Re: Carter-Ruck registered anonymously as a member on this forum on 8 August 2011

[aiyoyo]

Surely, snooping is unethical if not bordering on illegal if used for the purpose of finding sue-able materials, just because you have an agenda or an axe to grind.

Anyway, how can Smethurst include his lawyers' snooping fees in his cost and realistically expect TB to pay? That is ridiculous, surely there must be a law against that!

It's like hiring someone to deliberately trespass on other people's property with a view to steal but didn't like what you saw, then act the injured party by taking people to court ,then expect the people you take to court to pay the charges of your trespasser!

This might turn out to be Smethurst's own goal. I hope this backfires on him big time.

[markus1976]

Did Tony say anything inaccurate or libellous? Why can't he state his opinions?

From what I saw of Tony's 60 reasons there are a lot of inaccuracies and these statements are therefore libellous. If Tony would only stick to the facts he wouldn't get himself into so much trouble.

[Meagain]

Did Tony say anything inaccurate or libellous? Why can't he state his opinions?

From what I saw of Tony's 60 reasons there are a lot of inaccuracies and these statements are therefore libellous. If Tony would only stick to the facts he wouldn't get himself into so much trouble.

And of course, there is always the re-written Xmas Carol.

Aiyoyo, how is joining a public forum an act of snooping? If you were told that there was some online forum where people were making allegations/implications that you might have murdered somebody, wouldn't you join it so that you could read what had been said before deciding whether to take any action or not?

K.

[ProfessorPPlum]

For anyone interested, that extract quoted above is from the Mirror Online

http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2011/01/mri-customers-protest-over-car.html

One more decent, truth-telling individual and his operation 'protected' by Carter-Ruck. Except of course, it doesn't protect them at all. It just tells me they're very afraid - and a quick look online tells me why.

Just like the McCanns.

[Guest]

Did Tony say anything inaccurate or libellous? Why can't he state his opinions?

From what I saw of Tony's 60 reasons there are a lot of inaccuracies and these statements are therefore libellous. If Tony would only stick to the facts he wouldn't get himself into so much trouble.

Aiyoyo, how is joining a public forum an act of snooping? If you were told that there was some online forum where people were making allegations/implications that you might have murdered somebody, wouldn't you join it so that you could read what had been said before deciding whether to take any action or not?

K.

Carter Ruck asked us to remove some posts from public view which was done the same day as we received their request - those posts are in the 'Gagged Section' which is restricted to registered members only. So for Carter Ruck to join here anonymously is, indeed, snooping because to do that they didn't join a 'public forum' did they? They registered to look specifically at a members only section. Probably they were given the heads up by their 'Carter-Ruck sponsored' well-wisher, Muratfan or another of our so-called moles from JATYK.

[ProfessorPPlum]

I'd expect C-R to join up anonymously on a free and open forum to find out what is in their interest to find out. Whether you call it 'snooping' or something else, it's just common-sense. You'd expect them to do it. 'Snooping' sounds like you're surprised that they're not here using their full name and sharing our views on the McCann case. They're doing what you'd expect them to do, given the nature of discussion forums - period.

The reason that C-R gets away with the bullying it does is two-fold; firstly it can easily bully those with too much to lose - house, income.. you name it. Like I've said before, am I really prepared to lose my way of life to stand up for my right to free speech? Probably not - and more so because. sadly, without a constitution, there's no evidence that doing so in the UK would achieve anything EXCEPT losing my house, income, possessions etc in the fight. Disgusting world for this to be the case? Yes. It's reality too.

The second reason it gets away with it's bullying is because MOST people do muddy the truth (with feelings, misinformation etc) and this gives C-R a free reign - even where the people they're representing are, as we can clearly see, lying about all manner of things and guilty of all manner of things.

Thankfully, a ROCK SOLID defence against any charge of libel is THE TRUTH - and C-R knows this better than anyone else. They are not stupid enough to move against anyone who puts up something that is demonstrably THE TRUTH in a case. They move against people who venture opinions based on those truths (and a lot of other feelings and misinformation). Also don't forget, libel requires the passing of opinion in the guise of truth and cannot be proven where it is reasonable for people to express personal opinions about other people in the public eye so long as those opinions are voiced as opinions. I think you'll find that C-R goes for people who - by dint of how they phrase or position their opinions may be reasonably argued to be suggesting that these opinions are closer to the truth about someone.

Of course this doesn't mean C-R likes or even has to believe in the overall innocence of its clients in the matters about which we are concerned - for the simple reason that to C-R, those things are an irrelevance. When it comes down to it, they are doing exactly what our system allows and expects them to do: to challenge on behalf of their clients when those clients feel that opinion is being expressed that presents itself as fact with the intention of causing them damage. If you step back a moment, you can see why (when looked at from that point of view) that is exactly why C-R act as often as they do.

In law, the McCanns are innocent of any criminal responsibility for the disappearance of their child until such time as a charge is brought and upheld against them in a court of law. While that doesn't happen (for whatever despicable political or economic reasons) then the territory is very, fertile for Carter-Ruck who can convince themselves that they are affording their clients the same recourse against intentional, damaging opinion-presented-as-fact as any other 'innocent' person out there.

If you think about it, you actually wouldn't want them to do otherwise.

What I DO object to, however, is a legal system that disadvantages someone like Tony Bennett (or me for that matter) who has far more to lose than the McCanns and is far less able to hire such unreasonably expensive muscle. Issues of free speech should not be decided by who has the most money.

[kinell]

I'd expect C-R to join up anonymously on a free and open forum to find out what is in their interest to find out. Whether you call it 'snooping' or something else, it's just common-sense. You'd expect them to do it. 'Snooping' sounds like you're surprised that they're not here using their full name and sharing our views on the McCann case. They're doing what you'd expect them to do, given the nature of discussion forums - period.

But they are lawyers not private investigators. I wouldn't expect my husband's divorce lawyer to follow me around to see if I was cheating.

[ProfessorPPlum]

So how else are they going to ascertain whether they consider something to be libellous or not? Or are you saying that libel lawyers are obliged to pay for the services of private investigators to read forums?

It's ALL snooping :)

[russiandoll]

There is no evidence to suggest the McCanns did anything to intentionally harm their child. Opinions based on facts are what I was told this forum welcomed so anyone speculating that Madeleine was murdered by her parents needs to go to the wilder shores of twitter where such discussion is rife. The police were firm in their belief that Maddie died as a result of an accident which was covered up. I do not think any of us have more evidence to hand than the police, so imo it is their theory I accept. There is evidence that members of the holiday group lied, I simply believe that if things unfolded as stated, there would have been no need to be dishonest.

[aiyoyo]

Aiyoyo, how is joining a public forum an act of snooping? If you were told that there was some online forum where people were making allegations/implications that you might have murdered somebody, wouldn't you join it so that you could read what had been said before deciding whether to take any action or not?

K.

Hi Kololi

I thought you exited the building a while back! Oh, using another name to snoop on us is your new game is it?

Well, I guess we should be thankful you outed yourself after only 27 posts! Well done you. Keep it up, at least we know who are the trolls or snoopers.

[Guest]

Aiyoyo, how is joining a public forum an act of snooping? If you were told that there was some online forum where people were making allegations/implications that you might have murdered somebody, wouldn't you join it so that you could read what had been said before deciding whether to take any action or not?

K.

Hi Kololi

I thought you exited the building a while back! Oh, using another name to snoop on us is your new game is it?

Well, I guess we should be thankful you outed yourself after only 27 posts! Well done you. Keep it up, at least we know who are the trolls or snoopers.

Candyfloss rumbled her on her first post

[Guest]

Hehe, yes, was just going to say that, here is my post after Kololi/Meagain first post, Kololi then confessed ........

Hi Meagain, from the last paragraph in bold, you sound awfully like Kololi?

[Meagain]

For goodness sakes - give Candyfloss a medal - I used Meagain because I thought it might clue people in - I didn't bother to change my style because I had no intention to deceive and didn't bother to deny it when Candyfloss mentioned it because I was not - well looking to deceive. I actually tried logging back in on my Kololi name but I couldn't because Candyfloss had kindly done what I requested and it didn't work hence the rather glaring name of Meagain. I tell you what, if it's at all possible Candyfloss, please do change my name to Kololi or Kololi1 - makes no odds to me and if it can't be done then I am just as happy to stay as Meagain and will stick a K after my posts - if I remember of course.

Still if it makes some of you feel that your sleuthing skills are on a par with Scotland Yards then chuckle away and pat yourselves on your back with my blessing. Mind it took you long enough Aiyoyo especially as Candyfloss and a couple of others have mentioned it before now - you're slowing up girl you need a few of these :flower: :flower: :flower: :flower: :flower: :flower: :flower: :flower: :flower: :flower: and these to get your sleuthing juices flowing again.

And more seriously, those threads, as you say Admin - not sure if Admin is Jill or Mr Bennett tbh but hey - were on public view and then removed as requested. In Carter Ruck's shoes and knowing that Mr Bennett had welched on a court order, wouldn't you get a tadge cute and join as a member to give yourself the best chance of reassuring your client that he had indeed done this time what he had promised to do?

K.

---------

Kololi, you asked to be banned once. I don't know why you came back but you're really not welcome here- Admin.

[Spaniel]

I don't wish to share a platform with the troll/wum/stirrer known as Kololi or lately IAMWHATIAM or something so "look at me!

Admin. please erase my name from the membership list. Thankyou.

Spaniel - and others: The time-wasting troll Kololi/Meagain has indeed been banned since the above post by her was made.

[jd]

Carter Ruck can do what they like and just shut up

If specially trained police dogs find cavader on the mccanns apartment, hire car and their clothes then I have the right to the opinion that they are involved in the death of their daughter

If jane tanner can identify robert murat when she never even saw the face of her 'man with child' and also he has a different description from she what stated like long hair, then I have the right to the opinion that she is lying

If gerry mccann was outside the apartment talking to a tennis friend at the time of the abduction (if we are to believe jane tanner) I have the right to the opinion that he is lying if he did not even see nor hear anything

If all the GNR statements say robert murat was not there on the night of 3rd May but the mccanns and their Tapas friends suddenly state 10 days later he was, then I have the right to the opinion someone is lying heavily and who is likely to be lying

If the mccanns can tell absolutely everyone that the shutters were jemmied on the nIght of 3rd May, which since has been proven is not true then I have the right to the opinion they are fabricating the abduction story

If the Tapas 9 police statements are totally contradictory and inconsistent in their 'own words' (not mine or anybody else's) then I have the right to the opinion they are lying in them

If the mccanns lie about taking a lie detector test then I have the right to the opinion that they are lying

If kate mccann refuses to answer questions from the police investigation then I have the right to the opinion that she is hindering the search for her daughter

If only 13% of the public donated fund monies was spent in the search of their daughter, 80% spent on legal fees, mortgage repayments, fraudulent PI's, then I have the right to the opinion that there is something highly suspicious

If the public donated fund accounts are not transparent with how the public's monies are being spent (as they should be being public donated monies) then I have the right to the opinion to question this and why

If after 5 whole years, in one of the most publicised missing child cases there has ever been, that there has not been ONE SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE OF AN ABDUCTION then I have the right to the opinion it never happened

It was the mccanns with their Tapas friends who invited the world's media and public, nobody else invited them. As citizens of the United Kingdon which is a country based on free speech and what we proudly go to war promoting, everyone has the right to their opinions from the facts of the case which are available to read, and the mccanns & their Tapas friends words/behaviours/actions. If Carter Ruck feel it most important to threaten taking away people right to freedom of expression and opinions based on the facts, their houses and their pensions for expressing this right from the facts, then they only show how utterly unprofessional & irresponsible they truly are

[Spaniel]

I was surprised but very pleased to see Kololi go. The recent remark re Tony and then the Jesters was the last straw.

Thankyou Admin.

[Nina]

Aiyoyo, how is joining a public forum an act of snooping? If you were told that there was some online forum where people were making allegations/implications that you might have murdered somebody, wouldn't you join it so that you could read what had been said before deciding whether to take any action or not?

K.

Hi Kololi

I thought you exited the building a while back! Oh, using another name to snoop on us is your new game is it?

Well, I guess we should be thankful you outed yourself after only 27 posts! Well done you. Keep it up, at least we know who are the trolls or snoopers.

Candyfloss rumbled her on her first post

I always thought this poster was a man

[Guest]

I'd expect C-R to join up anonymously on a free and open forum to find out what is in their interest to find out. Whether you call it 'snooping' or something else, it's just common-sense. You'd expect them to do it. 'Snooping' sounds like you're surprised that they're not here using their full name and sharing our views on the McCann case. They're doing what you'd expect them to do, given the nature of discussion forums - period.

But they are lawyers not private investigators. I wouldn't expect my husband's divorce lawyer to follow me around to see if I was cheating.

That's not how it's done: as an attorney, of course you don't do that yourself.
You just hire someone, called a private investigator, who'll do that for you.
Why do you hire a PI to find out if your clients (ex-)wife is having an affair?
Because the Court will reduce the alimony your client will have to pay to her to almost nothing if she does.

That's how it works.

Why does CR employ 'Kevin'?
Because he sits there behind a computer for -say- 5-10$ per hour, writes up his hours, and you bill your client for that amount of hours times your own fee of -say- 500$.

That, also, is how the system works.

Sorry.

[Spaniel]

Portia said;

"Why do you hire a PI to find out if your clients (ex-)wife is having an affair?
Because the Court will reduce the alimony your client will have to pay to her to almost nothing if she does"

Not in England and Wales Portia. It's no blame divorce here.

[Invinoveritas]

Hey Spaniel, I was under the impression that you wanted to leave us because of the trolls, what made you come back?

[Spaniel]

Hey Spaniel, I was under the impression that you wanted to leave us because of the trolls, what made you come back?

You obviously haven't kept up. The troll has gone.

[tigger]

There were 4 members who registered on 8 August 2011. None of them sent any private messages nor made any posts on the forum.

Although we've been aware of Carter Ruck lurking on the forum for many months, we didn't know they'd registered to have a snoop on behalf of their wealthy clients.

It's a little strange that none of these four made any posts or used the PM facility.
Therefore it may well be that I was wrong to suppose CR could make do with just Kevin, with four office boys or work experience school leavers, whom we may now call Kev, Nev, Trev and Tracy, they had a better chance of finding offending posts.

Although it makes perfect sense from their point of view to trawl the forums, CmoMM seems to be singled out for demands to remove offending material. Amongst the material removed, as I recall, was a list of the questions Ms. Healy refused to answer. A list which has been published on quite a number of sites besides this one.
It must be hard to choose from so much material which is being added to all the time as is indeed the case with all the other sites.

I had pictured Kevin slaving away on his own, in a corner of a dusty room overflowing with files (destined to be carried in a limousine to the next court case). Now I'm thinking more of a box room or attic where these four junior executive researchers (this being the job description which was the bait which trapped them in the spiders' web of low pay, long hours and bad coffee) are sharing one round table with four terminals. Kev, Nev and Trev but slightly distracted by Tracy's charms staring at the monitors. Tracy redoing her nailpolish.

One of the screens shows a post about dogs. 'Why did the cadaver dogs alert only in 5a?' Kevin already knows, he's going to have to tell Nev, Trev and Trace not to mention those dogs. They're going to ask why and Kevin's been told that the clients said to ask the dogs themselves. It's a hard life Kevin, good luck boy!

[tuom]

There were 4 members who registered on 8 August 2011. None of them sent any private messages nor made any posts on the forum.

Although we've been aware of Carter Ruck lurking on the forum for many months, we didn't know they'd registered to have a snoop on behalf of their wealthy clients.

It's a little strange that none of these four made any posts or used the PM facility.
Therefore it may well be that I was wrong to suppose CR could make do with just Kevin, with four office boys or work experience school leavers, whom we may now call Kev, Nev, Trev and Tracy, they had a better chance of finding offending posts.

Although it makes perfect sense from their point of view to trawl the forums, CmoMM seems to be singled out for demands to remove offending material. Amongst the material removed, as I recall, was a list of the questions Ms. Healy refused to answer. A list which has been published on quite a number of sites besides this one.


Are these questions on the case files also ? surely one is not permitted to "interfere" with them no matter how important one thinks one is ?





It must be hard to choose from so much material which is being added to all the time as is indeed the case with all the other sites.

I had pictured Kevin slaving away on his own, in a corner of a dusty room overflowing with files (destined to be carried in a limousine to the next court case). Now I'm thinking more of a box room or attic where these four junior executive researchers (this being the job description which was the bait which trapped them in the spiders' web of low pay, long hours and bad coffee) are sharing one round table with four terminals. Kev, Nev and Trev but slightly distracted by Tracy's charms staring at the monitors. Tracy redoing her nailpolish.

"Flowers in the Attic"

One of the screens shows a post about dogs. 'Why did the cadaver dogs alert only in 5a?' Kevin already knows, he's going to have to tell Nev, Trev and Trace not to mention those dogs. They're going to ask why and Kevin's been told that the clients said to ask the dogs themselves. It's a hard life Kevin, good luck boy!

Nice to see a post from you , I thought everyone was gone to the Limpics !!!

[jd]

There is only one single reason which motivates Carter Ruck and the trolls onto this forum with their unhealthy pursuit of Tony....Simply we are sailing dangerously too close to the truth, way too close. If we weren't they would never be remotely interested, let alone go to the levels they have gone. They are totally & completely proving themselves in this regard. Thank you Carter Ruck and all the trolls, keep it going I know I am on the right track with all that you do.

Keep analysing the facts everyone who is genuinely interested in finding the truth and justice for Maddie. Whatever Carter Ruck try, they can never take away our freedom of expression based on facts

If Carter Ruck & mccanns want people to think differently then maybe you should come up with a single piece of evidence of an abduction we can discuss...not seen one in 5 years

Never forget Carter Ruck's client gerry mccann stating that..... 'he does not have a problem with anyone purporting a theory'

[yadda_yadda]

There is only one single reason which motivates Carter Ruck and the trolls onto this forum with their unhealthy pursuit of Tony....Simply we are sailing dangerously too close to the truth, way too close. If we weren't they would never be remotely interested, let alone go to the levels they have gone. They are totally & completely proving themselves in this regard. Thank you Carter Ruck and all the trolls, keep it going I know I am on the right track with all that you do.

I agree with those sentiments, JD. If the McCanns and their supporters really believed Madeleine was "findable" they would use their public donations to organise searches of the lawless hills around PdL where their private dicks said she was being held captive. They've never searched there or unturned any stones.

Why?