Rod Liddle in the Times: "Always fatigued — yet they never tire of claiming their malady really is a virus"

Yes but will he actively condemn him on twitter for example? The opportunity is there to condemn such behaviour and put his money where his mouth is.

 

A very good point. This is precisely the behaviour which he deprecates when directed against himself. But what we have to ask ourselves is, does anybody feel intimidated by this, sufficiently to make them wish to withdraw from the forum?

 

So what's to be done about it without giving the issue/Liddle/Times satisfaction and oxygen?

 

Rod Liddle has a real hang-up about morgellons, doesn't he? Did a morgellon bite him as a child or something?

I'm pretty sure he used the section about Wessely's 'astonishment' back in a 2011 (?) column as well, so this really is a cut and paste 'Greatest Hits' of his previous pronouncements on ME.

I wish people would pay me to regurgitate ill-informed nonsense I wrote years ago. Money for jam.

 

I suppose at least if he's metaphorically attacking the ME/CFS community he's not non-metaphorically attacking his pregnant girlfriend*.

Re an IPSO complaint: Liddle thrives on being a martyr. Like a lot of right-wing nationalists, he pushes a message simultaneously of superiority and victimhood. An IPSO complaint would fall right into the trap, in my view. IMHO I would leave it be - most people find Liddle vile - and hope that (or encourage) the charities to write an unemotive, factual response to the main article pointing out that the trial failed by its own original criteria, that patients had to fight a long and expensive legal battle to demonstrate that, and that the team involved have a long history of conflating *any* criticism with 'abuse'.

---------

*For any libel lawyers reading I will of course highlight that Liddle claims his acceptance of a police caution for the incident in no way implies he actually did it. I can't claim to be an expert myself but apparently it's totally normal to accept an unwarranted caution for common assault.

 

It would need to be established whether the Code of Practice only extends to named individuals and to groups submitting a complaint on behalf of a named individual or individuals, or whether it also includes a patient group as a whole, but where no individual has been identified.


https://www.theguardian.com/media/g...y-ipso-for-rod-liddles-discriminatory-columns

"...Matt Tee, Ipso’s chief executive, said the organisation had conducted a lengthy investigation into the complaint. He said: “It is important that Ipso, when dealing with complaints that have generated significant public or group interest, lays out a clear account of our process and findings.

“We hope this will be useful not only to complainants, but also for journalists and editors seeking guidance on the editors’ code.”

Comment: I think this ruling is significant for two major reasons. Firstly, it set a benchmark by investigating a complaint made by a group. Secondly, it acted because the Sun, despite its remedies, had refused to concede that Liddle had breached the editors’ code.

The decision to respond to a group acting on behalf of an individual suggests that Ipso has taken on board the concerns of many critics of its predecessor, the Press Complaints Commission.

I also believe that this could pave the way to further complaints because many individuals in the past have felt too cowed to argue their own case against newspapers. This, I believe, is how Ipso will proceed in future...."

 

The language is a bit unclear but my interpretation is that the intended meaning is 'prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's physical or mental illness of any type' rather than 'prejudicial or pejorative reference [...] to any physical or mental illness or disability' (although this is the wording}. Liddle doesn't refer to an individual.

I am personally not sure there is much mileage in making a complaint but if it is desired to do so, I would be inclined to hang it on accuracy, ie, misleading statements or distortion and perhaps bolster with a group discrimination argument if desired.

 

https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/ipso...its-chairman-says-a-balance-has-to-be-struck/

 

I think its pointless complaining about Liddle and will play right into his hands.

 

Sarah confirms:

 

Fully agree, he should be completely ignored.

 

Hmmm. Well, I guess fact-checking isn't one of this strongest points. Or rather, someone has problems with object permanence. "I did not know about it therefore it does not exist".

 

By time travelling!

We time-travelled to before anyone knew about the disease and convinced the WHO to recognize it before anyone knew it existed. We are so disrespectful of authority that we defy the spacetime continuum!

 

Oops. Looks like the SMC could be in a pickle over this.

 

I think we would be more successful to challenge the factual basis of the articles that preceded Liddle's commentary rather than his column. I don't think the prejudice clause applies here as he's specifically talking about PwME that disagree with Sharpe and other scientists not PwME as a whole.

 

But looks as though IPSO only rules on discrimination against individuals (or submitted by a group on behalf of an individual) and not against groups.

He's already had this case brought to IPSO:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/g...y-ipso-for-rod-liddles-discriminatory-columns

The Sun censured by Ipso for Rod Liddle's discriminatory column

but this found in favour of a named individual.

 

Fact: fibromyalgia has been recognized as fibrositis, and previously rheumatism, in the 1800s per Robert Bennett,MD of Oregon Health Sciences Center (myalgia.com) rheumatologist and clinician with 5000+ fibro patients.

A poisonous example, yet again, of the fluff (and this is nasty stuff), that so-called journalism commits these days. A voiding echo-chamber factory.

 

Personally, I think this is a gift for us. Those people who are most likely to become allies to us are, if they know of him, likely to dislike Rod Liddle and their natural tendancy will be to side with people who are attacked by him. Given the opportunity I think we should highlight that the likes of Sharpe, Wessely et al are supported, either implicitly or explicitily, by this odious man - such a connection will not help them.

 

I don't even feel the need to read this. Which shows how far we've come - 3 years ago I'd have gone through it with a toothcomb and written a furious rant about it. Now I can't even be arsed raising my left eyebrow.

 

To be fair, it does not seem as if anyone actually considers Liddle a journalist

Which ironically undercuts the premise of this "post-truth" rant since he literally based it on fake news and can't be bothered to fact-check. This rant is basically a prime example of what he thinks he's denouncing, but I doubt he'll ever understand that.