Trial By Error: The Crawley Chronicles, Continued

Wasn't it a presentation to some renal society that EC made one of her big blunders re libel accusations?

 

An FOI should suffice...

 

Except that it wasn't the first time she'd mentioned the 'cease and desist letter' was it?

 

No, true, but I think it may have been the first time she mentioned the police.

 

Habitual liars absolutely start to believe their own lies--which is why they can lie so boldly and readily.
One lie builds on another, and another and another, until the whole fabulous mess is as real to them as their own hand.

 

@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

 

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.

 

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."

 

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/2016031... F325-15 - Prof. James Coyne - Response-2.pdf

I wonder if this is something that will attract more people's concern.

 

That's exactly how I read it.

 

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.

 

EC: "qué?"

 

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.

 

" 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/

 

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

 

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?

 

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.

 

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....

 

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.