… for you Mr Bennett. If you don’t mind, can I ask you why are you applying for alternation to the Court Order imposed on you Late 2009 (Nov/Dec) if you are ceasing campaigning for Madeleine?
You see this has appeared on Missing Madeleine Forum (screenshot), in which you state the following:
1. I wrote on 13 February to Carter-Ruck suggesting that a two-day trial could be avoided, especially now that I had resigned from the Commitee of MF, no longer owned the MF domain name, had given up being a Moderator on Jill’s forum, and had decided to cease campaigning re Madeleine’s disappearance.
Yet by paragraph four you state:
4. In the meantime I have made a formal application to be released from one of the undertakings I gave back in 2009. If there is no agreement, matters will proceed to a 2-day trial when the McCanns will ask for me to be committed to prison and I shall ask to be freed from my undertakings – on free speech grounds. With a billion or so people in around 30 countries worldwide able to buy, read, discuss and debate ‘The Truth About A Lie’, it seems rather harsh that I should face a term of imprisonment for publishing and discussing his thesis. Especially as one of my opponents says that he has ‘no objection to people purporting [= propounding] theories’ and is ‘a strong believer in the freedom of speech’.
Well if you are not campaigning then why do you need to be released?
And another thing Mr Bennett on the 23rd January 2012 (screenshot), when Kololi posted this to you:
Good luck and no sneering from me if you are able to settle this without going to court.
REPLY: I doubt it this time, though I have made an offer to the McCanns which I am not at liberty to disclose.
So when you wrote to Carter Ruck with your offer in January 2012, was one of the terms of you offering your settlement, that you be released from one of the conditions of your Court Order?
And just one more thing Mr Bennett, about the duress, many of us can remember what Debbie Butler was saying about your visit to Liverpool and how you were running around faxing off your capitulation and then ringing CarterRuck to see if they got the fax.. (screenshot)
no they wouldnt it had to be both of us , he couldnt wait to get out of there and send his fax to Carter Ruck .
Accordingly we telephoned Carter-Ruck at 3.14pm today and faxed them written notice of our accession to the McCanns’ demands at 3.25pm. Attempts to speak to both Adam Tudor and Isabel Hudson, the two main Solicitors conducting the litigation for Carter-Ruck, failed as we were informed that ‘the entire department’ was tied up in a meeting this afternoon. That was still the case when we telephoned again at 4.47pm to make absolutely sure that our fax had been safely received. Julia on the switchboard confirmed that it had been.
Well you don’t mention at all in that announcement that Carter Ruck were badgering you that day (which we know they were not) with phone-calls demanding to know whether or not you agree to their terms, so how can you claim duress? You and Deborah Butler acceded to CarterRuck and then you, alone, went on to breach your agreement which resulted in the McCanns via their lawyers to get a Court Order against you, which they did, and you still try and blame the McCanns for the mess you are in, why is that? Especially when you took an undertaking not to libel and defame them and you were the one that failed to adhere to it.
Twice you had the opportunity to contest the terms of Carter Ruck’s demands and twice you failed to do so. Seriously you are not going to try and convince a Judge that you were under duress when you had two opportunities to contest the demands and you did not?
And if you were that concerned about your savings and your family, you would not put them through this ordeal, would you? And if you were that worried and had decided to stop campaigning for the case then please tell me why you are still a member of that forum?
Who knows, perhaps you might even get given that chance… nobody knows what the future holds.
And the exact words that Gerry McCann said at the Leveson Inquiry on the 23rd November 2011 are:
Thank you, sir. I would like to emphasise that I strongly believe in freedom of speech, but where you have people who are repeatedly carrying out inaccuracies and have been shown to do so, then they should be held to account. That is the issue. I don’t have a problem with somebody purporting a theory, writing fiction, suggestions, but clearly we’ve got to a stage where substandard reporting and sources, unnamed, made-up, non-verifiable, are a daily occurrence.