Dear DavidB 
 
As mine is the only site that took the trouble to obtain and republish Eady's judgment, then it would have been mere politeness to have mentioned that.  
 
My site is also a counterexample to your (odd) allegations that blogs are not properly covering Simon Singh's case, and so I can see why you chose not to link to it. 
 
As for your hapless missing of the crucial fact that Simon Singh has successfully obtained leave to appeal, and in terms which criticised Eady's judgment, then it is a simple "fail" for you. It was covered in MSM. Indeed, the application hearing itself was also featured in MSM. Your inability to spot this tells us a great deal about your basic competence to write an informed blog. 
 
This all wouldn't perhaps matter, apart from your generalised and ignorant dissing of the blogs following this important case. And so I am taking the time to demonstrate your shortcomings. 
 
Your blogpost is bogus. No doubt you wrote it happily. Of course, I do not accuse you of dishonesty; but you really have no idea what you are doing. 
 
Jack of Kent

"...much of the commentary has been ill-informed..." 
 
Not only do you seem to have lifted a good deal from my site with out acknowledgement, you've also missed that Eady's judgment is subject to appeal. In granting permission to appeal a senior appeal judge was critical of Eady's judgment. 
 
In fact, the standard of commentary on this case has been very high thoroughout the blogosphere.