Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Kololi on Sun Feb 19, 2012 8:11 am

"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."

This is an odd one. It was really quite difficult to understand what he actually said at the time so I guess it came down to viewers thoughts entirely as to what they thought they heard him say on t.v. You mention that "parts of this email libelled them". I am guessing that the email is one of the documents that you have pulled so it is not readable in its entirety anymore?

Edited as the type size seems to have shrunk and refuses to get bigger again. If it doesn't "grow" this time then apologies to those who need to squint to read it!!

garfy on Sun Feb 19, 2012 8:16 am

this is the case go for the minority ..[who can harm them the most] not the majority ...who do not believe n the abduction scenario...they aways want to be seen as the victims...and try and draw the sympathy for themselves from as many people they can ..so they have to destroy the ones who can do them the most damage..

they betrayed maddie as parents ...they betrayed her trust to keep her safe ...they didnt and fgs abduction or not ...do they honistly believe they should not be questioned on anything....their is not one bit of proof [apart from propaganda]...that maddie was abducted ....so why the hell should the public not be allowed an opinion...

Tony you and others are a very big thorn in their sides.the ones they need silencing ....not for maddie ...for themselves....imo ..the less that comes out ...the better it is for them ...[if the case is reported by the media]

tony you was in a position to do something ...AND YOU DID ...i for one am proud like many many more ..to be on your side ...and believe in what you are doing to be right x

Kololi on Sun Feb 19, 2012 8:19 am

"they betrayed maddie as parents ...they betrayed her trust to keep her safe ...they didnt and fgs abduction or not ...do they honistly believe they should not be questioned on anything....their is not one bit of proof [apart from propaganda]...that maddie was abducted ....so why the hell should the public not be allowed an opinion..."

Well said.

aiyoyo on Sun Feb 19, 2012 8:43 am

Tony Bennett wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
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? 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?

In that case, shouldn't every tweet and YouTube video that is anti-McCanns be taken to task? Or just TB?
This point made by 'happychick' and 'aiyoyo' goes close to the heart of this case.

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.

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)
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.

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".

Ribisi wrote:Tony, how can we help?
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.

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.

[quote='listener"]Which of the 50 facts are a problem? Have any 'facts' been proved to be wrong?

I don't know. Maybe we will all find out at the trial.[/quote]

The point is:
data about the mccanns case is widely available on the internet to anyone who cares to google.
The answers to people's questions about the case is only one-mouse-click away.

For example if one were to google : "Is Maddie really abducted?" then all manner of answers come up on various sites,web engines (even Yahoo), and online press and media websites, including answers of those who think she is dead and the parents involved, including data about Gaspars' statement, WOC, Tavares De Almedia's report, Martin Grimes and dogs, etc etc...and 48 questions they refused to answer et al and more.

All these data are readily available to anyone to compile or collate if they so wish, who is to say people cant collate them or that it is against the law to collate them. In that case, shouldn't the mccanns take out a blanket super duper injunction prohibiting search engines, websites including those belonging to Press and Media, from displaying such data; prohibiting also police websites and profiler websites - all inclusive, no one entity is excepted, from displaying data about their case or people from having opinion about their case.

For example, excerpts of Tavares de Almedia's report was included in a video produced on youtube by HiDeHo if I am not wrong, so that is available on youtube for anyone who cares to click the mouse (so to speak).

Take for example, if I were to google "Are the mccanns involved in their daughter's disappearance" can anyone guess what will come up?
If I were to google: "Maddie's Mystery" or for example "Mccanns private detectives" - guess what will come up

The mccanns and their lawyers should try it (google) and see for themselves; they will be surprised what data are out there on the cyberspace library, and it's not always filed only in the forum or blog section. Answers can come from other sections.

aiyoyo on Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:03 am

Kololi wrote: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. No difference from those hacking for a story then? and where does that leave the offenders?
In fact what MG did was even worst - he knew TB undertook an undertaking yet he tricked him to breach just for his personal gain in the pocket! That is beyond dishonest - that is a crime I believe. If TB were rich like the mccanns MG will be sued to be committed to HM prison. 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.

Kololi,
I dont think you are being fair at all. You are not comparing like for like. It leaves me wondering what is your point?
How can organisation's failings on big scale compared to TB's kind deed to help a so claimed "researcher" from getting hold of a booklet for research purpose? At most, TB's action can be see as doing the "researcher" a favour.

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.

garfy on Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:40 am

thanks Kololi

one of the crucial reasons the mcs always give ..[when anyone publicly dares to not believe the abduction]...is it hinders or stops people searching for maddie...

now what damage then must these supposed sightings do ...[so far fetched ]..like comming forward after x amount years ..never one of them approaching who had her or causing a fuss...

to me that would be the worst hindrance of the search for maddie......yet it is always given full blown publicity ...often contacting press first .....[for warning so called abductor].....imo it obvious they are blatantly disrupting the search ..yet because it backs up or fits with what the mccs say ...it ok..........this is what is so wrong ...the mccs version has to be the only one ...even with not one shred of truth ....they are allowed to make the money [for expensive lawyers] to steam roller any one who tries to get in there way...

its always been one sided ....and every story has two...

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath on Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:45 am

[quote="Kololi"]"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."

This is an odd one. It was really quite difficult to understand what he actually said at the time so I guess it came down to viewers thoughts entirely as to what they thought they heard him say on t.v. You mention that "parts of this email libelled them". I am guessing that the email is one of the documents that you have pulled so it is not readable in its entirety anymore?
/quote]

This "heinous offence" puzzles me as it has been acknowledged that Sr Amaral did not swear - see the earlier topic http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2766-bbc-east-midlands-admits-mr-amaral-didn-t-swear?highlight=didn+t+swear

Surely this alleged crime against humanity can no longer re regarded as such?

tigger on Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:47 am

No expert on libel law but CR - apart from their first 3 possibly - seem to be scraping the barrel re offenses. Only makes me wonder what the other 128 were like, no doubt the same thought will occur to the judge.

Kololi on Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:06 am

Aiyoyo I understand your point re: apples and pears and accept that.

I mentioned the care home scandals etc however, purely to show that it happens and when it does happen and it is something that Joe Public considers wrong, ie the abuse of vulnerable people, we applaud it. We do not condemn the use of sneaky tactics then. Hacking is not the same in my opinion but I respect that you feel that it is.

The guy probably guessed that if he contacted Mr Bennett as himself he was unlikely to get his "scoop" so maybe he resorted to underhand tactics. Big deal because at the end of the day his request could have been refused. If he had pretended to be Prince Philip, surely having agreed to the undertaking you would check out his credentials first because there is too much to lose if you get it wrong.

I have already eaten humble pie on this matter and will happily eat as much more as I need to, if indeed I do need to. The Judge may well think Mr Gunnill is a scheming little monkey and may look favourably at Mr Bennett's reasons for selling to him - good luck to Mr Bennett if he does. Maybe it is my upbringing Aiyoyo but my own sense of right and wrong tells me that you do not under any circumstances whatsover show your backside to an English court and say "kiss that". I imagine that if I had been wearing Mr Bennett's shoes that day I would have probably have contacted the courts or a legal advisor and explained the request that had been made to me and checked out first whether I would be in any breach of my undertaking if I did give the guy a book. All above board then and transparent and not a form of flicking a v at the courts becuase I thought I would get away with it.

I am probably being very moralistic about this and apologies to whoever that may offend but, let's not forget, I have also been pretty moralistic when stating that I think by leaving their children alone that night the McCanns were more than a tadge neglectful and nobody has criticised me here for that. We shouldn't cherry pick - in my humble opinion the McCanns were wrong that night but equally, so was Mr Bennett for selling that book and for instigating the sale of others via Sym or whatever she was called as we were led to believe that he did at the time.

Nina on Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:18 am

Was TB "selling" the booklet or was the 5 pounds for refunding the postage and packing from the person he got the second hand booklet from?