10 Comments

Bennett does it every time – UPDATED

Yes every time he posts, he can’t help but lay the foundations for others to accuse Kate McCann and Carter Ruck of being up to their armpits in skulduggery.

Post after post, he leaves innuendo about the McCanns and the way that Carter Ruck are being paid.  Even in a letter to him, Carter Ruck told him outright that they are not receiving any money from the Fund (See Note).

I have written time after time about the Fund and Carter Ruck.

In this post called, The Find Madeleine Fund and Carter Ruck specifically, Carter Ruck informed Bennett that they are not being paid by the McCanns.

I even explained in this post called, Dowler Family write to David Cameron about how the new justice reforms will hit the No-Win No-Fee conditional agreements that many people, including families, use to cover legal costs.

But no Bennett can’t understand that, and he calls himself an ex-solicitor.  What a flaming joke that is.

So Bennett here is the Letter that has been written this week, and signed by many including Robert Murat, courtesy of  a Guardian article:

We are all ordinary citizens who found ourselves in a position of needing to obtain justice by taking or defending civil claims against powerful corporations or wealthy individuals. We would not have been a position to do this without recourse to a “no win, no fee” agreement with a lawyer willing to represent us on that basis. As was made clear to each of us at the beginning of our cases, we were liable for tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds if we lost. Without access to a conditional fee agreement (CFA), which protected us from this risk, we would not have been able even to embark on the legal journey.

We would like to voice our dismay at the CFA reform proposals in the legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill (Report, 29 October), which effectively remove the opportunity of people of ordinary means to seek redress when they have been libelled or intruded upon, or where they need to defend a libel claim. We do not believe this is fair or just.

While there is a case for amending the way they function in practice, the current drafting of the bill will deny access to justice to people like us in the future. Tom Brake MP has tabled an amendment this week which would exclude privacy and defamation cases from the proposed CFA reforms with no extra cost to the public purse, and we call upon MPs to support that amendment and for the government to discuss with those of us who have been through this experience how access to justice can be preserved for those who come after us.

Christopher Jefferies, Bob and Sally Dowler, Peter Wilmshurst, Robert Murat, Mary-Ann Field, Zoe Margolis, Nigel Short, Hardeep Singh, Peter Murray, Parameswaran Subramanyam, Peter Duffy

All those people listed in that letter, plus many many more have taken out No-Win No-Fee/Conditional Fee Arrangements. Solicitors up and down the land, including Carter Ruck, have offered people the Conditional Fee Arrangement in order for them to get legal assistance.

Yes you remember Christopher Jefferies, don’t you Bennett?  He was the one who was savagely attacked on the forum you post on.

And you also remember Robert Murat, don’t you?  Yes the guy whose step-son was libelled by you only recently when you made allegations against him.  Allegations that you had to retract because you got the wrong person.  Robert Murat himself has had his life along with the McCanns torn apart by you and your fellow posters.

It is no wonder these people need Legal Assistance and don’t want the No-Win No-Fee taken away by the reforms, because if it was removed, people like you Bennett would have a field day dissecting people’s lives without fear of legal action.

For the last and final time, the McCanns are NOT paying Carter Ruck.  How many more times do you need telling before you stop making posts (Screenshot)that lead others to libel and defame not only the McCanns but Carter Ruck?

You might not be physically doing the dirty deed but you are what they call, loading the gun for others to fire.

Is this your new tactic, keep yourself libel free in your postings but lay the foundations for others to libel and defame someone?

You are a bloody disgrace man and a coward.

Note – Clarification after Error found in original post. Carter Ruck confirmed by letter to Bennett that they receive no payment from the Find Madeleine Fund and Kate McCann speaks in her book of how Carter Ruck are helping them without payment.

FURTHER UPDATE 02-12-11

Further to the note above I can now confirm that Kate and Gerry McCann are represented by Carter-Ruck under  the Conditional Fee Arrangement.

Carter Ruck submission and Appendices on Legal Aid Bill 14.09.11

CFA-Kate-and-Gerry-McCann11

Advertisements

10 comments on “Bennett does it every time – UPDATED

  1. I see on twitter now they are reading something into the McCanns names not being on that letter.  Yes you guessed it anotherviv tweeted this;

    @BrenR1958 Amazed u post article where so many well known ppl are spoken of receiving no win no fee help, the omission #McCannis glaring!20 minutes ago

    It is right what RingoStarfish wrote on twitter:

    @anotherviv @BrenR1958 if they sign they’re accused of bandwagon jumping if they don’t it’s suspicious – how can the #McCann s ever win?

    http://twitter.com/RingoStarfish/statuses/131779361438314496

    I said the same thing.

    @anotherviv so if the #McCann s put their names to something they are wrong, if they don’t they are wrong .. how pathetic this argument is

  2. I’d forgotten this: 

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2008/jan/31/themccannsdebatefrombanali

    The McCanns’ debate: from banality to an outpouring of bile
    I feared that last night’s debate on “The McCanns and the media” (see posting immediately below) would generate more heat than light. In fact, it generated neither heat nor light. Aside from some persistent interruptions from a group of misguided, self-appointed busy-bodies, the standing-room-only event at the LSE was marked by its banality.That doesn’t mean that we didn’t hear interesting views, but – as a debate – it never took off. It didn’t help that two-thirds of the panel were required to sit “off stage”, thereby limiting the ease of participation. On the other hand, we did get a glimpse of the irrational prejudice blighting the whole affair.It began well enough when Kelvin MacKenzie opened with a reasonably measured and thoughtful contribution that rightly pointed to several remarkable features of the McCanns saga that had helped to make it into what he hyperbolically called “the greatest story of my lifetime.” But he mostly made a lot of good sense. Social class had played a part in the media’s immediate interest and in helping to catch the public’s imagination. He revealed that he had shown an understanding for the plight of Gerry and Kate McCann but readers of his Sun column had not.He spoke of “10,000 emails” that were overwhelmingly hostile to the McCanns for having left their children in their bedroom unsupervised. His readers did not share his sympathy for the couple and, by implication, that had changed his mind somewhat.I was altogether less enamoured with his defence of papers, especially the Express titles, for publishing wildly inaccurate stories. Kelvin’s defence? Newspapers are commercial operations and you must expect them to publish stories calculated to increase sales. The temptation to ramp up circulation was too great to resist. That doesn’t wash with me at all.Next up was Clarence Mitchell, the official spokesman for the McCanns. He launched a broadside on a press guilty of carrying speculative stories without any basis in truth. Stories, incidentally, which he had often formally denied before publication.He explained how British journalists relied for most of their stories on the Portuguese papers that also ran speculative and unverifiable material. After being spun in British tabloids, the Portuguese then picked them up the following day, pretending that the fact they had appeared in the British press was “proof” of their veracity. In other words, it was a constant recycling of gossip and innuendo, none of it based on fact.Mitchell’s concern about trying to deal with a rampant global media was echoed in the experiences of his predecessor in the role, Justine McGuinness. She spoke of the immense scale of media interest, implying that it was virtually impossible to cope with a hydra-headed media beast demanding daily, almost hourly, feeds.Roger Graef, producer of Channel 4’s Dispatches on the mystery ofMadeleine McCann’s disappearance, spoke of the surreal, Kafkaesque nature of making a documentary in which there were (and are) no facts and about which no-one has any genuine knowledge, including the Portuguese police.David Mills is the man who produced a documentary for Panorama and then disowned it because key material – some of it critical of the Portuguese police – was omitted. He was concerned about the media’s failure to hold the police to account and complained about the dearth of proper investigative journalism about the case.So far, so good. But once the debate was opened out to the audience by chairman Steve Hewlett, it went nowhere helpful. A vociferous group who have formed an organisation called The Madeleine Foundation showed a lamentable grasp of debating rules by interrupting speakers and shouting out a string of offensive comments about the McCanns and their PRs.Their anger may have been sincere, but it became abundantly clear that they are infected with prejudice. Many of the claims they made – about money donated to the McCanns’ fund, about payments to PRs, about the McCanns’ actions and relationship with the police – were obviously based on the inaccurate accusations and innuendos published by so many newspapers.However, reflecting on the debate on my journey home, I realised that they represented the authentic voice of so many British people, the Sun readers Kelvin had mentioned and probably the readers of all popular papers. It is not pretty.Their unconcealed bile, their lack of compassion for the McCanns, their sanctimonious statements about the supposed parenting inadequacies of the McCanns, do not stem wholly from poor reporting.Certainly, false stories have contributed to their fallacious arguments. But they were uninterested in the rational statements of Mitchell and McGuinness. They took no notice of the subtle arguments of Graef and Mills.They were the equivalent of those mobs outside courts in murder trials, deaf to facts, cocooned from reality by their own self-righteous demagoguery. Their major aim, outlined in a “manifesto” circulated within the lecture theatre, is to see the McCanns prosecuted for “abandoning” their children.The newspapers that have retailed nonsense about this case do have a lot to answer for. But then so do the people, do they not? What the debate never touched on was whether the media could, even eight months’ on, play a positive role to counter the misinformation that appears now to have taken such a grip among the population.12.30pm ADDENDUM: I should have mentioned, as Charlie Beckettreminds me, that the debate event was organised by the LSE media think-tank Polis. It was also supported by the Media Society and theSociety of Editors.

  3. Oh Carana Roy Greenslade summed them up nicely in these paragraphs.

    So far, so good. But once the debate was opened out to the audience by chairman Steve Hewlett, it went nowhere helpful. A vociferous group who have formed an organisation called The Madeleine Foundation showed a lamentable grasp of debating rules by interrupting speakers and shouting out a string of offensive comments about the McCanns and their PRs.

    Their anger may have been sincere, but it became abundantly clear that they are infected with prejudice. Many of the claims they made – about money donated to the McCanns’ fund, about payments to PRs, about the McCanns’ actions and relationship with the police – were obviously based on the inaccurate accusations and innuendos published by so many newspapers.

  4. The hint seems to have come right in the first paragraph: 

    “Aside from some persistent interruptions from a group of misguided, self-appointed busy-bodies…” 🙂

  5. Certain quarters keep harping on about the UK press being censored from reporting the “truth” concerning the McCann case… 

    Now when would this have been?
    – The tabloids merrily repeated unsourced leaks and the Portuguese tabloids (dressed up with the usual bag of adjectives, e.g., “X outrageously claimed that…”) until they were forced to admit that it was a load of rubbish. 

    – If there is one thing that many UK journalists I observe seem to have agreed upon (post- dog-eat-dog competition era) is that they were being led by the nose towards the propaganda and b) their common loathing of the vitriolic foot-stamping minority.

    (I would add three Portuguese journalists to my list as well. I’d have to check back, there might be a fourth.)

    Sadly, despite this vague, collective “mea culpa”, some of them didn’t appear to have integrated the fact that they were being led by the nose in terms of  their coverage of the Kercher case, for example, or the Jo Yeates one. The coverage of another case is on my list,  but I haven’t checked on it for a week or more, so I’ll get back to that one in a bit. 

  6. Carana, 

    – If there is one thing that many UK journalists I observe seem to have agreed upon (post- dog-eat-dog competition era) is that they were being led by the nose towards the propaganda and b) their common loathing of the vitriolic foot-stamping minority.

    And that propaganda war was dangerous at the least.  Look how I got sucked in to believing the Brit press were being curtailed, and the Portuguese media and Amaral were the only people speaking the truth.  

    Led by the nose that Mitchell was stopping the UK press from reporting the truth.

    I ended up creating one of these vitriolic places for them to spout their venom. I know when the DM shut their forum if 3a’s had never been going someone else would have created another forum.  But it doesn’t make that burden of guilt any easier knowing you were part of something, that you can’t erase from history, no matter how much you want to and no matter how much you try to.

  7. Updated to include proof that Carter Ruck represent Kate and Gerry McCann under the Conditional Fee Arrangement scheme.

    http://www.carter-ruck.com/Documents/Carter_Ruck_submission_and_Appendices_on_Legal_Aid_Bill_14_9_11.PDF

  8. […] Bennett does it every time – Updated […]

  9. […] Bennett does it every time […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: