British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

So it had nothing to do with the prospect of the real evidence being debated in court? Nothing to do with choosing to sue an individual and not the publisher? Nothing to do with the childhood conditions which Brown chooses not to mention in this rant?
 
He went on: "Where does this leave the BCA (and, for that matter, anyone trying to defend their reputation against a journalist citing that what he wrote was his honestly held opinion)?
Click to expand...

Um... in the position where you were invited to present your evidence rebutting the journalist?


Mr Brown added: "Whatever the impression that some seek to portray, the BCA will survive this episode and will emerge stronger as a result. As recognised musculoskeletal experts, chiropractors have an important role in managing back and joint pain and bring relief to millions of sufferers each year.
Click to expand...

And childhood colic?
 
Interview with Robert Dougans (Simon Singh's lawyer) in Nature News: 'People work all their lives and never get a judgment like that'

It references Milton, Galileo and the 'Orwellian ministry of truth'. It has vicious attacks — by judicial standards — on the way the other side has behaved in suing him and it adopts the American decision [a 1994 ruling on scientific controversies] about making it hard to sue scientists.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
In the interests of accuracy, Jack of Kent has just confirmed on Twitter that although the article below *is* based on a BCA briefing for the Press Association (PA), and the BCA did give some of the article's content to the PA, it was *not* written as presented, i.e. it is not an original BCA press release. According to Jack of Kent it was lifted from behind a PA paywall:

THE ODDS WERE STACKED AGAINST US, SAYS BCA

20 Apr 2010

The British Chiropractic Association (BCA) pulled out of its libel battle with science writer Simon Singh because the Court of Appeal decision in the case meant that that odds were stacked against it, according to the organisation's President.

The Court of Appeal overturned Mr Justice Eady's first instance decision that what Dr Singh wrote about the BCA in a piece on a comment page in The Guardian was a verifiable statement of fact, and that therefore he could not use the fair comment defence.

The extent of the Court of Appeal's ruling took many people by surprise, said BCA President Richard Brown.

Although many clearly saw Dr Singh's statement that the BCA was "happily promoting bogus treatments" for some childhood conditions even though there was "not a jot of evidence" as a statement of fact, the Court of Appeal held that it was a value judgment, Mr Brown said.

"They went further, making reference to an Orwellian Ministry of Truth and accusing the BCA of creating the unhappy impression of trying to silence one of its critics," he said.

"Far from looking at what the ordinary reasonable reader may have thought on reading the article, the judgment went far further than merely considering the meaning of the words (the reason for the original hearing).

"In the face of this remarkable judgment, the BCA had no option but to withdraw from the case.

"As a small organisation, while there were grounds to appeal to the Supreme Court, to have done so would have been, as Singh frequently phrased it, a high stakes poker game; in the face of this judgment the odds would have been stacked against the BCA."

The case, he said, had led to problems for the BCA.

In the aftermath of Mr Justice Eady's original ruling, "a simmering online campaign erupted into a full scale series of over 600 formal complaints made to the statutory regulator, the General Chiropractic Council", mainly over chiropractors' website marketing claims, with further complaints to Trading Standards and the Advertising Standards Authority.

The BCA's action was condemned in equal measure with the case of Peter Wilmshurst, a cardiologist being sued by a US pharmaceutical giant for daring to criticise it, although there were few if any, similarities, Mr Brown said, adding: "The irony has not been lost on the BCA. A small British association, daring to take on a British journalist in a British Court has led to it being squeezed by the might of the media and subjected to ignominy in the Court of Appeal."

He went on: "Where does this leave the BCA (and, for that matter, anyone trying to defend their reputation against a journalist citing that what he wrote was his honestly held opinion)?

"It seems that the right to reputation has taken a battering and the responsibility that comes with the right to free expression has been seriously diluted.

"The media has seized on what it has characterised as irreparable damage to the BCA's reputation. Amongst those closely following the case, it is easy to understand this perception yet there is considerable sympathy with the action that the BCA took to defend its reputation against what it felt were allegations of dishonesty.

"Its decision to withdraw was correct in the circumstances and it will face the consequences of doing so. It remains the view of the BCA that Singh's comments were defamatory and it's clear that anyone reading Singh's original article would have come away with a lower impression of the BCA as a result.

"What would have happened had we had simply ignored the article? In the short term, probably not much. But in standing up for what we believed was right, the BCA fought for its right not to be subjected to false and defamatory allegations and this was the right thing to do."

Mr Brown added: "Whatever the impression that some seek to portray, the BCA will survive this episode and will emerge stronger as a result. As recognised musculoskeletal experts, chiropractors have an important role in managing back and joint pain and bring relief to millions of sufferers each year.

"Yet there is always scope to improve and by focusing on research, evidence-based care and maintaining high standards the BCA can look forward to a bright future ahead, beyond the cloud of volcanic ash in which it currently finds itself."

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/ussg0
Click to expand...
 
However we may feel about BCA v Singh, it is true that if journalists are free to say what they like , they can harm the reputation of people who have little recourse to respond.
In this case, they were offered the chance to respond and rejected it , preferring to sue an individual rather than a newspaper. Whether that was their own decision, or the advice of their lawyer, it was a cynical choice, which they now , doubtless, regret.
The BCA membership are, very likely, decent folk for the most part, who honestly feel harshly treated. But if only they had defended their position by producing good quality evidence, rather than by producing a legal team, we might all have learned something- and everyone, except a few lawyers, would be better off.
 
Some points from the statement

Simon Singh said there was no evidence that Chiropractors could treat certain conditions yet that the BCA happily promoted them. The CofA have said happily does not mean knowingly.

Irrespective of his meaning of bogus everyone now knows Simon was right and there is not a jot of evidence that Chiropractors can treat those conditions. The question is therefore not whether the BCA knew there was no evidence but why they didn’t know there was no evidence and why they were promoting these treatments happily or not.

Secondly the decision was not remarkable. The court of appeal is a higher court than the high court. It gives better law. That the CofA differed from the High court is a sign that if one court gave a remarkable (with respect to the law) decision, it was the High court.

If the BCA considers that the CofA decision on meaning has given Simon an unfair advantage in the arguments at the full hearing it is simply finding itself in a similar position to Simon after the high court ruling.

Their choice is not simply between going to the full hearing to pull out.

If they think the decision by the CofA is remarkable and out of kilter with the law they could appeal the decision on meaning to the House of Lords.

The last point concerns the “small” organisation taking n the might of a Journalist.. It has a turnover approaching 2 million and over £1 million in assets. It is not the David in the fight with Goliath.
 
Coverage from the Law Society's Gazette:
While the northern hemisphere is paralysed by the seismic shift that has caused the Icelandic volcano, Mt Eyjafjallajökull, to erupt, the case of the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) against Dr Simon Singh promises to have an equally seismic effect on the legal landscape of libel in the UK and the defence of fair comment – especially in the area of scientific debate.
Click to expand...


There's also a law report of the case in today's Times: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/reports/article7098750.ece
 
I wonder, though, how much more freedom this really does give those of us who like to criticise the SCAM? It's great that Simon was eventually successful, but he still had a horrible couple of years of it, and had to put a lot of money at stake. If I was to say (purely as a hypothetical example) that homoeopathic veterinary surgeons happily treat sick animals with sugar pills even though there is not a jot of evidence for these pills having a physiological effect, would the BAHVS still be in a position to sue me, I wonder?

Rolfe.
 
They could try putting a hex on you...so I understand. Something voodoo anyway.
 
rjh01 said:
Lesson - If you are offered the right of reply to an article, either take it or shut up and keep quiet.
Click to expand...

Nah. If you are offered a right of reply take out a super injunction and keep it up untill the other side folds.
 
Rolfe said:
I wonder, though, how much more freedom this really does give those of us who like to criticise the SCAM? It's great that Simon was eventually successful, but he still had a horrible couple of years of it, and had to put a lot of money at stake. If I was to say (purely as a hypothetical example) that homoeopathic veterinary surgeons happily treat sick animals with sugar pills even though there is not a jot of evidence for these pills having a physiological effect, would the BAHVS still be in a position to sue me, I wonder?
Click to expand...


Possibly not, for a couple of reasons.

If you just say "homoeopathic veterinary surgeons" then that probably isn't sufficient to identify a particular group who could sue. If Simon Singh had just said "chiropractors happily promote bogus treatments" then he wouldn't have been sued because he wouldn't have identified a specific group of chiropractors. Of course, chiropractors could then have claimed that the chiropractors who promote these treatments are not representative of the profession, are minor figures on the fringes, etc.

It may be that the BAHVS does not have legal standing to sue. The BCA v. Singh CoA judgment states:
If, like many trade and professional associations, the BCA was not incorporated but consisted simply of the totality of its members, neither individually nor collectively would they have had standing to sue. Some corporations – municipal ones, for example - also lack standing to sue in defamation. The BCA is not subject to either of these disadvantages.
Click to expand...
At a brief look, I couldn't see any indication of the BAHVS's status on their website.

The CoA decision was that assessment of the evidence for medical treatments should be treated as a matter of opinion rather than fact, so even if you were sued you should be allowed the defence of fair comment (or as the CoA rephrased it, "honest opinion"). I think this would mean that for a successful prosecution the claimant would have to demonstrate that the opinion could not be held by any reasonable person, or that you were motivated by malice. It might also be a good idea to to indicate why you reached your conclusion, as Singh did in the following paragraph of his article. See, for example, the digest of the case on WLR Daily:
Further, the word “bogus” in its context was more emphatic than assertive. But it was also explicitly supported by the next paragraph of the article, which explained that the defendant’s co-author, Professor Ernst, had found in 70 trials no evidence that chiropractic could treat conditions unrelated to the back. It was a paragraph which also underlined the evaluative character of the assertion that there was not a jot of evidence for such claims.
Click to expand...


NB: I am still not a lawyer.
 
Is it perhaps time for a new sticky, relating to the libel debate in general rather than Simon Singh's case?

Or from here on might we allow more general discussion in this thread, rather than mods restricting it to the SS case?
 
Soapy Sam said:
Is it perhaps time for a new sticky, relating to the libel debate in general rather than Simon Singh's case?

Or from here on might we allow more general discussion in this thread, rather than mods restricting it to the SS case?
Click to expand...


I think this thread should remain a sticky until we hear that the BCA have settled Simon Singh's costs.

(BTW, Soapy, do you still go to a chiropractor?)
 
No. I went ( a handful of visits), years ago, for a single specific problem clearly related to compressive injury at the C6/C7 site - ie an actual bit of back damage clearly visible on X-rays taken at an actual hospital. That spinal manipulation might help (or of course aggravate) some types of actual spinal damage has always seemed uncontroversial to me, whether described as "Chiropractic, physiotherapy or deep massage". That there are associated risks is also evident. To an adult. The case for an infant is entirely different.
That, as I said, was years ago. The problem (pain , reduced mobility range and stiffness in neck and both arms, went away soon after the treatment commenced. I won't reopen the old anecdotal post-hoc ergo propter-hoc argument. I think it helped. Let's leave it at that.

That said, I want to make it very clear I have never endorsed any of the wider and clearly unscientific claims of chiropractors, including specifically the manipulative treatments of infant colic / crying etc, which Simon Singh rightly criticised as "bogus".

Thing is, the BCA has been forced into retreat. While I'll be interested to hear the final financial verdict, it's unlikely there will be many more developments of interest in the Singh case specifically.
As the thread has hitherto been quite tightly restricted to the SS case, it's now moribund. As we have limited space for stickies, I suggest opening up the moderation to allow a general discussion of the SaS/ PEN campaign for libel reform, which still involves most of the leading characters involved to date.
I feel Simon's case has been subsumed by the more general matter of libel law , especially as applied to science / medical writing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom