Tymes Trust - No reported harassment of staff at Bristol University

It looks like a response from Bristol Uni has now been added:

Response from the University of Bristol
A spokesperson from the University of Bristol said, ‘The recent FOI request to the University of Bristol asked for information relating to “official records” of harassment of our staff. The request was general and not specific to any member of university staff. The University does not have a process for “official recording” of harassment by third parties of our members of staff hence the response to this FOI request. However, we are aware that some members of staff have experienced harassment and have provided those colleagues with the necessary support and advice to help with this.

‘The University has long been aware that Professor Crawley in particular has experienced significant harassment and personal abuse over several years. This has included but is not limited to: vexatious FOIs; cyber stalking; malicious emails; blogs/tweets and other social media posts that could be regarded as defamatory; unsubstantiated complaints to multiple institutions including Ethics Committees, The University of Bristol, The Advertising Standard Authority, the GMC and funders. The University considers this behaviour to be unacceptable.

‘The University has previously reviewed Professor Crawley’s research projects and found they are being conducted in line with applicable research ethics and governance requirements. The University has supported Professor Crawley in dealing with the harassment and provided legal, governance and research advice and support when required.’
Click to expand...

http://vadamagazine.com/news/esther-crawley-claims-harassment-university-no-record

Looks like this is on-line at Bristol too:

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-libr... Bristol statements about CFS_ME research.pdf
 
I'm not particularly with it ATM but I find that response puzzling, in many regards, such as how can an email be malicious? how can a FOI request be vexatious? things are either defamatory or they are not, how does "regarded" come into it?...and many other things.....

...but, it all appears to be out of the standard playbook, with no substantiation, so I'd suggest, someone else, submits a FOI to ask for the substantiation for these allegations, and explanations for how such mythical constructs can exist, if at all possible, and not vexatious.

If such a thing is possible, and non ranty words can be found.

edit - surely vexatious just means that they, personally or as an institution, find being asked questions that they legal have to answer, but don't want to, annoying?
 
Wonko said:
I'm not particularly with it ATM but I find that response puzzling, in many regards, such as how can an email be malicious? how can a FOI request be vexatious? things are either defamatory or they are not, how does "regarded" come into it?...and many other things.....

...but, it all appears to be out of the standard playbook, with no substantiation, so I'd suggest, someone else, submits a FOI to ask for the substantiation for these allegations, and explanations for how such mythical constructs can exist, if at all possible, and not vexatious.

If such a thing is possible, and non ranty words can be found.

edit - surely vexatious just means that they, personally or as an institution, find being asked questions that they legal have to answer, but don't want to, annoying?
Click to expand...
Republicans in the US use FOI and other "legal" harassment techniques to go after democrats, government officials, agencies, businesses, environmentalists, scientists, doctors, women and minorities so its rather common unfortunately :emoji_face_palm:
However its typically the right wing reality deniers who do the harassing to protect their reality denying house of cards.

I agree that this sounds like a boiler plate type response designed to protect their employee who is behaving unethically, sweep it under the rug as it were. I would put in an FOI, let a court determine if its veracious, she/they already lost once, and if its really happening its in everyone's interest for it to be made public.
 
"blogs/tweets and other social media posts that could be regarded as defamatory"

They could be? If what? If they weren't true? Has anyone from Bristol University tried engaging in detailed debate with one of Crawley's critics, like Dr Tuller, to see if their posts, which could be regarded as defamatory by those uninterested in the details, might actually be raising important and legitimate concerns?

"The University has previously reviewed Professor Crawley’s research projects and found they are being conducted in line with applicable research ethics and governance requirements."

Lots of junk science in conducted in line with applicable research ethics and governance requirements. Does anyone at Bristol university think that they can defend Crawley's work in open debate?
 
Esther12 said:
Lots of junk science in conducted in line with applicable research ethics and governance requirements. Does anyone at Bristol university think that they can defend Crawley's work in open debate?
Click to expand...
I'd like to see them try. Quackery defenses will make them look very bad, if they have to choose between continuing to sweep her lies under the rug or losing their reputation either way we win. I like winning against alternative facts (also known as lies).
 
Esther12 said:
It looks like a response from Bristol Uni has now been added:



http://vadamagazine.com/news/esther-crawley-claims-harassment-university-no-record

Looks like this is on-line at Bristol too:

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/red/documents/research-governance/University of Bristol statements about CFS_ME research.pdf
Click to expand...

I would really like to know who in Bristol University issued the statement and who authorized it. It seems to me that Bristol university are saying there is nothing wrong with the ethical approvals (or lack of ethical approval in one case) for Crawley and Sterne's work. Lets not forget Crawley wasn't the only Bristol Professor involved in this work.

It also labels people challenging the work and doing FoIs as harassment. I think is extremely dodgy for a publicly funded institution to label people trying to hold them to account as harassing them.

This is the type of statement that could really come back and bite the institution as they cannot claim ignorance. Not that that would be a valid defense.
 
Adrian said:
I would really like to know who in Bristol University issued the statement and who authorized it. It seems to me that Bristol university are saying there is nothing wrong with the ethical approvals (or lack of ethical approval in one case) for Crawley and Sterne's work. Lets not forget Crawley wasn't the only Bristol Professor involved in this work.
Click to expand...
Haven't there been some other statements likely involving Crawley, purportedly on behalf on an institution, which seemed to be written by her? Something to NICE about the CFS review, where "their" opinion had some typos that suggested it was initially written as the opinion of a single person.
 
Her claim that an artist impression, of a made up email was sent to her, that is previously claimed to be a version of a claimed phonecall to someone else on top of the fact that she has been requested not to use it in the wrong context by the artist needs to be brought to the attention of Bristol Uni.

She either needs to offer proof up for this claim or retract it.

Also the cure rates she is claiming to exist via her treatments are totally bizarre as they are in total isolation to the figures reported in the whole of the rest of the world.
 
Last edited:
NelliePledge said:
It uses her words doesn't it vexatious FOI etc seems likely to me that she wrote the statement herself or at least provided draft wording
Click to expand...
The use of vexatious FOI is in the ICO documentation:
"
You can refuse an entire request under the following circumstances:
  • It would cost too much or take too much staff time to deal with the request.
  • The request is vexatious.
  • The request repeats a previous request from the same person."

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-freedom-of-information/refusing-a-request/
 
I wonder if anyone’s done an FOI to find out how many FOIs she’s had each year and of those how many she rejected as vexatious and how many were agreed by information commissioner as actually vexatious, how many the information commissioner said no they weren’t.
 
Keela Too said:
I "think" it should be possible to find that out on the FOI site?
Click to expand...

I also asked about vexatious:

2. The number of requests refused by UoB as deemed vexatious (only relevant years are shown).
2010 – 0
2016 – 0
2017 – 5

3. The number of requests rejected by UoB as deemed otherwise exempt (only relevant years are shown).
2010 – 3
2016 – 3
2017 – 1

Please note that some requests from 2017 have not yet been dealt with.

4. The number of requests where information was provided (only relevant years are shown).
2010 – 1
2016 – 2
2017 – 3

Email here:
https://t.co/aEdWadIhC6
 
Sly Saint said:
From Bristol Uni website, pdf of their statements re CFS/ME Research:
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/red/documents/research-governance/University of Bristol statements about CFS_ME research.pdf
Click to expand...
Why is it in the research governance section? This is how that team is described on Bristol's website:
The Research Governance Team is available to advise University of Bristol staff and students on how to set up and conduct research projects that involve human participants, their tissue and/or data.

We can help with the ethics and governance requirements of studies of this nature:

  • at the time of grant writing and when funding is awarded;
  • agreeing research governance sponsorship arrangements;
  • advising on the need and process for ethical review;
  • helping with indemnity provision;
  • advising on the need and process for other regulatory approvals;
  • providing relevant governance training for you and your team;
  • ensuring standards that enhance research integrity.
Click to expand...

It sounds like the Research Policy or Programme Management teams would be more likely to deal with this sort of thing, or the university's public relations, human resources, or publicity departments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom