McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Legal Issues :: Carter-Ruck: McCanns v Bennett Contempt of Court
Page 11 of 11 • Share
Page 11 of 11 • 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11
Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
All the best Tony, I will be posting my findings around my area, so others will know. I have a court case coming up soon (non payment of council tax, and I may be going to prison too!!but that's another story) and I aint paying them sweet F. A. until I see a big change in the ways things are run.
turnaround- Posts : 32
Activity : 45
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2012-03-23
Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
Unsolicited advice :turnaround wrote:All the best Tony, I will be posting my findings around my area, so others will know. I have a court case coming up soon (non payment of council tax, and I may be going to prison too!!but that's another story) and I aint paying them sweet F. A. until I see a big change in the ways things are run.
Pay the tax element for the things you believe ARE being done more or less OK, but make it clear that you are withholding the tax for the other elements until you see an improvement. Specify the improvements you are looking for. You must be realistic, and accept that these things take time.
Also put the money, and make it clear that you have the money, in a separate account, properly labelled, ready to pay the instant those improvements are announced. Produce the evidence of that account. You can easily get the percentages of what your council tax is spent on.
Brief the press.
Then watch closely.
Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
PeterMac wrote:Unsolicited advice :turnaround wrote:All the best Tony, I will be posting my findings around my area, so others will know. I have a court case coming up soon (non payment of council tax, and I may be going to prison too!!but that's another story) and I aint paying them sweet F. A. until I see a big change in the ways things are run.
Pay the tax element for the things you believe ARE being done more or less OK, but make it clear that you are withholding the tax for the other elements until you see an improvement. Specify the improvements you are looking for. You must be realistic, and accept that these things take time.
Also put the money, and make it clear that you have the money, in a separate account, properly labelled, ready to pay the instant those improvements are announced. Produce the evidence of that account. You can easily get the percentages of what your council tax is spent on.
Brief the press.
Then watch closely.
Sorry, wandering off topic, but good advice! A friend of mine had a dispute with the council on tax and found out that if they send a bailiff, the bailiff has to take items of proven worth. My friend collected empty bottles which had a return value of twenty pence each. The 'debt' was about thirty pounds and the bailiff had to take about 150 ready crated empties in lieu of payment. Those days are gone.....
____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
tigger wrote:Sorry, wandering off topic, but good advice! A friend of mine had a dispute with the council on tax and found out that if they send a bailiff, the bailiff has to take items of proven worth. My friend collected empty bottles which had a return value of twenty pence each. The 'debt' was about thirty pounds and the bailiff had to take about 150 ready crated empties in lieu of payment. Those days are gone.....PeterMac wrote:Unsolicited advice :turnaround wrote:All the best Tony, I will be posting my findings around my area, so others will know. I have a court case coming up soon (non payment of council tax, and I may be going to prison too!!but that's another story) and I aint paying them sweet F. A. until I see a big change in the ways things are run.
Pay the tax element for the things you believe ARE being done more or less OK, but make it clear that you are withholding the tax for the other elements until you see an improvement. Specify the improvements you are looking for. You must be realistic, and accept that these things take time.
Also put the money, and make it clear that you have the money, in a separate account, properly labelled, ready to pay the instant those improvements are announced. Produce the evidence of that account. You can easily get the percentages of what your council tax is spent on.
Brief the press.
Then watch closely.
hahahaha! excellent Tigger.
Kololi- Posts : 677
Activity : 687
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2010-01-10
Judge Tugendhat's decision considered a boost to Freedom of Expression
Put this here as Judge Tugendhat was presiding over this case and the interesting ruling he made...................
Breaking News
11:09am UK, Thursday May 24, 2012
Huhne's Girlfriend Loses Privacy Action
11:09am UK, Thursday May 24, 2012
Carina Trimingham, the partner of Liberal Democract Chris Huhne, has lost her High Court privacy and harassment action against Associated Newspapers.
Ms Trimingham, 44, has been ordered to pay £250,000 in costs within two weeks after losing her action over articles in the Mail and Mail on Sunday.
The PR adviser warned outside the High Court that the ruling could become a "blueprint for bullies and bigots" and said she would be appealing.
Ms Trimingham was not the purely private figure she claims to be. Her reasonable expectation of privacy has become limited.
Judge Tugendhat
Ms Trimingham had sued for compensation and an injunction over 65 "highly unpleasant and hurtful" articles in the newspapers about her relationship with Mr Huhne.
She had an affair with the former energy secretary and senior Lib Dem, which culminated in June 2010 when the MP left his wife of 26 years to be with her.
Her lawyers told Mr Justice Tugendhat, sitting at London's High Court, that the articles had constituted a "cataclysmic interference" with her private life.
They referred to the "life and very different loves of the PR girl in Doc Martens" and described her as a "comedy lesbian from central casting".
Ms Trimingham's counsel, Matthew Ryder QC, had argued that the Mail had a right to freedom of expression but not to abuse his client repeatedly.
He told the High Court the articles had made constant and gratuitous references to Ms Trimingham's sexuality and her previous relationship with another woman.
But Associated Newspapers said in court that the stories were valid because there was an important public interest in Mr Huhne and the "after-shocks" of his marriage split.
Anthony White QC, for the publishers, said Ms Trimingham was "not a shrinking violet but a seasoned political journalist".
"She is open about her sexuality and, perhaps most telling, she has sold stories about other people's sex lives to the press. She gives as good as she gets, she dishes it out," he said.
In his ruling, Judge Tugendhat said: "Ms Trimingham was not the purely private figure she claims to be. Her reasonable expectation of privacy has become limited."
His decision will be considered a boost to freedom of expression and to newspapers fighting against tighter rules on privacy.
http://news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16234490
Breaking News
11:09am UK, Thursday May 24, 2012
Huhne's Girlfriend Loses Privacy Action
11:09am UK, Thursday May 24, 2012
Carina Trimingham, the partner of Liberal Democract Chris Huhne, has lost her High Court privacy and harassment action against Associated Newspapers.
Ms Trimingham, 44, has been ordered to pay £250,000 in costs within two weeks after losing her action over articles in the Mail and Mail on Sunday.
The PR adviser warned outside the High Court that the ruling could become a "blueprint for bullies and bigots" and said she would be appealing.
Ms Trimingham was not the purely private figure she claims to be. Her reasonable expectation of privacy has become limited.
Judge Tugendhat
Ms Trimingham had sued for compensation and an injunction over 65 "highly unpleasant and hurtful" articles in the newspapers about her relationship with Mr Huhne.
She had an affair with the former energy secretary and senior Lib Dem, which culminated in June 2010 when the MP left his wife of 26 years to be with her.
Her lawyers told Mr Justice Tugendhat, sitting at London's High Court, that the articles had constituted a "cataclysmic interference" with her private life.
They referred to the "life and very different loves of the PR girl in Doc Martens" and described her as a "comedy lesbian from central casting".
Ms Trimingham's counsel, Matthew Ryder QC, had argued that the Mail had a right to freedom of expression but not to abuse his client repeatedly.
He told the High Court the articles had made constant and gratuitous references to Ms Trimingham's sexuality and her previous relationship with another woman.
But Associated Newspapers said in court that the stories were valid because there was an important public interest in Mr Huhne and the "after-shocks" of his marriage split.
Anthony White QC, for the publishers, said Ms Trimingham was "not a shrinking violet but a seasoned political journalist".
"She is open about her sexuality and, perhaps most telling, she has sold stories about other people's sex lives to the press. She gives as good as she gets, she dishes it out," he said.
In his ruling, Judge Tugendhat said: "Ms Trimingham was not the purely private figure she claims to be. Her reasonable expectation of privacy has become limited."
His decision will be considered a boost to freedom of expression and to newspapers fighting against tighter rules on privacy.
http://news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16234490
Guest- Guest
Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
I was listening to the Mail's writer on Five live discussing it. This was the second case she'd brought against them and she had insurance for £250,000 but her actual costs will be higher.candyfloss wrote:Put this here as Judge Tugendhat was presiding over this case and the interesting ruling he made...................
Breaking News
11:09am UK, Thursday May 24, 2012
Huhne's Girlfriend Loses Privacy Action
11:09am UK, Thursday May 24, 2012
Carina Trimingham, the partner of Liberal Democract Chris Huhne, has lost her High Court privacy and harassment action against Associated Newspapers.
Ms Trimingham, 44, has been ordered to pay £250,000 in costs within two weeks after losing her action over articles in the Mail and Mail on Sunday.
The PR adviser warned outside the High Court that the ruling could become a "blueprint for bullies and bigots" and said she would be appealing.
Ms Trimingham was not the purely private figure she claims to be. Her reasonable expectation of privacy has become limited.
Judge Tugendhat
Ms Trimingham had sued for compensation and an injunction over 65 "highly unpleasant and hurtful" articles in the newspapers about her relationship with Mr Huhne.
She had an affair with the former energy secretary and senior Lib Dem, which culminated in June 2010 when the MP left his wife of 26 years to be with her.
Her lawyers told Mr Justice Tugendhat, sitting at London's High Court, that the articles had constituted a "cataclysmic interference" with her private life.
They referred to the "life and very different loves of the PR girl in Doc Martens" and described her as a "comedy lesbian from central casting".
Ms Trimingham's counsel, Matthew Ryder QC, had argued that the Mail had a right to freedom of expression but not to abuse his client repeatedly.
He told the High Court the articles had made constant and gratuitous references to Ms Trimingham's sexuality and her previous relationship with another woman.
But Associated Newspapers said in court that the stories were valid because there was an important public interest in Mr Huhne and the "after-shocks" of his marriage split.
Anthony White QC, for the publishers, said Ms Trimingham was "not a shrinking violet but a seasoned political journalist".
"She is open about her sexuality and, perhaps most telling, she has sold stories about other people's sex lives to the press. She gives as good as she gets, she dishes it out," he said.
In his ruling, Judge Tugendhat said: "Ms Trimingham was not the purely private figure she claims to be. Her reasonable expectation of privacy has become limited."
His decision will be considered a boost to freedom of expression and to newspapers fighting against tighter rules on privacy.
http://news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16234490
Spaniel- Posts : 742
Activity : 769
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2012-01-24
Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
Beginning to warm to Tugendhat. He seems the exact reverse of Eady.
Page 11 of 11 • 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11
Similar topics
» "Flagrant" breaches of your undertakings, say Carter-Ruck in their letter of 4 January in the case of McCanns v Bennett. Here's my reply sent to them today
» McCanns v Bennett: 22 August 2012 - The Legal Services Commission change their minds again, it's CIVIL Legal Aid which applies in my case, not Criminal Legal Aid [was: LSC change their minds after 8 months]...Chances of gettting Legal Aid REDUCED
» THE 17-PAGE LIST OF OF POLICE OFFICERS, PUBLIC OFFICIALS, AUTHORS, WEBSITES, BLOGGERS ETC given to the High Court by Tony Bennett in the contempt of court case of McCanns v Bennett
» McCANNS v BENNETT, LEGAL AID and ROBERT HALFON M.P.
» COURT REPORT 5th and 6th February: McCanns v Bennett
» McCanns v Bennett: 22 August 2012 - The Legal Services Commission change their minds again, it's CIVIL Legal Aid which applies in my case, not Criminal Legal Aid [was: LSC change their minds after 8 months]...Chances of gettting Legal Aid REDUCED
» THE 17-PAGE LIST OF OF POLICE OFFICERS, PUBLIC OFFICIALS, AUTHORS, WEBSITES, BLOGGERS ETC given to the High Court by Tony Bennett in the contempt of court case of McCanns v Bennett
» McCANNS v BENNETT, LEGAL AID and ROBERT HALFON M.P.
» COURT REPORT 5th and 6th February: McCanns v Bennett
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Legal Issues :: Carter-Ruck: McCanns v Bennett Contempt of Court
Page 11 of 11
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum