IS BENNETT 'MISREMEMBERING' *cough*

**bb1** Thu May 17, 2012 12:21 pm

Re: Madeleine Foundation statement tonight re Carter-Ruck & the McCanns
Tony Bennett on Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:52 pm

Big Vern wrote:
Perhaps it's time to start a fund for you so that you can choose option B.

That's a very kind thought, but having considered this, I do not wish for a fund to be set up. On the last occasion when I had to pay £440 Court costs as a result of signing the undertaking, four people very kindly came forward and between them paid about two-thirds of those costs. That was very kind of them. If as a result of the McCanns' contempt proceedings I am saddled with a large sum of either damages or costs, then at that stage I would of course appreciate help in meetinmg those costs.

That was then; this is now:

IS BENNETT 'MISREMEMBERING' *cough* Cold2

IS BENNETT 'MISREMEMBERING' *cough* Cold2

Oops!

**bb1** Thu May 17, 2012 12:25 pm

And what are choices A and B, you may ask. Here we go:

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3338-madeleine-foundation-statement-tonight-re-carter-ruck-the-mccanns

Thus in spite of our having removed even more material from our website than the McCanns have asked for, and despite the forum-owner here removing my 42 allegedly libellous postings from public view on this forum, I am likely to get a Contempt of Court summons any day now and will in effect have two simple choices:

A. Accept that I'm in contempt. apologise, promise again not to criticise the McCanns, pay Carter-Ruck's reasonable costs, and take my punishment, whether fine, seizure of assets or a spell in one of HM's prisons - or

B. Defend each and every posting, letter, article, statement, MF newsletter etc. to which the McCanns object and claim to be defamatory of them, plus make a formal application for the terms of the undertaking to be varied, and settle down for what will probably be a long-drawn out trawl in front of a Judge through all the evidence and whether I can or cannot rely on the defences of e.g. 'justification 'and 'fair comment' for the comments I have made - and probably have to pay vastly increased costs at the end of all that if I lose i.e. if the Judge finds that any of my comments are contemptuous of an undertaking given to the High Court.

That's my choice now in a nutshell.

In chess terms, it's the McCanns' next move.

----------------

It was indeed, and it would appear to be checkmate....

He really should have gone for Option A.

**Sabot** Thu May 17, 2012 12:40 pm

I don't understand why Bennett wants to slag off other people in the first place, certainly not to the point of being hauled in front of a Judge. It's all pointless. It isn't going to get The McCanns convicted of anything, or going to bring fame and fortune to Bennett.

**bb1** Thu May 17, 2012 12:46 pm

Indeed; Bennett's current position seems to be:

I want to use taxpayers' money to force the High Court to give me permission to carry on badmouthing and smearing innocent people, stalking and abusing the family of a missing child, and making up disgusting stories about their friends.

Not very admirable, is it?

**lily** Thu May 17, 2012 1:08 pm

Not very admirable, is it?

When a 60+ person has an infant style temper tantrum because he doesn't get what he wants, it is never admirable. Costly, yes. Admirable, no.

**Maggs** Thu May 17, 2012 2:10 pm

Here's more rubbish this forker thinks will help Bennett rofl

Re: Carter-Ruck's costs in the case of McCanns v Bennett exceed £120,000 already
pauline Today at 11:45 am

.An interesting report in today's Irish papers which may give some hope to Tony Bennett re costs.

We have a system of taxing(appealing) legal costs and I presume there's a similar set up in the UK.

The Taxing Master has just reduced claimed costs of €275,000 to €80,000 in a defamation case. In essence the case involved a TV programme in which the state broadcaster claimed that a priest fathered a child while working in Africa. The programme makers refused to let him take a DNA test to prove his innocence and went ahead. Subsequently he took the test which proved he was not the father. There was a large out of court settlement agreed.

the taxing master said, amongst other things, that lawyers must take into account current economic circumstances (which would apply just as much in the UK) when setting fees. Carter Ruck take note!

**bb1** Thu May 17, 2012 2:13 pm

Oh in the name.....

1. That is completely irrelevant to the charges Bennett is facing.

2. - in Big Letters for the terminally stupid:

IRELAND IS NOT PART OF ENGLAND AND WALES AND HAS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT LEGAL SYSTEM.

**bb1** Thu May 17, 2012 2:17 pm

Oh, and:

lawyers must take into account current economic circumstances (which would apply just as much in the UK)

How feccking stupid can they get?

No, it doesn't apply -

BECAUSE THE UK IS NOT IN THE EURO; EIRE IS

Rolling Eyes

And in any case, Bennett has admitted to having 'some tens of thousands' in the bank; he is neither an impoverished priest or a destitute Turkish ex-soldier.

Why can't they get a grip and face reality?

**bb1** Thu May 17, 2012 2:20 pm

The Taxing Master has just reduced claimed costs of €275,000 to €80,000 in a defamation case. In essence the case involved a TV programme in which the state broadcaster claimed that a priest fathered a child while working in Africa. The programme makers refused to let him take a DNA test to prove his innocence and went ahead. Subsequently he took the test which proved he was not the father. There was a large out of court settlement agreed.

Not the best of examples to dig up, really, as it was the TV company who was doing the defaming and the priest who was the victim.

In Bennett's case, it's him who is doing the defaming and the McCanns who are his victims.

I am sure a large, out of court settlement may still be agreed, however. And Bennett is the one who will be handing over ££££££.

**lily** Thu May 17, 2012 2:22 pm

That must come as a thorn in the side to Bennett. His costs would come down to around 40,000 GBP if the same law applied in the UK. Worth all his trouble at half the price. What a deal....... Pcorneater

**bb1** Thu May 17, 2012 2:22 pm

Just a reminder for Bennett and the other whackjobs of how the outside world sees them:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/9046508/Retired-lawyer-faces-jail-for-harassing-Kate-and-Gerry-McCann.html

Quote:

For almost five years, Kate and Gerry McCann have suffered the anguish of not knowing what happened to their daughter Madeleine.
Through it all, they have also had to contend with a sustained campaign of harassment conducted by a small band of fanatics convinced they had a hand in their daughter's disappearance.
Now, one of their main tormentors is facing jail for refusing to leave the McCanns' alone.
Tony Bennett has waged a campaign since 2007 against the couple – repeatedly accusing them of covering up the girl's death in leaflets, books and on internet postings.
On one occasion, the Madeleine Foundation, which he runs, handed out 1,500 pamphlets in Rothley, the couple's home village in Leicestershire, entitled "10 key reasons which suggest she was not abducted."

Another booklet has been posted by registered delivery to the McCanns' home.
Next month, a court will decide whether to jail Mr Bennett, 64, for contempt of court.
The action is being brought by Mr and Mrs McCann who have grown increasingly disturbed by Mr Bennett's attacks on them.

**Sabot** Thu May 17, 2012 2:29 pm

lily wrote:That must come as a thorn in the side to Bennett. His costs would come down to around 40,000 GBP if the same law applied in the UK. Worth all his trouble at half the price. What a deal.......

£40,000 Costs sounds okay to me, Lily. The McCanns can have the rest of his savings then. And then if Bennett does it again he will likely get Legal Aid.

**Maggs** Thu May 17, 2012 2:32 pm

What was it he said?

8:20AM GMT 29 Jan 2012

"It is my sincere conviction that one day I will be proved right. I truly believe that one day the truth will be told. And yes I am risking a breach of the order by saying that."

**Jean-Pierre.t50** Thu May 17, 2012 4:29 pm

Sabot wrote:
lily wrote:That must come as a thorn in the side to Bennett. His costs would come down to around 40,000 GBP if the same law applied in the UK. Worth all his trouble at half the price. What a deal.......

£40,000 Costs sounds okay to me, Lily. The McCanns can have the rest of his savings then. And then if Bennett does it again he will likely get Legal Aid.

80k. Dont forget that CR are on a "no win no fee" basis. Which means if they do win their fee is double. Bennett seems to object strongly to this basis, and there are faults to the system, but it does give access to law to those who have a good case but would otherwise not be able to afford it.

Invaluable in these days where legal aid is restricted.

**lily** Thu May 17, 2012 4:34 pm

Thank you J-P. 80k sounds good to me too.

Of course people who have to defend themselves by taking legal action against an aggressor should not have to pay for their own legal fees.......

Bennett should have thought about his case merits before he acted. Oh.... IMHO Pcorneater

**bb1** Thu May 17, 2012 4:40 pm

Thanks, Jean Pierre.

Bennett also seems to have forgotten that he is the AGGRESSOR and the McCanns are his victims.

**Sabot** Thu May 17, 2012 4:43 pm

Jean-Pierre.t50 wrote:
Sabot wrote:
lily wrote:That must come as a thorn in the side to Bennett. His costs would come down to around 40,000 GBP if the same law applied in the UK. Worth all his trouble at half the price. What a deal.......

£40,000 Costs sounds okay to me, Lily. The McCanns can have the rest of his savings then. And then if Bennett does it again he will likely get Legal Aid.

80k. Dont forget that CR are on a "no win no fee" basis. Which means if they do win their fee is double. Bennett seems to object strongly to this basis, and there are faults to the system, but it does give access to law to those who have a good case but would otherwise not be able to afford it.

Invaluable in these days where legal aid is restricted.

What would Carter Ruck get double of? And who pays their Fee if they win? And aren't Costs and Fees two different things?
Merci d'avance pour votre aide. Or, Thanks, Mate.

**Jean-Pierre.t50** Thu May 17, 2012 4:49 pm

Ma plaisir.

In a conditional fee case, if the "normal" fee - ie that payable by the clinet win or lose, is say £40k, then the conditional fee would be £80k of they win and £0k if they lose.

I gather they also have insurance to cover the other sides fees should they lose.

So if the McCanns win their case, Bennett pays CR, his own costs and the cost of the insurance and the McCanns pay nowt.

If Bennett wins then he gets his costs, CR take a cold bath and the McCanns still pay nowt.

**bb1** Thu May 17, 2012 5:06 pm

Thank you for that very clear explanation, Jean-Pierre. Bennett has made one or two very serious errors of judgement, methinks.

**Sabot** Thu May 17, 2012 5:06 pm

Jean-Pierre.t50 wrote:Ma plaisir.

In a conditional fee case, if the "normal" fee - ie that payable by the clinet win or lose, is say £40k, then the conditional fee would be £80k of they win and £0k if they lose.

I gather they also have insurance to cover the other sides fees should they lose.

So if the McCanns win their case, Bennett pays CR, his own costs and the cost of the insurance and the McCanns pay nowt.

If Bennett wins then he gets his costs, CR take a cold bath and the McCanns still pay nowt.

So where do the costs of £120,000 quoted by Carter Ruck come in to this? Who pays those if they win?
Or is that what CR have assessed, but to be decided by The Court, and then doubled if Bennett loses?

**Jean-Pierre.t50** Thu May 17, 2012 5:11 pm

Thank you Bonny

The thing he cannot seem to comprehend is that "the fund" is totally and utterly irrelevant to this case. It does not matter whether they have £1 or £100m in it. There will be no call on the fund.

CR have made a hard nosed commercial decision to take the case on a conditional fee basis. They only do this when there is a good chance of winning.

Neither the McCanns nor the fund will have to pay a penny.

I cannot think of a clearer way of expressing it.

In short. He's toast.

**bb1** Thu May 17, 2012 6:51 pm

In short. He's toast.

I doubt if any of this occurred to Bennett when he embarked on his campaign of harrassment, J-P.

What it says about him that he deliberately ran up CR's costs in the mistaken idea that he was draining a fund meant to help find a missing child - well, it's the action of a total scoundrel.

It is poetic justice that it is likely to be HIM who gets handed the bill for the whole lot, plus having to pay damages to his victims.

Sponsored content

IS BENNETT 'MISREMEMBERING' cough

IS BENNETT 'MISREMEMBERING' cough

Re: IS BENNETT 'MISREMEMBERING' cough

Re: IS BENNETT 'MISREMEMBERING' cough

Re: IS BENNETT 'MISREMEMBERING' cough

Re: IS BENNETT 'MISREMEMBERING' cough

Re: IS BENNETT 'MISREMEMBERING' cough

Re: IS BENNETT 'MISREMEMBERING' cough

Re: IS BENNETT 'MISREMEMBERING' cough

Re: IS BENNETT 'MISREMEMBERING' cough

Re: IS BENNETT 'MISREMEMBERING' cough

Re: IS BENNETT 'MISREMEMBERING' cough

Re: IS BENNETT 'MISREMEMBERING' cough

Re: IS BENNETT 'MISREMEMBERING' cough

Re: IS BENNETT 'MISREMEMBERING' cough

Re: IS BENNETT 'MISREMEMBERING' cough

Re: IS BENNETT 'MISREMEMBERING' cough

Re: IS BENNETT 'MISREMEMBERING' cough

Re: IS BENNETT 'MISREMEMBERING' cough

Re: IS BENNETT 'MISREMEMBERING' cough

Re: IS BENNETT 'MISREMEMBERING' cough

Re: IS BENNETT 'MISREMEMBERING' cough

Re: IS BENNETT 'MISREMEMBERING' cough

Re: IS BENNETT 'MISREMEMBERING' cough