British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

Crispian Jago's blog gives an, ahem, abridged transcript as well as this:

google+Singh.png


:D
 
Lothian said:
Indeed. Earlier you commented on the 2007 accounts and noted
"£50,000 on ‘Research’. (Not much really, but they spent zilch the previous year.)"

The year before that they spend 6,000. By my reckoning over the three years 2005-7 they spent 1.42% of their budget on research. The BCA said in 2009.

"For this very reason, the BCA has for the last three years donated a substantial part of its budget to fund research projects"

Obviously spending 1/70 of the budget is not a substantial proportion, but that only looks at 2 of the relevant years. I am interested in the expenditure for 2008 so a proper understanding of ‘substantial’ can go into my chiropractic dictionary along with plethora.
Click to expand...


Richard Brown, current president of the BCA, in the BMJ in July 2009:
The BCA is fully supportive of chiropractic research and indeed gives tens of thousands of pounds every year to support research initiatives throughout the UK.
Click to expand...


ETA: Link to the above quote -

Chiropractors: Clarifying the issues
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/jul08_4/b2782
 
Last edited:
Blue Wode said:
Richard Brown, current president of the BCA, in the BMJ in July 2009:



ETA: Link to the above quote -

Chiropractors: Clarifying the issues
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/jul08_4/b2782
Click to expand...
Strange that they would choose to hide a relevent activity (spending £10,000's on research) from their accounts.

I did spot a £1750 donation in 2006 perhaps he got confused between pounds and pennies.
 
BCA have now withdrawn the 'maliciously attacked' wording, and changed it to 'libelled'

Nice work fellas. Enhancing that reputation left-right-and-centre.

Linky
 
They must really hate the fact that people keep a record of all the stuff they later on like to deny!
 
Latest...

This was the day the BCA case came to an end. Simon Singh only now needs to threaten to countersue. The BCA cannot justify that clear meaning.

http://www.twitter.com/jackofkent
Click to expand...

Edited to paraphrase another twitter's comments:

Could the BCA be pre-empting a trial by 'having' to throw in the case at this point?
 
Last edited:
Worm said:
BCA have now withdrawn the 'maliciously attacked' wording, and changed it to 'libelled'

Nice work fellas. Enhancing that reputation left-right-and-centre.

Linky
Click to expand...
So now they are claiming that it is a "fact that the BCA was libelled by Dr. Singh"

Forgive my total ignorance but I was under the impression that currently there is only a 'claim' that the BCA was libelled and it is for the courts to decide if it is a 'fact'.

To claim it is a fact before the High court has found it so, might be slightly annoying to Mr. Justice Eady, who may consider that finding facts is his job. :)

I wonder if, when discussing a court case, to say that "it is a fact that the BCA was libelled by Dr. Singh" may also be seen as a libel and defamatory to Simon's reputation and may lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.

Perhaps a third version might help.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
They must really hate the fact that people keep a record of all the stuff they later on like to deny!
Click to expand...
I have saved a copy of the original version.

ETA: This is turning into one of the most hilarious days ever! The BCA has Jack's blog on screen all day and he is calling the shots.
 
Last edited:
Worm said:
BCA have now withdrawn the 'maliciously attacked' wording, and changed it to 'libelled'

Nice work fellas. Enhancing that reputation left-right-and-centre.

Linky
Click to expand...

So they haven't learned to talk to their lawyers first before saying anything in public? How pitifully stupid can you get? Oh, wait, they are Chiropractors. Never mind. :covereyes
 
The original document is still on their web site. I just downloaded it. The Three Stooges couldn't have done a better job of destroying the BCA.

Simon should own them. A hundred million pounds seems appropriate, considering.
 
Blue Wode said:
BCA Defame Simon Singh
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/10/bca-defame-simon-singh.html
Click to expand...


Jack of Kent seems to have changed his opinion over the day. When I first saw the "malicious" comment, my first thought was, OMG the BCA has libelled Simon, this is amazing, he could sue!

Then I read what Jack had to say, and thought, typical bloody lawyer, find the downside to it - he was saying that if the BCA were now going to allege malice, it could limit the defences available to Simon.

Now he seems to have switched more to my original impression, which is definitely more optimistic. Seems to me that if this is the opinion of the pro lawyer, it's all good.

:popcorn1

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Then I read what Jack had to say, and thought, typical bloody lawyer, find the downside to it - he was saying that if the BCA were now going to allege malice, it could limit the defences available to Simon.
Click to expand...


I suspect that they would have to prove malice.
 
Perhaps somewhat of a dilemma for Simon Singh now: if, as Jack of Kent says, "the moment he chooses to [countersue] will surely be when this case ends."

So: either countersue for libel, and finish the case, but at the same time employ the libel laws you have so heavily criticised; or take a deep breath, and maintain the defence of the case.
 
Read em' and weep chiropractors!
Click to expand...


Methinks the Guardian article overstates the current situation just a little.

I'm no lawyer but I don't think it's fair to say "A science writer who is being sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association is to fight on after a preliminary judgment against him was overturned on appeal today."

Firstly, Singh has not appealed yet, he's only been given permission to appeal...

Secondly, Eady's ruling, as I understand it, remains until such time as Singh appeals the ruling and wins at appeal - despite what Justice Laws might have said about it.

We are used to seeing those on the other side misrepresent the situation by repeatedly claiming that the BCA successfully sued Singh or that Singh lost at trial or that he's been found guilty or that the BCA had been vindicated and so on. It's disappointing when those writing more positively on the subject misrepresent the situation. It just opens the door for distracting criticisms.

But I'm not a lawyer.

My comments: BCA vs "malicious" Singh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom