British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

Linda,

Believe it or not, I actually thought of you when I read the bolded part! :)
(...been a long time since that "discussion" about cough remedies, hey?)


edited to ad:
That was a very patient, detailed, and clear response to Helen...I don't know if she read it though, because she made no further appearance in the thread. :(
 
Last edited:
This week's Private Eye (not available online...) has a report on the ongoing libel proceedings - it seems to paint a pretty optimistic account of the possibility of a successful outcome. It reports that the judges in the case seem pretty predisposed to Singh's side....

I find it absolutely baffling that this has to even go to court. If it's found in Singh's favour, what's the potential for a counter claim award against the Chiropractioner's Association?

And when's the judgement due?
 
Why would SS counterclaim.
It would be hypocritical, wouldn't it, to use a law you are campaigning against?
 
BillyJoe said:
Why would SS counterclaim.
It would be hypocritical, wouldn't it, to use a law you are campaigning against?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. One point would be that it would illustrate the absurdity of certain aspects of the law.

Another would be that this would allow Singh to cover the costs of his defense, particularly since the BCA has in essence slandered Singh with this action.
 
andyandy said:
If it's found in Singh's favour, what's the potential for a counter claim award against the Chiropractioner's Association?
Click to expand...
Roadtoad said:
Another would be that this would allow Singh to cover the costs of his defense, particularly since the BCA has in essence slandered Singh with this action.
Click to expand...


If Singh wins the appeal, the BCA would probably be expected to pay the costs. In the English legal system it is generally the case that the loser pays, although the costs awarded would probably not cover all the costs.

According to Jack of Kent it appears that there may be potential for a counterclaim. While a similar tactic has recently been used in a case that was subsequently settled, Singh might not want to use it.
 
Mojo said:
If Singh wins the appeal, the BCA would probably be expected to pay the costs. In the English legal system it is generally the case that the loser pays, although the costs awarded would probably not cover all the costs.

According to Jack of Kent it appears that there may be potential for a counterclaim. While a similar tactic has recently been used in a case that was subsequently settled, Singh might not want to use it.
Click to expand...

Did Henrik Thomsen get his costs back? If the counter-claim just makes the initial case go away but leaves the victim of the vexatious litigation stuck with his own costs then the victory is rather pyrrhic.
 
Badly Shaved Monkey said:
Did Henrik Thomsen get his costs back? If the counter-claim just makes the initial case go away but leaves the victim of the vexatious litigation stuck with his own costs then the victory is rather pyrrhic.
Click to expand...


According to the Grauniad story linked above:
The financial terms of the settlement were secret, Thomsen's lawyer, Andrew Stephenson of Carter-Ruck, said yesterday.
Click to expand...
 
Question. Re the chiros claim of injury rate per 'treatment'.

What defines 'treatment' -
one manipulation out of dozens within a 'course of treatment',
or,
the full manipulation count within a single 'course of treatment' ?

If a patient were to become injured by a course of say 32 tablets, then the injury is due to that drug treatment, and the risk is not reduced by a factor of 32 in order to provide a per-tablet figure.

I was not injured until after 43 head jerks (plus others not to head) into a longer course of 'treatment' I could not continue with.
(See 'head scan' on YouTube user 'chiropracticinjury'.)

Is the relevant statistic *43* 'treatments' during less than 43 attendences,
or,
*one* for that 'course of treatment' for single presenting (low back) injury?

Maybe the risk of injury is more frequent than chiropractors themselves claim, due to the published statistic not directly relating to the number of manipulations per 'treatment' course ?
Maybe an average number of manipulations per 'treatment' course needs to be established so that an average risk factor per 'course of treatment' can be reported ?

My opinion is that risk should relate to the full 'course of treatment' relating to the condition anyone attends a chiropractor for, so the chiro figure could easily be 20x more optimistic, and possibly up to 50x more optimistic for chiropractors who persuade patients they have need to return more frequently.
 
Last edited:
In my opinion, to use for personal gain a law which you believe to be wrong is also wrong.
 
Using the libel laws to defend against costs incurred by the libel laws would just be self-defence. That would normally be excusable.
 
BillyJoe said:
In my opinion, to use for personal gain a law which you believe to be wrong is also wrong.
Click to expand...

steenkh said:
Using the libel laws to defend against costs incurred by the libel laws would just be self-defence. That would normally be excusable.
Click to expand...

Pretty much sums it up. Simon Singh has been slandered by the BCA, and this is an appropriate response.
 
Each to his own I guess, but I'd be surprised if SS uses a law which he believes to be wrong
 
Mojo said:
If Singh wins the appeal, the BCA would probably be expected to pay the costs. In the English legal system it is generally the case that the loser pays, although the costs awarded would probably not cover all the costs.

According to Jack of Kent it appears that there may be potential for a counterclaim. While a similar tactic has recently been used in a case that was subsequently settled, Singh might not want to use it.
Click to expand...
With Ben Goldacre's case (Mathias Rath vs Guardian) did not the amount ceded in costs (£350k or so) significantly underrun the true costs to the Guardian (£500k)?
 
If Simon wins there may not be much of a BCA left to sue. I dread to think what the costs they will have to pay. Plus reputation lost.

On the other hand I know very little about the BCA.
 
rjh01 said:
If Simon wins there may not be much of a BCA left to sue. I dread to think what the costs they will have to pay. Plus reputation lost.

On the other hand I know very little about the BCA.
Click to expand...
According to their 2008 accounts they have net reserves of 753k. £425k of which is in property.

They lost £83k in the year which was attributed to £112k exceptional legal fees re the Singh case.

The 2009 accounts will not be out for a couple of months but I would expect a similar loss as the legal fees will be similar if not higher. Losing the case would, I expect, wipe out all the cash reserves. I am not sure they would need to sell the property but it is an option.

I think the real problem, following a loss would be the ongoing viability of the BCA in its current format. I suspect a loss will lead to reduction in membership. They would then need to trim expenditure and/or increase subs to balance the books which in turn will lead to a loss of service and members......

Over half the expenditure is for insurance and onward subscription to other bodies. If the individual chiros can organise themselves to get that cheaper I suspect many would leave the BCA. I also suspect following a loss that a name change may follow.
 
Does anyone know when a judgement is due? It is staggering to the point of unbelievable that this is tying up the number of judges and barristers it is, for as long as it has already....

Surely, surely our MPs can actually see that this law needs a massive overhaul? And whilst there is some head of steam building over this cause celbre, it is a law that has needed change for years. God our elected leaders are pathetic....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom