Trial By Error: Some Thoughts About an Upcoming Article

Thank you, that sounds reasonably promising. What brought about Holgate's change of heart? He treated Dr Geraghty terribly from what I just read. Last question..

 

I certainly tried to do that, but I'm not sure how much of what I actually said sank in.

 

Thanks @Adrian...great to hear positive news

 

Did you ask what evidence had been seen as to the existence of death threats? Its a shame the interview didn't take place later. You could have asked if the journalist had been shown previously unknown video evidence.

EDITED

 

While it would be ridiculous to try to tie that tweet to death threats, at the same time I don't think that tweeting something like that is a good idea. (And I say that having posted a few things that were probably not a good idea myself. I've had a comment of mine where I was complaining about the prejudiced views promoted in one judgement then presented as evidence of how unreasonable PACE critics are to the ICO in a judgement that classed a reasonable request for information as 'vexatious', and that didn't feel good.)

 

Sometimes you just have to say what you think.
I am sick & tired of the kind of political correctness which stifles frankness.
I stand by every word.

 

Yes, I did ask. The reporter confirmed having seen "evidence" of death threats, but didn't say what.
I followed up by saying that in my opinion, anyone who does that, isn’t helping the cause of people with M.E., because they’re gifting an opportunity to the likes of Wessely, White, Sharpe and others, to make themselves look like victims.

 

I have read @Valerie Eliot Smith's recent posts. Valerie has been an incredible help to me over the last 3+ years. Despite her poor health, she vetted multiple versions of my initial 15,000-word investigation and multiple posts afterwards. She has been scrupulous in advising me on what kinds of expressions are allowable under UK standards (different from US) and what are not. I trust her 100%. If she says she saw a video and it contained what can only be called criminal threats, then that's what it contained. I see no reason to think she is so naive that she was hoodwinked or somehow played by anyone.

Added: Oh, she and her husband also suggested the name "Trial By Error." So I am grateful to her for that as well!

 

If they have actually received such threats they should have to keep records and better yet show them to the Police for followup action.
If they exist they would have no problem with this and justice would be served.

 

Why make the assumption the police were not called in? Sometimes these things happen quietly and charges are not pursued for any number of reasons.

 

Was there not a situation a while back where they claimed to receive threats but could not furnish any evidence?

 

Like you, I have no doubt about VES. The fact remains that for the video to be regarded as credible evidence capable of use in a prosecution there would have to be someone who could say either that they had made the copy of the video, or that they had watched it on the internet and that this appeared to be a recording of what they had seen. It may very well be that the video which Valerie saw was indeed taken from the internet. The questions which interest me are not the credibility and integrity of VES, which I do not doubt, but the reasons for the recording not having been previously mentioned amongst all the stories of harassment and abuse, the reasons for its re-emergence now, and the capacity in which the person who made it available held it. I assume that it was not provided by SW or his lawyers, who might be reasonably expected to hold copies. Who else would have held copies?

 

I'm only talking about the Wessely tape that Valerie wrote about. I'm not talking about any of the other alleged threats. In some cases you might want to keep information private for safety, or you might be advised by the police to do so. I have no knowledge of any of this stuff. But I trust Valerie. If she says she saw a video that had been sent to Wessely and it contained possibly criminal threats, then there was a video that was sent to Wessely that contained possibly criminal threats.

 

Unfortunately, the situation and prejudices surrounding ME/CFS means that the average sick patient, angry about the way they are being treated, is given much less leeway in how they can comment on those who have power over them than general members of the public are in how they comment on politicians and the like.

Things that we say, that would be utterly un-noteworthy coming from members of another group about some politician, can be used as a justification for dismissing all of our concerns and make life more difficult for patients everywhere. It's worth pointing out the problems with this, but I also think it's worth being aware of the way in which we face higher costs than most groups for posting some expression of anger or frustration.

 

Good questions. But I think unfortunately they will likely remain unanswered. In cases like this, there are likely good reasons for confidentiality. There are also issues of lawyer-client privilege which might be coming into play. It has only "re-emerged" now because Valerie wrote about it. That's the only reemergence that has happened, as far as I can tell. The experience she wrote about is from the past.

 

I think it's perfectly possible that such a video was produced and planted there by the BPS people. They have fabricated evidence before (see Crawley's claim of having received a threatening letter). PACE showed how dishonest they are. It's difficult to explain why such a video, if it was authentic, was not presented as evidence during the QMUL PACE data tribunal hearing, and why Chalder admitted that no threats had been made. She is a colleague of Wessely. Chalder already admitted under oath that the threats against researchers story was false. At least until that point.

 

Ah, we are talking about different incidences here, my bad

Thats one way bullies keep themselves on top, by pretending to be the real victims and using double standards to keep their actual victims down.

That might be the one i am thinking of

In the end all this threat stuff is meant to keep us spinning our wheels and the real issues out of the spotlight which is their scientific malfeasance.
Its a common tactic used in national discourse and even politics.
We need to make sure we don't fall into their sandtrap and steer the conversation back to the real issues at hand.