Valerie Eliot Smith charity complaint

I agree that the second letter was patronizing and unprofessional, and AB probably shouldn't be allowed near the keyboard if he can't express himself any better than that.

VES has already made her views on men in the ME community clear:

https://valerieeliotsmith.com/2019/...strategic-communications-in-the-me-community/

Under the heading "sexism and science in the ME community". We discussed it at the time on this thread:

https://www.s4me.info/threads/blog-...the-me-community-by-valerie-eliot-smith.7538/

So it's hardly surprising that when she receives a patronizing and unprofessional letter from a male she should view it in the way she did. Someone with a thicker skin may have just dragged it to trash rather than making accusations of sexism, a complaint to the charities commission and a public show about it.

I am in no way defending AB, and as I said, he probably shouldn't be allowed near a keyboard again.

Another factor to consider is that we don't exactly have people queuing up for voluntary positions in the ME community, so often all we have are those who step forward, including AB and VES. The idea that they can easily be replaced with someone possessing all the skills we deem desirable is rather optimistic.
 
To be honest, i don’t read people’s blog posts when i know i will be upset by what or how they write it, and i am not talking about Valerie’s blog. So called ‘social influencers’ and bloggers’s opinions and interpretations of the science and the twist they put into it sometimes is of great disservice to the community. That’s how coffee enemas got popular.

Just saying.
 
I should probably leave this alone, but ...

From AB's second email:

My response was not ‘frank’. It was extremely diplomatic.

When I do ‘frank’, you will know about it.
Click to expand...

VES had referred to AB's first email as expressed "in the strongest possible terms", and called him "extremely angry and upset" in her blog. AB is just saying here (rather badly) that it was no such thing, and that if he really had sent an email "in the strongest possible terms", it would have been noticeably different.

Saying that you could have written to someone even more frankly/strongly is hardly a menacing threat.

Compare with this:

Your opinion is your own and it is without foundation. It also contains a very serious allegation which I suggest you might wish to reconsider.
Click to expand...

Written by VES to our very own @Trish, who was simply trying to engage in a civilised exchange with her about a previous blog, here:

https://valerieeliotsmith.com/2019/...s-divide-rule-and-death-threats/#comment-3106

As a lawyer myself, I can spot menacing legal bluster a mile off, and VES is not above throwing inappropriate threats into an exchange herself. Again, I'm not defending AB here, just noting that VES can dish it out too, and has frequently had no hesitation in expressing her views forcefully in her blogs without regard to who it may offend. Most of her recent escapades seem to have involved defining different groups within the ME community and trying to set them against each other. There are plenty of examples of that in the S4ME thread I linked to in my previous post, and also the position she took on the NICE guidelines, which was again based on maximum conflict and included publishing the embargoed guidelines early without reference to any other views within the ME community, and trying to pesuade everybody to withdraw from the process and go to court. If she could set her guns on a target external to the ME community at some time in the future that would be super. In the meantime I'm really not minded to be part of an angry mob whipped up by VES against some old duffer who's got no idea how to write a professional email, or to be part of any angry mob she's tried to whip up before.
 
TiredSam said:
Written by VES to our very own @Trish, who was simply trying to engage in a civilised exchange with her about a previous blog
Click to expand...
I have not forgotten.

I think we can agree we have all witnessed that Valerie Eliot Smith has some views many of us disagree with. She is entitled to hold those views and write them on her blog. She always makes it clear that she is not speaking for any organisation.

That's why my focus is on AB, not on VES. AB's second email, I think many of us agree, was not appropriate from a representative of an ME organisation. I don't think it was bad enough to take to the Charity Commission, but that's up to VES.

But I do think the ME organisation should have taken some action and informed VES that they had done so, even if only to apologise for the email and inform her that the individual has undertaken to be more professional in future communications. Not taking any action suggests to me that the organisation condones such behaviour. I think that is a serious problem.

If I write a blog where I give my personal opinion that some parts of the new guideline are rubbish, but that it's much better than the last guideline, will I be on the receiving end of instructions to read 'How to win friends' and told it's full of wisdom I should follow?
 
I don't understand the point of writing a blog post about this without naming the individual (because people will probably start speculating who it might be).

Perhaps I'm missing something but it seems like it's one or the other: either you don't mention it publicly and try to fix things internally, or you go public and mention the person involved.
 
Trish said:
I agree with this, but I think it's more serious than just 'going about it the wrong way'. I think it demonstrates an attitude to women that is insulting and completely unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

I've been busy and unwell, but I do want to comment on this.

The portion from the first email was already not ok. It was (in order):
1) using emotions manipulatively (and punishingly, in an untrue way, to devaluate her opinion)
2) devaluing her honest opinion to a mere "blog grabber"
3) calling her not "measured and thoughtful" enough (again, devaluing what she says)


It was manipulative, unsolicited tone policing, not honest conversation. Given the next email this was him doing his "diplomatic" Sun thing, making an attempt at getting VES to take her coat off (to stop giving a negative and outspoken opinion on the content of the final NICE guidelines). Not enough to file a complaint, but definitely rude and a show of bad communication skills and lack of respect.

However he doesn't get what he wants (VES stands by what she said. And she can. Even more so because no contentual argument seems to have been made.) so he doubles down and dials up the volume with mòre tone policing, devaluating her opinion without adressing its content (it's rather disconcerting that he acts like he can't even comprehend that her opinion was a valid thing open for discussion in the first place, like all she wrote it for was clickbait), being insulting, giving rather disturbing "advise" on how she should behave ("be manipulative, like me!"), in a condescending way too, and that's even without the mention of that book.

It's a complete trainwreck of a response.

It's also a rather unpleasant thought that this is someone senior in ME advocacy, not just for how he treats women who have a loud opinion he disagrees with that he thinks should be manipulated into a for him more convenient tone, but also his ethics and advocacy techniques, which seem to basically be passive-agressive manipulation. (And I shudder at the thought that this could be how he thought to handle the core psychiatrists who caused this mess, as that would have been almost comically inadequate. - I hope that didn't happen.)

I'm all for using the imperfect but for now good-enough tool that is the NICE guidelines for finding a way to work with health care professionals to improve the lives of ME patients. But you can do that while still criticising the serious shortcomings of the document and being outspoken on where you think it can and should be improved.


And you don't have to agree with VES to see this rubbish for what it is, any woman with an outspoken opinion knows this shit.
It's offensive, condescending, and meant to silence, and I applaud VES for calling it out. We don't need to know who this was to address the problematic nature of it.


cfsandmore said:
Charles Manson used what he learned from the book (How to Win Friends and Influence People) in prison to manipulate women into killing on his behalf.[30]
Click to expand...

Yikes. I didn't know the book, but the fact that Mr. Sun advises it while saying "the book shows a deep understanding of people and how you can influence them." really makes me question his ethics. In those pieces of text manipulation is the core of his behaviour in this particular matter, but this shows that it is his normal, long-time attitude; he is so comfortably frank with that his aim is manipulating people.

Is it terrible humour to muse that if Manson managed to get people to kill on his behalf with what he learned from the book that Mr. Sun has been a bit of a slacker in getting ME taken seriously by key government and medical profession people? Given his failure and hamfisted attempts with VES, maybe he should read the book again...? :sneaky::laugh:
 
Last edited:
Michiel Tack said:
I don't understand the point of writing a blog post about this without naming the individual (because people will probably start speculating who it might be).

Perhaps I'm missing something but it seems like it's one or the other: either you don't mention it publicly and try to fix things internally, or you go public and mention the person involved.
Click to expand...
That concerns me too, on the grounds that it means the criticism spreads to all male senior staff, advisers and trustees of the larger UK ME organisations, leading to some of them being unfairly suspected, and a general loss of trust in those people to behave professionally.

Bur on the other hand, I think bad behaviour in those appointed to represent our interests is problematic when the organisation they represent takes no action, and doesn't even appear to recognise the problem. Given that is what Valerie reports is the case, what is she expected to do?

I don't know what the legal situation is with making public the authorship of emails which, as in this case, seem to have been written as a private communication, but clearly with the contact being part of ther role as a representative of the organisation.
 
Though I do not agree with Valerie’s positions on all issues, I have found she almost invariably makes an important contribution to the debate and that her Blogs are well worth reading as part of achieving a broad understanding of the issues addressed. Personally I am not sure she is always completely balanced in her conclusions, but when writing as a private individual she has no obligation to remain totally impartial. Further she is more than willing to debate the merits of her conclusions.

Now the person sending these impertinent emails seeking to silence her on personal grounds, as much as any response to the issues involved, has been named along with the charity they represent, I think it is important that the MEA publicly state if the person involved was officially representing the Charity in this context or acting in a purely personal capacity.

Regardless of whether these emails went as far as requiring any formal response in the context of the official regulations governing the behaviour of UK charities or not, I would have thought it is now a matter of common curtesy that the MEA either unambiguously distances itself from these emails or if they are to be seen as reflecting the Charity’s views offers a full apology to Valerie in relation to their tone and content.
 
Ariel said:
"We are sorry that you felt upset" is also not an appropriate apology.
Click to expand...

I agree that the MEA’s email sent to Valerie this week is a political non response, and think it is worth copying into this comments thread:

Dear Ms Eliot Smith,

Thank you for your email of 17 January 2022. We are sorry that you felt upset by the exchange of emails and, with your agreement, the MEA’s complaints procedure was followed to investigate your grievance. Neither that review nor your subsequent complaint to the Charity Commission found any grounds to uphold your complaint and we consider the matter closed.

Yours sincerely,

Rick Osman
Vice chair
Click to expand...

[added - Am I reading too much between the lines or could this response be seen as a tacit acceptance of responsibility for the original contentious emails, an admission that they represent the views of the MEA.]
 
Last edited:
'I'm sorry you are/you felt, upset/angry/hurt' etc is not an apology. Ever.

It means im not in any way sorry for what i did, but i wish you werent upset/angry/whatever about it.

Its a phrase thats been heard a lot in the UK rcently (not saying more as it would break the no politics rule), and it really gets up my nose. Why cant people just take responsiblity for their actions instead of making about the other person's feelings.ings
 
MEA not the quickest to acknowledge organisational mistakes or missteps.

Even the really trivial stuff. Like when people got confused by the wordings of one of MEAs twitter polls. MEA did change it but only after publicly expressing mild annoyance with all the people who were politely explaining why it didn’t originally work.

I found that odd but assumed that the social media person was feeling a bit fragile that day.

Then Charles Shepherd got very tetchy with people some of whom were absolutely distraught about the appointment of Professor Leslie Findley as MEA patron.

Three that I (a person who currently reads very little indeed) have stubbles across.

The bar appears to be set rather low in terms of self satisfaction for MEA as a unit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom