tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10459981.post6659100873498365366..comments2023-09-28T15:35:46.255+01:00Comments on <center>FIDDAMAN BLOG</center>: The GMC/GLAXO EmailUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10459981.post-77406175116300538342010-05-05T16:14:15.731+01:002010-05-05T16:14:15.731+01:00In Negligence, there is a doctrine. "Res ips...In Negligence, there is a doctrine. "Res ipsa loquitur," or "the matter speaks for itself". In other words, there could be no other explanation for the loss or damage incurred by the plaintiff, other than as a result of the action of the defendant.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this is the type of argument that one must construct, when dealing with these matters, and unfortunately, the letter writer leaves too many things open to interpretation... For example, unless one is given access to the complainant(s) in these cases, one cannot assess their motivation (and maybe not even then). And would it even help to discredit the complainant - they might still have a valid argument, even if it was motivated by spite? In other words, the argument is too speculative, for my tastes.<br /><br />What one would wish to demonstrate is that Dr Myhill is bang on the money: the Truth is hers, and not the complainant, "Jonas's".<br /><br />MattRadagasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14286529284742690239noreply@blogger.com