Houndation bore-a-thon to PM in full, sort of

bb1 wrote:Sharon Lawrence ‏@5haronl
The Madeleine Foundation website @ http://www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk has been down due to server error at the host Co. & will be restored shortly #McCann

If you say so, dear.

PS - Where's the thread about it gone? Not that it matters, now. Bennett's lies have all been recorded, I am sure

I saw that post so tried the foundation; the server won't load, just comes up as 'waiting for ....' then nothing. LL

Oh, in the name.....today's Whois:

Domain name:
madeleinefoundation.org.uk

Registrant:
The Madeleine Foundation

Registrant type:
Other UK Entity (e.g. clubs, associations, many universities)

Registrant's address:
The registrant is a non-trading individual who has opted to have their
address omitted from the WHOIS service.

Registrar:
NetPivotal Ltd t/a NetPivotal Ltd [Tag = NETPIVOTAL]
URL: http://www.netpivotal.com

Relevant dates:
Registered on: 28-Jan-2008
Expiry date: 28-Jan-2014
Last updated: 23-Sep-2012

----------

All way, way too late. The previous entries have all been screengrabbed by many people.

There is proof-positive that Bennett lied, not only to the Hounders, but more importantly, to Carter Ruck, about his ownership of the site.

A cover-up now is pointless.

Stables, doors, horses, bolted.

Here is one of the ways we know not-Bennett's site doesn't have anything like nearly 2,000 members.

This site started last summer, and we are happy to be small, due to not feeling any need to play the numbers game.

Us:

Our users have posted a total of 59194 messages
We have 36 registered users

Not-Bennett's site has been on the go for nearly three years, and supposedly has nearly 2,000 members.

But look at the post count, over all that time and for all those members:

Our users have posted a total of 95532 messages
We have 1953 registered users

Only about 35,000 more.

Now compare with MM:

Our users have posted a total of 242851 messages
We have 472 registered users

Their stats are what they should be.

Having been online all that time, with all those supposed members, the Not-Bennett site's post-count should be well into the hundreds of thousands.

Which is one of the many reasons the grown-ups know he has barely 200 real members.

Rejoice, Hounders! It's back, proudly announcing:

A warm welcome to you. We’re currently updating our website and giving it a complete ‘makeover’. Please note that the purpose of the Madeleine Foundation is to contribute to unravelling the mystery of what really happened to Madeleine McCann. We have nothing to do with he[sic] McCanns and their fund-raising site, ‘Find Madeleine’.

Stunning! Already with the libel!

Oh, and PS - as they are just a bunch of obsessive armchair defectives, then it is beyond arrogant for them to claim to be unravelling anything, except their smelly socks.

Because it is actually none of their business. Rather like Ed Smethurst's choice of interior decoration.

A warm welcome to you. We’re currently updating our website and giving it a complete ‘makeover’. Please note that the purpose of the Madeleine Foundation is to contribute to unravelling the mystery of what really happened to Madeleine McCann. We have nothing to do with he[sic] McCanns and their fund-raising site, ‘Find Madeleine’.
I must put the screenshot of the new owner up so no one will mistake her for Bennett...yes?

crazytony wrote:A warm welcome to you. We’re currently updating our website and giving it a complete ‘makeover’. Please note that the purpose of the Madeleine Foundation is to contribute to unravelling the mystery of what really happened to Madeleine McCann. We have nothing to do with he[sic] McCanns and their fund-raising site, ‘Find Madeleine’.
I must put the screenshot of the new owner up so no one will mistake her for Bennett...yes?

Why not put them both up, and their addresses so that we all know who's who and when.

Ah well, they finally realised that the entire world could see who owned the site yesterday, Tony:

Registrant's address:
The registrant is a non-trading individual who has opted to have their
address omitted from the WHOIS service.

Way, way too late, of course.

The proof that Bennett was lying about his ownership of the site is now a matter of record.

Oh, and after I got this:



via the holding message a couple of days ago, I would advise caution when approaching that site.

One of the hounders hasn't bothered to read Head Hounder's letter to the PM, and committed a nice bit of libel:

Metodo 3 employees too must have know quite a bit about cocaine, seeing that one of their number has gone to prison for stealing it in large quantities, probably not for his own use.

No, he hasn't. He was cleared, after being detained for years.

Bennett was forced to admit Antonio Giminez Raso was

recently found not guilty,

But hey, when has the truth ever stopped the hounders from making false and malicious accusations?

Bennett rode on the back of that one for years, repeating it over and over. Even I believed it. I was shocked to discover that the man Ras had never been convicted of anything, and that it was all lies.
I suppose that I should have known. Bennett never stops telling lies.

It says a great deal about the characters who follow and idolise (LITERALLY) Bennett, Brown and Amaral that they simply dismiss the BLATANT LIES that their flawed heroes tell. Instead they blindly follow as if in a trance. The sickening and perverse tributes to THE CONVICTED CRIMINAL, AMARAL which Hideho and others encourage is as perverse as the worship of the North Korean leaders and other Fascist or Communist demagogues. Bizarre and very revealing of the group dynamics within the anti McCann HATE COMMUNITY.

Either people who follow these proven (and in both (Amaral and Bennett) cases proven by courts) liars are complete morons who don't understand what is happening in the real world and that the vast majority of the population actually believe in the force of law (something that the content of their posts continually proves they don't believe in) or they are such hate filled sub-human creatures that they simply don't care because they will latch onto any old lie if it supports their bile driven spite towards the parents of a missing child who many actually wish is dead.

The horror fest of their own vile obscene comments about Madeleine and their worship of such foul specimens as Boyle for the sick perversion he peddles shows what kind of personalities these anti McCanns have.

Their hate fest on the Internet is as MANNA FROM HEAVEN to those who are in the process of determining a much more restricted Internet. Social media will not be as free and open in the future at least in part because of the excesses of such morons as these.

If they believe that this government or any other will tolerate their abuse permanently they are mistaken. They are actually destroying the free speech they supposedly so desperately believe in because they are unable to control their frenzy of abuse.

Their view of freedom of speech as something without responsibility is not one that the general population agrees with. And if they believe that the authorities cannot or will not restrict the abuse they are even madder than they appear.

Foul-mouthed scum such as them with their obscenity and clear libellous stalking and abuse are not acting in a way that will be supported by the majority in any decent society. It will be a popular political move when restrictions are proposed. And the building press stories relating to online trolling and abusiveness are but the first gambits of that political move.

And the building press stories relating to online trolling and abusiveness are but the first gambits of that political move.

Absolutely so, Greenink.

They are just too thick to realize as their hate springs eternal.

Very well written post.

A jolly good Post, Greenink.

Of course most of The World believes in The Rule of Law and Order, while they obviously don't. The fly in the ointment is the little pockets of corruption like the people who appear to have ruled in The Algarve for so long. Usually there are safeguards in place to control such people, but for some reason this does fail on occasions, although Portugal does appear to be doing something about them. But I can't help wondering if they would have done where it not for the disappearance of Madeleine.
The Cipriano debacle happened nearly nine years ago and still nothing much has been done to right this appallingly unsafe Conviction.
And apart from their abuse of Free Speech, it is the likes of The Forkers who could well most need protection under The Law since they all seem to be of criminal intent.

Excellent post, Greenink.

It is inevitable that these things will be reined in - and not before time. Their vile behaviour over the last few days has made action against them inevitable.

When you see things like this:

An interesting comparison of Jimmy Saville with the Mccanns

it becomes clear that they really are not nice people, and that many have mental health 'issues' to put it politely.

Their sickness has been plain to see this week.

Sadly, a lot of them live outside of UK, and Foreign Hosts are not difficult to come by.
America itself has a problem with this sort of thing, but while the likes of Nancy Grace and Pat Brown are allowed to spout off horrendous Libel, I can't see America doing much about it.
So short of UK blocking certain facets of The Internet where everyone would suffer, what can they do about it?
Any Laws passed will be open to abuse of innocent people being accused, as in the like of David Bret who often accuses other people of what he starts.
So it looks to me as though we are INNIT for the long haul.

I noticed something very odd this week.

The hounders have been vocal about the subject of Jimmy Saville.

But a couple of the loudest voices have been those who didn't see anything wrong with the relationship between Megan Stammers and her teacher. Despite her having been only fourteen when it started.

Surely it is either wrong for adults in authority to use their position to abuse children or it isn't?

It can't be acceptable if it's only one teenager, and wrong if it is several.

I don't know, maybe they think that if they shout loud enough about other people, no-one will look too closely at them?

Sabot wrote:Sadly, a lot of them live outside of UK, and Foreign Hosts are not difficult to come by.
America itself has a problem with this sort of thing, but while the likes of Nancy Grace and Pat Brown are allowed to spout off horrendous Libel, I can't see America doing much about it.
So short of UK blocking certain facets of The Internet where everyone would suffer, what can they do about it?
Any Laws passed will be open to abuse of innocent people being accused, as in the like of David Bret who often accuses other people of what he starts.
So it looks to me as though we are INNIT for the long haul.

Many people are unaware that there are currently a large number of Internet domains to which access is blocked within the UK and in other nations (even some of the supposedly liberal EU nations).

There are a number of ways in which the authorities achieve this. Firstly they persuade the ISPs of the need to block such sites. Believe it or not this happens far more frequently than any ISP will admit. The principal reasons that ISPs block access with absolutely no publicity under this system are terror threats but other issues such as paedophilia and bestiality incur blocks from ISPs with no publicity. Tens of thousands of sites are blocked to UK based Internet users.

It is not in fact difficult for ISPs to block sites wholesale. Nor in fact is it difficult for ISPs to script a small software key which will automatically turn off the access just for certain individuals. This could be triggered by an initial visit to the site, a search for the site or even a pattern of previous behaviour. The technology exists. The technology is used and could be used far more frequently.

The second way that sites can be blocked is by use of the law. The most well known is Pirate Bay which UK ISPs have been forced to block by the courts. Not only has the original site been blocked but so have large numbers of proxies which sprang up to defeat the court ruling. I hear from certain people that it is now a lot less easy to access the site.

And for those who continue to access such "banned" sites, a third way is that when you do access them or use certain protocols the ISP will throttle your download speed and create difficulties for you in your use of the Internet. They can throttle back your downloads to almost nothing and it is all within the terms and conditions even of those ISPs who offer unlimited downloads. They can in fact if you persist, go further than this and simply turn off your downloads if you continue to access the sites which they are attempting to block. Those lengthy terms and conditions are written for a purpose.

My point is that the obscene actions of these frenzied people who cannot control their urges to abuse others on the Internet will be the actual trigger for the authorities to instigate these systems on a far bigger scale. It is the actions of these frenzied people who show no responsibility that will be the focus of the political campaign to convince the public that the actions of the authorities will be beneficial. The mob are falling into the trap that Orwell predicated. Whether the actions of the authorities are right or not it is they who are speeding up and making more likely the use of such measures.

Your second concern about laws being turned on the accusers is very different. The very same could be said of any law in which there is a disputed action. Would you suggest that laws relating to disputes between neighbours should never have been passed? Or that there should be no laws preventing rape or sexual abuse where the innocent victim can be made out to be the "culprit"?

Bret's turning things on their head might work on a blog or forum where he can manipulate posts to his advantage but proper investigation would in fact reveal the timetable of his actions. In fact there is a greater chance that an accurate and proper timeline of events could be produced in disputed Internet cases than in neighbour disputes or accusations of assault because the evidence is so difficult to remove.

My point is that the obscene actions of these frenzied people who cannot control their urges to abuse others on the Internet will be the actual trigger for the authorities to instigate these systems on a far bigger scale. It is the actions of these frenzied people who show no responsibility that will be the focus of the political campaign to convince the public that the actions of the authorities will be beneficial. The mob are falling into the trap that Orwell predicated. Whether the actions of the authorities are right or not it is they who are speeding up and making more likely the use of such measures.

It's actually a very predictable pattern, though I wouldn't expect those morons to grasp that.

After any period in history when the mob has run riot, in whatever way, they manage to disgust the majority so much, that that majority almost welcomes repression as it is better than the chaos and brutality the mob has caused.

greenink211 wrote:

Sabot wrote:Sadly, a lot of them live outside of UK, and Foreign Hosts are not difficult to come by.
America itself has a problem with this sort of thing, but while the likes of Nancy Grace and Pat Brown are allowed to spout off horrendous Libel, I can't see America doing much about it.
So short of UK blocking certain facets of The Internet where everyone would suffer, what can they do about it?
Any Laws passed will be open to abuse of innocent people being accused, as in the like of David Bret who often accuses other people of what he starts.
So it looks to me as though we are INNIT for the long haul.

Many people are unaware that there are currently a large number of Internet domains to which access is blocked within the UK and in other nations (even some of the supposedly liberal EU nations).

There are a number of ways in which the authorities achieve this. Firstly they persuade the ISPs of the need to block such sites. Believe it or not this happens far more frequently than any ISP will admit. The principal reasons that ISPs block access with absolutely no publicity under this system are terror threats but other issues such as paedophilia and bestiality incur blocks from ISPs with no publicity. Tens of thousands of sites are blocked to UK based Internet users.

It is not in fact difficult for ISPs to block sites wholesale. Nor in fact is it difficult for ISPs to script a small software key which will automatically turn off the access just for certain individuals. This could be triggered by an initial visit to the site, a search for the site or even a pattern of previous behaviour. The technology exists. The technology is used and could be used far more frequently.

The second way that sites can be blocked is by use of the law. The most well known is Pirate Bay which UK ISPs have been forced to block by the courts. Not only has the original site been blocked but so have large numbers of proxies which sprang up to defeat the court ruling. I hear from certain people that it is now a lot less easy to access the site.

And for those who continue to access such "banned" sites, a third way is that when you do access them or use certain protocols the ISP will throttle your download speed and create difficulties for you in your use of the Internet. They can throttle back your downloads to almost nothing and it is all within the terms and conditions even of those ISPs who offer unlimited downloads. They can in fact if you persist, go further than this and simply turn off your downloads if you continue to access the sites which they are attempting to block. Those lengthy terms and conditions are written for a purpose.

My point is that the obscene actions of these frenzied people who cannot control their urges to abuse others on the Internet will be the actual trigger for the authorities to instigate these systems on a far bigger scale. It is the actions of these frenzied people who show no responsibility that will be the focus of the political campaign to convince the public that the actions of the authorities will be beneficial. The mob are falling into the trap that Orwell predicated. Whether the actions of the authorities are right or not it is they who are speeding up and making more likely the use of such measures.

Your second concern about laws being turned on the accusers is very different. The very same could be said of any law in which there is a disputed action. Would you suggest that laws relating to disputes between neighbours should never have been passed? Or that there should be no laws preventing rape or sexual abuse where the innocent victim can be made out to be the "culprit"?

Bret's turning things on their head might work on a blog or forum where he can manipulate posts to his advantage but proper investigation would in fact reveal the timetable of his actions. In fact there is a greater chance that an accurate and proper timeline of events could be produced in disputed Internet cases than in neighbour disputes or accusations of assault because the evidence is so difficult to remove.

I don't know what to say about that because I have only ever wanted the right to a reasonable opinion in answer to the opinion of someone else. I have never expressed a prejudicial opinion of anyone for it's own sake. But only ever in reply to something that they have said.
I am only here because I was attacked by some cretin for saying that I thought that we should beware of accusations that had no basis. And that was in June 2007.
After that I got a bit shirty, but not always on the side of The McCanns. Common bleeding sense has since taught me to look more closely.

We don't have disputes with neighbours here in France because The Law is quite clear. The Boundaries are in The Cadastre, and the garden or trees of no one have the right to encroach by overhanging the property of someone else. There is No argument about this, or ever likely to be a court case. The Commune will simply sort it, and then hand the bill to whoever is at fault.
Or is this about my concern for a 15 year old minor, by Law, disporting herself on Face Book? But you see, I never blamed her. I only blame the people who allowed her to do this. Either these are children or they are not. At what age do they become culpable when the sodding EU can't even decide.