Dawkins being sued for libel

Last edited:
vjohn82 said:
It's all over... for now.

The Claimant has stated that he will be appealing the Judgment. The Judge refused permission in the hearing so McGrath will now need to go through some administrative hurdles and, of course, have a case which is worthy of appeal.

This is a harsh lesson and it needs humility from everyone involved really. I have every reason to gloat and parade the result. Especially considering the horrendous allegations made about me during the course of the case and I hope my blog that zooterkin has linked to explains a little more on this point.

However, I will not gloat. My family has suffered tremendously at the hands of McGrath but I suspect he has caused more damage to his. Therefore to gloat would be unkind and I'm not sure that I have ever been that kind of person.

I've had some great support over the past year and I want to thank everyone here for keeping up to date with the case, looking at my blog and supporting what I think has always been a good case for the protection of free speech and the right to hold strong opinions about the rising tide of Creationism in society.
Click to expand...
I have just come across this thread. I am an English lawyer, a supporter of Dawkins (in the sense that have read several of his books and compleyely fail to understand how creationists get a seat at the table) and a critic of our over-complicated, ruinously expensive and illiberal libel laws. I am sorry you have been dragged through the English courts by this person and trust any further application for permission to appeal will receive short shrift.
 
Missed the update to this - good news. Lets hope that the threat of further legal action is withdrawn.
 
anglolawyer said:
I have just come across this thread. I am an English lawyer, a supporter of Dawkins (in the sense that have read several of his books and compleyely fail to understand how creationists get a seat at the table) and a critic of our over-complicated, ruinously expensive and illiberal libel laws. I am sorry you have been dragged through the English courts by this person and trust any further application for permission to appeal will receive short shrift.
Click to expand...

There is a determination in the guy to ensure that we all end up in a trial. One might be forgiven for thinking that he wants to put "Atheism on trial". I doubt the Appeal Court will entertain such a case if he pleads it in the same way he pleaded his original case.

I'm not perfect by any means but then my "review" was never meant to be taken as a serious piece of work by scholars across the land; it was an argument about how the author had used duplicitous methods to market his book. That he then decided to set up fake accounts to rag me about and try to humiliate me should suggest there is something clearly wrong about the man.

That he then engaged in a smear campaign once he learned of the result back in December (which we had to keep secret) might also lead one to suggest that revenge was in the offing for revealing his crap business acumen.

Here's two other articles you might all like to read:

http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2012/04/07/chris-mcgraths-smear-campaign-against-vaughan-jones/

http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/decision-in-dawkins-amazon-jones-libel-case.html

The Judgment is now published here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/B3.html

Summary of the case here: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/gsan27
 
I still don't understand the claimant's argument that it was a satire. When do satirists care about their "intellectual" reputation. They take the rip and it is either funny or it isn't. Satirists that lift their skirts and jump on a chair yelling "mouse" the moment the going gets tough are just weird.
 
Nogbad said:
I still don't understand the claimant's argument that it was a satire. When do satirists care about their "intellectual" reputation. They take the rip and it is either funny or it isn't. Satirists that lift their skirts and jump on a chair yelling "mouse" the moment the going gets tough are just weird.
Click to expand...

The pseudonym Scrooby was a creationist. McGrath claimed that Scrooby was parodying the creationist/atheist argument that currently exists and also introduced elements of conspiracy theory to show how science was covering up the scientific proof of god.

The trouble is, the book contains far too many emotional connections with the author proper. You can actually download the book to see what I mean. At no time would anyone think that this book was a parody. Conspiracy theory, yes. Parody? No.

McGrath has since claimed that anyone who has criticised the book (which is everyone so far) does not have the intellectual capability to "get" or "understand" the parody.

He often calls such persons "boneheads", "dullards", "intellectually weak", "Neo Nazis" and "Fascists".
 
vjohn82 said:
The pseudonym Scrooby was a creationist. McGrath claimed that Scrooby was parodying the creationist/atheist argument that currently exists and also introduced elements of conspiracy theory to show how science was covering up the scientific proof of god.

The trouble is, the book contains far too many emotional connections with the author proper. You can actually download the book to see what I mean. At no time would anyone think that this book was a parody. Conspiracy theory, yes. Parody? No.

McGrath has since claimed that anyone who has criticised the book (which is everyone so far) does not have the intellectual capability to "get" or "understand" the parody.

He often calls such persons "boneheads", "dullards", "intellectually weak", "Neo Nazis" and "Fascists".
Click to expand...

In my book (metaphorical) there is only one requirement of satire, it needs to be funny. If it isn't then I suggest he re-draft it, otherwise he might be in danger of delivering something that looks like a Jack Chick tract.

I think I will pass on reading it.
 
MG1962 said:
Here is a little more on the case

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...mazon-reviews-case-is-struck-out-7618976.html
Click to expand...


A judgment relating to that: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/2202.html

vjohn82 said:
The Claimant has stated that he will be appealing the Judgment. The Judge refused permission in the hearing so McGrath will now need to go through some administrative hurdles and, of course, have a case which is worthy of appeal.
Click to expand...


The Court of Appeal ruled on an application for permission in February this year: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/206.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom