Congratulations to Simon Singh, and to all who've supported him! Well done!
ETA: And a big fat raspberry to the BCA!
ETA: And a big fat raspberry to the BCA!
British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh
- Thread starter Jack of Kent
- Start date
-
- Tags
- chiropractic simon singh
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Now that the case is all but over I think the quote below is worth a re-read. It was made in post 49. I wonder if option 3 could be coming true. Costs for Simon have been put at 200,000 pounds above. I assume that the BCA's costs are about the same. Plus many of their members are in trouble themselves.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
I dunno. We can freely criticize chiropractors here in the US and they are still around.
Or they could declare themselves bankrupt and leave Simon with nothing.
Rolfe
Adult human female
How? Jack of Kent showed that they have fairly substantial assets, including freehold property. You can't just declare yourself bankrupt and magic all that away. Simon would presumably feature quite high on the list of creditors in any potential bankruptcy scenario.
Rolfe.
Rolfe.
Before the bankruptcy is a reality they could make some transactions like selling their assets at ridiculously low prices, moving them out of the country, spend their money on exorbitant consultancy fees, and so on. And then they could declare bankruptcy. I believe this can be done within the limits of the law, but I am not sure.
Building companies in Denmark have been known to do similar actions, though not in order to avoid paying up for a lost court case, but rather in order not to pay up to regular creditors. If this happens a lot, the managers may lose the right to lead a company, but only after many such bankruptcies, and such a ban only happens rarely.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I'd love to see them try that! Even if it could be done legally, it would be an own goal of spectacular proportions. This is already a cause celebre, so they could hardly hope to avoid bad publicity.
Rolfe.
UK chiropractors received financial help from international chiropractic groups in the past, not least when setting up the Chiropractors Act (1994):
http://www.chiroweb.com/mpacms/dc/article.php?id=41477
It could be that those same groups (the World Federation of Chiropractic, the American Chiropractic Association, the International Chiropractic Association, and the European Chiropractic Union) would be willing to help bail out the BCA in order to protect the interests of the industry globally.
http://www.chiroweb.com/mpacms/dc/article.php?id=41477
It could be that those same groups (the World Federation of Chiropractic, the American Chiropractic Association, the International Chiropractic Association, and the European Chiropractic Union) would be willing to help bail out the BCA in order to protect the interests of the industry globally.
There was an interview with Simon Singh on the Today programme this morning, where I thought he more than held his own against a lawyer from Carter-Ruck; unfortunately it wasn't one of the segments they've made available as a podcast, but it might be available on BBC iPlayer (which would be UK only).
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,363
I think oily is the right way to describe that lawyer. But that's just my honestly held opinion not a statement of fact.
You know guys, I don't think this is a such a good result. I think it's good that the case is now dropped, but on the other hand I don't think it should have ever started in the first place. Maybe I'm more skeptical than you, and rather more cynical. But think it though, along these lines:
1) You're a science writer looking to make a name for yourself. You see Richard Dawkins banging the drum about creationists, portraying himself as the saviour of rational science, so you look for a similar easy target. You don't go after the NHS re "Stafford" issues of patient care, and you don't go after NICE for denying patients the drugs that are available in Europe. Instead you pick chiropractors, a bunch of fringe back-rubbers who most people really don't give a fig about.
2) You call them dishonest crooks and bogus liars in a newspaper, then when they threaten legal action you refuse to retract. Because this is exactly the battle you need to generate publicity and further your self-promotional heroic cause.
3) You reason that you will receive press and media support because they too want to be able to call people names in print without fear of legal reprisals. So with their assistance you mount a campaign to influence public and judicial opinion.
4) You portray this campaign as free speech in science when in fact it's a demand for the freedom to impugn, which has been used to suppress free speech and freedom of information as demonstrated by the CRU example.
5) You succeed in your appeal to get your bogus/dishonesty accusations labelled as "fair comment", the opposition then drop their case, but you decide there's more publicity to be had so you decide to go after them for costs.
6) This is in part because the media owe you one. There's media rejoicement because newspaper columnists are now free to call anybody they dislike, anything they like. It's now a "fair comment" open season, particularly where science is concerned. An experimentalist with a result that challenges say string theory can be labelled as a swindling child-porn criminal freak - with utter impunity.
This situation cannot last. As to where we go from here I don't know. Yes, there are problems with libel in the UK, but they're just one aspect of the problems with the law in the UK. It is not available to the little guy, and now vested interest and media propaganda will be more powerful than before. Will you find skeptical views like this aired in newspapers or voiced by columnists? No, you will not. Why not? Because that much-touted free speech is a sham. It's free speech for them, but not for you.
1) You're a science writer looking to make a name for yourself. You see Richard Dawkins banging the drum about creationists, portraying himself as the saviour of rational science, so you look for a similar easy target. You don't go after the NHS re "Stafford" issues of patient care, and you don't go after NICE for denying patients the drugs that are available in Europe. Instead you pick chiropractors, a bunch of fringe back-rubbers who most people really don't give a fig about.
2) You call them dishonest crooks and bogus liars in a newspaper, then when they threaten legal action you refuse to retract. Because this is exactly the battle you need to generate publicity and further your self-promotional heroic cause.
3) You reason that you will receive press and media support because they too want to be able to call people names in print without fear of legal reprisals. So with their assistance you mount a campaign to influence public and judicial opinion.
4) You portray this campaign as free speech in science when in fact it's a demand for the freedom to impugn, which has been used to suppress free speech and freedom of information as demonstrated by the CRU example.
5) You succeed in your appeal to get your bogus/dishonesty accusations labelled as "fair comment", the opposition then drop their case, but you decide there's more publicity to be had so you decide to go after them for costs.
6) This is in part because the media owe you one. There's media rejoicement because newspaper columnists are now free to call anybody they dislike, anything they like. It's now a "fair comment" open season, particularly where science is concerned. An experimentalist with a result that challenges say string theory can be labelled as a swindling child-porn criminal freak - with utter impunity.
This situation cannot last. As to where we go from here I don't know. Yes, there are problems with libel in the UK, but they're just one aspect of the problems with the law in the UK. It is not available to the little guy, and now vested interest and media propaganda will be more powerful than before. Will you find skeptical views like this aired in newspapers or voiced by columnists? No, you will not. Why not? Because that much-touted free speech is a sham. It's free speech for them, but not for you.
Lothian
should be banned
More of a conspiracy theorist perhaps.
Simon Singh had 3 (or more) best selling books under his name already he was not looking to make a name for himself, but would welcome any evidence you have to the contrary.
He never called them dishonest crooks and bogus liars.
The reason he received support is that the libel laws need reforming. All three main political parties in the current election recognise that in their manifesto.
I would welcome any evidence you have for this allegation.
Costs are awarded as standard to the victor in UK cases. If the BCA has not sued him he would have incurred no costs.
The laws have not been changed.
You seem to confuse skepticisn with making incorrect and unfounded allegations.
Even if the libel laws were changed as is being requested, why do you think this would be allowed?
Asolepius
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,150
Farsight - knowing Simon as I do (personally), you are misreading his character and motivation. Your cynicism is not the same thing as scepticism. It is bizarre to suggest that any supporters of the libel reform campaign would agree that insults should be routinely allowed (although a well-deserved insult can be very satisfying
).
).Because there's a move to keep libel laws out of science, and in physics we've suffered from something called string wars. New Scientist repeatedly say string theory is the only game in town, and recently described a guy talking about electromagnetic potential as a fruitloop - not understanding the science of the Aharanov-Bohm effect. There's a heck of a lot of competition in physics, with interest groups vying to portray their theory as the consensus whilst trashing the competition. Here's one guy who's a good example: http://motls.blogspot.com/. Anybody who challenges a theory that's been going for forty years without any experimental verification gets called a crackpot.
This doesn't concern just string theory, there are other issues too, wherein genuine bona-fide experimental physicists can't get their papers into journals becase they're presenting some kind of challenge. Then they get called "maverick" or "fringe" or worse. Or you just don't get to hear about them at all because there isn't really any free speech in science. Here's an interesting article that addresses some of the issues: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/38468. Also see http://community.acs.org/chembiol/?TabId=54&topic=Experimenting+with+Peer--45-Review re improving peer review to prevent abuse.
There really are two sides to this coin.
Lothian
should be banned
This has nothing to do with the BCA, Simon Singh or libel. You obviously have an issue with mainstream science. I suggest you start a thread detailing how you have been wronged.
Last edited:
commandlinegamer
Philosopher
They've been doing that for years, nothing new there. But if Joe Public gets libelled, he may have difficulty getting redress due to the costs involved. That's a battle yet to be joined.
