Legal

 In the recent High Court hearing in which Chris McGrath was for the first time able to reveal Vaughan Jones' BNP support, counsel for Amazon and Richard Dawkins (who both provided legal protection for Mr. Jones) stated there was no proof, hoping that the proof would never come to light. Judge for yourselves in the links above.The original links will shortly be deleted by Mr. Jones. He holds convictions he tries to deny, so we have Google cache versions above. He is 'Vaughan' in the second link but also names himself as 'Vaughan Jones' from 'Nuneaton'. Here are some of his truly disgraceful views from 2008:

“I have three friends who are in the BNP and to call them racist is an insult”

“not sure how the holocaust is entertainment ;-) Don't worry I know what you mean. “

Mr. Jones is  a secular Jew and a militant atheist. On the Holocaust, which he knows is beyond doubt, he agrees it existed and was an absolute tragedy and acknowledges its ‘full horror’,  but in the same breath he states:

 “I am yet to be convinced of the entire episode.”

“I find it odd how it is the only massacre in mankind that there is no room for debate,
examination of the facts or dispute over evidence without fear of jail, violence or ridicule.”

“Quite simply the degenerates who are mocking the BNP
and forcing strange ideas of Nazism upon their members could potentially be mocking the very people
feeling their views on a number of issues”

If you mock those who believe in neo-Nazi ideals of racial purity he believes you’re a degenerate!

“With regard to the persecution of the Jews by the BNP; as a Jewish fella
I do not feel particularly hard done by because of my religion.
My rights and freedoms have been eroded by both the
Conservatives and New Labour in the past 20 years.”

“The British people have been seduced into a radical idea of multi-culturalism
that simply does not exist in any other country in the world. Other countries are multi-racial
but you would never see a New York district banning the word Christmas in case it offended her
Muslim population. How this occurs in Britain is beyond me?  But hey, lets have a go at the BNP for
having a problem with the imagined threat of world Jewry and forget what the British
government is doing to her own citizens.”

“do you cover your pin number up when you pay for things? Will a woman make
sure her bag is closed when walking around town? Will you strap your child up in the
recommended EU child seat? These are all government directives
designed for the majority to adhere to in order to cover a minority of historic events.
What the BNP is doing is no different really in my opinion”

“the Nazis were beaten at both the polls and in the courts.
They were scorned... picked on... made a laughing stock.
That was until they seized upon a number of truths the people of Germany took to heart
(personal pride for one, nationalism the other).”

“We are told to be suspicious of people with hoodies.
It's no different to the BNP telling us to be suspicious of Bin Laden lookalikes.”

Mr. Vaughan Jones from Nuneaton  has since tried to hide his true beliefs behind a mask of liberal values (and even the smokescreen of left-wing ideology), gaining the confidence of notable figures such as Simon Singh in the Libel reform cause; but here is the truth from his own pen: he does support the British National Party; and the BNP in turn supports the racial purity goal of the Ku Klux Klan. 

*

This company and its Managing Director, Chris McGrath are up against the most formidable opposition and, in Mr. Jones, a most formidable liar, and we are alone in this. We have no fight with the BNP or any political party, though we would vehemently disagree with the BNP's repellent ideology; but we are revealing this additional information now, on 27 December 2011, because we note that Mr McGrath's children remain named around the web in connection with repellent websites and it is unfair and cruel to have dragged innocent children into a libel case. Mr Jones named them first in his libellous attack in 2010; he blogged about the case since April 2011 (and we said nothing in our defence until the hearing of November 2011 out of respect for the law) and his blogging has been picked up by others supporting him, who have themselves repeated the names of the children, among them Gottfrid Svartholm, apparently an internationally wanted criminal.  

We will therefore do whatever it takes to ensure those names are removed and until they are, this information remains.

McG Productions Ltd and its owner, Chris McGrath, have no connection with any political party. It has become essential that we state this now for reasons that will shortly become obvious. A potentially dangerous situation is arising that we had hoped to avoid but again we find ourselves, 14 months later, in the invidious position of having to balance a libel case with a child protection issue and this is simply unfair and, we have to say, exceptionally cruel. Would websites that have named Chris McGrath’s children and their school please remove those details immediately.

It is not a question of their names being in the public domain; it is a question of the inherent threat surrounding those websites, given the context in which they are being named; and this is beginning to proliferate in a way that is deeply disturbing. There was the suggestion in court by barristers for the Defendants (not the honourable Judge, we hasten to add) that our copying and repeating of the names of the children - mentioned on Amazon by Vaughan Jones in 2010 - compounded the problem and we argued then and now that the correct response to this kind of attack is to wrest control of the situation from others and throw a spotlight on those concerned, and that is what we propose to do again today. The police have already been contacted on this issue and will again be notified, only this time we shall indeed be seeking the appropriate legal sanction; we will not merely be filing a complaint for the record.

Try to imagine your own children’s names being mentioned in the same context as we are about to describe and think – would a small company and a family man with two children, a man struggling to build a company in an economic climate as hostile as this to whole countries, let alone individuals, take on the might of such formidable opposition as Amazon and Richard Dawkins at the risk of the Claimants’ own financial destruction (which is already happening with the loss of Chris McGrath’s estimated £300,000 family home days before the hearing, such has the been the financial burden on the Claimants in trying to prosecute this libel case) if there was not an enormously complex, serious, damaging, and potentially threatening issue at the base of it all? Barristers for the Defendants attempted in court to characterise the prosecution of this claim as ‘obsessive’ (that’s their job; to undermine in any way they can); we characterise it as absolutely essential, firstly for the vindication of character and reputation (the purpose of libel law) and now for the protection of Chris McGrath’s children, about which you can bet there is indeed an obsession, as any loving parent would understand.

Libel Reform and its champions have been deeply irresponsible in championing the cause of the Fourth Defendant in this issue without knowing the background to the case; and if they do know the background and still persist (as is possible since the lawyers for Richard Dawkins know Simon Singh who champions Libel Reform), then they are reprehensible. Libel law assumes the guilt of the Defendants, not the other way around, yet the reverse position has been adopted quite perversely in pursuit of a political agenda; and while we will not reveal the specific details of this case, we must now address the safety issues in the following way – it must override every other consideration:

The current libel case against Richard Dawkins, his charity, Amazon, and Mr. Jones was heard at the High Court on 10^th/11^th November in a strike-out/summary judgement application which called for instant dismissal of the case. The judge did not agree. In fact, he advised he would need to take a further 10 days/2 weeks to deliberate on all the issues raised. Among those issues is one raised by Chris McGrath, who, again for the avoidance of doubt, acted for himself and the company (the first day without having had any sleep whatsoever the night before, following weeks and months of bombardment with hundreds of legal papers and questions to address), while all other Defendants had the expert representation of top barristers in the country -- Mr. Vaughan Jones did not represent himself at the hearing as has been suggested; he benefitted from representation by barristers for Richard Dawkins and his charity; indeed there was considerable cross-over from barristers for all sides in the concerted attempt to have the case struck out immediately – and it should be said that the Claimants had been threatened with ruinous costs if we did not withdraw the claim before the hearing, such is the intimidation at the heart of this case. The desperation to keep a lid on this affair as far as possible is well understood, but the protection of Chris McGrath’s children must take priority.

The issue raised by Chris McGrath in open court at the end of the hearing is perhaps the most incendiary for all concerned; and one of the reasons all bar the Fourth Defendant have struggled to contain the issue in public. The Fourth Defendant clearly has his own motives for prosecuting the case in public over the preceding months, gathering support on the back of continued lies, on which so much growing internet commentary is feeding, to the detriment of truth and justice - and now to the potential threat (again) of Chris McGrath’s children, which takes priority. The issue must therefore be addressed openly, and immediately.

The inherent threat surrounding those websites and their owners in naming the children is now brought into sharp relief – in possibly more disturbing ways than potential extreme political violence, as any investigation into “Gottfried Svartholm” will suggest. It is his website (according to ICANN) that has triggered this decision to try to limit the contagion taking place, but he draws on a previous website, MinistryofTruth.me.uk (a name with frightening overtones, however ironically intended) for much of his inspiration, a website whose owner is already the subject of an impending legal claim by the Claimants. Gottfried Svartholm is, we discover, the co-architect of BitTorrent/ThePirateBay and he is, we understand, a wanted criminal, on the run from the police, using a PO Box for his website registration.

And his sudden interest in this Libel case speaks volumes.

We repeat, McG Productions Ltd and its owner, Chris McGrath, have no connection with any political party. The purpose behind the Attempted Murder of God: Hidden Science You Really Need to Know was satirical parody, a purpose referred to in many mocked-up reviews around the web. The book itself openly declares itself to be a parody, while Chris McGrath openly reveals himself as the author at the end of the book. “Gottfried Svartholm’s” website attempts to lay claim to this same satirical agenda, but satirical parody simply does not extend to the callous use of innocent children.

The sudden and quite astonishing attention given to Chris McGrath, his family, business, finances, and this company by what appears to be a wanted international criminal (whereabouts currently unknown it seems) in the form of “Gottfrid Svartholm” (the name on the ICANN registry for scientology-london. com) takes this libel claim to yet another level of threat that we will not accept. The shallow claim to satirical parody on that website as some kind of comic rejoinder to Chris McGrath’s recent satirical parody when that website repeats the names of Chris McGrath’s children and their school reveals nothing but a pernicious and disgusting mentality at work in drawing innocent children into this increasingly frightening and potentially dangerous matter.

“Gottfrid Svartholm’s” sudden interest in this libel case following media interest is the latest alarming development in an already very scary situation and we simply say, kindly desist from exacerbating an already difficult situation. Really, the frightening associations that are emerging as a result of this case must sooner or later involve the police for all concerned.

Please therefore remove the names of the children and their school now.

Chris McGrath’s wife, also named (as well as her parents), has been all but wrecked emotionally by this case already, we are already financially on our knees, and this sudden chilling turn – echoing that in the original incident in 2010 – may shortly also now necessitate advice to the children who will inevitably become concerned that their safety may be compromised. Chris McGrath is struggling to avoid that emotional impact at all costs.

None of this would have been possible had the Fourth Defendant, Vaughan Jones, not named the children in the first place in 2010 and then again started repeating the details during the libel case while Chris McGrath struggled to contain him behind the scenes. His sudden blogging manoeuvre was used by MinistryofTruth.me.uk in unquestioning support of his position and that website repeated the names which are now being more widely disseminated in an ever more hostile context by “Gottfrid Svartholm”. They were originally named in relation to a family Christmas book, for heaven’s sake, written by Chris McGrath and his son for fun, and are now being used quite deliberately to repeat the veiled threat suspected in 2010.

It bears repeating that the Claimants did not libel anyone; we are simply defending ourselves as is our legal right. We did no more than create a satirical parody, focussing on marketing deceits and fake reviews (many of which spoke of it being a work of art and a parody, which is itself mentioned in the book), and on the religion-versus-science debate to suggest détente, in the absence of certain proof of God’s existence on either side. That required holding up a mirror to the debate, but did not deserve what followed, which is the subject of this claim, as all those interested will shortly discover, no doubt.

The type of links suggested to lay behind “Gottfrid Svartholm” would be terrifying for anyone, but particularly for any parent, so guys, really, please – this is just a simple family. That Chris McGrath believes in God? Is that really deserving of so much hate, so much emotional and mental anguish? Such a pernicious attack?

Chris McGrath and his family have already lost almost everything financially in fighting this case – a position well-advanced beyond the Fourth Defendant facing ‘potentially’ ruinous costs as Libel Reform suggest - and are so close to changing their names, their whole identity, and moving away - it is too much.

So to those who have the names of the children and their school on their website in connection with this case: your war is not with us. Please, then…. reconsider your attack; if you will not stop in your harassment, at the very least remove the names of the children and their school. They are entirely innocent in this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg1S9n81ras&feature=player_embedded

http://hurryupharry.org/2010/12/11/wikileaks-the-pirate-party-the-neo-nazi-funder-internet-freedom/

http://who.godaddy.com/whois.aspx?k=CZZ2tHoT4LbhskSb0GLTx1U8eByxR5ws&domain=scientology-london.com&prog_id=GoDaddy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfrid_Svartholm

http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2011/07/12/shades-of-kaschke-christopher-mcgrath-aka-scrooby/

Court 22
Before HIS HONOUR JUDGE MOLONEY QC
(sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
Thursday, 10th November 2011
At half past 10
APPLICATION NOTICES
IHJ/11/0537 McGrath & anr v Dawkins & ors

http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/courts-and-tribunals/courts/hearing-lists/list-queens-bench.htm

ENTRY DATE: 19 October 2011

Following prominent liberal lawyer, David Allen Green's release on his blog (Jack of Kent) of our imminent court hearing for libel against Richard Dawkins & Others, the Claimants confirm the following:

Case no. HQ11D01227, QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION: - (1) Christopher Anthony McGrath (2) McG Productions Limited, Claimants - and – (1) Clinton Richard Dawkins (commonly known as Richard Dawkins) (2) The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (3) Amazon Eu Sàrl, trading as Amazon.co.uk, (4) Vaughan John Jones - Defendants.

In 2009, Christopher McGrath, Managing Director of this company, and father of two children, was referred to hospital as an emergency case and was unable to obtain assurances from doctors that his deteriorating medical condition was not an indication of a terminal illness - he was going blind, in a way that no doctor could account for, and he had no idea how long it might be before he might never see his wife or children again.

Despite repeated referrals to hospital it would go undiagnosed for over a year, during which time, and with failing eyesight, he took the opportunity to write and publish a satirical parody of a number of the pre-eminent characteristics of the 21st century, with its global conspiracy theories, paranoia, deceptions and self-deceptions, both off-and online in the internet age, with fake reviews for products of all kinds, including books, and most especially the marketing hyperbole and excessive claims of victory in the religion-versus-science debate.

It would at the same time reflect on his firm faith in God (a faith sustained without being especially religious) and acknowledge the need for faith on both sides of that debate, with the facts of science ultimately at a loss to prove or disprove the existence of God. The result was The Attempted Murder of God: Hidden Science You Really Need To Know, a title redolent of conspiracy theories, in keeping with the parody, and written under the pen-name Scrooby. It was published by McG Productions Ltd on 10 January 2010 and was supported by mocked-up, favourable reviews and over-the-top press releases, many of which hinted at the satirical parody genre - if it wasn't already obvious from the title of the book. At the end of the book the intention to parody was revealed, just as Christopher McGrath revealed himself as the author, with no scientific credentials claimed. It was a harmless, socially constructive critique.

In September 2010, on Amazon.co.uk, Christopher McGrath (as Scrooby) reviewed The Grand Design: New Answers to the Ultimate Questions of Life by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow. When news of the book was circulated, a publicity idea was conceived to highlight and counter Stephen Hawking’s marketing campaign to sell books on a promise of proof - with mathematical theory alone - that ‘God did not create the universe’. The idea was to review the merits of that suggestion and then link that review to the sale of The Attempted Murder of God: Hidden Science You Really Need To Know. The satirical counter argument, the marketing parody, everything was all set.

Whatever the merits of the books, of this company, of the wider social satire, or of Christopher McGrath's belief in God, a libellous attack followed (wholly unrelated to Stephen Hawking) at Amazon.co.uk and at RichardDawkins.net, which is the subject of the current claim at the High Court.

At legal issue will be Article 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights, the Human Rights Act 1998, the Charities Act 2009, the Defamation Act 1996, and a raft of issues pertaining to limited company libel and damages, internet publications and jurisdiction.

The Defendants have applied to the High Court to strike-out the claim in its entirety. The hearing is set over two days: 10th and 11th November 2011. Given the extraordinary legal cost of prosecuting a claim for libel, Christopher McGrath acts as litigant in person for himself and the company.

Eventually, the precise, complete, and true facts will come out in court, as they need to. A claim for libel always runs the risk of the libel being repeated but in this case much of the libel continues so we can do no more than rely on the courts for an effective remedy. For those who respect the law, we trust online commentary will be reserved until all the facts are known. Meanwhile, we have not and will not publicly discuss the Defendants' role in all this until the case is heard, out of respect for their own rights in the case. The same courtesy has not been afforded the Claimants, we know.

In addition to respect for the courts and due process, there are other, even more serious legal aspects to the case that prevent further comment at this time.

Meanwhile, interested parties may note:

The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2006 amend CPR 5.4 to allow a person who is not a party to proceedings to obtain from court records without permission and without notice (simply by filing a written request and fee) any "statement of case" filed by the parties, as well as a judgement or order given or made in public. A "statement of case" is defined (at CPR 2.3(1)) to include a claim form, particulars of claim, third party notice, defence, reply to defence and any further information given in relation to them, voluntarily or by court order.