Isabel Martorell* writes about Leveson; Bennett latest - up creek and paddleless

Bless! The hounders and forkers do have hearts - they are worrying in case the actions against Bennett and Gonc turn into PR disasters for the McCanns!

Isn't that kind of them? But really, they are worrying for nothing, as they will find out in the fullness of time.

The rest of us are looking forward to the media having an excuse to use all those 'dossiers' they have been sitting on about Gonc and Bennett.

Oh, didn't the forkers know about those? Oh dear.

Tick tock!

Re: McCanns v Bennet
Loopdaloop on Sat 13 Oct - 23:46

If anyone knows tony bennett, perhaps we could all offer to be volunteer readers for him or compliers of discrepencies in the mccanns version of events into the format he requires for legal argument! In theory he has a free team from us forum folk!

Fantastic idea! What could possibly go wrong?

It's their money he needs, not their brains. Although a lot of them don't seem to have either.

Wonder what will happen in court when the judge is given proof that Bennett deliberately withheld information relevant to Madeleine's abduction?

What on earth is this forker talking about?

You have to say quite a smart original move by Team McCann. They turned the argument from 'Did the McCanns do such and such' (ie libel) which would create a dangerous possibility of the whole business being aired in courty, to 'Has Mr Bennet broken his agreement?' which wouldn't ever need any examination of the McCann saga.

It may just have backfired on them.


The libel is back on, and will be heard before the contempt charges. Oh, and Bennett didn't tell the truth about what happened in court; putting words in the judge's mouth wasn't the cleverest idea he has ever had.

Can anyone explain something? It's a bit of a puzzle...

Why are the forkers and hounders so desperate for the McCanns to drop the libel case against Bennett? Why are they so suddenly concerned for the public image of the McCanns, that they don't seem to want the court action to go ahead?

One would have expected them to be longing for the day when Bennett sweeps all before him in the High Court...unless, of course, they have known all along that he was talking a load of rubbish, and never expected to be called to account for his conduct?

Before, but as well as The Contempt of Court. Libel as well as Contempt.

Never in all my born days have I seen anyone talk himself into such a hole. This has got to be stupidity of magnificent proportions. I seriously would not believe this if I hadn't seen it unfold in all it's horror.
And Bennett was warned about this outcome by one of the finest legal brains in UK. Probably The World, actually.

Bennett is damned now, no matter what he does.

Sorry, but I am so fascinated by the moronic quality of Bennett's legal knowledge that I could almost die of something or another. Laughing, perhaps?

What seems to have escaped their notice, is that none of them had any right to do this to the McCanns, or to people who supported them. Who the Hell does Bennett think he is?

They are in for a lot of very nasty shocks, not least because, like the PJ, Scotland Yard KNOW Madeleine McCann was abducted. Not think, KNOW.

All their feverish speculation and revolting theories are....junk. Nothing is going to change that.

No, they didn't have the right. So they'll have to forgive me for enjoying their down fall.
I was a really kind person five years ago, but not any more, at least not with them. Nasty, vicious people.

Sabot wrote:
No, they didn't have the right. So they'll have to forgive me for enjoying their down fall.
I was a really kind person five years ago, but not any more, at least not with them. Nasty, vicious people.

Well said, Sabot.

I don't think Bennett putting words in the judge's mouth will have helped his cause, either. It may impress his fan club, but courts can be funny about that sort of thing.

It certainly might give the Court some idea of what the McCanns have been going through, Bonny.

Very true, Lily, it's a perfect illustration of how some people can be economical with the truth. Or maybe he was misremembering?

Misremembering. Yes, that will be it.

What's this I am reading in a book about UKIP?

One of the worst offenders was one Tony Bennett, who had somehow got himself a job in Titford's office...

And Bennett thought the EU was a Vatican plot? I see.

Oh my very dear! Has anyone told Al Quaeda Bennett's views on Islam? I really don't see that going down any too well....

We don't really want Bennett Jihaded, do we? Not in Harlow, anyway. Maybe next time he goes on holiday.

Maybe Judge Tugenhat will issue a fatwa after Bennett telling all those fibs about him?

How delicious - the author clearly had far more to do with Bennett than any human could bear!

No wonder he doesn't like the McCanns.

What a small minded fool he is.

bb1 wrote:

How delicious - the author clearly had far more to do with Bennett than any human could bear!

Wonderful - I will now go and find a cloth to wipe up the coffee I have just sprayed all over the PC! LL

Why is someone calling himself 'Rochdale Eye' and making his very first post on a new thread thus:

THE SMETHURST FILES
RochdaleEye Today at 11:31 am

The Smethurst Files

I notice that your forum has quite a lot about Edward Smethurst, a well-known man in these parts.

I thought you might all be interested in a few facts about him, so here goes.

Surely it can't be Barbara Nottage/LuzLady/Ray Stevens/Sean McGuigan/Timothy Trevalyan/Alan Marc Lagoa?

Oh yes it can.

Bennett had another Freudian Slip , has he, Lily?

bb1 wrote:Bennett had another Freudian Slip , has he, Lily?

Perfect!

Maybe he's decided to plead insanity?