1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Fraud McKenna

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by cleanbluesky, 29 Jul 2006.

  1. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: 2 Nov 2004

    Posts: 24,654

    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?
     
  2. Sequoia

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 15 Aug 2005

    Posts: 2,948

    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.
     
  3. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: 2 Nov 2004

    Posts: 24,654

    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

    Should have studied at LeSalles... :p
     
    Last edited: 29 Jul 2006
  4. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 49,450

    Location: Plymouth

    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.
     
  5. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: 2 Nov 2004

    Posts: 24,654

    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.
     
  6. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 49,450

    Location: Plymouth

    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'.
     
  7. Sequoia

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 15 Aug 2005

    Posts: 2,948

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

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 29 Dec 2004

    Posts: 499

    Why is it such a big deal anyway?

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

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 15 Aug 2005

    Posts: 2,948

    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.
     
  10. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: 2 Nov 2004

    Posts: 24,654

    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.

    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.
     
  11. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: 2 Nov 2004

    Posts: 24,654

  12. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 49,450

    Location: Plymouth

    Let's look at a BBC link.

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

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

    More quotes from the Judge.

    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)