Bennett already going back on promise he made on BBC Television

lily wrote:

Sabot wrote:
I can hardly believe what I have just read in that Forensic Accounting Report. Sheesh, I could have done better than that if I wanted to publish a pile of shite. There is not one provable discrepancy in it. Exactly the opposite, I would say. Pure waffle.
Silly bitch. Miss Page would make a right fool of her. But then so could I.

Sabot, I am of the opinion that that is why Judge Tugendhat specifically said he had taken the trouble to read it.
Who says that unless they feel negatively about something?

Not sure, Lily. But he must have read the same thing that I read. So I can only presume that he no longer cares if Bennett makes a complete arse of himself. Or Enid O'Dowd for that matter. That report won't do her career much good.

bb1 wrote:I am sure Judge T. is used to reading professional reports; what he was thinking when he read that pile of poo I do not know.

Anyone with half a brain cell can see it is valueless, legally.

Isn't it hilarious, Sabot? Yet they claim they aren't a cult.

In Her Opinion, I note. And there was me thinking that Accountants deal in Facts. They wouldn't last five minutes with The Inland Revenue if they didn't.
And contrary to popular opinion, Accountants work for The Inland Revenue, and definitely not for their clients, whoever they may be.

If she ever goes into Court and spouts that shite then her reputation is going to be at serious risk. The reputation of an Accountant, Forensic or otherwise, is of deadly importance. Would you employ her?
She works for The Inland Revenue who require absolute truth, and objectivity. She displays neither of those things in that pile of bull crap.

No, I don't want anyone to report her. She is doing a fine job all by herself. For a professional woman to lay herself open to the obvious suggests that she has drunk a bit more Cool Aid than most.

I am actually appalled. Again.

The 8rs all think it's wonderful, though. Which again demonstrates how far removed they are from reality.

I hope she is never employed directly, by the Inland Revenue. Can you imagine what they would think if one of their Tax Assessors came up with a report like that? Half of the population of Britain would be under suspicion on the say so of an idiot.

This is actually more serious than it might seem, but I don't seem to be able to explain just how so. She should simply not be practicing if she can jump to such conclusions without a scrap of proof.

This morning I received an email from Carter-Ruck, marked, in bold capitals, 'URGENT'.

Essentially, it objected to 67 words in my post on this thread at 6.35am yesterday (just below the OP).

The letter concluded with these words:

"We have advised our clients that this publication constitutes a further breach of the undertakings and thus a basis on which the suspension of your three-month prison sentence should be revoked, as well as a breach of your assurance given to the judge by way of mitigation. We hereby put you on notice that if you publish anything further which in any way breaches the undertakings, our clients will have litle choice but to report the mater to the Court, and to invite the Court immediately to execute the warrant for your committal to Pentonville Prison".

I had thought that I had given an uncontroversial summary of what would happen next in the proceedings, explaining what the 'lifting the stay' application to be heard one day in May was all about.

Apparently not.

I really don't know now if I can say anything about that upcoming hearing, unless it is just to give you all the date, time, and Courtroom number.

In the meantime, Admin has agreed to delete the offending 67 words from my post. The rest of my post remains as it was.

Thank you, Admin.

You have saved me from Pentonville.

For the moment

____________________


Tony Bennett

Posts: 5627
Join date: 2009-11-25
Age: 65
Location: Harlow, Essex

Words fail me. Did anyone grab Bennett's Post? Not that it matters. Carter Ruck have it. Immediate proof of a right to commit him to Prison. But still they are being kind.

We had some of it, Sabot, I have since removed it out of respect for the High Court - something the hounders seem to lack.

Mrs Big House;

Châtelaine Today at 3:46 pm

It isn't comment on Joana's blog, Candyfloss. It's one of the people calling in.
In the same link, I did find come comments about something I had forgotten about:

"The fact that the McCanns and their lawyers did not respond to Mr.
Bennett's requests for them to submit any corrections to it before
publication speaks volumes."

"Mr. Bennett asked 5 people (involved in this case) to correct him, if he would publish something wrong. In 5 months, no reaction."

Indeed the McCs c.s. could have stopped Tony in his tracks, if they would have bothered to react at that time. It reminds me of the McCs v Amaral case. There it took them a long time too to react to the publication of his book. When I say "react" I actually mean "sue".

--------

The arrogance of it! Since when were victims expected to have to beg bullies to stop, to avoid an even worse attack?

Just who do these people think they are?

Now, I do hope someone has screen-shot that

I can scarcely believe my eyes.



'Don't post anything in your own name'? But it's OK for him to carry on committing contempt of court if he's calling himself 'Sean Nottage' or something?

These people have absolutely NO respect for the law, do they? And do they really think that ^^^^ helps Bennett?

The spyware also registers his ip. So regardless of what names he uses, he can be tracked right to his front door.

I don´t understand this:

TB received a letter from Carter Ruck, he publicises it, instead of keeping it for himself? TB wants fame.

They seem to be in total denial, Tony, unable to grasp just how serious the situation is.

It's all one big game to them.....

bb1 wrote:We had some of it, Sabot, I have since removed it out of respect for the High Court - something the hounders seem to lack.

Mrs Big House;

Châtelaine Today at 3:46 pm

It isn't comment on Joana's blog, Candyfloss. It's one of the people calling in.
In the same link, I did find come comments about something I had forgotten about:

"The fact that the McCanns and their lawyers did not respond to Mr.
Bennett's requests for them to submit any corrections to it before
publication speaks volumes."

"Mr. Bennett asked 5 people (involved in this case) to correct him, if he would publish something wrong. In 5 months, no reaction."

Indeed the McCs c.s. could have stopped Tony in his tracks, if they would have bothered to react at that time. It reminds me of the McCs v Amaral case. There it took them a long time too to react to the publication of his book. When I say "react" I actually mean "sue".

--------

The arrogance of it! Since when were victims expected to have to beg bullies to stop, to avoid an even worse attack?

Just who do these people think they are?

Stupid or what. Does a woman of her vast Business Standing, and with her great knowledge of Contractual Law, expect people to believe that she doesn't understand what Mr. Bennett has been doing? Or that The McCanns were in any way obligated to point out any discrepancies in a wholly Libellous Leaflet.
Mrs. Big House is not a stupid woman, so she is either lately deranged, or taking the piss.

They are encouraging him to break his word of honor to the court, why do they hate him so much?

Stupid or what. Does a woman of her vast Business Standing, and with her great knowledge of Contractual Law, expect people to believe that she doesn't understand what Mr. Bennett has been doing? Or that The McCanns were in any way obligated to point out any discrepancies in a wholly Libellous Leaflet.
Mrs. Big House is not a stupid woman, so she is either lately deranged, or taking the piss.

She soon found some financial excuse as Bennett's time edged closer to court and he spoke about how badly he was going to be affected financially.

You don't think she's a mole do you?

bb1 wrote:I can scarcely believe my eyes.



'Don't post anything in your own name'? But it's OK for him to carry on committing contempt of court if he's calling himself 'Sean Nottage' or something?

These people have absolutely NO respect for the law, do they? And do they really think that ^^^^ helps Bennett?

CR don't need to monitor their shite hole. There's more than enough "wellwishers" doing it for them.

In the meantime, Admin has agreed to delete the offending 67 words from my post. The rest of my post remains as it was.

Thank you, Admin.

You have saved me from Pentonville

Shame Bennett wasn't quick enough to change his post from 6.35 am,yesterday. As usual, too late.

So, the latest excuse from the Bennett cult is that they're not a cult, perish the thought, and he's never influenced anyone.

Really? Then what was all this in aid of?

Midas
Post subject: BBC RADIO LEICESTER REPORTS MADELEINE FOUNDATION CONCERNS.
PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:05 am
New In Town

Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:39 am
Posts: 3
BBC Radio Leicester reports the concerns of the Madeleine Foundation. At 8 am this morning I heard that residents of Leicester had awoken to find leaflets on their doormats with The Madeleine Foundation's reasons for a thorough investigation into Madeleine's disappearance. I went downstairs to find mine and will be taking it into work to pass around. I did not know any of this and had considered myself well informed.

Thank you to The Madeleine Foundation for this information. Thank you BBC.

Say 'thank you' nicely to Zoe Pillock.

Emu-newperson-silkcut-frost-hydra,on the subject of anyone influenced by Bennett:

he MAY have influenced a handful of people, those people must have no brain, no internet, tv and never bought a paper but just ordered a book

lily wrote:
Stupid or what. Does a woman of her vast Business Standing, and with her great knowledge of Contractual Law, expect people to believe that she doesn't understand what Mr. Bennett has been doing? Or that The McCanns were in any way obligated to point out any discrepancies in a wholly Libellous Leaflet.
Mrs. Big House is not a stupid woman, so she is either lately deranged, or taking the piss.

She soon found some financial excuse as Bennett's time edged closer to court and he spoke about how badly he was going to be affected financially.

You don't think she's a mole do you?

No, Lily. I think she is just derange by personal disappointment and alcohol. And she thinks that the rest of them are stupid.

bb1 wrote:Emu-newperson-silkcut-frost-hydra,on the subject of anyone influenced by Bennett:

he MAY have influenced a handful of people, those people must have no brain, no internet, tv and never bought a paper but just ordered a book

Ba boom.

bb1 wrote:So, the latest excuse from the Bennett cult is that they're not a cult, perish the thought, and he's never influenced anyone.

Really? Then what was all this in aid of?

Midas
Post subject: BBC RADIO LEICESTER REPORTS MADELEINE FOUNDATION CONCERNS.
PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:05 am
New In Town

Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:39 am
Posts: 3
BBC Radio Leicester reports the concerns of the Madeleine Foundation. At 8 am this morning I heard that residents of Leicester had awoken to find leaflets on their doormats with The Madeleine Foundation's reasons for a thorough investigation into Madeleine's disappearance. I went downstairs to find mine and will be taking it into work to pass around. I did not know any of this and had considered myself well informed.

Thank you to The Madeleine Foundation for this information. Thank you BBC.

Say 'thank you' nicely to Zoe Pillock.

That was a Classic. And all in thirty five minutes. Whoops, sorry, Thirty six minutes.

Beats me how Bennett has the gall to suddenly do a U-turn and claim no-one reads his stuff, when he on record boasting about the thousands of people who have been 'eagerly' reading his posts.

Not to mention playing the numbers game with the fake membership figures. Allegedly.

bb1 wrote:Beats me how Bennett has the gall to suddenly do a U-turn and claim no-one reads his stuff, when he on record boasting about the thousands of people who have been 'eagerly' reading his posts.

Not to mention playing the numbers game with the fake membership figures. Allegedly.

I did notice that minor discrepancy. Is it thousands, or just a few? I hope Carter Ruck have got knowledge of that. But then I expect they have. It wasn't really relevant in The Contempt Case.
You might think he would see that coming. But then no doubt he will quote our disparaging comments, and the fact that most of us just go there for a laugh. I do hope so.