The four top London libel lawyers now lined up to crush a pensioner from Harlow

marxman wrote:I'm going to tell you a story!

Was a young man who lived in a small town just

outside Melbourne Australia, and this young man

was in the habit of whistling every morning, same

time, 5AM every morning at sun rise. He would do

his whistling as he walked to work.

Well, the neighbours of the homes he passed bye

didn't appreciate getting awakened by this constant

and predictable sound, so they clubbed together and

took this young fella to court.

Oh, them neighbours were successful, the Judge issued

an 'undertaking' that the young man blindly accepted,

NOT to whistle anymore... at any time... never again.

Aww well, needless to say, shortly after judgement and

in fact, the very next day, the young man whistled as he

would do and as spirited as ever.

Bang! he was arrested for disturbing the peace and

presented in front of the same judge. "Why did you young

man with purpose and intent totally disregard the solumn

undertaking you have made to this court"?

...."I'm truly sorry your honour, but when the birds awake

and sing their morning song, and they like me do not know

time or things as you do, I just have to join in and be a part

of a new day. And they are as loud as me! Am I wrong?"

"Case dismissed" says the judge

I wonder, marxman, if you could kindly give me the reference for this important case, including the full legal citation. It would also be helpful to know if it was in one of the lower or higher Australian courts; if the latter, it could of course set a precedent, though I'm not fully au fait with whether or not the High Court is obliged to follow Australian court decisions. It might be a useful one to have up my sleeve if the worst comes to the worst. I take it that the burden of proof was on the neighbours to prove that the man's whistling was louder than that of the birds?

Tony Bennett wrote:

marxman wrote:I'm going to tell you a story!

Was a young man who lived in a small town just

outside Melbourne Australia, and this young man

was in the habit of whistling every morning, same

time, 5AM every morning at sun rise. He would do

his whistling as he walked to work.

Well, the neighbours of the homes he passed bye

didn't appreciate getting awakened by this constant

and predictable sound, so they clubbed together and





took this young fella to court.

Oh, them neighbours were successful, the Judge issued

an 'undertaking' that the young man blindly accepted,

NOT to whistle anymore... at any time... never again.

Aww well, needless to say, shortly after judgement and

in fact, the very next day, the young man whistled as he

would do and as spirited as ever.

Bang! he was arrested for disturbing the peace and

presented in front of the same judge. "Why did you young

man with purpose and intent totally disregard the solumn

undertaking you have made to this court"?

...."I'm truly sorry your honour, but when the birds awake

and sing their morning song, and they like me do not know

time or things as you do, I just have to join in and be a part

of a new day. And they are as loud as me! Am I wrong?"

"Case dismissed" says the judge

I wonder, marxman, if you could kindly give me the reference for this important case, including the full legal citation. It would also be helpful to know if it was in one of the lower or higher Australian courts; if the latter, it could of course set a precedent, though I'm not fully au fait with whether or not the High Court is obliged to follow Australian court decisions. It might be a useful one to have up my sleeve if the worst comes to the worst. I take it that the burden of proof was on the neighbours to prove that the man's whistling was louder than that of the birds?

This case did indeed occur, and apparently has been inspirational

to many. I was in Australial and they have a plaque in memory of

this same poor soul who's only disturbance was to mime and to

act along with nature and express truth in it's most natural form.

I will search for it....

marxman wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:I wonder, marxman, if you could kindly give me the reference for this important case, including the full legal citation. It would also be helpful to know if it was in one of the lower or higher Australian courts; if the latter, it could of course set a precedent, though I'm not fully au fait with whether or not the High Court is obliged to follow Australian court decisions. It might be a useful one to have up my sleeve if the worst comes to the worst. I take it that the burden of proof was on the neighbours to prove that the man's whistling was louder than that of the birds?

This case did indeed occur, and apparently has been inspirational to many. I was in Australial and they have a plaque in memory of
this same poor soul who's only disturbance was to mime and to act along with nature and express truth in it's most natural form.
I will search for it...

I wasn't being serious..I was speaking tongue-in-cheek...I genuinely thought this was an apocryphal story

Tony says:

I wasn't being serious..I was speaking tongue-in-cheek...I genuinely thought this was an apocryphal story

Talking of apocryphal stories, Tony... No, maybe you shouldn't at the moment, but perhaps you'll be able to in a little while, and wouldn't that be nice!

i noticed someone (and i think it was a pro sycophant) suggested TB would be ok if all his supporters set up a fund and put in appx £140.00 each. The poster was being smug - as i find most of them are. However, why not indeed? I would!

C.Edwards wrote:

bobbin wrote:

C.Edwards cannot plead being 'lost'. He/she even states that 'batting for the other side' has a different meaning, therefore must know the original.
Before the urban dictionary got hold of it, 'batting for the other side' has had its obvious meanings for ages.

I can plead what I like thanks! I'm not lost about the meaning of the phrase, merely the peculiar reaction of aiyoyo to my post.

There was nothing peculiar about my reaction. It was appropriate since you are very persistence in your stirring.
Its pretty obvious even to the blind what you are up to. If only their Fund is as transparent as you!
Stop pretending you support TB.
We are all discerning members here.

Tony Bennett wrote:

marxman wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:I wonder, marxman, if you could kindly give me the reference for this important case, including the full legal citation. It would also be helpful to know if it was in one of the lower or higher Australian courts; if the latter, it could of course set a precedent, though I'm not fully au fait with whether or not the High Court is obliged to follow Australian court decisions. It might be a useful one to have up my sleeve if the worst comes to the worst. I take it that the burden of proof was on the neighbours to prove that the man's whistling was louder than that of the birds?

This case did indeed occur, and apparently has been inspirational to many. I was in Australial and they have a plaque in memory of
this same poor soul who's only disturbance was to mime and to act along with nature and express truth in it's most natural form.
I will search for it...

I wasn't being serious..I was speaking tongue-in-cheek...I genuinely thought this was an apocryphal story

Well I have to be honest, 'apocryphal' really threw

me, but, it is a factual story. Outside in a town on

park benches, street names, and other places where

people meet are plaques of the 'boy that couldn't

whistle'. Thats a place outside melbourne.

I hope you don't think im belittling you! Its not

meant to be that way.

C.Edwards and tcat - do you think its wise to be trying to communicate such negativity to Tony only a few days before going to court. You may think you`re helping him and, indeed, you probably were in the first instance, but to keep on and on and on relentlessly giving the message that he has no hope is giving a certain impression of what your own motives may be. Why do you want to wear the man down? I`m sure Tony is well aware of every point you have made.

There is always hope that there are some decent people in the world who will see

this farcical case for what it is - a farce! - and do the right thing and throw it out of court.

Well said Woofer. Now is the time to think positively and not dwell on any mistakes that may or may not have been made in the past.

Bob Southgate wrote:It's legal anarchy that the McCanns are pursuing TB over matters that are being repeated time and time again on the internet. It is not legal anarchy to challenge court rulings that are clearly incorrect. The courts do get it wrong and they have to be held to account when they do get it wrong.

I understand your intended meaning, but that's not how the law works. We have a judicial system in place because otherwise we could all make our minds up as to what was lawful or not. Quite simply there was an undertaking given - with a penal notice attached (this is serious) - and the claimants are stating that the undertakings have been breached and therefore Tony is in contempt of court. This is what the upcoming hearing is for. Whether you like it or not, it's simply there to establish whether or not Tony is in breach of any of those undertakings. CR will attempt to prove he is, Tony will attempt to prove he's not, it's as simple as that. Trying to argue that he can't be in contempt because the undertaking is unfair/needs varying/is unenforceable for whatever reason is almost certainly not an argument for the committal hearing and you can bet that CR will ensure it does not become one.

The crux of this is neatly explained in para 26 of Justice Tugendhat's judgment:

26. It is a rule of law of great importance that undertakings to the court (like injunctions) must be obeyed so long as they are in force. If a party restrained by such an order wishes to contend that the order ought not to have been made, or ought not to remain in force, it is not open to that party to ignore the order and then, if faced with a committal application, to ask for that committal application to be adjourned pending the determination of an application to vary the undertaking or injunction. If that were permitted, the administration of justice would be seriously undermined: injunctions and undertakings would not be the effective remedies that they are required to be.

He also goes on to point out (para 27) that it's basically up to the court hearing the committal proceedings to decide if they allow Tony's application to vary the undertaking/lift the stay:

It would be a matter for the court hearing the committal application, if it found that the Defendant had committed a breach of the undertaking, to decide at that point whether to proceed immediately to determine the penalty, or whether to adjourn, and if so, whether or not to hear the Defendant's application before determining the penalty.

It is in this last point that Tony's chance to push things to a full libel trial rests. I presume (don't know) that in they refuse to consider his application prior to sentencing, they will have to have a future hearing at which the application will be considered? This is the hearing that CR would also throw huge legal weight against as, if they lost, the McCanns would then need to go into massive detail about every single allegation that's been made I believe. It would still be a long and difficult road to a libel trial though - for one thing Tony would have to convince the court that his Spiller vs. Joseph (honest comment) citation has merit and relevance.

What will not happen at the hearing is that the Judge will see the massed ranks of CR against TB and declare, "I say, that's not fair you bounders, your show of strength means you must be trying to suppress something by jingo! I therefore dismiss the undertaking forthwith!" There is nothing in law that allows for this to happen, CR are just doing their job to the maximum efficiency. It's entirely true that loads of people online say far worse things than Tony ever has and they're not being prosecuted... but that omits the crucial "yet" that the McCann legal team can always interject at the crucial moment... "give us time your honour and we'll get around to them all..." doesn't affect Tony's current case one iota.

Woofer wrote:C.Edwards and tcat - do you think its wise to be trying to communicate such negativity to Tony only a few days before going to court. You may think you`re helping him and, indeed, you probably were in the first instance, but to keep on and on and on relentlessly giving the message that he has no hope is giving a certain impression of what your own motives may be. Why do you want to wear the man down? I`m sure Tony is well aware of every point you have made.

I don't post very much as I'm not very good at expressing what I want to say about the McCanns and how I abhor what they are doing to TB and GA, I leave that to other people who are far more eloquent than I could ever be, however, I read a lot and take in what other people say on forums. C. Edwards is very prolific on an Amazon forum, he has never been very supportive of Tony Bennett.

I was going to post on another topic here, to say to Tony, be careful of "Greeks bearing gifts" after C.Edwards posted asking TB a question regarding his upcoming trial but I can't remember which topic it was now. Although I doubt that C.Edwards is Greek, the sentiment is the same.

I think TB had him/her sussed out anyway as he wasn't taking the bait, TB referred him/her to a website.

Woofer wrote:C.Edwards and tcat - do you think its wise to be trying to communicate such negativity to Tony only a few days before going to court. You may think you`re helping him and, indeed, you probably were in the first instance, but to keep on and on and on relentlessly giving the message that he has no hope is giving a certain impression of what your own motives may be. Why do you want to wear the man down? I`m sure Tony is well aware of every point you have made.

I'm far from trying to wear him down and that's the same as I've seen from the others you cite. I can't speak for them but I'm trying to point out that many people posting on this forum (I don't think Tony is one of them) have the wrong end of the stick about how law works and what is the likely outcome of this legal battle next week. I will be very happy indeed if the judge somehow finds a way to say there has been no breach and effectively throws out the case. I'll also be bloody amazed as something very close to legal history will have unfolded in my opinion.

It's well known that I am a McCann-sceptic and therefore I'm very keen on seeing Tony win this and the next few battles to see the McCanns in a full libel trial. It's my opinion that their actions in dealing with this publicly makes them publicly answerable and I see no other way for them to completely remove any lingering whiff of suspicion than by proceeding to a full libel trial. I honestly hope I'm amazed by events next week, but I just can't see it. I, however, am not a legal professional and my opinion on Tony's chances should have no more effect on his case than his words allegedly have on the search for Madeleine.

Newintown wrote:

Woofer wrote:C.Edwards and tcat - do you think its wise to be trying to communicate such negativity to Tony only a few days before going to court. You may think you`re helping him and, indeed, you probably were in the first instance, but to keep on and on and on relentlessly giving the message that he has no hope is giving a certain impression of what your own motives may be. Why do you want to wear the man down? I`m sure Tony is well aware of every point you have made.

I don't post very much as I'm not very good at expressing what I want to say about the McCanns and how I abhor what they are doing to TB and GA, I leave that to other people who are far more eloquent than I could ever be, however, I read a lot and take in what other people say on forums. C. Edwards is very prolific on an Amazon forum, he has never been very supportive of Tony Bennett.

I was going to post on another topic here, to say to Tony, be careful of "Greeks bearing gifts" after C.Edwards posted asking TB a question regarding his upcoming trial but I can't remember which topic it was now. Although I doubt that C.Edwards is Greek, the sentiment is the same.

I think TB had him/her sussed out anyway as he wasn't taking the bait.

I really have no idea what you're on about. I can't remember the last time I posted on the Amazon forums, I got utterly fed up with continually banging my head against the brick wall on there. It must be well over a year if not more? Hardly makes me prolific and I can hardly ever (if ever?) remember saying anything much about Tony on there. If you can provide evidence to the contrary, let's see it, if not, please leave your unfounded allegations out of this.

As to your crudely-made analogy about greeks bearing gifts... I have literally no idea what you are on about. Just because I don't blindly agree with every single anti-McCann statement made doesn't make me a supporter of theirs!

C.Edwards wrote:

Newintown wrote:

Woofer wrote:C.Edwards and tcat - do you think its wise to be trying to communicate such negativity to Tony only a few days before going to court. You may think you`re helping him and, indeed, you probably were in the first instance, but to keep on and on and on relentlessly giving the message that he has no hope is giving a certain impression of what your own motives may be. Why do you want to wear the man down? I`m sure Tony is well aware of every point you have made.

I don't post very much as I'm not very good at expressing what I want to say about the McCanns and how I abhor what they are doing to TB and GA, I leave that to other people who are far more eloquent than I could ever be, however, I read a lot and take in what other people say on forums. C. Edwards is very prolific on an Amazon forum, he has never been very supportive of Tony Bennett.

I was going to post on another topic here, to say to Tony, be careful of "Greeks bearing gifts" after C.Edwards posted asking TB a question regarding his upcoming trial but I can't remember which topic it was now. Although I doubt that C.Edwards is Greek, the sentiment is the same.

I think TB had him/her sussed out anyway as he wasn't taking the bait.

I really have no idea what you're on about. I can't remember the last time I posted on the Amazon forums, I got utterly fed up with continually banging my head against the brick wall on there. It must be well over a year if not more? Hardly makes me prolific and I can hardly ever (if ever?) remember saying anything much about Tony on there. If you can provide evidence to the contrary, let's see it, if not, please leave your unfounded allegations out of this.

As to your crudely-made analogy about greeks bearing gifts... I have literally no idea what you are on about. Just because I don't blindly agree with every single anti-McCann statement made doesn't make me a supporter of theirs!

All I can say is that you have a very bad memory, a bit like the McCanns.

aiyoyo wrote:

There was nothing peculiar about my reaction. It was appropriate since you are very persistence in your stirring.
Its pretty obvious even to the blind what you are up to. If only their Fund is as transparent as you!
Stop pretending you support TB.
We are all discerning members here.

aiyoyo can you just stop with the whole, "if you're not with us you're against us" crap please? Read through my post history a bit to find out my position on the McCanns. Quite what you think you're proving by posting nonsense like "It's pretty obvious even to the blind what you are up to" and the other rubbish is beyond me. Spell it out if you like but if you do it before reading properly through my post history you're going to end up looking very foolish.

'for one thing Tony would have to convince the court that his Spiller vs. Joseph (honest comment) citation has merit and relevance'.

I would have thought that any court would not need too much convincing that this has merit and relevance and they would use their common sense and see the charges against Tony are totally ridiculous.

Newintown wrote:

All I can say is that you have a very bad memory, a bit like the McCanns.

Oh FFS... this sort of woolly nonsense achieves nothing. Stop being coy and stop thinking that you're scoring points by vaguely alluding to things in the hope that it strengthens whatever argument you think you're making. If you're going to fling around accusations like this, back it up with facts. Please tell me when I last posted on there if you know. I have literally no idea.

Cherry wrote:'for one thing Tony would have to convince the court that his Spiller vs. Joseph (honest comment) citation has merit and relevance'.

I would have thought that any court would not need too much convincing that this has merit and relevance and they would use their common sense and see the charges against Tony are totally ridiculous.

That, I'm afraid, is just wishful thinking. It's a complex legal argument and to try and make it sound as though it's a simple done deal is misleading, I'm afraid.

We will have to agree to disagree on that one, I rather think positively about it,

I guess we will have to wait and see.

Woofer wrote:C.Edwards and tcat - do you think its wise to be trying to communicate such negativity to Tony only a few days before going to court. You may think you`re helping him and, indeed, you probably were in the first instance, but to keep on and on and on relentlessly giving the message that he has no hope is giving a certain impression of what your own motives may be. Why do you want to wear the man down? I`m sure Tony is well aware of every point you have made.

Nah it's the ludicrous potential costs getting him down, and I'm sure everyone has empathy for him there.

If it comes to that Tony will find he has plenty of allies in the fight against CR's costs.

Cherry wrote:We will have to agree to disagree on that one, I rather think positively about it,

I guess we will have to wait and see.

Fair enough, don't have a problem with that. My love for the dramatic leaves me fervently hoping for a major upset with all the attendant questions it would bring, but my dealings with law (on both sides of an argument) leave me sadly all too certain that the boring and mundane will prevail. As you say, we shall soon see.

Always look on the bright side of life

C.Edwards wrote:

Newintown wrote:

All I can say is that you have a very bad memory, a bit like the McCanns.

Oh FFS... this sort of woolly nonsense achieves nothing. Stop being coy and stop thinking that you're scoring points by vaguely alluding to things in the hope that it strengthens whatever argument you think you're making. If you're going to fling around accusations like this, back it up with facts. Please tell me when I last posted on there if you know. I have literally no idea.

I'm not scoring points, I'm just posting a fact. I remember your name from the website. When I have time I'll go through the thousands of postings (or actually 999 on each section) on that particular website, the one you know that I'm referring to, as it is still there. I'll get back to you in a few days or so, that's if you haven't deleted them by then.

C.Edwards wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

There was nothing peculiar about my reaction. It was appropriate since you are very persistence in your stirring.
Its pretty obvious even to the blind what you are up to. If only their Fund is as transparent as you!
Stop pretending you support TB.
We are all discerning members here.

aiyoyo can you just stop with the whole, "if you're not with us you're against us" crap please? Read through my post history a bit to find out my position on the McCanns. Quite what you think you're proving by posting nonsense like "It's pretty obvious even to the blind what you are up to" and the other rubbish is beyond me. Spell it out if you like but if you do it before reading properly through my post history you're going to end up looking very foolish.

Oh dearie me, hit a nerve have I?

There you go -- you admitted it yourself that you are not with us!

Don't you worry we (dare I include some others in my observation) are well aware of your history.
It's your problem if you take us for fools. We are competent at reading between the lines of your posts whether you like it or not, and spotting the tell tale sign. Your tail has been showing for a while.

They are that desperate to get TB to cave in hey, even at this 11th hour? No confidence in their case hey?