Comments on: BREAKING: BCA drops libel case against Simon Singh!

By: SPEECH Act now a law: big win for libel reform! | Bad Astronomy | FEEDER

Fri, 27 Aug 2010 20:01:21 +0000

[...] I’ve written about this issue many times; skeptic and journalist Simon Singh was sued for libel by a UK chiropractors group for saying they “happily promote bogus remedies”. In the UK, when sued, you have to prove the claim is false, the opposite of the way it works in most of the rest of the world, including the US. It should be up to the prosecution to prove the claim is true. So in the UK this puts undue burden on the person accused, an almost guilty-until-proven-innocent situation. This has engendered a process called “libel tourism”, where people will sue in the UK no matter where the defendant might live. For example, if I made some claim that chiropractors practice bogus remedies, them suing me in the US would be difficult. But in the UK, it would be far easier, so they would sue me there. I would have to spend thousands of dollars, perhaps hundreds of thousands, defending myself, as Simon Singh had to when he was sued. [...]

By: The Jamhole » Blog Archive » Ep 338: Spokompton

The Jamhole » Blog Archive » Ep 338: Spokompton — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 03:07:39 +0000

[...] A huge big up to Simon Singh for kicking some BCA ass! [...]

By: Helge

Helge — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 06:31:32 +0000

What you say about chiropractic is obviously your opinion, not statements about facts, sot it is no reason to bother about that. It is no reason to bother about people who do not know what they talk about.

Helge

By: kevbo

kevbo — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:47:04 +0000

Well, one enjoyable way to help out Mr Singh is to buy his books (yes, Ivan, he HAS written a few). I’ve been through both the Code Book and Big Bang twice; perhaps it’s time to pick up Trick or Treatment!

By: Martha

Martha — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:37:57 +0000

Is anyone aware if there are any efforts here in the U.S. to take on the chiroquackers? I would be interested to see what sorts of calims they are making and if those claims violate any state of federal laws.

By: Geoff

Geoff — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:46:54 +0000

A great outcome in this case, but let’s not forget Peter Wilmshurst, who is still under threat.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6932252.ece
He has a great record:
http://www.healthwatch-uk.org/awardwinners/peterwilmshurst.html

By: Clive DuPort

Clive DuPort — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 07:48:05 +0000

Maybe somebody could make a film (“movie” to you rum chaps across the pond) of this in a similar vein to “All the President’s Men” to try to claw some money back for our hero, Mr Singh and also show up the BCA for what it is.

By: Some good news from England « Veritas Vos Liberabit

Some good news from England « Veritas Vos Liberabit — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 04:16:53 +0000

[...] the bad astronomer and the godless PZ Myers are celebrating the winning of the battle but know the war is far from [...]

By: Michael Kingsford Gray

Michael Kingsford Gray — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 02:29:05 +0000

“The Singh Effect”
Love it!

By: Markle

Markle — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 23:10:49 +0000

Happy day indeed.

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?