Re: Can Tannerman sue ?

by jeanmonroe 04.12.13 13:52

Curious_Bystander wrote:
tigger wrote:
dantezebu wrote:
tigger wrote:

dantezebu

We haven't heard anymore about the MCs asking for assistante status.
I wonder what happened to that.
Yes, that seems to be off the menu at the moment.

As for the silence of the T7: have alook at the rogatory of Diane Webster, near the end - I'm interpreting it that even if they'd wanted to talk, they couldn't.
Did you mean this?
"You also, when we spoke earlier, expressed a sense of frustration about the fact that you’d all been banned by the Super (inaudible).”
I missed that before
Vell, you know ze word - you may not say it, you must not even zink it!
It was Aquila who pointed it out to me.
I am trying to work out exactly what this means. It looks as though it point to gagging by the police (Super intendent(?)). Any other suggestions?

In its purest form, a ‘super-injunction’ refers to a legal gagging order which not only prevents the media from reporting the details of a story, but also forbids mention of the existence of the injunction itself.

winkwink

ETA:
The phrase ‘super-injunction’ was coined by The Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger, after the paper was prohibited from reporting the contents of an internal report by oil trader Trafigura into the alleged dumping of toxic waste.

The existence of the super-injunction was exposed when it was referred to in a parliamentary question; the principle of parliamentary privilege allows MPs to speak freely without fear of being prosecuted for contempt of court.

While newspapers refrained from reporting the question, Twitter users picked up on the story and eventually Trafigura’s legal firm Carter-Ruck withdrew its opposition to the reporting of proceedings.
.................................................................................................

You've heard of a certain law firm called Carter F*ck, representing the McCanns, haven't you?

So probably not Super.........intendent!

by Curious_Bystander 04.12.13 14:03

jeanmonroe wrote:
Curious_Bystander wrote:
tigger wrote:
dantezebu wrote:
tigger wrote:

dantezebu

We haven't heard anymore about the MCs asking for assistante status.
I wonder what happened to that.
Yes, that seems to be off the menu at the moment.

As for the silence of the T7: have alook at the rogatory of Diane Webster, near the end - I'm interpreting it that even if they'd wanted to talk, they couldn't.
Did you mean this?
"You also, when we spoke earlier, expressed a sense of frustration about the fact that you’d all been banned by the Super (inaudible).”
I missed that before
Vell, you know ze word - you may not say it, you must not even zink it!
It was Aquila who pointed it out to me.
I am trying to work out exactly what this means. It looks as though it point to gagging by the police (Super intendent(?)). Any other suggestions?
In its purest form, a ‘super-injunction’ refers to a legal gagging order which not only prevents the media from reporting the details of a story, but also forbids mention of the existence of the injunction itself.

ETA:
The phrase ‘super-injunction’ was coined by The Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger, after the paper was prohibited from reporting the contents of an internal report by oil trader Trafigura into the alleged dumping of toxic waste.

The existence of the super-injunction was exposed when it was referred to in a parliamentary question; the principle of parliamentary privilege allows MPs to speak freely without fear of being prosecuted for contempt of court.

While newspapers refrained from reporting the question, Twitter users picked up on the story and eventually Trafigura’s legal firm Carter-Ruck withdrew its opposition to the reporting of proceedings.
.................................................................................................

You've heard of a certain law firm called Carter F*ck, representing the McCanns, haven't you?

So probably not Super.........intendent!

Thanks for your input Jean - very interesting indeed. I am familiar with the Trafigura case and 'super-injunctions'. The reason I cannot place this, though, is that it would be a massive red flag if the friends/acquaintances of G&K were subject to a 'super-injunction' - not withstanding the fact that it would seen as overtly 'harming the search'.

Presumably, there would be no public record of any such injunction - in this case, how can we be sure that it is?

by aiyoyo 04.12.13 14:04

PeterMac wrote:[
And since then the Paypal / gimme money / donate page has been frozen, and there has been no update, so far as I can see on the website.
Not even Tannerman has been removed.
CM has been ludicrously silent
There have been no further Cocoanut collectors, swarthy Scandinavians with blond hair, nor partridges in Pear Trees.

Maybe they're hiding their money, anticipating to lose the libel, afraid they may be countersued.

by Guest 04.12.13 14:29

I never realised that from diane websters ri.

If the next word is what I think it is I am shocked and things start to add up that noone has spoken out.

by ultimaThule 04.12.13 14:30

Superinjunction.

Why would a court ban any/all of the Tapas 7 speaking publicly about the events of the night of 3 May 2007 unless, of course, they were parties to an application which, among other things, sought to bar the press from harassing them by repeated phone calls or doorstepping them at their homes/places of work or causing them potential risk of financial or physical harm from any adverse publicity caused by speculation about their possible involvement in Madeleine's disappearance, in which case any such injunction may have been won at the cost of them being able to speak freely about their Portuguese holiday with the McCanns...

If this should be the case, it explains a lot and may link to something I came across in the libel trial transcripts..

The sound of pennies dropping is defeaning and is further confirmation of what I have long suspected, which is that the wee one cannot resist any opportunity to show off (what he believes is) his superior intellect and this has caused him to reveal the truth on occasions too numerous to mention - either unwittingly because he's nowhere near as clever as he thinks he is or, albeit disguised by some subterfuge or other, deliberately so he can relish sniggering at the stupidity of others when congratulating himself on his brilliant 'performance'.

< heads off to ukjusticeforum to peruse transcripts >

by Curious_Bystander 04.12.13 14:42

ultimaThule wrote:Superinjunction.

Why would a court ban any/all of the Tapas 7 speaking publicly about the events of the night of 3 May 2007 unless, of course, they were parties to an application which, among other things, sought to bar the press from harassing them by repeated phone calls or doorstepping them at their homes/places of work or causing them potential risk of financial or physical harm from any adverse publicity caused by speculation about their possible involvement in Madeleine's disappearance, in which case any such injunction may have been won at the cost of them being able to speak freely about their Portuguese holiday with the McCanns...

If this should be the case, it explains a lot and may link to something I came across in the libel trial transcripts..

The sound of pennies dropping is defeaning and is further confirmation of what I have long suspected, which is that the wee one cannot resist any opportunity to show off (what he believes is) his superior intellect and this has caused him to reveal the truth on occasions too numerous to mention - either unwittingly because he's nowhere near as clever as he thinks he is or, albeit disguised by some subterfuge or other, deliberately so he can relish sniggeing at the stupidity of others when congratulating himself on his brilliant 'performance'.

< heads off to ukjusticeforum to peruse transcripts >

I look forward to your display of the pennies, when you have picked them up :)

by Veritas 04.12.13 14:44

ultimaThule wrote:Superinjunction.

Why would a court ban any/all of the Tapas 7 speaking publicly about the events of the night of 3 May 2007 unless, of course, they were parties to an application which, among other things, sought to bar the press from harassing them by repeated phone calls or doorstepping them at their homes/places of work or causing them potential risk of financial or physical harm from any adverse publicity caused by speculation about their possible involvement in Madeleine's disappearance, in which case any such injunction may have been won at the cost of them being able to speak freely about their Portuguese holiday with the McCanns...

If this should be the case, it explains a lot and may link to something I came across in the libel trial transcripts..

The sound of pennies dropping is defeaning and is further confirmation of what I have long suspected, which is that the wee one cannot resist any opportunity to show off (what he believes is) his superior intellect and this has caused him to reveal the truth on occasions too numerous to mention - either unwittingly because he's nowhere near as clever as he thinks he is or, albeit disguised by some subterfuge or other, deliberately so he can relish sniggeing at the stupidity of others when congratulating himself on his brilliant 'performance'.

< heads off to ukjusticeforum to peruse transcripts >

Possibly. He does strike me as a character who if challenged that "your story is just not believable" would actually really like to ask "really? Which part?" He's a control freak, tweaking and finetuning to suit. This is why they feel the need to literally corporately own the investigation. The fundraising is a pleasant by-product, the real aim is to control the flow of information and respond to it in a staccato timeline of pauses and controlled delays. Hence sitting on the PI's report.

by Guest 04.12.13 14:57

I had been wondering why the CMTV programmes didn't get a mention in the UK press.
I bet the MCs wish they had as many pennies dropping as me.

by ultimaThule 04.12.13 15:05

My departure has been delayed to me rotfl

As one who's always thought the press have a stockpile of tales which they haven't yet seen fit to publish I now realise that, collectively, the MSM is sitting on the equivalent of the contents of British Library laugh

No wonder there's been a notable absence of policitians flocking to champion the McCanns' cause, but I have no doubt their name will be mentioned in the House when the time comes to fire the gun which will signal the start of open season sarcastic

and when the pent up volley of unwelcome publicity hits Rothley Towers there's going to be few survivors, if any, among the McCanns, the Healys, and their assorted chums and paid helpers. big grin

by Veritas 04.12.13 15:14

ultimaThule wrote:My departure has been delayed to me

As one who's always thought the press have a stockpile of tales which they haveneen fit to publish I now realise that, collectively, the MSM is sitting on the equivalent of the contents of British Library

No wonder there's been a notable absence of policitians flocking to champion the McCanns' cause, but I have no doubt their name will be mentioned in the House when the time comes to fire the gun which will signal the start of open season and when the pent up volley of unwelcome publicity hits Rothley Towers there's going to be few survivors, if any, among the McCanns, the Healys, and their assorted chums and paid helpers.

Some years ago, when I was a sixth former, I had a history teacher who had a friend who was a Times journo. In a class one morning he was thinking outloud with his 'top set' front-rowers about alternative history and the state of corruption and cover up in the government, and straight out of the blue he said 'my friend told me that the Times are sitting on an explosive story about the overnight habits of two male top level Tory MP's (he named the two of them) - both married - in relation to their' close friendship' and the comment was that the paper's editor was sitting on the story until one day it proved useful to swing a matter one way or another. I bet it has since fallen foul of a superconjuctivitis ;-)

by Dr What 04.12.13 15:16

Just out of interest, do 'super injunctions' have to be renewed every so often, to ensure that the 'gagging' is still relevant?

by ultimaThule 04.12.13 15:39

Injunctions are imposed for a finite period of time after which application for renewal must be made before any continuance is granted.

However, as courts are no longer granting 'superinjunctions' in respect of claimants seeking privacy rights against media publication, I suspect one of the other aces in the legal pack of cards may have been played to 'gag' the press and others.

by Woofer 04.12.13 15:45

I can`t find any details regarding superinjunctions - but I always thought there could be NO REPORTING AT ALL about the subject. This is not the case with the Mcs as there has continued to be massive amounts of reporting, TV appearances etc. - BUT ONLY WITH A MC-WONDERFUL-BIAS.

by Guest 04.12.13 15:55

Woofer wrote:I can`t find any details regarding superinjunctions - but I always thought there could be NO REPORTING AT ALL about the subject. This is not the case with the Mcs as there has continued to be massive amounts of reporting, TV appearances etc. - BUT ONLY WITH A MC-WONDERFUL-BIAS.

But with the notable absence of one person.

by RIPM 04.12.13 16:11

ultimaThule wrote:My departure has been delayed to me

As one who's always thought the press have a stockpile of tales which they haven't yet seen fit to publish I now realise that, collectively, the MSM is sitting on the equivalent of the contents of British Library

, but I have no doubt their name will be mentioned in the House when the time comes to fire the gun which will signal the start of open season and when the pent up volley of unwelcome publicity hits Rothley Towers there's going to be few survivors, if any, among the McCanns, the Healys, and their assorted chums and paid helpers.

No wonder there's been a notable absence of policitians flocking to champion the McCanns' cause

The influence of politics commenced just after 22.36 on the 3 May 2007 and continues to this day. Among MPs flocking to champion the Mccann cause

Tony Blair
Margaret Becket
Jacqui Smith
Ester McVey
Gordon Brown
Des Browne
Alan Johnson
Boris Johnson
John Prescott
David Cameron
Edward Macmillan Scott

History cannot be rewritten and there are many more names one could add LOL

by Guest 04.12.13 16:29

RIPM wrote:

History cannot be rewritten

I beg to differ.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by ultimaThule 04.12.13 16:52

One name which stands out on your list is that of a certain former director of the limited company who rapidly disassociated herself from it, RIPM

Perhaps you could point me in the direction of press coverage wherein any of them have championed the McCanns' cause in a meaningful manner, such as urging the public to look for Madeleine, or donate to the 'Fund', or publicly denouncing the PJ for their failure to find the child or somesuch demonstration of support outside of that which one would expect from a politician?

With regard to history, we each write our own and those writers who recount the history of individuals now deceased, and of epochs/eras long gone, do so from their own personal perspectives which may not be in accord with the remembrances of their subjects, or of those who were living at that time. .