BENNETT BACKS DOWN TO SMETHURST AGAIN

Yes, folks, Bennett is retreating faster than Napoleon from Moscow.

The latest climbdown:


Edward Smethurst and this forum: Statement 4 February 2012
Tony Bennett Today

As is known, Edward Smethurst has since at least September 2007, and possibly before, been described in the press as 'The McCanns' Co-ordinating Lawyer'. He is also a current Director of the controversial 'Find Madeleine Fund'. His activities are consequently of interest to those concerned to discuss with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

On 4 August 2011, Mr Smethurst objected to a number of postings I made on this forum between 9 and 12 May 2011. These postings were all removed from the forum the following day.

Despite that, and his lawyers knowing I was away on a pre-arranged holiday from 5 to 15 August, Mr Smethurst issued a libel writ on 9 August 2011, claiming damages of up to £100,000 for alleged libels on this forum. I found out about this writ on my return from holiday.

At a Case Management Hearing on 7 December, I reached agreement with Mr Smethurst on a settlement of his dispute with me.

The proposed terms of settlement have now been firmed up by Carter-Ruck, and apart from one term which is unacceptable and which is the subject of correspondence, these terms will be settled before the same judge as before, Master Victoria McCloud, at a 1-hour Case Management hearing at 3pm at the Royal Courts of Justice on Wednesday 29 February.

Immediately following the hearing, there was a discussion about other disparaging posts about Edward Smethurst on this forum, which had not been referred to in his writ.

In an Application Notice in these proceedings by Carter-Ruck issued on 23 January, Isabel Hudson of Carter-Ruck wrote:

"Immediately after the hearing, the Defendant indicated to Counsel and the Solicitor for the Claimant that he was willing to go further than the terms of the Part 36 Offer, by undertaking to 'use his best endeavours' tpo remove from the Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann internet discussion forum disparaging postings about the Claimant or his family which had been published by third parties (whereas Paragraph (d) of the Part 36 offer simply required the Defendant to remove all disparaging postings which the Defendant himself had published about the Claimant or his family)".

That is correct. The forum is always at risk if libel claimants who can afford to go to court object to anything here that they beleive defames them. I therefore agreed to consider a list of such 'disparaging' postings if Mr Smethurst supplied such a list, and remove the postings he objected to.

Just over a week ago, Carter-Ruck sent me that list, which consisted of 49 postings between 10 December 2010 and 28 December 2011.

I have, with the consent of the forum-owner, removed 48 of them, whilst not conceding that any of them were libellous of Mr Smethurst. They were, certainly, mostly posts that were critical of him in one respect or another.

Just for the record, the number of posts removed included:

11 by me

8 by jd

5 by aiyoyo

4 by lj

2 by PeterMac

2 by Gillyspot

2 by happychick

2 by Daisy

and 1 each by: admin, crispyroll, Ringo, Marian, Newintown, kikoraton, HFS, pennylane, uppatoffee, puzzled, tiny and tigger.

The only one I have not removed at Mr Smethurst's request is my OP on the thread dealing with Palladium Associates' involvement with the failed trial of a south London businessman and two others at Guildford Crown Court in November and December, here:

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4103-smethurst-latest-the-mccanns-main-lawyer-edward-smethurst-palladium-associates-and-a-failed-4-week-long-blackmail-trial

Mr Smethurst could not deny that he has assiduously promoted himself in the local newspapers, in legal journals and magazines and elsewhere. He has benefited from very favourable coverage in many articles, for many of which he is the source. He is no shrinking violet.

No-one can expect to be immune from facts circulating about them. That is particularly so in the case of those who seek publicity in the way Mr Smethurst has done.

The information I have regarding the circumstances in which Palmer & Harvey hired Smethurst and May's Palladium Associates and which I have placed on the other thread is based on impeccable and documentary sources. I suggest that since it is clear that Palladium's involvement led directly to the arrest of 3 men who were subsequently all found not guilty, and an expensive - and failed - police investigation by Sussex Police that is said to have cost £2 million, it is quite legitimate for us to know about it here and discuss it.

============

Yes, but who in their right minds would want to? Still, it's further proof of Bennett's obsession with Mr Smethurst, so no doubt someone will be keeping an eye on it.

So, Bennett's had to remove all those filthy imaginings and allegations, by himself and others?

I am sure any sane person can now see Bennett/unknown parties made the whole thing up.

I may be missing it, but I cannot see who is paying the costs?

As Bennett has had to remove the filth written by him and others, and make a donation via Mr Smethurst to the Find Madeleine fund, I assume it will be him?

Oh, and am I correct in thinking that every time that deviant TDH/KaOssis/jmucky, etc., repeats Bennett's disgusting remarks ANYWHERE, Bennett will ultimately be held responsible?

an expensive - and failed - police investigation by Sussex Police that is said to have cost £2 million, it is quite legitimate for us to know about it here and discuss it.

And how much did Bennett's meddling in the Balkwell case end up costing? How much unnecessary distress did he cause?

Never mind, any reasonable person can see Bennett is still obsessed with Mr Smethurst.

I love the way Bennett dumps his mates in the shit.
_______________________

Just for the record, the number of posts removed included:

11 by me

8 by jd

5 by aiyoyo

4 by lj

2 by PeterMac

2 by Gillyspot

2 by happychick

2 by Daisy

and 1 each by: admin, crispyroll, Ringo, Marian, Newintown, kikoraton, HFS, pennylane, uppatoffee, puzzled, tiny and tigger.

Sans, it would not surprise me one bit if he revealed the real names and addresses of the hounders in court, ostensibly to prove how much support he has.

That's twice in a few days he has tried to outsource the blame for his problems, and he has form for doing it to his own allies.

sans_souci wrote:I love the way Bennett dumps his mates in the shit.
_______________________

Just for the record, the number of posts removed included:

11 by me

8 by jd

5 by aiyoyo

4 by lj

2 by PeterMac

2 by Gillyspot

2 by happychick

2 by Daisy

and 1 each by: admin, crispyroll, Ringo, Marian, Newintown, kikoraton, HFS, pennylane, uppatoffee, puzzled, tiny and tigger.

That about takes care of the whole Membership and a couple of Socks. And we now have a list of all those on whom Carter Ruck are keeping an eye.
No replies to Bennett's Post as yet, but they should be interesting once they start. If they start.

That forker who spams everywhere just has:

Gillyspot Today

Thanks for letting us know Tony. You and admin must do as you think fit for the best of the case.

I can't see that my posts were libellous (can't recall what I said though and would love to know) but isn't it interesting that Ringo had made a post here requiring apparent removal. @RingoStarfish being such a clear "anti" McCann and all

Probably contained a libellous quote from one of the forker fantasists.

sans_souci wrote:
I love the way Bennett dumps his mates in the shit.

Do you think they will digest what he really did, sans?

He referred twice to 'after the hearing'. The first time as though the plaintiffs had brought the subject up, when it was Bennett who volunteered to go one step further, as in the second mention.

ETA: I am referring to this.....


Immediately following the hearing, there was a discussion about other disparaging posts about Edward Smethurst on this forum, which had not been referred to in his writ.

In an Application Notice in these proceedings by Carter-Ruck issued on 23 January, Isabel Hudson of Carter-Ruck wrote:

"Immediately after the hearing, the Defendant indicated to Counsel and the Solicitor for the Claimant that he was willing to go further than the terms of the Part 36 Offer, by undertaking to 'use his best endeavours' tpo remove from the Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann internet discussion forum disparaging postings about the Claimant or his family which had been published by third parties (whereas Paragraph (d) of the Part 36 offer simply required the Defendant to remove all disparaging postings which the Defendant himself had published about the Claimant or his family)".

Gillyspot Today

Thanks for letting us know Tony. You and admin must do as you think fit for the best of the case.

I can't see that my posts were libellous (can't recall what I said though and would love to know) but isn't it interesting that Ringo had made a post here requiring apparent removal. @RingoStarfish being such a clear "anti" McCann and all

Although Mr. Smethurst didn't demand the removal, Bennett simply volunteered every one of them to be removed?

Quite, Lily, which makes a nonsense of this rallying cry to the faithful:

Re: Edward Smethurst and this forum: Statement 4 February 2012
sharonl Today
PeterMac wrote:
Is it not interesting how everyone seems terrified of this forum ?
Instead of just dismissing it as the rantings of a few cranks who do not know the full facts, and ignoring it completely, which might seem to be the more mature way of dealing with things on the internet, they involve lawyers, courts, and court time.
Of what precisely are they afraid ?


You know what they say Petermac

The truth always hurts

Wasn't true, though was it? That's why Bennett rolled over yet again to have his tummy tickled, removing hounderposts along the way.

If there had been any truth in his disgusting allegations, then he wouldn't have waved the white flag.

And why should the Smethurst family have to put up with Bennett and his ilk spreading this filth all over the net? Who on earth do the hounders think they are, that they should be allowed to make up pornographic garbage about people?

Yup. Passing the buck. "It wasn't just me, Your Honour, so keep The Costs down, and they can pay their wack."

At least he admitted the truth about the muck they all spew:

the rantings of a few cranks who do not know the full facts

And Bennett admitted that All......sorry...... Some of his Members posted up Libel. Will he be a witness for The Prosecution?

bb1 wrote:At least he admitted the truth about the muck they all spew:

the rantings of a few cranks who do not know the full facts

The big problem is that their rantings would be ignored if they didn't go out into the streets and hand out leaflets, take photos of people's homes and businesses, and also fabricate disgusting posts on social networking sites.

Otherwise, they could easily be considered as cranks.

Immediately following the hearing, there was a discussion about other disparaging posts about Edward Smethurst on this forum, which had not been referred to in his writ.

So Bennett removed his members' posts, even though they weren't even in the writ? Just cos CR asked nicely?

Sneak preview of the new houndation logo:

bb1 wrote:Immediately following the hearing, there was a discussion about other disparaging posts about Edward Smethurst on this forum, which had not been referred to in his writ.

So Bennett removed his members' posts, even though they weren't even in the writ? Just cos CR asked nicely?

I don't think they had to even ask, did they. Looks like he offered, to me.

Oh Lord, yes, Lily, it was BENNETT WHO OFFERED TO REMOVE THEM, not CR who asked:

"Immediately after the hearing, the Defendant indicated to Counsel and the Solicitor for the Claimant that he was willing to go further than the terms of the Part 36 Offer , by undertaking to 'use his best endeavours' tpo remove from the Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann internet discussion forum disparaging postings about the Claimant or his family which had been published by third parties

Apologies, that hadn't sunk in earlier.

What on earth can anyone say? I can see Bennett offering to hand over his memberlist to CR before much longer.

After all the hot air and bombast, what can anyone say except



ETA, yes, Sabot, apologies, that hadn't sunk in till I reread Lily's post. What a craven display of

And they all defend and support him.

bb1 wrote:Sneak preview of the new houndation logo:

Bewildered hounder:


Thanks for keeping us informed Tony. Is there any chance you could forward the offending posts through PM? (no probs if not) I would love to know where I went 'wrong' and to see what Mr Smethurst deems as unacceptable comments. I can then be a good little citizen and strive not to 'offend' again.


Piece of advice, for free, dear.

Read Bennett's surrender note again. He OFFERED to delete the posts to show Carter Ruck what a good little boy he was.

He is also quite capable of reading all his members' real names and addresses out in court, ostensibly to prove how much backing he has in his imagination, but really to take as many people down with him as possible.

He's done it often enough before. Now is a very good time to start running.

I can then be a good little citizen and strive not to 'offend' again.

But he wants them to offend again and as often as possible.

lily wrote:

bb1 wrote:Sneak preview of the new houndation logo:

More from Tony 'white feather' Bennett.

I considered that it was reasonable that - if some posters were following on with comments about Mr Smethurst which were in part based on some of the posts in May last year to which he objected - we should also remove those 'follow-on' comments. Rather than pick and choose which of the 48 postings he objected to it was reasonable to remove, I opted on this occasion to accede in full. Very little hard information has been lost to the forum, it was mostly comment and opinion.

I opted on this occasion to accede in full

Did a bit more than that, didn't he?

the Defendant indicated to Counsel and the Solicitor for the Claimant that he was willing to go further than the terms of the Part 36 Offer

Unless Bennett's forgotten he was the Defendant?

bb1 wrote:More from Tony 'white feather' Bennett.

I considered that it was reasonable that - if some posters were following on with comments about Mr Smethurst which were in part based on some of the posts in May last year to which he objected - we should also remove those 'follow-on' comments. Rather than pick and choose which of the 48 postings he objected to it was reasonable to remove, I opted on this occasion to accede in full. Very little hard information has been lost to the forum, it was mostly comment and opinion.

I opted on this occasion to accede in full

Did a bit more than that, didn't he?

the Defendant indicated to Counsel and the Solicitor for the Claimant that he was willing to go further than the terms of the Part 36 Offer

Unless Bennett's forgotten he was the Defendant?

Does that mean he has to ask me to take down the screenshots I have of his posts, on my other blog?