McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Page 10 of 11 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 9, 10, 11  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

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

Post  aquila on Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:54 am

@Gillyspot wrote:Were they stalling for time to get their "honeytrap" on Paiva finished or is it simply they are scared now to go back to Portugal because of the Scotland Yard and PJ work? I would imagine that if they go back to PT they could well be easily kept there if things are going as I hope.

and what affect does this have on the timing on the 'new-improved bewk' launch? they may well need to delay that.

aquila

Posts : 7705
Join date : 2011-09-03

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: UPDATE 12.3.12

Post  Tony Bennett on Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:09 am

I post this update in the McCanns -v- Bennett committal-to-prison application for information - but will be unable to take questions on it.

Following the Case Management hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat in the High Court on 8 February, I wrote on 13 February making proposals to Carter-Ruck for this matter to be settled without the need for what would undoubtedly be a stressful, and costly, High Court trial, now fixed for 9 and 10 May.

My proposals were not accepted.

Instead, Carter-Ruck replied on 20 February setting out the McCanns' terms for settling this matter before 9 May:

1. I admit that I have breached the undertakings given by me to the High Court on 25 November 2009

2. I formally acknowledge that these undertakings are binding on me

3. I agree to be bound by a Court injunction (instead of undertakings) in exactly the same terms as those I agreed to in 2009

4. That I 'use my best endeavours' to remove all publications, articles and postings by myself, wherever they are, to which the McCanns object, and specifically all of the 153 publications which they claimed in the original committal bundle on 1 December were breaches of one or more of my undertakings. That would include their demand that I cease to sell the book 'The Madeleine McCann Case Files: Vol 1'

5. I pay the McCanns' 'reasonable costs' of bringing the application, those costs to be assessed by the court if they cannot be agreed between me and the McCanns.

If all of that is agreed by me, they will, in return, agree not to press the court for me to be sent to prison, fined, or have my assets seized, although they point out (correctly) that despite any agreement between me and the McCanns, the court would have the right, if it saw fit, to impose any sanction that the judge saw fit to do so under the circumstances.

Carter-Ruck's letter (which by the way is not marked 'Private & Confidential' nor is it 'Without Prejudice') concludes:

"If you are not willing to agree to such terms, then our clients will be left with no choice but to pursue their application against you and to seek a final determination from the court".

HELP WANTED

I now have until Friday 23 March to submit to the Court and to Carter-Ruck a sworn Affidavit setting out in full my reasons for the application I issued at Court on 22 February to be released from Part C of my undertakings, namely that part which in effect required me not to libel the McCanns any further.

I have now completed a first draft of that.

I have one or two people advising me on the contents. If any of you here have some time during the next 5 days to look over the Affidavit (or a part of it, it's quite long), and offer comments and suggestions, please 'pm' me ASAP or e-mail me at: ajsbennett@btinternet.com

Once again, I'm sorry, but this posting is for information only, I won't be joining any discussion about it.

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13395
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 68
Location : Harlow, Essex

Back to top Go down

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

Post  Spaniel on Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:29 pm

How ruddy dare they!!

"Applications for an interim injunction are great fun (if you win), exhilarating, and the nearest legal equivalent to accident and emergency surgery" Quoted from the CR website.

There is no comparison in securing an interim injunction, to A&E theatre where the team is striving to save a life.

So they think working long hours on NHS pay, seeing things no one should have to, is fun?

Interesting? Yes. Rewarding? Of course. Fun it ain't!

For anyone able to stomach the overall feeling of "glee" in the piece, it makes for interesting reading.

http://www.carter-ruck.com/Media%20Law/publicationDetails.asp?ID=1

Spaniel

Posts : 743
Join date : 2012-01-24

Back to top Go down

Contempt of the portuguese Court

Post  Guest on Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:31 pm

@Gillyspot wrote:Were they stalling for time to get their "honeytrap" on Paiva finished or is it simply they are scared now to go back to Portugal because of the Scotland Yard and PJ work? I would imagine that if they go back to PT they could well be easily kept there if things are going as I hope.

Quite. After all, where are the 7500 books belonging to dr Amaral which they so far have failed to return?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post  david_uk on Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:44 pm

Dear Tony

Out of interest, what was the best you where expecting as a response from TM/CR ?.

Good luck whatever you decide. I personally hope you take it to court.

____________________
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave...when first we practice to deceive.”
Walter Scott, Marmion

david_uk

Posts : 320
Join date : 2012-01-20

Back to top Go down

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

Post  tiny on Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:30 pm

i personally hope you take them to court too, they are just trying to frighten you so THEY dont have to go to court,but you have to do whats right by you and your family.

tiny

Posts : 2274
Join date : 2010-02-03

Back to top Go down

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

Post  rainbow-fairy on Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:20 pm

I find the sheer cheek of this absolutely maddening;

Just my opinion of course, but if this is how the land lies then Tony has absolutely NOTHING to lose by fighting this but MUCH to gain. Don't let them intimidate you Tony. Seems to me they are running scared. The death throes are always the most violent.
Instead, Carter-Ruck replied on 20 February setting out the McCanns' terms for settling this matter before 9 May:

1. I admit that I have breached the undertakings given by me to the High Court on 25 November 2009

2. I formally acknowledge that these undertakings are binding on me

3. I agree to be bound by a Court injunction (instead of undertakings) in exactly the same terms as those I agreed to in 2009

4. That I 'use my best endeavours' to remove all publications, articles and postings by myself, wherever they are, to which the McCanns object, and specifically all of the 153 publications which they claimed in the original committal bundle on 1 December were breaches of one or more of my undertakings. That would include their demand that I cease to sell the book 'The Madeleine McCann Case Files: Vol 1'

5. I pay the McCanns' 'reasonable costs' of bringing the application, those costs to be assessed by the court if they cannot be agreed between me and the McCanns.


If all of that is agreed by me, they will, in return, agree not to press the court for me to be sent to prison, fined, or have my assets seized, although they point out (correctly) that despite any agreement between me and the McCanns, the court would have the right, if it saw fit, to impose any sanction that the judge saw fit to do so under the circumstances.

This sickens me beyond belief.
So what that says in a nutshell is that Tony MUST agree to be bound by court injunction to NEVER repeat, for example, the 48 questions Kate refused to answer - freely available on the BBC website, no less. He cannot say what you, I, or Uncle Tom Cobbley can freely repeat. He will be completely bound and gagged by the McCanns, and maybe be ordered to kiss their boots and crumple to their every demand and whim YET he can still be imprisoned anyway?

My God, please somebody stop these people. They are sick in the head!

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1970
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

Back to top Go down

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

Post  Guest on Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:06 pm

@rainbow-fairy wrote:I find the sheer cheek of this absolutely maddening;

Just my opinion of course, but if this is how the land lies then Tony has absolutely NOTHING to lose by fighting this but MUCH to gain. Don't let them intimidate you Tony. Seems to me they are running scared. The death throes are always the most violent.
Instead, Carter-Ruck replied on 20 February setting out the McCanns' terms for settling this matter before 9 May:

1. I admit that I have breached the undertakings given by me to the High Court on 25 November 2009

2. I formally acknowledge that these undertakings are binding on me

3. I agree to be bound by a Court injunction (instead of undertakings) in exactly the same terms as those I agreed to in 2009

4. That I 'use my best endeavours' to remove all publications, articles and postings by myself, wherever they are, to which the McCanns object, and specifically all of the 153 publications which they claimed in the original committal bundle on 1 December were breaches of one or more of my undertakings. That would include their demand that I cease to sell the book 'The Madeleine McCann Case Files: Vol 1'

5. I pay the McCanns' 'reasonable costs' of bringing the application, those costs to be assessed by the court if they cannot be agreed between me and the McCanns.


If all of that is agreed by me, they will, in return, agree not to press the court for me to be sent to prison, fined, or have my assets seized, although they point out (correctly) that despite any agreement between me and the McCanns, the court would have the right, if it saw fit, to impose any sanction that the judge saw fit to do so under the circumstances.

This sickens me beyond belief.
So what that says in a nutshell is that Tony MUST agree to be bound by court injunction to NEVER repeat, for example, the 48 questions Kate refused to answer - freely available on the BBC website, no less. He cannot say what you, I, or Uncle Tom Cobbley can freely repeat. He will be completely bound and gagged by the McCanns, and maybe be ordered to kiss their boots and crumple to their every demand and whim YET he can still be imprisoned anyway?

My God, please somebody stop these people. They are sick in the head!

Caution: even if TB agrees to eat shit, he'll not be let off the hook.
He has to agree to pay CR too.

CR, they of the 153 minus 143 plus 15 charges against TB.
Of the 'fun' of dragging pople through the courts .

Makes one wonder why Great Britain never joined the European Union fully; Here, TB would be allowed a pro bono lawyer in civilibus at least.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post  aiyoyo on Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:51 am

Instead, Carter-Ruck replied on 20 February setting out the McCanns' terms for settling this matter before 9 May:

Given that CR's letter is before all the latest news about the Yard's development and announcement of Oporto team as joint reviewers, is it too much to hope that the mccanns had since changed their stance? They are indeed arrogant and presumptions so who knows. Maybe they cant or wont get off the tiger no matter what .....

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

New Libel Reform Bill may be announced on 9 May this year

Post  Tony Bennett on Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:47 pm

Tonight I attended a packed meeting of the Libel Reform Campaign, held at The Great Hall, Inner Temple, London.

It was very informative; I'll try and post up a report on the meeting later.

Many comments were made about the individuals and corporations who, armed with wealth and power, acted as 'playground bullies', getting their way with intimidating writs; these, said many speakers, had a 'chilling effect' on the recipients.

One of the speakers was renowned judge Sir Stephen Sedley, who has made some good judgments in the past; he has been chairing an advisory group on the reform of Britain's libel laws. Another was Nick Cohen, Observer and Spectator journalist.

Also present was Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice, Lord McNally, who said he was working hard at getting the Defamation Bill, or the Libel Reform Bill as it may be called, through in the next Parliamentary session.

If he is successful, an announcement will be made in the Queen's Speech.

Which is already fixed for Wednesday 9 May.

The day my committal-to-prison trial begins...

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13395
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 68
Location : Harlow, Essex

Back to top Go down

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

Post  lj on Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:58 am

There is for hoping Tony! They must be desperate drinks .

____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

lj

Posts : 3254
Join date : 2009-12-01

Back to top Go down

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

Post  Guest on Fri Mar 16, 2012 8:29 am

@Tony Bennett wrote:If he is successful, an announcement will be made in the Queen's Speech.

Which is already fixed for Wednesday 9 May.

The day my committal-to-prison trial begins...

Is there any possibility that your trial date was arranged for then, because someone knew the Libel Reform Bill will more than likely be passed, which should affect the outcome of your trial? I'm thinking someone in legal world is trying to help you out here behind the scenes Tony. The date of the 9th, being the first person to appear in court in the UK over the McCanns, which just happens to be the same day the legal world in the UK should change forever. Just another coincidence? I don't think so...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post  Tony Bennett on Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:02 am

Stella wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:If he is successful, an announcement will be made in the Queen's Speech.

Which is already fixed for Wednesday 9 May.

The day my committal-to-prison trial begins...

Is there any possibility that your trial date was arranged for then, because someone knew the Libel Reform Bill will more than likely be passed, which should affect the outcome of your trial? I'm thinking someone in legal world is trying to help you out here behind the scenes Tony. The date of the 9th, being the first person to appear in court in the UK over the McCanns, which just happens to be the same day the legal world in the UK should change forever. Just another coincidence? I don't think so...
It is just one of those coincidences, Stella.

At the Case Management hearing on 8 February, the likely length of the trial was upgraded from 1.5 days, which Carter-Ruck suggested, to 2 days, after I pointed out that I would be bringing a great deal of evidence [I can't say what about, as that could be deemed lbellous] and that I would need a lot of time to cross-examine Isabel Hudson (especially as the McCanns have declined to give any evidence themsleves) and Michael Gunnill.

The Court clerks simply looked at the timetable for each side to file their evidence - and no doubt 9th and 10th May were the first two dates together they could find.

The Queen's Speech is a set-piece event which is part of the annual State Opening of Parliament - an event preceded by the Queen processing in a coach and horses from Buckingham Palace to the Houses of Parliament. I think the whole event starts late morning.

Which reminds me of my mother's first day in England, back in 1946. Having married a British officer in Leoben, Austria, earlier that year, she travelled in a train full of women from Austria to England, with whatever possessions she could bring with her. My father had travelled earlier in the day on a separate train of British officers, meeting her I think at Charing Cross station. My father had arranged for he and his new bride to stay in a hotel on The Strand for their first night together in England.

The next morning, before they set off on another trip, up north to Leeds where my father's parents lived, my father took my mother for a walk down The Strand.

As they walked along, a splendid coach and horses was proceeding from Trafalgar Square along The Strand. It was King George VI and Queen Mary, waving to the passers-by.

It was a memorable introduction to England.

But she was soon in for a terrible shock. She, like others, knew that Britain had just won a war against the might of Nazi Germany, and ran about a quarter of the world through its Empire. Amidst the grey skies and back-to-back terraced houses of Leeds, with poverty very much in evidence, she simply could not fathom how these people had somehow won the war and got to rule huge areas of land on all five continents.

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13395
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 68
Location : Harlow, Essex

Back to top Go down

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

Post  T4two on Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:34 am

She, like others, knew that Britain had just won a war against the might of Nazi Germany, and ran about a quarter of the world through its Empire. Amidst the grey skies and back-to-back terraced houses of Leeds, with poverty very much in evidence, she simply could not fathom how these people had somehow won the war and got to rule huge areas of land on all five continents.

It's the British class system. The people lived in poverty whilst the upper crust pursued their empire building hobby using squaddies forced into the army from those slums in Leeds and elsewhere to fight their wars. They might stage a show of piety at the Cenotaph every year and propagate their myth about making the ultimate sacrifice etc. but the fact is that most of those who lost their lives in the numerous wars that Britain has been involved in down the ages didn't have a choice and certainly had no intention of making such a sacrifice.

T4two

Posts : 166
Join date : 2012-01-22
Age : 68
Location : Germany

Back to top Go down

Committal to Prison trial 9 & 10 May - Update

Post  Tony Bennett on Fri Mar 23, 2012 5:55 pm

There has been no settlement between the McCanns and me, nor have the McCanns/Carter-Ruck moved from the position set out in their letter of 20 February, so things proceed towards the two-day trial fixed for 9 and 10 May.

Today was the deadline for me to file two documents:

1) A sworn statement (Affidavit) of my reasons for making an Application to be released from an Undertaking which curtails my right of free speech on matters related to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, and

2) A second sworn statement defending the McCanns' application to have me committed to prison/fined/have my assets seized.

These were duly filed at the Court and served on Carter-Ruck this afternoon, in line with the extended deadline for filing them, namely today.

Under the new deadlines, the McCanns have 28 days to reply, i.e. by Friday 20 April.

THANKS

Without naming anyone, I would like to thank every single person who has helped me in any way to prepare the two Affidavits. The help received has been substantial, it's been mostly from people on this forum, including some very well-qualified 'lurkeres' on this forum (they know who they are - thank you all), and it includes an offer to give evidence in court from a person well-qualified in her field, I hope to receive a sworn statement from her soon.

INDEX TO STATEMENTS

I won't post this up here for public consumption, but I have compiled a two-page index to the topics covered in both Affidavits, which - under conditions of keeping them confidential between now and the hearing - I am happy to send to anyone interested by e-mail (ajsbennett@btinternet.com).

I MEET ANOTHER FOUNDATION

On my way from Chancery Lane tube station, I met members of another Foundation - the Tatiana Giraud Foundation. They were mounting a demonstration outside the officers of Bell Pottinger, with a loud hailer and some robust banners. I went over to chat to them. Bell Pottinger is on the 5th floor of a multi-storey building overlooking Chancery Lane, handy for Carter-Ruck (less than 2 minutes' walk away) and the High Court (4 minutes' walk away).

The Foundation's link is: www.tatianagiraudfoundation.org - and it seems they are very unhappy indeed with reputation mangers Bell Pottinger representing the Democratic Republic of the Congo, who are apparently conniving with the U.N. in covering up human and child trafficking for slavery and prostitution, both organisations being involved in mass rapes as well, over a period of many years.

I shall say more about the work of the Tatiana Giraud Foundation and Bell Pottinger's role in supporting child trafficking and mass rape etc. on another thread under 'Maddie - Latest News', later on.

I've sent a pic about today's demonstration to the forum-owner:

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13395
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 68
Location : Harlow, Essex

Back to top Go down

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

Post  uppatoffee on Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:36 pm

Glad to hear that you have had lots of support Tony, and things are sounding positive. By the 20th we will have found out whether Duarte has abided by the Judge's decision regarding Amaral's books and perhaps Scotland Yard will have made further progress with their review.

Good luck!

uppatoffee

Posts : 626
Join date : 2011-09-14

Back to top Go down

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

Post  Angelique on Sat Mar 24, 2012 12:35 am

I too would like to say I am glad you have received help regarding the Affidavits. I was wandering along a beach yesterday wishing that some help would come your way. It is very heartening that this was the case.

____________________
Things aren't always what they seem

Angelique

Posts : 1392
Join date : 2010-10-19

Back to top Go down

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

Post  aiyoyo on Sat Mar 24, 2012 1:16 am

I would also like to say I am glad you have helps even from lurkers. Just goes to show there are many out there wishing to find out the truth about the mystery of Madeleine's disappearance, and do not agree to mccanns method of silencing their vocal critics.

I hope the same Judge will preside over the trial and that the wise judge will throw out mccanns case as vexatious.


aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

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

Post  Ribisl on Sat Mar 24, 2012 11:04 am

Thank you Tony for the update. We are all behind you and keeping a close watch on how things develop. Glad to hear you are receiving extra legal advice. But please be careful as you are up against a most malicious bunch of practitioners in libel law.

____________________
There is a taint of death, a flavour of mortality in lies... Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad

Ribisl

Posts : 807
Join date : 2012-02-04

Back to top Go down

Gunnill summoned to Court

Post  Tony Bennett on Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:31 am

@Ribisl wrote:Thank you Tony for the update. We are all behind you and keeping a close watch on how things develop. Glad to hear you are receiving extra legal advice. But please be careful as you are up against a most malicious bunch of practitioners in libel law.
Be careful. To accuse Carter-Ruck of 'malice' may be libelling an entire firm of lawyers. 'Experienced and expensive' perhaps. But not 'malicious'.

A brief update.

On 23 March I wrote to Carter-Ruck on various procedural matters, to which I await a reply. My letter included this sentence:

So far as your two additional witnesses are concerned, please confirm that Michael Gunnill will be produced for cross-examination.


As a result, Carter-Ruck have had to issue an application for Michael Gunnill to attend Court on 9 May 2012 (first day of the 2-day trial) at 10.00am.

The application cost a fee of £45.00, and Carter-Ruck have offered to pay him £110.30 to cover his travelling costs and loss of time on the day. If I lose the case, I shall probably be asked to meet these costs, plus Carter-Ruck's charges for their time in issuung this application, charged at either £1,000 per hour plus VAT (Adam Tudor's rate) or £800 an hour plus VAT (Isabel Hudson's rate).

The Court granted Carter-Ruck's application last Wednesday (28 March).

Carter-Ruck have until 20 April to reply to my Application and Defence.

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13395
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 68
Location : Harlow, Essex

Back to top Go down

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

Post  turnaround on Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:44 pm

All the best Tony, I will be posting my findings around my area, so others will know. I have a court case coming up soon (non payment of council tax, and I may be going to prison too!!but that's another story) and I aint paying them sweet F. A. until I see a big change in the ways things are run.

turnaround

Posts : 32
Join date : 2012-03-23

Back to top Go down

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

Post  PeterMac on Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:30 pm

@turnaround wrote:All the best Tony, I will be posting my findings around my area, so others will know. I have a court case coming up soon (non payment of council tax, and I may be going to prison too!!but that's another story) and I aint paying them sweet F. A. until I see a big change in the ways things are run.
Unsolicited advice :
Pay the tax element for the things you believe ARE being done more or less OK, but make it clear that you are withholding the tax for the other elements until you see an improvement. Specify the improvements you are looking for. You must be realistic, and accept that these things take time.
Also put the money, and make it clear that you have the money, in a separate account, properly labelled, ready to pay the instant those improvements are announced. Produce the evidence of that account. You can easily get the percentages of what your council tax is spent on.
Brief the press.
Then watch closely.


____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10171
Join date : 2010-12-06

Back to top Go down

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

Post  tigger on Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:06 am

@PeterMac wrote:
@turnaround wrote:All the best Tony, I will be posting my findings around my area, so others will know. I have a court case coming up soon (non payment of council tax, and I may be going to prison too!!but that's another story) and I aint paying them sweet F. A. until I see a big change in the ways things are run.
Unsolicited advice :
Pay the tax element for the things you believe ARE being done more or less OK, but make it clear that you are withholding the tax for the other elements until you see an improvement. Specify the improvements you are looking for. You must be realistic, and accept that these things take time.
Also put the money, and make it clear that you have the money, in a separate account, properly labelled, ready to pay the instant those improvements are announced. Produce the evidence of that account. You can easily get the percentages of what your council tax is spent on.
Brief the press.
Then watch closely.


Sorry, wandering off topic, but good advice! A friend of mine had a dispute with the council on tax and found out that if they send a bailiff, the bailiff has to take items of proven worth. My friend collected empty bottles which had a return value of twenty pence each. The 'debt' was about thirty pounds and the bailiff had to take about 150 ready crated empties in lieu of payment. Those days are gone.....

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

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

Post  Kololi on Mon Apr 02, 2012 11:45 am

@tigger wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:
@turnaround wrote:All the best Tony, I will be posting my findings around my area, so others will know. I have a court case coming up soon (non payment of council tax, and I may be going to prison too!!but that's another story) and I aint paying them sweet F. A. until I see a big change in the ways things are run.
Unsolicited advice :
Pay the tax element for the things you believe ARE being done more or less OK, but make it clear that you are withholding the tax for the other elements until you see an improvement. Specify the improvements you are looking for. You must be realistic, and accept that these things take time.
Also put the money, and make it clear that you have the money, in a separate account, properly labelled, ready to pay the instant those improvements are announced. Produce the evidence of that account. You can easily get the percentages of what your council tax is spent on.
Brief the press.
Then watch closely.

Sorry, wandering off topic, but good advice! A friend of mine had a dispute with the council on tax and found out that if they send a bailiff, the bailiff has to take items of proven worth. My friend collected empty bottles which had a return value of twenty pence each. The 'debt' was about thirty pounds and the bailiff had to take about 150 ready crated empties in lieu of payment. Those days are gone.....


hahahaha! excellent Tigger.

Kololi

Posts : 677
Join date : 2010-01-10

Back to top Go down

Judge Tugendhat's decision considered a boost to Freedom of Expression

Post  Guest on Thu May 24, 2012 11:20 am

Put this here as Judge Tugendhat was presiding over this case and the interesting ruling he made...................



Breaking News

11:09am UK, Thursday May 24, 2012


Huhne's Girlfriend Loses Privacy Action


11:09am UK, Thursday May 24, 2012

Carina Trimingham, the partner of Liberal Democract Chris Huhne, has lost her High Court privacy and harassment action against Associated Newspapers.

Ms Trimingham, 44, has been ordered to pay £250,000 in costs within two weeks after losing her action over articles in the Mail and Mail on Sunday.

The PR adviser warned outside the High Court that the ruling could become a "blueprint for bullies and bigots" and said she would be appealing.


Ms Trimingham was not the purely private figure she claims to be. Her reasonable expectation of privacy has become limited.
Judge Tugendhat

Ms Trimingham had sued for compensation and an injunction over 65 "highly unpleasant and hurtful" articles in the newspapers about her relationship with Mr Huhne.

She had an affair with the former energy secretary and senior Lib Dem, which culminated in June 2010 when the MP left his wife of 26 years to be with her.

Her lawyers told Mr Justice Tugendhat, sitting at London's High Court, that the articles had constituted a "cataclysmic interference" with her private life.


They referred to the "life and very different loves of the PR girl in Doc Martens" and described her as a "comedy lesbian from central casting".


Ms Trimingham's counsel, Matthew Ryder QC, had argued that the Mail had a right to freedom of expression but not to abuse his client repeatedly.

He told the High Court the articles had made constant and gratuitous references to Ms Trimingham's sexuality and her previous relationship with another woman.

But Associated Newspapers said in court that the stories were valid because there was an important public interest in Mr Huhne and the "after-shocks" of his marriage split.

Anthony White QC, for the publishers, said Ms Trimingham was "not a shrinking violet but a seasoned political journalist".

"She is open about her sexuality and, perhaps most telling, she has sold stories about other people's sex lives to the press. She gives as good as she gets, she dishes it out," he said.

In his ruling, Judge Tugendhat said: "Ms Trimingham was not the purely private figure she claims to be. Her reasonable expectation of privacy has become limited."

His decision will be considered a boost to freedom of expression and to newspapers fighting against tighter rules on privacy.


http://news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16234490


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 10 of 11 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 9, 10, 11  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum