Tymes Trust - No reported harassment of staff at Bristol University

[Liv aka Mrs Sowester]

Esther Crawley seems to have been caught telling porkies:

Report here:
http://www.tymestrust.org/pdfs/noharassmentbristol.pdf
James Coyne is on the case:

 

[Andy]

Oh, what a surprise.

No Reported Harassment at Bristol University (Information Obtained Under FOI)

There has been no reported harassment of staff at Bristol University.
Yes, you read that correctly.

We have all become accustomed to the increasingly shrill ‘harassment’ accusations against ME patientsand ‘activists’, both via the media and in lectures. This campaign appears to have originated at that now infamous meeting of the Science Media Centre, revealed by our original 2014 Freedom of Information Report, now updated under the title Shining a Light on the CMRC Setup (http://www.tymestrust.org/pdfs/shiningalight.pdf). Members of the UK Research Collaborative have continued to spread these allegations ever since its launch.

In Shining a Light we stated: In the records of the meeting where ‘harassment’ of researchers was discussed, no mention was made of personal threats such as have been reported in the media. Freedom of Information (FOI) requests were listed as the most damaging type of ‘harassment’. The 2016 tribunal appeal Judgement ordering QMUL to release the PACE trial data highlights that Professor Trudie Chalder accepts that “no threats have been made either to researchers or participants”.

And yet the accusations persist and have even escalated. Tymes Trust has found this constant narrative so abhorrent that we have sought some answers. We have, once again, sought evidence.

Read more in http://www.tymestrust.org/pdfs/noharassmentbristol.pdf

 

[Joel]

Anyone surprised?

 

[Trish]

Not surprised at all.

And she can't pretend she has been a brave little soldier and taken the harassment on the chin without informing her university, because she went on in her recent talk about how supportive Bristol Uni had been through all her harassment troubles.

Edited to remove slightly inflammatory comment.

 

[markiemark]

Disrupting ME/CFS and now the fabric of reality too? What can't this person do?! Amazing.

"Freedom of Information (FOI) requests were listed as the most damaging type of ‘harassment’." surely these individuals can't take themselves seriously at this point?

 

[Adrian]

Not surprised at all.

And she can't pretend she has been a brave little soldier and taken the harassment on the chin without informing her university, because she went on in her recent talk about how supportive Bristol Uni had been through all her harassment troubles.

Liar liar pants on fire.

Given her slide with a threatening letter came from the front page of the sunday times this is not at all surprising.

Its so clearly a device to try to stop her work being examined in detail. Her real problem is that her work doesn't stand up to scrutiny and I think there are skeletons around ethical approval not just or her but for other staff (including senior staff) who co-authored papers.

The question is what will Bristol university do about it.

 

[Wonko]

Anyone surprised?

I am, terrifically surprised, at the obvious restraint shown by her "victims" and their responsible adults for there not to have been any harassment, it's, erm...terrifically surprising.

 

[Liv aka Mrs Sowester]

Its so clearly a device to try to stop her work being examined in detail.

But is she aware of her own behaviour? I think she's believing her own lies.

The question is what will Bristol university do about it.

If she carries on the way she's going they will sideline her and distance themselves as quickly and quietly as possible.

 

[Barry]

Not in the least bit surprised, but it's great to have hard black and white evidence. Get the feeling another David Tuller blog might be in the offing.

It really does reinforce the notion that these people's notion of evidence, in whatever form they may present it, is closer to fantasy than reality.

 

[Barry]

The question is what will Bristol university do about it.

Heads and sand come to mind.

 

[Barry]

But is she aware of her own behaviour? I think she's believing her own lies.

As I've muttered elsewhere in dark corners, these folk operate (in my not entirely humble opinion ) in a completely different paradigm. For them the concept of lies is alien, because they have no real concept of truth. For them it is cause and effect how they model their world; if a bit of truth has their chosen effect this time, and a bit of untruth does the trick the next ... that, I'm sure, is how they see it. I think they have real trouble fathoming why everyone else gets so upset with them.

 

[Adrian]

If she carries on the way she's going they will sideline her and distance themselves as quickly and quietly as possible.

I'm not sure that it is that simple for them. For example the paper she did where she appears not to have ethics approval (http://www.virology.ws/2017/08/28/trial-by-error-no-ethical-review-of-crawley-school-absence-study/) had two other Bristol university professors (Prof Emond and Prof Sterne) as authors. Jonathan Sterne is again involved with the SMILE trial.

So the issues permeate the whole department. The vice chancellor will need to step in and take serious action but I think he is more interested in getting funding/relationships with industry than good governance.

 

[Adrian]

As I've muttered elsewhere in dark corners, these folk operate (in my not entirely humble opinion ) in a completely different paradigm. For them the concept of lies is alien, because they have no real concept of truth.

I think she didn't realize people would actually look at her work in detail and ask questions. Maybe a few patients but not other academics. But then PACE was questioned and academics (in the US) spoke out. Now she is in a difficult position of having done bad work played loose with ethical approval and backed bad work (let alone her actions as a doctor). So she is fighting for her career and she has a reputation for fighting dirty.

 

[TiredSam]

No reported surprise at S4ME.

Apparently Esther filled in a questionnaire in which she asked herself how harrassed she felt. She then made herself stand in a circle of BPS colleagues repeatedly affirming that they all felt very harrassed. When she filled in the same questionnaire at the end of the session it clearly showed that she felt a lot more harrassed. Can't argue with that, it's science.

 

[Alvin]

Given her slide with a threatening letter came from the front page of the sunday times this is not at all surprising.

Its so clearly a device to try to stop her work being examined in detail. Her real problem is that her work doesn't stand up to scrutiny and I think there are skeletons around ethical approval not just or her but for other staff (including senior staff) who co-authored papers.

The question is what will Bristol university do about it.

Five bucks donated to OMF says they will do nothing or try to sweep it under the rug.

But is she aware of her own behaviour? I think she's believing her own lies.

That is the modus operandi of double thinkers

 

[Esther12]

Interesting.

While it certainly seems that Crawley has been spinning away on what should be considered 'harassment', I also think that there's reason for some caution on this issue.

It would not surprise me at all if she did have a collection of unpleasant and aggressive e-mails that had been sent to her. It just needs one patient to move from being justifiably angry about Crawley's behaviour to sending off something unacceptable. It's fair for us to challenge the way complaints of 'harassment' are being used to try to undermine legitimate criticism of her work, but it's also best to try to keep focussing on the problems with her work, rather than risk getting caught up in distractions about what constitutes 'abuse', or risking coming across as 'victim-blaming'.

Some of the discussions on-line recently have reminded me how many people will consider legitimate criticism to be 'abusive' if it's not done in the politest of tones. That's irritating to me, but tactically it's probably in our interests to do what we can to avoid putting off people we want on our side.

 

[Arnie Pye]

Get the feeling another David Tuller blog might be in the offing.

Does David Tuller know about this site yet?

 

[Luther Blissett]

I'll soon need a bigger canvas...

 

[Sean]

While it certainly seems that Crawley has been spinning away on what should be considered 'harassment', I also think that there's reason for some caution from activists on this issue.

It would not surprise me at all if she did have a collection of unpleasant and aggressive e-mails that had been sent to her.

Yep. I think Crawley and co are almost certainly bluffing. But be careful, we don't know for a fact what evidence they do hold that they have not yet put on the table.

Personally, I think they would have tabled it by now. But you never know.

 

[Adrian]

It would not surprise me at all if she did have a collection of unpleasant and aggressive e-mails that had been sent to her. It just needs one patient to move from being justifiably angry about Crawley's behaviour to sending off something unacceptable.

I would be surprised if she hasn't given it is very easy to get emotional and act inappropriately when you feel your child isn't getting good care. The thing that will stop that is parents of children who have ME learn to be careful of the authorities and manage them.

I think we should be challenging the narrative that FoI and questions in parliament are harassment - they are our democratic rights and ways to keep those in positions of power or taking public money accountable. The same with complaints to professional bodies if people feel something is wrong they should be complaining otherwise issues go unnoticed.

But I do think you are right we should avoid personal attacks and be careful about our behaviour.