The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann. Please note that your username should be different from your email address!

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

Regards,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Carter-Ruck to sue everyone !

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Carter-Ruck to sue everyone !

Post by Verdi on 06.02.17 23:46

m
@sandancer wrote: 

My post is always late will that make a difference ?
Don't know about that but from my experience of DHL, FedEx and UPS I feel a counter sue coming on.  Saying you received something when you haven't doesn't cut the mustard - a squiggle on the delivery document made by some unknown entity on the front desk, or a neighbour or the bloke in the local shop isn't good enough.

I HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE BLEEPING DOCUMENT !!!  Prove it if you can!

I was expecting a delivery to my home via DHL, which I'd payed for.  It didn't arrive as specified by tracking so I called at the local office to inquire - apparently it had been held by customs because the cost of the purchase exceeded the import tax limitation.

As required, I signed a declaration to say I would pay the required import tax but still the package wasn't forthcoming.  This went on for a couple of weeks until I was told by the DHL office that I must go to the port to personally collect the package - the port being about 300 miles from where I live !?!

By this time the steam is exuding from the ears.  I managed to contact a DHL representative at the shipping port and was told that my package had been destroyed or returned to the sender because it hadn't been collected.  It wasn't returned to sender (Elvis had left the building) so I suspect my purchase is now adorning some thieving swines home.

Pick the bones out of that one oh mighty libel lawyer.  Just try and prove I received your threatening missive.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 4497
Reputation : 2730
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Carter-Ruck to sue everyone !

Post by Get'emGonçalo on 07.02.17 7:39

@Verdi wrote:m
@sandancer wrote: 

My post is always late will that make a difference ?
Don't know about that but from my experience of DHL, FedEx and UPS I feel a counter sue coming on.  Saying you received something when you haven't doesn't cut the mustard - a squiggle on the delivery document made by some unknown entity on the front desk, or a neighbour or the bloke in the local shop isn't good enough.

I HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE BLEEPING DOCUMENT !!!  Prove it if you can!

I was expecting a delivery to my home via DHL, which I'd payed for.  It didn't arrive as specified by tracking so I called at the local office to inquire - apparently it had been held by customs because the cost of the purchase exceeded the import tax limitation.

As required, I signed a declaration to say I would pay the required import tax but still the package wasn't forthcoming.  This went on for a couple of weeks until I was told by the DHL office that I must go to the port to personally collect the package - the port being about 300 miles from where I live !?!

By this time the steam is exuding from the ears.  I managed to contact a DHL representative at the shipping port and was told that my package had been destroyed or returned to the sender because it hadn't been collected.  It wasn't returned to sender (Elvis had left the building) so I suspect my purchase is now adorning some thieving swines home.

Pick the bones out of that one oh mighty libel lawyer.  Just try and prove I received your threatening missive.

Please contact Adam Tudor and they will have your letter delivered directly to your house late at night, mafia-style, in a black limousine.

Isn't that right Tony?

____________________
I'm not saying Gerry McCann is obsessed with what comes out in the media but Kim Jong-un thinks he needs to lighten up a bit.

avatar
Get'emGonçalo


Posts : 8066
Reputation : 3678
Join date : 2009-11-25

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Carter-Ruck to sue everyone !

Post by BlueBag on 07.02.17 7:55

You can stop junk mail here:

http://www.mpsonline.org.uk/mpsr/
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 3846
Reputation : 1720
Join date : 2014-06-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Carter-Ruck to sue everyone !

Post by Tom Moore on 07.02.17 11:44

@Philip Anders wrote:
@Cmaryholmes wrote:If you then put posters up all over your town saying your neighbour had been convicted for not having a TV licence you could be sued even though what you've said is true.
That is not libel, surely, until the conviction becomes "spent" under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act?

It could, however, be Harassment, and perhaps rightly if one focussed on one's neighbour for some unrelated reason.

When Courts are considering a criminal charge of Harassment they should perform a mental balancing act of the rights of each party, for example the right of free speech versus the right to a private life.

However, if like Kate and Bro. Gerry McCann, an aggrieved party can mobilise the resources needed to obtain an Injunction under the Harassment Act, and complains via a criminal charge about a breech of that injunction, then the balancing act has already been performed and the sole question to be addressed is whether the Defendant acted in the way forbidden.

Injunctions in England can be granted "for the convenience of the Court," and are considered a cowardly method of litigation, but one Kate and Bro. Gerry McCann (and other Freemasons) are keen to use.

Tony Bennett gave the Court, effectively gave Kate and Bro. Gerry McCann, an undertaking under the Harassment Act.
avatar
Tom Moore

Posts : 10
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2015-10-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Carter-Ruck to sue everyone !

Post by Verdi on 07.02.17 12:20

@Get'emGonçalo wrote:Please contact Adam Tudor and they will have your letter delivered directly to your house late at night, mafia-style, in a black limousine.
laugh

They'll need to employ casual labour to cope with demand..



Alternatively, they could arrange for a government media monitor to publish an open letter to all citizens in the daily tabloids.

Or better still, stick it in a brown envelope - it'll get there!

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 4497
Reputation : 2730
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Carter-Ruck to sue everyone !

Post by Philip Anders on 07.02.17 21:33

@Tom Moore wrote:
@Philip Anders wrote:
@Cmaryholmes wrote:If you then put posters up all over your town saying your neighbour had been convicted for not having a TV licence you could be sued even though what you've said is true.
That is not libel, surely, until the conviction becomes "spent" under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act?

It could, however, be Harassment, and perhaps rightly if one focussed on one's neighbour for some unrelated reason.

When Courts are considering a criminal charge of Harassment they should perform a mental balancing act of the rights of each party, for example the right of free speech versus the right to a private life.

However, if like Kate and Bro. Gerry McCann, an aggrieved party can mobilise the resources needed to obtain an Injunction under the Harassment Act, and complains via a criminal charge about a breech of that injunction, then the balancing act has already been performed and the sole question to be addressed is whether the Defendant acted in the way forbidden.

Injunctions in England can be granted "for the convenience of the Court," and are considered a cowardly method of litigation, but one Kate and Bro. Gerry McCann (and other Freemasons) are keen to use.

Tony Bennett gave the Court, effectively gave Kate and Bro. Gerry McCann, an undertaking under the Harassment Act.
My understanding, after trawling through the legislation, is that a person can be sued for defamation even if what they print or say is purely factual depending on the context & reasons behind it being printed or said. If a local newspaper reported the court case of the TV licence non-payment then that's ok but if the newspaper then published it every week for a year then it could be sued for defamation because they'd have no justification for doing it just as a neighbour would have no justification for doing it. However, nothing would probably be done as the TV licence offender wouldn't be able to afford to bring a defamation case to court so defamation cases tend to be the domain of the wealthy.
avatar
Philip Anders

Posts : 55
Reputation : 39
Join date : 2017-02-04

Back to top Go down

Re: Carter-Ruck to sue everyone !

Post by Roxyroo on 09.02.17 1:48

@Philip Anders wrote:
@Tom Moore wrote:
@Philip Anders wrote:
@Cmaryholmes wrote:If you then put posters up all over your town saying your neighbour had been convicted for not having a TV licence you could be sued even though what you've said is true.
That is not libel, surely, until the conviction becomes "spent" under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act?

It could, however, be Harassment, and perhaps rightly if one focussed on one's neighbour for some unrelated reason.

When Courts are considering a criminal charge of Harassment they should perform a mental balancing act of the rights of each party, for example the right of free speech versus the right to a private life.

However, if like Kate and Bro. Gerry McCann, an aggrieved party can mobilise the resources needed to obtain an Injunction under the Harassment Act, and complains via a criminal charge about a breech of that injunction, then the balancing act has already been performed and the sole question to be addressed is whether the Defendant acted in the way forbidden.

Injunctions in England can be granted "for the convenience of the Court," and are considered a cowardly method of litigation, but one Kate and Bro. Gerry McCann (and other Freemasons) are keen to use.

Tony Bennett gave the Court, effectively gave Kate and Bro. Gerry McCann, an undertaking under the Harassment Act.
My understanding, after trawling through the legislation, is that a person can be sued for defamation even if what they print or say is purely factual depending on the context & reasons behind it being printed or said. If a local newspaper reported the court case of the TV licence non-payment then that's ok but if the newspaper then published it every week for a year then it could be sued for defamation because they'd have no justification for doing it just as a neighbour would have no justification for doing it. However, nothing would probably be done as the TV licence offender wouldn't be able to afford to bring a defamation case to court so defamation cases tend to be the domain of the wealthy.

Yes, this is how i understand it too.
Aquila, may i ask why you take this as a swipe at Tony? Surely Philip Anders is just using a common example?

____________________
Everything I post is ALL MY OWN OPINION and therefore I.m allowed to think whatever I please! gm
avatar
Roxyroo

Posts : 373
Reputation : 253
Join date : 2016-04-04
Location : Scotland

Back to top Go down

Re: Carter-Ruck to sue everyone !

Post by Philip Anders on 09.02.17 13:28

k actions
@Roxyroo wrote:
@Philip Anders wrote:
@Tom Moore wrote:
@Philip Anders wrote:
@Cmaryholmes wrote:If you then put posters up all over your town saying your neighbour had been convicted for not having a TV licence you could be sued even though what you've said is true.
That is not libel, surely, until the conviction becomes "spent" under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act?

It could, however, be Harassment, and perhaps rightly if one focussed on one's neighbour for some unrelated reason.

When Courts are considering a criminal charge of Harassment they should perform a mental balancing act of the rights of each party, for example the right of free speech versus the right to a private life.

However, if like Kate and Bro. Gerry McCann, an aggrieved party can mobilise the resources needed to obtain an Injunction under the Harassment Act, and complains via a criminal charge about a breech of that injunction, then the balancing act has already been performed and the sole question to be addressed is whether the Defendant acted in the way forbidden.

Injunctions in England can be granted "for the convenience of the Court," and are considered a cowardly method of litigation, but one Kate and Bro. Gerry McCann (and other Freemasons) are keen to use.

Tony Bennett gave the Court, effectively gave Kate and Bro. Gerry McCann, an undertaking under the Harassment Act.
My understanding, after trawling through the legislation, is that a person can be sued for defamation even if what they print or say is purely factual depending on the context & reasons behind it being printed or said. If a local newspaper reported the court case of the TV licence non-payment then that's ok but if the newspaper then published it every week for a year then it could be sued for defamation because they'd have no justification for doing it just as a neighbour would have no justification for doing it. However, nothing would probably be done as the TV licence offender wouldn't be able to afford to bring a defamation case to court so defamation cases tend to be the domain of the wealthy.

Yes, this is how i understand it too.
Aquila, may i ask why you take this as a swipe at Tony? Surely Philip Anders is just using a common example?
I've contacted Tony on several occasions since 2007, as recently as a few days ago to ask & receive his advice. I'm a long time supporter of Tony & have got the books he wrote so I am somewhere between extremely annoyed & puzzled as to why Aquila would suggest I was taking a swipe at him. My interest in the libel /defamation law is due to the McCanns / Carter-Ruck actions. You are 100% correct that I merely used my example to explain my view & not to have a go at anyone..
Finally I thank you for understanding what I was trying to point out.
avatar
Philip Anders

Posts : 55
Reputation : 39
Join date : 2017-02-04

Back to top Go down

Re: Carter-Ruck to sue everyone !

Post by Rob Royston on 10.02.17 13:37

@aquila wrote:
@Philip Anders wrote:
@Cmaryholmes wrote:I know nothing about the Libel Laws , but what intrigues me is this. If I claim that someone has libelled me, don't I have to prove that they have been untruthful? If the truth causes 'alarm' and 'distress' isn't that just too bad ?
Take this as an example.
If your neighbour was convicted for not having a TV licence then that's a recorded fact & a provable true statement.
If you then put posters up all over your town saying your neighbour had been convicted for not having a TV licence you could be sued even though what you've said is true.
I don't believe that to be true and I also have a sneaking suspicion you are taking a back handed swipe at Tony Bennett.
Seems to be some confusion being carried along on this thread. If you back up to Post# 6 there are two laws being discussed, both libel and harassment. Harassment, even repeating a truth, is stepping down the road to vigilantism.

Rob Royston

Posts : 77
Reputation : 16
Join date : 2012-07-06

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum