Judgement on Bennett

Correct me if I am wrong here but, isn't the undertaking Bennett signed still in effect?

crazytony wrote:Correct me if I am wrong here but, isn't the undertaking Bennett signed still in effect?

Erm, Yes.

I think so, Tony, it must be. And given what Judge Tugendhat said:

26. It is a rule of law of great importance that undertakings to the court (like injunctions) must be obeyed so long as they are in force. If a party restrained by such an order wishes to contend that the order ought not to have been made, or ought not to remain in force, it is not open to that party to ignore the order and then, if faced with a committal application, to ask for that committal application to be adjourned pending the determination of an application to vary the undertaking or injunction. If that were permitted, the administration of justice would be seriously undermined: injunctions and undertakings would not be the effective remedies that they are required to be.

then Bennett is a total, utter, fool to be carrying on like this.

The judge saw for himself that Bennett and truth are strangers; I simply cannot get my head round why ANYONE would be stupid enough to make false claims about what a judge has said in court.

That was insanity.

Sabot wrote:

crazytony wrote:Correct me if I am wrong here but, isn't the undertaking Bennett signed still in effect?

Erm, Yes.

Then I suggest Bennett shut his mouth.

bb1 wrote:I think so, Tony, it must be. And given what Judge Tugendhat said:

26. It is a rule of law of great importance that undertakings to the court (like injunctions) must be obeyed so long as they are in force. If a party restrained by such an order wishes to contend that the order ought not to have been made, or ought not to remain in force, it is not open to that party to ignore the order and then, if faced with a committal application, to ask for that committal application to be adjourned pending the determination of an application to vary the undertaking or injunction. If that were permitted, the administration of justice would be seriously undermined: injunctions and undertakings would not be the effective remedies that they are required to be.

then Bennett is a total, utter, fool to be carrying on like this.

The judge saw for himself that Bennett and truth are strangers; I simply cannot get my head round why ANYONE would be stupid enough to make false claims about what a judge has said in court.

That was insanity.

He is asking for more trouble than he can deal with if he keeps it up.

He can never say he wasn't warned, Tony, but he was too arrogant to listen.

Tugendhut is giving the impression of bending over backwards to ensure that he is fair to Bennett - as he should. Any hint of bias would be frowned upon and may lead to grounds for appeal.

But if you read the judgement carefully, there are suggestions in it that Tugendhut knows exactly what he is dealing with.

I also think PeterMac tell Bennett, Mac's real name is Brutus.
Every time he speaks his words of encouragement, he puts another nail in Bennett's coffin.

crazytony wrote:

Sabot wrote:

crazytony wrote:Correct me if I am wrong here but, isn't the undertaking Bennett signed still in effect?

Erm, Yes.

Then I suggest Bennett shut his mouth.

I don't think he knows how to, Tony. He's gone completely mad if you ask me. Once he has paid Ed Smethurst's Costs he will have less than £8,000, according to him, so that just leaves his house. And I don't think that will cover what he will owe The McCanns.
Bankruptcy looms.

Ah, you've noticed that too, Tony?

bb1 wrote:Ah, you've noticed that too, Tony?

Oh yes, indeed I have, Bonny.

Jean-Pierre.t50 wrote:Tugendhut is giving the impression of bending over backwards to ensure that he is fair to Bennett - as he should. Any hint of bias would be frowned upon and may lead to grounds for appeal.

But if you read the judgement carefully, there are suggestions in it that Tugendhut knows exactly what he is dealing with.

Yes, there are a few hints. Judge Tugendhat obviously knows more about Bennett than just The McCann Case. Not that this would have been difficult. Bennett's every action in this case shrieks of what he is.

How is this for stupidity?

Re: MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT'S JUDGMENT IN MCCANNS v BENNETT issued 10.10 on 24.10.12
aiyoyo Today

Just imagine the legal costs to them when they lose the case after being dragged through a full libel trial? And the ramifications!
Don't forget the ramifications will be a lot bigger and more damaging than damage in legal costs.

I will say it again, I have confidence in Judge Tugendhat.

There can be only one source who supplied Leicestershire Paper with the story and I suspect they are preparing for ill wind to come their direction in the not too distant future. They have to play the mind game first and get people's psychology synched to theirs in preparation for more spin.


-------

The hounder thinks the media are totally incapable of LOOKING AT THE INTERNET and seeing what is going on for themselves.

And how do the hounders think Judge Tugendhat regards them, after they adopted him as their new pin-up boy, stuck his photo on their banner - and linked him to words he simply never said?

It gave the court first hand evidence of how careless Bennett is with the truth - to put it politely.

Has it still not sunk in that it was CARTER RUCK who told the court they were willing to bring in dog experts, etc?


PS - do try to keep up. It won't cost the McCanns anything if they should lose. Because that will happen on the same day as the sun rises in the West, insurance covers that.

Don't they know ANYTHING?

I can only assume Bonny, they really hate Bennett with a passion.

I wonder if it is sinking in with the hounders and forkers yet?

BENNETT LIED TO THEM ABOUT WHAT JUDGE TUGENDHAT SAID AT THE HEARING ON OCTOBER 11th.

It was Carter Ruck who stated that they would be presenting witness statements, and calling in dog experts.

There isn't a word in the judge's REAL statement about the 'claimants lying'.

Bennett, on the other hand, has publically told a load of porkies about the judge said.

Now, how do the McCann-haters think that this has helped Bennett's credibility?

Bonny, I say let them continue. They will hang Bennett with their words.

Oh, they will carry on alright. They are too thick to realise what they are doing. And it's too late now anyway.

Oh, I think we are all happy for them to carry on digging themselves into ever-deeper holes. The days of anyone attempting to reason with them, or 'debate', are long gone.

And look what thanks anyone who tried to point out his glaring errors got from Bennett and the hounders. Nothing but abuse, cries of Troll!! and How much is Clarrie paying you?

Pity Bennett hadn't listened to Sans, when he got the best free advice he will ever get, but we all saw the thanks Sans got for attempting to help Bennett. Abuse, insults, and his emails posted.

So, who cares what happens to any of them? They are the architects of their own undoing; they had choices, all the way along.

And they needn't bother kidding themselves that the Great British Public are going to see Bennett as some kind of 'martyr'.

By the time the whole details of his stalking, smearing and harrassment of Madeleine McCann's family, and anyone who supports them,are all over the tabloids, Bennett is going to be about as popular as Hooky Hamza. And it is entirely his own fault.

So funny this is,. Bennett was told time and time again, but he thought he knew better than everyone else. Also the pretendy lawyers on Havern's site do not know what they are on about.

Now remember Bennett has ADMIN CONTROL ON THAT SITE AND ANY LIBEL ON THERE IS CONTROLLED BY HIM AND THE OWNERS OF THAT SITE.

This doesn't stop with Bennett you know.

It does all seem to be going rather well, doesn't it.

You missed a bit of excitement, muratfan.

The Foundation site proper was offline for a few days - turned out to be something teccy. Well, in pursuit of The Truth, various people checked Whois to see if there was any info to be gleaned there.

Cut to the chase; remember Bennett telling Carter Ruck he no longer owned that site? Guess what was on Whois on September 22, 2012?




Much hilarity followed when someone hastily changed it and gave a Welsh address, but Bennett's name.

Then it finally dawned on one of them to NOT put ownership in public.

Which was too late, as screenshots of the proof that it had been Bennett's all along were flying everywhere. I wonder what CR made of him telling such a blatant lie?

So, blacksmurf is passing the hat round for Bennett? Bless!

But not until after Bennett goes to Gaol. Who needs friends like that?

Why he thinks Bennett is going to be a sympathetic figure if he ends up in the nick rather escapes me, Sabot. A few days of, Sicko Stalker, headlines and the public will be screaming for him to be sent to Gitmo.

They all seem to forget that Bennett is NOT the victim. Bennett is the AGGRESSOR.

None of this had anything to do with the serial meddler; he chose to stick his nose into it, and run his harrassment campaign. He was given chance after chance to stop, and didn't.

IMO, the public are going to be horrified when they read the full list of Bennett's Bad Acts.

Oh my goodness. I've just realised that it is all going to come out. The Whole World is going to know that Bennett is a Sicko Stalker.

I might even send him a small contribution myself. I know I've got a two bob bit somewhere.