In an incredible press release published either yesterday or earlier today, the British Chiropractic Association made the serious and completely groundless accusation that Simon Singh had been motivated by malice in writing his original article.
This press release has now been hastily and silently switched for a modified one which does not make this significant allegation of improper conduct. However, the hardrives of dozens of Twitterers will evidence that this allegation was indeed published.
I have emailed the BCA and their PR company for an explanation of this false accusation, which had not previously been part of the BCA case.
Indeed, Lord Justice Laws had been careful to note in his judgment yesterday that there had been no allegation of malice or question of bad faith.
If Simon Singh now chooses to sue the BCA they will have to justify their allegation as a fact. They would not be able to do so.
And the BCA will know that what they intended to write will not help them.
After all, as Mr Justice Eady himself pointed out in the original adverse ruling on meaning (paragraph 11):
"As so often in libel cases, it is necessary to focus on what was actually published rather than on what might have been published."
It may be that Simon refuses to counter sue and allows the BCA to happily continue with their case. That is entirely a matter for him.
But, in my view, the moment he chooses to do so will surely be when this case ends.
That really was a misconceived press release.
No comments on this post as I am awaiting BCA response to my email.