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!

McCANN v BENNETT: Barrister's opinion: 'The poor devil is on his own'. Mm11

McCANN v BENNETT: Barrister's opinion: 'The poor devil is on his own'. Regist10

McCANN v BENNETT: Barrister's opinion: 'The poor devil is on his own'.

View previous topic View next topic Go down

McCANN v BENNETT: Barrister's opinion: 'The poor devil is on his own'. Empty McCANN v BENNETT: Barrister's opinion: 'The poor devil is on his own'.

Post by Tony Bennett on 12.10.12 10:11

Last night, a friend of mine, who is on good terms with a London barrister, texted the barrister with some details about my impending libel trial, and asking if he might be able to help in some way, pro bono, or perhaps: 'No win, no fee'.

Here is the barrister's (no names, no pack drill) reply, texted to my friend a few minutes ago:

"Tricky one D____. The enormous amount of work and court time would make this impossible for pro bono. No win no fee can only work if a lawyer believes that there is a really good chance of success. Clearly nobody is prepared to come to this conclusion. I fear the poor devil is on his own unless funds can be raised. I wish I could be more optimistic".

Never mind.

David felled Goliath.

Just with one well-aimed blow.

____________________

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 : 15617
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 72
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

McCANN v BENNETT: Barrister's opinion: 'The poor devil is on his own'. Empty Re: McCANN v BENNETT: Barrister's opinion: 'The poor devil is on his own'.

Post by ShuBob on 12.10.12 10:21

@Tony Bennett wrote:Last night, a friend of mine, who is on good terms with a London barrister, texted the barrister with some details about my impending libel trial, and asking if he might be able to help in some way, pro bono, or perhaps: 'No win, no fee'.

Here is the barrister's (no names, no pack drill) reply, texted to my friend a few minutes ago:

"Tricky one D____. The enormous amount of work and court time would make this impossible for pro bono. No win no fee can only work if a lawyer believes that there is a really good chance of success. Clearly nobody is prepared to come to this conclusion. I fear the poor devil is on his own unless funds can be raised. I wish I could be more optimistic".

Never mind.

David felled Goliath.

Just with one well-aimed blow
.

That's the spirit Tony McCANN v BENNETT: Barrister's opinion: 'The poor devil is on his own'. 725573

I am quietly optimistic that as far truth is concerned, you won't lose this one.
avatar
ShuBob

Posts : 1896
Join date : 2012-02-07

Back to top Go down

McCANN v BENNETT: Barrister's opinion: 'The poor devil is on his own'. Empty Re: McCANN v BENNETT: Barrister's opinion: 'The poor devil is on his own'.

Post by Da Troof on 12.10.12 10:39

Tony, I applaud your spirit and optimism. I wish you success, but I fear that CR and the ass UK libel laws may win out in the end.

Can I suggest that members here consider lending their support to the campaign below, it only takes a few seconds and costs nothing (unless you want to make a donation).

http://www.libelreform.org/sign
avatar
Da Troof

Posts : 80
Join date : 2012-09-29

Back to top Go down

McCANN v BENNETT: Barrister's opinion: 'The poor devil is on his own'. Empty Re: McCANN v BENNETT: Barrister's opinion: 'The poor devil is on his own'.

Post by DIBarlow on 12.10.12 16:50

@ShuBob wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:Last night, a friend of mine, who is on good terms with a London barrister, texted the barrister with some details about my impending libel trial, and asking if he might be able to help in some way, pro bono, or perhaps: 'No win, no fee'.

Here is the barrister's (no names, no pack drill) reply, texted to my friend a few minutes ago:

"Tricky one D____. The enormous amount of work and court time would make this impossible for pro bono. No win no fee can only work if a lawyer believes that there is a really good chance of success. Clearly nobody is prepared to come to this conclusion. I fear the poor devil is on his own unless funds can be raised. I wish I could be more optimistic".

Never mind.

David felled Goliath.

Just with one well-aimed blow
.

That's the spirit Tony McCANN v BENNETT: Barrister's opinion: 'The poor devil is on his own'. 725573

I am quietly optimistic that as far truth is concerned, you won't lose this one.
I agree ShuBob.

The revelations, almost daily it seems, in this information age, can only be good news for truth-seekers and, by definition, bad news for anyone with something to hide.

I am of the opinion that there is only one party with something to hide in this case.

It also seems to me that the McCanns and their many legal and other representatives (the existence of which tells it's own story) have a penchant for misjudging the mood of 'Joe Public'.

So much so that they have managed, if nothing else, to disprove that hitherto modern-day observation that there is no such thing as 'bad publicity'.

It seems pretty clear from their efforts so far that, for them at least, there certainly is.

And what's more, they can't seem to stop themselves.

One might sum it up with this simple consideration?

IF the McCanns did successfully conclude all of their actions against Tony Bennett, to the point where he was put behind bars and they received yet more money into their already swollen coffers, would it convince anyone to change their opinion of them?
avatar
DIBarlow

Posts : 95
Join date : 2012-10-11

Back to top Go down

McCANN v BENNETT: Barrister's opinion: 'The poor devil is on his own'. Empty Re: McCANN v BENNETT: Barrister's opinion: 'The poor devil is on his own'.

Post by Guest on 13.10.12 9:45

@DIBarlow wrote:[...]
IF the McCanns did successfully conclude all of their actions against Tony Bennett, to the point where he was put behind bars and they received yet more money into their already swollen coffers, would it convince anyone to change their opinion of them?
***
It might change the minds of a number of fence-sitters, who wonder why such hefty action should be taken against a single person, who very publicly doesn't agree with their version of events ...
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

McCANN v BENNETT: Barrister's opinion: 'The poor devil is on his own'. Empty Re: McCANN v BENNETT: Barrister's opinion: 'The poor devil is on his own'.

Post by PeterMac on 13.10.12 10:42

Châtelaine wrote:
It might change the minds of a number of fence-sitters, who wonder why such hefty action should be taken against a single person, who very publicly doesn't agree with their version of events ...
and who is trying to find out the truth about what happened.

____________________

PeterMac
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10885
Join date : 2010-12-06

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

McCANN v BENNETT: Barrister's opinion: 'The poor devil is on his own'. Empty Re: McCANN v BENNETT: Barrister's opinion: 'The poor devil is on his own'.

Post by Guest on 13.10.12 16:45

@PeterMac wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
It might change the minds of a number of fence-sitters, who wonder why such hefty action should be taken against a single person, who very publicly doesn't agree with their version of events ...
and who is trying to find out the truth about what happened.
***
Like all of us, PeterMac, bar some fifth column ;-). But he's one of the few, who doesn't work behind a pseudonym and that makes quite a difference, as we see in this case develop. Having said that, I actually think that if this is taken indeed to a full libel trial, he stands the best of chances now to get through. I wish him every success and will help, if I can.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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