Tymes Trust - No reported harassment of staff at Bristol University

It looks like a response from Bristol Uni has now been added:

http://vadamagazine.com/news/esther-crawley-claims-harassment-university-no-record

Looks like this is on-line at Bristol too:

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-libr... Bristol statements about CFS_ME research.pdf

 

I'm not particularly with it ATM but I find that response puzzling, in many regards, such as how can an email be malicious? how can a FOI request be vexatious? things are either defamatory or they are not, how does "regarded" come into it?...and many other things.....

...but, it all appears to be out of the standard playbook, with no substantiation, so I'd suggest, someone else, submits a FOI to ask for the substantiation for these allegations, and explanations for how such mythical constructs can exist, if at all possible, and not vexatious.

If such a thing is possible, and non ranty words can be found.

edit - surely vexatious just means that they, personally or as an institution, find being asked questions that they legal have to answer, but don't want to, annoying?

 

Republicans in the US use FOI and other "legal" harassment techniques to go after democrats, government officials, agencies, businesses, environmentalists, scientists, doctors, women and minorities so its rather common unfortunately
However its typically the right wing reality deniers who do the harassing to protect their reality denying house of cards.

I agree that this sounds like a boiler plate type response designed to protect their employee who is behaving unethically, sweep it under the rug as it were. I would put in an FOI, let a court determine if its veracious, she/they already lost once, and if its really happening its in everyone's interest for it to be made public.

 

"blogs/tweets and other social media posts that could be regarded as defamatory"

They could be? If what? If they weren't true? Has anyone from Bristol University tried engaging in detailed debate with one of Crawley's critics, like Dr Tuller, to see if their posts, which could be regarded as defamatory by those uninterested in the details, might actually be raising important and legitimate concerns?

"The University has previously reviewed Professor Crawley’s research projects and found they are being conducted in line with applicable research ethics and governance requirements."

Lots of junk science in conducted in line with applicable research ethics and governance requirements. Does anyone at Bristol university think that they can defend Crawley's work in open debate?

 

I'd like to see them try. Quackery defenses will make them look very bad, if they have to choose between continuing to sweep her lies under the rug or losing their reputation either way we win. I like winning against alternative facts (also known as lies).

 

This latest statement from Bristol gives a whole new meaning to "approval on the NOD".

 

Haven't there been some other statements likely involving Crawley, purportedly on behalf on an institution, which seemed to be written by her? Something to NICE about the CFS review, where "their" opinion had some typos that suggested it was initially written as the opinion of a single person.

 

Yes. Also, it seems fair to expect Bristol uni to clarify whether they believe that David Tuller's blogs should be considered 'harassment', or 'libellous' as Crawley as claimed.

 

Her claim that an artist impression, of a made up email was sent to her, that is previously claimed to be a version of a claimed phonecall to someone else on top of the fact that she has been requested not to use it in the wrong context by the artist needs to be brought to the attention of Bristol Uni.

She either needs to offer proof up for this claim or retract it.

Also the cure rates she is claiming to exist via her treatments are totally bizarre as they are in total isolation to the figures reported in the whole of the rest of the world.

 

The use of vexatious FOI is in the ICO documentation:
"
You can refuse an entire request under the following circumstances:

• It would cost too much or take too much staff time to deal with the request.
• The request is vexatious.
• The request repeats a previous request from the same person."

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-freedom-of-information/refusing-a-request/

 

I "think" it should be possible to find that out on the FOI site?

 

I can see why she's now getting rattled

 

From Bristol Uni website, pdf of their statements re CFS/ME Research:
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-libr... Bristol statements about CFS_ME research.pdf

 

Why is it in the research governance section? This is how that team is described on Bristol's website:

It sounds like the Research Policy or Programme Management teams would be more likely to deal with this sort of thing, or the university's public relations, human resources, or publicity departments.