BENNETT RESIGNS FROM MF

There is something that is slightly worrying me. This Court Case over Bennett's Undertaking does seem a trifle impersonal.
I know it's about breaking his word to The Court, but where do Kate and Gerry come into this? Their hurt, their distress, their right to live without all of this horror directed at them?
Will The Judge take that into account do you think? Will he take into account that The McCanns have bent over backwards to avoid bringing the full weight of The Law to bear on Bennett?

Therefore,we believe a fund to help Tony needs to be set up ASAP. I should like to pledge the sum of £300 (a large chunk from my pension) towards such a fund.

A fool and his money......

This is really one for sans, Sabot, but I think it is the breaking of his promise to the court that will weigh most with the judge?

Sabot wrote:
There is something that is slightly worrying me. This Court Case over Bennett's Undertaking does seem a trifle impersonal.
I know it's about breaking his word to The Court, but where do Kate and Gerry come into this? Their hurt, their distress, their right to live without all of this horror directed at them?
Will The Judge take that into account do you think? Will he take into account that The McCanns have bent over backwards to avoid bringing the full weight of The Law to bear on Bennett?

It stopped being impersonal when he used and continues to use, their child's name for his foundation.

crazytony wrote:

Sabot wrote:
There is something that is slightly worrying me. This Court Case over Bennett's Undertaking does seem a trifle impersonal.
I know it's about breaking his word to The Court, but where do Kate and Gerry come into this? Their hurt, their distress, their right to live without all of this horror directed at them?
Will The Judge take that into account do you think? Will he take into account that The McCanns have bent over backwards to avoid bringing the full weight of The Law to bear on Bennett?

It stopped being impersonal when he used and continues to use, their child's name for his foundation.

It was never impersonal to Bennett. I'm just hoping it isn't to The Judge. Not just about breaking his word, but about what he has done as well.

Is there a lawyer in the house today? We usually have one or two...

I don't know, but I think it is two separate issues?

The contempt of court is a clear legal matter, with set penalities but the libel, and the hurt and pain he has caused, is separate from that?

In his opening, Bennett had said that he was disputing the original undertaking, as he had received legal advice that the terms were too wide. Tugendhut said that the reason the original libel action was stayed was because Bennett had given an undertaking (similar in effect to an injunction). And that if TB now applied to vary the terms of the undertaking then the original action for libel would surely follow.

And that Bennett had given the undertaking in the first place to avoid the consequences of losing the libel action.

It was then said (I am not sure by who) that if TB lost the action for contempt of court then it was possible the McCanns would follow it up with the original action for libel. Bennett said that he would vigourously defend such an action.

Tugendhut "hmmm, yes well that is your right of course but it will call into question why you did not do that in the first place".

In answer to the original question, the contempt of court and the libel action are two quite separate issues.

Just a reminder for Bennett:



He's obsessed with those files, you know.

The cardboard box was of exceptional quality, while these were no ordinary lever arch files. They were beautifully finished in the attractive Oxford blue livery of Carter-Ruck, complete with their logo and full contact details.

I bet Tone never had files like that when he was practising the law (literally).

shopping trollies and Netto carrier bags full of legal documents I bet.

Jean-Pierre.t50 wrote:In his opening, Bennett had said that he was disputing the original undertaking, as he had received legal advice that the terms were too wide. Tugendhut said that the reason the original libel action was stayed was because Bennett had given an undertaking (similar in effect to an injunction). And that if TB now applied to vary the terms of the undertaking then the original action for libel would surely follow.

And that Bennett had given the undertaking in the first place to avoid the consequences of losing the libel action.

It was then said (I am not sure by who) that if TB lost the action for contempt of court then it was possible the McCanns would follow it up with the original action for libel. Bennett said that he would vigourously defend such an action.

Tugendhut "hmmm, yes well that is your right of course but it will call into question why you did not do that in the first place".

In answer to the original question, the contempt of court and the libel action are two quite separate issues.

I nearly missed the importance of this, that if The McCanns win then The Libel Action will surely follow.
Personally, I don't think it will because I believe that The McCanns just want to stop him harassing them. But Bennett being what he is might well think they will. That thought alone would be enough to bring on a panic attack.

Sadly, I think that Bennett is so obsessed, Sabot, that given the right financial backing he might even be happy to lose this libel case.

He is desperate to get his hands on the McCanns and interrogate them in the Courts. His whole reason for being, these days, seems to be to destroy them ... and publicly

It is not about Madeleine.

Imo, of course

Oh dear. The hounders are frantically trying to dig out legislation to get Bennett off the hook for selling leaflets; this is the latest effort:

I’m
not a legal begal, but if the below is true, we must be sure that the right
title for the offence is used or M.G. and / or McCanns /Carter Ruck will no
doubt make mincemeat of it.





http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/criminal/crimes_a_z/500491.html

What does that say? CRIMINAL.

They are looking up laws to do with theft and financial fraud

a legal begal

What the hell is that? It's a legal eagle and the right spelling of begal is beagle. Typical uneducated, semi-literate Meschugena/Meschugener!! LL

Lamplighter wrote:

a legal begal

What the hell is that? It's a legal eagle and the right spelling of begal is beagle. Typical uneducated, semi-literate Meschugena/Meschugener!! LL

I shouldn't worry about the Gender, LL. Half of them are pretending to be the other half anyway.

Delusional forker:

Such a shame that some boil all this down to only two points of view. After all, it isn't a competition, but a debate about a tragedy.

No, it isn't a 'debate'.

People either stand up for the rule of law in a democracy, of compassion, for the presumption of innocence, for civilization, for every single thing that is taken for granted in western society, or they are part of an internet lynch mob, a throwback to the days of witchburning and public executions.

No choice, really.

She's right it's not a Competition. It's a foregone conclusion. Madeleine was Abducted.

What is wrong with these people? HideHo has started a plaintive thread, called:

Why are there repercussions for repeating what is in the Official Police Files?

Then proceeds to quote the out-of-date report from Arguido Almeida, and Gonc's book.

Here's why.

Because senior PJ officers reviewed all that, in possession of accurate information, and did NOT come to the same conclusion.

Because the Attorney General of Portugal reviewed all that, in possession of all the evidence, and did NOT come to the same conclusion.

That report has no more value than Brown's ridiculous photos.

HiDeHo Today at 18:22

I need to tweak the image a little but it is a FACT that the Tavares report is in the files and those are the exact comments taken from the report.

Yes, dear, and all the allegations about Murat raping cats are in the files, too - but I would advise against giving them too much publicity.