5 ms·

Case dropped against Simon Singh

108 points by chris_j 17y ago

ErrantX 17y ago
I hope the BCA is forced to bear the costs to Singh. I've been following this story closely and it was setting up to be a real triumph for free reporting and science etc. Damn the BCA for chickening out of their drubbing early :(
- Luc 17y ago
  Rather heart-warmingly Google returns dozens of requests from people to contribute to his defence fund, but he has stated he will bear the costs himself: http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/340 http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/3... "The reason that I have been able to fight this case is that I have the financial resources to do so. Three international bestsellers have provided a very comfortable cushion for trouble indirectly caused by 'Trick or Treatment?'. If I lose, then it will be a major financial blow, but my wife and I will be able to cope. Hence, I have asked myself if supporters should donate money to a more need cause, one that this will also help the cause of free speech and science journalism. I currently have two suggestions [...]"
  - melling 17y ago
    Just buy his books. He does a great job. Hacker News books all the way!
  - motter 17y ago
    Hopefully the additional attention this case has brought to Simon's work will translate into an increase in revenue from his books -- furthering the "cushioning" effect.
- kjuhygfgbhjnm 17y ago
  No because they didn't lose. It's a standard technique for corps suing individuals, you string the person along for years as they rack up $100,000 in legal fees while your costs are for your own internal lawyers - and wait for them to go bust. You drop the case before it goes to court so there is never any chance of you losing.
  - sketerpot 17y ago
    Where are barratry laws when you need them? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry
    - kjuhygfgbhjnm 17y ago
      But remember the crackpots (sorry homeopathists) were the innocent victims here - the nasty journalist said they were a buch of frauds - so causing them to lose money and their patients to go untreated.
      - ErrantX 17y ago
        I'd love to see him counter sue for, I don't know, besmirching his good name. They accused him of lying right? Can he not ask them to prove that. Would be amusing (but I realise, sadly, unlikely)
        faboo 17y ago
        They accused him of libel, actually. In the UK you can both be telling the truth and be guilty of libel. (Hence the hubbub there about libel reform)
        ErrantX 17y ago
        Fair point; I forgot the precise bit they were suing over. :)
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    > No because they didn't lose. Perhaps not legally (and so, yes, they probably won't be made to pay). But I think publicly they have lost on this. If the aim was to ruin his reputation that doesn't seem to have worked and neither has trying to ruin him financially. I would say Singh has won in every sense of the word but a legal ruling :)
shrikant 17y ago
From the BCA's official statement [http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/gfx/uploads/textbox/Singh/BCA%20Statement%2015th%20April%202010.pdf http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/gfx/uploads/textbox/Singh/B...]: [...] the BCA has taken the view that it should withdraw to avoid further legal costs being incurred by either side. A realisation that did not strike them until the prospect of an embarassing loss.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
miri 17y ago
It's not quite as good as rationality winning hard, but still, it's not bad - and yes, the BCA should bear Singh's costs. And a change to British libel law would be nice, too.
- andyjenn 17y ago
  Agreed. This chap http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Eady http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Eady needs sorting also...
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- praptak 17y ago
  "And a change to British libel law would be nice, too." There were some moves in this direction: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8259814.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8259814.stm
JacobAldridge 17y ago
If this sort of war against quackery is of interest to you, I recommend the Australian site 'The Millenium Project' http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/ http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/. Check the site for why it's spelled that way.
rmc 17y ago
If you are interested in more stories of bad science and medicine, then check out Ben Goldacre's site: http://www.badscience.net/ http://www.badscience.net/ He has a book of the same name.
mantasradzas 17y ago
IANAL, but wouldn't a win in a court create a precedent that could be used in similar cases? I am really happy about this turnuot, but the early retreat by the Chiropractic seems in part like an unfortunate turn of events, overall...
- dagw 17y ago
  Edit: Ignore me, I was wrong.
  - tokenadult 17y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_law#Precedent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_law#Precedent
ww520 17y ago
The loser pays the other party's cost in the UK system. How does it work when it is dropped in the middle of the case?

108 points by chris_j 17y ago

I hope the BCA is forced to bear the costs to Singh. I've been following this story closely and it was setting up to be a real triumph for free reporting and science etc. Damn the BCA for chickening out of their drubbing early :(

Luc 17y ago
Rather heart-warmingly Google returns dozens of requests from people to contribute to his defence fund, but he has stated he will bear the costs himself: http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/340 http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/3... "The reason that I have been able to fight this case is that I have the financial resources to do so. Three international bestsellers have provided a very comfortable cushion for trouble indirectly caused by 'Trick or Treatment?'. If I lose, then it will be a major financial blow, but my wife and I will be able to cope. Hence, I have asked myself if supporters should donate money to a more need cause, one that this will also help the cause of free speech and science journalism. I currently have two suggestions [...]"
- melling 17y ago
  Just buy his books. He does a great job. Hacker News books all the way!
- motter 17y ago
  Hopefully the additional attention this case has brought to Simon's work will translate into an increase in revenue from his books -- furthering the "cushioning" effect.
kjuhygfgbhjnm 17y ago
No because they didn't lose. It's a standard technique for corps suing individuals, you string the person along for years as they rack up $100,000 in legal fees while your costs are for your own internal lawyers - and wait for them to go bust. You drop the case before it goes to court so there is never any chance of you losing.
- sketerpot 17y ago
  Where are barratry laws when you need them? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry
  - kjuhygfgbhjnm 17y ago
    But remember the crackpots (sorry homeopathists) were the innocent victims here - the nasty journalist said they were a buch of frauds - so causing them to lose money and their patients to go untreated.
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      I'd love to see him counter sue for, I don't know, besmirching his good name. They accused him of lying right? Can he not ask them to prove that. Would be amusing (but I realise, sadly, unlikely)
      - faboo 17y ago
        They accused him of libel, actually. In the UK you can both be telling the truth and be guilty of libel. (Hence the hubbub there about libel reform)
        ErrantX 17y ago
        Fair point; I forgot the precise bit they were suing over. :)
- ErrantX 17y ago
  > No because they didn't lose. Perhaps not legally (and so, yes, they probably won't be made to pay). But I think publicly they have lost on this. If the aim was to ruin his reputation that doesn't seem to have worked and neither has trying to ruin him financially. I would say Singh has won in every sense of the word but a legal ruling :)

shrikant 17y ago

From the BCA's official statement [http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/gfx/uploads/textbox/Singh/BCA%20Statement%2015th%20April%202010.pdf http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/gfx/uploads/textbox/Singh/B...]: [...] the BCA has taken the view that it should withdraw to avoid further legal costs being incurred by either side. A realisation that did not strike them until the prospect of an embarassing loss.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

miri 17y ago

It's not quite as good as rationality winning hard, but still, it's not bad - and yes, the BCA should bear Singh's costs. And a change to British libel law would be nice, too.

andyjenn 17y ago
Agreed. This chap http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Eady http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Eady needs sorting also...
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
praptak 17y ago
"And a change to British libel law would be nice, too." There were some moves in this direction: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8259814.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8259814.stm

JacobAldridge 17y ago

If this sort of war against quackery is of interest to you, I recommend the Australian site 'The Millenium Project' http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/ http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/. Check the site for why it's spelled that way.

rmc 17y ago

If you are interested in more stories of bad science and medicine, then check out Ben Goldacre's site: http://www.badscience.net/ http://www.badscience.net/ He has a book of the same name.

mantasradzas 17y ago

IANAL, but wouldn't a win in a court create a precedent that could be used in similar cases? I am really happy about this turnuot, but the early retreat by the Chiropractic seems in part like an unfortunate turn of events, overall...

dagw 17y ago
Edit: Ignore me, I was wrong.
- tokenadult 17y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_law#Precedent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_law#Precedent

ww520 17y ago

The loser pays the other party's cost in the UK system. How does it work when it is dropped in the middle of the case?