Tony Bennett not a 'Vexatious Litigant' - OFFICIAL

by **Tony Bennett** 29.12.09 12:58

One of the attacks on me by members of the McCann Team and many of their supporters was to launch a flood of complaints to the Attorney-General claiming that I should be officially declared a ‘Vexatious Litigant’.

This procedure is reserved for those who are serial litigators, usually litigants in person, who bring a succession of hopeless applications with no realistic chance of success. These applications are usually described by the legal professions as ‘frivolous’ and/or ‘vexatious’.

There is a laid-down procedure for declaring someone an official ‘Vexatious Litigant’. First, the Treasury Solicitor’s Department conducts an investigation into just how many cases a litigant has brought and under what circumstances. If, and only if, the Treasury Solicitor’s Department feels that a litigant in person should be deemed a ‘Vexatious Litigant’, then, and only then, does the Attorney-General bring legal proceedings in the courts against that person, which the person is entitled to defend.

If the Court then declares the litigant a ‘Vexatious Litigant’, then that person must in future obtain the Court’s permission before bringing any further cases.

I have tried to issue two summonses. One was against Michael Barrymore in January 2006 for six alleged drugs and ‘drunk-and-disorderly’ offences. No summons was issued, after a Court hearing lasting over two hours at Southend-on-Sea Magistrates Court on 10 February 2006, when Barrymore was represented by top London firm Corker Binning.

The only other case was my attempt in November 2007 to issue a summons against Drs Kate and Gerald McCann for child neglect.

Two cases in a lifetime was hardly enough to get me declared a ‘Vexatious Litigant’.

But that did not deter McCann Team supporters from running a vigorous campaign to get me declared a ‘Vexatious Litigant’. Goodness know show many people wrote to the Treasury Solicitor. Some postings declared that I was ‘about to be’ declared a ‘Vexatious Litigant’ and some even claimed I had been.

As the letter below, received today, shows, one of these McCann-believers was told as long ago as 29 June that there was insufficient evidence to declare me a ‘Vexatious Litigant’.

None of the pro-McCann forums and blogs have chosen to mention this fact yet.

I wonder why?

Here’s the Treasurer Solicitor letter in full:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

TREASURY SOLICITOR’S DEPARTMENT
1 Kemble Street
LONDON WC2B 4TS

Ref: LTB/30-25J/CAM/1E

22 December 2009

Dear Mr Bennett

INVESTIGATION PURSUANT TO S.42 SENIOR COURTS ACT 1981 (as amended)

Further to your e-mail of 11th August 2009 and our subsequent e-mail exchanges today [22 December 2009], I write to confirm that our investigation into your litigious activity, pursuant to Section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (as amended) is concluded and it has been decided that HM Attorney General will not be pursuing the matter further on the information we hold.

I can confirm that one of the complainants was informed on 29th June 2009 that we had found insufficient evidence at that time to support an Application for a Civil Proceedings Order. All complainants will be notified in the next week or so that this investigation has been discontinued. I will write to you again when that element has been concluded and our file put away.

Yours sincerely

Catherine Edwards
For the Treasury Solicitor
HM Attorney General’s Team

by Guest 29.12.09 13:00

I'm sorry, but these kind of threads are nothing more than attention seeking.

by vaguely 29.12.09 13:30

One of the attacks on me by members of the McCann Team and many of their supporters was to launch a flood of complaints to the Attorney-General claiming that I should be officially declared a ‘Vexatious Litigant’.

Please could you clarify who these people are. Team McCann would suggest the McCann family. Would this be correct?

by Bea_Reasonable 29.12.09 13:32

Indeed a good point.

Who would team Mcann be then? Who are their supporters, specifically?

by MaryB 29.12.09 13:37

Why not ask the McCanns. After all it was a member of their family who first came up with the term Team McCann.

by vaguely 29.12.09 13:38

MaryB wrote:Why not ask the McCanns. After all it was a member of their family who first came up with the term Team McCann.

And is it members of this group who have made these complaints?

This is what I'm asking.

ETA, I'm trying to find out if Mr Bennett has specific reason to suspect a member of the McCann family, or whether he is using the term somewhat lazily to keep up morale of the anti side.

by Guest 29.12.09 15:11

Mmm....let's change this to reality:

[quote="Tony Bennett"]

Carter Ruck, on behalf of their clients, Kate and Gerry McCann, launched a flood of complaints to the Attorney-General claiming that I should be officially declared a ‘Vexatious Litigant’. That was in 2007 (and not in 2009)

The only other case was my attempt in November 2007 to issue a summons against Drs Kate and Gerald McCann for child neglect. But stupid...I banged on the door of the wrong Court: It was rejected because the British Court was not empowered to adjudicate.

None of the pro-McCann forums and blogs have chosen to mention this fact yet. But that is ofcourse nobody knew anything about this or why it is even interesting to post about it

I wonder why?See above

Here’s the Treasurer Solicitor letter in full:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[b]TREASURY SOLICITOR’S DEPARTMENT
1 Kemble Street
LONDON WC2B 4TS

Ref: LTB/30-25J/CAM/1E

22 December 2009

Dear Mr Bennett

INVESTIGATION PURSUANT TO S.42 SENIOR COURTS ACT 1981 (as amended)

Further to your e-mail of 11th August 2009 and our subsequent e-mail exchanges today [22 December 2009], I write to confirm that our investigation into your litigious activity, pursuant to Section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (as amended) is concluded and it has been decided that HM Attorney General will not be pursuing the matter further on the information we hold.

I can confirm that [color=darkblue]Carter Ruck was informed on 29th June 2009 that we had found insufficient evidence at that time, in 2007 to support an Application for a Civil Proceedings Order.

Yours sincerely

I think that this is more likely.

by **Tony Bennett** 29.12.09 15:32

vaguely wrote:I'm trying to find out if Mr Bennett has specific reason to suspect a member of the McCann family, or whether he is using the term somewhat lazily to keep up morale of the anti side.

Neither of these. Try some more alternatives.

by vaguely 29.12.09 15:34

Tony Bennett wrote:
vaguely wrote:I'm trying to find out if Mr Bennett has specific reason to suspect a member of the McCann family, or whether he is using the term somewhat lazily to keep up morale of the anti side.
Neither of these. Try some more alternatives.

You used the term - would you please elaborate.

thank you

by Old Nick 29.12.09 15:35

Congratulations to Mr Bennett on yet another marvellous victory in the pursuit of justice for a small child.

by **Tony Bennett** 29.12.09 15:44

Aristocrat wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:None of the pro-McCann forums and blogs have chosen to mention this fact [that the Treasury Solicitor said there were no grounds to declare Tony Benentt a Vexatious Litigant] yet.
But that is of course because nobody knew anything about this or why it is even interesting to post about it

One of the many pro McCann/Team McCann efforts to have me declared a vexatious litigant was that of pro-McCann zealot and serial producer of libels and obscenties, hot rod racer Mr Nigel Nessling of Ipswich.

Here he is, in full spate on his blog:

QUOTE

What are the aims of The Madeleine Foundation?

e) To make every effort to ensure that Kate and Gerry McCann are prosecuted for their admitted abandoning of their children six nights in a row in Praia da Luz.

(Incidentally, there is a perfect example of the shockingly poor level of background research bennett unertook. The first two nights the parents dined, WITH the children, in the Millenium resturant, leaving the true figure of only FOUR nights the children were left in the apartment.)

And there we have it. bennett apparently seems to be trying to use this book to further another attempt at a private prosecution. And is doing so with a book quickly and amateurly cobbled together, chock full of all the old myths, half-truths and discredited slurs from the past year and a half.

Blessed are the innocent, who are persecuted for righteousness sake.

But there is a way for you good and decent people to pull the wheels of tony’s little wagon of poison, to put the brakes on this disgusting exploitation of Madeleine’s name and her suffering, and to bring to a lurching halt bennett’s foul attempts to heap ever more pain and suffering on the shoulders of two suffering and innocent people. My friends, I give you,

Vexatious litigation!

You see, by attempting a second private prosecution tony has rather foolishly left himself open to charges of vexatious litigation to be brought against himself.

What is a vexatious litigant?

“A vexatious litigant is someone who is prevented by a court order from issuing proceedings without leave of the court. Such orders may be either for a specified period of time or indefinite, and may apply to civil proceedings, criminal proceedings or both.”

How does a person become a vexatious litigant?

“Under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and section 33 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, the Attorney General may apply for an order against a person who has litigated “habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground”. The precise number of proceedings required to meet the test is not specified in the legislation, but normal cases involve at least five or six vexatious actions. The court will take into account all the surrounding circumstances including the general character of the litigation, the degree of hardship suffered by defendants and the likelihood of the conduct continuing if an order is not obtained.”

And it is not necessary for the McCann’s to carry out this action – ANY Member of the public can write to AGO and to the Treasury Solicitor’s Department to ask the Attorney to apply for an order.

How is the Attorney informed about potential vexatious litigants?

“Members of the public write to the AGO and to Treasury Solicitor’s Department to ask the Attorney to apply for an order. “

http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/sub_our_role_vex.htm

“There is no formal procedure for such complaints. Treasury Solicitor’s Department then undertakes an investigation into the conduct of the individual concerned, in accordance with an agreement between the AGO and the Treasury Solicitor as to the appropriate steps and the time limits within which those steps should be completed. The opinion of Counsel is normally obtained before seeking the authorisation of the Law Officers.”

What happens after an order is made?

“Lists are prepared of persons against whom section 42 orders have been made and these are circulated to court offices, so the system is largely self policing. The list is also available on the Court Service website. Occasionally, individuals subject to an order succeed in issuing cases without leave of the court. In these cases, the Attorney General must decide whether to bring contempt of court proceedings.”

So, to recap, by failing in his first attempt to bring a private prosecution, any further attempts can leave him open to being charged. And any one of us can do it! I suppose I must admit, this page is not strictly within the original remit of the purpose of this site. Until now I have preferred to keep my public support to other forums, where it is better placed. But there comes a time when you have to say, ‘Enough.’ There comes a time when someone has to step up to the plate and take action. So I urge all of you good people out there, who care about the suffering of Madeleine’s parents to contact the AGO, through the above website, and put pressure on them to bring tony, his ‘Foundation’ and their unpleasant plans to their knees.

Remember the old saying. “All that is needed for evil to succeed, is for good people to do nothing.”

UNQUOTE

P.S. Nigel Nessling remains under investigation by Essex Police in respect of sending libellous communications by electronic mail

by **Tony Bennett** 29.12.09 15:51

Old Nick wrote:Congratulations to Mr Bennett on yet another marvellous victory in the pursuit of justice for a small child.

Many thanks, I agree it's highly regrettable that a person who has done so much to analyse and publish an alternative view on what really happened to Madeleine McCann should be the subject of an attempt to have him declared a Vexatious Litigant. Shame also that they've probably wasted hundreds of Treasury Solicitor man-hours and woman-hours.

Might I suggest that if you have a few spare seconds, you might also find time to send a brief note of commiseration to Nigel Nessling and all the other McCann-believers to whom the Treasury Solicitor now has to write and inform them that their camapign against me has failed. We don't want Nessling feeling downhearted after yet another unsuccessful campaign of his, do we?

by Old Nick 29.12.09 16:37

Nigel Nessle? Never heard of him, but if I do ever come across the fellow I shall be sure to do as you ask Tony - I'm always happy to do your bidding.

by sunshine 29.12.09 16:55

Please provide the list of McCann believers you feel should be emailed.

by **Tony Bennett** 29.12.09 17:04

Old Nick wrote:Nigel Nessle? Never heard of him, but if I do ever come across the fellow I shall be sure to do as you ask Tony - I'm always happy to do your bidding.

Just for your information, here's a note I sent to Nigel Nessling after I discovered he'd been sending round this e-mail to people who he thought were McCann-doubters.

Nessling's words are in black:

----- Original Message -----
From: ajsbennett@btinternet.com
To: Nigel Nessling
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 11:39 AM
Subject: Further complaint: Your persistent libelling of me

Mr Nessling

It has come to my attention that you recently sent this message to a blog.

QUOTE FROM NIGEL NESSLING

Author: Nigel Nessling (IP: 86.30.95.187, cpc4-ipsw2-0-0-cust954.5-4.cable.virginmedia.com)
Email: v8zodiac@ntlworld.com
Url:

Comment:
You would most probably heard of ths vile man's incident within the confines of a public toilet. Well what most people have not said is what he was doing at the time in the toilet. Well he was not propositioning to anyone.
Yes good old Bennett was caught out masturbating in the toilets. Toilets which were, and are still used by holidaymakers, which include children. What kind of pervert does that? He was also forced out of his Local Mental Health house after locals complained that he was hanging around the local school. (nothing was ever done, and given his problems then maybe his mind was not right). And you look UP to this scum? No wonder you get the piss taken out of you all over the internet!

UNQUOTE

As you surely must know, the above is an outrageous libel with no truth whatosoever in it. What kind of man are you to circulate deliberate lies about someone? Nothing whatsoever is true about any toilet, nor about any mental health issue. This is a vile, malicious fabrication sent to someone else and purely designed to cause people's opinion of me to be lowered.

I require an apology from you and a written assurance that you will not circulate any more untrue information about me under any circumstances whatsoever.

A copy of this e-mail is being sent to Essex Police. Your actions are part of a calculated campaign of harassment.

I await your reply.

Tony Bennett

P.S. Nigel Nessling is admired and often quoted by many on all the McCann-beleiver forums and blogs. What a surprise that you've never heard of him (cough).

by **Tony Bennett** 29.12.09 17:09

sunshine wrote:Please provide the list of McCann believers you feel should be emailed.

I think you have misunderstood, sunshine.

This is an extract from the Treasury Solicitor's letter of 22 December:

I can confirm that one of the complainants was informed on 29th June 2009 that we had found insufficient evidence at that time to support an Application for a Civil Proceedings Order. All complainants will be notified in the next week or so that this investigation has been discontinued.

It is for the Treasury Solicitor and her staff to write to all the McCann-believers who took it upon themselves to demand that I be deemed by the Courts of the U.K. to be a 'Vexatious Litigant'.

I think there's quite a lot of them.

I hope they won't be too grief-stricken that their efforts have come to naught and that they've wasted so much of the Treasury Solicitor's time.

by Old Nick 29.12.09 17:30

Tony Bennett wrote:

P.S. Nigel Nessling is admired and often quoted by many on all the McCann-beleiver forums and blogs. What a surprise that you've never heard of him (cough).

Tony, you still haven't shaken that cough - it's getting quite persistent now - are you taking anything for it?

by **Tony Bennett** 29.12.09 17:42

Old Nick wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

P.S. Nigel Nessling is admired and often quoted by many on all the McCann-beleiver forums and blogs. What a surprise that you've never heard of him (cough).

Tony, you still haven't shaken that cough - it's getting quite persistent now - are you taking anything for it?

The prognosis is poor. A coughing fit tends to erupt when I read lies, deceits, evasions and fabrications.

Like: "I am convinced (cough, cough) that Madeleine is being held in a prison lair in the lawless hills within 10 miles of Praia da Luz".

Or: "The conversation two years ago between a woman in downtown Barcelona at 2am with a British banker* who'd been pub-crawling and drinking for hours before he met her is a strong lead (cough, cough)".

++++

* Apparently this British banker had been agonisingly agonising for two whole years before revealing his conversation with downtown Barcelona woman (cough), he decided it was better to tell Team McCann about his conversation rather than the official police, and he said he didn't want his identity revealed 'for personal reasons' (cough).

I think all this happened on the same occasion that Dave Edgar, Director-General-in-Chief of the McCanns' private investigation team, said that the abductor seen by Jane Tanner (cough) might have been, after all, an abductress.

See what I mean?

by Bea_Reasonable 29.12.09 17:44

[quote="Tony Bennett"]

Old Nick wrote:Congratulations to Mr Bennett on yet another marvellous victory in the pursuit of justice for a small child.

Many thanks, I agree it's highly regrettable that a person who has done so much to analyse and publish an alternative view on what really happened to Madeleine McCann should be the subject of an attempt to have him declared a Vexatious Litigant. Shame also that they've probably wasted hundreds of Treasury Solicitor man-hours and woman-hours.

How can you hold an alternate view of what happened that night, you have no idea unless you took the child.

by Guest 29.12.09 17:45

Tony Bennett wrote:
Aristocrat wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:None of the pro-McCann forums and blogs have chosen to mention this fact [that the Treasury Solicitor said there were no grounds to declare Tony Benentt a Vexatious Litigant] yet.
But that is of course because nobody knew anything about this or why it is even interesting to post about it
One of the many pro McCann/Team McCann efforts to have me declared a vexatious litigant was that of pro-McCann zealot and serial producer of libels and obscenties, hot rod racer Mr Nigel Nessling of Ipswich.

Here he is, in full spate on his blog:

QUOTE

What are the aims of The Madeleine Foundation?

e) To make every effort to ensure that Kate and Gerry McCann are prosecuted for their admitted abandoning of their children six nights in a row in Praia da Luz.

(Incidentally, there is a perfect example of the shockingly poor level of background research bennett unertook. The first two nights the parents dined, WITH the children, in the Millenium resturant, leaving the true figure of only FOUR nights the children were left in the apartment.)

And there we have it. bennett apparently seems to be trying to use this book to further another attempt at a private prosecution. And is doing so with a book quickly and amateurly cobbled together, chock full of all the old myths, half-truths and discredited slurs from the past year and a half.

Blessed are the innocent, who are persecuted for righteousness sake.

But there is a way for you good and decent people to pull the wheels of tony’s little wagon of poison, to put the brakes on this disgusting exploitation of Madeleine’s name and her suffering, and to bring to a lurching halt bennett’s foul attempts to heap ever more pain and suffering on the shoulders of two suffering and innocent people. My friends, I give you,

Vexatious litigation!

You see, by attempting a second private prosecution tony has rather foolishly left himself open to charges of vexatious litigation to be brought against himself.

What is a vexatious litigant?

“A vexatious litigant is someone who is prevented by a court order from issuing proceedings without leave of the court. Such orders may be either for a specified period of time or indefinite, and may apply to civil proceedings, criminal proceedings or both.”

How does a person become a vexatious litigant?

“Under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and section 33 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, the Attorney General may apply for an order against a person who has litigated “habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground”. The precise number of proceedings required to meet the test is not specified in the legislation, but normal cases involve at least five or six vexatious actions. The court will take into account all the surrounding circumstances including the general character of the litigation, the degree of hardship suffered by defendants and the likelihood of the conduct continuing if an order is not obtained.”

And it is not necessary for the McCann’s to carry out this action – ANY Member of the public can write to AGO and to the Treasury Solicitor’s Department to ask the Attorney to apply for an order.

How is the Attorney informed about potential vexatious litigants?

“Members of the public write to the AGO and to Treasury Solicitor’s Department to ask the Attorney to apply for an order. “

http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/sub_our_role_vex.htm

“There is no formal procedure for such complaints. Treasury Solicitor’s Department then undertakes an investigation into the conduct of the individual concerned, in accordance with an agreement between the AGO and the Treasury Solicitor as to the appropriate steps and the time limits within which those steps should be completed. The opinion of Counsel is normally obtained before seeking the authorisation of the Law Officers.”

What happens after an order is made?

“Lists are prepared of persons against whom section 42 orders have been made and these are circulated to court offices, so the system is largely self policing. The list is also available on the Court Service website. Occasionally, individuals subject to an order succeed in issuing cases without leave of the court. In these cases, the Attorney General must decide whether to bring contempt of court proceedings.”

So, to recap, by failing in his first attempt to bring a private prosecution, any further attempts can leave him open to being charged. And any one of us can do it! I suppose I must admit, this page is not strictly within the original remit of the purpose of this site. Until now I have preferred to keep my public support to other forums, where it is better placed. But there comes a time when you have to say, ‘Enough.’ There comes a time when someone has to step up to the plate and take action. So I urge all of you good people out there, who care about the suffering of Madeleine’s parents to contact the AGO, through the above website, and put pressure on them to bring tony, his ‘Foundation’ and their unpleasant plans to their knees.

Remember the old saying. “All that is needed for evil to succeed, is for good people to do nothing.”

UNQUOTE

P.S. Nigel Nessling remains under investigation by Essex Police in respect of sending libellous communications by electronic mail

Personally on reading this through, I cannot understand why the attorney general did not declare you a vexatious litigant!
I have read through the criteria and you actually fit it perfectly. Apparently you do not have to bring actual court actions, the way I understand it your actions like continually wasting the Essex police force time with various complaints about various people can be construed as "vexatious".

You cannot attack Nigel Nessling for simply quoting the facts, did you or did you not try to bring the McCanns to court even though you knew perfectly well you would be unsuccessful, no matter which court door you went knocking on?

Did you or did you not go to the Big Brother House and try to serve a writ on Michael Barrymore who was appearing on the show at the time?

Are you or are you not still trying to bring an action against the Essex police about how they handled the Stuart Lubbock investigation?

Are you or are you not trying to bring an action against the Essex police about Lee Balkwell?

Have you or have you not accused the Essex police of being corrupt and turning a blind eye to people smuggling drugs into the country?

Have you or have you not complained to the Essex police about Nigel Nessling on numerous occasions?

Have you of have you not complained to the Essex police about Debbie Butler?

Have you or have you not complained to the Press Complaints Commission on at least 6 different occasions?

Have you or have you not just had your complaints about the Daily Star and the Daily Express refused?

Did you or did you not preside over your old website the Madeleine Foundation, when it it defamed an innocent photographer?

Did you or did you not help Debbie Butler writ to the General Medical Council trying to have Gerry McCann and Kate Healy removed from the medical register as unfit to practice because they were depressed about their child's abduction?

Did you or did you not try to get the McCanns in court on charges of child neglect?

Did you or did you not complain to Social Services about the twins being left with their parents?

Did you or did you not spearhead many complaints about metric road signs?

Now there is probably much that I have left out, but on the above, I honestly cannot understand how Baroness Scotland has come to this conclusion that you are not a vexatious person? (Perhaps she has had another of her lapses?)

Was that letter you have published verbatim? Or has it been subject to you snipping bits and adding bits?

by Autumn 29.12.09 17:47

Old Nick wrote:Congratulations to Mr Bennett on yet another marvellous victory in the pursuit of justice for a small child.

Well done, Mr Bennett, I would also like to congratulate you on the successful outcome, maybe TM will think twice in future before making any more ridiculous time-wasting complaints against you. Justice For Madeleine :flower:

by Guest 29.12.09 17:52

Tony Bennett wrote:
sunshine wrote:Please provide the list of McCann believers you feel should be emailed.
I think you have misunderstood, sunshine.

This is an extract from the Treasury Solicitor's letter of 22 December:

I can confirm that one of the complainants was informed on 29th June 2009 that we had found insufficient evidence at that time to support an Application for a Civil Proceedings Order. All complainants will be notified in the next week or so that this investigation has been discontinued.

It is for the Treasury Solicitor and her staff to write to all the McCann-believers who took it upon themselves to demand that I be deemed by the Courts of the U.K. to be a 'Vexatious Litigant'.

I think there's quite a lot of them.

I hope they won't be too grief-stricken that their efforts have come to naught and that they've wasted so much of the Treasury Solicitor's time.

Are you really having a pop at others for wasting the Treasury's time, when you alone are guilty of monopolising the Essex Police time? How hypocritical, I haven't written to the AG, but now I think I may write and ask Baroness Scotland to explain why you are not deemed as vexatious. You do seem to be a vexatious, like some kind of pensioner rebel without a cause!

by Old Nick 29.12.09 18:23

Tony Bennett wrote:
Old Nick wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

P.S. Nigel Nessling is admired and often quoted by many on all the McCann-beleiver forums and blogs. What a surprise that you've never heard of him (cough).

Tony, you still haven't shaken that cough - it's getting quite persistent now - are you taking anything for it?
The prognosis is poor. A coughing fit tends to erupt when I read lies, deceits, evasions and fabrications.

Like: "I am convinced (cough, cough) that Madeleine is being held in a prison lair in the lawless hills within 10 miles of Praia da Luz".

Or: "The conversation two years ago between a woman in downtown Barcelona at 2am with a British banker* who'd been pub-crawling and drinking for hours before he met her is a strong lead (cough, cough)".

++++

* Apparently this British banker had been agonisingly agonising for two whole years before revealing his conversation with downtown Barcelona woman (cough), he decided it was better to tell Team McCann about his conversation rather than the official police, and he said he didn't want his identity revealed 'for personal reasons' (cough).

I think all this happened on the same occasion that Dave Edgar, Director-General-in-Chief of the McCanns' private investigation team, said that the abductor seen by Jane Tanner (cough) might have been, after all, an abductress.

See what I mean?

For the good of your health I suggest you stop reading old newspaper reports as they are clearly doing you a mischief.

by Old Nick 29.12.09 18:30

What The Papers Never Say wrote:

Personally on reading this through, I cannot understand why the attorney general did not declare you a vexatious litigant!
I have read through the criteria and you actually fit it perfectly. Apparently you do not have to bring actual court actions, the way I understand it your actions like continually wasting the Essex police force time with various complaints about various people can be construed as "vexatious".

You cannot attack Nigel Nessling for simply quoting the facts, did you or did you not try to bring the McCanns to court even though you knew perfectly well you would be unsuccessful, no matter which court door you went knocking on?

Did you or did you not go to the Big Brother House and try to serve a writ on Michael Barrymore who was appearing on the show at the time?

Are you or are you not still trying to bring an action against the Essex police about how they handled the Stuart Lubbock investigation?

Are you or are you not trying to bring an action against the Essex police about Lee Balkwell?

Have you or have you not accused the Essex police of being corrupt and turning a blind eye to people smuggling drugs into the country?

Have you or have you not complained to the Essex police about Nigel Nessling on numerous occasions?

Have you of have you not complained to the Essex police about Debbie Butler?

Have you or have you not complained to the Press Complaints Commission on at least 6 different occasions?

Have you or have you not just had your complaints about the Daily Star and the Daily Express refused?

Did you or did you not preside over your old website the Madeleine Foundation, when it it defamed an innocent photographer?

Did you or did you not help Debbie Butler writ to the General Medical Council trying to have Gerry McCann and Kate Healy removed from the medical register as unfit to practice because they were depressed about their child's abduction?

Did you or did you not try to get the McCanns in court on charges of child neglect?

Did you or did you not complain to Social Services about the twins being left with their parents?

Did you or did you not spearhead many complaints about metric road signs?

Now there is probably much that I have left out, but on the above, I honestly cannot understand how Baroness Scotland has come to this conclusion that you are not a vexatious person? (Perhaps she has had another of her lapses?)

Was that letter you have published verbatim? Or has it been subject to you snipping bits and adding bits?

Gosh, if Tony is only able to answer affirmatively to half these questions that's still a mighty impressive list! Well done again Tony - you should get a medal for the amount of complaining you do, but I do fear that the amount of it may be taking its toll.

by Autumn 29.12.09 18:35

I dont't know about coughing but I nearly died laughing when I read about the Barcelona 'investigation' laugh

Have there been any further updates re David Cowley's belief that Madeleine is being held captive underground near PDL? And, before I get shot down in flames for asking, I ask the question in all seriousness.

by **Tony Bennett** 29.12.09 18:43

Autumn wrote:I dont't know about coughing but I nearly died laughing when I read when I read about the Barcelona 'investigation'.

Have there been any further updates re David Cowley's belief that Madeleine is being held captive underground near PDL? And, before I get shot down in flames for asking, I ask the question in all seriousness.

Autumn, I know it's hard given we're dealing with such famous people (cough), but just for the record, it's:

Dave EDGAR

and

Arthur COWLEY.

For some reason the mention of 'Arthur' conjures up recollections of 'Minder':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0OiBFvgqUw

by **Jill Havern** 29.12.09 18:49

by Autumn 29.12.09 18:54

Tony Bennett wrote:
Autumn wrote:I dont't know about coughing but I nearly died laughing when I read when I read about the Barcelona 'investigation'.

Have there been any further updates re David Cowley's belief that Madeleine is being held captive underground near PDL? And, before I get shot down in flames for asking, I ask the question in all seriousness.
Autumn, I know it's hard given we're dealing with such famous people (cough), but just for the record, it's:

Dave EDGAR

and

Arthur COWLEY.

For some reason the mention of 'Arthur' conjures up recollections of 'Minder':

Too much wine with dinner - thanks for picking me up on that :drunken:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0OiBFvgqUw