Couple of articles still basking in the BCA’s climbdown in its defamation case against Simon Singh.

In the Guardian, Simon Singh stresses that though his case is over, the battle for reform continues:

…any reform needs to be radical, not merely tinkering. There are several issues that need to be addressed, such as the current lack of a public interest defence, the unfair burden of proof on defendants, libel tourism and so on. And each problem needs to be tackled properly.

Simon was also profiled in the Sunday Times.

Meanwhile Nick Cohen in the Observer celebrates the geeks who backed Simon’s campaign against the Chiropractics:

There is an overlap with the more assertive atheism which followed 9/11. Like atheists, skeptics treat as patronising and contemptible the cynical modern belief that you should not examine religion or alternative medicines because the simple-minded and uninformed find comfort in them. But you do not have to be an atheist to be a skeptic, merely commit to the free examination of evidence. This modest ambition is surprisingly potent.

Politicians who supported libel reform had a smart and committed network behind them. I suspect that politicians who still want to defend our irrational drugs laws or alternative treatments on the NHS will find that they will face unrelenting scrutiny from equally smart and committed opponents. My hope after Singh’s victory is that none but the foolhardy will want a repeat of the drubbing the chiropractors received.