Six of One refuse to discuss this website.
In response to our suggestion of emailing a set of questions to Six of One to see how they might defend their immoral behaviour and explain the facts contained here, this website received a communication from then Society member Mathew Lock.
After the secret taping incident, Mathew decided to renew his 15-year membership of the Society, making it clear that he was doing so in the hope that the situation would improve and under moral protest of the recent goings-on. Mathew then received;
"...... personally prepared letter from the co-ordination team (unsigned) - telling me that my re-joining under moral protest was basically OK but that I was wrong in holding my personal views -then spent a page of densely typed text re-eductating me for want of a better description!"
Mathew then noticed an interesting paragraph in the Society's terms and conditions (which all members must adhere to) relating to comments regarding the Society;
"We cannot vouch for the accuracy of any questionable statements made outside the society. If you have any questions, concerns or queries..."
It was around this time that this website was created. Mathew then considered that this would be a good opportunity to raise some general concerns once again to the coordination team, now that there existed a permanent website devoted to their dirty deeds, and try to ascertain how the organisers of the Society might "defend" the immoral actions of recent times. This is the reply he received from coordinator Bruce Clark;
"Dear Mathew: Thank you for your e-mail. I think you may have misunderstood the two sentences which appear in the society details online: "We cannot vouch for the accuracy of any questionable statements made outside the society. If you have any questions, concerns or queries..." The paragraph is referring to inaccurate comments from non-Six of One sources and allows our members to verify with us that the statement is false. If you have seen any such comments and would like to express any concerns they have caused you, please let me know. All I need is the source of the remark, where it appeared and what it said and I can then put your mind at rest. Please also refer to the team's letter sent to you in April last year, after you raised similar points. Bruce Clark, Six of One Co-ordination"
He seems to be inferring here that ANY statement on the internet not produced by Six of One is false. However, Bruce seemed to be quite happy to discuss any concerns in more depth. It was rightly intriguing for Mathew at this point as it seemed that the Society had kept some sort of "file" on him regarding previous correspondence. Regardless, Mathew was still interested to know how Bruce would defend the Society's position regarding the points raised by this website.
"Dear Bruce, Thank you for taking the time to reply. As you will no -doubt be aware, the site in question is the following http://www.sixofone-info.co.uk/. Whilst not necessarily endorsing the 'sensationalist' wording, I am not aware of any inaccuracies on the site (which I am assured has been thoroughly referenced and authenticated), and as you will understand, would welcome clarification of points raised. Thank you for your time, and prompt reply, Mathew Lock."
This is the almost unbelievable (and very frustrating) response;
"Dear Mathew: Our website wording is clear: "We cannot vouch for the accuracy of any questionable statements made outside the society. If you have any questions, concerns or queries (about these)..." You are asking about non-society statements you have seen, not knowing the source. They arise outside Six of One and are not accurate, which is why we include the above wording on our website. Wishing you the Merriest of Christmases and the Happiest and Healthiest of New Year's!"
So, he has gone back on his earlier promise ("All I need is the source of the remark, where it appeared and what it said and I can then put your mind at rest") and just dismissed the many concerns. He has not attempted to defend the Society on any matter, simply dismissing the whole of this website's content as being "not accurate" (IE "lies").
Bruce Clark must have subsequently read this website in order to reply as he did - AND he didn't specifically deny anything contained within it. Six of One also attempted to have this website shut down. Click HERE for more on this.
In 2007 he seemed to have got bored with even attempting a response, as Charles Nixon of the USA found out when he sent a list of questions and received the following answer from Clark;
"Please write to: Six of One
as correspondence is dealt with from there."
It is once again worth reiterating that all of the content of this website is indisputable fact, backed up by all the evidence one could need. Many of the points raised by this website are in direct response to documents issued by the Society's coordinators themselves (such as the yellow document). If the entire content of this site is inaccurate (as Bruce claims) then this must include Society statements reproduced here.
If anyone else would like to contact Six of One to find out if any of the coordination team are willing to discuss their illegal and immoral activities, w email them a list of questions which they will no doubt ignore and dismiss as "not accurate". Click HERE for their email address.
Subtle mentions of the impact this website is obviously having on them, however, have appeared in their magazine:
Roger Langley also wrote a statement in the Society magazine insulting ex-members! Click HERE to read more about this. Also, in 2006, in a brief interview with Cambridge-based journalist Ned Beaumann, Langley commented on this website (without going into details, of course, as he doesn't have any):
"It's a lot of lies".
Click HERE to return to the main page, where details of many other dirty deeds can be found.
This page updated: 6/2/2014