When the science writer Simon Singh sat down to write an opinion piece on chiropractors two years ago, he could have had little inkling of the nightmare that lay ahead.
Yesterday, after a court of appeal ruling hailed as a "resounding victory" for Singh, he has been spared having to stand up in court and prove that the comments that sparked a libel suit from the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) were factually correct - an experience that the three appeal judges compared to "an Orwellian ministry of truth".
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I was wrong.
I know it doesn't happen that often, but I'm forced to admit it. I was wrong. I predicted that Simon Singh would likely lose his appeal against an astonishing illiberal ruling on his libel case by Sir David Eady. Singh, as you may recall, is the British science writer who wrote a now…
Back in May many of us in the skeptical blogosphere were alarmed to learn of what British law blogger Jack of Kent termed "an astonishingly illiberal ruling" by Sir David Eady against science writer Simon Singh. Eady was the judge presiding over another bit of legal thuggery by practitioners…
...because they blog under the shadow of the United Kingdom's insane libel laws.
Witness this travesty of a ruling on the libel case against Simon Singh by the British Chiropractic Association, as related by Jack of Kent.
I first learned about the UK's exceedingly plaintiff-friendly libel laws when…
A while back, I wrote about the grievous miscarriage of justice that occurred to Simon Singh in the form of a ruling against him in the libel suit brought against him by the British Chiropractic Association. Suffice it to say, that the BCA is using the U.K.'s exceedingly plaintiff-friendly libel…