Perceptions of Madeleine's Abduction

[G-Unit]

Which ever way you want to look at it, Anthony Bennett did Libel The McCanns.  And repeatedly.  And whatever it was that actually happened it did cost him huge amount of money.

He has no conviction for libel though, unless you have a cite?

[Eleanor]

He has no conviction for libel though, unless you have a cite?

Well, that's okay then.  Just totally discredited and with a massive bill.

[Mr Gray]

He has no conviction for libel though, unless you have a cite?

That's irrelevant... And does not mean he didn't commit libel

[G-Unit]

That's irrelevant... And does not mean he didn't commit libel

No, it means he wasn't convicted of libel and paid costs for contempt of court, not damages for libelling anyone. Your opinion is irrelevant.

[barrier]

Talking of Bennett is the MP Tugendhat the son of the judge in that case ?

[Mr Gray]

No, it means he wasn't convicted of libel and paid costs for contempt of court, not damages for libelling anyone. Your opinion is irrelevant.

Try reading what I post if you are going to reply.
Bennett was guilty of libel... It's simple.  He wasn't convicted but his comments were libellous

[G-Unit]

Try reading what I post if you are going to reply.
Bennett was guilty of libel... It's simple.  He wasn't convicted but his comments were libellous

So you keep saying. Over and over again.

[Mr Gray]

So you keep saying. Over and over again.

It seems it takes a long time for it to sink in to you

[Eleanor]

It seems it takes a long time for it to sink in to you

It never will I"m afraid.

[Mr Gray]

Pure speculation but based on knwn facts.
CB was identified as a suspect in the American rape case fie his particular MO. The account from the video matched his actions in the case.
Rachael Behan says the account mirrors her attack.

What if Wolters has a video of abuse which shows the same MO directed towards MM.

If he can show CB is guilty of the Behan attack.. And the other, rape. ..then a video of an attack on MM becomes very strong circumstantial evidence

[Brietta]

What a pity you didn't understand why and how.

I suppose the present libel discussion could be considered to be touching on the topic of the current thread by dint of the libellous content under discussion.

So heigh ho.

Did Mr B chose to sign a legal undertaking with the High Court?

Was that legal agreement to the effect that he promised not to repeat the libels he had made?

Did the law firm Carter-Ruck, accuse him of breaking his word to the High Court that he would not repeat the libels?

Had he indeed broken his word to commit no more libels by repeating them on no less than 26 further occasions? 

Did he appear in the High Court for Contempt of Court not for libel, but for breaking a solemn undertaking to the High Court that he would libel no more?

[Admin]

Evening all. Please try and keep to the rules, we don't really want to put anyone on the naughty step.

Good to see you back Brietta. 

[G-Unit]

I suppose the present libel discussion could be considered to be touching on the topic of the current thread by dint of the libellous content under discussion.

So heigh ho.

Did Mr B chose to sign a legal undertaking with the High Court?

Was that legal agreement to the effect that he promised not to repeat the libels he had made?

Did the law firm Carter-Ruck, accuse him of breaking his word to the High Court that he would not repeat the libels?

Had he indeed broken his word to commit no more libels by repeating them on no less than 26 further occasions? 

Did he appear in the High Court for Contempt of Court not for libel, but for breaking a solemn undertaking to the High Court that he would libel no more?

Carter Ruck and Smethurst accused Bennett of libel but he was never tried or convicted. Without a conviction it remains opinion, whoever said what.

[Mr Gray]

Carter Ruck and Smethurst accused Bennett of libel but he was never tried or convicted. Without a conviction it remains opinion, whoever said what.

You mean the same as your claim that Wolters has breached
CBs human rights... That's not a fact... Just your opinion... Good you understand that now

[Mr Gray]

Carter Ruck and Smethurst accused Bennett of libel but he was never tried or convicted. Without a conviction it remains opinion, whoever said what.

Bennett's statements... By definition... Were libellous.

In UK libel law the onus is on Bennett to prove his innocence.
Do you understand that simple fact.
He gave no defence.. He is therefore guilty.. There is no POI..
There's a presumption of guilt