Trial By Error: Professor Sharpe’s Retraction Requests

Andy said:






When do we get to call Sharpe, Wessely et al vexatious? It must be soon right?
Click to expand...

This is much worse. It's a clear pattern of intimidation and abuse of public trust because they abused the influence of the offices they held for personal reasons. It's a serious offence considering it seems to be systemic, that every critic is an immediate target of intimidation and personal threats.
 
Alvin said:
I think we should work together as a forum to make that list complete (with references).
Are there others to add?
Click to expand...
Time to put out a record of this. Unfortunately the biggest obstacle is precisely the threat of retaliation. I have seen so many hints of this pattern of intimidation but always reticent to come forward because of direct threats. Careers are directly threatened for those in the UK. Outside it's meaningless threats to bosses and editors but inside the UK there is a clear omerta.
 
upload_2019-2-20_17-8-45.png


upload_2019-2-20_17-9-25.png

Let me guess - in the minds of Wessely, Geralda, and other BPS activists, Ben Goldacre gets to be defined as a valiant whistleblower for grassing up Emma Reinhold. They just have to redefine words to fit their purpose, as they've always done.
 
TiredSam said:
View attachment 6056


View attachment 6057

Let me guess - in the minds of Wessely, Geralda, and other BPS activists, Ben Goldacre gets to be defined as a valiant whistleblower for grassing up Emma Reinhold. They just have to redefine words to fit their purpose, as they've always done.
Click to expand...

Yes it basically means they have appointed themselves as the referees whilst playing on the opposing teams at the same time with the whistles poised in their mouths running around football fields looking for the most skilful players to give red cards to.
 
Last edited:
edit: PS - I'd assumed 'eminence based harassment' was tongue in cheek, and wasn't really replying specifically to comments here, but this was just something I'd been thinking about when reading a few different threads where people expressed concerns about all this.

I'm wary of jumping to talking about their attempts at applying political pressure as 'intimidation' or 'harassment'. I think that it's good to make people aware of how they work behind the scenes to try to avoid debate and dissuade people from speaking out, but I think it's best to try to avoid a situation where the debate about PACE gets lost in people arguing over whether FOI requests or complaints are a more serious form of harassment.

They're generally more powerful and well connected figures, so they can apply pressure more easily and effectively than us, and will seem more genuinely intimidating to a lot of people who don't want to risk harming their own careers, but I think that that we're best of just describing their behaviour rather than applying labels to it.
 
Esther12 said:
edit: PS - I'd assumed 'eminence based harassment' was tongue in cheek, and wasn't really replying specifically to comments here, but this was just something I'd been thinking about when reading a few different threads where people expressed concerns about all this.

I'm wary of jumping to talking about their attempts at applying political pressure as 'intimidation' or 'harassment'. I think that it's good to make people aware of how they work behind the scenes to try to avoid debate and dissuade people from speaking out, but I think it's best to try to avoid a situation where the debate about PACE gets lost in people arguing over whether FOI requests or complaints are a more serious form of harassment.

They're generally more powerful and well connected figures, so they can apply pressure more easily and effectively than us, and will seem more genuinely intimidating to a lot of people who don't want to risk harming their own careers, but I think that that we're best of just describing their behaviour rather than applying labels to it.
Click to expand...
Nope, don't agree at all. If you want to tie yourself up in linguistic contortions in order to not call intimidation intimidation then go for it, but I think for the majority it's obviously attempts at intimidation and should be labelled as such.
 
Esther12 said:
I'm wary of jumping to talking about their attempts at applying political pressure as 'intimidation' or 'harassment'. I think that it's good to make people aware of how they work behind the scenes to try to avoid debate and dissuade people from speaking out, but I think it's best to try to avoid a situation where the debate about PACE gets lost in people arguing over whether FOI requests or complaints are a more serious form of harassment.
Click to expand...

So how would you name it, @Esther12 ?
I am quite brain-fogged at the moment, but I maybe tried to make a similar point here: https://www.s4me.info/threads/intim...other-psychosocial-research.8261/#post-145614
 
Esther12 said:
edit: PS - I'd assumed 'eminence based harassment' was tongue in cheek, and wasn't really replying specifically to comments here, but this was just something I'd been thinking about when reading a few different threads where people expressed concerns about all this.

I'm wary of jumping to talking about their attempts at applying political pressure as 'intimidation' or 'harassment'. I think that it's good to make people aware of how they work behind the scenes to try to avoid debate and dissuade people from speaking out, but I think it's best to try to avoid a situation where the debate about PACE gets lost in people arguing over whether FOI requests or complaints are a more serious form of harassment.

They're generally more powerful and well connected figures, so they can apply pressure more easily and effectively than us, and will seem more genuinely intimidating to a lot of people who don't want to risk harming their own careers, but I think that that we're best of just describing their behaviour rather than applying labels to it.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's jumping, though. It just reached a critical mass, it's been building for a long time. I mentioned it a few times before, those hush hints at having been threatened but not daring to put details forward out of fear of retaliation. It's a clear pattern, and a long one at that.

The important thing is to avoid speculation, focus on the facts. They clearly speak for themselves. So far by my count most critics of PACE have had their bosses yelled at by powerful figures who should normally not be concerned with such things as it's political (or administrative) interference in science. That's completely abnormal, there is absolutely no reasonable explanation for this.

If we stick to the facts it will be fine. We can't do much than gather the facts and let them speak for themselves anyway.
 
MSEsperanza said:
So how would you name it, @Esther12 ?
I am quite brain-fogged at the moment, but I maybe tried to make a similar point here: https://www.s4me.info/threads/intim...other-psychosocial-research.8261/#post-145614
Click to expand...

Agree with you and @Esther12 on this one - not labelling the behavior, just calling it out and let the reader make the conclusion themself. That would have been the approach working best here at least. Calling it harassment would just get us (as in here) involved in a 'screaming match', about labels, and them finding worse labels for advocates - loosing the focus of what they really did.

But we're in the tip-toing around tactics, UK might be very different. But I'm preparing mentally for how this will be framed here, either way.
 
Andy said:
Nope, don't agree at all. If you want to tie yourself up in linguistic contortions in order to not call intimidation intimidation then go for it, but I think for the majority it's obviously attempts at intimidation and should be labelled as such.
Click to expand...

Would you call Tuller's open letters an attempt at intimidation? The MP's speaking out? Almost any attempt to apply pressure to people can be viewed as intimidation. I just worry that when we talk about 'intimidation' we end up shifting the discussion away from the science and onto 'We get sent abusive e-mails' 'You complained to my boss' 'They tried to disrupt my lecture with unwelcome comments'... I think that makes it harder for us to make progress.

@MSEsperanza - yeah, I thought that your phrasing is useful.

MSEsperanza said:
I don't have a better wording at hand, but perhaps something like "Behind the scenes activities aimed at silencing PACE critics" ?

Another word for "behind the scenes"?
Click to expand...

rvallee said:
I don't think it's jumping, though. It just reached a critical mass, it's been building for a long time. I mentioned it a few times before, those hush hints at having been threatened but not daring to put details forward out of fear of retaliation. It's a clear pattern, and a long one at that.

The important thing is to avoid speculation, focus on the facts. They clearly speak for themselves. So far by my count most critics of PACE have had their bosses yelled at by powerful figures who should normally not be concerned with such things as it's political (or administrative) interference in science. That's completely abnormal, there is absolutely no reasonable explanation for this.

If we stick to the facts it will be fine. We can't do much than gather the facts and let them speak for themselves anyway.
Click to expand...

I agree about the importance of sticking to the facts, and I think that it is useful to bring this stuff more into the open, but I'd just avoid the 'intimidation' label for the reasons above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom