British Chiropractic Association vs Simon Singh

[sasguru]

For those of you who don't know about this:

http://holfordwatch.info/2008/08/16/...idation-party/


I would avoid slagging off the BCA as they seem libel trigger-happy. But good luck Simon Singh, the evidence will out in the end.

[sasguru]

What - no one else thinks is probably one of the most important court cases in the country?

[DimPrawn]

In between your tedious discussion on Maffs books and your interest in dullard cars and crime ridden dumps in London, this rates very low on my "give a sheet-o-meter"

HTH

[sasguru]

In between your tedious discussion on Maffs books and your interest in dullard cars and crime ridden dumps in London, this rates very low on my "give a sheet-o-meter"

HTH

That's why you deserve your fate.

[sasguru]

http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...y-nothing.html

He is a bit of a Walter Mitty thicko.

[DimPrawn]

He is a bit of a Walter Mitty thicko.

You calling Zeity a thicko?

[sasguru]

You calling Zeity a thicko?

No, you. I would you have thought the Walter Mitty reference would have rung a bell?

[Troll]

No, you. I would you have thought the Walter Mitty reference would have rung a bell?

..you need to edit that before anyone quotes it

[ASB]

What - no one else thinks is probably one of the most important court cases in the country?

Elighten me. A respected scientist has stated an opinion that chiropracters are knowingly treating people with bogus treatments. This might be right or it might be wrong. The BCA are somewhat upset and beleive it is libellous (which if he is wrong it may well be).

[TheFaQQer]

Elighten me. A respected scientist has stated an opinion that chiropracters are knowingly treating people with bogus treatments. This might be right or it might be wrong. The BCA are somewhat upset and beleive it is libellous (which if he is wrong it may well be).

The key here is the interpretation of the word "bogus" - did Singh mean that the BCA were deliberately and fraudulently misleading people? I suspect not, however that's certainly what the preliminary judgement seemed to find.

I disagree slightly with what he wrote - he said that there was "not a jot" of evidence, however there is (I believe) some degree of weak evidence.

However, the rights of a respected (and informed) scientist to make comment on the advice etc. from others is something that is very important. It's bad enough that the government is removing civil liberties, let alone a judgement such that would severely restrict the right to free speech.

(Plus, our libel laws are bobbins).