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

by Da Troof 12.10.12 13:02

I posted this link on another thread earlier today, but thought I put it here as well.

Have a look at this site and consider adding your signature to the petition. It's quick, easy and free.

http://www.libelreform.org/

by statsman 12.10.12 13:14

Da Troof,

I'm not so sure it's a good idea supporting Simon Singh who is the main person behind this site.

I received an email from Lynne mcTaggart, saying:

"Dr. Simon Singh, who inspired the Nightingale Trust, an organization devoted to attacking alternative medicine for unsubstantiated claims, and Sense Against Science, a trust devoted to ‘making sense of science and evidence’, has sought to ban our new magazine What Doctors Don’t Tell You.

He wrote to our distributors, WH Smiths and all the supermarket chains we appear in, asking them not to distribute or stock it, and launched a letter writing campaign against us.

This same Singh, you may recall, in a high court libel case, declared himself to be the champion of ‘free speech’ in science.

The attempt failed after many of our supporters wrote in our defence.

I explained that on my Facebook page, which was suddenly crawling with trolls, with the usual personal derogatory statements and the usual lack of any sort of reasoned argument."

Seems too much like Mccann tactics to me.

by Da Troof 12.10.12 13:43

statsman wrote:Da Troof,

I'm not so sure it's a good idea supporting Simon Singh who is the main person behind this site.

I received an email from Lynne mcTaggart, saying:

"Dr. Simon Singh, who inspired the Nightingale Trust, an organization devoted to attacking alternative medicine for unsubstantiated claims, and Sense Against Science, a trust devoted to ‘making sense of science and evidence’, has sought to ban our new magazine What Doctors Don’t Tell You.

He wrote to our distributors, WH Smiths and all the supermarket chains we appear in, asking them not to distribute or stock it, and launched a letter writing campaign against us.

This same Singh, you may recall, in a high court libel case, declared himself to be the champion of ‘free speech’ in science.

The attempt failed after many of our supporters wrote in our defence.

I explained that on my Facebook page, which was suddenly crawling with trolls, with the usual personal derogatory statements and the usual lack of any sort of reasoned argument."

Seems too much like Mccann tactics to me.

I think site and petition is worth supporting, but each individual should make up their own mind

Personally I think "What Doctors Don't Tell You" is a poor and rather dangerous publication. I'm under no illusions about conventional medicine, but alternative medicine is mostly dangerous quackery......IMO

by statsman 12.10.12 13:57

Personally I think "What Doctors Don't Tell You" is a poor and rather dangerous publication. I'm under no illusions about conventional medicine, but alternative medicine is mostly dangerous quackery......IMO

And I'm under no illusions that some medicine (conventional and alternative) can be dangerous quackery.

But I think suppressing free debate (on any subject) is even more dangerous.

by Nina 12.10.12 14:13

I am the moment receiving conventional medicine as in chemotherapy, very dangerous stuff, and supporting it with diet, so I feel I am involved rather than just been the lump of humanity having it done to.
I know that neither will cure me, too late now for that but both may buy me some time.
So I support both.

by Da Troof 12.10.12 14:16

statsman wrote:
Personally I think "What Doctors Don't Tell You" is a poor and rather dangerous publication. I'm under no illusions about conventional medicine, but alternative medicine is mostly dangerous quackery......IMO

And I'm under no illusions that some medicine (conventional and alternative) can be dangerous quackery.

But I think suppressing free debate (on any subject) is even more dangerous.

AGREED

The campaign to change the libel laws is about permitting free debate not suppressing it.

Whatever Dr Singh may have said or done in the past in relation to WDDTY, I think this cause is a good one.

by pennylane 12.10.12 14:55

I am most encouraged that the mighty are falling from a great height these days, and I feel the McCanns will be faced with their comeuppance in the not too distant future. Let's hear it for that "one well-aimed blow" delivered with clean precision directly through the heart of this vile facade.... David vs Goliath. McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 - Page 3 259100

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 - Page 3 259100

I too feel optimistic that Tony will not lose. Three Lisbon judges ruled in Goncalo Amaral's favour; and Judge Tugendhat appears to be equally shrewd and fair, and resistant to the sleazy tactics of TM... who are becoming more and more impotent by the day.

As always Tony, my prayers are with you and your loved ones. McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 - Page 3 725573

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 - Page 3 725573

by statsman 12.10.12 14:57

Whatever Dr Singh may have said or done in the past in relation to WDDTY, I think this cause is a good one.

Yes, it's a shame that many good causes seem to be hijacked by people with less good motives.

We don't have to look far these days to find despicable examples.

by statsman 12.10.12 15:03

Even if Tony loses, it's possible that he doesn't really lose. Here's what Wikipedia records about the most famous David-vs-Goliath libel case in UK history.

"Although McDonald's won two hearings of the case in English courts, the partial nature of the victory, the David-vs-Goliath nature of the case, and the drawn-out litigation embarrassed the company. McDonald's announced that it did not plan to collect the £40,000 award that it was awarded by the courts"

by Guest 12.10.12 15:19

statsman wrote:Even if Tony loses, it's possible that he doesn't really lose. Here's what Wikipedia records about the most famous David-vs-Goliath libel case in UK history.

"Although McDonald's won two hearings of the case in English courts, the partial nature of the victory, the David-vs-Goliath nature of the case, and the drawn-out litigation embarrassed the company. McDonald's announced that it did not plan to collect the £40,000 award that it was awarded by the courts"

Of course, the likelihood of such a happy ending depends on the McCanns being less grasping and money obsessed than McDonalds.

by pennylane 12.10.12 15:23

statsman wrote:Even if Tony loses, it's possible that he doesn't really lose. Here's what Wikipedia records about the most famous David-vs-Goliath libel case in UK history.

"Although McDonald's won two hearings of the case in English courts, the partial nature of the victory, the David-vs-Goliath nature of the case, and the drawn-out litigation embarrassed the company. McDonald's announced that it did not plan to collect the £40,000 award that it was awarded by the courts"

I can't see the McCanns doing a McDonalds somehow. It's always been money first to TM... and whatever it takes to accumulate it. TM's lawsuits were a means to suppress the truth in order to make more money in order to suppress more truth, in order to stay ahead of the law (imho).

by bristow 12.10.12 16:06

statsman wrote:It's just a thought, but it was actually the behavior of the McCanns that made me think Madeleine was dead and that was long before I'd ever read anything that Tony Bennett wrote. I'm also sure that many others can say the same.

I don't know if this can be used in Tony's defence but I am thinking if enough people sign their names to a statement like the one I've written above, it must be damaging to the McCann's libel suit.

I'm also sure that it wouldn't take long to make a list of the things that the McCanns have said (or not said, e.g., not answering questions) and done (or not done, e.g., physically searching or supporting a reconstruction) that have made us come to that conclusion, and thus harming the search for Madeleine if she is by any chance still alive.

Does anyone think that this idea is worth developing?

I certainly think its an excellent idea and definitely worth developing, I should imagine that the majoriy of people who don't believe the McCanns made their own minds up through seeing their own behaviour through news articles and footage and when their interest peaked a lot of them found their way to this site and learnt even more.
How would we go about it?

The best of luck for Tony, I know the truth will prevail one day.

ETA There is a thread on this forum which asks what made everyone first decide the Mccanns were lying. Cant find it at the moment though but I think it would be very useful to read to prove it wasn't Tony who swayed their opinions and stopped them searching.

by puzzled 12.10.12 16:13

statsman wrote:It's just a thought, but it was actually the behavior of the McCanns that made me think Madeleine was dead and that was long before I'd ever read anything that Tony Bennett wrote. I'm also sure that many others can say the same.

I don't know if this can be used in Tony's defence but I am thinking if enough people sign their names to a statement like the one I've written above, it must be damaging to the McCann's libel suit.

Same here. I thought the McCanns were suspicious simply on the basis of their own behaviour, long before I ever came across this site,or heard of Tony Bennett.

In the meantime, my best wishes to Tony.

by ShuBob 12.10.12 17:13

Where exactly are people supposed to be searching for Maddie? Apart from payment receipts to dodgy PIs, can the McCanns themselves produce evidence that they've been searching for Maddie? I don't think dressing up as a fruit-picker and stalking an innocent couple who happened to have a doll in their car constitutes searching.

by tiny 12.10.12 17:22

As soon as heard the windows were not jemmied i realized the mccanns were not being truthfull and that was way before i heard of Mr bennett,so no Mr Bennett has not stop people from searching for Madeleine.

I hope the judge can see through the mccanns liars just like we can

by Woofer 12.10.12 17:49

PeterMac wrote:"At one point in the proceedings, and I quote, Mr Justice Tugendhat said: "Suppose it's established that the Claimants had lied about what happened?"

Shame on him ! Do we now wait for a writ for libel against Tugendhat.
Carter-Ruck take note. Your own judge has libelled your clients.

He was careful to say `suppose` but its marvellous that the point has been made and is now out there.

by **PeterMac** 12.10.12 17:52

ShuBob wrote:. . . Apart from payment receipts to dodgy PIs, can the McCanns themselves produce evidence that they've been searching for Maddie? . . .

Perhaps that is part of their masterplan.
"Please, Mr Judge, Mr Bennet said all these nasty thing so that even WE stopped searching !!!!"
Worth a try, I suppose. No more outrageous then other things they have said.

but then, of course, even in the so truthful book KM admits that she didn't go out searching anyway, and merely went for a slightly dubious cross country steeplechase the next morning. Perhaps she had a premonition of what TB might say !!

by jay2001 12.10.12 17:54

This is absolutely outrageous imo. I don't think any missing child in history has had more police and people searching for her/him in history.

The stories, misinformation and inconsistencies are what made me query the tapas timeline, not Tony Bennett. We could all list so many things that made us curious and even if Madeleine was alive today none of know what she would look like.

If I was Kate I would want to face my accusers and let them know my feelings I wouldn't hide behind lawyers, UK media and PRopaganda. Since Tony's writings and Dr Amaral's book there's been several sightings anyway proving people are still looking. The latest on a plane I think! A few million quid, over 18 months SY 'reviewing' supposedly checking 196 leads and still nothing.

If this case goes ahead with a jury I think the press will have to report it. There'll be plenty of news about it on Twitter so I don't think it will show TM in a good light. What the disgraceful UK media will report is another matter because no doubt the pr machine will go into overdrive.

The current shambles over savile just shows what a devious bunch of bar stewards run the 'establishment'. His vile ways were covered up and I pray that the rest of the despicable behaviour so far covered up is unravelle. Problem is this core of evil and corruption goes to the heart of UK plc imo.

by **PeterMac** 12.10.12 18:00

Woofer wrote:
PeterMac wrote:"At one point in the proceedings, and I quote, Mr Justice Tugendhat said: "Suppose it's established that the Claimants had lied about what happened?"
Shame on him ! Do we now wait for a writ for libel against Tugendhat.
Carter-Ruck take note. Your own judge has libelled your clients.

He was careful to say `suppose` but its marvellous that the point has been made and is now out there.

Indeed it is.
Proof that he may have an open mind and may be looking for evidence.
Proof that this possibility is already in his mind, and everything he decides will be conditional on that.

And let us suppose that he finds that the Claimants have lied.
Archer lied
Aitken lied
To lie under oath to gain money is one thing.
To lie under oath to have an old man (Sorry TB !) committed to prison is something entirely different. I doubt whether the "Fund" or its trustees and
directors added together would have the funds to pay the compensation likely to be awarded.

by ShuBob 12.10.12 18:04

Archer and Aitken both perjured themselves in court. Is it different if the Claimants don't bother turning up to court but hide behind their lawyers who have made sworn statements on their behalf?

by Woofer 12.10.12 18:26

Well imo there is hope, particularly as there seems to be a trend at the moment for the exposure of corruption and cover-ups, whether by newspapers, BBC, police, MPs, do-gooders, or even sports heros. What is common to all is the power they all believed they had.

Lets hope the trend continues.

by Newintown 12.10.12 19:26

I've never even started to search for Madeleine and have no intention to look for her, so I wonder where that would leave K & G in their theory. I would gladly stand up incourt to say that Sr Amaral's book did not stop me from looking for Madeleine as I never started looking for her as I didn't believe a word their parents said about her "disappearance".

by Nina 12.10.12 19:59

Newintown wrote:I've never even started to search for Madeleine and have no intention to look for her, so I wonder where that would leave K & G in their theory. I would gladly stand up incourt to say that Sr Amaral's book did not stop me from looking for Madeleine as I never started looking for her as I didn't believe a word their parents said about her "disappearance".

Good post.
I have searched for Madeleine and put up posters and donated my pension, then I woke up and started to stop ignoring what was staring me right in the face but I just didn't acknowledge.

by **PeterMac** 12.10.12 20:05

Nina wrote:
Newintown wrote:I've never even started to search for Madeleine and have no intention to look for her, so I wonder where that would leave K & G in their theory. I would gladly stand up incourt to say that Sr Amaral's book did not stop me from looking for Madeleine as I never started looking for her as I didn't believe a word their parents said about her "disappearance".

Good post.
I have searched for Madeleine and put up posters and donated my pension, then I woke up and started to stop ignoring what was staring me right in the face but I just didn't acknowledge.

But was it a result of what Mr Bennet had said, or did you have the intelligence to work it out for yourself ?

by Nina 12.10.12 20:12

PeterMac wrote:
Nina wrote:
Newintown wrote:I've never even started to search for Madeleine and have no intention to look for her, so I wonder where that would leave K & G in their theory. I would gladly stand up incourt to say that Sr Amaral's book did not stop me from looking for Madeleine as I never started looking for her as I didn't believe a word their parents said about her "disappearance".

Good post.
I have searched for Madeleine and put up posters and donated my pension, then I woke up and started to stop ignoring what was staring me right in the face but I just didn't acknowledge.
But was it a result of what Mr Bennet had said, or did you have the intelligence to work it out for yourself ?

PeterMac the only Tony Bennett I knew, and swooned at airkiss

wasn't our Tony Bennett. Yes I had the intelligence to work it out for myself, and I might add, the courage to say so and was kicked of a forum for raising certain points and asking certain questions.

Log in for more topics