Fraud McKenna

[cleanbluesky]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...in_article_id=398025&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/13072006/344/mckenna-wanted-letters-name.html

I don't understand this judgement...

1) The PhD is unaccredited, this is uncontested as the individual responsible for awarding it has pleaded guilty to fraud. McKenna's defence rested on the idea that he did not realise this at the time.

2) McKenna was mysteriously exempted from '7 units' because of previous work in the field... also, his dissertation took the form of what later became a book. Whether the book was written for the 'PhD' or not cannot be gauged. Given that the PhD is spuriously accredited there would be no specific guidelines that he would have to work within, but equally if it is unrecognised then it is without meaning surely...

3) If he thinks that he was caught in a case of fraud, then why is he contesting the qualification that he gained?

How is a degree not 'bogus' if it is akcnolwedged as unacreddited?

 

[Sequoia]

I haven't studied the case, but it seems to me that the judgement didn't say the degree wasn't bogus - it said that McKenna had been libelled. As I read it, the assertion from the paper wasn't that the degree was false, but that McKenna knew that, and was exploiting it anyway. McKenna being mug enough to fall for the scam is one thing, but the newspaper went beyond that (and not once, but in a campaign that went on for several years) asserting that McKenna was dishonest because he knew it was worthless. That assertion spoke to his morals and integrity, not just his intelligence or gullibility.

As for McKenna putting in "500 hours" on his dissertation, well, whoop-de-doo. I spent four years getting mine (two years coursework, and two on the dissertation) ...... and even that was abbreviated, it normally takes 5 years.

 

[cleanbluesky]

I haven't studied the case, but it seems to me that the judgement didn't say the degree wasn't bogus - it said that McKenna had been libelled. As I read it, the assertion from the paper wasn't that the degree was false, but that McKenna knew that, and was exploiting it anyway. McKenna being mug enough to fall for the scam is one thing, but the newspaper went beyond that (and not once, but in a campaign that went on for several years) asserting that McKenna was dishonest because he knew it was worthless. That assertion spoke to his morals and integrity, not just his intelligence or gullibility.

Mr McKenna was not dishonest. Whatever one may think of the degree granted by La Salle, it would not be accurate to describe it as 'bogus'. It was not granted 'merely' for money

I don't believe that McKenna didn't see it coming, unless he was desperately optimistic with promises of 'no coursework' and a dissertation to suit you that can later double up as a book aimed at a non-academic audience.

Surely it does not follow that McKenna's integrity is questioned if his credentials are questioned.. given that the description of the bogus credentials seems to be accurate... unlss he has been touting these credentials as genuine or accreditted

As for McKenna putting in "500 hours" on his dissertation, well, whoop-de-doo. I spent four years getting mine (two years coursework, and two on the dissertation) ...... and even that was abbreviated, it normally takes 5 years.

Should have studied at LeSalles...

 

[Dolph]

Surely it does not follow that McKenna's integrity is questioned if his credentials are questioned.. given that the description of the bogus credentials seems to be accurate... unlss he has been touting these credentials as genuine or accreditted

The implication was that Mckenna was fully aware of it since before 1997 and despite him knowing it was fake he carried on presenting it as legitimate.

That was the part where the court has ruled McKenna was libeled, the legtimicay or not of the degree is largely irrelevant to the actual case, as that wasn't the part under dispute.

 

[cleanbluesky]

The implication was that Mckenna was fully aware of it since before 1997 and despite him knowing it was fake he carried on presenting it as legitimate.

That was the part where the court has ruled McKenna was libeled, the legtimicay or not of the degree is largely irrelevant to the actual case, as that wasn't the part under dispute.

I dont undersand, it has been touted that the libellous comments based on claiming the degree was bogus. Also, the idea that the only criteria for sucess at the degree was the monies associated with the degree... hence why much of McKenna's defence seems to have been based on the idea that he was 'exempted' from certain parts of it, and that he presented a dissertation.

 

[Dolph]

I dont undersand, it has been touted that the libellous comments based on claiming the degree was bogus. Also, the idea that the only criteria for sucess at the degree was the monies associated with the degree... hence why much of McKenna's defence seems to have been based on the idea that he was 'exempted' from certain parts of it, and that he presented a dissertation.

No, it hasn't.

It was touted as Libellous because the comment was that the degree was bogus, McKenna has always known this AND hidden it.

The criticial part is in bold.

McKenna's defence was that he had not simply given money and got a degree in return (something else implied repeatedly by Victor Lewis-smith). He believed he had worked for it, and hence he had reasonable grounds to believe the degree was legitimate, which is different from saying 'the degree was legitimate'.

 

[Sequoia]

...
Should have studied at LeSalles...

Well, I wanted an actual qualification, not just a $2.5 grand useless piece of paper.

 

[glissando]

Why is it such a big deal anyway?

Who would think that someone whose profession is "hypnotist" really has any meaningful academic qualifications.

 

[Sequoia]

Why is it such a big deal anyway?

Who would think that someone whose profession is "hypnotist" really has any meaningful academic qualifications.

Probably because it adds a very useful veneer of "professionalism", to a commercial enterprise, especially when you're a "celebrity" charging exhorbitant rates to gullible prima-donnas.

 

[cleanbluesky]

No, it hasn't.

It was touted as Libellous because the comment was that the degree was bogus, McKenna has always known this AND hidden it.

The criticial part is in bold.

McKenna's defence was that he had not simply given money and got a degree in return. He believed he had worked for it, and hence he had reasonable grounds to believe the degree was legitimate, which is different from saying 'the degree was legitimate'.

But this idea relies on whether the degree is bogus or not. He has referred to it in his promotional material, according to the article.

Mr McKenna was not, in my judgment, dishonest and, for that matter, whatever one may think of the academic quality of the work, or of the degree granted by La Salle, it would not be accurate to describe it as "bogus".

It was certainly not granted merely for money. The claimant is therefore entitled to succeed on liability.

It seems that a fair portion of this case relies on whether the degree was bogus.

None of the links I can find seem to suggest the case hinges on what point he became aware, of his degree. I believe the degree is unidsputably bogus.

 

[cleanbluesky]

http://www.classesusa.com/shared/fe...9711893E3824F61692A8471?nopopup&splovr=383424

For anyone else wanting to take the McKenna route...

 

[Dolph]

But this idea relies on whether the degree is bogus or not. He has referred to it in his promotional material, according to the article.

Let's look at a BBC link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5223454.stm

In his article, Lewis-Smith said: "I discovered that anyone could be fully doctored by La Salle within months (no previous qualifications needed), just so long as they could answer the following question correctly: 'Do you have $2,615, sir?'"

The implication here is that Paul McKenna obtained his degree by this method. (especially when this sort of allegation was repeated multiple times)

It seems that a fair portion of this case relies on whether the degree was bogus.

None of the links I can find seem to suggest the case hinges on what point he became aware, of his degree. I believe the degree is unidsputably bogus.

More quotes from the Judge.

"He was determined, indignant, and manifestly proud of his work whatever anybody else may think of it, which he regards as original and as having made a practical contribution to improving the lives of many people.

"Whether it is appropriate to characterise it as scholarship worthy of academic recognition is another matter. No doubt many would think not.

"But one thing which is entirely clear to me is that Mr McKenna to this day does not believe it was bogus or that he misled anyone in allowing himself to be referred to as a PhD."

That would very much imply that part of the case hinged around the percieved legitimacy of the degree, and whether McKenna was knowingly misrepresenting it (as Lewis-Smith had claimed)