Bennett Loses Plot, Causes Disaster

I pray that he remains the judge for the forthcoming hearing, for there are few as trustworthy as he has, so far, shown himself to be.

Oh dear, obviously this sock not heard of that well proven saying "Be careful what you wish for as it may not be what you would really want to have". LL

LL.

What on earth will they be saying when it goes against him?

Re: The four top London libel lawyers now lined up to crush a pensioner from Harlow

Post bristow Today at 12:01 pm
I have read here that the McCanns will not be attending this hearing, can we be sure of this, were you told Tony?

Why wont they be there, do they consider themselves too grand to be there?
_____________________

Why should they be there?

Think it through

Gerry is a successful consultant, working for the NHS. This means he is committed to 9 sessions per week, and likely to do far more. He is actually performing a useful role in society

Kate is at present a stay at home mother, and as such has a pivotal role in the upbringing of her family.

So they are not exactly short of useful things to do.

They have had to put up with Bennett and his cronies stalking and hounding them at every step in the search for Madeleine. Bennett has been the active party in this, and despite giving a formal undertaking to desist (or be sued for libel) he has simply carried on regardless.

At any point Bennett could have stopped. Walked away. No consequences or costs. But he has made the DECISION to continue.

The McCanns, in an effort to get him to stop, are taking court action, and have emplyed a first rate legal team to do so.

Meanwhile, Bennett fills his days writing interminable, boring, self justifying posts on obscure internet forums, and posturing to his fan club which seems to consist of a bunch of pitchforkers and and sock puppets. In what way has he ever made life better for anyone on this planet? (I would genuinely like to know, btw).

Why the hell should the McCanns waste precious days of their life in court in London? No reason at all.

so to the question "Why wont they be there, do they consider themselves too grand to be there?" - the answer is "No, not too grand. It's because they have more interesting and more useful things to do."

so to the question "Why wont they be there, do they consider themselves too grand to be there?" - the answer is "No, not too grand. It's because they have more interesting and more useful things to do."

They won't like that answer J-P.

Have they forgotten that this is about Bennett and the giving of his solemn word to stop doing certain things? It wasn't the McCanns doing it, it was Bennett.

There is no need for them to be there, that choice is theirs alone. That's what you employ barristers and solicitors for, to represent you. Can't see the problem myself; I would not attend if it was me, I would wait for the verdict. Better things to do, as no doubt Kate and Gerry have, too. LL

Lamplighter wrote:

I pray that he remains the judge for the forthcoming hearing, for there are few as trustworthy as he has, so far, shown himself to be.

Oh dear, obviously this sock not heard of that well proven saying "Be careful what you wish for as it may not be what you would really want to have". LL

I pray for justice, I pray for the little girl & I will be praying for you next week.

I pray that he remains the judge for the forthcoming hearing, for there are few as trustworthy as he has, so far, shown himself to be.

Is that just a coincidence, do you think?

They seem to like Praying. Shame they don't pray for forgiveness.

They seem to like Praying. Shame they don't pray for forgiveness.

Maybe they don't know how to pronounce it, Maggs.

Why would they want to watch Bennett being humiliated? And why would they want to be heckled by a bunch of illiterate morons?

And if they were there. the morons would find something foul to say about that. It doesn't matter what The McCanns do there is always something wrong to be found.

lily wrote:
They seem to like Praying. Shame they don't pray for forgiveness.

Maybe they don't know how to pronounce it, Maggs.

They are quite good at preying. Excellent in fact.

Sabot wrote:

lily wrote:
They seem to like Praying. Shame they don't pray for forgiveness.

Maybe they don't know how to pronounce it, Maggs.

They are quite good at preying. Excellent in fact.

Ah ha. Of course they are, Sabot. Nice one!!

Why on earth would the McCanns be there? It's a matter between Bennett and the court. These creatures have some bizarre ideas.

They seem to like Praying. Shame they don't pray for forgiveness.
I don't believe Lucifer does the forgiving thing.
He's more of a 'Burn Baastards Burn', type of guy.

crazytony wrote:They seem to like Praying. Shame they don't pray for forgiveness.
I don't believe Lucifer does the forgiving thing.
He's more of a 'Burn Baastards Burn', type of guy.

Reported, Lucifer's not a bad guy, kinda kinky but faithful and true in his own way. LL

He'll have plenty of furnace-stokers to gather up from the hate sites on today's performance. Their conduct over that email is utter wickedness.

bb1 wrote:He'll have plenty of furnace-stokers to gather up from the hate sites on today's performance. Their conduct over that email is utter wickedness.

Am I correct in saying it is now a police matter?

http://www.missingabroad.org/news/statement-missing-abroad

Yes, they are consulting the police about it. And no doubt they will be watching the hate sites as well.

bb1 wrote:http://www.missingabroad.org/news/statement-missing-abroad

Yes, they are consulting the police about it. And no doubt they will be watching the hate sites as well.

Facebook are pretty good in co-operating with Law Enforcement. They will hand over any ISP/IP connected to vicious post on request.

It's not Facebook it's being spread on, Tony.

It was first posted on not-Bennett's site by that revolting hydra-troll nicknamed Windowlene or emu - the foul-mouthed one who is forever getting banned from any site foolish enough to let her on.

She'd emailed them with a loaded question - and posted the reply on haven's. Ignoring, I gather, the instruction on it that it was confidential.

When all the trouble started, she asked it be removed from public view there, which it was. Unfortunately, it had been copied by one of the more obscure hatebloggers. Chucky copied it from there and posted it on MM.

She cannot pretend she doesn't know how angry the charity is, or that the police are involved - she posted the charity's statement asking for the email NOT to be posted right underneath.

Pure damned evil, that is.

Oh well. I'm sure this is something else that will be looking good for Bennett.

e: The four top London libel lawyers now lined up to crush a pensioner from Harlow
Tony Bennett Today

C.Edwards wrote:
I think the point is that these proceedings are for establishing whether there was contempt. It's nothing to do with the veracity or otherwise of anything the McCanns may or may not have said...

C.Edwards, I can truly say that that is one of the most incredible statements I have ever seen on any forum, certainly about this case, let alone just on this forum. Otherwise, I am just speechless...so will let others give voice...

So, what on earth else does Bennett think a contempt of court trial is about?

Oh wait, I know - he's going to plead that his lawyer's an incompetent fool who doesn't even know why his client is in the dock.

Bennett sez:

I can't really answer 'C.Edwards' point in detail because of time and because I don't really want to declare my hand, but I can at least answer yours, 'bristow'.

It is indeed a remarkable fact that the McCanns are not there to give evidence about the facts that they rely on, and therefore, of course, cannot be cross-examined.

The 'lead' evidence is, instead, being given by one of Carter-Ruck's partners, Isabel Martorell (formerly Hudson). I am entitled to cross-examine her.

What, exactly, is it he thinks he is going to cross-examining Ms Martorell about? Has he forgotten that it is HIM in the dock, and the matter before the court is whether or not he has broken the agreement he voluntarily made, on legal advice?

Ms Page, QC, is going to wipe the floor with him.

C.Edwards, I can truly say that that is one of the most incredible statements I have ever seen on any forum, certainly about this case, let alone just on this forum. Otherwise, I am just speechless...so will let others give voice...

Over to Bonny......


What, exactly, is it he thinks he is going to cross-examining Ms Martorell about? Has he forgotten that it is HIM in the dock, and the matter before the court is whether or not he has broken the agreement he voluntarily made, on legal advice?

What an amazing solicitor he must have been. Where did he qualify?

Can they not get it into their thick skulls that the McCanns do not have to attend, unless they are called as witnesses, which they have not.
This is a curt matter, a contempt of court hearing, which is bought by Solicitors not the McCanns. Of course they are consulted on what they want to do, if they wish to proceed, but at no time do they have to attend.

If it was a libel trial then yes the McCanns would have to attend, but it is a contempt hearing

lily wrote:

What an amazing solicitor he must have been. Where did he qualify?

He never did, and because of that he is not allowed to say he is a retired solicitor, ex solicitor or even former solicitor.

If he does, he is committing fraud

Oh dear, another hounder-traitor has pointed out Bennett's error:

Surely C Edwards is perfectly correct - this rapidly approaching hearing is simply about the question of contempt of court. Whatever the McCanns or their friends ot their associates may or may not have done or said is completely irrelevant to this hearing.

Seriously, what does Bennett think is happening next week? What on earth is he planning to do? Bombard the court with hours of tedious, irrelevant waffling?