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, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

Report from McCanns v Bennett 6 Feb 2013

Page 5 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Report from McCanns v Bennett 6 Feb 2013

Post by WindsorBlue on 07.02.13 10:24

@plebgate wrote:Enid O'Dowd - Judge T is aware of her assessment of the Fund. I hope and pray that the libel trial will go ahead. Sleepless nights might well be looming.

But as her rebuked that line of questioning, won't the Judge dismiss it as irrelevant and take no notice of it? Or have I been watching to many court dramas

WindsorBlue

Posts : 24
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-02-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Report from McCanns v Bennett 6 Feb 2013

Post by mydadsanastronaut on 07.02.13 10:32

@WindsorBlue wrote:
@plebgate wrote:Enid O'Dowd - Judge T is aware of her assessment of the Fund. I hope and pray that the libel trial will go ahead. Sleepless nights might well be looming.

But as her rebuked that line of questioning, won't the Judge dismiss it as irrelevant and take no notice of it? Or have I been watching to many court dramas

He may dismiss it as irrelevant to this particular decision, but he, and everyone else is aware of it now. Which is useful. It may well be particularly relevant should a full libel trial take place.

mydadsanastronaut

Posts : 94
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-03-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Report from McCanns v Bennett 6 Feb 2013

Post by WindsorBlue on 07.02.13 10:35

@mydadsanastronaut wrote:
@WindsorBlue wrote:
@plebgate wrote:Enid O'Dowd - Judge T is aware of her assessment of the Fund. I hope and pray that the libel trial will go ahead. Sleepless nights might well be looming.

But as her rebuked that line of questioning, won't the Judge dismiss it as irrelevant and take no notice of it? Or have I been watching to many court dramas

He may dismiss it as irrelevant to this particular decision, but he, and everyone else is aware of it now. Which is useful. It may well be particularly relevant should a full libel trial take place.

Okay, thank you

WindsorBlue

Posts : 24
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-02-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Report from McCanns v Bennett 6 Feb 2013

Post by aiyoyo on 07.02.13 10:45


It does not matter about if what TB said supported by documents and references is valid or not, nor does it matter whether if the Mccanns were lying or not, it
s about whether the undertakings have been breached. The law is an ass - it is not concerned with Justice - it is just the technical aspects of the law that is the arguable factor here , literally about whether the law was adhered to literally.



avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Reputation : 321
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Report from McCanns v Bennett 6 Feb 2013

Post by C.Edwards on 07.02.13 10:51

There's still an overwhelming lack of understanding on here about how contempt of court (and other legal issues) work. Particularly in civil litigation, barristers and even solicitors don't read a word unless they're being paid to do so. They ask you the questions they want answers to, that they intend using in their arguments. As the other side has to present their evidence, the barristers "earn" (ha!) their enormous fees by researching what the other side have and they build a defence (or attack) out of the presented facts. You can't suddenly pull a surprise piece of evidence out, for example, and use that in a case as it will be inadmissible. You can, in very rare circumstances, pull in late evidence but it has to be demonstrated to the court that it only just came to light and couldn't have been revealed earlier. Only in exceptional circumstances would any such evidence be allowed without the express agreement of the other side's legal team.

In Tony's case, the contempt of court is out of the hands of the McCanns' legal team. The court themselves, in theory, *could* have chosen to have a hearing even without the McCanns forcing their hand by making the application. The alleged "offence" is between the defendant and the court, it's nothing to do with the McCanns and there was no "settlement" to be had in the terms that people on here are describing. Once the application is before the court, the court alone gets to decide if the action is dropped or not. If the court is made aware that there *could* have been contempt, they are within their rights to investigate it to the fullest extent they choose. In practise, it's almost certain that the McCanns legal team could have requested the action is dropped and the court, in a case that's open for argument like this one, would almost certainly have agreed to the case being dropped, but it's important to understand that the hearing Tony just went through is for contempt of court and not contempt of the McCanns, no matter how apt that description may be to some!

Bobbin - you're entitled, of course, to your opinions. However you are missing the point in what CR did in gathering a lot of supporting evidence. In their initial submission, I will agree there was overkill in going for over a hundred examples. However, your extreme of "just one" is equally invalid for the opposite reason. "Just one breach?" the judge would say, "is that it?" "No my lord, there were tens, if not hundreds of others!" "Well, where is the evidence of these other breaches? It seems to me this could have been an accidental breach, case dismissed" and that would be that. They had to demonstrate that, in their opinion, there were multiple and therefore deliberate breaches. The whole issue at the centre of contempt is, "was it deliberate?" and hence you can understand Tony's use of saying he hadn't deliberately intended to do whatever it was they were accusing him of.

What Justice Tugendhat will be doing is working through the evidence presented and deciding if there has been a deliberate breach. As you say, there only has to be one for the offence to be technically proven. However if they only prove one out of many, then it will weaken the severity of any punishment may be. IF he finds there was contempt, Tony will be given the chance to mitigate his offence. However this still does not allow an argument of "everyone else was doing it" as not everyone else signed the undertaking that Tony did. In AP stating the McCanns did not want him imprisoned she's covering the bases as she knows public opinion would likely be against such an action. I think it's HIGHLY unlikely that Tony would be jailed for this anyway as it's not a severe enough offence, but he will have to be punished in some way and that will almost inevitably be a fine and costs. It will have to be a significant fine too as otherwise it would make something of a mockery of the seriousness of contempt of court, so put away any notions of the allegorical "1p fine" that gets bandied about from time to time.

As to costs, Justice T will decide what are reasonable costs in the circumstances and will doubtless wipe out huge amounts of the stated costs because of the waste of time in gathering "too much" evidence and, arguably, being over-represented. As you say, it's overkill and won't be allowed for in a costs award. It's almost inevitable, however, that there will be a costs award in the event Tony is found to be in contempt as that's just how the system works. It will be awarded based on what is considered to be reasonable for the circumstances and that's a complex calculation done behind the scenes by the judges and the clerks.

I think there is a chance that CR may allow for a reduction in costs (they cannot influence any fine in the event of a guilty verdict) if Tony agrees to an injunction in place of the undertaking as that has more teeth. A bargaining chip of sorts that puts him much more where they want him. As Tony has referenced before, this is a real battle that the McCanns have picked with him.

Having said all that, based on what Justice T has said before, I think there's a strong chance he will suspend judgment or execution of judgment until after the application to lift the stay. If that application fails, Tony will get hit with whatever is waiting. If that succeeds, the libel trial will be on and we'll be back into a (significant) waiting game. Do not think that this means the McCanns will cave in though, as they don't want to appear in court. In the UK the onus is on the defendant in the libel trial and even though Tony now has the 2010 "honest comment" case to reference, it will be a very hard case to prove as "suspicions" don't amount to proof in libel trials. I think it's reckless to continue egging Tony on to a full libel trial as it has massive implications for him and it's very easy to sit here several parts disconnected and scream encouragement as it's not your neck on the line. I don't think there's any (further) harm in him proceeding with the application to lift the stay at this point as it may be relevant to any punishment in the contempt case, but the full libel trial is a whole new can of worms. Big, lively worms at that. It will take years to go to court to even if the libel trial is on, so don't expect resolution any time soon.



C.Edwards

Posts : 144
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2011-05-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Report from McCanns v Bennett 6 Feb 2013

Post by david_uk on 07.02.13 11:01

@C.Edwards wrote:There's still an overwhelming lack of understanding on here about how contempt of court (and other legal issues) work. Particularly in civil litigation, barristers and even solicitors don't read a word unless they're being paid to do so. They ask you the questions they want answers to, that they intend using in their arguments. As the other side has to present their evidence, the barristers "earn" (ha!) their enormous fees by researching what the other side have and they build a defence (or attack) out of the presented facts. You can't suddenly pull a surprise piece of evidence out, for example, and use that in a case as it will be inadmissible. You can, in very rare circumstances, pull in late evidence but it has to be demonstrated to the court that it only just came to light and couldn't have been revealed earlier. Only in exceptional circumstances would any such evidence be allowed without the express agreement of the other side's legal team.

In Tony's case, the contempt of court is out of the hands of the McCanns' legal team. The court themselves, in theory, *could* have chosen to have a hearing even without the McCanns forcing their hand by making the application. The alleged "offence" is between the defendant and the court, it's nothing to do with the McCanns and there was no "settlement" to be had in the terms that people on here are describing. Once the application is before the court, the court alone gets to decide if the action is dropped or not. If the court is made aware that there *could* have been contempt, they are within their rights to investigate it to the fullest extent they choose. In practise, it's almost certain that the McCanns legal team could have requested the action is dropped and the court, in a case that's open for argument like this one, would almost certainly have agreed to the case being dropped, but it's important to understand that the hearing Tony just went through is for contempt of court and not contempt of the McCanns, no matter how apt that description may be to some!

Bobbin - you're entitled, of course, to your opinions. However you are missing the point in what CR did in gathering a lot of supporting evidence. In their initial submission, I will agree there was overkill in going for over a hundred examples. However, your extreme of "just one" is equally invalid for the opposite reason. "Just one breach?" the judge would say, "is that it?" "No my lord, there were tens, if not hundreds of others!" "Well, where is the evidence of these other breaches? It seems to me this could have been an accidental breach, case dismissed" and that would be that. They had to demonstrate that, in their opinion, there were multiple and therefore deliberate breaches. The whole issue at the centre of contempt is, "was it deliberate?" and hence you can understand Tony's use of saying he hadn't deliberately intended to do whatever it was they were accusing him of.

What Justice Tugendhat will be doing is working through the evidence presented and deciding if there has been a deliberate breach. As you say, there only has to be one for the offence to be technically proven. However if they only prove one out of many, then it will weaken the severity of any punishment may be. IF he finds there was contempt, Tony will be given the chance to mitigate his offence. However this still does not allow an argument of "everyone else was doing it" as not everyone else signed the undertaking that Tony did. In AP stating the McCanns did not want him imprisoned she's covering the bases as she knows public opinion would likely be against such an action. I think it's HIGHLY unlikely that Tony would be jailed for this anyway as it's not a severe enough offence, but he will have to be punished in some way and that will almost inevitably be a fine and costs. It will have to be a significant fine too as otherwise it would make something of a mockery of the seriousness of contempt of court, so put away any notions of the allegorical "1p fine" that gets bandied about from time to time.

As to costs, Justice T will decide what are reasonable costs in the circumstances and will doubtless wipe out huge amounts of the stated costs because of the waste of time in gathering "too much" evidence and, arguably, being over-represented. As you say, it's overkill and won't be allowed for in a costs award. It's almost inevitable, however, that there will be a costs award in the event Tony is found to be in contempt as that's just how the system works. It will be awarded based on what is considered to be reasonable for the circumstances and that's a complex calculation done behind the scenes by the judges and the clerks.

I think there is a chance that CR may allow for a reduction in costs (they cannot influence any fine in the event of a guilty verdict) if Tony agrees to an injunction in place of the undertaking as that has more teeth. A bargaining chip of sorts that puts him much more where they want him. As Tony has referenced before, this is a real battle that the McCanns have picked with him.

Having said all that, based on what Justice T has said before, I think there's a strong chance he will suspend judgment or execution of judgment until after the application to lift the stay. If that application fails, Tony will get hit with whatever is waiting. If that succeeds, the libel trial will be on and we'll be back into a (significant) waiting game. Do not think that this means the McCanns will cave in though, as they don't want to appear in court. In the UK the onus is on the defendant in the libel trial and even though Tony now has the 2010 "honest comment" case to reference, it will be a very hard case to prove as "suspicions" don't amount to proof in libel trials. I think it's reckless to continue egging Tony on to a full libel trial as it has massive implications for him and it's very easy to sit here several parts disconnected and scream encouragement as it's not your neck on the line. I don't think there's any (further) harm in him proceeding with the application to lift the stay at this point as it may be relevant to any punishment in the contempt case, but the full libel trial is a whole new can of worms. Big, lively worms at that. It will take years to go to court to even if the libel trial is on, so don't expect resolution any time soon.



Another sensible level headed post Edwards! cheers for the info thumbsup

____________________
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave...when first we practice to deceive.”
Walter Scott, Marmion
avatar
david_uk

Posts : 320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-01-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Report from McCanns v Bennett 6 Feb 2013

Post by aiyoyo on 07.02.13 11:09

@sombrero wrote:The decision by AP in closing to say "no jail" could have been under instructions or could have been AP "thinking on her feet". There is no certainty either way from what I have read of the reports. If AP felt there was no chance of the Judge giving jail time to AB then she may as was well make that concession in her closing. She led the case and she has the experience to advise.

Yeap, making it seems as if it was their idea to let TB off lightly, when in fact she must have gauged during the course of the process that the Judge is unlikely to want to impose the kind of punishment they sought. Every lawyer,good or bad, would at the very least know how to read the situation when summing up thinking on their feet.
avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Reputation : 321
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Report from McCanns v Bennett 6 Feb 2013

Post by garfy on 07.02.13 11:19

@Inspectorfrost wrote:
@stargazer59 wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
@AskTheDogsSandra wrote:
@russiandoll wrote:can someone please tell me what this is all about, a brief interview with TB outside court.

http://t.co/eg2WNXqg

It's Tony saying that he's giving up his campaign.

Yes, I have just watched it, rather shocked.

Is it just me who is not shocked?

He could say nothing else, he had just left court and is waiting on a ruling, he could not repeat the things he has been rebuked for. If he'd said i will continue the Judge would not have been at all happy.

Poor man is exhausted and drained, good luck to him i say he did Madeleine proud.

Ditto!!!

He has worked tirelessly for years and had to put up with this crap, wouldnt blame him if he sat back now.


tony thank you...where do you start to give you the praise you so much deserve ...for all you have done ..and then have to end up suffering like this...when all you wanted like so many of us to get to the truth..
i have done over the years ...the best i could possibly do ...alert people to web pages bought your books dished out leaflets ..have shown my lack/zero of any sympathy for the mccs often going above and beyond of what i think of them ..[they always brought the worst out in me]...an like many others took a lot of terrible verbal/posts abuse from the so called pro mccs....but like many others ..did it behind an avatar and computer screen [but i always stood by what i said and posted and still do]
butt you put everything on the line-you did every thing you could ...not behind an aviator/computer because you had the power and used it ...
you did look so alone on the clip ...but at the end of the day even though you had so much support ....you were alone ...you would face any punishment alone [prison your family suffering]...and all we could give you was support ...that is not enough now ...
to finally get to my point ...it may now be time to step right back you can only do so much ...and you have well exceeded that...you are now a target ...i so so hope the outcome of this will be the best one possible ...the one you so deserve.....and you can give up your campaign with your head held high

you have done maddie proud....you cared ...relax enjoy your well deserved break....xx
avatar
garfy

Posts : 160
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2010-07-08
Location : humberside

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Report from McCanns v Bennett 6 Feb 2013

Post by Woofer on 07.02.13 11:23

C. E - " I think it's reckless to continue egging Tony on to a full libel trial as it has massive implications for him and it's very easy to sit here several parts disconnected and scream encouragement as it's not your neck on the line. I don't think there's any (further) harm in him proceeding with the application to lift the stay at this point as it may be relevant to any punishment in the contempt case, but the full libel trial is a whole new can of worms. Big, lively worms at that. It will take years to go to court to even if the libel trial is on, so don't expect resolution any time soon."


Tend to agree with this CE (and thanks for some objective clarity). I know we all want the truth to be exposed, but I do care that it will be at the expense of Tony`s health and home.

____________________
The constant assertion of belief is an indication of fear - Jiddu Krishnamurti
avatar
Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Report from McCanns v Bennett 6 Feb 2013

Post by sombrero on 07.02.13 12:32

C Edwards - Well done for the best commentary of the proceedings and your view on the situation. I had a friend in Court who agrees 100% with what you have said.

sombrero

Posts : 37
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-01-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Report from McCanns v Bennett 6 Feb 2013

Post by cass7 on 07.02.13 12:39

@garfy wrote:
@Inspectorfrost wrote:
@stargazer59 wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
@AskTheDogsSandra wrote:
@russiandoll wrote:can someone please tell me what this is all about, a brief interview with TB outside court.

http://t.co/eg2WNXqg

It's Tony saying that he's giving up his campaign.

Yes, I have just watched it, rather shocked.

Is it just me who is not shocked?

He could say nothing else, he had just left court and is waiting on a ruling, he could not repeat the things he has been rebuked for. If he'd said i will continue the Judge would not have been at all happy.

Poor man is exhausted and drained, good luck to him i say he did Madeleine proud.

Ditto!!!

He has worked tirelessly for years and had to put up with this crap, wouldnt blame him if he sat back now.


tony thank you...where do you start to give you the praise you so much deserve ...for all you have done ..and then have to end up suffering like this...when all you wanted like so many of us to get to the truth..
i have done over the years ...the best i could possibly do ...alert people to web pages bought your books dished out leaflets ..have shown my lack/zero of any sympathy for the mccs often going above and beyond of what i think of them ..[they always brought the worst out in me]...an like many others took a lot of terrible verbal/posts abuse from the so called pro mccs....but like many others ..did it behind an avatar and computer screen [but i always stood by what i said and posted and still do]
butt you put everything on the line-you did every thing you could ...not behind an aviator/computer because you had the power and used it ...
you did look so alone on the clip ...but at the end of the day even though you had so much support ....you were alone ...you would face any punishment alone [prison your family suffering]...and all we could give you was support ...that is not enough now ...
to finally get to my point ...it may now be time to step right back you can only do so much ...and you have well exceeded that...you are now a target ...i so so hope the outcome of this will be the best one possible ...the one you so deserve.....and you can give up your campaign with your head held high

you have done maddie proud....you cared ...relax enjoy your well deserved break....xx
well said garfy thumbup like you i have abuse thrown at me over the years -- but i can turn my comp off and go back another day -- i think tony has gone beyond trying to get justice -- i still have my beliefs and always will -- but would i have the courage to put my home and my familys needs at contunued risk no -- and tbh if everyone thought about it not many would -- well done tony and thankyou --true gentleman
avatar
cass7

Posts : 137
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Report from McCanns v Bennett 6 Feb 2013

Post by Guest on 07.02.13 12:54

@Woofer wrote:C. E - " I think it's reckless to continue egging Tony on to a full libel trial as it has massive implications for him and it's very easy to sit here several parts disconnected and scream encouragement as it's not your neck on the line. I don't think there's any (further) harm in him proceeding with the application to lift the stay at this point as it may be relevant to any punishment in the contempt case, but the full libel trial is a whole new can of worms. Big, lively worms at that. It will take years to go to court to even if the libel trial is on, so don't expect resolution any time soon."


Tend to agree with this CE (and thanks for some objective clarity). I know we all want the truth to be exposed, but I do care that it will be at the expense of Tony`s health and home.

I think you'll find that Tony makes up his own mind and would not be persuaded by anyone "egging him on".
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Report from McCanns v Bennett 6 Feb 2013

Post by bobbin on 07.02.13 13:00

@admin wrote:
@Woofer wrote:C. E - " I think it's reckless to continue egging Tony on to a full libel trial as it has massive implications for him and it's very easy to sit here several parts disconnected and scream encouragement as it's not your neck on the line. I don't think there's any (further) harm in him proceeding with the application to lift the stay at this point as it may be relevant to any punishment in the contempt case, but the full libel trial is a whole new can of worms. Big, lively worms at that. It will take years to go to court to even if the libel trial is on, so don't expect resolution any time soon."


Tend to agree with this CE (and thanks for some objective clarity). I know we all want the truth to be exposed, but I do care that it will be at the expense of Tony`s health and home.

I think you'll find that Tony makes up his own mind and would not be persuaded by anyone "egging him on".


bobbin

Posts : 2052
Reputation : 142
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Report from McCanns v Bennett 6 Feb 2013

Post by lj on 07.02.13 13:06

candyfloss wrote:
@Shibboleth wrote:
"My Lord, my clients wish to make clear in the light of press reports today that they do not wish for Mr Bennett to be sent to prison, nor do they want to punish him in any way; all they want to do is to ensure that he stops what he has been doing".
What does this mean?
Is it the reporting in the newspapers today, of the trial, that makes the McCann change have a change of heart. They no longer wish to see Tony in prison, he should only be scolded and sent away. This must be a very important and powerful press report, to make such a change of McCann tactic.
Where can we read such a wonderful piece of writing? The only reports I have read today, have all been very small, just with facts of the trial. I must have missed the really important reports.
I think they are referring to this headline from the Daily Star............
MADELEINE MCCANN PARENTS WANT JAIL FOR EX-SOLICITOR'S ‘SLUR’
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/297163/Madeleine-McCann-parents-want-jail-for-ex-solicitor-s-slur-/

Can't be repeated enough. Yes that's what they want, not finding Madeleine, not working for missing children,. They want Tony in jail, Dr Amaral too, plus some more serious problems, and attention, a lot of ATTENTION.


oh and Money

____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

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

Posts : 3322
Reputation : 196
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Report from McCanns v Bennett 6 Feb 2013

Post by MaryB on 07.02.13 13:43

I explained the situation to a person who had little interest in this case and asked their opinion as to why sudden change of mind over prison sentence. They said it was because the McCanns were afraid of losing public sympathy if somebody went to prison over this. But that is probably the effect it would have. Why would somebody spend £260,000 trying to get somebody sent to prison and then change their minds and say that isn't what they wanted. Was it mentioned in the actual court application. I think it was but not sure.
avatar
MaryB

Posts : 204
Reputation : 45
Join date : 2009-11-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Report from McCanns v Bennett 6 Feb 2013

Post by Woofer on 07.02.13 13:44

@admin wrote:
@Woofer wrote:C. E - " I think it's reckless to continue egging Tony on to a full libel trial as it has massive implications for him and it's very easy to sit here several parts disconnected and scream encouragement as it's not your neck on the line. I don't think there's any (further) harm in him proceeding with the application to lift the stay at this point as it may be relevant to any punishment in the contempt case, but the full libel trial is a whole new can of worms. Big, lively worms at that. It will take years to go to court to even if the libel trial is on, so don't expect resolution any time soon."


Tend to agree with this CE (and thanks for some objective clarity). I know we all want the truth to be exposed, but I do care that it will be at the expense of Tony`s health and home.

I think you'll find that Tony makes up his own mind and would not be persuaded by anyone "egging him on".

Yes, you`re right thank goodness. Just worried about his health.

____________________
The constant assertion of belief is an indication of fear - Jiddu Krishnamurti
avatar
Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Report from McCanns v Bennett 6 Feb 2013

Post by david_uk on 07.02.13 14:10

@sombrero wrote:C Edwards - Well done for the best commentary of the proceedings and your view on the situation. I had a friend in Court who agrees 100% with what you have said.

C Edwards has been banned. banghead dontgetit

____________________
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave...when first we practice to deceive.”
Walter Scott, Marmion
avatar
david_uk

Posts : 320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-01-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Report from McCanns v Bennett 6 Feb 2013

Post by Olive_Boyle on 07.02.13 15:56

@david_uk wrote:
@sombrero wrote:C Edwards - Well done for the best commentary of the proceedings and your view on the situation. I had a friend in Court who agrees 100% with what you have said.

C Edwards has been banned.

That is a shame, I enjoyed reading their posts.

Olive_Boyle

Posts : 122
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2012-05-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Report from McCanns v Bennett 6 Feb 2013

Post by ShuBob on 07.02.13 16:03

@david_uk wrote:
@sombrero wrote:C Edwards - Well done for the best commentary of the proceedings and your view on the situation. I had a friend in Court who agrees 100% with what you have said.

C Edwards has been banned.

S/he has?

ShuBob

Posts : 1896
Reputation : 67
Join date : 2012-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Report from McCanns v Bennett 6 Feb 2013

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 07.02.13 16:09

If someone addresses a first time poster in the way that was done, i.e. unacceptably sarcastic, they've pretty much decided for themselves that their time is up!


____________________
The truth will out.
avatar
Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 8
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Report from McCanns v Bennett 6 Feb 2013

Post by Guest on 07.02.13 16:12

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:If someone addresses a first time poster in the way that was done, i.e. unacceptably sarcastic, they've pretty much decided for themselves that their time is up!


C.Edwards did make some valid points, but had been warned about repeating those points over and over. The sarcastic post was the last straw, there was no need for it.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Report from McCanns v Bennett 6 Feb 2013

Post by aiyoyo on 07.02.13 17:04

@MaryB wrote:I explained the situation to a person who had little interest in this case and asked their opinion as to why sudden change of mind over prison sentence. They said it was because the McCanns were afraid of losing public sympathy if somebody went to prison over this. But that is probably the effect it would have. Why would somebody spend £260,000 trying to get somebody sent to prison and then change their minds and say that isn't what they wanted. Was it mentioned in the actual court application. I think it was but not sure.


Well, it must be stated in the initial dispatch to TB, else how did he learn of it? The committal to prison if that is what you are asking.

It is not up to the pair of lying doctors what punishment should be melted out. That is the purview of the Judge.
The mccanns might have applied for that hoping to frighten TB into giving up.
They did not reckon he would persevere all the way to Court.
Most of all, I think they least expected TB to support his arguments so brilliantly with references and documents during the back forth exchanges of documents with CR and always cc to Court, that they panicked when they realised their bunch of big guns is just an incompetent lot and no match for TB, hence the roping in last min of the Silk to troubleshoot.

Of course they'd to U-turn when they realised things are not all smooth for them in Court, especially when their lawyer Isabel whatever her other name is was caught out lying on oath. So might was well make it appears as if they didnt really want him to be imprisoned, just for him to desist. That must have made them look excessively stupid to the Judge because if they had simply wanted him to desist why expend so much time energy and such an astronomical cost just for something as simple as that. When they could have sent him a warning letter to cease and desist which should suffice, and if not, then to ask the Court to intervene, without all these unnecessary chucking up of the costs by having Isabel whatever scanned the forum, imo set entrapment for him etc etc, back forth of truckload full of documents, and last min hire of Silk so on and so forth.

I hope the Judge sets aside the judgement, while at the same time order a lift of stay of libel for a fast-track trial because the extraordinary circumstances of this unprecedented case justifies it, without TB having to apply for the undertakings to be revoked or varied, and be subjected to the long drawn out process again.
avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Reputation : 321
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Report from McCanns v Bennett 6 Feb 2013

Post by Guest on 07.02.13 17:19

candyfloss wrote:
@Smokeandmirrors wrote:If someone addresses a first time poster in the way that was done, i.e. unacceptably sarcastic, they've pretty much decided for themselves that their time is up!


C.Edwards did make some valid points, but had been warned about repeating those points over and over. The sarcastic post was the last straw, there was no need for it.
***
I thought I recognised the "style" of writing, as well as a thorough knowledge of the law, especially in this case, as well as also spells of bad temper and feelings of superiority
Anyway, they've gone to MM to wine ...

ETA
sorry, that should have been whine ...
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Report from McCanns v Bennett 6 Feb 2013

Post by aiyoyo on 07.02.13 17:24

She did gain some admirers (not many, just a few) and was chuffed about it.
avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Reputation : 321
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Report from McCanns v Bennett 6 Feb 2013

Post by Guest on 07.02.13 17:29

@aiyoyo wrote:She did gain some admirers (not many, just a few) and was chuffed about it.
***
A SHE? You may be thinking about the same person ...
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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