Tony Bennett (Madeleine Foundation) Blog Inc The Jill Havern Show

SO THEN BENNETT WHERE DID YOU GET THE MONEY FROM TO PAY INTO THE FIND MADELEINE FUND ?

2011-10-11T15:31:00.000-04:00

£50, 000 WASN'T IT THAT YOU AGREED TO PAY.

AND THE FACT THAT YOU CAVED IN ONCE AGAIN AND HAD TO MAKE THE GROVELLING APOLOGY THAT YOU MADE.

AND THE FACT THAT YOU SEEM TO HAVE MISSED THE FIRST TWO PAGES OFF THE LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO YOU..

AND WHY ARE YOU PAYING IT FROM THE MADELEINE FOUNDATION ACCOUNT?? THAT IS VERY STRANGE

TIME FOR BENNETT TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP

2011-10-06T13:23:00.000-04:00

My understanding is that the [Scotland Yard Madeleine Mc Cann Review Team] would welcome any evidence that would assist with the enquiry. You state that you have a first hand information from an insider from the McCann's private investigators. This information would obviously be of interest to the team and they would welcome details of this individual to allow them to interview her if she is able to provide relevant evidence. However, information regarding peoples views and suspicions do not constitute evidence. The team are obliged to consider evidence rather than repetition of the myriad of views and beliefs that individuals choose to interpret from the available information.

BENNETT, YOU CLAIM TO HAVE INSIDER INFORMATION, IF YOU HAVE THEN YOU NEED TO GO TO THE POLICE WITH IT. OBVIOUSLY YOU CANNOT BECAUSE YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY INSIDER INFORMATION.

FOR YOUR INFORMATION THOUGH BENNETT, I HAVE KEPT A SCREENSHOT OF A MEMBER OF YOUR FORUM, OPENLY SAYING TO YOU ABOUT PRETENDING TO HAVE A "SPY IN THE CAMP".

NOW AS A FAILED SOLICITOR YOU WILL KNOW THAT WASTING POLICE TIME IS A SERIOUS OFFENCE, AND WITHHOLDING INFORMATION IS A SERIOUS OFFENCE AS WELL.

THEREFORE IT IS TIME FOR YOU TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP BENNETT AND I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT YOU CANNOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.

MORE LIBELLOUS OUTPOURINGS OVER ON HAVERN'S

2011-09-21T19:14:00.001-04:00

Was Maddie Ever There?

jd Today at 4:13 pm

Do you think its possible that Maddie never went on this holiday at all? Maddie possibly died 6 or so months previous in the UK, and needing money the Mccanns arranged with NOTW to set up an abduction story that would run and run so they all cash in? (Been done many times before with other stories)

They could have gone to PDL the previous year and got that poolside pic. Its very odd that there are virtually no pics from the holiday of Maddie, no Maddie with the twins, no Maddie with parents, infact NONE OF MADDIE WITH MUMMY KATE....just a few very suspicious odd looking ones that are highly suspicious of being photoshopped. Did GM screw up and had to go back to the UK to get the poolside pic? (forgot to take it with him)...would totally explain the fund being set up within 9 days, it was already being set up weeks/months before 3rd May 2007, be good to know the date this was first applied for. There are many other reasons why this all makes sense.....Most stories/scams are very simple, its all about making money, thats it

Its just those dogs that make this theory fall down..

REMEMBERING THE E-MAILS BETWEEN BRENDA RYAN AND ANTHONY BENNETT

2011-09-17T19:36:00.002-04:00

Brenda's And Bennetts E-Mails

Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 9:31 AM
To: ANTHONY BENNETT
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.

From: ANTHONY BENNETT
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.

From: ANTHONY BENNETT
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 8:10 AM
To: admin@the3arguidos.net ; librarising*******
Cc: ANTHONY BENNETT
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

ANTHONY BENNETT wrote:

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:

Librarising:

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.

MY REPLY:

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 www.european-referendum.org.uk

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

ANOTHER SICK MADELEINE McCANN TROLL

2011-09-17T19:19:00.001-04:00

RedundantEddie Eddie

@zante03 sadly Madeleine #mccann never made it to her 1st birthday.

1 minute ago

SO THE SUN WANTS EVERYONE TO SHOP A TROLL DO THEY..........LETS START THEN

2011-09-16T16:29:00.003-04:00

MIKE HARDY known on Madeleine Forums as spudgun

HE OWNS A PHOTOGRAPHY AND VIDEO MAKING BUSINESS, http://www.c5films.com/ , DO NOT TOUCH THIS PERSON.

HERE IS LINDA WRAFTER FROM DONCASTER,
WHAT ON EARTH DID DERMOT O'LEARY DO WRONG??

THIS VILE WOMAN HAS A TWITTER NAME OF @justiceformaddie SHE POSTS MOST OF THE MOST VILEST REMARKS ANYONE COULD EVER MAKE

SHE LIKES TO VISIT THE BLACK BULL IN DONCASTER...SHE IS A FAN OF MYRA HINDLEY

HERE ARE SOME OF HER TWEETS

justice4maddie Seeking justice

@RothleyPilAlways remember we are dealing with perverts who condone child abuse ,they have no sense of right and wrong #mccann scumbags

28 minutes ago

justice4maddie Seeking justice

@claire_bear_101 Its all about the money and has been since NINE DAYS after Maddies demise #mccann But GREED will be thing that catches them

1 hour ago Favorite Retweet Reply

justice4maddie Seeking justice

@claire_bear_101 Remember the UK and PJ have only ever had 2 suspects Kate and Gerry #mccann

I AM NOT POSTING UP THE MOST VILEST POSTS SHE HAS MADE, BUT A SEARCH OF HER TWITTER NAME WILL REVEAL ALL

RIGHT NEXT PERSON IS RACHEL LOUISE GEORGE

http://twitter.com/#!/rachellougeorge

Margaret O'Brien WHO LIVES IN ALBA IN SCOTLAND

GOES BY THE TWITTER NAME OF @maggie_thistle

SO BENNETT TOLD CARTER RUCK AN OUTRIGHT LIE

2011-09-08T13:38:00.000-04:00

BENNETT IF YOU REMEMBER TOLD CARTER RUCK THAT HE COULD NOT DELETE POSTS AS HE WAS NOT ADMIN OVER ON HAVERN'S SITE.......

....HOWEVER HE HAS JUST PROVED THAT IT WAS A LOAD OF BOLLOCKS AS HE CLEARLY STATES ADMIN......

...OH AND THE ONLY PERSON ON AT THE TIME OTHER THAN HAPPYLARRY WAS BENNETT

SO THEN ANTI MADELEINE McCANNS (or the haters as they like to be called)

2011-09-06T13:29:00.000-04:00

EXPLAIN WHY THE McCANNS WOULD ONCE AGAIN THROW THEMSELVES INTO THE LIMELIGHT, THROW THEMSELVES AT THE MERCY OF THE MEDIA AGAIN AND RISK SOMEONE SAYING

"YES WE HACKED INTO YOUR PHONE AND WE KNOW WHAT REALLY HAPPENED"

YOU SEE, WHAT YOU, THE ANTI'S ARE SAYING AND CLAIMING HAS NEVER MADE SENSE. WHY WOULD THE MCCANNS KEEP THE NAME MADELEINE McCANN IN THE LIMELIGHT, IF THEY HAD KILLED HER, AND GOT RID OF HER BODY SO WELL THAT IT WILL NEVER BE DISCOVERED.

WOULD IT NOT BE EASIER FOR THEM JUST TO SLIP AWAY FROM THE MEDIA GLARE, FROM THE LIMELIGHT AND JUST VANISH AWAY, KNOWING THAT THEY HAD COMMITTED THE PERFECT CRIME?

WOULD THEY NOT RISK JOGGING SOMEONE'S MEMORY THAT SAW THE MCCANN'S DUMPING MADELEINE'S BODY AND THEN THAT PERSON REPORTING IT TO THE POLICE?

DO NOT PEDDLE THE SAME BULLSHIT ABOUT THE FUND AND HOW THEY ARE LIVING OFF IT, THEY ARE NOT. TWO PAYMENTS IS ALL THEY HAVE HAD TO COVER THE MORTGAGE AT THE TIME.

THREE PEOPLE HAVE TRIED TO MAKE MONEY OFF MADELEINE MCCANN GOING MISSING...THEY ARE PAT BROWN, AMARAL AND TONY BENNETT. EACH OF THEM HAVE LINED THEIR OWN POCKETS OUT OF THIS, SO WHO IS MORE IMMORAL THERE?

SO THINK FOR YOURSELVES, WHY WOULD THE MCCANNS RISK EVERYTHING JUST TO APPEAR ON THE TV, APPEALING FOR INFORMATION? IS IT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO FIND THEIR DAUGHTER? YOU CAN GUARANTEE THAT IT IS NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE GUILTY AND WANT HIDE SOMETHING, PEOPLE WHO COMMITTED CRIMES LIKE THAT DO NOT DO THAT DO THEY.

IT IS ABOUT TIME EACH ANTI LOOKED THEMSELVES IN THE MIRROR AND SAY TO THEMSELVES..

"IF I KILLED SOMEONE AND HID THEIR BODY, WOULD I KEEP APPEARING ON TV AND IN THE MEDIA, OR JUST FADE AWAY INTO THE BACKGROUND?"

SO BENNETT STALKS A MAN WHO WAS ON HOLIDAY THE SAME TIME AS THE McCANNS AND THE PROOF ANTHONY JS BENNETT IS A KNOWN PERVERT

2011-09-06T12:49:00.002-04:00

DOES THAT MEAN BENNETT YOU WILL STALK EVERYONE THAT SENT PHOTOS INTO THE POLICE ENQUIRY? ASK YOURSELF THIS, ARE YOU HAPPY BEING LABELLED A PERVERTED STALKER? DOES IT MAKE YOU FEEL HAPPY THAT YOU ARE CONTINUOUSLY RIDICULED?

THE PRESS ARE JUST AWAITING YOUR BIG FALL. THEY ARE AWARE OF YOUR COURT DATES, THEY ARE AWARE OF WHAT IS HAPPENING.

THE POLICE ARE AWARE OF WHAT IS HAPPENING, THEY ARE AWARE OF YOUR HARASSMENT OF TOO MANY PEOPLE, BUT THEY WILL NOT PURSUE MATTERS WHILST ANOTHER COURT CASE IS PROCEEDING.

YOU ARE ABOUT TO LOSE EVERYTHING . EDWARD SMETHURST IS SUING YOU FOR £100,000...THE MCCANNS ARE GOING TO SUE YOU FOR THE SAME AMOUNT.. THEN THERE IS THE SMALL MATTER OF A CERTAIN BRIAN KENNEDY WHO HAS INSTRUCTED SOLICITORS TO PROCEED WITH A LIBEL ACTION.
OH AND MR COWLEY HAS MADE A STATEMENT TO THE POLICE OVER YOUR HARASSMENT OF HIMSELF , AS HAS MR SMETHURST.

BENNETT YOU ARE IN DEEP SHIT NOW AND IT IS PLAIN TO SEE NOW THAT YOUR OLD MENTAL ILLNESS IS RETURNING TO YOU AGAIN.

YES THE SAME MENTAL ILLNESS THAT FORCED YOU TO GO INTO A MENTAL WARD OF A HOSPITAL. THE SAME MENTAL ILLNESS THAT FORCED YOUR FAMILY TO DISOWN YOU AND HAVE NOT CONTACTED YOU SINCE THEN.

YOU ARE A LIAR, A FANTASIST , A SICK AND PERVERTED OLD MAN, WHO IS JUST PLAIN JEALOUS OF ANYONE WHO HAS MADE THEMSELVES SUCCESSFUL. THAT IS WHAT THIS COMES DOWN TO, YOU WERE SHUNNED FROM HELPING THE McCANNS, THEY WERE WARNED OFF YOU, AFTER INITIALLY THINKING IT WAS A GOOD IDEA. IT WAS YOU WHO APPROACHED THEM WITHIN 3 DAYS SUGGESTING THEY CAMPAIGN FOR BETTER COOPERATION BETWEEN COUNTRIES.

DO YOU NOT SEE THAT YOUR SICK IDEAS ARE JUST , WELL SICK? YOU SUGGESTED THAT MADELEINE SAT UPON A MALES LAP (WHO WAS NAKED AS YOU SAY) AND THAT MALE THEN TOOK A PHOTO OF HER. YOU SUGGESTED THAT THE MAKE UP MADELEINE HAD ON MADE HER LOOK LIKE " SHE WAS ASKING FOR IT" THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO THINK OF THESE SICK FANTASISES ARE THOSE WHO HAVE THESE SICK FANTASIES AND THAT IS YOU BENNETT.
IT JUST PROVES THAT YOU HAVE ONE VERY SICK PERVERTED MIND, AND REMEMBER YOU ADMITTED TO HAVING ONE...NOW WHY WOULD YOU HAVE SAID THAT? BECAUSE YOU ARE ONE.

I CHALLENGE YOU BENNETT TO HAVE A PROPER DEBATE ON MY FORUM

http://davidbretisagod.forumotion.co.uk/

WE ALL KNOW THAT YOU CANNOT BECAUSE YOU ARE JUST A COWARD, A COWARD THAT HIDES BEHIND PEOPLE AND GETS THEM TO DO YOUR DIRTY WORK FOR YOU.
REMEMBER HOW YOU COWERED BEHIND THE BUSHES WHEN THE LEAFLETS WERE DELIVERED AROUND ROTHLEY? REMEMBER HOW YOU GOT OTHER PEOPLE TO PUT POSTERS UP, WHILST YOU HID. ONLY TWICE DID YOU APPEAR AND THAT WAS ONCE AT OXFORD, BECAUSE YOU WERE KNOWN, AND THE SECOND FOR THE BBC CAMERAS BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT THAT THE BBC WERE DOING A PROGRAMME ON YOU AND HOW GREAT YOU WERE DOING, WELL THAT WAS TOTALLY COCKED UP WASN'T IT.

SO ONCE AGAIN WE HAVE BENNETT PRETENDING TO KNOW THINGS, YET HE KNOWS NOTHING WHATSOEVER. HIS WHOLE LIFE IS FULL OF LIES.

HIS LIES ABOUT BEING A SOLICITOR WHEN IN FACT HE DIDN'T EVEN TAKE ONE EXAM TO QUALIFY....

HIS LIES ABOUT HIS FATHER BEING THE ONE WHO WALKED ACROSS NO MANS LAND TO GET THE SURRENDER DOCUMENTS OF THE GERMANS, WHEN IN FACT THEY HAD BEEN IN TALKS FOR ABOUT TWO WEEKS BEFORE AND WAS AGREED THAT THEY WOULD COME AND LAY DOWN THEIR ARMS ON THAT DATE.

HIS LIES ABOUT HIS WIFE EVEN, SHE DOESN'T APPROVE OF WHAT HE IS DOING. HE EVEN GOT A MEMBER OF HIS CULT TO PRETEND SHE WAS HIS WIFE WHEN SIMON HARE TURNED UP.

HIS LIES ABOUT THE CREDIT UNION.YES HE SET IT UP, BUT HE HAS LIED ABOUT WHY HE LEFT IT.ASK HIM ABOUT THE ACCOUNTS.

BENNETT'S LIFE IS JUST ONE BIG LIE AND I CHALLENGE HIM TO GET DEBATING ON MY FORUM WITH ME http://davidbretisagod.forumotion.co.uk/ LETS SEE WHAT GUTS YOU HAVE BENNETT, LETS SEE IF YOU REALLY ARE A MAN, OR JUST A WIMPISH COWARD WHO HIDES BEHIND OTHER PEOPLE.

CHUCKY MISSPELL IS GETTING UPSET.

2011-08-31T15:37:00.000-04:00

CARLY DUNHAM'S BEST SIDE

APPARENTLY SHE HATES BEING A HATER, BUT DOESN'T MIND BEING CALLED EVIL. STRANGE WIERDO ....

ANYWAY CHUCKY...YOU ARE JUST A HATER.

A MADELEINE HATER WHO DOESN'T WANT THE POOR CHILD TO BE FOUND ALIVE.

DEAR MR ANTHONY BENNETT... EXERCISING MY RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH

2011-08-25T17:43:00.000-04:00

YOU KNOW, THE FREE SPEECH YOU KEEP GOING ON ABOUT. WELL LET ME PT ON HERE THE THINGS I HAVE BEEN TOLD ABOUT YOU AND SAID BEFORE . AND AS YOU HAVE NEVER SAID THEY WERE INCORRECT, THEY MUST BE TRUE.

1............. YOU WERE DETAINED UNDER SECTION 10 MENTAL HEALTH ACT .

2.............. YOU MOVED TO LEVERTON BECAUSE YOU WERE FORCED TO MOVE AWAY DUE TO AN INJUNCTION AGAINST YOU CONTACTING YOUR FAMILY

3............ WHILST IN LEVERTON, YOU WERE CAUGHT COTTAGING IN THE LOCAL TOILETS.

4.......... YOUR OWN DAUGHTER AND SON DO NOT EVEN TALK TO YOU OR EVEN EXCHANGE BIRTHDAY OR CHRISTMAS CARDS, DUE TO YOUR BEHAVIOUR.

5............ YOU LEFT THE CREDIT UNION IN HARLOW, JUST AS A AUDIT UNCOVERED FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES

6......... YOU HAVE LIED ABOUT YOUR FATHER BEING A WAR HERO, WHEN IN FACT HE WAS NOWHERE NEAR THE FRONT LINE IN ITALY AND CERTAINLY NEVER CROSSED INTO NO MANS LAND....AND WE ARE STILL AWAITING YOU TO POST THE EVIDENCE UP THAT YOU HAVE THE ORIGINAL COPY OF THE SURRENDER THAT WAS SIGNED.

7............ YOU HAD A HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP AT BOARDING SCHOOL, OR WAS YOU BUGGERED...I CAN'T REMEMBER

8.......... YOUR WIFE HATES YOU.

9..............YOU ARE A PATHETIC LITTLE WEASEL WHO GETS SOME SORT OF SICK AND PERVERTED PLEASURE FROM PEOPLES MISERY...IN FACT YOU PROBABLY GET AN ERECTION FROM READING PEOPLES MISERY.

SO WHICH PART OF "THE McCANNS ARE GOING TO TAKE YOU TO COURT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT DOESN'T BENNETT UNDERSTAND

2011-08-18T18:53:00.001-04:00

IT IS IN THE LETTER THAT BENNETT GOT FROM CARTER RUCK

12 August 2011

By post and email: ajebennett@btinternet,com

Private and Confidential

Mr Tony Bennett
66 Chippingfield
Harlow
Essex
CM17 ODJ

MOST URGENT

Dear Sir

Kate and Gerry McCann

As you are aware, we represent Kate and Gerry McCann.

We write to inform you that, given your flagrant and numerous breaches of the undertakings which you gave to the Court by way of a consent Order dated 25 November 2009 ("the order), our clients have been left with no alternative but to now instruct us to instigate contempt of court proceedings against you.

We enclose a further copy of the Order, with which you are already familiar, and which sets out the sanctions which are available to the Court if the Order is breached and a contempt of Court thereby committed.

As such, it is vital that you appreciate the gravity of the position in which you have placed yourself, and we must urge you to seek legal advice as soon as possible.

Proceeding for contempt of court

We must begin by making clear that the decision to apply to the Court to commit you for contempt has not been taken lightly by our clients, As with your conduct which formed the subject of our clients' original complaint against you in August 2009, our clients have tried to turn a blind eye to the campaign which you have relentlessly pursued against them, on the basis that their overriding priority has always been the ongoing search for their daughter.

However, our clients have once again become increasingly concerned about the very serious damage which may be caused to the search for their daughter by your persistent attempts to promulgate the assertion that Madeleine died (or that it is to be suspected that she died) in their holiday apartment and that they conspired (or are to be suspected of having conspired) to pervert the course of justice by disposing of her body and lying about her death. Despite your attempts to suggest otherwise, such assertions are completely without foundation and there is no credible evidence to support them.

This is not, of course, the first time that we have written to you to point out that you are in contempt of Court; we refer in particular to our letters to you of 5 February, 15 July and 3 August 2010. While it is the case that you confirmed you would cease to publish rnaterial which formed the subject of those complaints, you have subsequently gone on to publish a large volume of very similar material on your own website and elsewhere.
Our clients have given you every opportunity to comply with the undertakings which you gave, and we have in the past gone to some lengths to explain to you why _ contrary to your purported position - publications you have made or procured have constituted both actionable libels and placed you in contempt of Court. However, despite our efforts to explain the position to you, and despite our clients giving you a number of opportunities to desist from this behavior it is clear that you have no intention whatsoever of complying with your undertakings, and therefore our clients have resolved now to seek your committal for contempt of Court.
We rust also make clear that while our clients reject as absurd the "theories" which you advance about Madeleine's disappearance, neither our clients nor we seek (and have never sought) to prevent you from raising those "concerns" with the appropriate authorities - whether it be the law enforcement agencies, elected representatives such as your Member of Parliament, the Home Secretary or even (as you have also done) the Prime Minister. Nothing in this letter should be interpreted as an attempt to fetter your rights in this regard.
However, what our clients do object to - and where your conduct is clearly indefensible - is your publication of false and defamatory allegations about them publicly, and in particular on your own website and on the websites of others, as well as through the publication and distribution of hard copy material such as the "60 reasons" leaflet and the leaflet concerning Goncalo Amaral.
Such conduct not only seriously and unjustifiably defames our clients, it can only serve to damage the search for Madeleine.
lt is for these reasons that our .clients were forced to take action leading to the court order of 25 November 2009 and in respect of which you are in contempt.

Breach of the undertaking which you gave
Given the gravity of the position and of your approach to this matter to date, we seek below to spell out the position clearly.
We refer you to the terms of the Order which enshrined the undertakings which you gave to the High Court' These undertakings include (at paragraph c and Schedule A) the undertaking:
"not to repeat allegations that the Claimants are guilty of, or are to be suspected of, causing the. death of their daughter Madeleine McCann; and/or disposing of her body; and/or lying about what happened and/or of seeking to cover up what they had done"
The consequences of giving the undertakings contained in the Order mean that the publication by you of any such further allegations constitutes a contempt of Court, as well as being actionable in libel.
We have advised our clients that on a number of occasions you have published allegations which clearly and flagrantly breach this undertaking.
You will recall from our correspondence in 2009 that one of our clients' principal complaints against you. concerned the publication by you of defamatory material on the website www,madeleinefoudation,forumotion.org. You were at great pains to stress repeatedly that control of the ".org" website had effectively been seized by its webmaster, that the webmaster had refused your requests for the site to be *suspended and that you therefore were unable to secure the site's suspension.
Notwithstanding this, you subsequently went on to produce another "Madeleine Foundation" website, with a ".org.uk" extension -namely www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk - upon which you have published a large number of allegations about our clients suggest (and/or would have been understood by an ordinary reader to suggest) that they are suspected of causing the death of their daughter; and/or disposing of her body; and/or lying about what happened and/or seeking to cover up what they had done,
Merely by way of example, we refer to allegations published on your website which are contained in an "open letter to David Cameron" of 18 May 201 1, and which include the following:

"By contrast, a, great many people consider that there is more than adequate evidence that Madeleine McCann died in the McCann's holiday apartment and that her parents and others have covered up this fact, and to hold a hoax 'abduction' of Madeleine on the evening of 3 May 2007, Madeline having already died before that evening's events. That, as you will know, is the settled view of the former senior investigator in the case, Dr Goncalo Amaral, and most of! his investigation team, along with other senior figures in Portugal. Dr Amaral does not say how Madeleine died, as he does not-know, but in the absence of any other specific indications, he advances the view that she may have died as the result of an accident whitest her parents and friends were dining 11/2 minutes,walk away. Another view of what night have caused Madeleine's death is the possibility that she was over-sedated by the McCann's".
We do not wish to review in this letter all the evidence that suggests that Madeleine did die in the McCann's apartment, but clearly the alerts of two of the world's top sniffer dogs, trained by an internationally recognised British police dog handler, to no fewer than ten sites in the McCann's apartment, on their clothes, and in their hired car are significant, and remain so, even in the absence of the kind of corroborative forensic evidence that would lead to the dogs, alerts being admissible evidence in a court of law, There is also I very large amount of circumstantial evidence suggesting that the McCann's and their friends have not told the truth, consisting of a number of changes of story and significant contradictions between their statements that go well beyond the kind of minor inconsistencies that often occur when witness are supplying statements based on their recollections.
The 48 members of the Madeleine Foundation, our many supporters, and a huge number of others subscribe to the view that the balance of evidence points in the direction of Madeleine having died in the McCann's holiday apartment. lf that hypothesis is correct, then the McCann's motive for wanting a 'Review', which would now open up the many files that the Portuguese Police have up to now withheld would be clear not to find Madeleine, but rather to trawl the files for any other evidence there may be against them, so that they can defend themselves and deal with any such evidence.

(For the avoidance of any doubt, we must once again make clear that our clients do not challenge your entitlement to write in these terms to the Prime Minister, instead their complaint relates to the publication of the letter on your website and elsewhere).
It ls beyond doubt that readers of this letter would have understood it to allege that our clients (to adopt the wording of the Order) "are to be suspected of, causing the death of their daughter Madeleine McCann; and/or disposing of her body; and/or-lying about what happened and/or of seeking to cover up what they had done". As such, it is equally beyond doubt that you have breached the undertakings contained in the Order, thereby placing yourself in contempt of Court.
The letter to the Prime Minister is but one example of a large number of publications by you of material which constitutes a breach of our undertakings, not only on your own website but on other websites, and in hard copy. in this regard we refer to the enclosed schedule and bundles of material published by you since November 2009 (i.e..e. since you gave your undertakings) upon which our client will rely as evidence of the contempt of Court committed by you and which our clients now require you to remove in full from the internet and otherwise to refrain from further publishing. Due to the very large volume of materlal published by you generally, we must reserve our clients' rights to add to this schedule should any further offending publications be drawn to their attention,
Your response to complaints contained in our letter to Automsttic lnc of 3 June 2011
ln your letter to us of 8 June 2011 you have sought pre-emptively to "defend" your actions, by way of a letter to us which responded to a libel complaint made on our client:s' behalf to Automattic lnc, the lSP of the "McCann Exposure" website, and which appears to have then been passed to you. Our letter to Automattic included complaints about postings of yours, on the basis that these postings constituted both actionable libels and a breach of the undertakings which you gave to the Court.
As previously, the arguments you put forward range from being (at best) legally irrelevant to completely spurious and as such we have no intention of addressing them in any detail here.
However, we must make clear that your purported belief (as stated in your letter of 8 June 2011) that you have "so far as [you] are aware, avoided, in line with [your] Court undertaking, direct accusations" against our clients, is entirely misplaced.
Equally rnisplaced is your attempted reliance on statements made by our clients' spokesman Clarence Mitchell that Madeleine's disappearance rernains a "complete rnystery," or that the suggestion that Madeleine had been abducted was merely "an assumption" or a "hypothesis." For you to suggest, as you apparently do, that such statements somehow justify you publishing allegations such as those contaied in the material to which this letter refers is completely misconceived,
You heve also purported to suggest that you can evade liability under the law of libel and circumvent the terms of your undertakings to the Court by positing allegations as questions. That is singly not correct. A number of your
publications which raise such "questions" - including "163 Questions that the McCann's should answer in their forthcoming "very truthful" book'- would clearly be understood (and we have no doubt that you intended them to be understood) to mean that there are grounds to suspect our clients of having lied to the police about their daughters death.
Of course, in a large number of other instances - including the letter to David Cameron from which we quote above - you do not even put your allegations in question form but instead state as a fact that you believe that Madeleine died in the holiday apartment and that her parents conspired to cover up the death.
You should also be aware that neither the apparent rulings of the Portuguese Courts nor the fact that you claim to have issued an application in the European Court of Human Rights challenging UK libel laws (to which you refer in your letter to us of 8 June 2011) has any bearing whatsoever on our clients' claim against you.
Conclusion
Our clients' overriding purpose in bringing complaints against you has always been to prevent your dissemination of false and defamatory allegations about them which risk causing damage to the ongoing search for their daughter, in addition to unjustifiable darnage to their reputatione. For this reason, they did not (as they were clearly entitled to do) insist that you pay them libel damages after they complained to you in 2009, and were content to accept undertakings from you that you would desist from
the behaviour complained of, narnely the publication of allegations "that the claimants are guilty of, or are to be suspected of, causing the death of their daughter Madeleine McCann; and/or disposing of her body; and/or lying about what happened and/or seeking to cover up what they had done.
Despite our clients exercising such restraint, you have persisted with this course of conduct' even abler our clients had 'written to you on no fewer than three further occasions since you gave the undertakings in an attempt to secure your compliance.
As such' our clients..have concluded with considerable regret that there is no realistic prospect of you abiding by the undertakings which you gave unless you are committed for contempt of Court.

Accordingly, we hereby put you on notice that we will now be preparing an application to Court to commit you for contempt. When issuing this application we will also seek directions from the Court for you to serve evidence in-response and for a court hearing to be convened thereafter to consider the application.
As we note above, you have previously had a practice of removing or ammending specific publications following the receipt of a complaint from our clients, only then, after a short pause, to go on to publish the allegations which are the subject of the Court Order in another form or in another way. As such, while we would naturally urge you to remove the publications now complained of (as set out in the attached schedule, to the extent that these continue to be published), and to desist from publishing any similar material, we must make it clear that our clients have resolved that in any event it will be necessary to commence contempt of Court proceeding against you.
We would once again strongly urge you to obtain specialist legal advice as a matter of urgency.
Yours faithfulty
Carter-Ruck
Encs: Order of 25 November 2009
Two bundres of publications in contempt of court (by hard copy onry)

DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW BENNETT, AND BENNETT SUPPORTERS ???YOU ARE GOING DOWN I TAKE IT YOU NOTICED THE BOLD BITS WITHIN THE LETTERS? YOU ARE FUCKED

BENNETT TELLS ANOTHER OUTRAGES LIE

2011-08-18T18:33:00.003-04:00

Answers to Dr_Evil
Tony Bennett Today at 9:57 am
Dr_Evil wrote:
A couple of questions which I hope Tony can clear up please. I noticed some people on here have said that Edward Smethirst should have reported the inappropiate comments made by his alleged friends. Did anyone report these posts to either the Police or to Facebook if as everyone says there are as bad as it reads? If not then why not?

REPLY: I did not report these matters to the police when I became aware of them. Others are aware of these comments but no-one to my knowledge has reported them to the police.

Also is it possible that these were false accounts set up, set up to trap you?

REPLY: No. These are conversations and declared interests back in 2009 amongst a group of friends at a time when no-one was taking much interest in Edward Smethurst.

SO WHY IS THIS A LIE YOU ASK, WELL LETS START WITH FACEBOOK SHALL WE? THE FACEBOOK ACCOUNT YOU WERE ON ABOUT BENNETT WAS NOT CREATED UNTIL 2010, YOU SHOULD HAVE REALLY LOOKED AT THE JOINED DATE.

ALSO BENNETT, THERE IS NO CONVERSATIONS TO REPORT BECAUSE NONE HAPPENED. REMEMBER YOU ARE THE SICK AND PERVERTED ONE (YOUR OWN WORDS), YOU ARE THE ONE WHO, REMEMBER BENNETT, ENJOYED WATCHING YOUNG GIRLS DRESS UP AS SCHOOLGIRLS.
IT IS NOBODY ELSE WHO HAD TO BE BANNED FROM GOING NEAR A SCHOOL, IT WAS NOBODY ELSE WHO ABUSED A MEMBER OF THEIR FAMILY LIKE YOU DID BENNETT

RIGHT THEN BENNETT, ANSWER THIS SIMPLE QUESTION

2011-08-18T18:26:00.000-04:00

IF, AS YOU SAY THE COMMENTS ON MR SMETHURST'S FACEBOOK WERE DISGUISING, INVOLVED BESTIALITY AND THAT THEY MAY HAVE BEEN PAEDOPHILES ON THERE,

WHY THE FUCK DID YOU NOT REPORT IT TO THE POLICE THEN

SO LOOKING AT IT NOW IT IS BECOMING VERY VERY CLEARER NOW, THE MADELEINE FOUNDATION WAS INVOLVED IN CREATING FAKE ACCOUNTS TO POSE AS FRIENDS ON MR SMETHURTS.

OH AND BY THE WAY....FACEBOOK HAVE VERY NICELY PROVIDED IP ADDRESSES FOR THOSE ACCOUNTS. IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME,YOU WILL HAVE A VERY BIG SHOCK COMING

SO THIS SHOULD PUT THE TELEPHONE RECORDS DEBATE TO BED

2011-08-07T18:02:00.000-04:00

I SUGGEST EVERYONE READS IT FULLY IF NOT ONCE THEN TWICE AND DECIDE WHAT IT REALLY SAYS.

Judge: Ribeiro Cardoso

1. In the case files pending in the Public Prosecution Services in which they are investigating the disappearance of M.M. and the eventual carrying out of the crimes of abduction, homicide, exposure or abandonment of a child and concealment of a corpse, the prosecutor in charge of the case under investigation

The Penal Procedural Code, promoted, amongst other operations, a request of the 3 national mobile telephone operators (TMN, Vodafone and Optimus) for digital support (CD or DVD) of the complete listings of telephone traffic to calls received and made in the period of time between April 28 2007 until September 9 2007, including cellular location and trace-back, as well as all calls on roaming and SMS and MMS messages and their respective content, for the following telephone numbers: (Ten telephone numbers follow)

- Telephone number as yet unidentified which during May 2 2007 sent 14 written SMS messages to G.M. and another 4 on the day following M.M.’s disappearance.

- The request from mobile telephone operator TMN, the dispatch on digital support (CD or DVD), the complete listing of telephone traffic referring to the calls received and carried out in the period of time between 20H00M of May 3 2007 and 12H00M of May 4 2007, including cellular location and trace-back, as also all calls on roaming and SMS and MMS messages and their respective content, of the following mobile numbers:

2. However, the Instructional Judge, by ruling of 24.09.2007, did not authorise the dispatch on digital support (CD or DVD) of the content of any message sent or received by SMS or MMS pertinent to all the above referred telephone numbers, as he concluded, such would mean attaining knowledge of the content of telephone conversation or communication already carried out, without the previous judicial authorization ruling, and because there is no legal support for such a request.

3. Refusing to accept this ruling, the prosecutor interposed the present appeal:

“i) – We present our dissent to Criminal Instructional Judge’s ruling - namely the part in which he did not authorise “the dispatch on digital support (CD or DVD) of the content of any message sent or received by SMS or MMS.

ii) – There is no reason to distinguish, as the judge did, between the two types of communication – content of SMS and MMS messages and listings of telephone traffic pertinent to the calls received and carried out. Where the law does not distinguish, nobody else may.

iii) – The right to protection against the invasion of privacy or intimacy runs no bigger risk or being violated by the access to the content of SMS and MMS messages than the knowledge of the precise circumstances of time, place, method and frequency of the calls received and made.

iv) – If the procedural law makes reference to the use of communications already carried out, it is to expressly authorize those, as defined linear and unequivocally in number 1 of article 189th of the Penal Procedural Code.

v) - In order to preserve the right to protection against the invasion of the privacy or intimacy of the communicants of the SMS or MMS messages in the case under appraisal, protecting, via judicial surveillance, any abusive invasion to that intimacy

vi) – In not authorizing the access to the content of the SMS and MMS messages, the ruling violated the dispositions of articles 179th, 187th and 189th of the Penal Procedural Code.

In these terms, revoking the appealed ruling and ordering its substitution with another which requests of the three national mobile telephone operators the dispatch on digital support (cd or dvd) of the content of any message sent or received by SMS or MMS and their respective content of all telephone numbers.”

5. The judge maintained the ruling, stating, essentially, the following:

“To attain knowledge of the content of communications carried out by SMS or MMS, because they are communications carried out by telephone, one must necessarily obtain a previous judicial authorization and it must result from interception carried out and authorized by that ruling, pertinent to the ongoing communication.

In my point of view and with due respect one cannot compare detail of traffic (those pertinent to listings of numbers dialed and received) with detail of content (pertinent to the content of the communication made – the words exchanged) with intent to treat them in the same way, due to their nature. It is not the same to know that on day X, at a certain hour, a communication was established between numbers Z and K, in a specific locale (traffic detail) and knowing what was said, arranged or discussed.

As there is no mobile phone legally apprehended, I also think it is not legal to use the rules pertinent to the apprehension of correspondence, running the risk of, in such a way, relegating the demands placed upon the interception of undergoing correspondence, which is what would happen if one was to order the operator to dispatch the content of those communications carried out via telephone, even if technically possible.

Finally, the statement “recorded on digital support” refers to the communications carried out by a different technical means than that of the telephone, ie. E-mail, in real time, via information network, etc, therefore, with due respect, such has no application herein”

8. Matter to be examined

In view of the motivations presented by the appealer, the matter to be decided is simply establishing whether it is permissible or not to request of the three national mobile telephone operators to dispatch on digital support (cd or dvd) the content of any message sent or received by SMS or MMS and their respective content pertinent to all the telephone numbers with reference to the period of time therein indicated.

9. In view of that exposed, we rule the appeal interposed by the public prosecutor, unfounded, consequently maintaining the appealed ruling.

Évora, 2008.04.29

Fernando Ribeiro Cardoso

OH DEAR MORE LIBEL FROM THE ANTI'S OVR ON HAVERN'S....DO THEY NEVER LEARN?

2011-08-07T17:22:00.001-04:00

Re: We've Been Cart Rucked!

HotlipsHealy Today at 9:15 pm

Judging from the crime scene in 5A Madeleine suffered violence and or death. Whilst this was reported to the police no police force is now investigating it. Why? Because Madeleine's parent don't want it investigated. They allowed the shelving of the case. What innocent parents would do that?

I think that what actually happened to Madeleine is far more imporant that what you are saying could have happened, after all where is your proof and why bring it here if this forum is not the place where the threats were issued? Whilst it is wrong to threaten anyone who cares about the McCanns? They have done nothing to help the police find their daughter so I don't know why you're trying to convince people that we should be sympathetic towards them.

Re: We've Been Cart Rucked!

Dr_Evil Today at 9:32 pm

Sorry what pictures show Madeleine suffered violenence or death?

Re: We've Been Cart Rucked!

HotlipsHealy Today at 9:38 pm

Dr_Evil wrote:Sorry what pictures show Madeleine suffered violenence or death?

Did I say pictures?

The crime scene: blood on the walls, under the floor tiles, hem of curtains, back of sofa. Eddie and Keela alerting to blood and death scent.

Re: We've Been Cart Rucked!

crispyroll Today at 9:40 pm

No pictures that Madeleine suffered but the McCanns have told that she suffered. Not directly but they have told their daughter was abducted by paedophiles. So she suffered or do you think that is not the case? Maybe nice and friendly pedophiles, reading some stories and giving her some sweets.

Re: We've Been Cart Rucked!

crispyroll Today at 9:47 pm

I have always thought that Carter-Ruck must dance with joy daily with all the sueing and threatening going on. CR does not need other clients than the McCanns. That will do for the rest of CRs life. Maybe they have been praying every minute that this case will go on and on.

SO BENNETT SAYS THIS IS A PLACE WHERE DIRTY THINGS HAPPEN?

2011-08-07T17:07:00.001-04:00

NOW I AM NOT A BRILLIANT DETECTIVE BUT IS THAT NOT A GARAGE??

ONLY SUGGESTING BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY BENNETT IS TO THICK TO NOTICE.

ALSO HAS NOBODY NOTICED THAT OVER ON JILL HAVERN'S THE NEW PEOPLE COMMENTING ON THIS ARE BENNETT'S SOCKS? ALL THE TIME IT IS THE SAME ROUTINE, HE THINKS USING THEM WILL STOP HIM BEING SUED.

QUESTIONS BENNETT MUST ANSWER TO HAVE ANY CREDIBILITY

2011-08-07T14:21:00.000-04:00

WE ALL KNOW HOW HE LIKES TO ASK OTHER PEOPLE QUESTIONS, LETS SEE IF HE IS ANY GOOD AT ANSWERING ANY.

1........ YOU CLAIMED THAT THE POSTS ON MR SMETHURST'S FACEBOOK PAGE WERE OBSCENE AND DISGUSTING, SO DID YOU REPORT THEM TO FACEBOOK OR THE POLICE ?

2......... YOU CLAIMED THAT THOSE REMARKS WERE MADE BY FRIENDS OF MR SMETHURST'S. HOW DID YOU SEE THOSE POSTS WHEN MR SMETHURSTS WHEN ALL HIS POSTS ARE SET TO FRIENDS ONLY? DOES THAT MEAN YOU REGISTERED A FAKE ACCOUNT, OR DID YOU CLONE SOMEONES DETAILS ?

3........... YOU CLAIMED YOU WERE ON HOLIDAY, HOW DID YOU MANAGE TO SIGN FOR A LETTER FROM CARTER RUCK, ON YOUR DOORSTEP, AND READ ONE THAT CAME THROUGH THE POST?

4.......... WHY DID YOU NOT BOTHER TO INFORM JILL HAVERN OF THE SECOND LETTER DEMANDING THAT THE THREAD BE REMOVED IN IT'S ENTIRETY?

5.......... DO YOU ACCEPT THAT WHAT YOU DID WAS WRONG?

THIS JUST SHOWS HOW MUCH OF A COWARD BENNETT REALLY IS.

2011-08-06T14:25:00.000-04:00

Re: We've Been Cart Rucked!
Admin Today at 7:02 pm

Today I was made aware of a 2nd letter from Carter Ruck that was sent to Tony on 4th August. I didn't know anything about this letter until I saw it on someone's blog.

Part of the letter states:

Enlarge this image

Recently we have seen Carter Ruck have Pat Brown's book banned on Amazon without any notice whatsoever to her, so the thread will not be back on the forum.

JUST SHOWS THAT BENNETT IS THE COWARD WE ALL KNEW HE WAS BY LEAVING THE OTHERS TO PICK UP THE PIECES WHILST HE GOES ON HIS JOLLIES.

SO JUST ASK YOURSELF THIS HAVERN.........IS BENNETT WORTH LOSING YOUR HOUSE AND LIVELIHOOD OVER?

TOO LITTLE...TOO LATE

2011-08-06T09:50:00.000-04:00

SO THEY HAVE REMOVED THE THREAD AND PUT IT IN THE ADMIN AREA........

DOESN'T MATTER I WAS GETTING LOVELY SCREEN GRABS OF THEM LAST NIGHT AND SENDING THEM.

So Bennett Is On Holiday Is He??

2011-08-05T18:49:00.001-04:00

Viewing profile :: Tony Bennett

Profile
Statistics
Friends
Contact

Statistics

Topics

Number of topics : 521 (18.11% of total)
Topics per day : 0.84
Latest topic : Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:43 am
Find all topics where Tony Bennett has posted in

Posts

Posts : 3481 (5.21% of total)
Posts per day : 5.63
Latest post : Fri Aug 05, 2011 4:14 am
Find all messages posted by Tony Bennett

Information

Number of friends : 0
Joined : 2009-11-25
Last visit : Today at 4:14 am

DEPRAVED AND SICK

2011-08-05T17:47:00.002-04:00

Paedo candy

tigger on Fri Jul 22, 2011 8:33 am

The Shelfstacker wrote:Slightly away from the original topic of this thread, but I found this JPEG in an email I was sent some months ago. Not spam, I hasten to add, sent by a colleague as a round robin/ chain. The picture was entitled "Go Figure". Does anyone know where the pictures in the montage come from? Obviously one of them features on the home page of this site but what about the others?

YUK! All four of them are paedo candy IMO. The McC's betray themselves in so many ways. But the blue eyeshadow photo was a BIG mistake and the evolving excuse: raided my make-up box changed in the book to: a professional beautician who was visiting did it...
Has anybody noticed the thick walls under her eyes, it's not normal in most children. Maddie has them in most photos, except a few, like the poster, with the eye. Now they've said she didn't have a coloboma and it was a tiny spot. Another BIG mistake, on record, keep talking!

SO BENNETT STILL WANT TO TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH?

2011-08-05T17:40:00.002-04:00

SO BENNETT TO REMOVE THE THREADS COMPLETELY

2011-08-05T17:38:00.000-04:00

SOMETHING TELLS ME BENNETT YOU HAVE NOT COMPLIED HAVE YOU AND NEITHER HAS HAVERN...SHE CAN BE SUED TO.

OH DEAR BENNETT STILL LIBELLING MR SMETHURST

2011-08-05T17:34:00.000-04:00

Re: Edward Smethurst's homes (pics) and friends
Tony Bennett on Wed May 11, 2011 2:34 pm

Which social network would that be Tony?

REPLY: Well that's for me to know and for you to find out.
Let's see the evidence.

REPLY: You could ring Greg the Groomer's social networking friend Edward Smethurst yourself and see what he has to say. Here's some more information about him.

Re: Edward Smethurst's homes (pics) and friends

Tony Bennett on Wed May 11, 2011 8:06 pm

What makes you think he's come off Facebook because he 'fears that he is being stalked'?

Much more likely is because he would be embarrassed by the kind of things he, Greg the Groomer, Ben Murphy and others talk about on Facebook and in their Facebook group.

If in any way my shedding light on these dark and murky parts of Facebook has in any way contributed to these people suppressing their disgusting and depraved comments (too graphic to post here), I would regard that as an achievement, however modest.

IS ANTHONY BENNETT A CLOSET HOMOSEXUAL?

2011-08-05T17:20:00.000-04:00

RUMOUR HAS IT THAT HE LOVES TO SWING BOTH WAYS.

LETS NOT DENY THE FACTS THAT BENNETT LOVES TO MENTION ""FISTING"" AND OTHER DEPRAVED SEXUAL ACTS ANYTIME HE CAN.

SO I SAY BENNETT COME OUT OF THE CLOSET, YOUR DAUGHTER KNOWS THE TRUTH...

I HAVE ONCE AGAIN SENT MR SMETHURST THE POSTINGS BENNETT FIRST PUT ON HAVERN'S

2011-08-05T10:39:00.000-04:00

SAYING THAT HE WAS FRIENDS WITH PAEDOPHILES.

TONY BENNETT ALL I CAN SAY IS..........KEEP NOVEMBER FREE.

OH AND THE PERSON HOSTING THE SITE, AND WHO RUNS THE SITE.....THEY ARE LIABLE FOR WHAT GOES ON THERE.

THEY WILL BE SERVED SOMETHING TO AFTER BENNETT IS DEALT WITH

ANYONE NEED HELP.....I CAN HELP

2011-08-02T17:36:00.001-04:00

PAT BROWN (@ProfilerPatB ) THINKS WE ARE MAKING FUN OF HER...

2011-07-27T17:23:00.000-04:00

YES WE ARE BECAUSE YOU ARE SO FUCKING STUPID WOMAN...

Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann Que is right, Liz! All the abuse is only publicizing the issue more and showing desperation on the part of the pro-McCanners. I have websites dedicated to attacking me but they just look rather foolish with their photos of me...barred mouth, etc. Actually, I am printing them out and making wallpaper out of them

PAT BROWNS HOME

2011-07-25T18:10:00.004-04:00

REMOVED DUE TO LEGAL ACTION

WANT A REFUND ON PAT BROWN'S BOOK

2011-07-25T17:55:00.002-04:00

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=help_search__1-2?ie=UTF8&nodeId=200587490&qid=1311624464&sr=1-2

THERE YOU GO...JUST COMPLAIN ABOUT HOW IT WAS A PILE OF SHIT AND AMAZON WILL REFUND YOUR MONEY NO QUESTIONS ASKED.

HOW EMBARRASSING IS THAT

Pat Brown ( @ProfilerPatB ) Is A Confirmed Liar, And Officially Rated As Stupid By The FBI

2011-07-25T17:49:00.000-04:00

Oh yes she is so stupid it is unbelievable. Unable to understand why, her libellous, false, inaccurate kindle book got deleted from Amazon, she has been bleating on about it.

ProfilerPatB PAT BROWN

I was told by Amazon change the title and the content of my Profile of Madeline #McCann due to "legal conflicts."

3 hours ago

ProfilerPatB PAT BROWN

I was told by Amazon there is "legal conflict" with my book, The Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine #McCann.

3 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply

ProfilerPatB PAT BROWN

@praterstrasse "Legal conflict." I was told to change the title and the content!

3 hours ago

ProfilerPatB PAT BROWN

I now have the answer: the McCanns have had Amazon pull the book, The Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. #McCann.

3 hours ago

ProfilerPatB PAT BROWN

@laurenjbarnes @praterstrasse Not yet. They apparently have no phone one can call and I must wait for a reply by email. .

3 hours ago

ProfilerPatB PAT BROWN

Amazon was making a profit off The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, so the only reason it isn't there is a glitch or a threat. #McCann

3 hours ago

Maybe now she will realise that there are no Millions of people opposing the McCanns. There are no thousands joining sites like Jill Havern's or the Missing Madeleine forum, far from it, they are all socks, multiple accounts of the people already there, that is how desperate the Anti Madeleine's are.

The legal glitch was that is was libellous and inaccurate. You chose to ignore the rebuttal that was done by Jayelles, and now you are paying the consequence.

Imagine the headline.... PROFILER SUED AS SHE IS TOTALLY WRONG AND INACCURATE. What will that do to your reputation.

You latched onto the wrong crowd to try and make some money, now you are paying for it.

DAVID BRET HAS PROVEN THAT HE IS A LIAR

2011-07-23T19:28:00.000-04:00

WHY has the Daily Express “removed” this image of Kate and Gerry McCann smiling from its website? Last week, Anorak bought you news of Kate and Gerry McCann in Holland. They were promoting Kate McCann’ book, Madeleine.

The Express shaped the story of the parents of missing child Madeleine McCann’s funds and awareness raising trip around their smiles.

The paper’s headline stated:

“At last Kate McCann can smile again”

The “Daily Express Reporter” reported:

“For once, grieving Kate McCann can find something to smile about. So often pictured as a sad, withdrawn figure, she and husband Gerry burst into laughter as they promoted her book about their lost daughter Madeleine.“

That report is, at the time of writing, still intact.

So. Why was the photo “removed?” There is talk online of a conspiracy. One site says it knows the truth. It writes:

The photograph of happy Kate and Gerry was removed from the Express article – according to author David Bret “the sub-editor of the Express explained over the phone yesterday that no papers will print anything regarded as unfavourable regarding the McCanns, and that the couple’s “office” had complained that a picture of them laughing was unfavourable at it is a “misrepresentation” of how they feel, which was why they insisted it should be removed.

Anorak reached out to the Express and the “sub-editor” who worked on that story. Wewere told that the paper is not in thrall to the McCanns. In fact, the image has not been removed. The “online reporter”, our source, says that a search for Kate McCann on the Express’s site still features the image. It does.

The photo was published onlione at midnight on June 24. At some point during that afternoon, a video ad was placed over it.

So. No conspiracy. Just online trolls attacking the McCanns – and a need for the Express to make some cash…

http://tinyurl.com/3l5x3xp

BENNETT CAUGHT OUT LYING YET AGAIN

2011-07-21T15:45:00.001-04:00

FROM BENNETT'S SUPPOSED CONVERSATION HE HAD WITH SCOTLAND YARD......

10.11 Call from an officer whose name sounded like 'Sam Weatherspoon'. I couldn't hear the surname very well, and asked him to repeat it. He said: 'I don't normally give out my surname. I can give you my collar number if you want'. He told me he was 'Sam', collar number 220629.

TWO THINGS ABOUT THIS.

1...A POLICE OFFICER WILL ONLY REFUSE TO GIVE THEIR NAME IN A TERRORIST CASE. OTHERWISE OFFICERS HAVE TO GIVE THEIR SURNAMES AT ALL TIME....THOUGHT A GOOD SOLICITOR WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT, BUT THEN BENNETT ISN'T ONE.

2.... A QUICK CHECK FINDS THAT PC 220629 DOESN'T EXIST...IT IS HOWEVER THE TELEPHONE NUMBER FOR HUMBERSIDE POLICE.

He said he had 'no idea' if my Recorded Delivery letter had been received or not. I suggested I could e-mail it to him. He said: 'We are not giving out any e-mail addresses for anyone in this team'.
I suggested I could fax the letter to him her and now. He hesitated and said 'Possibly...' and then said: 'I suggest you wait a couple of days or so to see if it has been received'. I asked again if I could have the fax number so I could fax my letter straightaway and he said: 'No, I am refusing that. We will wait for two more days and then we may be able to give you the Fax No. out if it's not been received by then'.

ALL POLICE OFFICERS ARE GIVEN A E-MAIL ADDRESS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF PEOPLE E-MAILING THEM INFORMATION. THE FAX NUMBER WOULD BE SHOWN ON THE CONTACT PAGE FOR SCOTLAND YARD.

BENNETT JUST STOP THE LYING.

************************UPDATE*****************

ALSO IN THE MET, ALL POLICE OFFICERS HAVE COLLAR NUMBERS WHICH BEGIN WITH LETTERS AND NOT NUMBERS, THINK YOU NEED TO DO MORE HOMEWORK IF YOUR GOING TO LIE BENNETT.

All Of Britain Resigns And Hand Themselves Into The Police

2011-07-18T15:50:00.000-04:00

Britain resigns and hands itself in to the police

The entire United Kingdom has today resigned out of collective guilt and embarrassment, as the fallout from the News of the World phone hacking scandal continues.

The country, sometimes referred to as ‘Great Britain’, announced this morning that it would be stepping down from its duties as a moron-populated land mass, and handing itself in at the nearest police station – immediately after Bargain Hunt.

The troubled pillock-ridden nation state explained:

“I was party to the News of the World’s phone hacking. I may not have done the hacking myself. But I voraciously consumed the product of that phone hacking every Sunday – without thinking through the consequences of my choices.”

“I lined the pockets of those pitiless bastards with my brainless desire for sensationalism, vicarious grief, hypocrisy, tits and suspender belts, in bite-size chunks at an affordable price.”

“I smell the stench of my own collusion wafting from my every orifice. And I am deeply ashamed.”

“My position is untenable. I am tendering my resignation and will shortly be prostrating myself at the jackbooted feet of a thousand bored coppers.”
United Kingdom resigns

Other countries have shown mixed reactions to Great Britain’s resignation.

“Britain’s resignation is long overdue,” said Iran. “Its association with a decadent, corrupt, immoral cesspit of a western news corporation has tragically overshadowed its own role as a decadent, corrupt, immoral cesspit of a western nation state.”

America told us: “While deeply saddened at Britain’s resignation, I respect its decision, and may even resign myself out of guilt and embarrassment, given that I actually let Rupert Murdoch operate from my place.”

Meanwhile Australia was more sanguine about the whole affair: “For years Britain sent its criminals over here. It’s my pleasure to return the favour. It’s called karma.”

“Resignation’s too good for you, you whingeing pommies.”

CHUCKY MISSPELL

2011-07-18T15:15:00.002-04:00

NO LICHEN

2011-07-17T18:20:00.001-04:00

NO LICHEN#

2011-07-17T18:20:00.000-04:00

2011-07-16T18:39:00.002-04:00

DAVID BRET IS A GOD

2011-07-16T18:27:00.001-04:00

WHATEVER, IF IT WAS A TOTAL TWAT THEN YES BUT GOD.......NO

http://davidbretisagod.forumotion.co.uk/

DAVID SPURR OR SHOULD I SAY DAVID BRETT

2011-07-13T15:21:00.001-04:00

David Spurr of Wakefield, lives with his lovely wife Jean and is over 65. So any other lies you want to tell us about David?

I mean being born in France and then adopted?? No it never happened did it.

Brett/Spurr has never changed his name by deed poll, and it is strange that in some of the books where he claims to have known and met famous people, he cannot even get basic things correct, like when Dusty Springfield died.

The man is a born liar...............

WHY ON EARTH IS HE USING GEORGE MICHAEL'S PHOTO. A GAY ICON

http://davidbret.blogspot.com/?zx=e01ccfb7aea82f14

SO THEN EXPLAIN HOW YOU ARE EXACTLY HELPING MADELEINE McCANN BY POSTING LIKE THIS

2011-07-10T17:34:00.000-04:00

WHAT IS SO FUNNY ABOUT DEFACING A FACEBOOK PAGE ABOUT PEOPLE WHO WANT MADELEINE McCANN FOUND ALIVE? I KNOW YOU HAVE THE ALTERNATIVE BECAUSE I AM ON IT, YET AM I DEFACING IT, NO.
YOU CLAIM TO HAVE MADELEINE'S INTEREST AND ARE THE VOICE OF MADELEINE, NO YOU ARE NOT YOU ARE JUST LOW LIFE SHITS WHO JUST WANT TO CAUSE PAIN AND SPREAD HATE.

TAKE IT NOT ONE OF YOU HAVE ANY SHAME WHATSOEVER ABOUT WHAT YOU DID

BENNETT HAS LOST HIS MARBLES, THE PLOT AND CANNOT GET IT RIGHT ABOUT BABYLON

2011-07-09T05:05:00.001-04:00

Andy Coulson's arrest - and Madeleine McCann
Tony Bennett Yesterday at 8:58 pm

So, Andy Coulson, former Editor of the News of the World has been arrested. He may yet turn out to be a criminal.

Andy Coulson was our current Prime Minister's Director of Communications prior to and after the General Election.

In March 2010 he appointed Clarence Mitchell as his Deputy, to help win the Election. Cameron obvioulsy approved his choice. This man, Mitchell, was once described as 'lying with as many teeth as he has in his mouth', by the Head of the Portuguese Lawyers' Association, Carlos Anjos.

These are cunning people, no doubt covering up much evil. Max Clifford, a man to be reckoned with even if you don't like what he does, once said he made much more money keeping stories out of the press than putting them in the press. How exactly did he achieve that, I wonder?

Murdoch's papers have led the campaign to promote the hypothesis that Madeleine was abducted.

It may be wishful thinking to believe that the Murdoch Empire is not only crumbling, but collapsing.

But sometimes, evil institutions can collapse very suddenly, like a dam bursting.

The mighty Babylonian Empire, at its apparent zenith, collapsed in a single night. Whilst the great and the good of Babylon were engaged in an orgy of sex - and drinking out of silver and gold goblets stolen form Jerusalem - the Persians crept in along the dry river bed of the Euphrates and overran the city that very night. And that was the end of the mighty Babylonian Empire.

One day the McCann abduction theory may similarly collapse just like the proverbial house of cards.

And bring down a whole lot of others with them.

THE RIVER BED WAS NEVER DRY

PLEASE BENNETT AT LEAST QUOTE SOMETHING CORRECTLY IF YOU ARE GOING TO QUOTE HISTORY.

SO BENNETT YOU CLAIM TO HAVE INFORMATION DO YOU?

2011-07-08T07:50:00.002-04:00

WELL HOW COME YOU NEVER PASSED ON THE INFORMATION YOU ADMITTED YOU RECEIVED VIA THE MADELEINE FOUNDATION?

NOW THAT IS WORTH INVESTIGATING

AND ANTHONY BENNETT. I HAVE SPOKEN TO D.C.I. Andy Redwood

2011-07-07T18:31:00.000-04:00

AND ALSO E-MAILED HI THE LINKS OVER TO HIM REGARDING WHERE YOU HAVE URGED PEOPLE TO SEND LETTERS EN-MASS TO THE REVIEW TEAM. TO SAY HE IS NOT BEST PLEASE IS A LITTLE BIT OF AN UNDERSTATEMENT, ESPECIALLY AS YOU LOT SENDING ABUSE ABOUT THE MCCANNS MEANS THAT OFFICERS COULD BE STEERED AWAY FROM FINDING OUT WHAT HAPPENED TO MADELEINE McCANN, BUT THEN THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT ISN'T IT BENNETT.

DCI REDWOOD IS GOING TO DISCUSS THIS TOMORROW AND SEE WHAT CAN BE DONE, RE; WASTING POLICE TIME

NOW BENNETT CARE TO ARGUE OVER THIS ??

2011-07-07T18:21:00.000-04:00

YOU WROTE THIS LITTLE GEM AMONGST YOUR CRAP LETTER

Then there is of course a welter of circumstantial evidence which would suggest that the parents of Madeleine and their friends have not told us the truth

YOU SEE BENNETT, EVEN A FAILED WASHED UP OLD EX FAKE SOLICITOR WOULD KNOW THAT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS JUST THAT CIRCUMSTANTIAL. IT HAS NEVER, AND NEVER WILL BE, GOOD ENOUGH TO EVEN GET ANYONE NEAR A CORUT ROOM NEVER MIND FOUND GUILTY.

ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE A LIAR AND ONCE AGAIN EXPOSED.

JILL HAVERN'S HUSBANDS CERTIFICATE HERE

2011-07-07T18:10:00.001-04:00

http://madeleine-foundation.blogspot.com/2011/07/details-of-all-antis.html

BENNETT'S FAMILY PICTURES. HIS MUM DAD AND CHILDREN AND GRAND CHILDREN

2011-07-07T18:08:00.002-04:00

http://madeleine-foundation.blogspot.com/2011/07/bennetts-family-pictures-his-mum-dad.html

OI TOSSPOT TONY BENNETT

2011-07-07T17:59:00.001-04:00

WHY CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND BASIC THINGS LIKE THE FOI 2000 ACT

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/detailed_specialist_guides/awareness_guidance%20_1_%20personal_information_v2.pdf

Personal data of any other person (third party data) is exempt under section
40(2) if disclosure would breach one of the data protection principles.
Generally this will mean considering whether it is unfair to release the
information and balancing the necessary public interest in disclosure against
the interests of the individual under the first principle

IT IS NOT BECAUSE IT IS THE McCANNS, IF THEY HAD INFORMATION ABOUT YOU, THEN IT WOULD NOT BE RELEASED. ONCE AGAIN YOU TWIST THINGS TO SUIT YOURSELF AND YOUR OWN PERVERTED AND SICK TASTES.

YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE THE BOTTLE TO HAVE A DEBATE WITH ANYONE OUTSIDE OF HAVERN'S FORUM,YOU ARE JUST THE TYPICAL PLAYGROUND BULLY. SCARED TO FACE SOMEONE AWAY FROM YOUR OWN PATCH.

NEWS FOR YOU, I AM ON YOUR PATCH

WHAT A COMPLETE KNOBHEAD BENNETT IS

2011-07-05T06:43:00.001-04:00

Re: A Kate's “Oops… I Think I’ve Just Confessed” Moment

Tony Bennett on Wed Jun 29, 2011 6:47 pm

Ringo wrote:Two points Tony

Tony Bennett wrote:1. To say that Tanner did not ID Robert Murat from the police van would be tantamount to asserting that Goncalo Amaral invented virtually the whole of that chapter. Amaral like the rest of us mortals makes mistakes and doesn't get everything right, but it is a very serious charge to say that he invented the whole scenario. Had he completely made this up, he would surely have been challenged by now

I am not asserting that he made up the whole scenario of the sighting from the van as that is verified by what JT says. However Amaral was not there, and I am asserting that he did get it wrong about her positively ID'ing Murat, yes.

4) she was not included in the face-to-face confrontation with Murat that the three others took part in
Because the simple issue was whether these three had in fact seen Murat hanging around the Ocean Club on the late evening of 3 May. Tanner never said she had seen Murat there. She merely said: 'I'm sure that's the bloke I saw carrying a child at about 9.15pm on 3 May'

Then why did Amaral claim in an interview last year that she WAS at the face-to-face confrontation with Murat, contradicting what he wrote in his book?

REPLY:

Point 1: As I understand it there is no evidence whatsoever that he did get it wrong, i.e. you are making an assertion based on no evidence. All you are syaing, without any evidential basis, is: 'He might have got it wrong'

Point 2. OK, I've not seen this interview. Assuming (a) that it says exactly what you say its says and (b) that there has been an accurate translation of what he said, then it looks to me most like a simple error of recollection. No-one else that I am aware of (not the Tapas Three, not Murat) has said that Tanner was also in

that confrontation, so it sounds like a simple slip

NO BENNETT, YOU DO NOT PUT A SIMPLE ERROR OF RECOLLECTION INTO A BOOK THAT ATTACKS PARENTS. IT IS NOT A SIMPLE SLIP , IT IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE BY AMARAL AND ONE THAT SHOWS WHAT A LIAR HE IS. IT ALSO SHOWS HOW MUCH YOU HAVE RELIED ON LIES FROM THE FAT USELESS DEFECTIVE AS WELL

EVER THOUGHT ABOUT THIS BENNETT

2011-07-05T06:40:00.000-04:00

Replies to 'Ringo'

Tony Bennett on Wed Jun 29, 2011 5:40 pm

4) she was not included in the face-to-face confrontation with Murat that the three others took part in
Because the simple issue was whether these three had in fact seen Murat hanging around the Ocean Club on the late evening of 3 May. Tanner never said she had seen Murat there. She merely said: 'I'm sure that's the bloke I saw carrying a child at about 9.15pm on 3 May'

NOW BENNETT EVEN YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT WHERE SOMEONE IS SAYING " YES THAT IS THE PERSON I SAW" I "I'M SURE IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH" NO WONDER YOU ARE A FAILED SOLICITOR AND A FAILURE IN EVERYTHING YOU DO

OH DEAR ...NOW BENNETT IS LYING

2011-07-05T06:37:00.000-04:00

Replies to 'Ringo'

Tony Bennett on Wed Jun 29, 2011 5:40 pm

1) there is no signed statement from her to say she ID'ed Murat, surely the single most important piece of evidence in the whole case up to that point
It could be among the withheld statements, however, I had to ID someone who stole my wallet containing £150 many years ago, I did ID the right perpetrator from 10 men but never signed anything. It went to court where I again had to identify him, but again never signed anything. [He needed the cash to buy drus, of course]

DEAR MR BENNETT, AS A UNQUALIFIED, PISS POOR EX SOLICITOR I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT EVEN YOU WOULD BE SO TRUTHFUL AS TO PUT THAT POLICE TAKE WRITTEN STATEMENTS OFF PEOPLE WHO ID A PERSON IN AN ID PARADE. FOR THEM NOT TO IS AGAINST THE LAW OF THE LAND AND ANY SOLICITOR WOULD PICK UP ON THIS STRAIGHT AWAY AND COMPLAIN TO THE POLICE AND COURTS ABOUT IT. IN COURT YOU DO NOT SIGN ANYTHING AS YOU ARE UNDER OATH.

WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO PUT FALSE STATEMENTS INTO THE PUBLIC ARENA?

Tony Bennett (Madeleine Foundation) Blog Inc The Jill Havern Show: OH DEAR JILL HAVERN CAUGHT OUT LYING AGAIN.

2011-07-05T06:11:00.001-04:00

Tony Bennett (Madeleine Foundation) Blog Inc The Jill Havern Show: OH DEAR JILL HAVERN CAUGHT OUT LYING AGAIN.: "Leicester and Rutland Healthcare NHS Trust Get 'em Gonçalo on Fri Jun 24, 2011 3:51 pm Enlarge this image It would seem that someone ..."