BENNETT CLUTCHES AT LEGAL AID STRAWS

crazytony wrote:

Sabot wrote:
I don't particularly want to see Bennett humiliated and beggared, but I expect I'll cope if he insists.
Personally, I think he is incapable of backing off because he would lose too much face. So he probably feels that destitution would be better.

Let's face it, even if he was to concede and swear he won't do it again; he would be back on the forums using another pseudonym within seconds of conceding.

Of course he would. Tony. We know that now. His "Word" isn't worth anything. Although I have to say that the only person he is damaging these days is himself. Oh, and possibly his family, but they can all claim Benefits if he destitutes them all.

It's the ignominy of it, Sabot, for his family. Bennett would be well advised to forget any notion he may have that he's going to look like some kind of hero to the great British public.

No, he is going to be portrayed as we see him - probably in an even worse light, as the media know all about his obsessive vendettas. He's targeted them often enough, after all.

Take it Bennett is aware that it is him in the dock and not the McCanns.

Muratfan, I think he is in total denial of reality. It really should be telling him something that he has to get advice from CR on getting a legal aid lawyer:


I should also add, for the record, that in their last letter to me dated 18 May, carter-Ruck themselves suggested the names of three Lon don firms of solicitors known to do Legal Aid work in human rights-type cases, and I shall also be writing to each of them.

It gives the impression that he did NOTHING until CR told him who to contact. You really couldn't make it up.

I feel for CR that they did not have to deal with a professional lawyer. Their job would have been made easier.

The lawyer would have been responsible for Bennett as his mouthpiece.

lily wrote:I feel for CR that they did not have to deal with a professional lawyer. Their job would have been made easier.

The lawyer would have been responsible for Bennett as his mouthpiece.

And there wouldn't have been reams and reams of inconsequential rubbish. This would also have kept down Bennett's Costs in the long run. He thought he was being so clever in churning out this mountainous load of garbage when all he has done is cause more problems for himself.

He's surfaced again:

This is the latest - for a little while
Tony Bennett Today at 4:39 pm

Thank you all for your comments.

In response:

* I prefer to give as full an account of developments here as I am able to, I feel I owe this to those who've kindly supported me, and to the forum-owner and Mods who have done much to help me

* I don't think I've actually 'given away' anything. Carter-Ruck have seen my Affidavits over two months ago, so quoting one paragraph from one of them tells them nothing about my case that they don't already know

* I won't be rushing into the arms of one of the firms of Solicitors recommended by Carter-Ruck

* The information supplied by Carter-Ruck is probably not because they WANT to help me. However, Solicitors' rules of conduct about dealing with unrepresented defendants are quite tight - and have recently been tightened (April 27). Up to a point, they MUST assist me with certain matters. And they dare not overstate their case because this could lead to a complaint to the Solicitors' regulatory bodies (there are two of them).

But I'll take all your advice - I'll be keeping quiet for a bit. If I succeed in getting Legal Aid and being legally represented, I'll let you all know here starightaway.

Equally, I'll let you all know if I fail to be granted Legal Aid.

Here is what his members think helps his cause:

You are fighting real life vermin

==========

I would imagine them on the toilet and picking their noses in private

There's plenty more like that.

Tell me, do they think other people can't see what they are posting in PUBLIC? Do they think calling the McCanns, and anyone who dares support them, VERMIN, helps their cause?


Do they think their vulgar toilet imagery is a good advert for them? For all they know, Judge Tugenhat is reading their forum, and others, to find out for himself the background of all this.

Do they really think anyone is going to be impressed by that, never mind a High Court judge? If they do, they are sadly mistaken.

About "I prefer to give as full an account of developments", I wonder if TB is talking about treatment at a mental institution.

I am beginning to wonder if Havern's IS a Mental Institution.

Sabot, your words are mine.

Bennett:


Finally, in Carter-Ruck’s last letter, they asked me to make clear that in this case Adam Tudor is charging ‘only’ £660 an hour, inclusive of VAT, and Isabel Hudson ‘only’ £540 an hour (including VAT).

What's with the 'only'? He surely doesn't think that that is expensive, does he? For professionals of their standing, in central London? I'd call that a bargain, personally.

And that includes VAT, so what's he moaning about?

I expect he is kicking himself for not ripping off clients for more than he did during his very brief career.

There is much speculation in The Case of The Crown v Bennett for High Treason, but this is likely to lead to some disappointment amongst the Hoi Poloi as a Sentence of Hanging, Drawing and Quartering is no longer considered to be appropriate in this present Elizabethan Age of enlightenment.

The other options available to The High Court are, Incarceration, Seizure of Goods and Chattels, A Fine, or all three.

A small proportion of certain vociferous elements are to be seen on the streets, waving their pitch forks and crude banners, making speaches, and handing out leaflets, but it is unclear whose side they are on as most of them involve Libellous Statements of some kind or another, and are exhorting Mr. Bennett to even greater heights of foolhardiness. One can only wonder if they are more interested in a spectacle than in Justice itself.

Mr Bennett is currently appealing to The Crown to grant him Legal Aid to continue with his campaign of Libel and High Treason. The big question occupying those minds that care is, will he get it?
His personal worth far exceeds that of your average pitch forker, although some of them seem only too happy to offer their two groats worth in their fight for Free Speach but only for Them. While the rest of us can whistle.

The Case will supposedly be heard in September, after everyone has recovered from The Jubilee, and if Mr. Bennett can't think of any more delaying tactics, or holidays that he has already booked. Although rumour has it that he is working on this as we speak, so to speak.

Don't hold your breath, Folks. This could still have some way to go.

bb1 wrote:Bennett:


Finally, in Carter-Ruck’s last letter, they asked me to make clear that in this case Adam Tudor is charging ‘only’ £660 an hour, inclusive of VAT, and Isabel Hudson ‘only’ £540 an hour (including VAT).

What's with the 'only'? He surely doesn't think that that is expensive, does he? For professionals of their standing, in central London? I'd call that a bargain, personally.

And that includes VAT, so what's he moaning about?

The sting in the tail is the contingency fee. This doubles the effective hourly rate. CR get double the fee if they win, and nothing if they lose.

His personal worth far exceeds that of your average pitch forker, although some of them seem only too happy to offer their two groats worth in their fight for Free Speach but only for Them.

It's amazing that that hasn't dawned on them, Sabot. And if Bennett is so sure he is in the right, well, why isn't he putting his hands in his own comfortably-filled pockets?

Thanks, J-P, I had totally forgotten that the fee doubles when they win.

He knows he is going to lose, Bonny, but he is hoping that others will bail him out, as well they might. Ultimately, this means that The Search for Madeleine Fund will benefit, although I don't suppose that thought has occurred to them.

He knows he is going to lose, Bonny, but he is hoping that others will bail him out, as well they might.

There certainly is one born every minute, Sabot. It doesn't even seem to have dawned on Bennett that Legal Aid isn't a gift from the taxpayer, it's a loan, which he will have to pay back, one way or another.

He would be better advised spending some of his own money instructing a legal representative of his choosing to find a way out of this, and to accept ANY terms Carter Ruck see fit to offer.

The problem is, he has shown repeatedly that his word is worthless, that he breaks agreements as easily as breathing, and is simply not a person to be trusted.

The problem is, he has shown repeatedly that his word is worthless, that he breaks agreements as easily as breathing, and is simply not a person to be trusted.

I think that means he is being a slime ball.

Well, I was being diplomatic

So was I, Bonny.

lily wrote: So was I, Bonny.

it doesn't matter if tone the comb thinks he can say what he wants about the McCanns and use the excuse "well this person says the same thing, and this person says the same as I think".

The FACT is that he agreed in court to stop hounding and accusing them. And he hasn't stopped. So there is no way he couldn't be found guilty.

The doggy woof-woof film and the 400+ pages of rubbish he's submitted are neither here nor there, they are nothing more than a sideshow for the benefit of his supporters----he's forgetten that HE is on trial, not the parents of an ABDUCTED child that he has a vendetta against.

Re: HiDeHo Videos Submitted to Operation Grange
HiDeHo Today

Thanks so much for all the lovely comments.

I had no idea when I started (tentatively with Joana's help) that they could become so useful!

I consider them to be 'our voice' so we now know that we do officially have one!

Been working all day so was shocked to see all the comments and, as someone alluded to earlier, it has been 'lifted' and taken to Facebook!


https://www.facebook.com/clairebs2/posts/449340688427531?comment_id=5542507

I am soooo happy and excited that we will KNOW that Scotland Yard will see the discrepancies! (even though it will be at least 5hrs of taxpayers money)

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

The hypocrisy of it! These are the very people who were shrieking and moaning about the review costing £6,000 a week - but they think it is perfectly acceptable to waste police time and taxpayers' money with this crap.

And since when was she a UK taxpayer?

The egotism and arrogance in that post is astounding - does she really think she can tell Scotland Yard what they should be doing? She should stick to playing armchair detective instead of trying to make herself important by meddling in police matters which are none of her business to begin with.

Her stupid videos, with their biased editing, cherry-picked C & P -in, and melodratic sound track will go straight in the bin, along with Bennett's rubbish and Kiki's conspiraloon nonsense.

Unless, of course, they pass it to CR, as most of it is not only untrue and inaccurate, it's outright libel.

I hope that SY send them all a bill for wasting police time on this amateur carp, frankly.

Further, all this amateur carp reflects so well on the unprofessional cop himself who was taken off the investigation.