David Tuller: Trial By Error: My Most Recent Exchange with Bristol

David Tuller: Trial By Error: My Most Recent Exchange with Bristol

http://www.virology.ws/2019/05/13/trial-by-error-my-most-recent-exchange-with-bristol/

13 May 2019

By David Tuller, DrPH

Last month, I sent Sue Paterson, Bristol University’s director of legal services, a couple of e-mails seeking answers to several questions. Those e-mails can be read here and here. I cc-d a few other people.

On Friday, May 10, I received a response. This morning, I wrote back. I cc-d those I had previously cc-d, since they did not seem to have been cc-d on Bristol’s response to me. I have posted this recent exchange below…

 

@dave30th - this front end of BU's reply is revealing:

In your emails of 4 and 29 April you ask several questions, most of which do not relate to recorded information held by the University of Bristol, but rather seek to elicit opinions or to engage in debate. The University is not obliged to respond to such questions.

The University would respond to your questions about the confidential review of publications commissioned by the HRA if submitted as a Freedom of Information request. The following information is therefore provided, the text of which has been approved by the HRA.​

You may not be aware of this, but under the UK's Freedom of Information Act, public bodies have to respond to requests for information of which they hold a record but aren't obliged to respond to questions that ask for opinions:

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-freedom-of-information/what-is-the-foi-act/

So what BU are saying is that they're not going to respond to your questions because the law doesn't force them to do so.

This is appalling. They should be ashamed of themselves.

 

Right. That's what they're saying. I pointed out in my response that they can choose to not respond but that doesn't meant the questions won't continue to be asked. Questions that can be responded to adequately tend to be responded to adequately. Refusal to respond, especially when rendered in such huffy tones, tends to mean pretty much what one would assume it does.

 

@dave30th, I haven't had to time to look at all the material in detail but it does not look to me as if your questions last time asked for opinion or sought to engage in debate. Rather it seems that they asked for answers relating to Bristol University policy on issues of probity of significant public interest. I can see that as director of legal services Ms Paterson might have an interest in legal issues but I assume that you are writing to her because the University has suggested she is the right person to answer your questions about probity - as would perhaps be the case for a solicitor acting for a client.

What seems to be clear is that Bristol University does not wish to concede that problems may have arisen nor to give the impression that in good faith it is trying its best to mitigate these.

 

I can see John's point but my memory is that the Dean or Vice Chancellor directed David's queries to Paterson in the first place, presumably expecting her to act as a solicitor would for a client whose behaviour was considered by another party to be unreasonable.

 

Being snippy in responding to a legitimate request on clearly unethical lapses is not nearly as good a look as they seem to be.

Sometimes assumptions only makes an ass out of U(niversity of Bristol). Adult supervision badly needed for these petulant children. Actually, strike that, most children have a better sense of ethics.

 

Yes, that does seem a sensible option!

 

You could also forward your correspondence with Bristol's Legal Team to the HRA, asking them to pass it along to the Chair of the review panel to see if he/she can find out where the documents you're looking for are held.

 

@dave30th

Aside from the very sensible information and direction from @Jonathan Edwards and @JohnTheJack:

Re the University's direction to do FOIS, that's possibly or likely a wild goose chase.

All it seems they are required to do is acknowledge your request - that doesn't mean they will produce any documentation -but you know this already.

Thank you for your excellent, continued work on behalf of our world-wide community.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering at any time.

Pretty pathetic that they are using this in an academic setting instead of sharing information for the greater good. Of course the greater good will affect their good, so they just gonna shut up!!

 

Probably their biggest fear is either a court case where they lose their medical licenses or that a mainstream news organization will catch wind of this and start breathing down their necks and reporting what they find. If the BBC or Guardian started investigating or posting David Tuller's articles the audience and pressure would skyrocket and then they are done.

 

She's been my main point of contact at Bristol. I can't write to Professor Crawley and the vice chancellor or his office has filed the complaints about me with Berkeley's chancellor. I think I first touched base with her after I was accused of libel and then when I was falsely told that Bristol had sent me a cease and desist letter. If Bristol wanted to answer these questions, it would forward my message to the appropriate person, if Paterson is not. I think what I am trying to document is that the journals, the universities and everyone else involves simply refuse to answer when asked tough questions.
i
From a legal perspective, they obviously don't have to answer everything. But they seem to think their refusal to answer should somehow give them the right not to be asked the same questions over and over again. I'm sure why they would think that.

There are no legitimate answers to what was done in the Lightning Process study except to acknowledge the facts and retract the paper, since it should not have been published in the first place. There are no legitimate answers to the consent forms, either--my assumption is that there are no consent forms for these interviews because the study was pushed through as service evaluation. Bristol can pretend that its response to a FOI request is the end of the matter, but that is an inadequate defense and will not, I think, hold up well over time.

 

I disagree. Those aren't tough questions. They're basic questions with straightforward answers that are embarrassing. They are making the process of wringing answers tough, but the questions are mostly yes/no that should have lead to people losing their job for obviously failing miserably. It's simply hitting a political wall.

It's the answers that are tough to admit. The questions, not so much. Like asking a kid with a chocolate-covered mouth who ate the chocolate cookies. Easy question, but the answers can get pretty creative and evasive (and some vexatious dog-blaming in the process).

 

Do we have access to a UK legal eagle's informal expertise? Maybe first ask them what, if they were acting for Bristol, they would advise Bristol to do; I suspect the advice would be to do pretty much what they are doing. Then maybe ask them, if they were acting for us, what their advice might be?

 

Love this! Yes of course--the questions are only tough because the answers are obvious and can only involve acknowledging unacceptable behavior.

 

Re legal expertise: is Valerie Eliot Smith a member?

 

This +1000
Tragically a lot of media today won't acknowledge the painfully obvious and hide behind bothsiderism because they fear the "other side's" wrath