Thucy Did, or Thucy Didn't He?

I must persist. The contributor who posts under the pretentious Greek pseudonym recently commented on a posting of mine about the European Union's Landfill Directive and its effect on rubbish collections in Britain. He said that part of what I had said was 'not true'. His exact words were: '[first quoting me)] "as a country, we [Britain] had no serious difficulties with landfill". That's just not true.'

On the evening of the same day (Tuesday 1st February) I challenged him in a contribution of my own to that thread. I asked him politely to substantiate. This challenge was posted at around 10.00 am on Wednesday 2nd February.

There has as yet been, so far as I know, no response to this request. Yet the person involved did post, on another topic, a comment timed at 8.01 pm on Wednesday 2nd February. Thus we know he was not absent from the site, or prevented by travel or other obligations from seeing my challenge, and that it is at least possible, and in fact likely that he knew of my challenge. Following my post of Thursday 3rd February at 11.29 am, which directly addresses his behaviour, it is even more likely that he knows of it.

I am, as it happens, quite prepared to concede this point if this person produces evidence that Britain had, before the 1999 Landfill Directive, an acknowledged problem with landfill in this country, of a kind which was properly dealt with by the provisions of that Directive. I do not think this was so, but I am of course ready to concede my mistake if I am wrong. This is the only point at issue - though this particular question is part of a much wider one about the reason for the rapid decay of rubbish collecting services in this country.

But my critic has yet to respond at the time of writing (Friday lunchtime). I must request him once more to do so. It is he, not I, who has raised the stakes so high. He did not (as he might have done) ask me for details to back up what I had said. He did not say that I was 'mistaken' or 'incorrect' or even 'inaccurate'. He instead chose to use the words 'not true'.

This conveys two unequivocal meanings, one damaging to me and one placing an obligation on him. One is that I had invented the information or misrepresented the facts. The other is that he himself possessed information, at the time he made this statement, which showed that my posting was untrue.

He should therefore have found it easy to provide a swift substantiation. It would also have been good debating manners to do so.

Yet the hours and the days pass, and still we hear nothing.

As I have said in a reply to Mr 'Demetriou', some contributors here might be allowed to get away with this sort of thing, being so dense and untutored that they are not aware of the implications of saying that something is 'not true'.

But this person, whose pseudonym, and style, are saturated with self-regard and accompanied by a lofty manner, cannot really be excused on the grounds that he knows not what he does.

Let's have it, please.

If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click here and scroll down.