Trial By Error: The Crawley Chronicles, Continued

Barry said:
I think David Tuller likely caught EC completely off guard, and in attempting to bluster her way out of her predicament, in front of all her worshippers, she blurted out the best she could come up with to try and sound big and gain the high ground ... :):D:rofl:.
Click to expand...
Except that it wasn't the first time she'd mentioned the 'cease and desist letter' was it?
 
@Valerie Eliot Smith - I wondered if you'd seen this exchange in the comments section of David Tuller's article and could advise him (any other UK-based lawyers here? I don't think Valerie visits the forum very often.)?

http://www.virology.ws/2017/11/29/t...wley-chronicles-continued/#comment-3638768116

Clark Ellis said:
"However you will be aware that the University of Bristol has for many years enjoyed a close and valued collaborative relationship with the University of California, Berkeley, and it is my understanding that private and confidential communication has taken place at a senior level about your actions and behavior towards staff involved with research into chronic fatigue syndrome and myalgic encephalomyelitis at the University of Bristol."

Wow, that's some admission. Why would there be private and confidential communication to your University unless they were trying to apply pressure to get you to stop pointing out the flaws in Crawley's research? Sounds well dodgy. In case you are unaware David the UK Data Protection Act may provide you with some legal right to see the parts of those communications held by Bristol that you are the subject of. It can't be private because the university are aware of them, mentioned them in a formal response to you, and it is about a matter relating to the work of the university which is considered a public body.
Click to expand...

David Tuller said:
Yes I'd like to file for the communications. So I could file under the Data Protection Act, not Freedom of Information?
Click to expand...
 
We know now there was no cease and desist letter.
I am fairly confident there was no other communication either.

The letter reads so badly, they didn't want to admit there was no letter so they dreamt up something else to scare David, and to sound like they were defending Crawley.

Either Crawley pressurised them to do it, or they have no idea what they are doing, or what they are getting into.

You couldn't make it up.
But I will enjoy the next episode.
 
Sasha said:
@Valerie Eliot Smith - I wondered if you'd seen this exchange in the comments section of David Tuller's article and could advise him (any other UK-based lawyers here? I don't think Valerie visits the forum very often.)?

http://www.virology.ws/2017/11/29/t...wley-chronicles-continued/#comment-3638768116
Click to expand...

I think Valarie has been helping David.

You can mix FoI and Subject access requests.
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-freedom-of-information/refusing-a-request/
Section 40(1) said:
Section 40(1) – personal information of the requester
This exemption confirms that you should treat any request made by an individual for their own personal data as a subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998. You should apply this to any part of the request that is for the requester’s own personal data. They should not be required to make a second, separate subject access request for these parts of their request. See our Guide to Data Protection – the rights of individuals (principle 6) for advice on how to handle subject access requests.

If the information contains some of the requester’s personal data plus other non-personal information, then you will need to consider releasing some of the information under the Data Protection Act and some under the Freedom of Information Act.

This exemption is absolute, so you do not need to apply the public interest test.

Requested information may involve the personal data of both the requester and others. For further information, read our guidance:
Click to expand...
 
How can they think that response is a good idea? It reads like: "We are not able to engage in any open debate on these issues, so instead, we have been doing all we can to apply pressure behind closed doors."

My partner was imagining Bristol Uni having a little chat with Esther: "This American man really is appalling, and you can be sure we'll do all we can to support you, but is there any way that you could stop saying so many things that are not true? We are definitely on your side, but it would really help us with our messaging if your claims were just a bit more accurate."
 
Last edited:
Barry said:
Supposing there has been no clandestine communications on the subject between the upper echelons of the two Unis, but Sue Paterson wanted to make it sound like such pressure was nonetheless being applied? If she knows there hasn't, but nonetheless wanted to give the impression it had, that might explain the backside-covering phrase "it is my understanding".

Probably no way of knowing, but it would be very interesting to know if any such communication ever really happened. I wouldn't be amazed if it never did, and it were just a deeply misguided, localised Bristol Uni ploy intended to intimidate, and maybe try and recover from having to concede that EC lied about the cease and desist letter. If so, then they would be treating Berkeley as another pawn in their game.
Click to expand...
That's exactly how I read it.
 
Esther12 said:
What is it with these uni's legal departments? This response reminds me of the misguided letter sent to Coyne: https://web.archive.org/web/20160314024024/https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23608059/PACE F325-15 - Prof. James Coyne - Response-2.pdf

I wonder if this is something that will attract more people's concern.
Click to expand...
Didn't they complain to Coyne's university (Groningen) as well? Seems to be quite a habit they've got going, if so ... trying to interfere with the employment of Coyne, Geraghty, and now Tuller. Basically intimidating any academic who questions their methodology.
 
Esther12 said:
My partner was imagining Bristol Uni having a little chat with Esther: "This American man really is appalling, and you can be sure we'll do all we can to support you, but is there any way that you could stop saying so many things that are not true? We are definitely on your side, but it would really help us with our messaging if your claims were just a bit more accurate."
Click to expand...
EC: "qué?"
 
Esther12 said:
What is it with these uni's legal departments?
Click to expand...
It isn't the legal department's job to supervise anybody, or take a view on political/scientific matters. They merely take instructions from Bristol University and represent Bristol University's interests. At the moment that seems to mean taking instructions from EC and representing her interests.

If lawyers start having to check whether their clients were telling the truth or being dodgy, lawyers would lose at least half their clients, and they know this so don't ask.

If this isn't going to end up in a court case (and Bristol Uni may well have concluded that it's very unlikely to) then David Tuller and BU's legal department can fire off emails to each other until the cows come home and so what? At the moment BU's legal department are merely responding to angry letters in accordance with instructions from their employer.

What we / David Tuller needs is to find someone at the Uni who is above EC and is prepared to take responsibility / look into this. It could be her boss, a committee somewhere, whatever. Knowing EC, she may well have manipulated herself into a postition where no-one is responsible for her and she can do what she wants, including dictating to the legal department how they respond to an angry American.

Keeping up the pressure until someone who matters at Bristol Uni notices / starts giving a toss sounds good to me, but it's unlikely to be the legal department that gives EC a good telling off and sorts her out. Maybe someone in the legal department should have a quiet word with someone to whom EC answers, if any such person / body can be found. Nod's as good as a wink, old boy network and all that, seeing as it's what they're into.
 
Last edited:
Lilpink said:
" Sue aims to find practical solutions to problems and to ensure that fairness is central to the University’s dealings with students, staff and members of the public."

http://www.debatingmatters.com/people/sue_paterson/

:wtf::eek:
Click to expand...
Fuck that. I was a lawyer in London for 2 years, they all have to write some kind of blurb. What they actually do is whatever it takes to bill as much as possible (or in an in-house lawyer's case keep their job) whilst covering their arse. It is possible that some in-house lawyers may be hoping to make it to a happy retirement.

EDITED upon the advice of my learned friend @Lilpink
 
Last edited:
TiredSam said:
Fuck that. I was a lawyer in London for 2 years, they all have to write some kind of blurb. What they actually do is whatever it takes to bill as much as possible (or in Sue's case keep her job) whilst covering their arse. Sue is probably hoping to make it to a happy retirement.
Click to expand...
I imagine your version is the reality, but making that statement in a public domain.....well we know how making statements in public domains can go rather badly don't we? ;)
 
Lilpink said:
I imagine your version is the reality, but making that statement in a public domain.....well we know how making statements in public domains can go rather badly don't we? ;)
Click to expand...
Oh no - you mean someone will be having a quiet high-level word with the S4ME committee? I'll not be served with a non-existent cease and desist letter?

OK, I'll amend my post to cover my arse in time-honoured fashion.
 
TiredSam said:
Oh no - you mean someone will be having a quiet high-level word with the S4ME committee? I'll not be served with a non-existent cease and desist letter?

OK, I'll amend my post to cover my arse in time-honoured fashion.
Click to expand...

Lol.. sorry I can see how that might have been interpreted to mean 'you' ;) I was directing it more at Paterson. Even if what she has posted about herself is meaningless garble she has nevertheless 'said it' ...and should be held to it imo....
 
Lilpink said:
Lol.. sorry I can see how that might have been interpreted to mean 'you' ;) I was directing it more at Paterson. Even if what she has posted about herself is meaningless garble she has nevertheless 'said it' ...and should be held to it imo....
Click to expand...
It's just advertising blurb. The firm I worked for had a nice brochure in which they prided themselves on taking "an economic approach" to dispute resolution, but it didn't stop me sending one of our clients a bill for 800 pounds for the time I'd spent successfully defending a 400 pound claim against them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom