Keith's story is realistic i think Richard.

BNP lies tend to be along the lines of "The BNP aren't racist because..."

ie - BNP supporters don't usually deny being BNP supporters, they generally lie about the BNP to persuade people to take another look.

Keith has made a point of dissociating himself from them.

This is not consistent with BNP behaviour.

Unless anything else were to be uncovered I would be satisfied that Keiths assurances are sincere, as much by their tone as their content.

Wringing out further hypotheses from the available evidence won't get us any further however and Keiths response doesn't look like changing no matter how many different ways the evidence is represented.

Richard, it is clear that these circumstances have made you feel very uncomfortable and with good reason.

A bit of trust and mutual understanding wouldn't go amiss here.

It is not pleasant to have ones identity misused and it is also not pleasant to be cross examined over something that one hasn't done.

Why would someone steal Keiths words?

Why would someone steal Richards name?


It is perfectly possible that you are both victims of the same person.


The uncertainty of course makes it difficult to lay to rest, but the variety of possible hypotheses does mean that for now at least, the barest minimum fairness requires that Keith be granted the benefit of the doubt.