COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

ShabbyTiger wrote:The harrassment complaint can still be revived.

candyfloss wrote:You have stated your opinion Shabby Tiger, and your questions, which Tony has answered fully, now give it a rest please. It is now getting boring.

candyfloss wrote:

ShabbyTiger wrote:

ShuBob wrote:
So what do you suggest will do the trick? Beat him into submission with your labourious posts? Please show some consideration to the rest of us posters.

Just stating my opinion, so please show some consideration for posters who may have an opnion may differ from yours.

You are not showing consideration to other posters by harping on and on on the same subject. We heard you first time, no need to keep repeating yourself. Any more posts like that and they will be deleted, you can't say you weren't allowed to make your point, so please give it a rest.

candyfloss wrote:



Tony has been here since Day 1 when the forum began, far from being ruined it has gone from strength to strength in the last 3 years with over 2,000 members and more joining daily.

Yes, I'm glad you agree, this is a good forum, opinions are allowed and nothing gets deleted unless it is disruptive, attacking other members, libellous, or being generally abusive.

"The Blacksmith Bureau

Friday, 11 January 2013
Please Question Us! Part Two

pigs

Tapas 7 seen volunteering to return to Portugal

Winners or Dreadful Losers?

....The McCanns: failed to demonstrate their innocence, according to the official summary report. The Seven: failed to assist for "unknown reasons" according to the official summary report. It seems incredible that nine adults should be content to have their reputations sullied for the rest of their lives by these official conclusions. That is the legacy of condemnation and suspicion they are going to leave their children."

As pointed out earlier in this piece, the explanation for non co-operation which resulted in the shelving of an incomplete invistigation, that the Portuguese were allegedly out to get the McCanns is difficult to accept as legitimate, because in so doing these 9 adults could not have been unaware they were effectively leaving a little child to her fate. In reaching the decision to refuse the PJ's request they would also have been able to grasp that attempting to run an investigation of their own, however well resourced would never be able to replace an official police investigation into finding out what had happened to the child. The years which have elapsed have proved that this was indeed a false step as the case remains as usolved today as it then was.

Supporters of the couple seem to have accepted that the McCann's had to free themselves of the official investigation which, logically and naturally had to scrutinise the behaviour and actions of the T9 and the parents in particular, so the McCann's could continue searching for their daughter and if this meant shutting the PJ investigation down then so be it for the greater good. However, this all this "searching" and publicity campaigning has, as would have been entirely expected, proven to be no substitute whatever for an official police investigation. It is hard to reach any other conclusion than that the parents (and child) are in fact dreadful losers in this instance, not winners or to understand how, having made such flawed decisions resulting in such consequences, the parents seem able to blandly undertake the rounds of interviews they do when this festers beneath.

david_uk wrote:I still disagree with anyone being banned for being a little annoying! they still had some points to make? just badly.

candyfloss wrote:

david_uk wrote:I still disagree with anyone being banned for being a little annoying! they still had some points to make? just badly.

Really? So if you repeated your above sentence over and over, on different threads, and were asked not to on 3 occasions as you had made your point, you think that is ok? Well, members here didn't, and neither did I or admin!

Jean wrote: candyfloss.

The running off to the Madeleine Madeleine site to tell tales was the icing on the cake!

"It's SO unfair!" as Harry Enfield's character Kevin the Teenager would say.

admin wrote:Why do some people go running off to various forums bleating about freedom of speech when they know Tony is facing prison and Carter Ruck are breathing down our necks?

david_uk wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

david_uk wrote:I still disagree with anyone being banned for being a little annoying! they still had some points to make? just badly.

Really? So if you repeated your above sentence over and over, on different threads, and were asked not to on 3 occasions as you had made your point, you think that is ok? Well, members here didn't, and neither did I or admin!

I still disagree with anyone being banned for being a little annoying! they still had some points to make? just badly
I still disagree with anyone being banned for being a little annoying! they still had some points to make? just badly

Just kidding. But seriously, I think a little patience, and maybe deleting repeated posts? instead of full on banning!. it was interesting to have the other sides input. It feels like any opposition eventually gets banned for speaking their mind, especially if TB is the topic of discussion. Just this lurkers opinion.

admin wrote:

Jean wrote: candyfloss.

The running off to the Madeleine Madeleine site to tell tales was the icing on the cake!

"It's SO unfair!" as Harry Enfield's character Kevin the Teenager would say.

Why do some people go running off to various forums bleating about freedom of speech when they know Tony is facing prison and Carter Ruck are breathing down our necks?

bristow wrote:I have been scrolling through a number of threads trying to find the full address and times of the court hearing as I hopefully will be attending, would someone mind posting it for me please.

* The hearing is at the Royal Court of Justice, The Strand

* To find out where the case is to be heard, report to reception (just after you've cleared security) or check the noticeboards just behind reception

* The case is in open court. Anyone can attend

* Mobile 'phones, blackberries, smartphones and laptops are all ALLOWED within the Court precincts. In the Court room itself, mobile 'phones and anything esle with a ringtone must be switched off. No audio or visual recording may be made of the proceedings. Laptops are normally allowed and may be used in Court although the judge has discretion to refuse that depending on the circumstances

* Lunch break is normally 1pm to 2pm, courts normally rise at 4.30pm

* There are various cafes around. I hope to meet with known supporters for breakfast at around 9am on the first day of the trial, for more details of the vensue please contact me by e-mail or 'phone below.

FINALLY, at the last hearing, the eight people who kindly came to support me behaved impeccably, which is as it should be. The only person who misbehaved in Court was McCann-supporter Justine Spencer who was reprimanded by Mr Justice Tugendhat for using her rmobile 'phone. The rule is: keep quiet, no talking or whispering, no tut-tutting of other audible gasps or sounds

candyfloss wrote:Here bristow, the first post on the thread.......

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t6355-letter-25-jan-2013-to-carter-ruck-and-the-court-about-that-proposed-settlement-with-dr-amaral-is-this-now-an-abuse-of-process