Things Which Definitely Are Not Illnesses or Diseases

[eric_s]

I don't know UK law, that's why i think we would have to ask a UK lawyer about the chances for success.

If you can pay, certainly they would be willing to give it a try. But of course it would only be worth it if there is a reasonable chance of success.

I think there's a criminal law aspect and a civil law aspect. Some countries have laws that make it a criminal offense to defame an ethnic group or religious group. Wheter it's criminal to defame a group like ours is another question, i don't know, that's what one would have to ask. I would not be surprised if it's not illegal, but it should be. Usually a group needs to be clearly defined for defamation to be possible, as you've quoted above.

As far as civil law, possible aims might be a retraction of the article, a correction or damages.

Then there might be special laws that only apply to the media. Maybe there's an office or something where one could file a complaint.

One would have to ask a practising UK lawyer. I think such a first consultation where the lawyer tells you if he can help you would probably be for free. In my opinion ideally an organisation like the ME Association should look into this. If not, any individual could try, if it's for free.

Edit: I have studied law for some years, so i have a bit of an idea.

 

[eric_s]

this "humour" piece was just plain stupid.
i say ignore him, like all bad little trolls should be ignored.

The problem is that many people read this crap. And there are similar articles every now and then. A flood of angry letters, often not very substantiated, doesn't seem to help a lot, at least it has not stopped this kind of thing until now. I think we need actions that are more coordinated and targeted. And that are done in a more professional manner, so that it can't be discarded so easily. Wheter legal action has a chance for success here i don't know, but why not check.

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

The problem is that many people read this crap. And there are similar articles every now and then. A flood of angry letters, often not very substantiated, doesn't seem to help a lot, at least it has not stopped this kind of thing until now. I think we need actions that are more coordinated and targeted. And that are done in a more professional manner, so that it can't be discarded so easily. Wheter legal action has a chance for success here i don't know, but why not check.

He hasn't libelled a named individual.
He hasn't libelled an individual who can be identified from context.

He hasn't libelled a named patient charity.
He hasn't libelled a patient organisation that might be identified from context.
He hasn't libelled a named or unnamed patient organisation whose individual committee members or trustees/directors can be identified or identified from context.

He hasn't expressed or incited violence or hatred against an individual or group on account of colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation.


The ME Association has advised ignoring him.

Action for M.E. has a solicitor on its board of trustees whom I understand works for or has worked for AfME's legal firm.

If you are interested in pursuing this Eric, I suggest you write to Sir Peter Spencer, AfME's CEO, and ask if he would make inquiries on your behalf or contact the Press Complaints Commission, having first checked their site to establish the scope of complaints they can deal with, that is, whether complaints can be lodged only if a named individual(s) has suffered as a result of published media content:

http://www.pcc.org.uk/


But this is not something I either have the time or the interest in pursuing, in pursuing myself.

We've got the third DSM-5 public review coming up in the New Year. I'd rather see time and energy put into coordinated contacting of medical professionals, when the time comes, to encourage the submission of objections to DSM-5 proposals, than spending time and energy on pursuing a boorish, lazy hack.

Suzy

 

[Jill McLaughlin]

It is really because they are calling CFS ME and thus ME gets pulled down with it.
CFS is pretty close to what can be DSM worthy so complaining won't do much.
But in particular this is why we must stop this proposal by the Coalition
4 ME/CFS from coding CFS to ME, which will make them the same. Then ME
will be as "unreal" as CFS. This CFS agenda has to stop.

Jill

He hasn't libelled a named individual.
He hasn't libelled an individual who can be identified from context.

He hasn't libelled a named patient charity.
He hasn't libelled a patient organisation that might be identified from context.
He hasn't libelled a named or unnamed patient organisation whose individual committee members or trustees/directors can be identified or identified from context.

He hasn't expressed or incited violence or hatred against an individual or group on account of colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation.


The ME Association has advised ignoring him.

Action for M.E. has a solictor on its board of trustees who I understand works for or worked for AfME's legal firm.

If you are interested in pursuing this Eric, I suggest you write to Sir Peter Spence and ask if he would make inquiries on your behalf or contact the Press Complaints Commission, having first checked their site to establish the scope of complaints they can deal with, that is, whether complaints can be lodged only if a named individual(s) has suffered as a result of published media content:

http://www.pcc.org.uk/


But this is not something I either have the time or the interest in pursuing, in pursuing myself.

We've got the third DSM-5 public review coming up in the New Year. I'd rather see time and energy put into coordinated contacting of medical professionals, when the time comes, to encourage the submission of objections to DSM-5 proposals, than spending time and energy on pursuing a boorish, lazy hack.

Suzy

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

As far as civil law, possible aims might be a retraction of the article, a correction or damages.

A retraction of the article: Liddle is associate editor or a former associate editor of the Spectator.
A correction: This is Rod Liddle.
Damages: Damages for whom and on what grounds?

No individual(s), companies or organisations have been named, defamed or libelled.

I share your anger and frustration, Eric, please don't think that I don't.

I've given you some lines of enquiry, including the Press Complaints Commission.


There is an Editors' Code of Practice here: http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html

[...]

The Press Complaints Commission is charged with enforcing the following Code of Practice which was framed by the newspaper and periodical industry and was ratified by the PCC in January 2011.

THE editors' CODE

All members of the press have a duty to maintain the highest professional standards. The Code, which includes this preamble and the public interest exceptions below, sets the benchmark for those ethical standards, protecting both the rights of the individual and the public's right to know. It is the cornerstone of the system of self-regulation to which the industry has made a binding commitment.

It is essential that an agreed code be honoured not only to the letter but in the full spirit. It should not be interpreted so narrowly as to compromise its commitment to respect the rights of the individual, nor so broadly that it constitutes an unnecessary interference with freedom of expression or prevents publication in the public interest.

It is the responsibility of editors and publishers to apply the Code to editorial material in both printed and online versions of publications. They should take care to ensure it is observed rigorously by all editorial staff and external contributors, including non-journalists, in printed and online versions of publications.

Editors should co-operate swiftly with the PCC in the resolution of complaints. Any publication judged to have breached the Code must print the adjudication in full and with due prominence, including headline reference to the PCC.



1 Accuracy

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published. In cases involving the Commission, prominence should be agreed with the PCC in advance.

iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

iv) A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.

2 Opportunity to reply

A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be given when reasonably called for.


3 *Privacy

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications.

ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. Account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information.

iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places without their consent.

Note - Private places are public or private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.


4 *Harassment

i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.

ii) They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on their property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom they represent.

iii) Editors must ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant material from other sources.

5 Intrusion into grief or shock


i) In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. This should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings, such as inquests.

*ii) When reporting suicide, care should be taken to avoid excessive detail about the method used.


6 *Children

i) Young people should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion.

ii) A child under 16 must not be interviewed or photographed on issues involving their own or another childs welfare unless a custodial parent or similarly responsible adult consents.

iii) Pupils must not be approached or photographed at school without the permission of the school authorities.

iv) Minors must not be paid for material involving childrens welfare, nor parents or guardians for material about their children or wards, unless it is clearly in the child's interest.

v) Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a childs private life.


7*Children in sex cases

1. The press must not, even if legally free to do so, identify children under 16 who are victims or witnesses in cases involving sex offences.

2. In any press report of a case involving a sexual offence against a child -

i) The child must not be identified.

ii) The adult may be identified.

iii) The word "incest" must not be used where a child victim might be identified.

iv) Care must be taken that nothing in the report implies the relationship between the accused and the child.


8 *Hospitals

i) Journalists must identify themselves and obtain permission from a responsible executive before entering non-public areas of hospitals or similar institutions to pursue enquiries.


ii) The restrictions on intruding into privacy are particularly relevant to enquiries about individuals in hospitals or similar institutions.


9 *Reporting of Crime

(i) Relatives or friends of persons convicted or accused of crime should not generally be identified without their consent, unless they are genuinely relevant to the story.

(ii) Particular regard should be paid to the potentially vulnerable position of children who witness, or are victims of, crime. This should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.


10 *Clandestine devices and subterfuge

i) The press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of documents or photographs; or by accessing digitally-held private information without consent.

ii) Engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge, including by agents or intermediaries, can generally be justified only in the public interest and then only when the material cannot be obtained by other means.


11 Victims of sexual assault

The press must not identify victims of sexual assault or publish material likely to contribute to such identification unless there is adequate justification and they are legally free to do so.


12 Discrimination

i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.

ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.


13 Financial journalism

i) Even where the law does not prohibit it, journalists must not use for their own profit financial information they receive in advance of its general publication, nor should they pass such information to others.

ii) They must not write about shares or securities in whose performance they know that they or their close families have a significant financial interest without disclosing the interest to the editor or financial editor.

iii) They must not buy or sell, either directly or through nominees or agents, shares or securities about which they have written recently or about which they intend to write in the near future.


14 Confidential sources

Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information.


15 Witness payments in criminal trials

i) No payment or offer of payment to a witness - or any person who may reasonably be expected to be called as a witness - should be made in any case once proceedings are active as defined by the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

This prohibition lasts until the suspect has been freed unconditionally by police without charge or bail or the proceedings are otherwise discontinued; or has entered a guilty plea to the court; or, in the event of a not guilty plea, the court has announced its verdict.

*ii) Where proceedings are not yet active but are likely and foreseeable, editors must not make or offer payment to any person who may reasonably be expected to be called as a witness, unless the information concerned ought demonstrably to be published in the public interest and there is an over-riding need to make or promise payment for this to be done; and all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure no financial dealings influence the evidence those witnesses give. In no circumstances should such payment be conditional on the outcome of a trial.

*iii) Any payment or offer of payment made to a person later cited to give evidence in proceedings must be disclosed to the prosecution and defence. The witness must be advised of this requirement.


16 *Payment to criminals

i) Payment or offers of payment for stories, pictures or information, which seek to exploit a particular crime or to glorify or glamorise crime in general, must not be made directly or via agents to convicted or confessed criminals or to their associates who may include family, friends and colleagues.

ii) Editors invoking the public interest to justify payment or offers would need to demonstrate that there was good reason to believe the public interest would be served. If, despite payment, no public interest emerged, then the material should not be published.


The public interest

There may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they can be demonstrated to be in the public interest.

1. The public interest includes, but is not confined to:
i) Detecting or exposing crime or serious impropriety.
ii) Protecting public health and safety.
iii) Preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation.

2. There is a public interest in freedom of expression itself.

3. Whenever the public interest is invoked, the PCC will require editors to demonstrate fully that they reasonably believed that publication, or journalistic activity undertaken with a view to publication, would be in the public interest.


4. The PCC will consider the extent to which material is already in the public domain, or will become so.


5. In cases involving children under 16, editors must demonstrate an exceptional public interest to over-ride the normally paramount interest of the child.

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

PCC FAQ

On a general note around complaints concerning the press or against journalists, there is an extensive FAQ, here, on the PCC website which may also be of interest to those who already work with journalists or who might be approached by journalists in the future:


http://www.pcc.org.uk/faqs.html

The Complaints Process

The Code of Practice

The PCC: Remit, Structure and Governance

Common Scenarios

 

[eric_s]

He hasn't libelled a named individual.
He hasn't libelled an individual who can be identified from context.

He hasn't libelled a named patient charity.
He hasn't libelled a patient organisation that might be identified from context.
He hasn't libelled a named or unnamed patient organisation whose individual committee members or trustees/directors can be identified or identified from context.

He hasn't expressed or incited violence or hatred against an individual or group on account of colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation.


The ME Association has advised ignoring him.

Action for M.E. has a solicitor on its board of trustees whom I understand works for or has worked for AfME's legal firm.

If you are interested in pursuing this Eric, I suggest you write to Sir Peter Spencer, AfME's CEO, and ask if he would make inquiries on your behalf or contact the Press Complaints Commission, having first checked their site to establish the scope of complaints they can deal with, that is, whether complaints can be lodged only if a named individual(s) has suffered as a result of published media content:

http://www.pcc.org.uk/


But this is not something I either have the time or the interest in pursuing, in pursuing myself.

We've got the third DSM-5 public review coming up in the New Year. I'd rather see time and energy put into coordinated contacting of medical professionals, when the time comes, to encourage the submission of objections to DSM-5 proposals, than spending time and energy on pursuing a boorish, lazy hack.

Suzy

I haven't asked you personally to pursue this, so it's no problem if you are not interested in it. I know he hasn't defamed or libelled an individual person or organisation.

I do question though wheter it's the right strategy for the UK's ME organisations to ignore that kind of thing. I personally think it's not, but i can't do their work. This is something for UK people to do or not.

Thanks for mentioning the PCC and the code. I will not look into this much, but it was interesting to see. I don't think it makes sense for us to want to do the legal work ourselves, just as it doesn't make to much sense to do the doctors' work. What i would do is consult with a practising lawyer, not work through this stuff for hours myself.

I can promise you though, that in my country i would not tolerate this and i think the UK could do better there. I am aware though that you have far more of that kind of "enemies", so you are in a more difficult situation. Even if a lawyer would tell you that legal action has no chance of success, you could still demonstrate there. I don't know where that paper is based, but if it's in one of the major cities there should be enough people there in a 30 minutes range.

I agree there might be more important issues, but this seems important as well, so unless pursuing this would make pursuing the other issues impossible, i would invest the 1 hour or so it takes to consult with a lawyer. But i don't mean you personally.

 

[eric_s]

A retraction of the article: Liddle is associate editor or a former associate editor of the Spectator.
A correction: This is Rod Liddle.
Damages: Damages for whom and on what grounds?

No individual(s), companies or organisations have been named, defamed or libelled.

I was not talking about a voluntary retraction or correction. So the question is if there can be any legal consequenes in such a situation, when there was not a clearly identified group of people mentioned. That's what i would like to hear a practising UK lawyer answer. Especially if i was a UK person.

There is an Editors' Code of Practice here: http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html

[...]

The Press Complaints Commission is charged with enforcing the following Code of Practice which was framed by the newspaper and periodical industry and was ratified by the PCC in January 2011.

THE editors' CODE

All members of the press have a duty to maintain the highest professional standards. The Code, which includes this preamble and the public interest exceptions below, sets the benchmark for those ethical standards, protecting both the rights of the individual and the public's right to know. It is the cornerstone of the system of self-regulation to which the industry has made a binding commitment.

It is essential that an agreed code be honoured not only to the letter but in the full spirit. It should not be interpreted so narrowly as to compromise its commitment to respect the rights of the individual, nor so broadly that it constitutes an unnecessary interference with freedom of expression or prevents publication in the public interest.

It is the responsibility of editors and publishers to apply the Code to editorial material in both printed and online versions of publications. They should take care to ensure it is observed rigorously by all editorial staff and external contributors, including non-journalists, in printed and online versions of publications.

Editors should co-operate swiftly with the PCC in the resolution of complaints. Any publication judged to have breached the Code must print the adjudication in full and with due prominence, including headline reference to the PCC.



1 Accuracy

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published. In cases involving the Commission, prominence should be agreed with the PCC in advance.
2 Opportunity to reply

A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be given when reasonably called for.

These seem to be some interesting passages, maybe there are more in there.

 

[max]

Hi Suzy, good to read you again. Just passin thru n thought I'd say hello, so "hello" Don't suppose you have a contact address for the Countess?

Anyhoo,

As Suzy said ..........

...... "He hasn't libelled a named individual.
He hasn't libelled an individual who can be identified from context.

He hasn't libelled a named patient charity.
He hasn't libelled a patient organisation that might be identified from context.
He hasn't libelled a named or unnamed patient organisation whose individual committee members or trustees/directors can be identified or identified from context.

He hasn't expressed or incited violence or hatred against an individual or group on account of colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation.
.............................. "

Good point Suzy - Liddle is a tool but he's not stupid and he knows he's untouchable no matter how hurtful his comments may be - eric, don't think you'll get much assistance from UK Justice plc, its been bought and paid for long ago.

 

[max]

no worries ref the countess address - got it.

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

I haven't asked you personally to pursue this, so it's no problem if you are not interested in it. I know he hasn't defamed or libelled an individual person or organisation.

Morning Eric. I know you haven't asked me personally to pursue this but I do get requests to take on or input into various projects and I wanted to make it clear to readers of this thread that this is not an issue I have time or inclination to take forward, myself, other than what I have done so far, which is to complain to Liddle's Editor and send a PDF to Liddle a few weeks ago.

I don't in any case consider it would be feasible, under UK legislation, to bring a legal case against him.

The only avenue I can see, at the moment, would be a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission. My understanding of the remit of the PCC is that it serves individuals rather than groups - but this needs confirming.

Others may find the PCC site and the FAQ of general interest, especially as some patients and caregivers do volunteer to be interviewed for media articles and some of us are approached through our websites and blogs by reporters, journalists, TV and radio researchers for information or for potential participation in programmes - so the Code of Conduct for editors and journalists might also be of general interest.

Complaints relating to requests for the correction of factual, personal information concerning individuals (errors in names, titles, employers, relationships, convictions etc) can be taken up with the publications concerned. The correction of errors in factual information where no individual, company, organisation, institution etc is involved would be up to the discretion of the Editor.

But this was an opinion piece and if you noticed, Liddle did start his piece with "I may be wrong about this, Im simply reading between the lines of the various studies into the condition."

I do question though whiter it's the right strategy for the UK's ME organisations to ignore that kind of thing. I personally think it's not, but I can't do their work. This is something for UK people to do or not.

It is not unknown for Dr Charles Shepherd or Mr Neil Riley (Chair of Trustees) of the MEA to respond to factual articles in mainstream press, also Sir Peter Spencer, on behalf of AfME. Both organisations have had letters published in the print editions of national newspapers in response to misinformation or misrepresentation about the illness. I understand that the MEA recently complained inter alia about the MEA's having been misrepresented in an article published around the same time as the Rod Liddle Sunday Times piece.

But Liddle's snark piece was not presented as a piece of factual reporting - it's an opinion piece in a regular opinion/snark column.

Thanks for mentioning the PCC and the code. I will not look into this much, but it was interesting to see. I don't think it makes sense for us to want to do the legal work ourselves, just as it doesn't make to much sense to do the doctors' work. What i would do is consult with a practising lawyer, not work through this stuff for hours myself.

A PCC complaint would be an entirely different process to bringing a criminal case against an individual via the Crown Prosecution Service or a civil case against an individual or a publisher, either represented by a legal firm or without legal representation, but I think it is sensible to do some research first into English Law.

By the way, the MEA also has a trustee/director who had worked in a legal department prior to his illness.

I can promise you though, that in my country i would not tolerate this and i think the UK could do better there.

Well Eric, we have freedom of speech laws in England and unless Liddle has fallen foul of any piece of legislation that we have in place, he can say what he wants, or rather he can say whatever the Spectator and its legal advisors are prepared to run with.

I am aware though that you have far more of that kind of "enemies", so you are in a more difficult situation. Even if a lawyer would tell you that legal action has no chance of success, you could still demonstrate there. I don't know where that paper is based, but if it's in one of the major cities there should be enough people there in a 30 minutes range.

I don't think a demo outside the Spectator's offices would be a good use of limited energy and time. We have enormous problems in the UK with forthcoming changes to the benefits system - it is this that needs our energy.

I agree there might be more important issues, but this seems important as well, so unless pursuing this would make pursuing the other issues impossible, i would invest the 1 hour or so it takes to consult with a lawyer. But i don't mean you personally.

If someone from the UK wishes to approach a solicitor, establish whether they still provide a free consultation for this specific area of law or is prepared to cough up around 150 - 200 for a consultation, that is their decision and they are free to consult with you.

On the other hand, a quick perusal of English Law around defamation, libel, individuals, groups, criminal acts, harassment and hate speech against individuals with disabilities costs nothing and they might draw the same conclusions - that trying to bring a criminal or legal case against Liddle, in this instance, would be futile.

I am not being defeatist, I am not being complacent - I'm being realistic.

Once again, I understand and share your disgust that Liddle can get away with this, just as we have been disgusted by the "comedy" routines of Ricky Gervais, who has also targeted ME patients.

As Leela says, it's maybe best not to feed the troll.

Suzy

 

[eric_s]

But this was an opinion piece and if you noticed, Liddle did start his piece with "I may be wrong about this, Im simply reading between the lines of the various studies into the condition."

I know, but that's only part of what he said and also i don't know if such a phrase will protect you. If it would, you could for example walk through the streets and shout: "I may be wrong, but from what i've heard Mr. XY is a liar(/thief/murderer/pedophile/whatever)". I don't know if you can do that without breaking the law, i could read it up, but i need to give my brain a rest. My guess is that such a phrase doesn't automatically protect you.

I do agree that a complaint to the PCC seems like the best option. A claim according to civil law seems to be second best, i feel like there's a bigger chance there that he has breached any norm, but it might be that he has not breached any at all, and a criminal case seems to have the least chance for success.

Either way, i have posted about it here http://www.facebook.com/pages/ME-Human-Rights-Coalition/262409767127141?sk=wall&filter=1. They are only just starting up and i think it would be best for an established UK org to deal with such a case, but who knows, maybe this group will give it a try.

By the way, i'm all for free speech, of course, but it has and need limits, like any freedom. Just like people can't be free to murder others, even though under our constitution, for example, basically you are free to do whatever you like. I know the UK doesn't have a written constitution and you have a tradition of case law, not codified law, so i really don't want to look into UK law, it would be too much for my head at the moment. Also your procedural law is different.

In some countries, Switzerland for example, it's a criminal offense to defame an ethnic group or religious group. The group's members don't have to be identified there. I find it wrong that that kind of groups seem to deserve more protection according to the lawmaker, than ours or a similar group. In fact people suffering from an illness seem to be more in need and more deserving of protection than some other groups who have more rights in that regard. Also many of us are citizens of our countries, with the other groups often that's not the case, and it can't be that in the end the citizens are worse of than non-citizens. That's a political question, of course, and won't help us with that concrete case.

 

[Yogi]

He hasn't expressed or incited violence or hatred against an individual or group on account of colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation.


The ME Association has advised ignoring him.

I'd rather see time and energy put into coordinated contacting of medical professionals, when the time comes, to encourage the submission of objections to DSM-5 proposals, than spending time and energy on pursuing a boorish, lazy hack.

Suzy

I agree with Suzy. There are many other important issues to spend time and energy on. The only reason this was posted was because the proprietor of the Spectator is Sir Frederick Barclay and supposedly he has ME/CFS. However I have not seen this mentioned in many other places other than One Click website.

Regarding the list above is disability also included in it?

 

[justinreilly]

I agree totally with Suzy. I see no basis at all for a suit. plus what damages? this seems very clearly to be a satirical piece since he includes "most types of cancers" as real diseases. i also think that people should be allowed to joke about things, even ME and i am sure there are plenty of people out there who agree with me so i think this would not help us with public opinion. i do think his inaccurate piece where he was not satirical is horrible though and a demo, letter writing or whatever would be appropriate there.

 

[leela]

I agree, Justin. It was (bad) humor, and while I thought that particular piece wasn't funny at all, I do find myself laughing at all kinds of wicked things sometimes. Bill Hicks, Louis CK, Stewart Lee...Some of it's pretty taboo. If all comics got censored for political correctness, oy vey.

 

[eric_s]

Well, all of us are free to think what they like, of course. Also different countries have different rules and traditions as far as free speech is concerned. For example, in the USA you are allowed to sell Nazi material that is banned in many European countries.

I also said a lawsuit or denunciation seems to be less likely to have success here than a complaint to the PCC. When i mentioned damages i did not do so after making an analysis, i just mentioned all possible ways of action that came to my mind. If what he said would have been about persons that can be identified i think there would be the possibility to claim damages for immaterial damage. But here he didn't mention persons that can be identified. Nevertheless, not every country has the same legislation, so i would check any possibility. Who knows, maybe some countries have rules that allow for an association representing a group to sue in such a case, for example.

I agree people should be allowed to joke, but this went beyond what i find acceptable. It's one thing to make jokes, another thing to say the things he said, to me. I don't really understand what you mean, Justin, with the "inaccurate piece" where he was not satirical. Were there 2 pieces? I only read what's here on the thread, because usually i stay away from that kind of stuff, it's like avoiding a place that stinks

Demo, letter writing, etc, is good, a demo better than the latter, in my opinion, but what has it helped us until now? Often comments posted even seem to have a counterproductive effect, in my opinion. Some of them are very emotional and can easily be used to portray people with ME as being irrational. We have every reason to react this way and also this illness causes cognitive problems, but many of the people who read this comments don't know that and might get a wrong impression. I do think we need to do things like formal complaints, lawsuits, etc., in cases where we can have success. I think we need to use these serious measures, i believe this is what can make a difference and show we are serious about it.

I am aware that there are other important issues, but i think the public perception of a group like ours is something very important. And if we allow that kind of thing, we allow a wrong perception to stay in place that is standing in the way of successfully dealing with the other issues. I don't think we should take that kind of thing too easy and tolerate it. Just my opinion, of course. And it was not just only this case, this seems to be something that happens regularily in the UK. At one point we have to start to fight back.

And Leela, i'm not sure if ending the patenting of organisms will be easier to achieve than winning this one here

But no problem, this is not for me, since i'm not in the UK and i've forwared it to this other group on Facebook. Maybe they or some UK people who know about it will try to do something.

 

[leela]

VAnd Leela, i'm not sure if ending the patenting of organisms will be easier to achieve than winning this one here

I hear you Eric. And yet my feeling is the patent issue is at the root of most of the challenges and controversy in our community.
To me, joining forces with everybody who is affected by the patent issue, the insurer issue,the FDA drug trial mafia, for instance--which means pretty much everyone--might mean Daniel fighting the lion, but has the potential for a more meaningful and far-reaching win.

The time feels ripe for it with the incredibly inspiring momentum the people at occupy wall street are gathering. Over 1500 cities worldwide
joined in solidarity. If ever there was a time to try to undo a rigged, rotten international cabal of corruption, it's now.

Of course, I have no clue how to do that.

 

[eric_s]

These are really tough questions. I see it a bit differently from you, but it's all very complicated and i don't claim i'm right. I think in the end we can't just build the world the way we would like it to be, from one moment to the next. Especially since we are not really well... So for example, i like your idea that no living thing should be patented. But then i also think that the only thing that in the end can help us is research and the development of therapies, and in our case that will quite likely be pharmaceutical therapies. So wheter one likes drug companies or not, i think we need them. And if they need these things to be able to operate, then i don't want to hurt them. I personally don't care very much who will help us and think we need help first, because with our current health we can't do much anyway. Just my thoughts and i don't want to take the thread off topic too much...

 

[justinreilly]

I don't really understand what you mean, Justin, with the "inaccurate piece" where he was not satirical. Were there 2 pieces? I only read what's here on the thread, because usually i stay away from that kind of stuff, it's like avoiding a place that stinks

Here's the 'inaccurate piece', presented as a serious editorial, i was mentioning.

http://www.meassociation.org.uk/?p=7373

I do think we need to do things like formal complaints, lawsuits, etc., in cases where we can have success. I think we need to use these serious measures, i believe this is what can make a difference and show we are serious about it.

I think formal complaints are absolutely necessary. Thanks so much to Malcolm Hooper, Angela Kennedy and others that do this!!I think it's worth looking into lawsuits too. There is an ME Coalition for Human Rights starting up with Debbie Anderson on the other forum under the members advocacy section. I think this is a good idea. I suggested there that the patients of Wessely and his hospital who have been damaged by them should look into suing them.

 

[eric_s]

Yes, i forwarded this case to that group some days ago. Maybe they will take it on.