Re: COURT 14 - Mr Justice Tugendhat - 10.30am tomorrow, Tuesday 5 February

by Guest 05.02.13 17:19

Don't quite know whether I should feel honoured that JATYK2 is following this site so closely that they quoted and commented on my earlier post within minutes .... COURT 14 - Mr Justice Tugendhat - 10.30am tomorrow, Tuesday 5 February - Page 8 687583

COURT 14 - Mr Justice Tugendhat - 10.30am tomorrow, Tuesday 5 February - Page 8 687583

by Woofer 05.02.13 17:21

Fenscout wrote:Maybe I'm being a bit dense here...but why WOULD there be reporting limitations in place in a case like this?

I can only surmise it may be because the Judge thinks there`s a possibility of a future libel trial which, reporting from this case, could influence. I`m no legal expert tho`. If that is the case, it could be a positive sign.

by tiny 05.02.13 17:21

Châtelaine wrote:Don't quite know whether I should feel honoured that JATYK2 is following this site so closely that they quoted and commented on my earlier post within minutes ....

well they have sod all else to comment on,they havent got a brain between all 6 of them COURT 14 - Mr Justice Tugendhat - 10.30am tomorrow, Tuesday 5 February - Page 8 110921

COURT 14 - Mr Justice Tugendhat - 10.30am tomorrow, Tuesday 5 February - Page 8 110921

by ShuBob 05.02.13 17:21

Châtelaine wrote:I can very well imagine that it could be the case that Tony didn't want fragmented and uncontrollable information going out and am, in fact, awaiting a well composed and formulated recording of Day 1. Or maybe, we even have to wait till the end of Day 2 [if any] ...

Yes but I find it strange that fans of the McCanns are also not posting info from the court session COURT 14 - Mr Justice Tugendhat - 10.30am tomorrow, Tuesday 5 February - Page 8 172348

COURT 14 - Mr Justice Tugendhat - 10.30am tomorrow, Tuesday 5 February - Page 8 172348

by hippywippywoo 05.02.13 17:24

Maybe they have a secret section to post it in.

by Fenscout 05.02.13 17:25

Woofer wrote:
Fenscout wrote:Maybe I'm being a bit dense here...but why WOULD there be reporting limitations in place in a case like this?

I can only surmise it may be because the Judge thinks there`s a possibility of a future libel trial which, reporting from this case, could influence. I`m no legal expert tho`. If that is the case, it could be a positive sign.

I hope so !!!

by Guest 05.02.13 17:26

Fenscout wrote:Maybe I'm being a bit dense here...but why WOULD there be reporting limitations in place in a case like this?

Are there reporting limitations in place?

by ShuBob 05.02.13 17:28

hippywippywoo wrote:Maybe they have a secret section to post it in.

Good point.

I would have thought they'd be all too happy to reveal details so they can gloat......unless things didn't go well for them?

by nobodythereeither 05.02.13 17:30

ShuBob wrote:
hippywippywoo wrote:Maybe they have a secret section to post it in.

Good point.

I would have thought they'd be all too happy to reveal details so they can gloat......unless things didn't go well for them?

xxxxx

We can only hope .....

by plebgate 05.02.13 17:30

I think there must be reporting restrictions in place. The newspapers would love to be putting this on their front pages I have no doubt. One man's fight against this orrible lot. The public would be snapping the papers up and the money would be rolling in for them. Why wouldn't they report it??

by Fenscout 05.02.13 17:33

plebgate wrote:I think there must be reporting restrictions in place. The newspapers would love to be putting this on their front pages I have no doubt. One man's fight against this orrible lot. The public would be snapping the papers up and the money would be rolling in for them. Why wouldn't they report it??

Maybe they won't report it for the same reason they failed to report the suspension in the Amaral libel case..it doesn't suit the angle they want to present to the world ....we know they only print what the McCann's *spokesman* wants out there.

by Woofer 05.02.13 17:35

Gollum wrote:
Fenscout wrote:Maybe I'm being a bit dense here...but why WOULD there be reporting limitations in place in a case like this?

Are there reporting limitations in place?

No one knows has heard a thing from the proceedings so we`re just assuming.

by russiandoll 05.02.13 17:35

Hello,
Noticed you have only very recently joined and are especially interested in this trial. May I ask why you keep reminding us of what we already know, that this is a contempt of court case today?

by plebgate 05.02.13 17:37

I think the ony reason the papers print what their spokesman says is because they know that Maddie news sells papers. Any news about Maddie therefore guarantees sales for them. If they were allowed to print about Tony and Mr. A. I really do believe they would as there would be big bucks to be made. I still think there might be a super super injunction - where the papers are not even allowed to report that a super injunction is in place.

by Spaniel 05.02.13 17:45

russiandoll wrote:Hello,
Noticed you have only very recently joined and are especially interested in this trial. May I ask why you keep reminding us of what we already know, that this is a contempt of court case today?

Why ask the obvious rd? sombrero has no idea and hasn't come back to counter my post. sombrero is consulting the flatmates who couldn't give a damn as they strain the pasta.

ETA.
Yes and no, more complicated than you care to believe.
If an undertaking (promise) is made but not kept, it is in breach (breaking) the promise. When that happens before a court, It is contempt.(Scornful of the court for better words.)
This is not a straightforward CoC case as has been demonstrated by what was ruled in the past hearing. You may wish it to be so sombrero, and Adrienne Page has been drafted in to attempt it. Her brief may be, "Do not let it stray from pure contempt and the examples we gave to the court."
I have my own thoughts on why that might be so, as yet CR have no ownership of my thoughts, so I'll leave them there.
Tony was not ordered by a court, but voluntarily gave an undertaking. Fear? Duress? who knows? That is what Mr Justice Tugendhat will attempt to establish, which is why he was willing to lift a stay so Tony could answer the above. It could well follow as a full libel trial.
I don't know the finer points and nor do you.
A reply?

____________________

by Guest 05.02.13 17:49

Woofer wrote:
Gollum wrote:
Fenscout wrote:Maybe I'm being a bit dense here...but why WOULD there be reporting limitations in place in a case like this?

Are there reporting limitations in place?

No one knows has heard a thing from the proceedings so we`re just assuming.

I wasn't sure if the original poster was talking of press coverage but it would appear that is the case. It is not normal for a court case to be reported in the press unless it concerns a trial of public interest or importance, I don't think this particular case falls within either category. Forgive me if I'm wrong but I'm not aware of any press coverage leading up to today's proceedings so why should there be any coverage of the day in court? Apart from that, if the Mccanns are still in control of media coverage through Clarence Mitchell or some other media manipulator they are unlikely to want this case publicised, it only confirms what vicious mercenary guilty cads they are.

Then again, no news is goods news?

by Spaniel 05.02.13 18:12

Gollum wrote:
Woofer wrote:
Gollum wrote:
Fenscout wrote:Maybe I'm being a bit dense here...but why WOULD there be reporting limitations in place in a case like this?

Are there reporting limitations in place?

No one knows has heard a thing from the proceedings so we`re just assuming.

I wasn't sure if the original poster was talking of press coverage but it would appear that is the case. It is not normal for a court case to be reported in the press unless it concerns a trial of public interest or importance, I don't think this particular case falls within either category. Forgive me if I'm wrong but I'm not aware of any press coverage leading up to today's proceedings so why should there be any coverage of the day in court? Apart from that, if the Mccanns are still in control of media coverage through Clarence Mitchell or some other media manipulator they are unlikely to want this case publicised, it only confirms what vicious mercenary guilty cads they are.

Then again, no news is goods news?

Fully agree Gollum. I cited the Elton John v whoever as an example that these suits are an everyday occurance in their lives and we hardly get to hear of them
Just because we are interested doesn't mean it will make the front page. There might be many others going on!?

by sombrero 05.02.13 18:23

Spaniel - you don't know me and the fact that I am new
on here will make you and others suspicious. I can say I am a long time
lurker. Let me also say I want TB to win this case.

Any judge in a case like this will want TB to concentrate
on the sole issue of contempt of court. When TB posts
later I am sure he will confirm that to you.

We have heard that TB feels that he will be punished. If anyone
can research some specific case law this evening to support his case
I believe he can win this case. The Court will
need a good reason to find for TB.

by ShuBob 05.02.13 18:27

Like I said before, no point in arguing. The facts will be known soon enough.

by Spaniel 05.02.13 18:48

sombrero wrote:Spaniel - you don't know me and the fact that I am new
on here will make you and others suspicious. I can say I am a long time
lurker. Let me also say I want TB to win this case.

Any judge in a case like this will want TB to concentrate
on the sole issue of contempt of court. When TB posts
later I am sure he will confirm that to you.

We have heard that TB feels that he will be punished. If anyone
can research some specific case law this evening to support his case
I believe he can win this case. The Court will
need a good reason to find for TB.

That's the whole point sombrero, there us no precedent for this case.
I'm glad to read that you hope Tony Bennett wins this case. I have reservations, but if you like me believe in freedom of speech on the net, let us hope Tony prevails. If not, we can pack our views and go back to watching Television and the actors within. There will be no more open discussion.
Sorry, don't remember who, but a poster put up a great ref to Justice Eady who described posting as akin to mild slander in the pub.
Jusice Eady was " shut the door on the way out," as far as the press were concerned, and Tugendhat welcolmed as a moderate by them.

As for being new sombrero, believe me, I've been through it and if I dare show any sign of veering away from the adoration I'm called a friend of the McCanns. Par for the course I'm afraid, but I made no such accusation of you. Just hinted at you being a first year law student. COURT 14 - Mr Justice Tugendhat - 10.30am tomorrow, Tuesday 5 February - Page 8 110921

by Buildersbum 05.02.13 18:49

sombrero wrote:Spaniel - you don't know me and the fact that I am new
on here will make you and others suspicious. I can say I am a long time
lurker. Let me also say I want TB to win this case.

Any judge in a case like this will want TB to concentrate
on the sole issue of contempt of court. When TB posts
later I am sure he will confirm that to you.

We have heard that TB feels that he will be punished. If anyone
can research some specific case law this evening to support his case
I believe he can win this case. The Court will
need a good reason to find for TB.

I also believe Tony will win this case, simply because the judge is human and apart from the pathetic evidence, and the fact that the Mcs wheel out the lawyers and barristers the judge will see, hear and realise TB is been bullied nothing more nothing less.

Why will this judge jail Tony, a pensioner, when hearing that Gunnell lied to trick Tony....as he admitted to day in court.

by **tigger** 05.02.13 18:56

Spaniel wrote:
Gollum wrote:
Woofer wrote:
Gollum wrote:
Fenscout wrote:Maybe I'm being a bit dense here...but why WOULD there be reporting limitations in place in a case like this?

Are there reporting limitations in place?

No one knows has heard a thing from the proceedings so we`re just assuming.

I wasn't sure if the original poster was talking of press coverage but it would appear that is the case. It is not normal for a court case to be reported in the press unless it concerns a trial of public interest or importance, I don't think this particular case falls within either category. Forgive me if I'm wrong but I'm not aware of any press coverage leading up to today's proceedings so why should there be any coverage of the day in court? Apart from that, if the Mccanns are still in control of media coverage through Clarence Mitchell or some other media manipulator they are unlikely to want this case publicised, it only confirms what vicious mercenary guilty cads they are.

Then again, no news is goods news?
Fully agree Gollum. I cited the Elton John v whoever as an example that these suits are an everyday occurance in their lives and we hardly get to hear of them
Just because we are interested doesn't mean it will make the front page. There might be many others going on!?

If the McCanns sneeze we get it in the press.

Elton John's courtcase against e.g. his accountant has been widely reported and indeed anything any celebrity does is reported, perhaps not always on the front page, but reported it is. Mostly because it is NOT an everyday occurrance in their lives.
Suggesting that celebrities routinely go to court without it being reported is imo wildly inaccurate.

Consequently this case not being reported is exceptional on those grounds. It's not being reported for the same reason that nothing negative may be said about the McCanns by the press imo.

by Casey5 05.02.13 18:57

I can't believe Tony Bennett will actually be jailed. When you consider there are thieves with umpteen convictions for theft who never get jailed, just receive community service orders or fines again and again, it would make no sense to send Tony to prison.
He may well receive a hefty fine though, I hope not.

by tiny 05.02.13 19:00

Casey5 wrote:I can't believe Tony Bennett will actually be jailed. When you consider there are thieves with umpteen convictions for theft who never get jailed, just receive community service orders or fines again and again, it would make no sense to send Tony to prison.
He may well receive a hefty fine though, I hope not.

what Tony should get is a Medal,having to look at the cr bunch all day would be enough to make you want to throw up.

by **tigger** 05.02.13 19:03

Casey5 wrote:I can't believe Tony Bennett will actually be jailed. When you consider there are thieves with umpteen convictions for theft who never get jailed, just receive community service orders or fines again and again, it would make no sense to send Tony to prison.
He may well receive a hefty fine though, I hope not.

Should he get a hefty fine I'd quite like to start a collection, with explanatory leaflets for the donors (who should know what they are contributing to) and receipts given for donations.
All to be duly accounted for and published.