Tymes Trust - No reported harassment of staff at Bristol University

http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/SMC-Views-from-the-front-line-essays-on-the-SMC.pdf

Extract Page 16:

"The SMC organised a meeting so we could discuss what
to do to protect researchers. Those who had been subject
to abuse met with press officers, representatives from
the GMC and, importantly, police who had dealt with the
animal rights campaign. This transformed my view of
what had been going on. I had thought those attacking
us were “activists”; the police explained they were
“extremists”.

The tactics of using threats and abuse, and then trying
to prevent research using FOIs and reviews, had all been
seen before. We discussed whether somebody at the top
of one of the leading charities might be behind much of it,
relying on others with a lower profile to take the abusive
actions..."

"We discussed whether..."


Which of these parties discussed?

Who had raised that as a potential?

The SMC, the press officers, the GMC, the police, the university, EC herself, Support4RS and any other individuals or parties involved in these discussions who are not named above?

So, it does not state who suggested that as a possibility or how that suggestion had been received by those involved in that alleged discussion.

It's not clear whether whoever allegedly suggested that possibility would have been aware of who the "leading charities" were or which of those "leading charities" had already publicly supported the trial (and thereby potentially reduce the number of potential charities).

So who would be the subject of any potential legal case? And how would a charity show that their charity had suffered as a result of the unspecific statement, above?

I agree that it is very dirty tactics and very nasty but the article has been carefully crafted. I do not think there is enough in that statement to start calling for patient orgs with limited finances to consider taking legal advise towards a potential case; and would their membership consider it an appropriate use of limited funds?

 

I think that what is now under discussion is the allegations made in the document quoted by @dxrevisionwatch at #28

EDIT crossed with last post #42

 

Sean has quoted:

"We discussed whether somebody at the top of one of the leading charities might be behind much of it, relying on others with a lower profile to take the abusive actions."

You cannot bring a case for defamation against a group (other than certain protected groups or if the group is so small that individuals can potentially be identified).

 

I agree - an orchestrated campaign, and I consider that dreadful Sunday Times feature by the late Michael Hanlon was part of that orchestrated campaign. Michael Hanlon died in February 2016.

 

In relation to the Hanlon feature article:

This account by Angela Kennedy (who had been approached by Hanlon before Christmas 2012) was written up before the Sunday Times article published in May 2013.

PDF format or scroll down page for text version:

http://www.academia.edu/6801715/My_...Michael_Hanlon_regarding_Sunday_Times_article

 

I am at a loss to understand why it might be thought that the only way in which information might be used is an action for defamation, but have run out of the energy necessary to discuss the point.

 

What would be helpful in this respect is for a prominent named person to submit a Subject Access Request to the relevant police department who deal with Domestic Extremism. (I think it is the Met, but am not up to date)

You can be on the database as a 'domestic extremist' without breaking any laws.

This is what happened with Animal Rights activists, along with other groups seen as subversive to the status quo. It is important to note that even explicitly non-violent groups and individuals find themselves on these databases.

It would also explain why there would not be recorded crime numbers, yet police involvement.

The police advice seems similar to what I am aware of in other areas, and the only way to find out the extent of their involvement is for a person to request their personal data. If anyone else asks for the data, they will deny it on the grounds of data protection.

 

Transparency and accountability.

 

Jane Colby has yet to give a straight answer to my Q.

 

I recall posting the links and info for doing this "in another place" in one of the 2013 Hanlon article threads.

 

I did consider putting in a request at the time, since I had submitted several FOIs and appealed an FOI decision in early to mid 2010 and also have a website that collated SMILE Trial information, statements of concern, charity statements etc.

 

They also tried to use Wessely's harassment article as evidence, from what I recall, but the court was not impressed. Wessely wasn't a PACE researcher (though involved at a clinic).

 

More unsupported statements from the Hanlon 2013 article:

"...Few people will speak on the record about the extent of the threat to the ME researchers.

There is, I am told, a specialised unit at the Metropolitan Police dedicated to monitoring the threat, but no one at Scotland Yard will speak publicly about this.

Publicity, it seems is to be avoided at all costs, and the less said about this bizarre war, I am told, the better.

I understand that a list is often drawn up in these circumstances - to protect those who might be under threat from potentially dangerous activists of any hue, not just those who are objecting to scientists undertaking research into ME.

Some argue that circulating lists of activists - who in many cases might be mentally ill - has implications for civil liberties.

But given the nature and scale of the threat, it is unsurprising that a set of the most worrying names exists- and it is at the disposal of the authorities.

After much persuasion, I am shown a list of activists; names that crop up time and again on the ME forums.

They are divided into three categories: militant, radical and active.

Most are prolific posters on the various ME forums and Facebook pages (interestingly, Twitter seems largely immune).

In Britain the number of real extremists probably amounts to about 50- 80 people (compared with the 25 or so hard-core animal—rights extremists identifed by the authorities), yet they wield influence out of all proportion to their numbers..."​

 

I will give consideration to submitting a request as to whether or not I am on the list.

Why would the police disclose a list of names to a journalist and would that breach data protection?

But note, Hanlon does not clarify that the alleged list he was allegedly shown actually came from the Met.

 

Re post 54

That may make less than no sense, not nonsense but negativesense.