The objective quest for truth so often finds itself blocked by the status quo's vested interests. It is no wonder then, that in so many crucial walks of life: science, politics and the like, declarations of conflicts of interest are obligatory and lack of respect for such rules is strictly punished. Our believing in something simply because others want us to believe it is at best not real belief, and at worst out-and-out manipulation, an affront to our freedom and dignity. That much seems obvious.

To what end then does the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust’s recent protest over the new film Anonymous aim? The group has begun a very un-Shakespearean protest of vandalism aimed at the film, which asserts the theory that the Earl of Oxford was the true author of the Bard’s famous masterpieces. In and around Warwickshire, the Trust are hiding references to their most famous son, by taping over nine road signs and ten pub signs, including one on the Shakespeare pub in Welford, where the Bard is thought to have enjoyed his last drink, as well as draping a sheet over a Shakespeare memorial in Stratford itself.

The aim of this bizarre exercise? In the words of the Trust: “to tackle the film’s conspiracy theory that William Shakespeare of Stratford was a barely literate front man for the Earl of Oxford.” But what exactly is this impact they are so worried about? Well, the negative impact generally on British culture and status, as well as specifically on the local economy of Stratford-upon-Avon, and the respect accorded to the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, both of which rely on Stratford’s status as the birthplace of the world’s greatest playwright.

Dr Paul Edmondson, head of knowledge and research at the Trust explained their opposition to the film by saying that, while the film is lacking in historical accuracy, there is a risk of the general public being "hoodwinked".

This is a legitimate fear, for while academics may not be swayed by the argument of the movie, if the public believe the claims made in the film, the loyalty of ivory-towered professors will make little difference. Though Dr Edmondson laments the public being potentially 'hoodwinked' in this way, it would be equally regrettable for them to be manipulated into accepting the Trust’s fear of the impact that the theory that Shakespeare was not the true author of ‘his’ plays could have. I doubt that such an unethical argument could ever truly convince anyone.

People must be convinced by a persuasive factual account; understanding that an idea is being pushed for vested interest is not sufficient. As such, knowing that the belief in Shakespeare’s story is being pushed for the vested interest of Britain will never, alone, convince anyone, be they from Stratford, Stockport or Sri Lanka. The evidence alone should be enough; any appeal to vested interests only weakens the argument of the faithful, by suggesting that the Trust have no real evidence to go on. It screams of a last-ditch effort at self-preservation, when it should be an evidence-based, reasoned argument.

So if, as Dr Edmondson says, we do indeed have good reasons for believing the traditional story of Shakespeare, then why have his organisation resorted to this bizarre tactic? This I cannot begin to get my head around. Evidence-based persuasion may not be as attention-grabbing as vandalising the county’s signs but it is the only way real belief will ever be achieved. This is what the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust should have done and what they should do now – if they haven’t doomed themselves already.