surely they must now stop digging and cut their losses. bringing the case has done infinitely more harm to their reputation than the original comment.

I suspect this statement, clearly preprepared, is a last bit of bluster before they throw in the towel.

Gosh - that was fast - anyone would think they had prepared that prior to the judgment.

Nice to see them saying 'we only took the lawyers' advice' too! May make it interesting if there's a bill to be paid!

Reading the statement by the BCA is reading a statement dripping with arrogance, contradictions and lies.

"The Guardian offered a right of reply but this fell short of our expectations". The BCA then has the nerve to plead that "it never was...[the BCA's] intention to curb freedom of speech". If they really believed in freedom of speech they would have never launched this libel case in the first place.

The next time someone talks about the arrogance of science, forward them the BCA statement and ask them to read the words of the South African lawyer Anthony Brink and seriously ask them whether they can sustain their view.

"Our original argument remains that our reputation has been damaged." Sorry BCA you damaged it yourselves.

Are the BCA planning on taking out legal action against themselves sometime soon? The only one's guilty of doing damage to the BCA's reputation is the BCA themselves.

"The Guardian subsequently offered a right of reply but this fell short of our expectations, not least of which because the original libel would have remained uncorrected."

Isn't continuing to assert that it's a libel now libellous?

david w

Simon has only won the first round, the main trial has not taken place yet. Although this ruling does rather weaken the BCA's position. I suspect they will quietly try to settle- see jack of kents blog for a good discussion of their slim chances of getting this decision reversed.

"Originally we asked Dr. Singh for a retraction and an apology and he declined"

Their claim is that he asserted fraudulence. Didn't he offer to "retract" this by stating it was never an intended meaning of his article?

Are you a bully if you take advantage of a system set up to make it easy for bullies?

I'm sure they were acting on the basis of their legal advice, and it was good advice; if they'd tried it with pretty much anyone else it would have worked. What bad luck for them that they picked Simon Singh :D

When Justice Eady agreed with them on that crucial issue, it must have seemed to them as though they actually had a point. Under those circumstances, they can be forgiven for continuing. Whether you agree that they were libeled or not, no-one is saying we don't need some sort of legal protection to protect out reputations and a fully functioning system ought to be set up to handle exactly this sort of disagreement. There is a difference between suing to restrict freedom of speech and causing freedom to be limited by using a broken system.

If they had a real case, I'd be prepared to cut them some slack. The bottom line, however, is that by targeting Simon directly, rather than suing the paper, they were trying to bolster a rather weak case by out-gunning their opponent.

They may claim they were doing that in good faith, but it is rather difficult to see how.

"My lawyer told me to do it" isn't any better as a defense.

This case has been a PR disaster for them and it looks as though it has been the final straw leading to some serious legal reforms. Well done Simon :) I'm sure it must be driving you nuts while it remains unresolved, but you are making a real difference and you have a lot of support.

Andrew is right. Simon Singh offered to publish a statement that he did not intend to imply knowing fraud by the BCA, but they rejected that offer out of hand - not even negotiating on the wording.