Comments on: Singh Will Appeal – Keep Libel out of Science

By: Beware The Spinal Trap « Burdened By Proof

Beware The Spinal Trap « Burdened By Proof — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:51:36 +0000

[...] more information on the case, you can read these posts by Steven Novella on Science-Based Medicine here and here. For a more recent update on the situation, this article by Ben Goldacre of The Guardian [...]

By: Science-Based Medicine » The British Chiropractic Association Responds to Simon Singh

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:00:23 +0000

[...] because they lack evidence to back up claims for clinical efficacy. The BCA responded by suing Singh for libel. In the English court system the person being sued for libel is essentially guilty until proven [...]

By: HHC

HHC — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 04:52:55 +0000

How do you keep legal costs to a minimum in London and Wales? You would utilize the services of the National Association of Licensed Paralegals (NALP) in London, England. NALP represents paralegals in England and Wales for the past 22 years. A paralegal is not a qualified Solicitor (or attorney) or Barrister. The public can call NALP to see if a person is member with paralegal qualifications. Qualified paralegals can do most things a Solicitor can except for three exceptions. #!. They do not have the rights of audience in all courts. #2. They cannot draft a contract for the sale of land or property for profit. #3. They cannot make an application for the grant of probate on behalf of an executor. Paralegals can work for themselves as self-employed freelancers if they obtain their work from solicitors. After a paralegal has obtained the highest level of membership, the License, they can operate their own legal office when insured to give advice and assistance to the public. NALP recently became a foreign organization member of the U.S. based National Federation of Paralegal Associations, Inc.

By: HHC

HHC — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 16:59:01 +0000

CKava, There have been multiple cases in British courts with respect to the historian in question.

With respect to the British judge’s logic, you have twisted the statement from Singh, who believes the treatments to be bogus. The BCA believes his words in the media are libelous. The conclusions of chiropractic reviewers which monitor their profession are relevant to cases of malpractice

Its not wise to imply disrespectful associations of the judge based on his court behavior.

Frankly, I hope the best argument wins in court with respect to BCA v. Singh.

By: CKava

CKava — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 16:11:01 +0000

HHC I’m getting the strong impression that it’s a futile endeavour trying to discuss this with you but lets press on anyway.

The fact that holocaust deniers have lost in British courts is irrelevant to the point being made (and by the way if your thinking of David Irving it was he who brought the libel case and it wasn’t against a holocaust survivor).

What I was trying to do by pointing to Nick Cohen’s analogy (see the quotation marks) is that using the very same judgement you are defending you could defend holocaust denial in the manner described. That does not mean holocaust deniers will make use of it or that a different judge wouldn’t rule differently but the point is that following Eady’s logic it is libellous to describe something as ‘bogus’ if the person believes in what they are promoting. That is silly as the analogy shows.

As for it being disrespectful to question the judge’s decision, why? Are you suggesting judge’s are infallible or that bad laws never deserve to be criticised? My criticism pales into comparison with the fact that American states are passing laws to make British libel laws inapplicable in America to protect their citizens from spurious libel cases.

Anyway, it’s quite clear that you are defending this purely because you support chiropractic medicine. That’s a silly position to take. You could support chiropractic and still recognise that the case and the laws are deeply flawed, say like this chiropractor:
http://chiropracticlive.com/advertising-standards/more-power-to-the-sceptics-elbow/

By: HHC

HHC — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 15:35:53 +0000

CKava, Your hypothetical thinking is off-base. Holocaust survivors have successful sued pro-Nazi historians for denial of the Holocaust in British courts. It is disrespectful of British jurisprudence to speak of the judge’s decision in your manner.

artfulD, Chiropractors have politcal views of the world which if
you engage them in conversation they will share with you.

tmac57, The man on the street which engages in the actions you suggest are illegal. The woman who accepts his monetary proposal for sex is also engaging in an illegal act.

Singh may be using “common sense”, but he needs to share his information with the court. The two parties must present their legal arguments in court. No amount of blog discussion will decide the case. The blog is being used in the same manner as the Guardian as public media sources.

By: tmac57

tmac57 — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 00:12:05 +0000

HHC- “With respect to your question, I do not believe that common sense is libelous. ”
Yeah, this puts me in mind of an old joke: A man walks up to a pretty woman and asks her if she would have sex with him for $500. Of course, not being that kind of woman, she is offended, and tells him she’s “not a prostitute!” The man continues to proposition her ,increasing his price until he reaches the grand sum of $1,000,000. At this point, the woman is understandable tempted, and says well OK, I will for $1,000,000. Great ,the man says, now we’ve established that you ARE a prostitute now all we have to do is find a price that we can agree on.
Now, that we can agree that a common sense position is not libelous, now all we have to do is determine what is common sense. My bet is that Simon Singh, having looked at the science, and coming to the conclusion “that they(chiropractors) promote therapies that are not backed by adequate scientific evidence ” is using common sense when he says that those therapies are “bogus”.

By: artfulD

artfulD — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 22:59:11 +0000

HHC would need to know first if the neo-Nazi was also a chiropractor.

By: CKava

CKava — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 21:57:06 +0000

HHC I don’t think you’ve really answered most of the problems with the judge’s position you are defending. Maybe this example will make it clearer:

“On Eady’s logic, a writer who condemns as “bogus” a neo-Nazi’s claim that a conspiracy of Jews controls American foreign policy could be sued successfully if lawyers jumped up and said neo-Nazis sincerely believed their conspiracy theories to be true.”

I presume being a supporter of Eady’s decision you would be behind the neo-Nazi’s case too?

By: HHC

HHC — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 15:52:14 +0000

tmac57, Your hypothetical case involves a exorbitant price tag involving death and resurrection. Chiropractors in Britain who practice the techniques in question charge their cost either to Great Britain’s national health program or a minimum cost to clients for services. Their practice is on the living, not “Lazarus”".
With respect to your question, I do not believe that common sense is libelous. But , if a writer in the Guardian is charged with libel, I expect him to stand and deliver in court! So does the judge in question.