Playing Private Eye: drawing your attention to a huffable thing...
A little over a year ago, prominent science author & generally lovely chap Simon Singh wrote an article for The Guardian on dubious chiropractic claims.
Unlike The British Chiropractic Association (BCA), Singh does not believe that the organisation's members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying by, well, nudging their spines a bit. [Paraphrasing.] He said there was "not a jot of evidence" to support those claims, and derided them as "bogus treatments".
The BCA sued for libel. The piece may have been printed under the banner 'Comment Is Free', but on Thursday last the judge ruled that Simon's words would be treated as fact, not comment... and thus the legal bills are likely to be massive.
There is more on the court ruling here, from a legal blogger (named after a trickster folk hero) who witnessed the judgement. He says:
The ruling means that, as it stands, Simon Singh would have to prove at full trial that the BCA were being deliberately dishonest. This is not only extremely difficult but it was undoubtedly not Simon Singh's view in the first place. The BCA, as with many CAM practitioners, may well be deluded, irresponsible, and sometimes rather dangerous; but calling their promoted treatments "bogus" was not an express statement of their conscious dishonesty.
Indeed, unless there is hard evidence of dishonesty, it may not even be professionally possible for Simon Singh's lawyers to put the required case to the court: English barristers and solicitors are prohibited from alleging fraud unless there is sound and cogent evidence before them on which to base the allegation.
Basically, it would be very unwise and perhaps impossible for Simon Singh to go to full trial with this ruling on meaning.
I found out about this through a boggled ScienceBlog writer, but pootling around online I've found Robin posted about this on Saturday too. He suggests folk join a Facebook group that's been set up in support, though this only seems to be there so's Simon can be bolstered and boosted. I think if you know any extremely good lawyers or noisy politicians, would like to share pertinent bits of case law or have a magick offer of finances to cover the legal fees you would also be extremely welcome. Otherwise, you know, psst and pass it on. If I can link myself to Kevin Bacon through only three people then one of you must be able to find a helpful someone to forward this to...
Unlike The British Chiropractic Association (BCA), Singh does not believe that the organisation's members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying by, well, nudging their spines a bit. [Paraphrasing.] He said there was "not a jot of evidence" to support those claims, and derided them as "bogus treatments".
The BCA sued for libel. The piece may have been printed under the banner 'Comment Is Free', but on Thursday last the judge ruled that Simon's words would be treated as fact, not comment... and thus the legal bills are likely to be massive.
There is more on the court ruling here, from a legal blogger (named after a trickster folk hero) who witnessed the judgement. He says:
The ruling means that, as it stands, Simon Singh would have to prove at full trial that the BCA were being deliberately dishonest. This is not only extremely difficult but it was undoubtedly not Simon Singh's view in the first place. The BCA, as with many CAM practitioners, may well be deluded, irresponsible, and sometimes rather dangerous; but calling their promoted treatments "bogus" was not an express statement of their conscious dishonesty.
Indeed, unless there is hard evidence of dishonesty, it may not even be professionally possible for Simon Singh's lawyers to put the required case to the court: English barristers and solicitors are prohibited from alleging fraud unless there is sound and cogent evidence before them on which to base the allegation.
Basically, it would be very unwise and perhaps impossible for Simon Singh to go to full trial with this ruling on meaning.
I found out about this through a boggled ScienceBlog writer, but pootling around online I've found Robin posted about this on Saturday too. He suggests folk join a Facebook group that's been set up in support, though this only seems to be there so's Simon can be bolstered and boosted. I think if you know any extremely good lawyers or noisy politicians, would like to share pertinent bits of case law or have a magick offer of finances to cover the legal fees you would also be extremely welcome. Otherwise, you know, psst and pass it on. If I can link myself to Kevin Bacon through only three people then one of you must be able to find a helpful someone to forward this to...