Incitement

by Smokeandmirrors 13.02.12 8:09

Don't you just love the internet? Doing a little (and I mean very little - just scratching the surface) research about the Criminal act of Incitement, it appears that if TB cannot call a certain character into court, that same character could be charged with the crime of incitement, I read some interesting stuff relating to the CPS on this matter. As the person inciting a crime knew what he was doing and has made public his own confession to the crime, it could be a done deal if/when the time is right. Using aliases etc only adds to the crime committed. Hmmmm.....

by Guest 13.02.12 8:54

Now that is interesing...

by rainbow-fairy 13.02.12 8:59

This truly is music to my ears... Let's hope Tony uses this to his every advantage.
Its just punishment for that cretinous little worm Gunnill, imo

by Newintown 13.02.12 15:43

Smokeandmirrors wrote:Don't you just love the internet? Doing a little (and I mean very little - just scratching the surface) research about the Criminal act of Incitement, it appears that if TB cannot call a certain character into court, that same character could be charged with the crime of incitement, I read some interesting stuff relating to the CPS on this matter. As the person inciting a crime knew what he was doing and has made public his own confession to the crime, it could be a done deal if/when the time is right. Using aliases etc only adds to the crime committed. Hmmmm.....

Well found "Smokeandmirrors". Let's hope that Gunnill gets his comeupance for being such a clever Dick (or not). He may regret being spurred into trying to trick Tony B, I doubt that he was working alone on this.

by Smokeandmirrors 13.02.12 19:21

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/inchoate_offences/

Here is a link relating to incitement being a crime. I wonder if reported to the police this would go anywhere?
IF CR had anything to do with Gunnil, then they have committed a crime. I wonder where this would stand with the Law Society? If it were "someone else", they too could surely face criminal charges. Entrapment, incitement, fraud by deception, ooh the list of crimes against Mr B is long! What's the betting this one will be dropped. And if so, well worth Mr B bringing the matter up in his closing statement anyway.

by Smokeandmirrors 13.02.12 20:18

Section 15 of the Theft Act 1968 also cover gaining property (unspecified, wide open IMO) by deception which includes pseudonyms as far as I can work out. Also if one uses deception to gain property ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER.

Will keep digging, but it looks as though there are enough bits of the law to bring criminal proceedings, especially as the crime/s have been confessed to.

by bobbin 13.02.12 20:46

Re: Incitement

If I’m
seeing it right, ‘incitement’ as a common law offence was abolished on 1^st
October 2008 and replaced by the ‘the serious crime act 2007’ on that date.
Since Gunnill has done his dastardly deed after that date, I wonder if this is
important to note.

I’m
not a legal begal, but if the below is true, we must be sure that the right
title for the offence is used or M.G. and / or McCanns /Carter Ruck will no
doubt make mincemeat of it.

http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/criminal/crimes_a_z/500491.html

What is incitement?

ShareThis

Save

Incitement is
an inchoate offence, which means that the offence occurs as a result of actions
or agreements entered into in preparation for a substantive offence. The
creation of inchoate offences allows the police to intervene before a
substantive crime is carried out and harm has been caused. Other inchoate
offences include ‘conspiracy’ and ‘attempt’. On 1 October 2008, the offence of
incitement was abolished; however, before then it was a common-law offence
committed by ‘inciting’ (threatening, persuading, encouraging, pressurising)
another person to commit a crime.

Offences
committed before 1 October 2008

Under Section
59 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, the common-law offence of incitement was
abolished as of 1 October 2008. Therefore, people can only be convicted of
incitement in relation to offences committed before that date.

A person can be
found guilty of incitement to commit an offence if:

he or
she incites another person to commit an offence or offences;
he or
she believes that the other person, if he acts as incited, shall do so
with the fault required for the conviction of that offence or offences;
and
the
incitement occurred before 1 October 2008.

Even if the
other person does not actually commit an offence, or ends up committing an
alternative offence to the one he has been incited to commit, the person being
charged with incitement can still be convicted. The incitement can be in words
or in writing; however, if it is in writing but is intercepted before it
reaches the intended recipient then there has only been an ‘attempt’ to incite.

The inciter
must believe that the other person will carry out the acts constituting a
criminal offence with the relevant ‘mens rea’ or intentions.

Although
incitement is a common-law offence on the whole, under some specific
circumstances it is covered by statute, such as under the Misuse of Drugs Act
1971 and incitement to racial hatred under Public Order Act 1986.

The venue of
the trial of a person who has been charged with incitement will depend on the
type of offence that he or she incited another person to commit. Therefore,
incitement to commit an indictable offence can only be tried on indictment, and
similarly, incitement to commit a summary offence can only be tried summarily.

The Serious
Crime Act 2007

This act
replaces the common-law offence of incitement with three new statutory
offences, with effect from 1 October 2008:

Intentionally
encouraging or assisting an offence: under section 44 of the Act, someone
commits this offence if they engage in an activity that encourages or
assists the commission of an offence; and they intend to encourage or
assist in its commission.

Encouraging
or assisting an offence believing it will be committed: under section 45
of the Act, someone will commit this offence if they engage in an activity
that encourages or assists the commission of an offence; and they believe
that the offence will be committed and their act will encourage its
commission.
Encouraging
or assisting offences believing one or more will be committed: the
components for this offence under section 46 are the same as under section
45, except that the person encouraging or assisting the commission of the
offences has no belief as to which specific offence will be committed (yet
believes that one will be).

by bobbin 13.02.12 21:14

“The Serious Crime Act 2007

Intentionally encouraging or assisting an offence: under section 44 of the Act, someone commits this offence if they
engage in an activity that encourages or assists the commission of an offence; and they intend to encourage or assist in its commission.”

…..

So under the above act, it looks like Gunnill at least, fulfills the requirements.

Since he boasted about it, can someone please ensure, as quickly as possible, that they copy, paste and save any
references that they have to Gunnill’s boasts of having given a false name, for a false reason, etc. to procure the Tony Bennett book.

I don’t know where to find such confessions, I think it was twitter, but perhaps quick action, before it all gets whooshed.

by Smokeandmirrors 13.02.12 21:25

Thanks for that Bobbin. It's time we all got our thinking caps on to research because out there is all the info needed to blow this farce out of the water. Research, preparation and semantics = victory. Five representatives -v- Tony in court. Tony could get 50 people researching for him over the next month, pro bono, with enough man hours digging deep here, there is no reason not to compile a winning defence. Except findings should be put into categories, bullet points, with links so that the body of info is not too arduous to plough through. Time pressure is on. Perhaps a mod or two know how this can happen behind the scenes so to speak?

Don't forget the word "mystery" is libellous. Pah! nah

by bobbin 13.02.12 21:48

good idea, smoke and mirrors, especially if at least 25 of us have one each of the 'new, yet to be announced' infringements, to be presented by a date fixed by the good Judge Tugenhadt.
Incitement 110921

by Angelique 14.02.12 2:59

smokeandmirrors

I am not at all sure that this is incitement to commit. Fair enough Gunnill admits what he did but the point is TB knew he was breaching his agreement. Is this classed as a criminal offence ?

by Smokeandmirrors 14.02.12 5:24

I'll know more when I've looked deeper into this. I see what you mean, but I think there is a way round that. But obviously can't post it here! Because the inciter reads the forum!

by Kololi 14.02.12 14:54

Smokeandmirrors wrote:Section 15 of the Theft Act 1968 also cover gaining property (unspecified, wide open IMO) by deception which includes pseudonyms as far as I can work out. Also if one uses deception to gain property ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER.

Will keep digging, but it looks as though there are enough bits of the law to bring criminal proceedings, especially as the crime/s have been confessed to.

The Theft Act 1968 considers that the actus reus of theft is the appropriation of property belonging to another. The mens rea consists of the defendant acting dishonestly and with the intention to permanently deprive the rightful owner of his property.

Mr Gunnill didn't appropriate the leaflet as he paid Tony for it so I am not sure how the theft act comes into play here.

by Smokeandmirrors 14.02.12 16:27

It's the deception thing you see. Had Tony known it was MG the journalist, he would definitely not sold a copy. I'm not saying it was theft per se, but trying to join dots out loud, trying to find out / voice opinion / curry feedback etc for the fact that although Tony sold a copy of a banned booklet, there was a concerted effort, badgering in a way, by someone using deceit. TB may have breached the court order in doing so, but the methods used to extrapolate the booklet were most certainly deceptive and duplicitous, there is material on the legal web sited which seem to be inching towards (or maybe not, we'll see) an illegal manoeuvre against TB. TB wasn't still offering up his booklet for general sale, but rather someone, knowing it was banned, was trying to trap and incriminate Tony.

Lets not give the adversaries too much of a heads up, if you come across anything which could be used by MG, please PM me instead. Ta muchly.

by wgbrother 18.02.12 23:04

Smokeandmirrors wrote:It's the deception thing you see. Had Tony known it was MG the journalist, he would definitely not sold a copy. I'm not saying it was theft per se, but trying to join dots out loud, trying to find out / voice opinion / curry feedback etc for the fact that although Tony sold a copy of a banned booklet, there was a concerted effort, badgering in a way, by someone using deceit. TB may have breached the court order in doing so, but the methods used to extrapolate the booklet were most certainly deceptive and duplicitous, there is material on the legal web sited which seem to be inching towards (or maybe not, we'll see) an illegal manoeuvre against TB. TB wasn't still offering up his booklet for general sale, but rather someone, knowing it was banned, was trying to trap and incriminate Tony.

Lets not give the adversaries too much of a heads up, if you come across anything which could be used by MG, please PM me instead. Ta muchly.

The problem is that it isn't an offence to tell someone you are a made up person. So nobody committed a crime of deception. Yes Mike Gunnill was duplicitous and deceptive but thats not a crime. Lots of wives and husbands are just as duplicitous and deceptive every day of their marriage.

And as for buying a book being theft I think you are really going down a dead end because it obviously isn't.

And I'm not sure that the fact that TB wasn't offering up the book for sale or not is relevant. The undertaking was not about advertising or offering things for sale. It was about selling. And I don't think there is any dispute that TB did that.

by aiyoyo 19.02.12 7:58

wgbrother wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:It's the deception thing you see. Had Tony known it was MG the journalist, he would definitely not sold a copy. I'm not saying it was theft per se, but trying to join dots out loud, trying to find out / voice opinion / curry feedback etc for the fact that although Tony sold a copy of a banned booklet, there was a concerted effort, badgering in a way, by someone using deceit. TB may have breached the court order in doing so, but the methods used to extrapolate the booklet were most certainly deceptive and duplicitous, there is material on the legal web sited which seem to be inching towards (or maybe not, we'll see) an illegal manoeuvre against TB. TB wasn't still offering up his booklet for general sale, but rather someone, knowing it was banned, was trying to trap and incriminate Tony.

Lets not give the adversaries too much of a heads up, if you come across anything which could be used by MG, please PM me instead. Ta muchly.

The problem is that it isn't an offence to tell someone you are a made up person. So nobody committed a crime of deception. Yes Mike Gunnill was duplicitous and deceptive but thats not a crime. Lots of wives and husbands are just as duplicitous and deceptive every day of their marriage.

And as for buying a book being theft I think you are really going down a dead end because it obviously isn't.

And I'm not sure that the fact that TB wasn't offering up the book for sale or not is relevant. The undertaking was not about advertising or offering things for sale. It was about selling. And I don't think there is any dispute that TB did that.

Sorry to say, but aren't people deliberately missing the point here.
The point of contention here is, it wasn't proactive selling with intention to breach undertaking.
In this exceptional instance, TB thought he was helping the person to get hold of a copy for research purpose akin to doing a good deed or doing that someone a favour if you like. I'm sure the Judge will be able to differentiate between proactive selling and doing a researcher a favour. Only in this instance the researcher was bogus Mike Gunnill using deceptive methods with deliberate intent to harm TB, ie entice him to breach, just so that he (MG) can then run to Express Papers with his article-story, in exchange for a few tenners for his pocket.

Surely the Judge will be able to see that MG's action goes beyond making a few quick bucks.
He deliberately set TB up despite knowing very well TB's had made an undertaking. In fact, in spite of that, he took advantage TB's situation just so that he can have a story to earn his commission - he admitted to that much in his affidavit.

by Smokeandmirrors 19.02.12 8:19

aiyoyo wrote:
wgbrother wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:It's the deception thing you see. Had Tony known it was MG the journalist, he would definitely not sold a copy. I'm not saying it was theft per se, but trying to join dots out loud, trying to find out / voice opinion / curry feedback etc for the fact that although Tony sold a copy of a banned booklet, there was a concerted effort, badgering in a way, by someone using deceit. TB may have breached the court order in doing so, but the methods used to extrapolate the booklet were most certainly deceptive and duplicitous, there is material on the legal web sited which seem to be inching towards (or maybe not, we'll see) an illegal manoeuvre against TB. TB wasn't still offering up his booklet for general sale, but rather someone, knowing it was banned, was trying to trap and incriminate Tony.

Lets not give the adversaries too much of a heads up, if you come across anything which could be used by MG, please PM me instead. Ta muchly.

The problem is that it isn't an offence to tell someone you are a made up person. So nobody committed a crime of deception. Yes Mike Gunnill was duplicitous and deceptive but thats not a crime. Lots of wives and husbands are just as duplicitous and deceptive every day of their marriage.

And as for buying a book being theft I think you are really going down a dead end because it obviously isn't.

And I'm not sure that the fact that TB wasn't offering up the book for sale or not is relevant. The undertaking was not about advertising or offering things for sale. It was about selling. And I don't think there is any dispute that TB did that.

Sorry to say, but aren't people deliberately missing the point here.
The point of contention here is, it wasn't proactive selling with intention to breach undertaking.
In this exceptional instance, TB thought he was helping the person to get hold of a copy for research purpose akin to doing a good deed or doing that someone a favour if you like. I'm sure the Judge will be able to differentiate between proactive selling and doing a researcher a favour. Only in this instance the researcher was bogus Mike Gunnill using deceptive methods with deliberate intent to harm TB, ie entice him to breach, just so that he (MG) can then run to Express Papers with his article-story, in exchange for a few tenners for his pocket.

Surely the Judge will be able to see that MG's action goes beyond making a few quick bucks.
He deliberately set TB up despite knowing very well TB's had made an undertaking. In fact, in spite of that, he took advantage TB's situation just so that he can have a story to earn his commission - he admitted to that much in his affidavit.

Been digging around quite a bit regarding this. Although going undercover is not a crime and the police use certain methods to gain info in the public good, it is a more grey area than one might imagine. It is one of those areas which, in terms of court summaries, is fairly subjective. The judge will be the one to determine what is in the public interest, and entrapment is normally reserved for very serious crimes, not civil lawsuits. I couldn't find anything that was of a close enough match to TB situation. This issue came up in the LI, judges do not exactly look kindly upon journos who play dirty tricks, and the breach is of no real danger or interest to the public, or a matter of keeping the public safe, it was done for spite more than anything. So the judge could be at liberty to dismiss this aspect of TB's case.

The outcome of all this is IMO hinging on whether the Judge has noticed the way which TB is being singled out, whether any of TB's comments are proven to be false or injurious and how closely the Judge has followed the LI. This is all an act of revenge of course, in retaliation for TB calling for the Mc's to be done for neglect. It's personal and fuelled by spite.

by Kololi 19.02.12 8:35

I wouldn't be as bold as to say Mr Gunnill acted out of spite or that the McCanns are doing this to Mr Bennett for revenge.

He is however, the key figure of the foundation and I suppose they feel that if they cut off the head of the snake then it may wither and die.

by pauline 19.02.12 10:36

Just wondering if Mike Gunnill is a member of the NUJ. They would have a code of ethics and I suspect this would breach it. I presume for a member to go undercover and tell lies for a story in the public interest is OK with the NUJ but this wasn't anything to do with the public interest - it was, according to Gunnill, to earn him a fee.

by Smokeandmirrors 19.02.12 13:41

Kololi wrote:I wouldn't be as bold as to say Mr Gunnill acted out of spite

Spite is a strong word, I probably overstepped there, but what I am getting at is he and the Express were trying to create a story about TB and his undertaking, deceiving TB into selling a booklet so they could write a story about it. It would perhaps be different if this deception was undertaken if they had reports from people that TB was selling booklets foe example, and they just wanted to be sure the story was true. Not creating a story by entrapment for grubby tenners.

or that the McCanns are doing this to Mr Bennett for revenge.

I actually stand by this. TB wanted to instigate an action against the Mc's, appeared on the radio about it and James Whale was very rude to him. If they were not after TB specifically or with revenge, why not sue any number of other people like Joana Morais, SteelMagnolia, HiDeHo and so on who have published a great deal of material which does not show the Mc's in a positive way. Amaral and TB seem to have been singled out, perhaps because they are more "credible" for want of a better expression, and potentially have greater sway over people views.

He is however, the key figure of the foundation and I suppose they feel that if they cut off the head of the snake then it may wither and die.

SInce the Mc's have had far more than their fair share of public and private money thrown at their "agonising plight" and been given payouts galore and pride of place at the LI, i rather think that even a supposedly impartial judge is likely to feel that they are pushing their luck or could simply be irritated by them. No amount of money or attention will ever be enough it seems. And judging by the comments on newspaper websites about them, it seems a great many people now wish they'd just sod off.

by Nina 19.02.12 14:17

And of course it is easy as Tony gives his real name, address, telephone number and email address. I am not sure if Joana Morais is her real name but the other names mentioned are just forum names.

by wgbrother 19.02.12 16:26

aiyoyo wrote:
wgbrother wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:It's the deception thing you see. Had Tony known it was MG the journalist, he would definitely not sold a copy. I'm not saying it was theft per se, but trying to join dots out loud, trying to find out / voice opinion / curry feedback etc for the fact that although Tony sold a copy of a banned booklet, there was a concerted effort, badgering in a way, by someone using deceit. TB may have breached the court order in doing so, but the methods used to extrapolate the booklet were most certainly deceptive and duplicitous, there is material on the legal web sited which seem to be inching towards (or maybe not, we'll see) an illegal manoeuvre against TB. TB wasn't still offering up his booklet for general sale, but rather someone, knowing it was banned, was trying to trap and incriminate Tony.

Lets not give the adversaries too much of a heads up, if you come across anything which could be used by MG, please PM me instead. Ta muchly.

The problem is that it isn't an offence to tell someone you are a made up person. So nobody committed a crime of deception. Yes Mike Gunnill was duplicitous and deceptive but thats not a crime. Lots of wives and husbands are just as duplicitous and deceptive every day of their marriage.

And as for buying a book being theft I think you are really going down a dead end because it obviously isn't.

And I'm not sure that the fact that TB wasn't offering up the book for sale or not is relevant. The undertaking was not about advertising or offering things for sale. It was about selling. And I don't think there is any dispute that TB did that.

Sorry to say, but aren't people deliberately missing the point here.
The point of contention here is, it wasn't proactive selling with intention to breach undertaking.
In this exceptional instance, TB thought he was helping the person to get hold of a copy for research purpose akin to doing a good deed or doing that someone a favour if you like. I'm sure the Judge will be able to differentiate between proactive selling and doing a researcher a favour. Only in this instance the researcher was bogus Mike Gunnill using deceptive methods with deliberate intent to harm TB, ie entice him to breach, just so that he (MG) can then run to Express Papers with his article-story, in exchange for a few tenners for his pocket.

Surely the Judge will be able to see that MG's action goes beyond making a few quick bucks.
He deliberately set TB up despite knowing very well TB's had made an undertaking. In fact, in spite of that, he took advantage TB's situation just so that he can have a story to earn his commission - he admitted to that much in his affidavit.

If it was a good deed or doing a researcher a favour as you suggest then surely he would just have given the person a book.
What is crucial is that he didnt do that at all. He sold a book.
He even offered some convoluted payment method via his mother to disguise the deal which it seems wasnt taken up.
So the undertaking to sell a book was broken. Maybe the judge will see Gunnills actions as slightly mitigating but it doesn't get round the fact that TB broke his undertaking to sell the book.
As for Gunnills actions, yes it was duplicitous as I say but for the life of me I can't see what crime he might have committed. Theft act doesn't apply for sure. So what law do you think he broke if any?

by wgbrother 19.02.12 16:32

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
wgbrother wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:It's the deception thing you see. Had Tony known it was MG the journalist, he would definitely not sold a copy. I'm not saying it was theft per se, but trying to join dots out loud, trying to find out / voice opinion / curry feedback etc for the fact that although Tony sold a copy of a banned booklet, there was a concerted effort, badgering in a way, by someone using deceit. TB may have breached the court order in doing so, but the methods used to extrapolate the booklet were most certainly deceptive and duplicitous, there is material on the legal web sited which seem to be inching towards (or maybe not, we'll see) an illegal manoeuvre against TB. TB wasn't still offering up his booklet for general sale, but rather someone, knowing it was banned, was trying to trap and incriminate Tony.

Lets not give the adversaries too much of a heads up, if you come across anything which could be used by MG, please PM me instead. Ta muchly.

The problem is that it isn't an offence to tell someone you are a made up person. So nobody committed a crime of deception. Yes Mike Gunnill was duplicitous and deceptive but thats not a crime. Lots of wives and husbands are just as duplicitous and deceptive every day of their marriage.

And as for buying a book being theft I think you are really going down a dead end because it obviously isn't.

And I'm not sure that the fact that TB wasn't offering up the book for sale or not is relevant. The undertaking was not about advertising or offering things for sale. It was about selling. And I don't think there is any dispute that TB did that.

Sorry to say, but aren't people deliberately missing the point here.
The point of contention here is, it wasn't proactive selling with intention to breach undertaking.
In this exceptional instance, TB thought he was helping the person to get hold of a copy for research purpose akin to doing a good deed or doing that someone a favour if you like. I'm sure the Judge will be able to differentiate between proactive selling and doing a researcher a favour. Only in this instance the researcher was bogus Mike Gunnill using deceptive methods with deliberate intent to harm TB, ie entice him to breach, just so that he (MG) can then run to Express Papers with his article-story, in exchange for a few tenners for his pocket.

Surely the Judge will be able to see that MG's action goes beyond making a few quick bucks.
He deliberately set TB up despite knowing very well TB's had made an undertaking. In fact, in spite of that, he took advantage TB's situation just so that he can have a story to earn his commission - he admitted to that much in his affidavit.

Been digging around quite a bit regarding this. Although going undercover is not a crime and the police use certain methods to gain info in the public good, it is a more grey area than one might imagine. It is one of those areas which, in terms of court summaries, is fairly subjective. The judge will be the one to determine what is in the public interest, and entrapment is normally reserved for very serious crimes, not civil lawsuits. I couldn't find anything that was of a close enough match to TB situation. This issue came up in the LI, judges do not exactly look kindly upon journos who play dirty tricks, and the breach is of no real danger or interest to the public, or a matter of keeping the public safe, it was done for spite more than anything. So the judge could be at liberty to dismiss this aspect of TB's case.

The outcome of all this is IMO hinging on whether the Judge has noticed the way which TB is being singled out, whether any of TB's comments are proven to be false or injurious and how closely the Judge has followed the LI. This is all an act of revenge of course, in retaliation for TB calling for the Mc's to be done for neglect. It's personal and fuelled by spite.

I thought that entrapment was an issue for police officers not members of the public or journalists. Are you sure it was spite? Was Gunnills action not at least in part in response to a campaign to deprive him of his livelihood by certain people after the Rothley article in the Express? Will all those issues not have to be aired as well in front of the judge and how will they affect his judgement I wonder? As you say, it will be up to the judge but I don't think it will be as easy to persuade the judge to dismiss this as TB might wish.

by wgbrother 19.02.12 16:36

by wgbrother 19.02.12 16:42

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
Kololi wrote:I wouldn't be as bold as to say Mr Gunnill acted out of spite

Spite is a strong word, I probably overstepped there, but what I am getting at is he and the Express were trying to create a story about TB and his undertaking, deceiving TB into selling a booklet so they could write a story about it. It would perhaps be different if this deception was undertaken if they had reports from people that TB was selling booklets foe example, and they just wanted to be sure the story was true. Not creating a story by entrapment for grubby tenners.

or that the McCanns are doing this to Mr Bennett for revenge.

I actually stand by this. TB wanted to instigate an action against the Mc's, appeared on the radio about it and James Whale was very rude to him. If they were not after TB specifically or with revenge, why not sue any number of other people like Joana Morais, SteelMagnolia, HiDeHo and so on who have published a great deal of material which does not show the Mc's in a positive way. Amaral and TB seem to have been singled out, perhaps because they are more "credible" for want of a better expression, and potentially have greater sway over people views.

He is however, the key figure of the foundation and I suppose they feel that if they cut off the head of the snake then it may wither and die.

SInce the Mc's have had far more than their fair share of public and private money thrown at their "agonising plight" and been given payouts galore and pride of place at the LI, i rather think that even a supposedly impartial judge is likely to feel that they are pushing their luck or could simply be irritated by them. No amount of money or attention will ever be enough it seems. And judging by the comments on newspaper websites about them, it seems a great many people now wish they'd just sod off.

I think you will find that a large number of the public including Judges are not inclined as you seem to be to tell the parents of a missing toddler to "sod off". I think you are deluding yourself if you think that a couple of hundred vociferous comments on newspaper articles reflect the public mood. In my experience many people still feel a great deal of sympathy to the parents of a missing toddler. I am not saying that is wise or not but it is a fact.

I am sure a judge will weigh up the legal position and will not be swayed by anything else. If TB committed an offence then he will be dealt with at the forthcoming hearing. If Gunnill committed an offence then the CPS may wish to take action. But the judge won't be relying on comments in the Express to help him decide.