British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

In re donating money - Is it not posible to just give money to Simon Singh? (If he would allow it...)

It doesn't have to be a 'fund for defense', per se does it?

"Hey Simon - here's that $10 I owe you..."

?

Buy more copies of his books? Buy some SS merchandise?

ETA: SS refering to Simon Singh obviously - not any other unfortunate connotation that may be implied
 
Last edited:
I hope you're not referring to me?

Singh has been clear that he has financial support from the Guardian- and perhaps other sources.

That said, if this goes the whole way, I'm in for a grand and to hell with the consequences.
 
Last edited:
Soapy Sam said:
Singh has been clear that he has financial support from the Guardian- and perhaps other sources.
Click to expand...


I don't know where you read this.

I have read only that he has sufficient resources from the sale of three best sellers to finance his own defence and that if others want to contribute they could do so by contributing to the organisation called "Sense About Science". This organisation aims to help any less fortunate scientists who find themselves in the same predicament.
 
Last edited:
Soapy Sam said:
Singh has been clear that he has financial support from the Guardian- and perhaps other sources.
Click to expand...

BillyJoe said:
I don't know where you read this.
Click to expand...


The Grauniad stated that it funded Simon's legal advice at the outset, and offered to pay the BCA's costs, but this offer seems to have been conditional on his following the advice given, which was to settle out of court:
The BCA chose not to sue the Guardian. In a statement yesterday, the paper said the article had been removed from the website because it was the subject of a legal dispute. "We supported Simon and funded his legal advice when the case was brought against him. The recommended legal advice was to settle out of court and we offered to pay for the British Chiropractic Association's costs should he choose to follow this course of action," the statement said.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
BillyJoe said:
I don't know where you read this.

I have read only that he has sufficient resources from the sale of three best sellers to finance his own defence and that if others want to contribute they could do so by contributing to the organisation called "Sense About Science". This organisation aims to help any less fortunate scientists who find themselves in the same predicament.
Click to expand...
I don't think that Sense About Science has ever funded the defence of any other such cases, or plans to do so. Help is in the form of publicity and generating pressure to change the law.
 
Mojo said:
The Grauniad stated that it funded Simon's legal advice at the outset, and offered to pay the BCA's costs, but this offer seems to have been conditional on his following the advice given, which was to settle out of court:
The recommended legal advice was to settle out of court and we offered to pay for the British Chiropractic Association's costs should he choose to follow this course of action
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Legal advice is typically to apologise and settle, for the reasons we are discussing here. When I was threatened with a libel suit my lawyer told me to apologise, and my publisher's lawyer told them to fight. We fought together, showed that the statements were correct, and the case was withdrawn.
 
Asolepius said:
I don't think that Sense About Science has ever funded the defence of any other such cases, or plans to do so. Help is in the form of publicity and generating pressure to change the law.
Click to expand...

No, they have not and they don't intend to fund their defence. They aim to help less fortunate scientists. One way, as you said is to pressure to have the law changed. In the mean time they can help by streamlining and guiding the process based on their familiarity of similar cases that have come before, such a Simon Singh's. That is my understanding at least.
 
Interesting new blog post which has some relevance to this topic:
The BCA club
What about the issue of four BCA members sitting on the IC [the General Chiropracitc Council's Investigating Committee] deciding whether there is a case to answer for the 500-odd BCA members (half their membership) I’ve complained about. We should be in no doubt that the beleaguered BCA will be wanting to pull up the drawbridge! So is it right that the cases of BCA members are judged by fellow BCA members? Will they be impartial, but will they also be seen to be impartial? If they are not seen to be impartial, that would certainly ‘undermine public confidence in the regulation of registered chiropractors’.

Is this something the GCC is really concerned about or are these things just not under their control? Out of the current 48 members of the various statutory committees, 24 are chiropractors and 12 of those are BCA members. If you were wanting to appear independent and in control, would you choose this situation, particularly co-opting yet more BCA members to your Investigating Committee? It just doesn’t look good, does it?

The AECC and other clubs
Then there’s the problem of three of the IC members being employed by the AECC and another one by McTimoney College of Chiropractic.

Kenneth Vall is more than just an employee: he’s their Principal and is also a Director of the AECC. Similarly, Kalim Mehrabi is a Director of McTimoney.

What might happen if even just some of the complaints made by either me or others succeed? What if half the complaints are upheld? All of them?

However many, based on previous experience, it is possible that the news of this will travel far and wide, perhaps even to mainstream media. Can you see the headlines?

Will potential students be reconsidering whether they want to take up chiropractic as a career? What might the effect be on the intake of new students to the AECC? What pressure might this put on those serving on the IC, making decisions about whether there is a case to answer for each of the complaints?

Undermining public confidence
Should the GCC’s Council not be concerned about whether such a situation might be liable to undermine public confidence in the regulation of registered chiropractors? If they are concerned, why have they just co-opted these BCA, AECC and McTimoney College people? They might have had more credibility in carrying out their duty to protect the public if they had co-opted more lay people.

Who knows. But it does look like the GCC are trying to cover all bases.

Expertise required
They are certainly bringing out the big guns of the chiropractic world. But they are not needed: the real expertise required is not in chiropractic, but knowing about the Advertising Standards Authority guidance and understanding how the ASA apply this guidance — the guidance that the GCC’s CoP says all chiropractors have to adhere to and the guidance against which my complaints must be judged.

More...
http://www.zenosblog.com/2009/09/pulling-up-the-drawbridge/
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Badly Shaved Monkey said:
I can't see anything yet (08:48BST) on the SaS site. Has anyone found something I've missed?
Click to expand...
On this page you can find:
A conference fringe event debating Defending free speech - Keep libel laws out of science organised by Dr Prateek Buch and involving Sile Lane, Dr Simon Singh, Dr Ben Goldacre, Nick Cohen and Dr Evan Harris MP takes place on Sunday 20th September in Highcliff Marriott Hotel, Blandford Syndicate 3 between 13.00 and 14.15.
Click to expand...
 
Whatever it is, it's supposed to be very exciting -
Keep Libel Laws out of Science campaign update 18/09/2009 (email) said:
This Sunday the Liberal Democrat party conference here in the UK is hosting a fringe event on Defending Free Speech: Keep libel laws out of science. See here for more details: http://www.libdemvoice.org/defending-free-speech-keep-libel-laws-out-of-science-16083.html.

Something else very exciting is happening on Sunday but I can't tell you about it now! Check our website first thing on Sunday morning to find out more.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's Man U v Man City :confused:
 
Update

Richard Dawkins condemns British libel laws:
Dawkins told the Liberal Democrat conference in Bournemouth that scientists should settle their differences in the lab, not in court, and that libel laws that made it too easy for people to be sued could have "disastrous consequences" for the public interest.

-snip-

He used the opportunity to highlight the case of Simon Singh, the science writer he described as a "courageous hero" who is being sued by the British Chiropractic Association over an article he wrote for the Guardian's comment pages.

"I and many of my colleagues fear that if Simon loses it will have major implications on the freedom of scientists, researchers and other commentators to engage in robust criticism of scientific and pseudo-scientific work.

"It is possible in medicine, even when you intend to do good, to do harm instead. That's why science thrives on actively encouraging criticism, rather than stifling it," the former professor for public understanding of science at Oxford said.

"Scientists often disagree with one another, sometimes passionately. But they don't go to court to sort out their differences. They go into the lab, repeat the experiments, carefully examine the controls and the statistical analysis."

Dawkins said that instead of suing Singh, the BCA should "submit their case to the higher court of scientific test".

More...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/sep/20/richard-dawkins-libel-laws
Click to expand...


ETA -
An interesting blog post has just been put up here:
http://www.thinkabouthealth.org/2009/09/bcas-libel-action-against-simon-singh.html
 
Last edited:
...well, he is arguing "for a publisher of a statement concerning public health or public safety to have the automatic benefit of qualified privilege", which automatically means that the publisher of such a statement cannot be sued.
 
Last edited:
AndyD said:
Jack of Kent has returned from sabbatical with a couple of posts on UK libel law...

Corporations, libel and the BCA
Click to expand...


Interesting that Jack says that the following can be written perfectly safely about the General Chiropractic Council:
...I can type the following about a particular statutory corporation without any fear whatsoever:-


​
The General Chiropractic Council happily promotes (and regulates) bogus treatments for which there is not a jot of evidence.

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/09/corporations-and-libel-what-is-bcas.html
Click to expand...


BTW, Jack has another new - and equally interesting - blog post up today in which he has published a copy of his FOI request to the General Chiropractic Council:
I would like to make a freedom of information request to the GCC.

Please disclose to me all information which is held by the GCC in respect of the Happy Families leaflet issued and then withdrawn by the British Chiropractic Association. This information can include internal documents, correspondence with the BCA, and all metadata and other electronic information. The period for this information should date back to the GCC's first awareness of the leaflet.

In case you wrongly construe my request narrowly, I would like to remind you of your duty to assist under freedom of information legislation.

I would wish to make representations on the public interest in disclosure, in the event that any qualified exemption applies requiring a public interest balancing exercise. It is denied that there could be any public interest in non-disclosure should any qualified exemption apply, which is also denied.

-snip-

My reason in making this request is that it is appropriate - and indeed imperative - that the GCC now places into the public domain all information which it holds relating to this controversial leaflet, especially information about the BCA's promotion and withdraw of the leaflet.

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/09/my-foi-request-to-gcc.html
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
He is almost arguing that libel laws should be abolished.
Click to expand...

No, a long way from it.

He's leaving "malice" as an option for claiming libel - and that is surely what libel should be for. Plus, he's limiting it to areas of public health. So if you call someone a paedophile without justification - and truth - then you'll still be stuffed.

Suing someone for being mean is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom