Simon Singh To Appeal In UK Court Today

TACD writes "Simon Singh, author, television presenter and known critic of pseudoscience, is in court today appealing the decision made against him last May over his use of the term 'bogus' to describe the methods used by the British Chiropractic Association. Today's decision could have far-reaching implications for the movement to reform Britain's horrifically outdated libel laws (that even America is making moves to protect its citizens against), and to begin taking steps to elevate Britain above the likes of China when it comes to open debate and freedom of speech."

Comments

Summary writer is a full blown moron

[nedlohs]

Seriously, anyone who can claim with a straight face that Britain has less freedom of speech than China (and hence is only beginning to take steps to elevate above it) is living in a fantasy world.

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[bsDaemon]

I know! Britain has *just as much* freedom of speech as China does!

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[wjousts]

Agreed. Less free speech than China is clearly hyperbole. Libel laws are a complete mess and need reform but comparing freedom of speech in Britain to (lack of) freedom of speech in China adds nothing to the debate.

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[monoi]

So China has incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights, then?

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Hyperbole, Motherfucker! DO YOU SPEAK IT?

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[Anonymous Coward]

this is the country where saying a horse looks 'gay' is liable to get you a 3-month jail sentence

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[VJ42]

this is the country where saying a horse looks 'gay' is liable to get you a 3-month jail sentence

Read your own link, the guy's going in front of a judge for a public order offence (probably breech of the peace or similar), but suggesting it's because he called the horse gay gets more eyeballs.

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[TACD]

Jesus Christ all this talk of hyperbole makes me want to shoot a nuclear rocket through my fucking head.

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[got2liv4him]

I thought it was obvious from the "even America" remark that the author of the summary has a certain leaning or agenda...

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[wintercolby]

IANAL and certainly know nothing of this British Libel law, so I'll go ahead and ask:
Is the submitter now at risk of a libel suit from the British Government for so egregiously insulting the nation's legal system and free speech rights? Could the submitter be liable in a libel suit for falsely comparing Britain to China in regards to Human Rights?

If not, then clearly he is mistaken in his assessment.

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it seems pretty accurate. He (stupidly) asked a cop if he knew he was riding a gay horse, and the cop cited him for violations of the public order act. There's actually a lot of action around this law in Britain right now, as you can basically run afoul of the law by offending any sensibilities at all. Reason Magazine had a couple of articles on it late last year.

You are correct that the actual offense was "mouthing off to a police officer", rather than the actual "gay horse" content, but still.

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[TACD]

Seriously, anyone who can claim with a straight face that Britain has less freedom of speech than China (and hence is only beginning to take steps to elevate above it) is living in a fantasy world.

"When it comes to censoring publications and blocking online content, it is arguable that Britain has an even worse record than China." - from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7294539/Simon-Singh-it-is-too-late-for-me-but-libel-laws-must-change-for-the-public-good.html

However, yes, there may have been a trace of hyperbole in this post, on the internet. Gold star!

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[CherniyVolk]

Truth is far stranger than fiction.

Perhaps it's you who is living in a fantasy world? A world where you believe you have a freedom of speech? Never mind other freedoms. Have you ever tried to exercise this freedom of speech?

Let me do that for you, "THE US PRESIDENT IS AN ASSHOLE! ISRAEL IS KILLING PALESTINIAN BABIES!"

There, does that make you feel proud? Happy? Secure? Free? Is that an example of free speech, a posting on /. a couple of simple sentences? Boy, if that's all it takes to make you happy and believing you have a legally protected Right... then you, my dear friend is much the fool.

Let's take it up a step further. I walk down town, find a hill, raising 6 feet high, pull out a bull horn and announce controversial views to be heard around for blocks. The views must be controversial, because otherwise the concept of free speech is masked by conformance of what those in power want you to believe; this is called effective free speech, something you apparently know nothing of. Along with effective free speech comes the prospect of actually having people listen to you, and see your ways... you have to effect people, this is the part of free speech people do not understand, like you. If you can't get someone else to see your ways, free speech or not... you're just mumbling to yourself, effectively. And guess what? Rebels and resistance has always mumbled to themselves, regardless of whatever freedoms they are claimed to have.

So there I am, speaking of controversial views (any view that makes people see things differently is controversial, or will soon become controversial; this I hope you do understand).

No one stops by, maybe a few that wish to yell back, nothing more than displaying their obedience to their cruel overlords. Police see that my speech has no effect, so they elect to adhere to laws that best suits the situation (my controversial views aren't causing a ruckus), so by laws handed down, noise ordinance laws allows me to be as loud as I want till 10pm. So then, I'm just wasting breath.

People start forming up around me, listening. A few shy away, a few in the front start showing signs of comprehension and acceptance. Now, the police again has elect the best course of action for the situation. In this case, I'm enlightening the people, so the noise ordinance laws are ignored because I'm actually effecting people. Now comes laws from the other side of the spectrum, assembly laws. Do I have a permit to rally? Do I have a permit for public announcement? Noise ordinance laws are for private individuals with private interests, if I'm making a speech, then they do not apply to me in the same way. Speech being justified by the congregation before me that has been formed. Police aren't there to protect me, but those in power. So they step in, grab the bull horn, and ask for permits. If everyone disperses quietly and no lasting effect has been made on the sheep, then I get off with a warning. But if there's any resistance, showing maybe I opened some eyes, then I go to jail, and maybe some of them too for disrupting the peace; among other laws such as not having a hundred different permits to legally be allowed to do such a thing.

Depending on the speech, if I anger the wrong people. Then you have libel suits brought against me. Maybe I garner the wrath in all the many forms from those that I anger. The more effective my speech, the worse the wrath will be.

So, you see, you don't have freedom of speech. Just because you can whisper what you want amongst the crowd of yelling fanatics, doesn't mean your thoughts are going to have any effect therefore pose any real threat to those in power. You think you can change the world with your words, but you can't, and you won't even attempt to prove me wrong because you know I'm right. Do everything you can to justify this believe you so long for.

In China, you think they don't have freedom of speech. In China perhaps it's illegal to say the president is an

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[Nathrael]

I don't remember asking you a GOD DAMN THING!

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[TACD]

Seriously, anyone who can claim with a straight face that Britain has less freedom of speech than China (and hence is only beginning to take steps to elevate above it) is living in a fantasy world.

"When it comes to censoring publications and blocking online content, it is arguable that Britain has an even worse record than China." - Simon Singh, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7294539/Simon-Singh-it-is-too-late-for-me-but-libel-laws-must-change-for-the-public-good.html

But yes, there may have been a trace of hyperbole in my post, on the internet. Gold star!

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[yurtinus]

I really should look that word up one of these days....

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[nedlohs]

America is irrelevant, the comparison is the UK and China, neither of which is America.

When was the last time thousands of Americans (or to stay more on topic Brits) were run over with tanks by their government for speaking?

And I disagree that "freedom of speech" means I can blast my rants over a megaphone.

It does however let me rant and rave about how the 9/11 attacks on the US were justified by US actions, or how they were Gods judgement on our evil sinful society. And people did. And those people were not punished by the government.

Try making claims about how Tibet should be free of Chinese oppression in China and let us know how that goes.

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[Nadaka]

I believe he would have had to say it about a specific person to be charged with libel. The government on the other hand will simply put him under even more constant surveillance and charge him with jaywalking, failure to pick up his dogs poo, and having crooked window shutters.

IANABPOL (I Am Not A British Person or Lawyer)

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[Shimbo]

Actually, it seems pretty accurate. He (stupidly) asked a cop if he knew he was riding a gay horse, and the cop cited him for violations of the public order act.

It is a pretty poorly worded law but really people should be held upside down and smacked with a kipper every time they reason "if you got the maximum sentence for some trivial infringement of the law, it would be unjust." That's what the judges are for, dammit.

It was a long time ago, and the CPS didn't offer any evidence.

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[Anonymous Coward]

Would have been oh so much more effective had the author known how to properly use "affect" instead of effect in the above, as appropriate. Teleprompter broken or written by fools?

Damn, now I'm going to loose mod points ;~)

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[wiredlogic]

It would be bogus to claim otherwise.

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[Flere Imsaho]

What?

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[secondhand_Buddah]

In all honesty, why would anyone be stupid enough to look for trouble with a policeman. I get the whole freedom of speech thing, but the average copper has the power to make your life pretty uncomfortable and inconvenienced just to prove a point
While I don't agree with this abuse of power, it does remain a reality. The average cop does not have your best interests at heart. They have an arrest target to meet.

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[Anonymous Coward]

When was the last time thousands of Americans (or to stay more on topic Brits) were run over with tanks by their government for speaking?

If you are going to reference such an historically important event, at least try to be more accurate.

No, people weren't runover by tanks for just speaking. They were run over by tanks for having thousands of somewhat organized protesters camping on a major monument in the middle of the country's capital for months and refusing to leave even when facing the army which came to clear them out.

You may admire their courage, or you may ridicule their naiviety, but they did not died just for "speaking".

I leave it as an exercise for the readers to imagine what would happen if thousands of organized protesters tried to camp in the middle of Washington, or London, and then refuse to leave for 3 months. Could they even last 3 months without being dispersed forcefully by local police? And if they successfully resisted the local police's effort, would the army come next?

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, China's libel laws are less repressive than Britain's.

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[iangoldby]

You seem to mean by 'freedom of speech' something more like 'a right to be heard' or 'a right to an audience'. And probably 'a right to a platform' from which to expound your controversial views.

I profoundly disagree that these rights exist. The reason is simple. If you have a right to be heard, then someone else has the responsibility to do the hearing. If you have the right to a platform, the someone else has the responsibility to provide the platform. What makes you so privileged that someone else must provide these for you?

Do you stop every time you pass a street preacher and listen carefully until he has finished? After all, it is your responsibility to do so if you believe that you also have a right to be heard.

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[nedlohs]

Much smaller, but Western democracies can usually live with such things, as evidenced by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_Tent_Embassy . Note that the police did force-ably remove people more than once...

And I guess your an anonymous coward, but did you really not notice I was trying to do the exact thing I was making fun of originally. You don't think maybe that might have been the point?

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[Inda]

I was charged by police horses during a march against the Criminal Justice Bill about 15 years ago. Tanks, no. 2 metre horses with full body armour, yes.

Never been so scared in my life.

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because anyone in the UK who says that quietly disappea

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[Yvanhoe]

In China, there is no opposition party. In China you get arrested and tortured if you commemorate Tien Anmen massacres. You can do such things in UK and US. You can do them loud, you can convince other people. You take the example of noise disturbance as an example of how our freedom of speech is impaired, I do not believe it is fair. There are legal means of rallying people to a controversial views. In UK you have public demonstrators of extreme islamism or (IIRC) nazism happening regularly. I guess you have the regular communist rally also and of course opposition demonstrations.

In China, not.

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[Ginger Unicorn]

There's no such charge as "jaywalking" in Britain. We can cross the road wherever we like, unlike the fascist american dictatorship that forces its downtrodden subjects to cross only at government sanctioned cross walks.

See how annoying that is?

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[Ginger Unicorn]

Your story is suspiciously vague. For all we know the police had a legitimate reason to disrupt whatever it was you were doing, and you're just bitterly rationalising it away as some kind of fascist act of suppression.

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[alecwood]

You can't be charged with libel, it's a civil matter. Any person, or organisation, can sue for libel, and I believe the situation is the same in the US. Unfortunately here jaywalking is not an offence. Having any window shutters at all, let alone crooked ones, probably soon will be though, lest it impedes the ever increasing surveillance of us all by government

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[ConfusedVorlon]

A judge has just warned someone that they may see a custodial sentence for twittering the following

'Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!'

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/22/twitter_bomb_threat_joke_guilty/

The context made it pretty clear that this was hardly a serious threat. A quick chat could have easily verified that it was just a foolish comment.

the prosecution at the case noted:

"He [Chambers] admitted posting the message into the public domain but never intended the message to be received by the airport or for them to take it seriously."

and "the message had no material impact on the airport"

so a chap writes a comment when he finds the airport is closed due to snow and he is due to fly in a week. He is banned from the airport for life, has computer, iphone, etc confiscated and may go to prison.

hurray for the system that keeps us safe.

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[TheLink]

I wonder what would happen if someone makes an inflatable airport (toy or otherwise)...

Already if you want to blow up churches you can go here: http://www.inflatablechurch.com/

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite. An action over something that you said in that way would need to be for slander, and the person bringing the action would need to show defamation.

The UK problem is with libel (which is for written or broadcast things, including net stuff such as as /.). The burden of proof is on the defendant - prove that what you said is true. You can't (or can't afford to)? Whoops, you lose. The cost of defending an action can be astronomical and the cost of losing equally so. We've seen a significant number of instances of late of people and businesses abusing their financial muscle by using libel actions in the UK courts to try to stifle things that may well be true, and would certainly in (say) the US be covered by First Amendment rights. Sometimes neither party is even in the UK. Sure, only one or two people here may even have had a chance to see what was written, and any award is likely to be trivial - but if you're cited as a defendant, can you even afford to fight the action? No? Tough. They win, you lose. It's archaic law that desperately needs hauling kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, as an American, I am unable to discern your satire from the twenty billion other similar statements on the internet which were written in complete seriousness.

So, seeing it in response to somebody doing the same thing to a Brit, doesn't really have an impact.

You know, what with the internet commentariat proclaiming that America is a police state with jackboot thugs running around every time, say, a court OVERTURNS a stupid prosecution...

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[makomk]

Nope. Companies can sue for libel too.

Also, IANAL, but my understanding is that if any one person can convince a judge that a third party might reasonably consider the statement to be about them (either individually or as one of a small enough group of people), they can also sue successfully for libel. No information specifically identifying one person is required.

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[alexo]

When was the last time thousands of Americans (or to stay more on topic Brits) were run over with tanks by their government for speaking?

Not thousands and not by tanks, but things did happen.

Re:Summary writer is a full blown moron

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be a blast at parties. No really, are you really this miserable on a continuous basis? Get laid and take off the tinfoil hat. The man isn't keeping you down, you are keeping you down. Fool.

His cryptography book is a good read

[Anonymous Coward]

So I so we let him off!

Re:His cryptography book is a good read

[Ginger Unicorn]

is that encrypted?

More Importantly

[JamesP]

Simon Singh is the author of VERY COOL books:

Fermat's Last Theorem
and
The Code Book

(those are the ones I read, at least)

Re:More Importantly

[wjousts]

I've read The Code Book as well. A very good read.

Re:More Importantly

[sconeu]

As well as Big Bang.

Re:More Importantly

[Threni]

Fermat's last theorem wasn't a very good book. I remember it going on and on repeating itself, but, crucially, not getting far close to actually explaining, to an intelligent laymen, exactly what the problem was and/or how clever an answer would be. It was like a good magazine article stretched into hundreds of pages.

Re:More Importantly

[bigbird]

You've got to be kidding. You read the book & you don't know what Fermat's last theorem is?? How is that possible?

Re:More Importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

Also 'Trick or Treatment', which he cowrote.

Re:More Importantly

[Quantumstate]

The theorem is remarkably simple to state. It was definitely explained very early in the book. The technical details needed for the proof are pretty advanced maths which would be basically impossible to explain to a layman without teaching a lot of maths after which they would no longer be a layman. So the book is about the history of the problem, since this is the only reasonable thing to write.

Re:More Importantly

[madprof]

Did you read the book or did you just scan every other word in each sentence?

Re:More Importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

"You read the book & you don't know what Fermat's last theorem is?? How is that possible?"

The problem is of course not the theorem itself, which is ridicously simple, but why that f* problem seems to be so important and why such an obviously simple assertion becomes so hard to manage.

In other words, you read the book & you don't know what was it about?? How is that possible?

Re:More Importantly

[Megane]

The technical details needed for the proof are pretty advanced maths which would be basically impossible to explain to a layman without teaching a lot of maths after which they would no longer be a layman.

And they most certainly won't fit in the margin of a book.

Re:More Importantly

[Threni]

You read my comment and yet you think that I don't know what Fermat's last theorem is? How is that possible?

Humbug!

[calibre-not-output]

This reminds me of the first episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! when Penn explains why they call people "motherfuckers" and "assholes" instead of liars, frauds, quacks, etc.

Quoted from Wikipedia:
Since their act is not normally associated with a frequent use of profanity, Jillette explains their choice of using the term bullshit in the opening episode: if they referred to people as frauds or liars, they could be sued for slander, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of chicanery, but as "vulgar abuse" is not legally considered slanderous, referring to them as assholes or motherfuckers ostensibly expresses an opinion rather than a statement of fact and is legally safer for them.

Re:Humbug!

[idontgno]

referring to them as assholes or motherfuckers ostensibly expresses an opinion

I dunno, I suspect someone might have considered an unsubstantiated accusation of incestuous sexual congress with one's own mother as factually slanderous. And then we'd see the limits of the "we didn't mean it literally" defense.

Re:Humbug!

[nedlohs]

No, you'd see the bog standard "what would a reasonable person understand the statement to mean" being applied. And nowhere near the limits...

Re:Humbug!

[ndogg]

And in this case, Penn calls these guys "baby twisting motherfuckers."

I don't think I could have come up with a better phrase than that.

Re:Humbug!

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminds me of the first episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! when Penn explains why they call people "motherfuckers" and "assholes" instead of liars, frauds, quacks, etc..

So in Amercia it's (in the eye's of the law) better to say that someone has sex with their mother rather then lies about something? Hahaha.

Re:Humbug!

[Anne_Nonymous]

Yeah, and Teller called them, " ", and " ".

Re:Humbug!

[10101001 10101001]

No, you'd see the bog standard "what would a reasonable person understand the statement to mean" being applied.

Which goes back to the first episode of Bullshit. If you announce quite clearly that bullshit/motherfucker == lie/conman, then a reasonable person would take it that you're calling the people in question frauds and the statement they make lies and/or deception. If what Penn's wish to not have to deal with lawsuits was true, he would have simply left the bullshit and motherfucker comments with the obscurity of if they had more meaning than the words intrinsically have. Instead, I think Penn believed the actual chance of lawsuits was actually pretty low and he was something of an idiot in hoping that judge would be so stupid as to summarily drop any suit presuming the whole "vulgar abuse" angle would magically settle things and the judge wouldn't exert any effort of thought on the obvious code messages Penn explicitly stated he was crafting.

Re:Humbug!

[sumdumass]

I'm not sure incest could legitimately be claimed by anyone. In grade school when we heard of motherfucker, we had a saying that I'm sure most everyone else has probably heard, Mother fucker I may be, but the mother I fuck, isn't the mother of me. Basically, if you're married with children, you can be a motherfucker, if you like milfs, you're a motherfucker (could be anyways), or if you're just being insulted generically, your a motherfucker, and all this is without a bit of incest being involved. And with thanks to modern liberalism where teens are having sex more often, it's hard to find a single woman of legal age that hasn't had a kid or two unless you're surfing for them outside the highschool parking lot.

Re:Humbug!

[calibre-not-output]

Not really. What his statement makes clear is that the show is presenting opinions, and not (alleged) facts, and that he wishes to reflect that in the vocabulary he uses. He doesn't say that "motherfucker" will translate literally to "liar" or "fraud". He says he'll use that word as a replacement precisely to make it clear that he's expressing an opinion and not making accusations.

And as a sidenote, the "motherfucker == incest" view some have expressed here is bizarre. a motherfucker is someone who fucks a mother, not necessarily his/her own mother. If you and your wife have a kid and you fuck her, then you are a motherfucker.

In fact, I fully intend to announce myself as a motherfucker just as soon as I finish fucking whoever comes to bear my child for the first time after said bearing has occurred.

Re:Humbug!

[makomk]

What his statement makes clear is that the show is presenting opinions, and not (alleged) facts, and that he wishes to reflect that in the vocabulary he uses. He doesn't say that "motherfucker" will translate literally to "liar" or "fraud".

The nice thing about British libel law is that it doesn't matter what you meant or even what someone would normally conclude you meant. If a person listening/reading could reasonably come to a conclusion that's false and defamatory, it still counts as libel.

Re:Humbug!

[calibre-not-output]

How on Earth can those world-famous British tabloids survive in that environment?

Re:Humbug!

[makomk]

Because most normal people can't afford to sue, and most of the celebrities that the tabloids (and especially the sub-tabloid magazines) follow don't care so long as they're in the news.

Re:Humbug!

[JThundley]

Penn calls them "Baby twisting motherfuckers" because in the episode of Bullshit, a chiropractor performs his service on an infant.

A question for the limeys:

[circletimessquare]

how is it your famously pugilistic press can survive in this walking-on-eggshells libel law environment?

the british press seems especially mean and nasty, but you would think they'd all be cupcakes with the legal environment they work in

Re:A question for the limeys:

[Anonymous Cowpat]

for the newspapers it's called 'filling the pages with guff about reality TV', for The Eye, it's 'having good lawyers yourself'.

Also, most of us aren't sailors.

Re:A question for the limeys:

[artg]

1. The libel stuff is fairly new - probably only the last 5 years or so. We always used to consider the USA the place for that, but it seems to have moved here recently. 2. The establishment understands the Streisand effect and ignores the popular press. But now the lawyers rather than the clients are creating the market. They don't care whether they actually suppress the 'libel, they just want to get paid. So they lead stupid people to try. Doubtless they'll get over it eventually.

Re:A question for the limeys:

[jedidiah]

Perhaps there is a bit of Darwinism here.

The journalists that survive end up becoming accustomed to getting their ducks in a row before going after someone. So by being forced to do their homework properly, they are more confident about their claims and more willing to press them.

It sounds like Singh didn't do that. It sounds like he was just talking trash and got called out for it.

Re:A question for the limeys:

[VJ42]

1. The libel stuff is fairly new - probably only the last 5 years or so. We always used to consider the USA the place for that, but it seems to have moved here recently.

A lot of it come from one single judge as well: Mr Justice Eady.

Re:A question for the limeys:

[Spad]

The press are very careful to refer to "alleged" actions and "reported" events and make it clear that they are only expressing an opinion and not stating "fact", which will get you around most of the libel laws in the UK.

Re:A question for the limeys:

[namgge]

The press are very careful to refer to "alleged" actions and "reported" events and make it clear that they are only expressing an opinion and not stating "fact", which will get you around most of the libel laws in the UK.

It is a myth that qualifying statements with "alleged", etc. will protect you from libel actions. Indeed, the fact that you did so can be used to argue that you doubted the truth of your statement but went ahead and made it anyway knowing it could be damaging and/or untrue. Even true statements, if they are made with the intention of causing damage to another's reputation can be libelous...

Namgge

Re:A question for the limeys:

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Just read Simon's work and you'll find it well-researched and rock solid. The reason he has to face trial is not because he was careless, but a) because the law is incredibly strict, so strict that it causes people to apply self censorship, so strict that it makes the UK the #1 libel tourism resort and b) because he had the ill fortune of having to face Eady, a judge who is known to read the laws in the strictest possible manner and who interprets the things people say in the most slanderous manner possible and then stretches the truth a little bit further just to be sure. According to some, Eady is "clearly diagnosable".

Re:A question for the limeys:

[jedidiah]

I read Simon's work and it looks like tripe pandering to the bias of his audience. I also
reviewed not just his work but the BCA response and it doesn't make him look terribly good.
Now I am the sort that's prone to the sort of bias that Singh was trying to pander too but
I also am prone to acknowledge the precision of thinking that someone writing in math or
physics should be accustomed to.

He clearly got bit by a strict interpretation of the letter of the law by someone willing
to challenge what he put in print. It seems he wasn't up to the challenge and if anything
he is taking advantage (more pandering) of people's sympathies about censorship.

The thing about Darwinism is that you only get one mistake.

Re:A question for the limeys:

[makomk]

On the other hand, there is a reason that newspapers do it - so long as the "alleged" statements come from court proceedings, sticking "alleged" on the front gives them very robust protection against libel lawsuits. (IANAL, so take this with a pinch of salt.)

Incestuous snakes on an incestuous plane

[tepples]

referring to them as assholes or motherfuckers ostensibly expresses an opinion rather than a statement of fact and is legally safer for them.

Liar: "It is my opinion that you have lied." Motherfucker: "It is my opinion that you have committed incest." What key difference am I failing to see?

Re:Incestuous snakes on an incestuous plane

[Anonymous Cowpat]

the fact that on first glance, the former means what you expanded it to, whereas the latter is more commonly used as a generic insult.

Re:Incestuous snakes on an incestuous plane

[Locke2005]

In the US, it is not defamation if a reasonable person wouldn't find it believable. Therefore, saying "Dennis Rodman and Lady Gaga are aliens from outer space!" is not defamation, but saying "Dennis Rodman and Lady Gaga have committed incest!" is defamation. Anybody who accuses you of defamation is really insulting themselves by declaring that those outlandish claims you made which rightfully should be considered satire or hyberbole are actually close enough to the truth so as to be believable by the average person!

Re:Incestuous snakes on an incestuous plane

[tepples]

Therefore, saying "Dennis Rodman and Lady Gaga are aliens from outer space!" is not defamation

Chop off the "from outer space" and you might defame them to people who are prejudiced against immigrants. My point is that just about every English word has a meaning that defames and one that does not.

Re:Incestuous snakes on an incestuous plane

[Sloppy]

Liar: "It is my opinion that you have lied." Motherfucker: "It is my opinion that you have committed incest." What key difference am I failing to see?

Liar only has one meaning. Motherfucker has many, with incest being just one of them (and in fact, usually it doesn't mean that). It's generic and vague, just the sort of thing to call some litigious motherfucking asshole.

Re:Incestuous snakes on an incestuous plane

[Cederic]

Indeed.

"You motherfucker!"
"Yeah, but it was your mother. She was a lousy lay though"

Re:Incestuous snakes on an incestuous plane

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

What key difference am I failing to see?

Well, I don't know about you, but when I hear one person call another person a "motherfucker", I don't usually think that one person is accusing another of incest. Whereas, if I hear one person call another person a liar, I usually think they mean it literally, not just as generic insult for someone who pisses you off.

Re:Incestuous snakes on an incestuous plane

[AK Marc]

Liar only has one meaning.

There are two definitions. Someone that tells an untruth, and someone that tells the truth with the intent to deceive. A liar could never tell an untruth, but still be a liar. That's why it's easy for someone to call Rush Limbaugh or such a liar. Even if the facts are correct, the assembly present an impression that designed to deceive.

Re:Incestuous snakes on an incestuous plane

[Hurricane78]

“I guess that would make us even.” ;)

Re:Incestuous snakes on an incestuous plane

[Virtual_Raider]

Liar only has one meaning.

There are two definitions. Someone that tells an untruth, and someone that tells the truth with the intent to deceive.

Say wha?.. er, [citation needed].

I'll provide mine, from the webster's

Main Entry: liar Pronunciation: \l(-)r\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old English logere, from logan to lie — more at lie Date: before 12th century : a person who tells lies

Main Entry: deceive Pronunciation: \di-sv\ Function: verb Inflected Form(s): deceived; deceiving Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French deceivre, from Latin decipere, from de- + capere to take — more at heave Date: 13th century transitive verb 1 archaic : ensnare 2 a obsolete : to be false to b archaic : to fail to fulfill 3 obsolete : cheat 4 : to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid 5 archaic : to while away intransitive verb : to practice deceit; also : to give a false impression — deceiver noun — deceivingly \-s-vi-l\ adverb synonyms deceive, mislead, delude, beguile mean to lead astray or frustrate usually by underhandedness. deceive implies imposing a false idea or belief that causes ignorance, bewilderment, or helplessness . mislead implies a leading astray that may or may not be intentional . delude implies deceiving so thoroughly as to obscure the truth . beguile stresses the use of charm and persuasion in deceiving

So, a deceiver could be called a liar, but a liar lies and that's the end of it.

Re:Incestuous snakes on an incestuous plane

[AK Marc]

lie: "To convey a false image or impression"
liar: "a person who lies"

Thus, a person that conveys a false image or impression (regardless of whether the facts used for such are true) is a liar.

Re:Incestuous snakes on an incestuous plane

[Virtual_Raider]

lie: "To convey a false image or impression" liar: "a person who lies" Thus, a person that conveys a false image or impression (regardless of whether the facts used for such are true) is a liar.

I agree 100% with that bit, but its not what you originally said. besides, not relevant to you I guess but I personally abhor the unword 'untruth'. The correct term is lie. Or 'falsehood'; 'inaccurate' even although it looses its sense of wrongdoing... Now I'll just go get a coffee and get out of your hair :D

What a joke..

[Anonymous Coward]

"I crack backs; I cure cancer!"
"I crack backs; I cure deafness!"

Chiropractic is pseudo-0scientific bullshit. Along the lines of Homoeopathy, Acupuncture and "bad humours"

Posted AC cuz I'm in the UK oddly enough.

Re:What a joke..

[benjfowler]

My family used chiropractors for years; the industry is so good as passing itself off as mainstream medicine, that I actually had to see the Simon Singh case to realize that chiropractice is woo-woo alternative medicine.

Re:What a joke..

[grub]

My family used chiropractors for years; the industry is so good as passing itself off as mainstream medicine, that I actually had to see the Simon Singh case to realize that chiropractice is woo-woo alternative medicine.

Just look for peer-reviewed studies that show it does anything. If I recall, James Randi's $1,000,000 prize is open to Chiropractors who can show they can do anything other than help some minor back pain.

Re:What a joke..

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

They are very much helped in this by the fact that some of them are basically just a combination of physical therapist/hardcore masseuse, so(as long as they stick to addressing assorted aches and pains), there isn't anything especially quacky about them.

The ones who think that they can treat ear infections just by twisting your spine, though? Haha not so much. Unfortunately, as the Singh libel case demonstrated, they tend to stick together when somebody questions the quack side of the house.

Re:What a joke..

[Monkeedude1212]

I suppose that depends on what your Chiropractor is claiming to fix.

For example, my girlfriend visits a chiropractor because one of her spinal discs pinches a nerve in her upper back and that causes backpain and headaches.

She says it helps - and I take her word for it that someone cracking the back is helping the issues aligned with her spine.

Re:What a joke..

[jockeys]

it depends on the claims being made. for instance, the chiropractor I go to makes no claims beyond being able to help you if you throw your back out, and I have found these claims to be justified. anecdotal I know, but not every single chiropractor out there is as you describe.

Re:What a joke..

[mcgrew]

Hoemopathy has been scientifically disproven, but not accupuncture. In fact, many mainstream physicians use it these days; it has been tested and found effective. Chiropracy clearly won't do anything for any ailment not related to bones or nerves, such as cholic or cancer, but if you have an aching back it can do wonders. I know several people who had surgeons tell them surgery was their only recourse, only to have a chiropractor fix them good as new. At least one (my dad) was extremely skeptical of chiropracty but gave it a shot anyway, and the results spoke for themselves.

Re:What a joke..

[dgatwood]

Well, so some degree, ear infections can be caused by muscle tension around the eustachian tubes not allowing the ear to drain properly, so to the extent that this is the case, chiropractic medicine can help (as can a good massage therapist without cracking your spine). This is probably not by any stretch of the imagination the majority of ear infections, of course.

I suspect that a lot of the things that many people suspect are quackery do, in fact, actually prove beneficial *in some cases*, depending on the underlying root cause. The problem comes when somebody overgeneralizes and distorts this to say that he/she can, as you put it, cure ear infections by twisting your spine. Occasionally, yes, but usually not.

Re:What a joke..

[History's Coming To]

Fair enough. I'm in the UK too. However, I would like to say the following: homoeopathy is fraud. I work in the science section of a large bookshop in Edinburgh, I should be easy enough to find and will identify myself if asked.

Bring on the lawyers. I could intentionally produce a fraudulent, counterfeit, fake homoeopathic remedy (ie a small phial of water), but it would be indistinguishable from a "real" one. I would welcome a court's attention to the matter.

Re:What a joke..

[grub]

acupunctute [...] has been tested and found effective.

I think Randi's $1M prize is open to acupuncture. Also doing a quick check of PubMed, I don't see any studies showing benefit. Granted this was a quick search.

Re:What a joke..

[Anonymous Coward]

Just curious,
Does your girlfriend have an actual MRI showing a nerve being compressed ("pinched").
In my case, my "pinched nerve" was not. I actually had muscles that were overly tight,
almost stuck in a tensed state. Once these muscles were eased, the "pinched nerve"
went away.

I ditched the chiro after a few visits, it just seems that it is half bullshit, also noted
that he was very pleased with my insurance coverage, and wanted me to come weekly.

Re:What a joke..

[Luthair]

I remembered this article in which a few studies had found that poking people with needles could relieve pain, but there was no difference between traditional locations and random locations.

Re:What a joke..

[Cytotoxic]

All true - and also helped by the fact that chronic pain is one area where the placebo effect is particularly powerful. Powerful enough to be effective in over 50% of cases. That will get you a lot of testimonials.

Re:What a joke..

[Cytotoxic]

acupunctute [...] has been tested and found effective. I think Randi's $1M prize is open to acupuncture. Also doing a quick check of PubMed, I don't see any studies showing benefit. Granted this was a quick search.

Benefit relative to placebo. Placebos are very effective in treating pain. So both statements could in fact be true.

Re:What a joke..

[Monkeedude1212]

I've actually often wondered that myself, since it apparently helps with her headaches when I give her massages (though that could just be her using my kindness to get massages) and I am by no means a licensed Chiropracticioner. Though my massages only aid during the length of the massage, and a headache can return quite quickly, whereas she says the Chiropractor makes it disappear for days.

However - its apparently free while you are a student at the University. So I don't press on it too much. Come Graduation time - if she starts spending money on that kind of stuff, I'll tell her to get it checked properly.

Re:What a joke..

[Spad]

On the subject: http://www.badscience.net/2010/02/the-bbc-have-found-someone-whose-cancer-was-cured-by-homeopathy/

Re:What a joke..

[c6gunner]

Hoemopathy has been scientifically disproven, but not accupuncture. In fact, many mainstream physicians use it these days; it has been tested and found effective.

They also found that a chimpanzee in a white coat poking you with toothpicks was every bit as effective as a trained doctor using needles on meridian points and all that nonsense.

Acupuncture works as a placebo. It's been well documented that the more invasive a placebo is, the more "effective" it is. Me hitting you in the head with a rubber mallet is more likely to "cure" your headache than if you just took a sugar pill, but neither one actually has any real effect.

I know several people who had surgeons tell them surgery was their only recourse, only to have a chiropractor fix them good as new.

I know several people who swear that some plastic gizmo in their air-intake doubles their gas mileage. If you're going to base your understanding of reality on the testimony of idiots, you're going to make a lot of frauds and scam-artists very happy.

Re:What a joke..

[sjames]

At the same time, there was another that showed needles applied to the foot in an area supposedly related to the eyes caused activation of parts of the visual cortex visible in an fMRI. But only when a skilled accupuncturist did it. Medical personel sticking needles into the same general area didn't trigger the brain activity.

Re:What a joke..

[Falconhell]

I know it is anecdotal evidence but personally I am convinced of the value of Chiro in some circumstances.

I suffer from FSH muscular dystrophy, and get extreme headaches due to it. The ONLY thing that reduces the frequency of these headaches is a regular visit to the chiro.

  I literally can feel an improvement immediately after a visit. That said there are some chiro's who I have tried who got no useful result, leading me to believe that this is not a placebo type effect.

Re:What a joke..

[Anonymous Coward]

I think once again it depends on what the practitioners are claiming. It's fairly obviously the case that acupuncture can have some effects. The notion that acting on the nerves in one part of the body can affect nerves in another I know to be true from experience since there are some parts on my body where if I scratch I can feel it in other parts. Whether that's a universal thing or just a quirk belonging specifically to me I don't know. Anyway, if an acupuncturist claims to be able to relieve pain, I can buy it. If they claim to be able to stimulate the immune system.... maybe. If they claim to be able to cure cancer or AIDS, then I think that they're going to need some extraordinary proof to back their claims.

Re:What a joke..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but Singh didn't get done for calling homoeopathy a fraud, but because he accused the BCA of pushing bogus cures. Bogus is the loaded word here, when you see news reports of bogus doctors being uncovered or bogus policemen fleecing some granny or motorist of a handful of cash do you think, "gosh these people probably don't realise that they aren't real policemen and doctors, an innocent mistake," or do you think they're deceitful scum?

For all this talk of Britain's "broken" libel laws, the truth is that they are the way they are to protect the innocent. The BCA can't just claim libel and throw the onus on Singh to get himself acquitted, they have to prove the remarks were made by Singh and constitute defamation. Having shown in court that the damage has been done, they are not then automatically considered guilty of Singh's allegations until they can prove otherwise, it is Singh who made the allegation, so it is Singh who has to back it up. This isn't just good law, it's good journalism and it's good fucking logic; you don't get to make bare assertions and walk away leaving the other guy to pick up the pieces, you back up your claims same as everyone else.

If the situation were reversed, if the BCA had dismissed Singh's article as "tripe from a wannabe intellectual with a bogus degree" and Singh had sued, would you be here criticising Singh for using the courts to silence his critics? Singh made a poor choice of words and the BCA leapt on it, but frankly as a journalist he should have known better, as should the Guardian.

The BCA are a bunch of tossers and homoeopathy is a waste of good water and I hope Singh wins his appeal. But the law is doing its job in stopping people from making groundless accusations with impunity.

Re:What a joke..

[rahvin112]

I think your above post admits that the placebo affect is a real documented effect. That the placebo effect can in fact remove pain completely. If such is true, is allowing scam artists to invoke the placebo effect in people and directly improve their lives a bad thing?

You might hate them and think their all scam artists but the reality is they dramatically improve some peoples lives, even if it's just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo that's the result of the placebo effect I can't condemn them. They are making some peoples lives better. And for that reason alone there is very good reason to allow them to keep practicing as long as they can help some people. I've met people that were on daily narcotic therapy for pain that were able to completely stop use after seeing a chiropractic practicer. And that right there justifies their continued existence even if it was entirely placebo.

Re:What a joke..

[jamesswift]

Maybe it's making things worse

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2008/06/13/chiro-lawsuit.html

"A woman who says she became paralyzed after having her upper spine manipulated is suing the Alberta College and Association of Chiropractors and the provincial government for half a billion dollars."

Re:What a joke..

[Anonymous Coward]

Your example is one where chiropractors make sense - have a back pain, go see a back doctor. The problem is that many practitioners then extend that to totally unrelated body systems.

In the classic /. car analogy, your girlfriend's case is like getting new tires because your car has poor traction. Many chiros will, however, claim that changing the tires will make the headlights brighter.

Re:What a joke..

[Chad Birch]

The problem is that people believe it's real medicine, and so they think it'll actually work. And when it doesn't, they don't necessarily go look for the stuff that actually will: Homeopathy Kills a Child

Re:What a joke..

[madprof]

Er no you're misunderstanding. Singh is entirely happy to back his claims up. That's why he made them. He is going through this hell because Justice Eady decided that Singh had said that the BCA were knowingly dishonest. That is not at all clear from what he wrote and you have performed some not-so-clever misdirection in your argument by comparing the word "bogus" as applied to chriopractic treatments and as applied to people who are deemed "bogus" *in themselves*. Anyone would think you're a) a chiropractor or b) Justice Eady. Or a bit dim.

It is entirely fair to say your argument is bogus. That isn't to say you deliberately misprepresented British libel law and intended to confuse things. Maybe you're just thick. But do you see the difference? Your argument is rubbish but you might just be innocently peddling it anyway.

Re:What a joke..

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

The placebo effect isn't that powerful.

The placebo effect works for low grade pain, but anything that Tylenol can't handle, the placebo effect won't.

Re:What a joke..

[Z34107]

I believe the alternative-medicine stuff is BS, but I believe spinal adjustment can be helpful. I had pinched nerves in my shoulders and wrists. Tingling in my fingers eventually turned into a complete numbness of my hands - it was hard to move my fingers unless I was looking at them so I knew where they were.

After spine snapping, my posture is better, the tingling has been gone for over a year, and X-rays show that my spine no longer looks like a hang-man's gallows.

I think whatever other remedies get peddled about "toxins" are greedy snake-oil value-adds/upsells.

Re:What a joke..

[sjames]

Actual colic is unlikely to be cured by chiropracty but I could see it helping with some general digestive problems that might be colloquially called colic.

On the other side of the coin, a number of back pain treatments used by "conventional medicine" are poorly supported by evidence.

But agreed, chiropracty as a cure for cancer is unlikely.

Re:What a joke..

[16K Ram Pack]

I'm generally skeptic about alternative medicine, but here's a really strange thing to consider: acupuncture, chiropractic medicine and bowen technique, developed in 3 different parts of the world have very similar "points".

Small double-blind trials (30 and 85 patients) have been done on patients using acupuncture for rhinitis and in both cases, patients who had acupuncture did better than the control group.

I'm not making any particular assertions, but it seems like there might be something in it (unlike homeopathy and crystal healing which have never proven anything other than placebo benefits). Oh, and detox is utter crap as well.

Re:What a joke..

[Doomdark]

I know several people who had surgeons tell them surgery was their only recourse, only to have a chiropractor fix them good as new.

I am not going to claim this could not be true, or purely placebo effect. But studies of similar things like intentionally bogus knee surgeries have shown that there can be medium-term placebo-like effect from many physical operations. Knee surgery in question was explained in "Predictably Irrational" (great book): and end result proved that certain surgery that had high success rate could be replaced by simple bogus operation (in which patient was led to believe something was done, with anesthesia, fake wound etc), with similarly good success rate for reducing pain. Downside for both was that it only lasted for about 6 months.

One interesting thing was that this research was vehemently attacked by many credible (and sincere) medical professionals, who had done the surgery (with understanding that it would actually solve the problem). Even when presented with evidence. And these are individuals who should have as good a scientific view and understanding than anyone else -- if they would be capable of such denial, it's no wonder "lay-men" are prone to doing so too.

But perhaps the most interesting question here is this: by exposing that operation is useless can negate its effects. So: is it better to think that what is being done is effective, and get at least temporary (6 months is a LONG time to enjoy, for someone suffering from chronic pain) relief; or not to get even that relief?

Re:What a joke..

[dgatwood]

Errr... to some degree.

Re:What a joke..

[Max Littlemore]

All true - and also helped by the fact that chronic pain is one area where the placebo effect is particularly powerful.

Sooooo, let's see... Chronic back pain and headaches...

So chiropractic work manipulates the spine to, among other things, reduce pinching on nerves. So what do you suggest for chronic back pain then? Do you think it more sciency to, for example, prescribe anti-inflamatories that cause liver damage but reduce swelling of areas damaged by pinching along the spine allowing temporary improvement and hoping the spine corrects itself? You can always get a repeat....

Hmmmm. Or do we perhaps MOVE THE FUCKING SPINE BACK THE WAY IT SHOULD BE? But no, that's just a placebo. Like how if my car's stearing is out of alignment, getting a wheel alignment is a placebo. No, go with the drugs because then you can go back and get some other drug to deal with the liver problems and feel safe knowing you are in the hands of a good doctor.

Seriously, claiming a cure for cancer is pretty dangerous and stupid, but claiming that modern our pharmacy and butcher based medicine is the only way of dealing with ahealth problems is just as dangerous and stupid. Chiropractic treatment is effective for a few things where doctors are far worse than useless and a good doctor knows this.

Re:What a joke..

[u38cg]

Don't hold your breath, nobody cares about suing slashdotters. Gordon Brown eats babies and homoeopaths are liars, but they never sue me :(

Re:What a joke..

[c6gunner]

I think your above post admits that the placebo affect is a real documented effect.

Of course.

That the placebo effect can in fact remove pain completely.

No, the placebo effect doesn't remove anything. The placebo effect is just an observation about the ability of the human body to affect itself.

As for the "remove pain completely" bit, that's also completely wrong. I'm fairly certain that if you were to give burn victims a placebo instead of morphine, they'd notice a pretty big difference.

If such is true, is allowing scam artists to invoke the placebo effect in people and directly improve their lives a bad thing?

Yes. You may as well ask me why it's wrong to sell cocaine to addicts when it clearly makes them feel so good.

Re:What a joke..

[Anonymous Coward]

That's seems a pretty bold statement. With respect, do you have a source on that?

Re:What a joke..

[BlueParrot]

I suspect that a lot of the things that many people suspect are quackery do, in fact, actually prove beneficial *in some cases*, depending on the underlying root cause.

That's a bit like saying homeopathy works *in some cases* because a sufficiently dilute saline solution can cure dehydration. The catch is that it has nothing to do with the underlying claims of the "treatment". It just so happens that water is the proper remedy for dehydration, but it would work just as well if you just drink ordinary tap water as if you start out with a bunch of salt and dilute it until the solution contains little enough salt to be drinkable.

Re:What a joke..

[magpie]

Your safe as anyone else, your in Scotland, we have a different legal system (if you hadn't noticed) . We don't have libel or slander just defamation. Then again it appears you can sue anyone from London if it is possible anyone 'might' have heard what you wrote/said south of the border.

Re:What a joke..

[shilly]

I don't know how you can be so definitive about acupuncture being nothing more than an invasive placebo -- it doesn't tally with the literature. Have a look at the excellent reviews on the fabulous Cochrane website. http://www.cochrane.org/

See the review of trials looking at the P6 point and post-operative nausea, for example.

It's currently in the category of "seems to work for certain things, but we don't really know why".

Quite different from chiropractic, which has bugger all evidence of efficacy.

Re:What a joke..

[dgatwood]

A significant percentage of ear infections do result in the eustachian tubes being blocked, whether due to muscles or due to swelling. Most people don't even realize they have an ear infection until this occurs, as that's what causes the pressure and throbbing that are characteristic of an ear infection. Without that, it's just a dull ache that most people would typically ignore or blame on a sore muscle. Therefore, any treatment that results in massaging the right parts of your neck will almost invariably relieve symptoms of an ear infection if the infection is severe enough. And to some extent, relieving the pressure will allow the ear to be flushed out (that's why the fluid is there), which may eventually result in the infection going away on its own (or it may not).

It's not at all the same as claiming homeopathy works because a handful of people are really dehydrated. Chiropractors don't claim that massage helps when it's really the extra heat from their fingertips that helps.... Proper massage will frequently help with an ear infection. It will not always cure it nor will the benefits always be long-lasting. The end result depends on a lot of variables, of which the closed-up eustachian tubes are only one. It's more like your doctor telling you to drink lots of fluids and get lots of rest. It won't cure the cold, but it will help to reduce its duration and reduce the risk of complications such as sinus infections.

Re:What a joke..

[Hurricane78]

Yes, because if a spinal disc is dislocated, or something else is dislocated, moving it bach to the right position actually fixes things! (The headache is in this case just a extension of the back pain.)

Everything for its purpose. And for these things, chiropractics is the the exact right thing. That’s its purpose. And it’s 1000 times better than taking pain medication all day long without fixing the actual problem. (But hey, some people would take pain medication and continue running their head against a wall. :/)

As soon as it gets away from what’s physically possible, it gets dumb. Like pressing this spot on your foot, to “cure your gastric ulcer”.
It’s easy to spot, but hard to put in words. We all know it when we see it. At least if you know the rules of physics, logic and causality.
(By the way, in the above example, the pure illusion [placebo] could let a ulcer go away, if that ulcer was caused by stress because of irrational fears. [= something irrational can be fixed with something irrational]. Doesn’t mean it has a real effect, though. ;)

Chiroprators

[Locke2005]

There are a few conditions a Chiropractic practitioner is good for, e.g. pinched nerves. However, their contention that manipulating the spine can fix virtually any condition is, er, properly described as "bogus".

Re:Chiroprators

[benjfowler]

I've tried both chiropractice and physiotherapy, and they seem like much of a muchness, although I suppose I have a little more confidence in conventional medicine -- I doubt that the certification process for chiropractors is as rigourous or lengthy as physiotherapy. I've recently heard enough horror stories about people being maimed or killed outright by dodgy chiropractice to ever consider returning to a chiropractor.

Re:Chiroprators

[Anonymous Coward]

i think most professional athletes would take issue with Physiotherapy being much of a muchness. As would I. As would pretty much every hospital in my County.

Physiotherapy quite literally got me out of bed and walking without being in agonizing pain within 3 days after spending weeks with Chiropractors. In fact I visit a Physiotherapist a couple of times a year who has helped me no end manage shoulder damage I have had doing sports over the years.

I am not sure what Physiotherapists you have used, but assuming you are from the USA (I am from the UK) I am led to believe that 'Physical Therapists' and Physiotherapists are two different things and that the former (from anecdotal evidence) is not much better than a glorified masseuse.

Re:Chiroprators

[jedidiah]

The human back is a tricky thing to deal with. If you want find horror stories, then you don't need to restrict yourself to chiropractors.

Re:Chiroprators

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt that the certification process for chiropractors is as rigourous or lengthy as physiotherapy.

The process to become a chiropractor is quite lengthy.

After all, you don't want to go see a quack, you want a certified quack with a nice framed piece of paper on their wall.

Re:Chiroprators

[Joe Tie.]

i think most professional athletes would take issue with Physiotherapy being much of a muchnes

Bully for them. Unless they've demonstrated experience with experimental methodology and have researched the subject with peer reviewed medical journals I really don't care. Anecdotal evidence is next to worthless for a good reason.

A large amount of professional athletes will also be happy to explain how their charms and talismans give them magic powers, and that Jesus shoots magic rays down at them to allow them victory.

Re:Chiroprators

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you'll find, with some minimal digging, that Physiotherapists in the UK (as well as places like Australia and New Zealand where they're professionals and regulated) actually have and continue to provide research to back themselves up. It's harder to do this for physiotherapy since, by the nature of the injuries it treats, getting groups of patients with the same injury so a more traditional study can be done is nigh on impossible. However, there are lots of research based Physiotherapists in Universities getting that all important clinical and practice based evidence. Heck, it's even in peer reviewed journals!

Please, please don't mix up people calling themselves 'physical therapists'* who don't know their ass from their elbow and real Physiotherapists.

*Not that I'm calling everyone with the job title 'physical therapist' a fraud. I just know that in the UK, you have to actually be a qualified professional to call yourself a Physiotherapist while anyone can call them self a physical therapist.

Re:Chiroprators

[shilly]

Erm, you are very definitive in your statement, but you are also definitively wrong. The Health Professions Council regulates physiotherapy in the UK and there are two protected titles: physiotherapist and physical therapist. Using either of them when you're not on the register will get you into a whole heap of trouble.

More here:
http://www.hpc-uk.org/aboutregistration/protectedtitles/

Re:Chiroprators

[Anonymous Coward]

I stand corrected. However, there are a whole bunch of folks out there claiming to be more qualified than they are by using similar titles, which was the point I was attempting to make there. Sorry about the inaccuracies and thanks for the extra info!

Re:Chiroprators

[shilly]

Actually, that's potentially illegal too ("passing off"). If you see someone do it, call the police or call the HPC and ask them to do it!

Two And A Half Men

[Citizen of Earth]

Is "Two And A Half Men" broadcast in the UK? One of the main characters is a chiropractor and most of the other characters say libelous things about his profession. Where are the lawsuits over this?

Re:Two And A Half Men

[riddic]

Is "Two And A Half Men" broadcast in the UK? One of the main characters is a chiropractor and most of the other characters say libelous things about his profession. Where are the lawsuits over this?

It is broadcast in the U.K., very regularly (it is on syndication on Paramount Comedy or some channel). No, it is not an issue. The reason you've had to ask this question is because you've been subjected to kdawson's ridiculous idiocy where he compares freedom of speech in the U.K. to China.

Re:Two And A Half Men

[mcgrew]

I don't know about the UK, but I suspect that there as well as here comedy is not considered libelous, or the guys from Monty Python would have had the shit sued out of them. For instance, the "mad doctor" sketch - "Now they want to socialize medicine!"

Or the brain surgeon sketch.

"My brain hurts!"

"Well, it will have to come out then."
Followed later in the sketch with the surgeon saying "my brain hurts, too."

And what about the archetect and the Masons? If comedy were considered libel in Britain, those giuys would have been in deep poodoo.

Re:Two And A Half Men

[Anonymous Coward]

Truly. It would be as if someone was expecting the Spanish Inquisition.

(...in three, two, one...)

Re:Two And A Half Men

[H0p313ss]

Truly. It would be as if someone was expecting the Spanish Inquisition.

(...in three, two, one...)

*SIGH* ... fine...

*Ahem* NOBODY EXPECTS...

Hold on, I'll come in again.

What the Judge Said...

[16K Ram Pack]

Everyone knows what bogus treatments are. They are not merely treatments which have proved less effective than they were at first thought to be, or which have been shown by the subsequent acquisition of more detailed scientific knowledge to be ineffective. Bogus treatments equate to quack remedies; that is to say they are dishonestly presented to a trusting and, in some respects perhaps, vulnerable public as having proven efficacy in the treatment of certain conditions or illnesses, when it is known that there is nothing to support such claims.

Please, get this story right, people. It's not about whether these remedies work or not. It's the implication that they offer them, knowing full well that they don't work.
Here's the OED definition of bogus:

pretending to be real or genuine

Re:What the Judge Said...

[fahrbot-bot]

Please, get this story right, people.

Welcome to /. :-)

Re:What the Judge Said...

[jabuzz]

If the British Chiropractic Association claim the use of chiropractic works for certain children’s ailments such as asthma, colic, and frequent ear infections, but refuse to provide any evidence that they do then one can only presume that they knew full well that that they don't work and are hence bogus.

However this is immaterial to the case. In England and Wales (could be different in Scotland as we have a different legal system) the mere fact that Simon Singh's claim whether right or wrong was made and has damaged the claimant aka liabled him to the general public is all that is required in theory for the BCA to win. Truth is no defence against liable in England and Wales.

Re:What the Judge Said...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, truth is the only defense against libel. If it can be shown that what was written s true and your statement can be verified then this is a defense. If you can't verify as true what you said then you can be sued for libel, even if it cannot be proved that what you said was false. Of course one can say 'in my opinion ....' and as such this is safe.

Note that libel only applies to published written statements, not things that are said (that would be slander and covered differently in law). So this doesn't infringe on your right to say anything you like, just don't write it down and publish it!

Re:What the Judge Said...

[Spad]

Truth *can* be a defence, but it's not always a sufficient defence on its own.

Re:What the Judge Said...

[whoever57]

please, please rtfa. the key issue here is the meaning of 'bogus' and if it meant that the bca members knew that chiropractic does not work.

it's the bca's knowledge and the meaning of bogus that the court will decide. the truth of the singh's claim is key, but the court has to decide what singh was claiming -- and to decide what singh was claiming, the court must decide what 'bogus' meant in this context.

so truth is a defense -- but it's a different truth to your simplistic view.

Re:What the Judge Said...

[Jonti]

You've got that arse-backwards, I'm afraid.

Under English Law, one may say untrue things about someone and not be liable (sic) for libel (sic). This would be true if you said Ian Huntley (a convicted child killer) is into beastiality, for example. He has such a lousy reputation anyway, it's impossible to further tarnish it, however outrageous a lie about him one tells.

But truth is an absolute defense against the charge of libel and slander in England, as it is (I imagine) everywhere. It's what it means; to libel (sic) is to tell a damaging untruth.

Re:What the Judge Said...

[Spad]

Sorry, thinking of the US. Ignore me.

Re:What the Judge Said...

[benedictaddis]

Quite right. But what is interesting about UK libel laws is that whilst truthfulness is indeed a valid defence, the prosecution does not have to show untruthfulness to bring an action. So in order to sue for libel, you don't have to prove that the statement was untrue - indeed truth doesn't come into it. Instead, we have a wonderfully stuffy bit of English law that says that a libellous statement is one that 'lowers the reputation of the victim in the minds of right-thinking members of society generally.'

Re:What the Judge Said...

[Anonymous Coward]

> But truth is an absolute defense against the charge of libel and slander in England

Only if you can demonstrate the truth yourself. You can't normally perform discovery against the plaintiff (require them to provide documents which may assist in your case), as you're supposed to have sufficient evidence before making the claim in the first place.

Also, if you make a claim which you cannot substantiate and are found to have libelled someone, you can't get the ruling overturned if new evidence subsequently comes to light indicating that you happened to be right. It's not enough to be right by coincidence; you're supposed to know that you're right before you make the allegation.

Re:What the Judge Said...

[16K Ram Pack]

No, you're not correct in what you say. The actual libel act (1843) says:-

On the trial of any indictment or information for a defamatory libel, the defendant having pleaded such plea as hereinafter mentioned, the truth of the matters charged may be inquired into, but shall not amount to a defence, unless it was for the public benefit that the said matters charged should be published

So, as long as the statement is in the public interest and is accurate then that is sufficient defence.

Re:What the Judge Said...

[16K Ram Pack]

No, it's not about them providing evidence that their solutions work. It's entirely possible for someone to honestly believe that something works and to naively supply it because of gut instinct that it does.

The matter is the word "bogus". I've checked the OED on "bogus", and it's quite clear.

Incidentally, the BCA didn't just dump this on Singh. They were happy to reach an amicable settlement, which probably would have involved the retraction or explanation of "bogus", which he was not prepared to do. Instead, he wanted to debate the science, which was not the point. It was about character.

You should check what libel law says in the UK regarding truth. There is a defence of "justification", that the matter is in the public interest and that what has been stated can be proven. Google "patricia tierney" who was a woman that The Sun claimed was a prostitute. The case was thrown out after it was revealed that she had admitted this to the police in a statement 2 years earlier.

Re:What the Judge Said...

[u38cg]

Thecase is actually legally more interesting than a simple one of libel...

Re:What the Judge Said...

[Anonymous Coward]

According to Wikipedia, Libel only exists in England and Wales. Scotland treats it as defamation as does the US - guess the US is also below China on freedom of speech .

In fairness I've never met an American who can tell the difference between the UK and England. I guess we should refer to the entire US as...I dunno, Florida?

Re:What the Judge Said...

[goose-incarnated]

If the British Chiropractic Association claim the use of chiropractic works for certain children’s ailments such as asthma, colic, and frequent ear infections, but refuse to provide any evidence that they do then one can only presume that they knew full well that that they don't work and are hence bogus.

However this is immaterial to the case. In England and Wales (could be different in Scotland as we have a different legal system) the mere fact that Simon Singh's claim whether right or wrong was made and has damaged the claimant aka liabled him to the general public is all that is required in theory for the BCA to win. Truth is no defence against liable in England and Wales.

AIUI, we copied the text of the law from England as far as libel goes, and truth is a defence if it's in the public interest. This certainly qualifies as that.

Judge not impressed

[rugatero]

"Simon Singh, author, television presenter and known critic of pseudoscience, is in court today...

Well, given that it is now approaching 9PM in the UK, it is more correct to say Simon Singh was in court today. And so far things look promising – Lord Judge is less than impressed by BCA's case. See http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/02/simon-singh-chiropractic-bca-libel-appeal

Re:Judge not impressed

[Spad]

He went on to criticise the BCA’s reluctance to publish evidence to back up claims that chiropractic treatments could treat childhood asthma and other ailments.

“I’m just baffled. If there is reliable evidence, why hasn’t someone published it?”

Why not indeed? I can't imagine...

Re:Judge not impressed

[TACD]

Well, given that it is now approaching 9PM in the UK, it is more correct to say Simon Singh was in court today. And so far things look promising – Lord Judge is less than impressed by BCA's case. See http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/02/simon-singh-chiropractic-bca-libel-appeal

You got to posting the important link before me, so let me instead say that even if Simon wins this round there is still a whole lot more work to be done; firstly, this is only the appeal against the previous judge's decision of what was meant by his use of the word 'bogus', and a win here will just make the rest of the case easier to fight. Secondly, Britain still lacks a proper 'public interest' defense in these sorts of cases, and that is why it is important to support full and considered libel reform so that this ridiculous charade does not have to be repeated, at enormous expense, for every individual who would reasonably criticise his peers.

Re:Judge not impressed

[Eil]

It's probably hard to be impressed by anything at all when your formal title and name works out to be Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge.

Re:Judge not impressed

[wiredlogic]

Good Lord! Lordy me.

[citation needed]

[xerent_sweden]

Is it your opinion or experiences you're stating? Otherwise, can you supply those claims with evidence or references?

Re:[citation needed]

[Locke2005]

Anecdotal evidence from myself and my father, so yes, in my own opinion.

Re:[citation needed]

[Lunix Nutcase]

You mean other than the dearth of peer-reviewed medical studies to back up the claims? You seem to have the burden of proof backwards. Until they can provide some double-blind studies that prove the efficacy of the treatment, there is no reason to accept any of it as fact.

Re:[citation needed]

[XxtraLarGe]

Is it your opinion or experiences you're stating? Otherwise, can you supply those claims with evidence or references?

I don't subscribe to all the claims chiropractic makes concerning the benefits of chiropractic care, but it helps with a lot of things. I have had horrible tension headaches or even trouble breathing because of neck or back pain, and those were almost instantly removed after getting an adjustment. For that purpose, it's well worth it.

Re:[citation needed]

[yurtinus]

I agree, I'd need proof that "pinched nerves" is an actual ailment before I buy into these wonky ideas that chiropracty is good for anything.

See a proper ortho doctor and see if (s)he prescribes a chiropractor. Some do, but for specific ailments and as part of a specific treatment. Friends don't let friends mess with each others spines.

Re:Chiropratic is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

In cadaver studies the whole pinched nerve thing was shown to be bogus. The amount a spine would have to be manipulated would cripple the subject.

They now resort to "subluxations" which, again, have been shown to be bogus. In experiments with n subjects, some with and some without diagnosed "subluxations" were examined by n chiropractors.

EVERY subject was diagnosed with a "subluxation" and rarely in the same spot.

Bullshit all around.

LOCK HIM UP IN SINGH-SINGH!

[Philip K Dickhead]

And see if he can write his own "Ballad of Reading Gaol"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ballad_of_Reading_Gaol

If he's liable for libel or not, the law is an unpredictable stone for throwing. Ask Ruskin or Wilde.

Chiropractic = Quackery

[Low Ranked Craig]

Chiropractic feels good and can be used to temporarily release muscle tension, but you're never going to make me believe that an adjustment on a chiropractor's table lasts beyond using your muscles to get up off the table and walk out of the office. You're better off with deep tissue massage which actually has lasting effects, but DT Massage is often uncomfortable or downright painful, unlike chiropractic. So called "Network Chiropractic" is complete bullshit. The idea that a chiropractor can tap or push on my spine to fix my liver or kidneys is utterly fucking stupid. These guys need to be lumped in with homeopathic "doctors", right behind "spiritual healers", performers of Reiki and Scientology's "touch assist".

Holy fuck there are a lot of gullible people on the planet.

Re:Chiropractic = Quackery

[Max Littlemore]

So called "Network Chiropractic" is complete bullshit. The idea that a chiropractor can tap or push on my spine to fix my liver or kidneys is utterly fucking stupid.

Actually, network chiro is very effective for long term results. The prinicipal is that the pushing (in some cases feather light touch) causes your spine to move itself which allows your body to perform adjustments in a gentle way that doesn't involve the crunching you'd usually get with traditional chiro. The way it causes movement is similar to being tickled - areas at the base of the skull and sacrum are most often stimulated to cause unconcious movement.

Now just as some people aren't ticklish while others are, people react to this touch in different ways, and everyone has their own unique response. This means that there is an element of training, both the practitioner training the individual to breathe effectively and respond to the touch, and the patient training the practitioner to understand their particular body. This training can take a long time. A very long time. It gets expensive. Very expensive.

I am being completely serious - it works and works very well. The results are very long lasting because of the strong repetitious training aspect, but over a lifetime I think deep tissue or shiatsu are perhaps better options for dealing with similar complaints if you really want someone to do it to you. If you want the training/self help aspect, yoga or tai chi are cheaper and longer lasting.

At the risk of being called a troll...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to agree with the court. The court's ruling is based on the finding that Singh implied that chiropractors were deliberately misleading people. Singh denies this, but I can't really believe his claim. He totally meant it in the manner the court took it. So it's down to libel law, which is pretty simple here. Singh made a damning accusation, which is believable to reasonable people (probably because it's so likely true). The BCA replied with a libel suit. The burden of proof lies on Singh, because even though the BCA brought the suit, it was Singh who made the original accusation. Singh cannot provide proof - in fact his original statement was based on the fact that there is no scientific proof that chiropractors provide health benefits. There's also no proof that they don't (there's evidence, but not proof). While this is a good reason to argue that libel law needs to be reexamined; as the law stands now, I cannot see Singh winning this case.

Re:At the risk of being called a troll...

[Spad]

While it's true that the burden of proof lies with Singh, part of his claim was that there isn't "a jot" of evidence to support the BCA's position and the BCA's insistence that there's loads of evidence that chiropractic "medicine" cures all, while failing to produce any of it in court doesn't appear to have sat well with Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, who is overseeing the case.

Re:At the risk of being called a troll...

[u38cg]

And that's the point. Singh has to prove facts that go well beyond his knowledge, despite overwhelming common-sense evidence on his side. No sort of justice is being served by a legal system in which one cannot call a spade a spade roundly.

bob

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't Uk libel law it's English and welsh libel law Scotland and Northern Ireland have a different legal system.

Re:bob

[u38cg]

Aye, but ye should ken fin it's libel law it's aye much the same. Tak tent o the main difference, though: wir courts dinnae allas gie costs and dinnae award high damages, sae naebody yaises them.

"outdated"

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate seeing things like "reform Britain's outdated libel laws". It makes it sound as if those laws were OK back then, which they weren't.

umm

[nomadic]

(that even America is making moves to protect its citizens against)

Why the "even"?

Re:umm

[TACD]

(that even America is making moves to protect its citizens against) Why the "even"?

Because America and Britain are supposedly so very close and buddy-buddy, it's more shocking to hear that America is this repelled by British libel law. If it was some middle-eastern country that hates us nobody would be surprised, but it's a point of note and shameful fact to politicians over here that our laws are bad enough that you guys can't even ignore them, but have to actively seek ways to protect yourselves from them.

bogus science

[Anonymous Coward]

I have experienced severe back pain in the past. I have never had an instance where "cracking the back" has made any difference whatsoever. They also tried some little clicker device that sent light punches to my back, to no effect. Occasionally, I will feel some relief from the accompanying massage... and I think that is where most people who swear by a chiropractor get their positive experience from.

Note: I'm not talking about physical damage to the back... that requires real doctors (not chiropractor specific). I'm just talking about the muscles, tendons and general tightness above.

By far, the best way to get rid of back pain is through light stretching and exercise of the back. I have a 2 page set of stretches to do on the floor, standing and in a chair. I now no longer ever need to pay a chiropractor for their specialty any more. Instead I follow the stretches on my sheet and just go to a massage therapist when required (which is never now).

I think the real bogus issue is why we are not taught how easy and cheap it is to resolve most back pain.

To be clear though... (in my opinion, hehe)... Chiropractors are not bogus. They work hard for their titles and offer relief to many of their patients. Unlike the homeopathy crowd, who in my opinion are the biggest bogus quacks on the take. At least every one I visited on advice from someone else was completely bogus. Unbelievably, laughing with me when I explain how their scientific explanation was impossible for the devices they used... and how easy it is to prove that. One doctor even advised me to go to a homeopathic quack... I returned to tell him never to assign another patient to this bogus bogus bogus non-science money stealing snake oil seller.

And for that homeo dick... if you're listening: No, I am not allergic to milk/dairy. and Yes, you are a bogus quack.

give british law a chance

[Cederic]

If Singh loses this then that would be a surprise, but it would also be based on the current interpretation and application of the law. He wont be hung out to dry (Eady's bewildering decision notwithstanding).

It's been known in cases like this in the past for the award to the plaintiffs to be nominal - a couple of pennies. I would hope that if he does lose, the judges take exactly that approach.

Frankly the BCA are acting like a bunch of charlatan's trying to abuse the law to silence legitimate protest and I hope they lose and get hit with punitive costs as a result.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge

[meheler]

I don't know what combination of words in there are his actual name but I think it's safe to say that whatever the case, this man was born to be a judge.

Welcome to Britain, Now shut up!

[jameskojiro]

Britain seems like it could do well to adopt the U.S. Bill of rights.

Re:Welcome to Britain, Now shut up!

[sir_eccles]

Is it a waste of my time to point out that the UK has had a Bill of Rights since 1689 thus predating the American version by some 100 years.

Not to mention the more recent European Convention on Human Rights which was written in the 1950s by a Brit.

Re:Welcome to Britain, Now shut up!

[Dunbal]

Is it a waste of my time to point out that the UK has had a Bill of Rights since 1689 thus predating the American version by some 100 years.

      Not to mention the Magna Carta, written into law in 1215... no I think the UK doesn't need to adopt any laws from rebel colonies.

Re:Welcome to Britain, Now shut up!

[Opyros]

In fact, the only reason our first ten Constitutional amendments are nicknamed the "Bill of Rights" is by analogy with the original, English Bill of Rights. (Just as the United States Postal Service is commonly called "the Post Office", or one cent is called a "penny".)

Re:Welcome to Britain, Now shut up!

[Anonymous Coward]

funny that britain chose to opt-out of this part of the lisbon treaty ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon#Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union

Legal Context

[Alistair Hutton]

Just to give you some idea of what is going on. Singh was found guilty of libel by a Judge know as Justic Eady, he is the Eastern Texas District Court of Libel Judges. Ridiculous libel decision after ridiculous libel decision has been made by him, well beyond the bounds of Britain's already incredibly strict laws.

Britain's senior judges have been begging parliament for reform in the libel and defamation laws due to their stupidity. The three judge appeal panel has Britian's two most senior judes on it, they have specifically requested this case for two reason's
1) To smack down Eady and deliver a sternly worded "No" to him while clipping his nose with a rolled up newspaper.
2) A spot of judicial activism because the politicians are dragging their feet something rotten

Re:Legal Context

[u38cg]

No. Justice Eady gets these cases because he has always been a specialist in privacy and libel issues, as long as he has been a professional lawyer (just like East Texas gets patent cases because it has become expert in patent law). And while I disagree on principle with many of his ruling, he is invariably ruling narrowly and intelligently within the framework of existing law - and I say that having read through several of his complete judgements. He would also be one of the first to agree that this is an area where creative legislative intervention would be welcome.

What key difference?

[Kittenman]

Liar: "It is my opinion that you have lied." Motherfucker: "It is my opinion that you have committed incest." What key difference am I failing to see?

The legal one. Easy.

Re:What key difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he was asking you to explain the legal one.

Chiropractic can work

[wytcld]

I haven't seen a chiropractor in years. Not because it doesn't work, but because it does. Seeing how big an effect it made for me, I learned to adjust my own spine. That wasn't easy. I can get it wrong. It's a very specific adjustment required, not just some random act for a presumed placebo effect.

And that makes sense. We're physical beings. The alignment, balance, symmetry of ourselves as physical bodies - of course that makes a difference, sometimes a big one, in our health. The anti-chiropractic camp would ask us to believe, what?, that we're pure spiritual essence, to which the body is so secondary even in regards to the body's own health that only our mental attitude - as adjusted of course by whatever drugs an orthodox physician might decide to prescribe - makes an "objective" difference in healing? But mental attitude is the essence of "subjective," not objective. Objectively, that body is what we are, and various bodywork therapies, including chiropractic, approach the body with the respect it's due.

Re:Chiropractic can work

[suffe]

And that makes sense. We're physical beings. The alignment, balance, symmetry of ourselves as physical bodies - of course that makes a difference, sometimes a big one, in our health. The anti-chiropractic camp would ask us to believe, what?, that we're pure spiritual essence, to which the body is so secondary even in regards to the body's own health that only our mental attitude - as adjusted of course by whatever drugs an orthodox physician might decide to prescribe - makes an "objective" difference in healing?

I don't think anyone is saying that you can't have physical problems with your spine nor that it can't influence several areas of your body (break it and if you had that delusion you will lose it quickly enough).

What is being said (by the people that aren't just parroting "chiropractics doesn't work") is this: The things that they do _do not_ do what they claim they do.

It is a logical fallacy to think that just because something is important (the spine) someone that claims to do good things to it are in fact doing this. The two are not connected. In fact, they are disjoint in two places.

Take these two examples:

1) The practice is wrong but the practitioner think it's right.

2) The practice is wrong and the practitioner think it's wrong.

I'm sure a lot of chiropractors are in the 1st camp and this, just like the homeopathic movement, confuses matters. People try to use trust, judgement of character and the beliefs of the practitioner to judge the truth of a matter when the startingpoint needs to be a completely different one.

I'll mention it again. The core of the distrust: The things that they do _do not_ do what they claim they do. It might help you (and it might help others). It is besides the point, sadly.

That said, I'm glad it helps you (and other posters). I find it hard to tell people to not do something that helps them. Without something else to sugest as an option it is just stupid.

Not Fair!!

[radcliffeth]

This is not fair. Everybody has Britain in a democratic country and everybody should have freedom of speech. http://ezinearticles.com/?Best-Anti-Eye-Wrinkle-Cream---Choose-With-the-Help-of-My-Personal-Experience&id=3789968

What's the problem, exactly..?

[oneandoneis2]

Given that my view has always been that I'd rather live with the British libel laws than the American ones, I was interested by the existence of the website linked in the summary. So I went to look at it. I even downloaded the full report.

Know what? I still can't work out what the problem is. Maybe somebody can explain it to me?

As I understand it, if an American tabloid accuses me of being a baby-strangler, if I want to prosecute for libel, I have to prove that I'm not a baby-strangler - the tabloid is innocent until proven guilty, so I'm guilty until proven innocent. The burden of proof is on me.

Conversely, in England, if a British tabloid accuses me of being a baby-strangler, I just have to prove that they published something, and that it harmed my reputation - so taking in the copy of the paper and showing that it says something bad about me is all I have to do. At this point, the burden of proof is on the tabloid: They have to provide evidence that I'm a baby-strangler.

In other words, if British reporters want to be safe from libel, they can only make claims when they have evidence to back them up. If American reporters want to be safe, they just have to be fairly sure that their claim can't be disproved.

And we all know how easy it is to prove a negative.

Reading through the comments on here so far, I see a lot of nonsense written by people who have no clue what our laws are - most /.ers seem to think that you can win a claim of libel even if you can prove that the 'libellous' statement was true, which is absolutely wrong.

So what exactly is the big problem with libel laws in Britain? Given that the website trying to reform it had no answers for me and there are a huge number of people here who seem very passionate on the subject, maybe one of you can explain it.

Re:What's the problem, exactly..?

[Alistair Hutton]

The problem is that Justice Eady ruled on the use of the word "bogus" in a way that made it totally impossible for Singh to defend himself. This ruling was made despite Singh explaining exactly what he meant by bogus in the paragraph following the sentence in which he used the word.

The ruling meant that it wasn't enough for Singh to show there was no evidence at all that chiropractic treatment helped to cure asthma (for instance), he also had to show that a chiropractor undertook these treatments whilst knowing that they were not effective. This is fundamentally impossible to do. Yet the treatments are still bogus. Bogus, bogus bogus. They are presented as being able to do something that they cannot, that is the very definition of a bogus treatment. Yet Eady fucked Singh up the arse.

Re:What's the problem, exactly..?

[oneandoneis2]

Yeah, but that's not the point: I wasn't asking about this case - that's one judge's interpretation of the law. The fact that some people disagree with one judge's ruling on a case does not mean there's a need for legal reform. It means there's a need for a defendant to be able to appeal potentially-bad decisions, and that's evidently in place and happening right now. So there's no problem there.

I was asking about the problems with the current laws. The laws that prompted the creation of libelreform.org, and America to pass its own laws to protect against. What's the big problem with the law as it stands? Is there more to it than a knee-jerk "It's not the same as America so it's bad and must be changed" or is it all just hot air?

Re:What's the problem, exactly..?

[Alistair Hutton]

This case, however, defines the problems with British libel law.

Justice Eady basically defines libel law, any and all high profile libel cases get ruled on by him. He has been single-handedly defining British case law on libel and defamation for the last 10 years. He has shown a near total disregard for the use of 'fair comment' as a defence. It has had a spectacular chilling effect on reporting, especially due to the use of the super injunction (an injunction banning the reporting of the fact that their is an injunction).

Sure, Eady has reacted against a particularly low point British newspaper reporting (with some spectacularaly crass and downright horrible invasions of privacy by the tabloid press in the 80's and early 90's) but his high handed approach is killing free debate.

Re:What's the problem, exactly..?

[makomk]

Yeah, but that's not the point: I wasn't asking about this case - that's one judge's interpretation of the law. The fact that some people disagree with one judge's ruling on a case does not mean there's a need for legal reform.

Except that this kind of shenanigans are a common consequence of British libel law itself. It's always been the case that under British law you could libel someone based not on what you actually meant, or indeed on how most readers would interpret what you said, but based on how someone could interpret your statement. That's one of the big issues with British libel law that make it in need of reform.

Not just bold, but inaccurate

[alecwood]

I have a lot of interest in the placebo effect, dunno why, it's just one of those things that interests me

A study by a knee surgeon http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2119999.stm reported that common surgery was no better than the placebo procedure. Now while that may prove more that the surgery is often unnecessary, the reported benefits and improvements by many of the recipients of the placebo procedure surely demonstrate some effect

A recent Discovery channel series on this introduced another doctor who stated that simulating the operation with manipulation and audio recordings enhanced the statistics of the placebo group even further, but I can't find the data to cite

But is the UK Bill of Rights now a dead letter?

[jjo]

The question is not whether the right of free speech is protected in theory, but rather if it is protected in practice. If I can be prosecuted for statements of opinion, or true statements of fact, I do not have true freedom of speech.

Re:Chiropratic is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Vertebral Subluxations are bullshit.

Getting the lump

[GerryHattrick]

The wife had a bad shoulder, and a Chiropractor helped a lot each time she visited. Then she found the breast lump herself and after a little neat surgery and some big radiation - no more bad shoulder! We still wonder whether an earlier diagnosis would have been safer, whether it's wisest to try conservative treatment first on something with no other symptoms, or whether the lymphatic surgery just happened to cut a nerve so coincidentally the shoulder's better too. Sadly one cannot be one's own 'control'. Moral - don't ever delay a 'Classic' diagnosis.

chiropractice is medicine

[uiuyhn8i8]

If chiropractice is bogus or not of course depends on what they say they cure. I haven't checked every chiropractor here in sweden but generally they are definitely serious and fix real problems when for example discs in your back are out of alignment and nerves become pinched. They are part of the medical establishment. And as someone from a family with serious back problems I say thank good for swedish chiropractors. It's either bed-ridden with maximum dosage of morphine or going to a chiropractor to fix it.