Esther Crawley talk at TEDxBristol, Thurs 2nd Bristol - "Disrupting Your View Of ME"

[Sasha]

I understand wanting access to primary sources. John seems like the sensible person to ask. We all have slightly different standards for evidence, and what claims can be cited. I'd assume John would be fine with people asking around too.

It's just that if someone is going to have to tweet, 'X said that Y said that...' then...

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

Let's please focus on the great things Jen is doing, which are many.

It is a fact that a few days ago she was posting urging folk to ignore, ignore, ignore, Crawley. If Jen has had a change of heart since then, fair enough. But no-one is above criticism.

 

[Allele]

But no-one is above criticism.

I agree with that completely.
I am suggesting that it is best to focus criticism on those who are causing damage, rather than those who are doing their best as an ally.
Especially when they pivot to a PoV you are in alignment with--worthy more of praise then.

 

[Sasha]

The status that Jen has gained in the public eye makes her expressing a view a powerful thing:

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

I agree with that completely.
I am suggesting that it is best to focus criticism on those who are causing damage, rather than those who are doing their best as an ally.
Especially when they pivot to a PoV you are in alignment with--worthy more of praise then.

Whatever her view is now, I don't consider Crawley should be ignored. And I don't consider I should be discouraged from voicing that opinion.

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

The status that Jen has gained in the public eye makes her expressing a view a powerful thing:

Exactly, and a few days ago she was actively encouraging folk to ignore Crawley. I was not alone in having concerns about this.

I do hope this forum is not going to be a place where selected high profile advocates are exempt from criticism. If it is - then it's not a place where I am going to feel comfortable.

 

[Allele]

Jeepers, no one is trying to silence you! I am suggesting that it's nice to use discernment in who we chose to publicly scorn, and you've used yours, more power to you. I'd like to use my voice as well.

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

Jeepers, no one is trying to silence you! I am suggesting that it's nice to use discernment in who we chose to publicly scorn, and you've used yours, more power to you. I'd like to use my voice as well.

I am sorry, but I am not going to tip toe on eggshells around certain people.

I consider it was ill advised of Jen to be urging people to ignore, ignore, ignore Esther Crawley. I fail to see why expressing that opinion should be considered not "nice".

I can't do "nice".

If I consider something is ill advised, I'm going to voice that.

If that is going to upset people then it's probably best that I'm not here. I've had enough problems on other forums down the years where selected advocates are beyond criticism.

So allow me to have the dubious honour of being the first to leave.

I suggest the mods draw up a list of who can and who cannot be criticized so you all know where you stand.

 

[Valentijn]

I suggest the mods draw up a list of who can and who cannot be criticized so you all know where you stand.

The short answer would be that criticism is allowed by the forum rules. The slightly longer answer would be that such criticism shouldn't derail a thread which has a different focus. So in many cases it might be more appropriate to start a separate thread to discuss criticism if it isn't directly relevant to the existing thread.

 

[BurnA]

If I consider something is ill advised, I'm going to voice that.

If that is going to upset people then it's probably best that I'm not here.

I agree with you that Jens tweet was inappropriate, but calm down.

We can all disagree without threatening to leave.

 

[JohnTheJack]

I understand wanting access to primary sources. John seems like the sensible person to ask. We all have slightly different standards for evidence, and what claims can be cited. I'd assume John would be fine with people asking around too.

I haven't read the whole of this thread on here, but can say the following:

Someone else contacted Gill. That person prefers not to be named. They forwarded me an email from Gill that said (direct quotation):

This is a photo illustration I created for an article that was published in The Sunday Times Magazine in 2013.

I created it using the wording from threats Simon Wessely had received at the time (it certainly is disturbing!)

Prof Crawley contacted me asking if she could use the image in her presentations. I gave her permission in good faith.

I’ve read your tweets and responses about Prof Crawley’s presentation (I had a quick google when your email arrived). I was a bit concerned about how she presented the image - the context of the image is clearly important and not disclosed! Ive dropped her an email asking her to be clear in her presentations that the image was an illustration published in the ST Magazine.

I have had no dealings with Gill, but I know someone else has. Understandably I think, Gill has said that he does not want to become involved further in the dispute.

 

[Snowdrop]

Whatever her view is now, I don't consider Crawley should be ignored. And I don't consider I should be discouraged from voicing that opinion.

Can't see that anyone has done that here. I think we're all on the same page vis a vis EC.

 

[Esther12]

Thanks John. Really the article itself already made it clear that the 'balls' threat came from a purported call to Wessely. It's possible that the artist who created this used that purported quote, and then co-incidentally Crawley get sent an e-mail using the same quote... but that's getting a bit far fetched.

Understandably I think, Gill has said that he does not want to become involved further in the dispute.

One of the problems with wanting to rely on public statements is that some people have useful info, but do not want to bother making a public statement about it.

 

[Daisymay]

I created it using the wording from threats Simon Wessely had received at the time (it certainly is disturbing!)

So for dramatic effect to presumably make PWME look as bad as possible, Gill took the most inflammatory words from more than one threat to come up with his fake poison pen letter.

If these threats were phone calls to Professor Wessely than there is no proof of their existence?

Unless they were recorded in which case the police could have traced them and action would have been taken?

 

[ladycatlover]

I tried to view Crawley's TEDx stuff, but got a message saying that the copyright belonged to (can't remember organisation) and so it couldn't be broadcast in my country. I'm in UK for heaven's sake, and the last I knew so is Bristol? Does anyone have a working link for UK? Or is it all just disappearing?

EDIT it's [Merlin] Redeye Distribution. Maybe it's just the bit that's on now?

 

[Trish]

I consider it was ill advised of Jen to be urging people to ignore, ignore, ignore Esther Crawley.

I was slightly surprised to read that tweet from Jen Brea, until I realised she probably meant to suggest that we don't all pile in and watch the TedX talk and bump up its ratings by doing so. Edit to add: Or she might have meant, don't go to the talk and give her a large audience.

I can't imagine she was suggesting we ignore Crawley, her research etc. or stop critiquing her work.

 

[RuthT]

I was slightly surprised to read that tweet from Jen Brea, until I realised she probably meant to suggest that we don't all pile in and watch the TedX talk and bump up its ratings by doing so. Edit to add: Or she might have meant, don't go to the talk and give her a large audience.

I can't imagine she was suggesting we ignore Crawley, her research etc. or stop critiquing her work.

At the first news of the Bristol TedX talk, Jen did suggest to ignore, but when I suggested positive tweets about Unrest & good research, she responded positively and suggested people tweet #tedxBristol & with stories of damage from GET & CBT, so ignore wasn’t the only thing she said. The concern was not to fall into pitfalls which would deliver ammunition to Esther Crawley’s allegations of abuse.

Edited to add image of Twitter feed

 

[Viola]

Another reads: "To those of you who are responsible for preventing us sick ME sufferers from getting the help we need, wasting £5m on flawed bullshit and trying to discredit the real scientists who are trying to help us, you will all pay."

Is "you will pay" a threat?"

You will pay does not sound at all like a threat when that quote is put in context.

It sounds like they mean these people will pay with their careers, reputations and possibly in court.

Personally I think the BPS school won't ever pay for what they have done to us as they are the establishment and the establishment protects its own. There are too many people implicated in the abuse of patients for the establishment to want an open inquiry into it.

Interesting that the"threatening" allegedly anti-science email is supportive of good scientists ("real scientists") and science.

 

[BruceInOz]

Another possibility is that someone sent her a copy of the image after it was published and after the article in which she discussed the threats she had received. That may make what she has said truthful (but still despicable).

 

[Esther12]

Another possibility is that someone sent her a copy of the image after it was published and after the article in which she discussed the threats she had received. That may make what she has said truthful (but still despicable).

LOL - maybe Wessely sent it to her? "ICYMI..."