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 3 of 11 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 9, 10, 11  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

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

Post by Ollie on Mon 20 Feb 2012 - 20:12

@rainbow-fairy wrote:
@aquila wrote:
@tigger wrote:Kololi wrote: Lolol - you honestly do not have a clue what I think about the whole Madeleine McCann affair and all who surround it because I rarely publicise what I think.

Kololi unquote

Kololi, the sad truth for you is this: we're just not interested in what you think. Full stop.







Kololi, a lot of people on this forum actually DO publish what they think. It's out there in the open for people to discuss, agree/disagree with in the hope that some light is shed and truth for Madeleine is found. I'm interested in what most people think. It's just a shame that the forum is being soured by people who don't give anything other than to denigrate other people's posts. It's easy to piddle on the parade. It's not so easy to give your true, honest opinion and take part in the common goal of finding Madeleine. So, to all on this forum who are prepared to openly join in, with all their various expertise and research. I THANK YOU.
I echo your thanks, aquila.
Is it really so hard to say what thoughts you have? For the most part we are anonymous, though a few members know my real name, and if I had the choice of 1)be a member in my name or 2)not be one, I'd take option 1!
For the life of me I just don't understand certain posters reasons for being here? Why be here if you don't share the common goal of justice for Madeleine? I don't get it.

Their reasons for being here are to disrupt, the threads descend into chaos and sometimes things get quite ugly. I believe this puts off a lot of people who are here for the right reasons but don't post, just looking for information about the case. I know it sometimes puts me off when it is clear there is a troll so I can only imagine that someone here for genuine reasons may decide that this forum is not for them.

Ollie

Posts : 262
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2011-05-22

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Upsy Daisy on Mon 20 Feb 2012 - 20:29

This is what gets me too, as many others have said, how come is it that it is only TB who is being targeted here.....what is it that is contained within this website that they really dread people being led to.... okay fair enough they say the 48 questions but it is really that, seeing as it is already out there in the public domain.... or is it the general theories etc. people have come up with that have certain credence that they are afraid the more and more people spread the word, the more will read, etc... of course they are good at the whole 'smokescreen' thing, diversionary tactics.... we know that (sorry CR, we have all theorised that based on what evidence there is!) so it could be just that....diversion. There has to be some kind of touching of a nerve within this site that is not in any others.

How on earth can they be expected to shut everyone up and sue everyone left right and centre for voicing their opinion...it's beyond ridiculous in this day and age of modern technology.... is this not surely going to backfire on them sooner or later?? We need the media to be reporting this stuff!!! I wonder then, what would happen suppose they were found guilty of wrongdoing and of fraud.....how on earth would everyone that paid into the plastic fund get their money back, what a right old mess it would be... it would almost be the reverse... everyone sueing TM for being conned.

Tony, I just pray good health for you, keep taking huge amounts of vitamin C, keep your immune system in check so you don't get run down due to stress. I hope and pray things become easy for you and that the old saying comes true, that every dog has his day You are a representation of us all and many thousands upon THOUSANDS of people holding the same views as you. For the love of God let's hope this judge has seen through the whole charade and get to the truth of the matter.

____________________
Grammatical Error of The Day : It's should 'have', NOT should 'of'......
avatar
Upsy Daisy

Posts : 437
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Dry toast and quince-and-apple-jam

Post by Tony Bennett on Mon 20 Feb 2012 - 21:20

@Upsy Daisy wrote:Tony, I just pray good health for you, keep taking huge amounts of vitamin C, keep your immune system in check so you don't get run down due to stress...
This is very very kind of you.

A few months ago I read on a cancer-prevention website about the value of eating fresh fruit before every meal. The reason for this is because within all fruits are all manner of good vitamins and minerals, and apparently the value of them is significantly enhanced if you eat these on an empty stomach.

I must admit it seemed a bit odd to have one's fruit salad before one's main meal, or start breakfast with a whole apple or orange before your toast and honey or home-made quince-and-apple jam. But I think the principle of 'fruit first' is a sound one, and I'm getting used to it.

I have however been forced to cut out most dairy products due to an increased risk of heart attack (the Doctor said it was so many % risk in the next 2 years, but I can't remember the figure). So out go three of my favourites: cheese, butter and ice cream.

The withdrawal of Mackie's ice cream has certainly caused some withdrawal symptoms, but as I detest margarine, having to have quince-and-apple jam neat on a bed of dry toast without all that lovely butter in between is certainly taking a lot of getting used to.

____________________

 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 Spaniel on Mon 20 Feb 2012 - 22:30

You could try a nut butter to take away that dry toast feeling, health food shops have them. http://www.naturallygoodfood.co.uk/Nut_Butters_~_Spreads

If you really want a wonder pill, it has to be Vit D3, taken in sufficiently high doses and takes three months to build in the body.If you ever try it, iherb in the USA is cheap for all supplements as long as you stay beneath the customs level.

http://www.vrp.com/bone-and-joint/vitamin-d3-higher-doses-reduce-risk-of-common-health-concerns
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 Kololi on Mon 20 Feb 2012 - 22:40

@rainbow-fairy wrote:
@Kololi wrote:
@rainbow-fairy wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Spaniel wrote:As Tony alone has been targetted more than once, whilst the rest of the internet is left alone, is it not "Vexatious Litigation"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation

@aiyoyo wrote:
@Kololi wrote:wrote:Mr Bennett does what he does and some of it I agree with. The McCanns did what they did and do what they do and some of it I agree with.
Oh wow, bravo for exposing yourself further! Let's hear which 'some' of those things may be that the McCanns did and do that you agree with.
'aiyoyo' is absolutely spot on. 'Kololi' is an ardent McCann supporter who disguises her true intent here by coating her persistent criticisms of me with a sugary layer of phrases like 'I generally support Tony' and 'I agree with some of what he does'. She is basically prepared to back the rat Mike Gunnill for trying to get me into bother (so he says) just to earn a few grubby tenners from the editor of the Sunday Express, whilst criticising me for initially point blank refusing to sell Sangerte/Gunnill/Tarwin/Peters etc. a book, and then arranging at his request to get a copy from my mother because I thought he had a genuine reason - 'it will prove to be an important historical document' - for needing a hard copy when he already admitted he had read '60 Reasons' online.

Karry on Kololi
It seems we have two or three out and out ardent McCann worshippers here at the moment.
Tony, I back you all the way. Please look into whether you can get a witness from the Express (personally I don't believe Gunnill's story about that). All the best.


Lolol - you honestly do not have a clue what I think about the whole Madeleine McCann affair and all who surround it because I rarely publicise what I think.
Lol lol lol - why so defensive, Kololi? Where do you see your name in my reply? I don't recall writing 'Kololi' at all.
Nonetheless, your quick 'You don't know what I think about it all' speaks volumes. An apple does not have to state 'I am an apple' for others to clearly see it is...


Lol lol lol lol - I think the clue came with the quote Rainbow-fairy and as somebody else mentioned, Tigger I think - I could not care less whether you think I am an apple, an orange or a banana split. So much for free speech. Jill highlights a fair and valid point with her thread about Mr Amaral's book and my head goes on a stick because I say that I don't agree with Mr Bennett regarding his stance that he sold the leaflet under duress and because I do believe that he was in the know enough to understand that he was breaching his undertaking not to sell it.

I am sorry to say that it appears like poeople do not want to even consider whether he may have got it wrong or not. Goodnight all - see you all later.
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 maebee on Mon 20 Feb 2012 - 22:48

Kololi:

The thing that I admire, more about Kate McCann actually, is her continuing to push herself out there despite all that is said about her and despite believe it or not, not particularly warming to her.

The mother of an an "abducted" child should not need to push herself. It is not about her. It is about her missing child.

Nobody in their right mind could admire a mother who left her three children alone, every single night of their holiday.

Despite all the crap that get's said such as whether she wears earrings or look at her cardigan, she doesn't falter and pushes what she believes in.

She pushes what she wants the public to believe. Full stop.


And Mr Bennett you couldn't be further from the truth. Although I am not going to divulge anything about me by stating in public anything that I might admire about you.

That's where you and TB differ. He doesn't hide behind the anonymity of a username. He is laying his life on the line in search of answers to the mystery of the disappearance of Madeleine. You will not divulge anything about yourself yet Tony Bennett's whole life had been divulged - for the cause of justice for Madeleine.


I only pick up on the stuff that appears to land you in hot water and have reminded you of what you have to lose.

Charming! Do something positive in the search for the truth about what happened to Madeleine, rather than picking up on stuff that others are doing for the same cause.

I think you are totally foolish for having pushed your luck the way you did

For Madeleine.

but having said that I truly hope that some luck is on your side and that the Judge looks favourably upon you.


= Let's hope that luck is finally on Madeleine's side.
avatar
maebee
Madeleine Foundation

Posts : 488
Reputation : 86
Join date : 2009-12-03
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Gunnill/Sangerte/Tarwin/Peters got his book by deceit, not duress

Post by Tony Bennett on Mon 20 Feb 2012 - 22:58

@Kololi wrote:...my head goes on a stick because I say that I don't agree with Mr Bennett regarding his stance that he sold the leaflet under duress...
Kololi, you have twisted my words. I am sure that was accidental.

I have never ever claimed that the booklet despatched to Mr Gunnill/Sangerte/Tarwin/Peters was 'sold under duress'.

I have pointed out that when 'Mr Sangerte from Berkshire' asked me to sell him a booklet, I point blank refused, in line with my undertaking. Just as many other prospective purchasers at the same time were told exactly the same thing.

I have said that he obtained the booklet by deceit i.e. by pretending he needed it because it would become 'a valuable historical document'.

I have also noted that he had already read a copy of '60 Reasons' on line, so my booklet would reveal nothing new to him.

And I have drawn attention to Gunnill's boasting on this very forum that a courier called at his house at 8.00am on the morning of 4 February and that he had obtained the booklet on behalf of a 'third party' whom he refused to name.

And that the very next day Carter-Ruck wrote to me and complained: "You've broken your undertaking by selling a book".

I have neither said nor implied that I 'sold' this booklet to Gunnill under duress.

What I have said is that my undertakings were signed on 25 November 2009 under the duress of having been advised that if even one line in '60 Reasons' could be deemed libellous, the High Court could award huge damages - and costs of tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds, wiping out my savings and possibly losing half of my home. It was a case of: "Sign this undertaking exactly as written - or face probable ruin".

____________________

 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 PeterMac on Mon 20 Feb 2012 - 23:26

@Tony Bennett wrote:SNIP
It was a case of: "Sign this undertaking exactly as written - or face probable ruin".
Which is how Carter-Ruck operate.
And probably why the McCanns chose that firm above any other to represent them in their continued search for their beloved daughter Madeleine, Sorry, I shall correct that, in their continued search for anyone who does not accept that any of their several versions of the truth might perhaps not be totally accurate.

to GM and KM and the rest of the T7
Why don't you just look for her ? Other people are doing so.

____________________

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 littlepixie on Tue 21 Feb 2012 - 0:44

Exactly PetrMac Why DON'T they just LOOK for her. Vinny Derricks remains have just been found in Stockport right there in the vicinity where he was last seen/known to be, 8 years before. http://menmedia.co.uk/stockportexpress/news/s/1485745_video-human-remains-found-under-m60-bridge-at-cheadle-identified-as-partington-dad-vinny-derrick?related_link

If they are telling the truth when they say that Madeleine disappeared from the apartment when they were not there, why are they so blinkered about abduction and why don't they look at other options? They have convinced themselves on very flimsy evidence that she was abducted. One of their friends says she saw a man carrying a bundle and that man or bundle has never been identified.

Their precious daughter could have wandered out through the door they left open and could be lying in close proximity to where she was last seen, just like Vinny Derrick was.
Millions of people including myself have driven past Vinnys' unburied body for years and years. I personally & tragcically passed him twice a day and never saw him - So WHY are the McCanns not in Portugal LOOKING - Pat Brown is
avatar
littlepixie

Posts : 1340
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2009-11-29

Back to top Go down

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

Post by aiyoyo on Tue 21 Feb 2012 - 0:51

@rainbow-fairy wrote:
@aquila wrote:
@tigger wrote:Kololi wrote: Lolol - you honestly do not have a clue what I think about the whole Madeleine McCann affair and all who surround it because I rarely publicise what I think.

Kololi unquote

Kololi, the sad truth for you is this: we're just not interested in what you think. Full stop.







Kololi, a lot of people on this forum actually DO publish what they think. It's out there in the open for people to discuss, agree/disagree with in the hope that some light is shed and truth for Madeleine is found. I'm interested in what most people think. It's just a shame that the forum is being soured by people who don't give anything other than to denigrate other people's posts. It's easy to piddle on the parade. It's not so easy to give your true, honest opinion and take part in the common goal of finding Madeleine. So, to all on this forum who are prepared to openly join in, with all their various expertise and research. I THANK YOU.
I echo your thanks, aquila.
Is it really so hard to say what thoughts you have? For the most part we are anonymous, though a few members know my real name, and if I had the choice of 1)be a member in my name or 2)not be one, I'd take option 1!
For the life of me I just don't understand certain posters reasons for being here? Why be here if you don't share the common goal of justice for Madeleine? I don't get it.

I thought she has told us in a roundabout way in her last few posts she's here because she's an ardent admire Kate!
But other aspect as to what she thinks about the whole missing Madeleine affair she can't share or publish here - says it all really.

I mean, you come onto an forum claiming common objective with fellow posters here, and then on the other hand say "oh, you honestly don't have a clue what I think about the whole Madeleine affair" is as deceitful as Mike Gunnill with his unethical methods. To say Kololi's incongruent is an understatement.

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 Tue 21 Feb 2012 - 1:26

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Kololi wrote:...my head goes on a stick because I say that I don't agree with Mr Bennett regarding his stance that he sold the leaflet under duress...
Kololi, you have twisted my words. I am sure that was accidental.

I have never ever claimed that the booklet despatched to Mr Gunnill/Sangerte/Tarwin/Peters was 'sold under duress'.

I have pointed out that when 'Mr Sangerte from Berkshire' asked me to sell him a booklet, I point blank refused, in line with my undertaking. Just as many other prospective purchasers at the same time were told exactly the same thing.

I have said that he obtained the booklet by deceit i.e. by pretending he needed it because it would become 'a valuable historical document'.

I have also noted that he had already read a copy of '60 Reasons' on line, so my booklet would reveal nothing new to him.

And I have drawn attention to Gunnill's boasting on this very forum that a courier called at his house at 8.00am on the morning of 4 February and that he had obtained the booklet on behalf of a 'third party' whom he refused to name.

And that the very next day Carter-Ruck wrote to me and complained: "You've broken your undertaking by selling a book".

Oh wow, that's pretty self damning evidence isn't it. I didn't realize how speedy CR was with their reaction.
It will be interesting to hear what they have to say to the Court as to how they knew so quickly; how they got instructed from their clients to act so quickly, literally everything done and dusted - conferred with clients, instruction received, letter composed and posted off to TB all within 24 hours of TB dispatching that booklet.

Here we're talking beyond one coincidence, there are several coincidences here
Literally, it would mean their clients were informed of the breach, actions agreed, letter typed and dispatched to TB all at break neck speed. Else, how else to explain the next-day delivery to TB? The royal mail is infamous for being unreliable so a prompt next day delivery is miracle.

The date of CR's letter and date "stamped" on the envelope it arrived in is important. If any of of those two dates pre-dates the courier pick up date, then the implication couldn't be clearer. Perhaps TB might want to check out those dates? That might just be the crucial bit of evidence.

Anyhow, it will be interesting to see how MG is going to substantiate his claim in Court!


I have neither said nor implied that I 'sold' this booklet to Gunnill under duress.

What I have said is that my undertakings were signed on 25 November 2009 under the duress of having been advised that if even one line in '60 Reasons' could be deemed libellous, the High Court could award huge damages - and costs of tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds, wiping out my savings and possibly losing half of my home. It was a case of: "Sign this undertaking exactly as written - or face probable ruin".
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 tigger on Tue 21 Feb 2012 - 8:07

Carter-Ruck must be the only solicitors in the world to act so quickly. Speed of light for that profession.
I'm thinking that the letter was already typed out, signed and waiting for a stamp.

I've had (expensive Wimpole St) solicitors whom I could only get to do their job by parking myself in the waiting room and refusing to leave after closing time.
But the McCanns have struck lucky, all this service, thousands of hours of work and all for free.

(my tuppence worth of health advice: you can eat cheese - but only raw cheeses such as parmesan, gruyere, comte, they still have all the enzymes needed to break it down - pasteurized cheese is like digesting plastic for the body)

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

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

Back to top Go down

Carter-Ruck: Britain's most generous libel lawyers?

Post by Tony Bennett on Tue 21 Feb 2012 - 8:30

@tigger wrote:Carter-Ruck must be the only solicitors in the world to act so quickly. Speed of light for that profession...the McCanns have struck lucky, all this service, thousands of hours of work and all for free.
Not in my case, tigger. Despite Dr Kate Mccann stating in her book, 'madeleine' [p. 289] that "Adam Tudor and his colleague Isabel Hudson continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment...", I had a recent letter from Carter-Ruck saying that in my case the McCanns had agreed to pay Carter-Ruck a retainer (undisclosed amount), and that they would be claiming their costs from me at the end of the trial which they assume will find me guilty of breaching one of my undertakings. So, for example, at the recent Case Management Hearing on 8 February, I would be potentially liable to pay the costs of the following just for attending the 2-hour hearing:

* Jacob Dean, barrister, say £1,000

* Isabel Hudson, Partner with conduct of the case for Carter-Ruck, say £800

* Adam Tudor, Senior Partner with Carter-Ruck (for he was there, keeping a watching brief on the proceedings), say another £1,200.

Carter-Ruck has in the past confirmed to me on the record that not a single penny from the Find Madeleine Fund is being used to bring these contempt of court proceedings against me.

Dr Kate McCann has also confirmed on the record that the likes of Adam Tudor and Isabel Hudson are doing 'a vast amount of work' for the McCanns 'without payment'.

These statements raise interesting questions about who exactly is funding Carter-Ruck.

They won't be spending hours on this forum every other day searching for possible libels and compiling 2,000-page lists of alleged breaches of an undertaking for nothing, surely?

If they are, they could add the strap-line 'Britain's most generous libel lawyers' to their current strap-line: 'Britian's most feared libel lawyers'!

____________________

 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 Tue 21 Feb 2012 - 8:50

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Kololi wrote:...my head goes on a stick because I say that I don't agree with Mr Bennett regarding his stance that he sold the leaflet under duress...
Kololi, you have twisted my words. I am sure that was accidental.

I have never ever claimed that the booklet despatched to Mr Gunnill/Sangerte/Tarwin/Peters was 'sold under duress'.

I have pointed out that when 'Mr Sangerte from Berkshire' asked me to sell him a booklet, I point blank refused, in line with my undertaking. Just as many other prospective purchasers at the same time were told exactly the same thing.

I have said that he obtained the booklet by deceit i.e. by pretending he needed it because it would become 'a valuable historical document'.

I have also noted that he had already read a copy of '60 Reasons' on line, so my booklet would reveal nothing new to him.

And I have drawn attention to Gunnill's boasting on this very forum that a courier called at his house at 8.00am on the morning of 4 February and that he had obtained the booklet on behalf of a 'third party' whom he refused to name.

And that the very next day Carter-Ruck wrote to me and complained: "You've broken your undertaking by selling a book".

I have neither said nor implied that I 'sold' this booklet to Gunnill under duress.

What I have said is that my undertakings were signed on 25 November 2009 under the duress of having been advised that if even one line in '60 Reasons' could be deemed libellous, the High Court could award huge damages - and costs of tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds, wiping out my savings and possibly losing half of my home. It was a case of: "Sign this undertaking exactly as written - or face probable ruin".

Thanks for responding.

I see where your duress stance lies and, as I stated at the time, I do not blame you in the slightest for agreeing to the order and, faced with that choice, I think many of the posters who encourage you to make a stand or who mocked your actions at the time would have done as you did. I still however, do not view it as a form of duress as it came about via your own actions. You weren't some little old man who was marched to the cashpoint to draw out his life savings or who was forced to sign over the deeds to his home by some scary and intimidating thug. You were an ex-solicitor who knew exactly what you were doing and the consequences that it may incur for you.

I can't prove it Mr Bennett but tbh, I don't feel that I need to because you know the truth as do others who were here back when Sym posted. That alongside the Mr Gunnill episode makes me think that you were trying to be a crafty old so and so with determination to get out what you believed despite having agreed not to. You were outwitted by Mr Gunnill and simply put if you had not sold him that leaflet as you promised you wouldn't be facing those awful fears about your home, income and liberty again today.

He may have obtained it by resorting to pretence but you are wise enough and therefore, in my opinion, should have been more guarded. Whether he was right or wrong for being sneaky boils down to simple opinion. My opinion is that he was a tadge crafty but it was not entrapment as you could have simply told him to go away and not given him the leaflet. Yes it was a measly and "grubby" ten pounds or so that it has been said that he might aquire for doing what he did. On the other hand, it was a measly five pounds that you obtained when breaching your undertaking. His boasting just shows him, in my opinion, to be a prick but it doesn't alter the part of my thoughts that say well you handed it over so must take responsibility for that.

I made a massive cock up in my assumption that breaching the undertaking by selling a leaflet was as black and white as I thought it would be. The Judge has allowed you to call Mr Gunnill which I never thought would happen. This gives you the opportunity to use that situation wisely by showing in the court why he did do what he did and maybe convince the Judge that his motives were not altogether above board if that's what you believe and can evidence. In the Judge's shoes I would still have a strong concern as to why a grown man simply could not say no - not selling you the leaflet, but I am not the Judge am I.

I think it is unfair that you are singled out in the way that you are to be silenced but I can hazard a few guesses as to why the McCanns might do this. You are the prominent voice and figure of the Foundation who as another poster pointed out, does not hide behind anonimity. You are pesky and persistent, never giving up, like a dog with a bone. I have seen people post that if they silence you others will sort of step up and fill your shoes, thus those that disbelieve their theory will never be silenced. I don't believe that many others would lay on the line what you are prepared to so as I said in an earlier post, maybe they think by cutting off the head the snake will die - problem solved and silence.

I can't wish you luck again as tbh I feel that you probably don't believe that I mean it.
avatar
Kololi

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

Back to top Go down

Gunnill's motives: The thoughts of Kololi... Not QUITE above board - but NEARLY

Post by Tony Bennett on Tue 21 Feb 2012 - 9:30

@Kololi wrote:I made a massive cock up in my assumption that breaching the undertaking by selling a leaflet was as black and white as I thought it would be. The Judge has allowed you to call Mr Gunnill which I never thought would happen. This gives you the opportunity to use that situation wisely by showing in the court why he did do what he did and maybe convince the Judge that his motives were not altogether above board...
He has stated quite plainly that he lied to me in order to make money for himself, hoping the Sunday Express would print his grubby little story, which they didn't

____________________

 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 Guest on Tue 21 Feb 2012 - 9:43

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Kololi wrote:I made a massive cock up in my assumption that breaching the undertaking by selling a leaflet was as black and white as I thought it would be. The Judge has allowed you to call Mr Gunnill which I never thought would happen. This gives you the opportunity to use that situation wisely by showing in the court why he did do what he did and maybe convince the Judge that his motives were not altogether above board...
He has stated quite plainly that he lied to me in order to make money for himself, hoping the Sunday Express would print his grubby little story, which they didn't

Strange that - I would have expected it on the front page!!
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post by ShuBob on Tue 21 Feb 2012 - 9:53

candyfloss wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Kololi wrote:I made a massive cock up in my assumption that breaching the undertaking by selling a leaflet was as black and white as I thought it would be. The Judge has allowed you to call Mr Gunnill which I never thought would happen. This gives you the opportunity to use that situation wisely by showing in the court why he did do what he did and maybe convince the Judge that his motives were not altogether above board...
He has stated quite plainly that he lied to me in order to make money for himself, hoping the Sunday Express would print his grubby little story, which they didn't

Strange that - I would have expected it on the front page!!

Why would MG think the Express would be interested in such a story anyway given Desmond had to fork out around a million quid to the McCanns and friends and by all accounts have been trying to recoup the money

He would have been better off giving it to the Sun's Lazzeri Rolling Eyes

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 Tue 21 Feb 2012 - 10:01

Surely no newspaper would have touched the story with a bargepole as it would have brought the 60 reasons to the attention of a wider audience and encouraged them to challenge the McCanns' version of events.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post by aiyoyo on Tue 21 Feb 2012 - 10:44

@tigger wrote:Carter-Ruck must be the only solicitors in the world to act so quickly. Speed of light for that profession.
I'm thinking that the letter was already typed out, signed and waiting for a stamp.

I've had (expensive Wimpole St) solicitors whom I could only get to do their job by parking myself in the waiting room and refusing to leave after closing time.
But the McCanns have struck lucky, all this service, thousands of hours of work and all for free.

(my tuppence worth of health advice: you can eat cheese - but only raw cheeses such as parmesan, gruyere, comte, they still have all the enzymes needed to break it down - pasteurized cheese is like digesting plastic for the body)

The break neck speed CR reacted and issued TB with the letter is very important, as there could be serious implication in it.

It raises the questions of not how but when CR knew about what MG's action.
The how we can conclude they heard it from the horse's (MG) mouth, but the when is crucial, as it begs the question were they in collusion. Who mastermind that. Even if say it was MG who initiated all this and informed CR that was what he was going to do, did CR approve of MG using deceptive methods? Well it's evident they didn't disapprove of it judging by how quickly they already got their letter ready on standby to post off to TB the moment they sight the booklet. They must have, else how did TB receive their letter the very next day?

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 Tue 21 Feb 2012 - 11:00

OH WOW, true colour at last from Kololi! It's mask off and open season now.
That's her longest post I've ever seen here, fully scathing of TB, nothing constructive in it at all.






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 tigger on Tue 21 Feb 2012 - 13:47

Tony Bennett wrote today: quote
Not in my case, tigger. Despite Dr Kate Mccann stating in her book, 'madeleine' [p. 289] that "Adam Tudor and his colleague Isabel Hudson continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment...", I had a recent letter from Carter-Ruck saying that in my case the McCanns had agreed to pay Carter-Ruck a retainer (undisclosed amount), and that they would be claiming their costs from me at the end of the trial which they assume will find me guilty of breaching one of my undertakings.

There are two useful points here:
I personally am quite prepared to start collecting money for you if this should happen. I could quite legally then explain the court case to any donor. ?


If CR are on a retainer, then it is in their interest to make the case last as long as humanly possible - which they seem to have done.
Is that why there were 153 items on the list? The time in court would make the figure astronomical - impossible to pay over several lifetimes. So

____________________
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 Angelique on Wed 22 Feb 2012 - 0:25

Tony

Reference your post to who is actually paying CR to represent the McCanns - was this not the double glazing chap?

But in the case of "the retainer" I would imagine if it's not coming from the Fund it has to be from the sale of the Book as profit from this would have gone straight to Kate's Bank Account, if indeed any was due. If not from the Publisher's advance.

If none of these is the source then it has to be from the Brothers (free at the point of request). In fact, having had experience in a legal practice their work cannot be any more complicated that anywhere else and I was given projects outside of the Client work (Masonic) which I undertook as and when I had time. This is possible to do - even the monitoring of these boards.

____________________
Things aren't always what they seem
avatar
Angelique

Posts : 1396
Reputation : 37
Join date : 2010-10-19

Back to top Go down

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

Post by HFS on Wed 22 Feb 2012 - 1:14

I'm afraid Gunill played on Mr Bennetts vanity and he fell for that trap.
What did he call it? A historical document? Shouldn't that have made all the alarm bells ring?

HFS

Posts : 24
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

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

Post by aiyoyo on Wed 22 Feb 2012 - 1:40

@ShuBob wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Kololi wrote:I made a massive cock up in my assumption that breaching the undertaking by selling a leaflet was as black and white as I thought it would be. The Judge has allowed you to call Mr Gunnill which I never thought would happen. This gives you the opportunity to use that situation wisely by showing in the court why he did do what he did and maybe convince the Judge that his motives were not altogether above board...
He has stated quite plainly that he lied to me in order to make money for himself, hoping the Sunday Express would print his grubby little story, which they didn't

Strange that - I would have expected it on the front page!!

Why would MG think the Express would be interested in such a story anyway given Desmond had to fork out around a million quid to the McCanns and friends and by all accounts have been trying to recoup the money

We will find out the veracity or not of it hopefully when he is on the witness stand.
He will have to name names at Express for verification purpose to substantiate his claim one would imagine.








He would have been better off giving it to the Sun's Lazzeri Rolling Eyes
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 Wed 22 Feb 2012 - 2:06

@tigger wrote:Tony Bennett wrote today: quote
Not in my case, tigger. Despite Dr Kate Mccann stating in her book, 'madeleine' [p. 289] that "Adam Tudor and his colleague Isabel Hudson continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment...", I had a recent letter from Carter-Ruck saying that in my case the McCanns had agreed to pay Carter-Ruck a retainer (undisclosed amount), and that they would be claiming their costs from me at the end of the trial which they assume will find me guilty of breaching one of my undertakings.

There are two useful points here:
I personally am quite prepared to start collecting money for you if this should happen. I could quite legally then explain the court case to any donor. ?


If CR are on a retainer, then it is in their interest to make the case last as long as humanly possible - which they seem to have done.
Is that why there were 153 items on the list? The time in court would make the figure astronomical - impossible to pay over several lifetimes. So

It's a mystery why kate states that CR work for them quietly behind the scenes, without payment, yet we are now told CR is on retainer fee. Just goes to prove she will say whatever suits her convenient.
Can anyone honestly see them paying for anything to do with the search of their mystery daughter's disappearance out of their own pocket? They never did and never will.

Has it crossed people's mind they the fact that they wont use their own money, that in itself is strong indication they knew exactly what happened to her ie she will never be found alive. They know if they were to use their own money it would just be throwing good money for nothing, meaning wasting pointlessly.

With other people's money it is a different matter altogether whether they choose to blow it on PR spin, or image managing, or lawyers or whatever. At the end of the day money made on the back of Maddie's name is for the mccanns - for their damage limitation and reputation salvation purposes, zilch to do with the search for Maddie. Even their PI hire is just for show - another PR exercise - their published accounts bear witness to that - in the first two years only a fraction was spent on PI as opposed to the bulk expenditures were on PR exercise of campaign including their travel expenses and what not with the biggest chuck taken up by lawyers fees lately.



avatar
aiyoyo

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

Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 11 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 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