Re: McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012

by aiyoyo 15.10.12 13:28

statsman wrote:How many people think the McCanns have taken on a law suit too far?

I think they believed they were inviolate when they started on this course.

After all, at that time there was:

Sir Jimmy Savile, one of Britain's greatest ~~benefactors~~ predators who touched so many children'~~s lives~~ (yes that actually was written at the time of his death).

Is there something they wrote about the greatness of mccanns that can be used as parody?
Remind me again which publication listed kate as a woman to emulate?

by statsman 15.10.12 13:45

Remind me again which publication listed kate as a woman to emulate?

Woman and Home magazine

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kate-mccann-named-as-one-of-the-most-156848

Judges included Lorraine Kelly (surprise, surprise)

by winjoy 15.10.12 14:02

Let's hope that times they are a'changing, as sung by Justice Tugendhat!

by Newintown 15.10.12 14:11

winjoy wrote:Let's hope that times they are a'changing, as sung by Justice Tugendhat!

I'll take my "hat" off to that (sorry couldn't resist McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 - Page 5 742129

)

by Guest 15.10.12 14:55

Newintown wrote:
winjoy wrote:Let's hope that times they are a'changing, as sung by Justice Tugendhat!

I'll take my "hat" off to that (sorry couldn't resist )

***
and the German "Tugend" means virtue howdy

by **PeterMac** 15.10.12 16:23

Châtelaine wrote:
and the German "Tugend" means virtue

So ". . .dass er Tugend hat", means ". . .that he has Virtue".

A good start.

by statsman 15.10.12 16:37

Just been reading the article about Justice Tugendhat in Wiki.

He is quoted as saying "a claimant should be able to demonstrate a "substantial effect" on their reputation in order to prove defamation."

I wonder if the McCanns can cite anyone who has changed their mind about their reputation because of what Tony has said.

As far as I'm aware, Tony hasn't seemed able to publicly change anyone's minds in the press or TV and I'm still waiting to see someone on this forum state that they thought higher of the McCanns before reading any of Tony's publications.

by **tigger** 15.10.12 18:45

statsman wrote:Just been reading the article about Justice Tugendhat in Wiki.

He is quoted as saying "a claimant should be able to demonstrate a "substantial effect" on their reputation in order to prove defamation."

I wonder if the McCanns can cite anyone who has changed their mind about their reputation because of what Tony has said.

As far as I'm aware, Tony hasn't seemed able to publicly change anyone's minds in the press or TV and I'm still waiting to see someone on this forum state that they thought higher of the McCanns before reading any of Tony's publications.

Well said Statsman! I disliked the McCanns on sight and didn't believe them. Nothing I've read since has changed my opinion. As it turns out, that saved a lot of time.... I only came across the forum many years later.

by **PeterMac** 15.10.12 18:51

That is a very old joke.
"People take an instant dislike to him. It saves time !"

by maebee 15.10.12 23:09

It is very difficult to understand the McCanns. If my daughter was missing, the last thing on my mind would be employing solicitors to harass people who are seeking to find out what happened to my daughter. I would be so obsessed with searching for her that I wouldn't give a frig about anything else. I wouldn't have time for anything other than searching for my daughter. Obviously, suing is more important to them than searching.

by david_uk 16.10.12 9:42

I didn't need anyone to persuade me that something was just not right with the `child checking` version of events!

by **PeterMac** 16.10.12 9:50

david_uk wrote: I didn't need anyone to persuade me that something was just not right with the `child checking` version of events!

Or indeed any of the versions.
Hourly, every fifteen minutes, or every half hour.
Take your pick.

by Liz Eagles 16.10.12 10:17

PeterMac wrote:
david_uk wrote: I didn't need anyone to persuade me that something was just not right with the `child checking` version of events!
Or indeed any of the versions.
Hourly, every fifteen minutes, or every half hour.
Take your pick.

Take your pick from any of the tapas bunch except the Paynes who had a super dooper baby monitor and apparently didn't do any checking. In fact, when the call came from KM they left DW (Dianne Webster) in the tapas bar holding the baby monitor (it's in her RI statement). It was also said that everyone did their own checking. So obviously the Paynes are not included.

by **PeterMac** 16.10.12 10:30

PeterMac wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
and the German "Tugend" means virtue
So ". . .dass er Tugend hat", means ". . .that he has Virtue".
A good start.

Wir trauen, dass er Tugend hat. - We trust that he has virtue
Wir glauben, dass er Tugend hat. - We believe he has virtue
Wir hoffen, dass er Tugend hat - We hope that he has virtue

by Monty Heck 16.10.12 10:33

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 - Page 5 Empty

maebee Yesterday at 11:09 pm

It is very difficult to understand the McCanns. If my daughter was missing, the last thing on my mind would be employing solicitors to harass people who are seeking to find out what happened to my daughter. I would be so obsessed with searching for her that I wouldn't give a frig about anything else. I wouldn't have time for anything other than searching for my daughter. Obviously, suing is more important to them than searching.

Agree with your thinking. I remember being astonished about the fund being set up and the many questions in my mind - what was it for? how did they have time for this with a child just gone missing? don't they have more important things to think about? don't they have enough to worry about without getting involved in taking responsibility for other people's money? what if anything goes wrong - could their involvement in this fund cause further harm to their reputation?

It's the same with all the suing - it must take a huge investment of time and energy and there is always a risk of losing, or of evidence coming out that may not be "helpful". Even with the help of their unparalled legal team it would be a massive burden for anyone. Suing an elderly man practically nobody outside forums has even heard of and clearly is having no impactwhatsoever on "the search" can only have two possible outcomes:
1) they win and Mr Bennet is imprisoned (= PR disaster)
2) he wins (= PR disaster)

Then on to do battle with Snr Amaral. Nothing to gain there either and a massive amount to lose no matter whether it goes in their favour or not. Very hard to understand why "an ordinary couple" are willing to put themselves through all this - IT'S JUST NOT WORTH IT!!

by Ciawoman 16.10.12 10:42

Totally agree with the above post. People have opinions and no amount of suing is going to change what people think. I really don't understand why they think going down this road is good, in fact it makes them look bad!

by Da Troof 16.10.12 10:50

Good post Monty.

However, I suspect that it is now CR who are driving the litigation now. They will simply see all the £££££'s to be made. For them there will be no PR disaster if when they win (most likely outcome IMO, they would be unlikely to pursue a case unless they were confident of winning). Their reputation as successful libel lawyers will be enhanced. Even if TB does manage to win they still get paid (probably from the FM fund). So its win/win for CR, but lose/lose for McC's. Only TB is still in a win/lose position.

by statsman 16.10.12 10:56

Very hard to understand why "an ordinary couple" are willing to put themselves through all this

Well, in the case of Amaral I think it's to prevent his book being published in the UK.

Certain passages in it would surely damage their reputation.

In the case of Tony Bennett, I think it's personal.

As far as I know, he is the only one to try to bring a private prosecution against them.

And I think they believe he is responsible for other actions, e.g., leaflets drops in their area which again makes it personal for them.

Reputation and revenge seem to be paramount to them. Much more important than helping people to find out what happened to Madeleine, IMO

by ShuBob 16.10.12 10:57

Ciawoman wrote:Totally agree with the above post. People have opinions and no amount of suing is going to change what people think. I really don't understand why they think going down this road is good, in fact it makes them look bad!

I now think suing and directing anger at others (not the phantom abductor, mind) is their way of dealing with what has befallen them.

If they are not suing people, they'll have to appear to be searching for Maddie but if the PJ's theory is correct, they can't search because they know where she is. In other to put up a front, their energy has to be directed elsewhere and they've found targets in Amaral, TB as well as assorted media outlets. They claim that people asking legitimate questions are hindering the search for Maddie. What search? Hopefully, they'll explain exactly what they mean by that in the not so distant future.

by Guest 16.10.12 11:03

How difficult [or easy] would it be in the UK to do a poll? Asking simple questions:

* Have you ever heard of Madeleine McCann?
* Have you ever heard of Tony Bennett?
* If yes, has he influenced your ideas about the Madeleine McCann case?

by mydadsanastronaut 16.10.12 12:39

Like most others, I drew my own conclusions from the information placed in the public domain.

However, as the "facts" about the incident continued to mutate and it became clear that something was seriously amiss with the official version and I began to dig around. As I would in any issue where I required clarity (no PR spokesperson pun intended).

I think the fund crystallised my opinion that it wasn't an abduction. Also, the statement along the lines of, "the money will not be used for legal expenses" made me more suspicious. Why would legal costs even be a consideration if an abductor was ever caught and brought to trial?

So really, as with the majority of interested people, the information which made me search and officially question and doubt the official version came, not from Tony Bennett, but from information and narrative from the protagonists in the case.

As an aside, the complainants and their legal team may be keen to proceed. However, in my opinion, this case is very much about shutting up those who would cause the public to doubt the story. Sadly, as recent events have shown to the majority of the public, a missing child and no body can still result in murder charges being laid. Perhaps, more people "in the street" would now think it reasonable to infer that it is most probable that a missing child is not alive. After all, if Police and prosecutors think that is the most likely conclusion, will the public not now apply that logic to other cases? This is actual reality influencing belief and not us forum inhabitants.

Finally, we doubters have often been told that it would be well nigh impossible for a number of people to keep a horrific secret for the long term. Regrettably, the recent atrocious revelations that are now affecting the BBC indicate that if enough people feel threatened, or that their stories may be felt to lack credibility, then it is possible to keep all manner of secrets for a substantial time.

by david_uk 16.10.12 12:53

mydadsanastronaut wrote:Like most others, I drew my own conclusions from the information placed in the public domain.

However, as the "facts" about the incident continued to mutate and it became clear that something was seriously amiss with the official version and I began to dig around. As I would in any issue where I required clarity (no PR spokesperson pun intended).

I think the fund crystallised my opinion that it wasn't an abduction. Also, the statement along the lines of, "the money will not be used for legal expenses" made me more suspicious. Why would legal costs even be a consideration if an abductor was ever caught and brought to trial?

So really, as with the majority of interested people, the information which made me search and officially question and doubt the official version came, not from Tony Bennett, but from information and narrative from the protagonists in the case.

As an aside, the complainants and their legal team may be keen to proceed. However, in my opinion, this case is very much about shutting up those who would cause the public to doubt the story. Sadly, as recent events have shown to the majority of the public, a missing child and no body can still result in murder charges being laid. Perhaps, more people "in the street" would now think it reasonable to infer that it is most probable that a missing child is not alive. After all, if Police and prosecutors think that is the most likely conclusion, will the public not now apply that logic to other cases? This is actual reality influencing belief and not us forum inhabitants.

Finally, we doubters have often been told that it would be well nigh impossible for a number of people to keep a horrific secret for the long term. Regrettably, the recent atrocious revelations that are now affecting the BBC indicate that if enough people feel threatened, or that their stories may be felt to lack credibility, then it is possible to keep all manner of secrets for a substantial time.

]

I vote this post of the week! well said thumbsup

by Monty Heck 16.10.12 14:40

Had to go offline earlier and just catching up for few minutes. Some excellent posts but still don't quite get why the McCs are following such a high risk (and high profile) strategy via litigation against individuals. While Carter Ruck may drive matters to an extent, it's up to the McCs to follow through to court hearings. They don't have to do it, they have a choice and could stop if they wanted to. They risk exposing themselves as vindicitve, particularly against Mr Bennet. Ok, so he distributed leaflets but he's not doing it now and all they are doing is giving him a platform to speak against their version of events. That he is damaging "the search" is patent nonsense. That they are fully functioning, hale and hearty is without question so the case against Mr Bennet seems quite tenuous.

They may silence one person but in doing so may do themselves enormous damage - as someone said earlier this is win/lose for TB but can only be lose/lose for McCs. There is if never a guarantee of success when someone takes another to court and a lawyer's "good prospect" can never anything more than a roll of the dice. The risk of losing and its consequences must always be weighed against any potential gain but in this case al they will achieve is taking away a pensioner's liberty for speaking up for his beliefs. Ok, so these beliefs may be offensive to the McCs but there were other ways of dealing with this kind of situation.

The McCs are badly in need of level headed, impartial advice on reputation management as they willl surel shoot themselves in the foot if they ruin TB financially or have him imprisoned because they don't like what he has to say. Draconian in the extreme and surely unworthy of decent people.

by **PeterMac** 16.10.12 16:32

Ciawoman wrote:. . . People have opinions and no amount of suing is going to change what people think. I really don't understand why they think going down this road is good, in fact it makes them look bad!

Nor does burning people at the stake, nor hanging them. Nor does torturing people or threatening them with torture, and nor does imprisoning people.
Cranmer, Latimer, Mandela, Ghandi, Aung San Suu Kyi, and all the rest throughout history have shown that
It can sometimes alter what people say, but never what they believe.
The only way to do that is by example, by education, and by evidence that a contrary view is preferable

( Ah ! I realise that word 'evidence' might just be the key !)

by Guest 16.10.12 17:19

As the McCann's have proven themselves adept in litigation I'm wondering why they didn't take action against Mark Warner/the apartment owner for the many flaws in apartment 5A or the police forces who refused to search for Madeleine and instead blamed them.

Time and time again they chant the same tired old mantra but really, why didn't they take action?

If I were Tony I'd be asking the judge why not.

Log in for more topics