Bower won.

Eady is not helping our reputation for libel tourism.

Bower won.

Eady is not helping our reputation for libel tourism.

Certainly, my sympathies are with Dr. Singh and I’d hate to see him lose just to be a martyr, but under British law, that may very well be unavoidable.

It seems that for these laws to be modernized it may require his conviction and outcry after the obvious gross miscarriage of what the average person would consider “justice”

As a non-legal professional, I am interpreting this in my own layman’s terms based on following this case as best I can, but consider the following:

The libel case is based on the notion that Dr. Singh libeled the BCA. Libel is defined (in a dictionary, not a court of law) as “a published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation; a written defamation”

Now, that chiropractic cannot treat asthma or various other childhood ailments is not libellous, it’s reality. The evidence simply isn’t there to authoritatively state otherwise.

It’s another thing altogether to state that a chiropractic practionioner knows that his/her treatment for such things are false. If so, you can easily make the inference that they are committing a fraud. (again, dictionary: “wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain”) Claiming someone is committing a fraud is certainly grounds for libel – if isn’t true.

The crux here is that a judge has already determined that Dr. Singh’s intended the word “bogus” to mean “fradulent” and therefore he has made as libellous statement. Under British libel law, Dr. Singh is essentially guilty unless he can prove himself innocent – which is the ass-backwards part.

It would be no difficulty to prove beyond reasonable doubt that chiropractic doesn’t work in those cases. Certainly there isn’t any valid clinical proof that it does work. The BCA has not yet produced anything compelling to show that their treatments are effective, nor are they required to do so in this case, because that’s not what’s on trial here.

What’s on trial is their intent.

Dr. Singh must now prove that they knew their claims were false. Trying to prove what someone else had in mind is very difficult indeed.

It’s just a shame that the judge who decided what Dr. Singh had in mind when he wrote the word “bogus” didn’t have to prove his interpretation to the same level of justification.

Certainly, my sympathies are with Dr. Singh and I’d hate to see him lose just to be a martyr, but under British law, that may very well be unavoidable.

It seems that for these laws to be modernized it may require his conviction and outcry after the obvious gross miscarriage of what the average person would consider “justice”

As a non-legal professional, I am interpreting this in my own layman’s terms based on following this case as best I can, but consider the following:

The libel case is based on the notion that Dr. Singh libeled the BCA. Libel is defined (in a dictionary, not a court of law) as “a published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation; a written defamation”

Now, that chiropractic cannot treat asthma or various other childhood ailments is not libellous, it’s reality. The evidence simply isn’t there to authoritatively state otherwise.

It’s another thing altogether to state that a chiropractic practionioner knows that his/her treatment for such things are false. If so, you can easily make the inference that they are committing a fraud. (again, dictionary: “wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain”) Claiming someone is committing a fraud is certainly grounds for libel – if isn’t true.

The crux here is that a judge has already determined that Dr. Singh’s intended the word “bogus” to mean “fradulent” and therefore he has made as libellous statement. Under British libel law, Dr. Singh is essentially guilty unless he can prove himself innocent – which is the ass-backwards part.

It would be no difficulty to prove beyond reasonable doubt that chiropractic doesn’t work in those cases. Certainly there isn’t any valid clinical proof that it does work. The BCA has not yet produced anything compelling to show that their treatments are effective, nor are they required to do so in this case, because that’s not what’s on trial here.

What’s on trial is their intent.

Dr. Singh must now prove that they knew their claims were false. Trying to prove what someone else had in mind is very difficult indeed.

It’s just a shame that the judge who decided what Dr. Singh had in mind when he wrote the word “bogus” didn’t have to prove his interpretation to the same level of justification.

Cheers

Cheers