JUDGEMENT DAY FOR BENNETT

Quote from Tony Bennett - 11th October 2012 - "At one point in the proceedings, and I quote, Mr Justice Tugendhat said: "Suppose it's established that the Claimants had lied about what happened? "

His supporters were cock a hoop.

Oh dear.

lily wrote:Oh, he must know that the Judge knows what he's done?

I expect that's why he's not going. He can't face The Judge after what he had just been caught out doing.
What a Pillock.

Actually, I think it is quite serious because it is making a mockery of the whole process.

As it was someone from Carter Ruck, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the actual words were more like:

The business with the judge established that the defendant keeps lying.

Yes bb1, I agree with you.

I agree with this: "He can't face The Judge after what he had just been caught out doing. What a Pillock."

More news from Norden and the Ashworth valley
RochdaleEye Today at 11:00 pm

Bennett is fooling no-one but himself.

My my...thats there own barrister who has doubts about their clients truthfulness

No, that is a barrister who KNOWS their clients are telling the truth. A barrister who KNOWS his clients did not harm their child.

Why else would he be happy to bring in dog experts, etc? The McCanns have nothing to hide, and it is way past time the forkers and hounders grasped that.

Ah bless. TB does not want his supporters to be disappionted.

So it seems that following his revelation that Tugendhut did not actually say "Suppose it's established that the claimants had lied about what happened?", he seems to have decided that the words should be attributed to the Judge, rather than the others sides barrister. I can see tears before bedtime today.

And he seems to be trying to invoke the "unfair contract terms act". And whining about it being for life. NO Tony - sorry - it is NOT a contract. Wrong law.

In terms of effect is more like a restraining order or an injunction. But it is an UNDERTAKING freely entered into to prevent a greater proble - being on the worong end of an action for defamation. And entered into following consultation with a firm of lawyers in Liverpool. Oh dear.
__________________________

Re: McCanns v Bennett: JUDGMENT tomorrow (24 October)
Tony Bennett Today at 12:17 am

.T4two wrote:
Tony Bennet snip... 'Mr
Bennett made a solemn and binding undertaking not to say certain
things, for ever, equivalent to him voluntarily signing a contract. He
cannot therefore get out of that contract so long as he lives’.

Unless that contract had been concluded with the express purpose of concealing a felony - which would render it null and void?

REPLY: Yes, but that's not something I can prove.

Hence IMO the significance of the question, "Suppose it's established that the claimants had lied about what happened?"

REPLY: Yes. I think, with all due respect to Mr Justice Tugendhat, and in the hope that I am not misrepresenting him, that he was simply exploring aloud under precisely what circumstances, if any, any or all of my 16 undertakings could be undone. As I think his judgment will suggest, this can really only be done if the McCanns state, within the libel proceedings, what are my words that they claim are defamatory. Once they have done that, I can then submit a defence - and as I've said a number of times before, I think my publications are covered by what was the defence of 'fair comment' and is now the defence of 'honest comment'

In terms of effect is more like a restraining order or an injunction. But it is an UNDERTAKING freely entered into to prevent a greater proble - being on the worong end of an action for defamation. And entered into following consultation with a firm of lawyers in Liverpool. Oh dear.

Apologies, J-P, it is like an injunction and not a contract as it is in effect a promise to do something.

As I think his judgment will suggest, this can really only be done if the McCanns state, within the libel proceedings, what are my words that they claim are defamatory. Once they have done that, I can then submit a defence - and as I've said a number of times before, I think my publications are covered by what was the defence of 'fair comment' and is now the defence of 'honest comment'

Would he have a chance of claiming that, in your opinion, J-P?

I get your point Lily - but of course an injunction is something imposed on someone.

And yes, but only if he can prove some basis in fact for his assertions.

One area where he is correct is that CR should not produce paperwork very close to a hearing date - they must allow sufficient time for him to read, absorb and answer. To send a bundle 48 hours before is an unaccepatable tactic, especially when dealing with a litigant in person.

And yes, but only if he can prove some basis in fact for his assertions.

........and therein lies the problem. Gonc's book and the dodgy translated files won't cut it.

ETA: I would agree with you on the tardiness of sending him those documents.

He is also complaining that the undertaking in effect bars him from libelling the McCanns for life. "He
cannot therefore get out of that contract so long as he lives’.

Amazing. All that the undertaking does is to enforce his undertanding that it is against the law (as well as the ECHR) to defame someone. Does he think that somehow the law does not apply to him, and that he should be allowed to resume his libel after a reasonable period of time has elasped?

I am usually quite good at seeing both sides of an argument - but in this case I am failing miserably to see where TB is going with this.

J-P, I have long since thought that he regards himself as somehow speshul. So, yes, above the law.

Maybe it is just a symptom of an illness but, as I am not a psychiatrist, I cannot say with certainty.

I did think when I first read which undertakings he wanted lifted, that his only intention would be to carry on Libelling in those areas. But I can't remember which ones they were now.

Karen Pinto ‏@KSLPinto
@SkyCharlotte - is there ANY chance ANY journo is covering the Mccann/Bennett High Court ruling today????#mccann

How sad they all are, with their ignorance of the world!

There's no pressing need for journos to go to court; the verdict will be posted on the internet in due course.

Anyway, it's only Bennett.

To send a bundle 48 hours before is an unaccepatable tactic, especially when dealing with a litigant in person.

We've only got Bennett's word for that; he might have 'misremembered' days as hours....

Dr David Payne ‏@DodgyDrPayne
Luckily Tony Bennett has a copy of the entire #mccann case police files and expert witnesses can help iron out any misunderstandings

No, he has the Dodgy Translations with Key Sections Missing, files.

Loonies like Kiki, and half-wits chanting, Dogs don't lie, don't count as experts on anything except bullsh*t.

They're as deluded as they are pretentious

They just don't have a clue....damned fools!

They're very entertaining when they're like this, Tony. Oh, here's another good one:

Re: McCanns v Bennett: JUDGMENT today (24 October) VIDEO added 'Good Luck Tony!'
RochdaleEye

Good luck Mr Bennett from your friends up in Rochdale.

Wonder why Bennett is sending Good Luck messages to himself?

They don't think Martin Grime is going to turn up in Court, do they? Bennett can't afford him for a start, and he certainly wouldn't be saying Madeleine died in that appartment. And it's no good quoting his Statements because he says that the dog alerts mean nothing without Forensic. OF WHICH THERE WERE NONE.

bb1 wrote:They're very entertaining when they're like this, Tony. Oh, here's another good one:

Re: McCanns v Bennett: JUDGMENT today (24 October) VIDEO added 'Good Luck Tony!'
RochdaleEye

Good luck Mr Bennett from your friends up in Rochdale.

Wonder why Bennett is sending Good Luck messages to himself?

Oh he has made stupid posts as RochdaleEye, pretending that he's driving around and looking at Mr Smethurst, even talking to him. Is that meant to worry the McCanns?

Last night, Bennett sez:

I have seen the judge's draft judgment anyway, a few days ago. I have made my comments. I have seen Carter-Ruck's comments on the draft judgment, and have submitted my responses. So there's really nothing for me to do.

So, he knows the way the wind is blowing. His decision not to go to court today does rather suggest he knows he has lost.

Because if there had been the slightest chance of him winning, nothing would have stopped him being in court so he could rush to give a 'verbatim report' of his victory to the hounders.

He would have been frantically issuing press releases about his triumph the instant he got near a keyboard. So, why isn't he in court today?

Also, he seems to have forgotten to mention what Judge Tugendhat had to say about his image being stuck on not-Bennett's banner, and words he did not utter put in his mouth.

Judges can be a bit annoyed by that sort of thing; it certainly would not have given the judge a good impression of Bennett.

One wonders why Bennett keeps on drawing attention to his stupidity. Could it be because he has always known that he was going to lose?
Although he could have saved himself such a lot of money if he had just STFU. Unless Mummy is funding him. Presuming she has the mental capacity to decide. Which she might have for all I know.

If one were of a suspicious mind, one might be forgiven for thinking that Bennett's sudden miraculous recall that a couple of statements that he had originally gleefully attributed to the Judge were in fact uttered by Dean, was curiously timed. In fact a very suspicious person might be led to think that Bennett was prompted in some way by the recent correspondence between the court, and CR and his good self.

But one must put these thoughts out of ones mind. Surely not. Perish the thought........