British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

Rolfe said:
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.
Click to expand...
You're right, I suppose, but isn't just about everybody wise to this sort of spin by now? I don't think it will help them one jot ...
 
Asolepius said:
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.
Click to expand...

I read 'More media information' as 'If you want information about any other things then......but there'll be nothing else about this particular issue'.
 
Without fear of litigation, Ben Goldacre could now head his Guardian article:

The British Chiropratic Association Happily Promotes Bogus Treatments.
 
Where the article says “BCA has taken the view that it should withdraw to avoid further legal costs being incurred by either side.”

What it really means is that is “BCA has taken the view that it should withdraw to avoid further legal costs being incurred by both sides as it is the BCA that will have to foot both* bills.”


*While the earlier costs still need to fought over, future costs connected with further litigation are normally awarded to the winner of that litigation.
 
Part of me wishes this had gone all the way, and the "plethora" tested in court. But it would have been much too rough on Simon.

Rolfe.
 
Mojo said:
Coverage from the Guardian and the Independent.
Click to expand...

Excellent news all round. I think the only thing I would quibble with is the statement from Simon Singh's lawyer in the Guardian report:
However well this process goes, Simon is likely to be out of pocket by about £20,000. This – and two years of lost earnings, which he can never recover, is the price he has paid for writing an article criticising the BCA for making claims the Advertising Standards Authority has ruled can no longer be made. In the game of libel, even winning is costly and stressful.
Click to expand...

I certainly would not want to go through the stress and uncertainty that Simon has gone through in the last two years, and I don't doubt that he is out of pocket at present. However, it does seem to me at least possible that as a result of the case that his profile has been raised sufficiently that his future earnings could increase to such an extent as to more than compensate for any lost earnings in the last two years. Unless Robert Dougans is arguing the self-evident point that Dr Singh can't earn money in those two years, I think that 'never' is a bit too strong.
 
zooterkin said:
Excellent news all round. I think the only thing I would quibble with is the statement from Simon Singh's lawyer in the Guardian report:

I certainly would not want to go through the stress and uncertainty that Simon has gone through in the last two years, and I don't doubt that he is out of pocket at present. However, it does seem to me at least possible that as a result of the case that his profile has been raised sufficiently that his future earnings could increase to such an extent as to more than compensate for any lost earnings in the last two years. Unless Robert Dougans is arguing the self-evident point that Dr Singh can't earn money in those two years, I think that 'never' is a bit too strong.
Click to expand...
I am fairly sure the argument is that this action has taken up a lot of his time that could have been more productively spent on other (fee earning) activities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom