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

Legal question about this from Bennett:

By the way, Mr Smethurst's claim against me on his Bill of Costs for obtaining the agreed damages payment totals £52,713.26.

I have until 3 September to lodge a challenge to the amount.


Am I right in thinking that, because he folded and made an involuntary donation to the find madeleine fund, he is going to HAVE to pay Mr Smethurst's costs?

Even if he somehow gets them halved, then that is TWENTY FIVE GRAND.

That was an expensive bit of smearing, invention, and general nastiness.

Noting that the thread complained of had already apparently been taken down by the site administrator

But it hadn't been taken down, had it? It had only been moved to Admin, where it appears that every Tom, Dick and Harry could carry on as before.

There must be a few Havern Members who are thankful for being left out of the Secret, Secret, Admin Section. That'll be a new one. I can remember ructions when some Respected Members on MM found out that they weren't included in The SSSSS Section.

I do like the irony of one of Bennett's members sneering because MM has closed membership ....

And they are too late as well, there are at least 6 moles sitting in there. Horse, gate, bolt, after does kind of spring to mind. A lot of their bile has already winged its way to various establishments. This is definitely becoming a Whitehall Farce, is it not? As Robertson Hare would say "Oh, Calamity!!" LL

Seriously, why are they surprised? They have actively mounted nasty, vicious campaigns against, well, anyone they felt like.

Just look at the filth that was invented by them, and aimed at Ed Smethurst. The attempts to meddle with the Met, and Porto PJ. Their involvement with Birch. Bennett's constant abuse of the FOI system. Their outlandish efforts to have a dirty, disgraced, convicted criminal of an ex-cop made some kind of hero in the UK. Bennett's endless publicity-seeking. Their involvement with Brown, and her and CSI Petey's Ghoul Tour. The obscene posts in public, as in 'clothing', etc., when 'discussing' children.

Not least - 'discussing' other people's children in the first place - remember one of them demanding to see more pictures of children to 'discuss'?

DID THEY REALLY THINK THEY WERE NOT ATTRACTING ATTENTION?

I should think the police, CEOPS, the media, etc., all have moles on that site. Not because they are, as in Bennett's fantasies, 'eagerly seeking the Truth', but to gather information about these vile creatures.

Bennett's stupidity is mind blowing at times. Does he really believe that all of the Views of that Forum are from people seeking The Truth? Mine certainly aren't. I can hardly believe they have the nerve to post what they do sometimes, or that they believe this is Free Speech.
Why do I bother looking? Because it's fascinating watching libel and defamation played out in front of my eyes, knowing that they always go too far.
£2,500 was no where near enough for what Bennett encouraged them to do to Ed Smethurst, but £57,000 in Costs had made me feel much better, even if Carter Ruck only get half of that.

It's quite normal to have to look at that site several times, generally because you can't believe your eyes the first time.

Look at the sh*te Bennett is posting this morning, about an ad for public transport - he's mysteriously managed to find terrorists and Communist flags in it

He should have spent more time doing something normal, like trainspotting, instead of hounding innocent people.

He might then know a bit more about railway flags. Not to mention turbans

But that's a Cartoon Poster. I thought he was talking about real people. He's insane. There's no other answer.

What he did to Smethurst was utterly stupid, and a great example of grandstanding for his adoring followers. In respect of the actual damage to Smethursts reputation - £2500 is probably about right. But the £57,000 shows what a sting in the tail costs can be. I would expect it to be taxed and end up around £25000. And he will not be able to get out of paying.

But these costs are a mere drop in the ocean in comparison with the McCanns costs. Especially as CR are acting on a no win no fee basis.

Ouch.

Well, Bennett likes to boast - or did - that he has nearly 2,000 eager, Truth-seeking members. So if they each donate £10, that should help him a lot.

Except he HASN'T got nearly 2,000 members, has he? Divide it by ten and you're nearer the truth.

The rest of them are Admin socks, police, media, CEOPS - and Carter Ruck.

He's mad, anyway, he must be. This is what is making him see Reds and jihadists....



Me? I see an ad for public transport, with a crowd outside a Tube station cheering on someone who has pole-vaulted over them.

This is like them imagining an old iron was a microscope, isn't it? The Voices make them see things that just aren't there.

Oh Dear. I think Bennett might be getting a tad worried. He might only own half of his house but The Law can force the sale of the property to recover his half, he can rest assured of that. I know because I saw a friend of mine lose her home to pay her husbands debts. She did get half of the proceeds but she couldn't afford to buy anything remotely comparable.

I'd love to know why Bennett minimizes White Christian fundamentalists like Breivik, but seems to think each and every Muslim routinely wears a suicide vest.

At least the Muslim fundamentalists have the decency to kill themselves in the process, unlike the Christian fundamentalist coward Breivik.

Bennett doesn't seem to grasp that slaughtering innocent people is murder and terrorism, and NEVER acceptable, whatever the colour of the killer's skin.

It is unlikely that he would be forced to sell his house as that would also mean making his wife (not involved in this affair) homeless, and that would be regarded as unreasonable. It is however possible that his share of the house would be subject to a lien, to be paid to the court / mccanns when the house is sold.

Before trying to play the victim here, he should perhaps remember that nobody has forced him to do what he has done - Libelling and stalking the grieving parents of a missing little girl has been an entirely voluntary hobby.

My friend's husband's debts [yer, yer, I know, but it is true] were owed mainly to The Inland Revenue. But she was forced to sell the house.
Does The Inland Revenue make a difference?

I don't know how it works with the taxman, Sabot, they do tend to want their pound of flesh....

I hope Midas Pillock is going to chip in with Bennett's legal expenses, seeing as how she is rumoured to having been involved in creating the character that cost him so much money.

It's been well noted that Zoe does seem obsessed with the subject....funny that.

From what I heard not that long ago, from a very reliable sauce, Bennett's house isn't in joint names, just in his name. I know that Mrs. Bennett has certain legal rights anyway, but I wonder if this could make a difference.
I don't particularly want her to lose her home, but I would like him to worry about it, although that won't go anywhere near what he has done to The McCanns, and others.
He is a vile specimen without a scrap of humanity.

Hounder:


I did have an online copy of the book , however in error I had left it in a email and on tidying up my messages I deleted it !, if anyone has an online copy I would be most grateful if you could email me , or if you have a copy of the book that I could buy + p&p or I can donate the cost to a charity of your choice , if anonynimity is a problem I will understand . Ty , I just need the book for reference and checking quotes etc !

Correction - that one didn't have an 'online copy' of Kate McCann's book. It had a pirated copy of Kate McCann's book.

Do they have some kind of death wish on that site, to be merrily boasting like that?

From what I heard not that long ago, from a very reliable sauce, Bennett's house isn't in joint names, just in his name.

Who knows what the truth is with these people, Sabot? In the course of some spat last night, Head Hounder announced:

Hey! Please don't fall out over my home. Technically, I only have half my home to lose, as I only own half of it. Plus of course all of my savings.

Now - that doesn't mean the other half is owned by Mrs B. He could be part-owner under one of those council schemes, where tenants buy a bit at a time. He could have signed it over to SWALK. Or Midas Pillock. Or Gonc.

So, who knows what the truth is? He's also quite capable of telling the court that he only owns half, and expecting them to believe it.

I am still chortling at the business of his 'wife's laptop' - wonder what he was trying to cover up there?

If the house is listed in his name alone, then he would "Technically" only own half of it.
Married women are entitled to a share of the marital home even if their names aren't on The Deeds. This is a technicality. And he does think he is such a clever sod with words.

Sabot wrote:
If the house is listed in his name alone, then he would "Technically" only own half of it.
Married women are entitled to a share of the marital home even if their names aren't on The Deeds. This is a technicality. And he does think he is such a clever sod with words.

Could it be a Housing Association home, it looks like an ex-council house and many of those were bought up by HAs, who then went into a contract with the council tenant, in which the tenant puts down half, the HA ditto, and then the tenant paid the CH a kind of rent until the HA's balance was repaid. LL

He's finished talking bullsh*t about Muslims and is now back to talking bullsh*t about Masons, so he's harmlessly occupied, for once.

Spoke too soon.

: Carter-Ruck registered anonymously as a member on this forum on 8 August 2011
Tony Bennett Today
markus1976 wrote:
I am surprised that Tony being an ex solicitor did not realise that if you libel someone you will be sued.

Only of course if those who claim they have been libelled have the wealth (or guaranteed financial backing) to be able to do it. You know, like Robert Maxwell, Trafigura...

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

Oh, I would think that making up disgusting stories about total strangers and posting your sick inventions on the internet is 'libel', whether your target is rich or poor.

If Bennett had done to someone on a low income, what he did to Ed Smethurst, his victim would have been fighting the 'no win, no fee', lawyers off.

Bennett is actually lucky it was CR who handled it; more agressive lawyers would have had the very shirt off his back for what he did to Smethurst.

And has Bennett forgotten already? He ADMITTED he had done it.

I have (as reported previously) already paid the agreed damages of £2,500, which by mutual consent were paid by me directly to the Find Madeleine Fund.

Jean Today

What some people with guilty consciences would call libel, others would call pointing out information that needs to be in the public domain.

Well, as she thinks it is OK to make up obscene stories about people, and post them on the internet, I hope she is making a hefty donation to Bennett's costs.

Bennett sez:

On this board, we like people who check their facts, like providing full details of dogs' alerts, many examples of obvious contradictions, analysing those creche records, 'outing' shady people like Antonio Gimenez Raso and Kevin Halligen who get mysteriously taken on to look for Madeleine, and so on.

Measure up, lad, if you want to stay on here

That lot wouldn't know a 'fact' if they fell over it.

If they did, then Head Hounder wouldn't be in such a mess, would he?

He was given the opportunity to prove in court his allegations about Brian Kennedy.

He couldn't, and had to fold.

He was given the opportunity to prove in court his allegations about Ed Smethurst.

He couldn't, and had to fold.

He was given the opportunity to prove in court his allegations about the McCanns in 2009.

He couldn't, and had to fold.

He has since totally ignored the solemn and binding agreement he made then, to stop making malicious and false allegations about the McCanns.

He hasn't. And now it's too late to fold.

Bennett and 'facts' are strangers to each other. Which is why he is in such a mess now.

TB´s brain is a complete mess, the same with antis.