INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.

For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

We are not accepting any new registrations.

Unbelievable - Singh case

Any topic related to science can be discussed here.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
coledavis
Posts: 370
Joined: August 17th, 2008, 6:29 pm

Re: Unbelievable - Singh case

#261 Post by coledavis » April 15th, 2010, 2:41 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Another link re case dropped.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8621880.stm
http://www.coledavis.org - insight analyst, specialist in the interpretation of surveys for charities and education

http://www.careersteer.org - careers quiz helping people to choose their career direction

Trinoc
Posts: 239
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 12:04 am

Re: Unbelievable - Singh case

#262 Post by Trinoc » April 15th, 2010, 2:56 pm

Maria wrote:That's a good point, Trinoc.

I'm assuming my latest blog won't be taken too seriously - it was intended to be facetious.
Of course. It was a welcome relief from ploughing through all of the newspaper reports, many of which just copied the same stuff, often with little regard for accuracy and context.
Be skeptical of the things you believe are false, but be very skeptical of the things you believe are true.

User avatar
getreal
Posts: 4354
Joined: November 20th, 2008, 5:40 pm

Re: Unbelievable - Singh case

#263 Post by getreal » April 15th, 2010, 5:35 pm

Did I hear correctly that the BCA have dropped their case?
"It's hard to put a leash on a dog once you've put a crown on his head"-Tyrion Lannister.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Unbelievable - Singh case

#264 Post by Alan H » April 15th, 2010, 5:53 pm

Yes! And the Guardian have reinstated Simon's original article! See: Chiropractic Awareness Week 2008-2010
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Trinoc
Posts: 239
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 12:04 am

Re: Unbelievable - Singh case

#265 Post by Trinoc » April 16th, 2010, 2:22 pm

Simon was on Today this morning, along with some twat from Carter Fuck trying to muddy the waters ...

Today page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00rw7dv

Direct iPlayer link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00rw7dv

Starts at 1:51:06, length 6:24.
Be skeptical of the things you believe are false, but be very skeptical of the things you believe are true.

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Re: Unbelievable - Singh case

#266 Post by Alan C. » April 16th, 2010, 3:08 pm

Alan H wrote:Yes! And the Guardian have reinstated Simon's original article! See: Chiropractic Awareness Week 2008-2010
I see you got a mention in Ben Goldacres' piece in todays' Guardian. :notworthy:
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Unbelievable - Singh case

#267 Post by Alan H » April 16th, 2010, 10:33 pm

While Simon can put his feet up and concentrate on changing nappies...

Blogging: Zeno's Blog » Bronfort on: Ear Infections
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Re: Unbelievable - Singh case

#268 Post by Alan C. » April 21st, 2010, 3:50 pm

Got to dash out to work now, but just got this email (something to watch tonight)
Dear friends,

The Libel Reform Campaign is hosting the official Free Speech Hustings of the General Election 2010 tonight at the Free Word Centre, London from 6.30 pm. This is your chance to hear representatives from the 3 main parties answer your questions on libel reform and free speech.

If you want to ask a question to the politicians please twitter it to #libelreform, or email [email protected].



Details of how to watch the debate via our video or audio stream are here: http://tinyurl.com/y6lrx53
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

User avatar
grammar king
Posts: 869
Joined: March 14th, 2008, 2:42 am

Re: Unbelievable - Singh case

#269 Post by grammar king » April 22nd, 2010, 12:25 am

I watched the debate, although I don't know an awful lot about the topic at hand. The Labour guy was very wishy washy, didn't really say much at all except defend Labour's record on free speech by bringing up the Freedom Of Information Act and the Human Rights Act. The Tory guy seemed very much on the side of the corporations to me, and every time he said something about manifesto pledges it was always language like "we will consult about doing this" or "we will consider doing that". Unsurprisingly, Evan Harris was the star of the night.

Oh, and one of my questions I submitted over twitter got read out :D

Trinoc
Posts: 239
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 12:04 am

Re: Unbelievable - Singh case

#270 Post by Trinoc » April 22nd, 2010, 11:37 am

grammar king wrote:Oh, and one of my questions I submitted over twitter got read out :D
I noticed that ... and the barely-disguised sneer in the voice of the announcer at the fact that you used a pseudonym. Clearly someone used to the ways of the Internet (not).

I'd hoped for at least a token effort from the Labour and Conservative spokesmen, but of course these were people put up by their parties to electioneer. I was much more impressed by the pair who spoke at Westminster Skeptics a week or two ago, but I suspect the waffle and evasion we got last night was a much closer view of what would really happen with either of those parties in power: sweeping it under the carpet as much as possible. It's ironic that both main parties constantly accuse the LDs of fudging.
Be skeptical of the things you believe are false, but be very skeptical of the things you believe are true.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Unbelievable - Singh case

#271 Post by Alan H » May 15th, 2010, 6:50 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

jdc
Posts: 516
Joined: January 27th, 2009, 9:03 pm

Re: Unbelievable - Singh case

#272 Post by jdc » May 16th, 2010, 1:39 pm

Skeptic Barista: http://skepticbarista.wordpress.com/201 ... ch-part-2/
GCC wrote:There is no clinical research base to support claims that the chiropractic vertebral subluxation complex is the cause of disease or health concerns.
And a cheeky little blogpimp for this: chiropractic for autism. It turns out that the evidence they have is, well, crap.
My Blog; Twitter.
Email: 325jdc325 (at) googlemail.com

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Re: Unbelievable - Singh case

#273 Post by Alan C. » May 24th, 2010, 6:13 pm

Good news it today's Times, Libel must be rebalanced in the scales of justice There's a short video as well as the article.
On Thursday my Private Member’s Defamation Bill will be published to help the Government to review the law. There will, of course, be professional resistance.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Unbelievable - Singh case

#274 Post by Dave B » May 24th, 2010, 7:28 pm

I certainly hope this goes through. It amazed me to hear that theatre critics and restaurant reviewers were being threatened with libel for giving their, claimed at least, honest opinion. I believe that this was mainly in the US (no surprise there then) but was creeping over here.

Not that I ever give critics much credence anyway. :wink:
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Unbelievable - Singh case

#275 Post by Alan H » May 25th, 2010, 12:46 am

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Unbelievable - Singh case

#276 Post by Alan H » June 7th, 2010, 9:02 pm

Blogging: Zeno's Blog » The Long and Winding Road

It's a long post, but hopefully interesting! It brings you up yo date on the progress (or otherwise!) of my complaints.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Unbelievable - Singh case

#277 Post by Alan H » June 26th, 2010, 4:38 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Unbelievable - Singh case

#278 Post by Alan H » June 28th, 2010, 11:27 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Unbelievable - Singh case

#279 Post by Alan H » July 11th, 2010, 7:30 pm

Blogging: Zeno's Blog » The beginning of the end? Part two

...or how the GCC decided that making claims for which there is no evidence is OK by them and how it's bothersome to have to ask what its chiros meant by things they didn't understand.

Oh! And sciatica and RSI.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
grammar king
Posts: 869
Joined: March 14th, 2008, 2:42 am

Re: Unbelievable - Singh case

#280 Post by grammar king » July 11th, 2010, 10:59 pm

That's worrying Alan. The GC are clearly not going as far as their remit requires.

jdc
Posts: 516
Joined: January 27th, 2009, 9:03 pm

Re: Unbelievable - Singh case

#281 Post by jdc » July 12th, 2010, 8:41 pm

grammar king wrote:That's worrying Alan. The GC are clearly not going as far as their remit requires.
Didn't someone once try to find out who to complain to about the GCC?

Alan H?
My Blog; Twitter.
Email: 325jdc325 (at) googlemail.com

Post Reply