Thursday, 28 May 2009
BCA v Singh: Deadline For Appeal Extended
I understand that the deadline for Simon Singh to file any appeal has been extended until 8 June 2009.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Pages
The Jack of Kent Blog
COMRADES
- Adventures in Nonsense (Simon Perry)
- Bad Psychics
- Bad Reason
- Bad Science Blogs
- Ben Goldacre and Bad Science
- Carmen Gets Around
- Charon QC
- Crispian Jago
- Dave Cole
- David Colquhoun's Improbable Science
- Deserted Vastness (Jon Treadway)
- Dr Aust
- Dr Petra Boynton
- Gia Milinovich
- Gimpy
- Graeme Archer at Centre Right
- Graeme Archer's Personal Site
- Heresy Corner
- Holford Watch
- House of Comments (podcast)
- Joanne Cash
- Jourdemayne
- Little Atoms (podcast)
- Nick Cohen
- Pod Delusion (podcast)
- PodBlack Cat
- Richard Wiseman
- Righteous Indignation (podcast)
- Simon Singh
- Skeptic Zone (podcast)
- Skepticat
- Skeptics with a K (podcast)
- The Lay Scientist
- The Quackometer
- The Rather Friendly Skeptic
- Vagina Dentata
- Zeno's Blog
Search This Blog
Followers
Subscribe - Jack of Kent
Posts
Comments
Google Analytics
5 comments:
Can anything be read into this deadline extension?
Jack,
Since this case now turns on whether the BCA "knowingly" promotes treatment, can you comment on how an organisation can "know" something?
Does it have to be "known" by the majority of its members (however one shows that to the court); does it have to have published a comment (in which case can an organisation "know" two opposing facts); can it "know" something by having quoted a journal in which a fact is published (implying that if they read one article therein, then they presumably read another).
You have commented that establishing that the organisation knows something is extremely difficult, but it must be possible somehow. What are standards are applied? Does it have to be shown "beyond reasonable doubt" or just on balance of probabilities (not being a criminal trial)?
thx
This delay presents a perfect opportunity for the BCA to fully document their guaranteed non-bogus "plethora" of top-quality peer-reviewed double-blinded gold-standard science-based evidence in favour of Chiroquacktick subluxations' capacity to treat infant colic, ear infections, asthma, prolonged crying and black plague beyond placebo levels.
Surely the council has this absolutely vital information 'ready to hand'?
Presumably they would be able to supply this vital information to their members if, say, they should find their claims being challenged by the ASA.
As far as I know, there is nothing exceptional about this extension. Such extensions are common in litigation.
Post a Comment