Georgina; if we’re keeping you from preparing for your CofA hearing, then ignore us. You don’t need to persuade us; you just need to persuade three Appeal Court judges. From your perspective, they are the only ones that matter right now. And given the symptoms that you describe, and your assurance that the scientific evidence supports you, may I wish you all the best in that effort (and congratulate you on the High Court success). That point does seem to have been lost, what with Sunny’s attempt to shout Charlotte down for having the temerity to point out that the original article seemed heavy on emotion and light on evidence.

Oh, and on the subject of the interface between science and law, I can assure you that I do in fact have the faintest idea what I am talking about.

“Since you both deem it acceptable to follow one link and not bother to look more deeply at other evidence”

Eh? Has the whole internet culture morphed into unrecognisability while I was asleep? If you want people to believe your position on something is justified, you show them sufficient evidence to back up your claim – it’s a very basic blogging rule. You are not entitled to rely on the possibility that they might be interested enough, or have enough time, to go scouting around themselves for additional back-up on every single post they read. If the blogosphere didn’t stick to this rule none of us would ever get any time for an offline life.

As for people “not liking the views” of writers here, if people publish or link to evidence here or anywhere they should expect to have it picked over.

Yes she does, she says this:

“…despite the linked research not being remotely ‘robust’ with mostly non-scientific public sector sources saying, “may cause” or “could cause” or “might” and my favourites, “we don’t know enough about the hazards” or “we haven’t got the evidence about what hazards might be””

Would you challenge that view of the document linked to?

Having looked at it, it seems perfectly possible to do so to me. I wonder why you didn’t do that in the first place, rather than continuously claiming she has “no basis” for her remarks. She does have a basis – she’s looked at the submission linked to in the article, and drawn certain conclusions about it. If you want to argue against her, the best thing to do would be surely to look at the submission yourself, and see if you can challenge her conclusions on it.

But she doesn’t point out what is not robust about it. Perhaps you could tell me where the article falls down? Or perhaps Charlotte could herself?

Rob said at #22

So, Georgina – as the person wanting the rest of us to do something – has a greater burden of proof on her than Charlotte, who merely wants to question the merits of doing something.

Actually, Georgina is doing a lot, as the article points out. She’s the only leading the campaign. Rowenna is right in asking why we don’t support more cases like that, but makes a general point about the political left ignoring rural issues (environmentalists don’t, but I agree that the political left in general does).

So the article was about the broader issue anyway – it wasn’t a call to action by Georgina specifically to join her campaign. Although I think it should be supported. However, if others want to put cold water over the case because they think the evidence doesn’t stand up then they should at least point out why they came to that conclusion. Otherwise it’s just trolling.

rob: Which is fair enough, but some of us would like to be told more about what we’re inviting to care about.

I don’t see why every article / blog on here should cover every aspect of what you would like them to… because the broader point that Rowenna made to me was about how the left generally ignores rural issues. I agreed and said she should blog it and use GD’s case as a hook. Seems perfectly sensible to me.

It’s well known Charlotte hates greenies – so her derision doesn’t surprise me. But I’m amused to think that she doesn’t actually have to offer any proof for why she’s pouring scorn on someone else’s campaign without any basis – and that too while knowing little about what’s going on in this case.

Eh? Maybe I’ve just totally misunderstood this. I gather from upthread that the piece of evidence referenced in Rowenna’s article was read by Charlotte and dissected by her as lacking robustness. Since it was the evidence adduced in the article, Charlotte (or anyone) has a perfect right to expect that it does prove what the writer claims it proves. In this case, Charlotte thought it did not. We now learn that actually there is more evidence that we can’t read yet. Is that not what happened?

Charlotte comes on to the thread and says this campaign is typical of the left that it’s driven by emotion rather than facts. I asked in comment #10 what evidence she had for the assertion she made.

To which she replied by saying: I don’t need to prove the opposite case though.

Which is a rather amusing retort. In other words I can go to any website and accuse them of chatting rubbish, and when people ask me what I’m basing it – then I just reply and say that the burden of proof is actually on them to actually prove they’re not chatting rubbish – even if some of the evidence was already out there.

Then, Charlotte seems to think that just because all the evidence was not posted, it’s somehow a vindication of her original point.

This style of debating I think usually died out when people left school. But clearly it’s one that libertarians such as Charlotte still hang on to.

If she has evidence that the campaign is based on emotion than facts – then Charlotte should present it and challenge what Georgina is saying. But she’s not actually doing that. the reason is that Charlotte only comes here to confirm her prejudice that lefties do everything based on emotion than facts – and is happy to keep stating that like a broken record without actually having to illustrate why.

Alix says:

As such I think she has followed normal internet ettiquette and responded on the basis of what she found, and does not deserve anyone’s censure.

She found what Alix? Where? What did Charlotte say that you’re referring to Alix?

Georgina – I wouldn’t bother wasting time if you have more important things to carry through. It’s what I call trolling. Best ignored.

I dunno. I guess I have certain expectations about calls to action, that they should give some background and some details (which Georgina has now helpfully added). I really don’t think that it’s good for the debate if we start throwing insults at the first person to point out the lack of background detail.

That may well be true. But the evidence linked to in this post was what Charlotte dutifully read, was it not? As such I think she has followed normal internet ettiquette and responded on the basis of what she found, and does not deserve anyone’s censure. Maybe Rowenna linked to the wrong thing, or at least an insufficient thing.

“I did not say that no evidence of mine has been published”

And nor did anybody else. Charlotte welcomed the fact that there was more evidence to come. Patently said: “Georgina Downs then (helpfully) points out that much of her evidence is unpublished”. Neither stated that there was no evidence.

You seem to be rather offended that people are questioning you. I’d tentatively suggest that it’s good to have robust challenge in a cause you care about (admittedly there have been some false starts here since we’ve just been told there is more evidence than is referenced here). If you’d rather there was no discussion for legal reasons, maybe this thread should be closed, since the point of a thread on a blog is to foster discussion?

Therefore what I actually said in my previous post, was that the evidence that won me my High Court case has not as yet been published and so is not yet in the public domain and then I referred quite clearly for those who read it properly, a 149 page Witness Statement. It is absolutely right that that document (along with my 4 other Witness Statements) have not yet been published, considering it is confidential legal documentation and should not be published before completion of the case.

Please can I request people read things properly (ie. my previous post), as I am extremely busy preparing for my Court of Appeal case and really could do without having to respond to posts by people who quite frankly do not have the faintest idea what they are talking about and are just twisting comments that are made to try and invent something to come back on. I resoundly won a landmark High Court action, the first of its kind ever taken. Do you honestly think I won that based on thin air, no I won it based on the evidence presented in the case and after a 4 day substantive High Court hearing in July last year. I reiterate what I said in my previous post, please refrain from talking about things you have not seen.

Thomas (26) clearly and succinctly spikes your arguments. You largely ignore him. Charlotte, meanwhile, responds to your comments and deals with them.

Georgina Downs then (helpfully) points out that much of her evidence is unpublished, hence Charlotte cannot have read it. Now, the point is scientific evidence is to publish it, so that it can be checked. Only with peer review and checking does scientific evidence acquire authority. But that aside, Charlotte acknowledges that further evidence would have to be reviewed to see if it supported Ms Downs’ position. That’s not enough for you; you still need to have a dig.

Someone here is being unreasonable, Sunny. But it doesn’t look like Charlotte from where I’m standing.

———————————————————————————————————————-

You just instinctively don’t like it when regulation stops companies from doing things they might want to in pursuit of profit.

Interesting comment of yours, Sunny.

Charlotte was, at the time, pointing out that the evidence did not support the hypothesis. So, in such circumstances, why should people not make a profit? Why should they not go out, do some work, and make a living?

Granted, if the evidence does support the hypothesis that their chosen way of making a living harms others, then regulation should step in to prevent them. But should that evidence not be published? Should we not all be able to see the decision-making process?

Yes it is – trying to get everyone else to change what they’re doing by bringing the state down heavily, justified by emotion and belief rather than reason and fact? Very much a ‘leftist battle’.

Which isn’t true. So perhaps you should save yourself further embarrassment and not try misrepresenting ‘the left’.

Georgina – thanks for taking the time and writing your post.

All I have done in my campaign and legal case is continue to present accurate facts and evidence correctly that a) led to a Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution agreeing with my case that the UK Government’s policy is inadequate to protect public health, particularly residents, and b) a High Court Judge ruling that the UK Government’s policy is failing to protect public health, particularly residents and is not complying with EU law regarding the protection of human health.

This bit particularly perhaps Charlotte should read again before presuming environmentalists only do stuff based on emotion than fact.

I don’t need to disprove the ‘evidence’ linked to in the original post. The point is that it’s not evidence. You’re just assuming (again) it is.

Turns out, in fact, that the real evidence hasn’t been published… which supports what I’m saying, funnily enough.

If you’re saying there’s more evidence out there, then great – looking forward to seeing it.

This will, however, hopefully convince passers-by who they’re more likely to take seriously.

The Judgment is long and was ruled in my favour for the simple fact that, according to the Judge, the evidence and “cogent arguments” I produced in a 149 page Witness Statement were “scientifically justified” and that I produced “solid evidence” that residents have suffered harm to their health. I repeat this evidence has not yet been published and so Charlotte you have not seen it and have no right to post such inaccurate comments as to say that my case is justified by mere “emotion and belief rather than reason and fact”. This could not be further from the truth as in relation to the pesticides issue the only one who has worked to the highest professional standard and been meticulous with accuracy and attention to detail is me, as that is certainly not the case when it comes to the Government, or the chemical industry!

All I have done in my campaign and legal case is continue to present accurate facts and evidence correctly that a) led to a Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution agreeing with my case that the UK Government’s policy is inadequate to protect public health, particularly residents, and b) a High Court Judge ruling that the UK Government’s policy is failing to protect public health, particularly residents and is not complying with EU law regarding the protection of human health.

The industry and its apologists are the ones who continue to issue incorrect information, use propaganda based on emotion and scaremongering techniques to try and protect ultimately the industries profits. That is not what pesticide policy and legislation is supposed to be based on. The primary purpose of pesticides policy and legislation is supposed to be the protection of public health. This means that there is not supposed to be a ‘balancing’ approach in relation to harm (or the risk of harm) to human health with the supposed benefits of pesticides, such as cost or economic benefits for farmers and the chemical industry. Therefore in a legal framework such as this, a balancing of interests is not permitted and public health protection must be paramount.

Based on the existing scientific and medical evidence regarding the adverse health impacts that exposure to pesticides can cause, the European Commission itself has previously clearly acknowledged that “Long term exposure to pesticides can lead to serious disturbances to the immune system, sexual disorders, cancers, sterility, birth defects, damage to the nervous system and genetic damage.”

Therefore Charlotte this does not say “may cause” or “could cause” or “might” it quite clearly says “can lead to” various chronic health impacts.

I would sincerely request that there are no further comments on the actual evidence involved in my case considering it is not yet in the public domain. (Obviously it will be in due course, but as correctly pointed out by Rowenna the Government has appealed against the Judgment and so the legal case now continues to the Court of Appeal).

Thanks and kindest regards,

Georgina Downs FRSA.
UK Pesticides Campaign.
http://www.pesticidescampaign.co.uk

And what did you find that wasn’t true Charlotte?

thomas – ‘people like’ = libertarians.

My point is that people like Charlotte only come here to confirm their prejudice that lefties act only on the basis of emotion rather than fact and reason. Except – she’s challenging something without any fact or reason, confirming my own belief that libertarians have a broken-record position on the state and on lefties which is driven simply by emotion than an evaluation of facts.”

Can I draw your attention to the particularly offensive phrase ‘people like’ as something you have criticised racists for using.

Can I also draw your attention to your own admission that you based your opinion on an assumption, and then attacked your critic as someone who does not use any fact or reason.

Can I finally draw your attention to your claim that this “confirms your belief”.

Now, can you tell us, are you being deliberately and perversely hypocritical? Are you conscious of your own prejudices?