How we can fight back for freedom of speech

[pauline]

Two suggestions -

1) Why don’t we all write to Carter Ruck on the following lines, adapting the letter to suit our own circumstances, making it clear we are prepared to testify in court on behalf of Tony Bennett, or other researchers the McCanns may threaten to sue.

To win a libel action I understand you have to prove that whatever was published would lower the reputation of the person(s) involved in the eyes of a ‘right minded’ person.

Carter Ruck cannot want this going into court as their clients will be subject to cross examination.

They can put pro McCann people in the witness box but they can’t testify that Tony Bennett’s articles lowered the McCanns reputation in their eyes because they obviously haven’t been affected by them.

2) We could also write to the media saying we have sent a letter to Carter Ruck and why we felt compelled to do so. Hopefully it might start a debate on freedom of speech.

Draft letter

Dear Carter Ruck

Re: your clients Kate and Gerry McCann v Tony Bennett

I am writing to you to let you know that I am prepared to go to court to testify as a ‘right minded’ person that I have read the matters objected to written by Mr Bennett and find them reasonable and fair comment.

For the record, I do not know Mr Bennett or have any connection whatsoever with him.

Some background about myself. I am a professional woman, a mother and have holidayed in Portugal on several occasions. I work part-time and am involved with various local good causes.

Initially, I suffered with your clients. I believed what I read and heard on the TV news. When the newspaper headlines in September 2007 changed and implied that your clients were less than truthful, I felt the media was going too far. I was pleased when your clients sued and happy for them to win the damages they did.

I didn’t think much about the case again until last year when a relative raised the issue and suggested I do some research. Arising from that, I regularly visited various websites, both for and anti the McCann version of events. I also read the extracts from the Portuguese police files which are now available on line. I bought the book Madeleine and compared its contents as far as practical with independent sources. I obtained the accounts of the Madeleine Fund from the Companies Office.

After assessing all this material, I now have serious doubts about your clients’ version of events.

In making my assessment I read many of Mr Bennett’s articles and website postings. They seemed to me to be based on the facts in as far as they are known, and to be reasonable comment. I don’t necessarily agree with all his opinions, but he has the right to have them and to publish them as long as he has no malicious intent. I believe his motive, as is mine, is to find out what actually happened to Madeleine, and where she is now.

I also asked myself in the light of the many discrepancies in the McCanns statements now in the public domain, why the media are not raising them. This apparent censorship by the media is worrying. For example your clients have recently raised doubt as to whether Madeleine had an eye defect known as a coloboma but said they never made much of this anyway when she went missing – when the reverse is the case. There are pictures of them holding posters emphasising it. And Mr McCann referred to the eye issue in 2007 as a ‘good marketing ploy.’!

If people are doubting your clients’ version of events on internet sites, this in no way prevents your clients from hiring competent detectives to look for their daughter.

These internet doubters are not preventing police forces from actively looking for her. No police force looks for a missing person indefinitely. Resources are finite and common sense says it is not the best use of resources when exhaustive searches have revealed nothing. In the case of your clients, they cannot expect the Portuguese police to do anymore when they did not fully co-operate with them in the matter of the 48 questions not answered by Mrs McCann when an arguido, and in their refusal, together with their tapas friends, to return to Portugal to do a reconstruction.

Freedom of speech is key to any democracy and in the saga of missing Madeleine there has been little of that in the past couple of years. I would love to be wrong; for the truth to turn out to be that your clients did make a disastrous mistake for which they paid dearly - but until your clients start to act like innocent people and answer questions rather than threatening to sue people who question their version of events, and to provide detailed financial information about the Fund’s expenditure, then I and other ‘right minded’ persons will continue to have doubts.

As I stated I would be happy to go into court to testify on behalf of Mr Bennett or other researchers looking for the truth.

I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr Bennett. Please feel free to show this letter to your clients.

Yours sincerely

[lj]

Great letter Pauline!

[Invinoveritas]

quote/

Whilst our elites believe they built and control the Matrix, and for a while, they did – with licences, D notices, censorship. All of us, just by being online and talking to each other have proved they are no longer in control of any of us. And I have no need to talk or listen to the opinions of those who assume they know better than me how to live my life. Like town criers bellowing in the market place, they are no longer relevant to any of us. The real revolution begins when you stop listening to them. /end quote



I´ve just found this snippet and I thought it could help us to walk tall

I´ve put the link down below, it´s a political blog so possibly not to everyone´s taste



http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.com/

[IAmNotMerylStreep]

You can stick your CCTV, Police State, wheelie bin Stasi, DNA, WMD, “Social Cohesion”, benefits for all, guilty until proved innocent, don’t do that it’s illegal now, can’t say that, ID cards for all, where are you going, what have you been saying/doing/reading, can’t photograph that, how very dare you, golliwog banning, we know where you live, we’re watching you Soviet Utopia up your arses. Sideways.

[jd]

Great Letter Pauline! Every sentence is true and I support it too. I would add the question why did GM/JT go back to PDL to oversee a reconstruction with actors for the Channel 4 documentary? They wouldn't do one for the PJ to help the actual investigation so why with Channel 4? And why did they look gloriously happy and like they won the lottery in that picture taken only 9 days after Maddie disappeared...hardly the behaviour of worried parents any reasonable person would assess

[jd]

And nobody will ever take away our freedom of speech. We will fight for our rights and freedom of speech all the way

[jd]

I have to laugh out loud at carter rucks latest clients..the Gallagher brothers. Liam is sueing brother Noel, because Noel said Liam was hungover when they cancelled a gig. Liam has decided to take action through the High Court because it was a slur on his professionalism! Anyone who knows Oasis and their history of smashing up hotel rooms, threatening cabin staff on their way to Australia amongst many things...... do ask 'what professionalism'

dear dear me......what is this world coming to that people are resorting to lawyers for this. Especially in this case as the band have lived off their self imposed image and reputation of being bad boys, one of their first hits was 'cigarettes and alcohol'

[Gillyspot]

The case with the Gallagher's is very, very different though if you notice.

Their Carter Ruck escapade is in the papers!

Where are the McCanns and Smethurst and their legal shenanigans. Nowhere to be seen. Now why would that be?

Answers on a postcard.

[Guest]

Interesting point Gillyspot. Like the Gaspars' statement, this is an issue which the papers can't or won't print lest it makes people ask questions that Team McCann doesn't want to be raised.



As for the Gallaghers, that's given me a good laugh. Poor old Liam, what a dreadful thing to say about him!!



I heard that C-R is also representing Simon Cowell though I can't recall what that's about.

[pauline]

Great Letter Pauline! I would add the question why did GM/JT go back to PDL to oversee a reconstruction with actors for the Channel 4 documentary? They wouldn't do one for the PJ to help the actual investigation so why with Channel 4?

I suspect that GM and JT got generous 'expenses' to go to PDL from Channel 4; not fees now.

As we know the McCanns have no interest in money, they only want to 'look' for Madeleine.

[pauline]

I heard that C-R is also representing Simon Cowell though I can't recall what that's about.

Marian, I think its a very serious matter. I believe someone has claimed he's had a lot of botox/help with his looks.

carter Ruck will have to be recruiting to deal with all these new cases.

[Guest]

Carter Ruck cannot want this going into court as their clients will be subject to cross examination.

Pauline, great letter and fantastic idea. Wow, imagine the McCann's actually having to account for themselves finally. There are so many questions I can think of asking them.

[Guest]

Tony has already said on another thread, that if he goes to court and lost, he would loose everything.

They have contacts in high places, which would also include Judges. Do you think Tony would ever get a fair hearing? No.

In almost every case the person in Tony's shoes has to back down. They do not have the financial safety net, that they likes of the McCann's have.

[pauline]

Tony has already said on another thread, that if he goes to court and lost, he would loose everything.

They have contacts in high places, which would also include Judges. Do you think Tony would ever get a fair hearing? No.

In almost every case the person in Tony's shoes has to back down. They do not have the financial safety net, that they likes of the McCann's have.

I agree these factors are to say the least worrying.

Some friends here in Ireland were involved in a case which could have had financial consequences if they lost. So he took the case as he owned no property, had no assets and was I think on some community employment scheme at the time (he was on the dole but you go on these schemes and it 'reduces' unemployment'). They put off getting married as she had a good job, a house and savings and they would have been at risk.

Would it be practical for Tony to divest himself of assets to his wife (does he have one?). And if so, would the assets then be at risk under UK law. In ireland various dodgy developers moved assets to their wives shortly before property collapsed and have got away with it. The wives cannot be touched it would appear. Maybe UK law is different.

There is no point in suing a person who has no assets.

[littlepixie]

It would be interesting to know just how far you can be hit financially if you lose a case such as this. Can they touch your house? I would be surprised if they could. I should imagine they can touch your savings but that could be dealt with.
I presume you would have to prepare a statement of affairs for the Court - put down lots of hair-cuts, lots of cigarettes, etc etc and they would decide how much you can afford to pay.
I believe the allowances are quite generous for someone to live on, so maybe on a pension they would get very little per week.

(just thinking out loud)

Eta. I wouldnt like to risk it just in case there is a corrupt Judge.

[Angelique]

littlepixie

You wrote:


"Eta. I wouldnt like to risk it just in case there is a corrupt Judge."

This is a very sad situation that we have to say something like this and to think that we have reached this point in the UK.

[jd]

Look at the appointed judge in the phone hacking enquiry!

[Kitti]

And nobody will ever take away our freedom of speech. We will fight for our rights and freedom of speech all the way

Quite right, but they try to.

We should quote....Article 10 ...human rights act....freedom off speech....

[Kitti]

What the mccanns are doing......taking down people like Bennett and amaral...why....if the mccanns win cases against them then they are hoping that other people, like me and you, will worry about being taken to court so they hope that we will back down, close our OWN blogs and go away.


When WE go away then they will slink away too..