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?