British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

Wudang said:
It may be me but it seems that every article I read says that Singh criticizes the treatments and supports his claim that his article meant that chiropractors are deluded rather than dishonest.
Click to expand...
Indeed, that it is his position. Only Justice Eady thinks he said they are dishonest rather than deluded.

By the way does anyone know where the cross party MP’s response letter, referred to on the Sense about science site is? The link there is not up yet. I wrote to mine and want to know if she signed up.
 
Last edited:
godless dave said:
Sure, if you're completely ignorant of the English language and human nature. But Justice Eady is a native English speaker and should know what "bogus" means.
Click to expand...

It appears the meaning of 'bogus' has changed over time. Originally it was applied to counterfeit coins; in other words, had the meaning 'fake', and I would suppose an accusation of passing 'bogus' money would imply that the person attempting to pass the money was aware it was bogus.

Today most people understand 'bogus' to mean 'useless'. Perhaps an aged judge hasn't kept up with the times.

See eg. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bogus.

In any event, it is clear in the original text that 'bogus' was being applied to the treatments, not the practitioners. How Eady concluded a 'reasonable person' would think Singh was accusing chiropractors of deliberate fraud is perplexing.
 
I don't think there ever has been an implication that someone passing fake coinage knows it is fake. The first person to offload the counterfeit certainly must know, but after that it can obviously go through a number of hands before it is eventually identified by landing in a bank or somewhere.

I think Simon was accusing the chiropractors of passing off the money while not caring and not investigating whether it was counterfeit or not.

Rolfe.
 
Lothian said:
Indeed, that it is his position. Only Justice Eady thinks he said they are dishonest rather than deluded.

By the way does anyone know where the cross party MP’s response letter, referred to on the Sense about science site is? The link there is not up yet. I wrote to mine and want to know if she signed up.
Click to expand...


I wrote and asked SAS about that very thing yesterday. No answer yet.

The page is still under construction.

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/338
 
I don't believe a word of the BCA's statement that this is not about stifling debate. I hope that many people are seeing through the BCA and actually start to look for the evidence of chiropractic woo claims and see that the BCA is full of crap.
 
steenkh said:
That is also my interpretation, but it was not the judge's, and what I was trying to say is that his interpretation is not an impossible one. Judge Eade put much emphasis on the "not a jot of evidence" part, without which Simon Singh would have had an easier time.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see... there are sort of two parts of the reasoning: firstly, would somebody read the passage to mean that Dr. Singh was saying the BCA knew the treatments were bogus, and secondly, what would bogus mean?

I see why it's important to clarify that 'bogus' could be understood to mean "completely without evidence", as opposed to saying the BCA was endorsing treatments they knew were "of disputed effectiveness".
 
blutoski said:
Oh, I see... there are sort of two parts of the reasoning: firstly, would somebody read the passage to mean that Dr. Singh was saying the BCA knew the treatments were bogus, and secondly, what would bogus mean?
Click to expand...

According to Jack of Kent about the preliminary hearing, which decided the interpretation of 'bogus':

I was in court. The judge did not take a single note during the oral submissions of the BCA, and he hardly took a note during Singh's submissions. The reason for this soon became painfully clear. He had already prepared his ruling before even hearing the oral arguments.
Click to expand...

Singh was then left to defend a position he hadn't advanced in the first place - that the BCA was knowingly engaged in fraud.

To the legal eagles out there: just what is the position of a judge who writes his judgement even before the arguments are presented? Isn't that some kind of gross dereliction? Wouldn't this be grounds for immediate dismissal on appeal?
 
dahduh said:
To the legal eagles out there: just what is the position of a judge who writes his judgement even before the arguments are presented? Isn't that some kind of gross dereliction? Wouldn't this be grounds for immediate dismissal on appeal?
Click to expand...

Proving it might. But it's not an established fact at this point, just an opinion of an anonymous blogger.

The judge could also just have a style that doesn't take a lot of notes, or feel that the testimony provided no new insights worth recording.

I'd wager that accusing a judge of incompetence or failure to be impartial on thin evidence like this could be career-limiting for a barrister.
 
Newsletter 34 from Simon Singh (not yet online http://www.simonsingh.net/)

I will apply to the Court of Appeal on Monday 6 June 2009

1. Court of Appeal and Campaign Launch

I am glad to say that on Monday I will apply to the Court of Appeal in an attempt to overturn the recent negative ruling on meaning in my libel case with the British Chiropractic Association.

Also, Sense About Science have launched a campaign linked to my libel case and focussing on the need to overhaul the English libel system, which is deeply flawed and which therefore has a chilling effect on journalism.

The campaign has issued a statement of support, which has already been signed by an incredible list of people, including James Randi, Richard Dawkins, Ricky Gervais, Sir Martin Rees, Penn & Teller, Stephen Fry, Martin Amis and Steve Jones. It would be terrific if you would also sign up to the statement and (better still) encourage others to sign up. It is conceivable that this campaign could help reform the English libel laws (which unfortunately affect overseas journalists too). Please help us move closer to having a free press.

You can find the statement and sign up at:
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/libelcampaign


2. Fighting Fund

I have had many kind and generous offers of financial help, but at the moment I am able to fund my own legal costs. However, if you would like to help, then please make a donation to Sense About Science, who will need funding to maintain what could be a long battle to reform the libel laws. You can find out how to donate at:
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/336


3. Cheltenham and Oxford

I will be speaking at the Cheltenham Science Festival on Saturday 6 June and at Oxford Skeptics in the Pub on Monday. More information at:
http://www.simonsingh.net/Simon_Lectures.php


And finally, a massive thanks to everyone who has been so supportive over the last month. You have genuinely played a crucial role in my decision to go to the Court of Appeal.

Cheerio,
Simon.

Ps. You can find plenty of press coverage about the libel case at the Sense About Science website, but some highlights include:

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/ouch+dr+singh+hits+back/3194057

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc77Y-XBlj0

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...practors-saying-unproven-treatment-bogus.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...ed-to-say-chiropractice-is-bogus-1696408.html

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/
Click to expand...


For updates see these two links:

http://godknowswhat.wordpress.com/2009/05/16/simon-singh-case-response-roundup/

http://www.zenosblog.com/2009/05/loads-of-bloggers-have-been-well.html
 
blutoski said:
I'd wager that accusing a judge of incompetence or failure to be impartial on thin evidence like this could be career-limiting for a barrister.
Click to expand...


Apparently Jack of Kent is a lawyer; from my thin understanding of English jurisprudence I believe this means he doesn't have to present cases in court (as a barrister does), but still he's put it out there. He also says:

When the initial oral submissions concluded, Eady did not (as was widely expected) reserve the decision until a later date. He instead began to read out his prepared judgment.
Click to expand...

- my understanding being the judge had actually written the judgment ahead of the hearing. But perhaps this is considered legitimate in a hearing in which a judge considers the issues to be cut and dried, I don't know.
 
I would not mind signing the petition, but I am not British, and I know that at least here in Denmark, a petition to change our laws signed by non-citizens would be the sure death of the petition.
 
steenkh said:
I would not mind signing the petition, but I am not British, and I know that at least here in Denmark, a petition to change our laws signed by non-citizens would be the sure death of the petition.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't worry about that, the petition has already been signed by a number of prominent foreign citizens including scientists, journalists, sceptics and entertainers.

Have a look at the list: http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/334
 
I just heard about this today while listening to the latest SGU podcast. I plan to blog about it later today, and I will be passing along the SAS info to everyone I know.
 
The real problem is the word "happily"

What Simon Singh essentially said was:

"The BCA happily promotes bogus treatments"

The word "bogus" obviously applies to the treatments, not to the Chiropractors.
The real problem is the word "happily".
That the BCA "happily" promotes bogus treatments, implies that they know that the treatments they promote are bogus but promote them anyway.
This, of course, is not what Simon Singh intended to say.
His opinion is that they recklessly and irresponsibly promote these remedies as a result of not informing themselves about the dearth of evidence.
Nevertheless, it is a legitimate interpretation of that phrase and, therefore, I would be surprised if the judge's interpretation of the meaning of that phrase is overturned on appeal. Especially as this very rarely happens in any case.

When, as seems likely, this appeal fails, Simon will probably appeal to the United Nations Human Rights Commission.

In any case, given his time again, and with a greater appreciation of the scandalous state of libel laws in England, I'm sure Simon Singh would rephrase this sentence into something like:

"The BCA recklessly promotes treatments that have been shown to be bogus"

regards,
BillyJoe
 
Mojo said:
The judge will also have had "skeleton arguments" briefly setting out what they were going to argue from both sides before the hearing.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this; so if a judge has thoroughly reviewed the skeleton arguments and prepares a judgement based on them, and nothing appears during oral presentations to change his opinion, he could just go ahead and read the judgement. And I believe Singh's side had prepared particularly comprehensive arguments ahead of time, which could explain why the judge didn't need to make many notes. That sounds reasonable.
 
Is it worth us non-famous humanities graduate plebs signing the petition? I've made a small donation.
 
It's worth everyone signing,I think a large proportion of signatories without an obvious interest in the result would be helpful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom