...Suzy - the Pinching Director quote, not my words I'm afraid...taken from erythos.com/RiME/Docs/NL0403.rtf. He was still chief advisor at the time of some of my writing, a lot of it is in editing stage at the moment. The person who was meant to edit most of it and cross reference everything did about three lines then gave up so I've had to start again doing most of it which is hard work, especially when I can't find links and half the original sources are no longer on the web.
It is always advisable to edit material before publishing and to check sources, especially if you are relying on sources that are not up to date.
You stated that Pinching is a "Director" of AfME. "Director" of a charity has a specific meaning in Charity and Company Law. Prof Pinching is not a "Director/Trustee" of AfME.
We have agreed that he was their Medical Adviser and has, or is shortly standing down. Action for M.E. and Prof Pinching announced this some weeks ago.
I accept that you have relied on an outdated reference source but I am more concerned that you have misstated that Prof Pinching is a Director of Action for M.E. and that you understand the difference.
(The URL you have quoted for RiME is for the RiME legacy site. You may wish to note that RiME maintains a site at this URL: http://www.rime.me.uk )
The "Directors" of Action for M.E. are its Trustees, as set out in the Company's Annual Report and Accounts. As Directors/Trustees they have specific legal responsibilities under Charity and Company Law. Prof Pinching, as a Medical Adviser (and soon to be former Medical Adviser), does not function in this role subject to the roles and responsibilities that charity Directors/Trustees are governed by. This is a very important difference.
I have removed the link to your website and the relevant article - I thought that as long as I stated it was by you it was publishable but if you don't want it on there fair enough.
In the Disclaimer on my sites there is a clause which states that material authored by me may be reproduced elsewhere in full or in part as long as the source is credited, the date of publication given and link back to the specific posting from which the material has been extracted.
However, I retain the copyright and I do not give permission for my material to be published on a site where the site owner is not prepared to be upfront about their identity and where the content requires checking for accuracy.
I haven't put my real name to my site no...although I have stated that by no means is the site offering medical advice, treatment, recommendations, advice on benefits and suchlike. I don't see what difference it is if I put my name to it...if they want to come for me, let them come.
If you are the owner of the site, you are responsible for its content and any claims made within its content. Should readers of your site take issue with its content or have a query in relation to its content, they should be in a position to take this up with the site owner and they will expect it to be transparent who is responsible for the content and how to contact them.
The whole point is that it's not just my site but the work of a collective, seen as a movement of people, the everyman so to speak..people are contributing their thoughts, articles, stuff from medical professionals (anonymous of course) is on its way. Just look out for the Man Behind the Curtain...
I won't take the emphasis of this thread away any longer...if you wish to ask me any more stuff just drop me a PM.
I note that you have a reference on your site to "Dr Crippen's" retirement as an NHS GP.
When "Dr Crippen" posted on his blog, in early March, announcing his retirement, he stated that he had already retired several weeks previously.
"Dr Crippen" was a senior practitioner in a GP practice where he had served for many years. By the time he announced that he had retired, in early March, the practice had already installed his replacement. So he had already left the practice by February.
How much notice do you think a long serving GP in a senior position within a GP practice would need to give of a decision to retire, in order that a vacancy can be advertised, potential replacements interviewed and their period of notice served, before taking up their new post?
I would have expected "Dr Crippen" to have tendered his decision to retire before the end of 2009 and before the "letter to the Guardian" campaign had been initiated.
There is a great deal of misinformation and conspiracy hauled around the internet. If our concerns and our situation are to be taken seriously by professionals, politicians, government departments, the media and the public, we need to ensure that what we publish is accurate.
We should also be prepared to accept responsibility for what we publish on the internet.