Bennettt spinning like a wind farm over Legal Aid

I really don't know who he thinks he is fooling, except for his reality-challenged cult....He is currently trying to blame, among others, Carter Ruck for his legal aid woes.


Carter-Ruck had in fact sent me a 'To Whom it May Concern' letter, intended for me to show prospective Solicitors, telling them that my case came under Criminal, not Civil Legal Aid.

Both the LSC letter of 3 August and the Carter-Ruck letter of a similar date were WRONG.

Really? Because what he said on JUNE 4th was:


I should add for the record that Carter-Ruck, on behalf of the McCanns, have always accepted that I should be represented, this being a formal application to imprison me, and they themselves suggested I apply for Legal Aid. Carter-Ruck themselves seemed to be surprised that the LSC refused my initial application, and have agreed that I should have sufficient time in which (a) to see if I qualify for Legal Aid and (b) if I do, to be able to fully instruct a solicitor and barrister (in which case they will have to start by reading around 5,000 pages of documentation from Carter-Ruck and a further 440 from me.

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.

There was no mention of 'criminal legal aid' until Bennett claimed he had been told he was entitled to it some ten days ago.

Now, this twisting, spinning, diverting and denying may work on that lot, but it doesn't cut it in the real world.

The hounders may believe Bennett's nonsense, but no-one else does. Onlookers would be forgiven for thinking he had been economical with the vérité in his communications with the legal aid people, and the version of events being given to the hounders isn't quite accurate.....

Bennett appears to be trying to divert attention from the heart of the matter with this endless drama over legal aid - when the truth is, he has done NOTHING to help himself.

What happened to contacting the firms CR knew handled this sort of matter? Nothing, as usual - instead, he is trying to blame CR for sending him after the wrong kind of legal aid.

Despite making this promise to Carter Ruck:

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 has carried on libelling, smearing and stalking regardless. As well as hanging around on FB with the likes of The Hindley Fan.

If anyone is still foolish enough to believe a word he says, well, I am sure some Nigerian princes would be delighted to meet them.

August 8th:

Tony Bennett wrote:
UPDATE:

My efforts to see if I qualify for Legal Aid have now reached the upper echelons of the Legal Services Commission (LSC), who adjudicate on such matters.

The matter is now in the hands of Michael Forrester of the Central Complaints Handling Team at LSC HQ on th 8th floor, 102 Petty France.

One of the problems I have had in getting a Legal Aid Solicitor even to apply for Legal Aid for me is the fact that Solicitors seem to be unsure whether or not I come under the Civil Legal Aid Scheme, or the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme.......blah blah blah....

Not a word about Carter Ruck telling he needed criminal legal aid.

Odd how the story is changing now, isn't it?

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
PeterMac Today

Does your MP, or MEP know of this ?
Or Galloway ?

1. His MP knows all about Bennett, especially since Bennett tried to pretend that his MP backed his vendetta against the McCanns and others.

2. Bennett doesn't approve of Europe, except when it suits him.

3. What on earth has MP for Bradfordistan Galloway got to do with it? Unless Bennett is thinking of converting to Islam and claiming he is being discriminated against?

I bet that letter from Carter Ruck doesn't actually state that Bennett should be applying for Criminal Legal Aid. Why would they state categorically, something that The Legal Aid Commission have been dithering about for months?
Of course, he could always Post the letter up on Forum, like every other letter that suited him.

And if I recall correctly, Bennett was advised by his band of legal experts on Hell Hole not to trust anyone Carter Ruck recommended. So I bet he never wrote to any of those Solicitors. BUT, if he did they probably gave him advice he didn't like.

There is more to this than meets the eye. Something funny is going on. And it won't be Carter Ruck.

If CR had told him he should be seeking criminal legal aid, we would never have heard the last of it, Sabot. Ergo, they didn't, and he is yet again trying to out-source the blame for his self-inflicted woes.

I doubt if he is telling anyone the truth, not the legal aid people, his followers, no-one.

The only advice any lawyer is going to give him is, Settle and shut up.

They may well have advised him that he should seek legal of some sort, as they would know his expertise in such matters is minimal. It would have been done as a courtesy, nothing more. LL

Just for The Record.



Tony Bennett Today at 2:00 pm

justathought wrote:
Mr Bennett
Carter-Ruck had in fact sent me a 'To Whom it May Concern' letter, intended for me to show prospective Solicitors, telling them that my case came under Criminal, not Civil Legal Aid.
Who told CR. why did they send out such a letter to you prior to official confirmation?
That's a very very good question.

I must admit I was nonplussed to receive a communciation from the Legal Services Commission [LSC] on 7 August (dated 3 August) saying I should now apply for Criminal Legal Aid - and then on the very next day, 8 August, one from Carter-Ruck saying exactly the same thing. It was as if they were then 'both of one mind'.

The reversal of their decision by the LSC less than 3 weeks later reveals a combination of the complexity of the rules, and poor management by the LSC, who should have given me the correct advice when I first applied in December last year.

It's a series of human errors IMO and not conspiracy

______________________________


Tony Bennett

Oh what, so the legal aid people are IN IT now, too?

Frankly, I don't believe a word of this, this constant diversion and introduction of irrelevancies may fool his cult, but I don't see it working on anyone else.

They all fell for his smears and lies about Ed Smethurst, didn't they? And it didn't occur to a single one of them to ask why he parted with so much money rather than defend the vile inventions in court.

See they are now telling each other George Galloway is going to come to his rescue?

Tony Bennett wrote:

NOTE to aiyoyo: I think PeterMac mentioned Goerge Galloway because Galloway is on record as having written very sceptical remarks about the McCanns' account of events.

In 2007. And then fell silent when he realised he was wrong.

Oh, PS - I doubt if Gorgeous George will do anything to help if he hears what Bennett had said about The Prophet. His voters may well pronounce a fatwa on Bennett's balding head if they find out about it, though.

He's still at it:


Legal Services Commission's blunder re Legal Aid - The actual letter
Tony Bennett Today

First part of the Legal Services Commission's letter of 17 August (verbatim) in which they admitted their latest blunder about the law on potential eligibilty for Legal Aid:

[His 'verbatim' version of it in blue ink]

[REST SNIPPED...]

Oh, we all believe that, don't we?

Ooooh. I do love a good Fatwa. Will it be in Public?

Well, they'll have to get a wriggle on with their fatwa, as he seems Hell-bent on committing hara-kiri in public. Seen what he's done now? 'Admin' has only gone and posted what purports to be the, Please be nice to this stalker, note Carter Ruck supposedly sent him.

It begs the question - does he actually understand written English? Any legal-type person seeing that is going to head for the hills, screaming in horror at the very idea of having Bennett as a client.

Carter-Ruck had in fact sent me a 'To Whom it May Concern' letter, intended for me to show prospective Solicitors, telling them that my case came under Criminal, not Civil Legal Aid.

Mental Health Act, more like.

Can he really not read?

They've done no such thing - 'a number of clear indications' is not CR telling ANYONE he should get criminal legal aid, it's them covering all eventualities, so he can't turn round and whinge that he got the wrong kind of legal aid.

What on earth was he thinking of, letting slip that CR know a number of solicitors have already turned him down?

As for trotting around with a letter from Carter Ruck laying out exactly why he is scrounging for legal aid - is it actually possible to take a worse course of action?

I thought you all might like a laugh.



Tony Bennett Today at 10:01 pm

roy rovers wrote:
...whilst this is dragging on they have effectively gagged you, which is a violation of your human right to free expression.

Tony Bennett wrote.
Yes, 'roy rovers', they have succeeded in this, and for nearly 9 months. I may have made the odd post about Murat, Antonio Giminez Raso and so on, all factual, so there should be no issue about any of that, but as an individual I have been silenced insofar as - until my trial is over - I am in effect unable to comment directly on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Whilst hundreds on here, and thousands elsewhere, are wholly free to do so.

Not to mention people all over Europe being able to buy, read, recycle and debate 'The Truth About A Lie'...

______________________________


Tony Bennett

Another laugh. Posted by Tony Bennett on April the 3rd 2012.


Yet he apparently blundererd by spending hundreds of thousands of pounds employing dodgy Spanish detective agency Metodo 3, and personally working closely with Metodo 3's lead private detective, Antonio Jimenez Raso, now serving 18 years behind bars in a Spanish jail for helping a gang of drug thieves to steal £25 million of cocaine from Barcelona harbour, whilst he was the Head of the Catalonian Police Anti-Drugs and Anti-Trafficking Unit.


ETA, Antonio Jimenez Raso has just been Acquitted.

I may have made the odd post about Murat, Antonio Giminez Raso and so on, all factual, so there should be no issue about any of that

Nothing like kidding yourself, is there?

bb1 wrote:I may have made the odd post about Murat, Antonio Giminez Raso and so on, all factual, so there should be no issue about any of that

Nothing like kidding yourself, is there?

Factual? HA! He's Libelled both of them wholesale.

Now, what's he in a panic about?

MCCANNS v AMARAL: The final trial...Will it start in 3 weeks - or will there be another postponement?
Tony Bennett Today at 11:02 pm

Earlier this year, I reproduced this from a letter I received from Carter-Ruck:

"While my firm is not instructed in the libel proceedings instigated in Portugal by the Claimants [Drs Gerald and Kate McCann] against Goncalo Amaral, I understand that...the case is proceeding to a full libel trial, and that a provisional date of 13 September 2012 has been given for the trial".

Since then, I have come across just ONE other reference to the date of the trial, a newspaper saying that the trial would (provisionally) take place over FOUR days, 13 & 14 September, and two days in the week 17-21 September.

There has been a long history of this case being subject to adjournments, postponements and delays, as indeed there was in the criminal trial of Goncalo Amaral - indeed it seems to be par for the course for controversial trials in Portugal.

If anyone has some reliable information about this final 'showdown', could they please post it here? - many thanks

=================

Like any of the hounders know what time of day it is, let alone anything actually important.

And the people who do know sure aren't going to tell Bennett

Anyway, he's supposed to be Gonc's Number One Fan in the UK. Why doesn't he just ask Gonc himself?

Oh, very good.

The Little Englander Master Race Thread hadn't caused enough trouble on not-Bennett's site; someone then took it upon themselves to make disparaging remarks about Muslims, which offended even more people.

But if anyone objected, that Born Yesterday, Jean, obsessive hater did what she does whenever someone digresses from the party line.

She called the non-racists 'trolls'.

Storming off like a spoilt brat is not the answer. It's typical troll behaviour too.

Rude or what? And she doesn't even know what 'troll' means, or she would know she sees one every time she looks in the mirror.

I will wait until that day arrives, only then, I wil write my comments.

Oh, Bennett's added a bit:

ADDITIONAL NOTE FROM TONY BENNETT:

"I do not criticise Carter-Ruck for composing this letter. Far from it, it was a genuine attempt by them to move these proceedings forward. Both myself and Carter-Ruck thought it would work. It is unfortunate, of course, that Carter-Ruck got the position on Criminal Legal Aid wrong, just as the Legal Services Commission had also done.

"This may illustrate the whole problem - to anyone looking at this thread who may be wondering why, nearly 9 months on, I have not been successful in finding a Legal Aid lawyer to represent me. Very very few solicitors' firms appear to have what is called a 'Legal Services Contract' to provide representation in civil contempt cases. Almost none of these have any real knowledge of libel law, hence their inability to represent me.

"But both the European and British courts have long insisted that (a) a person facing prison must be legally represented and (b) be provided with full equality of arms. Otherwise it would not be a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore I must continue to seek a Legal Aid solicitor, as there is no way I can match Carter-Ruck's legal firepower from my own resources. They had already clocked up 'well over £120,000' in legal expenses by April".

=============

But he ISN'T facing prison, is he? Why he persists in this LIE, I do not know. It quite clearly says SUSPENDED on the document.



So if he doesn't keep on stalking, smearing and libelling people after the case is heard, then he WON'T go to jail. The onus is on him to behave himself, for a change.

CR didn't 'get the position wrong' - Bennett really should learn to read. They did NOT make a statement of fact. He also seems to have forgotten that CR are representing the McCanns, not him, and it's ridiculous for him to be trotting around with a note from Carter Ruck, like a little boy with a note from his mummy.

Please don't be nasty to Head Hounder, he's always been a little slow.

As for:

Both myself and Carter-Ruck thought it would work.

In cahoots with CR now, is he?

Grovelling, Purtetre?
And I still think that Carter Ruck are right. This is going to descend into a Criminal Case, albeit by Bennett's own behaviour. Often there comes a time in a Civil Case when it turns into a Criminal Case because he is too bloody thick to see what he is doing. He continues to break the terms of his undertaking, and continues to Libel The McCanns. That is Criminal. And I do mean Legally.
Jean Pierre might not agree with me, but I don't think that I or Carter Ruck are wrong.

The remedy for it all is in his own hands - settle and shut up. He could get the highest-paid barrister in the land, and that is what they will tell him.

I suspect some law firms have told him that already.

In the name....

Re: Legal Services Commission's blunder re Legal Aid - The actual letter ++PLUS++ Carter-Ruck's 'To Whom it May Concern' Letter
Tony Bennett Today

justathought wrote:
Mr Bennett
Thank you for clarifying. as at first reading the comment you made hinted that you may have been in cahoots with CR to get it sent to you. I sincerely feel for you, whether you are guilty or not, as to the mental anguish you have been put through by a lack of decision and now a decision given in your favour only to be overturned.


'justathought', some people, allegedly of the same mind as me re Madeleine, have also suggested (for reasons that I could never fathom) that I was 'in cahoots with the McCanns'. Don't ask me why, ask them.

The McCanns and Carter-Ruck are bitter and determined opponents of me. That doesn't mean that we cannot recognise times when the 'other side' is being reasonable and constructive on certain points.

---------

Is it me, or is he preening himself because he thinks CR are acknowledging his legal prowess?

Is it me, or is he preening himself because he thinks CR are acknowledging his legal prowess?


In his dreams, Bonny.

The hounders are in full froth because the Olive Press reported a possible sighting of Madeleine on a flight to Germany from Ibiza. Which has led CSI Pete to make this stunning, totally erroneous statement:

Re: Yet another cracker from Olive Press
PeterMac Today

The photo is taken on a bendy bus. Perhaps at the airport. There is another one in the background.
Is she sitting on the man's knee ?

And re the Leh sighting, there was no sighting, and no photograph. CM made that up and got caught out.

Tut tut! No, 'CM' - which I assume refers to Clarence Mitchell - did NOT make up the Leh incident. There was a well-intentioned, but sadly wrong, 'sighting' in India.

Never mind, Scotland Yard know all about it, so it doesn't greatly matter what Bennett's cronies think, does it?