Six of One propaganda - line by line.

Here follows extracts from (and this website's response to) Six of One's deplorable yellow document, designed purely to give members of the Society a false impression of the problems within it, and the running of it.

The vast majority of members are therefore in the dark with regards to the running of the Society. This does, however, leave a selection of persons who attend events, and are more active within the Society, who are therefore more aware of any problems. As the growing number of individual complainants had been ignored, naturally those who would come into contact with each other at Society events (some of which the Langley's did not attend) would, at some point, start to notice that their concerns were similar. Since only a minority will be able to attend events and question the organisers, they can ALWAYS be dismissed as an 'unrepresentative minority', hence leaving no means of member feedback or action whatsoever.

"An ethical basis for Six of One's continuation"? The evidence on this website proves that ethics are not at the forefront of the coordinator's minds. Also, no rival group has ever been in place. Many individual members had raised concerns about the running of Box 66 and the Society.

Note: None of these so-called "false" statements are disproved. Also, the reason people refused to agree with Langley is that they simply did not agree with him. He is criticising the members simply for having a different view to his own.

This is because the Langleys refused to attend, or were not able to attend, most of the Society events (where, of course, members would come into contact with each other and voice their concerns).

This implies that Roger had offered to meet with members (although the word members is not used). At no time has Langley ever called for a meeting with members.

It should be pointed out here that these meetings were not meetings arranged to discuss members' concerns (as no such meetings took place). The meetings that are mentioned here are coordination meetings, set up solely to discuss/ratify a statement concerning the Society's finances that Roger wanted to send to the membership (which was to falsely state that the Society had no financial problems).

Another admittance that there were financial problems, despite what Langley wanted to tell the members. The current renewals should not affect the next magazine due - there should already be money in the account to pay for it (if finances are being managed properly).

There then follows a section concerning Issue 29 of "In The Village". Click HERE for a separate page concerning this section of the document. The document continues:

Max and Dave are not qualified to act as impartial "go-betweens". Max secretly tape-recorded Dave Healey in his home, and Dave Barrie supported this action. Note that the document doesn't reveal what the crowd were angry about.

Many individuals' concerns had been ignored, as this passage of the document unwittingly confirms:

No-one has ever denied the hard work involved in running a Society such as this one. The idea, however, that hard work alone absolves you of any blame for any mismanagement of said Society is laughable. Also, the idea that members should not have any input into the running of the Society, a view strongly implied here, is bordering on disgraceful. As coordinators are hand-picked, no-one else is given the opportunity to show their hard work (and therefore become involved in decision-making).

This again implies that this meeting was called in response to the members' concerns discussed earlier. It was not. This meeting was again solely organised to discuss/ratify the financial statement mentioned earlier on this web page.

This statement (along with many others) has nothing to do with the issue, and has no relevance to the "95% of members who were unaware" (the people whom this document was supposedly written for). The statement is purely included to bad-mouth the Healeys.

Completely untrue. A majority of the team were in favour of Jaz attending this meeting. There then follows a section regarding Jaz and the Alternative Arrival. Click HERE for a separate page dedicated to this aspect of the document.

This Society statement, as mentioned earlier on this page, was to include mention of there being no financial problems within Six of One (despite Langley saying privately to coordinators that there were, Click HERE for details). Many coordinators, quite rightly, would not sign such a statement. Tellingly, the yellow document doesn't mention this.

The document then moves on to the accounts. There had been concerns from coordinators and members regarding what percentage of the Society's money was being spent by Box 66 at Ipswich (rather than the magazine). As Roger had announced financial problems at a previous meeting, it was suggested by others that savings could be made. Karen Langley was asked to provide separate figures for Box 66 but refused, simply because Dave Healey could not locate a receipt for the hire of a van for a work-in (IE "if you can't provide a receipt for your work, i'm not providing figures either"):

At no stage have the Langleys provided separate figures for their Society work at Box 66 Ipswich.

An accusation is then leveled at ex-coordinator Dave Jones:

A very misleading statement to include when you take into account the truth:

"I didn't book the October 2001 event because I had resigned from the co-ordination team at that point!"

Statement by Dave Jones,, 16/03/2003

So, it wasn't even Dave's responsibility to book the work-in, as he was no longer involved in the running of the Society (and Langley knew this as he was informed of Dave Jones' resignation in a meeting some months before (Jones quit the team when Langley refused to provide the Society bank balance to the other coordinators)).

What then follows is a section regarding the secret taping of Dave Healey, and Dave's "withholding" of that issue of the Society magazine. This aspect of the yellow document is outlined in detail HERE. There then follows what can only described as hearsay (comments regarding several telephone conversations). Another misleading statement then follows:

Interesting to note that they do not state the reason for this (IE Langley had said that the Society was in financial trouble and therefore Dave felt it unfair to ask members for money without admitting this). Another section then follows regarding the secret taping, a disgusting slur on the mental health of the magazine editor (click HERE to read more about this aspect of the yellow document), confirmation of the new coordination team, and then this statement:

A completely unfounded accusation. As they state above, the magazines went out unaltered. They offer no proof whatsoever that Dave Healey was intending to insert anything into the magazine.

What Roger did was to CANCEL (not delay) the printing of the magazine, no doubt because of his paranoia that something untoward was to be added to the magazine.

Again, the document fails to mention that this was because Roger Langley had demanded that the magazine would not be sent out until copies of every page of the magazine had been made by Dave Healey and faxed to each member of the coordination team for approval. Not having any Society funds at his disposal, Dave asked for this sum to cover the cost of this (pointless) exercise.

Another accusation follows:

"It was heard?" This accusation stems from a joke pub conversation in which someone jokingly suggested that the Society address could be changed within the magazine without the knowledge of the Langleys (this joke "coup" was, of course, dismissed with amusement by those in attendance).

Spread across the top of 2 pages of this leaflet are 2 statements from members of Six of One in support of the immoral coordination team. The document later alludes to the fact that Box 66 receives more negative letters than positive ones, yet no negative views, which would have helped the document attain a more balanced view, were printed in this document:

They seem to be admitting here that they receive more negative letters than positive ones. This extra distance that Max went, of course, was to secretly tape Dave Healey in his own home. The fact that the Langley's wish to publicly thank Max in this document for this illegal act rather sums up their total lack of understanding of the themes of The Prisoner.

Members concerns were ignored and simply dismissed as "lies". Abuse (of which the document offers no proof) is always best ignored, true, but if a lie is told, it is always best strategy to disprove it. Silence is a sign of guilt more often than innocence:

The document then notes that many were unhappy:

Their views have been ignored, as has long-term member Glenies McCairns:

Again note that none of her 31 points were answered. The "costly financial audit" mentioned here is a simple bank balance. Also, how do they know that her views do not represent the views of the membership? The membership were never asked. Another lie follows:

Not true. The Langleys telephoned Dave and Julie Jones and requested to take over a substantial part of distribution.

Another very misleading statement is this one:

It is a mystery as to what 3 occasions when Langley has "saved" the Society are. It also needs pointing out that Langley specifically requested that he alone enter into talks with Portmeirion regarding the Conventions, despite several offers (hence this "single-handed" comment). It has been noted by some that the relationship with Portmeirion would have been stronger had someone else taken on the role at that time, had they been allowed.

It was the Langleys who chose not to attend these events. Is this document suggesting that members are only allowed to discuss the Society if the Langleys are present? In Summer 2002 Glenies McCairns (a member since 1977, before the Langleys joined) questioned Roger at a work-in (one of the few he attended) about the treatment of Dave Healey. Roger did not respond and simply walked out and drove off.

This doesn't seem right. Perhaps Roger and Karen could publish these expenses? Or perhaps not as they refuse to divulge their accounts.

The document also includes statements which can only be described as nonsensical;

Try and make sense of that one!

These excerpts are part of a larger, 6 sided, document. To read the yellow document in full click on the following links:

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5

Page 6

This document was signed and agreed by the current UK coordination team of Six of One. No apology has ever been issued regarding any aspect of the document, and no right of reply has ever been offered by Six of One to any individual mentioned within it. As of 2014 many of those who signed and ratified this yellow document remain coordinators of Six of One.

One of the themes in The Prisoner, is that propaganda statements are not a good thing. The yellow document is similar, in a way, to the public address "positivity statements" made by the female Village announcer in the series - except those statements were a little closer to the truth (and mainly just talked about the weather).

Click HERE to return to the main page, where details of many other dirty deeds can be found.

This page updated 6/2/14