Comments on: Bogus Law

By: Why Libel Laws Must Change | The Quackometer

Why Libel Laws Must Change | The Quackometer — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 22:09:06 +0000

[...] The second problem with libel laws is that costs can very quickly ramp up. Costs in libel actions are typically 140 times higher than the European average. As soon as I start to defend my writing, [...]

By: The British Chiropractic Association Humiliated. | The Quackometer

The British Chiropractic Association Humiliated. | The Quackometer — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:19:42 +0000

[...] rational to defend a libel claim in the UK, as the economic considerations will mean that you will almost certainly lose a shed load of money – win the case, or not. But Simon Singh did not make an economic decision [...]

By: find1

find1 — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:09:04 +0000

There is an interesting case in the High Court at the moment with the Groucho Club, the famous Media watering hole in London. The Groucho Club have taken action against a writer for a book he is writing about the famous club. Their case is a pre publishing test case for libel and the disproportionate costs of defending such a test case are astronomical. What is important is that the case is not about what has been written but what could be written. George Orwell springs to mind in his book 1984.

This type of case has never been done before and if they win the laws may again change for the worst. We will all lose especially free speech and expression. The libel laws at the moment in the UK are a serious threat to free speech and expression and totally contradict Article 10 Freedom of Expression of the European Human Rights declaration.

I find it odd that the Groucho Club, the very watering hole that the media frequent is taking an action that is totally against what the media and journalists stand for, Freedom of Speech

By: Le Canard Noir

Le Canard Noir — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:38:53 +0000

Thomas, firstly, look at the whole article. Singh clearly describes chiropractors as "possess[ing] some quite wacky ideas". This is not a description of fraud but of misconceived ideas. One should not take sentences in isolation – as Judge Eady appears to have done. Singh also describes what he means by bogus – without evidence.

It is also interesting to look at whether libel law should take such a single minded view as to how definitions should be arrived at. The man on the street may be under his own delusions that a writer is trying to dispel. Should we attempt to gag writers who try this?

I believe the European Court of Human Rights may have interesting things to say about this. I a researching another case that may have direct bearing here.

By: Thomas Dent

Thomas Dent — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:15:06 +0000

The point is not what Singh meant or intended to mean or believed. The point is what the man in the street would understand to be the meaning of the sentence

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

Whether or not Singh intended it, the sentence does seem to insinuate dishonesty or negligence on the part of the chiropractors. If he actually intended to say something different, he could withdraw the sentence and rephrase it to be less inflammatory.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 26 May 2009 13:34:24 +0000

Very well written LBC.

@ Howard: Whatever you’re on, I want some of it.

By: Paul Power

Paul Power — Tue, 19 May 2009 14:00:00 +0000

One argument that could be made by Singh is that if the burden of proof in on him to justify his words then the judge cannot put a meaning on those words that Singh did not intend. The judge’s action is therefore unjust. Perhaps a legal expert could fashion a legal argument out of this.

By: Howard

Howard — Mon, 18 May 2009 15:26:00 +0000

It(He,She) is lamentable these things, because a time ago behind wise that the medical services were a problem for many persons and up to the moment they neither find they do not even give any solution, apparently the government forgot what promised and it is now where it is that to there be remembered(reminded), before that is very late, the medical assurance is important for many people, like that they indicate it in findrxonline, the web page that delivers a lot of information about this debate.

By: jdc325

jdc325 — Sat, 16 May 2009 20:56:00 +0000

That fails to avoid the issue of libel tourism, though. I’m pretty sure that if your publication can be read in England, you can be taken to court in England. Anything that’s published on a website that can be viewed in this country can leave you liable to a libel suit. I think.

By: Davidh

Davidh — Sat, 16 May 2009 19:28:00 +0000

Best to publish from Scotland
Malice has to be proven – libel not enough