The crux of Ceylon's complaint is that he's a bit butthurt because of a video Gillard put up on YouTube about him and that Gillard had the nerve to sit in the public gallery, where he made a mistake in taking a picture of the court - although I don't recall the picture identifying Ceylon (or indeed much of anything), at one of Ceylons hearings and report back about how Ceylon folded his beliefs when the consequences became very real.
In simple terms, Ceylon was a bit butthurt that Gillard was saying mean things about him, even though Ceylon goes around saying mean things about lots of other people. Ceylon can give it out, but he can't take it, which makes him little better than a playground bully.
I thought it would be fun to go through Ceylon's witness statement and offer up some commentary:
Para 1) I don't think you are making this with reluctance.
Para 2) Not going to a facebook page where items are posted that you do not like is sensible behaviour. I don't visit Britain First's page for the same reason. I imagine Burnaby also refuses to haunt the Facebook of Molson Canadian Beer for much the same reason.
Para 3) I hate to break it to you but a screenshot does not prove what the content was, if I showed you this picture of a
duck, it alone does nothing to establish that the duck is thinking unkind thoughts about me or has said very nasty things. A screenshot of Gillard doesn't establish that the video was hurtful. Secondly even if someone was saying unkind things about you on a video, that alone is not harassment, if it was we wouldn't be able to be critical of anyone who puts themselves in the public eye.
Para 4) How exactly did he harass you at court, he attended a hearing for a criminal charge you were facing, in fact from what I understand by the time you came before the bench Mark was in a cell because he'd taken a picture.
Para 5) First he wasn't filming, he took one picture, that is called photography, secondly something he said to someone else about someone who wasn't you, has nothing to do with him harassing you. It may have been a bitchy and snide comment, but guess what Ceylon it does not involve you in the slightest.
Para 6) All the stuff Mark Gillard says about himself also does not involve you. How did he talk about you Ceylon? What did he say?
Para 7) He attended another court hearing, which is his right and to some the hearing you are in is interesting because of the publicity you generated in the events that led to the hearing. You made an allegation that he was recording, but he was found not to have been. This statement is not relevant.
Para
It's not against the law to ask others to take photographs of someone who is out in public, if it were the paparazzi would be dead and buried.
Para's 9 - 34) Placing a video onto YouTube, is not really enough to constitute harassment and if it were it would be a serious blow to freedom of speech. If the video says or makes allegations that are defamatory or slanderous then the law provides an avenue by which that can be dealt with, this action is therefore patently misguided.
Things Mark Gillard has said about GOODF are opinion, so likely not actionable, the claim that you tell people not to go to court would be considered true because I have seen these claims made on that website.
You also claim that he tried to contact you six times but you refused. Did you contact Mr Gillard to ask him not to contact you? Because that would usually be considered a sensible first step, I'm sure you know how to do this because Nottingham City Council have done the same with you regarding you calling their staff members paedophiles and going to their houses.
Para 35) Starting High Court proceedings is not harassment, it is a persons right. You claim not to have been served with the paperwork. This could be true, but it does not follow that a failure to be served would mean that Mr Gillard had taken steps to get a default judgement.
Para 36) I find it odd that after you knew a case had been listed against you, you again claim not to have received any paperwork. I wonder if when you contacted the Judge you gave a contact address.
Para 37) You are insinuating that all people who have been to prison are violent and infer that his criminal record would show that. Many people go to prison who are not violent and they do not become violent in prison. Regardless of this Mr Gillard seems to have reformed from his criminal past, which I believe was linked to a narcotic addiction, he has changed his ways. I would also remind you that you have been held in a prison on remand more recently than Mr Gillard has.
Para 38) You think he will ignore the injunction and want a penal notice added so that he can see how serious this is? You the man who says that you don't need to obey acts and statutes.
Para 39) Charity work? Charities help people, I'm reasonably sure that all you've achieved through your work is to hinder a lot of people from getting on with life.
Para 40) How are you living in fear because of someone putting up YouTube videos about you? You've said nothing about how he causes this fear or gone into how it has affected your life. A lot of your argument is that Mark Gillard has said bad things about other people, and not about you directly.
Para 41) Completely irrelevant. The court isn't deciding if you've harassed Gillard, it's deciding if Gillard has harassed you. The court won't make any statement on that issue.
Para 42) Has nothing to do with Gillard. Waste of time including it, waste of Judges time by making him read it.
Para 43) Not relevant.
Para 44) If that is what you wanted, you brought the wrong case. You should have sued for defamation and looked to get an injunction that way, you'd probably still have failed though because Mark Gillard was giving an opinion about you and your website. Much in the same way I and most posters on here have. You haven't sued us because you know we'd win and you also know we know how to fight this battle a lot better than you ever will, oh and if we got costs we'd pursue them, because we would find it fun.
Para 45) You've given no evidence or statement to justify this sort of injunction. You've made a lot of petty insinuations and it would, I think be a fair assessment to say that you do not like Mr Gillard and he does not like you. Big whoop. Lots of people don't like each other, that doesn't mean you have to get the law involved. You went out of your way to place yourself in the public eye and now are upset that by making yourself into a public figure you are being mocked and shown up for acts of your own stupidity. As someone who themselves has, at times, been in the public eye I can give you this piece of advice for free, if you don't want people to talk about what you've done try not to draw attention to what you do.
All in all you've managed to waste a lot of time and have achieved nothing, except getting into a bit more debt because of the costs order against you. Which I suppose is par for the course, but don't worry I'm sure Tom was on hand to tell you 15 times that you'd won and I'm sure Guy was on hand to blag a pint.
