Greetings, radical and evidential folks!
I've read some of the reports about Simon Singh's libel case.
According to the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8598472.stm
Dr Singh questioned the claims of some chiropractors
over the treatment of certain childhood conditions.
The High Court had said the words were fact not opinion
- meaning Dr Singh could not use the fair comment defence.
However, the Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, Master of
the Rolls Lord Neuberger and Lord Justice Sedley ruled
High Court judge Mr Justice Eady had "erred in his approach"
last May, and allowed Dr Singh's appeal.
According to the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/01/simon-singh-libel-victory
The court of appeal overturned an earlier ruling which
would have meant that Singh would have had to prove in
court that his comments about chiropractors were factually
correct to avoid a libel judgment against him.
[...]
Following today's ruling, Singh's comments are recognised
by the court as a matter of opinion which did not imply
that the BCA was being consciously dishonest.
I'm feeling lost! The implication seems to be that a statement
of "opinion" should not involve matters of "fact", in order
to be "fair comment".
But I would have thought that the more you put in of fact,
for which you can produce some evidence (even if falling
short of conclusive), the fairer your comment becomes?
Or is "fair comment" limited to metaphorical assertions,
perhaps using vernacular terminology based on negative
emotional reactions?
Is the paradigm for "fair comment" what is said in a pub brawl?
I'd be grateful for any informed help in understanding this!
Best wishes to all,
Ted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <[log in to unmask]>
Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861
Date: 01-Apr-10 Time: 17:38:51
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
|