SOME FORUM POSTS MAY BE REMOVED DUE TO A CARTER-RUCK LETTER

This is to inform you all that at 3.35pm this afternoon I collected a large package from my nearest local Royal Mail Sorting Office which they had said on a delivery card was 'a white bag' and they had been unable to deliver whilst I was away on holiday and because it was 'too large for my letter box.

I was able to collect it this afternoon, not knowing what it was.

The lady at the sorting office (she's a Cockney) said as she lugged the package slowly towards me: "Blimey, it's a good job that didn't fall off on to me 'ed".

On reaching home later on I weighed it on my bathroo mscales and it was nearly a stone in weight.

On opening the package, there was a 5-page letter from Carrer-Ruck alleging basically that articles on the MF website, MR leaflets, and around four dozen items on this forum constituted a breach of ONE of the High Court undertakings given by me to the McCanns on 25 November 2009.

The specific undertaking they say I breached was "not to repeat allegations that the Claimants are guilty of, or are to be suspected of, causing the death of their daughter; and/or disposing of her body; and/or lying about what happeend and/or seeking to cover up what they had done".

I have been asked to remove a total of 22 articles from the MF website, and amend or cut two others.

So far as this forum is concerned, I have been asked to remove 42 of my postings, I give a full list of what the McCanns want removed below. I am urgently discussing with admin the removal of those posts from public view and so at any time these may disappear.

Incidentally the removal of all the posts and articles that the McCanns want removed will not necessarily stop the McCanns from bringing contempt of court proceedings, which would be brought before a High Court Judge. If found guilty of contempt, the three main remedies are: fine, seizure of assets, and imprisonment.

It may be noted that I have to date made 3,501 posts on here, and only 42 are deemed by the McCanns to be in contempt, that's less than 1.2%. The other 3,459 are presumably not regarded as being in contempt.

I have endeavoured since 25 November 2009 to stick closley to the facts and what may be deduced from, rather than finger-pointing and accusing - based on the legal advice I received at the time.

I can't publish the Carter-Ruck letter here (for technical reasons), but I can publish my reply to them, send just after 5pm today:


Dear Ms Hudson,

At 3.35pm this afternoon I took delivery of a package from yourself containing a 5-page letter explaining why your clients consider I have breached the undertaking given to them on 25 November 2009, plus two ring-binders containing a schedule of 54 articles, postings, threads or parts of threads which your clients require to be removed or amended.

The Post Office attempted to deliver the package whilst I was away on holiday. The package was not marked 'Special Delivery' nor 'Recorded Delivery', nor 'Urgent', nor 'First Class', despite being marked 'Most Urgent' on page 1 of your letter.

I have had barely one hour to consider the contents of your letter and enclosures but will say this at this stage:

1. In view of your clients requests, I will embark straightaway, without any admission of liability or concession as to being in contempt of court as you allege, on removing or amending the articles or threads to which your client objects. They will be accompanied by the following message, or similar:

Following receipt of a package by Tony Bennett from Carter-Ruck at 3.35pm on 17 August 2011, this article/post has been removed/amended pending the outcome of further correspondence with Carter-Ruck.

2. On a cursory examination of your client's demands, there is some material that might possibly be argued to come closer to being treated as contempt of court than others. I cannot be expected to comply with every single request they make, and here the Englishman's right of free speech and the Articles in the European Court of Human Rights guaranteeing freedom of speech and expression would have to be weighted very carefully by any Judge trying to decide whether I have been in contempt of the undertaking. I will need some time to consider your clients' demands one by oone and in some cases I may not be able to agree to remove the articles.

3. Furthermore, I undetake no later than 1pm tomorrow to send you a more considered and fuller response to your letter, by e-mail. I will add that I shall be away from home from 1pm tomorrow until Sunday and out of e-mail contact during that period. Because of the occasional unreliability of e-mail communications I must ask that any substantive letters from you be sent by hard copy please.

Sincerely,

Tony Bennett





LIST OF POSTS REQUIRED TO BE REMOVED FROM THIS FORUM:

Threads or posts required to be removed from Jill Havern’s Forum

Thread title:

What Carter-Ruck have demanded must be removed

Goncalo Amaral – A Biography

Remove: TB post 11 Feb 2010, 6.00pm
TB posts 12 Feb 2010, 1.30pm, 6.53pm, 11.01pm

Short Report on 5^th Madeleine Foundation Conference

Remove: TB post 2.12am

A short letter to Teresa May…

Remove: TB posts 4 Jul 2010, 9.05am, 10.14am, 1.04pm, 1.52pm

FROM THE ARCHIVES

Remove: TB post 8 Jul 2010, 2.46am
TB posts 24 Jul 2010, 8.13am, 9.19am

SAT 17 JUL – GAADay

Remove: TB posts 10 Jul 2010, 12.03am

TB posts 18 Jul 2010, 9.25pm, 11.25pm

Kate’s 48 Questions on YouTube

Remove: TB post 13 Jul 2010, 5.09pm

16 CONTRADICTIONS

Remove: TB post 5.51pm

MF Urgent Letter

Remove TB letter

Wendy Murphy writes about JonBenet Ramsey…

Remove TB post 2 Jan 2011, 9.13am

What questions must the McCanns answer…

Remove TB post 13 Jan 2011, 4.28pm
TB posts 17 Jan 2011, 10.04am, 10.57am, 1.32am
TB post 19 Jan 2011, 15.30pm

MCCANNS NEW BOOK: IT’S

TRUTHFUL, VERY TRUTHFUL

Remove TB post 23 March 2011

McCanns’ new book: 163 Questions

Remove TB post 28 Mar 2011, 8.34pm, 8.57pm including letter to Dominic Mohan

McCanns’ investigation hotline

Remove TB posts 31 Mar 2011, 10.12pm, 11.10pm

PETITION FOR FULL PUBLIC ENQUIRY

Remove TB post 8.10pm

50 FACTS

Remove leaflet

Madeleine Foundation member’s letter

Remove TB posts 21 April, 12.15pm, 12,39pm, 1.51pm

Praia da Luz today

Remove TB posts 24 April 2011, 8.25am, 9.53am

Buying Kate McCann’s book won’t help

Remove press release

Tony Bennett German interview

Remove TB posts 11 May 2011, 6.56pm, 9.21pm and remove link

MF Letter to David Cameron Calling for Full Public Enquiry

Remove TB posts 14 May 2011, 8.28pm, 9.43pm

Casey Anthony Case

Remove TB post 11 June 2011, 8.01am

Contacting the Scotland Yard Review Team

RemoveTB post 7 Jul 2011, 8.42pm
TB post 12 Jul 2011, 5.28pm
TB post 20 Jul 2010, 10.50pm

MET POLICE COMMISSIONER HAS RESIGNED

Remove TB post 17 Jul 2011, 8.26pm, 8.54pm

So the McCann's don't want you to make any comments about Casey Anthony, JonBenet Ramsay or the resignation of the MET commissioner?

What happened to free speech in this country. And for public figures to be held under scrutiny. Haven't they anything better to do, like catching real criminals would be a good start. They can say what they like, they can do what they like, but I have a right to free speech and I am going to damn well use it

We may as well all give up.
This is becoming outrageous.

Some of those posts date back to February 2010!!!

This is just shocking! What is this country coming to that such as they can deny free speech even if the topic is not even about them? Grrrr

Big Vern wrote:We may as well all give up.
.

No we will never ever give up.....we will never give up our rights

jd wrote:

Big Vern wrote:We may as well all give up.
.

No we will never ever give up.....we will never give up our rights

But do we have any rights? It seems the McCanns hold all the cards and can shut anyone up who they chose.

On Twitter @anotherviv who had (did she) the http://justiceformaddie.blogspot.com/ has closed it and gone all pro McCann (denies being Carter Rucked though).

jd wrote:

Big Vern wrote:We may as well all give up.
.

No we will never ever give up.....we will never give up our rights

It doesn't look like we have rights any more. Only a select few have them and can dictate what the rest of us can say and even try to brainwash us into believing what they want us to believe.

Gillyspot wrote:
But do we have any rights? It seems the McCanns hold all the cards and can shut anyone up who they chose.

They just hold a bigger bank balance which allows them to buy more cards!!

Let them dictate.....whatever they do they cannot deny our our rights to free speech. Its what this country is built on, its what we go to war bleating about, its what millions of men and women died for giving us free speech. We have rights and nobody on this planet are ever going to take them away no matter how they try

One thing we can learn from this, is that we are obviously getting too close to the truth

jd wrote:One thing we can learn from this, is that we are obviously getting too close to the truth

Without a doubt.

jd wrote:Let them dictate...whatever they do they cannot deny our our rights to free speech. It's what this country is built on, it's what we go to war bleating about, it's what millions of men and women died for giving us free speech. We have rights and nobody on this planet is ever going to take them away no matter how they try

That's an optimistic assertion, most of which I agree with.

But maybe each generation has to fight for reasonable free speech.

Free speech doesn't of course include the right to incite violence (last week's riots being an example), nor e.g. to incite racial hatred.

Dr Gerald McCann of course made a famous declaration on free speech as he arrived to attend his successful (but only temporarily so) battle in January 2010 to stop Goncalo Amaral from getting his book unbanned. He said, quote:

"Freedom of speech does not include freedom to distort".

I have always viewed this case very simply.

It began not with accusations against the McCanns, but with the McCanns making a claim - about a matter moreover which their spokesman admits is a 'complete mystery', also acknowledging that their abduction claim is no more than an 'assumption' or 'hypothesis'.

I would summarise the legal aspect of this matter as follows:

In law, do we have the right, on reasonable grounds, to challenge a claim?

It used to be that the truth will set you free.
How sad that the only defense of these pathetic, neglectful parents and their equally pathetic friends is gagging everyone they don't like.

From their choice of entries to be deleted it is clear that it is not only about Smethurst but also about the McCanns.
What I still don't get is that much worse accusations are made almost daily without any action from the many legal offices the McCanns seem to frequent. You must be very threatening to them, Tony.

BTW I liked your warning about his daughter, it shows you are so much more responsible than daddie dearest. Seems that irresponsible parenting is as contagious as megalomania.

Just a note about everyone going on about free speech. yes we do have it in this country, but we also have libel laws.People should not get the two mixed up.

jd wrote:Let them dictate.....whatever they do they cannot deny our our rights to free speech. Its what this country is built on, its what we go to war bleating about, its what millions of men and women died for giving us free speech. We have rights and nobody on this planet are ever going to take them away no matter how they try

They are trying though, aren't they? Seriously, is there nothing that can be done about this? What about the European Court? Surely there must be something that can be done to stop such outrageous attempts to gag things that no reasonable person could consider as defamatory.

puzzled wrote:

jd wrote:Let them dictate.....whatever they do they cannot deny our our rights to free speech. Its what this country is built on, its what we go to war bleating about, its what millions of men and women died for giving us free speech. We have rights and nobody on this planet are ever going to take them away no matter how they try

They are trying though, aren't they? Seriously, is there nothing that can be done about this? What about the European Court? Surely there must be something that can be done to stop such outrageous attempts to gag things that no reasonable person could consider as defamatory.

'puzzled', on 8 June 2011 I wote to Carter-Ruck and on the subject of the European Convention on Human Rights, I wrote this:

QUOTE

Of particular interest is that in giving his ruling in the Appeal Court in October last year [when a Judge unbanned Goncalo Amaral's book], a copy of which you no doubt have to hand, the Judge very specifically referred to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the article that guarantees the right to free speech. In making his decision, he made it clear that the provisions of Article 10, notwithstanding that part of the Article that says that freedom of speech may on limited occasions be restricted ‘for the protection of the reputation and rights of others’, required him to adjudicate in favour of Mr Amaral’s right to have his hypothesis distributed and the right of the Portuguese people to read his hypothesis.

Moreover, despite your clients’ claims that Mr Amaral’s book is libellous, a claim your clients only initiated in the spring of 2009 after Mr Amaral’s book had already sold over 200,000 copies in Portugal, the final hearing to determine whether his book is libellous or not has not taken place, despite the effluxion of two years. So far as I am aware, no date has yet been set for this final trial of your clients’ application either. That means that the Portuguese courts have yet to determine whether or not the contents of his book are libellous.

At this stage I should point out to you and your clients that on 24 March 2010 I made an application against the U.K. government to the European Commission on Human Rights under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This application cited the notoriously oppressive libel laws in the U.K., which have caused Britain to be known the world over for ‘libel tourism’ - the practice of wealthy and powerful people from other countries using the British libel courts to suppress adverse comment about them. The application was registered in April 2010 by the European Commission as Application No. 20455/10. It claims inter alia that the levels of awards for defamation in the U.K., combined with the fact that there is no limit on the costs that can be claimed against an unsuccessful defendant in a libel action, amount to a breach of a citizen’s right to free speech as guaranteed by the Convention.

I am confident that the European Court will eventually uphold my appeal, not least because in the recent General Election campaign all three major political parties accepted that the points I have made above cried out for reform. As you will be fully aware, the Coalition Government has recently published a Libel Reform Bill, for which the date for public consultation to end is Friday of this week (10 June). The government has already accepted in principle the same arguments I put forward in my application to the European Commission on Human Rights, namely that the ability of wealthy clients like yours to use the libel courts to restrict criticism of them prevents potential defendants like myself from exercising their right of free speech; in my case that means interfering with my right to discuss in public my analysis of various matters connected with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

They want you to remove YOUR letter to Theresa MAY?? Er?

Isnt that your intellectual property? What has that got to do with theM?

They are barking mad as frogs and only doing it now because they got more money in the fund from k's book.

If they pushed you into a corner, could you not inform the press what the mccanns didn't allow you your opinions. Give them a list of their prohibition which as far as I can see includes YOUR Letter to people, MF Conference, Amaral's biograhy, JMR, Casey Anthony - I mean I dont see what these has got to do with them!

IF the Press print the list of their prohibition people will see the mccanns are not making sense. You could perhaps also raise the issue that they could have used Fund to sue people left right centre which they kept in the dark from UK public.

If they are baying for your blood...what else is there to lose?

They are just crazy ridiculous!

eta: isnt there anything in it that you can report CR to the Law Society or is it Law Registrar?

Carter Ruck are surely aware that the McCann s injuction against Goncalo Amaral's book failed last autumn though so his book is legally allowed for sale in the UK. Then surely if Amaral can say what he does in his book (even if the booksellers in the UK haven't got the guts to actually sell it!) then we can too? I e to question the McCanns' version files (which are in the public domain of course on mccannpjfiles).

Clearly I am not a lawyer though.

I have just noticed some of things they want you to remove are downright just bully from them because what have your research materials and your letters to whoever got to do with them?

Couldn't you also write to SY in charge of the review and highlight mccanns and CR latest underhanded tactics to them and see what they have to say?

They are after all doing a review and until they conclude it, the mccanns have no right to force their abduction theory on people and forbid people their opinions!

Unless the Yard's review is all about white wash!

This is how i see it. If Tony does not remove the offending posts, then Carter Ruck will continue with the proceddings. If Tony does comply then nothing will get done. People do need to understand though, like i have said before, the difference between libel and free speech, if the mark is overstepped, then there will always be trouble.

Some of the posts are from February 2010, - 18 months ago!! Why have they just decided they want them removed that's what I fail to understand.

There is not a time limit i believe on bringing a libel case. Apparently you can let a person go on and on and on and then go to sue them. However i am right in saying that Tony has already took an undertaking about the McCanns before hasn't he, so will a Judge decide that Tony adheared to it, or broke the undertaking?