McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

There is for hoping Tony! They must be desperate .

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...

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.

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.

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:

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.....

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.

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

candyfloss wrote: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

I was listening to the Mail's writer on Five live discussing it. This was the second case she'd brought against them and she had insurance for £250,000 but her actual costs will be higher.

Beginning to warm to Tugendhat. He seems the exact reverse of Eady.