Harassment claims in the media and social media.

Especially given the history of tall tales. The idea that there would be a unit in a police station dedicated to "monitoring" this is beyond laughable. Even the odds of a single recruit being tasked with it stretches disbelief, police have far better things to do. Even campus police would borderline be a stretch.

As we have discussed in another thread, there is a pattern going back decades of making obviously false claims about us. This should have an impact on the credibility of their claims, and yet again they are allowed to hint at the very same allegations, anonymously even, without any evidence.

At some point this decades-long pattern of dishonesty must be emphasized and have an impact on how what they say is framed. Which Chivers did in part, but the pattern suggests far too much malfeasance to be treated with such deference.

It really shows how utterly unable they are to defend anything they do. They just never had to, and it really shows. It's about time they have to answer questions, until now they've always basically had an open mic favorable treatment.

 

I don't think the UK has such a body as "campus police" with different legal rights, duties and responsibilities to the ordinary police.

 

Thanks, I'd be interested.

It was early 2016 when I was collaborating on a series of three requests for information. I didn't know until that March that Hanlon had died in the February, aged 51.

 

Science Media Centre:

Views from the Front Line:

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/...ews-from-the-front-line-essays-on-the-SMC.pdf

With thanks to our sponsors
The following organisations have contributed to the costs of the Science Media Centre’s 10th anniversary:
BIVDA, BP plc, British Pharmacological Society, EUK Consulting, GlaxoSmithKline, Imperial College London,
Maudsley Charity, MSD, National Grid, Society for Applied Microbiology, Society for General Microbiology,
Springer Science+Business Media, Wellcome Trust


Item by Michael Hanlon Page 5


Page 16: Esther Crawley article on ME, CFS "harassment":

"For years we had felt, I think, like victims. I was quite new to it all but even I had started to wonder whether I should give up..."


Page 17: Tom Fielden article on ME, CFS "harassment":

"Although I knew that chronic fatigue syndrome was a controversial illness that provoked strong opinions, I wasn’t aware that the health care professionals and scientific researchers working on the problem were the ones at the eye of the storm. Nor was I prepared for the level of vitriolic abuse or the campaign of intimidation that was being waged against them.

The original idea for the story came from my editor, Ceri Thomas. At an SMC meeting he’d heard something about doctors being targeted at conferences and on the internet, and thought it might be worth looking into. I contacted the Centre. It was clear from the reaction to my call that we had a big story..."

 

Proper use of the green banana might prevent the bullshit coming out.

 

To be certain you'd need 2.

 

Woolie!!!!

 

Or possibly Fiona Fox, CE of Science Media Centre?

 

For those not familiar with this 2014 document:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/92m09l9tq55pihh/Behind the Scenes - Research Collaborative.pdf

BEHIND THE SCENES: SETTING UP THE UK CFS/ME RESEARCH COLLABORATIVE (UK CMRC)

A Report from Tymes Trust: the inside story on the Collaborative.

Extract:

(...)

Harassment

- Harassment is most damaging in the form of vexatious FOIs.
- Complaints are also causing problems. Researchers are still dealing with complaints about them to the GMC.
- House of Lords Debates on CFS/ME can result in Parliamentary Questions which often require detailed responses

• (quote 17) ….. researchers are using strategies to reduce the impact of harassment and put the case for research into CFS/ME including:

- Learning about the FOI Act and using strategies to reduce time spent responding, eg putting minutes of meetings online
- Coming together as a research community to respond to criticisms eg the joint letter in response to criticisms of Simon Wessely receiving the John Maddox prize.
- Working with trusted journalists to cover the problems associated with CFS/ME research
- Esther Crawley and Stephen Holgate are establishing a research collaborative including researchers, charities and other interested parties. There will be a launch event on 22nd April.

• (quote 18) from Action Points

- SMC – run FOI Act brainstorm
- ALL – look for opportunities to publicise CFS/ME research and give background information about the condition
- Support4rs* – work with Peter White and Simon Wessely to develop resources for dealing with harassment
- SMC – run a press briefing on biosocial illness to improve public understanding. Fiona Fox to get information from Trudie Chalder and Rona Ross-Morris.

[Extract ends]

Full document by TYMES Trust which was compiled from material obtained under an FOI request:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/92m09l9tq55pihh/Behind the Scenes - Research Collaborative.pdf

---------------------

* Support4rs

https://www.support4rs.com/who-we-are/

Our Background

support4rs provides specialist risk management services and a range of solutions to support organisations which are subjected to focus from protest and radical factions...

...The strength of support4rs arises from extensive subject knowledge, skills and specialism of our staff acquired within the British Police Service and other security based environments...

...Director of support4rs, Sam Nicholls, has transposed expertise and professional capability gained within the UK Police Service, particularly as the National Coordinator of Operations – Domestic Extremism, leading the UK Police’s national investigatory response, as a Senior Investigating Officer, and subsequently in a global commercial context, to develop specialist and bespoke risk management support to all commercial sectors.

Experienced crime and research analysts delivering real time information ensures we are uniquely placed to support any organisation, or individual, where protest, and the associated features, are a cause for concern...

 

What a frisson they must have got from all this activity.

 

Should be an ME/CFS patient, they have been on the wrong end of harassment for many years from the medical establishment thanks to naff BPS research.

 

Off topic but posted for the amusement of readers: I once had a very vivid dream of being killed by overripe, mushy banana: it was slowly being pushed in my ear by a bear.

 

I dunno what Freud would have made of that one...

 

A mint, obviously

 

O gods, and I didn't even mention that my mother was there too...


Edited to ps: He probably would have thought it was hysterical.

 

Universities don't have a security department? It's not "police" police, though, but is about the highest level such a tall tale would get escalated.

 

Bullies always cry harder than their victims when faced with the minor inconvenience of having to hear about the victim's suffering.

 

Harassment and science - what have the got to do with each other? Nothing much.

If BPS scientists are responsible for promoting and engaging in rubbish harmful science, how do any harassment issues (even if they were true) change the fact they are responsible for promoting and engaging in rubbish harmful science? It doesn't!

So why do they make such a big play of it? Because they are con artists at heart. Play the victim card, the sympathy vote. Falsely discredit detractors. Use highly emotive issues to blind people to, and divert their attention from, the truth ... that BPS scientists are responsible for promoting and engaging in rubbish harmful science.

The two things do not belong in the same conversation, the same article. If you are going to do an article on BPS cr@p science, then to do an article on BPS cr@p science - don't muddy the waters with any other stuff that has nothing to do with them doing cr@p science.

The fact the BPS "scientists" operate in this way, in truth provides excellent evidence they are not scientists! Scientists engage in the science, which has to include constructive criticism of their science - if they cannot do that then by definition they are not scientists as I see it.

 

Well, they stared down the barrel of the gun of repeated Freedom of Information requests, PWME attending their talks and having their work critiqued, so we should respect them as heroes they are.