Bennett Admits - 'Yes, I did hand over 17 pages of names'

Me neither, Tony. Or from this one:

http://stopthemyths.prophpbb.com/topic4667.html?sid=8a2dd5727ede9d7ea91477f62b443924


JT asked TB what he was talking about and what this had to do with the hearing.

The judge had intervened several times before than, and repeatedly had to intervene later.

JT interrupted saying "Again, I have tried to explain Mr Bennett..."

And it went on and on like that, as witnessed by rather a lot of people. Which may explain why Bennett doesn't want it discussed...

Same Myths thread, V's report:

Several more times the judge had to remind him that whatever the McCanns have said or done is irrelevant, the case was all about Bennett, and if he had broken the undertakings. Bennett came across as very ‘Uriah Heap’ in his dealing with the judge, in my opinion.

Oh My, he has his Sunday best on

Oh, I remember some Hounder's were saying that the 17 page list didn't exist when I posted about it, strange that Bennett has confirmed it... Now shall I await them to apologise

IMO, they are all too far gone now to wake up and smell the coffee. Even when the judge delivers his verdict later in the week, they won't believe it. They will accuse Judge Tugendhat of being IN IT.

It doesn't matter how many disasters overcome them they are back up and running again with barely a hiccup. But since they don't seem to understand what is going on then I don't suppose it is all that surprising.

bb1 wrote:IMO, they are all too far gone now to wake up and smell the coffee. Even when the judge delivers his verdict later in the week, they won't believe it. They will accuse Judge Tugendhat of being IN IT.

I suspect that Tugendhut will not remain on Bennetts Xmas card list for very long.

They'll probably put him back on their banner, twisting whatever he says to be insulting. Oh, and accuse him of being IN IT.

There is no doubt that he is "In It" - the Judiciary, I mean.

I cannot imagine what was going through Judge Tugendhat's mind when he was faced with such an unsavoury-looking character - wanting the hearing to be adjourned yet again, no less!

I should think he's seen East End gangsters show more respect for the court.

Yes, that rather slipped under the radar, didn't it, Bennett asking for another adjournment. But I liked the bit about the high Costs being his own fault.
And so stupid to turn up looking scruffy because he can look relatively presentable.

One small point. Bennett argued that he signed the undertaking because he couldn't afford a Libel Trial due to not being entitled to Legal Aid, but he didn't know that at the time, in fact not until recently.
And how come he can afford a Libel Trial now?

Pass. Whatever he says, any resemblance to the truth will be pure coincidence.

Anyway, on last week's showing, any libel trial would be over before it began.

muratfan wrote:Oh, I remember some Hounder's were saying that the 17 page list didn't exist when I posted about it, strange that Bennett has confirmed it... Now shall I await them to apologise

You better not be holding your breath, buddy

crazytony wrote:

muratfan wrote:Oh, I remember some Hounder's were saying that the 17 page list didn't exist when I posted about it, strange that Bennett has confirmed it... Now shall I await them to apologise

You better not be holding your breath, buddy

I do seem to be going a bit blue in the face

The good thing about the list, is who is on it. Bennett lists several names against various people. He also very nicely knife Havern in the back...right between the shoulder blades. Remember it is her who gave Bennett all the details so he could spy on people. So havern is now as bad..if not worse then Bennett for giving information out.

Odd that the Martyrs of Hateworld are no longer starring on the banner, with pathetic tales of woe.

Who's that sick puppy on not-Bennett's site, the sock calling itself 'Mirage'?

Quote:



There is also a sense in which the McCann name taints anything associated with it. For my own part, I get a sickly feeling broaching the subject with the uninitiated. It's a strange sensation - as if you are scratching the surface of something very, very bad that most people (I cannot blame them) would prefer not to look at. Some shoot you that distancing look that the McCanns must experience every day.

I wrote to the McCanns in the early days when I felt very sorry for them. I recall distinctly telling them that whoever had done this would not be able to bear it on their conscience for ever and it would destroy them.


Why the pretence of 'feeling sorry' for the McCanns? It's glaringly obvious, IMO, that that sock has been around the hate sites all along, under some other name.

bb1 wrote:Who's that sick puppy on not-Bennett's site, the sock calling itself 'Mirage'?

Quote:



There is also a sense in which the McCann name taints anything associated with it. For my own part, I get a sickly feeling broaching the subject with the uninitiated. It's a strange sensation - as if you are scratching the surface of something very, very bad that most people (I cannot blame them) would prefer not to look at. Some shoot you that distancing look that the McCanns must experience every day.

I wrote to the McCanns in the early days when I felt very sorry for them. I recall distinctly telling them that whoever had done this would not be able to bear it on their conscience for ever and it would destroy them.


Why the pretence of 'feeling sorry' for the McCanns? It's glaringly obvious, IMO, that that sock has been around the hate sites all along, under some other name.

Why, I think I have read many posts by that sock. The name is on the tip of my tongue.......

It's someone who likes to re-write carols and things...........

Are you making a Freudian Slip, Lily?

Of course. It must be.

Sez a not-Bennnett mod:


Sometimes, we are quite well aware that new members are actually people who have been banned already.

So why are they let back with new names, then? No doubt to appear on the supposed memberlist by their banned names and by their new names?

Anything to keep those numbers looking good?

How transparent, desperate and hypocritical of the not Bennetts.

Sez 'Mirage'-


I wondered about starting a new thread featuring all these sycophantic articles. I think I'd best leave that up to admin as I'm fairly new.

Yes, of course you are!

Ba Boom.