Tymes Trust - No reported harassment of staff at Bristol University

I think we need to be careful in suggesting that EC was claiming harassment by patients.

From what I remember of EC's talk the other day, she did not specify that is was patients harassing her. Rather she implied it was a small group of anti-science activists. She left the impression, without actually stating it, that it had a parallel with animal rights activists, as suggested by a member of the audience.
 
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/SMC-Views-from-the-front-line-essays-on-the-SMC.pdf

Extract Page 16:

"The SMC organised a meeting so we could discuss what
to do to protect researchers. Those who had been subject
to abuse met with press officers, representatives from
the GMC and, importantly, police who had dealt with the
animal rights campaign. This transformed my view of
what had been going on. I had thought those attacking
us were “activists”; the police explained they were
“extremists”.

The tactics of using threats and abuse, and then trying
to prevent research using FOIs and reviews, had all been
seen before. We discussed whether somebody at the top
of one of the leading charities might be behind much of it,
relying on others with a lower profile to take the abusive
actions..."

"We discussed whether..."


Which of these parties discussed?

Who had raised that as a potential?

The SMC, the press officers, the GMC, the police, the university, EC herself, Support4RS and any other individuals or parties involved in these discussions who are not named above?

So, it does not state who suggested that as a possibility or how that suggestion had been received by those involved in that alleged discussion.

It's not clear whether whoever allegedly suggested that possibility would have been aware of who the "leading charities" were or which of those "leading charities" had already publicly supported the trial (and thereby potentially reduce the number of potential charities).

So who would be the subject of any potential legal case? And how would a charity show that their charity had suffered as a result of the unspecific statement, above?

I agree that it is very dirty tactics and very nasty but the article has been carefully crafted. I do not think there is enough in that statement to start calling for patient orgs with limited finances to consider taking legal advise towards a potential case; and would their membership consider it an appropriate use of limited funds?

 
Dx Revision Watch said:
This transformed my view of
what had been going on. I had thought those attacking
us were “activists”; the police explained they were
“extremists”.
Click to expand...

@Dx Revision Watch thank you for sharing some of the documentary evidence about the history of this in relation to the SMC and CMRC. If we are going to take any action or make any statements, we do need to have our facts right.

It does seem from a quick skim of this evidence that there was a definite plan, egged on by the SMC to run a media campaign that over-stated harassment of CFS researchers, deliberately conflating FOI and data requests with a few unpleasant e-mails, and egged on by police advice to interpret these as equivalent to violent animal rights activists.

And as we know now, all done in order to provide a smokescreen to prevent proper scientific scrutiny of their BPS model and poor research methods.

Edit to add: I agree it's pretty impossible to make any legal case, since the people accused by EC of harassment are not named or even any group named.
 
Andy said:
I think Sean's comment is aimed at those claiming harassment by patients, not at the charities potentially labelled as rabble rousers. At least, that's how I read it.
Click to expand...

Sean has quoted:

"We discussed whether somebody at the top of one of the leading charities might be behind much of it, relying on others with a lower profile to take the abusive actions."

You cannot bring a case for defamation against a group (other than certain protected groups or if the group is so small that individuals can potentially be identified).
 
Last edited:
Trish said:
@Dx Revision Watch thank you for sharing some of the documentary evidence about the history of this in relation to the SMC and CMRC. If we are going to take any action or make any statements, we do need to have our facts right.

It does seem from a quick skim of this evidence that there was a definite plan, egged on by the SMC to run a media campaign that over-stated harassment of CFS researchers, deliberately conflating FOI and data requests with a few unpleasant e-mails, and egged on by police advice to interpret these as equivalent to violent animal rights activists.
Click to expand...


I agree - an orchestrated campaign, and I consider that dreadful Sunday Times feature by the late Michael Hanlon was part of that orchestrated campaign. Michael Hanlon died in February 2016.
 
Last edited:
Trish said:
Rather she implied it was a small group of anti-science activists. She left the impression, without actually stating it, that it had a parallel with animal rights activists, as suggested by a member of the audience.
Click to expand...

I do think she should be challenged on who because she is labeling people so she needs to be specific. Maybe there is a group of anti-science people who are attacking her but we've not seen that. What we see is patients and academics criticizing her methodology and asking for more information. If she is labeling people doing this as anti-science she needs to be explicit and explain why she believes this. She shouldn't be allowed to get away with a nudge and wink approach of implying things without saying them.

Maybe we should be asking her to clarify her claims in the way that an interviewer should?
 
Trish said:
It does seem from a quick skim of this evidence that there was a definite plan, egged on by the SMC to run a media campaign that over-stated harassment of CFS researchers, deliberately conflating FOI and data requests with a few unpleasant e-mails, and egged on by police advice to interpret these as equivalent to violent animal rights activists.
Click to expand...

What would be helpful in this respect is for a prominent named person to submit a Subject Access Request to the relevant police department who deal with Domestic Extremism. (I think it is the Met, but am not up to date)

You can be on the database as a 'domestic extremist' without breaking any laws.

This is what happened with Animal Rights activists, along with other groups seen as subversive to the status quo. It is important to note that even explicitly non-violent groups and individuals find themselves on these databases.

It would also explain why there would not be recorded crime numbers, yet police involvement.

The police advice seems similar to what I am aware of in other areas, and the only way to find out the extent of their involvement is for a person to request their personal data. If anyone else asks for the data, they will deny it on the grounds of data protection.
 
We have already have had a high level legal case that tested the harassment and intimidation claims, the FOI appeal by Matthees, and the tribunal completely and unanimously dismissed the claims as baseless.

Far as I am aware, that is the highest level of legal ruling on the matter in the UK.

So we now have a very powerful moral argument that the accusers must publicly make their case in specific detail and with full supporting evidence, or stop making the claim. The onus is firmly on them to prove it, and we should not tolerate any further such defamation and smears without challenging them.

That does not have to be done only via formal legal means, it can also be done just as legitimately and effectively via the informal court of public opinion. Indeed, it must also by done by that means, as I have long been arguing. (And I see @chrisb agrees with me.)
 
Last edited:
Adrian said:
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.
Click to expand...
Transparency and accountability.
 
Luther Blissett said:
What would be helpful in this respect is for a prominent named person to submit a Subject Access Request to the relevant police department who deal with Domestic Extremism. (I think it is the Met, but am not up to date)

You can be on the database as a 'domestic extremist' without breaking any laws.

This is what happened with Animal Rights activists, along with other groups seen as subversive to the status quo. It is important to note that even explicitly non-violent groups and individuals find themselves on these databases.

It would also explain why there would not be recorded crime numbers, yet police involvement.

The police advice seems similar to what I am aware of in other areas, and the only way to find out the extent of their involvement is for a person to request their personal data. If anyone else asks for the data, they will deny it on the grounds of data protection.
Click to expand...

I recall posting the links and info for doing this "in another place" in one of the 2013 Hanlon article threads.
 
Sean said:
We have already have had a high level legal case that tested the harassment and intimidation claims, the FOI appeal by Matthees, and the tribunal completely and unanimously dismissed the harassment and intimidation accusations as baseless.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing EC could say, correctly, that the Matthees PACE tribunal case was only looking at harassment of PACE researchers, not all ME/CFS researchers. EC had no connection with PACE.

Edit to add. I'm way out of my depth in any discussion about what if anything we or anyone can actually do about all this.

All I can manage is a few tweets to ask people attending conferences where she speaks to look at the evidence or lack of it that EC is providing, and to point out that she is conflating legitimate criticisms of her research methods with harassment.
 
Dx Revision Watch said:
I recall posting the links and info for doing this "in another place" in one of the 2013 Hanlon article threads.
Click to expand...

I did consider putting in a request at the time, since I had submitted several FOIs and appealed an FOI decision in early to mid 2010 and also have a website that collated SMILE Trial information, statements of concern, charity statements etc.
 
More unsupported statements from the Hanlon 2013 article:

"...Few people will speak on the record about the extent of the threat to the ME researchers.

There is, I am told, a specialised unit at the Metropolitan Police dedicated to monitoring the threat, but no one at Scotland Yard will speak publicly about this.

Publicity, it seems is to be avoided at all costs, and the less said about this bizarre war, I am told, the better.

I understand that a list is often drawn up in these circumstances - to protect those who might be under threat from potentially dangerous activists of any hue, not just those who are objecting to scientists undertaking research into ME.

Some argue that circulating lists of activists - who in many cases might be mentally ill - has implications for civil liberties.

But given the nature and scale of the threat, it is unsurprising that a set of the most worrying names exists- and it is at the disposal of the authorities.

After much persuasion, I am shown a list of activists; names that crop up time and again on the ME forums.

They are divided into three categories: militant, radical and active.

Most are prolific posters on the various ME forums and Facebook pages (interestingly, Twitter seems largely immune).

In Britain the number of real extremists probably amounts to about 50- 80 people (compared with the 25 or so hard-core animal—rights extremists identifed by the authorities), yet they wield influence out of all proportion to their numbers..."​
 
Last edited:
I will give consideration to submitting a request as to whether or not I am on the list.

Why would the police disclose a list of names to a journalist and would that breach data protection?

But note, Hanlon does not clarify that the alleged list he was allegedly shown actually came from the Met.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom