Theocracy: Giving The Game Away

When the BCSE's founders were holding their pre-launch discussions, there was one thing they kept saying. The BCSE's ultimate aim is to save the UK from the threat of a theocracy.

But no, by that they don't mean Islamic Jihadists, or the like. They mean, those people from the local evangelical church. According to the BCSE, the real reason why people disagree with naturalism in its various forms is that it's part of a master-plan to abolish democracy...

In my mind, a somewhat surreal future scene floats before me. It is the year 2156, and the month is October. The people of the UK are gathering together to mark "Roger Stanyard day". They gather round busts of the BCSE's first leader in their town squares. Speeches are given. Toasts are made. The whole country is remembering that momentous day 150 years earlier, when the BCSE launched - and saved democracy! At the time, nobody realised that freedom was under such severe threat. But happily, a few alert Internet atheists spotted the danger - and saved our country! Here in the year 2007 we may presently be remembering evangelical Christian William Wilberforce, and his efforts to abolish the slave trade. But in future years, the world will toast Mr. Roger Stanyard - rabidly anti-evangelical, the saviour of democracy!

OK. That's just a bit ridiculous. But that's the point, isn't it? If the BCSE really are the guardians of our democracy...

Where We've Been

I've shown you plenty of quotes documenting this immense silliness. Here are a couple of reminders. BCSE committee member Timothy Chase:

As for their dishonesty, it runs very deep. When you consider what they are after -- indoctrinating students in science classes with a religio-political ideology intended to establish a theocracy ... well, I don't know what other word to use, I can only describe it as evil. [BlackShadow 1273]

and Chase again, suggesting an alternative name for the BCSE before it had picked its present title:

Science Education Coalition United Regarding Evolution

SECURE

... because we are defending education against the threat posed by creationism and creationist ideology, and both the UK and democracy against the threat of theocracy. The name would draw attention to the threat posed by what it is we are against. [BlackShadow 1506]

The front page of the BCSE's website presently carries words written by Mr. Roger Stanyard, committee member and de facto BCSE leader:

Moreover, the [creationist] movement includes extreme political objectives, one of which is the replacement of democracy with a theocracy based on its extreme religious opinions.

I have been documenting the BCSE's position on these issues - and the fairly obvious contradictions between such political/religious statements and the BCSE's statements that it is a non-political and non-religious organisation! For most people, statements like the ones above will be quite sufficient to mark the BCSE out as belonging to the Dawkinsian lunatic fringe of Internet atheism. That's why I blog - to point out who they really are.

Theocracy?

Most of my previous articles on this theme have arisen from a challenge I made to the BCSE - and their attempt to meet it. If those questioning Darwinism in the UK really are aiming for "the replacement of democracy with a theocracy" - if the BCSE isn't telling enormous falsehoods - then why don't they document it for us? Why not show us the evidence? Those listed on the BCSE's "Who is Who" page have produced a great number of books, tapes, leaflets, etc. between them. Please show us we can find this political program reflected!

In response, the BCSE put up a page on its website entitled "Theocracy". In the BCSE forum, its author, Dr. Brian Jordan, confirmed that it was a response to my challenge.

http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3210#3210

I then proceeded to analyse the page, quote-by-quote. The main thing that came out was this: the BCSE have no evidence ffor its allegations. In case after case, we found that Dr. Jordan hadn't produced quotes that said anything about the replacement of democracy. He had produced quotes which in some way or other stated the truthfulness of Christianity - or disagreed with secular humanism.

The application to the political sphere, and the inference that therefore Christians ought to rise up against democracy, existed only in Dr. Jordan's head. It provided more evidence again that the main driving force of the BCSE's ideology isn't science, or education - it's to oppose the expression of authentic Christianity.

What's New?

The point of today's article is to point out that the BCSE have now taken a step which gives the game away.

After my series of articles on their "Theocracy" page had ended, they took a significant step. They re-named the page. It is now called: "The Theocratic Tendency".

http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/Theocracy

In that change, we see two significant concessions:

1. They have no evidence
   
   The front page of the BCSE's website continues to allege that the creationist movement in the UK is aiming for "the replacement of democracy with a theocracy".
   
   But where's the evidence? All the BCSE is now offering us is a few quotes in which Christians affirm Christianity - but say precious little about how this affects their political outlook, and nothing at all about any desire for a different system of government.
   
   So - we're back where we started. We have all these allegations from the BCSE - but nothing to back it up.
   
   Or in other words - the BCSE have again been caught out in making vacuous claims. And on issues which are their the reason for their very existence!
   
   
   
2. It Is About Christianity After All
   
   The BCSE now have a web-page (linked from every single page of their site) entitled "The Theocratic Tendency", containing quotes in which Christians affirm various tennets of historic Christianity - the supremacy of God, our duty to worship him, the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and Christ's return as judge at the end of the present age. This is what their page details: Christian doctrine.
   
   The BCSE have now implicitly admitted that these quotes do not explicitly advocate the replacement of democracy. They say next to nothing about politics. But now they have taken a new position - these quotes contain a "theocratic tendency".
   
   Or in other words - orthodox Christianity must be opposed, because its doctrines have theocratic "tendencies".
   
   The problem with evangelical Christianity, according to the BCSE, as that it isn't secular humanism. It doesn't agree that man is self-sufficient. It doesn't agree that man should act independently of God. It doesn't agree that whatever God there may be should be ignored, and all of public life should be carried out on stricitly non-religious principles. It tends towards the idea that man should bow the knee to his maker. Well, blow me down!
   
   To this charge, guv'nor, I, as a Christian must plead "guilty as charged". The Christian faith is indeed, not secular humanism. It has a tremendous amount to say about God, his rule, and our duty to him. All the following are statements which I believe to be true, and fundamental to a right view of the universe and ourselves. And I would love to debate them with anyone - providing that they're willing to admit what they're really debating about, and not do it under the pretence of being scientists or educators. Here are some key assertions of Christianity:
   
   
   • God is indeed God. He rules. Everything is under his authority.
     
     
   • Because God made us, that includes us. We live under his sovereign rule.
     
     
   • Because God made us, we owe him total obedience. The idea of human "freedom" to behave as we please, such that even God cannot forbid us, is atheistic bunk.
     
     
   • God has given everybody a conscience, as a testimony to the truth of these facts. We are unavoidably moral beings. Even atheists, when promoting atheism, usually do so by borrowing the tools of theism, and arguing that this or that religion is morally defective. Try as we might, we cannot get away from the centrality of moral law in the universe which God has made.
     
     Naturalism cannot explain this phenomena. We all act and behave as if morality is an undeniable fact - and when we do that, we testify that God is.
     
     
   • God could have damned us all for our wrong-doing... but instead, he has in mercy set up a kingdom of love - through Jesus Christ. Instead of sending his Son to condemn us, he sent his Son to save. God has now established the kingdom which will never end. This kingdom is the one which is ruled by God's Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is Lord, and rightful ruler of the entire cosmos.
     
     
   • Jesus Christ will one day judge both the living and the dead. God has proven this fact by raising him from the dead. (Yes, I know that in the news today a film-maker claims to have proved this false ... but please take the time to notice the contradictions between this year's new conspiracy theory and last year's... they can't both be true... and if this year's is true, next year's, which will also be contradictory, isn't...). Those who refuse God's offer of mercy and determine instead to continue in rebellion against their maker and against his Son's rule can only hope for eternal justice - which means eternal damnation.
     
     
   • The final rule of Jesus Christ is not yet established. It is established in principle - he is at the right hand of God. It is being established in practice gradually and inwardly, as people are persuaded to receive his gracious offer of free and full forgiveness for all of our wrong-doing and rebellion - and as their lives are changed into lives of love by his Holy Spirit.
     
     
   • The final outward form of Jesus' kingdom will indeed be outward, and total. It will be a theocracy! But that final outward form is explicitly not to be established by his followers using politics or any other outward means. It is not to be established until Christ himself returns and establishes it by his own power - not ours. Only prayer and persuasion - and these only - are our legitimate tools today. Christianity is radically different from Islam. Over 3,000 years ago the Israelite prophets prophesied that the nations of the world would come to worship the God of Israel, because of the coming Messiah. Today, the Christian message is spreading throughout the world, and people out of all countries are worshipping the God who first revealed himself to Israel - because of Jesus Christ. Coincedence? I think not!
     

Doesn't that sound like a "theocratic tendency" to you? Of course. Because God rules, whether we let him or not. Newsflash: Christianity is not secular humanism! For a time, God allows us to rebel - but he has set limits on that time. During that time, he opens wide his arms, and lovingly offers us a totally free pardon. What love! What kindness! He has been offended - but offers us grace. He, 2000 years ago, gave his own Son to the death of the cross, to bear the sentence the offence deserved, so that we can go free. We deserve damnation - but are offered freedom. But make no mistake - if we determine not to go free, his rule will remain.

This is orthodox Christianity. This is what you will find if you read the words of Jesus in the Bible. This is what you will find taught by the apostles in the New Testament. This is the consistent perspective of the Bible. This is what is affirmed in the historic creeds and confessions of the Christian church. This is Christianity. It is true. Millions of true Christians have relied upon it, and found Jesus Christ to be a wonderful friend - and a mighty Saviour.

The BCSE don't like it. It's not the secular humanism which they arrogantly insist everyone must conform to. They call it "the theocratic tendency".

But now they do that full-well knowing that their problem is not about "the replacement of democracy". Now, they do it full-well knowing that it is about their own resistance Jesus Christ. They oppose Christianity, because its tendency to teach that man is not the ultimate ruler - God is. They oppose Christianity, because it teaches that humanism is a false religious system that leads to misery and damnation. They oppose Christianity, because it teaches that however much we rebel against him, God still rules.

The mask has come off... the game has been given away.

I hope that the BCSE will be honest enough to stop pretending that their problem is with science. Their problem is with the claims of Jesus Christ. When they've stopped pretending - we can have a proper discussion. I'm all up for it.

David Anderson


I presume that none of my readers imagine that I think the above belongs in state school science lessons. I have to say that, because the BCSE's web-site is full of the following non-sequitor: 1) Mr. X makes scientific criticisms of Darwinism 2) Mr. X also believes certain religious doctrines 3) Therefore, Mr. X thinks that his religious doctrines should be taught in science lessons. Err, no.

BlackShadow posts have been pulled by the BCSE from the Internet. I am able to provide a copy to researchers - e-mail me.

Non-anonymous factual corrections welcomed by e-mail. Comments are moderated - please read my comments policy.

Some Pertinent Questions... (Part 3)

The Story So Far...

In part one of this series, I pointed out what the BCSE have done by way of response to "BCSE Revealed". They have spent very much time and energy in responding. Almost all of this response, though, has been directed to discrediting me by way of insult. Almost none of this response has been actually directed towards answering the questions I've been raising - or explaining the damning evidence for the BCSE's mendacity and true agenda.

In part two, I then raised again some of the questions which the BCSE have ignored - and challenged them to provide some answers. If you want to represent yourself to the public and to legislators as a bona fide body, then you have to be able to provide answers. Here are the questions again, in brief:

1. Why are you presenting yourself as a national centre for science education when you apparently have not a single individual within your leadership who has ever been involved in science education? Isn't this a massive act of dishonesty and fraud?
   
   
2. How do you explain the evidence I presented showing your cluelessness about the UK education scene in general? Isn't it grossly fraudulent of you to represent yourself as experts when none of you had even read the National Curriculum? Shouldn't a group professing to be experts on education have, say, a teacher in its leadership somewhere?
   
   
3. How is it that you claim to speak with authority on science education without a single practising PhD scientist amongst your leaders - and only one retired one? (And his PhD is not in the field which you claim as your area of expertise...)
   
   
4. How do you explain my evidence that you wrote to MPs, lobbying them to condemn material whose contents, when your wrote, were unknown to you? How much more blatantly dishonest an act could you carry out?
   
   
5. How should we reconcile the statements on your website that you have no religious agenda with the many quotes I have produced from your leaders explaining their religious agenda in their BCSE activity?

The Response

First of all, it is quite clear that the BCSE leaders regularly read my blog - a quick visit to their own blogs, website or forum will show you that.

And secondly, from the continuing activity at various websites to discredit me with various insults and assertions-without-evidence, it is clear that the BCSE leaders are still willing to put up a good chunk of time in the effort to discredit me. (I am particularly amused by the individual who has taken to claiming that I am incompetent in secondary-level science, and I invite him, if he has the guts, to post his examination record in my comments. Then we can compare who the facts say is more or less competent...)

But thirdly... there's not been a single comment submitted to me, either privately by e-mail, or as a comment to this blog, to answer any of the above questions.

Now, I don't intend to go away. As long as the BCSE continue to make any kind of public claim or demand to be heard in the field of science education, I intend to make the information available showing just who they are and what they're up to. The BCSE have the greatest possible of motives for providing good answers to these questions.

And that is why I can feel pretty confident in asserting that the reason why they haven't even tried to answer these questions is... because they can't. They're willing to spend lots of effort - but none here. What does that tell us?

Whereas the "research" on the BCSE website merely asks you to take their word for it on assertion after assertion... I have provided documentation. The world can see what's going on...

Some More Questions

I do not expect the BCSE to try to answer any of the following questions - because I do not think they can. But for the sake of completeness, I shall ask them. Here are some more reasons why it's pretty difficult to take the BCSE as anything but an act of fraud.


1. Why Did The BCSE Spend So Much Energy In Deleting Evidence Of Its History?

As I launched "BCSE Revealed" and began documenting the evidence of the BCSE's true composition and aims, something started happening. As soon as I blogged - evidence would start disappearing. Logs of changes to the BCSE website were passworded; paragraphs and words change or disappear; a Yahoo e-mail group was locked and then deleted; and the BCSE even took steps to block anyone following a link from this blog to their website! (Last I heard that was still in place, but I haven't tried it).


Given that the BCSE's website alleges that its opponents are secretive (try doing a search for "Mafia" on its site)... why did it start doing this? Wasn't it because the evidence was too damning? I showed people what the BCSE was really up to - and so they moved to cover it up... is there any other explanation? Nothing started to be locked down - until "BCSE Revealed" started pointing it out...


http://bcse-.../2006/11/amazing-disappearing-evidence.html


2. Massive Exaggeration Of Its Own Size

The BCSE made several public claims about its own size - including in the context of protesting that it wasn't a one-man band. The numbers it claimed for its membership went into three figures.

I exposed the method that the BCSE was using to arrive at the figures it was giving. It was counting everyone who posted even a single message on its web discussion forum as a member - whether they agreed, or whether they disagreed. Unwitting non-Darwinists would post a message on the BCSE discussion forum - and unbeknown to them, the BCSE would then start including them in the numbers it gave out for its membership. This was a highly convenient counting method too from the point of view that once someone loses interest, they'll just float away - but probably not bother to delete their forum account. Membership was guaranteed only ever to go up!

Can the BCSE explain this?


Can they explain, furthermore, why, after announcing a policy that only those who made a financial contribution could be members, they later reverted it and accepted anyone, without payment? Is it because hardly anyone (no-one?) was willing to send them any money? What would this say about the BCSE's trustworthiness - that even those sympathetic to its position weren't symphathetic enough to actually trust them any cash... ?

http://bcse-.../2006/10/who-are-members-part-2_19.html
http://bcse-.../2006/10/who-are-members-part-3.html
http://bcse-.../2006/12/note-on-bcses-membership.html


3. Neither a scientist, nor an educator.

Whilst the BCSE's website was busily protesting that it was not a one-man band but full of qualified individuals, I was documenting the fact that the majority of BCSE activity was (and still is) due to a single individual - Mr. Roger Stanyard. I provided evidence that he:

• writes twice as many internal communications as anyone else,
• is recognised internally as the leader,
• calls the shots,
• wrote the charter,
• owns the website,
• wrote almost all of the website,
• represents them in public,
• and is the primary contact...

Ironically, of course, it was Mr. Stanyard himself who wrote the parts of the BCSE website which protest that the BCSE is not a one-man band...

... but anyway, the point was this. Mr. Stanyard has never been a practising scientist - his entire career has been in management consultancy. This left us with some significant questions:

• Was Mr. Stanyard guilty of deceit when he asked the public to believe that the BCSE wasn't really a "one-man band"? How much would he have to do to qualify for this description?
  
  
• If Mr. Stanyard really was the leader whilst describing himself as the "spokesman", then what does this tell us about the BCSE's honesty?
  
  
• If Mr. Stanyard was really the leader, then what was his motivation for passing himself off to the public and MPs as a "spokesperson"? Surely the answer is to be found in the question...
  
  
• What are Mr. Stanyard's qualifications to speak in the areas of science and education - even, to set up a national centre for science education - and to seek to gain influence in parliament in these areas? Apparently, he has none. Is this not a gross act of fraud?
  
  See http://bcse-.../2006/10/take-me-to-your-leader.html and http://bcse-.../2006/11/take-me-to-your-leader-part-2.html for documentation.
  

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/.../letters/article657958.ece

4. Former Members Told Us What They Really Think

One individual who had been involved in the planning for the launch of the BCSE, and a second who had been claimed by the BCSE as a member and had an article published on its website, e-mailed me to clarify that they were now certainly not members.

One described the BCSE as "religiously motivated" and said "One of the reasons I distanced myself from the BSCE is for the very reason you have pinned that they are ... a small number of individuals claiming to be something bigger than they are." The other individual said that he was "fed [up] and bored with the strident tones of BCSE" ... "Many of their articles are both shoddy and strident." ... "I was fed up with atheistic bigotry."

This is the verdict of former BCSE insiders. Were they wrong? How does the BCSE explain that they came to just the same verdict as I had?


http://bcse.../2006/10/fact-check.html
http://bcse.../2006/11/fact-check-ii.html


Conclusion

So, here are some more hard questions for the BCSE. I expect them to devote no time to answering them; I expect them to continue devoting time to insulting me on their blogs and websites. And you, dear reader, will know just what to make of that. But just in case someone has some answers - the comments are open, and we are all ears.


David Anderson



Non-anonymous factual corrections welcomed by e-mail. Comments are moderated - please read my comments policy.

Some Pertinent Questions... (Part 2)

Part one of this article set the scene - we want to conduct an analysis of the BCSE's response to the questions raised by "BCSE Revealed". What does this response show? How much pressure do they feel from the facts that we've been documenting? What kinds of answers do we have?

In summary, the response has been "many insults - little substance". I am not aware that the BCSE have addressed any of the substantive issues I have raised over their credibility. On the other hand, I am aware of a very substantial and very personal campaign to blacken my name.

I find this response revealing. If the BCSE had some solid arguments against my case - why would they resort to this instead? On the other hand, though, it is what I expected from my research before launching this blog. A brief visit to the BCSE's website will show that ad hominem combined with and a crude "you're either for us or against us - and surely you're not with those nutters!" appeal is the BCSE's stock-in-trade.

And it's not just me... over the last couple of days I've appreciated the moral support from two much bigger blogs - Uncommon Descent (here - http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/2044) and Telic Thoughts (here - http://telicthoughts.com/david-anderson-a-very-dangerous-man/).

More of the same...

As if to prove this point, about 48 hours after I posted, the BCSE's spokesman turned up on RichardDawkins.Net, adding "ad hominim [sic] attacks, pedantry, sanctimonious self righteousness and his vile, amoral blog" to the list of my crimes. Ah well. I can at least appreciate consistency... (http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,626,Does-Richa...mments)


What's missing from this picture?

Now I want to do what the BCSE's leadership apparently are very keen for me not to do - raise those awkward questions again.

I remind my readers once again that I am interested in facts. I am sure of my case - the BCSE are a bogus, fraudulent and deceptive organisation. And because I am sure of my case, I do not want it to be sullied by errors or unnecessary personalisation of the issues. I want all the mistakes to be weeded out. So, the comments are open - and I place my e-mail address at the end of every post.

Here, then, are some of the key issues I've documented - and what the BCSE could do to provide a credible response. The links given are representative - following the labels (down the navigation bar) you can find plenty of others on this site.

1. No Science Educators
   
   http://bcse-revealed.../2006/10/whats-national-curriculum.html
   
   Despite representing itself to the public, newspapers and MPs as a national centre for scientific education... the BCSE's leadership has not one member who has actually any experience in providing science education.
   
   Prove me wrong! Am I lying? All it requires is a list of the universities/colleges/schools and years where the BCSE's leadership have held appropriate positions. And then I'll stop saying it.
   
   
2. No Clue About UK Education In General
   
   http://bcse-revealed.../2006/10/whats-national-curriculum.html
   
   In fact, the BCSE's leadership were so clueless about education in the UK, that they even had to converse amongst themselves about what the National Curriculum was... and still got it wrong.
   
   The BCSE can easily prove me wrong here, by releasing the releveant e-mails public archive of the Yahoo group on which they discussed this matter to the public. I have them, and I have offered to make them available to any researcher. If I have fabricated these e-mails - then it's very easy for the BCSE leaders to make public the real ones. The references are in the link above.
   
   
3. The Most Meagre Scientific Qualifications
   
   http://bcse-revealed.../2006/10/who-are-members-part-3.html
   
   The BCSE leadership only contains a single individual with a doctorate in a scientific subject - and he is retired. (Ironically, his expertise was in a branch of (chemical) engineering. This is ironic, because the BCSE often criticise engineers for not being qualified to speak about evolution... go figure that one out!)
   
   I can't see how the BCSE could possibly prove me wrong on this one, as the above is directly stated on the front page of their own website. But still, I'm willing to be corrected...
   
   
4. Caught Lying To MPs
   
   http://bcse-revealed.../2006/10/red-handed-bcse-caught-lying-to-mps.html
   http://bcse-revealed.../2006/10/when-youre-in-hole.html
   
   The BCSE had sent letters to MPs condemning Truth in Science's mailed material as "full of scientific mistakes" at least three days before they discovered any of the contents of that material. Or in other words, they lied openly and brazenly.
   
   And when I discovered it, they attempted to obfuscate the matter - by bringing in the irrelevant fact that when they received the material, they discovered that it contained some of the same content as some material they'd seen in another context a few months before.
   
   To this day, the BCSE have continued to completely ignore this major issue for their credibility. You can't lie to MPs in such a shameless fashion and then expect to be taken seriously.
   
   Of course, if the BCSE have the proof that their reviewer received the material before 29th of September (the date which he announced on the Internet that he had received it - being 3 days after Roger Stanyard had already written to MPs), then all they have to do is produce it... this will be hard though, as then they'll have to explain the places where said reviewer mentions that he hasn't yet received the material...
   
   
   
5. Founding members caught stating that their aims were not scientific, but religious
   
   http://bcse-revealed.../2006/11/freedom-pluralism-and-deception.html
   
   We documented quotes from some of the BCSE's present leadership, explaining that their aim in participating was to make people think of certain religious groups as they do of paedophiles. Other explained that their goals were not to do with science, but politics.
   
   Again, if I fabricated these quotes, then all the BCSE has to do is reproduce the messages with the numbers I cited from the now deleted "BlackShadow" Yahoo group in full, so that people can see that the quotes I documented don't exist....

Conclusion - And Challenge

There's plenty more where that came from. But I think that five test cases to start with is enough.

So, the gauntlet is laid down. The typical response from BCSE leaders to my material has been to complain amongst themselves on various websites that I am lying again - and to post new blog entries or set up new websites to try to persuade people what a piece of dirt I am.

But if I am lying, there is a much simpler remedy which makes all the superfluous. The comments thread is open. I will accept any comment that addresses one of the five points above, and is free from irrelevant asides. That is, cut out the personal stuff, and just provide straight down the line documentation of where I've gone wrong. As, according to the front page of the BCSE website, my blog is "unmitigated rubbish from start to finish", this should be fairly easy to do - shouldn't it?

So, the challenge is there. Provide the documentation.

If you can't, then the Internet will know just what you're really up to.

David Anderson


Non-anonymous factual corrections welcomed by e-mail. Comments are moderated - please read my comments policy.

Calling the BCSE's Bluff

Roger Stanyard has until midnight tomorrow (the 20th of December 2006), to make up his mind about whether he's standing by his allegations of criminality. If he is, then he can look forward to explaining them to the proper authorities. He knows and I know that he doesn't have a shred of evidence - which is why, of course, like most bullies, he just makes spurious threats about calling the police instead of actually doing it.

To:

North Walls Police Station
North Walls
Winchester
SO23 8DW

(Which is a police station under 2 miles from Roger Stanyard's home).

Dear Sir,

I am writing to you about allegations of criminality being publicly made against me by Mr. Roger Stanyard, of number XX, Langton Close, Winchester, SO 22 6RJ. I have written to Mr. Stanyard, asking him to withdraw these allegations - but he has refused to do so.

Therefore, I would like to ask you to investigate these allegations speedily. They are false, Mr. Stanyard refuses to give me any evidence for them, and I desire the public slur on my character to be cleared up as quickly as possible.

The background to Mr. Stanyard's allegations are that he is the spokesman for an activist group (the "British Centre for Science Education") whose dubious credentials and fraudulent methods of operation I have repeatedly exposed on my website. As such, Mr. Stanyard is very keen to discredit me.

Mr. Stanyard alleges that:

• I have been making attempts to "hack or hijack" his organisation's website.
  
  
• In connect with such attempts, I have made "hundreds of failed password attempts". This, he says, is proved by the logs on his website, which identify my computer (by its "IP address").
  
  
• I have consumed "a massive amount of bandwidth" on his website.
  
  
• That he has "received legal counsel" to "contact the police" (which he has not yet done), as I am breaking the "computer misuse act".
  

Mr. Stanyard knows that these allegations are false; I have made no efforts at all to "hack" his organisation's website. Furthermore, Mr. Stanyard knows that my computer accesses his website using the same IP address as many thousands of other Internet users - it is not even technically possible for Mr. Stanyard to pick me out from these users.

I enclose a copy of Mr. Stanyard's allegations from his website, plus some other relevant materials.

I gave Mr. Stanyard a deadline by which to withdraw his allegations. The fact that you are now receiving this letter indicates that he chose not to do so.

I ask you to let me know the outcome of your investigations as promptly as possible.

Kind regards,
David Anderson esq.

(The above article was also copied to roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk, roger@bcseweb.org.uk, stanyardroger@yahoo.com and committee@bcseweb.org.uk. Or in other words, you can be sure that Mr. Stanyard has seen it. And for the record, in posting part of Mr. Stanyard's address, I am not doing or intending him any harm because he has himself published it in full on another website).

Update 20th December (10 p.m.)
Roger Stanyard is known to be aware of this challenge, as he has posted in a thread on the BCSE forums in which it is mentioned. Another poster in those forums says that I am "obviously" carrying out a "smear campaign" against Roger Stanyard. One more example of the reality blindness that exists over in those forums... hello? Who is the one publishing allegations and making threats about criminality and calling the police, please?