Missing Madeleine
Come join us...there's more inside you cannot see as a guest!

Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Page 1 of 4 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  Panda on Thu 7 Feb - 23:15

UPDATED – McCanns v Bennett



04Feb
Queen’s Bench Division

COURT 14

Before MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT

Tuesday, 5th February 2013

At half past 10

ROBED

APPLICATION TO COMMIT

ATC/11/0841 McCann & anr v Bennett

Wishing you all the very best of luck, Tony.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Updated 5th February 2013, 21.26 GMT



In brief:

The judge severely limited my questions to Carter-Ruck’s Solicitor and Partner, Isabel Martorell.I think I am right in saying (we shall see tomorrow) that none of the facts relating to Madeleine’s reported disappearance are of any relevance whatosever to this hearing.Nor is the widespread availability of Dr Amaral’s book; that was also ruled as irrelevant.One issue that emerged during the hearing more than once was the McCanns’ powerlessness to control the level of dissent about Madeleine. I was able to demonstrate that I was the only person on the entire planet who was actively being inhibited from expressing his opinions on the disappearance of Madeleine. That was also ruled entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether I had breached any of my undertakings.The circumstances under which I agreed to give the undertakings – on 2 October 2009 following legal advice from Kirwans – were also deemed irrelevant. The fact that the only alternative I was faced with was to face a full-blown libel trial, up against the legal firepower of Carter-Ruck and with no Legal Aid for defamation cases, was also ruled irrelevant.Michael Gunnill’s evidence was that he obtained the ’60 Reasons’ book from me purely to make himself some money. He said he had asked the Editor of the Sunday Express if he would be interested in running a story on Tony Bennett breaking his undertakings. He said that the Editor said ‘Yes’, and so he tried to get a book from me by subterfuge. Having done so, the Editor never ran the story so he never got paid. On this forum, Mr Gunnill claimed to have received the book on 4 February 2010, but in his Affidavit he said it was on 1 February. He could not explain the discrepancy.
In her Affidavit, Ms Martorell had said on oath that ‘Madeleine was abducted’. She conceded that she had been told that but didn’t know whether or not that was true. Her information came from her clients.
The one ray of hope was that Mr Justice Tugendhat said that many of the issues I sought to raise would become relevant at a subsequent hearing at which I shall be applying to lift the stay on the libel proceedings – and (hopefully) then be able to argue the case to lift the undertakings. This hearing will not release me from my undertakings and it has been spelled out to me that unless and until the undertakings are lifted, I must not give my opinion on what may have happened to Madeleine.
The support at the Court was brilliant – thanks so much to all who came.
Especial thanks to Enid O’Dowd, the accountant who wrote up an excellent analysis of the Fund. She flew over from the Irish Republic to help me. She was not allowed to be a witness for me at today’s hearing, because Mr Justice Tugendhat deemed it irrelevant to the issues he had to decide. He did however say that her evidence might well be relevant at a future hearing.
There were 5 journalists present during various parts of the proceedings.
It all seems very very unjust
Tony Bennett

Read more at ***LATEST NEWS AND UPDATES FROM THE TRIAL HERE***




UPDATED 6TH FEBRUARY 2012, 18.55 GMT




UPDATE:
Court rose at just before 1pm, afer closing submissions, Adrienne Page Q.C. first, then mine.
The judgment of Mr Justice Tugendhat will be given in open court, probably in more like 2 weeks’ time than one. At that hearing, should he find that I breached one or more undertakings, I will be given the chance to enter a plea of mitigation, i.e. argue for a lighter punishment for any contempt.
Once again, Mr Justice Tugendhat made it quite clear that court orders, injunctions and undertakings must be strictly obeyed until set aside one way or the other, varied or revoked, whatever may be said about the circumstances under which they were obtained, about how oppressive or restrictive they were, and no matter how many police officers, officials, journalists, authors, bloggers, forum owners, websites, YouTube video-makers and other individuals say exactly the same as I do and as Dr Goncalo Amaral does.
Adrienne Page Q.C., did make one important submission right at the end of the proceedings.
As far as I can recall, she said:
“My Lord, my clients wish to make clear in the light of press reports today that they do not wish for Mr Bennett to be sent to prison, nor do they want to punish him in any way; all they want to do is to ensure that he stops what he has been doing”.
After coming out of court, I was caught by a journalist from BBC East Midlands (it might have been the one who falsely accused Dr Amaral of saying ‘F___ the McCanns’, I am not sure) and I was interviewed on camera for a few minutes outside the High Court. I think I gave reasonably clear and coherent answers. There may be a small item about it on BBC TV East Midlands tonight.
I was also interviewed by James Murray from the Daily Express who was a pleasant enough gentleman who was especially interested in my reference in court to the McCanns having spent so much money (around £4 million) using 17 different solicitors I gave him a print-out of the article on this forum which lists them all.
Once again, the support for me in Court was wonderful. On both days they had to put ‘COURT FULL’ notices outside Court 14 – only about 30 people are allowed on the back three tiers of benches, and they soon filled up.
Finally, please don’t expect any further replies from me here, nor am I likely to be able to reply to any more e-mails, ‘pm’s or ‘phone calls for at least a few days, I am going away for a complete break.
Tony Bennett


Read more here


Share this:



  • Twitter7
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
With thanks to Hardlinemarxist
Note the second paragraph on the 6th Feb report , and the comment regarding Enid O'Dowds contribution on 5th Feb.

Panda
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Female
Number of posts : 30555
Age : 59
Location : Wales
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2010-03-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  C.Edwards on Fri 8 Feb - 8:30

who was especially interested in my reference in court to the McCanns having spent so much money (around £4 million) using 17 different solicitors

I think it's fair to say that it's unusual for parents of a missing child to have so many lawyers working for them. The problem with what TB has done with his £4 million figure is that he's completely invented and wildly speculated on costs and time spent and has turned it into a "fact" by presenting it as he has. That can then be picked up and re-used by someone else on here who, when arguing with the pro-McCann lobby may well remember that number, use it in an argument and then get shot down in flames for using an unsupported figure. Why give people ammunition in any argument by using imprecise and unsupportable "facts"?

I know there are some out there who would argue it's entirely reasonable for the McCanns to spend so much money defending their name in the face of the ongoing attacks against them. It's my opinion that by doing this they are not proving either their guilt or their innocence as anyone in that position, with access to legal help as they appear to have, whether paid for or not, would fight to have their name cleared for one of two reasons: a) they're innocent and want their name cleared or b) they're guilty and want to appear innocent by having their name cleared - the "hey, why would we go to all this time, effort and expense if we were guilty?" angle if you like. Incidentally, that last argument is often used by mccann supporters when arguing their position. "Why would the McCanns just not fade gradually into the background if they are guilty? Why would they keep raising their public profile?" That's quite simple to answer... they can't stop the train. This has all built up so much momentum now that to try and stop it would risk backfiring on them if they were to stop making so many public appearances/statements. It's entirely in their interests to continue to have a high profile to either boost the fund or allow them to use the "why would we keep raising our heads if we were guilty?" argument.

It doesn't do our side of the argument any good whatsoever to use made up facts and figures in support as it can simply be picked apart when the time comes. It's enough to reference the (provable) large amount of legal help the McCanns have used without having to try and overegg the pudding with alleged expenditure that can't ever be proven.

C.Edwards
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 85
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-05-12

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  Panda on Fri 8 Feb - 8:50

Well done C Edwards......your 14 th post in almost 2 years.

Seriously now, I agree that any information about the McCanns publicised should be watertight and the Accounts are so vague (deliberately ) that it is impossible to know exactly what the expenditure is, similarly no reference to Directors Fees.are indicated , so much for the transparency John McCann promised.
The McCanns have definitely misused the Fund and I also think they have gone too far with their penchant for taking Legal action and I think they are running scared over the claim against Amaral. They wanted a video link because after their last appearance in Portugal they did not get a warm welcome from the Portugese, now they are looking for an out of Court settlement .

Panda
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Female
Number of posts : 30555
Age : 59
Location : Wales
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2010-03-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  Guest on Fri 8 Feb - 8:55

@C.Edwards

So, to summarise, you are saying the figure is unlikely to be verifiable and so might prove unhelpful to the debate, especially if seized upon by Healy & McCann Supporters?

(I'm just trying to save people time as it's difficult to give prolix Posts full attention at times)

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  C.Edwards on Fri 8 Feb - 9:01

The End Is Nigh wrote:@C.Edwards

So, to summarise, you are saying the figure is unlikely to be verifiable and so might prove unhelpful to the debate, especially if seized upon by Healy & McCann Supporters?

(I'm just trying to save people time as it's difficult to give prolix Posts full attention at times)

Yes.


(see what I did there?)

C.Edwards
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 85
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-05-12

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  tigger on Fri 8 Feb - 9:01

Panda wrote:Well done C Edwards......your 14 th post in almost 2 years.

Seriously now, I agree that any information about the McCanns publicised should be watertight and the Accounts are so vague (deliberately ) that it is impossible to know exactly what the expenditure is, similarly no reference to Directors Fees.are indicated , so much for the transparency John McCann promised.
The McCanns have definitely misused the Fund and I also think they have gone too far with their penchant for taking Legal action and I think they are running scared over the claim against Amaral. They wanted a video link because after their last appearance in Portugal they did not get a warm welcome from the Portugese, now they are looking for an out of Court settlement .

These are estimated costs, the first post on here http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5983-a-compendium-of-lawyers-used-so-far-by-the-mccanns describes the way the estimates are arrived at.

Deducing it from the accounts which are most uninformative would be impossible I think. This year's accounts finally have the 'advance' (some advance if it arrives nearly two years afterwards!) of the book in it and the fact that KM has 'ploughed' all this money into the Fund to search for Maddie must warm many a donator's heart.

tigger
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Female
Number of posts : 1740
Age : 50
Location : The Hague
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-07-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  C.Edwards on Fri 8 Feb - 9:08

Panda wrote:Well done C Edwards......your 14 th post in almost 2 years.

Seriously now, I agree that any information about the McCanns publicised should be watertight and the Accounts are so vague (deliberately ) that it is impossible to know exactly what the expenditure is, similarly no reference to Directors Fees.are indicated , so much for the transparency John McCann promised.
The McCanns have definitely misused the Fund and I also think they have gone too far with their penchant for taking Legal action and I think they are running scared over the claim against Amaral. They wanted a video link because after their last appearance in Portugal they did not get a warm welcome from the Portugese, now they are looking for an out of Court settlement .

Well I've been busy cooking up plots to overthrow the house of Bennett apparently and these things take time ;-)

Ah. Now we're in an area I can agree wholeheartedly on. I think that to set out with a stated goal to be utterly transparent and then to be anything BUT utterly transparent is inviting attention and suspicion. The McCanns fund posts JUST enough information to be legal and no more. There may be nothing of note in the accounts, but if that were true, what is the harm in publishing full details - particularly in light of a state aim of utter transparency? Again, it's not exactly empirical evidence of wrongdoing, but it clearly contradicts what they stated at the outset and I would hugely admire any newspaper that ran a questioning article on just why these super-transparent posts aren't so transparent.

I can't possibly see how the McCanns could have spent £4 million on solicitors as I don't think the fund has ever had that much through it and it would mean all expenditure went that way just about. Who paid for the detectives if that was, indeed, what happened? It's counter-productive to post such "facts" as true without supporting evidence other than just speculation on numbers as TB has done in his "solicitors used" document.

C.Edwards
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 85
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-05-12

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  Panda on Fri 8 Feb - 9:14

tigger wrote:
Panda wrote:Well done C Edwards......your 14 th post in almost 2 years.

Seriously now, I agree that any information about the McCanns publicised should be watertight and the Accounts are so vague (deliberately ) that it is impossible to know exactly what the expenditure is, similarly no reference to Directors Fees.are indicated , so much for the transparency John McCann promised.
The McCanns have definitely misused the Fund and I also think they have gone too far with their penchant for taking Legal action and I think they are running scared over the claim against Amaral. They wanted a video link because after their last appearance in Portugal they did not get a warm welcome from the Portugese, now they are looking for an out of Court settlement .

These are estimated costs, the first post on here http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5983-a-compendium-of-lawyers-used-so-far-by-the-mccanns describes the way the estimates are arrived at.

Deducing it from the accounts which are most uninformative would be impossible I think. This year's accounts finally have the 'advance' (some advance if it arrives nearly two years afterwards!) of the book in it and the fact that KM has 'ploughed' all this money into the Fund to search for Maddie must warm many a donator's heart.
Morning tigger....yer aving a laugh aint yer , the Fund did not receive the Advance, just the Royalties as far as I know. On the update post it says Enid O'Dowd had attended the hearing and supplied Tony with her findings on the Accounts. The Judge would not accept the evidence on the grounds that it was not relevant , but said it might be used at another time which I thought encouraging.

Panda
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Female
Number of posts : 30555
Age : 59
Location : Wales
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2010-03-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  C.Edwards on Fri 8 Feb - 9:49

Panda wrote:
Morning tigger....yer aving a laugh aint yer , the Fund did not receive the Advance, just the Royalties as far as I know. On the update post it says Enid O'Dowd had attended the hearing and supplied Tony with her findings on the Accounts. The Judge would not accept the evidence on the grounds that it was not relevant , but said it might be used at another time which I thought encouraging.

According to The McCann Files, Tony has applied for the stay to be lifted: "I have applied for the 'stay' on the libel proceedings to be lifted SO THAT I can then make my case for the three undertakings to be revoked."

His problem with trying to include Enid O'Dowd in a commital hearing for contempt was that, quite simply, it was completely irrelevant. As Justice T pointed out, this was not a libel trial and was only concerned with whether the undertaking(s) had been breached. It's JT's opinion (as stated in previous court doc) that it's not possible to vary the undertakings without lifting the stay on the libel proceedings and so that is TB's first step. It is at THAT hearing, should Tony get there, that evidence from the likes of Enid O'Dowd would be relevant. Very relevant.

Why do I say, "should Tony get there"? Well the McCann legal team will be working very hard to ensure that a) the hearing to lift the stay never happens and b) if it is heard, it will be strenuously opposed. It could be argued that they are, as the McCanns legal team, simply doing their job. Why allow your clients to go to the huge expense of a libel trial if you can legally nip it in the bud early on? Tony has to be able to demonstrate there are sufficient grounds for a hearing to lift the stay to take place. If he is unable to make a strong enough application, then a directions hearing is likely to be heavily influenced by CR in ruling that there are not sufficient grounds for the full hearing to go ahead and, in that case, TB will never get to have his hearing to have the stay lifted. People on a certain other forum are unable to differentiate between proper law and street law, in which phrases such as "surely the judge will see..." and so on are bandied about without regard for how the legal system actually works. No. Basically no judge "has to see" anything that is merely questionable (e.g. why do the McCanns need so much legal representation) as hard evidence of wrongdoing.

I'll shut up now as I'll be accused of prolix-ing again ;-)

C.Edwards
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 85
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-05-12

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  Panda on Fri 8 Feb - 10:05

Save me going to look in my Dictionary...what does "prolix" mean.
The Daily Mail were the only Newspaper to publish the 1st year accounts and pointed out that only 13% of the Fund was spent on searching for Madeleine. It would have to be SY or a Government Dept who could ask to "see the Books" if they had evidence to suggest the Fund was fraudulent.

Panda
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Female
Number of posts : 30555
Age : 59
Location : Wales
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2010-03-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  Not Born Yesterday on Fri 8 Feb - 10:11

Everything can be googled, Panda!

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prolix

I didn't know what it meant either.

Not Born Yesterday
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Female
Number of posts : 6697
Age : 103
Location : Over the hills and far away
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-10-09

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  Panda on Fri 8 Feb - 10:29

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Everything can be googled, Panda!

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prolix

I didn't know what it meant either.

Thanks NBY.......I just clicked on the link you gave and for anyone else who wants to know here is the info:-
pro·lix
play_w2("P0591000")


(pr-lks, prlks)


adj.
1. Tediously prolonged; wordy: editing a prolix manuscript.
2. Tending to speak or write at excessive length. See
Synonyms at wordy.

I do try Google and whatever I type it comes back "did you mean"? This morning I posted a thread about the Post Office, knew I had previously opened a thread on the topic and put in search Post office Thread....seven replies came back, nothing to do with what I had asked.!!!

Panda
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Female
Number of posts : 30555
Age : 59
Location : Wales
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2010-03-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  kitti on Fri 8 Feb - 11:07

So far.......


Mr bennett trial....300k

Mr amaral libel trial......ongoing

Book ban.....3 ....2 bans, 1 overturned... high court overruling ...lost case...costs....costs award to mr amaral .



And this doesn't Include trying to sue the multiple off other people including Portuguese newspapers.


How much do you think this costs plus the behind scenes from CR...there not cheap.


Don't forget the image company they payed to make them look innocent.

kitti
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Female
Number of posts : 13376
Age : 106
Location : London
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-06-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  C.Edwards on Fri 8 Feb - 12:01

kitti wrote:So far.......


Mr bennett trial....300k

Mr amaral libel trial......ongoing

Book ban.....3 ....2 bans, 1 overturned... high court overruling ...lost case...costs....costs award to mr amaral .



And this doesn't Include trying to sue the multiple off other people including Portuguese newspapers.


How much do you think this costs plus the behind scenes from CR...there not cheap.


Don't forget the image company they payed to make them look innocent.

All of which is fine and very expensive I'm sure. Did it cost £4 million? Who knows. It might have, it might not have. As we don't know, isn't it pointless to put a figure which is produced from pure speculation on it? Yes. A simple "huge sum of money" would do the trick, my point is that it's impossible to quantify what that sum of money is and if "£4 million" isn't challenged, it may get used again and become "accepted truth" in which case it simply becomes more ammunition for the pros to use in arguments against the "stack of lies and misinformation" they claim is out there.

C.Edwards
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 85
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-05-12

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  Guest on Fri 8 Feb - 12:17

For those of us who find vague and seemingly arbitrary classifications not terribly helpful, can you clarify what you mean by "pro"?

I Posted a Thread here recently clearly stating that I was a "pro" and explaining why - and there was a good deal of approval and consensus.

With such a broad church of opinion across Forums, much of it held in good faith and sincerely expressed, it seems a shame to tar people with a broad brush. Obviously there are a hard-core of people who seem unable to grasp the concepts of decent and qualified debate, but that's a side-issue, really.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  C.Edwards on Fri 8 Feb - 13:46

The End Is Nigh wrote:For those of us who find vague and seemingly arbitrary classifications not terribly helpful, can you clarify what you mean by "pro"?

I Posted a Thread here recently clearly stating that I was a "pro" and explaining why - and there was a good deal of approval and consensus.

With such a broad church of opinion across Forums, much of it held in good faith and sincerely expressed, it seems a shame to tar people with a broad brush. Obviously there are a hard-core of people who seem unable to grasp the concepts of decent and qualified debate, but that's a side-issue, really.

I mean "pro" as in the easy-to-define-which-side-of-the-argument-the-person-places-themselves-as-a-matter-of-course pro. "Supporters of Healy, McCann and all their associated hangers-on" just seems, I dunno, a bit prolix? ;-)

C.Edwards
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 85
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-05-12

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  Guest on Fri 8 Feb - 13:51

Interesting. Thankyou.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  dazedandconfused on Fri 8 Feb - 14:08

Panda wrote:Save me going to look in my Dictionary...what does "prolix" mean.
The Daily Mail were the only Newspaper to publish the 1st year accounts and pointed out that only 13% of the Fund was spent on searching for Madeleine. It would have to be SY or a Government Dept who could ask to "see the Books" if they had evidence to suggest the Fund was fraudulent.

Glad I'm not the only one who didn't know what it meant. We live and learn.

dazedandconfused
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Number of posts : 2101
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-08-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  Guest on Fri 8 Feb - 14:20

I am much more interested in why someone would register here two years ago, then post little or nothing until now. And then all they post are a) complaints and kvetching about another forum entirely and b) a thread telling us why the discussion of certain topics on here is pointless and unhelpful.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  C.Edwards on Fri 8 Feb - 14:28

Iris wrote:I am much more interested in why someone would register here two years ago, then post little or nothing until now. And then all they post are a) complaints and kvetching about another forum entirely and b) a thread telling us why the discussion of certain topics on here is pointless and unhelpful.

Because I posted on Haverns and didn't feel the need to post on here too?

What topics have I said are pointless and unhelpful to discuss? Are you joining in with the "C.Edwards is a closet pro" brigade?

C.Edwards
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 85
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-05-12

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  Palmeras16 on Fri 8 Feb - 14:32

Iris wrote:I am much more interested in why someone would register here two years ago, then post little or nothing until now. And then all they post are a) complaints and kvetching about another forum entirely and b) a thread telling us why the discussion of certain topics on here is pointless and unhelpful.

Absolutely agree with you Iris. C.Edwards is obviously a troll or worse still, a WUM. A true anti would know that TB is a demigod and moves in a mysterious way his wonders to perform; it’s not for us mere mortals to question his motives or debate the probable outcome of his actions.

Palmeras16
Reg Member
Reg Member

Number of posts : 275
Warning :
66 / 10066 / 100

Registration date : 2010-06-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  kitti on Fri 8 Feb - 14:36

And c.......have the cheek to run down a man who had to defend himself against a million pound lawyer firm who in turn are defending million pound clients...using donated money from a fund that was supposed to find a missing child......and then have the cheek to say that Tony is wrong to say the Mccanns have spent near on 4m on covering up a crime....


The Mccanns have in over 5 years accumulated near that amount .....they have spent, what we know to date as CR have so kindly told Tony.....300k approx.


We have ms duarte who most prob with her co lawyers has accumalaed prob 500k or more to date.


Then we have the book bans....2 were successful ...1 wasn't....then they took that to the HIGH COURT...and lost .....they have to pay mr amarals costs ...which they haven't to date as they want those costs to go against the libel case, which they either won't win or they will settle.

Then we have the Image Consultants.....4m.....what a waste off other people's money.

kitti
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Female
Number of posts : 13376
Age : 106
Location : London
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-06-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  kitti on Fri 8 Feb - 14:39

And what motives could he possibly have.


Now, if it were the Mccanns , I would say money would be their motive.

kitti
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Female
Number of posts : 13376
Age : 106
Location : London
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-06-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  Guest on Fri 8 Feb - 14:41

C.Edwards wrote:
Iris wrote:I am much more interested in why someone would register here two years ago, then post little or nothing until now. And then all they post are a) complaints and kvetching about another forum entirely and b) a thread telling us why the discussion of certain topics on here is pointless and unhelpful.

Because I posted on Haverns and didn't feel the need to post on here too?

What topics have I said are pointless and unhelpful to discuss? Are you joining in with the "C.Edwards is a closet pro" brigade?

How dare you tell me what I am or am not joining in! You haven't been here five minutes. I suggest you go away and learn some manners.

We are not here to listen to your whining and complaining about your "raw deal" on Jill's. Clearly Jill's has been good enough for you for the past two years, now that they have kicked you out, you think you can just come over here instead and throw your weight around? Sorry, but nobody here is impressed with your peevish behaviour.

Oh, and we will be discussing the accounts, or the fund, or anything else we like. If you find that pointless, then don't join in, it's not exactly rocket science.

Oh, and at Palmeras - you may well be a mere mortal. I actually have a mind of my own and I do not consider any other human being a "demigod". Including the McCanns, and including you.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  margaret on Fri 8 Feb - 14:55

To be fair Iris, he did ask you if you were joining in, he didn't 'tell' you.

margaret
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Female
Number of posts : 4406
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-08-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Post  Sponsored content Today at 16:03


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 4 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum