Blog: Bristol University both denies and supports Prof Crawley in her career enhancing “heroic victim” narrative.

Andy

Andy

Senior Member (Voting rights)
For such a high ranking Russell Group Institution, Bristol University seems to be getting its facts alarmingly confused. In response to Freedom of Information requests from Tymes Trust the University replied:

“We have received no official reports of harassment of University staff by a third party between September 2010 and June 2015.“ and: “We have received no recorded instances of harassment of staff by a third party between July 2015 and January 2017.”

However, this is seriously at odds with their website, which now echoes the accusations Prof Esther Crawley has been making very publicly at several lectures this year. She claims multiple forms of harassment and abuse and blames and denigrates ME/CFS patients, parents and carers as well as Dr David Tuller, Senior Fellow in Public Health and Journalism, Center for Global Public Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, USA.

In spite of Bristol Uni’s answer to the Freedom of Information requests, denying that any of their researchers have been subject to harassment, they now claim: ”The University has long been aware that Professor Crawley has experienced significant harassment and personal abuse over several years. This has included but is not limited to: vexatious FOIs; cyber stalking; malicious emails; blogs/tweets and other social media posts that could be regarded as defamatory; unsubstantiated complaints to multiple institutions including Ethics Committees, The University of Bristol, The Advertising Standard Authority, the GMC and funders. The University considers this behaviour to be unacceptable.”

If this really is true, then the University has given a fraudulent response to the Freedom of Information requests.
Click to expand...
http://voicesfromtheshadowsfilm.co....her-career-enhancing-heroic-victim-narrative/
 
I thought that this blog was a bit loose in some points, as Crawley/Bristol can be quite evasive with their language.

eg:

During her recent TEDX talk about her personal heroism in standing up to alleged persecution by ME patients, Prof Crawley made the outrageous claim that she cannot show any pictures of very seriously ill children in talks because they would be hounded and harassed – by, it is implied, other ME patients, parents and carers! I find this suggestion extremely offensive and a blatant deception, as do all other patients and carers I have had contact with.
Click to expand...

Crawley actually said that ""I couldn't put a picture of a patient up today, because I was really worried about them being attacked, like I am attacked. It is the nature of doing research into Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, it is the research environment."

So she claims that she couldn't put the image up because of her being worried, not because they would be hounded and harassed. I know this sounds really nit-picky, but I just think it's worth trying to be precise with these sorts of things.

Also, here's Bristol Uni's response to the discordance between their FOI response and their claims about Crawley:

A spokesperson from the University of Bristol said, ‘The recent FOI request to the University of Bristol asked for information relating to “official records” of harassment of our staff. The request was general and not specific to any member of university staff. The University does not have a process for “official recording” of harassment by third parties of our members of staff hence the response to this FOI request. However, we are aware that some members of staff have experienced harassment and have provided those colleagues with the necessary support and advice to help with this.
Click to expand...

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

To me, that sounds like an evasive attempt to get themselves out of trouble, unless they explained in their FOI response that they do not make official records of harassment of staff, but it is what it is.

Esther Crawley's behaviour is still outrageous though!
 
”The University has long been aware that Professor Crawley has experienced significant harassment and personal abuse over several years. This has included but is not limited to: vexatious FOIs; cyber stalking; malicious emails; blogs/tweets and other social media posts that could be regarded as defamatory; unsubstantiated complaints to multiple institutions including Ethics Committees, The University of Bristol, The Advertising Standard Authority, the GMC and funders. The University considers this behaviour to be unacceptable.”
Click to expand...

Astonishing accusations to make.
 
Esther12 said:
So she claims that she couldn't put the image up because of her being worried, not because they would be hounded and harassed.
Click to expand...
I really don't get the distinction. If she had preceded her remark with "I know I'm being terribly silly and fussy, but ..." then maybe, but in the absence of that she's implying that she's justifiably worried because in her expert opinion it's likely that the militants will attack her children patients. This is a deliberate smear of PwME.

The statement from Bristol Uni looks like it was dictated by EC, and in the absence of further explanation / evidence, should be treated with the same contempt as EC's claims. An FOI is an FOI, it is only vexatious in the opinion of EC by virtue of the fact that it was made at all. EC has provided no evidence of cyber stalking, the only malicious email she's ever shown was made up by a journalist and never actually existed, she can't / won't back up her accusations of defamation on social media and becomes thoroughly obnoxious and manipulative when challenged, complaints about her are only described as unsubstantiated by herself.

Instead of investigating the matter, Bristol University have just allowed EC to list her delusional claims, adding "The University considers this behaviour to be unacceptable" at the end of it. More fool them. But now it's up to them to provide evidence of "this behaviour" or end up with egg on their faces.
 
TiredSam said:
I really don't get the distinction. If she had preceded her remark with "I know I'm being terribly silly and fussy, but ..." then maybe, but in the absence of that she's implying that she's justifiably worried because in her expert opinion it's likely that the militants will attack her children patients. This is a deliberate smear of PwME.
Click to expand...
It's the classic manipulative and plausible-deniability strategy of making an ambiguous but very leading statement, knowing most people will swallow the interpretation they want people to. It's in her DNA. Then saying "I didn't say that", which in the literal sense is true ... but they did strongly and purposefully imply, so is an implied lie. Plausible deniability becomes implausible once the pattern becomes evident.
 
TiredSam said:
I really don't get the distinction.
Click to expand...

I think @Barry responded better than I could. That lot often imply more than they say, and then offended when patients criticise things that they didn't exactly say. It's a cycle that we normally end up coming out worse from, so I think it's worth trying to be as precise as possible, making sure to get their words right, criticising them for what they imply, etc.
 
Esther12 said:
I think @Barry responded better than I could. That lot often imply more than they say, and then offended when patients criticise things that they didn't exactly say. It's a cycle that we normally end up coming out worse from, so I think it's worth trying to be as precise as possible, making sure to get their words right, criticising them for what they imply, etc.
Click to expand...
I also feel that emphasising EC's literal statement plays into her hands. Although I agree the article should have made what it said a little clearer, what it said was much closer to what EC clearly implied than the literal words she spoke. It's a tricky trap that EC lays, and not sure how best articles should deal with it - difficult for an article to publicly state that EC means other than what she says. The innocently uninformed will hear EC's implied messages loud and strong (with all the emotion-laden public speaking nuances and overtones that reinforce it), rather than her more diminutive literal words.
 
Esther12 said:
hat lot often imply more than they say, and then offended when patients criticise things that they didn't exactly say.
Click to expand...

If they would respond then we could ask for clarification which is generally the best tactic when people are vague.

But it always worries me when scientists are vague especially when their arguments seem well rehearsed. Science should require exact statements and they should know that and have the ability to be careful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom