British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

steenkh said:
Before the bankruptcy is a reality they could make some transactions like selling their assets at ridiculously low prices, moving them out of the country, spend their money on exorbitant consultancy fees, and so on. And then they could declare bankruptcy. I believe this can be done within the limits of the law, but I am not sure.
Click to expand...

Nope, look up Aveling Barford case if you are interested.
 
Farsight said:
You know guys, I don't think this is a such a good result. I think it's good that the case is now dropped, but on the other hand I don't think it should have ever started in the first place. Maybe I'm more skeptical than you, and rather more cynical. But think it though, along these lines:
....
Click to expand...

Riiiight. Asking for evidence = OMG PERSECUTION by a media-grubbing whore!
Suing people who ask for evidence and winning would be real free speech!
Then those science journals would learn. Don't believe my unevidenced ramblings? Lawsuit!

Perhaps you consider Expelled a heroic documentary?
 
zooterkin said:
There was an interview with Simon Singh on the Today programme this morning, where I thought he more than held his own against a lawyer from Carter-Ruck; unfortunately it wasn't one of the segments they've made available as a podcast, but it might be available on BBC iPlayer (which would be UK only).
Click to expand...

This is available as a podcast, but needs a bit of searching. And only available until Friday 23 Jan
 
England has a long history of treating court trials as guilty until proven innocent. Singh is a modern day "witch" who managed to escape the fire. Go simon!
 
Asolepius said:
Farsight - knowing Simon as I do (personally), you are misreading his character and motivation. Your cynicism is not the same thing as scepticism. It is bizarre to suggest that any supporters of the libel reform campaign would agree that insults should be routinely allowed (although a well-deserved insult can be very satisfying:)).
Click to expand...
Noted, Asolepius. I'm afraid I've seen some good people on the receiving end of slurs and ad-hominem attempts to discredit. There's an old saying Science advances one death at a time, and in my experience there's truth in it - there's more double-dealing going on than the public appreciates. The CRU emails showed it how it is, and wasn't so unusual.

commandlinegamer said:
They've been doing that for years, nothing new there. But if Joe Public gets libelled, he may have difficulty getting redress due to the costs involved. That's a battle yet to be joined.
Click to expand...
It would be an interesting battle. But I don't see our media helping to fight it, or helping in the bigger battle to reclaim the law from unelected and unrepresentative interest groups.

Lothian said:
This has nothing to do with the BCA, Simon Singh or libel. You obviously have an issue with mainstream science. I suggest you start a thread detailing how you have been wronged.
Click to expand...
It has everything to do with free speech in science, which Simon Singh has employed in his publicity campaign. This isn't to do with me, it's to do with all the physicists I've met who have struggled to get a paper published in a journal.

zooterkin said:
And how do you get from 'crackpot' to 'swindling child-porn criminal freak'?
Click to expand...
The same way as you get from "Anybody who doesn't agree with me is a mountebank". I mentioned Dawkins as the model, and he does this a lot. Have a search on google and check out his latest self-promotional wheeze: getting the Pope arrested for aiding and abetting child molesters.
 
Farsight said:
It has everything to do with free speech in science, which Simon Singh has employed in his publicity campaign. This isn't to do with me, it's to do with all the physicists I've met who have struggled to get a paper published in a journal. ...
Click to expand...
I join in the suggestion that this really has very, very little to do with the BCA vs Singh and request you to start your own thread.
 
Farsight said:
Noted, Asolepius. I'm afraid I've seen some good people on the receiving end of slurs and ad-hominem attempts to discredit. There's an old saying Science advances one death at a time, and in my experience there's truth in it - there's more double-dealing going on than the public appreciates. The CRU emails showed it how it is, and wasn't so unusual.
Click to expand...
The idea that science advances a death at a time is a testable one. I believe that Frank Sulloway actually showed it to be false.

In your case, when people point out that you, or one of the people you use to support your pet theory, don't understand physics, this is not an ad hominem. This fallacy is one of the group of fallacies that occur when someone brings up things that are irrelevant to the point. In your case, it is relevant to point out that you do not understand physics because you are trying to promote a physics theory.

In the case of the CRU emails, we see the reaction of legitimate scientists to a concerted effort to not simply denigrate their work, but also to attempt to use the power of the state, through FOI requests, to use up the time of the researchers.
It has everything to do with free speech in science, which Simon Singh has employed in his publicity campaign. This isn't to do with me, it's to do with all the physicists I've met who have struggled to get a paper published in a journal.
Click to expand...
These physicists fail to get publications because they are bad at physics. To think otherwise is to engage in conspiracy theory, especially when one does not understand the physics involved.
The same way as you get from "Anybody who doesn't agree with me is a mountebank". I mentioned Dawkins as the model, and he does this a lot. Have a search on google and check out his latest self-promotional wheeze: getting the Pope arrested for aiding and abetting child molesters.
Click to expand...
I understand that you have a grudge against Dawkins ever since you were forbidden to post in the legitimate science section of his message boards (an action he had nothing to do with). It would be an ad hominem to dismiss this claim against Dawkins' promotion of the criminal case against the Vatican on this basis, because that would not be relevant.
 
Can I suggest if Farsight insists on muddying up this thread with his waffling about something completely unrelated, that his meanderings be split out to another thread (...in AAH, preferably).
 
dogguy said:
Tull?
Click to expand...

Ethan Thane Athen said:
Indeed - The Hare Who Lost His Spectacles if I'm not mistaken!
Click to expand...


Yes, Jethro Tull's "A Passion Play"!

In the traditional passion play, there was a recital in the intermission between the two halves of the play. In Jethro Tull's "A Passion Play", this role is filled by "The Hare Who Lost His Spectacles". It is a light hearted, frivolous piece - but very well done indeed! - offsetting the relative seriousness of the actual passion play. My favourite musical piece is where Ian Anderson plays the saxophone shortly before the intermission. It's remarkable that he has never played it before or since. It's rather complicated and he plays it to perfection.

...oops, sorry for the derail
 
Last edited:
Apparently the BCA are still very bitter:
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...
(Original source of the above commentary currently not known.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom