> so what? did he defraud anyone? rob them of their savings? get elected as a public official based on it? was he a bad professor? incapable of educating his st

> so what? did he defraud anyone? rob them of their savings? get elected as a public official based on it? was he a bad professor? incapable of educating his students? Yes he was a bad professor. The fact that he didn't rob anyone of their savings is hardly a defense of his actual fraudulent conduct, any more than the fact that Sam Bankman-Fried didn't personally murder anyone constitutes a defense of his own fraud. > should he have been awarded a PhD? perhaps not, but that's partly on the people who awarded him the doctorate and professorship, since at least some of his lies were apparently easily verifiable No he shouldn't have been awarded a PhD. I agree that many people within British Academia bear some responsibility for being negligently credulous of Arday, but Arday himself bears responsibility for his own lies and misrepresentations (as well as for invoking the British police to try to dissuade people who were investigating his claims).