BENNETT LECTURES HARLOW STAR *AND SMIFFY*

That good, huh, Bonny?

Oh, it's finally dawned on gillytroll...

Re: So what was Leveson about then?
Gillyspot Today at 6:39 pm

There are 2 David Rose's at the Daily Mail

Yes, dear, we know. ALL the grown-ups knew, which is one of the reasons it was so funny watching you all waving your pitchforks.

Pity poor Tony Bennett the wildly successful multi millionaire singer.

http://www.channel4.com/news/lord-mcalpine-social-media-bbc-twitter-legal-action

Quote:

It is not yet certain that Lord McAlpine will sue those who speculated online about his connection to the Bryn Estyn scandal, but David Allen Green told Channel 4 News that the fact the peer has reserved the right to do so may be a good thing: "One hopes that the example of Lord McAlpine will make people realise that tweeting serious allegations is never to be done lightly.

We all saw what Bennett was tweeting about His Lordship, didn't we? This really isn't a good time for Bennett to have a date with the High Court, is it?

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/just-plain-wrong.html

Yes, every decent person was sickened by what she did.

Trolleyjean's at it again:

Re: CMOMM accepts a challenge from 'stopthemyths' McCann-believers forum
Nina Today at 9:46 am

Jean wrote:
This is one of the more reasonable sites too, Bob!

If you're brave enough, have a look at https://jatyk2.forumotion.co.uk/

You might feel the need to disinfect your computer afterwards.


Very impressive, 36 registered users.

Yes. Thirty-six REAL members. Unlike some, we don't have a bigger sock collection than M & S.

Which is why, if we have a poll, more than ten people vote

None of whom are remotely interested in Ed Smethurt's choice of interior decor.

The hounders are on the ball today, though:

I can't understand how David Rose (the one who co-wrote the awful article about Steve Messham and one of the worst articles I have ever seen insulting the Portuguese police) could be the same person as Johann Hari.

The former is at least 52 years old as he went to university in 1978 and the latter is 33 though looks like a schoolboy from his picture on Wikipedia.

That would be because, as the rest of the world knows, it ISN'T the same person.

Clever cookies, those hounders! All twenty of them

Oh, and there is absolutely no danger of anyone here 'debating' or 'discussing' anything with Bennett. Everyone here knows perfectly well that anything said will be twisted out of recognition by Bennett and used against Madeleine's family.

The only sorts of thing I would be interested in er...discussing would be along the lines of why did he have that different address? Also, are those stories true about the er.....public places?

Anything else, no.

lily wrote:The only sorts of thing I would be interested in er...discussing would be along the lines of why did he have that different address? Also, are those stories true about the er.....public places?

Anything else, no.

Oh Gosh, Lily. I want to know that. Why did he move from Harlow and then move back again? He obviously didn't sell the Harlow house, so he must have been up to no good. What can it have been?

More recently, why did he give Whois a Welsh address when he was frantically trying to cover his tracks?

Yes, Bonny. We want to know things like that.

Everything else, the court will deal with.

Hounder:


I realise its not nice for LM or anyone if they`re being gossiped about on twitter, but surely if said people are completely innocent they have nothing to worry about.

So, it's perfectly acceptable to them to invent scurrilous stories about innocent people, accuse them of heinous crimes, etc? Thankfully, the law doesn't agree.

As for the meme that The innocent have nothing to fear... - straight out of the Gestapo handbook, is that one.

Tell that to the number of people who have been falsely convicted. Or had their lives ruined by false accusation.

Maybe the hounders are worried because of Head Hounder's role in said malicious gossiping?

He's still repeating Libel on Havern's. He seems to think it's okay because someone else said it and he only agrees with said Libel.

Never mind, he will be debating all this, and more, with the High Court before too long.

Oh my, that's a very serious allegation he has just made; one would have thought that similar had cost him enough money already, but clearly not.

Re: CMOMM accepts a challenge from 'stopthemyths' McCann-believers forum
bff2011 Today at 4:57 pm

Post deleted and new member bff2011 banned for unacceptable conduct



Hilariously, their idea of 'unacceptable conduct' has been preserved by a mod in a quote

candyfloss Today at 5:07 pm

bff2011 wrote:

Candyfloss wrote
But these shutters would surely have to be pushed up to start with with an object thin enough to slide underneath, which would damage the bottom wouldn't it. What I am saying is, in the video, the shutter is already up about 2 to 3 inches at the start, so easy to get underneath it to push it from the bottom. If it were right down to the ledge, as in photo I posted, then you could not get your hands or fingers underneath to lift it, a tool would have to be used.


The phrase "clutching at non-existent straws" comes to mind.

Does you seriously expect us to believe that these blinds could not be lifted by the use of, let's say, a credit card or even a wedge of cardboard sufficiently to get an initial grip with a couple of fingers without causing damage? Pull the other one.

And don't come back with the old chestnut of fingerprints. Wouldn't the actual absence of almost any prints at all not suggest to open-minded people that somebody might have wiped the area clean? It would after all take only two or three seconds to wipe a small area and would be a priority for someone trying to conceal their activities.

Shockingly unacceptable, that is.

Shockingly unacceptable, that is.

The truth is?

Bennett is going to be used as a floormop in court, when Carter Ruck discuss matters with him, on this showing. He's blundering from one load of rubbish to another, giving every sign of not having bothered to actually read the police files in ANY version, let alone properly-translated ones.

Oh well, never mind.

Looks like some of those eager hounders aren't quite as loyal to Bennett as he assumed - no wonder he can't raise money from them for his defence

Now, who do we know who is fond of blue ink? It's on the tip of my tongue.....

So, the other person who is there likes using blue ink ? Whoever could that be?

bb1 wrote:Looks like some of those eager hounders aren't quite as loyal to Bennett as he assumed - no wonder he can't raise money from them for his defence

Some of them are deliberately winding him up. It's not their money, and it isn't going to be.

bb1 wrote:

Now, who do we know who is fond of blue ink? It's on the tip of my tongue.....

Not the one with those legal problems?