Re: A letter from Carter-Ruck

by aiyoyo 30.10.10 16:52

A letter from Carter-Ruck - Page 2 977352

Tom Moore,

Who's repeating libel according to you?

The three judges?

by T_Moore 01.11.10 17:08

aiyoyo wrote:Who's repeating libel according to you?

I didn't say they probably killed Madeline themselves.

aiyoyo wrote:The three judges?

What three judges?

I need a new name. Can someone change it to Widow's Son?

by Judge Mental 01.11.10 18:37

@ Tom Moore

It is some time since one visited this thread, so would you mind giving a brief explanation for your last post. Who has made libellous comments?

Your last post saying, ''I didn't say they probably killed Madeline themselves.'' has left one wondering if one has missed something of importance.

by T_Moore 01.11.10 18:51

@ Judge Mental

No one has made libellous comments. I merely said one should never repeat a libel, but publishing priviledged documents is fine.

My contribution to this thread merely says that fighting Free Masons is pointless, and it is better to stop as soon as possible.

In general, rather than quote documents, it is better to publish them so we can see the originals for ourselves.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.11.10 21:14

Tom Moore wrote:Remember, apart from privileged documents, you must never repeat a libel.

It is important to distinguish between repeating a libel and quoting a libel.

Despite even a stringent indertaking I have given which bans me - under threat of unlimited fine or a prison sentence - from uttering any libel against the McCanns, I am still allowed to say, for example:

"A senior Portuguese detective has written a book called 'The Truth About A Lie' in which he suggests that the MCanns lied about what really happened to Madeleine McCann and in which he says he has good evidence that Madeleine McCann died in Apartment 5A".

That is quoting a libel.

However, if I was to repeat the libel, I would say: "The McCanns knew [URGENT NOTICE FROM CARTER-RUCK, STOP THERE MR BENNETT, OR ELSE!]

Post suspended

by Guest 01.11.10 21:36

Tom Moore - I think you should shut-up while you still have something left to defend.

what does this mean exactly?

by aiyoyo 02.11.10 0:03

Tom Moore wrote:@ Judge Mental

No one has made libellous comments. I merely said one should never repeat a libel, but publishing priviledged documents is fine.

So if nobody is repeating a libel, what is your point?
Is your point about getting people to publish privileged document? Well, I think that is strictly recipient's perogative isnt it.

My contribution to this thread merely says that fighting Free Masons is pointless, and it is better to stop as soon as possible.

Fightint Mason? Who is doing that? I dont see anyone fighting mason except expressing views about them and who could possibly be mason....that's completely different from fighting mason ffs.
You mean people cannot express view about mason else they risk bodily harm or dead threat or property damage?
Christ on a bike, are you implying masons are mafia - geez and I innocently thought mason is about fratenityhood!

I think you are confusing mafia and hoodlum with masonry or are you saying they are the same thing?

In general, rather than quote documents, it is better to publish them so we can see the originals for ourselves.

by aiyoyo 02.11.10 0:13

Tom Moore wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:Who's repeating libel according to you?

I didn't say they probably killed Madeline themselves.

aiyoyo wrote:The three judges?

What three judges?

I need a new name. Can someone change it to Widow's Son?

Well, have you read the detailed latest rulings?
What do you think the panel of three judges were implying apart also from that Amaral is within his right to have freedom of speech just like the mccanns?
Have you read between the lines of all the other rulings.....that Amaral is expert in his field with 26 years rich experience and concluding a thesis is within his knowledge and skills......that in fact Amaral is expert in making out evidence than AG's interpretation in his final summary?

Well what do you think the judges are saying?

You need a new name! what about peeping tom? A letter from Carter-Ruck - Page 2 609562

A letter from Carter-Ruck - Page 2 609562

A letter from Carter-Ruck - Page 2 521635

by Autumn 02.11.10 0:23

Or Tom Fool daft1

by Judge Mental 02.11.10 1:43

Tom Moore wrote:@ Judge Mental

No one has made libellous comments. I merely said one should never repeat a libel, but publishing priviledged documents is fine.

My contribution to this thread merely says that fighting Free Masons is pointless, and it is better to stop as soon as possible.

In general, rather than quote documents, it is better to publish them so we can see the originals for ourselves.

After very little consideration, one would have to agree with you, Tom Moore. Fighting Freemasonry itself would be rather futile. However, would you mind awfully, if every now and again we were to fight just a few individual nuisance Freemasons who abuse their privileged positions in society?

One's wife has been a Freemason for some thirty years, and apart from her insistence on having her tracing board painted directly onto the parquet, one cannot say that she has ever been much of a problem. Although why she could not have it printed onto cloth like everybody else, one will never know. Having said that, the trompe-l'oeil of the beehive and ladder in the rear lobby have become a bit of a talking point in the local pubs; but none of our friends like to be left alone in there A letter from Carter-Ruck - Page 2 110921

A letter from Carter-Ruck - Page 2 110921

by T_Moore 02.11.10 15:40

Cherry wrote:
Tom Moore wrote:I think you should shut-up while you still have something left to defend.
What does this mean exactly?

It means what it says.

Once the bricks are coming through your windows, your access to legal and medical services blocked, it's too late. Free Masons have a limitless capacity for evil.

by T_Moore 02.11.10 15:51

aiyoyo wrote:You mean people cannot express view about mason else they risk bodily harm or dead threat or property damage?

Yes, that's what I am saying, roughly.

aiyoyo wrote:Christ on a bike, are you implying masons are mafia

Well I think the Mafia generally had sufficient reason to kill someone. I would not say that about Free Masons.

aiyoyo wrote:I think you are confusing mafia and hoodlum with masonry or are you saying they are the same thing?

The confusion, if there is any confusion, is the suggestion that what happened to me after I criticised a Housing Benefit scam owned by Brother K**** E*****, will happen to anyone who suggests Brother Gerry McCann is not purer than the driven snow.

by T_Moore 02.11.10 15:54

aiyoyo wrote:Well, have you read the detailed latest rulings?

No, I keep telling you I have no idea of this ruling.

by T_Moore 02.11.10 15:59

Judge Mental wrote:However, would you mind awfully, if every now and again we were to fight just a few individual nuisance Freemasons who abuse their privileged positions in society?

I want you to criticise Free Masons, they're killing me anyway.

If you do criticise Free Masons, they may kill you as well.

On the other hand, perhaps it is all coincidence.

by littlepixie 02.11.10 16:06

I must say I havent a clue Tom what point you are trying to get across. Are you saying you are the victim of a vendetta? If so you have my sympathy, having been a victim myself.

We cannot live the rest of our lives being victims though, we must either fight back or move on and above all have faith.

by T_Moore 02.11.10 16:18

littlepixie wrote:Are you saying you are the victim of a vendetta?

Yes, by Brother Keith *****, Chief Executive of Affinity Homes Group.

littlepixie wrote:We cannot live the rest of our lives being victims though, we must either fight back or move on and above all have faith.

Why don't you say that to Brother Keith *****? Brother Keith ***** has the long term (ca. 20 years) grudge, not me.

If you suggest Madeleine McCann was not abducted, exactly as Brother Gerry McCann says, the same could happen to you.

by littlepixie 02.11.10 16:22

So you here to warn us, is that what it is?

by Judge Mental 02.11.10 16:29

@ Tom Moore

There is no doubt that there are some extremely dangerous Freemasons all over the world, however the fact is that those people would be dangerous without their being cloaked with the mantle of Freemasonry. It is not Freemasonry itself that is evil, but some of the people attracted to it are undoubtedly so. Money and power are inextricably linked.

One notes that you say, '

''The confusion, if there is any confusion, is the suggestion that what happened to me after I criticised a Housing Benefit scam owned by Brother Keith *****, will happen to anyone who suggests Brother Gerry McCann is not purer than the driven snow.''

Purely for experimental purposes, one will now suggest that McCann is not as pure as the driven snow. In fact, one will go a step further and say that not only he, but almost all of the people we have come to know through McCann, are also not as pure as the driven snow.

Now watch this space, and if one does not post here again, one will expect a fund to be set up immediately, and a search party sent out A letter from Carter-Ruck - Page 2 110921

by T_Moore 02.11.10 16:37

Judge Mental wrote:[ . . . ] however the fact is that those people would be dangerous without their being cloaked with the mantle of Freemasonry. It is not Freemasonry itself that is evil, but some of the people attracted to it are undoubtedly so.

I don't think this is true. Freemasonry gives these amoral miscreants a mechanism to exercise their morbid hobby.

By the same logic you could say - as the NRA do - guns don't kill, people do.

by **sharonl** 18.11.10 8:31

Off topic I know, but since we are discussing Carter Ruck I thought that I would share this google alert http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/17/simon-cowell-x-factor-heat

by Guest 18.11.10 9:04

Thank you sharonl, that just confirms to me what I have always thought about Cowel, ITV and Carter Muck. A letter from Carter-Ruck - Page 2 160807

by listener 19.11.10 0:09

[quote="sharonl"]Off topic I know, but since we are discussing Carter Ruck I thought that I would share this google alert http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/17/simon-cowell-x-factor-heat[/quote]

Yeah - Well - I guess that's the world we're living in now -
The vast majority ~~want to~~ watch 'reality' TV A letter from Carter-Ruck - Page 2 173510

A letter from Carter-Ruck - Page 2 173510

(that might be their undoing)?

It is 1am - turn on your telly - what a load of c__p !

Log in for more topics