Link to my elusive piece on MP's expenses for OnMedica.com.

Singh vs. BCA

What a strange turn and self degrading action on the part of the BCA to take a 'libel' case against Simon Singh to the courts over the word 'bogus' (Oh my, reputation ruined). It may be a bit more than that but it seems a pretty extreme, and suicidal, measure to forgoe validation through medical journals (the usual route of action in medicine in these cases) but have taken their 'last resort' course, the most primitive of tactics. To their fortune they have landed a narrow minded judge (to the nations suprise…) who has somehow misread and misunderstood the original article, paying no heed to its irrefutable evidence and backed-up, beyond a reasonable doubt, opinion.

This judge is well known for his messing around with privacy laws, What a stroke of luck he presided over the BCA case ey…? Despite his preliminary ruling, Another £100,000 in legal cost’s on Singhs part will be well worth the turning over from a higher court, and rid us of any future rulings againts the right to the freedom of speech.

Its time anciet, creaking dinosaurs like these did not have such a hold over our basic human rights.

see article from ‘The Times’
Article begins:

“Mr Justice Eady, High Court judge

He may be just one of more than 100 High Court judges but Sir David Eady, 65, is nonetheless arguably more influential than any of his colleagues. Almost single-handedly he is creating new privacy law. A series of rulings have caused some disquiet within the press — although Sir David, a quietly spoken courteous man, is tapping into a public distaste for invasions of privacy. In 2006 he granted a gagging order to a celebrity who had an affair with a married woman to prevent the wronged husband from selling his story and unmasking the well-known “family man”. In 2005 he ruled that passages of a book by the author Niema Ash about her former friend, the Canadian singer Loreena McKennitt, be removed on the ground that Ash had violated a duty of confidence; and awarded damages to a Saudi Arabian billionaire against the Wall Street Journal Europe over allegations that Saudi authorities were monitoring the bank accounts of prominent Saudis for links with terrorism. Of course, he is subject to higher courts — and this last was overturned by the law lords. But his influence is certainly being felt.”

April 21, 2008

Find the original article by Singh here, with evidence in support of Singh's claims.