Legal Loop Hole in the Singh V BCA trial

I have found a legal loop hole in the Singh V BCA Case that even Jack of ("WHAT SORT OF LAWYER ARE YOU, MORON??") Kent, has missed.

I shall layout my analysis in true Jack of Kent Style.

Firstly, once again, here is the passage the BCA complained of in Simon Singh's original article published in the Guardian:

"The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments."

Just read it again slowly, and try and think what is missing from the paragraph, and why it therefore clearly does not demonstrate that Singh was claiming that the BCA were deliberately and knowingly promoting ineffective treatments as inferred by Justice Eady.

Now do you see?

No?

OK, there are two very important words missing at the start of the statement that Eady has clearly overlooked. Eady has incorrectly assumed that the statement read as follows:

Simon says "The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments."

But he never said “Simon Says”, so it doesn’t count.

Ha! In your face Eady.

I thank you.


More importantly Tenacious Singh will soldier on. Public Hearing at the Court of Appeal on 14th October 2009.