An interesting case in the Antipodes.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4816175a12855.html
"... A couple who profess to have homeopathic cures for diseases such as herpes, bird flu and smallpox are fighting more than 40 charges of making misleading claims. ..."
That should be an interesting one to follow...do keep us posted!
They must know what they are peddling is crap so why fight.
Even "real" homeopaths know its crap thats why they stay out of court as the last thing they want is the general wooplic finding out.
May be they have been in the outback of Rooland too long.
As with psychics, mediums, and clairthingummybobwhatsits, am hoping that eventually the new law will start to be used agaisnt homeopatheticy as well. Basically there is no proof that it works. There is not a shred of science or sense in its principles, and it is targeted at vulnerable people i.e. those who fret about their health. It should be an ideal candidate for the Consumer Protection Regulations. When the OFT/Trading Standards wake up that is!!
It's been going for a while. Back in May they were challenging the court's jurisdiction to hear the case: http://www.infonews.co.nz/news.cfm?l=1&t=103&id=20243
"They are also accused of misrepresenting their homeopathic and nursing qualifications." Hmmm... they misrepresented their homeopathathic qualification,?Oh how shocking. *sarcasm*
I stand corrected, they are a pair of numpties how can they still believe it when they nearlly killed his parents with homeopathetic water.
Oh of course I forgot the inheritance, It would seem his sister is not fond of him.
They've been convicted and fined:
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-sto...-birdflu-cure/
That's about £8,800.A Tauranga couple who sold homeopathic remedies claiming to cure bird flu, herpes and Sars (severe acute respiratory syndrome) have been convicted of breaching the Fair Trading Act.
Ingrid and John Godwin changed pleas to guilty in Tauranga District Court this week on 19 charges of breaching the Act for making misleading representations about their qualifications and their ability to provide cures or prevent diseases.
Judge Thomas Ingram ordered the couple to pay fines and court costs totalling $23,400.
Found via a link on DC's blog.
This has a more detailed breakdown of the fines and costs.
Result!Originally Posted by Mojo
Of course, it will be much more difficult to get such a successful outcome if they only advertise their wares as "may be useful in treating...etc" rather than claiming a cure.
For attempted manslaughter! seems rather light. SARS would definately kill without proper treatment.
How can you attempt manslaughter? Surely if you kill some with a premeditated act then it's murder.
Anyway, I think it's a bit extreme to suggest that they were actually trying to kill anyone. We shouldn't discredit our opposition to this sort of stuff by going over the top.
Possibly where the act is intentional but there is some sort of defence against a charge of murder. Here's an example from Manx law, where in a case where provocation would be a defence against murder it is argued that it would be attempted manslaughter if the victim didn't die. It appears that this would not be the case in English law.
Another example might perhaps be where the defendent tried to kill the victim, but had the defence of diminished responsibility available. I've heard a recording of an American jazz pianist (the name temporarily escapes me - he's pretty obscure - but he was playing It Don't Mean A Thing If It Ain't Got That Swing), made while he was locked up in a secure hospital for (according the the radio announcement) the attempted manslaughter of a singer he was accompanying. I've heard one or two singers like that myself...
OK, now we need Jack of Kent to give us an explanation of actus rea and mens rea and make our brains bleed.
Attempted manslaughter: finer points I leave to Jack, however if you knowingly undertake an action likely to result in death, but you had no intestion of causing harm, such recklessness could be construed as attempted manslaughter in my mind.
Quacks administering useless or un-proven therapies for treatable lethal conditions, claiming that no other treatment is required would meet such a definition.
When it comes to advising against vaccination, then I would settle for reckless endangerment.
You may think this is an over-reaction, but simple fines do not deter, one or two in prision would cause a wholesale rethink.
I read this and still say what the f**k,
"False claims about the ability to cure or prevent diseases can not only damage the reputation of the alternative health industry, but also put consumers’ health at risk when they put their trust in products with false or exaggerated claims.”
I would take this to say it is not homeopathetic that is at fault but the accused.........
"False claims about the nature of the afterlife can damage the reputation of religious institutions....."I read this and still say what the f**k,
"False claims about the ability to cure or prevent diseases can not only damage the reputation of the alternative health industry, but also put consumers’ health at risk when they put their trust in products with false or exaggerated claims.”
I would take this to say it is not homeopathetic that is at fault but the accused.........
Whatever way you look at it this is quite perverse!
Unless the recommendation is that the whole alternative health industry, state that none of their products have been shown to work, but that they personally believe in them as do their flock!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks