Re: McCann v Bennett 'commit-to-jail' case may (OR MAY NOT) be heard on Tues 29 and Weds 30 January

by jamaljr 05.01.13 1:22

ShabbyTiger wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
ShabbyTiger wrote:Why have you made this into a vendetta against them?
Has it occurred to you that the McCanns' pursuit of Dr Goncalo Amaral is a 'vendetta'?

Or hasn't that thought crossed your mind yet?

I note that in your two posts you say that the McCanns' abduction story is 'crap' and 'full of holes' or, to put it in plain English, false.

Should we all just lie back and accept a false story?

You really need to stop this obsession, Tony. Think of your family.

Is this a threat against Tony's family?

by Guest 05.01.13 8:54

I didn't see it that way myself. I doubt we will be troubled by that poster again - a one-trick pony (or tiger) you could say.

All the best to Tony whenever the court dates are.

by Guest 05.01.13 10:01

Jean I do hope it was a one-track pony, back in orbit now.
Instead welcome to the Rooster, thanks for the poem!
And Tony thanks for the link.
And thank you so much for doing what you do. I believe it is a persons duty to report abuse of children.
I dont know that much about Law but I believe in our Christian culture and the soundness of the basic rules.
So Bless you ,Tony Bennett.
I intend to be there at the time of your trial. I'll be proud shaking hands with you.
Hang-on!

parapono

by **Tony Bennett** 05.01.13 14:45

Yesterday, Deputy Court Manager of the Queen's Bench Listing Office, Mr James Tipp, replied to my letter of Wednesday and said he would be discussing the matters raised with his manager on Monday.

I should be able to say by the middle of next week whether or not the hearing of the McCanns' application to jail me will or will not go ahead on 29 & 30 January.

by Guest 05.01.13 16:01

@Tony Bennett
thank you, that will be time enough to book a flight.
I will avoid Virgin though.

parapono

by ShabbyTiger 05.01.13 19:27

jamaljr wrote:
Is this a threat against Tony's family?

This comment will not do any good to the forum's credibilty, Jamaljr.

by ShabbyTiger 05.01.13 19:42

Jean wrote:I didn't see it that way myself. I doubt we will be troubled by that poster again - a one-trick pony (or tiger) you could say.

All the best to Tony whenever the court dates are.

Not a one trick pony Jean... just someone who is trying to steer Tony away from the iceberg. I probably joined up here long before you did. Many moons ago I tried to give Tony some sound legal advice but it was ignored.

by aiyoyo 06.01.13 4:08

ShabbyTiger wrote:
Jean wrote:I didn't see it that way myself. I doubt we will be troubled by that poster again - a one-trick pony (or tiger) you could say.

All the best to Tony whenever the court dates are.

Not a one trick pony Jean... just someone who is trying to steer Tony away from the iceberg. I probably joined up here long before you did. Many moons ago I tried to give Tony some sound legal advice but it was ignored.

Then it can't be deemed to the "sound" then?

What do you think of team Mccanns stalking TB every post then; that they spend every penny left of other people's money to sue people left right centre just to preserve their reputation?
You don't sillyly believe they did it for Madeleine, or DO you?
Have you also written the Mccanns to steer away from their maiden trip to Court heading towards iceberg ?
If not, why not? Do you approve of their disgusting actions?

None of us has posted in our birth given name nor taken a proactive stance. TB is the only one brave enough to put his head above the parapet against all odds and in a way he represents all of us who want Justice for Madeleine. So he does not deserve any one trick pony coming on (in guise probably) dishing out criticism then claiming it is to help him?
Constructive criticism may be a different thing but yours is anything but constructive if I may boldly say so.

You seem to think the verdict is a foregone one. Why I wonder?
If any writing is in the wall, the mccanns chances are scribbled on the walls in language their sheeples understand, that they may take cover from a catastrophic that's about to come their direction.
My opinion anyway for what it is worth!

by The Rooster 06.01.13 13:05

I don't think this case will go to court. In the arena of reputation management I believe this is far too hot a potato for the McCanns and their legal agents to handle. They've got financial clout, sure, but do they have the balls of steel they are going to need if things go against them... AND if things go against them it will cost them a lot more than money, a lot more. I feel they are playing a game of "ego poker" and bluffing via their legal agents (the dealer).

So in my opinion, they would be best to minimise the downside and drop the reputation managment (paper tiger) proceedings.

LISTEN UP TEAM, if you want people to give you some respect agree to a reconstruction. Simple as that!

by **PeterMac** 06.01.13 13:24

The Rooster wrote:
LISTEN UP TEAM, if you want people to give you some respect agree to a reconstruction. Simple as that!

They cannot.
It would show everyone, at once, beyond a reasonable doubt and a peradventure, that what they want us to believe is absolutely impossible.
They are trapped.
They therefore have no choice but to do one of two things.
Confess - or carry on.
And to carry on they cannot allow anyone to draw attention to the vanishingly small window of opportunity, the physical impossibilities, the medical imperatives. the lies and inconsistencies, the bizarre actions, and all the rest . . .
They are trapped.

by Guest 06.01.13 13:53

Guys, all this bravado really isn't helping Tony one little bit. Goodness knows what the Royal Court of Justice makes of it, if they're reading. It's not Judge Judy's courtroom Tony will be appearing in.

The entire site would be better off, as would Tony himself, saying nothing between now and the court date. yes

by Smokeandmirrors 06.01.13 14:24

tcat wrote:Guys, all this bravado really isn't helping Tony one little bit. Goodness knows what the Royal Court of Justice makes of it, if they're reading. It's not Judge Judy's courtroom Tony will be appearing in.

The entire site would be better off, as would Tony himself, saying nothing between now and the court date.

You might be right.
Or then again, you might be completely wrong.
It could be that if someone relevant from the Royal Court of Justice is reading all this, they will see what a complete sham it's all been since day 1. And there is nothing at all to suggest that a Judge believes the nonsense any more than we do. Or a jury for that matter. One simply cannot make any such assumptions.

Of the thousands of people who have commented on all the various forums over the years relating to this case, we hazard a pretty good guess that those thousands represent the tip of the iceberg. For the 2,000 or so registered to this forum there might be tens of thousands who read it without registering to post- I certainly know quite a few who read here but are not registered. And over the years, the vast majority of people who have I have spoken to about the case, at the very least feel there is something fishy going on. And I don't know, literally, a single person who isn't/wasn't absolutely disgusted by the claims the children were alone.

I think the only sorts of people who believe the story of what happened are the same demographic who read Take-a-Break, play Bingo and voted for Christopher Maloney in XFactor.

by Guest 06.01.13 15:23

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

[...]
Of the thousands of people who have commented on all the various forums over the years relating to this case, we hazard a pretty good guess that those thousands represent the tip of the iceberg. For the 2,000 or so registered to this forum there might be tens of thousands who read it without registering to post- I certainly know quite a few who read here but are not registered.

***
I've noticed too that the reading "guests" outnumber the registered members at any given time. At this moment e.g. there are 24 members and 138 guests on-line.

by Ashwarya 06.01.13 15:53

Smokeandmirrors wrote:[It could be that if someone relevant from the Royal Court of Justice is reading all this, they will see what a complete sham it's all been since day 1. And there is nothing at all to suggest that a Judge believes the nonsense any more than we do. Or a jury for that matter. One simply cannot make any such assumptions.

I have admired Tony's courage and determination for all the years he has been above the parapet in this case, and I wish him nothing but justice and good fortune in his forthcoming case.

I wish I could believe that no judge would give credence to the nonsense he or she will be hearing, but having heard Leveson LJ on the subject of the McCanns I have my doubts. Please God it will be Judge Tugendhat again. Whatever, I fear Tony will need all the courage and resilience he has already demonstrated, and then some.

by Ange 06.01.13 15:57

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
tcat wrote:Guys, all this bravado really isn't helping Tony one little bit. Goodness knows what the Royal Court of Justice makes of it, if they're reading. It's not Judge Judy's courtroom Tony will be appearing in.

The entire site would be better off, as would Tony himself, saying nothing between now and the court date.

You might be right.
Or then again, you might be completely wrong.
It could be that if someone relevant from the Royal Court of Justice is reading all this, they will see what a complete sham it's all been since day 1. And there is nothing at all to suggest that a Judge believes the nonsense any more than we do. Or a jury for that matter. One simply cannot make any such assumptions.

Of the thousands of people who have commented on all the various forums over the years relating to this case, we hazard a pretty good guess that those thousands represent the tip of the iceberg. For the 2,000 or so registered to this forum there might be tens of thousands who read it without registering to post- I certainly know quite a few who read here but are not registered. And over the years, the vast majority of people who have I have spoken to about the case, at the very least feel there is something fishy going on. And I don't know, literally, a single person who isn't/wasn't absolutely disgusted by the claims the children were alone.

I think the only sorts of people who believe the story of what happened are the same demographic who read Take-a-Break, play Bingo and voted for Christopher Maloney in XFactor.

Hi everyone, my first post on this forum. Apologies for the double quote 'till I familiarise myself with this board, or, more likely, ask for pointers.

BIB (if i've done it correctly) is exactly what I've been doing for years. I'm registered with a couple of forums, indeed signed up with one in particular in 2007 to discuss this case, and 'trying' not to ramble in my first post, I can say with confidence this forum was referred to countless times over the past years, both publicly on the forum though mainly in private mails. I left a few years ago as I butted heads with a fellow female Scot many times. She's known to this board. I know many, many, people who read this forum and are not registered.

I'm annoyed at myself that I've taken so long to register. I've sat and fumed whilst reading about Tony's battle with TM and CR. Actually, perhaps that should be the other way round. Just like I've fumed (for want of a better word at the minute) for years at the credibility of The McCanns' account of what happened to Madeleine 'that' night.

Mr Bennett, I support you 100%.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.01.13 16:25

Ange wrote:Hi everyone, my first post on this forum. Apologies for the double quote 'till I familiarise myself with this board, or, more likely, ask for pointers.

BIB (if i've done it correctly) is exactly what I've been doing for years. I'm registered with a couple of forums, indeed signed up with one in particular in 2007 to discuss this case, and 'trying' not to ramble in my first post, I can say with confidence this forum was referred to countless times over the past years, both publicly on the forum though mainly in private mails. I left a few years ago as I butted heads with a fellow female Scot many times. She's known to this board. I know many, many, people who read this forum and are not registered.

I'm annoyed at myself that I've taken so long to register. I've sat and fumed whilst reading about Tony's battle with TM and CR. Actually, perhaps that should be the other way round. Just like I've fumed (for want of a better word at the minute) for years at the credibility of The McCanns' account of what happened to Madeleine 'that' night.

Mr Bennett, I support you 100%.

Ange, I would like to thank you very much for your contribution and for your kind words of encouragement, and the same too to all higher up the thread who have also given their support one way or another.

On the subject of the McCanns' credibility, I am hoping that the McCanns do not call as one of their witnesses the man whom the Sun variously called 'Veteran Met detective' and 'The former Scotland Yard detective', Ian Horrocks.

He told the Sun (12 June last year) that...

"The thought that Kate and Gerry McCann had anything to do with the death of their daughter, whether being directly responsible or covering it up, is frankly preposterous. There is not one shred of credible evidence, either direct or otherwise, to indicate that this is even a remote possibility".

If the famous Ian Horrocks, with all his decades of experience in one of the top police forces in the world, never mind in this country, says all that to the High Court, what chance have I got?

Or maybe the explanation is more simple.

Is Horrocks on a retainer from News International?

by Guest 06.01.13 16:54

I'd say you've just increased dramatically the odds of him being there if he reads that.

Again you're just giving them more ammunition. Your strategy is either brilliant, or the most disastrous one ever. Or you're not well with all the stress. I still can't work you out. But if you aren't well, tell the court before it's too late.

by Smokeandmirrors 06.01.13 16:55

It's great to see more people signing up, welcome!!

Tony, regards Horrocks being paid by NI, these days nothing would surprise me. There have been so many things the media turn a blind eye to, or cover up, for who knows what filthy pieces of silver! I think the recent Operation Yewtree demonstrates how broad and deep the rot, how many complicit parties to the vilest of happenings, how many snakes slither through the grass. And it is really not difficult to feel a sense of hopelessness about it all sometimes. But something to take heart from is the growing swell of people on the net and elsewhere who are becoming so wholeheartedly sick of the "bad guys", who want to shine a light on wrongdoing and send it scuttling back into the shadows from whence it came. It is making a difference to the world, of that I am utterly convinced. I think the tide is turning.

by Guest 06.01.13 17:09

Ange wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:
tcat wrote:Guys, all this bravado really isn't helping Tony one little bit. Goodness knows what the Royal Court of Justice makes of it, if they're reading. It's not Judge Judy's courtroom Tony will be appearing in.

The entire site would be better off, as would Tony himself, saying nothing between now and the court date.

You might be right.
Or then again, you might be completely wrong.
It could be that if someone relevant from the Royal Court of Justice is reading all this, they will see what a complete sham it's all been since day 1. And there is nothing at all to suggest that a Judge believes the nonsense any more than we do. Or a jury for that matter. One simply cannot make any such assumptions.

Of the thousands of people who have commented on all the various forums over the years relating to this case, we hazard a pretty good guess that those thousands represent the tip of the iceberg. For the 2,000 or so registered to this forum there might be tens of thousands who read it without registering to post- I certainly know quite a few who read here but are not registered. And over the years, the vast majority of people who have I have spoken to about the case, at the very least feel there is something fishy going on. And I don't know, literally, a single person who isn't/wasn't absolutely disgusted by the claims the children were alone.

I think the only sorts of people who believe the story of what happened are the same demographic who read Take-a-Break, play Bingo and voted for Christopher Maloney in XFactor.

Hi everyone, my first post on this forum. Apologies for the double quote 'till I familiarise myself with this board, or, more likely, ask for pointers.

BIB (if i've done it correctly) is exactly what I've been doing for years. I'm registered with a couple of forums, indeed signed up with one in particular in 2007 to discuss this case, and 'trying' not to ramble in my first post, I can say with confidence this forum was referred to countless times over the past years, both publicly on the forum though mainly in private mails. I left a few years ago as I butted heads with a fellow female Scot many times. She's known to this board. I know many, many, people who read this forum and are not registered.

I'm annoyed at myself that I've taken so long to register. I've sat and fumed whilst reading about Tony's battle with TM and CR. Actually, perhaps that should be the other way round. Just like I've fumed (for want of a better word at the minute) for years at the credibility of The McCanns' account of what happened to Madeleine 'that' night.

Mr Bennett, I support you 100%.

Welcom to the forum Ange, glad you joined us. McCann v Bennett 'commit-to-jail' case may (OR MAY NOT) be heard on Tues 29 and Weds 30 January - Page 2 4239481642

McCann v Bennett 'commit-to-jail' case may (OR MAY NOT) be heard on Tues 29 and Weds 30 January - Page 2 4239481642

by **PeterMac** 06.01.13 17:17

If Horrocks does turn up - which is unlikely since there is no libel trial, contrary to what a number of people seem to believe, and his un-evidenced opinions would in any event be entirely irrelevant - a couple of neatly worded questions should open him up.
"Have you read the papers ?" might be a good start.

by Ange 06.01.13 17:26

Tony Bennett wrote:
Ange wrote:

Ange, I would like to thank you very much for your contribution and for your kind words of encouragement, and the same too to all higher up the thread who have also given their support one way or another.

On the subject of the McCanns' credibility, I am hoping that the McCanns do not call as one of their witnesses the man whom the Sun variously called 'Veteran Met detective' and 'The former Scotland Yard detective', Ian Horrocks.

He told the Sun (12 June last year) that...

"The thought that Kate and Gerry McCann had anything to do with the death of their daughter, whether being directly responsible or covering it up, is frankly preposterous. There is not one shred of credible evidence, either direct or otherwise, to indicate that this is even a remote possibility".

If the famous Ian Horrocks, with all his decades of experience in one of the top police forces in the world, never mind in this country, says all that to the High Court, what chance have I got?

Or maybe the explanation is more simple.

Is Horrocks on a retainer from News International?

Tony, if the 'perceived as famous' Horrocks should be called as a witness and 'says all that' to the High Court, in your shoes I would welcome it. Statements need facts, not a former Met vet's personal opinion, to back them up. Imagine the questions his 'personal opinion' would subject him to. I:winkwink:

by **Tony Bennett** 06.01.13 17:34

tcat wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:On the subject of the McCanns' credibility, I am hoping that the McCanns do not call as one of their witnesses the man whom the Sun variously called 'Veteran Met detective' and 'The former Scotland Yard detective', Ian Horrocks.

He told the Sun (12 June last year) that...

"The thought that Kate and Gerry McCann had anything to do with the death of their daughter, whether being directly responsible or covering it up, is frankly preposterous. There is not one shred of credible evidence, either direct or otherwise, to indicate that this is even a remote possibility".

If the famous Ian Horrocks, with all his decades of experience in one of the top police forces in the world, never mind in this country, says all that to the High Court, what chance have I got?

Or maybe the explanation is more simple.

Is Horrocks on a retainer from News International?
I'd say you've just increased dramatically the odds of him being there if he reads that. Again you're just giving them more ammunition...

I'm not so sure the McCanns will be quite so keen on calling Ian Horrocks after they or their lawyers read this, a report in the media in 2008 on a review of the Jill Dando case:

QUOTE

Ian Horrocks, the officer who was second-in-command of the original [Dando] inquiry, said he agreed with the jury's verdict in Mr George's first trial in 2001, when he was found guilty. Mr Horrocks, a retired detective inspector, said: "A lot of the evidence against George was circumstantial, but it could not be ignored."

UNQUOTE

So, as the Investigating Officer, second only to the Senior Investigating Officer in the case, Horrocks thoroughly bungled the investigation, arresting and prosecuting the wrong man (Barry Bulsara) and getting him sent to prison. At a massive cost to Bulsara's life, and a massive wasted cost to the taxpayer. Then he has the audacity to say: 'The jury got it rght'!

What a humungous fool!

Bring him on - I look forward to cross-examining him!

If it was possible for anyone to have a credit rating of below zero, surely 'retired, veteran Met detective' Ian Horrocks would be a prime candidate...

by Ange 06.01.13 17:36

o/t: Thanks for the welcome. I'm going to need a few pointers re quoting/multi quoting, emoticons etc., if/when someone has a spare few minutes. I thought i'd got it right last post, obviously not. Or is there something I should read if anyone could point me in the right direction? Thank you.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.01.13 17:38

tcat wrote:Your strategy is either brilliant, or the most disastrous one ever.

What makes you think I have any strategy?

Or you're not well with all the stress.

That's true. But losing a stone-and-a-half in a few months isn't all bad news.

I still can't work you out.

Try not to worry too much about it. Few people can.

But if you aren't well, tell the court before it's too late.

Your advice is appreciated to an extent you cannot imagine.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.01.13 17:59

Ange wrote:Hi everyone, my first post on this forum...I can say with confidence this forum was referred to countless times over the past years, both publicly on the forum though mainly in private mails...I know many, many, people who read this forum and are not registered...

Indeed, one of the strengths of this forum is the extent to which an increasing number of guests visit and stay to read articles here...just checked the stats and 98 members have also looked in here in the past 24 hours

McCann v Bennett 'commit-to-jail' case may (OR MAY NOT) be heard on Tues 29 and Weds 30 January