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 11 of 11 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11

View previous topic View next topic Go down

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

Post by turnaround on 01.04.12 20:44

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
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-03-23

Back to top Go down

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

Post by PeterMac on 01.04.12 22:30

@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.
Unsolicited advice :
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.


____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 163
Join date : 2010-12-06

Back to top Go down

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

Post by tigger on 02.04.12 9:06

@PeterMac wrote:
@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.
Unsolicited advice :
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.
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 02.04.12 11:45

@tigger wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:
@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.
Unsolicited advice :
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.....


hahahaha! excellent Tigger.
avatar
Kololi

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

Back to top Go down

Judge Tugendhat's decision considered a boost to Freedom of Expression

Post by Guest on 24.05.12 11:20

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

avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post by Spaniel on 24.05.12 12:20

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

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.
avatar
Spaniel

Posts : 742
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2012-01-24

Back to top Go down

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

Post by PeterMac on 24.05.12 12:45

Beginning to warm to Tugendhat. He seems the exact reverse of Eady.

____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 163
Join date : 2010-12-06

Back to top Go down

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

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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