The British Chiropractic Association posted this on their website:
The BBC programme “See You in Court” episode 4 was screened on BBC 1 on 3 May 2011. Half of the programme followed Simon Singh and his legal team during various stages of the legal proceedings with the British Chiropractic Association.
The BCA was not approached by the producers of the programme for comment, and consequently, the programme was biased to the Simon Singh “side” of the story. The BCA’s position is that the libel action against Simon Singh is now closed following a ruling in the Court of Appeal in 2010.Link
I've sent them a quick email (to email@example.com). Here it is, complete with typo:
See You in Court - Screened on BBC 1 on 3 May 2011
I followed a tweeted link to your comments on the above programme.
I must say that I am puzzled. You state "(t)he BCA’s position is that the libel action against Simon Singh is now closed following a ruling in the Court of Appeal in 2010." shortly after an apparent objection to the programme being "biased". If your position, though, is no more than that the matter is "closed" there is no BCS "side" of the story to tell and the idea of bias disappears. The BBC told both "sides" in full: a call for Libel Reform from Simon Singh and silence from the BCA.
The BBC could be accused of discourtesy if your allegation that they made no approach to you for comment is true but, as the comment would have been "no comment", no actual harm was done.
Personally, I would have been delighted to learn of the BCA's "side". I still would be delighted to hear the BCA's "side": your justification for marketing treatments which (as admitted by your QC) can be described as having no reliable evidential support and then suing the chap who pointed that out!
I'd get popcorn.
I'll post any reply.