Bennett's Turned Up

I agree with you bb1, thanks for telling me.

Being a pensioner does NOT exempt you from being subject to the laws of the land; and his transgressions were committed BEFORE his 65th birthday in September this year. Conrad Black is 3 years older than bent tit and he was convicted and is back in jail in 2011 for fraud! And as has been pointed out he isn't short of a bob or two; I have always wondered about his tax returns ???? LL

It's a piece of nonsense, LL, that this picture is being painted of Bennett as some poor old soul living off gruel; he takes more holidays than a lottery winner.

They seem to have missed how he started his latest tale of woe:

As a result of a letter from Carter-Ruck dated 13 January and received by me on Friday after I returned from a short holiday

His fans really want to take stock of what they are doing, and remember the old saying about fools and money.

I bet he is beginning to wish he hadn't used his frequent holidays as excuses for avoiding answering Carter Ruck about his Libel.
I don't suppose Carter Ruck care all that much, but some of us are interested in how often he can afford to go gallivanting around UK and The Continent while pleading poverty.

bb1 wrote:Quite, Sabot.

It is an ongoing wonder to me that the Truthseekers are so easily fooled by his 'poor old soul' act.

He may well go round looking like an elderly tramp, but he clearly has far more money squirrelled away somewhere than just about everyone else nowadays.

And - he should be in gainful employment at his age. That he doesn't have to work for a living really should be telling them something.

At what age do you class someone as old age pensioners?
Here, it is 65.

It's currently sixty-five for men - which Bennett isn't till September, Tony.

ETA, he has somehow managed to spend the last few years doing nothing but harrass the McCanns and others, to travel the country stalking people, and to holiday abroad, with no visible means of income.

Nice work if you can get it....

bb1 wrote:It's currently sixty-five for men - which Bennett isn't till September, Tony.

And he wasn't 65 when he started his vendetta against the McCanns.

If Bennett doesn't shut up with his bellyaching, I'm going to start posting up screenshots of his posts that brought him to where he is now.

You have to admit that it has been a pretty spectacular decline, even if it did take a minute or ten.
He and they were so cocky and riding high four years ago, and now look were they are. A laughing stock and cause for much derision. Thank heaven that so many of us have stuck in there and fought back.

Sabot wrote:
You have to admit that it has been a pretty spectacular decline, even if it did take a minute or ten.
He and they were so cocky and riding high four years ago, and now look were they are. A laughing stock and cause for much derision. Thank heaven that so many of us have stuck in there and fought back.

Most of what he had to say Sabot, borders on pedophilic ramblings you would expect from a pedophile.

crazytony wrote:

Sabot wrote:
You have to admit that it has been a pretty spectacular decline, even if it did take a minute or ten.
He and they were so cocky and riding high four years ago, and now look were they are. A laughing stock and cause for much derision. Thank heaven that so many of us have stuck in there and fought back.

Most of what he had to say Sabot, borders on pedophilic ramblings you would expect from a pedophile.

Yes, Tony. A lot of what he writes and says is pretty sickening, but he still has the brass neck to accuse other people, probably due to what goes on in sick head. Personally, I think he is mentally ill, but then so are most of them. But it doesn't actually amount to anything, and no one is going to get convicted of anything on what they have to say.

Sabot wrote:

crazytony wrote:

Sabot wrote:
You have to admit that it has been a pretty spectacular decline, even if it did take a minute or ten.
He and they were so cocky and riding high four years ago, and now look were they are. A laughing stock and cause for much derision. Thank heaven that so many of us have stuck in there and fought back.

Most of what he had to say Sabot, borders on pedophilic ramblings you would expect from a pedophile.

Yes, Tony. A lot of what he writes and says is pretty sickening, but he still has the brass neck to accuse other people, probably due to what goes on in sick head. Personally, I think he is mentally ill, but then so are most of them. But it doesn't actually amount to anything, and no one is going to get convicted of anything on what they have to say.

Very true Sabot.

bb1 wrote:This bears careful reading, sans:


For the record, I have taken the advice of a local Solicitor who advised that the terms of the undertaking I was forced to give in November 2009 were unusually wide and there were good grounds for them at least to be varied.

He did advise that I should be legally represented if at all possible, but after making enquiries via solicitors and the Legal Services Commission who run the Legal Aid scheme, no Legal Aid is possible to anyone who has savings over £8,000, which I have. He then quoted me figures for advising and said that in view of the many complexities and unusual features of this case, he would need to seek a written Opinion from an experienced barrister. Because of the sheer amount of material which the McCanns have placed before the court, and the need for both the solicitor and barrister to read and consider all the documentation, plus look up and apply all relevant law and case precedent, the cost of being advised alone would run to a 5-figure sum.

My solicitor is not one of the very few solicitors who has what are called ‘rights of audience’ in the Royal Courts of Justice, which means that if I wish to be represented in court, this would mean I would again have to hire a barrister

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

Interesting, is it not, that this 'solicitor' won't touch it with a bargepole; and it is scarcely surprising Bennett has been told to seek advice from Counsel.

And why is he whining about the volume of material? It's all his own words, being dumped back on him.

He generated the material, no-one else.

Anyway, I am sure that Counsel will simply give him the same advice as people here and elsewhere are.

1. STFU

2. Apologise - indeed, grovel if need be.

3. Make a VERY hefty donation to the Find Madeleine fund.

4. Close down your sites.

5. Use your energy on something useful, like cleaning up rubbish in Harlow.

6. Never, ever, mention Madeleine or the McCanns again.

7. Never, ever, again, start stalking and harrassing ANYONE.

He might just manage to wriggle out of this with the only damage being to his savings account - and isn't he lucky to have one of those these days!

For the record, I have taken the advice of a local Solicitor who advised that the terms of the undertaking I was forced to give in November 2009 were unusually wide and there were good grounds for them at least to be varied.
Bennett knew he could apply to have the order lifted, but didn't do so.
He states this in the second part of the post.

The thing that stands out is the phrase "the McCanns have made no further claim against me in respect of their costs".

This is a measure of their forbearance, and which Bennett is clearly taking as a sign of weakness.

I have altered my mind on this. Bennett has had chance after chance, he has been offered free advice on his legal difficulties, the plaintiffs have bent over backwards to limit the actual damage of their efforts to have him desist.

He clearly sees himself on some sort of path to martyrdom.

I cannot think why but this lot remind me of "senator brea" sketch by Rowan Atkinson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGSs7RfeQCw

Jeezuz. His arrogance and stupidity are incredible. All he had to do was to STOP. But Oh No, he had to push his luck and prove how clever he thought he was. Well, he has now firmly debunked that idea. He isn't in the least bit clever. He is just a nasty, spiteful old man who has managed to get a sick kick out of hounding a devastated family, and not for the first time. I hope for his sake that it was worth what it is going to cost him.
Personally, I don't care what The court does to him. I have never gloried in the misfortune of anyone, and I won't do it with him or Amaral. But I do know that neither of them will get away with it again.

sans_souci wrote:The thing that stands out is the phrase "the McCanns have made no further claim against me in respect of their costs".

This is a measure of their forbearance, and which Bennett is clearly taking as a sign of weakness.

I have altered my mind on this. Bennett has had chance after chance, he has been offered free advice on his legal difficulties, the plaintiffs have bent over backwards to limit the actual damage of their efforts to have him desist.

He clearly sees himself on some sort of path to martyrdom.

I cannot think why but this lot remind me of "senator brea" sketch by Rowan Atkinson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGSs7RfeQ

This is a sad fact of life, Sans. Show any sign of compassion or kindness and someone will see it as weakness.
The hard bit is in not allowing this to affect your own attitude to people in general.

It is also a fact that some people are born kind and some people are born unkind. This is really sad for the latter because they live their lives in fear and misery.

I have altered my mind on this. Bennett has had chance after chance, he has been offered free advice on his legal difficulties, the plaintiffs have bent over backwards to limit the actual damage of their efforts to have him desist.

He interprets that as weakness, not decency, as a sign that his victims are 'hiding something', not that they have better things to do than get embroiled with lawyers because he is incapable of behaving as a decent, honorable human being.

I have no sympathy whatsoever for him. He wants to be a martyr? Well, now's his chance.

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.com/2012/01/bennett-knew-he-could-have-order-lifted.html





How can anyone read that - Bennett's own words - see the way he has behaved since he made that agreement, and the way he is now carrying on, and think he has a single shred of decency or honor?

He should be ashamed of himself.

He's trying to drum up a mob to attend court when he appears - and he cannot resist the snide remarks, can he?

CONTEMPT HEARING 8 Feb will be in open court - anyone can attend
Tony Bennett Today at 10:12 am

At the sixth time of asking over a period of five weeks, in a 'phone call this morning, I have managed to extract from Mr James Tipp, Deputy Court Manager and Court Co-ordinator for the Queens Bench Division Judges Listing Office to give him his full title, the following information:

1. The 2-hour Directions Hearing on 8 February will be in open court, absolutely anyone can attend to observe, media included, McCann-sceptics and McCann-believers alike

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

As stated before, decisions as to the Court room number for the hearing and time of the hearing won't be taken until the day before. I have to ring the Court Listing Office after 2pm on 7 February and they will give me that information.

I will post up that information here as soon as I get it a week on Tuesday.

In view of the costs of legal representation, and because only very expensive barristers are allowed to represent Defendants in High Court proceedings, I shall have to represent myself.

Thanks once again by the way for all advice received and expressions of support, they have all been much appreciated.

One final point: the law on freedom of speech in this country i.e. what one can reasonably say about another without crossing the indistinct line between fair and honest comment on the one hand, and libelling someone on the other, has been changed as a result of the decision two years ago in Spiller v Joseph. There, five Supreme Court judges unanimously extended the rights of those who might be making adverse comment on others. It is well worth a careful read, but does run to 48 pages, here's the link:

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/UKSC_2009_0210_Judgment.pdf

=========

No doubt Tango will be there waving a placard. With any luck, the whole lot of them will end up in the cells for disrupting proceeding and calling the judge a troll.

The forkers making remarks like this one on MM about Mike Gunnill really do have short memories, don't they?

This, people, is the sort of scum we have had to put up with for the past five years.


Scum, is he? They seem to have forgotten that the only reason he is in any way involved is that the likes of them, led by Debs, Stevo and Bennett, tried to wreck his professional livelihood when it proved impossible to take a photo of Butler which made her look like a human being.

Forgotten all that, have they? The stalking, the abuse all over the internet, the clone of Mr Gunnill's business site Stevo created?

If they want to see scum, the forkers can try looking in mirrors.

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.

That's an excellent idea, Sabot. Someone needs to keep track of Bennett's mistakes, and we all saw him rewriting what the judge ACTUALLY said about FB - he can't be trusted to tell the truth.

I am sure one or two old friends of mine will be present in an official capacity, but it would be good if people could just sit quietly and take notes of Bennett's mistakes.

And as a bonus, they will probably witness hounders and forkers getting sent to the cells for accusing the judge of being a mason.

Could it be possible to Record The Proceedings with an iPhone do you think?

It would be difficult for me to be there, but this might be an opportunity that I can't resist. And I am due a trip to UK soon. Plus I am pretty hot on short hand. I shall have to see.
But I expect that others of us will be there anyway.

What about expenses, and will we be allowed to tweet in Court do you think?

rhodes wrote:What about expenses, and will we be allowed to tweet in Court do you think?

Not sure about that, but you don't have to make a song and dance about it if you did. But I was thinking more about Recording.

Expenses would have to be down to you, unless you could sell some stuff to The Tabloids like basic opinions. And it could be a good day out.