There is one very interesting paragraph from the judgement, and one which I expect will be republished in blogs around the world. The comment refers to the initial ruling by Justice Eady in regards to the meaning of what Singh had written [my bolding]:
'Once the allegation that there is 'not a jot of evidence' to support the claims is properly characterised as a value judgment, the word 'happily', even if synonymous with 'knowingly', loses its sting. But we respectfully doubt whether the judge was justified in any event in attributing to the word any significance beyond, say, 'blithely'. The natural meaning of the passage, in other words, was not that the BCA was promoting what it knew to be bogus treatments but that it was promoting what Dr Singh contended were bogus treatments without regard to the want of reliable evidence of their efficacy – a meaning which takes one back to the assertion that there was not a jot of evidence for the BCA's claims.' [para 30]
Also:
The Guardian:
Reuters UK
and
BBC
Posts
