British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

Wow - I am quite surprised. The inference is that they don't want the `plethora' tested in court, which means that they knew it was flannel all along. So Eady's interpretation might have been appropriate, ie they might really have been fraudulent. That's just my fair comment of course, speaking hypothetically. :)
 
The latest from Jack of Kent:

Barrister and skeptic Simon Bradshaw has helpfully pointed out in the comments below Civil Procedure Rule 38.6:

38.6— Liability for costs

(1) Unless the court orders otherwise, a claimant who discontinues is liable for the costs which a defendant against whom the claimant discontinues incurred on or before the date on which notice of discontinuance was served on the defendant.

We need further information before we know for certain that Rule 38.6(1) applies, but I suspect that this would at least be the starting point.
Click to expand...


http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2010/04/bca-drop-case-against-simon-singh.html


Another blog post here:
http://layscience.net/node/1000
 
Asolepius said:
Wow - I am quite surprised. The inference is that they don't want the `plethora' tested in court, which means that they knew it was flannel all along. So Eady's interpretation might have been appropriate, ie they might really have been fraudulent. That's just my fair comment of course, speaking hypothetically. :)
Click to expand...


Mmm. I was always of the opinion that, even though Simon didn't originally intend to accuse the BCA of knowing dishonesty, that it was possible to win the case on Eady's terms. The shenanigans about the "plethora" seemed to be pretty strong evidence that the BCA were always cherrypicking and misrepresenting the evidence, and knew it.

Rolfe.
 
BCA Statement just out
http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/gfx/uploads/textbox/Singh/BCA Statement 15th April 2010.pdf

BCA V SIMON SINGH - PRESS STATEMENT – 15th APRIL 2010

Having carefully considered its position in the light of the judgment of the Court of Appeal (1st April 2010), the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) has decided to discontinue its libel action against Simon Singh.

As previously made clear, the BCA brought the claim because it considered that Simon Singh had made a serious allegation against its reputation, namely, that the BCA promoted treatments that it knew to be “bogus”. The Honourable Mr Justice Eady, the UK's most experienced defamation judge, agreed with the BCA’s interpretation of the article and ruled that it made a serious factual allegation of dishonesty.

The Court of Appeal, in its recent judgment, has taken a very different view of the article. On its interpretation, the article did not make any factual allegation against the BCA at all; it was no more than an expression of ‘honest opinion’ by Simon Singh. While it still considers that the article was defamatory of the BCA, the decision provides Dr Singh with a defence such that the BCA has taken the view that it should withdraw to avoid further legal costs being incurred by
either side.

As those who have followed the publicity surrounding this case will know, Simon Singh has said publicly that he had never intended to suggest that the BCA had been dishonest. The BCA accepts this statement, which goes some way to vindicating its position.

The BCA takes seriously its duty and responsibilities to members and to chiropractic patients. The BCA has considered seeking leave to take this matter to the Supreme Court and has been advised there are strong grounds for appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment. However, while it was right to bring this claim at the outset, the BCA now feels that the time is right for the
matter to draw to a close.

Ends
More media information from Carl Courtney on 07785 397321 but no new information will be given.
Click to expand...


Finally, for those who may not know, it's 'Chiropractic Awareness Week' in the UK - so let's be aware:
http://www.zenosblog.com/2010/04/chiropractic-awareness-week-2008-2010/
 
Well now, if the BCA feels vindicated by Simon's statement that he never intended to imply dishonesty, why didn't they withdraw at that point? That was months ago. The real reason is fear of a public laundry of stained underpants.
 
Rolfe said:
Mmm. I was always of the opinion that, even though Simon didn't originally intend to accuse the BCA of knowing dishonesty, that it was possible to win the case on Eady's terms. The shenanigans about the "plethora" seemed to be pretty strong evidence that the BCA were always cherrypicking and misrepresenting the evidence, and knew it.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

This.

I think the BCA completely shot themselves in the foot, because the 'evidence' they lauded as backing their position, when produced was completely useless. If they knew it was useless then they were dishonest, if they didn't know it was useless, they were incompetent, - neither is a good image :)
 
....and this is the most bizarre tagline I have ever seen at the end of a news release:
More media information from Carl Courtney on 07785 397321 but no new information will be given.
Click to expand...
So there is more information but no information, at the same time? Now I know they are deranged. Or do they mean they will only provide old information, ie not news?
 
Asolepius said:
....and this is the most bizarre tagline I have ever seen at the end of a news release: So there is more information but no information, at the same time? Now I know they are deranged. Or do they mean they will only provide old information, ie not news?
Click to expand...

You missed the qualifier, they said "More media information", which is clearly something else. Probably pretty pictures and soundbites, but no actual information as you and I would know it. ;)
 
zooterkin said:
You missed the qualifier, they said "More media information", which is clearly something else. Probably pretty pictures and soundbites, but no actual information as you and I would know it. ;)
Click to expand...
I noticed that and thought the same thing. Similar to the way that "chiropractic" qualifies "evidence".
 
zooterkin said:
You missed the qualifier, they said "More media information", which is clearly something else. Probably pretty pictures and soundbites, but no actual information as you and I would know it. ;)
Click to expand...
No I didn't miss it, I just could not see what it meant. It usually means information for the news media, but it seems that for chiropractors it's whatever they want it to mean.
 
Soapy Sam said:
Good news.
That just leaves the issue of libel reform...
Click to expand...

Apparently, all the major parties support it, but of course that doesn't mean it's going to happen. On the other hand, it may be that this judgement affects how libel law can be used in regards to science-related claims. While not sufficient, in my view, it may reduce the use of libel allegations to impose a 'legal chill' on journalists commenting on CAM practitioners and other similar matters.
 
Asolepius said:
Well now, if the BCA feels vindicated by Simon's statement that he never intended to imply dishonesty, why didn't they withdraw at that point? That was months ago. The real reason is fear of a public laundry of stained underpants.
Click to expand...


At this stage of the game, it's all about putting out bland statements to make them look good (or rather, less bad). Nobody is going to Paxman them on the contents of their press releases, it's just a fig leaf.

Rolfe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom