Retired Lawyer Faces Jail for Harrassing McCanns - Telegraph

kathybelle wrote:It's about time the McCanns along with their family, friends and the media, accepted that they are involved with Madeleine's disappearance. The McCanns are the ones who who told the world and his wife, that they left their children unsupervised on more than one occasion, while they went out and Madeleine disappeared while they were out. So unless I'm missing something, the McCanns are involved with Madeleine's disappearance.

Tony Bennett is being taken to court for flouting a High Court order, which said he mustn't repeat that the McCanns are involved with Madeleine's abduction. In my opinion the High Court Judge was wrong when he told Tony Bennett, not to say that the McCanns are involved in the abduction of Madeleine. There is no proof Madeleine was abducted and the High Court Judge was wrong to use the word abduction. The Judge would have still been wrong if he had said the McCanns were not involved with Madeleine's disappearance. Tony Bennett was only echoing what thousands upon thousands of people have said on forums and in petitions that were sent to the Government and Social Services.

I read that Tony Bennett had offered the McCanns compensation, I hope that wasn't true.

Yes indeed, if only tony had have stuck to his guns and
refused/appealed such a dragonian set of regulations.
And, I saw it somewhere, that he paid £2,500 comp
to the nest of vipers!

marxman wrote:

kathybelle wrote:It's about time the McCanns along with their family, friends and the media, accepted that they are involved with Madeleine's disappearance. The McCanns are the ones who who told the world and his wife, that they left their children unsupervised on more than one occasion, while they went out and Madeleine disappeared while they were out. So unless I'm missing something, the McCanns are involved with Madeleine's disappearance.

Tony Bennett is being taken to court for flouting a High Court order, which said he mustn't repeat that the McCanns are involved with Madeleine's abduction. In my opinion the High Court Judge was wrong when he told Tony Bennett, not to say that the McCanns are involved in the abduction of Madeleine. There is no proof Madeleine was abducted and the High Court Judge was wrong to use the word abduction. The Judge would have still been wrong if he had said the McCanns were not involved with Madeleine's disappearance. Tony Bennett was only echoing what thousands upon thousands of people have said on forums and in petitions that were sent to the Government and Social Services.

I read that Tony Bennett had offered the McCanns compensation, I hope that wasn't true.

Yes indeed, if only tony had have stuck to his guns and
refused/appealed such a dragonian set of regulations.
And, I saw it somewhere, that he paid £2,500 comp
to the nest of vipers!

Yes, but I suppose it's easier said than done when faced with the country's top exploiters of England's draconian libel laws. The whole situation is completely skewed towards those able to pay for clever lawyers, injunctions and all the rest of the instruments that are used by those rich enough to shut their critics up or those who would expose their machinations. IMO Mr. Bennett is putting up a brave fight; a martyr for the cause of free expression is the last thing the McCanns need at this juncture.

T4two wrote:

marxman wrote:

kathybelle wrote:It's about time the McCanns along with their family, friends and the media, accepted that they are involved with Madeleine's disappearance. The McCanns are the ones who who told the world and his wife, that they left their children unsupervised on more than one occasion, while they went out and Madeleine disappeared while they were out. So unless I'm missing something, the McCanns are involved with Madeleine's disappearance.

Tony Bennett is being taken to court for flouting a High Court order, which said he mustn't repeat that the McCanns are involved with Madeleine's abduction. In my opinion the High Court Judge was wrong when he told Tony Bennett, not to say that the McCanns are involved in the abduction of Madeleine. There is no proof Madeleine was abducted and the High Court Judge was wrong to use the word abduction. The Judge would have still been wrong if he had said the McCanns were not involved with Madeleine's disappearance. Tony Bennett was only echoing what thousands upon thousands of people have said on forums and in petitions that were sent to the Government and Social Services.

I read that Tony Bennett had offered the McCanns compensation, I hope that wasn't true.

Yes indeed, if only tony had have stuck to his guns and
refused/appealed such a dragonian set of regulations.
And, I saw it somewhere, that he paid £2,500 comp
to the nest of vipers!

Yes, but I suppose it's easier said than done when faced with the country's top exploiters of England's draconian libel laws. The whole situation is completely skewed towards those able to pay for clever lawyers, injunctions and all the rest of the instruments that are used by those rich enough to shut their critics up or those who would expose their machinations. IMO Mr. Bennett is putting up a brave fight; a martyr for the cause of free expression is the last thing the McCanns need at this juncture.

I agree Tony Bennett is putting up a brave fight and I just can't see how the McCanns have managed to build a case against him. All he has said, is what has been said, in petitions to the Government and Social Services and is still being said on forums and message boards.

I am all for free speech and think Tony Bennett and every body else has a constitutional right to ask questions and talk about any subject they wants to talk about.

Except in this case.

Because he chose to give an undertaking not to repeat certain things and he has left himself open to contempt of court if it can be proved he has repeated those things. It seems a bit strange now to tell us and the court that the agreement he signed was unreasonable. Did he not read it before he signed it? Isn't it true that his lawyers at the time read it with him and advised him to sign it.

It might have been wrong for the judge to have asked for that undertaking but the time to challenge it was then not now. If it was unreasonable or wrong Tony Bennett should have said so at the time, not just ignored it and carried on (if that is what he is proved to have done).

Navigator wrote:I am all for free speech and think Tony Bennett and every body else has a constitutional right to ask questions and talk about any subject they wants to talk about.

Except in this case.

Because he chose to give an undertaking not to repeat certain things and he has left himself open to contempt of court if it can be proved he has repeated those things. It seems a bit strange now to tell us and the court that the agreement he signed was unreasonable. Did he not read it before he signed it? Isn't it true that his lawyers at the time read it with him and advised him to sign it.

It might have been wrong for the judge to have asked for that undertaking but the time to challenge it was then not now. If it was unreasonable or wrong Tony Bennett should have said so at the time, not just ignored it and carried on (if that is what he is proved to have done).

Yes you are right Navigator, Tony Bennett should have challenged the High Court Judge's decision, because as I said previously he wasn't saying anything that hadn't been said before and is still being said on forums, Facebook and Twitter. He was a solicitor and he should have known without any advice from his lawyer that the undertaking needed challenging. If he has signed that undertaking, I'm afraid he doesn't appear to have a leg to stand on, especially as he is reported to have offered the McCanns compensation, if they dropped the case. The McCanns have reportedly refused the compensation and refused to drop the case.

I'm only expressing what I feel, I hope I am completely wrong and Tony Bennett, wins his fight. If he loses, I feel the McCanns lawyers, will start to make an example of posters on forums and message boards, who make the same comments as Tony Bennett.

kathybelle wrote:

Navigator wrote:I am all for free speech and think Tony Bennett and every body else has a constitutional right to ask questions and talk about any subject they wants to talk about.

Except in this case.

Because he chose to give an undertaking not to repeat certain things and he has left himself open to contempt of court if it can be proved he has repeated those things. It seems a bit strange now to tell us and the court that the agreement he signed was unreasonable. Did he not read it before he signed it? Isn't it true that his lawyers at the time read it with him and advised him to sign it.

It might have been wrong for the judge to have asked for that undertaking but the time to challenge it was then not now. If it was unreasonable or wrong Tony Bennett should have said so at the time, not just ignored it and carried on (if that is what he is proved to have done).

Yes you are right Navigator, Tony Bennett should have challenged the High Court Judge's decision, because as I said previously he wasn't saying anything that hadn't been said before and is still being said on forums, Facebook and Twitter. He was a solicitor and he should have known without any advice from his lawyer that the undertaking needed challenging. If he has signed that undertaking, I'm afraid he doesn't appear to have a leg to stand on, especially as he is reported to have offered the McCanns compensation, if they dropped the case. The McCanns have reportedly refused the compensation and refused to drop the case.

I'm only expressing what I feel, I hope I am completely wrong and Tony Bennett, wins his fight. If he loses, I feel the McCanns lawyers, will start to make an example of posters on forums and message boards, who make the same comments as Tony Bennett.

I am not sure that you are right that the McCanns will go after others, though you never know if they win the case and get good publicity from it. I know that I want greater freedom of speech. I want the society I live in to allow me to ask questions and not shut me out. I know that our politicians will do everything they can to keep our freedoms limited. But I can't see how Tony Bennett can win this contempt hearing. And I think the article in the Telegraph does Tony Bennett no favours where it matters. The readers of that paper have vested interests to defend and won't take kindly to anybody disturbing them. Anyone disobeying a judge with contempt will be seen by those readers as no better than the rioters who snubbed their noses at society last year. Not a great article for Tony, I dont think as it will turn opinion makers against him.

Beyond that what can be done? We must all continue to fight for the full information to come out about the McCanns, what went on in PDL that week of May 2007 and what happened to Madeleine. I for one want to know the truth about every aspect of the case. I think there is a great deal we have not been told.

I don't see any "comments" on-line in response to this article. I would imagine there will be comments in Monday's paper edition. If so, please keep those of us who are non-residents up-to-date. Thanks.

"Mr Bennett is accused of flouting an agreement in the High Court – made in November 2009 – that he would stop repeating allegations that the McCanns were in some way involved in their daughter's abduction."

I am no lawyer, but it seems that Mr. Bennett may be able to win his case due to semantics. Mr. Bennett has only been suggesting what DID NOT happen to Madeleine (abduction), but he has in no way ever suggested anything specific with regard to what actually did happen who did it to her. How can it be considered harassment when no specifice theory is even being suggested?

The McCanns have been claiming for five years that Madeleine WAS abducted with absolutely no proof, so why can't anyone else claim that she WASN'T abducted when there is loads of proof pointing in that direction?

This is a very dangerous precedent to be set if the McCanns win, and I would think if Mr. Bennett loses that he could take his case to the European Human Rights Council, or whatever body it was that Amaral was going to take his case to if he lost his appeal.

jinvta wrote:"Mr Bennett is accused of flouting an agreement in the High Court – made in November 2009 – that he would stop repeating allegations that the McCanns were in some way involved in their daughter's abduction."

I am no lawyer, but it seems that Mr. Bennett may be able to win his case due to semantics. Mr. Bennett has only been suggesting what DID NOT happen to Madeleine (abduction), but he has in no way ever suggested anything specific with regard to what actually did happen who did it to her. How can it be considered harassment when no specifice theory is even being suggested?

The McCanns have been claiming for five years that Madeleine WAS abducted with absolutely no proof, so why can't anyone else claim that she WASN'T abducted when there is loads of proof pointing in that direction?

This is a very dangerous precedent to be set if the McCanns win, and I would think if Mr. Bennett loses that he could take his case to the European Human Rights Council, or whatever body it was that Amaral was going to take his case to if he lost his appeal.

'To opine or not to opine' that is the question.
This surely is the basis of this case. Can someone
with a free mind and armed with sufficent and
credible information challenge an narrative which
has been based on fresh air?
Its similiar to the long standing argument which
prevailed for centuries.... the World was flat!
but I believe the flat-heads lost that case, didn't
they?

The Telegraph actually reads as

Retired lawyer faces jail for 'harassing' Kate and Gerry McCann.

Note the use of the quotes, it's like meat free 'steak slice'. It looks like a steak slice, it tastes like a steak slice, but it is not made with steak at all, and if you don't like Quorn then you can't later complain that you weren't warned. The Telegraph are telling us that nobody is harassing the McCanns, quite the opposite, and it's a big grown up enough newspaper to know what the readership will infer from those quotes.

Good for them!

jinvta wrote:"Mr Bennett is accused of flouting an agreement in the High Court – made in November 2009 – that he would stop repeating allegations that the McCanns were in some way involved in their daughter's abduction."

I am no lawyer, but it seems that Mr. Bennett may be able to win his case due to semantics. Mr. Bennett has only been suggesting what DID NOT happen to Madeleine (abduction), but he has in no way ever suggested anything specific with regard to what actually did happen who did it to her. How can it be considered harassment when no specifice theory is even being suggested?

The McCanns have been claiming for five years that Madeleine WAS abducted with absolutely no proof, so why can't anyone else claim that she WASN'T abducted when there is loads of proof pointing in that direction?

This is a very dangerous precedent to be set if the McCanns win, and I would think if Mr. Bennett loses that he could take his case to the European Human Rights Council, or whatever body it was that Amaral was going to take his case to if he lost his appeal.

If the original undertaking to the court signed by Mr. Bennett curtailed his basic rights under common law and was signed under duress from the McCanns, it cannot be enforced. The current action by the McCanns is aimed solely at enforcing that undertaking by having Mr Bennett punished by the court for allegedly not honouring it. Should the court see fit to allow itself to be used by the McCanns to exact revenge on Mr. Bennett by enforcing an undertaking which infringes his basic human rights then he has recourse to the European courts.

Iris wrote:The Telegraph actually reads as

Retired lawyer faces jail for 'harassing' Kate and Gerry McCann.

Note the use of the quotes, it's like meat free 'steak slice'. It looks like a steak slice, it tastes like a steak slice, but it is not made with steak at all, and if you don't like Quorn then you can't later complain that you weren't warned. The Telegraph are telling us that nobody is harassing the McCanns, quite the opposite, and it's a big grown up enough newspaper to know what the readership will infer from those quotes.

Good for them!

wonder if any of the other newspapers follow in their leads

T4two wrote:

jinvta wrote:"Mr Bennett is accused of flouting an agreement in the High Court – made in November 2009 – that he would stop repeating allegations that the McCanns were in some way involved in their daughter's abduction."

I am no lawyer, but it seems that Mr. Bennett may be able to win his case due to semantics. Mr. Bennett has only been suggesting what DID NOT happen to Madeleine (abduction), but he has in no way ever suggested anything specific with regard to what actually did happen who did it to her. How can it be considered harassment when no specifice theory is even being suggested?

The McCanns have been claiming for five years that Madeleine WAS abducted with absolutely no proof, so why can't anyone else claim that she WASN'T abducted when there is loads of proof pointing in that direction?

This is a very dangerous precedent to be set if the McCanns win, and I would think if Mr. Bennett loses that he could take his case to the European Human Rights Council, or whatever body it was that Amaral was going to take his case to if he lost his appeal.

If the original undertaking to the court signed by Mr. Bennett curtailed his basic rights under common law and was signed under duress from the McCanns, it cannot be enforced. The current action by the McCanns is aimed solely at enforcing that undertaking by having Mr Bennett punished by the court for allegedly not honouring it. Should the court see fit to allow itself to be used by the McCanns to exact revenge on Mr. Bennett by enforcing an undertaking which infringes his basic human rights then he has recourse to the European courts.

But surely it wasn't under duress. He signed the document in his own lawyers office after they advised him to sign it. How can that be "under duress"? Can you explain please?

Navigator wrote:

T4two wrote:

jinvta wrote:"Mr Bennett is accused of flouting an agreement in the High Court – made in November 2009 – that he would stop repeating allegations that the McCanns were in some way involved in their daughter's abduction."

I am no lawyer, but it seems that Mr. Bennett may be able to win his case due to semantics. Mr. Bennett has only been suggesting what DID NOT happen to Madeleine (abduction), but he has in no way ever suggested anything specific with regard to what actually did happen who did it to her. How can it be considered harassment when no specifice theory is even being suggested?

The McCanns have been claiming for five years that Madeleine WAS abducted with absolutely no proof, so why can't anyone else claim that she WASN'T abducted when there is loads of proof pointing in that direction?

This is a very dangerous precedent to be set if the McCanns win, and I would think if Mr. Bennett loses that he could take his case to the European Human Rights Council, or whatever body it was that Amaral was going to take his case to if he lost his appeal.

If the original undertaking to the court signed by Mr. Bennett curtailed his basic rights under common law and was signed under duress from the McCanns, it cannot be enforced. The current action by the McCanns is aimed solely at enforcing that undertaking by having Mr Bennett punished by the court for allegedly not honouring it. Should the court see fit to allow itself to be used by the McCanns to exact revenge on Mr. Bennett by enforcing an undertaking which infringes his basic human rights then he has recourse to the European courts.

But surely it wasn't under duress. He signed the document in his own lawyers office after they advised him to sign it. How can that be "under duress"? Can you explain please?

Ask Tony!

AnnaEsse wrote:

Navigator wrote:

T4two wrote:

jinvta wrote:"Mr Bennett is accused of flouting an agreement in the High Court – made in November 2009 – that he would stop repeating allegations that the McCanns were in some way involved in their daughter's abduction."

I am no lawyer, but it seems that Mr. Bennett may be able to win his case due to semantics. Mr. Bennett has only been suggesting what DID NOT happen to Madeleine (abduction), but he has in no way ever suggested anything specific with regard to what actually did happen who did it to her. How can it be considered harassment when no specifice theory is even being suggested?

The McCanns have been claiming for five years that Madeleine WAS abducted with absolutely no proof, so why can't anyone else claim that she WASN'T abducted when there is loads of proof pointing in that direction?

This is a very dangerous precedent to be set if the McCanns win, and I would think if Mr. Bennett loses that he could take his case to the European Human Rights Council, or whatever body it was that Amaral was going to take his case to if he lost his appeal.

If the original undertaking to the court signed by Mr. Bennett curtailed his basic rights under common law and was signed under duress from the McCanns, it cannot be enforced. The current action by the McCanns is aimed solely at enforcing that undertaking by having Mr Bennett punished by the court for allegedly not honouring it. Should the court see fit to allow itself to be used by the McCanns to exact revenge on Mr. Bennett by enforcing an undertaking which infringes his basic human rights then he has recourse to the European courts.

But surely it wasn't under duress. He signed the document in his own lawyers office after they advised him to sign it. How can that be "under duress"? Can you explain please?

Ask Tony!

Why should I ask Tony Bennett? On this forum it is the poster T4two who has suggested it. Why can't I ask that poster their reason for suggesting it?

Navigator wrote:

T4two wrote:

jinvta wrote:"Mr Bennett is accused of flouting an agreement in the High Court – made in November 2009 – that he would stop repeating allegations that the McCanns were in some way involved in their daughter's abduction."

I am no lawyer, but it seems that Mr. Bennett may be able to win his case due to semantics. Mr. Bennett has only been suggesting what DID NOT happen to Madeleine (abduction), but he has in no way ever suggested anything specific with regard to what actually did happen who did it to her. How can it be considered harassment when no specifice theory is even being suggested?

The McCanns have been claiming for five years that Madeleine WAS abducted with absolutely no proof, so why can't anyone else claim that she WASN'T abducted when there is loads of proof pointing in that direction?

This is a very dangerous precedent to be set if the McCanns win, and I would think if Mr. Bennett loses that he could take his case to the European Human Rights Council, or whatever body it was that Amaral was going to take his case to if he lost his appeal.

If the original undertaking to the court signed by Mr. Bennett curtailed his basic rights under common law and was signed under duress from the McCanns, it cannot be enforced. The current action by the McCanns is aimed solely at enforcing that undertaking by having Mr Bennett punished by the court for allegedly not honouring it. Should the court see fit to allow itself to be used by the McCanns to exact revenge on Mr. Bennett by enforcing an undertaking which infringes his basic human rights then he has recourse to the European courts.

But surely it wasn't under duress. He signed the document in his own lawyers office after they advised him to sign it. How can that be "under duress"? Can you explain please?

Usually when someone is forced to do something that they don't want to do, when someone's arm is twisted behind their back, they do that something under duress. I'm sure TB didn't want to undertake agreeing to signing this willingly ?

ELI wrote:

Navigator wrote:

T4two wrote:

jinvta wrote:"Mr Bennett is accused of flouting an agreement in the High Court – made in November 2009 – that he would stop repeating allegations that the McCanns were in some way involved in their daughter's abduction."

I am no lawyer, but it seems that Mr. Bennett may be able to win his case due to semantics. Mr. Bennett has only been suggesting what DID NOT happen to Madeleine (abduction), but he has in no way ever suggested anything specific with regard to what actually did happen who did it to her. How can it be considered harassment when no specifice theory is even being suggested?

The McCanns have been claiming for five years that Madeleine WAS abducted with absolutely no proof, so why can't anyone else claim that she WASN'T abducted when there is loads of proof pointing in that direction?

This is a very dangerous precedent to be set if the McCanns win, and I would think if Mr. Bennett loses that he could take his case to the European Human Rights Council, or whatever body it was that Amaral was going to take his case to if he lost his appeal.

If the original undertaking to the court signed by Mr. Bennett curtailed his basic rights under common law and was signed under duress from the McCanns, it cannot be enforced. The current action by the McCanns is aimed solely at enforcing that undertaking by having Mr Bennett punished by the court for allegedly not honouring it. Should the court see fit to allow itself to be used by the McCanns to exact revenge on Mr. Bennett by enforcing an undertaking which infringes his basic human rights then he has recourse to the European courts.

But surely it wasn't under duress. He signed the document in his own lawyers office after they advised him to sign it. How can that be "under duress"? Can you explain please?

Usually when someone is forced to do something that they don't want to do, when someone's arm is twisted behind their back, they do that something under duress. I'm sure TB didn't want to undertake agreeing to signing this willingly ?

Tony Bennett has stated quite clearly on the JH forum that he signed the undertaking under duress. After almost 5 years of watching the McCanns and their lawyers intimidation of anyone who dares to voice an opinion contrary to their 'official line', I believe Mr. Bennett.

I would imagine that the prospect of losing your savings/house/freedom if you didn't sign would fall into the "under duress" category

Madeleine McCann: Is Tony Bennett going to jail?


http://www.anorak.co.uk/310199/madeleine-mccann/madeleine-mccann-is-tony-bennett-going-to-jail.html/

Excerpts from the two recent articles on TB and SY.
Stuff we already know, but now even more people will know when they read this on Anorak.

almostgothic wrote:Madeleine McCann: Is Tony Bennett going to jail?


http://www.anorak.co.uk/310199/madeleine-mccann/madeleine-mccann-is-tony-bennett-going-to-jail.html/

Excerpts from the two recent articles on TB and SY.
Stuff we already know, but now even more people will know when they read this on Anorak.

yes indeed, many people with a mild curiousity
will delve deeper as a result of articles such as
this. Closing the comments option is also very
telling.

Here is a link to some good definitions as to what comprises harassment.

http://www.swan.ac.uk/registry/academicguide/conductandcomplaints/dignityatworkandstudycombatingharassment/2definitionandexamplesofharassment/

I certainly do not feel that discussing and sharing information on a case that is in the public domain can possibly be described as harassment.

I was going to say that the McCanns should get out more into the real world if they feel they are being harassed, but they already do get out a lot - it's just that they don't look for their daughter at the same time!

The Leicester Mercury is reporting on it now..... But following their normal and quite famous impartial and unbiased Leicester Mercury protocols they are not giving the option for readers to post comments. Although ambulance chaser and liemaster, Clarence Mitchell has been given his usual podium to excrete his propaganda.... What price Freedom of Speech?

Quote.
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/McCanns-legal-action-ex-solicitor-Madeleine-slurs/story-15087257-detail/story.html

McCanns take legal action against ex-solicitor over Madeleine slurs .Tuesday, January 31, 2012 Leicester Mercury

A former solicitor could be jailed for repeatedly accusing Kate and Gerry McCann of covering up the 'death' of their daughter Madeleine.

Lawyers for the Rothley couple are taking civil action against Tony Bennett to try to stop him making allegations that they were involved in Madeleine's disappearance from the Portuguese resort of Praia de Luz in May 2007.

​Tony Bennett could be jailed for repeatedly accusing Kate and Gerry McCann of covering up the 'death' of their daughter Madeleine

Mr Bennett is secretary of an organisation called the Madeleine Foundation, which repeatedly claimed the three-year-old was not abducted.

The 64-year-old, of Harlow, Essex, signed a High Court agreement in November 2009, to say he would not persist with his accusations.

Court papers say: "The Defendant (Mr Bennett) undertakes not to repeat allegations that the Claimants (The McCanns) are guilty of, or are suspected of, causing the death of their daughter Madeleine McCann: and/or disposing of her body and/or of lying about what happened and/or of seeking to cover up what they had done."

Mr Bennett is accused of being in contempt of court for breaching the agreement in leaflets, books and internet postings.

There will be a hearing at The Queen's Bench Division of the High Court in London next week.

The McCann's spokesman Clarence Mitchell yesterday told the Leicester Mercury: "The matter is in hand with Kate and Gerry's lawyers. It has been pretty distressing for them.

"He has accused them of lying and that is a prima facie libel.

"Kate and Gerry do not want this but he (Mr Bennett) has persisted with making hurtful and untrue allegations about them and they want it to stop.

"They feel enough is enough.

"It is the case that he could face jail."

Madeleine's parents were considered suspects in her disappearance by Portuguese police in the early stages of the investigation, but were subsequently completely cleared of any wrongdoing.

In 2007, Mr Bennett launched a private prosecution against the McCanns, alleging child neglect, but it was thrown out by magistrates. In summer 2009, the Madeleine Foundation delivered leaflets around Rothley relating to the youngster's disappearance.

Mr Bennett was unavailable to comment yesterday.

In a story about his prosecution in the Sunday Telegraph, Mr Bennett said: "I have done my best to comply with the undertaking but I would argue to the courts it was an unreasonably wide undertaking to sign.

"In the last two years, I have not written specifically about the details of how she (Madeleine) might have died or how the body was hidden.

"Three of my colleagues in the Madeleine Foundation distributed a small quantity of leaflets in Rothley. I would honestly say perhaps that was a leaflet distribution too far."

He added on the Madeleine Foundation website: "It will be a strange thing if the court decides that in this land noted for its commitment to free speech, I am not allowed to discuss what is freely available to be distributed, and debated, in most of the rest of Europe."
Unquote.

completely cleared?!

That's pretty untrue too...!

contrary wrote:completely cleared?!

That's pretty untrue too...!

Very true contrary. Perhaps the McCanns should sue the Leicester Mercury for saying that.

As a matter of interest being a member of CMOMM and twitter I haven't seen any posts by TB accusing the McCanns of lying so I would wonder where Carter-Ruck have seen them. TB has been simply sharing evidence of the dirty dealings of the friends of the McCanns Smethurst, BK et al and always with evidence at his back.

Thank you Malena xx

That is a pretty good article imo, except where it says the McCanns were 'completely cleared of any wrong doing,' which we all know is absolutely not the case!

Love Mr Bennett's comment at the very end of the article.

He added on the Madeleine Foundation website: "It will be a strange thing if the court decides that in this land noted for its commitment to free speech, I am not allowed to discuss what is freely available to be distributed, and debated, in most of the rest of Europe."

Bravo Mr Bennett, God bless you.... and may yourself and Goncalo Amaral prevail against these high priced TM bullies, and their tyrannical attempt to thwart people putting forth their grave concerns regarding the major discrepancies in the McCanns version of events.