BENNETT CLUTCHES AT LEGAL AID STRAWS

There is a common pitchforking theme that the McCanns want to cause Bennett's financial ruin. Is this justified?

Had they wanted to ruin him, they would not have accepted his undertaking back in 2009, but would have proceeded with the libel action. Even Bennetts own solicitiors warned him he was likely to lose, and could not get insurance cover to defend him of a no win / no fee basis. It would have resulted in very damaging costs as well as compensation. (I believe they were intending to limit it to £50,000).

This is why he was so keen to sign the undertaking.

But how things change.

He has forgotten all about being let off the hook. Sign undertaking, stick to what he agreed and that is the end of the matter. He is now whining about how unfair it all is, and how he has the RIGHT to pitchfork whoever he pleases.

That is the measure of the man (and I use that term in its loosest sense).

You have hit the nail on the head, J-P.

Bennett simply wants to whine and play the victim when he is in reality the bully in this story.

Bennett wants Free Speech to mean that he can say whatever he likes about anyone, regardless of whether or not it is true, and no matter how much harm it causes.
I don't need to remind anyone here that the right to Free Speech carries obligations and there isn't a Constitution in The World that doesn't carry this statement, not even in Portugal, no matter what Joana Morais would have us believe. And in some cases even the truth can be libellous if it is said with intent to cause harm. And there is no doubt in my mind that Bennett intended and still intends to cause harm.
And The Court of Human Rights is going to see that, if it ever goes that far. It has now simply degenerated into a face saving exercise so that Bennett can say that he was stitched up, andthen walk away with a clear conscience for the terrible things that he has done.

I cannot begin to understand his twisted mind, no matter how hard I try, and believe me, I have tried.

Is there anything to understand, Sabot? Maybe he is plain and simply a bad man? If you can face following his latest Woe-Is-Me thread (the one that got wrecked by yoyo calling everyone else trolls) he isn't even telling his cult the truth.

It hasn't sunk in with them that he liked the terms of his 2009 agreement so much, he also wrote a personal letter to CR accepting them; it hasn't sunk in that he has already offered a settlement to CR this time - they are incapable of working out the implications of that.

They don't seem to grasp that he cannot now turn round and pretend he acted under some kind of mysterious duress in 2009, when he praised the legal advice he got then (at a bargain basement price) as being top-level legal advice.

Maybe one or two of the less-blind will start to think twice, now he has had to admit that he did indeed desecrate Christmas carols, etc, but I doubt it. They will find a way of convincing themselves it wasn't his fault, he was provoked or something.

Bennett has a long, long history of shafting people who have trusted him - long before he latched onto the McCann case.

I don't know what is wrong with him and I don't greatly care; he is, IMO, a thoroughly bad lot, and there is no point in expecting anything from him but more evasions, irrelevancies and broken promises.

It hasn't sunk in with them that he liked the terms of his 2009 agreement so much, he also wrote a personal letter to CR accepting them; it hasn't sunk in that he has already offered a settlement to CR this time - they are incapable of working out the implications of that.

They don't seem to grasp that he cannot now turn round and pretend he acted under some kind of mysterious duress in 2009, when he praised the legal advice he got then (at a bargain basement price) as being top-level legal advice.

No wonder they don't understand the reality of what is happening.

As one poster has said....

This case is mostly about an undertaking which was breached by way of entrapment as I understand it.

Another poster said this.....

That is the whole point, there was no choice really when faced with such big guns. In a country of free speech, why should the poor man have to buckle to such pressure when they don't have the means to fight back?


Then we have a one time solicitor say this....

As both the European Court of Human Rights and the British courts have ruled (see Hammerton v Hammerton), a court decision arrived at when there has not been equality of arms is a violation of human rights under Article 6(1) and is therefore, effectively, invalid. The High Court decided to accept an undertaking in a situation where the defendant did not have equality of arms - indeed, nothing like it. Under Article 6(1), that decision was invalid.


What the first two posters said can be more forgiven because they, I believe, were never qualified as solicitors. Their posts are from the point of sheer ignorance. The last poster did and it is this that is unbelievable.

If we here can catch what he is doing regarding his whines and lies, what does he think a very skilled and learned Judge will do?

I can show at least a dozen of occasions where Bennett breached the undertaking he signed. And, do it, without lifting Mike Gunnill's name or the book sale.
I could have a thousand screen-shots of Bennett's damnation so could C & R. However, Nine hundred and ninety nine of them, you could class as irrelevant; because, Carter and Ruck, only need one.

Precisely, Tony.

The rewriting of history by Bennett for the benefit of his cult changes nothing in the real world.

Who said:

Tony Bennett has been granted legal aid, but as I understand it hasn't yet got a legal representative to handle his case for him.

Why, it was one Winjoy, in the members' part of Morais' MCF.

And Occifer Beachy is still hating away! Must be about time for her to pretend to be Martin Luther King again....

Doncha just love screenshots

So Bennett has, in theory, got Legal Aid, but can't get anyone to represent him, according to Winjoy?

Is that because he is a lost cause, totally and utterly in the wrong, and generally not the kind of client any legal practice wants to touch with a bargepole?

That would be hysterically funny if he has legal aid but nobody to spend it on. LOL

It was always going to be easier for Bennett to get Legal Aid than to get a Lawyer. What a hoot if he still has to represent himself.

Sabot wrote:
It was always going to be easier for Bennett to get Legal Aid than to get a Lawyer. What a hoot if he still has to represent himself.

I do so LOVE that phrase from that poster Winjoy, that Bennett is "awaiting professional help". I think that can be taken more than one way. LOL

Oh yes, so it can....

And what is any good lawyer going to tell him, anyway? Besides

YOU ARE IN THE WRONG, SETTLE OUT OF COURT.

greenink211 wrote:

Sabot wrote:
It was always going to be easier for Bennett to get Legal Aid than to get a Lawyer. What a hoot if he still has to represent himself.

I do so LOVE that phrase from that poster Winjoy, that Bennett is "awaiting professional help". I think that can be taken more than one way. LOL

Do you have to pay to be Sectioned?

Announcement from Tony Bennett
candyfloss Today
This from Tony today ...........



"Tony Bennett has informed CMOMM Admin that the two-day committal-to-prison trial in the case of McCanns v Bennett is now likely to be held in October this year".



PS - Stop lying. It isn't a 'committal-to-prison' trial. As anyone reading the documents on the hounders' official site can read for themselves.

Well, personally. I hope he gets committed to Prison for Contempt of Court. But not much chance of that happening as The British Judiciary already know that Bennett isn't quite right in the head.
Money? I don't think that The McCanns want that, but The British Judiciary might. They do not take kindly to being mocked.

Always look at the bright side: The court case over his head keeps him gagged, he finally shut up

Rose wrote:Always look at the bright side: The court case over his head keeps him gagged, he finally shut up

You have got to be joking, Love. Bennett has finally shut up because he has probably found a Barrister to represent him, who has told him to shut up, or else. But there can only ever be Mitigation. There has never been any doubt that Anthony Bennett broke the terms of his undertaking to The High Court.

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/oh-for-pity-sake-bennett-grow-pair.html

Quite.

It wasn't this when he was sneering at and tormenting Lee Balkwell's widow and son.

It wasn't this when he and his harpies were inventing disgusting smears about Ed Smethurst.

It wasn't this when he was hiding in the Kennedys' garden and taking photos of their security system to post on the internet.

It wasn't this when he and his gang were stuffing their nasty little leaflets through the doors of the McCanns' neighbours, and having a contest to see which of them could be the most intrusive.

It wasn't this when he was trying to get Gerry McCann sacked.

It wasn't this when he was compiling 'dossiers' on total strangers.

A date with a judge to explain himself is fast approaching for Bennett, and one or two others of his ilk.

Incidentally, does anyone know why Bennett keeps putting on this poor old soul act?

The Rolling Stones are years older than he is.



Of course, they haven't wasted their lives hounding, harrassing, and abusing innocent people, in between championing Right-wing politics and spouting fundamentalist rubbish.

Now correct this old man - he is being hauled up before the courts for contempt, right? Not contempt of the Mccanns, but contempt of HM's courts. So, he did the crime, he needs therefore to admit his error and do the time, and not keep on about the McCanns trying to get him shoved in the slammer. End of. LL

LL, you are absolutely right.

He knew very well what he was doing, and that was thumbing his nose at HM's High Court. Too bad that HM's High Court doesn't like it and is calling him to account.

He should have thought about this before he set out on his course of action.

This business of him playing the victim disgusts me, Lily.

He's gone out of his way to hurt Madeleine McCann and her family, he's smeared innocent people, he has made up disgusting lies about people, he has stalking and harrassed, well, anyone he felt like...

AND HE'S THE VICTIM?

I think not.

bb1 wrote:This business of him playing the victim disgusts me, Lily.

He's gone out of his way to hurt Madeleine McCann and her family, he's smeared innocent people, he has made up disgusting lies about people, he has stalking and harrassed, well, anyone he felt like...

AND HE'S THE VICTIM?

I think not.

The Victim?

He can't take responsibility. He will never grow up to be a mature man, will he?