"Wolf! Wolf!" (II)

Readers may remember that in December, the BCSE twice tried to intimidate and/or discredit me by inventing bogus legal threats against me:

1. At one time, the BCSE website carried paragraphs including allegations such as: "We also advise readers of this wiki that Anderson is in serious breach of UK and international copyright laws in information he is offering to the public." (one, two, three).
   
   
2. After the above allegation seriously back-fired (when the BCSE discovered that a) it was false and b) their private e-mails demonstrated that they knew it was false and c) I was documenting their own multiple and actual breaches of copyright law), the BCSE came up with a new one: that I was attempting to break into their website contrary to the "computer misuse act" and that they had received legal advice to report me to the police (one, two, three).
   
   

I called the BCSE a bunch of bluffing bullies, challenging them to take their evidence to the law if it existed. In fact, I promised to do it myself just to prove the point of how empty their threats were.

And lo and behold... few days later, the BCSE silently deleted the second allegation from their website too.

Before (notice that it's a "sticky" topic, meaning that it was permanently locked to the top of the forum so that all visitors would see it):

(http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/forum/viewforum.php?f=1)

And now, it's gone...


How The BCSE Operate

You will be unsurprised to learn that after carrying this post with its allegations of serious criminality, the BCSE have not troubled themselves to:

1. Send me any kind of apology for any damage done to my reputation.
   
   
2. Put up any kind of statement on their website correcting their errors so that anyone who read the original post can now understand that the BCSE are no longer backing their own allegations.
   

Nope - it's just been silently deleted. Let's just pretend they never said it! Remember that the front page of the BCSE website says:

BCSE believes in ... Righteousness.

I have to say that I find BCSE-style righteousness not very palatable.

The Boy Who Cried Wolf...

The trouble with making bogus legal threats which you have no intention of standing behind should it come to the crunch, is that it damages your credibility. Once you've done it a few times, people no longer see any reason to take you seriously. (For a third case in point, see the footnote of this article). All that the BCSE have accomplished through this saga is:

1. Far from damaging my integrity, they have established it. My words about the BCSE still stand - theirs about me have had to be deleted.
   
   
2. They have proved my own thesis that the "research" on their website will have to be deleted once it comes under scrutiny. Or in other words, their own credibility has been damaged.
   
   
3. They have shown themselves up as bullies - using threats with no substance behind them.
   
   
4. They have shown themselves as too small-minded to publish any kind of apology once their smears are exposed as false.

Or in other words, the BCSE are showing the world all the features which led me to start this blog in the first place so that others could see what was going on...

David Anderson

Michael Brass and Copyright

In the past few days I've had a few e-mails from "Mikey" Brass, the newly appointed BCSE interim chairman. You may remember that Mikey e-mailed me to request a correction to my previous article on copyright.

That previous article arose from the fact that the BCSE has attempted to discredit me, by claiming that I am breaking the law. Or in their own words, "he has never approached us for copyright permission on any material lifted from any sites of BCSE or its forum participants or members." Of course, I don't need any permission merely to make small quotations from any of their sites.

Oops...

But this claim quickly back-fired on the BCSE rather spectacularly. With just a cursory sweep of their website, I was able to uncover over 10 places where they have lifted entire articles from copyrighted sources (including those with prominent copyright notices) onto their site.
Among those who have been plagiarised are the BBC, the Guardian, the Independent and several creationists.

However, one of my "exhibits" ("Exhibit A") was not a whole article, but 3 A4 pages, of which less than 1 page was from an unpublished work. Mikey Brass, BCSE chairman, e-mailed me to let me know that he personally had permission to publish this short extract. I took his word for it - you can read the correction I made in the original article.

Further Comments

However, Mikey didn't stop there - he also had something to say about the 2 A4 pages of the other work. Mikey said,

"I also love your ignorance of fair usage: the quoted pieces constitute less than ten percent of either work."

I found this interesting for two reasons:

1) Mikey appears to be asserting that "fair use" defines the right to re-publish up to ten percent of a published work without needing permission. Apparently, to not know that is to be "ignorant".

2) Mikey also clearly shows that he does know that "fair use" rights exist - and therefore he knows that his organisation's website contains clear falsehoods about me allegedly acting "illegally" in making short quotes. Or in the BCSE's own words, "As a trainee man of religion, we are surprised that Anderson is willing to break the law".

Ten Percent?

I wanted to make sure that I had really understood Mikey right on both points. It wouldn't be fair to blog this without checking that I wasn't misinterpreting him, so I e-mailed him to ask.

Mikey confirmed that this was indeed his understanding.

To me, this just shows again the huge gap between reality and the BCSE's public announcements and representation of itself as a credible authority. I've touched on this before when covering the BCSE's (and Mikey's) off-the-wall pronouncements on home education.

UK copyright laws do not mention any definite percentage. Each case is judged on its merits, should it be litigated. The "ten percent" theory would lead to obvious absurdities. For example, under this theory, I could serialise a couple of volumes of the Encyclopedia
Britannica without any worries. And if I could persuade 9 friends to publish another 10% each, we could reproduce any work in the world. Copyright law might as well not exist!

This leaves me wondering why Mikey was so dogmatic about this theory - so dogmatic that he was willing to say he "loved my ignorance"! (The irony...) Was this another attempt to intimidate me into silence with bluster? Or does he actually (ignorantly!) believe it? Only he knows, and further e-mails to him about it have not provided an answer.

Hypocrisy?

The other point I think is more telling. Seeing as now not only the BCSE's original de facto leader (Roger Stanyard) but also its new chairman have both acknowledged that fair usage rights exist, why do they continue to proclaim on the page about me that they don't? Why do
they continue to claim that I have acted illegally?

I asked Mikey as follows:

Mikey, I was interested in two things.

1) You acknowledge the existence of fair use rights. As such, the BCSE's
web-page which alleges that I am breaking the law in not having asked you permission to make quotes from your website, is obviously something you know to be false. ...

2) Your understanding of fair use rights seems to be an allowance to reproduce anything up to 10%. I find that an interesting theory... it doesn't explain, of course, why your organisation's website reproduces 100% of so many copyrighted works - rather, it seems to suggest that you know you're outside the law?

...

David

Mikey gave me no reply to this question, but instead sent a one-line reply to an irrelevant aside I'd made in the same e-mail.

I wanted to be sure that Mikey had had a fair chance to answer me, so I e-mailed him again, as follows:

Mikey,

I'm going to blog the facts that your e-mails to me (in whatever capacity) clearly show that you, the BCSE's chairman, know that fair use rights exist.

Do you have any comment for me on the fact that the BCSE's website continues to claim that I am acting illegally by not approaching the BCSE for the right to quote it? Obviously, I will be suggesting that the BCSE's stance is somewhat dishonest and hypocritical. Anything to say to that before I blog?

Kind regards,
David

Mikey's response?

"I really couldn't care less what nonsense you continue to peddle on your private site."

I think that these facts speak for themselves. The BCSE wishes to maintain a hypocritical stance, smear me, and hope that nobody notices. Moreover, it can't answer fair and honest questions from those that it smears, but just ignores us instead and hopes we'll go away. This gives us a pretty good clue as to what kind of organisation they are. I can now say that I've received the same kind of treatment that the various scientists, educators and others have received who are smeared on the BCSE's website. That's what this blog's here for - so that anyone else who is open-minded can see what's really going on.

A footnote

Mikey stressed more than once that he was e-mailing me in a "private" capacity, and not in his capacity as BCSE chairman. I have no problem pointing this out, but find it rather puzzling. Is he suggesting that there are two Mikey Brass's? One who acknowledges fair use rights (the private one) and one who doesn't (the public one)? Is he schizophrenic? I don't understand this way of thinking too well. Either Mikey Brass knows that the BCSE is deliberately and hypocritically trying to smear me with lies, or he doesn't - whatever capacity he's acting in. Whatever capacity he's acting in, the fact is, his organisation looks to have extreme problems with handling the simple truth.

David Anderson
bcse-blog at dw-perspective dot org dot uk : Non-anonymous factual corrections welcomed

The BCSE Versus Copyright Law

In an earlier post, I examined the BCSE's attempts to respond to this blog. Over the weeks, I have brought forward a number of what I'd say are fairly damning quotes made by the BCSE's leaders, about their purpose. Who could look at the BCSE's campaigning in the same light again after they'd read Ian Lowe, the convenor of the Scottish Atheist Council, saying this?

It should be relatively easy to rally against the fundies.

Pick an obnoxious trait, focus on what that would mean for the public at large, exaggerate it, and demonise that trait to the point that no rational person would consider supporting them. [1029]

Or Michael Brass, explaining why he would like campaigning against the right of parents to criticise Darwinism in front of their own children to be made a fundamental principle of the BCSE's operations?

... a lot of problems come in because some parents believe they know better than educators on how their children should be educated.

Or atheists Timothy Chase and Lenny Flank, explaining their motivations?

I agree that we should avoid turning this into what appears to be a science debate. [1506]

This fight really isn't about science -- it's about political power. [1498]

The BCSE's Response

Well, the BCSE read my blog. But they haven't attempted to claim that these quotes are inaccurate - as I have a copy of the archive, that would be too easy to refute. Neither have they attempted to argue that these are the views of crazies who they are distancing themselves from - it has already been demonstrated that these people are the BCSE's core and leadership.

Instead, the BCSE (in particular, its leader - Roger Stanyard) have put up some paragraphs designed either to intimidate me into stopping, or to discredit my person so that hopefully nobody will notice my arguments (a.k.a. ad hominem).

As we've seen, the BCSE invents a whole new theory of copyright law, in order either to fool me into taking this journal down, or to blacken my name in general.

The New Copyright Law

Under the BCSE's new theory of copyright, "fair use" rights - the right to quote brief portions of previously published works (such as the BCSE's public Yahoo group, or website, or forums), no longer exist. Instead, I am meant to have "approached [the BCSE] for copyright permission on any material lifted from any sites of BCSE or its forum participants or
members." (http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/Links#anderson).

A second innovation under the BCSE's new copyright laws is that the rights surrounding private copies for research purposes are also revoked. Apparently, I am "in serious breach of UK and international copyright laws" for offering researchers a copy of the archive for the purpose of verifying my accuracy.

Now, given that several BCSE leaders are known to read this blog, the fact that they haven't withdrawn those claims even though they know that I'm not fooled, points to the other alternative. It's an attempt to discredit me, hoping that those who read it will both be ignorant of copyright rights, and won't bother to come here to check my rebuttal. Given that the BCSE have characterised this blog as an attempt to "smear" them, the irony is fairly rich.

Today's Data

My point today is to now look at how the BCSE themselves handle copyright issues. They've raised the issue - so how do they do?

Given that Stanyard, in the paragraphs mentioned above, both claims to know about copyright laws, and to be very zealous for obedience to them, it will be interesting to look at Stanyard's own practice. Remember that Stanyard claims that fair usage rights don't exist, and that permission must be obtained for mere quotations. Does Stanyard hold himself to his own standard? If he doesn't, does he hold himself to the actual law itself instead?

Let's take a look at the BCSE's website. For exhibits A-C, I'll be a bit wordier - then we'll rattle through a few more just to give an indication of how much evidence exists. Then we'll conclude.

Exhibit A : http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/WhatIsCreationism

On the page "What is Creationism?" (after the main article), there are reproduced 3 A4 pages titled as being "from Associate-Professor Andrew Smith's 'Africa and World Prehistory' (1996, unpublished) in Part I, and Professor Arthur Strahler's 'Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy' (1999, second edition, Prometheus) in Part II."

What new theory of copyright law do the BCSE invent in order to allow themselves to do this? Answer: They add a single sentence to the top: "All copyright is hereby acknowledged." Pardon? Are they really saying that as long as you acknowledge what you're up to, then it's fine - seriously?

I wish I'd known this theory. Instead of offering researchers a copy of the BCSE's archive for a limited purpose, I could have just plonked it entire on the web for the general public. If only I'd thought of adding a line "All copyright is hereby acknowledged"!

I wonder if I can apply this theory in other areas of life? Say, I rob a bank, but leave behind a little note: "All legal owners of this cash are hereby acknowledged"? Can I carry out an assult, just as long as I also tell the victim: "Your personal rights to not be beaten up are hereby acknowledged?" Do you think? How far can we take this new theory?

Update 5^th December: I have received an e-mail from Michael Brass of the BCSE, telling me that he received permission to post the material from Professor Andrew Smith. Michael was this week announced as the BCSE's interim chairman. For the record, this is the first time I have received a request for a factual correction from the BCSE. (I point that out so that my readers can know that the reason the BCSE haven't challenged any of the facts I've documented isn't because they're not aware of them).

The material from Andrew Smith covers less than one of the three A4 pages referred to above, so I am happy to make the correction - but the "exhibit" as a whole still stands, unless Michael has some more information. Though, Michael, it's not necessary to call me "boy" or "arse" in order to get a correction made - I'll do them quite happily without any of that. See, I even made this one without even asking you to show me any proof at all!

Exhibit B : http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/NigelMcQuoid

The BCSE has a page on the director of schools at the Emmanuel Schools Foundation, Nigel McQuoid. Now, Mr. McQuoid is obviously an extremely competent man, as the flagship school of his foundation has just gained the highest possible commendation in an Ofsted inspection - one of only 20 schools in the entire country to be graded as "excellent" by Ofsted three times (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6173204.stm). However, as the schools have a Christian ethos, this piece of reality doesn't stop campaigning atheists such as those at the BCSE from targetting them - as though they were some of the worst schools on the planet.

In its piece on Mr. McQuoid, about half way down, Stanyard takes it upon himself to insert the entire transcript of an interview between Rod Liddle (who I previously mistakenly described as a humanist) and McQuoid, from a Channel 4 program from March 2006. Not just a quote. Nothing that could be described as "fair use" - the whole interview.

Exhibit C : http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/PressCoverage

It's not just Channel 4 who have had their copyright rights ignored by the BCSE. BBC Radio Manchester, the Observer and the Independent newspapers have had the same treatment.

On this page, the BCSE reproduce the entirety of an interview involving Terry Christian, Roger Stanyard and Andy McIntosh. (This is the already-celebrated occasion where management consultant Stanyard, a man with no qualifications in physics since leaving school, accuses Professor McIntosh, a Fellow of the Institute of Physics, of believing that "physics is wrong"). Not only that, but they also provide a pirate audio recording for you to listen to it!

Further down the page, there's an entire article from the "Observer" newspaper, copied and pasted in for us. Scroll down again, and there's the whole of a (two A4-page) article from the Independent. Not just a few words - the whole lot. The Observer and Independent websites contain clear copyright statements forbidding such actions.

Exhibit D : http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/RandallHardy

Let's rattle through them now. I'll be as brief as possible. I think we've established the princple - now let's see the extent to which this is going on. This page features the whole of two separate press releases put out by "Creation Research UK" copied-and-pasted in. The website contains a copyright statement as follows (emphasis mine): "All the material is subject to copyright restrictions.You may make complete copies for yourself, but you may not alter the material or publish it in whole or in part without our written permission."

Exhibit E : http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/FaridAbouRahme

Reproduces the whole of a lengthy article that appeared in the Northhampton Chronicle & Echo, apparently in April 2005.

Exhibit F : http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/CecilAndrews

Reproduces an entire article from the Examiner newspaper (1997). (It is not made clear precisely which newspaper this is).

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

Reproduces an entire article from the "Freethinker", April 2003.

Exhibit H : http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/Infiltration

Reproduces an entire paper from Stephen Layfield from a 1998 conference. Again, the website that it is taken from has a statement: "All the material is subject to copyright restrictions.You may make complete copies for yourself, but you may not alter the material or publish it in whole or in part without our written permission.

Exhibit I : http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/CreationistScientists

Reproduces a long list of creationist scientists copied and pasted from Answers in Genesis' website, in violation of the site's copyright statement.

Exhibit J : http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/AnswersInGenesisUK

Reproduces in full a long article from the Leicester Mercury from the 17^th of October.

Summing Up

Well, there are plenty more. But 13 examples of copying pages at once, or entire articles, ought to make the point pretty clearly.

What, then, have we seen? We've seen that Stanyard and the BCSE routinely and flagrantly ignore copyright law, and over-ride copyright statements on the articles, lifting them wholesale.Going far beyond any "fair use" rights to reproduce small extracts, they routinely copy-and-paste whole articles without permission and in direct violation of the copyright statements on the sources they list from.

And yes, this the is same Stanyard/BCSE who have tried to intimidate me into silence by suggesting that I have no right to quote the tiniest amount from them without their permission. The same Stanyard/BCSE who claim to know a great deal about copyright law, and have great respect for it.

All I can say is, Stanyard/BCSE certainly ought to know a copyright violation when they see one!

The Verdict

There's some data then. It helps us to easily resolve three questions:

• Are the BCSE abiding by the law (the law that they have drawn attention to), or breaking it wholesale? Are they legal?
  
  
• Do the BCSE have consistent standards in regards of copyright and "fair use", or are they obvious hypocrites?
  
  
• Are the BCSE trying to silence me with valid reasons, or with falsehoods, intimidation and bullying tactics?

The BCSE need to be revealed for what they are - in case anyone takes them seriously. That's why we're here.David Anderson
bcse-blog at dw-perspective dot org dot uk - Non-anonymous factual corrections welcome.

Numbered quotes above are the the BlackShadow Yahoo group post with the same number. The BCSE have now removed the public archive from the Internet, but a copy is available from me to any researcher who wishes to verify the accuracy of the quotes above.

Responding to the BCSE

Gandhi once famously said "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you; then you win!". Somewhat melodramatic of me to mention it, yes. But there's a good point in there.

At first, the BCSE followed an official policy of ignoring this blog. But that's been changing. Now, Roger Stanyard (the BCSE's leader - see here, here, here) has posted an official article about me. This is something I am positive about - it is now clear to the BCSE that there is a powerful case to answer. Whilst few of the BCSE's targets have thought that the BCSE are credible enough to deserve more than a sentence or two in response, the BCSE are now seriously worried about me.

Of course, I anticipated some kind of response at some point. For that reason, I have been careful to document my facts carefully. It's all there for anyone to see. This takes away the need to make counter-responses; if I have an obvious bias which involves taking the facts and twisting them beyond all recognition, then anyone will be able to see it. This is in stark contrast to the "research" articles on the BCSE's own website. Lacking references to primary sources, you're just going to have to take their word for it that they're fairly handling whatever facts they have. Where those "facts" come from is something that they are generally keeping secret.

In my opinion, I seem to have done pretty well. Instead of e-mailing me to point out factual errors, BCSE members have e-mailed me to dole out abuse. That's not normally necessary if you're in control of the facts. However, it has been brought to my attention that the BCSE have now amended their public response to me to accuse me of deliberate illegality. This is a serious accusation, and demands a serious response.

My Response

Firstly, I'm not too troubled by the material about me or my church. It is of a similar standard to the rest of the BCSE's site - contains some simple mistakes here and there, contains a few 2+2=5 deductions, contains no way that anybody wanting to check the BCSE's accuracy or fairness to the facts could do so... and so on. To spend time refuting this kind of thing would be to give it more credibility than it's worth.

Those with a sense of irony will not fail to be amused by the fact that almost in the same breath as complaining about being "smeared", Stanyard then proceeds to deliver up as many "Anderson has been spotted in the same room as X, who is thought to be involved with Y, who is rumoured to be into Z"-type allegations as he can manage. In the space of four short paragraphs, we're taken on a whistle-stop tour of not necessarily relevant (!!) speculation about sizes of churches, "notorious censorship", "diploma mills", who my blog has provided hyperlinks to, what unspecified "affiliations" I have, some of which possibly involve "anti-" this, that and the other... and none of these about me - all about other people. Well, at least we can say that Stanyard ought to know a smear when he sees one! May he come to gain the same keen acumen when it comes to spotting a double-standard!

The irony-meter is also rather tickled by this one:

"Anderson has never approached BCSE to check his facts"

Maybe you are thinking that this would imply that Stanyard was careful to make sure he approached me before publishing his allegations about me? Just so that nobody could accuse him of acting hypocritically? Well, as it happens, he didn't.

Here's another:

"and his blog denies us the opportunity to post replies to his claims."

I scrolled down to the bottom of the page on which Stanyard posted that, to see if there was a comments section where I could add a reply. But there isn't. Seems I have to head off to some forum which most people reading the article would likely never trouble themselves with. Ah well. We've seen before that consistency isn't the BCSE's strongest point.

Well, as I say, I think that such material is self-refuting. So I'll leave that there.

Illegality?

Here are the paragraphs which I am really responding to:

As a trainee man of religion, we are surprised that Anderson is willing to break the law

This mock surprise, of course, is pure guff. The BCSE's leaders have, in abusive private e-mails to me, in their forums, and on their website, described me variously as a child abuser, "clown", "liar", "fool", "stupid", "fundamentalist", "completely without standards or [conscience]", "cowardly", "gutless", "little weasel", "god boy", "extremist", "lowest of the low", worse than the "dirtiest little sewer rat chomping away on a turd". As such, I expect they won't be too surprised if I turn out to be responsible for at least 60% of the evil ever committed.

Still, how have I allegedly been breaking the law? Read on:

- he has never approached us for copyright permission on any material lifted from any sites of BCSE or its forum participants or members.

Now, I can only take it that either the BCSE are ignorant about "fair use" rights, or that they are attempting a deliberate deception. My articles have contained short extracts and quotes from the BCSE's public website, public forum, and public Yahoo mailing list. As such, no permission is needed to quote it, and I don't need to approach anyone.

If the BCSE are ignorant about the existence of "fair use" rights, then it's another data point for the case being built that they neither competent nor qualified.

I find it hard to believe, though, that the BCSE are ignorant. Their own website contains numerous similar length quotes from other third parties who they haven't approached. If Stanyard believes that this is illegal, why is he doing it himself?

It seems to me more likely that the BCSE know that this claim won't wash. That's why they haven't even tried to contact me officially about it, but have gone public instead. They know that if they contact me privately, I'll laugh. But, they think there's some mileage in making a public allegation, and hoping that readers of their website either will be ignorant of fair use rights, or that they won't come over here to check my response.

Continued

We also advise readers of this wiki that Anderson is in serious breach of UK and international copyright laws in information he is offering to the public.

That certainly sounds serious. Whatever do they mean?

He is offering to all complete copies of the postings to our former Blackshadow Yahoo group. Under copyright law, all those postings remain copyright of the posters. In some cases the posters have explicitly claimed their copyright ownership using the © sign. As Anderson has extensively drawn on material from the Blackshadow forum he is fully aware that he is in breach of copyright laws.

Well, actually I'm "fully aware" of no such thing. Since the BCSE pulled the public archive from the Internet containing all the incriminating postings which they don't want us to see, I've been making an offer. Go back through a few of my posts. I don't use the same words each time, but the meaning is clear. I offer to supply to any researcher who wants to verify the accuracy of my quotations, a copy of the archive.

That's a limited offer, to limited people, for a limited purpose - research. And that's again protected by UK copyright law. I haven't put up a public copy for anyone to download - and I'm not making a general offer to the public (contrary to Stanyard's paragraph above). I'm not "fully aware" of anything, apart from the fact that the BCSE are running scared of me, but don't have the facts to support their case - and have to resort to spurious legal threats instead to try to silence me.

As for the copyright signs, the BCSE's claims about that appear to be bogus too. Now, my search facility may not be working correctly (and I might be missing archive messages) so I'm not going to make too much of this, but I found:

• Just one poster, not "some posters", added (c) to some of their own messages. And in that case, it wasn't to his posts in general (i.e. not to anything I've quoted), but to old articles he'd copied and pasted in.
  


• Other times (c) is added to something written by someone else. One other (c) was added by a BCSE member to a link to an article that had been copied from a third party, without permission - it seemed that the BCSE member who posted it imagined that as long as he added "(c) Christian Institute", then copies of the whole article could be made without permission. Now, reproducing a whole article isn't fair use. That really is illegal.

Conclusion

I'm pretty glad that the BCSE have now put up something about me.

There are some people in their database who I know enough about to know that the allegations on the BCSE's site are stuff and nonsense. However, I don't want to put up an article rebutting any of those allegations - because it would just give them more publicity than they're worth, and drag someone's name through the mud again. Instead, my approach has been to expose the lack of credibility of the BCSE in general. Then it becomes clear that anyone actually believing any other articles is doing so only because they really want to - rather than because they have any good reasons for doing so.

Now, though, that the BCSE have put up something relating to me, that danger is gone. I can point out the weakness of what the BCSE say without drawing attention to anyone but myself. I can point out twisted facts, lack of evidence, obvious smears and plain incompetent or malicious mistakes without anybody else's name being damaged. And I'm glad for the opportunity.

I expect that the BCSE might decide to try some alternative and similarly bogus allegations in future. (I presume that this one they've tried is their best shot). I'm not going to have a general policy of replying to such things. I'm happy to point out to people that if the best arguments the BCSE have against "BCSE Revealed" is to argue that I'm an idiot, then they must feel that their case is pretty weak. Just why are the BCSE so concerned about trying to stop me quoting their previously-published public conversations anyway? Isn't it because they're rather damning? Isn't it because if people get to read about what the BCSE really think, then the BCSE's not going to get the public influence it craves? What are they trying to hide?

Finally... some more irony.

Well, within a day of Roger Stanyard putting up the above paragraphs, he also put up another (unrelated) article, on another page. In that article, he reproduced a complete, long letter from a third party, to a third party - neither of whom had given the BCSE permission to reproduce it. Not just a fair-use quote mind you - the whole letter. (And in fact, in this case, the letter was not intended for publication in the first place - so even a quote would not be covered by fair use. Again, I don't want to publicise it - if you want verification, e-mail me privately). A bit of an odd action for someone who's only just finished writing such fine-sounding words about copyright law, don't you think? Especially if he wants us to take him seriously?

We can only wonder if in fact there are two Roger Stanyards. One of them is very concerned about upholding copyright law and morality - and one of them isn't. There is one who is concerned about truth, and one who just does whatever helps his side of an argument.

If, though, there's only one Roger Stanyard, then that Roger Stanyard is looking a bit like a hypocrite - don't you think?

David Anderson
bcse-blog at dw-perspective dot org dot uk - non-anonymous factual corrections welcomed.