The Ladybird Book of Chiropractic Treatment & English Libel Law

Now updated with 6 new pages of recent events

Even though the BCA have dropped their misconceived case against Simon, please continue to sign the campaign for libel reform to ensure that the politicians follow through with their promises of reform.

Singh BCA Appeal 23rd Feb 2010

Before you read my cobbled together thoughts on the Singh BCA Appeal at the High Courts today, you really ought to read a more sensible account than my childish paraphrasing. I recommend Jack of Kent's Good Day in Court or Padraig Reidy’s piece for Index of Censorship.

So from my law illiterate viewpoint, things looked a little like this:

The courtroom itself was jam-packed as Jack of Kent busied himself setting out extra folding chairs for the Simon Singh Massive. As the crowd hushed and the clerk of the court asked us to rise, I was a little disappointed that they didn't blow some dry ice and play the Rocky theme tune as the three judges (Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger and Lord Justice Sedley), appeared from the wings to take their seats.

I’m not sure who won the toss, but Adrienne Page QC opened the batting for Team Singh. The judges seemed a little perplexed with her decision to open with her fallback position of defending the case from a point of fact rather than fair comment, even though she later gave very credible arguments as to why indeed the article was comment and not fact.

Page QC also seemed to do a pretty neat job of defining “happily” as in “happily promotes bogus treatment” to mean something along the lines of “without worry” as opposed to “knowingly”, and the Judges seemed pretty accepting of that definition

Things seemed to go pretty well, Simon’s QC seemed to raise all of the pertinent points and the three old boys at the front whilst probing did not seem especially unfavourable to her case. It became much easier to judge the state of the wicket when the opposition came in to bat after lunch.

Lord Chief Justice started off the afternoon by stating the he was buggered if he knew why the BCA didn’t just accept the Guardian’s right to reply instead of arsing around with a dumbass libel case that will end up costing some poor bastard a shitload of cash. At which point I would have given my football rattle a good spin, had I been allowed to bring it.

Lord Justice Sedley then went on to ask the BCA’s QC if she would find the following statement libellous:

“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 these treatments.”

Of course Lord Justice Sedley had omitted the word “bogus” and was fishing to see if the BCA’s QC would still claim the statement libellous without the word, thus pin pointing the exact word of the libel.

Spotting the trap the BCA’s QC responded with: “Er, um. Er, ah, mmm, uh”, before cleverly plucking: “I think it would be more important to focus on the actual words used by Dr Singh” from her arse.

This would have been a fair rebuttal if later on in her case she didn’t consistently try and bolster her interpretation of the meaning of Dr Singh’s original text by using example “what if” substitutions. For example, what if Dr Singh had said, “Knowingly promotes bogus treatments” instead of “Happily promotes bogus treatments”. Or why did Dr Singh not say “not a jot of reliable evidence” instead of “not a jot of evidence”.

The BCA’s QC also had a good go at trying to prove that the comment was “fact” rather than “comment”, by taking the opening sentences one at a time and claiming each one was a statement of fact rather than a comment. However, it seemed to me like the Judges were having none of it.

The BCA’s QC then had a go at claiming that he term “bogus” meant “deliberately dishonest”. This time Lord Chief Justice challenged this definition by stating that Dr Singh himself qualifies his use of the word “bogus” in his following paragraph:

“I can confidently label these treatments as bogus because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world's first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions."

Lord Chief Justice put it to the BCA’s QC that this paragraph clearly defines bogus as meaning ineffective as a result examining the evidence with Professor Ernst rather than being deliberately dishonest.

Lord Justice Sedley kept the mood quite jovial by injecting a few comedy one-liners and he even accidently said “homeopathy” at one point instead of “chiropractic”. Oh how we laughed.

Anyway, as a court virgin I don’t pretend to be able to read the thoughts and intentions of the three senior appeal Judges, but from a supporter of science, reason and critical thinking, it certainly sounded pretty positive to me.

Lord Chief Justice finished off by saying that they would all go away and have a little think about it and then write up a nice report (I believe in 6-8 weeks).

Not the Reform of English Libel Law

As we all know, The Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, has ordered a comprehensive review of England's much-criticised libel laws.

I’m rather hoping for a scene reminiscent of Constable Savage’s appearance before the Superintendent.


STRAW: Come in, shut the door.



ENGLISH LIBEL LAW: Yes, sir.



STRAW: Now then, English Libel Law, I want to talk to you about some of the libel cases that you've been bringing lately. I think that perhaps you're stifling freedom of expression.



ENGLISH LIBEL LAW: Which libel cases did you mean then, sir?



STRAW: Well, for instance this one: ‘Writing a newspaper article that says that there is not a jot of evidence to support the use of chiropractic treatment for childhood ailments’. And neither should ‘Criticising a vitamin pill salesman who claims to cure AIDS’ be an offence.


ENGLISH LIBEL LAW: Are you sure, sir?



STRAW: Also, there should be no law against: ‘Publishing a book on how terrorism is financed and how to stop it’, or ‘Presenting an eye witness testimony of individuals responsible for crimes against humanity in the Rwandan genocide’

ENGLISH LIBEL LAW: If you say so, sir...



STRAW: Yes, I do say so, English Libel Law! Didn't they teach you anything at libel school?



ENGLISH LIBEL LAW: Erm, I'm sorry, sir...



STRAW: Some of these cases are just plain stupid: ‘Slagging off Sheffield Wednesday football club’- Is this some kind of joke?



ENGLISH LIBEL LAW: No, sir.



STRAW: And we have some more here: ‘Writing a novel with a fictional character that happens to share a name with real person, 'revealing the corruption within Scotland Yard by writing a book about Bent Coppers,' and ‘Challenging misconduct in academic research papers by putting forward ideas on why clinical trials on the STARFlex device used to close a hole between the right and left atriums of the heart in order to reduce the incidence of migraine, might be negative' In short, English Libel Laws, you have hindered the free exchange of ideas and are having a chilling effect on legitimate publications.


ENGLISH LIBEL LAW: Yes, sir.



STRAW: Using English Libel Law.



ENGLISH LIBEL LAW: Yes, sir.



STRAW: Putting the burden of proof on the defendant.



ENGLISH LIBEL LAW: Yes, sir.



STRAW: Sit down.



ENGLISH LIBEL LAW: Yes, sir.



STRAW: Why do you keep ruling in favour of wealthy respondents?



ENGLISH LIBEL LAW: To attempt to silence authors.



STRAW: Authors?



ENGLISH LIBEL LAW: And science writers sir.



STRAW: I know its attempting to silence science writers, we’ve got one in court this week. He’s appealing against his illiberal ruling on meaning.

ENGLISH LIBEL LAW: Well - well, there you are, sir.



STRAW: Your illiberal ruling!



ENGLISH LIBEL LAW: Thank you, sir.



STRAW: Would I be correct in assuming that all your claimants are rich?


ENGLISH LIBEL LAW: Well, I can't say I've ever noticed, sir.



STRAW: Stand up, English Libel Law! – English Libel Law, you're attempting to crush free speech. It's laws like you that give the courts a bad name. English Pen, Sense about Science and Index of Censorship love to jump on instances like this, and the reputation of the courts can be permanently tarnished. Your costs encourage libel tourism and attempt to silence valid criticism. Do you know American states are passing their own laws to make them exempt from your rulings.


ENGLISH LIBEL LAW: Yes, sir.



STRAW: There's no room for laws like yours in my courts. I'm transferring you to the treasury.



ENGLISH LIBEL LAW: Thank you very much, sir.



STRAW: Now get out!

Please sign the petition for libel reform

I’m supporting Simon Singh too

I’m sure all of us in the sceptical and scientific community were heartened today by Simon Singh’s decision to appeal. The number of great articles and blogs I have read today have also buoyed me. I don’t feel that I can really add much more to the details of the case than has already been done by at least the following blogs and articles:

The Guardian
The Times
The Independent
Bad Astronomy
Neurologica
Jack of Kent
Quackometer

So rather than retype the facts of the case I wanted to impress a few thoughts on the wider implications of the case and echo my support for Simon.

The freedom to make valid scientific criticisms of any method or theory is how science advances its understanding. If an invalid theory, or worse still, an ideology, is allowed to hide behind illiberal libel laws rather then scientific analysis of the criticisms; science, truth, and knowledge are all in danger.

Simon therefore stands up to the greater principles at stake here by attempting to appeal the preliminary decision, but at a potentially immense cost of time, money, resources and stress. Therefore like so many eminent scientists, academics, broadcasters, comedians, writers, journalists and bloggers before me, I just wanted to use my humble blog to simply state that I’m standing right behind Simon with you all. Whatever you need, just ask, we’re ready to fight with you.


If you haven’t already signed the support campaign at sense about science, please do so.

Footage of the Simon Singh Support meeting available here