There are two types of people in this world: those who respond to threats, and those who respond to kindness. I have always been one of the latter.
A while ago I received an e-mail out of the blue from a gent who had written to NCROPA many years ago requesting politely almost deferentially that I remove his name from his correspondence published on The NCROPA Virtual Archive. I had only published this because I thought he was someone else (who shares the same name). I complied with his wish, and shortly he sent me an unsolicited donation. I like that type of relationship.
The correspondence below (reproduced verbatim) is fairly self-explanatory.
First there is the press release.
Then there is the January 2006 letter from Waterloo Legal Advice Service; sometime before this, Clifford phoned me and in a (for him) non-threatening tone, promised to take some kind of action against me.
This undoubtedly altruistic organisation had clearly been misled by this petty con-man and crook. After my response I heard no more.
On September 6, 2015, I added the scan of the above press release to this site, entered directly into the Bibliography.
Next I received this letter so dated.
I regarded this as a thinly veiled threat (from Clifford rather than from the dupe who wrote it) and responded thus:
Re your letter of August 15, 2016. Do no contact me again. Tell Clifford not to contact me again either directly or indirectly. If you send me anymore veiled threats on his behalf I will report you to the police, your employer, and the relevant professional body.
Below is the letter I sent to another of his dupes ten years ago. This matter is now closed.
A Baron
This e-mail included my January 2006 response to the people in Waterloo.
Next I received this response from the same legal centre.
The wonderful thing about truth is that it has a certain consistency. You will note the way Clifford has totally shifted ground. In the first place, although the press release was written by me, it was sent out with his approval, ie he read it and cleared it.
The book was written with his full co-operation, and in January 2006 his only concern was that I was selling copies behind his back, as it were. Probably he thought the printer (who died in 2012) had ordered another and much longer print run, and that the two of us were splitting the profits. If only! As pointed out in my response, the poor bloke was left out of pocket, Clifford stole all but the few copies he left with me, and due to his bizarre behaviour, all meaningful distribution of the book was scuppered.
Clifford claims to have received abusive phone messages (plural) - and if this is true it is my fault because?
Next there is a lot of guff about my supposedly publishing sensitive data about his medical history. And? There is indeed now a right to privacy, but this cuts both ways. If for example an accuser in a rape case waives her anonymity, she cannot un-waive it in the same case.
Similarly, if you publish private information about yourself even without a view to material gain, once that information is in the public domain, that is it.
“It is clear to us, and confirmed by letters from psychiatric professionals shown to us by Mr Clifford (one of whom, Tracey Taylor, has written to you directly this week) that he suffers from severe ongoing mental health conditions and has done so for a very long time. These conditions include severe bi-polar disorder and severe anxiety. This obviously makes him a vulnerable man.”
The only disorder from which Mr Clifford suffers, is a severe case of malingering.
Leaving that aside, this is a cop out. He didn’t simply give his consent for the collaboration, he was an enthusiastic participant. Imagine a woman having sex with a man regularly for three or four months then a decade later claiming she was not able to consent because of her mental condition!
Clifford used to drive here; if he was not of sound mind he should not have been driving a car. And if he can drive a car, he can consent meaningfully to anything we did together.
“We understand from Mr Clifford that a letter was sent to you by lawyers acting on his behalf at the time the book was first published in 2005 confirming that you did not have his consent, and asking you to cease publicising the book and to destroy all copies of it.”
You understand wrong; read your own correspondence, dummy. Clifford did not want to halt the (non-existent) distribution of the book, he wanted money for it.
“We also understand that Mr Clifford went to the trouble of obtaining many of the printed copies so that he could stop them from going on sale.”
Again you understand wrong, as I pointed out at the time. He even made a list of (some of) the people to whom he gave copies. They were as follows:
Dr Amin, Father Anthony Charlton, Hal David, Professor Jones, Frank Massar, Jeff Massar, Edward Roland, Ruler Family, Professor Watson, Dr David Wood, Dr Teifion Wynne Davies – 2 copies. And two men named only as Eammon and Len.
These names mean nothing to me unless the Hal David alluded to is the bloke who asked the way to San José, which I very much doubt.
There follows a list of spurious demands failing which Donald Clifford may be forced to commence legal proceedings against me. What does that say about his mental condition?
Well Donald, bring it on, because if you do, you will lose and lose heavily. You might also like to read up on both Sevareid’s law and the Streisand effect before you or your dupes issue anymore vacuous threats.
Alexander Baron,
August 23, 2016
Back To Correspondence And Open Letters Index
Sydenham,
London
Back To Site Index