Bennett's Turned Up

Thanks, HB. None of that applies to Benntet's Libelling of The McCanns. Suggesting that they are responsible for the death of their daughter is not Fair Comment as there is absolutely no proof.

Alibobs wrote:

Sabot wrote:
If this Hearing on the 8th of February is to be held in Open Court I do think that one or two of us should be there for the record and to see that no "Mistakes" are made.

No one knows better than we do of how this whole thing came about, and of the many chances Anthony Bennett has had to cease and desist from Libelling The McCanns.

Your more than welcome to stay at my place sabot, Im only an hours train journey from London and will be attending the hearing with several others from Myths.

That is very kind, Ali, and thanks. I just have to get someone to look after the dog.

I'll PM you later.

I see Bennett is still COMITTING LIBEL:

Entrapment - but why?
Tony Bennett Today at 12:52 pm

Juulcy wrote:
If you can prove that McC anns or their laywers are behind it, would that make it some form of encouragement to commit a crime, and could that be used in your defense? Could you call this journalist as a witness, or doesn't it work that way in this kind of procedures?

Well, at least no-one is saying it is a crime, but there really isn't any doubt that the McCanns and Carter-Ruck put Gunnilll up to this, and that they ACTIVELY WANTED me to break the undertaking l gave not to sell nor distribute '60 Reasons'.

Oh, so Bennett is so weak-willed, the prospect of a £5 note made him forget the undertaking he made to Her Majesty, as represented by the High Court of England?

He comes pretty cheap then, doesn't he?

Amusing to watch him wriggling and squirming, though - anything to avoid the truth. He broke his solemn oath, no-one else.

Oh, and he is is digging himself in even deeper with these malicious and false accusations. Not that I greatly care, this is all his own doing.

Having seen the way he is twisting and spinning already, it's a good job there are going to be independent witnesses to keep a note of all his 'mistakes'.

Good post by someone with functioning brain cells on Bennett's site, quote:

your actions came about because of the choice that you made to sell the leaflet to him and I feel sure that any Judge would see it that way and not allow it as a valid excuse against your breaking your earlier committment to the court. He didn't force you to sell it and it is unfortunate that you didn't see that you were being conned or tricked but the bottom line is you promised not to sell another leaflet and then got caught selling one.

Why didn't you just tell him to sod off and refuse to sell the leaflet?

Precisely; instead, he is acting like a John caught with a hooker, and blaming the hooker for wearing short skirts.

I thought Bennett disapproved of bestiality and sodomy?


Re: CONTEMPT HEARING 8 Feb will be in open court - anyone can attend
spudgun Today at 1:01 pm

Tony, I have tried to call you but I guess your pre-occupation with everything has made you a very busy man! I am desperately trying to re-shuffle things so that I can attend this hearing in the PRESS gallery, where I will be able to take extensive notes. I shall also wish to press Counsel for Mr. and Mrs. McCann on a few issues, which I am sure they will not answer, but which will pose them at least some annoyance.

Good luck and well done my friend.

Mike

I am not repeating Apeman's filthy imaginings on a open forum, but Bennett really should take a look at what he is associating with:

http://jatyk.blogspot.com/2012/01/spudgun-hardy-spouts-death-threats.html


SPUDGUN HARDY SPOUTS DEATH THREATS, OBSCENITY AND SODOMY

WARNING - THE LANGUAGE USED BY SPUDGUN HARDY TO ISSUE THESE THREATS IS DISGUSTING; ANY DECENT, NORMAL PERSON WILL BE SHOCKED BY THIS DEPRAVITY

_________________

Nice company Bennett keeps.....

Bennnett sez;


2. I can have someone with me to record the proceedings (in writing) and have made provisional arrangements for someone to do that.

He needn't bother, really. I am sure there will be plenty of people sending out a quiet message that they are looking over his shoulder, and watching him.

I am sure people will be noting all his mistakes, how many times he scratches his nose, etc. Watching out for all his contradictions and inconsistencies, that sort of thing, and taking note.

I shall also wish to press Counsel for Mr. and Mrs. McCann on a few issues

And in which alternate universe do fantasists with a dubious connection to the media get to bark questions from the Press gallery?

Answer - they don't. They have to sit down in court and STFU the same as everyone else.

But no doubt the forkers, ghouls and hounders will believe carp like that, they always do.

I am reading up on Body Language as we speak.

Can you imagine Bennett trying to defend his stalking, harassment and abuse of people in that sinister voice of his, Sabot? The mind boggles....

bb1 wrote:Can you imagine Bennett trying to defend his stalking, harassment and abuse of people in that sinister voice of his, Sabot? The mind boggles....

I might have to take a pair of Ear Plugs, Bonny. But you don't need to hear to assess body language.

Very true, Sabot; the main thing is that people are there to look over his shoulder and record his mistakes, I think.

I bet he's glad Butler is intending to demonstrate outside the court in support of him:

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.com/2012/01/ah-i-remember-it-well.html

This hearing relating to "freedom of speech" could be very interesting indeed. I recommend that as many as possible turn up to make themselves fully aware of what is happening. The whole field of abuse whether in online or more traditional form is a very hot topic at the moment. Reliance on Bennett (@zampos) to report accurately could be very foolish as he has been proven to make significant "mistakes" in his reporting in the past.

The case is all about what Bennett (@zampos) calls "freedom of speech" and his ability to write leaflets/pamphlets of "facts" and distribute these. Therefore neither he nor his followers can have any objection at all to my distribution of leaflets of FACTS about their activities, their blatant abuse, threats, obscenity etc.

No comment will be included, just a few questions such as in relation to the use of violent, obscene threats by Mike Hardy (@spudgun01), whether these are just free speech or do they constitute a criminal action? Whether such threats reflect badly on journalists (one of which Mike Hardy "claims" to be)?

Questions as to what kind of people post vile obscene abuse about the family of a missing child all over the #McCann tag?

Questions about how obsessed some of these stalkers of the McCanns really are.

I shall take legal advice prior to printing as to whether the inclusion of full names/details of the stalkers where these can be reliably confirmed would be acceptable on the leaflets which I and a number of students may well decide to distribute. It seems that Bennett (@zampos) and his followers believe that full names CAN be included as they do this all the time over the McCann case. I shall as I say err on the side of caution and only do this where the names ARE confirmed and after legal advice.

I hope to see as many as possible there on the day who are interested in freedom of speech.

On this I agree Mr. Bennett. Factual leaflets should be permitted. This is what Freedom of Speech is really all about.

Just a shame YOU chose to fill your leaflets with comment rather than simple facts/questions. A shame too that the High Court having pointed this out and YOU HAVING AGREED TO STOP you then carried on so shamelessly. Rest assured I won't be making the same schoolboy errors. LOL

bb1 wrote:I shall also wish to press Counsel for Mr. and Mrs. McCann on a few issues

And in which alternate universe do fantasists with a dubious connection to the media get to bark questions from the Press gallery?

Answer - they don't. They have to sit down in court and STFU the same as everyone else.

But no doubt the forkers, ghouls and hounders will believe carp like that, they always do.

Mike Hardy (the proven obscene thug) clearly does NOT have the slightest idea about what really goes on. That is yet more proof of his lack of knowledge about law. Those who follow that kind of idiotic outburst and believe it, show what absolute fools they really are. They should ask themselves how often they have read of journalists doing any such thing in real life or if they prefer fiction how often they have seen it happen in their favourite TV shows. The answer is simple. NEVER. LOL

bb1 wrote:I shall also wish to press Counsel for Mr. and Mrs. McCann on a few issues

And in which alternate universe do fantasists with a dubious connection to the media get to bark questions from the Press gallery?

Answer - they don't. They have to sit down in court and STFU the same as everyone else.

But no doubt the forkers, ghouls and hounders will believe carp like that, they always do.

Okay, which part of, Bennett breached the court order he signed, are they not getting?
All Carter and Ruck have to do is prove he did just that. Be it with one, written post on an open forum of the Internet, or a dozen of them on the Internet. It only takes one post to contain something that was covered by the court document for Bennett to be guilty and, the order that was held in abeyance, comes into play.

And that is it in a nutshell, Tony.

Bennett broke his solemn oath to HM the Queen as represented by the High Court of England and Wales.

End of.

He has no honor.

bb1 wrote:And that is it in a nutshell, Tony.

Bennett broke his solemn oath to HM the Queen as represented by the High Court of England and Wales.

End of.

He has no honor.

I don't understand why the fools find it so difficult to understand.
It isn't as though it is a new case, this is the same case dating back to 2009. This issue is relating to the document Bennett signed agreeing to cease and desist his libelous accusation against the McCanns. He didn't have to sign it, he could have challenged it. He didn't therefor, it is now time to pay up!
ETA I wish he would at least act like a man and quit his bellyaching!

greenink211 wrote:This hearing relating to "freedom of speech" could be very interesting indeed. I recommend that as many as possible turn up to make themselves fully aware of what is happening. The whole field of abuse whether in online or more traditional form is a very hot topic at the moment. Reliance on Bennett (@zampos) to report accurately could be very foolish as he has been proven to make significant "mistakes" in his reporting in the past.

The case is all about what Bennett (@zampos) calls "freedom of speech" and his ability to write leaflets/pamphlets of "facts" and distribute these. Therefore neither he nor his followers can have any objection at all to my distribution of leaflets of FACTS about their activities, their blatant abuse, threats, obscenity etc.

No comment will be included, just a few questions such as in relation to the use of violent, obscene threats by Mike Hardy (@spudgun01), whether these are just free speech or do they constitute a criminal action? Whether such threats reflect badly on journalists (one of which Mike Hardy "claims" to be)?

Questions as to what kind of people post vile obscene abuse about the family of a missing child all over the #McCann tag?

Questions about how obsessed some of these stalkers of the McCanns really are.

I shall take legal advice prior to printing as to whether the inclusion of full names/details of the stalkers where these can be reliably confirmed would be acceptable on the leaflets which I and a number of students may well decide to distribute. It seems that Bennett (@zampos) and his followers believe that full names CAN be included as they do this all the time over the McCann case. I shall as I say err on the side of caution and only do this where the names ARE confirmed and after legal advice.

I hope to see as many as possible there on the day who are interested in freedom of speech.

On this I agree Mr. Bennett. Factual leaflets should be permitted. This is what Freedom of Speech is really all about.

Just a shame YOU chose to fill your leaflets with comment rather than simple facts/questions. A shame too that the High Court having pointed this out and YOU HAVING AGREED TO STOP you then carried on so shamelessly. Rest assured I won't be making the same schoolboy errors. LOL

Exactly, Tony.

Bennett did it = Bennett can now pay for sticking two fingers up to the High Court.

This is indeed serious stuff, GreenInk. And someone has got to make sure he doesn't tell lies in Court. Freedom of Speech is far too valuable to have it mocked and consequently curtailed for those of us who honour the privilege . But none of his "Mistakes" will get past me, or any of the rest of us who manage to get there.

United we Stand. This could well be one of the most important occasions in the entire Case.

Forker on MM:


Yes, and quite a few of us were fooled by him - at first. He was soon found out for the devious little reptile that he is, though.

So, what kind of 'reptile' deserves to be deprived of his livelihood because it is impossible to take a photo of Butler looking like a human being?

Why is it that the forkers are in total denial about what they, being led by Bennett, Stevo, and Butler, did to a man who had nothing to do with anything? Who was simply earning a living?

They really should go and take a long, hard look in the mirror at themselves; they might then realise why they are the aggressors, not the victims, and regarded as nothing better than stalkers and bottomfeeders.

We could be about to find out who some of them are. See youse in Court.

bb1 wrote:Forker on MM:


Yes, and quite a few of us were fooled by him - at first. He was soon found out for the devious little reptile that he is, though.

So, what kind of 'reptile' deserves to be deprived of his livelihood because it is impossible to take a photo of Butler looking like a human being?

Why is it that the forkers are in total denial about what they, being led by Bennett, Stevo, and Butler, did to a man who had nothing to do with anything? Who was simply earning a living?

They really should go and take a long, hard look in the mirror at themselves; they might then realise why they are the aggressors, not the victims, and regarded as nothing better than stalkers and bottomfeeders.

How come she hasn't attacked the BBC for this?

I've stuck it on my backyard wall, keeps the coyotes away.

It would probably keep the rattlers away too, Tony.

Sabot wrote:
This is indeed serious stuff, GreenInk. And someone has got to make sure he doesn't tell lies in Court. Freedom of Speech is far too valuable to have it mocked and consequently curtailed for those of us who honour the privilege . But none of his "Mistakes" will get past me, or any of the rest of us who manage to get there.

United we Stand. This could well be one of the most important occasions in the entire Case.

Very well said, Sabot. I know that even those of us who live long distance would love to be there witnessing everything.

Erm, Tony. Aren't Coyottes some kind of Dog? They might see that photo as a welcome in.

lily wrote:

Sabot wrote:
This is indeed serious stuff, GreenInk. And someone has got to make sure he doesn't tell lies in Court. Freedom of Speech is far too valuable to have it mocked and consequently curtailed for those of us who honour the privilege . But none of his "Mistakes" will get past me, or any of the rest of us who manage to get there.

United we Stand. This could well be one of the most important occasions in the entire Case.

Very well said, Sabot. I know that even those of us who live long distance would love to be there witnessing everything.

Never mind, Lily, we know you will be with us in spirit. Perhaps you could get over for The Trial and Sentencing in April.