Re: MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT'S JUDGMENT IN MCCANNS v BENNETT issued 10.10 on 24.10.12

by Nina 26.10.12 15:29

Yes they are saying that there are allegations, but not made by Tony, that the parents of Madeleine McCann are guilty of, or are suspected of, causing the death of their daughter and that he has undertaken to the court not to repeat those allegations.

by **PeterMac** 26.10.12 15:51

The body text of the article could not be plainer.

"Gerry and Kate McCann want the High Court to jail Tony Bennett, 65, who has accused them of causing their daughter’s death, disposing of her body and covering up what they had done."

For the record NO HE HASN'T.
Who gave the Mirror the details.
TM, CM, C-R ?

by Liz Eagles 26.10.12 16:05

PeterMac wrote:The body text of the article could not be plainer.

"Gerry and Kate McCann want the High Court to jail Tony Bennett, 65, who has accused them of causing their daughter’s death, disposing of her body and covering up what they had done."

For the record NO HE HASN'T.
Who gave the Mirror the details.
TM, CM, C-R ?

The body of the text of the original article couldn't be plainer. Simple, uncomplicated, unambiguous English.

As for the retraction of the untruth I'd love to know who wrote that.

by aiyoyo 26.10.12 16:05

Very ambiguous indeed.

Where is the apology?

by garfy 26.10.12 16:08

it seems to me its the same thing ...but differently worded ...wonder if tony can make sense of it ...

by Nina 26.10.12 16:18

Is Tony satisfied with it?

by Guest 26.10.12 16:20

There not going to apologise are they - it's a national newspaper (and if they did apologise they'd be in deep water with the other side then, they'd be accused of taking sides - be honest, the DM doesn't know exactly what TB has said or hasn't said do they. The paperwork in the High Court case must be substantial, and the DM hasn't seen it have they)

Mr B has done blooming well to get them to print anything I think. MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT'S JUDGMENT IN MCCANNS v BENNETT issued 10.10 on 24.10.12 - Page 5 160807

MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT'S JUDGMENT IN MCCANNS v BENNETT issued 10.10 on 24.10.12 - Page 5 160807

by Liz Eagles 26.10.12 16:22

tcat wrote:There not going to apologise are they - it's a national newspaper (and if they did apologise they'd be in deep water with the other side then, they'd be accused of taking sides - be honest, the DM doesn't know exactly what TB has said or hasn't said do they. The paperwork in the High Court case must be substantial, and the DM hasn't seen it have they)

Mr B has done blooming well to get them to print anything I think.

The article was in the Daily Mirror which I believe is now called The Mirror.

by Guest 26.10.12 16:27

aquila wrote:
tcat wrote:There not going to apologise are they - it's a national newspaper (and if they did apologise they'd be in deep water with the other side then, they'd be accused of taking sides - be honest, the DM doesn't know exactly what TB has said or hasn't said do they. The paperwork in the High Court case must be substantial, and the DM hasn't seen it have they)

Mr B has done blooming well to get them to print anything I think.

The article was in the Daily Mirror which I believe is now called The Mirror.

I know, but I'm old. It will always be the Daily to me MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT'S JUDGMENT IN MCCANNS v BENNETT issued 10.10 on 24.10.12 - Page 5 2632266518

by Liz Eagles 26.10.12 16:30

tcat wrote:
aquila wrote:
tcat wrote:There not going to apologise are they - it's a national newspaper (and if they did apologise they'd be in deep water with the other side then, they'd be accused of taking sides - be honest, the DM doesn't know exactly what TB has said or hasn't said do they. The paperwork in the High Court case must be substantial, and the DM hasn't seen it have they)

Mr B has done blooming well to get them to print anything I think.

The article was in the Daily Mirror which I believe is now called The Mirror.
I know, but I'm old. It will always be the Daily to me

It's just that DM is the common abbreviation for the Daily Mail.

by **Tony Bennett** 26.10.12 16:53

Nina wrote:Yes they are saying that there are allegations, but not made by Tony, that the parents of Madeleine McCann are guilty of, or are suspected of, causing the death of their daughter and that he has undertaken to the court not to repeat those allegIations.

Just to make it clear, I made a polite request for a clarification from the Daily Mirror.

They referred my request to their lawyers, and they came back to me late yesterday and said they would print a clarification. By the standards of the British media, this response was prompt.

Just to place it on the written record, I did not ask for an apology, nor did I ask for a retraction.

I am content with the extent of the Mirror's clarification.

They have made it clear that I have not actually ever said that the McCanns actually caused the death of Madeleine (if she died).

My undertaking not to repeat such allegations refers to my undertaking not to repeat the allegations by others who may have said, or be saying: 'Madeleine's parents caused her death'.

I was always content to give that particular undertaking, since I had neither alleged that the Drs McCann had caused Madeleine's death, nor did I intend to say so.

There is however the separate issue of the Daily Mirror continuing to run their inaccurate headline on their website, which makes the same false claim against me. I have now written to the Mirror again about that.

Let us at least give the Daily Mirror credit for covering the issue, and let us with our emails encourage them, politely, to give more coverage to alternative views of what really happened to Madeleine.

by **PeterMac** 26.10.12 16:56

aquila wrote:
It's just that DM is the common abbreviation for the Daily Mail.

So should we be using TM ? That would be an interesting confusion, methinks.

by Nina 26.10.12 17:13

Tony Bennett wrote:
Nina wrote:Yes they are saying that there are allegations, but not made by Tony, that the parents of Madeleine McCann are guilty of, or are suspected of, causing the death of their daughter and that he has undertaken to the court not to repeat those allegIations.
Just to make it clear, I made a polite request for a clarification from the Daily Mirror.

They referred my request to their lawyers, and they came back to me late yesterday and said they would print a clarification. By the standards of the British media, this response was prompt.

Just to place it on the written record, I did not ask for an apology, nor did I ask for a retraction.

I am content with the extent of the Mirror's clarification.

They have made it clear that I have not actually ever said that the McCanns actually caused the death of Madeleine (if she died).

My undertaking not to repeat such allegations refers to my undertaking not to repeat the allegations by others who may have said, or be saying: 'Madeleine's parents caused her death'.

I was always content to give that particular undertaking, since I had neither alleged that the Drs McCann had caused Madeleine's death, nor did I intend to say so.

There is however the separate issue of the Daily Mirror continuing to run their inaccurate headline on their website, which makes the same false claim against me. I have now written to the Mirror again about that.

Let us at least give the Daily Mirror credit for covering the issue, and let us with our emails encourage them, politely, to give more coverage to alternative views of what really happened to Madeleine.

You are a gentleman you know Tony, and I bet if you wore a hat you would howdy

.

by **PeterMac** 26.10.12 17:39

Nina wrote:
You are a gentleman you know Tony, and I bet if you wore a hat you would .

And now we know that TB has "Tugend"
". . .dass er so viel Tugend hat, als Tugendhat, hat"

by Nina 26.10.12 17:58

PeterMac wrote:
Nina wrote:
You are a gentleman you know Tony, and I bet if you wore a hat you would .
And now we know that TB has "Tugend"
". . .dass er so viel Tugend hat, als Tugendhat, hat"

sorry PeterMac that has gone right over my head, just reminded me of my Daddy who always raised his cap or hat when meeting anyone he knew, and he was a gentleman in every sense of the word. I wasn't being sarcastic at all.

by Guest 26.10.12 18:04

It seems to me that Mr Bennett is in much the same position as G Amaral, only perhaps more vulnerable as his country of residence is that of the Mccanns so he is more accessible to harassment. He is being harassed by the Mccanns and their elected representatives isn't he?

In my opinion they are walking a very thin line considering anything said or written by either G Amaral or T Bennett is only a reiteration of the conclusions drawn by the investigation team. What can they really achieve by taking legal action against these people, they can't silence the world for thinking them to be culpable in their child's fate, they can't sue the world for discussing the case and drawing the same conclusions. Shakespeare might liken it to Shylock wanting his pound of flesh, I think that's what they want, revenge.

by **Tony Bennett** 26.10.12 18:06

PeterMac wrote:
Nina wrote:
You are a gentleman you know Tony, and I bet if you wore a hat you would .
And now we know that TB has "Tugend"
". . .dass er so viel Tugend hat, als Tugendhat, hat"

I have just googled 'Tugendhat', 'judge', and the McCann libel case and Jill's forum come up in the top ten links! No. 6 I think.

Is the McCanns' libel action against me starting to become counter-productive?

by Guest 26.10.12 18:25

Tony Bennett wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
Nina wrote:
You are a gentleman you know Tony, and I bet if you wore a hat you would .
And now we know that TB has "Tugend"
". . .dass er so viel Tugend hat, als Tugendhat, hat"
I have just googled 'Tugendhat', 'judge', and the McCann libel case and Jill's forum come up in the top ten links! No. 6 I think.

Is the McCanns' libel action against me starting to become counter-productive?

And if you just google McCann's libel case this forum is No 1 big grin

MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT'S JUDGMENT IN MCCANNS v BENNETT issued 10.10 on 24.10.12