and that some in the community have blood on their hands. Gilligan reads this as a demand for racial loyalty, which Holloway's words do not state.

  2. Headline goes beyond the article

    Minor

    “The Cambridge University PR attacking Jason Arday’s black critics”

    Why this matters
    The headline calls Holloway "The Cambridge University PR" and presents his piece as an attack made in that role.
    The impression it gives
    Cambridge University's press office is attacking black journalists.
    The context
    The body says Holloway is head of communications at one college, Homerton. It also says his Voice piece was written in a personal capacity and that he signed the letter as a Voice columnist. The headline drops both facts.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“His Voice piece was written in a”
    • Elsewhere in the article“been made head of communications at Homerton”

    Show it in the article

  3. Makes a false claim

    Minor

    “his false and inflammatory claim that Arday was murdered”

    Why this matters
    Gilligan says Woolley claimed that Arday was murdered, and calls that claim false.
    The impression it gives
    Woolley asserted as fact that someone killed Arday.
    The context
    The words the article quotes from Woolley, "lynching", "public assassination" and people deciding Arday "doesn't deserve to be alive", are figurative. The article quotes no words in which Woolley says Arday was murdered. Gilligan rebuts a literal claim that the quoted words do not make.

    Show it in the article

  4. Smears a named person

    Minor

    “the fantasy that was clearly wanted”

    Why this matters
    Gilligan calls Arday's account of a masked man with a knife and a pig's head sent to his parents a "fantasy".
    The impression it gives
    Arday's allegations have been shown to be invented.
    The context
    The article's own account of the Guardian's reporting is that no evidence was found and none was produced. That is an absence of corroboration, not proof of fabrication.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“to whom Arday claimed that he had been twice confronted”
    • Elsewhere in the article“emerging evidence that Jason’s amazing achievements could actually be true”

    Show it in the article

    “an Arday-style embellishment by Woolley”

    Why this matters
    The phrase uses Arday's name as a byword for embellishment.
    The impression it gives
    It is settled that Arday embellished his record and his account.
    The context
    The column's own basis is that the Guardian found no evidence for the threats Arday described. That leaves his account unverified, not proven false.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“Finding no evidence for them”

    Show it in the article

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from The Spectator

  1. 24 SeptFarah Ahmed and the useful idiots of Cambridge University3.0
  2. 19 SeptThe Church of England is destroying itself0.0
  3. 7 SeptThe proof that Cambridge’s Jason Arday inquiry will be a whitewash3.0
  4. 26 AugMiddle East Eye seems to get stupider and stupider6.0
  5. 25 AugFarah Ahmed: study engineering ‘to produce weaponry for Jihad’3.0

Everything we scored from The Spectator