Bennett already going back on promise he made on BBC Television

rhodes wrote:How much leeway is he going to give him, and will the McCann's have to attend?

I shouldn't think that The McCanns will have to attend. This is a simple case of Contempt of Court, and whether or not Bennett should be allowed to go on committing Libel.
I am just not sure if The Judge will be forced to lift certain undertakings, because they were voluntarily given.

Despite Bennett's efforts to state otherwise, this is between Bennett and the High Court, so he WON'T be able to drag the McCanns into it.

He really is a sadistic little man.

Peter the Pretend Copper today...

Re: Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application

Post PeterMac Today at 4:55 pm
". . . an exchange of evidence . . "
That means they might have to provide you with some.
You have the accumulated evidence of several Portuguese Senior investigating officers, several British police officers with packs of hounds, detailed analysis of statements made by and on behalf of TM, calculations of the window of opportunity, and lots more. More than would fill two books.
They have two words "I knew", repeated in italic, thus "I knew".
Even Mattorrell was not foolish enough to pretend that this was evidence.
So an exchange may be very interesting indeed.
What it may do, of course is demonstrate to the solicitors the paucity not to say total absence of evidence for their clients, and the very real possibility of their clients' being exposed as liars on various points, which could lead to a wholly proper and professional decision to advise their clients go no further.

________________

If Bennett wishes to try to overturn the three undertakings, and head into a libel trial, all that the Mccanns have to do is to show that Bennett has libelled them. Which should not be too hard to do - Tugendhut seems to be pretty convinced.

And quoted the closing statement of the prosecutor.

If Bennett wants to provide justification in his defence, the onus is entirely on him to prove that what he has said all these years is either true of that he has good reason to believe it to be true.

The McCanns do not have to prove anything. Or provide any "evidence", especially of their innocence. Zilch. Nada. Rien.

Bennett is stuck up a gum tree.

For a supposed ex senior police officer, pretendypete knows remarkably little about the law - criminal or civil.

Apart from anything else, how much credence does he think anyone is going to give to a convicted perjurer and a convicted torturer - especially as what the pair of them had to say was overruled by the Attorney General of Portugal?

Another pretendypoliceman who seems to know nothing about the law:

Re: Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application
Bob Southgate Today

Tony Bennett wrote:
The McCanns say that my application has no realistic prospect of success and they oppose it vigorously.

To put it another way, The McCanns are opposing your right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

No, to put it correctly, the High Court has ruled that Bennett and the Hounders have no right to trample on the REAL human rights of others:


In effect, the Defendant's submission is a straightforward denial of the Claimants' rights to equal treatment and protection under the law. His attitude that fundamental or human rights are only for himself is one that is by no means unique to himself. It brings the law of human rights into disrepute. The true position is obvious: there can be no human rights unless those claiming them also acknowledge their responsibility to respect the rights of others, as Art 10 specifically provides.

I am sure a High Court judge knows rather more about the matter than pretendy policemen on hate sites.

this is what to expect from TB.

Re: Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application
Jean Today
Surely in the event of a libel trial, the McCanns would have to answer questions on oath as to what they claim happened in PDL?

What? What planet are these people on, that they believe nonsense like that? Apart from anything else, no court is going to indulge Bennett's sadism - his cards have been well-marked by Judge Tugendhat.

bb1 wrote:http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.co.uk/?zx=bd7d5ff2f7285e1a

When Will He Ever Learn, When Will He Ever Learn?

So very well said, Tony.

bb1 wrote:Re: Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application
Jean Today
Surely in the event of a libel trial, the McCanns would have to answer questions on oath as to what they claim happened in PDL?

What? What planet are these people on, that they believe nonsense like that? Apart from anything else, no court is going to indulge Bennett's sadism - his cards have been well-marked by Judge Tugendhat.

He (Head Hounder) relies upon people like that on his forum. People who are clueless where it really matters; leaving the word of Bennett, a failed ex-solicitor with virtually no practical experience, to take precedence over what the legal position actually is.

Then the vicious poisonous cycle starts again......

ETA: Bob Southgate is not able to disguise himself very well.

No doubt someone will correct me on this but, shouldn't Bennett remove the YouTube video about Madeleine from xxxxxxhttps://twitter.com/zampos
I believe, libel is still libel if repeated, even though he did not initially say what is written within the video?

As I also understand it, Tony, yes he should.

He had to take it down before and was told to use his best endeavours to pull them.

If, and a very big If, The McCanns ever did have to answer questions on oath, we all know what The Hounders would say. There would be shrieks of Perjury and Liars and then endless Debate about it.
In so far as I understand, The McCanns do not have to answer to anything. It won't be them on Trial. This is one of the things they don't seem to get.

lily wrote:As I also understand it, Tony, yes he should.

He had to take it down before and was told to use his best endeavours to pull them.

That's what I thought, lily.

Sabot, if God himself parted the clouds and told them that they are wrong, they would still carry on hounding, stalking, harassing and posting vitriolic posts as before.

ETA: Tony.

lily wrote:Sabot, if God himself parted the clouds and told them that they are wrong, they would still carry on hounding, stalking, harassing and posting vitriolic posts as before.

ETA: Tony.

They would also accuse God of being 'in on it'.

They will never admit that they are wrong, Lily, and they will always have an excuse for believing whatever they are fed. I have been vaguely aware for most of my life of this fault system in the brains of some people, but never seen it in action on a mass level before. It's actually quite fascinating watching them weave their lies into their kind of truth.

I am just reading the delusional rubbish which the mighty brains of the likes of yoyo, pretendypete, etc., is coming out with.....what on earth is wrong with them?

They seem to live in a bizarre, alternate reality. Which naturally means Tears Before Bedtime when the real world intrudes on their imaginings.

They actually seem to have some kind of comprehension problem - they certainly don't understand the law, or legal documents.

ETA, and now one of them is raving about 'deadlines' and instructing people 'google it'. What for? That lot have even succeeded in devaluing google - 'information' on hate sites and blogs is no information at all.

They live in a wierd, dark world of their own creation.

These are the posters that Bennett appeals to. Go figure......

They don't get it, do they?

Re: Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application
candyfloss Today at 10:42 am

There you go, what Goncalo Amaral has always said, they could have asked for it to stay open.....


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2439530/Madeleine-McCann-Kate-and-Gerry-cleared-of-arguido-status-by-Portuguese-police.html

The McCann’s lawyers will now have 20 days to appeal the decision to archive the case although sources close to the McCanns said that was unlikely to happen.

According to who? A reporter? We all know how sloppy the UK press was about everything related to this case, and the Portuguese media made it up as they went along. When they weren't being fed garbage by Gonc and co.

See, this is what they don't get, and why they are in such trouble. A poster asked for

details of who set up the deadline, what the date was and what the conditions were.

and was given a newspaper report instead.

JUST BECAUSE IT IS IN A NEWSPAPER IT DOES NOT MEAN ITS TRUE.

Oh, why bother? Maybe they are best left to their delusions, and this bizarre idea that newspapers can be quoted as reliable Sources.

Has Candyfloss missed the AG and other Portuguese law officers saying that the case can NOT be reopened on request? That there has to be NEW EVIDENCE?

Who to believe? The Attorney General of Portugal or a convicted perjurer with a grudge?

It's a no-brainer, for any sane person.

Do they actually not grasp that the correct, and acceptable, response is to quote the relevant section of Portuguese law? Not a reporter who got information from Lord knows where?

No wonder they are in such trouble, or that their 'research' is so laughably poor.

I hadn't seen this before. It says it all. Even if those three Undertakings are lifted it won't give Bennett the right to carry on.

Judge Tugendhat.


16. In lengthy documents which he has submitted to the court the Defendant makes clear that the basis upon which he applies for a variation of the undertakings is that he contends that there is evidence, (which he claims is fresh evidence at least in part), which would satisfy the court that the three allegations which he wants to be free to make to the public at large are true, or alternatively, that they are honest opinion. He submits that there has been a material change in the law of honest comment as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Spiller v. Joseph [2010] UKSC 53; [2011] 1 AC 852. In support of his application to vary the undertakings he wishes to argue these points, and to put forward evidence to prove what he says is the truth of what he has published, and of what he wishes to publish.

17. For the Claimants, Mr Dean submits that the proper course is that there be determined as soon as practical whether there have been any, and if so what, breaches by the Defendant of the undertakings which he gave to the court on 25 November 2009 (as listed in the shortened Schedule to the application to commit). Mr Dean submits that if, contrary to his case, there are no breaches, then the application to vary the undertakings may not arise for consideration. On the other hand, if the court finds that the Defendant has breached the undertakings, then the court may wish, in determining the appropriate penalty, to consider the application by the Defendant to vary the undertakings.

18. Mr Dean made clear on his clients’ behalf, that they deny that there is any truth in any of the allegations which the Defendant wishes to be free to make, and they do not accept that he would have any prospect of establishing a defence of honest comment, or any other defence to what they say are serious libels.

19. But they also take a preliminary point. They submit that he is not, in any event, entitled to seek the variation he does seek, at least on the basis that what he wants to say is true or honest comment. Mr Dean submits that the undertakings were given as part of a settlement agreement, and the court could only permit the Defendant to resile from that agreement on very limited bases. The Defendant would have to satisfy the court of one of the well established grounds for impugning any contract, such as misrepresentation or common mistake. The Defendant does not allege either of these grounds, although he does say he was subject to economic duress, because of what it would have cost to defend the libel action which the Claimants threatened to bring against him. Mr Dean submits that there is a public policy in promoting the settlement of legal proceedings by mutual agreement. Such agreements entered into by consent should not be set aside otherwise than in circumstances that in which a contract would be set aside. He cites Warren v. Random House Group [2009] EMLR 1; [2008] EWCA Civ 384 at paras 16-43.

20. When the matter came before me on an earlier occasion, and again on 11 October 2012, I expressed concern as to the procedural route which the Defendant has chosen to pursue his stated aim. It seemed to me that a variation of the undertaking that he gave in November 2009 might not, of itself, even if he were to achieve it, leave him free to make the allegations which he wishes to be able to continue to make.

21. The discharge of an injunction, or of an undertaking, is not of itself a licence or judgment of the court that a publication, which was previously restrained by such injunction or undertaking, may lawfully be published. There would need to be determined, in one way or another, at least two issues before it could be said that the Defendant is to be entitled to make public the allegations he wishes to make. The first issue is whether he can overcome the preliminary obstacle which Mr Dean submits is presented by the principle that settlements are not to be reopened in circumstances such as those existing in this case. If the Defendant succeeds on that first issue, the second issue would be whether the Claimants have a good cause of action, whether in libel, or harassment (if they wish to revive the harassment claim), such as would entitle them to have re-imposed an injunction in terms similar to the undertakings which the Defendant gave.

I hadn't really taken that on board either, Sabot.

IMO, the McCanns have grounds for reviving the harrassment claim, as Bennett has made it clear this week that he is NOT going to keep the promise he made on BBC News.

bb1 wrote:I hadn't really taken that on board either, Sabot.

IMO, the McCanns have grounds for reviving the harrassment claim, as Bennett has made it clear this week that he is NOT going to keep the promise he made on BBC News.

That's what I thought, Bonny, Harassment sounds good. That Judge doesn't half know what he is doing.

And as for "Honest Comment", doesn't Bennett have to have Evidence on which to base his beliefs? Gut Instinct and Body Language just won't work, I'm afraid. And nor will endless, Libellous Press Articles.

Oh, and No, The McCanns could not have prevented The Case being Archived because they didn't have any New Evidence to present. Anyone wishing to prevent the archiving of any case has to have new evidence to back their request.

I hope that they do revive the harassment claim. If they haven't been harassed, I don't know who has.