Brenda's And Bennetts E-Mails

Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 9:31 AM
Subject: Re: Still more libels on 3Arguidos

You can sign up and discuss the issue but can you tell me how you obtained the e-mail addresses because I have googled librarisings email and it is NOT on google.

This rather concerns me how you found out our members e-mail addresses.

Now they could have been passed onto you by either of the following.

1. Possibly from somebody that has a copy of the illegal database

2. Possibly told to you by an ex Admin or Mod

3. Now in order to obtain personal info about a member you must have either access to the illegal database or as per no.2.
Please can you confirm because this IMO is a breach of confidentiality and should be bought to the attention of our members.

The information that is available and has been posted is on various sites and from reading that information our members have formed their own opinion, which they are entitled to do. Please feel free to sign up and post all correspondence because this matter should be bought to the attention of members but I do find it rather odd that you will not answer questions on the thread you wish to create and only via PM. I am sure many people will see that as something to hide, which I do not think for one moment, but some might. 

Also if you are prepared to tell the members what action you have taken to remove this libelous information from the other sites and all the correspondence with those sites because they are actually the ones committing libel in the first instance.

Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 9:12 AM
To: the3arguidos (Admin) 
Subject: re: Still more libels on 3Arguidos

Ms Ryan

Right, I will sign up to 3As in my own name and post a thread: "Tony Bennett's correspondence with Brenda Ryan and redsquare". I wil post there the entirety of our correspondence I will not answer further questions publicly but will respond to any pms sent to me. I shall continue to post there all exchanges with you.

At the same time all lilbellous messages you have on your forum about me must be removed forthwith. 

Please confirm ASAP that this is acceptable.

So far as your other questions are concerned, I have carried out researches.

Tony Bennett 

"the3arguidos (Admin)" wrote:
Further to your e-mail of today I have not received confirmation from you how you have obtained members e-mail addresses in order for you to be able to include them in your mailing list.

Furthermore we have not stopped you from replying. You can of course sign up and answer these questions directly to those that have raised their concerns. What we do not allow is Admin posting answers to questions on behalf of other people.

This is a discussion forum and all motives from either side of the McCann case are open for discussion. We as a forum, discuss the issues behind the McCanns wider agenda and what the implications of the Wider Agenda means to the McCanns, whether it be political, financial etc. This is a personal opinion forum and the information that has been discussed is widely available on the internet and members posts are their own personal opinions and are not stated as fact.

I would be most grateful if you could also tell the Admin and Moderators of this forum, how you obtained information about the private life of one of our members. I think you know who I am referring to and it is not JHL as his details are out in the public domain.

As I pointed out last night, that the e-mail was sent to other Admin and Moderators for them to peruse and it will be discussed between us and a decision will be made. Once we have made our decision you naturally will be informed.

I await your reply to my questions.

Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 8:10 AM
To: ; librarising*******
Subject: Still more libels on 3Arguidos

I am informed that the campaign you are allowing and indeed encouraging to proliferate on your forum against me is continuing, despite my e-mail last night.

I have been informed that a member (Ta ra) has posted this:

"TBs wider agenda is revealed; a self serving man using the life of one 'missing' child to further his undeclared, wider, political agenda".

This is 100% untrue and therefore libellous. There is no evidence whatsoever to back it up. Whatever my reasons for pursuing issues re Madeleine MCann, and I say they spring from genuine concern about the case - my contributions on the case have been public and transparent for all to see, it has nothing whatsoever to do with any 'undeclared, wider, political agenda'. 

Comments like this continue to flow from the fact that you have encouraged these comments and have not allowed me the right of reply.

Tony Bennett


Ms Brenda Ryan
Mr Filipe Magalhaes (a.k.a. Beowulf)
I remain insistent that you remove all libellous material from your website. I understand you are the owners, the site is registered to you both.

That libellous material includes some at least of the following comments by a person known as librarising which have been reported to me. I’ve numbered them:


1. I note that despite everything, there is still no response yet from TB on these issues for 3As readers to consider before subscribing to his Foundation. 
2. He hasn't even said that he thinks his politics are irrelevant (with which I would disagree). 
3. Leaving Mr Bennett's repellent politics out of it for a moment, isn't this the worst of things that is likely to get campaigners for justice in the McCann case labelled as naive and deluded? 
4. Why is Mr Bennett so keen to lead those who would wish to challenge the McCanns into a PR disaster? 
5. With future PR problems in mind as well as the suspicion that here was a far-rightist trying to smuggle people aboard an apparently politically neutral campaign led by a far-rightist, I tried to raise these issues with TB, thus [snipped] 
6. The two issues (TB's involvement in the McCann case and TB's far-right politics) may seem unconnected but [snipped]

Then we have these comments of Jillycomelately: 

1. …someone who is hell-bent on pushing his extreme right-wing agenda over here. 
2. What Anthony Bennett does is more commonly known as 'running with the hare and hunting with the hounds'.
3. It's what all opportunistic, publicity whores do.

Then for example we have this from Ta ra:

1. I'm sorry. I didn't understand the hidden issues about Tony Bennett. Homophobic? Racist, anti-Muslim?
2. My little view is this: abuse one minority (the McCanns neglecting children), and you are capable of abusing any minority (Tony Bennett, you tell me if this is wrong. Take your time. One post. I haven't got the time or inclination to indulge legalese).

Someone else called ‘marian’ also seems to be joining in what I cn only describe as some sort of ‘sport’ practised by your members, which has included, I am told - though I’ve not seen it - a photoshopped image of me in a Ku Klux Klan outfit. That is not remotely funny, though severl of your members seem to think it is.


I consider the following of the above comments particularly libellous:

Librarising’s three references to ‘far rightist’

Jillycomelately’s reference to ‘extreme right-wing agenda’

Ta ra’s references to ‘homophobic’, ‘racist’, ‘anti-Muslim’.

I am particularly disappointed that these references continue despite the fact that Stevo published on your forum a full answer to many of the false charges against me. I had thought that that might quell the mockery, but no, with your encouragement, it seems to have got worse. Mind you, now that I have been informed that some of the forum’s leading lights include an axe-murderer, an owner of pornographic sites and the ramblings of a rape fantasist purporting to be a retired barrister, quite apart from the unrestrained abusive comments allowed and encouraged against all sorts of people, nothing about 3Arguidos would now surprise me. 

I have seen many references in the past on your forum to ‘free speech’ and ‘democratic debate’ etc. Those claims look a bit thin when (a) you promote the views of John Hirst and exclude Stevo and (b) you only allow 3Arguidos members to view a selection of the e-mail exchanges I have had with you. Not ‘free speech’, is it, Ms Ryan?

If you really are the fair person you claim to be, you will immediate publish the whole of this e-mail on your forum.

So far as some your forum members claiming me to be ‘far right’ or ‘extreme right’ is concerned, I have already given a full answer on your forum. To that, I will add that I have not been a member of any political party for the past three years. My only political campaigning of late has been in opposition to the Lisbon Treaty, as Secretary of the Campaign for a Referendum on the European Constitution. Around 90% of British people, according to a variety of both actual and opinion polls on the subject, supported our campaign objective, namely that the British people should have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. That activity can be viewed on our website 

That activity in turn flows from my conviction that Britain would be better off out of the European Union, a view shared, according to most opinion polls, by about half of the British people. The difference is that I get up and do something about it. That is not a ‘right-wing’ issue. Opposition to our membership of the E.U. is shared by many on both left and right of politics and many of those who could be described as ‘in the centre’. The late, left-wing M.P. Peter Shore, who once attended an anti-E.U. meeting I helped to organise, is just one example of many.

Terms like ‘far right’ and ‘extreme right’, as you well know, have very unpleasant connotations. As does the term ‘racist’ which is openly used by several of your forum members without a shred of evidence. 

All of those terms are completely unjustified and none of your members, so far as I am aware, has produced any evidence whatsoever to support them. You as forum administrator know this, yet you allow your members to carry on posting these unfounded and unpleasant claims.

You must either ask your members to post what they consider reliable evidence that I have ever supported any party or cause which could be described as ‘far right, or ‘extreme right’, or have ever supported any party or cause which could be described as ‘racist’ or have ever uttered any racist comments - or you must remove every single one of those comments on your website forthwith. They are very damaging allegations to make. If they are not true, you must remove them, as I have already asked you to once.

I turn now to ‘librarising’s questions, noting that, so far as I am informed, he chooses not to e-mail me when my e-mail address is known, but to pose endless questions on a forum of which I am not a member and now have no intention of ever joining. 

I shall be brief. On the accusation that I am homophobic, I reply that my views on homosexuality, since becoming a Christian in recent years, is the orthodox Christian view. A view that is shared by tens if not hundreds of millions across the globe. To sum that up, we believe that God made us male and female to begin with and intended that sex be enjoyed within marriage. I do not of course go around branding homosexuals as ‘sinners’, as some of your posters have falsely claimed. On the contrary, I brand myself as a sinner. I accept the words of Christ as recorded in the Gospel: “They that be whole have no need of a physician”. No one can become a Christian unless they believe they have sinned. 

For the record, I do not ‘fear’ homosexuals, and in general I believe in the philosophy of ‘live and let live’, so long as no-one is harmed. I do not support ‘gay marriage’ nor ‘gay adoption’. Neither do I support the active promotion of homosexuality as an alternative way of life in primary schools. Apart from those view, I share the view that homosexuals should not suffer discrimination. I do not in any way campaign against homosexuality nor in my professional life have I ever discriminated against any homosexual, on the contrary, especially during my 14 years as a Welfare Rights Adviser, I helped many. 

If people are accusing me of ‘homophobia’, let them find any comment of mine that shows fear or hatred of homosexuals - and only then let them carry on with their claims. Otherwise, those claims must be withdrawn from your forum immediately.

I now deal briefly with claim that I am ‘anti-Islamic’ and intolerant towards other religions. I do not want to bring my Christian views into the MadeleineMcCann situation, though of course the McCanns themselves have very much promoted their religiosity. 

I will first of all put this on the record. I am of course content for people to hold any belief, and promote their beliefs to others, so long as that belief does not have an adverse effect on those around them. I also believe that, so long as one is not deliberately provocative, one has the right to offend people with one’s views. Exactly that was said by Mr Justice Stephen Sedley in the Court of Appeal in the 1990s when he threw out a police prosecution of a Christian street preacher. A member of the public said he was ‘offended’ by part of the Christian message. 

However, I do say that Islam is not a true religion. I also say it is fundamentally different in character from other world religions.

One of my concerns is the threat posed by militant, jihadist Islam around the world. I subscribe to the Barnabas Fund and follow the work of Christian Solidarity International, a kind of ‘Amnesty International’ for persecuted Christians. The murders, torture, repression and discrimination against Christians which regularly occurs in many of the world’s 57 officially Islamic countries is truly appalling. Sadly, many of those who perpetrate these acts are inspired by the Koran, as the record clearly shows. The treatment of women in many Islamic countries is shameful. 

The only active campaigning, if you can really call it that, that I have ever been involved in on the subject, was to write and circulate to 10 people, privately, a 4-page pamphlet on the rise of militant Islam in the U.K. That was in December 2001, three months after 9/11 - when I first became really exercised on the subject. From time to time, I have made comments on Islam on public forums, where I choose to post in my own names and not hide behind a pseudonym. If people have a problem with any of that, so be it. 

‘librarising’ glibly refers to my ‘repellent politics’. O.K., ‘librarising’, name any one of my politic al views that you can fairly describe as repellent’ Or else please withdraw your statement. 

Finally, ‘librarising’ queries why I should want to get involved in the Madeleine case, just as people think that there must have been some ulterior motive to help Terry Lubbock in the fight for justice for his son. Or think that I must have hidden motives to respond to Mr Les Balkwell’s campaign for justice for his son Lee.

Is it just possible, ‘librarising’, that I was genuinely concerned about the McCanns getting away with their neglect, and whatever happened to Madeleine in Praia da Luz, and was concerned to try to ensure that in some way the law is changed to make it less easy for people to even think of leaving young children on their own? Iit even possible that I offered to help Terry Lubbock to help him succeed where, up to my becoming involved, he had failed to get Essex Police to re-open their investigation? (see Wikipedia on Michael Barrymore for some of the details). You really question people’s motives, don’t you?

Please inform me as soon as you have posted this on your forum.

I note that you (Ms Ryan/bjr) have made a specific reference on your forum recently to my ‘principles’ and ‘morals’. If you are hinting that I am either unprincipled or immoral, then please explain why.

Finally, if someone wants to make an allegation against me, e-mail me first, and get an answer - before you put your innuendos and false claims on a public forum - thanks. I will reply to you.

Either I am in the hands of people who are fair, here, or I am not. Your response to this e-mail will make it clear which.

Tony Bennett 15 July

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

tony bennet stoped my freedom of speech when my opinipn did npt agree with his.