3 ms·

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 sc

by 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 :)

by ErrantX 17y ago

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 :)