Dawkins sued for libel

[Hermit]

So why is he suing Dawkins? Did Dawkins call him twat or something?

One of the defendants outlined the libel case here. To me, it looks like the plaintiff is using his action as a vehicle to promote his own publication, which is titled something like The Murder of God.

[lordpasternack]

I love how the plaintiff has no sense of irony. The other defendant says:

The Claimants argue the following comments, alleged to have been made, are libellous/defamatory/insulting:

...

i) That I alleged anyone who criticised the book would be on the end of legal threats

...

[apophenia]

Speaking of which, I think the name of Rambus should be blotted out from the book of life.

I'm just sayin'.

[apophenia]

Wow. "employed as an agent against religion or religious belief". Nice work if you can get it. Think I'll go polish my CV.

[vjohn82]

Yes, I admit it. I was employed as an agent against religion specifically to denigrate the Claimant and his book... oh, and his company.

Believe that and you'll believe anything.

If anyone has any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. But the court date has been set and is being held over two days - the 10th and 11th of November. If near the Royal Courts of Justice on these dates you might want to nip in and watch the proceedings?

[vjohn82]

So why is he suing Dawkins? Did Dawkins call him twat or something?

One of the defendants outlined the libel case here. To me, it looks like the plaintiff is using his action as a vehicle to promote his own publication, which is titled something like The Murder of God.

"The Attempted Murder of God: Hidden Science You Really Need To Know" specifically...

Still a shite book from the chapters I have read. It is claimed to be a "parody with satirical intent".

Feel free to read the free chapters of it available here... http://www.mcgproductionsltd.co.uk/Authors.html

Be careful what you write, you might end up joining me, Amazon and Dawkins in defending a ridiculous libel claim

[lordpasternack]

Be careful what you write, you might end up joining me, Amazon and Dawkins in defending a ridiculous libel claim

Maybe next time, and we could always go to the pub afterwards, or something.

And I don't think there is much needed to explain. I don't think the Complainant is likely to falsify the hypothesis that he's a delusional, dishonest, deceptive, manipulative, pathetic, litigious narcissist.

I suppose we could always place bets on how likely he is to claim the libel case was all a charade, after the fact, and threaten to sue anyone who mocks him for it for libel.

[vjohn82]

Be careful what you write, you might end up joining me, Amazon and Dawkins in defending a ridiculous libel claim

And I don't think there is much needed to explain. I don't think the Complainant is likely to falsify the hypothesis that he's a delusional, dishonest, deceptive, manipulative, pathetic, litigious narcissist.

I suppose we could always place bets on how likely he is to claim the libel case was all a charade, after the fact, and threaten to sue anyone who mocks him for it for libel.

I like the cut of your jib...

[lordpasternack]

Be careful what you write, you might end up joining me, Amazon and Dawkins in defending a ridiculous libel claim

And I don't think there is much needed to explain. I don't think the Complainant is likely to falsify the hypothesis that he's a delusional, dishonest, deceptive, manipulative, pathetic, litigious narcissist.

I suppose we could always place bets on how likely he is to claim the libel case was all a charade, after the fact, and threaten to sue anyone who mocks him for it for libel.

I like the cut of your jib...

Thanks. I'm alright at being superficially charming. Just don't go asking Dawkins about me.

[vjohn82]

Ah, there is history there then?

[lordpasternack]

Ah, there is history there then?

Sort of. I respect him a lot, but let's just say I don't suffer fools gladly and I don't give exemptions.

It isn't so long ago that he was trying to sue a self-aggrandising twat who had swindled from him and his foundation, through running the store on Richard's site, whom we all knew to be bad news long before the penny finally dropped for him. And his side had to drop their litigation against that guy because they had no legal case against him - because pretty much everything they thought they'd agreed upon with him was in the form of 'oral contracts' and emails exchanged that had been 'lost forever'. It goes without saying that no-one had bothered to audit the guy in the three years he was running the store on RD.net.

Oh and there's more… believe me, there's more… You just wouldn't believe how daft Richard can be if he puts his mind to it.

Having said that, I do also say nice things about him - so I honestly couldn't be sure exactly what he'd have to say about me.

But yeah… history… this very forum is a 'grandchild' of the old RD.net forum - a breakaway from an initial breakaway forum - The Judean People's Front.

So, yes…

[leo-rcc]

I'm amazed RD doesn't get sued more often as I'm sure there are many people just waiting for him to put a foot wrong to exploit it.

[vjohn82]

Ah, there is history there then?

Sort of. I respect him a lot, but let's just say I don't suffer fools gladly and I don't give exemptions.

It isn't so long ago that he was trying to sue a self-aggrandising twat who had swindled from him and his foundation, through running the store on Richard's site, whom we all knew to be bad news long before the penny finally dropped for him. And his side had to drop their litigation against that guy because they had no legal case against him - because pretty much everything they thought they'd agreed upon with him was in the form of 'oral contracts' and emails exchanged that had been 'lost forever'. It goes without saying that no-one had bothered to audit the guy in the three years he was running the store on RD.net.

Oh and there's more… believe me, there's more… You just wouldn't believe how daft Richard can be if he puts his mind to it.

Having said that, I do also say nice things about him - so I honestly couldn't be sure exactly what he'd have to say about me.

But yeah… history… this very forum is a 'grandchild' of the old RD.net forum - a breakaway from an initial breakaway forum - The Judean People's Front.

So, yes…

I think that someone like Richard shows his form in the biological sciences but, like many people with a focus in one subject, they tend to be taken in easily by other experts. I have read a little on the Dawkins spat with Josh but the details seem more than a little sketchy for me to write anything on. That's probably the best place to leave that

[vjohn82]

I'm amazed RD doesn't get sued more often as I'm sure there are many people just waiting for him to put a foot wrong to exploit it.

People who normally sue have a reason to.

In this case, there is no reason. Another poster has pointed out that the Defendants have been listed in order of the size of their respective wallets. I'm the Fourth Defendant yet it was my words complained about - you would have thought that I would have been higher up the list?

[lordpasternack]

I think that someone like Richard shows his form in the biological sciences but, like many people with a focus in one subject, they tend to be taken in easily by other experts.

He shows his form most in writing about biology (and some other topics in science) but he definitely isn't single-minded in his passion for biology/science. He didn't even bother to look at the science sections on his old forum - spending most of his time in the Richard Dawkins section and the General Discussion section. He also leans more towards supporting atheism and secularism these days than rationalism and science. 

Heaven knows he's green, though. And, well, he doesn't practise what he preaches about scepticism, rationality, impartiality and love of truth - at least when it comes to certain of his pals, and what they've convinced him of.

I have read a little on the Dawkins spat with Josh but the details seem more than a little sketchy for me to write anything on. That's probably the best place to leave that  :dunno:

The cut and thrust of it is that Josh took 90% of the store's £300,000 profits over three years as his salary - in spite of claiming on the site that the store's profits were going to RDFRS. And he claimed expensive dinners, holidays and home improvements as expenses against that business. And RDFRS was alarmed enough by this by the time they got around to discovering it, to feel the need to pursue litigation.