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

by Woofer 24.10.12 23:21

Tony Bennett wrote:
david_uk wrote:
Woofer wrote:Tony - I do worry that your case is discussed in detail in the public domain giving an indication of how you intend to approach the case etc. ... I just hope you are keeping some of your strategies private ... or doesn`t it make any difference? They`ve hardly given you fair warning of their moves in the past. If you broadcast your moves in advance it gives them plenty of time to counter them.
I have previously said the same, I was shot down by other forums members for some reason. I trust Tony knows what he is doing and at the end of the day it is his choice.
Thank you both for your comments.

It is almost impossible to keep strategies and legal arguments secret; the Court requires you to set out your case and your evidence - and last-minute 'surprises' are not only frowned on but may be ruled out of court.

But believe me, I don't disclose every shot in my locker in these forums.

Phew ....... that`s a relief MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT'S JUDGMENT IN MCCANNS v BENNETT issued 10.10 on 24.10.12 - Page 3 110921

by Zozo 24.10.12 23:33

david_uk wrote:
Woofer wrote:Tony - I do worry that your case is discussed in detail in the public domain giving an indication of how you intend to approach the case etc. ... I just hope you are keeping some of your strategies private ... or doesn`t it make any difference? They`ve hardly given you fair warning of their moves in the past. If you broadcast your moves in advance it gives them plenty of time to counter them.

I have previously said the same, I was shot down by other forums members for some reason. I trust Tony knows what he is doing and at the end of the day it is his choice.

Totally agree with both of you.
Even though TB is saying that he doesn't reveal everything in his locker, but CR also are not stupid....

by Angelique 25.10.12 0:08

Tony

Late as usual arriving but I am glad that at least it seems from your explanation that not all is lost!

Just one point insofar as which Judge will be presiding at the committal? Is it not to be Judge Tugendhat?

"29. For these reasons there will be an order, the terms of which I invite the parties to agree. The substance of the order will be that the Claimants’ committal application be listed as soon as is practical, and that the Defendant’s application be adjourned to be considered by the judge hearing the committal application as that judge may decide. The Defendant’s application will be treated as an application to lift the stay of the action, and, if the stay is lifted, to vary the undertakings pending trial or other disposal of the action."

by **Tony Bennett** 25.10.12 0:26

Angelique wrote:Tony

Late as usual arriving but I am glad that at least it seems from your explanation that not all is lost!

Just one point insofar as which Judge will be presiding at the committal? Is it not to be Judge Tugendhat?

"29. For these reasons there will be an order, the terms of which I invite the parties to agree. The substance of the order will be that the Claimants’ committal application be listed as soon as is practical, and that the Defendant’s application be adjourned to be considered by the judge hearing the committal application as that judge may decide. The Defendant’s application will be treated as an application to lift the stay of the action, and, if the stay is lifted, to vary the undertakings pending trial or other disposal of the action."

I believe it may be a different judge, but I have no way of knowing until about 2pm on the day before the actual hearing.

by justme3 25.10.12 0:58

Removed because it has already been posted, Sorry!

by **Tony Bennett** 25.10.12 1:26

FROM THIS MORNING'S DAILY MIRROR

The parents of Madeleine McCann yesterday won their latest court battle with a retired lawyer they say is waging a harassment campaign against them.

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.

Mr Justice Tugendhat said the couple’s case against Mr Bennett should be heard “as soon as practicable”.

In 2009, Mr Bennett, of Harlow, Essex, promised to stop making allegations against the McCanns.

They claim he has breached that formal undertaking more than 150 times and are now seeking his imprisonment, or other punishment, for alleged contempt of court.

Mr Bennett wants the court to “vary” the undertakings so he can publish his “credible evidence” Madeleine died in their holiday home in May 2007.

_________________________________________

justme, I have re-posted this news item from the Daily Mirror, simply because the words I've highlighted in blue are untrue.

I have never said that the McCanns caused the death of Madeleine.

So there will be an immediate complaint by me to the Mirror, and if they don't publish a correction straightaway, there'll be a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission.

by aiyoyo 25.10.12 2:02

Some journalists continue to be so downright ignorant if not downright stupid if they cannot at least get simple facts right.

The retraction and apology should be in a front page so that the public can clearly see it and not be obscured in little columns hidden in the back pages.

It is also not technically correct to state the mccanns have won their latest court battle...when the battle hasn't event started. The ruling was just a judgement setting out the procedures to ensue in the orderly manner of things.

by Angelique 25.10.12 9:34

Tony

Many thanks for taking the time to reply.

by garfy 25.10.12 9:38

just typical of the media ...to hell with every one else ...as long as the mccs are happy

thought this a bit encouraging though..

Mr Bennett wants the court to “vary” the undertakings so he can publish his “credible evidence” Madeleine died in their holiday home in May 2007.

interesting video candyfloss thank you

by Guest 25.10.12 10:14

Dear All,

I suppose the true significance in the Tugendhat decision lies in the fact that the McCs must now proceed at once, without the benefit of knowing the outcome of the SY review.

That single fact is the reason they okayed the delays.

Anyone agrees with this?

Riveting decision by the way. Best of the best in good English legal tradition.

by garfy 25.10.12 11:04

i know this is useless information really on here ..as it is more or less thought by most any way but ...

i thought when i read Tony's post what they say an what they do are two different things...it's obvious the fund is paying ...it's what it was intended for in the first place the only thing it has been use for is to pay lawyers pr suing people etc etc ...never to look for maddie...

ironically this is the excuse they use ..to warrant what they are doing....yet they are quite happy to aid and abet the sightings all over the world where maddie has been seen ...

if it was maddie it would forewarn so called abductor ..we know where you are ...any sighting should have had a complete news black out ....unless of course it was used for an ulterior motive....you could even say ...when SY got involved they hampered the search as in ...now they are involved ...there is no need for us to look etc etc etc etc

i know this is useless information really on here ..as it is more or less thought by most any way ...but surly it would be in the public interest just how the mccs are paying for all this ...and what they are actually doing with the fund mony ....the mony they have raised to look for maddie

by Guest 25.10.12 11:18

Tony, your complaint seems to have gone unnoticed. The story is still saying the same namely..

[quote from article]

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.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-in-court-bid-1397269

Notice it hasn't been whooshed, as quickly as when they make mistakes the other way around!!!!!

by Guest 25.10.12 11:29

examples of articles being whooshed and changed very quickly.................

http://www.maxfarquar.com/2011/12/hush-up-the-hush-payment/

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3709-lord-toby-harris-and-madeleine-mccann-s-death

http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/64aug12/LONDON_09_08_2012.htm - Headline changed.

by sammyc 25.10.12 12:48

Just checked the Mirror's website and the story is still the same.

I've looked for their 'contact us' section and found online editorial contact details for ben.rankin@mirror.co.uk. Think I'll send him an email asking him to correct the story. Anyone else up for it? There's a telephone number too if anyone wants to ring. +44 (0) 207 293 3396.

by **Tony Bennett** 25.10.12 12:51

candyfloss wrote:Tony, your complaint seems to have gone unnoticed. The story is still saying the same namely..

[quote from article]

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.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-in-court-bid-1397269

Notice it hasn't been whooshed, as quickly as when they make mistakes the other way around!!!!!

These things often take a very long time to resolve.

At the moment:

1. I've established that the original error was made by a press agency called 'StrandNews' - this was the source of the Mirror report

2. Mel at the Press Complaints Commission has been informed of the complaint and is investigating it

3. Dean Rousewell of the Mirror's editorial team is investigating and has referred the matter to the Mirror's legal adviser, Mr Partington.

by **Tony Bennett** 25.10.12 12:54

sammyc wrote:Just checked the Mirror's website and the story is still the same.

I've looked for their 'contact us' section and found online editorial contact details for ben.rankin@mirror.co.uk. Think I'll send him an email asking him to correct the story. Anyone else up for it? There's a telephone number too if anyone wants to ring. +44 (0) 207 293 3396.

OK, try sending an e-mail to that e-mail address and also to dean.rousewell@mirror.co.uk, saying:

Please tell me why you haven't yet corrected your false claim that Tony Bennett has ever claimed that the McCanns caused Madeleine's death.

by jamaljr 25.10.12 13:13

I have emailed them both asking this and saying an urgent response is required.
I will advise if a reply is received. smilie

by garfy 25.10.12 13:16

sammyc wrote:Just checked the Mirror's website and the story is still the same.

I've looked for their 'contact us' section and found online editorial contact details for ben.rankin@mirror.co.uk. Think I'll send him an email asking him to correct the story. Anyone else up for it? There's a telephone number too if anyone wants to ring. +44 (0) 207 293 3396.

great idea sammyc ...

haven't rang but sent email ...hope a few are up for it too

by **Tony Bennett** 25.10.12 13:21

Just heard from Mirror that their Head of Legal Dept, Charles Collier-White, is now dealing with my complaint.

More short e-mails from you all would show that I have support

by garfy 25.10.12 13:29

can anyone explain what this means ..or...what i am doinfg wrong ..[i have tried it twice]

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

Delivery to the following recipients failed.

dean.rousewell@mirror.co

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

Delivery to the following recipients failed.

ben.rankin@mirror.co

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

Delivery to the following recipients failed.

ben.rankin@mirror.co

by Newintown 25.10.12 13:38

Tony Bennett wrote:Just heard from Mirror that their Head of Legal Dept, Charles Collier-White, is now dealing with my complaint.

More short e-mails from you all would show that I have support

Hello Tony

I have sent an email to Mr Rousewell as follows:

Dear Mr Rousewell

I am writing to you in respect of your headline in today’s Daily Mirror “Madeleine McCann’s parents in court bid to jail retired lawyer accusing them of causing girl’s death”.

This statement is completely untrue and is misleading to the general public as to the true details of this case. At no time has Mr Tony Bennett accused Kate and Gerry McCann of causing Madeleine’s death.

I suggest your journalists do some reading up on the true facts of the “disappearance” of Madeleine McCann starting with the Portugese police files, which are available on the internet, and stop printing such one sided facts, always in favour of the McCanns.

No doubt you will print a front page apology to Mr Bennett, I look forward to seeing it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I will let you know if I get a reply.

by sammyc 25.10.12 13:41

Third attempt at posting a reply, hope it gets through.

Emailed both addresses and will post their replies if and when I receive them. I requested the articles be corrected and the true facts be reported as Mr Bennett has never claimed the McCanns were responsible for Madeleine's death.

by sammyc 25.10.12 13:48

Garfy, are you sending your emails from your own email account or via this site somehow because mine were successfully sent.

by Newintown 25.10.12 13:58

sammyc wrote:Garfy, are you sending your emails from your own email account or via this site somehow because mine were successfully sent.

Mine has gone through from my Google account, well it hasn't bounced back so far.

by **Tony Bennett** 25.10.12 14:00

garfy,

the address is:

dean.rousewell@mirror.co.uk

Don't use the above link, just type the above in when you compose your email

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