BENNETT WANTS MONEY - CLAIMS HE IS COLD (And so is Gonc)

Do you think they are all Fascists, Bonny? It would explain why they love Gonc and other assorted thugs. And why Bennett thinks he has a right to public money when he already has loads of his own.

They all think the same, and they all take out their own inadequacies and failures on the McCanns. Doesn't matter whether they are knuckledraggers like Laffinthug, interlectool forkers like smiffy, thugs like Cristovao and the rest of Team Gonc, complete lunatics like ZoeRothelyTroll, they all dance to the same drum.

I hate them McCanns, it's their fault I'm a loser, lookamee not them, see how clever I am, I'll smash your face in if you don't do as I say and tell me I'm wonderful, I hate them McCanns....

On and on and on it goes, with them saying the same things, over and over again. One of the many reasons why it is pointless attempting to 'communicate' with them, or having any inclination to 'debate' with them.

Re: McCann Accounts 31/3/11
Panda Today

I would just like to add that Carter Ruck's Bill so far with regard to Tony Bennett is £120,000....which will no doubt come out of the Fund...... blah blah blah...

No, dear, that will come out of Bennett's pocket.

He should have thought of that a long, long time ago and listened to the nice people at Kirwans.

If he hadn't deliberately and maliciously written those reams and reams of garbage which he mistakenly thought would deplete The Madeleine Fund, then The Bill wouldn't be nearly so bad, would it.

Classic Own Goal.

The forkers are certainly showing what a poor grasp they have on reality if it still hasn't dawned that it is BENNETT who will be paying the costs.

As you say, Sabot, it is entirely his own fault.

It was Malice Aforethought, Bonny, on the part of Bennett.
The Judge might have told Carter Ruck to cut down their examples of Bennett breaking The Undertaking as even one was enough. But he will undoubtedly be able to see why The Costs have escalated.

Oh, and how The Nasties chortled at the thought of Carter Ruck having to read all of Bennett's unintelligible ramblings.

Not quite right.

In court, CR came up with 150 odd breaches. Of various degrees of importance - some were serious, others more minor.

In order to prove their case, CR only need to "prove" one breach of his undertaking.

However, Tugendhut was also wishing to define a line - to show CR and TB exactly what was and what was not acceptable. This is of course reasonable - to prevent TB from any referral to the case would be a clear breach of his rights.

Therefore Tugendhut suggested taking a number of the most serious breaches (e.g. selling a copy of his book), and then a sample of the remainder - about 25 in all - so that in the hearing the court could decide what was and what was not a breach of his undertaking. Some actions would be a clear breach, and others whist distressing could be regarded as defensible or fair comment.

This would enable a clear(ish) line to be drawn for future reference should futher concerns arise. And would also enable the court to be clear about sanctions.

Bennett really needs to understand the way in which CR charge (he could usefully look up "conditional fee") and that he is the cause of much of CRs charges. He should also understand that CR are under an obligation to inform him of the present amount he is for should he lose.

Finally, he makes much play of "equality of arms". This is confined to representation - it is without question desirable that both parties are properly represented. Howeever, I get the feeling that TB is confusing "equality of arms" with "equality of merit" - it is pretty clear that he has breached the undertaking he gave and has further defamed the McCanns, and any represenation would simply be to attempt to mitigate the consequences.

I would be interested to know just what the offer Bennett made to stop this was - the offer that was rejected?

I am speculating here, but I wonder if it was rejected because Bennett has such a dreadful track record for breaking his word and generally acting in a dishonourable fashion?

As with his MP yesterday - we all watched that unravel, and end with Bennett claiming that he hadn't meant that his MP supported his action, no sirree, perish the thought.

When, in fact, his MP had simply acted correctly as regards a constituent, and been conscripted into Bennett's Barmy Army for his pains.

Look at what Bennett did to Smethurst - made vile, very serious allegations, and spread them all over the internet. But when it came to court, Bennett could not prove a single one of his filthy accusations.

I am rambling a bit, so to come to the point - are Carter Ruck taking this all the way because if they don't, Bennett is never, ever going to stop his harrassment of the McCann family and anyone connected to them?