Watch your favourite podcasts – live and ‘in the flesh’ @ #BATTLEFEST 2026 SATURDAY 17 OCTOBER 10:15–11:45 | THE LIFE SCI FANTASTIC Weight-loss jabs: the end of willpower? @EliotForster & Dr Federica Amati explore appetite, responsibility and better health. 12:15–13:30 | THE SPIKED PODCAST Politics, free speech & the culture war with @FraserMyers @Tom_Slater_ @kafkaswife @francisjfoster & @AndrewGold_ok. @spikedonline 13:45–14:30 | ARTS FIRST Myth, religion & national identity with Niall Crowley & Dolan Cummings. 13:45–14:30 | THIS ISN’T WORKING Are women to blame for ‘woke’ workplaces? Tanya de Grunwald & @jowilliams293 tackle the question. @IsntWorkingPod 14:45–16:15 | THE FREE SPEECH UNION On the free speech frontline with @_ConnieShaw @BenBarryJones @janmacvarish & @DavidRoseUK. @SpeechUnion 16:45–18:15 | THE BRINK Islam in Britain after October 7: @mr_andrew_fox @JakeWSimons & Fiyaz Mughal discuss extremism, assimilation and British Muslim communities. SUNDAY 18 OCTOBER 11:00–12:30 | PLANET NORMAL News & views from beyond the bubble with @LiamHalligan @AllisonPearson @LucyTCWife & Robert Tombs. 11:00–12:30 | THE BOOKING CLUB The Catcher in the Rye, 75 years on: @jackaldane, Tim Black, @jjcharlesworth_ & Georgina Mumford explore rebellion and alienation. @BookingClubPod 12:45–13:30 | COFFEE HOUSE SHOTS Political analysis from @spectator with @JAHeale & @scarlett__mag. 13:45–15:15 | THE STATE OF IT Reports from the coalface of British politics with @Steven_Swinford @patrickkmaguire & @lara_spirit. @thetimes 15:45–17:00 | LAST ORDERS The latest nanny state news with @Tom_Slater_ @cjsnowdon @TonyLapidus & @GHWTowler. @spikedonline 17:15–18:30 | TAKE ME HOME Growing Up in the Culture Wars: Sebastian Moore, @RedActuary, Jennie Bristow & Ellie Lee explore identity, adulthood and generational bonds. Which debates will you join? Explore the programme and book your place: battleofideas.org.uk/ #BattleFest #LivePodcasts #FreeSpeech open.substack.com/pub/claire…

STATEMENT: The Committee for Academic Freedom (CAF) was troubled to see academics smeared from the stage at last night’s vigil for Jason Arday in Trafalgar Square. As reported by several national media outlets, Diane Abbott MP claimed that “other professors” had waged a three-year “vicious campaign” against Arday because they “just didn’t believe that a black man should be a Cambridge professor”. That is a serious, categorical imputation of racist motive, and those familiar with the controversy could reasonably have understood Abbott’s remarks as referring to a small, identifiable group of academics known to have raised concerns about Arday’s work. Unfortunate though it is to revisit those events at such a desperately sad moment, we feel obliged to restate what the factual record — much of it established publicly long before Abbott’s remarks — shows about one of those academics whom CAF is supporting. David Harris, Professor Emeritus at Plymouth Marjon University, first raised concerns about Arday’s doctoral thesis and subsequent peer-reviewed publications in May 2023. A sociologist with a longstanding interest in how ideas from the critical theory tradition are used in empirical educational research, Harris encountered Arday’s work amid the publicity surrounding his appointment as Professor of Sociology of Education at Cambridge two months earlier. Harris privately raised concerns with Arday about what he called “puzzling similarities” in reported data, repeated passages and possible failures of attribution. His covering email concluded simply: “I would welcome any response.” This was not, in other words, a “vicious campaign”, but an emeritus professor engaging closely with another scholar’s published work, identifying apparent problems and asking that they be examined. Several of Harris’s concerns subsequently resulted in corrections to Arday’s published work. When it emerged last month that Arday had reported Harris to the police for harassment, CAF warned of the chilling effect of invoking the law against awkward scholarly criticism, exposing academics who test published claims or raise questions about research integrity to allegations of criminal wrongdoing and prolonged police investigation. That same chilling effect arises when Harris’s scholarly scrutiny is retrospectively recast by a senior parliamentarian as racial animus before a large public gathering and amplified through the media. The scholarly community has traditionally governed its own standards, and its ability to continue doing so depends upon academics being free to ask difficult questions about one another’s work, even where those questions may prove embarrassing or reputationally damaging. Without that freedom, the processes through which scholarship corrects itself and academic standards are maintained cannot properly function. In those circumstances, CAF will be writing to Ms Abbott asking her to withdraw or correct her remarks and making clear the seriousness with which we regard them. Should those remarks cause him serious professional or reputational harm, including any loss of academic title, status or institutional privileges, we will ensure that he receives appropriate specialist advice on any legal remedies that may be available to him.