British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

Let me stress that at this time there is no firm evidence that Mr. Justice Eady was caught in a compromising position with Jacqui Smith, a bottle of tequila, and a goat.
 
geni said:
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.
Click to expand...

So we can expect no changes in these idiotic laws because it is advantageous to the lawmakers.
 
godless dave said:
Let me stress that at this time there is no firm evidence that Mr. Justice Eady was caught in a compromising position with Jacqui Smith, a bottle of tequila, and a goat.
Click to expand...

My "evidence" would also lack firmness in those circumstances.


You were being euphemistic, weren't you?
 
Most intriguing.
It seems the Advertising Standards Authority perhaps has a clearer grasp of the concept and value of evidence than the courts.
 
Soapy Sam said:
Most intriguing.
It seems the Advertising Standards Authority perhaps has a clearer grasp of the concept and value of evidence than the courts.
Click to expand...

Indeed, though I still think Simon created a bit of a rod for his own back with his "not a jot" phrase. We know what he means in context, but unlike "bogus" he didn't define his terms. Which wouldn't normally matter in the cut and thrust of public debate with a party whose first resort is not to try to bully you into submission by placing every dot and comma of what you have written under the bewigged and reptilian gaze of the English libel court.
 
The BCA has just issued the following statement:
FURTHER UPDATE ON BCA v SIMON SINGH

26 May 2009

Since 7 May 2009, when in the Royal Courts of Justice Mr Justice Eady provided his ruling on BCA v Singh, there has been significant media interest in the trial.

The BCA has, until now, declined to comment, choosing to let the legal process take its course. Much criticism has been levelled at the BCA for not entering a debate, criticism which is in itself misguided.

The law exists to protect citizens and organisations from falsehoods and the BCA used the law because of the damage caused by Simon Singh's Guardian article.

The case brought against Dr Singh was simply a case to establish a libel contained in his article; it never was, and still is not a “freedom of speech” issue.

Had Dr Singh simply apologised and retracted his remarks, as the BCA originally requested, any action would have been averted – he has chosen not to do so in the face of overwhelming evidence. Therefore an apology continues to be sought along with damages and costs.

The words sued upon stated that the BCA deliberately promotes fraudulent chiropractic treatments to children with certain conditions/symptoms in the knowledge that there is no evidence whatsoever to support their efficacy. This is completely untrue.

In his Defence Dr. Singh stated that the BCA promotes treatments which are positively dangerous. But the reality is that Dr. Singh cannot justify his stance and has not made any attempt to do so.

In the course of this litigation the BCA has disclosed to the Courts a plethora of medical evidence showing that the treatments work and that the risk associated with the treatments is minimal, if indeed any risk exists at all.

On 3 November 2008, Dr. Singh was asked by the BCA to state whether he had read 27 different publicly-available research papers before writing his article. If Dr. Singh had read the research he could not have held the view he expressed in the Guardian unless he simply chose to ignore the facts.

To this day Dr. Singh has refused to answer the question as to whether he had adequately researched his article by reading the source materials.

Rather than focusing on the facts of the case, Dr. Singh’s Defence is now based on maintaining that he didn’t ‘literally’ mean what he actually said, instead claiming the words were a mere ‘rhetorical flourish’ and what he meant to write was that there was no reliable scientific evidence to support the treatment.

The payment of damages has never been a priority for the BCA. A nominal sum was requested from the earliest exchanges as a point of principle.
Far more important is an acknowledgment by Dr. Singh that what he published was wrong, and provide an apology for it. Simon Singh has steadfastly refused to do this.

His attitude is best exemplified by his statement to the BCA when the association tried to find a sensible compromise. Dr. Singh said that he would continue to litigate because “I’ve got the time and I’ve got the money.”

The case continues.

Ends

Press enquiries: Publicasity - Tel: 020 7632 2400
Click to expand...


Also see these two links:

'My email to the BCA'
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/05/my-email-to-bca.html

'A gentle reminder for the BCA'
http://jdc325.wordpress.com/2009/05/25/a-gentle-reminder-for-the-bca/
 
"The words sued upon stated that the BCA deliberately promotes fraudulent chiropractic treatments to children with certain conditions/symptoms in the knowledge that there is no evidence whatsoever to support their efficacy. This is completely untrue."
So it seems they have stopped directly referring to the conditions and symptoms in question?

"Far more important is an acknowledgment by Dr. Singh that what he published was wrong, and provide an apology for it."
I'd like to make a biting comment but libel laws appear to prevent me from doing so.
 
If Dr. Singh had read the research he could not have held the view he expressed in the Guardian unless he simply chose to ignore the facts.
Click to expand...
It occurs to me just now, could Singh read the 27 papers, repeat that he believes there is no sufficiently good evidence to warrant a belief that chiropractic is an effective treatment for the conditions in question, invite the BCA to reaffirm their statement above then sue them for suggesting he is being deliberately dishonest?
It would have a certain appealing symmetry.
 
New op/ed in Spiked!Online:

Link: [Libel law is a bogus excuse for justice]

Excerpt:
A case involving the science writer Simon Singh is proving a nasty lesson in English libel law for British liberals, providing further proof – to the apparent surprise of more naive souls – that it is not possible to conduct an open search for the truth under the dead hand of the libel courts. The case confirms that English defamation law remains an insult to an allegedly free society and the most unjust piece of legislation on the statute book – a title won in the face of some pretty stiff competition.
Click to expand...
 
I wonder if Mr. Justice Eady's clear misunderstanding of the word "bogus" indicates the early onset of dementia. If so, there must be procedures for removing him from the bench.
 
Intriguing replies now in from the BCA:

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/05/bcas-important-clarifactions.html
http://jdc325.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/bca-response/


The latest from Edzard Ernst:
A 2004 survey by the UK General Chiropractic Council revealed that most chiropractors believe they can treat asthma (57 per cent), digestive disorders (54 per cent), infant colic (63 per cent), menstrual pains (63 per cent), sport injuries (90 per cent), tension headaches (97 per cent) and migraine (91 per cent). According to a 2007 survey, 69 per cent of all UK chiropractors see themselves as more than just back specialists, and 76 per cent consider Palmer's original concepts to be "an important and integral part of chiropractic".

More...

What you should know about chiropractic
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227101.100-what-you-should-know-about-chiropractic.html
Click to expand...


Back pain guidelines touch a raw nerve
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/27/health-nice-chiropractic

Distrust me, I'm a chiropractor
http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2009/05/distrust-me-im-a-chiropractor.html


ETA - Apparently the deadline for Simon Singh to appeal has been extended to 8th June, and Simon will announce his decision next week.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom