The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 3 Mm11

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 3 Regist10

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Page 3 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 3 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by tigger on 09.06.12 15:43

If you hang around a bit Tony, you might get a few more pearls of wisdom and perhaps an encouraging pat on the back as well! winkwink




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

Posts : 8114
Join date : 2011-07-20

http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 3 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by Meagain on 09.06.12 16:02

Sorry I did not mean to deceive and thought the name would have clued people as it did you, Candyfloss. I couldn't log in as Kololi as you kindly did as I asked.

This situation intrigues me and I could not resist because I cannot for the life of me understand how a person can say and do what Mr Bennett has done and then play the victim especially as he should know the law.

I know people can make mistakes (I make many) and not everything that they do is wrong, Jean. Are you allowing that luxury for the McCanns? There are some errors of judgement, however, that, in my opinion, are not actually errors of judgement and are indeed actions that are carried out knowing the risk of consequence to them. Leaving three children alone in a strange apartment would be one and breaching an undertaking that you have given to a court would be another. Both carry risks and both have been carried out by inteliigent people who should have known better.

If you want to look at the Xmas carol, Jean, along with the emails showing that Mr Bennett did, indeed, breach his undertaking within mere weeks of agreeing to it, you may wish to read a blog called "stick a fork in me" as I understand it is all there. It might even be stick a fork in me I am cooked or something similar. You can get the link from that site I was accused of coming from.

Rest assured, I won't be pestering - just could not believe my eyes when I caught up with this thread and the poor Mr Bennett frenzy so gave in to an urge to respond. Take care all. K.




avatar
Meagain

Posts : 28
Join date : 2012-06-09

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 3 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by Guest on 09.06.12 16:14

@Meagain wrote:Sorry I did not mean to deceive and thought the name would have clued people as it did you, Candyfloss. I couldn't log in as Kololi as you kindly did as I asked.

This situation intrigues me and I could not resist because I cannot for the life of me understand how a person can say and do what Mr Bennett has done and then play the victim especially as he should know the law.

I know people can make mistakes (I make many) and not everything that they do is wrong, Jean. Are you allowing that luxury for the McCanns? There are some errors of judgement, however, that, in my opinion, are not actually errors of judgement and are indeed actions that are carried out knowing the risk of consequence to them. Leaving three children alone in a strange apartment would be one and breaching an undertaking that you have given to a court would be another. Both carry risks and both have been carried out by inteliigent people who should have known better.

If you want to look at the Xmas carol, Jean, along with the emails showing that Mr Bennett did, indeed, breach his undertaking within mere weeks of agreeing to it, you may wish to read a blog called "stick a fork in me" as I understand it is all there. It might even be stick a fork in me I am cooked or something similar. You can get the link from that site I was accused of coming from.

Rest assured, I won't be pestering - just could not believe my eyes when I caught up with this thread and the poor Mr Bennett frenzy so gave in to an urge to respond. Take care all. K.







Meagain/Kololi, you could have said in your post who you were from the start. You didn't, it was only because I recognise your style that I knew who you were. You said before you wanted to leave, yet you couldn't resist coming back to have yet another dig. Why on earth should you......... if you were so sure Tony was going to get his just desserts, then why don't you just sit back and wait for it to happen?? Is it because you may be just a little worried?? It is not as black and white as you make out, as Tony has explained. He has a good case.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 3 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by aiyoyo on 09.06.12 18:01

@Spaniel wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:
@Spaniel wrote:

"I need to be able to match that level of expertise and legal firepower." You sound so envious Tony, then put your hand in your pocket now and get legal advice, not from well wishers on the internet. The claiments no doubt have insurance. The Law is simple in most cases apart from financial.

You seem to be stuck in the past Tony in more ways than one.

You mention solictors reading it but passing on to a barrister. Then dispense of solicitors and go direct, it's the new way. Solicitors have their place in drawing up contracts etc but how many can hold their own against a barrister in court?

Your points may have been valid before you signed the undertaking, but you signed it and I've said over and over, you now have to concentrate on damage limitation, costs to be precise, as nowhere have I found commital to prison for contempt in a libel case in the UK.

The only defense I can think of is you weren't told how serious making an undertaking could be. It does after all have a penal notice attached and I can see a suspended sentence looming.

Our posters here should realise that this is not a libel case so presenting evidence for such is futile, and I wish Tony would confirm that. I even misread the situation myself due to being distracted as a plaintiff in one court case and defendant in another. My mind was otherwise occupied. Damn divorce.

Thre are heads in the sand here and Tony's is not the only one.

How is it I get the impression 'your on the surface seemingly constructive comments' are actually criticism loaded?

What do you think is there for TB to envy? FAIAC,TB is merely highlighting some irrefutable facts.

May I ask you -- in TB's shoes, would you be envious of some bastards or cowards using public donated money and/or other people money to take away your basic human right to freedom of expression?

BTW, in case you haven't noticed - did the mccanns put their hands in their pocket for this?Or for that matter for anything to do with their search of the mystery of their "disappeared" daughter? What do you think of them using the bulk of the Fund suing people when they claimed the Fund was for the search? Do you think Maddie can be found in the courtroom?

May I be so bold to suggest your "damn divorce (your words)" and whatever you experienced with the law in that respect cannot be used as benchmark of your legal knowledge for anything else. Your divorce (a domestic case) is not parallel with Mccanns vs Tony Bennett (a human right infringement) case. The mccanns' objective is evil and has far greater significance than your "damn divorce"!
Easy to urge Tony on to financial ruin aiyoyo as it won't be your money lost.

Can you show me where specifically did I urge him to financial ruin?
It's better not to over assumed anything.

aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 3 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by aiyoyo on 09.06.12 18:24

@Portia wrote:
Spaniel is right, you know, from a professional legal point of view.
In plain english: you give your word, you break it: you pay for it.

Barring exceptional circumstances legally excusing the transgression.

First thing first, I notice trolls are out in force, and they do seem to have a knack to out themselves. Never mind!

Portia, I take it that you're saying you are a lawyer by profession, am I right?

In that case, in your "professional" view what do you think of Spaniel's presumptuous and biased views?
Another point : would you term your view constructive from a legal viewpoint?
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 3 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by russiandoll on 09.06.12 18:25

can someone please either confirm or deny that the "silent night "parody which I have just found online was penned by Tony Bennett? Hopefully Mr B himself will reply to my post.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy

russiandoll
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 3 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by russiandoll on 09.06.12 18:26

@aiyoyo wrote:
@Portia wrote:
Spaniel is right, you know, from a professional legal point of view.
In plain english: you give your word, you break it: you pay for it.

Barring exceptional circumstances legally excusing the transgression.

First thing first, I notice trolls are out in force, and they do seem to have a knack to out themselves. Never mind!

Portia, I take it that you're saying you are a lawyer by profession, am I right?

In that case, in your "professional" view what do you think of Spaniel's presumptuous and biased views?
Another point : would you term your view constructive from a legal viewpoint?

Spanile might have a controversial point of view.....that he disagrees with the majority viewpoint does not make him a troll does it? I thought this forum was about debate and not agreeing on every issue !

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy

russiandoll
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 3 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by aiyoyo on 09.06.12 18:35

@russiandoll wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:
@Portia wrote:
Spaniel is right, you know, from a professional legal point of view.
In plain english: you give your word, you break it: you pay for it.

Barring exceptional circumstances legally excusing the transgression.

First thing first, I notice trolls are out in force, and they do seem to have a knack to out themselves. Never mind!

Portia, I take it that you're saying you are a lawyer by profession, am I right?

In that case, in your "professional" view what do you think of Spaniel's presumptuous and biased views?
Another point : would you term your view constructive from a legal viewpoint?

Spanile might have a controversial point of view.....that he disagrees with the majority viewpoint does not make him a troll does it? I thought this forum was about debate and not agreeing on every issue !

Well, russiandoll, listen to yourself! who did you say is a troll?

I did suspect trolls are out to play, and not that I know who they are.

Yes, this forum is about debate (your got that correct), and not for agenda-loaded trolls. It's your prerogative not to agree, but I am entitled to my view and my prerogative to keep it - thank you.

aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 3 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by bobbin on 09.06.12 18:41

I've just come back in from shopping and trudged my way through the painful experience of long-winded carping from old trolls, or if they are not trolls who come here to stir up anguish and complaint, are here to try to put the 'frighteners' on Tony, because perhaps they are closer to TM and are getting very worried.

They will be correct to be getting worried because they have probably noticed, like the rest of us who keep up with current affairs, that a U turn in political and social echelons is happening.

Namely that the libel market is increasingly coming in for a pounding, that libel tourism is being mooted for disbandment, that Kenneth Clark is talking about how the individual without means shall have his say, that the court of human rights is coming back into fashion, etc.

This of course is all very bad news for TM, who must by now have run up a hefty bill with CR who also are no longer seen as the bright and shiny boys they used to be.

Throughout the Leveson Inquiry their bullying, silencing methods have been exposed and their name is increasingly becoming mud and their days are numbered, all IMO of course, in case CR are looking in, although it's Saturday night and you should be out enjoying yourselves, or even spending time with your families and playing with your kids.

To those feigning concern for Tony, don't worry. He is very shrewd. If he needs help, he asks for it. You seem to be able to offer little help other than to stir up fear.

What Tony needs is support. If you can give that, then do, but don't waste other members' time by filling the pages with your same old same old, including you Kololi.
avatar
bobbin

Posts : 2053
Join date : 2011-12-05

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 3 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by Guest on 09.06.12 18:46

@aiyoyo wrote:
@Portia wrote:
Spaniel is right, you know, from a professional legal point of view.
In plain english: you give your word, you break it: you pay for it.

Barring exceptional circumstances legally excusing the transgression.

First thing first, I notice trolls are out in force, and they do seem to have a knack to out themselves. Never mind!

Portia, I take it that you're saying you are a lawyer by profession, am I right?

In that case, in your "professional" view what do you think of Spaniel's presumptuous and biased views?
Another point : would you term your view constructive from a legal viewpoint?

Good evening.

To answer your questions: yes, I am a lawyer. To be exact, I am an attorney-barrister.
I share Spaniels views, which I consider a sobering breath of fresh air amid a lot of wishful thinking.
My views are well meant, out of concern for mr Bennett. Whether they are constructive is not for me to decide.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 3 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by ShuBob on 09.06.12 18:53

I may have got the wrong end of the stick but my understanding is that Tony simply doesn't have the means to hire lawyers to defend him in this case. If that's the case, where does Spaniel expect him to get the money from? I'm curious.
avatar
ShuBob

Posts : 1896
Join date : 2012-02-07

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 3 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by bobbin on 09.06.12 19:06

@Portia wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:
@Portia wrote:
Spaniel is right, you know, from a professional legal point of view.
In plain english: you give your word, you break it: you pay for it.

Barring exceptional circumstances legally excusing the transgression.

First thing first, I notice trolls are out in force, and they do seem to have a knack to out themselves. Never mind!

Portia, I take it that you're saying you are a lawyer by profession, am I right?

In that case, in your "professional" view what do you think of Spaniel's presumptuous and biased views?
Another point : would you term your view constructive from a legal viewpoint?

Good evening.

To answer your questions: yes, I am a lawyer. To be exact, I am an attorney-barrister.
I share Spaniels views, which I consider a sobering breath of fresh air amid a lot of wishful thinking.
My views are well meant, out of concern for mr Bennett. Whether they are constructive is not for me to decide.

I have highlighted in red, your 'barring exceptional circumstances....' and that is the point that Tony is making. It is not cut and dried. It is a complex case.

Just for the record, I understand you are not operating in the UK. In the UK the attorney/barrister title is shown to be distinguished by two different titles, barrister and solicitor, whose roles are different.

from Wikipedia. definition attorney/barrister

A barrister is a member of one of the two classes of lawyer found in many common law jurisdictions with split legal professions. Barristers specialise in courtroom advocacy, drafting legal pleadings and giving expert legal opinions. They can be contrasted with solicitors
– the other class of lawyer in split professions – who have more direct
access with clients, and may do transactional-type legal work.
Barristers are rarely hired by clients directly but instead are
retained (or instructed) by solicitors to act on behalf of clients.

The historical difference between the two professions – and the only essential difference in England and Wales today – is that a solicitor is an attorney, which means they can act in the place of their client for legal purposes (as in signing contracts) and may conduct litigation
on their behalf by making applications to the court, writing letters in
litigation to the client's opponent and so on. A barrister is not an
attorney and is usually forbidden, either by law or professional rules
or both, from "conducting" litigation. This means that while the
barrister speaks on the client's behalf in court, he or she can do so
only when instructed by a solicitor or certain other qualified
professional clients, such as patent agents.

Many countries with common law legal systems, such as the United States, do not observe a distinction between barristers and solicitors. In countries with civil law
or other kinds of legal systems the legal profession is often separated
into divisions but these divisions rarely shadow those of barristers
and solicitors.
avatar
bobbin

Posts : 2053
Join date : 2011-12-05

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 3 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by aiyoyo on 09.06.12 19:11

@Portia wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:
@Portia wrote:
Spaniel is right, you know, from a professional legal point of view.
In plain english: you give your word, you break it: you pay for it.

Barring exceptional circumstances legally excusing the transgression.

First thing first, I notice trolls are out in force, and they do seem to have a knack to out themselves. Never mind!

Portia, I take it that you're saying you are a lawyer by profession, am I right?

In that case, in your "professional" view what do you think of Spaniel's presumptuous and biased views?
Another point : would you term your view constructive from a legal viewpoint?

Good evening.

To answer your questions: yes, I am a lawyer. To be exact, I am an attorney-barrister.
I share Spaniels views, which I consider a sobering breath of fresh air amid a lot of wishful thinking.
My views are well meant, out of concern for mr Bennett. Whether they are constructive is not for me to decide.

Oh dear, a touchy "attorney-barrister" who has too much time on hand to monitor this forum - no case on hand then? Wonder why would that be?

Out of concern for Mr Bennett as you said, - my foot! Well, put it this way and with all due respect - for an alleged attorney barrister you have an oddly suspicious way of showing it!

Are you sure you're not diagnosed as sufferer of delusion of grandeur?
If you are attorney barrister then I am Queen of Sheba incarnate!





aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 3 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by Guest on 09.06.12 19:30

All this sniping and personal comments really aren't conducive to good debate are they, and get us nowhere, except to disrupt the threads, ending in arguments. Please, please keep the posts civil and respect other peoples opinions, they are entitled to them, and you can disagree, without resorting to personal comments. Thanks.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 3 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by aiyoyo on 09.06.12 19:32

@bobbin wrote:
@Portia wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:
@Portia wrote:
Spaniel is right, you know, from a professional legal point of view.
In plain english: you give your word, you break it: you pay for it.

Barring exceptional circumstances legally excusing the transgression.

First thing first, I notice trolls are out in force, and they do seem to have a knack to out themselves. Never mind!

Portia, I take it that you're saying you are a lawyer by profession, am I right?

In that case, in your "professional" view what do you think of Spaniel's presumptuous and biased views?
Another point : would you term your view constructive from a legal viewpoint?

Good evening.

To answer your questions: yes, I am a lawyer. To be exact, I am an attorney-barrister.
I share Spaniels views, which I consider a sobering breath of fresh air amid a lot of wishful thinking.
My views are well meant, out of concern for mr Bennett. Whether they are constructive is not for me to decide.

I have highlighted in red, your 'barring exceptional circumstances....' and that is the point that Tony is making. It is not cut and dried. It is a complex case.

Just for the record, I understand you are not operating in the UK. In the UK the attorney/barrister title is shown to be distinguished by two different titles, barrister and solicitor, whose roles are different.

from Wikipedia. definition attorney/barrister

A barrister is a member of one of the two classes of lawyer found in many common law jurisdictions with split legal professions. Barristers specialise in courtroom advocacy, drafting legal pleadings and giving expert legal opinions. They can be contrasted with solicitors
– the other class of lawyer in split professions – who have more direct
access with clients, and may do transactional-type legal work.
Barristers are rarely hired by clients directly but instead are
retained (or instructed) by solicitors to act on behalf of clients.

The historical difference between the two professions – and the only essential difference in England and Wales today – is that a solicitor is an attorney, which means they can act in the place of their client for legal purposes (as in signing contracts) and may conduct litigation
on their behalf by making applications to the court, writing letters in
litigation to the client's opponent and so on. A barrister is not an
attorney and is usually forbidden, either by law or professional rules
or both, from "conducting" litigation. This means that while the
barrister speaks on the client's behalf in court, he or she can do so
only when instructed by a solicitor or certain other qualified
professional clients, such as patent agents.

Many countries with common law legal systems, such as the United States, do not observe a distinction between barristers and solicitors. In countries with civil law
or other kinds of legal systems the legal profession is often separated
into divisions but these divisions rarely shadow those of barristers
and solicitors.

Well, let me put it this way Bobbin, an attorney is not a barrister or vice versa, because that would create conflict of interest if a lawyer can be both attorney and barrister simultaneously.
The title "attorney-hyphen-barrister" does not exist.
Definitely heard of lawyers refer to as solicitor, attorney-at-law, barrister, counsel, advocate, notary, but an attorney-barrister is a first for me. I stand corrected but attorney-barrister is forbidden by law.
So, unless the Kingdom of Timbuktu allows it I don't know which country has them or allows for such .

aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 3 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by Guest on 09.06.12 20:04

@aiyoyo wrote:
@bobbin wrote:
@Portia wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:
@Portia wrote:
Spaniel is right, you know, from a professional legal point of view.
In plain english: you give your word, you break it: you pay for it.

Barring exceptional circumstances legally excusing the transgression.

First thing first, I notice trolls are out in force, and they do seem to have a knack to out themselves. Never mind!

Portia, I take it that you're saying you are a lawyer by profession, am I right?

In that case, in your "professional" view what do you think of Spaniel's presumptuous and biased views?
Another point : would you term your view constructive from a legal viewpoint?

Good evening.

To answer your questions: yes, I am a lawyer. To be exact, I am an attorney-barrister.
I share Spaniels views, which I consider a sobering breath of fresh air amid a lot of wishful thinking.
My views are well meant, out of concern for mr Bennett. Whether they are constructive is not for me to decide.

I have highlighted in red, your 'barring exceptional circumstances....' and that is the point that Tony is making. It is not cut and dried. It is a complex case.

Just for the record, I understand you are not operating in the UK. In the UK the attorney/barrister title is shown to be distinguished by two different titles, barrister and solicitor, whose roles are different.

from Wikipedia. definition attorney/barrister

A barrister is a member of one of the two classes of lawyer found in many common law jurisdictions with split legal professions. Barristers specialise in courtroom advocacy, drafting legal pleadings and giving expert legal opinions. They can be contrasted with solicitors
– the other class of lawyer in split professions – who have more direct
access with clients, and may do transactional-type legal work.
Barristers are rarely hired by clients directly but instead are
retained (or instructed) by solicitors to act on behalf of clients.

The historical difference between the two professions – and the only essential difference in England and Wales today – is that a solicitor is an attorney, which means they can act in the place of their client for legal purposes (as in signing contracts) and may conduct litigation
on their behalf by making applications to the court, writing letters in
litigation to the client's opponent and so on. A barrister is not an
attorney and is usually forbidden, either by law or professional rules
or both, from "conducting" litigation. This means that while the
barrister speaks on the client's behalf in court, he or she can do so
only when instructed by a solicitor or certain other qualified
professional clients, such as patent agents.

Many countries with common law legal systems, such as the United States, do not observe a distinction between barristers and solicitors. In countries with civil law
or other kinds of legal systems the legal profession is often separated
into divisions but these divisions rarely shadow those of barristers
and solicitors.

Well, let me put it this way Bobbin, an attorney is not a barrister or vice versa, because that would create conflict of interest if a lawyer can be both attorney and barrister simultaneously.
The title "attorney-hyphen-barrister" does not exist.
Definitely heard of lawyers refer to as solicitor, attorney-at-law, barrister, counsel, advocate, notary, but an attorney-barrister is a first for me. I stand corrected but attorney-barrister is forbidden by law.
So, unless the Kingdom of Timbuktu allows it I don't know which country has them or allows for such .


Good old plain Attorney will do, thank you.

Bobbin set the record straight and as I am neither English nor a native English speaker, I trust you will excuse my ignorance. In my country, you became both a solicitor and a barrister at the time when I was first admitted to the Bar.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 3 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by Guest on 09.06.12 20:07

candyfloss wrote:All this sniping and personal comments really aren't conducive to good debate are they, and get us nowhere, except to disrupt the threads, ending in arguments. Please, please keep the posts civil and respect other peoples opinions, they are entitled to them, and you can disagree, without resorting to personal comments. Thanks.

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 3 1333010987

Please all genuine posters, don't rise to the trolls' bait. That is exactly what they want to happen as it brings the forum into disrepute.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 3 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by Spaniel on 09.06.12 20:41

@bobbin wrote:I've just come back in from shopping and trudged my way through the painful experience of long-winded carping from old trolls, or if they are not trolls who come here to stir up anguish and complaint, are here to try to put the 'frighteners' on Tony, because perhaps they are closer to TM and are getting very worried.

They will be correct to be getting worried because they have probably noticed, like the rest of us who keep up with current affairs, that a U turn in political and social echelons is happening.

Namely that the libel market is increasingly coming in for a pounding, that libel tourism is being mooted for disbandment, that Kenneth Clark is talking about how the individual without means shall have his say, that the court of human rights is coming back into fashion, etc.

This of course is all very bad news for TM, who must by now have run up a hefty bill with CR who also are no longer seen as the bright and shiny boys they used to be.

Throughout the Leveson Inquiry their bullying, silencing methods have been exposed and their name is increasingly becoming mud and their days are numbered, all IMO of course, in case CR are looking in, although it's Saturday night and you should be out enjoying yourselves, or even spending time with your families and playing with your kids.

To those feigning concern for Tony, don't worry. He is very shrewd. If he needs help, he asks for it. You seem to be able to offer little help other than to stir up fear.

What Tony needs is support. If you can give that, then do, but don't waste other members' time by filling the pages with your same old same old, including you Kololi.
I take it your post refers to me bobbin.

I try to give support to Tony by sending him articles and cases that may be of interest for his court appearance. In fact it was because of Tony's upcoming appearance in the High Court that brought me here in the first place. I have another article here but not sure how useful it is as he's appearing at the High Court, entitled "Defending commital applications in the county court." Some of it may be useful but I don't want to drown him in PM's if it isn't. Does that make me a troll? I said in an earlier post today that I will no longer ask or even hope that he takes a different approach in court so I will no longer discuss that and hope he proves me wrong.

I thought, barring the occasional visit from a pro, which I find breaks the flow of a discussion, that we are here for a common purpose, to see justice for Madeleine. There are some opinions I disagree with but I don't resort to calling the poster a troll, whether they have 20 or 2000 posts. There are many threads where we all have differing opinions but no one gets name called, so why this one?

I am not looking forward to Tony getting a financial kicking and want to see him leave court with the shirt still on his back. It's the approach I disagree with but of course I have no more idea of what is going on in the background than anyone else here.

I must confess that I tend to think of the worst outcome so that anything more is a bonus. I won't bother sticking around though if this troll accusation keeps cropping up as it was hinted at in my early days as well, as I find it tedious and puerile. I'd prefer as I said at the before that I was among like minded forumites, not name callers.

____________________

Spaniel
Spaniel

Posts : 742
Join date : 2012-01-24

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 3 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by Tony Bennett on 09.06.12 21:18

@russiandoll wrote:can someone please either confirm or deny that the "silent night "parody which I have just found online was penned by Tony Bennett? Hopefully Mr B himself will reply to my post.
The Silent Night parody was mine. I think I wrote it about December 2007, along with another parody of trhe song 'Windmills of your mind'. IIRC these were written at a time when many of us were confident that, despite the removal of Goncalo Amaral from the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance, there was a realistic prospect of the McCanns being charged with an offence in relation to Madeleine. I have previously conceded that the Silent Night parody was not my finest moment.

re: Spaniel and Portia:

1. Both have given me advice and help (privately), especially Portia, and I am grateful to them both

2. I value anyone giving me constructive advice, even acting as 'devil's advocate'; I am content for people to point out the weaknesses of my position and if they genuinely think I am following the wrong course, they should be free to say so, in public on this forum if necessary.

Two final points:

(a) I would advise anyone interested in the finer points of libel law to read the decision in Spiller v Joseph [2010]

(b) Whilst, of course, normal legal principles will apply in this case - including case law in the European Court of Human Rights - there is in many more senses than one something quite unique about this whole case, and thus the court might well make some surprising decisions.

We shall all find out in due course what the court dertermines that I (or anyone else for that matter) can and cannot say about the mysterious disappearance of Madeleine McCann. That will be of interest, whichever way it goes.

____________________

Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"

Amelie Mcann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".  

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 15472
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 71
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 3 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by Spaniel on 09.06.12 22:21

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@russiandoll wrote:can someone please either confirm or deny that the "silent night "parody which I have just found online was penned by Tony Bennett? Hopefully Mr B himself will reply to my post.
The Silent Night parody was mine. I think I wrote it about December 2007, along with another parody of trhe song 'Windmills of your mind'. IIRC these were written at a time when many of us were confident that, despite the removal of Goncalo Amaral from the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance, there was a realistic prospect of the McCanns being charged with an offence in relation to Madeleine. I have previously conceded that the Silent Night parody was not my finest moment.

re: Spaniel and Portia:

1. Both have given me advice and help (privately), especially Portia, and I am grateful to them both

2. I value anyone giving me constructive advice, even acting as 'devil's advocate'; I am content for people to point out the weaknesses of my position and if they genuinely think I am following the wrong course, they should be free to say so, in public on this forum if necessary.

Two final points:

(a) I would advise anyone interested in the finer points of libel law to read the decision in Spiller v Joseph [2010]

(b) Whilst, of course, normal legal principles will apply in this case - including case law in the European Court of Human Rights - there is in many more senses than one something quite unique about this whole case, and thus the court might well make some surprising decisions.

We shall all find out in due course what the court dertermines that I (or anyone else for that matter) can and cannot say about the mysterious disappearance of Madeleine McCann. That will be of interest, whichever way it goes.
I'm reading CR publications, as you do on a Saturday night. Will your trial be held before a jury?
Spaniel
Spaniel

Posts : 742
Join date : 2012-01-24

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 3 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by russiandoll on 09.06.12 22:49

well aiyoyo you have my sincere apologies if I incorrectly concluded you were implying Spaniel was a troll. I saw you disagreeing with his standpoint, then that comment came in a later post and given the context, thought you meant Spaniel when maybe you meant meagain/Kololi? And why so rude to Portia..please reread your post there and calm down !
Anyway, I have nothing to contribute here so will bow out with repeating Candyfloss....please keep debate calm and polite. There is no need to get personal and while it is a topic that is bound to get people hot under the collar for many reasons, I still maintain that some people with doubts about TBs way of doing things are not necessarily out to cause trouble. How about giving the benefit of the doubt once in a while?
Btw thanks TB for your reply, I have to say in all honesty that the parody regardless of the circumstances was far from your finest hour and I am disappointed to know that you penned it.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy

russiandoll
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 3 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by aiyoyo on 10.06.12 2:07

Russiandoll, if I was rude to Portia I apologize to him/her. But personally I prefer not to take every one at face value all the time.

Admission to bar is just receiving a license to practice law - no more no less, no matter which country you are licensed to practise law. All it means is that your are a lawyer granted permission to practise law in a certain jurisdiction.

Perhaps you will agree that I was not that wrong to view with suspicion a lawyer who cannot free feel to at least say which country they were admitted to bar. And, who incidentally did not know the difference between attorney and barrister as one would have thought that of all people a lawyer at the very basic need to know, no matter whether English be their native language or not; especially considering Portia showed by his post history that he is not English language ignorance at all. So for a professed professional lawyer so to speak to come on and tell me that.......well?

I beg your pardon if you think I am impertinent but I like to give it straight if you don't mind. Bear in mind (if I am not wrong) that sans-souci also gave advice to TB in private while bashing him in public. At least I respect sans-souci for being frank about the side he was betting for. Before you jump on me again, don't read anything into my opinion on this, as I want to make clear that I'm not saying that all people who gave advice to TB in private are from same mould. Thank you.




aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 3 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by russiandoll on 10.06.12 9:59

jump on you aiyoyo ? I calmly pointed out that you got personal and were rude to Portia........and please note I did so without resorting to calling you names.
If you think what you said below was acceptable then we have to agree to differ and I am not getting tangled up in a to and fro argument on this issue with you. I am becoming slightly disenchanted with what has been going on here recently and others have said the same....any deviation from majority opinion on certain seeming "untouchable" topics and people are shot down and accused of being trolls, trouble makers, wind up merchants and being her under false pretences ,if any if these things are suspected would it not make more sense to just ignore these posters? I for one am not going to fall out with you over our different ways of handling this matter of suspected mischief- makers. So I am taking myself away from this topic and this reply to you is my last post here...I hope things calm down because this topic is being monitored for sure by those who hold us in contempt and nothing will please them more than to see arguments here.


Oh dear, a touchy "attorney-barrister" who has too much time on hand to monitor this forum - no case on hand then? Wonder why would that be?

Out of concern for Mr Bennett as you said, - my foot! Well, put it this way and with all due respect - for an alleged attorney barrister you have an oddly suspicious way of showing it!

Are you sure you're not diagnosed as sufferer of delusion of grandeur?
If you are attorney barrister then I am Queen of Sheba incarnate!

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy

russiandoll
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 3 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by Guest on 10.06.12 11:11

Posting this again............

candyfloss wrote:All this sniping and personal comments really aren't conducive to good debate are they, and get us nowhere, except to disrupt the threads, ending in arguments. Please, please keep the posts civil and respect other peoples opinions, they are entitled to them, and you can disagree, without resorting to personal comments. Thanks.


Tony wrote this........



[quote]

re: Spaniel and Portia:

1. Both have given me advice and help (privately), especially Portia, and I am grateful to them both

2. I value anyone giving me constructive advice, even acting as 'devil's advocate'; I am content for people to point out the weaknesses of my position and if they genuinely think I am following the wrong course, they should be free to say so, in public on this forum if necessary.




Please let that be an end to it. Thanks
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 3 Empty Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012

Post by aquila on 11.06.12 23:55

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:This case could very well become a landmark case. In essence, if one falls foul of the law for doubting, discussing or challenging a story that has be pushed and pushed for five years into the public domain without credible evidence to support it, then we are living in no more than a dictatorship. If those with financial means can bully those without into submission, it is a very sorry state for our judiciary to be in.

Every penny and every minute spent by the McCanns persuing this is detracting from the search, and it is their choice to waste time and resources in this way. This alone should speak volumes to the presiding judge. As should the fact that the profits from the book never made it into the fund accounts. And the fact so little of the fund has been spent on the search. If they are accusing Tony for thwarting the search, he could well counter that with "what search"? The only thing they seem to be searching for is fame and fortune.

McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012 - Page 3 259100 I love common sense but since when did common sense come into libel cases? I doubt it will become a landmark case. Tony isn't in the limelight and neither is the fund masquerading as a charity to the hoi polloi imo. I doubt it will gain much media coverage or any particular justice. It's a cock fight. Doesn't say much for justice but then again why would you need to sue someone for a book after your daughter has been missing for five years and you've spent a shedload of other people's money on a 'search' to prove that person hindered it? Don't you love simple questions! Another case of 'working behind the scenes' as the McCann's say their lawyers do for apparently little or not much money. Well Tony is facing their extortionate bills (these people who work behind the scenes). There will be no landmark cases imo. This media/legal/pr beast is unleashed and if anyone thinks any of them are doing it out of the 'goodness of their hearts' then I suggest psychiatric help might be an option.

Just one thought. If you said the name 'Madeleine McCann' to ANYONE on the streets of UK they would know about her. They have differing views but they all know about her. If you said the name 'Tony Bennett' you'd probably get someone to quote a song by a crooner. So why are the McCann's so afraid of Tony Bennett who doesn't have the front pages of the newspapers as is their own privilege. WHY are they suing him? WHY?
aquila
aquila

Posts : 9340
Join date : 2011-09-03

Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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