Whack! Pop! Whack!
In my last post I likened dealing with Matthew Williams to playing whack-a-mole. No sooner has one dealt with one thing than the numpty springs up again somewhere else. Whack! Pop! Whack! Just after posting, the following article appeared on Yahoo.
Sigh. Is it even worth countering all this cobblers? Sometimes I really don’t have the enthusiasm, but I do think it important, if only for the historical record, that an alternative perspective is available. That is one of the purposes of this blog.
As I’ve mentioned before, a key element of Williams’ criticism of circles is his not knowing who made them or where they came from. There’s nothing wrong with these particular circles. They’re fine, and all par-for-the-course. The Silbury Hill and first Mere ones are rather lovely, and I also have quite a fondness for the East Field singleton.
Since Williams is so quick to criticise other people’s work, I think it worth taking another look at the calibre of circles he is capable of, from his nineties oeuvre.
Quite a difference in quality. Notice that I didn’t include the famed Bishops Cannings “Basket” of 1999. Williams’ claim to it is baloney. Sure, he may have been there, helping out, but that’s a long way from it being his circle to claim. A look at the aerials should easily demonstrate this. It’s in a whole other league compared to what we know he can muster.
Also of note in this article is the sentence “Despite having made circles himself for about 20 years, he’s steered clear of making them ever since he became the first person successfully prosecuted for the offence”, the two parts of which flatly contradict each other. Williams’ first claimed circle was in 1991. “About 20 years” takes us to 2011. Williams’ prosecution was in 2000. It’s been said before that his claim to have ceased circle making following his prosecution is a lie (it is), and this would seem oblique confirmation.
Whack! Pop! Whack! I doubt it’ll be long before the chump is back for more.