Mr Bennett Can You Please Clarify These Please

by Guest 06.01.10 19:53

Tony Bennett

Two points:

1. We did anticipate further costs as we were clearly told by Kirwans that Carter-Ruck would be writing to us wanting to settle the terms of our accession by means of a Court order (which of course they did, straightaway, and we were told this would cost more money. Kirwans wanted £5,000 plus VAT for doing this.
Carter-Ruck charged me £400, being a Court fee, which I paid out of my own pocket.

2. I asked no-one to send money. I merely responded to one poster and said she could donate by cheque or PayPal or stamps. Did I appeal anywhere else or on any other occasion for help towards legal costs? No.

Tony Bennett

Posts: 295
Join date: 2009-11-25

View user profile

Back to top

Post Tony Bennett Today at 5:36 pm
This is just to report here that yesterday in the Queens Bench Division, Dr Gerald McCann and Dr Kate McCann made an application against me, Reference 5196 of 2009, for an unspecified amount of damages for libel, though limited to 'no more than £50,000', and for an injunction restraining me from making any further libellous allegations against them.

On the basis of previous correspondence conducted via Carter-Ruck since their first e-mailed letter sent on 27 August 2009, and on the basis of a signed undertaking by myself earlier this month, the following has been agreed BY CONSENT:

1. I have given a number of undertakings as required by Carter-Ruck on behalf of the McCanns

2. The McCanns have agreed that the proceedings be 'stayed' indefinitley, that is, suspended or held in abeyance

3. I have already paid what was said to have been the Court fee of £440.00

4. The McCanns have made no other claim against me in respect of their costs.

There was no personal appearance in Court by any of the parties.

NOTES:

1. I should like to publicly thank the following for generous contributions already received towards my costs of £440:

a) Peter MacLeod
b) Sharon Lawrence
c) Renee Neuville
d) 'Bomaris'.

2. Carter-Ruck told me today that they had got the Court fee wrong and that it was only £400. Their letter to me today (26 November) states:

"Please also find enclosed a cheque in the sum of £40.00; these funds are being returned to you because the Court fees incurred by our clients totalled only £400.00, rather than the £440.00 we had anticipated".

=========================

Now which statement is true. Did you try to mislead people by suggesting you paid it out of your own pocket, or did the Floundation Members pay it?

Also Mr Bennett just how many cheques are involved. First off you said it was four cheques, now it seems there are only two going by your latest posts on the investigation.

by Guest 06.01.10 20:23

rockyrobin wrote:
Tony Bennett

Two points:

1. We did anticipate further costs as we were clearly told by Kirwans that Carter-Ruck would be writing to us wanting to settle the terms of our accession by means of a Court order (which of course they did, straightaway, and we were told this would cost more money. Kirwans wanted £5,000 plus VAT for doing this.
Carter-Ruck charged me £400, being a Court fee, which I paid out of my own pocket.

2. I asked no-one to send money. I merely responded to one poster and said she could donate by cheque or PayPal or stamps. Did I appeal anywhere else or on any other occasion for help towards legal costs? No.

Tony Bennett

Posts: 295
Join date: 2009-11-25

View user profile

Back to top

Post Tony Bennett Today at 5:36 pm
This is just to report here that yesterday in the Queens Bench Division, Dr Gerald McCann and Dr Kate McCann made an application against me, Reference 5196 of 2009, for an unspecified amount of damages for libel, though limited to 'no more than £50,000', and for an injunction restraining me from making any further libellous allegations against them.

On the basis of previous correspondence conducted via Carter-Ruck since their first e-mailed letter sent on 27 August 2009, and on the basis of a signed undertaking by myself earlier this month, the following has been agreed BY CONSENT:

1. I have given a number of undertakings as required by Carter-Ruck on behalf of the McCanns

2. The McCanns have agreed that the proceedings be 'stayed' indefinitley, that is, suspended or held in abeyance

3. I have already paid what was said to have been the Court fee of £440.00

4. The McCanns have made no other claim against me in respect of their costs.

There was no personal appearance in Court by any of the parties.

NOTES:

1. I should like to publicly thank the following for generous contributions already received towards my costs of £440:

a) Peter MacLeod
b) Sharon Lawrence
c) Renee Neuville
d) 'Bomaris'.

2. Carter-Ruck told me today that they had got the Court fee wrong and that it was only £400. Their letter to me today (26 November) states:

"Please also find enclosed a cheque in the sum of £40.00; these funds are being returned to you because the Court fees incurred by our clients totalled only £400.00, rather than the £440.00 we had anticipated".
=========================

Now which statement is true. Did you try to mislead people by suggesting you paid it out of your own pocket, or did the Floundation Members pay it?

Also Mr Bennett just how many cheques are involved. First off you said it was four cheques, now it seems there are only two going by your latest posts on the investigation.

Haven't we been through all this already. I'm sure TB has already replied to all this somewhere on this forum

by **Tony Bennett** 06.01.10 20:38

candyfloss wrote:Haven't we been through all this already. I'm sure TB has already replied to all this somewhere on this forum

Yes. And elsewhere.

by Guest 06.01.10 22:37

Asking for money on the internet and having financial dealings with people on the internet will always end in tears.
If the McCanns had had just one of the financial dealings that Tony Bennett has been involved with then they would have been condemned to hell and back, yet some people seem incapable of seeing this glaring contradiction.
I dare say Tony Bennett probably hasn't committed any crime, but neither did the McCanns when they paid for two mortgage payments out of the fund, money sent to them to help ease their finances, while Gerry McCann took 3 months unpaid leave from the NHS and Kate resigned her job as a GP. Yet look at the dreadful accusations they had thrown at them. This is just so hypocritical with Bennett and his followers.

by Guest 06.01.10 23:34

Tony Bennett wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Haven't we been through all this already. I'm sure TB has already replied to all this somewhere on this forum
Yes. And elsewhere.

No you didn't. There's still a lot of discrepancies.

by Guest 07.01.10 0:47

Would you like to show me where then Tony please. Where you tell the difference between you paying the money but then thanking others for paying it. Which is it? As for the halving of the cheques even Butler and you said it was four to begin with.

by **Tony Bennett** 07.01.10 1:36

rockyrobin wrote:Would you like to show me where then Tony please. Where you tell the difference between you paying the money but then thanking others for paying it. Which is it? As for the halving of the cheques even Butler and you said it was four to begin with.

You will just have to search.

The only thing I will repeat briefly is that The Madeleine Foundation chequebook paid Kirwans, a matter on which Debbie Butler agreed and on which all our members are perfectly satisfied.

I paid Carter-Ruck myself, but four people have helped to part defray that cost. If you want the detail, I paid C-R £400 and four kind souls have sent me a total of £270 to cover that cost.

by aiyoyo 07.01.10 3:29

Oh dear, people here behaved as though it's their God given right to give TB the spanish inquisition. Just who do they think they are - the Police! IN fact, these people are worst than that (the police)!

I'm equally surprised TB even gave them time of the day. If these were new questions - fair enough. But these had been covered a few times elsewhere! Moreover, judging by their mannerism it not difficult to conclude they are not MF members.

I'm certain as the nose on my face quite a few will come on and jump on me, but frankly I dont give a damn. I am sicked of their games! Thread after thread of 'ask TB a question' to what purpose may I ask?

I am not MF member either and dont think I have the right to delve into matters which are perogative of the members. And, TBH, I dont give two monkeys about questioning over and over again of those allegations made by the ex-chairman, whose maturity was displayed in a questionable fashion. Aren't we all waiting for the outcome of the investigation. Why go over old grounds? How does this help voice for Madeleine - or are people here on a different agenda?

by Guest 07.01.10 11:08

Tony Bennett wrote:
rockyrobin wrote:Would you like to show me where then Tony please. Where you tell the difference between you paying the money but then thanking others for paying it. Which is it? As for the halving of the cheques even Butler and you said it was four to begin with.
You will just have to search.

The only thing I will repeat briefly is that The Madeleine Foundation chequebook paid Kirwans, a matter on which Debbie Butler agreed and on which all our members are perfectly satisfied.

I paid Carter-Ruck myself, but four people have helped to part defray that cost. If you want the detail, I paid C-R £400 and four kind souls have sent me a total of £270 to cover that cost.

Ah, the old you will have to search, the answer you detest when it is given to you when told your pieces of so called evidence is not in the DVD files, or it is in the Files and you missed it.As you say, if you know where it is then prove it and show it.
I thank you for the reply regarding the £400 .

And to Aiyoyo, it is a right to reply forum on Madeleine Foundation Issues and Bennett is the Chairman

by Perelli 07.01.10 11:13

No, Grenville is the new Chairman, Tony Bennett is still the Secretary.

by Guest 07.01.10 11:33

Oh good God. The Lunatics have taken over the Asylum then

by littlepixie 08.01.10 0:14

aiyoyo wrote:Oh dear, people here behaved as though it's their God given right to give TB the spanish inquisition. Just who do they think they are - the Police! IN fact, these people are worst than that (the police)!

I'm equally surprised TB even gave them time of the day. If these were new questions - fair enough. But these had been covered a few times elsewhere! Moreover, judging by their mannerism it not difficult to conclude they are not MF members.

I'm certain as the nose on my face quite a few will come on and jump on me, but frankly I dont give a damn. I am sicked of their games! Thread after thread of 'ask TB a question' to what purpose may I ask?

I am not MF member either and dont think I have the right to delve into matters which are perogative of the members. And, TBH, I dont give two monkeys about questioning over and over again of those allegations made by the ex-chairman, whose maturity was displayed in a questionable fashion. Aren't we all waiting for the outcome of the investigation. Why go over old grounds? How does this help voice for Madeleine - or are people here on a different agenda?

I agree who do they think they are. Boring most of us to tears.

by aiyoyo 08.01.10 0:52

[Quote ="Rockyrobin"]

when told your pieces of so called evidence is not in the DVD files, or it is in the Files and you missed it.As you say, if you know where it is then prove it and show it.
I thank you for the reply regarding the £400 .

And to Aiyoyo, it is a right to reply forum on Madeleine Foundation Issues and Bennett is the Chairman[/quote]

OMG, as usual the chief vulture is out to pick on people's flesh AGAIN.

It is a right to reply for people like TB and people like him who had been accused and have no other forum to reply if I am not wrong.

Is it a right to reply for you as well? What have you been accused of?

In that case, shall all start thread after boring thread on 'ask rockyrobin a question' or 'rockyrobin, clairfy this or that and such like'?

rockyrobin,
Are you here for Madeleine?
What is your theory on what happened to Madeleine?
Do you know her parents personally?
You firmly believe in her abduction yeah? How do you think the abductor made away with her?
Why do you come across as angry all the time?
Have you got a problem with people who do not believe in the abduction theory?
Have you got a cross to bear, and if so, for who?
What does TB represent to you? Are you rattled by him? Why?
Are you a MF member?
Why are you particularly interested in the MF's affairs?
Why are you particularly in every move and every syllabus of TB?
Most importantly, may I ask are you here to derail?

by Jophiel 08.01.10 1:01

I think he is here to impress those who once ridiculed him. Hell knows why.

by aiyoyo 08.01.10 1:08

Oh God, spare us those!

by aliberte2 08.01.10 20:27

aiyoyo wrote:[Quote ="Rockyrobin"]

when told your pieces of so called evidence is not in the DVD files, or it is in the Files and you missed it.As you say, if you know where it is then prove it and show it.
I thank you for the reply regarding the £400 .

And to Aiyoyo, it is a right to reply forum on Madeleine Foundation Issues and Bennett is the Chairman

OMG, as usual the chief vulture is out to pick on people's flesh AGAIN.

It is a right to reply for people like TB and people like him who had been accused and have no other forum to reply if I am not wrong.

Is it a right to reply for you as well? What have you been accused of?

In that case, shall all start thread after boring thread on 'ask rockyrobin a question' or 'rockyrobin, clairfy this or that and such like'?

rockyrobin,
Are you here for Madeleine?
What is your theory on what happened to Madeleine?
Do you know her parents personally?
You firmly believe in her abduction yeah? How do you think the abductor made away with her?
Why do you come across as angry all the time?
Have you got a problem with people who do not believe in the abduction theory?
Have you got a cross to bear, and if so, for who?
What does TB represent to you? Are you rattled by him? Why?
Are you a MF member?
Why are you particularly interested in the MF's affairs?
Why are you particularly in every move and every syllabus of TB?
Most importantly, may I ask are you here to derail?[/quote]

I Would Argue This Entire Post is an Excellent Example of Attacking a Poster and Derailing a Thread. These Questions are Bizarre. We Were Not Asked to Vet Ourselves When We Signed Up. Who Are You?