MYSTERY: Mike Gunnill, a book, a courier and a third party

If I recall rightly, Mr Bennett had actually supplied a lady called Sym, or something similar, after taking the undertaking, with a load of leaflets for her to distribute on his behalf. It was common knowledge on this forum as they ended up having a bit of a falling out over it I believe.

Whilst the way Mr Gunnill obtained the leaflet may have been a bit sneaky, it cannot be blamed on him. If you accept a court undertaking not to do something again and then go and do it you are likely to find yourself answerable.

What does surprise me is that the leaflet thing happened yonks ago and it is only more recently the McCanns have decided to take Mr Bennett back to court. It does make me wonder if they actually were prepared to overlook that but with the other stuff that they feel is libellous they are now thinking enough is enough.

Please don't get me wrong. I do not like gagging orders, super injunctions and very little of the time our courts have to waste sorting out some civil law nonsenses. It seems to be a playground that only the very rich can enjoy and it makes our country a laughing stock. Be that as it may we are stuck with this legal system for the moment and if it is found that Mr Bennett did breach his undertaking he has to face the consequences.

As for Mr Gunnill having lied. If you promise a court not to do something and then go and do it again, isn't that a little like telling porkies too?

Apologies if I have misunderstood your post Kololi but are you saying that Mike Gunnill obtained the booklet not directly from Tony Bennett but indirectly from a woman with a name like Sym?

I have no idea who that might be and it certainly does not tally with Tony's account or even that of Mike Gunnill.

Kololi wrote:Please don't get me wrong. I do not like gagging orders, super injunctions and very little of the time our courts have to waste sorting out some civil law nonsenses. It seems to be a playground that only the very rich can enjoy and it makes our country a laughing stock. Be that as it may we are stuck with this legal system for the moment and if it is found that Mr Bennett did breach his undertaking he has to face the consequences.

Lets assume for a moment, that Mr Bennett is completely wrong. Lets assume that the McCann's are completely innocent of all involvement. Lets assume that their failure to cooperate with the police invetigation is simply down to the type of people they are. Lets assume that their friends are shallow selfish individuals with no wish to participate in an investigation to help find a missing child. Lets assume that the hiring of a bunch of incompetant, and in some cases criminal private investigators was down to bad luck. Lets assume that the McCann's just dont come across as honest or truthful people. Lets assume that hiring PR representation, and extradition lawyers was just a mistake. Lets assume that they where just unlucky in 1001 other aspects. Lets ignore direct contradictory statements, and lets assume there are rational explanations that we are unaware of.

At a push, I might actually accept all of the above.

Along comes Mr Bennett, who has probably been a royal pain in the rear. Mr Bennet has a reputation for attatching himself to similar cases, he has a reputation for tenacity, and he's attracting a reputation for actually being RIGHT !

However, lets assume he's 100% wrong.

It would seam to me that you could silence Mr Bennet simply by TELLING THE TRUTH. A clear unambigous recollection of events to set the record stright would go a long way to clear things up. However we have 1001 press releases by their clown Clarence Mitchell, we have the channel 4 mockumentary, we have a handfull of media inteviews with the McCann's and close family members, and we have the bewk. The often contradictory statements between those sources is what fuels the speculation. I'll give you an example, on 2 occasions the clown Mitchell has publically claimed that campaigns to generate potential leads has led to significant developments. On one one occassion it would not have have been possible to recieve leads via the website, as neither the email address given actually existed, and furthermore, the data capture forms on the site where non functional. Miraculously, the clown Mitchell claimed leads where being recieved. The same claim was made regarding the US hotlines set up by Halligan. We now know from Halligan, the company hosting the hotines, and even the bleedin McCann's themselves that noone was screening their calls. Another perfect example of Mitchell lying.

The easiest way of silencing critics is to tell the truth, the problem is, that version of the truth boxes you into a corner.

The alternative is to use significant amounts of publically donated monies, that was given to search for a missing child, to engage the UK's most expensive libel lawyers, in a fight, against a retired man, who posts his opinions on a tiny unknown forum out in cyberspace, and heads up an organisation with a handful of members. He's not running a national TV campaign. He's not chained himself to the railings of 10 downing street, he's not on TV day in day out and what little media attention he has recieved has tended to be biased, unfair, critical, and generally protray him in a poor light.

We have newspapers who printed the most outragous stories about the McCann's. There are probably anti McCann websites who attract significantly more traffic than Mr Bennets website, Sky and the BBC released numerous stories to audiences of 10's of millions, and yet, these organisations are not being targetted.

Lets go one stage futher, lets assume that Mr Bennet know that the McCann's are innoccent, but he's engaged in a campaign, not out of genuine belief that there's an injustice, but simply out of spite, or bordom, or because he's a genuinely evil man. Even if that the case, why is it acceptable that the McCann's can employ profesional PR agent to lie and spin their verion of events via the national media (and without a shadow of a doubt direct lies have been told by the McCann family, Mitchell, McVey, McGuiness etc), and yet Mr Bennett isnt permitted to do similar in a far smaller way. I didint agree with the leafletting at Rothley, and I dont 100% agree with some of the stuff in 10/60 reasons etc, but broadly, he's absolutely right.

The McCann's actions are disproportiate. Who in there position, would employ legal council (at god knows what hourly rate) to trawl through posts at a variety of obscure forums, with limited readership, in the hope of finding something they could sue for ? That response is disproportianate. The cloak and dagger antics of Mike Gunhill are imature playground tactics, and frankly, beyond belief.

I have a specific interest in this case, and I proactively seek out information, its a sad, but probably true that most people forgot about the case years ago, exactly who is supposed to be reading Mr Bennet comments ?. To suggest that a few post, read by relatively few people, and which are so borderline in their content that it requires the intervention of a high court judge to decide if they are libelous or not, is hampering the search is absolutely ludicrous.

I'd be pretty annoyed if I found myself on the end of one of Mr Bennets camapigns (particularly if guilty), but the McCann's response in this case is totally disproportianate. Sending lawyers in a stretch limo for christs sake to deliver papers. Its intimidation, and its going to back fire.

Since day one, practically everything they've tried to do shows them in a poor light. If we where to ever see anything approaching a transperant set of accounts it wouldnt surprise me in the slightest to discover more has been spent on the fiasco of trying to silence Mr Bennet than on activities targetted towards seraching for their lost child.

When a newspaper prints a potentally libellous article its because they've taken a commercial decision to do so. Back in the day a McCann headline could increase circulation by a million copies, so the odd half million in compensation is a reasonable price to pay. Mr Bennet isnt engaged in this campaign for commercial reasons. He's involved because he believes there's a miscarriage of justice.

He might be wrong, and if he is, I many others will be wrong too, but fear of being wrong shouldnt stop anyone from expressing an opinion. Clearly there's a right and wrong way of going about about it, but lets not forget, Mr Bennett can only use whatever tools he has available to broadcast his mesage. Unfortunately, at this point in time he doesnt have 2.5 million in publically donated fund to hire PR representation, nor has he been invited to share a settee with the likes of Oprah Winfey or Piers Morgan (although I suspect that day may arrive)

Posting a few leaflets, setting up a small website, and writing to a few MP's isnt harrasment, its expressing an opinion in a forthright manner. Lets not forget, he's not jumped to any conclusions that where not previously reached by the investigationg poice force. Retaining Carter Ruck to deal with such a problem is beyond disproportinate, and it reveals to me even more about the people involved in this disgraceful affair.

TheHare, I could not agree more.

TheHare wrote:

Kololi wrote:Please don't get me wrong. I do not like gagging orders, super injunctions and very little of the time our courts have to waste sorting out some civil law nonsenses. It seems to be a playground that only the very rich can enjoy and it makes our country a laughing stock. Be that as it may we are stuck with this legal system for the moment and if it is found that Mr Bennett did breach his undertaking he has to face the consequences.

Lets assume for a moment, that Mr Bennett is completely wrong. Lets assume that the McCann's are completely innocent of all involvement. Lets assume that their failure to cooperate with the police invetigation is simply down to the type of people they are. Lets assume that their friends are shallow selfish individuals with no wish to participate in an investigation to help find a missing child. Lets assume that the hiring of a bunch of incompetant, and in some cases criminal private investigators was down to bad luck. Lets assume that the McCann's just dont come across as honest or truthful people. Lets assume that hiring PR representation, and extradition lawyers was just a mistake. Lets assume that they where just unlucky in 1001 other aspects. Lets ignore direct contradictory statements, and lets assume there are rational explanations that we are unaware of.


At a push, I might actually accept all of the above.

Along comes Mr Bennett, who has probably been a royal pain in the rear. Mr Bennet has a reputation for attatching himself to similar cases, he has a reputation for tenacity, and he's attracting a reputation for actually being RIGHT !

However, lets assume he's 100% wrong.

It would seam to me that you could silence Mr Bennet simply by TELLING THE TRUTH. A clear unambigous recollection of events to set the record stright would go a long way to clear things up. However we have 1001 press releases by their clown Clarence Mitchell, we have the channel 4 mockumentary, we have a handfull of media inteviews with the McCann's and close family members, and we have the bewk. The often contradictory statements between those sources is what fuels the speculation. I'll give you an example, on 2 occasions the clown Mitchell has publically claimed that campaigns to generate potential leads has led to significant developments. On one one occassion it would not have have been possible to recieve leads via the website, as neither the email address given actually existed, and furthermore, the data capture forms on the site where non functional. Miraculously, the clown Mitchell claimed leads where being recieved. The same claim was made regarding the US hotlines set up by Halligan. We now know from Halligan, the company hosting the hotines, and even the bleedin McCann's themselves that noone was screening their calls. Another perfect example of Mitchell lying.

The easiest way of silencing critics is to tell the truth, the problem is, that version of the truth boxes you into a corner.

The alternative is to use significant amounts of publically donated monies, that was given to search for a missing child, to engage the UK's most expensive libel lawyers, in a fight, against a retired man, who posts his opinions on a tiny unknown forum out in cyberspace, and heads up an organisation with a handful of members. He's not running a national TV campaign. He's not chained himself to the railings of 10 downing street, he's not on TV day in day out and what little media attention he has recieved has tended to be biased, unfair, critical, and generally protray him in a poor light.

We have newspapers who printed the most outragous stories about the McCann's. There are probably anti McCann websites who attract significantly more traffic than Mr Bennets website, Sky and the BBC released numerous stories to audiences of 10's of millions, and yet, these organisations are not being targetted.

Lets go one stage futher, lets assume that Mr Bennet know that the McCann's are innoccent, but he's engaged in a campaign, not out of genuine belief that there's an injustice, but simply out of spite, or bordom, or because he's a genuinely evil man. Even if that the case, why is it acceptable that the McCann's can employ profesional PR agent to lie and spin their verion of events via the national media (and without a shadow of a doubt direct lies have been told by the McCann family, Mitchell, McVey, McGuiness etc), and yet Mr Bennett isnt permitted to do similar in a far smaller way. I didint agree with the leafletting at Rothley, and I dont 100% agree with some of the stuff in 10/60 reasons etc, but broadly, he's absolutely right.

The McCann's actions are disproportiate. Who in there position, would employ legal council (at god knows what hourly rate) to trawl through posts at a variety of obscure forums, with limited readership, in the hope of finding something they could sue for ? That response is disproportianate. The cloak and dagger antics of Mike Gunhill are imature playground tactics, and frankly, beyond belief.

I have a specific interest in this case, and I proactively seek out information, its a sad, but probably true that most people forgot about the case years ago, exactly who is supposed to be reading Mr Bennet comments ?. To suggest that a few post, read by relatively few people, and which are so borderline in their content that it requires the intervention of a high court judge to decide if they are libelous or not, is hampering the search is absolutely ludicrous.

I'd be pretty annoyed if I found myself on the end of one of Mr Bennets camapigns (particularly if guilty), but the McCann's response in this case is totally disproportianate. Sending lawyers in a stretch limo for christs sake to deliver papers. Its intimidation, and its going to back fire.

Since day one, practically everything they've tried to do shows them in a poor light. If we where to ever see anything approaching a transperant set of accounts it wouldnt surprise me in the slightest to discover more has been spent on the fiasco of trying to silence Mr Bennet than on activities targetted towards seraching for their lost child.

When a newspaper prints a potentally libellous article its because they've taken a commercial decision to do so. Back in the day a McCann headline could increase circulation by a million copies, so the odd half million in compensation is a reasonable price to pay. Mr Bennet isnt engaged in this campaign for commercial reasons. He's involved because he believes there's a miscarriage of justice.

He might be wrong, and if he is, I many others will be wrong too, but fear of being wrong shouldnt stop anyone from expressing an opinion. Clearly there's a right and wrong way of going about about it, but lets not forget, Mr Bennett can only use whatever tools he has available to broadcast his mesage. Unfortunately, at this point in time he doesnt have 2.5 million in publically donated fund to hire PR representation, nor has he been invited to share a settee with the likes of Oprah Winfey or Piers Morgan (although I suspect that day may arrive)

Posting a few leaflets, setting up a small website, and writing to a few MP's isnt harrasment, its expressing an opinion in a forthright manner. Lets not forget, he's not jumped to any conclusions that where not previously reached by the investigationg poice force. Retaining Carter Ruck to deal with such a problem is beyond disproportinate, and it reveals to me even more about the people involved in this disgraceful affair.

Excellent post TheHare I've quoted it again. Well written, and well said!

Well done indeed The Hare. Carter-Ruck I really hope for once that you are reading and digesting everything that is said on this site. The words sledge hammer and nut come to mind here.

beejay wrote:I'm not a solicitor but one would have thought that the Court would take into consideration the circumstances in which the undertaking was breached.

In this case, the motive of Mr Gunnill in seeking the leaflet should be explored - if he was paid for the job to entrap Tony by hounding him with requests and obfuscating his true motives (financial gain) then Tony's actions could be construed as an honourable mistake and not a deliberate breach.

If it should also transpire that C-R or an intermediary paid Gunnill for these services then again, it shows bad faith.

As Tony had to obtain the leaflet from a relative also indicates that he was not actively engaged in its distribution and the nominal £5 charge shows it was not for financial reward.

Frankly, if that is No 1 on their charge list one would hope that Tony may find some sympathy with the Court.

Good luck fella

I'm not a lawyer either, but common sense would suggest that if indeed the motivation for the entrapment originated from somewhere within TM then surely it would be they that were holding the court in contempt with their original submission. If the purpose was to stop 'hurtful' allegations being made, subsequently provoking the repetition of those allegations would be making a farce of the whole process.

Jean wrote:Apologies if I have misunderstood your post Kololi but are you saying that Mike Gunnill obtained the booklet not directly from Tony Bennett but indirectly from a woman with a name like Sym?

I have no idea who that might be and it certainly does not tally with Tony's account or even that of Mike Gunnill.

No Jean, I am not saying that.

Mr Bennett supplied Mr Gunnill with the leaflet as Mr Bennett honestly admits.

The lady called Sym, or whatever it was, was a poster here too when Jill first set this site up and if my recall serves me right, Mr Bennett supplied her with leaflets for her to sell on his behalf. Blimey there was an almighty furor going on at the time about it with emails being posted showing this. The threads may even still be here somewhere.

Hope that is clearer and apologies if I confused you.

It would be wonderful if a few of our journalists could write a similar piece to yours, TheHare! We are in dire need of a counterbalance to the McCanns and their paid mouthpiece who have lead a woefully uninformed British public by the nose these past nearly five years.

Let's hope 2012 marks the end of the McCanns malignant reign of threats and spin; and may the truth emerge re their bizarre version of events which makes not one jot of sense, and has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese.


Very well said TheHare!

TheHare wrote:

Kololi wrote:Please don't get me wrong. I do not like gagging orders, super injunctions and very little of the time our courts have to waste sorting out some civil law nonsenses. It seems to be a playground that only the very rich can enjoy and it makes our country a laughing stock. Be that as it may we are stuck with this legal system for the moment and if it is found that Mr Bennett did breach his undertaking he has to face the consequences.

Lets assume for a moment, that Mr Bennett is completely wrong. Lets assume that the McCann's are completely innocent of all involvement. Lets assume that their failure to cooperate with the police invetigation is simply down to the type of people they are. Lets assume that their friends are shallow selfish individuals with no wish to participate in an investigation to help find a missing child. Lets assume that the hiring of a bunch of incompetant, and in some cases criminal private investigators was down to bad luck. Lets assume that the McCann's just dont come across as honest or truthful people. Lets assume that hiring PR representation, and extradition lawyers was just a mistake. Lets assume that they where just unlucky in 1001 other aspects. Lets ignore direct contradictory statements, and lets assume there are rational explanations that we are unaware of.

At a push, I might actually accept all of the above.

Along comes Mr Bennett, who has probably been a royal pain in the rear. Mr Bennet has a reputation for attatching himself to similar cases, he has a reputation for tenacity, and he's attracting a reputation for actually being RIGHT !

However, lets assume he's 100% wrong.

It would seam to me that you could silence Mr Bennet simply by TELLING THE TRUTH. A clear unambigous recollection of events to set the record stright would go a long way to clear things up. However we have 1001 press releases by their clown Clarence Mitchell, we have the channel 4 mockumentary, we have a handfull of media inteviews with the McCann's and close family members, and we have the bewk. The often contradictory statements between those sources is what fuels the speculation. I'll give you an example, on 2 occasions the clown Mitchell has publically claimed that campaigns to generate potential leads has led to significant developments. On one one occassion it would not have have been possible to recieve leads via the website, as neither the email address given actually existed, and furthermore, the data capture forms on the site where non functional. Miraculously, the clown Mitchell claimed leads where being recieved. The same claim was made regarding the US hotlines set up by Halligan. We now know from Halligan, the company hosting the hotines, and even the bleedin McCann's themselves that noone was screening their calls. Another perfect example of Mitchell lying.

The easiest way of silencing critics is to tell the truth, the problem is, that version of the truth boxes you into a corner.

The alternative is to use significant amounts of publically donated monies, that was given to search for a missing child, to engage the UK's most expensive libel lawyers, in a fight, against a retired man, who posts his opinions on a tiny unknown forum out in cyberspace, and heads up an organisation with a handful of members. He's not running a national TV campaign. He's not chained himself to the railings of 10 downing street, he's not on TV day in day out and what little media attention he has recieved has tended to be biased, unfair, critical, and generally protray him in a poor light.

We have newspapers who printed the most outragous stories about the McCann's. There are probably anti McCann websites who attract significantly more traffic than Mr Bennets website, Sky and the BBC released numerous stories to audiences of 10's of millions, and yet, these organisations are not being targetted.

Lets go one stage futher, lets assume that Mr Bennet know that the McCann's are innoccent, but he's engaged in a campaign, not out of genuine belief that there's an injustice, but simply out of spite, or bordom, or because he's a genuinely evil man. Even if that the case, why is it acceptable that the McCann's can employ profesional PR agent to lie and spin their verion of events via the national media (and without a shadow of a doubt direct lies have been told by the McCann family, Mitchell, McVey, McGuiness etc), and yet Mr Bennett isnt permitted to do similar in a far smaller way. I didint agree with the leafletting at Rothley, and I dont 100% agree with some of the stuff in 10/60 reasons etc, but broadly, he's absolutely right.

The McCann's actions are disproportiate. Who in there position, would employ legal council (at god knows what hourly rate) to trawl through posts at a variety of obscure forums, with limited readership, in the hope of finding something they could sue for ? That response is disproportianate. The cloak and dagger antics of Mike Gunhill are imature playground tactics, and frankly, beyond belief.

I have a specific interest in this case, and I proactively seek out information, its a sad, but probably true that most people forgot about the case years ago, exactly who is supposed to be reading Mr Bennet comments ?. To suggest that a few post, read by relatively few people, and which are so borderline in their content that it requires the intervention of a high court judge to decide if they are libelous or not, is hampering the search is absolutely ludicrous.

I'd be pretty annoyed if I found myself on the end of one of Mr Bennets camapigns (particularly if guilty), but the McCann's response in this case is totally disproportianate. Sending lawyers in a stretch limo for christs sake to deliver papers. Its intimidation, and its going to back fire.

Since day one, practically everything they've tried to do shows them in a poor light. If we where to ever see anything approaching a transperant set of accounts it wouldnt surprise me in the slightest to discover more has been spent on the fiasco of trying to silence Mr Bennet than on activities targetted towards seraching for their lost child.

When a newspaper prints a potentally libellous article its because they've taken a commercial decision to do so. Back in the day a McCann headline could increase circulation by a million copies, so the odd half million in compensation is a reasonable price to pay. Mr Bennet isnt engaged in this campaign for commercial reasons. He's involved because he believes there's a miscarriage of justice.

He might be wrong, and if he is, I many others will be wrong too, but fear of being wrong shouldnt stop anyone from expressing an opinion. Clearly there's a right and wrong way of going about about it, but lets not forget, Mr Bennett can only use whatever tools he has available to broadcast his mesage. Unfortunately, at this point in time he doesnt have 2.5 million in publically donated fund to hire PR representation, nor has he been invited to share a settee with the likes of Oprah Winfey or Piers Morgan (although I suspect that day may arrive)

Posting a few leaflets, setting up a small website, and writing to a few MP's isnt harrasment, its expressing an opinion in a forthright manner. Lets not forget, he's not jumped to any conclusions that where not previously reached by the investigationg poice force. Retaining Carter Ruck to deal with such a problem is beyond disproportinate, and it reveals to me even more about the people involved in this disgraceful affair.

I couldn't agree more with quite a bit of what you say Hare. The Mr Gunnil thing, however, isn't to do with searching for Madeleine McCann or "the truth" of what happened to her. It is to do with the plain simple fact that somebody agreed to not sell anymore of a particular leaflet and he then got caught selling one. By fair means or foul he was tempted to breach his undertaking.

Mr Bennett puts his hand up and admits this and whatever colours you paint his reasons for doing so in, the bottom line is the justice system is now calling him to account for it.

I personally do not think any of us here are damaging the search for this child but to agree to something in court that you later breach is likely to get you in hot water and Mr Bennett knew that when he sold that leaflet more than most here would because of his background in law. Heck if he really thought this guy asking for the leaflet wanted it genuinely for historical purposes why on earth didn't he write to the court to check out if he could give him a leaflet before doing so? I know he was tricked but I am surprised that he didn't see it coming tbh and being tricked isn't really a defence.

Kololi wrote: It is to do with the plain simple fact that somebody agreed to not sell anymore of a particular leaflet and he then got caught selling one. By fair means or foul he was tempted to breach his undertaking.

Is it really that simple? If a party goes to court to prevent distribution of a leaflet then through a proxy actively seeks to distribute that same leaflet, would they not be holding the whole process in contempt? Context, particularly Gunnils' motivation is a key element here I would have thought.

Ross wrote:

Kololi wrote: It is to do with the plain simple fact that somebody agreed to not sell anymore of a particular leaflet and he then got caught selling one. By fair means or foul he was tempted to breach his undertaking.

Is it really that simple? If a party goes to court to prevent distribution of a leaflet then through a proxy actively seeks to distribute that same leaflet, would they not be holding the whole process in contempt? Context, particularly Gunnils' motivation is a key element here I would have thought.

I haven't got a clue about that Ross but is there legitimate proof that the McCann's actually hired Mr Gunnill to tempt Mr Bennett or did Mr Gunnill do it off his own back and then approach the McCann's or their solicitors once he obtained the leaflet?

Kololi wrote:

Ross wrote:

Kololi wrote: It is to do with the plain simple fact that somebody agreed to not sell anymore of a particular leaflet and he then got caught selling one. By fair means or foul he was tempted to breach his undertaking.

Is it really that simple? If a party goes to court to prevent distribution of a leaflet then through a proxy actively seeks to distribute that same leaflet, would they not be holding the whole process in contempt? Context, particularly Gunnils' motivation is a key element here I would have thought.

I haven't got a clue about that Ross but is there legitimate proof that the McCann's actually hired Mr Gunnill to tempt Mr Bennett or did Mr Gunnill do it off his own back and then approach the McCann's or their solicitors once he obtained the leaflet?

No proof as far as I am aware, but considering the lengths Gunnil went to to provoke a breach of the undertaking I would hope the court would be interested in determining why he did so, and whether there was any such link back to the original claimants.

Ross wrote:

Kololi wrote: It is to do with the plain simple fact that somebody agreed to not sell anymore of a particular leaflet and he then got caught selling one. By fair means or foul he was tempted to breach his undertaking.

Is it really that simple? If a party goes to court to prevent distribution of a leaflet then through a proxy actively seeks to distribute that same leaflet, would they not be holding the whole process in contempt? Context, particularly Gunnils' motivation is a key element here I would have thought.

Well spotted Ross, that is an extremely valid point as it clearly shows that he was being set-up.

Indeed.

Why oh why Mr Bennett didn't just tell him and anybody else who was asking for leaflets at the time to bugger off is beyond me - perhaps I am too suspicious and always too eager to put my hand up if I do wrong.



Stella it proves nothing of the sort. We are all adults responsible for our own actions and we shouldn't be blaming others as an excuse for doing wrong. Even if the McCanns did employ him to do this Mr Bennett was in control of his own decisions. Goodness if Mr Gunnill had asked him to pose naked against the gates of Buck House whilst whistling Dixie "for historical purposes" would he have done it???

Kololi wrote: Even if the McCanns did employ him to do this Mr Bennett was in control of his own decisions.

We're not talking about a breach of law, but a possible contempt of court. This allows the judge great latitude in deciding whether contempt has occurred, and he may decide that under the circumstances a greater contempt of the process was behind it all.

Kololi, there is a big difference between actively distributing something to the masses, disregarding promises and supplying something just the once, on the basis of an individuals own personal research, which after some trouble obtaining it, he did.

Ross wrote:

Kololi wrote: Even if the McCanns did employ him to do this Mr Bennett was in control of his own decisions.

We're not talking about a breach of law, but a possible contempt of court. This allows the judge great latitude in deciding whether contempt has occurred, and he may decide that under the circumstances a greater contempt of the process was behind it all.

Precisely Ross. He was not distributing it as in handing it out off his own back, he was assisting someone allegedly to do research.

And if we want to split hairs. One shows intent, the other does not.

Nice one stella, and Ross
Is 'intent' the critical angle that the courts would be looking for here ? or just the breach ?

I have no idea bobbin, I'm not from a legal background, but even I can see that.

Stella wrote:And if we want to split hairs. One shows intent, the other does not.

We are looking at the mens rea now?

Mr Bennett owns up to actively having to track a leaflet down with the intention of supplying it to Peter Pumkin, or Dolly Daydream or whatever name Mike Gunnill was using, in exchange for money.

I see intention to sell a leaflet there and that's not including the intention (that was plastered all over this forum and others at the time) to supply a load more to Sym so that she could sell them on his behalf.