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.

(Please note: if you register with the sole intention of disrupting or spamming, please don't expect to be a member for too long.)

Many thanks,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Page 1 of 11 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by Tony Bennett on 18.02.12 21:18

A process server arrived this morning with the latest parcel from Carter-Ruck, this time containing another 400-odd pages and setting out the 25 'most serious' alleged breaches of my undertakings (instead of the 153 I received on 1 December, along with five bundles and 2,000 pages). The new list of '25 serious breaches' is below.

The new committal bundle should have been served on me yesterday, but as I was out all day with my brother and his wife looking for care homes for our mother, I can't blame them for being a day late.

I didn't get a limousine with two people bringing me the parcel this time, just one bloke with an Audi.

Maybe there is a tariff for this sort of thing:

5 bundles - limousine and 2 blokes needed

1 large bundle - bloke with Merc or Audi needed

1 small bundle or letter - bloke with Ford Fiesta.

He was a nice bloke - recognised me from being on TV over the Michael Barrymore-death of Stuart Lubbock case. I ended up giving him a copy of my book to read, he said he'd bring it back to me.

We got talking about elderly relatives. He had had to place his father in a care home. He had carefully chosen the BUPA care home in Chelmsford. Sadly, three weeks and one day later, his father was dead. He had fallen out of bed in the middle of the night because there was no guard on the side of the bed. 'We probably could have sued them', he sighed, clearly still sad that so soon after placing him in what he thought was the best care home in the area, he was no more.

Mike Gunnill

My raising the subject before Mr Justice Tugendhat of Mike Gunnill's actions in deliberately entrapping me into selling one book has prompted a swift reaction from Carter-Ruck and Mike Gunnill (still a member of this forum I believe). For on Wednesday 15 February he attended his local solcitors, Beckett Solictors in Rainham, Kent, to swear an Affidavit setting out the circumstances in which he first lied about being Michael Sangerete, and then lied again about neeeding a copy of '60 Reasons' for the purposes of 'historical interest'.

The Affidavit itself is 7 pages long and consists of 26 paragraphs, but as either Carter-Ruck or Gunnill hmself or his solicitors advised him to include a photocopy of the whole of '60 Reasons' and photocopies of e-mail message and posts from this very forum, his Affidavit plus Exhibits ran to a hefty 61 pages.

In paragraphs 12-17 of his Affidavit, Gunnill explains why he schemed to try to get a booklet from me. Here is his account, in his own words - verbatim:

"Hav[ing] previously covered the story, I thought that the Sunday Express might be interested in reporting on it further, if it...turned out that the Defendant wasn't complying with his undertakings. I should mention that while I am a photo journalist, I also write articles occasionally and/or pitch ideas for articles to newspapers. If a newspaper decides to publish an article which I've suggested, I will be paid a commission both for the original idea and if any photographs of mine are used to illustrate it.

"I spoke to my contacts at the Sunday Express, who confirmed that they would consider publishing another articles if I could obtain a copy of the '60 Reasons' boklet from the Defendant in order to prove that he was breaching the undertaking.

"I therefore emailed the Defendant in January 2010, using the pseudonym 'Michael Sangerte', requesting a copy of the '60 Reasons' booklet. Given the use of my photograph in the original Sunday Express article...I thought it extremely unlikely that the Defendant would agree to sell me the '60 Reasons' booklet if I wrote in my own name, hence my use of a pseudonym.

"As can be seen, the Defendant was initialily reluctant to sell me the '60 Reasons' boolket because of the undertaking he had given...However, when I pressed the Defendant further, he confirmed he had been able to locate a copy...

"I inforned by my contact at the Sunday Express that I had been able to obatin a copy of the '60 Reasons' booklet from the Defendant. My contact told me the newspaper wished to consdier a possible article at their 11am editorial conference, so they sent a courier round to my house to collect [the] package which I had received from the Defendant, together with my summary for a proposed article, first thing in the moning. I was curious to see if I could get the Defendant to admit publicly that he had been breaching his undetakings..."


So, to put it in a nutshell, this member of our forum, Mike Gunnill, tried to get me to break a High Court undertaking, and potentially get me into serious trouble, just in order to make a grubby few tenners. Or so he says.

Well, he will have to be produced as a witness now at the trial - and I shall have more than a few questions for him in cross-examiantion.

The documents I received were also remarkable for a 19-page Affidavit from Carter-Ruck Partner Isabel Hudson, who in 100-plus paragraphs, sub-paragraphs and sub-sub-paragraphs, attempted to prove that I had either authored each publication in question, or at least consented to its publication on our website. This was a wholly unnecessary exercise, as in correspondence with Carter-Ruck I have always conceded authorship of all the postings and articles they have referred to, or at least in some cases to jointly consenting with Madeleine Foundation Committee members to publish them. My claim has always been simply that the right to circulate facts, freedom of speech, and the right to make fair comment if you have an 'honest belief' in the truth of what you are saying, have justified all the statements I have made about the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

What a waste of time and effort!



Here are the 25 'most serious' alleged breaches of my undertakings, but before that:

* Many thanks to all who have helped me so far in preparing my draft Affidavit of defence

* Many thanks to all of you who have registered your support for me, either here or by e-mail, 'phone or text

* And a special thanks to a lady called 'Mourena', of whom I have never heard before, but who sent me a very nice 'good luck' card and message - thank you Mourena, whererever you are.

Here's the revised list by which the McCanns hope I will be sent to prison or fined:

The 25 alleged beaches of undertaking that may send me to prison

The 25 alleged breaches of undertaking now pleaded in support of the application to commit me to prison may be summarised as follows. The breaches are numbered 1 to 25 as listed in Exhibit ‘IJH6’ at pages 1 to 10 of the new bundle, with the previous number for each given on brackets afterwards:

No. 1 (previously 1) Allegedly breaching an undertaking not to sell my book ‘60 Reasons’ by ‘selling’ a book to one Michael Sangerte. I told ‘Michale Sangerte’ that the book was no longer for sale. When Michael Sangerte said he required it because he claimed it would one day ‘be an important historical document’ for which he was ‘prepared to pay a high price’, I agreed to find a copy for him, and sent it to him in exchange for its normal previous price, £5 including postage. The buyer turned out to be Michael Gunnill of Upchurch, Kent, who had deliberately deceived me into selling a copy which otherwise I had absolutely no intention of doing.

No. 2 (previously No. 2) Publishing and selling the book ‘The Madeleine McCann Case Files: Volume 1’. It is claimed by the McCanns that this is libellous. The book is simply a compilation of 12 witness statements, police or expert reports, either in full or extracts from them, which were made public by the Portuguese Police 3½ years ago, in late 2008. So far as I am aware, the McCanns have not sued for libel either the Portuguese Police for publishing these documents, nor the authors of any of them, e.g. Dr Arul Gaspar, Dr Katarina Gaspar, Martin Grime and Inspector Tavares de Almedia. These various statements and reports have been published on numerous places on the internet and probably read by hundreds of thousands of people. So far as I am aware, the McCanns have not sued any of the website, forum or blog owners who have been carrying this material for the past 3½ years. I do not understand therefore the basis on which it is claimed that the contents of our book are libellous, if the McCanns have not sued any of the various authors and publishers of the material over the past 3½ years. IMPORTANT NOTE: Despite our publishing this book in January 2010, it was not until 1 December 2011 (when a limousine brought me the committal papers) that the McCanns first stated that they had any objection to this publication

No. 3 (previously No. 3) Sending to our members, supporters and contacts an email refuting the claims of the BBC that Goncalo Amaral had used the expression ‘F___ the McCanns’ outside the Lisbon Court in January 2010. The McCanns say that parts of this email libelled them.


Nos. 4 to 9 concern material published on The Madeleine Foundation website, as follows [IMPORTANT NOTE: Within 24 hours of our being notified by the McCanns of their objection to these six articles and five more on our website to which the McCanns objected, we removed them from our website].

No. 4 (previously No. 15) Publishing a copy of our letter to Home Secretary Theresa May on 4 July 2010 about the possibility of a ‘Review’ into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The McCanns say a part of that letter libelled them.

No. 5 (previously No. 18) Publishing an item ‘News from The Madeleine Foundation’ on 24 September 2010 which Mrs McCanns say included a libel of them. I am not at liberty to say what the contents of this letter were.

No. 6 (previously No. 27) Re-publishing in February 2011 in full an article by Barbara Nottage on the events of the evening of 3 May 2007 which we had previously substantially cut - a year earlier - at the request of the McCanns. The reason we reinstated the article in full was because a few weeks earlier the McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell had admitted that the abduction of Madeleine was not a fact but only an ‘assumption’ or ‘working hypothesis’.

No. 7 (previously No. 32) Publishing a copy of our letter to Prime Minister David Cameron sent on 18 May 2011 about the remit of the ‘Review’ ordered by David Cameron into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The McCanns say parts of that letter libelled them. I am not at liberty to say what the contents of this letter were.

No. 8 (previously No. 34) Publishing a letter I sent to Carter-Ruck on 8 June 2011.

No. 9 (previously No. 36) Publishing a copy of our letter to Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, Head of the Scotland Yard Review Team, sent on 11 July 2011 about the remit of the ‘Review’ ordered by David Cameron into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The McCanns say parts of that letter libelled them. I am not at liberty to say what the contents of this letter were.


Nos. 10 to 23 inclusive concern 14 postings on the forum ‘Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann’. [IMPORTANT NOTE: Within 24 hours of our being notified by the McCanns of their objection to these 14 and around 26 other postings of mine on this forum to which the McCanns objected, I arranged their removal from that forum, except for the last three which were removed on being notified about them on 1 December 2011].

These are the dates of these postings:

No. 10 (previously No. 44) - 4 July 2010 (four messages)

No. 11 (previously No. 46) - 13 July 2010 (two messages giving a link to a YouTube video I made reading out the 48 questions that Dr Kate McCann refused to answer when she was pulled in for questioning on 7 September 2007). That video is considered by the McCanns to libel them, although that list of 48 questions can be read all over the internet including today on the BBC website

No. 12 (previously No. 48) - 24 July 2010 (two messages)

No. 13 (previously No. 51) - 2 January 2011

No. 14 (previously No. 64) - 16 April 2011, which refers to the ‘50 FACTS’ leaflet published by the Madeleine McCann Research Group, a document that the McCanns say libelled them

No. 15 (previously No. 72) - 2 May 2011 (two messages)

No. 16 (previously No. 79) - 14 May 2011

No. 17 (previously No. 87) - 22 June 2011 (two messages)

No. 18 (previously No. 90) - 7 July 2011

No. 19 (previously No. 97) - 20 July 2011

No. 20 (previously No. 108) - 3 August 2011

No. 21 (previously No. 109 - 18 August 2011

No. 22 (previously No. 118) - 7 September 2011

No. 23 (previously No. 130) - 1 November 2011

No. 24 (previously No. 140) A tweet on Twitter dated 7 July 2011 which referred to the report of Inspector Tavares de Almedia [NOTE: See also No. 2 above].

No. 25 (previously No. 147) Distributing the leaflet ‘50 FACTS’ in Cheshire, Lancashire and Flinshire.

____________________

 Daily Mail journalist Daniel Bates wrote: “Kate and Gerry McCann have released a new picture of their daughter Madeleine as they prepare to commemorate tomorrow’s third anniversary of her disappearance. The photo shows her when she was three after a raid on the dressing-up box. She has a pink bow in her hair and a gold bead necklace and is wearing blue eyeshadow. It was taken weeks before the fateful family holiday to the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz when Madeleine vanished”

avatar
Tony Bennett

Posts : 14663
Reputation : 2801
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by happychick on 18.02.12 21:35

No. 24 (previously No. 140) A tweet on Twitter dated 7 July 2011 which referred to the report of Inspector Tavares de Almedia [NOTE: See also No. 2 above].

A tweet which referred to the report of Inspector Tavares de Almedia? bigshock You cannot be serious?

They want you to go to prison because of a tweet? skull

Are they wanting other people to go to prison for tweeting? Or just you?
avatar
happychick

Posts : 401
Reputation : 38
Join date : 2011-06-14

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by ShuBob on 18.02.12 22:01

Preposterous!

Hope you are keeping safe Tony

ShuBob

Posts : 1896
Reputation : 67
Join date : 2012-02-07

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by Guest on 18.02.12 22:59

If someone was to use this as the plotline for a drama, it would be thought to be ridiculously far-fetched. Has nobody on Team McCann any shame? Okay, that's a silly question.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by listener on 18.02.12 23:17

Which of the 50 facts are a problem?

I have passed these 'facts' to interested parties. If I can't receive any more copies from source, can I make copies and continue to distribute? Have any 'facts' been proved to be wrong?
avatar
listener

Posts : 568
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2010-01-10

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by Gillyspot on 18.02.12 23:25

It would appear the McCann couples version of libel includes sharing official police statements questioning their movements at the time of the "abduction" and also the sharing of their own actions as evidenced in the police files.

Tony you need to share the relevant parts of the official files to the Judge to help prove your innocence of libel. (sorry bit like teaching grandmother to suck eggs I know but am wishing you the best and hoping justice will prevail)

____________________
Kate McCann "I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances"
avatar
Gillyspot

Posts : 1470
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2011-06-13

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by Ribisl on 19.02.12 0:12

Tony, how can we help?

____________________
There is a taint of death, a flavour of mortality in lies... Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad

Ribisl

Posts : 807
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-02-04

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by aiyoyo on 19.02.12 6:08

@happychick wrote:
No. 24 (previously No. 140) A tweet on Twitter dated 7 July 2011 which referred to the report of Inspector Tavares de Almedia [NOTE: See also No. 2 above].

A tweet which referred to the report of Inspector Tavares de Almedia? bigshock You cannot be serious?

They want you to go to prison because of a tweet? skull

Are they wanting other people to go to prison for tweeting? Or just you?

In that case, shouldn't every tweet and youtube that is anti-mccanns be taken to task? Or just TB?

If people can start looking up tweets and youtube those for use as exhibits in Court, then the Judge may want to know why the mccanns target only TB? Why didn't they sue the rest of them?

I'm sure I have seen Inspector Tavares de Almedia's report mentioned on youtube produced by HideHo if I am not wrong.

Good Luck Tony.

In his -self-damning affidavit Mike Gunnill has effectively admitted entrapment.
His ethics is worst than hacking, if not more illegal than hacking.
Surely it is a criminal act to entice TB to breach his undertaking just so that he can make a few bucks, and in the process seriously harming TB.






avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 319
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

A trial

Post by Tony Bennett on 19.02.12 7:39

@aiyoyo wrote:
@happychick wrote:
No. 24 (previously No. 140) A tweet on Twitter dated 7 July 2011 which referred to the report of Inspector Tavares de Almedia [NOTE: See also No. 2 above].
A tweet which referred to the report of Inspector Tavares de Almedia? You cannot be serious? They want you to go to prison because of a tweet? Are they wanting other people to go to prison for tweeting? Or just you?
In that case, shouldn't every tweet and YouTube video that is anti-McCanns be taken to task? Or just TB?
This point made by 'happychick' and 'aiyoyo' goes close to the heart of this case.

There are 1,616 members of this forum. Only my posts are watched here regularly by Carter-Ruck. Only I risk prison if one of my posts crosses a certain threshold in the view of the McCanns and Carter-Ruck.

Dozens - maybe 100 or more - YouTube videos exist which are sceptical of the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted. The only one the McCanns are taking libel action about is one where I read out the 48 questions which Dr Kate McCann was asked by the Portuguese Police on 7 September 2007.

Numerous websites, forums and blogs carry copies of all the witness statements, expert opinions and police reports released by the Portuguese Police, including the report of Inspector Tavares de Almeida. Yet the only action being taken is to try to get me imprisoned for having published some of these in the book 'The Madeleine McCann Case Filles, Volume 1', and tweeting about one of those police reports.

@Gillyspot wrote:Tony you need to share the relevant parts of the official files to the Judge to help prove your innocence of libel. (sorry bit like teaching grandmother to suck eggs I know but am wishing you the best and hoping justice will prevail)
Carter-Ruck themselves have copied the whole of 'The Madeleine McCann Case Files: Volume 1' for the judge ro read. This means that he will read, inter alia, the 48 questions that Dr Kate McCann did not answer, the full report of Inpector Tavares de Almeida, all the reports written by Matin Gtime and his rogatory interviews, and the witness statements of Dr Arul Gaspar and Dr Katarina Gaspar.

It does feel as though I am being singled out for punishment. But then on page 290 of her book: 'madeleine', Dr Kate McCann did say: "[We] attempt to deal with the widespread defamatory material circulating on the internet. We have taken action against one or two websites...Friends flag up some o fthe worst offenders for us, but in the end it comes down to picking your battles".

Ribisi wrote:Tony, how can we help?
There is a group of kind people who are helping with the drafting of my Affidavit of defence and who are researching particular aspects of this matter. Apart from that, it's always helpful to read what members here think about the committal-to-prison application; it helps me to prepare my defence.

For example, the quotes from 'happychick' and 'aiyoyo' make me think I should make more of the fact that there seems to be an incoming tide of scepticism about the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted, as judged e.g. by the number of new members joining here; it seems that the McCanns are powerless to control what 1,615 members here can say about the case (and what thousands more say elsewhere on the internet) yet can besiege me with bundles suggesting that I am so dangerous that I should be locked up.

@listener wrote:Which of the 50 facts are a problem? Have any 'facts' been proved to be wrong?
I don't know. Maybe we will all find out at the trial.

____________________

 Daily Mail journalist Daniel Bates wrote: “Kate and Gerry McCann have released a new picture of their daughter Madeleine as they prepare to commemorate tomorrow’s third anniversary of her disappearance. The photo shows her when she was three after a raid on the dressing-up box. She has a pink bow in her hair and a gold bead necklace and is wearing blue eyeshadow. It was taken weeks before the fateful family holiday to the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz when Madeleine vanished”

avatar
Tony Bennett

Posts : 14663
Reputation : 2801
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by Kololi on 19.02.12 8:03

Mr Gunnill may have behaved sneakily but he might argue that he needed to "go under cover" in order to do his journalistic work in this instance. How many journalists have done the same thing for programmes such as Panorama in order to show the public the scandalous treatment that old or vulnerable people receive in care homes? It's applauded as good work when some dodgy builder gets shown on t.v. by Matt whatshisface to have scammed the little old lady out of her pension by re-roofing her whole roof when only one tile was missing.

The Judge has allowed Mr Bennett to call Mr Gunnill as a witness so let's hope that he can use that opportunity well. It will be interesting to see what proof there is that he did his sneakybeaky bit on behalf of the McCanns rather than for the reasons that he has stated in his affidavit.

As for the missing "cot sides". It used to be considered bad practice to use them as a confused older person is likely to cause more harm to themselves trying to climb over them if they try and get out of bed. I also have a sneaking suspicion that it was considered a form of restraint so was frowned upon. There are many other ways to nurse an older person safely without resorting to the use of "cot sides" but then care changes as research dictates so maybe they are back in fashion again.
avatar
Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by Kololi on 19.02.12 8:11

"No. 3 (previously No. 3) Sending to our members, supporters and contacts an email refuting the claims of the BBC that Goncalo Amaral had used the expression ‘F___ the McCanns’ outside the Lisbon Court in January 2010. The McCanns say that parts of this email libelled them."

This is an odd one. It was really quite difficult to understand what he actually said at the time so I guess it came down to viewers thoughts entirely as to what they thought they heard him say on t.v. You mention that "parts of this email libelled them". I am guessing that the email is one of the documents that you have pulled so it is not readable in its entirety anymore?

Edited as the type size seems to have shrunk and refuses to get bigger again. If it doesn't "grow" this time then apologies to those who need to squint to read it!!
avatar
Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by garfy on 19.02.12 8:16

this is the case go for the minority ..[who can harm them the most] not the majority ...who do not believe n the abduction scenario...they aways want to be seen as the victims...and try and draw the sympathy for themselves from as many people they can ..so they have to destroy the ones who can do them the most damage..

they betrayed maddie as parents ...they betrayed her trust to keep her safe ...they didnt and fgs abduction or not ...do they honistly believe they should not be questioned on anything....their is not one bit of proof [apart from propaganda]...that maddie was abducted ....so why the hell should the public not be allowed an opinion...

Tony you and others are a very big thorn in their sides.the ones they need silencing ....not for maddie ...for themselves....imo ..the less that comes out ...the better it is for them ...[if the case is reported by the media]

tony you was in a position to do something ...AND YOU DID ...i for one am proud like many many more ..to be on your side ...and believe in what you are doing to be right x
avatar
garfy

Posts : 160
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2010-07-08
Location : humberside

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by Kololi on 19.02.12 8:19

"they betrayed maddie as parents ...they betrayed her trust to keep her safe ...they didnt and fgs abduction or not ...do they honistly believe they should not be questioned on anything....their is not one bit of proof [apart from propaganda]...that maddie was abducted ....so why the hell should the public not be allowed an opinion..."

Well said.


avatar
Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by aiyoyo on 19.02.12 8:43

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:
@happychick wrote:
No. 24 (previously No. 140) A tweet on Twitter dated 7 July 2011 which referred to the report of Inspector Tavares de Almedia [NOTE: See also No. 2 above].
A tweet which referred to the report of Inspector Tavares de Almedia? You cannot be serious? They want you to go to prison because of a tweet? Are they wanting other people to go to prison for tweeting? Or just you?
In that case, shouldn't every tweet and YouTube video that is anti-McCanns be taken to task? Or just TB?
This point made by 'happychick' and 'aiyoyo' goes close to the heart of this case.

There are 1,616 members of this forum. Only my posts are watched here regularly by Carter-Ruck. Only I risk prison if one of my posts crosses a certain threshold in the view of the McCanns and Carter-Ruck.

Dozens - maybe 100 or more - YouTube videos exist which are sceptical of the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted. The only one the McCanns are taking libel action about is one where I read out the 48 questions which Dr Kate McCann was asked by the Portuguese Police on 7 September 2007.

Numerous websites, forums and blogs carry copies of all the witness statements, expert opinions and police reports released by the Portuguese Police, including the report of Inspector Tavares de Almeida. Yet the only action being taken is to try to get me imprisoned for having published some of these in the book 'The Madeleine McCann Case Filles, Volume 1', and tweeting about one of those police reports.

@Gillyspot wrote:Tony you need to share the relevant parts of the official files to the Judge to help prove your innocence of libel. (sorry bit like teaching grandmother to suck eggs I know but am wishing you the best and hoping justice will prevail)
Carter-Ruck themselves have copied the whole of 'The Madeleine McCann Case Files: Volume 1' for the judge ro read. This means that he will read, inter alia, the 48 questions that Dr Kate McCann did not answer, the full report of Inpector Tavares de Almeida, all the reports written by Matin Gtime and his rogatory interviews, and the witness statements of Dr Arul Gaspar and Dr Katarina Gaspar.

It does feel as though I am being singled out for punishment. But then on page 290 of her book: 'madeleine', Dr Kate McCann did say: "[We] attempt to deal with the widespread defamatory material circulating on the internet. We have taken action against one or two websites...Friends flag up some o fthe worst offenders for us, but in the end it comes down to picking your battles".

Ribisi wrote:Tony, how can we help?
There is a group of kind people who are helping with the drafting of my Affidavit of defence and who are researching particular aspects of this matter. Apart from that, it's always helpful to read what members here think about the committal-to-prison application; it helps me to prepare my defence.

For example, the quotes from 'happychick' and 'aiyoyo' make me think I should make more of the fact that there seems to be an incoming tide of scepticism about the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted, as judged e.g. by the number of new members joining here; it seems that the McCanns are powerless to control what 1,615 members here can say about the case (and what thousands more say elsewhere on the internet) yet can besiege me with bundles suggesting that I am so dangerous that I should be locked up.

[quote='listener"]Which of the 50 facts are a problem? Have any 'facts' been proved to be wrong?
I don't know. Maybe we will all find out at the trial.[/quote]

The point is:
data about the mccanns case is widely available on the internet to anyone who cares to google.
The answers to people's questions about the case is only one-mouse-click away.

For example if one were to google : "Is Maddie really abducted?" then all manner of answers come up on various sites,web engines (even Yahoo), and online press and media websites, including answers of those who think she is dead and the parents involved, including data about Gaspars' statement, WOC, Tavares De Almedia's report, Martin Grimes and dogs, etc etc...and 48 questions they refused to answer et al and more.

All these data are readily available to anyone to compile or collate if they so wish, who is to say people cant collate them or that it is against the law to collate them. In that case, shouldn't the mccanns take out a blanket super duper injunction prohibiting search engines, websites including those belonging to Press and Media, from displaying such data; prohibiting also police websites and profiler websites - all inclusive, no one entity is excepted, from displaying data about their case or people from having opinion about their case.

For example, excerpts of Tavares de Almedia's report was included in a video produced on youtube by HiDeHo if I am not wrong, so that is available on youtube for anyone who cares to click the mouse (so to speak).

Take for example, if I were to google "Are the mccanns involved in their daughter's disappearance" can anyone guess what will come up?
If I were to google: "Maddie's Mystery" or for example "Mccanns private detectives" - guess what will come up

The mccanns and their lawyers should try it (google) and see for themselves; they will be surprised what data are out there on the cyberspace library, and it's not always filed only in the forum or blog section. Answers can come from other sections.





avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 319
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by aiyoyo on 19.02.12 9:03

@Kololi wrote:Mr Gunnill may have behaved sneakily but he might argue that he needed to "go under cover" in order to do his journalistic work in this instance. No difference from those hacking for a story then? and where does that leave the offenders?
In fact what MG did was even worst - he knew TB undertook an undertaking yet he tricked him to breach just for his personal gain in the pocket! That is beyond dishonest - that is a crime I believe. If TB were rich like the mccanns MG will be sued to be committed to HM prison.
How many journalists have done the same thing for programmes such as Panorama in order to show the public the scandalous treatment that old or vulnerable people receive in care homes? It's applauded as good work when some dodgy builder gets shown on t.v. by Matt whatshisface to have scammed the little old lady out of her pension by re-roofing her whole roof when only one tile was missing.

Kololi,
I dont think you are being fair at all. You are not comparing like for like. It leaves me wondering what is your point?
How can organisation's failings on big scale compared to TB's kind deed to help a so claimed "researcher" from getting hold of a booklet for research purpose? At most, TB's action can be see as doing the "researcher" a favour.


The Judge has allowed Mr Bennett to call Mr Gunnill as a witness so let's hope that he can use that opportunity well. It will be interesting to see what proof there is that he did his sneakybeaky bit on behalf of the McCanns rather than for the reasons that he has stated in his affidavit.

As for the missing "cot sides". It used to be considered bad practice to use them as a confused older person is likely to cause more harm to themselves trying to climb over them if they try and get out of bed. I also have a sneaking suspicion that it was considered a form of restraint so was frowned upon. There are many other ways to nurse an older person safely without resorting to the use of "cot sides" but then care changes as research dictates so maybe they are back in fashion again.
avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 319
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by garfy on 19.02.12 9:40

thanks Kololi

one of the crucial reasons the mcs always give ..[when anyone publicly dares to not believe the abduction]...is it hinders or stops people searching for maddie...

now what damage then must these supposed sightings do ...[so far fetched ]..like comming forward after x amount years ..never one of them approaching who had her or causing a fuss...

to me that would be the worst hindrance of the search for maddie......yet it is always given full blown publicity ...often contacting press first .....[for warning so called abductor].....imo it obvious they are blatantly disrupting the search ..yet because it backs up or fits with what the mccs say ...it ok..........this is what is so wrong ...the mccs version has to be the only one ...even with not one shred of truth ....they are allowed to make the money [for expensive lawyers] to steam roller any one who tries to get in there way...

its always been one sided ....and every story has two...
avatar
garfy

Posts : 160
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2010-07-08
Location : humberside

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by Guest on 19.02.12 9:45

[quote="Kololi"]"No. 3 (previously No. 3) Sending to our members, supporters and contacts an email refuting the claims of the BBC that Goncalo Amaral had used the expression ‘F___ the McCanns’ outside the Lisbon Court in January 2010. The McCanns say that parts of this email libelled them."

This is an odd one. It was really quite difficult to understand what he actually said at the time so I guess it came down to viewers thoughts entirely as to what they thought they heard him say on t.v. You mention that "parts of this email libelled them". I am guessing that the email is one of the documents that you have pulled so it is not readable in its entirety anymore?
/quote]

This "heinous offence" puzzles me as it has been acknowledged that Sr Amaral did not swear - see the earlier topic https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2766-bbc-east-midlands-admits-mr-amaral-didn-t-swear?highlight=didn+t+swear

Surely this alleged crime against humanity can no longer re regarded as such?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by tigger on 19.02.12 9:47

No expert on libel law but CR - apart from their first 3 possibly - seem to be scraping the barrel re offenses. Only makes me wonder what the other 128 were like, no doubt the same thought will occur to the judge.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 44
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by Kololi on 19.02.12 11:06

Aiyoyo I understand your point re: apples and pears and accept that.

I mentioned the care home scandals etc however, purely to show that it happens and when it does happen and it is something that Joe Public considers wrong, ie the abuse of vulnerable people, we applaud it. We do not condemn the use of sneaky tactics then. Hacking is not the same in my opinion but I respect that you feel that it is.

The guy probably guessed that if he contacted Mr Bennett as himself he was unlikely to get his "scoop" so maybe he resorted to underhand tactics. Big deal because at the end of the day his request could have been refused. If he had pretended to be Prince Philip, surely having agreed to the undertaking you would check out his credentials first because there is too much to lose if you get it wrong.

I have already eaten humble pie on this matter and will happily eat as much more as I need to, if indeed I do need to. The Judge may well think Mr Gunnill is a scheming little monkey and may look favourably at Mr Bennett's reasons for selling to him - good luck to Mr Bennett if he does. Maybe it is my upbringing Aiyoyo but my own sense of right and wrong tells me that you do not under any circumstances whatsover show your backside to an English court and say "kiss that". I imagine that if I had been wearing Mr Bennett's shoes that day I would have probably have contacted the courts or a legal advisor and explained the request that had been made to me and checked out first whether I would be in any breach of my undertaking if I did give the guy a book. All above board then and transparent and not a form of flicking a v at the courts becuase I thought I would get away with it.

I am probably being very moralistic about this and apologies to whoever that may offend but, let's not forget, I have also been pretty moralistic when stating that I think by leaving their children alone that night the McCanns were more than a tadge neglectful and nobody has criticised me here for that. We shouldn't cherry pick - in my humble opinion the McCanns were wrong that night but equally, so was Mr Bennett for selling that book and for instigating the sale of others via Sym or whatever she was called as we were led to believe that he did at the time.




avatar
Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by Nina on 19.02.12 11:18

Was TB "selling" the booklet or was the 5 pounds for refunding the postage and packing from the person he got the second hand booklet from?

____________________
Not one more cent from me.
avatar
Nina

Posts : 2833
Reputation : 315
Join date : 2011-06-16
Age : 74

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by Kololi on 19.02.12 12:20

I think Mr Bennett has already said that postage was additional to the £5.
avatar
Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by Guest on 19.02.12 12:34

@Kololi wrote:I think Mr Bennett has already said that postage was additional to the £5.

This is on the forum..............

1) A courier this morning at 08.00 collected the envelope, 60 Reasons book, 10 Reasons leaflet, a receipt signed by Anthony Bennett plus emails between myself and Mr Bennett. The book was purchased by contacting Mr Bennett directly via email. The money was posted to his home address in Harlow. Cash was sent ( £5 ) as payment, because I didn't want to send a cheque made payable to Mrs Bennett as requested by Anthony Bennett at the same address.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Waste of what exactly?

Post by Guest on 19.02.12 12:37

The documents I received were also remarkable for a 19-page Affidavit
from Carter-Ruck Partner Isabel Hudson, who in 100-plus paragraphs,
sub-paragraphs and sub-sub-paragraphs, attempted to prove that I had
either authored each publication i nquestion, or at least consented to
its publication on our website. This was a wholly unnecessary exercise,
as in correspondence with Carter-Ruck I have always conceded authorship
of all the postings and articles they have referred to, or at least in
some cases to jointly consenting with Madeleine Foundation Committee
members to publish them. My claim has always been simply that the right
to circulate facts, freedom of speech, and the right to make fair
comment if you have an 'honest belief' in the truth of what you are
saying have justified all the statements I have made about the reported
disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

What a waste of time and effort!


Antony Bennett, you are very much mistaken. No time was wasted. No effort was superfluous: on the contrary, my learned friend!
Come on now: as one lawyer to another: what better sort of client to have than a vindictive one without any legal expertise and a mint of money to spend?

avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by ShuBob on 19.02.12 13:28

FWIW, I think Gunnill's antics in trying to get TB to breach his undertaking in order to earn himself some cash is comparable to the journalists who commissioned Glenn Mulcaire to hack people's phones though the latter is a criminal act in the law books while the former was a voluntary act taken by TB albeit under duress. Mulcaire was found guilty for committing the act and the journalists who allegedly used his services are being arrested. TB may be found guilty for selling the book but Gunnill may also find himself facing censure.

PS: After sending a courier to collect the package from Gunnill first thing in the morning, did the Express run a story on his findings? If not, is that why he went to the McCanns and Carter-Ruck so he could perhaps get payment that way? But really, if his story is to be believed and he wanted to run a story via the Express, why would he expose his behind on the internet BEFORE getting any sort of confirmation that the story would be run? Another newspaper could have got the story and run it meaning the Express may no longer be interested which = no cash for Gunnill. IMO he's backtracking. He messed up big time and he knows it

ShuBob

Posts : 1896
Reputation : 67
Join date : 2012-02-07

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by Gillyspot on 19.02.12 14:19

candyfloss wrote:
@Kololi wrote:I think Mr Bennett has already said that postage was additional to the £5.

This is on the forum..............

1) A courier this morning at 08.00 collected the envelope, 60 Reasons book, 10 Reasons leaflet, a receipt signed by Anthony Bennett plus emails between myself and Mr Bennett. The book was purchased by contacting Mr Bennett directly via email. The money was posted to his home address in Harlow. Cash was sent ( £5 ) as payment, because I didn't want to send a cheque made payable to Mrs Bennett as requested by Anthony Bennett at the same address.

As Gunnill stated he was prepared to pay considerably more then Tony can surely say that the £5 was simply a postage & packing charge not a sale price for the book particularly if it was secondhand (if this was so).

It does amaze me that 1000s of people actively share their doubt of the McCann couple (myself included) daily, yet K & G and Carter-Ruck just pick on a retired solicitor (Tony). I would imagine if they picked on us ALL who doubt their story they wouldn't find it easy to intimidate a "class action" of people. Ergo they are scared. Only my opinion of course.


____________________
Kate McCann "I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances"
avatar
Gillyspot

Posts : 1470
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2011-06-13

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 11 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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