Keith; a polite enquiry. I think you need to be a little more specific when defending the Eugenics Society, in Britain or elsewhere. You use value-laden descriptors such as 'good', 'bad', 'blameless' etc. Since I may or may not share your definitions or perceptions of these terms, perhaps (from your reading) could give some specific examples of what you mean by 'good things' etc. in the work of Coleman and the Society, so that I and perhaps others can engage more meaningfully with your arguments? At the moment this all seems a little circular, as there are no points of common locus in the argument.
Thanks
Ps a small point; do try to get the names of your fellow contributors right, it seems disrespectful not to.