Tymes Trust - No reported harassment of staff at Bristol University

Is it safe to assume that Esther Crawley hasn't received harassing material just because she hasn't reported it to Bristol University?

If she was being harassed, might she choose to ignore it, or to respond to the person herself, or report it to the police?

I think we need to be careful about jumping to conclusions. One of the founding principles of this site is that we value science and the need to be critical even of our favourite theories.

I think it's important not to overclaim, in any arena, if we want to be taken seriously.

I hope I haven't offended anyone who has posted above - and I'm posting in complete ignorance of how a university professor being harassed by email would be expected to deal with it.

If I've missed some pertinent facts, I hope someone will correct me. But:

I agree. One day, the actions of BPS researchers might bring them to the law courts, or at least to serious public scrutiny. An internet full of cries of 'wolf' won't help us. I think we need to hold ourselves to a high standard, and to gain a reputation for doing so.

 

Possible, but extraordinarily unlikely, given the attention she is seeking based on her claims. Why use a fake letter if she has a real one that has the same effect?

 

She could hardly tell us that original threatening messages have to be kept undisclosed on the basis of patient confidentiality. She always says how all her patients are supportive and encourage her work.

 

Certainly, but in other circumstances tampering with the evidence is strongly disapproved of.

 

Some of you will already be familiar with this SMC publication from October 2012, but I had a copy on file so I'm posting the URL:

http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/w...ews-from-the-front-line-essays-on-the-SMC.pdf

PDF 5.27 MB

SMC

Science Media Centre

October 2, 2012

views from the front line – essays on the SMC

As part of the Centre’s 10th anniversary celebrations, a collection of essays on key moments for science and the media from the first decade of the SMC’s existence were commissioned. Written by the scientists, journalists and press officers involved, the essays paint a picture of the effect the SMC has had on UK science-media relations.


Commentaries:

Threats of persecution, Esther Crawely Report Page 16

Tom Feilden Report Page 17


--------------

TYMES Trust

Behind the scenes: Setting up the UK CFS/ME Research Collaborative (UK CMRC)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/92m09l9tq55pihh/Behind the Scenes - Research Collaborative.pdf

 

"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."

 

There aren't many leading charities. And we can presumably leave out AfME.

EDIT For the avoidance of doubt, I do not for one moment believe these allegations to be true.

 

As a matter of interest, to whom apart from CS could this allude? What might reasonably be termed "leading Charities" and who was in charge of them at the time. I think they should make a joint application to the SMC to withdraw this scurrilous accusation as being, such a small group, all are at risk of reputational damage.

 

https://t.co/899pJkqbIi

"Can you please provide the number of reports of harassment
that members of staff have officially recorded with
Bristol University between September 2010 and June
2015? I am only interested in those reports where the
harassment came from outwith the university; that is,
harassment of university staff by a third party."


Has Jane Colby clarified why the date September 2010 was requested and not earlier in 2010?

I've just skimmed the archived posts categorised under SMILE Trial and Lightning Process on ME agenda site:

The press release for the SMILE Trial was released on March 2, 2010.
Esther Crawley gave a presentation to a Dorset support group (at which Alastair Gibson the LP practitioner who was at one point involved in the SMILE Trial Pilot study was said to have attended) on March 27, 2010.
Alastair Gibson had already identified himself, on the Withinspiration website, as “one of the two practitioners working with the NHS and the young people” in March 2010.
The ASA adjudication on Withinspiration was June 16, 2010.
FOIs were being submitted to various bodies from at least June 2010.
MEA and TYMES Trust issued a joint statement on August 4, 2010

So the SMILE Trial pilot study was being discussed and contested since March 2010 but Jane requested information for the dates September 2010 to January 2017.

 

And presumably AYME.

 

AYME supported the SMILE Trial.
AfME were supportive at that point.

TYMES Trust is a very small charity.

That would appear to only leave the MEA or Invest in ME.

Note that CS is not "in charge" of the MEA. He is a non office holding member of its Board of Trustees and one of its Medical Advisors.

 

In the SMC report, EC says:

"I switched phone numbers, filed the letters and the emails and talked to the police."

Sean has written:

"Show us the evidence, and be prepared to submit it for proper examination by the relevant authorities, and make a formal complaint."

If allegedly threatening letters and emails had been received and had been discussed with the police, that material may now be police evidence and would be unlikely made available to members of the public, either via a direct request to EC, or to the police.

If EC was holding allegedly threatening letters and emails on file in a personal capacity, as opposed to information and documents being held on file by a university or other body that is subject to the FOI Act, a request for copies of that information/documents would not come under the FOI Act.

 

Except none of the charities has the funds to fund a legal case.

 

I've asked Jane Colby why she selected the date "September 2010".

 

And I think they would need to prove material harm has been done to the charity or to its personnel by implication. No charity or charity leaders were named. So where is your case?

 

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.