It was recently reported in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine that Simon Singh had lost the libel case brought against him by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA). This news has astonished sceptics and science writers who were only just getting over Singh's astounding victory in seeking permission to appeal the preliminary ruling which had not gone in his favour.
Singh supporters who had been following the case were expecting the appeal to be heard early next year so this week's news that he has now lost the whole case will leave many of them crushed. It's not their fault. Singh's supporters did everything they could and should take no blame from this outcome. Singh too went well beyond expectations in his defence of what always looked like an unwinnable case. His staunch defence has reportedly cost him dearly with "substantial damages" awarded against him when the judge agreed with the BCA's position...
"The British Chiropractic Association recently won a libel case against the science writer and CAM "skeptic" Dr Simon Singh for publishing an article in a British newspaper in which he accused them of promoting "bogus" treatments." [...] "The judge agreed with this argument, awarding the BCA substantial damages."
But science writers and sceptical bloggers should take heart. Not just because this case put scepticism front and centre in legal discussions. Not just because it spawned a storm of political protest against libel laws being used to stifle free speech. And not just because it has resulted in chiropractic around the world being put under the microscope. No. We can all look at this latest piece of devastating news and breathe a massive sigh of relief that it's a steaming pile of nonsense.
The author of the article, Lionel Milgrom, appears to have very little knowledge of the facts of the case - which has not finished. In fact, there has only been a preliminary ruling on meaning and that is currently subject to appeal. As such, the case has also not been won - by either side - and no damages have been awarded.
We can only access the abstract for free (yes, people actually pay to read the rest, apparently) but there's still more seeming silliness to be found...
But if you are a complimentary [sic] and alternative medicine practitioner...
Now, I'm sure that, despite what some sceptics might say, there are some genuinely nice people working in CAM but seriously, how many of them provide a complimentary - that is, FREE! - service to their customers? Yes, this is printed in the Journal of Alternative and ComplEmentary Medicine. Ouch! If we can't expect them to spell their own profession properly, how can we possibly trust them with more serious stuff? At least I will no longer giggle when I see lay-persons make this same error on blogs.
With regards to the libel case brought against Singh, Milgrom writes...
This time, however, it was different. Instead of the usual "let's-keep-our-heads-down-and-it-will-all-go-away" stance to such onslaughts adopted by many CAM organizations, the BCA rounded on its tormentor...
Right there, Milgrom has identified one of the biggest problems sceptics have with CAM supporters. The sceptics keep saying "show us your evidence" and, by Millgrom's own account, CAM organizations seem to bury their heads and hope the scrutiny will "all go away".
There may yet be an appeal, but The Guardian withdrew the offending article... and the beleaguered U.K. CAM community... for once thought it had something to smile about.
Yes, there may yet be an appeal. Indeed, that's where the whole case is currently at. It is essentially on hold awaiting the appeal for which permission was granted a little over a week ago.
What the CAM community found to suddenly smile about is anyone's guess. The libel case has resulted in a campaign of scrutiny the likes of which the U.K. CAM community has probably never experienced before. So unless they live outside of reality and followed the case in The Fantasy Times, as Milgrom appears to have done, they would surely know that the situation for CAM in general and chiropractic in particular is far from rosy.
With over 600 chiropractors currently the subject of complaints to their governing body and many CAM practitioners and resellers being subjected to Tradings Standards or Advertising Standards complaints, it's difficult to know what it is they're smiling about. This case has resulted in a significant backlash, or quacklash as others have called it, that must surely be far less comfortable than the verbal arguments that used to take place as sceptics sought evidence for CAM claims.
In other news, from Australia this time, the HCCC have dismissed a complaint lodged against the Australian Skeptics by chiropractor Joe Ierano. In response to the complaint, it appears the Australian Skeptics may consider lodging some complaints of their own against health claims made on Ierano's website.
MORE:
Jack of Kent: Lionel Milgrom, Simon Singh, BCA
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
Don Lane vs James Randi
Aussie entertainer Don Lane has died of dementia-related illness at age 75.
Lane famously hosted a late-night variety show, The Don Lane Show, from 1975 - 1983. It was almost required viewing in Australian households at the time and I'll say now that, as a teenager at the time, I enjoyed watching it - though more for Burt Newton's antics than anything else.
Among Lane's long list of regular celebrity guests were spoon bender Uri Geller and alleged psychic Doris Stokes. I've little doubt both were popular with viewers, just as today's crop of media "psychics" seem to attract believers, but Lane seemed especially credulous to the point of fawning over his paranormal friends.
Lane's willingness to believe in the paranormal was fully demonstrated when he invited US magician and sceptic James Randi on to his show. Randi explained why he is sceptical of the likes of Geller and Stokes and performed some simple tricks to demonstrate why we should all share his scepticism of extraordinary claims. But rather than accepting his advice, Lane took exception to it and told Randi to "piss off".
The event became a part of Australia's TV history and has been replayed several times over the years on various TV retrospectives. This week has seen it rear its head again in almost every news story about Lane's passing.
If you're wondering what all the fuss was about, Aussie sceptic Richard Saunders has the video...
Lane famously hosted a late-night variety show, The Don Lane Show, from 1975 - 1983. It was almost required viewing in Australian households at the time and I'll say now that, as a teenager at the time, I enjoyed watching it - though more for Burt Newton's antics than anything else.
Among Lane's long list of regular celebrity guests were spoon bender Uri Geller and alleged psychic Doris Stokes. I've little doubt both were popular with viewers, just as today's crop of media "psychics" seem to attract believers, but Lane seemed especially credulous to the point of fawning over his paranormal friends.
Lane's willingness to believe in the paranormal was fully demonstrated when he invited US magician and sceptic James Randi on to his show. Randi explained why he is sceptical of the likes of Geller and Stokes and performed some simple tricks to demonstrate why we should all share his scepticism of extraordinary claims. But rather than accepting his advice, Lane took exception to it and told Randi to "piss off".
The event became a part of Australia's TV history and has been replayed several times over the years on various TV retrospectives. This week has seen it rear its head again in almost every news story about Lane's passing.
If you're wondering what all the fuss was about, Aussie sceptic Richard Saunders has the video...
Thursday, October 15, 2009
BCA respond to Singh appeal hearing
The British Chiropractic Association, who is suing science writer Simon Singh for libel over an article he wrote last year, has released a response to yesterday's successful petition by Singh for permission to appeal a ruling against against him at the preliminary hearing for the case.
As previously, the media statement has been released in PDF format and in such a way as to make copying it difficult, but not impossible. Why they do this with media releases is anyone's guess. I've worked in the media in various guises and have never seen protected media releases before. It seems counter-intuitive and likely counter-productive.
[UPDATE: The Lay Scientist advises that the following press release has since been amended to remove the words "maliciously attacked" which some suggest could be seen as defamatory and replace them with "libelled"]
Dr. Singh has used this case as a platform to argue that science writers should be immune from the law of libel and be free to write what they please. Ever since the Eady decision of 7th May 2009 he has engaged in a high profile media campaign to assert that the BCA’s action is a restriction of the freedom of speech. It is nothing of the sort.
The BCA supports and would never seek to stifle legitimate open scientific debate. However, this action is actually a simple libel claim based on the fact that the BCA was maliciously attacked by Dr. Singh in the Guardian newspaper. When given the opportunity to retract his words and apologise, Dr. Singh refused. This claim has been brought to restore the good reputation of the BCA and that of its members.
Dr. Singh may now put his case before a full Court of Appeal. Here the BCA will, for the first time, have the opportunity to present its case. The BCA remains confident that once in possession of all the facts the presiding judges will refuse the Appeal.
What follows is my opinion. I am neither a lawyer nor doctor nor scientist so take it for what it's worth...
A few of the claims in this response verge on hyperbole. I don't think Simon Singh thinks there's no place whatsoever for libel laws for science writers. If a science writer labels someone a paedophile or other sort of criminal, without absolute evidence that such is the case, then I suspect no one is going to argue this should not be subject to libel law just because they are a science writer. Stating as a fact that Singh supports some sort of science writers' "free-for-all" also verges, I would have thought, on defamation unless there is proof that Singh wants this.
As for being maliciously attacked [see note above release], I think someone needs to get out more - or at least watch the news occasionally. People die every day from being maliciously attacked. Women are raped and strangled, children are beaten to death, men are shot down in cold blood. Justice Eady's ruling notwithstanding, saying an organisation happily promotes a form of treatment that the writer has declared bogus hardly qualifies as an attack at all, never mind a malicious one. He even referred to the BCA as the respectable face of chiropractic! Ouch!!! That's just mean.
Living in Australia, I'd never heard of the BCA prior to them launching their legal action against Singh. They had no reputation in my mind either before or after Singh's article was published and neither did any other chiropractic association. To me, the BCA didn't exist and I really didn't pay much attention to chiropractic in general. I now have an extremely low opinion of the BCA and a large chunk of the chiropractic community based almost entirely on the fallout from the legal action.
The libel case, rather than the Guardian article, has resulted in scientists, doctors and layperson bloggers taking a very close look at the evidence for chiropractic for a range of non-muscoskeletal ailments and in almost every case it appears the evidence was found wanting. The British Medical Journal concluded that the evidence had been completely demolished. People demanded evidence to support chiropractic and that evidence didn't materialise. Complaints were subsequently lodged against around 600 chiropractors and, as a result, hundreds of chiropractors throughout the UK have been told to remove such claims from their advertising. That advice has mostly come from within the chiropractic community. Simon Singh can surely not be held responsible for that.
The BCA say they gave Singh an opportunity to retract his words and apologise but it has been widely reported that the BCA were offered an opportunity to publish a rebuttal to Singh's article when they first complained. Such rebuttal would have been seen by the same audience that saw the Singh article - an audience limited, essentially, to Guardian readers - and could have restored the BCA's reputation in readers' eyes almost immediately. The libel suit, on the other hand, has enjoyed world-wide exposure for well over a year and resulted in chiropractors far removed from England suffering scrutiny like they've never seen before.
I'm having difficulty seeing how Singh is responsible for any long-term fallout from the whole saga.
UPDATE:
Jack of Kent has serious concerns about the implications of the charge of malice against Singh and suggests that, should Singh choose to counter-sue, it could put an end to the whole case.
Following this, I had a cartoon in mind for an update tonight. Unfortunately, Crispian Jago appears to have psychically stolen it.
The updated press release
I'm not a lawyer (and know little about chiropractic or English law) and anything which might appear to be stated as "fact" in the above commentary is intended only as opinion based on my current understanding of the issue. As always, take nothing I say at face value and do your own research.
As previously, the media statement has been released in PDF format and in such a way as to make copying it difficult, but not impossible. Why they do this with media releases is anyone's guess. I've worked in the media in various guises and have never seen protected media releases before. It seems counter-intuitive and likely counter-productive.
[UPDATE: The Lay Scientist advises that the following press release has since been amended to remove the words "maliciously attacked" which some suggest could be seen as defamatory and replace them with "libelled"]
BCA Response to Decision on Right of Appeal 14th October 2009
British Chiropractic Association (BCA) v Singh
Dr. Simon Singh has been granted permission to appeal against the decision of Mr. Justice Eady. As the Claimant is not permitted to be represented in a hearing of this nature, the Judge of the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Laws, did not have the benefit of being able to consider all the issues, nor indeed, has he heard any argument from the BCA.British Chiropractic Association (BCA) v Singh
Dr. Singh has used this case as a platform to argue that science writers should be immune from the law of libel and be free to write what they please. Ever since the Eady decision of 7th May 2009 he has engaged in a high profile media campaign to assert that the BCA’s action is a restriction of the freedom of speech. It is nothing of the sort.
The BCA supports and would never seek to stifle legitimate open scientific debate. However, this action is actually a simple libel claim based on the fact that the BCA was maliciously attacked by Dr. Singh in the Guardian newspaper. When given the opportunity to retract his words and apologise, Dr. Singh refused. This claim has been brought to restore the good reputation of the BCA and that of its members.
Dr. Singh may now put his case before a full Court of Appeal. Here the BCA will, for the first time, have the opportunity to present its case. The BCA remains confident that once in possession of all the facts the presiding judges will refuse the Appeal.
What follows is my opinion. I am neither a lawyer nor doctor nor scientist so take it for what it's worth...
A few of the claims in this response verge on hyperbole. I don't think Simon Singh thinks there's no place whatsoever for libel laws for science writers. If a science writer labels someone a paedophile or other sort of criminal, without absolute evidence that such is the case, then I suspect no one is going to argue this should not be subject to libel law just because they are a science writer. Stating as a fact that Singh supports some sort of science writers' "free-for-all" also verges, I would have thought, on defamation unless there is proof that Singh wants this.
As for being maliciously attacked [see note above release], I think someone needs to get out more - or at least watch the news occasionally. People die every day from being maliciously attacked. Women are raped and strangled, children are beaten to death, men are shot down in cold blood. Justice Eady's ruling notwithstanding, saying an organisation happily promotes a form of treatment that the writer has declared bogus hardly qualifies as an attack at all, never mind a malicious one. He even referred to the BCA as the respectable face of chiropractic! Ouch!!! That's just mean.
Living in Australia, I'd never heard of the BCA prior to them launching their legal action against Singh. They had no reputation in my mind either before or after Singh's article was published and neither did any other chiropractic association. To me, the BCA didn't exist and I really didn't pay much attention to chiropractic in general. I now have an extremely low opinion of the BCA and a large chunk of the chiropractic community based almost entirely on the fallout from the legal action.
The libel case, rather than the Guardian article, has resulted in scientists, doctors and layperson bloggers taking a very close look at the evidence for chiropractic for a range of non-muscoskeletal ailments and in almost every case it appears the evidence was found wanting. The British Medical Journal concluded that the evidence had been completely demolished. People demanded evidence to support chiropractic and that evidence didn't materialise. Complaints were subsequently lodged against around 600 chiropractors and, as a result, hundreds of chiropractors throughout the UK have been told to remove such claims from their advertising. That advice has mostly come from within the chiropractic community. Simon Singh can surely not be held responsible for that.
The BCA say they gave Singh an opportunity to retract his words and apologise but it has been widely reported that the BCA were offered an opportunity to publish a rebuttal to Singh's article when they first complained. Such rebuttal would have been seen by the same audience that saw the Singh article - an audience limited, essentially, to Guardian readers - and could have restored the BCA's reputation in readers' eyes almost immediately. The libel suit, on the other hand, has enjoyed world-wide exposure for well over a year and resulted in chiropractors far removed from England suffering scrutiny like they've never seen before.
I'm having difficulty seeing how Singh is responsible for any long-term fallout from the whole saga.
UPDATE:
Jack of Kent has serious concerns about the implications of the charge of malice against Singh and suggests that, should Singh choose to counter-sue, it could put an end to the whole case.
Following this, I had a cartoon in mind for an update tonight. Unfortunately, Crispian Jago appears to have psychically stolen it.
The updated press release
I'm not a lawyer (and know little about chiropractic or English law) and anything which might appear to be stated as "fact" in the above commentary is intended only as opinion based on my current understanding of the issue. As always, take nothing I say at face value and do your own research.
Sensing Insolvency & Deb Webber's upset
In the wake of the Deb Webber fiasco, in which the self-professed psychic and Sensing Murder "star" saw fit to put her two cents in on the Aisling Symes case, it now seems the company that produces Sensing Murder has fallen on hard times.
The New Zealand Herald reports that while cash is still flowing into the production company, unsecured creditors of Ninox will likely lose out...
The New Zealand Herald reports that while cash is still flowing into the production company, unsecured creditors of Ninox will likely lose out...
Fresh from controversy over its coverage of psychics in the Aisling Symes case, TVNZ is deciding whether to buy another series of Sensing Murder - the commercially successful show that has been caught in a company receivership.
Receivers PKF Corporate Recovery and Insolvency say cash is still flowing into television production company Ninox, which made the show, but unsecured creditors such as TVNZ are almost certain to lose money.
The receivers have said Ninox - which has been renamed Ninox NTV - went into receivership to avoid problems with a dysfunctional board.
The show might well be commercially successful but questions should surely be asked as to whether a government-owned broadcaster like TVNZ should be promoting "psychic detectives" as anything other than pure, unabashed, hilariously silly entertainment? Sensing Murder, by the way, does not take this approach to the subject.
In other news, Deb Webber is apparently pouting about the backlash from her ill-considered and distasteful entry into the tragic case of two-year-old Aisling Symes whose body was found two days ago in an underground drain.
Webber did not even mention Henderson or West Auckland, as many news reports state she did
In the early days of the investigation Webber had said that, when walking past a TV covering the story of the missing girl, she got the words "ditch, hole, (in) fallen". That was it.
However, the Waikato Times reports that she's received some backlash and implies quite strongly that her vision was far more accurate than it was. Here's the full report, quoted for purposes of critique and education (I've bolded a few bits)...
Australian psychic Deb Webber is upset about public backlash to her comments on television last week despite identifying where Aisling Symes could be found.
Ms Webber's suggestion that Aisling was in a drain proved correct last night. Her agent Trish Simpson said Ms Webber was saddened by confirmation of Aisling's death but relieved the little girl had been found.
Ms Simpson confirmed the Symes family contacted the well-known Sensing Murder psychic following her appearance on Breakfast last week.
Ms Webber is touring New Zealand with her live show and learned of Aisling's discovery late last night after completing a show in Tauranga.
"Deb is exhausted. We were up until 4am discussing Aisling's case. Deb is just relieved the family now have the closure they need to move on," Ms Simpson said.
Okay, so a two-year-old girl is dead, presumed drowned in a stormwater drain, but we are now expected to feel sorry for Deb Webber - oh, who happens to be on tour too?!! The whole thing, including the expression of Webber's relief at the girl being found, reads like a PR piece straight from Webber's agent, with no critical analysis - or even a gram of research - put into it by the publisher.
Webber did not mention any drain and did not identify where Aisling could be found. Aisling went missing in Henderson, in the west of Auckland and frankly, saying "ditch" in relation to that area is as useful as saying "tree" in relation to southern Tasmania.
But Webber did not even mention Henderson or West Auckland, as many news reports state she did. She could have been talking about Mozambique for all anyone knew. That's a pretty wide search area.
Webber could have stayed silent on the matter of Aisling's whereabouts or fate, especially since she had no material evidence to advance the case one millimetre, but she chose to publicise her thoughts on NZ national television, whilst on a show where she was to promote her tour.
And just how useful was Webber's information? Inspector Gary Davey summed it up when he told the NZ Herald...
"If she's said there's a body in a ditch in West Auckland, there are plenty of ditches and we can't do much with that information."
Anyone could have given them that information, it was barely intuitive never mind paranormal. It was just the most likely situation at the time. It's a completely useless bunch of words. And if police had actually limited their search only to ditches, as defined by almost every normal person and dictionary, then Aisling's body would never have been found. That's how truly useless the comment was.
Who really gives a toss if Webber is now upset at the backlash she's receiving? She said it herself in the same interview - karma has a way of hitting you in the face - and that the universe decides what's going to happen to people anyway. If she has a beef, it's with the cosmos, not those complaining about her heartless self-promtion.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Can a psychic detective fail?
It's been a hell of a week in the news. I was planning a break from blogging but the nonsense out there just won't stop.
Yesterday there was tragic news from New Zealand as the body of a two-year old girl, Aisling Symes, was found deep down in a drain next door to where she'd gone missing last week. As if the family's grief wasn't enough, psychic believers are going dooh-lahly over the fact Deb Webber had said on TV that the girl was in a ditch [video here]. They are, of course, amazed at the self-professed psychic's "laser-like" accuracy - and completely blind to the fact most psychic detectives seem to see shallow graves, ditches and depressions - usually near water - and that the girl's home is surrounded by drains and ditches, apparently, and that these had been the focus of police searches from the start of the investigation.
And it was a drain, not a ditch. But this won't stop them. One commenter at the Sensing Murder forums took to the thesaurus to try and bolster the defences...
Looked up synonyms for ditch
ditch - noun
channel, drain, trench, gutter, dyke, trough, furrow, gully, conduit, moat, watercourse;
I'm not an English major but I think she should look up "syllogism" next.
It's true that a ditch can indeed be a drain and a drain can be a ditch, but even if you consider all ditches to be drains, not all drains are ditches - in the same way that all labradors are dogs but not all dogs are labradors. By all reports (not on believer sites), this drain was not a ditch of any description. It was 1.5 metres underground! If this is a ditch then suburban Australia is littered with ditches alongside almost every street.
A couple of interesting points from the credulous interview on the video. Webber says she was born knowing everything - so presumably she knew her comments about the child's disappearance would blow up a storm of protest. Later she says karma is a beautiful thing because if you lie "it's gonna come back and hit you in the face". Well, I don't know about lies or karma but the response from news media, police and blogs has not been complimentary and even her colleague Kelvin Cruickshank came out and distanced himself from her comments which he labelled "a BAD CALL" (in caps!)...
Hi ALL. I am currently in Australia and have a few things to SAY.
Firstly my prayers go out to the Family of Aisling and I like so many feel for them with this tradgic [sic] loss..
I would like to put it out to everyone that when a person goes missing and Families ask for help dirrectly [sic] to a medium/psychic then it is acceptable for the medium to help and support... BUT it must be DIRRECT.. [sic]
In this case it was not dirrect [sic] and that is why DEB is getting flack and I must say out of respect for the spirit and families that I beleive [sic] that Ms Webber has made a BAD CALL...
PEOPLE must ask direct [sic] and in this case it is and was all second and third hand.
CHRISTIANS do not beleive [sic] in PSYCHIC'S so they would not ask for help...
I am upset, as I too asked spirit if I could help find Aisling.. my answer from them was STEP BACK...
We should always TRUST in our SPIRIT not our EGO...
TODAY is a sad day for all at the loss of a little angel...
Also I have been receiving some rather nasty emails of HATE toward me and what I do... I must say that it hurts to be on the receiving end of someone elses [sic] BAD CALL.
Kelvin currently in Australia.
Karma might be beautiful Deb, but she's still a bitch.
Cruickshank seems none too impressed with Webber's apparent error in judgement and he seems to be implying that Webber's spirit guides would have given her the same advice his gave him which leaves me wondering if she ignored their advice or never actually consulted them and just made it all up. No, it doesn't really leave me wondering because I don't believe in spirit guides but those who do should want this cleared up but they're a bit busy chastising Cruickshank for breaking ranks.
Meanwhile, the post-hoc, hind-sighted rationalisation going on among those jumping to Webber's defence beggars belief but provides a useful lesson in just how hard believers will work to bolster their delusions.
A Google search for comment threads and even news reports will soon have you thinking Webber said the girl was in a drain in the dark in West Auckland. In fact, what Webber said was "I was walking past the television and she popped up and I went oh, she's, ditch, hole, (in) fallen - and that's what I got, instantly."
There's no mention of West Auckland, which is where the girl lived anyway, in Henderson.
Webber goes on to make up lame excuses about why psychic detectives are so friggin useless with details and why we shouldn't bother with police or courts or jails or anything really since, apparently, the universe has already dictated what's going to happen with everyone. So sit back, put your feet up and watch telly - or don't, it really doesn't matter, your efforts are wasted no matter what you do. She goes on to explain that the secret to believing in psychic powers is to stop disbelieving in them - then advertises her show which is seemingly what the whole damned segment was really about with Aisling Symes apparently little more than a useful hook and perhaps a grab for noteriety and controversy.
TVNZ is New Zealand's public broadcaster (government owned) and someone should surely be hauled over the coals for heartless this fiasco.
MORE:
stuff.co.nz carries a report from the Waikato Times that builds on the Chinese Whispers nature of psychic predictions...
See that? "Ms Webber's suggestion that Aisling was in a drain" - now go back to what she REALLY said "...and I went oh, she's, ditch, hole, (in) fallen ..." And at no point did Webber identify where Aisling would be found, dead or alive. She did not, for example, say "that's where you'll find her". She just said "ditch, hole, (in) fallen", that's all. Just another report you can't trust.
Yesterday there was tragic news from New Zealand as the body of a two-year old girl, Aisling Symes, was found deep down in a drain next door to where she'd gone missing last week. As if the family's grief wasn't enough, psychic believers are going dooh-lahly over the fact Deb Webber had said on TV that the girl was in a ditch [video here]. They are, of course, amazed at the self-professed psychic's "laser-like" accuracy - and completely blind to the fact most psychic detectives seem to see shallow graves, ditches and depressions - usually near water - and that the girl's home is surrounded by drains and ditches, apparently, and that these had been the focus of police searches from the start of the investigation.
And it was a drain, not a ditch. But this won't stop them. One commenter at the Sensing Murder forums took to the thesaurus to try and bolster the defences...
Looked up synonyms for ditch
ditch - noun
channel, drain, trench, gutter, dyke, trough, furrow, gully, conduit, moat, watercourse;
I'm not an English major but I think she should look up "syllogism" next.
It's true that a ditch can indeed be a drain and a drain can be a ditch, but even if you consider all ditches to be drains, not all drains are ditches - in the same way that all labradors are dogs but not all dogs are labradors. By all reports (not on believer sites), this drain was not a ditch of any description. It was 1.5 metres underground! If this is a ditch then suburban Australia is littered with ditches alongside almost every street.
A couple of interesting points from the credulous interview on the video. Webber says she was born knowing everything - so presumably she knew her comments about the child's disappearance would blow up a storm of protest. Later she says karma is a beautiful thing because if you lie "it's gonna come back and hit you in the face". Well, I don't know about lies or karma but the response from news media, police and blogs has not been complimentary and even her colleague Kelvin Cruickshank came out and distanced himself from her comments which he labelled "a BAD CALL" (in caps!)...
Hi ALL. I am currently in Australia and have a few things to SAY.
Firstly my prayers go out to the Family of Aisling and I like so many feel for them with this tradgic [sic] loss..
I would like to put it out to everyone that when a person goes missing and Families ask for help dirrectly [sic] to a medium/psychic then it is acceptable for the medium to help and support... BUT it must be DIRRECT.. [sic]
In this case it was not dirrect [sic] and that is why DEB is getting flack and I must say out of respect for the spirit and families that I beleive [sic] that Ms Webber has made a BAD CALL...
PEOPLE must ask direct [sic] and in this case it is and was all second and third hand.
CHRISTIANS do not beleive [sic] in PSYCHIC'S so they would not ask for help...
I am upset, as I too asked spirit if I could help find Aisling.. my answer from them was STEP BACK...
We should always TRUST in our SPIRIT not our EGO...
TODAY is a sad day for all at the loss of a little angel...
Also I have been receiving some rather nasty emails of HATE toward me and what I do... I must say that it hurts to be on the receiving end of someone elses [sic] BAD CALL.
Kelvin currently in Australia.
Karma might be beautiful Deb, but she's still a bitch.
Cruickshank seems none too impressed with Webber's apparent error in judgement and he seems to be implying that Webber's spirit guides would have given her the same advice his gave him which leaves me wondering if she ignored their advice or never actually consulted them and just made it all up. No, it doesn't really leave me wondering because I don't believe in spirit guides but those who do should want this cleared up but they're a bit busy chastising Cruickshank for breaking ranks.
Meanwhile, the post-hoc, hind-sighted rationalisation going on among those jumping to Webber's defence beggars belief but provides a useful lesson in just how hard believers will work to bolster their delusions.
A Google search for comment threads and even news reports will soon have you thinking Webber said the girl was in a drain in the dark in West Auckland. In fact, what Webber said was "I was walking past the television and she popped up and I went oh, she's, ditch, hole, (in) fallen - and that's what I got, instantly."
There's no mention of West Auckland, which is where the girl lived anyway, in Henderson.
Webber goes on to make up lame excuses about why psychic detectives are so friggin useless with details and why we shouldn't bother with police or courts or jails or anything really since, apparently, the universe has already dictated what's going to happen with everyone. So sit back, put your feet up and watch telly - or don't, it really doesn't matter, your efforts are wasted no matter what you do. She goes on to explain that the secret to believing in psychic powers is to stop disbelieving in them - then advertises her show which is seemingly what the whole damned segment was really about with Aisling Symes apparently little more than a useful hook and perhaps a grab for noteriety and controversy.
TVNZ is New Zealand's public broadcaster (government owned) and someone should surely be hauled over the coals for heartless this fiasco.
MORE:
stuff.co.nz carries a report from the Waikato Times that builds on the Chinese Whispers nature of psychic predictions...
Australian psychic Deb Webber is upset about public backlash to her comments on television last week despite identifying where Aisling Symes could be found.
Ms Webber's suggestion that Aisling was in a drain proved correct last night. Her agent Trish Simpson said Ms Webber was saddened by confirmation of Aisling's death but relieved the little girl had been found...See that? "Ms Webber's suggestion that Aisling was in a drain" - now go back to what she REALLY said "...and I went oh, she's, ditch, hole, (in) fallen ..." And at no point did Webber identify where Aisling would be found, dead or alive. She did not, for example, say "that's where you'll find her". She just said "ditch, hole, (in) fallen", that's all. Just another report you can't trust.
Simon Singh has a WIN!
In news just to hand, Simon Singh has won permission to appeal Justice Eady's ruling. Jack of Kent tweeted progress. His latest tweet said:
#SinghBCA And it will be FULL appeal, Simon allowed to re-argue it was Fair Comment
Index on Censorship has an early report on today's hearing...
In a scathing rebuttal of Mr Justice Eady’s previous judgement in the case, Lord Justice Laws said Eady had risked swinging the balance of rights too far in favour of the right to reputation and against the right to free expression. Mr Justice Laws described Eady’s judgement, centred on Singh’s use of the word “bogus” in an article published by the Guardian newspaper, as “legally erroneous”.
The full story is now up at Jack of Kent: Simon Singh - Permission Granted
MORE:
Sense about Science: A short statement from Simon Singh
Sceptics' Book of Pooh-Pooh: Simon Singh wins right to appeal
Crispian Jago: Simon Singh permission ruling - paraphrased!
#SinghBCA And it will be FULL appeal, Simon allowed to re-argue it was Fair Comment
Index on Censorship has an early report on today's hearing...
In a scathing rebuttal of Mr Justice Eady’s previous judgement in the case, Lord Justice Laws said Eady had risked swinging the balance of rights too far in favour of the right to reputation and against the right to free expression. Mr Justice Laws described Eady’s judgement, centred on Singh’s use of the word “bogus” in an article published by the Guardian newspaper, as “legally erroneous”.
The full story is now up at Jack of Kent: Simon Singh - Permission Granted
MORE:
Sense about Science: A short statement from Simon Singh
Sceptics' Book of Pooh-Pooh: Simon Singh wins right to appeal
Crispian Jago: Simon Singh permission ruling - paraphrased!
Deb Webber wrong on Aisling Symes
It's 1:30am and I shouldn't be blogging but this sickening spectacle involving TV "psychic" Deb Webber and broadcaster TVNZ needs to be exposed.
Aisling psychic prediction slammed
Aisling psychic prediction slammed
A television psychic who claimed to have seen where the body of Aisling Symes was last week was not only wrong, but she should be ashamed of exploiting a family's pain, says the head of a sceptics group.
Two-year-old Aisling was discovered last night in a drain in a property next door to where she went missing a week ago.
[...]
But last Wednesday, Sensing Murder medium Deb Webber said she had details about the case during an interview on TVNZ's Breakfast programme.
"I was walking past the television and [Aisling] popped up, and I went, 'Oh, she's in a ditch, hole, in West Auckland'," she said.
"That's what I got instantly."
NZ Skeptics chair Vicki Hyde said Webber's prediction was wrong.
"Well a ditch is not a drain," she told NZPA.
"It's not sensing murder, it's sensing opportunity, sensing exploitation and there's nothing worse than exploiting parents who are under such strain and stresses."
TVNZ were not blameless either, Ms Hyde said.
They were guilty of using the situation as a marketing ploy, both for the station and the psychics, she said.
"There's really no entertainment value in watching a family go through this sort of agony over a week wondering what's happening to their missing child. And nor should there be."
TVNZ is New Zealand's government-owned broadcaster. Questions need to be asked in parliament about this incident.
MORE:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
