• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

Blue Wode said:
This blogger has emailed the BCA to ask them for their search strategy, key terms used to identify papers, papers included/excluded in their search, how they appraised the papers finally selected, and how they use these papers to directly inform their treatment of infants:
http://www.drpetra.co.uk/blog/?p=857

I wonder if they'll answer.
Click to expand...
I assumed their search strategy was a lot of panicked Googling.
 
Dragon said:
  1. he can get his antagonist to stfu
  2. he can get a load of money off him
Click to expand...
stfu
(edit: Okay, forget this one, I'm used to seeing it capitalised. STFU)

How does someone get a load of money off someone living in America through a court in England?
 
Last edited:
I don't quite see that you have answered my question.
What do I care if somene takes me to court in England if I live in America.
 
Hmmm, okay, the article I read said something about "an American author being interviewed by an American reporter in an America city being sued in England". Maybe I misread.

the US currently recognises UK libel decisions
Click to expand...
What? How does that work? Does some American agency collect the money off an American citizen to give to an aggrieved Englishman?
 
BillyJoe said:
What? How does that work? Does some American agency collect the money off an American citizen to give to an aggrieved Englishman?
Click to expand...
Maybe or maybe the American legal system kicks in and takes steps to collect the money. However, it's probably more likely that the US citizen could resist paying the money but then would be unable to travel to the UK and may even end up with a criminal record in the UK.

The UK is effectively claiming jurisdiction over the entire world with it's libel rulings at present.
 
In the UK The Guardian has also been reporting the case, e.g. here

Private Eye (though not quite MSM) has been on the case for a good while. The Eye, in addition, routinely attacks English libel laws, including the 'libel tourism' issue. And Justice Eady is definitely not on their Xmas card list :)
 
CKava said:
Maybe or maybe the American legal system kicks in and takes steps to collect the money. However, it's probably more likely that the US citizen could resist paying the money but then would be unable to travel to the UK and may even end up with a criminal record in the UK.

The UK is effectively claiming jurisdiction over the entire world with it's libel rulings at present.
Click to expand...
In libel the Loser pays. I doubt that the lawyers would take on a case without knowledge that their fees would be paid.
 
Okay, I found an informative link on this subject

http://www.ojr.org/ojr/law/1099435840.php

"Being sued in a foreign land is not a concern that your average mom and pop newspaper has to worry about. It is unlikely that you would have to worry about being sued in South Africa if you don't have assets in South Africa that could be frozen. But for companies that are large enough or spread out enough to have assets all over the world, Internet jurisdiction issues are extremely serious."
Click to expand...


Also, it seems also that foreign countries, having made a judgement against the accused in their own court can then collect the fine through a court in the country where the accused lives.

BJ
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_Evil#Libel_controversy

Although the book was not published in the United Kingdom the lawsuit was made possible when UK residents purchased 23 copies via online booksellers. Ehrenfeld did not defend herself and was found in default of the suit at the High Court of Justice. In May 2005 Justice Eady ruled that Ehrenfeld's accusations against the Mahfouzes were false and ordered her and her publisher to pay £10,000 in damages to each of the three plaintiffs, with an additional £80,000 costs for a total of £110,000 ($225,000). Further distribution of the libels in England and Wales was also prohibited with a previous injunction being continued.
Click to expand...

I don't know if the book was actually pulped.
 
Lothian said:
In libel the Loser pays. I doubt that the lawyers would take on a case without knowledge that their fees would be paid.
Click to expand...

Even if the court cannot collect the money from the losing party I am certain that the lawyers would still get paid.
 
shpalman said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_Evil#Libel_controversy

Although the book was not published in the United Kingdom the lawsuit was made possible when UK residents purchased 23 copies via online booksellers. Ehrenfeld did not defend herself and was found in default of the suit at the High Court of Justice. In May 2005 Justice Eady ruled that Ehrenfeld's accusations against the Mahfouzes were false and ordered her and her publisher to pay £10,000 in damages to each of the three plaintiffs, with an additional £80,000 costs for a total of £110,000 ($225,000). Further distribution of the libels in England and Wales was also prohibited with a previous injunction being continued.
Click to expand...
I don't know if the book was actually pulped.
Click to expand...


The irony is that, when the author counter-sued...

"She sought a declaration that the English judgment could not be enforced in the US and that the allegations that she had made against bin Mahfouz were not defamatory under US law. Her complaint asserted that the sheikh's litigation against his detractors violated her rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguing that it "seriously chills legitimate and good-faith investigation into his behaviour. With the benefit of his vast financial resources, he has managed to silence his critics one at a time. She asserted that she had not properly been served notice and lacked the financial resources to fight bin Mafouz's lawsuit in England"

...the American courts decided that they had no jurisdiction to hear the case:

"Bin Mahfouz sought to have the New York case dismissed, claiming that the court had no jurisdiction over him and no power to rule in the issues raised by Ehrenfeld. [The] judge found in his favour and dismissed the case in April 2006, ruling that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over bin Mahfouz under New York state law"
 
Rolfe said:
Nevertheless I'm enormously entertained to observe the way the BCA's plethora of evidence is being demolished before their eyes. I think they'll be making a bad mistake if they go to court on it. Twenty-nine papers. But then when you take out those that have nothing to do with the stated conditions in paediatric patients (including those citing osteopathy, or where the patients were adults), you're left with a lot fewer. Looking at these, there is evidence of quote-mining which will do them no good at all, as it surely has to be evidence suggestive of knowing deception, and some extremely questionable methodologies.

I can just imagine a good barrister tossing the irrelevant papers away one at a time, and then turning to the much-reduced pile. Then it appears that the BCA failed to list some high-quality studies which showed no effect, choosing instead poor-quality studies claiming effect. There is reason to question any assertion on their part that they were unaware of the high-quality studies (these are included in review material they have cited, I believe), so their choice to conceal these and rely on poor quality material is again evidence to suggest deliberate dishonesty.

I believe a good barrister supported by an expert in the design and interpretation of medical trials (paging Asolepius....) could make mincemeat of this and present a good case that the BCA is in fact knowingly dishonest.
Click to expand...


Remember this case? See paragraphs 37-54 (53-54 quoted here):
53. Dr Conway considered Dr Donegan's first paper in a response of over 60 pages with which Professor Kroll entirely agreed. I am satisfied he was not over critical. But at various places he points to Dr Donegan being confused in her thinking, lacking logic, minimising the duration of a disease, making statements lacking valid facts, ignoring the facts, ignoring the conclusion of papers, making implications without any scientific validation, giving a superficial impression of a paper, not presenting the counter argument, quoting selectively from papers, and of providing in one instance no data and no facts to support her claim.

54. Professor Kroll in his response adds 3 particular points where he consider Dr Donegan has been somewhat selective in her quotations from medical papers. He considered she conveyed a misleading impression in one case, and made unsubstantiated claims in another. All their criticisms are well founded. Dr Donegan answered these charges but only in cross-examination accepted the points I have set out earlier.
Click to expand...


Judges tend not to like this sort of thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom