Trial By Error: Professor Sharpe’s Retraction Requests

Hmmmmm....
https://twitter.com/user/status/1098233146015973377

 

This is much worse. It's a clear pattern of intimidation and abuse of public trust because they abused the influence of the offices they held for personal reasons. It's a serious offence considering it seems to be systemic, that every critic is an immediate target of intimidation and personal threats.

 

Another in a clear pattern of intimidation:
https://twitter.com/user/status/1098156393159376896

 

Time to put out a record of this. Unfortunately the biggest obstacle is precisely the threat of retaliation. I have seen so many hints of this pattern of intimidation but always reticent to come forward because of direct threats. Careers are directly threatened for those in the UK. Outside it's meaningless threats to bosses and editors but inside the UK there is a clear omerta.
https://twitter.com/user/status/1098224185845923841

 

This isn't really intimidation maybe, but still - so just posting to thread

https://twitter.com/user/status/1097629232111464448

 

https://www.s4me.info/threads/trial...t-an-upcoming-article.7944/page-5#post-140477

time to create a thread for this?

 

Yes

 

Let me guess - in the minds of Wessely, Geralda, and other BPS activists, Ben Goldacre gets to be defined as a valiant whistleblower for grassing up Emma Reinhold. They just have to redefine words to fit their purpose, as they've always done.

 

Yes it basically means they have appointed themselves as the referees whilst playing on the opposing teams at the same time with the whistles poised in their mouths running around football fields looking for the most skilful players to give red cards to.

 

Eminence-based harassment?

 

edit: PS - I'd assumed 'eminence based harassment' was tongue in cheek, and wasn't really replying specifically to comments here, but this was just something I'd been thinking about when reading a few different threads where people expressed concerns about all this.

I'm wary of jumping to talking about their attempts at applying political pressure as 'intimidation' or 'harassment'. I think that it's good to make people aware of how they work behind the scenes to try to avoid debate and dissuade people from speaking out, but I think it's best to try to avoid a situation where the debate about PACE gets lost in people arguing over whether FOI requests or complaints are a more serious form of harassment.

They're generally more powerful and well connected figures, so they can apply pressure more easily and effectively than us, and will seem more genuinely intimidating to a lot of people who don't want to risk harming their own careers, but I think that that we're best of just describing their behaviour rather than applying labels to it.

 

Nope, don't agree at all. If you want to tie yourself up in linguistic contortions in order to not call intimidation intimidation then go for it, but I think for the majority it's obviously attempts at intimidation and should be labelled as such.

 

Looks like Sharpe will need to be sending another email
https://twitter.com/user/status/1098266126860066816

 

So very helpful of Sharpe to make that exellent article make another rounds

 

So how would you name it, @Esther12 ?
I am quite brain-fogged at the moment, but I maybe tried to make a similar point here: https://www.s4me.info/threads/intim...other-psychosocial-research.8261/#post-145614

 

I don't think it's jumping, though. It just reached a critical mass, it's been building for a long time. I mentioned it a few times before, those hush hints at having been threatened but not daring to put details forward out of fear of retaliation. It's a clear pattern, and a long one at that.

The important thing is to avoid speculation, focus on the facts. They clearly speak for themselves. So far by my count most critics of PACE have had their bosses yelled at by powerful figures who should normally not be concerned with such things as it's political (or administrative) interference in science. That's completely abnormal, there is absolutely no reasonable explanation for this.

If we stick to the facts it will be fine. We can't do much than gather the facts and let them speak for themselves anyway.

 

The guy is a psychoanalist, not sure he's in the best position to criticise science.

 

Agree with you and @Esther12 on this one - not labelling the behavior, just calling it out and let the reader make the conclusion themself. That would have been the approach working best here at least. Calling it harassment would just get us (as in here) involved in a 'screaming match', about labels, and them finding worse labels for advocates - loosing the focus of what they really did.

But we're in the tip-toing around tactics, UK might be very different. But I'm preparing mentally for how this will be framed here, either way.

 

Would you call Tuller's open letters an attempt at intimidation? The MP's speaking out? Almost any attempt to apply pressure to people can be viewed as intimidation. I just worry that when we talk about 'intimidation' we end up shifting the discussion away from the science and onto 'We get sent abusive e-mails' 'You complained to my boss' 'They tried to disrupt my lecture with unwelcome comments'... I think that makes it harder for us to make progress.

@MSEsperanza - yeah, I thought that your phrasing is useful.

I agree about the importance of sticking to the facts, and I think that it is useful to bring this stuff more into the open, but I'd just avoid the 'intimidation' label for the reasons above.

 

Look Michael - he read the paper

https://twitter.com/user/status/1098288382537551872