Since I am also harassed -- including in comments to this blog -- for being a CFS advocate, I gladly repost Angela's correspondence.
PERMISSION TO REPOST
Below is a series of correspondence I have recently had with
Professor Peter McGuffin, Dean of Psychiatry at the Institute of
Psychiatry, King's College, London, and John Williams, Interim Head
of HR , at the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College, London.
I have transcribed the correspondence by both, but have the original
documents in my possession.
The contents of this correspondence are self-explanatory.
I am publishing this correspondence for two reasons:
1. I consider that I have been defamed, and seek to protect my good
name and reputation against defamatory attacks of this nature.
2. This situation, sadly, relates to an increasingly unpleasant and
worrying phenomenon. I have observed, over the years, a growing
tendency, by some, to make grossly ad hominem attacks on ME/CFS
advocates and the community at large. These are logically
indefensible, and morally and intellectually unsound: and have had
the effect of preventing reasonable, legitimate voices of criticism
being acknowledged within the discourse of ME/CFS politics. This has
adverse consequences for sufferers, especially when such claims are
accepted, unsubstantiated, at face value, by others such as
politicians. This is a phenomenon which I will return to in the
coming months.
Angela Kennedy
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Letter from Angela Kennedy to Peter McGuffin:
1st October 2007
Dear Professor McGuffin,
I am writing to you about a serious matter of defamation which
potentially involves a member of your department, Professor Simon
Wessely.
I am an advocate for my daughter, a young woman seriously ill and
severely disabled by her illness, who was diagnosed with ME/CFS. I
also politically advocate for the community at large. I am also a
known critic of the `psychiatric paradigm' of ME/CFS, and I
undertake this from an academic perspective (I appreciate the above
term might be contested, but that is not the issue at hand).
I am currently working towards publication on this issue, having
been engaged in academicresearch for some years. I have a social
science background and am an Associate Lecturer with the Open
University (although the work I am undertaking in this field is not
connected to this institution).
I therefore do have a reputation that might be damaged by libellous,
defamatory comments.
In recent weeks, various editors of the Wikipedia online
encyclopaedia have expressed an intention to publish claims that
Professor Wessely has `retired' from `CFS' research because
of `harassment' by certain people within the ME/CFS patient
community. The basis for these claims is the Gibson Report, an
unofficial, unsourced, un-referenced document, which has been
criticised for key inaccuracies, and inflammatory, inaccurate
language about the patient community and its advocates.
I, with other advocates, have endeavoured to provide reasons and
evidence as to why the Gibson Report is not a reliable source, and
why claims of `harassment' are, certainly at present,
unsubstantiated and unsafe to the point they should not be published
on Wikipedia. One advocate has attempted to clarify, by contacting
MP Ian Gibson himself, the source of the comment, within the report
itself, that Professor Wessely has retired from "CFS" research, and
the claim that this was "possibly due to extreme harassment" [my
italics] present within the report. Ian Gibson's researcher is
following this up.
This is an extremely important issue. I, like many in the community,
would condemn harassment of academics (particularly harassment as
defined in criminal law), particularly as I am myself an academic,
and because I have been subjected to criminal harassment before,
which I have reported to the police. However, there is also a
problem around the use of the term `harassment`: ME/CFS sufferers
and their advocates have for many years been subject to inaccurate
ad hominem attacks on their motives for protesting the psychiatric
paradigm. Inaccurate descriptions of legitimate critique
as `personal attack', or `abuse', or terms actually associated with
criminal `harassment' are all too common, to the detriment of a
patient community with valid concerns.
On September 26th, and 27th, 2007, a member of the Wikipedia online
encyclopaedia posted a long attack on myself and others, which
included the comments below, on their `Admin Notice board', which
were grossly misrepresentative of my work, and which made false, ad
hominem attacks on my motives. Certain remarks in particular were
highly libellous and defamatory. These remarks have now been present
on the Wikipedia site for approximately 10 days.
I have already written to the founder of Wikipedia, Jim Wales,
setting out the problem, and if I do not receive an apology and
retraction I will take further action. My concern in writing to you
today, however, involves Professor Wessely himself. The person
posting these comments (someone whom the evidence suggests is named
Guy Chapman, but which I have asked Mr Wales to verify and confirm),
has claimed this:
"These individuals have also harassed Wessely in real life. That we
can't include because it's not directly stated in the sources, but I
have now exchanged emails with Wessely and it is the case. (Guy)
15:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC) "
I have made legitimate, academically informed critique of the work
of Professor Wessely before in various public and political domains,
as I have with regard to other persons active in this field, but I
have certainly never harassed Professor Wessely in any way,
particularly according to the British legal definition
of `harassment'. I have never emailed Professor Wessely, although he
did once send an unsolicited email to me on 24th January 2004. I
have never phoned him, or written to him, or done anything that
should at all be construed as harassment. I have never made
any `personal attack' on him.
I strongly re-iterate, particularly, that critique of a person's
claims in a field of study, or conduct in that field, does not
itself constitute personal attack or harassment. Inaccurate claims
that critiques, from members of the ME/CFS community and their
advocates, of the `psychiatric paradigm`, or the actions of its
proponents, somehow constitute `personal attack' are a demoralising
phenomenon. This is a key issue, and one on which I have undertaken
further study.
But my specific worry here, is that it appears possible, from the
comments of this person on the Wikipedia Admin Board, that
Professor Wessely has written an email to this person, claiming that
I have `harassed' Professor Wessely`in real life'. This claim, if
indeed it has even been made, is patently false, and defamatory.
However, I accept the possibility that this claim may never have
even been made, at least not in regard to myself. I therefore
request from you confirmation of whether, or not, an email was sent
to Guy Chapman, or other person, by Professor Wessely, claiming that
I, specifically, have `harassed' him, or that `One Click', a group
with which I was previously involved, have `harassed' him. I also
request access to any communications between Professor Wessely and
this person around this issue.
If, and how, Mr Wales responds to my letter will determine what
further action I may take in regard to Wikipedia's own part in this
issue. My specific concern here is to establish whether, or not,
Professor Wessely has made defamatory remarks against me. The result
of my enquiries with yourself will determine what further action I
may take, and I reserve the right to take further action as
necessary, including possibly legal action, and the publicising of
my investigations.
I would be grateful if you would attend to this issue urgently, and
look forward to your prompt response.
Yours faithfully [etc.]
---------------------------------------------------------
2. Letter from Peter McGuffin to Angela Kennedy:
12 October 2007
Dear Ms Kennedy,
Thank you for your letter dated 1 October 2007 and received by e-
mail in this office on 9 October 2007. The hard copy that you refer
to in your email has not been received by this office.
Harassment is a serious issue and I welcome your acknowledgement of
the distinction between an academic critique and a personal attack.
I regret, however, that I am not able to comment on your conjectures
about Wikipedia.
Yours sincerely [etc.]
----------------------------------------------------------------
3. Letter from Angela Kennedy to Peter McGuffin:
18th October 2007
Dear Professor McGuffin,
Thank you for your letter of 12th October.
I am writing firstly to let you know that my letter to you (which
you have said was not received) was sent by special delivery.
However, I do appreciate the problem may be related to the recent
postal strikes as much as any potential internal delivery problems
at KCL. If you wish, I can pursue the matter further with the Post
Office.
My second point is regarding your response to my request for
clarification. Contrary to what you have written in your response, I
was not actually making conjectures about Wikipedia and asking for
your comment. In my letter to you I asked specifically whether
Professor Wessely has made any comments about myself
allegedly `harassing' him to a third party in the form of an email.
Would you please confirm to me whether or not Professor Wessely is
prepared to answer this very specific question, and whether the
Department of Psychiatry are prepared to make this answer known to
me?
I would be grateful if you would attend to this issue urgently, and
look forward to your prompt response.
Yours faithfully [etc.]
------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Letter from Peter McGuffin to Angela Kennedy:
19 October 2007
Dear Ms Kennedy,
Thank you for your letter dated 18 October and received by email in
this office on 18 October 2007.
The hard copy of your letter dated 1 October 2007, which was sent by
special delivery, was received in the Institute of Psychiatry's post
room on 16 October 2007 at 9.35 am and picked up by this office
later that morning.
I reiterate that I am not able to comment on anything that may or
may not be said in an online encyclopaedia.
Yours sincerely [etc.]
-----------------------------------------------------------
5. Letter from Angela Kennedy to Peter McGuffin:
22 November 2007
Dear Professor McGuffin,
Thank you for your latest letter of 19th October. I apologise for my
delay in responding.
As you acknowledged in your letter of 12th October, Harassment is a
serious issue. To make false claims of harassment against an
academic is also a very serious issue, as no doubt you are aware.
If Professor Wessely had made claims that I have personally harassed
him, they would be false, and therefore libellous. It should
therefore be really very easy for Professor Wessely to confirm to
you that he has not made such claims of harassment against myself,
and for you to confirm to me the case. The fact that such a
confirmation is not forthcoming causes me great concern.
I amtherefore once more requesting that you confirm, as Professor
Wessely's line manager, that Professor Wessely has not made any
claim that I have personally harassed him, to a person named Guy
Chapman, a known `Wikipedia Administrator', or to anyone else.
If this cannot be confirmed, and there is good reason to believe
that Professor Wessely has either claimed or implied that I
have `personally harassed him', then I shall expect an urgent
apology by letter from your institution.
I reserve the right to pursue action as appropriate, to ensure my
good name and reputation is not continued to be brought into
disrepute. I would be grateful if you would attend to this issue
urgently, and look forward to your prompt response.
Yours faithfully [etc.],
----------------------------------------------------------------
6. Letter from Angela Kennedy to John Williams:
17th January, 2008
Dear Mr Williams,
I am writing to you about a serious matter of defamation which
potentially involves a member of KCL, Professor Simon Wessely. You
have been copied in, by email, to my letters to Professor McGuffin
on this issue, and therefore should be aware of the situation to a
degree.
I am an advocate for my daughter, a young woman seriously ill and
severely disabled by her illness, who was diagnosed with ME/CFS. I
also politically advocate for the community at large. I am also a
known critic of the `psychiatric paradigm' of ME/CFS, of which I
contend Professor Wessely is a proponent, and I undertake this
critical engagement from an academic perspective (I appreciate the
above term might be contested, but that is not the issue at hand).
I am currently working towards publication on this issue, having
been engaged in academic research for some years. I have a social
science background and am an Associate Lecturer with the Open
University (although the work I am undertaking in this field is not
connected to this institution).
I therefore do have a reputation that might be damaged by libellous,
defamatory comments.
On September 26th, and 27th, 2007, a member of the Wikipedia online
encyclopaedia posted a long attack on myself and others, which
included the comments below, on their `Admin Notice board', which
were grossly misrepresentative of my work, and which made false, ad
hominem attacks on my motives. Certain remarks in particular were
highly libellous and defamatory. The remarks stayed on the Wikipedia
site for approximately 2 weeks before they were removed by Jim
Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, after my continued insistence over
that period.
The person posting these comments (someone whom the evidence
suggests is named Guy Chapman, but which I have asked Mr Wales to
verify and confirm), has claimed this:
"These individuals have also harassed Wessely in real life. That we
can't include because it's not directly stated in the sources, but I
have now exchanged emails with Wessely and it is the case. (Guy)
15:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC) "
I have made legitimate, academically informed critique of the work
of Professor Wessely before in various public and political domains,
as I have with regard to other persons active in this field, but I
have certainly never harassed Professor Wessely in any way,
particularly according to the British legal definition
of `harassment'. I have never emailed Professor Wessely, although he
did once send an unsolicited email to me on 24th January 2004. I
have never phoned him, or written to him, or done anything that
should at all be construed as harassment. I have never made
any `personal attack' on him.
I strongly re-iterate, particularly, that critique of a person's
claims in a field of study, or conduct in that field, does not
itself constitute personal attack or harassment. Inaccurate claims
that critiques, from members of the ME/CFS community and their
advocates, of the `psychiatric paradigm`, or the actions of its
proponents, somehow constitute `personal attack' are a demoralising
phenomenon. This is a key issue, and one on which I have undertaken
further study.
But my specific concern, is that it appears possible, from the
comments of this person on the Wikipedia Admin Board, that
Professor Wessely has written an email to this person, claiming that
I have `harassed' Professor Wessely `in real life'. This claim, if
indeed it has even been made, would be patently false, and
defamatory.
My first letter to Professor McGuffin set out these concerns, and
also that I accepted the possibility that this claim may never have
even been made, at least not in regard to myself, by Professor
Wessely. I therefore requested from Professor McGuffin confirmation
of whether, or not, an email was sent to Guy Chapman, or other
person, by Professor Wessely, claiming that I, specifically,
have `harassed' him, or that `One Click', a group with which I was
previously involved, have `harassed' him. I also requested access to
any communications between Professor Wessely and this person around
this issue.
Professor McGuffin has declined to `comment ` on the issue, despite
the fact that I have written two more letters to him (copies of
which I have emailed to you) to clarify my concerns and my requests.
As you will no doubt be aware, harassment is a serious issue. To
make false claims of harassment against an academic is also a very
serious issue, of which no doubt you are also aware.
If Professor Wessely had made claims that I have personally harassed
him, they would be false, and therefore libellous. It should
therefore be really very easy for Professor Wessely to confirm that
he has not made such claims of harassment against myself, and for
this to be confirmed to me. The fact that such a confirmation is not
forthcoming causes me great concern.
In light of the lack of co-operation from Professor McGuffin, I am
therefore requesting that you confirm, as Human Resources Manager
for KCL, that Professor Wessely has not made any claim that I have
personally harassed him, to a person named Guy Chapman, a
known `Wikipedia Administrator', or to anyone else.
If this cannot be confirmed, and there is good reason to believe
that Professor Wessely has either claimed or implied that I
have `personally harassed him', then I shall expect an urgent
apology by letter from your institution.
I reserve the right to pursue action as appropriate, to ensure my
good name and reputation is not continued to be brought into
disrepute. I would be grateful if you would investigate this issue
urgently, and look forward to your prompt response.
Yours sincerely [etc.]
--------------------------------------------------------------
7. Letter from John Williams to Angela Kennedy:
24th January 2008
Dear Ms Kennedy,
Thank you for your letter dated 17th January 2008.
I haveconsidered the contents carefully but I do believe that they
repeat the points that you have made in earlier letters to the Dean
of the School, Peter McGuffin.
Peter wrote to you on 12th and the 19th October and I am afraid
that I can add nothing to his response.
Yours sincerely [etc.]
-------------------------------------------------------
CORRESPONDENCE ENDS
---------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment