BENNETT GETS THE BILL

crazytony wrote:Is someone paying them to act stupid or is that their nartural birth mode?

Natural, I think?

Tony, I do not know what's wrong with them, beyond they are the nastiest, most vicious and stupid people I have ever come across.

Anyone wants proof of that, they only have to look at this business with the Missing Abroad charity - despicable!

You know, I'll lay odds the midwife smacked their mothers' face instead of their asses.
Would account for their stupidity!

Deluded hounder:

Would the court have the power to impose an order that deprives a person of their rights under Article 10, especially if the undertaken was given under duress? Why should one person be effectively gagged from saying what hundreds of people are saying elsewhere, either on the internet or other publications?

'Duress'?

Don't be ridiculous, it is all a matter of record that Bennett willingly - indeed, eagerly - signed the agreement on legal advice from Kirwans.

Would the court have the power to impose an order that deprives a person of their rights under Article 10, especially if the undertaken was given under duress? Why should one person be effectively gagged from saying what hundreds of people are saying elsewhere, either on the internet or other publications?

Says Bob Southgate.

Well, what does Article 10 state?

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/human-rights/the-human-rights-act/what-the-rights-mean/article-10-freedom-of-expression.php

There are, of course, Limitations as set out below:-

Limitations

Article 10 is a qualified right and as such the right to freedom of expression may be limited. Article 10 provides that the exercise of this freedom “since it carries with it duties and responsibilities” may be limited as long as the limitation:
is prescribed by law;
is necessary and proportionate; and
pursues a legitimate aim, namely:
o the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety;
o the prevention of disorder or crime;
o the protection of health or morals;
o the protection of the reputation or rights of others;
o preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence; or
o maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

So, the protection of the reputation or rights of others = defamation.

ETA: Snap, Bonny.

PS -

'Other people' didn't sign a legally-binded document NOT to libel and harrass the family of a missing child.

As an ex-policemen, you would have thought 'Bob Southgate' would have a better grasp of the law, wouldn't you?

Oh my, Bonny. He seems to be as pathetic a copper as Bennett is as a solicitor.

Strange that.

It's odd, that site is infested with 'ex-policemen' who seem to know NOTHING about the most basic law - pretendypete didn't even know custody rules.

bb1 wrote:It's odd, that site is infested with 'ex-policemen' who seem to know NOTHING about the most basic law - pretendypete didn't even know custody rules.

Rather like the lawyers and solicitors, the doctors, nurses and child care experts who also know f**k all about their supposed professions. LL

bb1 wrote:It's odd, that site is infested with 'ex-policemen' who seem to know NOTHING about the most basic law - pretendypete didn't even know custody rules.

Why, it's almost like they are making it all up.

bb1 wrote:It's odd, that site is infested with 'ex-policemen' who seem to know NOTHING about the most basic law - pretendypete didn't even know custody rules.

What Law Force is it this guy alludes to have served with?

bb1 wrote:It's odd, that site is infested with 'ex-policemen' who seem to know NOTHING about the most basic law - pretendypete didn't even know custody rules.

Which is very strange because if, as he says, he got to rank of Superintendent, he would have to pass through these ranks.....


Sergeant..... who would have spent time in the custody area as Custody Sergeant..

Inspector .... who would have had to extend prisoners time in detention if needed...

So it is remarkable a senior Police Officer doesn't know the basic rights of custody

crazytony wrote:

bb1 wrote:It's odd, that site is infested with 'ex-policemen' who seem to know NOTHING about the most basic law - pretendypete didn't even know custody rules.

What Law Force is it this guy alludes to have served with?

Nottinghamshire Constabulary. Apparently served in Carlton Division

muratfan wrote:

crazytony wrote:

bb1 wrote:It's odd, that site is infested with 'ex-policemen' who seem to know NOTHING about the most basic law - pretendypete didn't even know custody rules.

What Law Force is it this guy alludes to have served with?

Nottinghamshire Constabulary. Apparently served in Carlton Division

Bob Southgate?

No, that one claims he was London.

No PretendyPete

bb1 wrote:No, that one claims he was London.

That's what I thought.
However, it would appear he was never actually in the Police Force; but, a civilian working for the Force In Northampton as the office manager.

Nothing they did would surprise me, Tony.

Hounders new logo:

e: Carter-Rucks's costs: £288,503 for fighting McCanns v Bennett
aiyoyo Today

[quote="tiny"]
ShuBob wrote:
Offer them 50p a week.[/quote

i would offer 25p they are sure trying to put the frightners on Tony,the mccanns do really have something to hide


I would offer them 1p per week spread over 20 life times if it comes to that.

=========

Surely no-one can genuinely be as stupid as yoyo? He must be putting on an act.

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

1. He wasn't a pensioner when he started harrassing the McCanns and others.

2. What's with the 'Harlow'? Is that supposed to sound pathetic, or something?

bb1 wrote:The four top London libel lawyers now lined up to crush a pensioner from Harlow

1. He wasn't a pensioner when he started harrassing the McCanns and others.

2. What's with the 'Harlow'? Is that supposed to sound pathetic, or something?

Could be, after all Chippingfield is the cheaper end of Harlow, according to statistics! LL

sergei ‏@sergeimirkat
Team #mccann are worried. Bring on Adrienne Page QC to counter whatever TB is about to pull out of the hat. One man's crusade for #justice

It's standard practice for a QC to lead in the High Court - didn't Bennett's law course cover that? And the only thing he's likely to pull out of a hat is mothballs.

I guess this bloke has been giving Bennett tips on how to dig yourself in trouble



https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bUz_blZssnk

bb1 wrote:sergei ‏@sergeimirkat
Team #mccann are worried. Bring on Adrienne Page QC to counter whatever TB is about to pull out of the hat. One man's crusade for #justice

It's standard practice for a QC to lead in the High Court - didn't Bennett's law course cover that? And the only thing he's likely to pull out of a hat is mothballs.

Bennett really should be very careful right now. Libeling lawyers, which he has done numerous times and got away with it; doesn't mean the Lawyers can't sue him for libel on their own behalf.

He's aiming higher than insulting lawyers - he's likening himself to Jesus now.

I think not. Indeed, I am waiting for the day when he's struck down by a thunderbolt from Above.