Coyne - What it takes for Queen Mary to declare a request for scientific data “vexatious”

[Esther12]

One, one, email which the hysterical recipient admits she misinterpreted as a death threat has been exaggerated into routine death threats and letter bombs to BPS researchers requiring police protection. We need to get this information out there to counteract the violent ME activist narrative this bunch of sickos continues to spread. This has gone far, far beyond ridiculous.

From what I remember on that show it wasn't that she said it was misinterpreted, it was that the e-mail had said 'you will pay for what you've done', and the police said that this could be interpreted as a death threat. She sounded a bit embarrassed to be presenting it as a death threat. (All from memory, I may be wrong). Pretty sure she never said she'd misinterpreted it though.

 

[adreno]

death thread

A death thread? I hope I won't be reading that

 

[Esther12]

A death thread? I hope I won't be reading that

edit, edit, edit...

 

[worldbackwards]

I guess she means a 'human sacrifice enthusiast' in an academic and historical sense!!!

Well, if it is in the present she's come to the right place.

 

[Snowdrop]

Re: the Andrew Sabisky tweets.

Somebody seems a mite defensive. Finds himself a bit over his head in terms of doing real/meaningful research and is worried he might some day be asked to share his data?

 

[Scarecrow]

A little light relief from yesterday:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675774906714357760

 

[SOC]

From what I remember on that show it wasn't that she said it was misinterpreted, it was that the e-mail had said 'you will pay for what you've done', and the police said that this could be interpreted as a death threat. She sounded a bit embarrassed to be presenting it as a death threat. (All from memory, I may be wrong). Pretty sure she never said she'd misinterpreted it though.

It seems a rather disingenuous attitude on her part. I wonder why she showed it to the police if she didn't consider it actionable. Not everyone goes running to the police when someone says, "You will pay for what you've done."

I'm also surprised, given the language police see routinely, along with their knowledge of what is legal and what is not, that the police would suggest such a comment is a death threat. I find it more likely that they'd roll their eyes at someone bringing them something like that. I feel sorry for the Metropolitan Police if they interpret every remark of that sort as a death threat. They must be grossly overworked chasing down 'death threats' from ex-wives, ex-boyfriends, and angry neighbors who hurl unpleasant insults, send angry emails, and post nasty remarks on FB. I thought the police usually sort threats by 'credible' and 'bluster'. And that particular remark doesn't even really qualify as a threat. It's more of a prediction.

A more likely scenario is that she went crying to the police with a nasty email, some polite officer said something like, "Well, I see how you might have interpreted this remark as a death threat, but we don't act on this kind of thing" and sent her away. There was no police action taken, right? Now when she's asked about her police report, she's embarrassed because the police thought she was over-reacting, so she puts a little spin on the story. "Well, I didn't think it was a threat, but the police did." Only they didn't because they didn't act on it. And they wouldn't have even known about the email if she hadn't taken it to them in a paranoid tizzy.

 

[Tom Kindlon]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/676250314685612032

 

[Tom Kindlon]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/676250966761431040

 

[Isabelle]

The wording of the response is odd:

‘In conclusion, the university considers that when applying a holistic approach, this request can properly be considered to be vexatious.’

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23608059/PACE F325-15 - Prof. James Coyne - Response-2.pdf

“The term `holistic' refers to my conviction that what we are concerned with here is the fundamental interconnectedness of all things… I see the solution to each problem as being detectable in the pattern and web of the whole. The connections between causes and effects are often much more subtle and complex than we with our rough and ready understanding of the physical world might naturally suppose, Mrs Rawlinson.”

―Douglas Adams, Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency


(Bolding mine.)

 

[Sean]

I'm also surprised, given the language police see routinely, along with their knowledge of what is legal and what is not, that the police would suggest such a comment is a death threat. I find it more likely that they'd roll their eyes at someone bringing them something like that. I feel sorry for the Metropolitan Police if they interpret every remark of that sort as a death threat. They must be grossly overworked chasing down 'death threats' from ex-wives, ex-boyfriends, and angry neighbors who hurl unpleasant insults, send angry emails, and post nasty remarks on FB. I thought the police usually sort threats by 'credible' and 'bluster'.

Need to do a compare and contrast with others who get actual death threats all the time, like senior politicians and celebrities and climate change scientists.

I am quite confident that serious 'threats' from ME/CFS patients will be pretty much non-existent, certainly in comparison, and probably in absolute terms as well, and that the researchers/clinicians who made these claims will be seriously exposed and embarrassed by such comparisons.

 

[TiredSam]

It seems a rather disingenuous attitude on her part. I wonder why she showed it to the police if she didn't consider it actionable. Not everyone goes running to the police when someone says, "You will pay for what you've done."

I'm also surprised, given the language police see routinely, along with their knowledge of what is legal and what is not, that the police would suggest such a comment is a death threat. I find it more likely that they'd roll their eyes at someone bringing them something like that. I feel sorry for the Metropolitan Police if they interpret every remark of that sort as a death threat. They must be grossly overworked chasing down 'death threats' from ex-wives, ex-boyfriends, and angry neighbors who hurl unpleasant insults, send angry emails, and post nasty remarks on FB. I thought the police usually sort threats by 'credible' and 'bluster'. And that particular remark doesn't even really qualify as a threat. It's more of a prediction.

A more likely scenario is that she went crying to the police with a nasty email, some polite officer said something like, "Well, I see how you might have interpreted this remark as a death threat, but we don't act on this kind of thing" and sent her away. There was no police action taken, right? Now when she's asked about her police report, she's embarrassed because the police thought she was over-reacting, so she puts a little spin on the story. "Well, I didn't think it was a threat, but the police did." Only they didn't because they didn't act on it. And they wouldn't have even known about the email if she hadn't taken it to them in a paranoid tizzy.

There's a book called "Wasting Police Time" which I read some years ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC_David_Copperfield
It's written by a policeman describing how he spends about 1 hour a day doing policing and 7 a day doing the paperwork, mostly for petty crime. Apparently if Sharon and Kelly have a falling out because Sharon thinks Kelly's trying to pinch her boyfriend so she sends a text to Kelly saying "Kelly u bitch I will kill u" and Kelly goes to the police, they have to follow it up, warn Sharon, do the paperwork etc.

So the police do actually have to investigate that kind of thing, no matter how petty. For the the email in this case to be considered inactionable shows how trivial it must have been. Maybe she should have been charged with wasting police time? She's certainly wasted enough of ours with this nonsense.

 

[Chrisb]

I have probably been rather slow on the uptake, but it has puzzled me that the university seems prepared to back the researchers to the extent that they do.

I suddenly recalled hearing, long ago, of the linkage of central funding for universities being based on quality of research rather than teaching. On this basis Oxbridge and the London universities were deemed to receive a disproportionate share of the funds. Is this still correct and what implications would the discrediting of a major Government backed piece of research be likely to have on the universities' future income?

Could this be a factor in the determination to fight? Here comes that concept of secondary gain, again.

 

[user9876]

It seems a rather disingenuous attitude on her part. I wonder why she showed it to the police, if she didn't consider it actionable. Not everyone goes running to the police when someone says, "You will pay for what you've done."

Since she is a pediatrician I could come up with other scenarios where there could be child protection action happening because parents are 'non-compliant'. Having had a bad experience with her as a doctor I really wouldn't trust her.

 

[soti]

Need to do a compare and contrast with others who get actual death threats all the time, like senior politicians and celebrities and climate change scientists.

and women in gaming...

 

[Sean]

and women in gaming...

Yeah, that is not a nice story, is it.

 

[jimells]

I hope Simon Wessely doesn't hear we've got a "human sacrifice enthusiast" on our side. He'll definitely take that as a death threat.

Why would Sir Simon be threatened by a "human sacrifice enthusiast"? He's been sacrificing patients his whole bloody career!

 

[alex3619]

If someone showed up at a public event with a knife would there not be a record of it?

This is second hand but I have heard it from several sources, though it might still be rumour. Some PWME turned up at an event with a small peeling knife, for her apple. No threats or threatening gestures were made. They over-reacted and considered it a threat. Maybe someone with more knowledge of this can comment.

 

[alex3619]

Let me point out that "you will pay" is even used by Prime Minsters. David Cameron made a similar statement about rioters. Can he be considered a terrorist on that basis? "You will pay" can include legal action, or social approbation, or just ill will as in venting anger.

 

[skipskip30]

Let me point out that "you will pay" is even used by Prime Minsters. David Cameron made a similar statement about rioters. Can he be considered a terrorism on that basis? "You will pay" can include legal action, or social approbation, or just ill will as in venting anger.

Just goes to show how people with power can twist anything in whatever way they like. Sometimes they dont even realise they are doing it I dont think. Of course other times they know exactly...