Well, there is a very simple way that people could have moved on without fighting any court case, and that is if Singh had retracted the one sentence:

“This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.”

and apologized for the apparent insinuation that the chiropractors are dishonest or negligent in promoting their treatments.

The point is not what Singh claims to have meant or intended to say, it’s what he *did* say, and what an average reasonable reader could take it to mean.
It seems quite reasonable to interpret this “happily promote bogus treatments” as meaning “are happy to promote the treatments, despite their being bogus” – which strongly implies that they *know* the treatments are bogus. Else why would Singh specifically complain that they did so ‘happily’?

Singh is not much of a writer if he doesn’t understand the difference between ‘they promote treatments that are in fact bogus’ and ‘they happily promote bogus treatments’.

If he wants to defend his statements, it is entirely possible that Singh will succeed in proving in court that the chiropractors were dishonest or negligent. I am confident that a British jury will reach the correct decision (although I would agree that the process is absurdly costly).

its in the economist today:
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13643973

and new scientist:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227083.000-chiropractic-critic-loses-first-round-in-libel-fight.html

both highly critical of the BCA

Libel law requires someone to actually bring a case for there to be a case. Perhaps if some MMR scientists considered bringing a libel case against Barnett, they’d win. Considering some of the things she said — again, as in this case, making implications about not only the science but the motivations of the practitioners — perhaps they should.

Well, when I read it, that comes across quite strongly as exactly what he means. I like Singh as well, so I approached the actionable paragraph wanting him to be, if not right, at least not suable. But every time I re-read it, it still comes across as saying exactly what Justice Eady says it says. If that’s not what Singh thinks, then he has made quite a serious mistake in wording.

We could probably do with a law which takes scientific claims out of the realm of libel. (Although, even then, this one isn’t about the scientific claims so much as the implication of dishonesty, so would probably still be happening. Anyway.) However, absent such a law, and given that this case has been brought, I’m not convinced Justice Eady made a wrong decision here — though he is wrong to place such emphasis on the single word “bogus”, when I’d say the meaning was across the whole sentence — I think following “respectable face of the chiropractic profession” with “and yet” is what does it: that clearly implies that what follows is the opposite of respectability. I’m also unconvinced by Singh’s defense that the next paragraph demonstrates that his use of the word bogus does not imply dishonesty: it really does no such thing.

> frankly there should be an easy way for him to simply say so, so that everyone can move on, without everyone spending a lot of time and money in the Royal Courts of Justice.

Absolutely. There should be a simple apology get-out for libel cases: apologise and retract with at least as much prominence as the original statement, within a certain reasonable timeframe, and the case is dropped. Seems fair to me.

Stever,

> They will now have to learn the lesson the hard way – that perusing this sort of case, attempting to stifle a critique of the scientific basis for their practice, will ultimately lead to increased critical scrutiny, far more bad PR than it averts, and is a much bigger threat to their profits in the long term, even if they win this round.

A noble ideal, but I think you’re overestimating the influence of a few bloggers. There’s a reason intelligent and successful people use libel law, and that reason is that it works.

Absolutely! Every aspect of the BCA will now be critically examined by those best placed to tear their nonsense apart.

I’ve commented on their 2007 accounts on the forum.

So where would that leave quackwatch? The requirement to prove dishonesty rather than mere incompetence is frankly worrying for all. Perhaps we need a new lexicon with an ample choice of picturesque words for such concepts as “incompetent fool”, “ignoramus”, “self delusional” and words like charlatan can then be kept for the true villains.

The real problem here is the nature of UK libel laws, and the real penalty isn’t going to be damages. It is the enormous sums of money that are spent on the lawyers involved. Perhaps there ought to be a rule in this country, that costs awarded cannot exceed damages. That might limit cases like this – although don’t expect the lawyers or judges to agree (or for that matter many politicians as they are disproportionately lawyers) – too much to lose.

They will now have to learn the lesson the hard way – that perusing this sort of case, attempting to stifle a critique of the scientific basis for their practice, will ultimately lead to increased critical scrutiny, far more bad PR than it averts, and is a much bigger threat to their profits in the long term, even if they win this round.

I for one am raising a toast to the imminent avalanche of critical media and blog engagement with this story.

This interpretation really does put the sued into pseudo-science.