Re: Sunday Times apology

by fredtheted 01.01.14 8:07

In the interest of clarity, and following criticism of the forum member overthehill on this matter, the following needs to be addressed and answered;

the High Court judgement concerning Mr Bennett made on 11 Oct 2012 referred to the Court Order of 25 Nov 2009 thus:

“The undertakings given by the Defendant to the court were (a) to deliver up or destroy all versions of publications complained of, (b) to use his best endeavours to delete or otherwise prevent access to defamatory allegations about the Claimants (McCanns) published by him on specified websites, and (c) not to repeat the same or any similar allegations about the Claimants as those set out in Schedule A to the order.

would PeterMac, jeanmonroe and others please explain why they still believe that defamation (libel) did not occur, are you saying that the judge got this wrong?

this forum will only have credibility if it deals with all issues objectively and doesn't distribute propaganda so I look forward to hearing an explanation

by **Tony Bennett** 01.01.14 8:26

fredtheted wrote:In the interest of clarity, and following criticism of the forum member overthehill on this matter, the following needs to be addressed and answered;

the High Court judgement concerning Mr Bennett made on 11 Oct 2012 referred to the Court Order of 25 Nov 2009 thus:

“The undertakings given by the Defendant to the court were (a) to deliver up or destroy all versions of publications complained of, (b) to use his best endeavours to delete or otherwise prevent access to defamatory allegations about the Claimants (McCanns) published by him on specified websites, and (c) not to repeat the same or any similar allegations about the Claimants as those set out in Schedule A to the order.

would PeterMac, jeanmonroe and others please explain why they still believe that defamation (libel) did not occur, are you saying that the judge got this wrong?

this forum will only have credibility if it deals with all issues objectively and doesn't distribute propaganda

Well, thank you 'fredtheted' for your concern about the credibility of this forum. I am sure it is well meant.

The judge correctly listed the wording of undertakings I gave to the High Court in November 2009. It is my case, as I am sure you are aware, that these undertakings were given under the duress of not being able, for financial reasons, to defend a libel action.

During the legal action against me begun on 1 December 2011 and eventually concluded on 21 February, I was accused of being in contempt of court by breaching the undertakings. His Honour Judge Tugendhat found the contempt of court case against me proved.

However, on 22 February 2012, I made a cross-application to be freed from some of the onerous undertakings I had signed up to.

Tugendhat ruled that he would hear the McCanns' application to commit me to prison for breach of the undertakings first, and only consider my cross-application after he had first ruled on the McCanns' contempt claim.

He further ruled (and this part of his judgment you have deliberately omitted) that my application to be freed from certain undertakings could only be dealt with by a full set of libel proceedings in which the McCanns would have to be specific about what libels I was said to have committed and with my having a full opportunity to defend their libel claim on grounds such as 'justification' (my comments were true) or 'honest comment' as per Spiller v Joseph [Supreme Court, 2010] (my comments were fair comment).

As part of a comprehensive settlement with the McCanns, I agreed to withdraw both my appeal against Tugendhat's judgment and my application to be freed from certain undertakings.

That application would have determined whether I had ever libelled the McCanns - an issue which has not been legally determined, as others on this thread have correctly stated.

Again, on financial grounds, and for family reasons, and because libel defendants cannot get Legal Aid, I had to reach a settlement with the McCanns if I possibly could.

by fredtheted 01.01.14 8:57

Thank you for replying so quickly. I didn't deliberately omit anything, I was quoting directly from point 7 of the 2012 judgement. Hoping this case is all resolved in 2014

by **Tony Bennett** 01.01.14 9:24

fredtheted wrote:Thank you for replying so quickly. I didn't deliberately omit anything, I was quoting directly from point 7 of the 2012 judgement. Hoping this case is all resolved in 2014

For your information, and for the benefit of other members and guests here who are not aware of the Tugendhat judgments, here are the two legal references:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (Main substantive case, 5 & 6 February 2013)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (Sentencing judgment, 21 February 2013).

I draw your attention specifically to the very last paragraph of Tugendhat's second judgment (Paragraph 11). There he set out the fact that procedural directions would now be given to deal with my application to be freed from certain undertakings I gave to the Court in November 2009.

In those proceedings, as stated above, the McCanns would have had to particularise the alleged libels I had committed, which were never presented to the court in 2009 because I had to cave in and accept the undertakings as written or face full-blown libel proceedings.

I would then have been able to plead one or more of the legal defences to an accusation of libel.

I never got the chance because in order to reach an affordable financial settlement with the McCanns last year, I had to formally withdraw my application.

I also had to withdraw an appeal I had successfully lodged with the Court of Appeal against Tugendhat's judgment.

by **PeterMac** 01.01.14 9:44

A species of Legal Blackmail, it appears.

I think we are right in saying that the McCanns have never managed to prove they have been libelled in any court, anywhere.

by Smokeandmirrors 01.01.14 9:47

PeterMac wrote:A species of Legal Blackmail, it appears.

I think we are right in saying that the McCanns have never managed to prove they have been libelled in any court, anywhere.

No they haven't. Because they can't. They would not dare go under cross examination themselves, bloody cowards.

by GRACEFUL1 01.01.14 10:05

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

by aiyoyo 01.01.14 10:38

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
PeterMac wrote:A species of Legal Blackmail, it appears.

I think we are right in saying that the McCanns have never managed to prove they have been libelled in any court, anywhere.

No they haven't. Because they can't. They would not dare go under cross examination themselves, bloody cowards.

Meanwhile their paid shills, supporters, and little Kevins come here to disrupt also bloody cowards who pretend they didn't omit anything merely quoting selectively or under different pretext and all sort of excuses under the sky. Bird of the same feathers and all.

If I were Admin I would bin their posts at sight immediately and throw them out the back door. Save wasting people's time.

by plebgate 01.01.14 10:40

Hope FredtheTed didn't stay up all night looking up that part of the judgement. If Fred had only asked I am sure Tony would have answered without Fred needing to spend any time on it.

by Guest 01.01.14 10:48

Tony Bennett wrote:

During the legal action against me begun on 1 December 2011 and eventually concluded on 21 February, I was accused of being in contempt of court by breaching the undertakings.

Should have got it heard in the Portuguese courts - you'd be on about the fourth day by now.

by bobbin 01.01.14 10:53

plebgate wrote:Hope FredtheTed didn't stay up all night looking up that part of the judgement. If Fred had only asked I am sure Tony would have answered without Fred needing to spend any time on it.

Is there still any money left in the McCs stolen from old ladies and little children's fund to keep paying shills and or kevins, or is it just Michael Wright or similar, hanging on for dear life in the hope that by challenging Tony it will somehow change the course of events, namely, that with the case now fairly and squarely in two police forces' hands, the clock is fast running out of time for the McCs. And no, in answer to a question that has not been put to me, I don't think they serve New Zealand white with dinner in t'clink.

by plebgate 01.01.14 11:04

Even if there's no money left Bobbin, they have a house and cars. It still annoys me that they made mortgage repayments from the fund. Yes I definitely believe they should pay toward the investigation.

They have forked out enough trying to shut people up so why not fork out to help find their eldest daughter?

by Hongkong Phooey 01.01.14 11:22

plebgate wrote:Even if there's no money left Bobbin, they have a house and cars. It still annoys me that they made mortgage repayments from the fund. Yes I definitely believe they should pay toward the investigation.

They have forked out enough trying to shut people up so why not fork out to help find their eldest daughter?

They have however 'spent' a lot of time searching the internet and reading the files, much more productive than ever conducting searches or helping the two police forces who are now investigsting.

by aiyoyo 01.01.14 11:36

plebgate wrote:Even if there's no money left Bobbin, they have a house and cars. It still annoys me that they made mortgage repayments from the fund. Yes I definitely believe they should pay toward the investigation.

They have forked out enough trying to shut people up so why not fork out to help find their eldest daughter?

They paid all sorts using the Fund. Luxury Hotel, Legal Fees (?), Travel Costs and fees (?) for family and associates to testify in Court (?) .

I bet their Accountant refused to reclassify/hide/lump these incidentals under instructions, no wonder their filings are two years behind.

I suspect their Fund wont stand up to scrutiny. If the big amounts need to be itemised all sort of irregularities will show up.

by aiyoyo 01.01.14 11:43

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
plebgate wrote:Even if there's no money left Bobbin, they have a house and cars. It still annoys me that they made mortgage repayments from the fund. Yes I definitely believe they should pay toward the investigation.

They have forked out enough trying to shut people up so why not fork out to help find their eldest daughter?
They have however 'spent' a lot of time searching the internet and reading the files, much more productive than ever conducting searches or helping the two police forces who are now investigsting.

Dont forget $100K went to translation of the files, which they didn't bother showing to their witnesses, or if they did only selecting bits that suit their agenda.
And, God knows how much more for translating Amaral's book, handing it to their lawyers to pass the nitcomb through.....
These lawyers cost an arm and a leg too.....

by aiyoyo 01.01.14 11:57

MET costs soar !

SCOTLAND Yard’s bill for its probe into Madeleine McCann’s disappearance has topped £6million, The Sun can reveal.
In the last three months a major public appeal for information has pushed the cost of Operation Grange up by £1.64million — and the total is now likely to rocket to £10million-plus.

by Guest 01.01.14 12:02

aiyoyo wrote:

MET costs soar !

SCOTLAND Yard’s bill for its probe into Madeleine McCann’s disappearance has topped £6million, The Sun can reveal.
In the last three months a major public appeal for information has pushed the cost of Operation Grange up by £1.64million — and the total is now likely to rocket to £10million-plus.

Ahem, the words "gravy" and "train" spring to mind. Just reinforces my belief that this case is now little more than a vehicle for the enrichment of certain parties and the advancement of agendas - if it was ever anything else that is.

by Doug D 01.01.14 12:40

We seem to have lost the 'Sunday Times Apology' thread somewhat, but whilst on the subject of schills, watchers etc, it always intrigues me to look at the ‘view the whole list’ map under the ‘Who is Online’ on the portal site. I don’t know if it has ever been covered before and I don’t know how the tracking works (it thinks I’m from Bletchley, having previously thought I was from Wokingham, neither being correct as I’m in Essex & haven’t moved!), but always shows a big cluster of ‘guests’ around the Westminster area (You need to zoom right in to see them). If there is any sort of reality in these placements are these just bored, under-employed civil servants (even today - surely not many working?) or are there really that many (paid?) monitors in that specific area, aside from those of TM?

by Guest 01.01.14 12:44

This topic is about the eccentricities of the portal map.

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

I don't think that it can be relied on at all for accuracy.

by **PeterMac** 01.01.14 12:49

aiyoyo wrote:
These lawyers cost an arm and a leg too.....

Except Carter-Ruck, who Kate told the world were doing their work pro-bono.
Until it came the time to claim costs from TB of course,
at which point they suddenly turned into a Third of a milllion pounds.
And having forced TB to back down with this threat of impoverishment, the costs suddenly vanished again, and became £100 a month.
An amount barely worth the administrative time to collect and account for.

by Guest 01.01.14 13:06

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:This topic is about the eccentricities of the portal map.

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

I don't think that it can be relied on at all for accuracy.

What fun! Pretty accurate for me! I'm in the garden of a neigbour about 20 houses up the avenue! Sure enough there is a ~~detecti~~ guest or 3 in Westminster right now! So that's how they're solving this case! big grin

by Guest 01.01.14 13:09

Daisy wrote:
Eeek! well I didn't quite mean it that way. But looking into the etymology of the saying it is very varied. I read another suggestion that said:

"The phrase originated with the English Cavaliers, who wore thigh-high riding boots. When drinking, rather than stepping outside to relieve himself, a Cavalier apparently had the option of doing so into his boots. Thus, "filling his boots" meant he could drink all he wanted without leaving the table."

Love this!

by Guest 01.01.14 13:21

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:

MET costs soar !

SCOTLAND Yard’s bill for its probe into Madeleine McCann’s disappearance has topped £6million, The Sun can reveal.
In the last three months a major public appeal for information has pushed the cost of Operation Grange up by £1.64million — and the total is now likely to rocket to £10million-plus.

Ahem, the words "gravy" and "train" spring to mind. Just reinforces my belief that this case is now little more than a vehicle for the enrichment of certain parties and the advancement of agendas - if it was ever anything else that is.

I veer between the same cynical thought and a growing hope that a conclusion is being sought for. Such a vast sum - and growing - will have to be justified. So many people are now wary of the McCanns' version a public outcry will be inevitable if they hold up a limp cover-up after so much time and public money has been invested. I voted 'whitewash' on that poll a few weeks ago but I'm slowly changing my mind. If this was merely a 'closure' exercise, surely the 'highly efficient' Met woul protect their reputation by producing a patsy within the first year or so?

by J4MM 01.01.14 13:39

plebgate wrote:Even if there's no money left Bobbin, they have a house and cars. It still annoys me that they made mortgage repayments from the fund. Yes I definitely believe they should pay toward the investigation.

They have forked out enough trying to shut people up so why not fork out to help find their eldest daughter?

If convicted, any assets would surely be confiscated under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA). If the amount, deemed by the CPS to have been obtained from criminal activity, is greater than the value of recoverable assets (house, cars, cash, etc), they would have a certain amount of time to pay the rest or face further years in jail.

by nobodythereeither 01.01.14 14:15

Dee Coy wrote: Sure enough there is a ~~detecti~~ guest or 3 in Westminster right now! So that's how they're solving this case!

Well this map is showing me as being in Westminster, and I'm in quite another part of South London a long way from Westminster!

So I would take the forum readers apparently in Westminster with a very large bushel of salt big grin

by Guest 01.01.14 14:27

nobodythereeither wrote:
Dee Coy wrote: Sure enough there is a ~~detecti~~ guest or 3 in Westminster right now! So that's how they're solving this case!

Well this map is showing me as being in Westminster, and I'm in quite another part of South London a long way from Westminster!

So I would take the forum readers apparently in Westminster with a very large bushel of salt

Oh, I'm sure it is wildly inaccurate. Addictive, though. I've just looked again and zoomed right in so you can see the names of the buildings. There are three 'guests' apparently sitting in the Met police building right now. Hi, you guys! hello

Regardless of discrepancies of a few miles, what is undeniable is that there is an unusually high level of activity on this forum in the centre of London. There are more people viewing there than in the whole of the rest of the country.

I remain fairly accurately in my neighbour's shed. splat