It is perhaps worth recalling that this is not the first occasion on which difficulties have arisen, or should have arisen, over BMJ editing of a piece by Nigel Hawkes. The links to the 2011 article are posted above. However these do not disclose the full absurdity.
Here is the critical paragraph
I regularly go to see a lawyer on the Medical Defence Union,” says Professor Wessely. “They say, ‘Yes, it is a gross libel. But if you took them to court, they’d love it. They’d get what they want.’ I did get an injunction against the person who was comparing me with Mengele. That was a particularly nasty example, because my grandparents may actually have been murdered by Mengele—they were transported to the camp where he worked and never seen again.
One can see that given the family history this would be a matter of extreme sensitivity. The natural inference from the paragraph quoted is that, at the time, not only had SW an outstanding injunction against a person who posted these references, but the injunction related to the comparison with Mengele. This is all understandable, although it would appear to conflict with the advice supposedly given by his lawyers, and supposedly accepted by SW.
What the on-line version of the article does not reveal is the photograph published in the print copy. This is a photo of SW with, superimposed what would appear to be a screenshot from an internet site. The caption reads
Simon Wessely and an example of one of the
many offensive emails he has received
The image makes distasteful and offensive comparisons with Mengele. I do not propose to include them.
There are problems as to whether what is displayed is in fact a copy of an e-mail actually sent to SW as claimed. The main problem, however, is slightly different, but quite obvious. The claim seems to be that of all offensive material allegedly sent to SW, the one thing that made him take out an injunction, presumably to prohibit further publication of the slur, was the comparison to Mengele. So the BMJ apparently goes right ahead and republishes it.
Appearances may of course be deceptive and may be intended to be. It may be that any alleged injunction concerned different material, possibly from a different author. Indeed, earlier in the article it suggests that the Mengele references were made on the internet. The reference to e-mail might therefor be intended to indicate that this is something different. However if this reference was so offensive that it warranted an injunction, it should not have been published by the BMJ. If it was suitable for wider publication either the alleged injunction should not have been obtained, or there should be greater clarity in the text to explain the anomaly. The average reader should not be expected to deconstruct every phrase and interpret every word to gather the meaning, especially if they have no reason to think that the article is plainly representing anything other than a true picture. The point of the article seems to be to say that there is some material so offensive that it should not be seen, and here it is.
It would probably be reasonable to absolve SW of blame for this. The suspicion must be that this occurred at a late stage in the editorial process. One is tempted to wonder whether SW considered taking an injunction against the BMJ...……(that was a joke, by the way).
Here is the critical paragraph
I regularly go to see a lawyer on the Medical Defence Union,” says Professor Wessely. “They say, ‘Yes, it is a gross libel. But if you took them to court, they’d love it. They’d get what they want.’ I did get an injunction against the person who was comparing me with Mengele. That was a particularly nasty example, because my grandparents may actually have been murdered by Mengele—they were transported to the camp where he worked and never seen again.
One can see that given the family history this would be a matter of extreme sensitivity. The natural inference from the paragraph quoted is that, at the time, not only had SW an outstanding injunction against a person who posted these references, but the injunction related to the comparison with Mengele. This is all understandable, although it would appear to conflict with the advice supposedly given by his lawyers, and supposedly accepted by SW.
What the on-line version of the article does not reveal is the photograph published in the print copy. This is a photo of SW with, superimposed what would appear to be a screenshot from an internet site. The caption reads
Simon Wessely and an example of one of the
many offensive emails he has received
The image makes distasteful and offensive comparisons with Mengele. I do not propose to include them.
There are problems as to whether what is displayed is in fact a copy of an e-mail actually sent to SW as claimed. The main problem, however, is slightly different, but quite obvious. The claim seems to be that of all offensive material allegedly sent to SW, the one thing that made him take out an injunction, presumably to prohibit further publication of the slur, was the comparison to Mengele. So the BMJ apparently goes right ahead and republishes it.
Appearances may of course be deceptive and may be intended to be. It may be that any alleged injunction concerned different material, possibly from a different author. Indeed, earlier in the article it suggests that the Mengele references were made on the internet. The reference to e-mail might therefor be intended to indicate that this is something different. However if this reference was so offensive that it warranted an injunction, it should not have been published by the BMJ. If it was suitable for wider publication either the alleged injunction should not have been obtained, or there should be greater clarity in the text to explain the anomaly. The average reader should not be expected to deconstruct every phrase and interpret every word to gather the meaning, especially if they have no reason to think that the article is plainly representing anything other than a true picture. The point of the article seems to be to say that there is some material so offensive that it should not be seen, and here it is.
It would probably be reasonable to absolve SW of blame for this. The suspicion must be that this occurred at a late stage in the editorial process. One is tempted to wonder whether SW considered taking an injunction against the BMJ...……(that was a joke, by the way).
