The proof of the pudding is in the eating

by **Tony Bennett** 22.07.10 8:32

Kololi wrote:You are actually wrong. Mr Bennett was not far above considering the compilation of a little naughty list and did in fact do so. That naughty list was brought to the public arena on this forum for all to see including his reasons why he felt those of us on it should be there. I trust that those posters who are fair and were here at the time remember it too. Maybe even Mr Bennett would like to own his past actions...he gave us all a good giggle in doing so.

My, how your mask is slipping, Kololi, and in terms of giggling, always remember that he who laughs last, laughs best.

I did publish a 'naughty list'. This was a list basically of forum-disruptors, those who had no interest in working on the issue of what really happened to Madeleine but were merely here to disrupt those who were here for that purpose.

Jill and the Mods and admin here have been willing all along to accommodate those with different views on Madeleine who express those views reasonably and politely.

But the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Look at my so-called 'naughty list' - and nearly all of them have been successfully banished from this forum, to its benefit I may add.

by Kololi 22.07.10 8:45

Tony Bennett wrote:
Kololi wrote:Hi - You said:

"But if someone finds out that Dr David Payne's evidence about his visit to Apartment 5A on the night Madeleine was reported missing is wholly contradictory to that of Dr Kate McCann - and moreover goes on to suggest that that must mean that one or both of them is not telling the truth - is that classed as 'disseminating a serious falsehood'?"

In this example you give I would say that you haven't found out though in a way that you can actually produce evidence that their statements are wholly contradictory.

REPLY: David Payne - visit lasted 30 minutes, I saw the children, 'little angels'
Dr Kate McCann - visit lasted 30 seconds

If you think you do have evidence then you should be handing it to the appropriate authorities for them to deal with as they see fit.

REPLY: No, I am making a comment on it, that's all. Which I think I have a right to do.

We can have our own thoughts and opinions but the bottom line is we are not the investigating force and nor are we judge, jury and executioner

REPLY: And neither am I. This forum, like other Madeleine forums, is to share our opinions. Otherwise we wouldn't be here.

and with all the right motives in the world it isn't in our gift to prosecute because some translation from Portuguese to English makes us think fibs have been told.

REPLY: Ah! So, Kololi, let's be very clear. You maintain that this contradiction is merely and only a translation error, yes?

I maintain nothing Mr Bennett because I wasn't there on that evening. I have my opinion of whether I think the McCanns have told some fibs or not and about what, but that is as much as I can do, form an opinion, because they have not been found guilty in a court of law. I wrote translation error as a general consideration not as a specific one. Heck it could be any number of reasons inserted instead of "some translation from Portuguese to English makes us think fibs have been told".

I just wonder if you are not gaining some false sense of security because Anna whatsit or Tom Dick and Harry on another forum makes a comment that makes you feel a little better. Better to be sure by hearing that same reassuring comment from some lawyer who specialises in libel law maybe.

REPLY: True. But then I should think that the vast majority of people who have read Amaral's book (about half a million to date I believe) do not think his theory is, to quote Carter-Ruck, 'baseless'.

Fair enough but are the half a million people going to offer up thier homes and livelihood on your behalf so that you can keep yours if these Carter Ruck folk persuade the McCanns to sue you?

And the bottom line, in my opinion, is that these leaflets aren't really going to find Madeliene or solve the mystery of what happened to her.

REPLY: Were Metodo 3 ever going to find her? Oakley International and Kevin Halligen? Dave Edgar and his lawless hills of the Algarve and the Victoria Beckham-lookalike in downtown Barcelona? The leaflets were meant to counter the lies and smears about Mr Amaral in the British press and to raise awareness of his legal defence fund. I would not claim this campaign to be a roaring success, after all we have extremely limited resources - but both aims have been fulfilled albeit to a very limited degree.

No they didn't find her and my own opinion is that she is unlikely to be found which is a tragedy but I am not going to go into cities or towns thrusting that personal opinion onto others. I trust that people who don't participate on internet forums are quite capable of making their minds up for themselves and don't need me to do it for them.

As for raising awareness of his legal defence fund, there are several very good local, national and international charities that I can think of to donate my money to, if I choose to, before some Portuguese person's fighting fund. Sorry my little bit of money that I donate ocassionally goes to those that I feel truly had no hand in the desparate situation that they find themselves in.

People might read them and wonder about her parents but that still doesn't find her does it. It just upsets everybody...

REPLY: Everybody?

Everybody meaning a load of folks in general - the McCanns, their neighbours, their solicitors and agents, people who read of the leaflet drops in the paper or hear it on the news, people who read it on the forums known as pros and then the people known as antis when the pros start laying into you for doing what you do, people like me who couldn't give a monkey's armpit about being "pro or anti" but who think about the loss that you might suffer when others beef you up and edge you on but who may run like the wind when the brown stuff hits the fan for you. It was a generic everybody but I see that I should have written many, many people. Pedantic.....

...and it seems to me that each new leaflet just gets you in more trouble than you were in with the leaflet before.

REPLY: That remains to be seen. You could be right.

I truly hope that I am not right.

by Kololi 22.07.10 9:01

Tony Bennett wrote:
Kololi wrote:You are actually wrong. Mr Bennett was not far above considering the compilation of a little naughty list and did in fact do so. That naughty list was brought to the public arena on this forum for all to see including his reasons why he felt those of us on it should be there. I trust that those posters who are fair and were here at the time remember it too. Maybe even Mr Bennett would like to own his past actions...he gave us all a good giggle in doing so.
My, how your mask is slipping, Kololi, and in terms of giggling, always remember that he who laughs last, laughs best.

I did publish a 'naughty list'. This was a list basically of forum-disruptors, those who had no interest in working on the issue of what really happened to Madeleine but were merely here to disrupt those who were here for that purpose.

Jill and the Mods and admin here have been willing all along to accommodate those with different views on Madeleine who express those views reasonably and politely.

But the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Look at my so-called 'naughty list' - and nearly all of them have been successfully banished from this forum, to its benefit I may add.

Mr Bennett, my mask isn't going anywhere because I don't wear one.

I post here because I find Jill to be the most fair forum host when looking at the sites available to me to read about the mystery surrounding Madeliene McCann. Jeez Amber was nothing but a little tin pot general and the pro sites wouldn't have me because I cannot put hand on heart and say that I believe everything that the McCanns have stated to be true.

I am what I am, somebody who feels there are discrepancies in both accounts, that of the McCanns and that of Mr Amaral. Fortunately, I tend to generally just read and so I do not upset the apple cart here too much which, I am guessing, allows me to stay on this forum. Jill is quite reasonable and I suppose as long as I dont do what some have done in the past, she will be happy to let me be a member.

I don't think defending myself against Mental's nonsense would be likely to be viewed as me being a "disruptor" do you?

Thank you for owning your actions of making your naughty list.

by **Tony Bennett** 22.07.10 9:16

Tony Bennett wrote:Here is another post of interest from another place:

QUOTE

At the Select Committee hearing on press standards, press freedom and libel, one of the Members of Parliament asked Adam Tudor of Carter Ruck if the McCann suit against the Daily Express was taken on a no win no fee basis.

Adam looked decidedly flustered for a few seconds and replied that initially his firm was paid a retainer, then taken on a 'no win no fee' basis. Gerry butted in...

I have gone to the original verbatim note of the evidence given by Tudor and McCann on 10 March 2009.

I would respectfully suggest that here is a valuable exercise in reading between the lines, or should I say reading between the half-truths.

I suggest reading through this carefully with this question in mind:

When, if ever, did Carter Ruck stop being paid on a retainer and move to being paid on a CFA basis?

To help you, I've highlighted certain parts of their evidence in red:

QUOTE

Chairman of the Committee;

Mr Tudor, we have heard from other members of your firm a week ago about your firm quite often operating on a Conditional Fee Arrangement [CFA}. You have said in your view it is quite clear that there was a serious defamation so you were very confident clearly that you would win this case. Did you consider a CFA?

Adam Tudor, Carter-Ruck:

Yes. My partners and I talked about it. We have a committee of partners that looks at whether or not a case is on a no win, no fee basis, as you probably heard from my partner, Mark Thompson. We did that with Kate and Gerry’s case. It was a longer, more difficult discussion than would ordinarily be the case because of the extraordinary nature, volume and so on. We sent the complaints to The Express and The Star, at which point we were acting on a normal retainer. We indicated to Kate and Gerry and we told The Express and The Star at that time that if the matter was not resolved we would indeed go on to a no win, no fee arrangement.

Dr Gerald McCann:

If there was not the facility for a conditional fee arrangement, it is very unlikely we would have continued with the action on the basis that this was not our main purpose. We are still looking for Madeleine. Much of our energies are diverted in that, but also the prospect of a fairly swift, conclusive verdict along with taking away most of the risk - essentially, we would have to remortgage our house to do that. It had a huge bearing and I am thankful to Carter Ruck for taking us on.

UNQUOTE

by **Tony Bennett** 22.07.10 9:42

Kololi wrote:I post here because...the pro sites wouldn't have me because I cannot put hand on heart and say that I believe everything that the McCanns have stated to be true...I feel there are discrepancies in both accounts, that of the McCanns and that of Mr Amaral.

What 'discrepancies' are there, please, in your opinion, in (a) the account that Goncalo Amaral gives in 'The Truth About A Lie' about the factual matters of the Portuguese Police investigation and (b) in the accounts by the McCanns and the 'Tapas 9' of what happened in Praia da Luz.

Just the main discrepancies as you see them would be useful.

by Kololi 22.07.10 12:56

Tony Bennett wrote:
Kololi wrote:I post here because...the pro sites wouldn't have me because I cannot put hand on heart and say that I believe everything that the McCanns have stated to be true...I feel there are discrepancies in both accounts, that of the McCanns and that of Mr Amaral.
What 'discrepancies' are there, please, in your opinion, in (a) the account that Goncalo Amaral gives in 'The Truth About A Lie' about the factual matters of the Portuguese Police investigation and (b) in the accounts by the McCanns and the 'Tapas 9' of what happened in Praia da Luz.

Just the main discrepancies as you see them would be useful.

1. The dogs. Whilst I am a doggy lover and accept that the dogs made an indication of some kind, I understand that their alerting alone, without actual evidence to support it is not enough to be able to go to court on. If Mr Amaral or the Police had found an item of clothing that belonged to Madeleine and was covered in blood behind the sofa, things may have been different. They didn't, and the McCanns have not been tried and found guilty.

2. Intelligent folk like the McCanns know better than to leave doors unlocked, locked, unlocked, locked etc etc etc.

The difference, I am guessing, between your take on this case and mine Mr Bennett is that you have made your mind up and believe that they should be publicly hung drawn and quartered whilst I have not so prefer to be a little less vocal about my opinion.

I think we need to act like grown ups now and accept that we have on ocassions, and will again in the future, a difference of opinion. I respect your right to your opinion, please respect my right to mine rather than treat me like something dirty that the dog dragged in.

I do hope though that you do seek legal advice because I truly would not wish for you to be in serious trouble only to find that Annaesse or whatever her name is and the other folk edging you on without real deep founded knowledge of the law have suddenly gone quiet and left you to fall alone.

by ufercoffy 23.07.10 9:48

Tony Bennett wrote:
I have gone to the original verbatim note of the evidence given by Tudor and McCann on 10 March 2009.

I would respectfully suggest that here is a valuable exercise in reading between the lines, or should I say reading between the half-truths.

I suggest reading through this carefully with this question in mind:

When, if ever, did Carter Ruck stop being paid on a retainer and move to being paid on a CFA basis?

To help you, I've highlighted certain parts of their evidence in red:

QUOTE

Chairman of the Committee;

Mr Tudor, we have heard from other members of your firm a week ago about your firm quite often operating on a Conditional Fee Arrangement [CFA}. You have said in your view it is quite clear that there was a serious defamation so you were very confident clearly that you would win this case. Did you consider a CFA?

Adam Tudor, Carter-Ruck:

Yes. My partners and I talked about it. We have a committee of partners that looks at whether or not a case is on a no win, no fee basis, as you probably heard from my partner, Mark Thompson. We did that with Kate and Gerry’s case. It was a longer, more difficult discussion than would ordinarily be the case because of the extraordinary nature, volume and so on. We sent the complaints to The Express and The Star, at which point we were acting on a normal retainer. We indicated to Kate and Gerry and we told The Express and The Star at that time that if the matter was not resolved we would indeed go on to a no win, no fee arrangement.

Dr Gerald McCann:

If there was not the facility for a conditional fee arrangement, it is very unlikely we would have continued with the action on the basis that this was not our main purpose. We are still looking for Madeleine. Much of our energies are diverted in that, but also the prospect of a fairly swift, conclusive verdict along with taking away most of the risk - essentially, we would have to remortgage our house to do that. It had a huge bearing and I am thankful to Carter Ruck for taking us on.

UNQUOTE

I think this should be in a thread of its own rather than hidden. I nearly didnt see this.

To me, this sounds like Carter Ruck see Madeleine - the most famous missing child - as the cash cow, rather than making money from her parents. Nobody seems concerned about Madeleine's real fate - only that the fraudulent circus must continue. At this rate the circus will go on forever with more and more people jumping on the 'Madeleine Bandwagon' like global network marketing.

And heaven forbid Gerry should have to remortgage his house to find the tiny daughter HE left unattended to her fate when they can carry on this fiasco and get everyone else to pay.

The people who surround innocent little Madeleine are truly despicable. I don't know how they sleep at night and I thank TB for continually bringing shocking items like this to our attention.

edited to add the link from Joana Morais http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/01/unasked-questions-about-press.html

by Guest 23.07.10 11:08

Snipped from this link..... re CFA's and Carter Ruck mentioned.

http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=2C2E06E1-CDEA-46FE-86A9-861C5442854B

Costs
Clegg’s comments highlight one of the other main concerns about the English libel system – the enormous costs involved. Even those who are doing well out of the current regime accept that some change is necessary in relation to costs, says Stephens. ‘Partners have been charging about £800 an hour on a conditional fee basis. On any basis, that is a ludicrous amount of money and it means it has become uneconomic to defend these cases.’ Conditional fee agreements (CFAs), also known as ‘no win, no fee’ agreements, can lead to libel lawyers imposing an uplift of 100 per cent on the successful completion of a case. This leaves defendants facing extortionate legal bills for the other party.
In many cases, organisations choose to settle libel suits rather than confront the vast expense of contesting them. ‘It’s just astonishing the way the English legal system works’, says a BBC insider of a recent high profile case. ‘It was going to cost us £3 million to keep going. I think we should have done that as a point of principle … Our libel regime is making it impossible to conduct any serious investigative journalism in this country.’

Alan Rusbridger, editor of the UK newspaper, The Guardian, had described his recent experience of what’s happened when his paper has attempted to publish serious investigative journalism. He said that his paper was subjected to a ‘prolonged campaign of legal harassment’ by law firm Carter-Ruck on behalf of the company. ‘Carter- Ruck, like such other firms as Schillings, are trying to carve out for themselves a slice of the lucrative market known as “reputation management”’, he told Parliament’s culture committee as part of its enquiry. ‘This is not about the perfectly proper job of helping people or organisations gain legal redress when they have been mistreated by the press. It is a pitch to work with PR firms to pressurise and intimidate journalists in advance on behalf of big business. It exploits the oppressive nature and the frightening expense of British libel laws.’
David Leigh, the award-winning head of investigations at The Guardian, describes English libel laws as ‘a scandal’. However, his main concern is not the effect they have on relatively well-funded organisations like his, but the effect they have on small publications, charities and book publishers. ‘All those groups are very ill-equipped to deal with aggressive libel lawyers and their activities are quite seriously chilled as a result’, he says. ‘The enormous costs involved make it impossible for a small organisation to fight even a highly questionable claim.’

wow

by aiyoyo 23.07.10 11:30

Quoting the article
"Carter- Ruck, like such other firms as Schillings, are trying to carve out for themselves a slice of the lucrative market known as “reputation management”’

I like the bit about "reputation management" - say it all really.

Its never about Madeleine or the truth. Its about management the reputation of her parents!

BTW, which person with an impeccable reputation needs managing?

by **Tony Bennett** 23.07.10 11:31

candyfloss wrote:Snipped from this link...David Leigh, the award-winning head of investigations at The Guardian, said: "My main concern is not the effect they have on relatively well-funded organisations like ours, but the effect they have on small publications, charities and book publishers. All those groups are very ill-equipped to deal with aggressive libel lawyers and their activities are quite seriously chilled as a result. The enormous costs involved make it impossible for a small organisation to fight even a highly questionable claim".

Tell me about it!