Happy hunting!

by **Tony Bennett** 17.12.09 22:41

badmanners wrote:The question is simple Tony - who did the 'reassuring' ?

And on what is it based?

Sans has posted his line of reasoning, we were all merely interested to see yours.

Carry on being 'merely interested' then.

All right, look, all this thirsting and clamouring and being 'merely interested' etc. in the liabilities of Madeleine Foundation members clearly needs satsifying, if it is not to be followed by a like a lemming-like stampede for this valuable information.

Question: have any of you heard of 'Google'?

You have?

Absolutely excellent, that's a great start.

And you know that The Madeleine Foundation is an unincorporated association?

Yes you do, I've told countless people over the years.

Right, google 'unincorporated' 'association'.

Or, even better, 'unincorporated' 'association' 'legal' 'liability'.

Look, I've just tried it myself.

And just to help you all on your way, here's a start for you:

http://www.rya.org.uk/infoadvice/clubsclass/members/Pages/legalliability.aspx

Happy hunting!

by preciousramotswe 18.12.09 21:08

Tony, that link is largely to do with the matter of safety in a dangerous sport.

It really has little to do with the sort of situation which the MF is in. If this is the sort of 'reassurance' which you have been offering your members, and they accepted it, then they are very easily pleased indeed tearhairout

by **Tony Bennett** 18.12.09 21:36

badmanners wrote:Tony, that link is largely to do with the matter of safety in a dangerous sport.

Look at some other links on unincorporated associations then.

Have you only looked up one so far?

by aiyoyo 19.12.09 7:11

It does not help that those 4 questions were posed by SS, someone legendary as being a voice against antis. His motive for those questions was nothing noble, such as concerns for the MF members, but rather quite something else known only to himself. If he's not a member of MF, then TB is not obliged to reply. If however TB chose to do so for the benefit of general posters, then doing away with the arrogant sarcasm might go down better.

by sans_souci 19.12.09 10:42

aiyoyo wrote:It does not help that those 4 questions were posed by SS, someone legendary as being a voice against antis. His motive for those questions was nothing noble, such as concerns for the MF members, but rather quite something else known only to himself. If he's not a member of MF, then TB is not obliged to reply. If however TB chose to do so for the benefit of general posters, then doing away with the arrogant sarcasm might go down better.

And therefore to be discounted?

A voice against the antis? You seem to have a firm grasp of the wrong end of the stick. My prime motivation is a respect for justice, truth and the law. That is not best served by avoiding legitimate questions, by saying that a line of reasoning is rubbish but declining to provide the reason why. It is also not best served by wishful thinking, fabricating 'evidence' to support a theory and deliberate misinterpretation to convince the sheep.

I am always happy to debate. I am also happy to present my arguments. If I am wrong (which is distressingly often) I am happy to admit it and apologise. I am also consitent in my views. If you have a problem with that, well, I am afraid I cannot help.

If Bennetts idea of reassuring his members is based on the RYA website, then they should be afraid. Very afraid! big grin

by Patty O'Daws 19.12.09 10:47

sans_souci wrote:I am always happy to debate. I am also happy to present my arguments. If I am wrong (which is distressingly often) I am happy to admit it and apologise.

You're some kind of lawyer aren't you?

by **Tony Bennett** 19.12.09 10:49

sans_souci wrote:My prime motivation is a respect for justice, truth and the law. That is not best served by avoiding legitimate questions...

A search on the internet will tell you all you need to know about the fact that members of an unincorporated association invariably do not have any legal liability whatsoever for the actions of individual members, or of the Committee. All of this 'concern' about the welfare of Madeleine Foundation members is a faux concern, utterly bogus, and designed only to try and disrupt our work. I don't propose to add to all you find on the net or eslewhere about the lack of financial liability of individual members of an unincorporated association.

I am always happy to debate. I am also happy to present my arguments. If I am wrong (which is distressingly often)...

Carefully noted.

by sans_souci 19.12.09 11:01

I do not have your gift for always being right, Tony.

And is that it? Ok. I do wish I had met more lawyers of your caliber during my working life.

by Patty O'Daws 19.12.09 11:05

sans_souci wrote:I do not have your gift for always being right, Tony.

And is that it? Ok. I do wish I had met more lawyers of your caliber during my working life.

And maybe people should be glad there aren't too many lawyers who are distressingly wrong too often.

by Guest 19.12.09 11:08

Patty O'Daws wrote:
sans_souci wrote:I do not have your gift for always being right, Tony.

And is that it? Ok. I do wish I had met more lawyers of your caliber during my working life.

And maybe people should be glad there aren't too many lawyers who are distressingly wrong too often.

Or a solicitor who tries to take money twice off his clients

by aiyoyo 19.12.09 12:03

sans_souci wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:It does not help that those 4 questions were posed by SS, someone legendary as being a voice against antis. His motive for those questions was nothing noble, such as concerns for the MF members, but rather quite something else known only to himself. If he's not a member of MF, then TB is not obliged to reply. If however TB chose to do so for the benefit of general posters, then doing away with the arrogant sarcasm might go down better.

And therefore to be discounted?

A voice against the antis? You seem to have a firm grasp of the wrong end of the stick. My prime motivation is a respect for justice, truth and the law. That is not best served by avoiding legitimate questions, by saying that a line of reasoning is rubbish but declining to provide the reason why. It is also not best served by wishful thinking, fabricating 'evidence' to support a theory and deliberate misinterpretation to convince the sheep.

I am always happy to debate. I am also happy to present my arguments. If I am wrong (which is distressingly often) I am happy to admit it and apologise. I am also consitent in my views. If you have a problem with that, well, I am afraid I cannot help.

If Bennetts idea of reassuring his members is based on the RYA website, then they should be afraid. Very afraid!

Dissenting question generally should not be discounted, that's the whole point of debate. However, that line of questioning seemed more like provocative questions aimed at targeting specific person (TB for example) then it is quite something else. Provocative questions are then up to TB whether he wants to tackle, after all the answers apply to MF members so should be the perogative of those members to ask. In a nutshell, those questions, legitimate though they may be, depend on whether they were asked for general knowledge purpose or for showing TB in negative light - that the crux of the matter.

I am surprised someone mentioned you were possibly a lawyer. How can a lawyer possibly need another legal person to point out the basics. Only layman like myself might have an excuse for being legally ignorant. If you are indeed a lawyer, as you didnt seem to deny, then the posing of those questions would come across as a deliberate provocation. Correct me if I am wrong, but I would have thought a lawyer would at the very least know that sort of fundamentals.

As for prime motivation being law and justice for the truth - truth means it should not be subjective, but if you were legally trained person you should know better than anyone else that is not absolutely true.

Everyone here wanting justice for missing children, in this particular case of Maddie, also shares your same prime motivation of justice for the truth, but that does not mean view on the case is not subjective to individuals. So depending on which side you are for, or for better argument sake which theory you believe, then justice for the truth depends on whose truth you are seeking it for.

We all want the truth do we or dont we? The pertinent point is whose truth are people seeking - Maddie or her parents? And, if we're all on the parents side and do not question them, then the truth will never be had ever because Maddie no longer has a voice - it's as simple as that. Therefore the parents should be questioned and should have to answer for missing Madeleine. So far, their entire behaviour indicated they were for hiding the truth more than any thing else - my view at least.

And, incidentally sheep do not need to be convinced,they are sheep aren't they? Calling people sheep is insulting their intelligence. Having differing views from you does not equal sheep. By the same token can antis call the pros 'the mccanns' sheep'?

Also, If pros can term antis as misinterpreting facts (those facts incidentally contained in the investigation files) then by the same token can antis equally term pros as deliberately lying.

The knub on the justice for truth depends which side people are seeking justice for.

I've no problem with people having consistent view, but do object to people trying to impress/force their view upon others, especially if people go to the length of picking on others for own agenda.

As an aside, we all know that lawyers are not always right, they are the very people who are good at obfuscating matters to suit a purpose - CR is a perfect example.

by sans_souci 20.12.09 8:21

aiyoyo wrote:[

A brief response.

Dissenting question generally should not be discounted, that's the whole point of debate. However, that line of questioning seemed more like provocative questions aimed at targeting specific person (TB for example) then it is quite something else. Provocative questions are then up to TB whether he wants to tackle, after all the answers apply to MF members so should be the perogative of those members to ask. In a nutshell, those questions, legitimate though they may be, depend on whether they were asked for general knowledge purpose or for showing TB in negative light - that the crux of the matter.

The potential liability of ex foundation members is, in my view, a legitimate area for debate, and some seem to be very interested. As to answering questions, Bennett I believe sent a draft of his booklet to the McCanns and their lawyers, and one line of defence was, well, they could correct it, and if they don't, then it must be true. Sauce for the goose and all that.

I am surprised someone mentioned you were possibly a lawyer. How can a lawyer possibly need another legal person to point out the basics. Only layman like myself might have an excuse for being legally ignorant. If you are indeed a lawyer, as you didnt seem to deny, then the posing of those questions would come across as a deliberate provocation. Correct me if I am wrong, but I would have thought a lawyer would at the very least know that sort of fundamentals.

I bow to your moral superiority. I was a barrister when I was young and foolish, but in an entirely different field and therefore irrelevant to this case. But if you are or were a member, and you think there is any risk of liability for damages or costs attaching to the activities of The Madeleiene Foundation, then you should consider that an unicorporated association is, in law, regarded as a form of partnership. And partnerships carry joint and several liability on the partners. *http://www.netlawman.co.uk/info/unincorporated-associations.php is quite a good synopsis)

As for prime motivation being law and justice for the truth - truth means it should not be subjective, but if you were legally trained person you should know better than anyone else that is not absolutely true.

Really - kindly explain. I would like to see justice done on this case, wherever it may fall. But having reviewed the evidence and information available, my belief is that Madeleine was abducted and the parents are innocent of involvement in her disappearance, save for their childcare arrangements.

Everyone here wanting justice for missing children, in this particular case of Maddie, also shares your same prime motivation of justice for the truth, but that does not mean view on the case is not subjective to individuals. So depending on which side you are for, or for better argument sake which theory you believe, then justice for the truth depends on whose truth you are seeking it for.

true, but investing or making up evidence is not helpful. eg the belief that there is incriminating evidence held back by the PJ, that there was a first report showinga full match, or that any of the forensics are incriminating.

We all want the truth do we or dont we? The pertinent point is whose truth are people seeking - Maddie or her parents? And, if we're all on the parents side and do not question them, then the truth will never be had ever because Maddie no longer has a voice - it's as simple as that. Therefore the parents should be questioned and should have to answer for missing Madeleine. So far, their entire behaviour indicated they were for hiding the truth more than any thing else - my view at least.

Of course the parents should be questionned, and should have been done so with more rigour at an earlier stage, as should all friends, witnesses etc. I do not see, given the investigation, that Madeleiens interests and those of her parents and siblings are so easily divisible.

And, incidentally sheep do not need to be convinced,they are sheep aren't they? Calling people sheep is insulting their intelligence. Having differing views from you does not equal sheep. By the same token can antis call the pros 'the mccanns' sheep'?

They usually reserve far more insulting terms.

Also, If pros can term antis as misinterpreting facts (those facts incidentally contained in the investigation files) then by the same token can antis equally term pros as deliberately lying.

That is true. There is fault on both sides. As for facts, much seems to depend on Tavares statement in September 2007 - what do you think happened after that, up to the closure of the investigation in July 2008?

The knub on the justice for truth depends which side people are seeking justice for.

I've no problem with people having consistent view, but do object to people trying to impress/force their view upon others, especially if people go to the length of picking on others for own agenda.

So you disagree with the MF campaign then - which was to force a particular view on all and sundry, MPs, Rothley villagers etc.

As an aside, we all know that lawyers are not always right, they are the very people who are good at obfuscating matters to suit a purpose - CR is a perfect example.

Very good. In most cases there is a winner and a loser, so it could be argued that lawyers are, on average, wrong50% of the time. But as officers of the court, all lawyers are sworn to be truthful, even if their job is to tell it in the best possible light.

by aiyoyo 20.12.09 13:23

The potential liability of ex foundation members is, in my view, a legitimate area for debate, and some seem to be very interested. As to answering questions, Bennett I believe sent a draft of his booklet to the McCanns and their lawyers, and one line of defence was, well, they could correct it, and if they don't, then it must be true. Sauce for the goose and all that.

Are those interested people you mentioned members of MF? AFAIK, only a particular faction (including yourself) is interested for reasons either they’d run in with TB or against TB, it surely wasn’t because they are concerned for MF members. IF members have concerns they could sort that out with TB directly. Fair debate is one thing, using it as an excuse to bay for blood is quite something else. I am not MF member, neither do I support one or the other faction, I just believe this silly games played by both sides should stop, and that people making use of the situation to jump on the bandwagon is just as bad if not worst.. People like you encouraging it only compounds the warfare and no one can fail to see the intent if I may say so.

I bow to your moral superiority. I was a barrister when I was young and foolish, but in an entirely different field and therefore irrelevant to this case. But if you are or were a member, and you think there is any risk of liability for damages or costs attaching to the activities of The Madeleiene Foundation, then you should consider that an unicorporated association is, in law, regarded as a form of partnership. And partnerships carry joint and several liability on the partners. *http://www.netlawman.co.uk/info/unincorporated-associations.php is quite a good synopsis)

Are you saying foolish as in getting yourself disbarred ? That should make no difference – that sort of fundamental should be knowledge even to a non-practising Barrister. Since you already know the liability to the MF members so why not just come outright and post it since you claimed some people were interested to debate it, instead or going about posing these questions in a sneaky fashion to TB – what was the point you wanted to make?

Really - kindly explain. I would like to see justice done on this case, wherever it may fall. But having reviewed the evidence and information available, my belief is that Madeleine was abducted and the parents are innocent of involvement in her disappearance, save for their childcare arrangements.

You have just proven my point, truth is subjective to the seeker – depends who people seek justice for – Maddie or her parents? Since Maddie no longer have a voice its logical justice is sought for her isn’t it? Otherwise your argument falls flat on its face!

true, but investing or making up evidence is not helpful. eg the belief that there is incriminating evidence held back by the PJ, that there was a first report showinga full match, or that any of the forensics are incriminating.

Well, you don’t know to the contrary do you? You are entitled to your belief and others to theirs.

Of course the parents should be questionned, and should have been done so with more rigour at an earlier stage, as should all friends, witnesses etc. I do not see, given the investigation, that Madeleiens interests and those of her parents and siblings are so easily divisible.

Well I disagree. It became divisible the moment they lost her under their watch. Until Maddie perpetrator is found, her parents will never be free of suspicions hence the divisible is inevitable, of their own doing when they admitted they left her alone!

That is true. There is fault on both sides. As for facts, much seems to depend on Tavares statement in September 2007 - what do you think happened after that, up to the closure of the investigation in July 2008?

The fact remains Tavares’ Report formed a part of the investigation files. No matter which direction debaters wished to steer that report, depending of course on debaters belief, the fact cannot be altered that it was indeed part of process files, which meant the police did work on the basis that her parents were involved, and only the lack of irrefutable evidence stopped it going to trial could be derived at from that theory.

Imo, pros discounting it chose not to give PJ their due credits, now why would they want to do that? To arrive at an answer people would have to study who has a motive and who stands to benefit from the motive. Despite the change in Head in charge, PJ is a force who works in a team as collective entity and any new-in-charge had an obligation to carry on precedent works and continue to work with and in a team. Crucially, so far, the PJ had not come out with another theory so AFAIMC Travares’ theory is good to stand. The fact that it was also included in the released files showed that the Authority thought it was good to stand.

So you disagree with the MF campaign then - which was to force a particular view on all and sundry, MPs, Rothley villagers etc

I have no view one way or the other. I merely observed that so far there were two schools of thought on that matter. One school of thought believed that the distributions built awareness of the case, and that since it was Madeleine home town then people in that home town have a right to know other versions, other than her parents’ version, existed in the investigation files. The other school citing the twins as excuse came from either anti TB or pro-mccanns so that was something different altogether. There is no right or wrong, it just was.

Very good. In most cases there is a winner and a loser, so it could be argued that lawyers are, on average, wrong50% of the time. But as officers of the court, all lawyers are sworn to be truthful, even if their job is to tell it in the best possible light.

Well, as a barrister you should know better than anyone that lawyers can chose not to ask for the absolute truth depending on client they’re representing, that way they cannot be charged with knowingly being untruthful. At the end of the day, lawyers are humans making a living!

Fair debate is one thing, disrupting with an agenda is quite something else.

[/quote]

by aliberte2 28.12.09 4:16

Chinagirl wrote:No matter who the "Scrimas" person turned out to be, the questions that poster asked were quite valid, and still need answering. If Bennett is so certain Sans-Souci was time wasting for pointing the legal responsibility of the foundation members for costs and/or damages occurred in any libel action against Bennett, then I would like to see Bennett's counter argument to refute this.

Lies Need Clearing up for Our Side and Tony's Cause and Continued Campaign to Have Credibility and Continue Onward.
THe Likes of Stevo, Photon, etc. Do Our Side No Favors.
Our Side = Abduction Skeptics. I Know Your Pro.

I would Like to See Tony Answer Any and All Questions Put to Him, but This is Not His Full Time Job. However, It would GO a Long Way to Encouraging Membership in the Foundation.