Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear
bright, until you hear them speak.
Hoorah!
I wonder if, with all the articles exposing the truth about Chiropractic, the BCA are starting to regret taking him on? It looks like lose or lose for them now. Even if they win, far more people know about the bogus nature of Chiropractic. As David Gorman said at the London pub meeting, he hadn't even known that Chiropractic wasn't real medicine until this case blew up.
Fantastic!!!
"Expect the Inquisition..."
It's getting some major press now;
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...s-1696408.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sciencean...for-libel.html
Mousse from a bowl is very nice, but to put it on a person is demented!
Excellent news. Well done Simon. A true hero!
I love the expression 'quasi science' in the newspaper articles, although would improve on it a bit by substituting crazy for quasi!
You cannae kid a kidder kiddo!
The fact both articles have almost the same termage being used i.e. quasi, just confirms what many say about science reporting these days.
Mousse from a bowl is very nice, but to put it on a person is demented!
This is really good news, and probably the worst news for the BCA given the amount of publicity that will now be generated. I suspect that even if he loses, Simon Singh will find enough people to help with the costs, but the damage to the BCA will be incalculable.
Marvellous.
I'll be happy to pitch in a few quid if someone sets up a fund.
Be skeptical of the things you believe are false, but be very skeptical of the things you believe are true.
My thoughts exactly.Originally Posted by DrS
I'm betting the BCA wished they'd never gone this route.
Raise money for Robert and Susan Lancaster:
Fundraising for Robert Lancaster
This is an interesting response, given they still haven't produced any evidence for those leaflets.
A 'last resort'? Did it really hurt them that much?4th June 2009
BCA LEGAL ACTION AGAINST SIMON SINGH - BCA STATEMENT
“The BCA sued Simon Singh only as an act of last resort. He published what the Association believed were libellous remarks in the Guardian. He could have retracted the remarks and apologised and the debate would have continued away from the legal world. He chose not to do so. The case against Simon Singh has been re-characterised by his supporters as a freedom of speech issue. It is not. The law of libel is about the proper censuring of individuals’ ability to publish false and defamatory material that causes damage to reputation. To stifle scientific debate would clearly be wrong. The BCA is fully supportive of scientific debate and this should be a fundamental right. However, with rights come responsibility and scientists must realise that they cannot simply publish with impunity what they know to be untrue and libellous”.
Despite what they claim they are saying above, it seems to me they aren't wanting to take part in a scientific debate.
Mousse from a bowl is very nice, but to put it on a person is demented!
Does anyone know what steps they claim to have taken before embarking on the "last resort" of suing?
Be skeptical of the things you believe are false, but be very skeptical of the things you believe are true.
I've just looked at the Sense about Science web site and the impressive list of people who have signed the letter. So far very good.
I then followed the links to see about the fighting fund for Simon's case. On this page, it appears this is a fund specifically to fight Simon's case. Then on this page it includes a fighting fund for possible future cases. Then finally on this page it has become a general donation to Sense about Science.
I don't think this confusion does Simon's cause much credit. Most people will want to donate either specifically to Simon's case, or to a general fighting fund for cases of a similar nature. I don't think it is reasonable to lump this in with the funding of SaS in general.
Is there a fund anywhere specifically for either Simon's case or the cause of science versus the libel laws? That is the sort of place I would like to put my money.
Be skeptical of the things you believe are false, but be very skeptical of the things you believe are true.
That 4th June BCA statement seems to libel Simon Singh by suggesting that he published 'with impunity' what he knew to be 'untrue and libellous'.
Can they prove that he 'knew' what he said was untrue (double difficult since it wasn't untrue anyway).
I do hope he will consider legal action against them.
Good news that he is appealing, I was on leave reading a random paper in a coffee shop when I came across the small article stating that the judge had found against him. I probably shouldnt have said "No way that is totally bogus!" as loud as I did but I was surprised that the judge supported the libel case.
Here's hoping Simon gets a more sensible result at appeal.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks