Re: The four top London libel lawyers now lined up to crush a pensioner from Harlow

by aiyoyo 01.02.13 17:38

Jean, dont you start?

by Guest 01.02.13 17:39

I'm on your side, Aiyoyo!

by aiyoyo 01.02.13 17:44

Jean wrote:I'm on your side, Aiyoyo!

WHAT? You said I was tempting fate? Maybe you were speaking to wrong person.

Anyhow, move on. OPTIMISM from everyone would be nice.

by Guest 01.02.13 17:50

Sorry Aiyoyo, it's a misunderstanding. I meant that your post was likely to make someone else reverse his decision not to comment any more.

It's a saying that you don't want to tempt fate by mentioning a particular subject because it's then likely to happen.

How I agree that optimism will be good.

The four top London libel lawyers now lined up to crush a pensioner from Harlow - Page 6 725573

The four top London libel lawyers now lined up to crush a pensioner from Harlow - Page 6 725573

by Guest 01.02.13 18:04

a Greek saying ; ta líga lógia záxari kai ta kathólou méli
meaning; few words only = sugar
no words at all = honey
mumm wins

parápono

by Ribisl 01.02.13 19:17

Advised Gerry and Kate McCann in relation to their libel actions against Express newspapers.

Testimonials
Named "Defamation Silk of the Year" in the Chambers & Partners Bar Awards 2010.

Recommended as a "Leading Silk" in defamation and privacy in both Chambers & Partners and Legal 500 every year since taking silk.

She has been described, in recent entries, as: a 'canny class act' … is valued for being conscientious and hard-working.

"She's very strategic, bonds well with clients and transmits her arguments to the court beautifully," say observers. Page represented Simon Singh against the British Chiropractic Association at first instance and on his successful appeal(Chambers & Partners, 2010)

http://www.5rb.com/member/Adrienne_Page%20QC

by olipet 02.02.13 13:18

I am FIRMLY supportive of TB.

However.....I totally get the last lengthy post from C.Edwards on this thread and I repeat, the last lengthy post on this thread.

The post in my opinion was sound - intelligent, polite and empathetic.

One must be tempered; to excitably and immaturely get at other posters is not proactive.

And respect is fundamental.

So, C.Edwards, your post has not been dismissed by me......and I wish TB all the good luck I can. As, I hope, you do.

If I have missed an ulterior motive or a curved throw, than that would be a real shame.

by Ribisl 02.02.13 13:45

olipet wrote:I am FIRMLY supportive of TB.
However.....I totally get the last lengthy post from C.Edwards on this thread and I repeat, the last lengthy post on this thread.
The post in my opinion was sound - intelligent, polite and empathetic.
One must be tempered; to excitably and immaturely get at other posters is not proactive.
And respect is fundamental.
So, C.Edwards, your post has not been dismissed by me......and I wish TB all the good luck I can. As, I hope, you do.
If I have missed an ulterior motive or a curved throw, than that would be a real shame.

Well said, olipet.

by mydadsanastronaut 02.02.13 13:49

Whilst I can appreciate that the case refers to an undertaking being broken, I would say that IMO Tony Bennett was led into this breach. In many ways similar figuratively to circumstances where motorists are invited to park on a piece of land, then clamped and charged for this act. Deception, from my point of view.

My thoughts about the combined might of the legal team lined up against him, are that it is an unreasonable action. It is being said that Tony has clearly breached an undertaking. Well then, if it is that clear cut a case, then surely the minimum legal team would be required to succeed in clearly demonstrating the breach. This would avoid an unnecessary financial burden on the legal costs.

However, they have effectively chosen to hire a Bentley to drive to the shops when a Fiat 500 would have done the job just as well. Why? Well we all have our own thoughts on that, I'm sure.

A rather ostentatious, meretricious decision on CR's behalf, I think.

by tiny 02.02.13 13:56

mydadsanastronaut wrote:Whilst I can appreciate that the case refers to an undertaking being broken, I would say that IMO Tony Bennett was led into this breach. In many ways similar figuratively to circumstances where motorists are invited to park on a piece of land, then clamped and charged for this act. Deception, from my point of view.

My thoughts about the combined might of the legal team lined up against him, are that it is an unreasonable action. It is being said that Tony has clearly breached an undertaking. Well then, if it is that clear cut a case, then surely the minimum legal team would be required to succeed in clearly demonstrating the breach. This would avoid an unnecessary financial burden on the legal costs.

However, they have effectively chosen to hire a Bentley to drive to the shops when a Fiat 500 would have done the job just as well. Why? Well we all have our own thoughts on that, I'm sure.

A rather ostentatious, meretricious decision on CR's behalf, I think.

agree with your post, Tony has really frightend them as like you say they hired a bentley when a fiat500 would do the job

by Guest 02.02.13 14:07

mydadsanastronaut wrote:Whilst I can appreciate that the case refers to an undertaking being broken, I would say that IMO Tony Bennett was led into this breach. In many ways similar figuratively to circumstances where motorists are invited to park on a piece of land, then clamped and charged for this act. Deception, from my point of view.

My thoughts about the combined might of the legal team lined up against him, are that it is an unreasonable action. It is being said that Tony has clearly breached an undertaking. Well then, if it is that clear cut a case, then surely the minimum legal team would be required to succeed in clearly demonstrating the breach. This would avoid an unnecessary financial burden on the legal costs.

However, they have effectively chosen to hire a Bentley to drive to the shops when a Fiat 500 would have done the job just as well. Why? Well we all have our own thoughts on that, I'm sure.

A rather ostentatious, meretricious decision on CR's behalf, I think.

The four top London libel lawyers now lined up to crush a pensioner from Harlow - Page 6 41345390

by Smokeandmirrors 02.02.13 14:09

mydadsanastronaut wrote:Whilst I can appreciate that the case refers to an undertaking being broken, I would say that IMO Tony Bennett was led into this breach. In many ways similar figuratively to circumstances where motorists are invited to park on a piece of land, then clamped and charged for this act. Deception, from my point of view.

My thoughts about the combined might of the legal team lined up against him, are that it is an unreasonable action. It is being said that Tony has clearly breached an undertaking. Well then, if it is that clear cut a case, then surely the minimum legal team would be required to succeed in clearly demonstrating the breach. This would avoid an unnecessary financial burden on the legal costs.

However, they have effectively chosen to hire a Bentley to drive to the shops when a Fiat 500 would have done the job just as well. Why? Well we all have our own thoughts on that, I'm sure.

A rather ostentatious, meretricious decision on CR's behalf, I think.

by Trainer 02.02.13 16:29

maybe team Mc had inside info that the judge would only award costs and a paltry fine, hence by using a very expensive legal team they have set their own fine on Tony.

by sallypelt 02.02.13 16:35

It's mind boggling, isn't it, that the prosecution has such big guns against a defendant, who has what he's given? whistling

by saloongirl 02.02.13 16:45

I really am at a loss to understand how Tony faces being sent to prison for "Contempt of Court", if found guilty, when other far more serious crimes often receive a far lesser penalty. For example, drink drive killers often escape jail. Of course I understand why the McCanns are pushing for imprisonment but can any judge seriously think that whatever Tony may have done warrants a jail sentance yet killing someone whilst drunk doesn't?

by Smokeandmirrors 02.02.13 16:51

saloongirl wrote:I really am at a loss to understand how Tony faces being sent to prison for "Contempt of Court", if found guilty, when other far more serious crimes often receive a far lesser penalty. For example, drink drive killers often escape jail. Of course I understand why the McCanns are pushing for imprisonment but can any judge seriously think that whatever Tony may have done warrants a jail sentance yet killing someone whilst drunk doesn't?

Excellent point made and illustrates really well how inconsistent the application of law is in our supposedly fair society. It's pretty much pot-luck these days.

by bobbin 02.02.13 17:03

Just posted this on the Elm House thread but wonder:
If Mr. Justice Eady ruled that 'threads' and such like are more like slander than libel, why have Carter Ruck's Kevin and Tracy been going through the threads, building up a dossier against Tony Bennett, passing on the charges as CR costs, towards a "libel" case ?
The four top London libel lawyers now lined up to crush a pensioner from Harlow - Page 6 Topb

Update 2009: High Court ruling on bulletin board cases

The High Court has ruled that defamation on internet bulletin boards is akin to slander rather than libel.

Mr Justice Eady hearing a case regarding posts on an investors bulletin
board (or forum) has said that such comments are not to be taken in the
same context as a formal newspaper (etc) article and are more like
slander due to the casual or conversational nature of them.

Mr Justice Eady stated that posts on bulletin boards "are
rather like contributions to a casual conversation (the analogy
sometimes being drawn with people chatting in a bar) which people
simply note before moving on; they are often uninhibited, casual and
ill thought out...Those who participate know this and expect a certain
amount of repartee or 'give and take'."

As such "When considered in the context of defamation law,
therefore, communications of this kind are much more akin to slanders
(this cause of action being nowadays relatively rare) than to the
usual, more permanent kind of communications found in libel
actions...People do not often take a 'thread' and go through it as a
whole like a newspaper article. They tend to read the remarks, make
their own contributions if they feel inclined, and think no more about
it."

The four top London libel lawyers now lined up to crush a pensioner from Harlow - Page 6 Web01

Full article [Reading Room].

by bobbin 02.02.13 17:36

just adding some more sites for reference to Mr. Justice Eady's ruling re chat forums etc.

http://www.dmhstallard.com/site/library/legalnews/freedom_expression_online.html

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080808/0222521930.shtml

http://www.healys.com/site/library/commercialclient/commerciallitigation/defamation_litigation_and_social_networking

by aiyoyo 04.02.13 2:45

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
saloongirl wrote:I really am at a loss to understand how Tony faces being sent to prison for "Contempt of Court", if found guilty, when other far more serious crimes often receive a far lesser penalty. For example, drink drive killers often escape jail. Of course I understand why the McCanns are pushing for imprisonment but can any judge seriously think that whatever Tony may have done warrants a jail sentance yet killing someone whilst drunk doesn't?

Excellent point made and illustrates really well how inconsistent the application of law is in our supposedly fair society. It's pretty much pot-luck these days.

Never in history has any body spent that level of money using a pageantry of lawyers suing somebody over a minor misdemeanor of alleged breach contention. Too many big gun used in this case would suggest whoever (Mccanns & (Co?)) is driving all these against TB because of personal vendetta over and beyond fear of their secret hence lies being exposed although the stake is v. high if the lids come off. Jmo, it is their hatred for TB that motivates this malicious suit more than anything else.

There is no way whatsoever to justify the scale of legal fees incurred ,and an array of top barristers and lawyers over something as minor as alleged contempt of court posted on a forum. We are not even talking mainstream here.
Who in their right mind monitors forum just to sue, never mind this is from a set of doctors whose priority should have been search for their missing daughter. Instead they spend their whole time and energy targeting an old age pensioner. Something just does not add up.

There is more than meet the eyes in this vicious litigation - this nasty action goes beyond silencing an old man. IMO whoever is driving this has something personal against TB and is using any excuse to destroy TB.

This is not just about unlimited financial support for the Mccanns. Even the super-rich who has money to throw and has more of that than sense just does not do thing without a selfish reason.
Mccanns vs TB case is not from the Fund or so CR said, so unless the Mccanns are dipping into their pockets (which is unlikely given the handsome sum involved - not affordable to them on Gerry's pay) it must therefore come from an anonymous supporter. It does not take a brain surgeon to work out this is what it seemed.

by cass7 04.02.13 8:58

never in legal history has there been a case like it or will ever be again -- i hope that every newspaper and sy are looking at all this bully boy tactics

by Trainer 04.02.13 9:55

so D notices shut down the "free press" reporting of all the different aspects of the case , now just close down those dam Internet bloggers, so that only the one truth the only truth the mc truth can be heard.
Home (mortgage free) and dry.
No one appears to have any real proof of anything so the whole dam thing is hear say from both sides.

D notices are secret So who knows if they really are in place ? May be the news papers are not been silenced may be they are doing a jolly good job and only reporting only the truth?

by WindsorBlue 04.02.13 22:28

I do hope the papers and other media are there to cover this

by plebgate 04.02.13 22:57

It is strange that there has not been any mention of this in any newspaper. I can't find it mentioned at all. Is there a court ruling that the case cannot be reported on by the media?

by Inspectorfrost 04.02.13 23:13

plebgate wrote:It is strange that there has not been any mention of this in any newspaper. I can't find it mentioned at all. Is there a court ruling that the case cannot be reported on by the media?

It cos the rags are scared, good job

by plebgate 04.02.13 23:18

I think there is more to it than them being scared IF. Checked out Guido Fawkes site and nothing on there either. I would have thought this would be right up his street, but not a whisper. Super injunction maybe. If so, how much would that be costing to keep in place? Loadsa money needed to keep one of those in place if indeed there is one.

The four top London libel lawyers now lined up to crush a pensioner from Harlow