MCCANNS, SMETHURST COMMENCE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST BENNETT

Now, that is what everyone would like to know, Tony, because there have been whispers that it was a set-up from start to finish.

No-one except Bennett and his erstwhile sidekick HardlineMarxist aka SWALK have seen this 'filth'; no proof it exists has ever been produced.

But let's suppose something filthy did appear; Bennett had better be able to prove that it wasn't put there by some chum of his, hadn't he? Because it is very odd that no-one else knows about this supposed filth except those two.

Remember what he was told by Carter Ruck when this started?

Not only are these grotesque allegations highly defamatory of our client, they are entirely untrue

Who could be blamed from thinking it is yet another stupid stunt from the Hounders?

Not only are these grotesque allegations highly defamatory of our client, they are entirely untrue

Which would mean, Carter and Ruck saw the real Facebook page.

We'll find out in the fullness of time, Tony, but I suspect something similar myself. Let us not forget, creatures like that KaOssis/TDH freak have spammed every site known to man with Bennett's imaginings; all of that is going to cost him dearly, too.

This "Filth" doesn't actually have to have appeared. It could all have been "made up" by Bennett and whoever, since no one else seems to have seen it. Bennett would then argue that it was deleted. Big Cover Up, anyone?
Not that it matters beyond Bennett "repeating" it. It is still Libel.

As we saw from the riots in the summer, FB do hand over ips to the authorities, so it won't be too hard to find out who actually posted the filth.

If there ever was any, which I somehow doubt....because if there had been, then Bennett would have posted it everywhere, not just announced it was too filthy for anyone except him and SWALK to see

Exactly. People aren't as stupid as Bennett would have us believe. It was either a set up, or it never happened. Both or either will be easy to prove. The internet works in more ways than one to skin a cat.

bb1 wrote:As we saw from the riots in the summer, FB do hand over ips to the authorities, so it won't be too hard to find out who actually posted the filth.

If there ever was any, which I somehow doubt....because if there had been, then Bennett would have posted it everywhere, not just announced it was too filthy for anyone except him and SWALK to see

I don't believe Smethurst will back down. Bennett went all out to ruin this man. He even went as far as asking someone to stalk Smethurst's family in Portugal.
I can't see a good ending for Bennett on this.

I don't think he will either, Tony - why should he? Bennett's stalking and abuse of the Smethurst family was beyond sick, and anyone who now feels sorry for Bennett is condoning Bennett's vile behaviour.

crazytony wrote:

bb1 wrote:As we saw from the riots in the summer, FB do hand over ips to the authorities, so it won't be too hard to find out who actually posted the filth.

If there ever was any, which I somehow doubt....because if there had been, then Bennett would have posted it everywhere, not just announced it was too filthy for anyone except him and SWALK to see

I don't believe Smethurst will back down. Bennett went all out to ruin this man. He even went as far as asking someone to stalk Smethurst's family in Portugal.
I can't see a good ending for Bennett on this.

It doesn't really matter, Tony. It only points to the obsession with The McCanns. Edward Smethurst is just a means to an end in attacking The McCanns.
I don't know why Anthony Bennett hates The Mccanns, I can only assume that he feels that he was badly treated as a child, and quite likely he was if I know anything about some members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces. And believe me, I know quite a lot. But you see, most of us who suffered by the hand of anyone tend to react in an entirely different way. We would never inflict our pain on society in general, let alone on small children. We are the people who understand Justice in it's true sense. We learned compassion, or at least, I did.

I have lots of thoughts about Mr. Bennett because I see what he is. And it is much more than just The McCanns. It is a very damaged man who wishes to inflict his own pain on anyone at all. This is why I usually manage to feel very sad for him.

I don't believe Smethurst will back down. Bennett went all out to ruin this man. He even went as far as asking someone to stalk Smethurst's family in Portugal.
I can't see a good ending for Bennett on this.

I also believe he won't back down. If we were all in his shoes, what would we do?

Bennett's stalking of this man is outrageous. Something has to be done to stop the creep.

Any news from Bennett concerning the Costs Management court hearing today?

No sightings yet, Lily. He may well still be in shock, having finally been presented with the bill for his hate, stalking and general nastiness.

You are most probably right, Bonny.

His wife should get a psychiatric evaluation done on him.

lily wrote:You are most probably right, Bonny.

His wife should get a psychiatric evaluation done on him.

She is nearly as bad as he is, Lily. I have picked up a couple of things about her.

lily wrote:You are most probably right, Bonny.

His wife should get a psychiatric evaluation done on him.

I don't believe the poor woman has any control over him whatsoever.

crazytony wrote:

lily wrote:You are most probably right, Bonny.

His wife should get a psychiatric evaluation done on him.

I don't believe the poor woman has any control over him whatsoever.

Tony, I think that she probably has a horrible life with him. He won't care about that though as he's too selfish. IMO

crazytony wrote:

lily wrote:You are most probably right, Bonny.

His wife should get a psychiatric evaluation done on him.

I don't believe the poor woman has any control over him whatsoever.

You are almost certainly wrong about that, Tony. But then I have got an horribly long memory about things that have been said by her in the presence of other people.

Sabot, can you refresh memories, please? Would love to know......

Tony has the clock and music back.


http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.com/?zx=10c7432e25921f9f

lily wrote:Tony has the clock and music back.


http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.com/?zx=10c7432e25921f9f

crazytony wrote:Not only are these grotesque allegations highly defamatory of our client, they are entirely untrue

Which would mean, Carter and Ruck saw the real Facebook page.

Apparently Carter Ruck had asked for the IP address of a person on there who used someone elses name in order to join as a friend on Mr Smethurst's facebook.

And it was successful as the idiots already has more than two ID's on Facebook and Facebook cross IP's everything

muratfan wrote:

crazytony wrote:Not only are these grotesque allegations highly defamatory of our client, they are entirely untrue

Which would mean, Carter and Ruck saw the real Facebook page.

Apparently Carter Ruck had asked for the IP address of a person on there who used someone elses name in order to join as a friend on Mr Smethurst's facebook.

And it was successful as the idiots already has more than two ID's on Facebook and Facebook cross IP's everything

And facebook don't inform the owner of the page that they have given their ISP details to a lawyer.

Oh my! If that is what happened, then Bennett is in rather a lot of trouble.

He deserves to be. What he did was beyond outrageous.

From Myths, with thanks:

Smethurst's libel claim settled

Post Tony Bennett Today at 6:59 am
Libel cases update:

SMETHURST

Update - Summary: Edward Smethurst’s claim against me has been settled on the following agreed terms:

a) I will pay the sum of £2,500 agreed damages to Mr Smethurst, without any formal admission of liability. Mr Smethurst has said via Carter-Ruck that he will pay this sum into the Find Madeleine Fund
b) I will in addition pay Mr Smethurst’s reasonable legal costs to date, to be assessed by the court if not agreed between me and him (see below)
c) Carter-Ruck will draw up an undertaking for me to sign which will cover the contents of anything that I may or may not publish about him in the future; the terms of that undertaking to be agreed between us.

The hearing yesterday (7 December):

Carter-Ruck had four people representing them at yesterday’s hearing, which was in Room E117, the chambers of Master Victoria McCloud. They were:

(i) Jacob Dean, barrister
(ii) Isabel Hudson, Senior Partner of Carter-Ruck
(iii) Two female assistants.

Mr Smethurst’s claim, issued by the court on 9 August 2011, was originally for £100,000 damages.

This was primarily a costs management hearing in which Carter-Ruck were asking the Master to approve their ‘costs budget’. This set out, in a series of complex tables, how they had calculated their costs to date (£28,390) and their likely future costs (£143,086.50), which totalled £171, 476.50.

Discussion about Carter-Ruck’s costs bill took up most of the 1¾ hour hearing. The Master queried the very high amount of costs in Carter-Ruck’s budget. The end result was that Carter-Ruck’s costs budget schedule, most unusually, was rejected by the Master, who ordered Carter-Ruck at their own expense to submit another one. Carter-Ruck were given leave to appeal if they wished.

The hearing opened with Jacob Dean, for Mr Smethurst, being able to make a half-hour opening summary of the case. In this address, he set out that the following legal issues to be settled in the case:

a) whether any or all of the comments I made about Mr Smethurst were justified (strictly true)
b) whether, if not justified, they were ‘fair comment’
c) what was the actual meaning of some of the words I used
d) whether I had acted promptly to remove any offending words.

He also claimed that Mr Smethurst had no control on Facebook over who became his friends on his Facebook page. That meant that I would have to have proved to the court that certain named friends of his were there as a matter of his conscious decision. Jacob Dean claimed that anyone could become Mr Smethurst’s ‘Facebook Friend’.

At the hearingk the barrister produced and served on me a new application, running to several hundred more pages, with exhibits, for ‘Summary Disposal’ of the case. The application contended that I had no arguable case and that the case should be disposed of at a 1-day hearing without the matter ever going to trial. If the case had proceeded, there would have been a 1-day summary trial before a judge. If at that hearing the judge thought that I had an arguable case, the matter would have been set down for a 3-day trial at which all the legal arguments mentioned above would have been considered.

The Master was especially interested in the following aspects of the matter:

a) whether or not I had promptly removed any offending material
b) whether or not Mr Smethurst had followed the Pre-Action Protocol on Defamation, which requires libel claimants to give potential defendants an opportunity to remove any allegedly libellous publications. The Protocol sets out quite clearly that court action should be ‘a last resort’
c) whether or not Mr Smethurst should have issued proceedings on 9 August when I had met all the demands of Carter-Ruck’s initial two letters of 4 August
d) whether Mr Smethurst’s claim for £100,000 damages was ‘proportional’: i.e. whether such a large claim was reasonable in respect of comments made on a small internet forum and which were removed on request
e) whether the steps taken in the proceedings to date by Carter-Ruck were proportionate, having regard in particular to my prompt removal of any offending material.

At the conclusion of the case, the Master said that she was “fully seized of all the issues relating to the need for claimants to follow the pre-Action Protocol and as to proportionality”.

In terms, this may well mean that a large part of Mr Smethurst’s costs claim may be disallowed by the court.

Once a libel claim has been issued, and bearing in mind the gross inequality of resources in this case, tough choices have to be made. My choice was to settle on the most favourable terms that I could agree.


Tony Bennett
Researcher