Portal
Home
Register
Log inMcCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Welcome :: Carter-Ruck / McCanns / Amaral / Bennett / Smethurst / Kennedy Libel Trials and Lawsuits
Page 1 of 26 • Share •
Page 1 of 26 • 1, 2, 3 ... 13 ... 26 
McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
Tony Bennett on Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:18 pm
A process server arrived this morning with the latest parcel from Carter-Ruck, this time containing another 400-odd pages and setting out the 25 'most serious' alleged breaches of my undertakings (instead of the 153 I received on 1 December, along with five bundles and 2,000 pages). The new list of '25 serious breaches' is below.
The new committal bundle should have been served on me yesterday, but as I was out all day with my brother and his wife looking for care homes for our mother, I can't blame them for being a day late.
I didn't get a limousine with two people bringing me the parcel this time, just one bloke with an Audi.
Maybe there is a tariff for this sort of thing:
5 bundles - limousine and 2 blokes needed
1 large bundle - bloke with Merc or Audi needed
1 small bundle or letter - bloke with Ford Fiesta.
He was a nice bloke - recognised me from being on TV over the Michael Barrymore-death of Stuart Lubbock case. I ended up giving him a copy of my book to read, he said he'd bring it back to me.
We got talking about elderly relatives. He had had to place his father in a care home. He had carefully chosen the BUPA care home in Chelmsford. Sadly, three weeks and one day later, his father was dead. He had fallen out of bed in the middle of the night because there was no guard on the side of the bed. 'We probably could have sued them', he sighed, clearly still sad that so soon after placing him in what he thought was the best care home in the area, he was no more.
Mike Gunnill
My raising the subject before Mr Justice Tugendhat of Mike Gunnill's actions in deliberately entrapping me into selling one book has prompted a swift reaction from Carter-Ruck and Mike Gunnill (still a member of this forum I believe). For on Wednesday 15 February he attended his local solcitors, Beckett Solictors in Rainham, Kent, to swear an Affidavit setting out the circumstances in which he first lied about being Michael Sangerete, and then lied again about neeeding a copy of '60 Reasons' for the purposes of 'historical interest'.
The Affidavit itself is 7 pages long and consists of 26 paragraphs, but as either Carter-Ruck or Gunnill hmself or his solicitors advised him to include a photocopy of the whole of '60 Reasons' and photocopies of e-mail message and posts from this very forum, his Affidavit plus Exhibits ran to a hefty 61 pages.
In paragraphs 12-17 of his Affidavit, Gunnill explains why he schemed to try to get a booklet from me. Here is his account, in his own words - verbatim:
"Hav[ing] previously covered the story, I thought that the Sunday Express might be interested in reporting on it further, if it...turned out that the Defendant wasn't complying with his undertakings. I should mention that while I am a photo journalist, I also write articles occasionally and/or pitch ideas for articles to newspapers. If a newspaper decides to publish an article which I've suggested, I will be paid a commission both for the original idea and if any photographs of mine are used to illustrate it.
"I spoke to my contacts at the Sunday Express, who confirmed that they would consider publishing another articles if I could obtain a copy of the '60 Reasons' boklet from the Defendant in order to prove that he was breaching the undertaking.
"I therefore emailed the Defendant in January 2010, using the pseudonym 'Michael Sangerte', requesting a copy of the '60 Reasons' booklet. Given the use of my photograph in the original Sunday Express article...I thought it extremely unlikely that the Defendant would agree to sell me the '60 Reasons' booklet if I wrote in my own name, hence my use of a pseudonym.
"As can be seen, the Defendant was initialily reluctant to sell me the '60 Reasons' boolket because of the undertaking he had given...However, when I pressed the Defendant further, he confirmed he had been able to locate a copy...
"I inforned by my contact at the Sunday Express that I had been able to obatin a copy of the '60 Reasons' booklet from the Defendant. My contact told me the newspaper wished to consdier a possible article at their 11am editorial conference, so they sent a courier round to my house to collect [the] package which I had received from the Defendant, together with my summary for a proposed article, first thing in the moning. I was curious to see if I could get the Defendant to admit publicly that he had been breaching his undetakings..."
So, to put it in a nutshell, this member of our forum, Mike Gunnill, tried to get me to break a High Court undertaking, and potentially get me into serious trouble, just in order to make a grubby few tenners. Or so he says.
Well, he will have to be produced as a witness now at the trial - and I shall have more than a few questions for him in cross-examiantion.
The documents I received were also remarkable for a 19-page Affidavit from Carter-Ruck Partner Isabel Hudson, who in 100-plus paragraphs, sub-paragraphs and sub-sub-paragraphs, attempted to prove that I had either authored each publication in question, or at least consented to its publication on our website. This was a wholly unnecessary exercise, as in correspondence with Carter-Ruck I have always conceded authorship of all the postings and articles they have referred to, or at least in some cases to jointly consenting with Madeleine Foundation Committee members to publish them. My claim has always been simply that the right to circulate facts, freedom of speech, and the right to make fair comment if you have an 'honest belief' in the truth of what you are saying, have justified all the statements I have made about the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
What a waste of time and effort!
Here are the 25 'most serious' alleged breaches of my undertakings, but before that:
* Many thanks to all who have helped me so far in preparing my draft Affidavit of defence
* Many thanks to all of you who have registered your support for me, either here or by e-mail, 'phone or text
* And a special thanks to a lady called 'Mourena', of whom I have never heard before, but who sent me a very nice 'good luck' card and message - thank you Mourena, whererever you are.
Here's the revised list by which the McCanns hope I will be sent to prison or fined:
The 25 alleged beaches of undertaking that may send me to prison
The 25 alleged breaches of undertaking now pleaded in support of the application to commit me to prison may be summarised as follows. The breaches are numbered 1 to 25 as listed in Exhibit ‘IJH6’ at pages 1 to 10 of the new bundle, with the previous number for each given on brackets afterwards:
No. 1 (previously 1) Allegedly breaching an undertaking not to sell my book ‘60 Reasons’ by ‘selling’ a book to one Michael Sangerte. I told ‘Michale Sangerte’ that the book was no longer for sale. When Michael Sangerte said he required it because he claimed it would one day ‘be an important historical document’ for which he was ‘prepared to pay a high price’, I agreed to find a copy for him, and sent it to him in exchange for its normal previous price, £5 including postage. The buyer turned out to be Michael Gunnill of Upchurch, Kent, who had deliberately deceived me into selling a copy which otherwise I had absolutely no intention of doing.
No. 2 (previously No. 2) Publishing and selling the book ‘The Madeleine McCann Case Files: Volume 1’. It is claimed by the McCanns that this is libellous. The book is simply a compilation of 12 witness statements, police or expert reports, either in full or extracts from them, which were made public by the Portuguese Police 3½ years ago, in late 2008. So far as I am aware, the McCanns have not sued for libel either the Portuguese Police for publishing these documents, nor the authors of any of them, e.g. Dr Arul Gaspar, Dr Katarina Gaspar, Martin Grime and Inspector Tavares de Almedia. These various statements and reports have been published on numerous places on the internet and probably read by hundreds of thousands of people. So far as I am aware, the McCanns have not sued any of the website, forum or blog owners who have been carrying this material for the past 3½ years. I do not understand therefore the basis on which it is claimed that the contents of our book are libellous, if the McCanns have not sued any of the various authors and publishers of the material over the past 3½ years. IMPORTANT NOTE: Despite our publishing this book in January 2010, it was not until 1 December 2011 (when a limousine brought me the committal papers) that the McCanns first stated that they had any objection to this publication
No. 3 (previously No. 3) Sending to our members, supporters and contacts an email refuting the claims of the BBC that Goncalo Amaral had used the expression ‘F___ the McCanns’ outside the Lisbon Court in January 2010. The McCanns say that parts of this email libelled them.
Nos. 4 to 9 concern material published on The Madeleine Foundation website, as follows [IMPORTANT NOTE: Within 24 hours of our being notified by the McCanns of their objection to these six articles and five more on our website to which the McCanns objected, we removed them from our website].
No. 4 (previously No. 15) Publishing a copy of our letter to Home Secretary Theresa May on 4 July 2010 about the possibility of a ‘Review’ into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The McCanns say a part of that letter libelled them.
No. 5 (previously No. 18) Publishing an item ‘News from The Madeleine Foundation’ on 24 September 2010 which Mrs McCanns say included a libel of them. I am not at liberty to say what the contents of this letter were.
No. 6 (previously No. 27) Re-publishing in February 2011 in full an article by Barbara Nottage on the events of the evening of 3 May 2007 which we had previously substantially cut - a year earlier - at the request of the McCanns. The reason we reinstated the article in full was because a few weeks earlier the McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell had admitted that the abduction of Madeleine was not a fact but only an ‘assumption’ or ‘working hypothesis’.
No. 7 (previously No. 32) Publishing a copy of our letter to Prime Minister David Cameron sent on 18 May 2011 about the remit of the ‘Review’ ordered by David Cameron into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The McCanns say parts of that letter libelled them. I am not at liberty to say what the contents of this letter were.
No. 8 (previously No. 34) Publishing a letter I sent to Carter-Ruck on 8 June 2011.
No. 9 (previously No. 36) Publishing a copy of our letter to Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, Head of the Scotland Yard Review Team, sent on 11 July 2011 about the remit of the ‘Review’ ordered by David Cameron into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The McCanns say parts of that letter libelled them. I am not at liberty to say what the contents of this letter were.
Nos. 10 to 23 inclusive concern 14 postings on the forum ‘Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann’. [IMPORTANT NOTE: Within 24 hours of our being notified by the McCanns of their objection to these 14 and around 26 other postings of mine on this forum to which the McCanns objected, I arranged their removal from that forum, except for the last three which were removed on being notified about them on 1 December 2011].
These are the dates of these postings:
No. 10 (previously No. 44) - 4 July 2010 (four messages)
No. 11 (previously No. 46) - 13 July 2010 (two messages giving a link to a YouTube video I made reading out the 48 questions that Dr Kate McCann refused to answer when she was pulled in for questioning on 7 September 2007). That video is considered by the McCanns to libel them, although that list of 48 questions can be read all over the internet including today on the BBC website
No. 12 (previously No. 48) - 24 July 2010 (two messages)
No. 13 (previously No. 51) - 2 January 2011
No. 14 (previously No. 64) - 16 April 2011, which refers to the ‘50 FACTS’ leaflet published by the Madeleine McCann Research Group, a document that the McCanns say libelled them
No. 15 (previously No. 72) - 2 May 2011 (two messages)
No. 16 (previously No. 79) - 14 May 2011
No. 17 (previously No. 87) - 22 June 2011 (two messages)
No. 18 (previously No. 90) - 7 July 2011
No. 19 (previously No. 97) - 20 July 2011
No. 20 (previously No. 108) - 3 August 2011
No. 21 (previously No. 109 - 18 August 2011
No. 22 (previously No. 118) - 7 September 2011
No. 23 (previously No. 130) - 1 November 2011
No. 24 (previously No. 140) A tweet on Twitter dated 7 July 2011 which referred to the report of Inspector Tavares de Almedia [NOTE: See also No. 2 above].
No. 25 (previously No. 147) Distributing the leaflet ‘50 FACTS’ in Cheshire, Lancashire and Flinshire.
The new committal bundle should have been served on me yesterday, but as I was out all day with my brother and his wife looking for care homes for our mother, I can't blame them for being a day late.
I didn't get a limousine with two people bringing me the parcel this time, just one bloke with an Audi.
Maybe there is a tariff for this sort of thing:
5 bundles - limousine and 2 blokes needed
1 large bundle - bloke with Merc or Audi needed
1 small bundle or letter - bloke with Ford Fiesta.
He was a nice bloke - recognised me from being on TV over the Michael Barrymore-death of Stuart Lubbock case. I ended up giving him a copy of my book to read, he said he'd bring it back to me.
We got talking about elderly relatives. He had had to place his father in a care home. He had carefully chosen the BUPA care home in Chelmsford. Sadly, three weeks and one day later, his father was dead. He had fallen out of bed in the middle of the night because there was no guard on the side of the bed. 'We probably could have sued them', he sighed, clearly still sad that so soon after placing him in what he thought was the best care home in the area, he was no more.
Mike Gunnill
My raising the subject before Mr Justice Tugendhat of Mike Gunnill's actions in deliberately entrapping me into selling one book has prompted a swift reaction from Carter-Ruck and Mike Gunnill (still a member of this forum I believe). For on Wednesday 15 February he attended his local solcitors, Beckett Solictors in Rainham, Kent, to swear an Affidavit setting out the circumstances in which he first lied about being Michael Sangerete, and then lied again about neeeding a copy of '60 Reasons' for the purposes of 'historical interest'.
The Affidavit itself is 7 pages long and consists of 26 paragraphs, but as either Carter-Ruck or Gunnill hmself or his solicitors advised him to include a photocopy of the whole of '60 Reasons' and photocopies of e-mail message and posts from this very forum, his Affidavit plus Exhibits ran to a hefty 61 pages.
In paragraphs 12-17 of his Affidavit, Gunnill explains why he schemed to try to get a booklet from me. Here is his account, in his own words - verbatim:
"Hav[ing] previously covered the story, I thought that the Sunday Express might be interested in reporting on it further, if it...turned out that the Defendant wasn't complying with his undertakings. I should mention that while I am a photo journalist, I also write articles occasionally and/or pitch ideas for articles to newspapers. If a newspaper decides to publish an article which I've suggested, I will be paid a commission both for the original idea and if any photographs of mine are used to illustrate it.
"I spoke to my contacts at the Sunday Express, who confirmed that they would consider publishing another articles if I could obtain a copy of the '60 Reasons' boklet from the Defendant in order to prove that he was breaching the undertaking.
"I therefore emailed the Defendant in January 2010, using the pseudonym 'Michael Sangerte', requesting a copy of the '60 Reasons' booklet. Given the use of my photograph in the original Sunday Express article...I thought it extremely unlikely that the Defendant would agree to sell me the '60 Reasons' booklet if I wrote in my own name, hence my use of a pseudonym.
"As can be seen, the Defendant was initialily reluctant to sell me the '60 Reasons' boolket because of the undertaking he had given...However, when I pressed the Defendant further, he confirmed he had been able to locate a copy...
"I inforned by my contact at the Sunday Express that I had been able to obatin a copy of the '60 Reasons' booklet from the Defendant. My contact told me the newspaper wished to consdier a possible article at their 11am editorial conference, so they sent a courier round to my house to collect [the] package which I had received from the Defendant, together with my summary for a proposed article, first thing in the moning. I was curious to see if I could get the Defendant to admit publicly that he had been breaching his undetakings..."
So, to put it in a nutshell, this member of our forum, Mike Gunnill, tried to get me to break a High Court undertaking, and potentially get me into serious trouble, just in order to make a grubby few tenners. Or so he says.
Well, he will have to be produced as a witness now at the trial - and I shall have more than a few questions for him in cross-examiantion.
The documents I received were also remarkable for a 19-page Affidavit from Carter-Ruck Partner Isabel Hudson, who in 100-plus paragraphs, sub-paragraphs and sub-sub-paragraphs, attempted to prove that I had either authored each publication in question, or at least consented to its publication on our website. This was a wholly unnecessary exercise, as in correspondence with Carter-Ruck I have always conceded authorship of all the postings and articles they have referred to, or at least in some cases to jointly consenting with Madeleine Foundation Committee members to publish them. My claim has always been simply that the right to circulate facts, freedom of speech, and the right to make fair comment if you have an 'honest belief' in the truth of what you are saying, have justified all the statements I have made about the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
What a waste of time and effort!
Here are the 25 'most serious' alleged breaches of my undertakings, but before that:
* Many thanks to all who have helped me so far in preparing my draft Affidavit of defence
* Many thanks to all of you who have registered your support for me, either here or by e-mail, 'phone or text
* And a special thanks to a lady called 'Mourena', of whom I have never heard before, but who sent me a very nice 'good luck' card and message - thank you Mourena, whererever you are.
Here's the revised list by which the McCanns hope I will be sent to prison or fined:
The 25 alleged beaches of undertaking that may send me to prison
The 25 alleged breaches of undertaking now pleaded in support of the application to commit me to prison may be summarised as follows. The breaches are numbered 1 to 25 as listed in Exhibit ‘IJH6’ at pages 1 to 10 of the new bundle, with the previous number for each given on brackets afterwards:
No. 1 (previously 1) Allegedly breaching an undertaking not to sell my book ‘60 Reasons’ by ‘selling’ a book to one Michael Sangerte. I told ‘Michale Sangerte’ that the book was no longer for sale. When Michael Sangerte said he required it because he claimed it would one day ‘be an important historical document’ for which he was ‘prepared to pay a high price’, I agreed to find a copy for him, and sent it to him in exchange for its normal previous price, £5 including postage. The buyer turned out to be Michael Gunnill of Upchurch, Kent, who had deliberately deceived me into selling a copy which otherwise I had absolutely no intention of doing.
No. 2 (previously No. 2) Publishing and selling the book ‘The Madeleine McCann Case Files: Volume 1’. It is claimed by the McCanns that this is libellous. The book is simply a compilation of 12 witness statements, police or expert reports, either in full or extracts from them, which were made public by the Portuguese Police 3½ years ago, in late 2008. So far as I am aware, the McCanns have not sued for libel either the Portuguese Police for publishing these documents, nor the authors of any of them, e.g. Dr Arul Gaspar, Dr Katarina Gaspar, Martin Grime and Inspector Tavares de Almedia. These various statements and reports have been published on numerous places on the internet and probably read by hundreds of thousands of people. So far as I am aware, the McCanns have not sued any of the website, forum or blog owners who have been carrying this material for the past 3½ years. I do not understand therefore the basis on which it is claimed that the contents of our book are libellous, if the McCanns have not sued any of the various authors and publishers of the material over the past 3½ years. IMPORTANT NOTE: Despite our publishing this book in January 2010, it was not until 1 December 2011 (when a limousine brought me the committal papers) that the McCanns first stated that they had any objection to this publication
No. 3 (previously No. 3) Sending to our members, supporters and contacts an email refuting the claims of the BBC that Goncalo Amaral had used the expression ‘F___ the McCanns’ outside the Lisbon Court in January 2010. The McCanns say that parts of this email libelled them.
Nos. 4 to 9 concern material published on The Madeleine Foundation website, as follows [IMPORTANT NOTE: Within 24 hours of our being notified by the McCanns of their objection to these six articles and five more on our website to which the McCanns objected, we removed them from our website].
No. 4 (previously No. 15) Publishing a copy of our letter to Home Secretary Theresa May on 4 July 2010 about the possibility of a ‘Review’ into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The McCanns say a part of that letter libelled them.
No. 5 (previously No. 18) Publishing an item ‘News from The Madeleine Foundation’ on 24 September 2010 which Mrs McCanns say included a libel of them. I am not at liberty to say what the contents of this letter were.
No. 6 (previously No. 27) Re-publishing in February 2011 in full an article by Barbara Nottage on the events of the evening of 3 May 2007 which we had previously substantially cut - a year earlier - at the request of the McCanns. The reason we reinstated the article in full was because a few weeks earlier the McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell had admitted that the abduction of Madeleine was not a fact but only an ‘assumption’ or ‘working hypothesis’.
No. 7 (previously No. 32) Publishing a copy of our letter to Prime Minister David Cameron sent on 18 May 2011 about the remit of the ‘Review’ ordered by David Cameron into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The McCanns say parts of that letter libelled them. I am not at liberty to say what the contents of this letter were.
No. 8 (previously No. 34) Publishing a letter I sent to Carter-Ruck on 8 June 2011.
No. 9 (previously No. 36) Publishing a copy of our letter to Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, Head of the Scotland Yard Review Team, sent on 11 July 2011 about the remit of the ‘Review’ ordered by David Cameron into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The McCanns say parts of that letter libelled them. I am not at liberty to say what the contents of this letter were.
Nos. 10 to 23 inclusive concern 14 postings on the forum ‘Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann’. [IMPORTANT NOTE: Within 24 hours of our being notified by the McCanns of their objection to these 14 and around 26 other postings of mine on this forum to which the McCanns objected, I arranged their removal from that forum, except for the last three which were removed on being notified about them on 1 December 2011].
These are the dates of these postings:
No. 10 (previously No. 44) - 4 July 2010 (four messages)
No. 11 (previously No. 46) - 13 July 2010 (two messages giving a link to a YouTube video I made reading out the 48 questions that Dr Kate McCann refused to answer when she was pulled in for questioning on 7 September 2007). That video is considered by the McCanns to libel them, although that list of 48 questions can be read all over the internet including today on the BBC website
No. 12 (previously No. 48) - 24 July 2010 (two messages)
No. 13 (previously No. 51) - 2 January 2011
No. 14 (previously No. 64) - 16 April 2011, which refers to the ‘50 FACTS’ leaflet published by the Madeleine McCann Research Group, a document that the McCanns say libelled them
No. 15 (previously No. 72) - 2 May 2011 (two messages)
No. 16 (previously No. 79) - 14 May 2011
No. 17 (previously No. 87) - 22 June 2011 (two messages)
No. 18 (previously No. 90) - 7 July 2011
No. 19 (previously No. 97) - 20 July 2011
No. 20 (previously No. 108) - 3 August 2011
No. 21 (previously No. 109 - 18 August 2011
No. 22 (previously No. 118) - 7 September 2011
No. 23 (previously No. 130) - 1 November 2011
No. 24 (previously No. 140) A tweet on Twitter dated 7 July 2011 which referred to the report of Inspector Tavares de Almedia [NOTE: See also No. 2 above].
No. 25 (previously No. 147) Distributing the leaflet ‘50 FACTS’ in Cheshire, Lancashire and Flinshire.
Last edited by Tony Bennett on Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:30 pm; edited 3 times in total
____________________
Tony Bennett- Posts: 5785
Join date: 2009-11-25
Age: 65
Location: Harlow, Essex
Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
happychick on Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:35 pm
No. 24 (previously No. 140) A tweet on Twitter dated 7 July 2011 which referred to the report of Inspector Tavares de Almedia [NOTE: See also No. 2 above].
A tweet which referred to the report of Inspector Tavares de Almedia?
You cannot be serious?They want you to go to prison because of a tweet?
Are they wanting other people to go to prison for tweeting? Or just you?
happychick- Posts: 335
Join date: 2011-06-14
Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
ShuBob on Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:01 pm
Preposterous!
Hope you are keeping safe Tony
Hope you are keeping safe Tony
ShuBob- Posts: 986
Join date: 2012-02-07
Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath on Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:59 pm
If someone was to use this as the plotline for a drama, it would be thought to be ridiculously far-fetched. Has nobody on Team McCann any shame? Okay, that's a silly question.
____________________
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.
Bertrand Russell
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath- Posts: 2893
Join date: 2011-03-27
Location: Over the hills and far away
Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
listener on Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:17 pm
Which of the 50 facts are a problem?
I have passed these 'facts' to interested parties. If I can't receive any more copies from source, can I make copies and continue to distribute? Have any 'facts' been proved to be wrong?
I have passed these 'facts' to interested parties. If I can't receive any more copies from source, can I make copies and continue to distribute? Have any 'facts' been proved to be wrong?
listener- Posts: 435
Join date: 2010-01-10
Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
Gillyspot on Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:25 pm
It would appear the McCann couples version of libel includes sharing official police statements questioning their movements at the time of the "abduction" and also the sharing of their own actions as evidenced in the police files.
Tony you need to share the relevant parts of the official files to the Judge to help prove your innocence of libel. (sorry bit like teaching grandmother to suck eggs I know but am wishing you the best and hoping justice will prevail)
Tony you need to share the relevant parts of the official files to the Judge to help prove your innocence of libel. (sorry bit like teaching grandmother to suck eggs I know but am wishing you the best and hoping justice will prevail)
____________________
Kate McCann "I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances"
Gillyspot- Posts: 1269
Join date: 2011-06-13
Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
Ribisl on Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:12 am
Tony, how can we help?
____________________
There is a taint of death, a flavour of mortality in lies... Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad
Ribisl- Posts: 740
Join date: 2012-02-04
Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
aiyoyo on Sun Feb 19, 2012 6:08 am
happychick wrote:No. 24 (previously No. 140) A tweet on Twitter dated 7 July 2011 which referred to the report of Inspector Tavares de Almedia [NOTE: See also No. 2 above].
A tweet which referred to the report of Inspector Tavares de Almedia?
They want you to go to prison because of a tweet?
Are they wanting other people to go to prison for tweeting? Or just you?
In that case, shouldn't every tweet and youtube that is anti-mccanns be taken to task? Or just TB?
If people can start looking up tweets and youtube those for use as exhibits in Court, then the Judge may want to know why the mccanns target only TB? Why didn't they sue the rest of them?
I'm sure I have seen Inspector Tavares de Almedia's report mentioned on youtube produced by HideHo if I am not wrong.
Good Luck Tony.
In his -self-damning affidavit Mike Gunnill has effectively admitted entrapment.
His ethics is worst than hacking, if not more illegal than hacking.
Surely it is a criminal act to entice TB to breach his undertaking just so that he can make a few bucks, and in the process seriously harming TB.
aiyoyo- Posts: 5209
Join date: 2009-11-28
A trial
Tony Bennett on Sun Feb 19, 2012 7:39 am
This point made by 'happychick' and 'aiyoyo' goes close to the heart of this case.aiyoyo wrote:happychick wrote:A tweet which referred to the report of Inspector Tavares de Almedia? You cannot be serious? They want you to go to prison because of a tweet? Are they wanting other people to go to prison for tweeting? Or just you?No. 24 (previously No. 140) A tweet on Twitter dated 7 July 2011 which referred to the report of Inspector Tavares de Almedia [NOTE: See also No. 2 above].
In that case, shouldn't every tweet and YouTube video that is anti-McCanns be taken to task? Or just TB?
There are 1,616 members of this forum. Only my posts are watched here regularly by Carter-Ruck. Only I risk prison if one of my posts crosses a certain threshold in the view of the McCanns and Carter-Ruck.
Dozens - maybe 100 or more - YouTube videos exist which are sceptical of the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted. The only one the McCanns are taking libel action about is one where I read out the 48 questions which Dr Kate McCann was asked by the Portuguese Police on 7 September 2007.
Numerous websites, forums and blogs carry copies of all the witness statements, expert opinions and police reports released by the Portuguese Police, including the report of Inspector Tavares de Almeida. Yet the only action being taken is to try to get me imprisoned for having published some of these in the book 'The Madeleine McCann Case Filles, Volume 1', and tweeting about one of those police reports.
Carter-Ruck themselves have copied the whole of 'The Madeleine McCann Case Files: Volume 1' for the judge ro read. This means that he will read, inter alia, the 48 questions that Dr Kate McCann did not answer, the full report of Inpector Tavares de Almeida, all the reports written by Matin Gtime and his rogatory interviews, and the witness statements of Dr Arul Gaspar and Dr Katarina Gaspar.Gillyspot wrote:Tony you need to share the relevant parts of the official files to the Judge to help prove your innocence of libel. (sorry bit like teaching grandmother to suck eggs I know but am wishing you the best and hoping justice will prevail)
It does feel as though I am being singled out for punishment. But then on page 290 of her book: 'madeleine', Dr Kate McCann did say: "[We] attempt to deal with the widespread defamatory material circulating on the internet. We have taken action against one or two websites...Friends flag up some o fthe worst offenders for us, but in the end it comes down to picking your battles".
There is a group of kind people who are helping with the drafting of my Affidavit of defence and who are researching particular aspects of this matter. Apart from that, it's always helpful to read what members here think about the committal-to-prison application; it helps me to prepare my defence.Ribisi wrote:Tony, how can we help?
For example, the quotes from 'happychick' and 'aiyoyo' make me think I should make more of the fact that there seems to be an incoming tide of scepticism about the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted, as judged e.g. by the number of new members joining here; it seems that the McCanns are powerless to control what 1,615 members here can say about the case (and what thousands more say elsewhere on the internet) yet can besiege me with bundles suggesting that I am so dangerous that I should be locked up.
I don't know. Maybe we will all find out at the trial.listener wrote:Which of the 50 facts are a problem? Have any 'facts' been proved to be wrong?
Last edited by Tony Bennett on Sun Feb 19, 2012 8:30 am; edited 1 time in total
____________________
Tony Bennett- Posts: 5785
Join date: 2009-11-25
Age: 65
Location: Harlow, Essex
Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
Kololi on Sun Feb 19, 2012 8:03 am
Mr Gunnill may have behaved sneakily but he might argue that he needed to "go under cover" in order to do his journalistic work in this instance. How many journalists have done the same thing for programmes such as Panorama in order to show the public the scandalous treatment that old or vulnerable people receive in care homes? It's applauded as good work when some dodgy builder gets shown on t.v. by Matt whatshisface to have scammed the little old lady out of her pension by re-roofing her whole roof when only one tile was missing.
The Judge has allowed Mr Bennett to call Mr Gunnill as a witness so let's hope that he can use that opportunity well. It will be interesting to see what proof there is that he did his sneakybeaky bit on behalf of the McCanns rather than for the reasons that he has stated in his affidavit.
As for the missing "cot sides". It used to be considered bad practice to use them as a confused older person is likely to cause more harm to themselves trying to climb over them if they try and get out of bed. I also have a sneaking suspicion that it was considered a form of restraint so was frowned upon. There are many other ways to nurse an older person safely without resorting to the use of "cot sides" but then care changes as research dictates so maybe they are back in fashion again.
The Judge has allowed Mr Bennett to call Mr Gunnill as a witness so let's hope that he can use that opportunity well. It will be interesting to see what proof there is that he did his sneakybeaky bit on behalf of the McCanns rather than for the reasons that he has stated in his affidavit.
As for the missing "cot sides". It used to be considered bad practice to use them as a confused older person is likely to cause more harm to themselves trying to climb over them if they try and get out of bed. I also have a sneaking suspicion that it was considered a form of restraint so was frowned upon. There are many other ways to nurse an older person safely without resorting to the use of "cot sides" but then care changes as research dictates so maybe they are back in fashion again.
Kololi- Posts: 677
Join date: 2010-01-10
Page 1 of 26 • 1, 2, 3 ... 13 ... 26
Similar topics» McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012
» 'Bennett was duped by the McCanns' - thentherewere4
» MCCANNS v BENNETT - The committal to prison trial will take place for 1 or 2 days, sometime in April or later
» TRIAL DATE McCanns v Bennett 9 & 10 May 2012
» VIDEO - Tony Bennett faces PRISON at the Request of the McCanns!
» 'Bennett was duped by the McCanns' - thentherewere4
» MCCANNS v BENNETT - The committal to prison trial will take place for 1 or 2 days, sometime in April or later
» TRIAL DATE McCanns v Bennett 9 & 10 May 2012
» VIDEO - Tony Bennett faces PRISON at the Request of the McCanns!
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Welcome :: Carter-Ruck / McCanns / Amaral / Bennett / Smethurst / Kennedy Libel Trials and Lawsuits
Page 1 of 26
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum