OK, so who is the Carter Ruck Mole on haverns?

Stunning! Bennett is now justifying his persecution and libelling of Robert Murat by announcing:


That one sentence of Inspector Carlos may be good enough for you, tcat.

But it's not good enough for me

The Witch-finder General thinks this statement 'isn't good enough':

"Despite
an exhaustive and methodical investigation into Murat and all those
close to him, nothing was found to relate him to the crime under
investigation."

The blind, bigoted, arrogance of it! Armchair defective, prodnose and serial stalker Bennett refuses to accept that he is smearing and libelling innocent people!

And all this while the forum that isn't his resembles a Konklave of Aryan Nation....

Sometimes words just aren't enough.

It appears he has now been told he comes under civil law, not criminal. Astoundingly, he is trying to blame Carter Ruck and the Legal Aid people for giving him the wrong information.

Not once in his latest whinge does he take any responsibility whatsoever for his self-inflicted woes.

Of course it comes under civil law. I suspect that Bennett may have provided rather confusing information to the LSC about the nature of the case. Probably frothing at the mouth over "imprisonment".

Probably frothing at the mouth over "imprisonment".

Well he's been using the word 'imprisonment' every which way he can so, that sounds about right, J-P.

This is on the Not-Bennett's forum, about Assange and Ecuador, concerning something posted on MM:

Point is I don't KNOW if it's true or not what Lioned suggests - I just don't think it's fair to repeat it on a forum like this without some pretty solid evidence behind it.

And since when has anyone there bothered about 'evidence', solid or otherwise?

If there's one thing the hounders hate, it's evidence - they much prefer rumour, Sources, 'speculation' and downright inventions to anything resembling 'evidence'.

Oh but come on, Bonny. We all know that there is nothing like a good piece from a tabloid to get the investigative juices flowing.

lily wrote:Probably frothing at the mouth over "imprisonment".

Well he's been using the word 'imprisonment' every which way he can so, that sounds about right, J-P.

He needs to read the CR documents more carefully

Hilarious delusion from the hounders:


It is absolutely disgraceful that you have been fed incorrect advice . IMO, a stiff letter of complaint to the Law Society and/or any publication or organisation that may be able to stop expensive lawyers giving out wrong information, thus unnecessarily compounding the long and stressful wait for people like yourselves. There might even be some offence they are guilty of which nullifies any action taken by themselves

===========

So, as they now admit the LSC gave you false information, would they now be liable to compensate you for any expenses you have incurred recently in seeking 'criminal' representation?

Jean-Pierre.t50 wrote:

lily wrote:Probably frothing at the mouth over "imprisonment".

Well he's been using the word 'imprisonment' every which way he can so, that sounds about right, J-P.

He needs to read the CR documents more carefully

He doesn't seem to care what he reads as much as how he wants to interpret it. He does it time and time again, J-P. 'Only an assumption' being one of the horrible lies on his part.

bb1 wrote:Hilarious delusion from the hounders:


It is absolutely disgraceful that you have been fed incorrect advice . IMO, a stiff letter of complaint to the Law Society and/or any publication or organisation that may be able to stop expensive lawyers giving out wrong information, thus unnecessarily compounding the long and stressful wait for people like yourselves. There might even be some offence they are guilty of which nullifies any action taken by themselves

===========

So, as they now admit the LSC gave you false information, would they now be liable to compensate you for any expenses you have incurred recently in seeking 'criminal' representation?

That is excellent advice.

Precisely. This is the organisation responsible for actually processing, approving and paying his application for legal aid.

This sort of approach is sure to get them onside.

The hounders help to get him through the day, J-P.

Oh, my aching ribs.....

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 22 August 2012 - The Legal Services Commission change their minds again, it's CIVIL Legal Aid which applies in my case, not Criminal Legal Aid [was: LSC change their minds after 8 months]...Chances of gettting Legal Aid REDUCED
Tony Bennett Today

listener wrote:
So, as they now admit the LSC gave you false information, would they now be liable to compensate you for any expenses you have incurred recently in seeking 'criminal' representation?

No. As yet, since I have not been able to make a formal application for either Civil or Criminal Aid because of constant misinformation from the LSC, there is really nothing to claim for, BUT if I succeed in getting Legal Aid, there could conceivably be a valid claim for any additional cost, yes. The main consequence is that this will lead to further delay - and to further legal costs by Carter-Ruck [the McCanns' costs in other words], which I may have to pay towards if I lose.

I thought he was supposed to have legal qualifications himself - but he's blaming CR and the legal aid people for not doing his work for him?

He's had months - getting on for a year - to sort this out. As it is HIM who is responsible for the endless delays, then he can scarcely whine if the costs keep creeping up, can he?

Oh, and what's with the, if I lose?

That one's a slam dunk - not least because of this:

Tony Bennett
Monday 27 February 2012 at 1:10 pm

I informed Carter-Ruck on 23 February that I would be making no further comment of any kind about the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann until after the conclusion of the committal-to-prison trial.

He hasn't stopped commenting since - does he really think his word is worth anything?

It's a good job he stopped practising as a solicitor. He would have been up the creek without a paddle on account of unhappy clients.

He's completely unimpressive. I would describe him as a legal midget. (No offence to real people who are short).

In other words.....a failure.

He appears to have an ongoing trainwreck on his someone else's forum.

It has managed to degenerate from a Konklave into a Little Englander Konklave....they are now managing to abuse Respected Members of Irish/Scots/Celt origin.

It's a sight to behold, it really is.

So it is. Not Bennett's forum at its best.

It gets better and better. Bennett's reason for not liking Assange....

In other words, if this report is right, the saintly Assange is now a willing collaborator in covering up human rights abuses, to save his own skin. As it is, even if this information isn't right, he has sucked up to a country with a bad human rights record. He didn't ask for my permission before putting up '60 Reasons' on his site, either. I had to ask him to take it down, but he refused

He was doing so well, too. If only he had stopped at 'human rights record'.

Ba Boom!

Must say, their views on 'social issues' are an eye-opener. Can you imagine the kind of Hell any society run by them would be?

All grass cut to a regulation height, women kept at home, microwaves banned, people judged by the colour of their skin and how 'English' they are, anyone who didn't conform targeted - I saw one of them recommending children's mouths be washed out with soap if they said a 'bad word', crime-fighting by 'gut instinct' - Hell on earth.

I seem to recall some German bloke tried all that seventy or eighty years ago, ended very badly.

All grass cut to a regulation height, women kept at home, microwaves banned, people judged by the colour of their skin and how 'English' they are, anyone who didn't conform targeted - I saw one of them recommending children's mouths be washed out with soap if they said a 'bad word', crime-fighting by 'gut instinct' - Hell on earth.

It's their version of free speach and yuman rights, innit?

Do I need new glasses, or has the Master Race thread gone?

I can't see it either, Bonny. They do have a new Tia Sharp.....Continuation one though.

Yes.

The thread where they were - groundlessly - proclaiming their own superiority to everyone else has gone.

The thread in which they are ignoring the sub judice laws to invent carp, sorry, I mean 'speculate' about the Sharp case is still there.