Re: DISCUSSION of Tony Bennett's Settlement with McCanns and Smethurst

by tiny 02.05.13 15:31

jeanmonroe wrote:Well that's alright then.
Off on the campaign trail then.
First stop right a lovely EMAIL to CR!

Should have added, you would go straight to jail DISCUSSION of Tony Bennett's Settlement with McCanns and Smethurst - Page 2 110921

by jeanmonroe 02.05.13 15:49

tiny wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:Well that's alright then.
Off on the campaign trail then.
First stop right a lovely EMAIL to CR!

Should have added, you would go straight to jail

Nah, i'd get BARRED!

by Ayniia 02.05.13 15:50

Something that really bothers me is all the hate towards "us the nutters of conspiracy" bla bla bla... I see no one in this forum being rude or wishing them anything bad...to me that tells a lot,when people have no good arguments they go down that path.
Anyway I just want to add I wish all the best for Mr. Bennett!

by plebgate 02.05.13 15:56

hope this is not correct. Will wait and hear from admin tomorrow. If it is true, I hope that Mr. A. wins in Portugal and bankrupts the lot of them.

How anybody could sit on wee Kelly's sofa yesterday, 1st May, 2013 and be seen to be smiling when the intereview was to discuss their missing daughter who was abducted and possibly in the hands of paedophiles I will never understand and yet a man who has asked questions to try and get to the bottom of what really happened to Maddie could be imprisoned and have to pay (maybe) such enormous costs is totally, totally wrong imo.

by **PeterMac** 02.05.13 16:32

jeanmonroe wrote:
After all i have a photocopy of a letter sent by THEM stating, in writing, and SIGNED, that the McCanns had absolutely no part in the 'abduction' of Madeleine. . .

I have always thought that abandoning the children played a very significant and indeed crucial part in whatever happened, even if we assume as a hypothesis that it was an abduction. To that extent surely then can be said to have been "involved" if only by an act of omission.
If you are driving a car and get whacked into by another car, you are "involved" whether it was your fault or not.

Dictionary - "involve" (of a situation or event) include (something) as a necessary part or result
The abandoning of the children was a necessary part of the event.
The infamous "it" would not have occurred if they had been there. They say that themselves.

by aiyoyo 02.05.13 17:28

PeterMac wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:
After all i have a photocopy of a letter sent by THEM stating, in writing, and SIGNED, that the McCanns had absolutely no part in the 'abduction' of Madeleine. . .
I have always thought that abandoning the children played a very significant and indeed crucial part in whatever happened, even if we assume as a hypothesis that it was an abduction. To that extent surely then can be said to have been "involved" if only by an act of omission.
If you are driving a car and get whacked into by another car, you are "involved" whether it was your fault or not.

Dictionary - "involve" (of a situation or event) include (something) as a necessary part or result
The abandoning of the children was a necessary part of the event.
The infamous "it" would not have occurred if they had been there. They say that themselves.

Yeap, without their involvement in an act of omission, an abduction could not have happened.
So yes, it is technically incorrect for CR to have said: "they had absolutely no part in the abduction". The hypothesis of an abduction can only hold true if they'd neglected her, so they were involved in the abduction, even if only in contributing to her danger.
If CR had said: "they had no part in her death etc" then that is a different matter.
You would think the most feared and probably also one of the most expensive law firms in the land would at least know the difference when quantifying their clients involvement or non-involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine.

Maybe lawyers are like auditors, if the price is right, any thing can be quantified any which way to suit the client.

by Guest 02.05.13 19:04

I agree. In my field, having to write a.o. "tons" of evaluation reports, I often joked [and was often misunderstood ...]: just give me a pile of numbers and I'll draw you any picture you like ...

[BTW my graphics were very impressive and artistic] DISCUSSION of Tony Bennett's Settlement with McCanns and Smethurst - Page 2 742129

DISCUSSION of Tony Bennett's Settlement with McCanns and Smethurst - Page 2 742129

by loopzdaloop 02.05.13 22:17

If they are making him bankrupt, then surely he has nothing to lose but to get the stay lifted on the libel trial and go right to court.
He knew that the court conditions bit was a goner, yet a full libel trial he would definitely be on to getting the truth out.
Once things are said in court, then it can be reported can it not?

by plebgate 03.05.13 7:15

Tony gagged for life, but he has had to do what is best for himself and his family and I don't think anybody can argue with that.
Best wishes to Tony from me.

Does this mean that Mr. & Mrs. will be paying the huge costs out of the Fund to their solicitors?

We can only look to Portugal now and see whether a settlement is reached there or not.

The courts are being used to shut people and the newspapers up? WHY?

by Guest 03.05.13 7:37

Tony is the one person who has stood his ground against them in court, they don't like the fact he has told a different version of events, they have gagged him because they are so frightend of what he has said getting into the public domain, but one day, one day they will fall on their sword.

Head up high Tony, Best wishes.

by pennylane 03.05.13 7:58

They should arrest the McCanns for leaving 3 toddlers nightly in a foreign country to fend for themselves, and annihilating Madeleine in the process! Their despicable actions are truly abhorrent to anyone who cares about the welfare and safety of children. Instead the vile pair become rich celebrities. The law is an ass!

Thank you Tony, for your amazing achievements. I am in awe of your courageous stand against tyranny.

May God bless you always xxx

by Guest 03.05.13 8:21

I thought I'd better post the link to Tony's settlement thread in case some people wonder what we're talking about here: DISCUSSION of Tony Bennett's Settlement with McCanns and Smethurst - Page 2 110921

Tony Bennett: Announcement of settlement between McCanns and Edward Smethurst

by **PeterMac** 03.05.13 9:04

admin wrote:I thought I'd better post the link to Tony's settlement thread in case some people wonder what we're talking about here: [/img]
Tony Bennett: Announcement of settlement between McCanns and Edward Smethurst

My God !
They have reduced the bill by £ 385,000. More than a third of a million pounds.
A number of questions immediately pose themselves.

1 Were these REAL expenses / costs, for work actually done ? In which case who is going to pay ? Solicitors do not do that amount of work for nothing, and QC's certainly don't
2 What does TB know that is worth a third of a million pounds to silence him. Does TB even know what he knows ?
3 It is a climbdown. It would barely cover the costs of the Office Junior doing the photocopying, or Kevin spending time picking his nose watching the screen for the magic words to pop up. It does not even cover the fees for their top Libel lawyer - Adrienne Page QC - for the two days of the trial. (total said to be around £45,000)
4 Are they going to present it as an act of Charity ?
And so on.

What it does, incidentally, is to show once again how Libel Laws in England operate - by bullying, threatening financial ruin, and so on, to force the defendant to retreat and to agree to be silenced, when in fact they may not have a leg to stand on, and are prepared to compromise.
The one thing they clearly did NOT want, is for the case to proceed to trial, and for their clients to be subjected to cross examination, and for a judge to hear the evidence and to rule on the defences of Truth, and Fair Comment.

I am stunned

by Guest 03.05.13 9:13

Smethurst can afford it.

by Guest 03.05.13 9:23

PeterMac wrote:

1 Were these REAL expenses / costs, for work actually done ? In which case
who is going to pay ? Solicitors do not do that amount of work for nothing, and
QC's certainly don't

That is a very good question PeterMac. How can all those costs suddenly disappear? Who foots the bill?

by Lostfridge 03.05.13 9:27

I am gutted for TB and gutted that he has been forced into this agreement. But more curious what Tony said or uncovered that no one else did?. What is it that is worth hundreds of thousands to some one to keep it quiet!.

by AskTheDogsSandra 03.05.13 9:38

Lostfridge wrote:I am gutted for TB and gutted that he has been forced into this agreement. But more curious what Tony said or uncovered that no one else did?. What is it that is worth hundreds of thousands to some one to keep it quiet!.

I wonder if it's anything to do with Smethurst and his holiday apartment in PdL? Maybe that's where Madeleine was stored in the freezer? Smethurst does seem to be a bit worried about Tony and he does seem to be helping the infamous child neglectors and Cadaver pants Kate.

by tiny 03.05.13 9:46

AskTheDogsSandra wrote:
Lostfridge wrote:I am gutted for TB and gutted that he has been forced into this agreement. But more curious what Tony said or uncovered that no one else did?. What is it that is worth hundreds of thousands to some one to keep it quiet!.

I wonder if it's anything to do with Smethurst and his holiday apartment in PdL? Maybe that's where Madeleine was stored in the freezer? Smethurst does seem to be a bit worried about Tony and he does seem to be helping the infamous child neglectors and Cadaver pants Kate.

Now theres a thought ,worth keeping in mind

by **PeterMac** 03.05.13 9:51

candyfloss wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
1 Were these REAL expenses / costs, for work actually done ? In which case
who is going to pay ? Solicitors do not do that amount of work for nothing, and
QC's certainly don't
That is a very good question PeterMac. How can all those costs suddenly disappear? Who foots the bill?

Pro bono is one thing, and to be applauded, but would not extend to a third of a million pounds and six years work by the two senior partners.
There are thus two questions
Were they real expenses or simply numbers on paper intended to intimidate ?

by Guest 03.05.13 9:53

There certainly must be a reason why Tony in particular had to be silenced as otherwise he would have been put in the David Icke category and safely ignored.

I hope that this forum will now collectively be able to play a part in finding out what exactly Team McCann has to hide.

Peter: I definitely go for the "intended to intimidate" bit!

by Nina 03.05.13 10:42

A group of numbers, high numbers to keep Tony Bennett silent for the rest of his life. And the McCanns are prepared to pay these high numbers, leaving Tony with a smaller group of numbers to pay, even those though are mind boggling for a pensioner.
The McCanns are doctors, one, Kate, now doesn't work. So where are they going to get this large sum from, certainly not from Gerry's salary?
They have asked for a settlement with Goncalo Amaral, again where will that money come from?
Is there to be a fund set up for those who can and want to, to donate towards Tony's monthly payments, now we know what the monthly/annual figure is?
My head is reeling with thoughts so I apologise for a jumbled post.
Tony Bennett is now silenced and it stinks. However we are not, and I certainly will continue to speak out.
Tony my continued support to you and please now try to get some semblance of calm and order back into your life.

by aiyoyo 03.05.13 11:13

PeterMac wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
1 Were these REAL expenses / costs, for work actually done ? In which case
who is going to pay ? Solicitors do not do that amount of work for nothing, and
QC's certainly don't
That is a very good question PeterMac. How can all those costs suddenly disappear? Who foots the bill?
Pro bono is one thing, and to be applauded, but would not extend to a third of a million pounds and six years work by the two senior partners.
There are thus two questions
Were they real expenses or simply numbers on paper intended to intimidate ?

If they were not merely inflated numbers on paper meant to intimidate, then the anonymous person paying for it must be the driving force behind this farce and scam. Since there isnt enough in the Fund to cover this, and the mccanns for sure wont pay out of their (they cant afford this anyway) it begs the question who bankrolled the mccanns, and what is in it for him? I always suspected someone other than the Mccanns is holding this together, and the reason is anyone's guess. I suspect the reason is incidental to Madeleine disappearance, and has something to do the cover up of with illegal trading by a seemingly respectable millionaire.

by **PeterMac** 03.05.13 11:55

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:There certainly must be a reason why Tony in particular had to be silenced as otherwise he would have been put in the David Icke category and safely ignored. I hope that this forum will now collectively be able to play a part in finding out what exactly Team McCann has to hide. !

That has always intrigued me as well.
As a cop I received abuse, insults and threats, but as we all did, simply put it down to idiots speaking through their lawyers.
I was never insulted or abused by anyone who was subsequently acquitted !
It is another of those markers for Guilt, (like the "Swear on my baby's life; If I'm honest; I am telling the truth you know; as God is my judge; and the rest of the mantra")which makes the job of the police officer so much easier.
The not-guilty cooperate and are polite, explaining their actions to the full, on time, and only one version.
The guilty abuse, (cf. f*** t****), are uncooperative (cf. 48 questions), change their story to fit with the facts as they are revealed (where do we start ? shutters, window, curtains, point of entry, sedation, eye defect, . . . . ), and take time to come up with their final and definitive version (cf. GM second statement - a WEEK later, when he admits he used the patio doors)

A person who is innocent simply dismisses any other suggestion. Usually the word "No" is enough.
So why they did not dismiss TB is a Mystery
Actually it is not. He clearly has said something which has rattled their collective cages and made it worth a third of a million pounds to stop him.
But not the rest of us.
That is the really bizarre thing.

by Guest 03.05.13 11:56

I think from the start the silence was more important than the money.

But it's really just papering over the cracks.

They didn't search for Madeleine because they knew all along where she was imo.

And 6 years on they're doing the same thing, working really hard not searching for Madeleine.

Silence must be golden, it costs a lot of bucks.

by plebgate 03.05.13 12:05

saltnpepper wrote:
AskTheDogsSandra wrote:Muratfan usually knows before any of us, hasn't he broadcast it on twitter yet?

He did a week or two ago...roughly 230k ??

WRONG.

Log in for more topics