BCSE Revealed

Roger Stanyard's Departure - Part 2

(Originally published on my blog, 27th June 2007). (Go here for part one).

It seems that Roger Stanyard and the BCSE have made up; at least according to this thread on the BCSE forum: (Update of about a fortnight later: You can't get it now - this material was subsequently removed from public eyes by the BCSE, with no explanation or apology, once its contents became indefensible and a standing embarrassment to the BCSE).

The thread claims that Stanyard never left, and that I made up the entire story; then proceeds into a discussion of my honesty... and then tries to recycle some of the allegations that the BCSE made in the past against me. As in the past, they (again!) forget to produce the evidence... as in the past, whilst saying that this blog is full of untruths, they (again!) forget to say where, or what the contrary truths are... see here for more of that.

In fact, though, I have much more evidence than I revealed in the first post: evidence which reveals Brian Jordan, Michael Brass and Ian Lowe - the BCSE committee members in that thread who seek to claim that there Stanyard hadn't left - as brazen liars. Brass, Lowe and Jordan are obviously making a cynical bet on me not having such evidence, and hoping that they'll be able to bluff their way out of what happened. They hope that those on the BCSE forum who aren't in the inner circle will be convinced, and they hope that by blowing enough smoke and changing the subject to a discussion of the wickedness of the "BCSE Revealed" blogger, they'll be able to get away with it.

The others contributing to the thread above do in fact take Jordan, Brass and Lowe's words for it - which they will regret doing once the evidence is brought out into the open. I'm going to wait and see the BCSE's response to the above before I do that, but for now, here are a couple of discrepancies to note in Lowe's story. Lowe claims that Stanyard's e-mail address was removed from the BCSE's contact page because "Roger had a problem with his ISP for a week or so, and we changed the email address to make sure that people could still contact us." What Lowe doesn't explain, though, is how this could account for the facts that:

  • For a time, Stanyard's name was also removed from the list of committee members on the BCSE front page. (Some time later, the BCSE then removed the whole list of committee members - presumably because they didn't want anyone to notice that just one member had left). Why was Stanyard's - and only Stanyard's - name removed from the list of committee members? Why don't the BCSE put back the full list of committee members, so we can see just who is on it?
  • If the problem was with Stanyard's e-mail address, then why was Stanyard's mobile phone number also removed? How would problems with Stanyard's ISP affect his mobile phone, exactly? You might have thought that the difficulty contacting Stanyard by e-mail would make it more necessary to have the mobile phone number up to contact him with, not less...

So, I'm now calling the BCSE's bluff on the following scores:

  • Are they going to stick with their story that I have made the whole thing up, or will they admit that Stanyard left and that they're now making up with him? (How far that making-up has gone, I don't know - presuming that this isn't itself a fabrication).
  • Are they going to wait for me to produce the further evidence I have, hoping that they can explain it away - or are they going to face the possibility that my further evidence is damning and will reveal Brass, Lowe and Jordan as telling whopping lies?
  • How can they explain the above discrepancies?
  • Are they ever going to explain what the other supposed errors on this blog are, or going to continue to trade in completely general descriptions? Comments are still open for corrections...

Let's wait and see...

I've taken a full record of the thread above; particularly Lowe's bold words. Lowe has been exposed on numerous occasions in the past as willing to tell outright lies "for the cause" in the hope that nobody will know better - see here for one example. He's going to have some more explaining to do shortly...

Update 11:32 a.m. I presently have Michael Brass in my inbox. He e-mailed me after the first story, to tell me that my story had no basis in fact. In response, I told him that Stanyard had in fact left, and now apparently returned, and asked him to confirm or deny it. Brass now appears to be back-tracking; he refuses to answer this question, but is now apparently arguing that the story constituted a "lie" and a breach of the "Ten Commandments" (Brass's words), not because I was wrong about Stanyard having left, but because I failed to mention that Stanyard had returned. I have asked Brass to explain how the apparent fact that Stanyard has left and returned makes the statement Stanyard has left into a lie.

Brass's spin machine is going into overload, because he has now both publicly accused me of lying, but also can no longer deny that Stanyard left since I know otherwise. This leaves him in a bit of a spot, so he's now trying to change the basis of accusing me for lying to the claim that Stanyard's leaving and returning means that we can't say he left. Michael Brass has major problems telling the straightforward truth. I challenge him to allow me to publish our correspondence on this topic in full so that my readers can judge for themselves which one of us has a forked tongue. What have you got to hide, Michael?

Update 12:26. Brass refuses me permission to publish the e-mails he sent me trying to spin his way out of this situation. Note that, readers - Brass doesn't want you to be able to judge for yourselves whether he is a liar or not; he wants to keep the evidence secret. I, however, want to publish it. What does that tell you? I will be examining my options....

Update 12:39. Brass is digging himself further into a hole. When he refused me permission to publish his e-mails which document his lying, I told him that he should not e-mail me in future (as it was him who e-mailed to initiate contact), unless he was willing to have those e-mails published. Here are my precise words (the words "have you" should have appeared before "send"):

For future reference, I put you on notice that I will consider all e-mails you send me about the BCSE or my blog as with full permission to publish. I'm not prepared to [sic] send me spin of this kind in future and then have you refuse to let the public see it so that they can see what you've tried to do. Please don't e-mail me unless you find these terms acceptable (unless I specifically say otherwise).

Brass's response was to go to the BCSE forum, and add this:

For everyone's amusement: Anderson is now stating that he has the right to publish in full any e-mails sent to him, regardless of whether the originator (and copyright holder) agrees.

( - subsequently silently deleted by the BCSE.)

Can anybody spot any similarities between my statement and Brass's version of it? No, neither can I.

I'm happy to assure anyone who wishes to contact me that I will not publish their e-mails without permission, and that my statement meant what it said - that it applies only to future unsolicited e-mails from Brass. Again, I invite my readers to note the incredible difficulty that Brass, BCSE chairman, has in handling himself with integrity. If the truth is on his side, why does he have to do this kind of thing? I wonder!

It's worth noting that the BCSE are promoting, on their website, a site in which one of their own members publishes private e-mails which I declined to give him permission to publish... do you think that bothers Michael Brass? Is Michael Brass a hypocrite? The answer's not hard to work out.

Go to part 3.

David Anderson

Home - Print - Search