UK Libel Law Reform re-visited

Well done, JD.

This is an issue that affects journalists, researchers, scientists -- everyone -- on both sides of the pond.

While I do not disagree with the content of this thread I do however wonder about allowing this site to be used to push a political agenda. If some KKK or Nazi's decided to promote their views on this site would this be allowed? (I am not suggesting or implying that the views expressed here are those of the KKK or Nazi's).

Would someone from Admin be willing to comment?

Why do you consider it a political agenda? It's an attempt to change an unfair law; the only political aspect is the appeal to pursuade UK MPs of all parties to lend their support.

I see plenty of neocon, liberal media conspiracy hating mumbling.

Everything is a political agenda, even the lack of one

You can find the odd religious expression too

The place is absolutely lousy with penguin lovers [run Roger run]

CR4 is not a vacuum

& finally see my signature

Garthh, please re-read what I originally posted - you might be surprised to learn that you have gotten it completely wrong (as usual) - however I would not expect you to admit this.

This is an Engineering forum as far as I am aware. My question was not suggesting that the contents of the original thread were incorrect or that I disagreed with it. I was just asking the question if this site wishes to get involved in pushing political agendas - try and think the big picture and not confine yourself to the little box view that you clearly have.

Everything is a political agenda, even the lack of one - two things to note here:

1. So you do agree that I was correct when I said that this was a political agenda. Thank you for that.

2. Are you seriously suggesting that questions like "how do you calculate the voltage drop of a cable" has a political agenda - if so could you please elaborate as I and probably others would be very interested in this. Perhaps you were just thinking this and did not mean to write it.

I agree that CR4 is not a vacuum but I am not so sure about the inside of your head . The saying "empty vessels make more sound" jumped to mind when I read your post.

I read your signature and I doubt that Admin would actually agree with it. This is an open forum which means that everyones opinion is equal (that includes your and mine) and thankfully it is not run by people like you would who stifle debate at the earliest possible occasion.

The political agenda of calculating a voltage drop is:

Progress & electricity are good,

there are plenty of "Tree Huggers" who would disagree, some of which paradoxically enough use computers

I see that the humor of my signature line escaped you

Anonymous coward that you are

which is yet another joke, in the early days of the forum, that was the handle all guests were given

Thank you for clarifying the political agenda behind the question. You really did yourself proud. GA from me.

I would like to take back everything that I said about you. You surely are a credit to this site and to the human race in general. I am really glad to know you. May I suggest that you write a book so that future generations can remember your contribution to society.

It's little people like you that make it all possible

Q: if it weren't for cowards like you taking drive by shots what kind of site would this be?

A: one where every post represented the opinion of some one who would right or wrong stand behind their words.

The political agenda behind the discussion [there was no question] is freedom of speech, freedom to point out reality without fear of repercussions from jack booted chiropractors, trying to suppress any expression of opinion as to the validity [or lack ] of their methods.

Garthh, I apologised to you and this is how you respond. That is not very polite now is it - perhaps you detected the mocking tone in which I delivered my apology and this prompted your outburst. Well it goes to show what sort of person you are.

You bang on about freedom of speech but when someone disagrees with you the first thing you do is throw insults and then get backup from your cronies. Sad little minds.

The fact that these conversations can appear, often with verbal missiles and not-so-subtle slinging of mud, is testament to the power of free speech practiced on CR4.

That such discussions can appear on a public forum on the Internet, without fear of litigation, is testament to the power of free speech constitutionally protected in the U.S. (where this site is based) and evidently lacking in the UK. A point which I find to be germane to the OP, and one which should be of universal appeal and interest regardless of one's political groundings. Unless one happens to be, say, an official from the People's Democratic Republic of China.

Just some observations, I don't see I've thrown any insults, you on the other hand, seem to sling plenty of shyt

& yes I am the sort of person who can detect a mocking tone

I've never had any sort of feedback from site administration in regards to expressing political [or religious] views...

Thanks, Drew, saved me a lot of legfinger-work.

I'll outline the reason for the campaign with a fictitious example, for those who CBA to follow the links & work it out for themselves. I've invented a malaise and a "cure" for the purpose of illustration.

A claims to have invented "Snake Oil" - a cure for JohnDG's disease.

B writes a newspaper article, implying that Snake Oil does not work.

A immediately contacts the company/association lawyers, and a libel suit is brought against B, on the grounds that B cannot prove that the cure does not work. A has a lot of financial backing, having made a lot of money selling Snake Oil.

B tries to fight the case, but since he cannot prove that the Snake Oil is ineffective (it's a bit like proving that an apple will always fall to the ground when dropped^[1]), he loses the case; the court awards costs and damages and B owes £1M. He is not able to pay, and so is declared bankrupt. His life savings, house, car, pension and all other assets are given to A and A's lawyers.

Nuff sed?

[1] bad example, but best I could come up with at this time of night. Point is - no matter how many times you drop an apple & it falls to the ground - it doesn't prove that it will do the same next time. Sorry.

Surely if B cannot prove that A's product does not work then B has no right to write the article - on what basis is B saying that A's product does not work? Where is the science behind the claim that the product does not work?

B could point to thousands of dissatisfied customers, to the fact that no peer-reviewed scientific study has given any indication that Snake Oil is effective at curing JohnDG's disease (or anything else!), to the fact that an analysis of Snake Oil shows that it contains sunflower oil (and nothing else) ....

Under the current law, A would have to prove nothing. B would be required to prove that Snake Oil is 100% ineffective.

Thalidomide (morning sickness medication) is a good example. Dr William McBride blew the whistle on this product, he staked everything on his research and eventually was vindicated.

The next time he took on a product it was Merbentil, and McBride was nailed for alleged shoddy research and WHAM.

The makers of Merbentil had to prove nothing, it was all swept under the carpet. Ordinary people can't get to the truth about deformation of growth, as McBride has been silenced. All ordinary people can work out is the addictive nature of Merbentil.

Merbentil is prescribed as an anti reflux medication in infants, weaning then off it is a difficult process as I found personally.

Technical matters be they engineering or medical can only be resolved with freedom of speech.

Thank you. And you illustrated my point better than I was able to do! Where the Thalidomide makers couldn't stop him, the Merbentil makers could. And you can bet HE won't be taking any of them on in the future. REFORM is badly needed!

no matter how many times you drop an apple & it falls to the ground - it doesn't prove that it will do the same next time. - correct, but you will have a high degree of assurance that the next time you drop the apple that it will fall to the ground - this is the basic philosopy behind validation of a process/ substance/ product.

As I said - bad example, late at night.

Received this today:

Dear friends,

Thank you to everyone has been involved in Big Libel Week so far – by including www.libelreform.org in your Facebook status, by coming to an event, or by telling your friends a libel story and encouraging them to sign up. Here's a quick round up of some of the excitement.

Want to see for yourself how English libel law stops you accessing websites? Go to the National Enquirer website (http://www.nationalenquirer.com/). They've blocked access to anyone in the UK because they fear a libel action in London. You can access this site anywhere else in the world. Tell your friends and ask them to sign our petition: www.libelreform.org/sign

But, we're making progress. MPs have now said, 'it's time for reform', with this week our campaign reaching a tipping point – now the majority of eligible MPs have signed Early Day Motion 423 for libel law reform. And the EDM has the most MPs signed up of all new EDMs this session.

However, libel laws right now are still silencing research in the public interest. Professor Francisco Lacerda is a Swedish academic who has been threatened with a libel suit, here in London, by an Israeli lie detector manufacturer. He visited London this week to tell MPs in a seminar in Parliament that England's libel laws are preventing him from publishing research about technology being used by the Department of Work and Pensions in England. Millions of pounds of public money has been spent on this technology. Read more in the Times [http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article7057745.ece] and the Daily Telegraph [http://tiny.cc/thGVB].

Also this week, we ran an event on documentary film makers and the huge impact our libel laws have on their ability to scrutinise major corporations. You can read a summary of the event here: http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/2010/03/12/libel-week-round-up/

Simon Singh wrote his last column in the Guardian today, read how his libel case has taken over his life: www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/12/simon-singh-goodbye-libel-reform/

The week isn't over yet, The Big Libel Gig is on Sunday 14th. Watch host Robin Ince talk on the Daily Politics today on why he wanted to do the show: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/8564410.stm and watch out for more performers in the media over the weekend.

Read Fiona Godlee's excellent British Medical Journal editorial on the need for libel reform here: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/mar11_2/c1404

Best,

Mike and Sile

We hit 40,000 signatures this week – but we need 100,000. Please tell friends and family to sign: www.libelreform.org/sign