Helge

Clearing up some things. Because of rule 38.6, Simon Singh’s solicitor Dougans thinks he’ll be out about £20k after all is done. “‘However well this process goes, Simon is likely to be out of pocket by about £20,000,’ Mr Dougans said. ” If the BCA do not get bitchy in the negotiations, that is.

Oh, and he and his family will be out 2 years(~5%) of his life and life’s earnings. In what is likely his prime earning and creative years. The rest of us are out the intangible whatever he could have been working on to educate us about during these past 2 years as well. It goes beyond silencing critics and whistle blowers, it deprives society of the benefit of that criticism.

@ Condorman #28 and armillary #31 Regarding precedent. On the contrary, according to Jack of Kent, it’s because it didn’t go to the Supreme court that a precedent is indeed established by the Court of Appeal.

One major effect of the discontinuance is that the Court of Appeal decision in Singh v BCA will not face being overturned by the Supreme Court (the former House of Lords).

The appeal case is, in my view, now binding authority on the High Court that adverse but good faith statements regarding evidence must be treated as having the defence of honest opinion.

Edit: Now seeing William and Trebuchet’s comments#35&37: The BCA and MCA(McTimmoney Chiro…) are seeing a variation on the Streisand Effect. A good portion of their members are either being investigated for misleading and fraudulent claims on their websites due to the backlash. I wonder if we could call this corollary of Streisand, THE SINGH EFFECT?

I happen to believe that the bulk of these guys probably KNOW their treatments are quackery, just like the classic “snake-oil salesman” who bottles up plain old fish oil but sells it as a magic cure-all.

In reality, this turns out to be the other way around. The majority of alt-med practitioners believe quite passionately in their particular brand of woo (though they may well scoff at all the other ‘not invented here’ woo). It is only a small minority who are akin to being snake oil salesmen, and are in it solely for the money, aware of the fact that it doesn’t work.

If only Simon had originally written ‘blithely’ (what he really meant) instead of ‘happily’, the libel suit might never have happened. But hey, hindsight is always 20/20 vision, no? And if Simon can recoup most of his £200,000 outlay, then maybe it will all have been worth it to show the woo-meisters that litigation isn’t the answer to legitimate criticism of bogus claims that have no scientific merit.

and

source:paraorkut.com

“happily promotes treatments it knows to be ineffective” (knowingly promoting fraud, the libel claim) vs
“happily promotes treatments that happen to be effective” (stupidly promoting ineffective treatments, Simon’s claim of what he meant)

My question is: shouldn’t Simon be able to claim *either position*, if he believes it to be true?

I happen to believe that the bulk of these guys probably KNOW their treatments are quackery, just like the classic “snake-oil salesman” who bottles up plain old fish oil but sells it as a magic cure-all.

This is my own personal blind speculation, though, and isn’t based on any inside information. Please don’t sue me!

@ no 34 William: Good point. They now have no excuse for not knowing their treatments are invalid and need to stop advertising and providing them. They won’t, of course.

Congratulations to Simon Singh, and thanks for fighting the good fight.

The costs will most likely be recovered too: Via blogger Jack of Kent, who has been covering this case from a legal point of view for some time:

—–
Barrister and skeptic Simon Bradshaw has helpfully pointed out in the comments below about Civil Procedure Rule 38.6:

38.6— Liability for costs

(1) Unless the court orders otherwise, a claimant who discontinues is liable for the costs which a defendant against whom the claimant discontinues incurred on or before the date on which notice of discontinuance was served on the defendant.

We need further information before we know for certain that Rule 38.6(1) applies, but I suspect that this would at least be the starting point.
—-

Simon is unlikely to recover all his costs, but he has a good case for getting most of it back. Those proceedings can also take some time though, and of course the rule doesn’t cover them…

Well, no. At least, not in the way I would like. As happy as I am for Simon Singh, this is not a resounding victory for skepticism. By dropping the case, the BCA has effectively prevented the probable ruling against them from becoming settled case law.

The recent ruling that the statements in the initial article are statements of opinion is only a partial victory. My understanding of UK legal practice is murky, but it seems to me that the larger issues implicit in libel cases, particularly with respect to shifting the burden of proof to the plaintiff, remain unresolved.

This is great for Simon personally, in the sense that it puts a halt to his mounting legal costs. From a macroscopic perspective, I would rather the case had proceeded and established a clear precedent for libel cases in the future.

I’ll certainly raise a glass today, but my enthusiasm for this result is tempered for reasons very similar to the three points of caution in Phil’s original post. When Parliament does something to change the fundamental nature of libel in the UK, I’ll buy the first magnum of champagne myself.