Better Science through Better Data 25th October 2017 - Esther Crawley!

I think that's the point. You only need one real wacko to send something like that, then she can infer that all the people who disagree with her are of the same ilk. No shortage of wackos.

Edit: Just read the note enlarged. Not a hardcore wacko it would seem. Probably more like someone whose life she has screwed, or someone they love.

 

That's why she isn't displaying an actual note she received. They simply aren't that bad (as the FOI tribunal found), and she also doesn't want to repeat someone's accusation that she's sadistic and delusional, or the implication that she thinks a disease can be cured with exercise.

So it's far easier to turn doctors and academics against patients by showing a fake letter with no coherent message and a shocking threat of violence, as an "illustration". Her implication that it's a real threat, and made against her, is an unacceptable deception.

 

Not had a chance to delve into all the detail. Are you saying unequivocally she just put that up as an "illustrative example", rather than a copy an actual message sent to her?

 

It clearly wasn't sent to her, since a newspaper created it It's not clear if it's a reproduction of an actual letter or phone call. But it does sound like it wasn't sent in that form, eg with the text formed from magazine cut-outs, since the newspaper wouldn't own the image if that were the case.

But Crawley made it sound like it was directed at her.

 

The wording seems to be a composite of several claimed threats that appear in the accompanying Sunday Times article, with a few more menacing statements added for good measure. In the article Wessely claimed that someone had left him a phone message threatening to 'cut his balls off', while Crawley said that she had received an email referring to her as an 'evil bastard'.

So it's not a reproduction of an actual letter, email or phone call - it's a fabrication, which amalgamates (and amplifies) several different unproven claims. And whether she has permission to use it from the Sunday Times or not, it's obviously disgraceful that Crawley has passed it off as a genuine threat that she's received.

 

Maybe the Sunday Times could be informed of what she's been doing with the image, and rescind their permission to use it.

 

Does anyone know whether questions were ever raised with the newspaper and the journalist about the creation of these images in the first place and their use with the article? They seem wildly inappropriate for a supposedly serious newspaper to have used. Had it been the News of the World one would have expected no different.

 

Does any self respecting nutter actually make messages out of newspaper words any more? The whole point is to disguise your handwriting, to escape identification. These days if you made a letter that way it would be well coated with your DNA. I think a real letter would more likely be on A4 in Comic Sans set to green, with the page carefully taken from the middle of the ream while wearing plastic gloves. I didn't think the kind of letter she showed existed outside jokes and illustrations, er, illustrations used for magazine covers for visual effect.

Last time I wanted a typewritten document, for effect, I used a wonky typewriter font downloaded from the web.

There is certainly no need for a truly vexatious nearly dead person to mess about scissors.

 

I suspect it's an affectation only used for effect, as a lot of them are. Possibly only thought to be a desirable effect by a child (or someone of the mental age, or mindset, of a child) who probably does the whole scrapbooking thing (and is thus familiar with the technology employed).

Based entirely on this I suspect it was compiled by someone educated at St Trinians, or somewhere similar, as I suspect a Hogwarts pupil would simply turn her inside out, in an amusing fashion, wands are after all much safer than scissors.

 

Another question to arise, and to which we will probably never know the answer , is, has this image been used at such lectures in the past, and if so, how often?

It seems unlikely that this is its first appearance. Who knows how many might have been prejudiced by this nonsense?

 

Just a heads up that each printed piece of paper has a secret binary code embedded in it with dots. This enables forensic examination of documents, and tells the who, where, when etc of the document.

This sounds like crazy paranoid talk, but it is in fact true.

Not that I suspect you're going to produce something like this.

On a colour printer the dots are a very faint yellow. Not sure about non-colour printers. I've always thought it would be quite a good way of exposing suspicious letters about appointments from the DWP.

 

Before I got sidetracked, what I really wanted to say was that extrapolating a few characteristics from individuals and applying them to a whole group is a classic form of bigotry, and might be a good avenue to pursue towards willing listeners, especially when challenging claims like this on social media.

 

Only because people misuse it!!

 

I resent that implication, I, no longer, misuse IT

 

I am not suggesting anyone should back off but I am seriously thinking Dr Crawley needs some help. She is way out of line in terms of what is acceptable in terms of scientists' behaviour. Since the summer there seems have been a change to something altogether bizarre. I am not surprised that Dr Newton has left the CMRC board. I wonder why Dr Holgate has not tried to defuse the situation. This sort of thing can only end in tears. It is almost as if she is aping the behaviour she attributes to others. I cannot do anything but someone close to her ought to step in and help - for everyone's sake.

 

Ahh!, shoots, and leaves, at dawn, is it?

 

Why does nobody in her scientific audiences seem to spot it? Her ridiculous performances are usually followed by tweets of support. She seems to know something we don't about getting away with this kind of stuff.

 

Language develops, changes are accepted, methinks yon stuff happens. There are quite a lot of words where meanings have reversed from their "correct" meaning.

 

Projection is incredibly common. How people interpret the behaviour of others invariably says more about themselves than those they think they understand.