British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

http://www.inditop.com/health/indian-origin-writer-in-costly-fight-with-chiropractors

The Guardian said in a statement published Thursday it has removed the article from its website because it was the subject of a legal dispute.

“We supported Simon and funded his legal advice when the case was brought against him. The recommended legal advice was to settle out of court and we offered to pay for the British Chiropractic Association’s costs should he choose to follow this course of action,” the newspaper said.
Click to expand...

Very commendable of the Guardian to offer that support. Hats off to them.
 
We're unlikely to find out if he has any links to Chiropractors....From a Daily Telegraph article of last year:

'Colleagues describe him as unclubbable, preferring to retire to his London flat or catch the train home to Kent after work rather than going for a drink to unwind. He guards his personal life with such jealousy that his Who's Who entry contains no details of any hobbies or interests, and few of his neighbours appear to have any idea who he is. '

And it doesn't augur well for any appeal:

"The fact that he has not been promoted just gives him even more power. His decisions are rarely successfully appealed, a fact which speaks for itself, and he has such seniority within the High Court that he will carry on shaping the law in a way that few other judges can."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...ice-Eady-defender-of-the-nations-privacy.html
 
From the Facebook group
I understand that Simon Singh will announce whether he will appeal on Monday 18 May 2009 at a public support meeting to take place in London at 6.30pm.

The venue will be the Penderels Oak, the usual meeting place of London Skeptics in the Pub.

As well as Simon Singh, the leading UK journalist Nick Cohen will be speaking. Other speakers are currently being confirmed.

For more, see: http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/05/bca-v-singh-update-and-roundup.html

I also have an article in this week's New Scientist, see http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227086.200-comment-dont-criticise-or-well-sue.html

Many thanks for your support!

Best wishes
David
Click to expand...
 
Thing said:
And with a supportive comment from Evan Harris MP, a tenacious member of the parliamentary select committee on innovation, universities, skills and science, and a determined anti-quackster.
Click to expand...

We have one of those? Are there any more in parliament?
 
Depends if you count Dick Taverne.

Here's Evan's comment:
As a Member of Parliament in the UK with an interest in evidence-based healthcare, free speech and scientific rigour, I am very concerned by what is happening in the Simon Singh case.

It is vital that this case is not lost because it will chill scientists, journalists, writers and even comedians from criticising the work of others which is vital component of the scientific method. It will also embolden the non-evidence-based (so called "alternative") health care industry to threaten any critic of their approach, work or claims. It will also add credibility to the claims of these organisations.

The article also points out some of the problems with UK libel laws which are rather more perilous for the defendant than the claimant with regard to defences and burden of proof and the current interplay between UK law and international agreements means that libel tourism is taking place with London being the most attractive resort for wealthy and powerful individuals to seek damages.

The good news is firstly that Simon has many friends and supporters who will be organising a campaign on this and secondly that the UK Parliament is aware of the problem with libel law and there has been debate and an on-going enquiry into the issue. See http://pubs1.tso.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm081217/halltext/81... and http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmcumeds/memo... for these.

The stakes in this case are very high for the future of rigorous scientific criticsim and for free expression.

Dr Evan Harris (MP Oxford West and Abingdon)
Click to expand...
 
An update from Simon Singh, Sunday 17 May, 2009
(Via his e-newsletter – not yet available on his website http://www.simonsingh.net/)

I apologise for the silence since last week’s bad news at the High Court, but at last I have been able to take stock of the situation and write a quick update.

It has been over a year since I wrote an article for the Guardian newspaper (19 April 2008) about chiropractic, its effectiveness in relation to childhood conditions and its risks. The British Chiropractic Association then decided to sue me for libel and I have spent most of the last twelve months building a defence.

Prior to the full trial it was agreed that it would be helpful for the actual meaning of the article to be established in a preliminary hearing. On Thursday 7 May 2009 the preliminary hearing took place at the Royal Courts of Justice in front of Justice David Eady. It is not an understatement to say that his ruling was, from my point of view, disastrous and misguided.

The core of my article, and the aspect that I thought was mainly under scrutiny, suggested that chiropractors lacked evidence to support their treatment of several childhood conditions. I therefore called these treatments “bogus”.

The judge held that merely using the phrase “happily promotes bogus treatments” meant that I was stating, as a matter of fact, that the BCA was being consciously dishonest in promoting chiropractic for treating the children’s ailments in question, in that they were promoting treatments they knew were ineffective.

Although I maintain my position that such chiropractic treatment for childhood conditions lacks any significant scientific basis and that chiropractic in general carries risks, I do not and never have meant to imply that chiropractors are deliberately and dishonestly offering such treatments. My view is that, for example, they may not know the scientific evidence, they may not understand it or they may have a biased interpretation of the evidence – I don’t know. More generally, I share the commonly held view that alternative therapists who offer treatments unsupported by reasonable evidence are deluded rather than deliberately dishonest. I think that Justice Eady has failed to interpret the meaning of the article in the way that a reasonable reader would understand it.

The current ruling by Justice Eady means that I stand very, very little hope of a successful defence at trial, so going to trial is not a realistic option. My two reasonable options are to:

1. Settle now, which will cost in excess of £100,000 (the vast majority of these costs would be to cover the BCA’s legal bills, as opposed to damages).

2. Submit an appeal in relation to the meaning of my article, hoping for a more reasonable ruling on meaning and then fight the case on what the article really meant.

I have until May 28 to lodge an application to appeal. I am seriously thinking about this option and am discussing it with my lawyers. It would increase my legal costs and eat up more time, but on the other hand I think I deserve the chance to fight my case on a reasonable interpretation of my article.

Moreover, this case demonstrates the chilling effect that the libel laws can have journalism in general, and science journalism in particular. The events of last week impact far beyond the author of one article on the subject of chiropractic.

Last Thursday was a miserable day, but I like to think I am as resilient as a Tigger. I am certainly in good spirits. In particular, family, friends, readers and bloggers have all cheered me up.

Thanks also for your supportive messages. I will try to reply to emails, but please forgive me if I don’t. The best option is to post to the Facebook site (see below) – I do regularly read the wall and it frequently makes me smile. I should also point out that the enormous support that I have received from around the world has certainly made me more enthusiastic about lodging an appeal (if this turns out to be a practical option). Scientists, journalists, comedians, rationalists, skeptics, bloggers, politicians and those who care about free speech have all expressed their outrage at last week’s ruling.

The next event that will interest those following the case is a public meeting on Monday 18 May at 6.30pm at Penderel’s Oak Pub (283 High Holborn, WC1V 7HP). Speakers will include me, the amazing Nick Cohen, the fantastic Dave Gorman and the heroic Evan Harris MP.

If you cannot make it to the meeting, then please help by letting others know about the case, the ruling and the possibility of an appeal. If there is an appeal, then it would be great to launch it upon a strong tide of public support.

If you want to find out more about the case (or want to inform others) then below are some useful links. This includes mainstream media coverage in New Scientist, Nature and the Economist.

Thanks again to everyone who has been so supportive.

Simon (still smiling) Singh.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=33457048634
For Simon Singh and Free Speech - Against the BCA Libel Claim
This seems to be the best place for keeping up with the latest news and developments. It contains links to various blogs and articles commenting on the case. Joining the group is a great way to show your support.

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/
Jack of Kent’s blog is well informed and written from an expert’s point of view. Recent update postings include:
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/05/bca-v-singh-astonishingly-illiberal.html
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/05/what-should-simon-singh-do-next.html

Googling words such as SIMON SINGH, BCA, LIBEL will take you to lots of blogs and articles about the libel case. Google news is particularly helpful (search “SIMON SINGH”, and you can also then click on the blog option.
http://news.google.co.uk/news

Coverage
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227086.200-comment-dont-criticise-or-well-sue.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/full/news.2009.479.html
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13643973
Click to expand...


For another superb round-up, see here:
http://godknowswhat.wordpress.com/2009/05/16/simon-singh-case-response-roundup/
 
I can't go tomorrow. Can those that do give us a report, please?

p.s. I'll be at SitP, same venue, on Wednesday. Any others going?
 
I'll be there tonight. Can't make Weds, annoyingly - why has Sid moved it from a Monday?
 
By the way, there is no firm evidence yet that Justice Eady took large cash bribes from people in the alternative medicine community.
 
A message from lecanardnoir:
A Carnival of Bogus* Chiropractic

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

One of the side effects of the BCA vs Chiropractic libel case is that there are a growing number of people who now realise that Chiropractic is bogus*. Even though Simon Singh may well have suffered a set back from a judge who according to the law can define words as he sees fit, we are now seeing increasing exposure to the bogus* practices of the chiropractic trade.

One way to show the ridiculousness of the legal decision and of chiropractic would be to have a little blog carnival on the bogus* nature of chiropractic claims and practices, and so I suggest that sceptical bloggers and writers help out by doing the following…

1. Find a chiropractic claim from an association or practitioner and examine the evidence for it critically. Look at Cochrane reviews (if they exist), papers and the basic science behind the claims. Write to the claimant involved and ask them for their evidence for their claims.

2. If the evidence for effectiveness is lacking, call it a bogus* treatment.

3. Let me know what you have written and I will do a round up in a few weeks. Email me or twitter me @lecanardnoir.

4. Spread the word. Twitter like crazy.

I am on hols at the mo, so can I suggest all entries are emailed to me (see my ‘about’ pages) so that the carnival will appear y June 5th.

I think with not much effort we could turn the chiropractic google space into a web of critical articles. That would be a small step in the right direction.

* deliberate deception not implied.

http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/05/carnival-of-bogus-chiropractic.html
Click to expand...
 
Serious question:-
Have any of the parliamentary expense claims been described by the media as "bogus"?
If so, there would appear to be a case for the MP concerned to sue.

Or a case for Mr. Eady to consider.
 
Soapy Sam said:
Serious question:-
Have any of the parliamentary expense claims been described by the media as "bogus"?
If so, there would appear to be a case for the MP concerned to sue.

Or a case for Mr. Eady to consider.
Click to expand...

A number of MPs have already threatened legal action and allowing them to do so sucessfuly would be consistant with Mr. Eady's past record.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom