Perceptions of Madeleine's Abduction

[G-Unit]

Abandonment and Culpability in the disappearance of Madeleine.  And calling for their arrest.  Stopping people in the streets and creeping around The Rothely Estate putting leaflets through doors.  And that's just for starters.

However, I hardly think The Judge would order Anthony Bennett to sign an agreement not to repeat if there was nothing Libellous to repeat.

I don't think the Judge ordered him to do it, he agreed because otherwise Carter Ruck were going to sue him, and he couldn't afford to defend himself.

[G-Unit]

Why don’t you ask him?  You’re a member of his forum aren’t you?  You know, the one where they’re all convinced Madeleine died on or before the 29th and there was a huge conspiracy to cover up and profit from her death?

I just wondered how much those who seem so sure of the 'facts' actually know, and how much they're assuming. So far there seems to be plenty of assumptions but few definitive facts.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I just wondered how much those who seem so sure of the 'facts' actually know, and how much they're assuming. So far there seems to be plenty of assumptions but few definitive facts.

I should think we are all very well aware of the facts thanks.  Unlike you we saw it all play out in real time.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I don't think the Judge ordered him to do it, he agreed because otherwise Carter Ruck were going to sue him, and he couldn't afford to defend himself.

You think the judge just asked him if he wouldn’t mind awfully stop spreading misinformation and lies and stalking the McCanns?  Get real.

[Lace]

Yes, he got a suspended  sentence - 3 months for contempt of court. What were these accusations then?

Judge Michael Tugendhat said Bennett had been responsible for the publishing of several libellous claims that the couple should be suspected of causing their daughter's death.

https://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/10247558.display/

[Eleanor]

Judge Michael Tugendhat said Bennett had been responsible for the publishing of several libellous claims that the couple should be suspected of causing their daughter's death.

https://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/10247558.display/

Thank you, Lace.

I note that Anthony Bennett represented himself.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Judge Michael Tugendhat said Bennett had been responsible for the publishing of several libellous claims that the couple should be suspected of causing their daughter's death.

https://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/10247558.display/

bingo! I expect this will be spun as the judge merely suggesting it might have been libellous but probably wasn’t and suggesting Mr Bennett might kindly refrain from it, if it wasn’t too inconvenient.

[Vertigo Swirl]

For the avoidance of doubt in quotations

Sentencing Bennett to three months’ jail, suspended for a year, Mr Justice Tugendhat said: “I am sure that you intended to allege that the claimants are to be suspected of causing the death of their daughter and did in fact dispose of her body, lie about what happened and covered up what they had done.

“The claimants have suffered injury to their reputations and feelings by the repetition of the allegations which you have repeated in breach of your undertakings.

“You were deliberately flouting the undertakings, and the apology that you offered when giving your evidence was insincere.

“I am sure that you appreciated the seriousness of what you were doing, not least because you trained to be a solicitor.”

[Brietta]

I don't think the Judge ordered him to do it, he agreed because otherwise Carter Ruck were going to sue him, and he couldn't afford to defend himself.

I have just carried out a little reading of the circumstances surrounding the non sequiturs you insist on posting and they really are worth a serious study in many instances with regard to the sceptic mindset over the years since Madeleine's abduction.

Might be appropriate for you to consider opening a relevant thread.

[Eleanor]

Those of us who are around at the time know exactly what Anthony Bennett was up to.  Although The Why still defeats me.

[sadie]

Those of us who are around at the time know exactly what Anthony Bennett was up to.  Although The Why still defeats me.

I was at the court case but sadly just missed the actual verdict.   No seats so coffeeing with a prominent sceptic at the pertinent moment.  Grenville Green was very affable and carried my overnight case downstairs for me.   We chatted the case and he allowed me to speak, which was nice.  He bought the first round of coffees, I bought the second.   Such trivia!!   I guess the news had filtered thru to him and he forgot to carry my case back up again.   There was a viscious woman there on the sceptic side.

I learned afterwards that the "sceptics" had arranged to fill all the seats so that no suppoerters could get in.   What a bunch of saddoes.

[Eleanor]

I was at the court case but sadly just missed the actual verdict.   No seats so coffeeing with a prominent sceptic at the pertinent moment.  Grenville Green was very affable and carried my overnight case downstairs for me.   We chatted the case and he allowed me to speak, which was nice.  He bought the first round of coffees, I bought the second.   Such trivia!!   I guess the news had filtered thru to him and he forgot to carry my case back up again.   There was a viscious woman there on the sceptic side.

I learned afterwards that the "sceptics" had arranged to fill all the seats so that no suppoerters could get in.   What a bunch of saddoes.

I remember this.  It didn't do them much good.

[blonk]

Why did Anthony Bennett sign an undertaking?  An undertaking that he then didn't keep.

Like millions of others, I doubted the story put forward by the McCanns as to why Madeleine had gone missing.

I co-operated with others to form the Madeleine Foundation.

By 7 December 2008 we had published: "What really happened to Madeleine McCann? 60 Reasons which suggest she was not abducted", a book which began to sell well. A summary of the book's claims were published in a leaflet, '10 Reasons', which was distributed widely by volunteers around the country. In August 2009 there was some publicity over a leaflet drop in Leicestershire, which included a drop in Rothley.

During September Deborah Butler and myself were told by Carter Ruck to stop selling the book, stop distributing the leaflet and cease 'libelling the McCanns'. We were both told that we must sign undertakings to that effect or face a libel action.     

So to answer the question: "Why did Anthony Bennett sign an undertaking?  An undertaking that he then didn't keep", the response is simple, the McCanns had the financial resources to sue; we did not have the financial resources to defend the action. There was a gross inequality in resources. The McCanns had the financial resources the equivalent of armoured tanks. We had the financial resources of a home-made catapult.

The McCanns insisted on 16 different undertakings being signed. It was 'take it or leave it'. On 25 November 2009 the court suspended the McCanns' libel action on our signing our agreement to the undertakings demanded.

During the two years that followed, I admit that I broke the undertakings in several respects as Mr Justice Tugendhat found in February 2013. The McCanns did not sue for libel, although they could have done, as the original libel proceedings they brought had merely been stayed, not abandoned. Instead they sued for 'Contempt of Court', which is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.

Although the Court ordered me to pay the McCanns' costs, which they told me at the time were around £335,000, we agreed terms via my solicitor, Robin Tilbrook.

I agreed to pay the McCanns an immediate sum of £12,500, then pay a further £15,000 by monthly instalments of £125, for 10 years, beginning on 1 May 2013. To date, I have paid the McCanns, via Carter-Ruck, a total of £26,250, with 10  instalments of £125 a month yet to pay.

After that, the 16 undertakings I signed remain in place and are likely to remain so for ever.

For the record, it was unwise of me to make statements or take actions that broke some of the undertakings. I apologised to the McCanns in Court for my actions.

Thus I was not found guilty of libel, merely of breaking a number of undertakings.

Of course, I still have my opinions.       

     
     

[misty]

Like millions of others, I doubted the story put forward by the McCanns as to why Madeleine had gone missing.

I co-operated with others to form the Madeleine Foundation.

By 7 December 2008 we had published: "What really happened to Madeleine McCann? 60 Reasons which suggest she was not abducted", a book which began to sell well. A summary of the book's claims were published in a leaflet, '10 Reasons', which was distributed widely by volunteers around the country. In August 2009 there was some publicity over a leaflet drop in Leicestershire, which included a drop in Rothley.

During September Deborah Butler and myself were told by Carter Ruck to stop selling the book, stop distributing the leaflet and cease 'libelling the McCanns'. We were both told that we must sign undertakings to that effect or face a libel action.     

So to answer the question: "Why did Anthony Bennett sign an undertaking?  An undertaking that he then didn't keep", the response is simple, the McCanns had the financial resources to sue; we did not have the financial resources to defend the action. There was a gross inequality in resources. The McCanns had the financial resources the equivalent of armoured tanks. We had the financial resources of a home-made catapult.

The McCanns insisted on 16 different undertakings being signed. It was 'take it or leave it'. On 25 November 2009 the court suspended the McCanns' libel action on our signing our agreement to the undertakings demanded.

During the two years that followed, I admit that I broke the undertakings in several respects as Mr Justice Tugendhat found in February 2013. The McCanns did not sue for libel, although they could have done, as the original libel proceedings they brought had merely been stayed, not abandoned. Instead they sued for 'Contempt of Court', which is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.

Although the Court ordered me to pay the McCanns' costs, which they told me at the time were around £335,000, we agreed terms via my solicitor, Robin Tilbrook.

I agreed to pay the McCanns an immediate sum of £12,500, then pay a further £15,000 by monthly instalments of £125, for 10 years, beginning on 1 May 2013. To date, I have paid the McCanns, via Carter-Ruck, a total of £26,250, with 10  instalments of £125 a month yet to pay.

After that, the 16 undertakings I signed remain in place and are likely to remain so for ever.

For the record, it was unwise of me to make statements or take actions that broke some of the undertakings. I apologised to the McCanns in Court for my actions.

Thus I was not found guilty of libel, merely of breaking a number of undertakings.

Of course, I still have my opinions.       

     
   

In light of developments involving the German suspect over the past few years would you concede that expressing your opinions has been a series of very costly mistakes or did you achieve your goals?

[Eleanor]

Like millions of others, I doubted the story put forward by the McCanns as to why Madeleine had gone missing.

I co-operated with others to form the Madeleine Foundation.

By 7 December 2008 we had published: "What really happened to Madeleine McCann? 60 Reasons which suggest she was not abducted", a book which began to sell well. A summary of the book's claims were published in a leaflet, '10 Reasons', which was distributed widely by volunteers around the country. In August 2009 there was some publicity over a leaflet drop in Leicestershire, which included a drop in Rothley.

During September Deborah Butler and myself were told by Carter Ruck to stop selling the book, stop distributing the leaflet and cease 'libelling the McCanns'. We were both told that we must sign undertakings to that effect or face a libel action.     

So to answer the question: "Why did Anthony Bennett sign an undertaking?  An undertaking that he then didn't keep", the response is simple, the McCanns had the financial resources to sue; we did not have the financial resources to defend the action. There was a gross inequality in resources. The McCanns had the financial resources the equivalent of armoured tanks. We had the financial resources of a home-made catapult.

The McCanns insisted on 16 different undertakings being signed. It was 'take it or leave it'. On 25 November 2009 the court suspended the McCanns' libel action on our signing our agreement to the undertakings demanded.

During the two years that followed, I admit that I broke the undertakings in several respects as Mr Justice Tugendhat found in February 2013. The McCanns did not sue for libel, although they could have done, as the original libel proceedings they brought had merely been stayed, not abandoned. Instead they sued for 'Contempt of Court', which is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.

Although the Court ordered me to pay the McCanns' costs, which they told me at the time were around £335,000, we agreed terms via my solicitor, Robin Tilbrook.

I agreed to pay the McCanns an immediate sum of £12,500, then pay a further £15,000 by monthly instalments of £125, for 10 years, beginning on 1 May 2013. To date, I have paid the McCanns, via Carter-Ruck, a total of £26,250, with 10  instalments of £125 a month yet to pay.

After that, the 16 undertakings I signed remain in place and are likely to remain so for ever.

For the record, it was unwise of me to make statements or take actions that broke some of the undertakings. I apologised to the McCanns in Court for my actions.

Thus I was not found guilty of libel, merely of breaking a number of undertakings.

Of course, I still have my opinions.       

     
   

"Merely"?