UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: debunker on May 04, 2013, 01:59:37 PM
-
Have settled with Tonly Bennett.
I have always said that the McCanns have only used the libel laws to a limited extent for two reasons
1/ They do not want to stir up a hornets nest
2/ They want to warn off anyone likely to libel them.
The settlement with the Express Group brought money into the fund, but more importantly warned the rest of the press that any further libel would be met with court action. The Press (including the foreign press who distribute in the UK) have taken notice.
The settlement with Tony Bennett achieves their ends- he is silenced for ever and cannot appeal against the imposition on him of rules about what he can say about the McCanns, and it acts as a warning to any other 'Tall Poppy' who escapes from the forum underworld and starts making inroads into public awareness (HiDeHo beware!)
-
The settlement:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
Claim No. HQ 09 D 05196
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
The Honourable Mr Justice Tugendhat
BETWEEN:
GERRY MCCANN & KATE MCCANN Claimants
and
ANTHONY BENNETT Defendant
CONSENT ORDER
UPON the Court reading the following correspondence:
(a) Letter of Carter-Ruck to Tilbrooks Solicitors dated 18 March 2013
(b) Letter of Tilbrooks Solicitors to Carter-Ruck dated 26 March 2013
(c) Letter of Carter-Ruck to Tilbrooks Solicitors dated 27 March 2013
(d) Letter of Carter-Ruck to the Court dated 16 April 2013, copied to Tilbrooks Solicitors.
AND UPON the Defendant:
1. Acknowledging that he continues to be bound by the Undertakings which he gave to the Court (“the Undertakings”) contained in the Order herein of 25 November 2009 (“the Order”), to which is attached a penal notice;
2. Agreeing to the dismissal of his application by way of Application Notice of 20 February 2012 (“the Defendant’s Application”) to lift the stay of these libel proceedings imposed by paragraph 2 of the Order (“the Stay”) and/or to vary or discharge the Undertakings; and
3. Undertaking forthwith to withdraw his appeal by Appellant’s Notice filed with the Court of Appeal on 13 March 2013 from the Order for Committal of Tugendhat J (“the Committal Order”) made on 21 February 2013 (“the Appeal”)
AND UPON the CLAIMANTS:
4. Agreeing to limit their total costs recovery pursuant to the Committal Order to £75,000 inclusive of interest (“the Claimants’ Costs”) in full and final settlement thereof, and so long as the Defendant complies with the following payments plan, namely:
(a) The Defendant to pay £12,500 on account of the Claimants’ Costs within 28 days of the date of this
Order, and
(b) The Defendant to pay a further £15,000 on account of the Claimants’ costs by way of monthly instalments of not less than £125 paid on or before the 25th day of each calendar month (or if the 25thof any given month is not a working day, the nearest working day thereafter) for a total period of 10 years, the first such payment being made on 25 May 2013 to the Claimants’ Solicitors’ client account, the final such payment to be made on 25 April 2023, unless by then the Defendant has fully discharged the balance of the £15,000.
5. Agreeing not to enforce payment of the balance of £47,500 of the Claimants’ Costs, save in the event of:
(a) Any future breach by the Defendant of the Undertakings;
(b) The whole or part of the payments provided for in 4(a) and 4(b) above remaining unpaid upon its due date;
(c) The initiating by the Defendant of a fresh application to lift the Stay;
(d) The initiating by the Defendant of a fresh application to vary or discharge the Undertakings;
(e) The failure of the Defendant to withdraw the Appeal [made to the Court of Appeal] or the initiating by the Defendant of a fresh appeal against the order for Committal of 21 February 2013
BY CONSENT IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The Claimant have permission to enter judgment for the whole of the balance of the Claimants’ Costs agreed at £75,000 then outstanding in the event of:
(a) A further finding by the Court or admission by the Defendant of any breach of the Undertaking committed by him after the date of this order;
(b) The whole or any part of the payment provided for in 4(a) and 4(b) above remaining unpaid upon its due date;
(c) The initiating by the Defendant of a fresh application to lift the Stay;
(d) The initiating by the Defendant of a fresh application to vary or discharge the Undertakings;
(e) The initiating by the Defendant of a fresh appeal against the Order for Committal of 21 February 2013.
7. The Defendant’s Application is hereby dismissed.
8. Each party has permission to apply.
9. Save as already set out above, there be no order as to costs.
Dated this seventeenth day of April 2013
SEALED by the High Court this eighteenth day of April 2013
STATEMENT NOTED BY THE COURT:
I, Anthony Bennett, the above-named Defendant, confirm that I have taken legal advice on the terms of this Order from Tilbrooks Solicitors and that I understand those terms and the consequences of any failure to comply with them.
Signed by: Anthony Bennett, 8 April 2013
Signed by: Carter-Ruck, Solicitors, 6 St. Andrew Street, LONDON, EC4A, Solicitors for the Claimants
Signed by: Tilbrooks Solicitors, Quires Green, Wilingale, ONGAR, Essex, CM5 0QP, Solicitors for the Defendant
-
Basically he has to never mention anything about the case ever again. He is having to pay enough that will impoverish him for the rest of his life (or at least deny him its little pleasures) and provide some recompense to Carter Ruck who I believe to be acting entirely pro bono in this matter for publicity purposes.
I will later post his statement where once again he shows that he is either to stupid to understand the Law (and he used to be a solicitor) or is just misleading the public for effect.
What a silly man.
-
Basically he has to never mention anything about the case ever again. He is having to pay enough that will impoverish him for the rest of his life (or at least deny him its little pleasures) and provide some recompense to Carter Ruck who I believe to be acting entirely pro bono in this matter for publicity purposes.
I will later post his statement where once again he shows that he is either to stupid to understand the Law (and he used to be a solicitor) or is just misleading the public for effect.
What a silly man.
Could you please make it sure or refute it ?
Are you able to back up the otherwise defaming "for publicity purposes" ?
"Stupid", "silly man", "little pleasures denied"... I'm afraid it judges you more than it does Mr Bennett.
-
Basically he has to never mention anything about the case ever again. He is having to pay enough that will impoverish him for the rest of his life (or at least deny him its little pleasures) and provide some recompense to Carter Ruck who I believe to be acting entirely pro bono in this matter for publicity purposes.
I will later post his statement where once again he shows that he is either to stupid to understand the Law (and he used to be a solicitor) or is just misleading the public for effect.
What a silly man.
Could you please make it sure or refute it ?
Are you able to back up the otherwise defaming "for publicity purposes" ?
"Stupid", "silly man", "little pleasures denied"... I'm afraid it judges you more than it does Mr Bennett.
Doing such high profile work for the McCanns who have a generally positive public profile is good PR when they normally act for the rich and powerful.
His stupidity and silliness will be apparent when you see his response.
Having to give up £12.5k ofhis savings and pay £125 a month for ten years will restrict his beer money somewhat. It does allow him to keep his home and not have to declare bankruptcy and play the martyr.
As I said, clever and magnanimous!
-
Bennett gave an undertaking to the High Court to desist. He subsequently ignored the undertaking
The Court would not seek to punish Bennett, only to take steps to ensure with the undertaking. In his decision, Tugendhut seems to have done just that.
-
Bennett gave an undertaking to the High Court to desist. He subsequently ignored the undertaking
The Court would not seek to punish Bennett, only to take steps to ensure with the undertaking. In his decision, Tugendhut seems to have done just that.
He still does not understand that! This is his reaction:
I start by thanking once again the forum-owner who originally set up ‘The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann’, largely to help me, and who has remained loyal and helpful throughout all the ups and downs of the last four years.
Today is exactly six years since the parents of Madeleine McCann reported her missing.
For the past 5½ years I have been intensely interested in this case and have made many public statements on it. The legal actions against me have however forced me to recognise that this activity must cease.
Here is a brief history of more recent events concerning the legal actions against me by the McCanns and Edward Smethurst:
Recent Events
On 5 & 6 February Mr Justice Tugendhat heard evidence in relation to an application by the McCanns to commit me to prison, restricted to the very narrow issue of: ‘Has Mr Bennett broken any of his undertakings?’.
No other matters whatsoever could be taken into consideration during this trial. Not even the question of whether all the undertakings were reasonable ones to have given in the first place.
Shortly afterwards, Carter-Ruck told me that their total costs in the matter had now risen to well over £300,000, including fees for barristers Adrienne Page Q.C. and Jacob Dean of £69,270 (inc. VAT), and their own fees which then totalled £233,299.20 (inc. VAT but excluding witness expenses and various Court fees and other ‘disbursements’, which amounted to several thousand pounds on top of that).
On 18 February, on my own initiative, I told Carter-Ruck that I would be prepared to consider an overall settlement in which I abandoned any further legal action to vary or discharge three of my undertakings, in exchange for a very substantial reduction in the McCanns’ costs.
The McCanns responded swiftly by saying they were ‘interested’ in such a proposed settlement, but would wait for Mr Justice Tugendhat’s formal decision on 21 February.
On 21 February Mr Justice Tugendhat found that in 13 instances (and in those 13 instances only) I had breached one or more of my undertakings.
In passing, I should point out for the record that:
(1) The McCanns did not seek at the trial to prove that the publication of ‘The Madeleine McCann Case Files Volume 1’ was a breach of any of my undertakings. They withdrew that from an earlier list of 26 alleged breaches which they had set out to the Court back in March 2012
(2) Similarly, the McCanns also withdrew from that list of 26 alleged breaches the allegation that my public reading on a YouTube video of the ‘48 questions’ put by the Portuguese Police to Dr Kate McCann was a breach of any of my undertakings.
Thus Mr Justice Tugendhat made no ruling as to whether the book: ‘The Madeleine McCann Case Files Volume 1’, or the reading of the 48 questions, were breaches of any of my undertakings.
I should also point out in fairness that the McCanns’ position is that they only pursued 13 alleged breaches, for reasons of convenience and case management, and they maintain that all the other 140 alleged breaches were also breaches of my undertakings.
On 21 February Mr Justice Tugendhat sentenced me to a suspended 3-month jail sentence and ordered the court costs to be assessed if not agreed.
Following further correspondence, on 6 March Carter-Ruck wrote to me, without prejudice, saying that the McCanns would be prepared limit their claim against me to £75,000. That sum was to be paid by an initial lump-sum of £7,500 plus paying the remaining £67,500 over the next 37½ years at the rate of £150 a month.
This would have meant paying the court costs until I was 103 years old. In addition, they would take a charging order on the marital home, meaning that if I died before 103, they would be entitled to claim the balance owing, plus interest, from my estate.
On 13 March I lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal against Mr Justice Tugendhat’s judgment. The normal fee on lodging such an appeal is £465, but I was exempted from paying the fee on grounds of low income. I have since agreed to withdraw that appeal as part of an overall settlement.
At this time, I also instructed Mr Robin Tilbrook of Tilbrooks Solicitors to conduct negotiations with the McCanns, as a result of which a new offer was put to me and I accepted.
The Settlement Oder above was approved by Mr Justice Tugendhat on 17 April, was sealed by the High Court on 18 April, and sent to me a few days ago.
I have now paid the amounts of £12,500 costs due to the McCanns and £7,500 costs to Edward Smethurst. In each case, by the way, these are payments direct into the bank accounts of Carter-Ruck. I have in addition instructed my bank to pay Carter-Ruck £125.00 per calendar month, starting on 25 May, and until 25 April 2023.
Observations
Above all else, these proceedings were conducted in a legal framework where those with sufficient funds are able to sue or threaten to sue for libel, and those with insufficient funds must choose whether to give in, or conduct their own defence - and if appropriate finance any counter-claims, as I elected to do by defending the contempt proceedings in person and applying to vary three undertakings.
I have agreed to withdraw my appeal to the Court of Appeal against Mr Tugendhat’s judgment. And this means that I am legally bound to accept its verdicts.
I will however make one brief comment. He implied in Paragraph 148 of his judgment that there was some element of choice in my deciding to represent myself. I can assure him that there was not. There was no way I could have sustained the cost of legal representation to oppose the fire-power of Carter-Ruck, their barristers, and, of course, whoever is funding them.
Legal Aid is simply not available to defendants in libel proceedings, despite rulings by the European Court of Human Rights stipulating that defendants who cannot afford the high costs of defending themselves in defamation cases should be entitled to state aid.
All High Court judges who rule on libel cases are aware of this situation.
The practicalities
Mr Justice Tugendhat made a number of comments in his judgment, none of which I can now appeal. For example, he said that my publications were ‘a flagrant breach’ of my undertakings.
However, he also said that my apologies both to the High Court and to the McCanns before him on 21 February were sincere. And so they are.
I did not intend to defy the High Court. I thought that I would have had valid defences for my publications, but I did not. I cannot now continue with any legal action in relation to my publications.
In his judgment (Paragraph 108), Mr Justice Tugendhat said that even for me to repeat facts in the case could be deemed libellous and a breach of my undertakings. He said in relation to the contents of a certain leaflet: “A list of factual statements can carry an inferential meaning additional to the literal meaning of each fact…”
In other words, he said: Facts can be libellous.
That statement by Mr Justice Tugendhat is one reason why I really cannot continue to make any more public statements about Madeleine’s reported disappearance. The impact of my actions on members of my family is another. Besides that, the process of defending yourself and pursuing legal claims on your own is both stressful and mentally exhausting. The possibility of being sent to prison, being made a bankrupt and losing my home were all factors which have weighed heavily on my mind. It is time for me to cease making any more statements on the case - not even repeating facts.
Very many people have helped and supported me, in all kinds of ways, great or small, particularly during the legal proceedings. I am truly grateful to each and every one of you who have helped me one way or another during this period.
Tony Bennett, 3 May 2013
-
Summary of what Bennett has agreed to.
It is £20k, not £12.5 he has had to pay immediately.
McCanns v Tony Bennett
1. Tony is required to formally withdraw his application, made on 20 February 2012, to vary three of the 16 Undertakings he gave to the Court and the McCanns in November 2009 - and he has already done so by a letter to the High Court.
2. Tony appealed to the Court of Appeal on 13 March 2013, as he had every right to, against the judgments of Mr Justice Tugendhat in the High Court made on 21 February 2013. His appeal was accepted and registered as appeal No. A2/2013/0684 and was due to be listed for a hearing - but Tony has been asked to withdraw that appeal and has now done so.
3. In return, the McCanns have agreed to reduce their overall costs claim against Tony by 93%. They have reduced their claim against Tony from a total of around £370,000 to £27,500.
4. Tony has now paid an initial £12,500 required by the McCanns and agreed to pay the remaining balance (of £15,000) by monthly payments of at least £125 per calendar month for the next 10 years, i.e. until he is 75½.
5. In addition, Tony must pay a further £47,500 to the McCanns, should either of the following occur:
a. he breaches any of the 16 undertakings, or
b. he fails to keep to his monthly payment agreement.
6. Mr Justice Tugendhat’s sentence of a 3-month prison term, suspended for one year, remains in place, so Tony can be immediately sent to Pentonville Prison if the High Court finds he has breached any of his 16 undertakings (before 21 February 2014).
Edward Smethurst v Tony Bennett
1. Tony had already paid the sum of £2,500 into the Find Madeleine Fund in early 2012 in full and final settlement of Edward Smethurst’s libel damages claim.
2. Edward Smethurst agreed that if a settlement were to be agreed in the McCanns v Bennett matter, he would reduce his costs claim from the original amount claimed, namely £52,713.26, to £7,500 - a reduction of 86%.
To summarise:
In exchange for the McCanns and Edward Smethurst reducing their combined costs claim against him from a total of around £420,000, to £35,000 - a 92% reduction overall - Tony has been required to:
* Withdraw his appeal against Mr Justice Tugendhat’s judgment,
* Withdraw his application to vary three of the 16 different undertakings he gave to the McCanns and the High Court in November 2009,
* Agree to be bound for life by the 16 undertakings he gave to the Court and the McCanns in November 2009, and
* Agree to make no further Application either to lift the stay on the McCanns’ original Libel Claim. or to vary or
discharge any of the undertakings he gave in November 2009.
-
Basically he has to never mention anything about the case ever again. He is having to pay enough that will impoverish him for the rest of his life (or at least deny him its little pleasures) and provide some recompense to Carter Ruck who I believe to be acting entirely pro bono in this matter for publicity purposes.
I will later post his statement where once again he shows that he is either to stupid to understand the Law (and he used to be a solicitor) or is just misleading the public for effect.
What a silly man.
Could you please make it sure or refute it ?
Are you able to back up the otherwise defaming "for publicity purposes" ?
"Stupid", "silly man", "little pleasures denied"... I'm afraid it judges you more than it does Mr Bennett.
Doing such high profile work for the McCanns who have a generally positive public profile is good PR when they normally act for the rich and powerful.
His stupidity and silliness will be apparent when you see his response.
Having to give up £12.5k ofhis savings and pay £125 a month for ten years will restrict his beer money somewhat. It does allow him to keep his home and not have to declare bankruptcy and play the martyr.
As I said, clever and magnanimous!
I only agree with the "clever and magnanimous", though I would express it another way : clever thus magnanimous.
I really don't think Carter Ruck need any kind of publicity. They likely wouldn't appreciate your suggestion.
About their pro bono, can you please provide a link ?
Finally I wonder what kind of satisfaction you have in publicly claiming Mr Bennett is stupid and silly.
-
Basically he has to never mention anything about the case ever again. He is having to pay enough that will impoverish him for the rest of his life (or at least deny him its little pleasures) and provide some recompense to Carter Ruck who I believe to be acting entirely pro bono in this matter for publicity purposes.
I will later post his statement where once again he shows that he is either to stupid to understand the Law (and he used to be a solicitor) or is just misleading the public for effect.
What a silly man.
Could you please make it sure or refute it ?
Are you able to back up the otherwise defaming "for publicity purposes" ?
"Stupid", "silly man", "little pleasures denied"... I'm afraid it judges you more than it does Mr Bennett.
Doing such high profile work for the McCanns who have a generally positive public profile is good PR when they normally act for the rich and powerful.
His stupidity and silliness will be apparent when you see his response.
Having to give up £12.5k ofhis savings and pay £125 a month for ten years will restrict his beer money somewhat. It does allow him to keep his home and not have to declare bankruptcy and play the martyr.
As I said, clever and magnanimous!
I only agree with the "clever and magnanimous", though I would express it another way : clever thus magnanimous.
I really don't think Carter Ruck need any kind of publicity. They likely wouldn't appreciate your suggestion.
About their pro bono, can you please provide a link ?
Finally I wonder what kind of satisfaction you have in publicly claiming Mr Bennett is stupid and silly.
Being right....
-
Have settled with Tonly Bennett.
I have always said that the McCanns have only used the libel laws to a limited extent for two reasons
1/ They do not want to stir up a hornets nest
2/ They want to warn off anyone likely to libel them.
The settlement with the Express Group brought money into the fund, but more importantly warned the rest of the press that any further libel would be met with court action. The Press (including the foreign press who distribute in the UK) have taken notice.
The settlement with Tony Bennett achieves their ends- he is silenced for ever and cannot appeal against the imposition on him of rules about what he can say about the McCanns, and it acts as a warning to any other 'Tall Poppy' who escapes from the forum underworld and starts making inroads into public awareness (HiDeHo beware!)
Yes. A clear message has been sent out to those who think they can stalk and libel Kate and Gerry McCann and get away with it. Although I wouldn't have thought that Kate and Gerry McCann will be too bothered about a few dozen conspiracy theorists in forum-land. As long as they keep their bile contained in forum-land and don't take it into the real world, then they can just be laughed at with their "substitute child" and "Government interference" nonsense.
I would imagine that Kate and Gerry, Ed Smethurst and others that Tony Bennett has stalked and libelled can now breathe a sigh of relief that Bennett has been made to cease and desist.
-
However, he also said that my apologies both to the High Court and to the McCanns before him on 21 February were sincere. And so they are.
On 13 March I lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal against Mr Justice Tugendhat’s judgment.
so how genuine was his apology?
-
However, he also said that my apologies both to the High Court and to the McCanns before him on 21 February were sincere. And so they are.
On 13 March I lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal against Mr Justice Tugendhat’s judgment.
so how genuine was his apology?
That is not inconsistent at all. He could mean what he said and still want the decision reviewed. He didn't but he could....
-
However, he also said that my apologies both to the High Court and to the McCanns before him on 21 February were sincere. And so they are.
On 13 March I lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal against Mr Justice Tugendhat’s judgment.
so how genuine was his apology?
8@??)(
About as genuine as the "facts" Bennett used in the leaflets that he and his cronies pushed through the letter-boxes of Kate and Gerry McCann's neighbours in Rothley!
-
Have settled with Tonly Bennett.
I have always said that the McCanns have only used the libel laws to a limited extent for two reasons
1/ They do not want to stir up a hornets nest
2/ They want to warn off anyone likely to libel them.
The settlement with the Express Group brought money into the fund, but more importantly warned the rest of the press that any further libel would be met with court action. The Press (including the foreign press who distribute in the UK) have taken notice.
The settlement with Tony Bennett achieves their ends- he is silenced for ever and cannot appeal against the imposition on him of rules about what he can say about the McCanns, and it acts as a warning to any other 'Tall Poppy' who escapes from the forum underworld and starts making inroads into public awareness (HiDeHo beware!)
Yes. A clear message has been sent out to those who think they can stalk and libel Kate and Gerry McCann and get away with it. Although I wouldn't have thought that Kate and Gerry McCann will be too bothered about a few dozen conspiracy theorists in forum-land. As long as they keep their bile contained in forum-land and don't take it into the real world, then they can just be laughed at with their "substitute child" and "Government interference" nonsense.
I would imagine that Kate and Gerry, Ed Smethurst and others that Tony Bennett has stalked and libelled can now breathe a sigh of relief that Bennett has been made to cease and desist.
Was Ed Smethurst really worried ? And was there anything to worry about ?
-
Have settled with Tonly Bennett.
I have always said that the McCanns have only used the libel laws to a limited extent for two reasons
1/ They do not want to stir up a hornets nest
2/ They want to warn off anyone likely to libel them.
The settlement with the Express Group brought money into the fund, but more importantly warned the rest of the press that any further libel would be met with court action. The Press (including the foreign press who distribute in the UK) have taken notice.
The settlement with Tony Bennett achieves their ends- he is silenced for ever and cannot appeal against the imposition on him of rules about what he can say about the McCanns, and it acts as a warning to any other 'Tall Poppy' who escapes from the forum underworld and starts making inroads into public awareness (HiDeHo beware!)
Yes. A clear message has been sent out to those who think they can stalk and libel Kate and Gerry McCann and get away with it. Although I wouldn't have thought that Kate and Gerry McCann will be too bothered about a few dozen conspiracy theorists in forum-land. As long as they keep their bile contained in forum-land and don't take it into the real world, then they can just be laughed at with their "substitute child" and "Government interference" nonsense.
I would imagine that Kate and Gerry, Ed Smethurst and others that Tony Bennett has stalked and libelled can now breathe a sigh of relief that Bennett has been made to cease and desist.
Was Ed Smethurst really worried ? And was there anything to worry about ?
Pissed off rather than worried in his case.
Imagine being stalked by that long streak of piss.
-
Basically he has to never mention anything about the case ever again. He is having to pay enough that will impoverish him for the rest of his life (or at least deny him its little pleasures) and provide some recompense to Carter Ruck who I believe to be acting entirely pro bono in this matter for publicity purposes.
I will later post his statement where once again he shows that he is either to stupid to understand the Law (and he used to be a solicitor) or is just misleading the public for effect.
What a silly man.
Could you please make it sure or refute it ?
Are you able to back up the otherwise defaming "for publicity purposes" ?
"Stupid", "silly man", "little pleasures denied"... I'm afraid it judges you more than it does Mr Bennett.
Doing such high profile work for the McCanns who have a generally positive public profile is good PR when they normally act for the rich and powerful.
His stupidity and silliness will be apparent when you see his response.
Having to give up £12.5k ofhis savings and pay £125 a month for ten years will restrict his beer money somewhat. It does allow him to keep his home and not have to declare bankruptcy and play the martyr.
As I said, clever and magnanimous!
I only agree with the "clever and magnanimous", though I would express it another way : clever thus magnanimous.
I really don't think Carter Ruck need any kind of publicity. They likely wouldn't appreciate your suggestion.
About their pro bono, can you please provide a link ?
Finally I wonder what kind of satisfaction you have in publicly claiming Mr Bennett is stupid and silly.
Being right....
Gosh ! Not only nurse but also judge and jury !
-
the smear, allegations and innuendo of him was terrible. As well as the photos of his house and comments.
-
and don't forget that bennett has also made a payment(s) to Kennedy
-
Have settled with Tonly Bennett.
I have always said that the McCanns have only used the libel laws to a limited extent for two reasons
1/ They do not want to stir up a hornets nest
2/ They want to warn off anyone likely to libel them.
The settlement with the Express Group brought money into the fund, but more importantly warned the rest of the press that any further libel would be met with court action. The Press (including the foreign press who distribute in the UK) have taken notice.
The settlement with Tony Bennett achieves their ends- he is silenced for ever and cannot appeal against the imposition on him of rules about what he can say about the McCanns, and it acts as a warning to any other 'Tall Poppy' who escapes from the forum underworld and starts making inroads into public awareness (HiDeHo beware!)
Yes. A clear message has been sent out to those who think they can stalk and libel Kate and Gerry McCann and get away with it. Although I wouldn't have thought that Kate and Gerry McCann will be too bothered about a few dozen conspiracy theorists in forum-land. As long as they keep their bile contained in forum-land and don't take it into the real world, then they can just be laughed at with their "substitute child" and "Government interference" nonsense.
I would imagine that Kate and Gerry, Ed Smethurst and others that Tony Bennett has stalked and libelled can now breathe a sigh of relief that Bennett has been made to cease and desist.
Was Ed Smethurst really worried ? And was there anything to worry about ?
Pissed off rather than worried in his case.
Imagine being stalked by that long streak of piss.
I never imagined a nurse would speak like this. See if in your dictionnaries nurse isn't connoted by care !
-
Anne Guedes said: Was Ed Smethurst really worried ? And was there anything to worry about ?
I would imagine that rather being worried, Mr Smethurst was getting rather peed off with Bennett's harrassment - pictures of his home posted on the net, a nasty letter written to the Solicitor's Body, attempts to smear his name due to some FB links. Bennett even travelled to Mr Smethurst's home village during his stalking campaign.
Smethurst has been rather lenient with the costs, as have Kate and Gerry McCann. They are to be applauded for said leniency.
-
don't forget that because of bennett, Smethurst is libelled every day on twitter
-
Have settled with Tonly Bennett.
I have always said that the McCanns have only used the libel laws to a limited extent for two reasons
1/ They do not want to stir up a hornets nest
2/ They want to warn off anyone likely to libel them.
The settlement with the Express Group brought money into the fund, but more importantly warned the rest of the press that any further libel would be met with court action. The Press (including the foreign press who distribute in the UK) have taken notice.
The settlement with Tony Bennett achieves their ends- he is silenced for ever and cannot appeal against the imposition on him of rules about what he can say about the McCanns, and it acts as a warning to any other 'Tall Poppy' who escapes from the forum underworld and starts making inroads into public awareness (HiDeHo beware!)
Yes. A clear message has been sent out to those who think they can stalk and libel Kate and Gerry McCann and get away with it. Although I wouldn't have thought that Kate and Gerry McCann will be too bothered about a few dozen conspiracy theorists in forum-land. As long as they keep their bile contained in forum-land and don't take it into the real world, then they can just be laughed at with their "substitute child" and "Government interference" nonsense.
I would imagine that Kate and Gerry, Ed Smethurst and others that Tony Bennett has stalked and libelled can now breathe a sigh of relief that Bennett has been made to cease and desist.
Was Ed Smethurst really worried ? And was there anything to worry about ?
Pissed off rather than worried in his case.
Imagine being stalked by that long streak of piss.
I never imagined a nurse would speak like this. See if in your dictionnaries nurse isn't connoted by care !
You have obviously never socialised with nurses who come slightly ahead of Truck Drivers in the swearing stakes! That was restrained.
Goading me about being a nurse is not going to work, so you may as well give it up. You do no I am not a little feminine flower but a substantial male do you not. I used to play Loose head prop and linebacker in my youth for which you need brain, brawn and bodily presence.
-
and don't forget that bennett has also made a payment(s) to Kennedy
Bennett also travelled from Essex to Wales to harrass Arthur Cowley, one of the McCanns' PI team.
-
I think that Bennett has clearly demonstrated his stupidity in his total misunderstanding of the nature of the case which he faced in the High Court.
Everybody else understood that it was a simply judgement as to whether he had breached his undertakings or not.
Bennett stupidly tried to pretend that it was not and tried to introduce a spurious witness and totally irrelevant claims.
He was either deliberately attempting to disrupt the court or was being stupid.
Either way, it was a stupid thing to do. It got him a criminal record and serious costs to pay for absolutely no gain.
On the subject of the ruling against him, Bennett has been given a criminal record and has had to agree not to tell his lies any more. He has had to pay a token towards the costs.
That the McCanns and their lawyers (as well as Smethurst and Kennedy) have not taken him to the cleaners financially and demanded he be imprisoned for his actions is incredibly magnanimous.
That magnanimity is entirely separate from and not, as Anne Guedes claims, dependent on any cleverness.
It was well within their rights to demand far more money and immediate imprisonment. They simply chose not to do that.
It is also a clever compromise in that it, although punishing him for his criminal actions, allows Bennett total liberty to live a full life whilst permanently reminding him of the responsibilities which the Judge pointed out he had been ignoring.
-
Debunker wrote:
'I used to play Loose head prop and linebacker in my youth for which you need brain, brawn and bodily presence.'
unquote
good on you mate - what a guy - didn't you also reveal about your good self that you were a conscientious objector who got out of the draft - by buying bricks - and you lecture on scientific stuff around the world...etc. etc.
ENOUGH ALREADY ABOUT YOUR SUPPOSED SELF
It's the essence of your posts that (sometimes) interests me
Not your self - pronounced prowess in all fields
steady on fellow - you would not want to be accused of being an onanist now, would you?
-
Debunker wrote:
'I used to play Loose head prop and linebacker in my youth for which you need brain, brawn and bodily presence.'
unquote
good on you mate - what a guy - didn't you also reveal about your good self that you were a conscientious objector who got out of the draft - by buying bricks - and you lecture on scientific stuff around the world...etc. etc.
ENOUGH ALREADY ABOUT YOUR SUPPOSED SELF
It's the essence of your posts that (sometimes) interests me
Not your self - pronounced prowess in all fields
steady on fellow - you would not want to be accused to be an onanist now, would you?
whilst I only caught the gist of you post, I would agree that no-one has to post their "credentials" here.
After all - who can check on the PhDs etc
-
Anne Guedes said: Was Ed Smethurst really worried ? And was there anything to worry about ?
I would imagine that rather being worried, Mr Smethurst was getting rather peed off with Bennett's harrassment - pictures of his home posted on the net, a nasty letter written to the Solicitor's Body, attempts to smear his name due to some FB links. Bennett even travelled to Mr Smethurst's home village during his stalking campaign.
Smethurst has been rather lenient with the costs, as have Kate and Gerry McCann. They are to be applauded for said leniency.
I wasn't at all aware Mr Bennett was the harassing type. I saw him as a poor clown with an idée fixe.
-
Debunker wrote:
'I used to play Loose head prop and linebacker in my youth for which you need brain, brawn and bodily presence.'
unquote
good on you mate - what a guy - didn't you also reveal about your good self that you were a conscientious objector who got out of the draft - by buying bricks - and you lecture on scientific stuff around the world...etc. etc.
ENOUGH ALREADY ABOUT YOUR SUPPOSED SELF
It's the essence of your posts that (sometimes) interests me
Not your self - pronounced prowess in all fields
steady on fellow - you would not want to be accused to be an onanist now, would you?
whilst I only caught the gist of you post, I would agree that no-one has to post their "credentials" here.
After all - who can check on the PhDs etc
Everytime a poster (of whatever colour) shoves his/her 'credentials' down other posters necks
I smell the proverbial - and stop reading their posts
There's a long line - Sentimental Agent, Logicman, Coldwater, The Author - and that awful profiler woman from the States
All were revealed to be frauds in the end
-
Anne - if a complete stranger had taken to writing long articles about you on the internet, travelled long distances to visit your neighbourhood, taken photos of your house, visited your local pub, stalked your facebook page, implied that you keep the company of paedophiles etc would you have anything to worry about or not?
Rachel, I would of course ask help and not let myself be intimidated in such a grotesque way. I'm rather surprised because I saw in Lisbon court two fellows related (I think) to Mr Bennett and they seemed to be very inoffensive.
-
granville the fridge magnet and son
-
Debunker wrote:
'I used to play Loose head prop and linebacker in my youth for which you need brain, brawn and bodily presence.'
unquote
good on you mate - what a guy - didn't you also reveal about your good self that you were a conscientious objector who got out of the draft - by buying bricks - and you lecture on scientific stuff around the world...etc. etc.
ENOUGH ALREADY ABOUT YOUR SUPPOSED SELF
It's the essence of your posts that (sometimes) interests me
Not your self - pronounced prowess in all fields
steady on fellow - you would not want to be accused of being an onanist now, would you?
Well you confirm that you are certainly a right wnker.
-
Anne - if a complete stranger had taken to writing long articles about you on the internet, travelled long distances to visit your neighbourhood, taken photos of your house, visited your local pub, stalked your facebook page, implied that you keep the company of paedophiles etc would you have anything to worry about or not?
Rachel, I would of course ask help and not let myself be intimidated in such a grotesque way. I'm rather surprised because I saw in Lisbon court two fellows related (I think) to Mr Bennett and they seemed to be very inoffensive.
Grenville Green and his son, perchance? I believe that Green and his wife were involved in the posting of hate leaflets in Mr and Mrs McCanns' home village,
I am very pleased that the McCanns and Mr Smethust fought back against the smear campaign that they were being subjected to. Why should anyone have to put up with harrassment on this scale?
-
I think that Bennett has clearly demonstrated his stupidity in his total misunderstanding of the nature of the case which he faced in the High Court.
Everybody else understood that it was a simply judgement as to whether he had breached his undertakings or not.
Bennett stupidly tried to pretend that it was not and tried to introduce a spurious witness and totally irrelevant claims.
He was either deliberately attempting to disrupt the court or was being stupid.
Either way, it was a stupid thing to do. It got him a criminal record and serious costs to pay for absolutely no gain.
On the subject of the ruling against him, Bennett has been given a criminal record and has had to agree not to tell his lies any more. He has had to pay a token towards the costs.
That the McCanns and their lawyers (as well as Smethurst and Kennedy) have not taken him to the cleaners financially and demanded he be imprisoned for his actions is incredibly magnanimous.
That magnanimity is entirely separate from and not, as Anne Guedes claims, dependent on any cleverness.
It was well within their rights to demand far more money and immediate imprisonment. They simply chose not to do that.
It is also a clever compromise in that it, although punishing him for his criminal actions, allows Bennett total liberty to live a full life whilst permanently reminding him of the responsibilities which the Judge pointed out he had been ignoring.
Gilet, I don't believe in sanctity as I'm not a RC ! But, also, I don't claim people are stupid, I find this really stupid, I try to understand, unfortunately you don't. You should read Spinoza.
You were born too late, Gilet. I'm sorry, but times have changed.
-
Debunker wrote:
'I used to play Loose head prop and linebacker in my youth for which you need brain, brawn and bodily presence.'
unquote
good on you mate - what a guy - didn't you also reveal about your good self that you were a conscientious objector who got out of the draft - by buying bricks - and you lecture on scientific stuff around the world...etc. etc.
ENOUGH ALREADY ABOUT YOUR SUPPOSED SELF
It's the essence of your posts that (sometimes) interests me
Not your self - pronounced prowess in all fields
steady on fellow - you would not want to be accused of being an onanist now, would you?
Well you confirm that you are certainly a right wnker.
quod erat demonstrandum
thanks muchly
-
Anne - if a complete stranger had taken to writing long articles about you on the internet, travelled long distances to visit your neighbourhood, taken photos of your house, visited your local pub, stalked your facebook page, implied that you keep the company of paedophiles etc would you have anything to worry about or not?
Rachel, I would of course ask help and not let myself be intimidated in such a grotesque way. I'm rather surprised because I saw in Lisbon court two fellows related (I think) to Mr Bennett and they seemed to be very inoffensive.
Grenville Green and his son, perchance? I believe that Green and his wife were involved in the posting of hate leaflets in Mr and Mrs McCanns' home village,
I am very pleased that the McCanns and Mr Smethust fought back against the smear campaign that they were being subjected to. Why should anyone have to put up with harrassment on this scale?
I think that's the name, Rachel, and I think they were in fact related to freedom of speech. The idea was (my feeling) more occupy space than being hostile. I heard nothing provocative anyhow.
-
Anne - if a complete stranger had taken to writing long articles about you on the internet, travelled long distances to visit your neighbourhood, taken photos of your house, visited your local pub, stalked your facebook page, implied that you keep the company of paedophiles etc would you have anything to worry about or not?
Rachel, I would of course ask help and not let myself be intimidated in such a grotesque way. I'm rather surprised because I saw in Lisbon court two fellows related (I think) to Mr Bennett and they seemed to be very inoffensive.
Grenville Green and his son, perchance? I believe that Green and his wife were involved in the posting of hate leaflets in Mr and Mrs McCanns' home village,
I am very pleased that the McCanns and Mr Smethust fought back against the smear campaign that they were being subjected to. Why should anyone have to put up with harrassment on this scale?
I think that's the name, Rachel, and I think they were in fact related to freedom of speech. The idea was (my feeling) more occupy space than being hostile. I heard nothing provocative anyhow.
"Freedom of speech" does not allow for the willy-nilly spreading of lies against innocent people. I think that Mr Justice Tugendhat covered this in his recent comments.
-
Anne - if a complete stranger had taken to writing long articles about you on the internet, travelled long distances to visit your neighbourhood, taken photos of your house, visited your local pub, stalked your facebook page, implied that you keep the company of paedophiles etc would you have anything to worry about or not?
Rachel, I would of course ask help and not let myself be intimidated in such a grotesque way. I'm rather surprised because I saw in Lisbon court two fellows related (I think) to Mr Bennett and they seemed to be very inoffensive.
Grenville Green and his son, perchance? I believe that Green and his wife were involved in the posting of hate leaflets in Mr and Mrs McCanns' home village,
I am very pleased that the McCanns and Mr Smethust fought back against the smear campaign that they were being subjected to. Why should anyone have to put up with harrassment on this scale?
I think that's the name, Rachel, and I think they were in fact related to freedom of speech. The idea was (my feeling) more occupy space than being hostile. I heard nothing provocative anyhow.
"Freedom of speech" does not allow for the willy-nilly spreading of lies against innocent people. I think that Mr Justice Tugendhat covered this in his recent comments.
Even if lies are proven lies and innocent (on a determined topic) people proved innocent, I'd make mine the 1st amendment. A right to answer exists, Rachel. Denying the right to criticize and express one's opinion has produced the two totalitarianisms my generation hasn't forgotten.
-
Anne - if a complete stranger had taken to writing long articles about you on the internet, travelled long distances to visit your neighbourhood, taken photos of your house, visited your local pub, stalked your facebook page, implied that you keep the company of paedophiles etc would you have anything to worry about or not?
Rachel, I would of course ask help and not let myself be intimidated in such a grotesque way. I'm rather surprised because I saw in Lisbon court two fellows related (I think) to Mr Bennett and they seemed to be very inoffensive.
Grenville Green and his son, perchance? I believe that Green and his wife were involved in the posting of hate leaflets in Mr and Mrs McCanns' home village,
I am very pleased that the McCanns and Mr Smethust fought back against the smear campaign that they were being subjected to. Why should anyone have to put up with harrassment on this scale?
I think that's the name, Rachel, and I think they were in fact related to freedom of speech. The idea was (my feeling) more occupy space than being hostile. I heard nothing provocative anyhow.
"Freedom of speech" does not allow for the willy-nilly spreading of lies against innocent people. I think that Mr Justice Tugendhat covered this in his recent comments.
Even if lies are proven lies and innocent (on a determined topic) people proved innocent, I'd make mine the 1st amendment. A right to answer exists, Rachel. Denying the right to criticize and express one's opinion has produced the two totalitarianisms my generation hasn't forgotten.
You are aware that the First Amendment is limited in application by interpretation by case law. The right to free speech in the US is constrained in vari ous ways, ranging from public safety, through libel laws and hate speech.
-
What on earth are you rambling on about, Anne? Bennett signed an undertaking to stop his lies back in 2009. He failed to keep to said undertaking. As a result of that, he now has a conviction for contempt of court and a 40K bill to pay
-
Anne - if a complete stranger had taken to writing long articles about you on the internet, travelled long distances to visit your neighbourhood, taken photos of your house, visited your local pub, stalked your facebook page, implied that you keep the company of paedophiles etc would you have anything to worry about or not?
Rachel, I would of course ask help and not let myself be intimidated in such a grotesque way. I'm rather surprised because I saw in Lisbon court two fellows related (I think) to Mr Bennett and they seemed to be very inoffensive.
Grenville Green and his son, perchance? I believe that Green and his wife were involved in the posting of hate leaflets in Mr and Mrs McCanns' home village,
I am very pleased that the McCanns and Mr Smethust fought back against the smear campaign that they were being subjected to. Why should anyone have to put up with harrassment on this scale?
I think that's the name, Rachel, and I think they were in fact related to freedom of speech. The idea was (my feeling) more occupy space than being hostile. I heard nothing provocative anyhow.
"Freedom of speech" does not allow for the willy-nilly spreading of lies against innocent people. I think that Mr Justice Tugendhat covered this in his recent comments.
Even if lies are proven lies and innocent (on a determined topic) people proved innocent, I'd make mine the 1st amendment. A right to answer exists, Rachel. Denying the right to criticize and express one's opinion has produced the two totalitarianisms my generation hasn't forgotten.
You are aware that the First Amendment is limited in application by interpretation by case law. The right to free speech in the US is constrained in vari ous ways, ranging from public safety, through libel laws and hate speech.
Yes, that's fine to remind this and I agree. I wasn't pretending the First Amendment was a perfect thing. Far from that. It obviously has to be perfected. But for now it is the closest to my convictions.
-
It may be worthwhile having a look at article 10 of the ECHR, which is rather more relevant to the case in hand than the 1st Amendment.
Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
-
Did Carter Ruck waive their right to claim costs from the losing side then ?
Why would they do that ? ( is it because Bennett simply didn't have the means to pay them ? )
-
What on earth are you rambling on about, Anne? Bennett signed an undertaking to stop his lies back in 2009. He failed to keep to said undertaking. As a result of that, he now has a conviction for contempt of court and a 40K bill to pay
It is disastrous. I can't understand this man wasn't helped out of such extremities. Who has anything to gain in this ? Nobody. Even the McCanns. Their winning did no good to their image (imo).
-
What on earth are you rambling on about, Anne? Bennett signed an undertaking to stop his lies back in 2009. He failed to keep to said undertaking. As a result of that, he now has a conviction for contempt of court and a 40K bill to pay
It is disastrous. I can't understand this man wasn't helped out of such extremities. Who has anything to gain in this ? Nobody. Even the McCanns. Their winning did no good to their image (imo).
you are a translator?
-
Did Carter Ruck waive their right to claim costs from the losing side then ?
Why would they do that ? ( is it because Bennett simply didn't have the means to pay them ? )
I believe they were acting pro bono for the PR.
-
What on earth are you rambling on about, Anne? Bennett signed an undertaking to stop his lies back in 2009. He failed to keep to said undertaking. As a result of that, he now has a conviction for contempt of court and a 40K bill to pay
It is disastrous. I can't understand this man wasn't helped out of such extremities. Who has anything to gain in this ? Nobody. Even the McCanns. Their winning did no good to their image (imo).
My understanding is that Bennett was given the opportunity to end his 'campaign' against the McCanns with no more than nominal amount payed into the fund
He chose to accept that offer and made legal undertakings to that effect
He didn't keep to the legal agreement ... that was his decision
He has no-one to blame but himself
-
Did Carter Ruck waive their right to claim costs from the losing side then ?
Why would they do that ? ( is it because Bennett simply didn't have the means to pay them ? )
I believe they were acting pro bono for the PR.
I always thought they worked for the McCanns on a 'no win no fee' basis
Why would they waive costs that were due from Bennett ?
-
Did Carter Ruck waive their right to claim costs from the losing side then ?
Why would they do that ? ( is it because Bennett simply didn't have the means to pay them ? )
I believe they were acting pro bono for the PR.
I always thought they worked for the McCanns on a 'no win no fee' basis
Why would they waive costs that were due from Bennett ?
They would not have recouped all their costs- Bennett would have to go bankrupt. This way CR are saints and Bennett is not able to play the martyr.
-
Did Carter Ruck waive their right to claim costs from the losing side then ?
Why would they do that ? ( is it because Bennett simply didn't have the means to pay them ? )
I believe they were acting pro bono for the PR.
I always thought they worked for the McCanns on a 'no win no fee' basis
Why would they waive costs that were due from Bennett ?
They would not have recouped all their costs- Bennett would have to go bankrupt. This way CR are saints and Bennett is not able to play the martyr.
I see, OK, thanks for that
-
What on earth are you rambling on about, Anne? Bennett signed an undertaking to stop his lies back in 2009. He failed to keep to said undertaking. As a result of that, he now has a conviction for contempt of court and a 40K bill to pay
It is disastrous. I can't understand this man wasn't helped out of such extremities. Who has anything to gain in this ? Nobody. Even the McCanns. Their winning did no good to their image (imo).
My understanding is that Bennett was given the opportunity to end his 'campaign' against the McCanns with no more than nominal amount payed into the fund
He chose to accept that offer and made legal undertakings to that effect
He didn't keep to the legal agreement ... that was his decision
He has no-one to blame but himself
Good post, icabod. Who knows why he decided to carry on? Ah well, at least he has now been made to cease and desist once and for all which is good news for all those affected.