Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Kalliope, Nov 29, 2017.
Mind you @Lilpink you could have a point:
Absolutely. It's a real shame David repeatedly writes he isn't going to sue her in his blogs. It's a shame he didn't keep his powder dry.
That's one part of it; and it's definitely right for self-employed lawyers although they value their reputation, too. To win a case, often it is major to know the facts.
In case of a legal department of a company or a university it is a bit different. Sure, you have to act in the company's/uni's interest, but that includes giving sensible advices, too.
If a normal employee of my company had acted like Miss Crawley he would have been fired instantly due to compliance rules. A higher employee probably would have been "kindly" asked to resign or another scapegoat could be found. Such behavior is not very positive for a uni/company.
But: Maybe this case is just not important enough, it won't damage Uni Bristol at all. It is more important that Crawley's CFS work goes on - that the psych CFS agenda goes on - and so nothing will happen.
Sometimes it's important not to know the facts, so that you can continue to represent your client without having to breach your professional duty not to lie to the court.
Unless someone conducts an independent investigation, BU's legal department can only advise on the basis of what EC tells them, which is the first stumbling block. The second is that EC may decide to ignore their advice anyway. It's not unusual for people to keep things from their lawyers or act against their lawyer's advice.
Whatever's going on behind the scenes, BU's legal department are unlikely to say anything which is disloyal to their employer or may prejudice their interests in future proceedings. Their duty is to Bristol University, not to act as an impartial arbiter between EC and David Tuller. He can get his own lawyer if he wants, they don't have to act for him, they act for EC, so there's no point being shocked that they are not giving an inch or seem to be backing her up in a weasely manner. It's what they're paid for.
I agree entirely that's what should happen. But fired by who? We need to find the person / body who cares and can fire / discipline Crawley. It wouldn't surprise me if EC has wangled her way into a position where it's very difficult to identify such a person / body, or to get them to take action.
Well, there are lots of differences between a uni and a company, including this one. It's only possible as you said: Some superior needs to "discipline" her. I fear that won't happen.
"Its private and confidential so you have no right to face your accuser or have the allegations put before you"
Bizarre concept for someone who is supposed to understand due process and the rule of law.
You are accused but the allegations will not be put to you.
To date Berkeley do not seem to have raised such issues with Tuller so.......
I may be wrong but hasn't Tuller alluded to such communications before between Bristol and Berkeley and said that Berkeley had given him their full support?
I think Tuller needs to reply to Sue Paterson stating that he is confused, list 10 major bullet points critiquing the most obvious flaws that numerous academics have raised with Crawleys work and ask if these are examples of things that Bristol doesn't want Tuller to get clarification from Crawley over.
It might also be worth pointing out that Bristol uni staff i.e. Crawley ( I am presuming that teaching is one of her responsibilities) are presumably teaching students course content that is not supported by the revised scientific evidence available. I can't imagine either that they are being taught to critique BPS stuff.
If a former Bristol student goes for an interview at another institution and they are questioned as to how to handle a child with ME/ cfs, their answer is likely to be based on inadequate knowledge that may harm the child. If I were on such an interviewing panel, I would be pushing this very hard.
He could ask for a public apology based on damage to his reputation and harrassment from EC supporters to him, defamation of character etc.
He might as well ask for the moon on a stick, gold plated and engraved with the Hippocratic oath. Crawley is so wedded to her victim narrative that she apparently believes all criticism of her is unfounded.
It will take a higher authority than David to open her eyes.
I've known a few social workers who seem to develop mental blinkers and delusions of infallibility as a coping mechanism. To enable them to take children into care they have to be absolutely certain they are right in their suspicions and be able to hold their own in court. They develop the blinkers to help them deal with the death threats, threats of legal action and complaints to their employers because if they don't the job is utterly unbearable. They refuse to allow themselves any doubt or to even consider they may be wrong.
This is the mental trap I imagine Crawley may have fallen into (only she gets constant complaints because she's totally wrong pretty much all the time).
I see what you mean but surely their is another aspect to their duty of care and that is to EC's patients, children, who are either cared for directly by EC and those who are treated according to EC's research. They don't seem to give a fig for them.
As well as the ethical aspect of this where do they stand legally if they continue supporting EC and her view of ME, hoisting scientifically invalid treatments on children?
Not sure that's my quote above.
I suspect the powers that be at unis are busy with other matters and so just assume their staff are beyond reproach - look at QMUL forking out £250,000 to hide the Pace data.
The lawyers duty is to Bristol University and not to EC. Surely they have a duty to do the right thing for Bristol and not necessarily for EC. Hence if she is not telling the lawyers the full story then they have a duty to make sure they ask so that they protect the Universities legal position. I assume there could be a case for not asking so they can claim the University doesn't know although that could bring considerable brand risk. The fact that BU lawyers have been informed of the issues means that the institution cannot deny knowledge that there are issues. I don't know how it would reflect on the university if they knew about issues and failed to act.
Oh sorry large donner, I must have deleted the wrong section!
Its an interesting situation because does Bristol University have the right to label it as such given the DPA and FoI. The "it is my understanding" part perhaps suggests that they lawyers are not fully aware and hence it may become hard to argue it is done under attorney client privileged?
Attorney-client privilege wouldn't apply to the contents of the communication between Bristol and Berkeley. I also doubt their use of "private and confidential" has any legal standing in relation to a FOIA request - they're a public institution subject to FOIA requests, regardless of how private and confidential they're feeling
I am an alumna of QMUL and when the student rang me for donation I told her re PACe waste of £250,000 and refused to donate, and wrote to the principal to say so and that I am now ashamed to be associated with them. It was after the event though.
Separate names with a comma.