ED SMETHURST BEGINS PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BENNETT

bb1 wrote: Edward Smethurst issues libel writ against Tony Bennett
puzzled Today
If this case does make it to court, would it be possible to set up a fund to help with costs?

Yes, if you want to end up with the bill if Bennett cannot pay any damages he gets awarded against him...

muratfan wrote:

bb1 wrote: Edward Smethurst issues libel writ against Tony Bennett
puzzled Today
If this case does make it to court, would it be possible to set up a fund to help with costs?

Yes, if you want to end up with the bill if Bennett cannot pay any damages he gets awarded against him...

That's mf. His backers can be sued.

Hasn't this come up before and there is some obscure law which means they can? Or am I totally befuddled?

bb1 wrote:Isn't that a nasty, sick post? Bennett knows the man is ill - well, he stalked him, didn't he - and he comes out with that?
Sick.

Bennett lacks empathy and compassion which is how he can do what he does to his victims.

It's in a similar vein to his RIP Madeleine sh*t.

bb1 wrote:Hasn't this come up before and there is some obscure law which means they can? Or am I totally befuddled?

I seem to recall that this came up at the start of Bennett's troubles with CR? I know some information was out there as to how that could happen. Hmm.....

honestbroker wrote:I stand to be corrected, here. But I don't think they could be sued merely for helping with legal costs? Only for repeating any libels.

Am I wrong about that?

They can be sued for being part and parcel of the original charge, ie the spread of the libel, making them complicit or implicit in what was done. Anyone can pay someone's legal costs, it is up to whether someone would wish to. There is nothing to stop bennett supporters from having a whip round, but it is a different matter if they are actually involved. However, this could be at the discretion of the court as directed by the judge/magistrate. LL

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.com/?zx=bd7d5ff2f7285e1a

Well said, Tony - Bennett is disgusting.

Tony.

I don't know if there are enough ways to call him sick.

What An S.O.B. He Is

crazytony wrote: What An S.O.B. He Is

To think he claimed to work in child welfare, Tony.

Instant Karma!

veniviedivici nobby-Lobby
@
@muratfan Bennett has had £400 off me and he bottled it last time ! #McCann #scam

What was it, three installments of £100 and two of £50 - think that was the figure?

bb1 wrote:Instant Karma!

veniviedivici nobby-Lobby
@
@muratfan Bennett has had £400 off me and he bottled it last time ! #McCann #scam

What was it, three installments of £100 and two of £50 - think that was the figure?

Yes, Bonny. It went 100 then another 100 then 50, another 50 then 100, to be precise.

bb1 wrote:Isn't that a nasty, sick post? Bennett knows the man is ill - well, he stalked him, didn't he - and he comes out with that?
Sick.

Maybe Smethurst got wind of bennett going back to Wales, on a supposed holiday this time, and the first thing that came into his mind was "he's gone back to stalk the guy again" and then thought "feck it, issue him with a writ, I don't care if he's taken the libel down" >?

That wouldn't surprise me, Rhodes. What Bennett was thinking about when he came out with that load of rubbish to CR, I do not know.

Oh, and remember he was merrily libelling CR on twitter too, with malicious and false allegations that they had made millions from the McCanns.

Not a very clever move, really.

I don't think Bennett has a leg to stand on now; I doubt if Mr Smethurst will go as easy on him as the McCanns have so far.

Why should Mr Smethurst go easy on Bennett. Look at what he has stated about him. Furthermore, look at how it has been repeated.

Didn't Bennett state somewhere that he would be representing himself?

I believe he did, Lily - which should be hilarious. Pity it won't be televised

As for this business of the libel spreading everywhere - did those idiots who were doing it, not realise their posts could be used against Bennett?

No-one cares about nonentities like ShuBob and Stinkymuck, but every single time they repeated the lies and libel, they were making matters WORSE for Bennett.

Oh, didn't they know that? Oh dear. What a shame. Never mind

lily wrote:Why should Mr Smethurst go easy on Bennett. Look at what he has stated about him. Furthermore, look at how it has been repeated.

Didn't Bennett state somewhere that he would be representing himself?

I think going on what sans, said. Bennett must give an undertaking not to libel the lawyer again or he will have to pay up....I think, that's right.

Hmm. He made that agreement with the McCanns and ignored it. This could get interesting...

ETA, and remember, Kennedy has taken action before now, and what good did that do? Bennett proceeded to hide in his garden and photograph his security system.

bb1 wrote:Hmm. He made that agreement with the McCanns and ignored it. This could get interesting...

ETA, and remember, Kennedy has taken action before now, and what good did that do? Bennett proceeded to hide in his garden and photograph his security system.

I honestly think it is worse this time. He tweeted it and it spread like wild fire.
Thanks to the likes of Wrafter and Company.

Wouldn't that be interesting if it were televised, Bonny. Bennett up against a respected and formidable QC?

I don't think that many of those in Bennett world truly realize what they are doing in repeating what Bennett has stated. It all goes full circle to Bennett.

Luckily for him, damages are topped at 100,000 GDP. I imagine that costs have not been included in that?

You know, Bennett was given the chance to stop his activity, previous to this, he has not. He cannot be trusted therefore what choice does Mr Smethurst have but to proceed?

I've just thought, he boasted about questioning the locals about the Guys.
That's not good.

Yes he did, Tony. Further attempts at defamation, in a stalking and harassing manner too.

Thank you, Tony. I know we have seen that before and furthermore have discussed it previously.

Just stop and think about this, as if you were seeing it for the very first time. What would your reaction be regarding this gentleman? That is how profoundly serious this is.

I imagine a court would throw the book at the hurler of such gross defamation.

bb1 wrote:Hasn't this come up before and there is some obscure law which means they can? Or am I totally befuddled?

There is something by which they can be held responsible. I think Sans pointed it out.
But it was some time ago.