OH DEAR SUPER RESEARCHER BENNETT COCKS UP AGAIN

crazytony wrote:

bb1 wrote:

crazytony wrote:Their forum is from the same people as yours, so can anyone use the search facility here if they are not members?

I've just logged out and tried, I couldn't get it to find anything - it kept asking me to log in.

ETA, yes, it worked perfectly when I was logged in, it didn't search at all logged out.

Then C & R are members of the death hole.
Oh those brave people.

Oh dear........

Admin stated, as fact:

It is Isabel Hudson who monitors the forum.

Really? Sure about that statement of fact are we?

Bonny, Bennett had better hope that that is not the case because:-

During the past two months alone, the total time that a Carter-Ruck computer has been staying on this forum amounts to literally hundreds of hours. I believe the full details of this huge amount of 'search time' will be disclose on here in due course.

Well, it might be, when Bennett gets the bill from CR

I think it might depend on whether he can pick himself off the floor in order to post?

What is this? The penny seems to have dropped. Does Bennett know he is paying for all of his hours of libel, taunting and harassing?


------------



It ain't the McCanns, and it ain't Carter-Ruck

Post Tony Bennett Yesterday at 11:32 pm

sharonl wrote: The masonic benevolent fund?

Tony

If Carter were providing services on favourable terms to one client, whether at a excessive discount or free of charge, would the Law Society frown upon this as perhaps a potential conflict of interest? Surely, there is some Law Society ruling on the charging of fees?



The Law Society have got this base quite well covered. Unless the case is wholly exceptional, a lawyer does not have to disclose who is funding him. For example, a wealthy father might be paying the legal fees of his impoverished son.

The Madeleine McCann case is of course wholly exceptional in so many ways.

Look at the list of two dozen or so libel actions (on this forum) that the McCanns have launched or thought about launching.

Then consider how much they have had to pay in legal fees to pursue Goncalo Amaral for libel for 2.5 years.

On top of that consider that they have now been ordered to pay some of Goncalo Amaral's legal costs.

Think about how much it's costing for someone to view this forum and copy potentially libellous posts, day after day after flippn' day.

Then pause and reflect on the fact that Carter-Ruck have openly said on the record that not one penny of their costs has ever been paid from Madeleine's Fund, although the McCanns and the Fund's Directors admit that some of the public's money has indeed gone on 'legal costs' (obviously not to Cartert-Ruck ,then!).

Finally, take stock of Dr Kate McCann's declaration that she and her husband have always wanted the Fund to be as [quote] 'transparent' as possible.

I'd like to suggest the transaprency should begin by the McCanns and their lawyers Bates Wells & Braithwaite and Carter Ruck explaining exactly who is covering the McCanns' mammoth legal costs - because it ain't the McCanns, and it ain't Carter-Ruck.


Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts: 3735
Join date: 2009-11-25
Age: 64
Location: Harlow, Essex


http://stopthemyths.prophpbb.com/topic1606.html


ETA: With thanks to Stopthemyths who are also discussing the subject.

I'd like to suggest the transaprency should begin by the McCanns and their lawyers Bates Wells & Braithwaite and Carter Ruck explaining exactly who is covering the McCanns' mammoth legal costs - because it ain't the McCanns, and it ain't Carter-Ruck.

Well, that's an easy one to start with, I do believe it is someone called 'Anthony Bennett'. Oh, I've just realised, that is....

I'd like to suggest the transaprency should begin by the McCanns and their lawyers Bates Wells & Braithwaite and Carter Ruck explaining exactly who is covering the McCanns' mammoth legal costs - because it ain't the McCanns, and it ain't Carter-Ruck.


Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts: 3735
Join date: 2009-11-25
Age: 64
Location: Harlow, Essex
No it isn't the McCanns nor Carter and Ruck.
It is, Anthony John Suart Bennett.
ETA Snap Bonny

Yup

He definitely sounds like he's lost it, doesn't he?

It's his own fault. He should have known something like this would happen when he first embarked upon his vicious hate campaign.

I imagine that a part of his bitterness is because he can't find anyone to defend him pro bono?

Oh, look what I found. A very transparent lie by Bennett.

So it is, Tony.

Oh my, Tony! I bet Ms Hudson doesn't tell fibs like that - though of course, she doesn't need to...,.

bb1 wrote:Oh my, Tony! I bet Ms Hudson doesn't tell fibs like that - though of course, she doesn't need to...,.

He's a little liar

What does it say? I can't read it. And yes, I have enlarged it.

Thanks in advance. XXXX

It appears that he misrepresented himself as a solicitor (practicing one) to Mr Lubbock, Sabot. It was then stated by Bennett that he told Mr Lubbock what the status was and that Mr Lubbock acknowledged it in writing. Of course the document could not be produced....... blah blah blah.

lily wrote:It appears that he misrepresented himself as a solicitor (practicing one) to Mr Lubbock, Sabot. It was then stated by Bennett that he told Mr Lubbock what the status was and that Mr Lubbock acknowledged it in writing. Of course the document could not be produced....... blah blah blah.

He obviously never bargained for us, Lily. We've got him Hog Tied if he did but know it.

This is interesting:



You'd think Mr Lubbock would remember writing a letter like that.....

The Carter Ruck IP address....

I take it Havern has checked the IP address and not just labelled it as i know for a fact that Carter Rucks IP address doesn't show up like she is claiming

muratfan wrote:The Carter Ruck IP address....

I take it Havern has checked the IP address and not just labelled it as i know for a fact that Carter Rucks IP address doesn't show up like she is claiming

Try checking it. It came back to me as C & R firewall handler

Tell me this, if the lawyers can use the despot forum search facility, does that mean they can see the secret bit too?

I've checked it too, it's CR all right.

Think about how much it's costing for someone to view this forum and copy potentially libellous posts, day after day after flippn' day.

Doesn't cost us a penny creep, we all do it out of the goodness of our hearts.
You wouldn't know the meaning of that would you Bennett.

It really is a joke watching him trying to find out which members are genuine.
I'm surprised I'm still there, catch me if you can

crazytony wrote:Tell me this, if the lawyers can use the despot forum search facility, does that mean they can see the secret bit too?

Can't answer that Tony, I'd have to kill you

Maggs wrote:

crazytony wrote:Tell me this, if the lawyers can use the despot forum search facility, does that mean they can see the secret bit too?

Can't answer that Tony, I'd have to kill you

Aw Maggs, you knows I iz in there all the time. My IP shows as ranging from, Russia, Austria, Holland, Spain and Outer Mongolia.