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

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:

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:

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!

 

So now she is claiming patients are at threat of being attacked by her 'harassers'?

And her evidence supporting that outrageous cowardly smear is...?






*crickets*

 

Astonishing accusations to make.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Indeed. I imagine if one took a straw poll of the members of that audience the take away message of those words would be exactly as the Voices blog portrays it.

 

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.

 

Especially for a child.

 

Although pictures of sick children do emerge, so there must be a way of getting consent. Although I'm not sure that Crawley's understanding of the issues around informed consent is the best.

 

Could that win 'Understatement of the Year Award' I wonder?