No problem! I fail to see how posting a slide in which Professor Crawley is accusing me of writing "libellous blogs" could be construed as "harassment."
Good point. I retract my suggestion. I have no doubt what the investigation SHOULD find, but what it actually will find could be another matter. The academic/medical establishment here seems to have many ways to justify bad behavior, and clearing someone in an investigation despite evidence...
In NY I was once heading to visit my nephew in Kew Gardens, a neighborhood in Queens. I sent a message to a friend that I was heading there, and auto-correct changed it to Jew Gardens. Now, the neighborhood is popular with members of my tribe, but still.
I was at the hearing. It's true she included participants. I did not get from what she said that it would include non-authors but I'm a bit hard-of-hearing and didn't yet have my great new Bose hear-phones (yes, hear-phones, for anyone with mild to moderate hearing loss not yet ready to spend...
It was a backbench debate late on a Thursday afternoon when everyone else was off having cocktails or engaging in pre-theatre lovemaking sessions. It is not really at all surprising there was no coverage.
Perhaps. But this was a court with rules on what's allowed into evidence. And frankly my sense is that the QMUL lawyers were pretty stupid and not on top of things. Without knowing details that are not available to us, all we can take from the court hearing is that the court saw no evidence of...
Chris was referring to both, as I read it. I took the reference to "previously unknown video evidence" or whatever the phrase was to be a reference to Valerie's posts.
I completely understand having a discussion about whether the approach Valerie suggests is the right approach. I assume she...
Wessely was not a party to the tribunal hearing. The tribunal found no evidence for the PACE authors claims of threats. It said nothing about anyone else, so it is irrelevant to the question.
Good questions. But I think unfortunately they will likely remain unanswered. In cases like this, there are likely good reasons for confidentiality. There are also issues of lawyer-client privilege which might be coming into play. It has only "re-emerged" now because Valerie wrote about it...
I'm only talking about the Wessely tape that Valerie wrote about. I'm not talking about any of the other alleged threats. In some cases you might want to keep information private for safety, or you might be advised by the police to do so. I have no knowledge of any of this stuff. But I trust...
I have read @Valerie Eliot Smith's recent posts. Valerie has been an incredible help to me over the last 3+ years. Despite her poor health, she vetted multiple versions of my initial 15,000-word investigation and multiple posts afterwards. She has been scrupulous in advising me on what kinds of...
Ha! I chuckled when it popped out. I considered briefly whether using that word could somehow be construed as "harassment" and then I figured I wouldn't stoop to their level of ridiculousness.
Exactly. The use of the letter seems to be wrong in any event. It's possible some of the studies do qualify as service evaluation. Some of them absolutely do not. I do not actually expect this investigation to be a white-wash. There is no way a panel whose work is being watched could maintain...
Also, to be clear--when/if the piece runs, it's not clear how much is about me and how much is about the community and not about me. So we'll just have to wait and see.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.