WHERE IS THE PROOF OF ALL THIS 'FILTH', BENNETT?(merged with pretendy protest letter thread)

[bb1]

WHY HAS BENNETT NOT POSTED ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER OF PROOF OF HIS FOUL ALLEGATIONS?

That question is being asked in many places. Bennett has made some truly disgusting allegations about total strangers - but not produced a single scrap of evidence to back any of them up.

It appears that the only other person to have seen all this alleged 'filth' is HLM, the self-confessed fan of banned torture porn.

Bennett doesn't hesitate to post material clearly marked STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL - so why, in all this time, has he not produced one single screenshot of the filth?

He has been screaming like an outraged maiden aunt about the need for the police to investigate all this 'filth' - so why did he not pick up the phone and do so himself?

After all, surely it would have been a heavy blow to Evil Team McCann if a Truthseeker like Bennett went to the police and reported all the filth, and provided screenshots, like a good citizen.

But - nothing. Wonder why that is? Could it be because the whole thing was dreamed up by the Truthseekers with no other purpose than to attack someone they all hate? It is looking rather that way now.

Did Bennett really think his latest victims would do nothing, just let him carry on lying and smearing them?

Did Bennett really think he could carry on sticking two fingers up to Her Majesty, as represented by the High Court, showing his contempt for the law?

And his latest smear hardly helped his cause, when he took it upon himself to accuse fans of a genre of heavy metal of having sex with animals.

I would think that one was with Carter Ruck before the pixels were dry.

No, it's not too surprising that fewer and fewer people believe Bennett's disgusting allegations, and many are coming to the conclusion that he has a very dirty mind indeed.

Bennett, who posts everything, has not posted a single shred of evidence - HLM saying, I saw the filth too, it was really filthy doesn't count.

He really cannot stand up in the High Court, in his role as Rumpole Mason, and announce, A dog ate my screenshots of the filth...

Or, It's too filthy to show in court, but SWALK saw all the filth, and she thinks it's filthy too.

Here's the thing; if any of this filth actually existed, Bennett should be looking forward to being hauled into court, and producing proof of the filth.

Instead, he is making noises about settlements and further discussions.

What's there to settle or discuss? Bennett can PUT UP.

Or SHUT UP. After writing Mr Smethurst a very large cheque.

[Anita]

pauline Today at 1:47 pm

.Two suggestions -

1) Why don’t we all write to Carter Ruck on the following lines, adapting the letter to suit our own circumstances, making it clear we are prepared to testify in court on behalf of Tony Bennett, or other researchers the McCanns may threaten to sue.

To win a libel action I understand you have to prove that whatever was published would lower the reputation of the person(s) involved in the eyes of a ‘right minded’ person.

Carter Ruck cannot want this going into court as their clients will be subject to cross examination.

They can put pro McCann people in the witness box but they can’t testify that Tony Bennett’s articles lowered the McCanns reputation in their eyes because they obviously haven’t been affected by them.

2) We could also write to the media saying we have sent a letter to Carter Ruck and why we felt compelled to do so. Hopefully it might start a debate on freedom of speech.

Draft letter

Dear Carter Ruck

Re: your clients Kate and Gerry McCann v Tony Bennett

I am writing to you to let you know that I am prepared to go to court to testify as a ‘right minded’ person that I have read the matters objected to written by Mr Bennett and find them reasonable and fair comment.

For the record, I do not know Mr Bennett or have any connection whatsoever with him.

Some background about myself. I am a professional woman, a mother and have holidayed in Portugal on several occasions. I work part-time and am involved with various local good causes.

Initially, I suffered with your clients. I believed what I read and heard on the TV news. When the newspaper headlines in September 2007 changed and implied that your clients were less than truthful, I felt the media was going too far. I was pleased when your clients sued and happy for them to win the damages they did.

I didn’t think much about the case again until last year when a relative raised the issue and suggested I do some research. Arising from that, I regularly visited various websites, both for and anti the McCann version of events. I also read the extracts from the Portuguese police files which are now available on line. I bought the book Madeleine and compared its contents as far as practical with independent sources. I obtained the accounts of the Madeleine Fund from the Companies Office.

After assessing all this material, I now have serious doubts about your clients’ version of events.

In making my assessment I read many of Mr Bennett’s articles and website postings. They seemed to me to be based on the facts in as far as they are known, and to be reasonable comment. I don’t necessarily agree with all his opinions, but he has the right to have them and to publish them as long as he has no malicious intent. I believe his motive, as is mine, is to find out what actually happened to Madeleine, and where she is now.

I also asked myself in the light of the many discrepancies in the McCanns statements now in the public domain, why the media are not raising them. This apparent censorship by the media is worrying. For example your clients have recently raised doubt as to whether Madeleine had an eye defect known as a coloboma but said they never made much of this anyway when she went missing – when the reverse is the case. There are pictures of them holding posters emphasising it. And Mr McCann referred to the eye issue in 2007 as a ‘good marketing ploy.’!

If people are doubting your clients’ version of events on internet sites, this in no way prevents your clients from hiring competent detectives to look for their daughter.

These internet doubters are not preventing police forces from actively looking for her. No police force looks for a missing person indefinitely. Resources are finite and common sense says it is not the best use of resources when exhaustive searches have revealed nothing. In the case of your clients, they cannot expect the Portuguese police to do anymore when they did not fully co-operate with them in the matter of the 48 questions not answered by Mrs McCann when an arguido, and in their refusal, together with their tapas friends, to return to Portugal to do a reconstruction.

Freedom of speech is key to any democracy and in the saga of missing Madeleine there has been little of that in the past couple of years. I would love to be wrong; for the truth to turn out to be that your clients did make a disastrous mistake for which they paid dearly - but until your clients start to act like innocent people and answer questions rather than threatening to sue people who question their version of events, and to provide detailed financial information about the Fund’s expenditure, then I and other ‘right minded’ persons will continue to have doubts.

As I stated I would be happy to go into court to testify on behalf of Mr Bennett or other researchers looking for the truth.

I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr Bennett. Please feel free to show this letter to your clients.

Yours sincerely

[bb1]

Oh good God! One of hellhole's lot is now proposing a mass emailing of CR and others to say what a wunnerful yuman bean Tone is.

Try not to crack a rib laughing...and let's have a Spot the Lie contest as well!

How we can fight back for freedom of speech
pauline Today at 1:47 pm

Two suggestions -

1) Why don’t we all write to Carter Ruck on the following lines, adapting the letter to suit our own circumstances, making it clear we are prepared to testify in court on behalf of Tony Bennett, or other researchers the McCanns may threaten to sue.

To win a libel action I understand you have to prove that whatever was published would lower the reputation of the person(s) involved in the eyes of a ‘right minded’ person.

Carter Ruck cannot want this going into court as their clients will be subject to cross examination.

They can put pro McCann people in the witness box but they can’t testify that Tony Bennett’s articles lowered the McCanns reputation in their eyes because they obviously haven’t been affected by them.

2) We could also write to the media saying we have sent a letter to Carter Ruck and why we felt compelled to do so. Hopefully it might start a debate on freedom of speech.

Draft letter

Dear Carter Ruck

Re: your clients Kate and Gerry McCann v Tony Bennett

I am writing to you to let you know that I am prepared to go to court to testify as a ‘right minded’ person that I have read the matters objected to written by Mr Bennett and find them reasonable and fair comment.

For the record, I do not know Mr Bennett or have any connection whatsoever with him.

Some background about myself. I am a professional woman, a mother and have holidayed in Portugal on several occasions. I work part-time and am involved with various local good causes.

Initially, I suffered with your clients. I believed what I read and heard on the TV news. When the newspaper headlines in September 2007 changed and implied that your clients were less than truthful, I felt the media was going too far. I was pleased when your clients sued and happy for them to win the damages they did.

I didn’t think much about the case again until last year when a relative raised the issue and suggested I do some research. Arising from that, I regularly visited various websites, both for and anti the McCann version of events. I also read the extracts from the Portuguese police files which are now available on line. I bought the book Madeleine and compared its contents as far as practical with independent sources. I obtained the accounts of the Madeleine Fund from the Companies Office.

After assessing all this material, I now have serious doubts about your clients’ version of events.

In making my assessment I read many of Mr Bennett’s articles and website postings. They seemed to me to be based on the facts in as far as they are known, and to be reasonable comment. I don’t necessarily agree with all his opinions, but he has the right to have them and to publish them as long as he has no malicious intent. I believe his motive, as is mine, is to find out what actually happened to Madeleine, and where she is now.

I also asked myself in the light of the many discrepancies in the McCanns statements now in the public domain, why the media are not raising them. This apparent censorship by the media is worrying. For example your clients have recently raised doubt as to whether Madeleine had an eye defect known as a coloboma but said they never made much of this anyway when she went missing – when the reverse is the case. There are pictures of them holding posters emphasising it. And Mr McCann referred to the eye issue in 2007 as a ‘good marketing ploy.’!

If people are doubting your clients’ version of events on internet sites, this in no way prevents your clients from hiring competent detectives to look for their daughter.

These internet doubters are not preventing police forces from actively looking for her. No police force looks for a missing person indefinitely. Resources are finite and common sense says it is not the best use of resources when exhaustive searches have revealed nothing. In the case of your clients, they cannot expect the Portuguese police to do anymore when they did not fully co-operate with them in the matter of the 48 questions not answered by Mrs McCann when an arguido, and in their refusal, together with their tapas friends, to return to Portugal to do a reconstruction.

Freedom of speech is key to any democracy and in the saga of missing Madeleine there has been little of that in the past couple of years. I would love to be wrong; for the truth to turn out to be that your clients did make a disastrous mistake for which they paid dearly - but until your clients start to act like innocent people and answer questions rather than threatening to sue people who question their version of events, and to provide detailed financial information about the Fund’s expenditure, then I and other ‘right minded’ persons will continue to have doubts.

As I stated I would be happy to go into court to testify on behalf of Mr Bennett or other researchers looking for the truth.

I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr Bennett. Please feel free to show this letter to your clients.

Yours sincerely



For the record, I do not know Mr Bennett or have any connection whatsoever with him.

[bb1]

I've merged the two posts, Anita - that letter is beyond funny. Oh, wasn't it meant to be?

[Anita]

Thanks Bonny... No the letter is very serious indeed
I loved this bit

then I and other ‘right minded’ persons

[Lamplighter]

Now that really takes the biscuit "I do not know Mr Bennett" and there she is posting on the site I believe he inhabits? Does she know what perjury is, I wonder? No? Good, cos that'll be another idiot being relieved of their cash or their freedom. This is better than a Carry On film!! LL

[bb1]

What an imbecile!

their refusal, together with their tapas friends, to return to Portugal to do a reconstruction.

So, when did the McCanns refuse? Oh, that's right, they didn't. And it was their beloved Gonc who stymied the first proposed reconstruction - funny, they don't like talking about that...

[bb1]

Dear Pauline,

Many thanks for your offer to attend court - it saved us contacting you about the collection of your libellous posts we already have.

We are sure you will be able to clarify why you claim to have 'no connection' to Tone the Comb when you are posting on the very site on which he is a senior member and moderator.

Looking forward to meeting you in person! Oh, and don't forget your cheque book!

Ta muchly,

Carter Ruck.

[bb1]

Re: How we can fight back for freedom of speech

Post lj Today at 2:14 pm
Great letter Pauline!

It sure is

[Maggs]

Bennett lies again to Carter Ruck in his reply

8. In relation to the passages from the letter we sent to David Cameron on 18 May 2011 and from which you quote extensively on page 3 of your letter, you make the comment in paragraph 7 on page 4 that "...in a large number of 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". This is simply not true. Kindly look again very carefully at the actual words I have used in the letter to David Cameron:

"A great many people consider that there is more than adequate evidence that Madeleine McCann died in the McCanns' holiday apartment..."

"This is the settled view of the former senior investigator in the case, Goncalo Amaral..."

"Dr Amaral advances the view that [Madeleine] may have died as a result of an accident..."

"Another view of what might have caused Madeleine's death is the possibility that she was over-sedated by the McCanns"

"...clearly the alerts of two of the world's top sniffer dogs...are significant..."

"...a very large amount of circumstantial evidence suggests that the McCanns and their friends have not told the truth...

"[Various people] subscribe to the view that the balance of evidence points in the direction of Madeleine having died in the McCanns' holiday apartment...if that hypothesis is correct..."

Nowhere in those three paragraphs do I, as you claim "state as a fact that you believe that Madeleine died in the holiday apartment and that her parents conspired to cover up the death".

He convieniently missed the next bit off

By contrast, a great many people consider that there is more than adequate evidence that Madeleine McCann died in the McCanns’ holiday apartment and that her parents and others have covered up this fact, and arranged to hold a hoax ‘abduction’ of Madeleine on the evening of 3 May 2007, Madeleine 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 whilst her parents and friends were dining 1½ minutes’ walk away. Another view of what might have caused Madeleine’s death is the possibility that she was over-sedated by the McCanns.

We do not wish to review in this letter all the evidence that suggests that Madeleine did die in the McCanns’ 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 McCanns’ 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 a very large amount of circumstantial evidence suggesting that the McCanns 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.

[bb1]

Stinkymuckymac is trying to spread Bennett's foul libel on MM:

Do you really want me to post the link to those alleged vile comments made by Edward Smethursts facebook friends ? im sure you have seen them also Anna , i dont think i or the comments will last long on here, if i do post them up

Oh, go for it - make our day! It can go with all the filth he has been posting on Sky, which may well be used in court as proof of just how far Bennett's disgusting libel has spread.

They were all warned by Carter Ruck, quite clearly:


Not only are these grotesque allegations highly defamatory of our client, they are entirely untrue


Every single time he - or anyone else - repeats them, they are helping empty Bennett's bank account.

[crazytony]

Does he think pleading his defense on the Internet is going to sway the Judge?
Those of his conclave defending him, do they know his posts have been either lies or supposition?
Are they aware the relevant files they haven't seen, the judge trying the case will have?

[bb1]

What a bunch of rotters! Smiffy is all upset cos people are being just HORRID to nice Mr Bennett.

Dancing on graves

The Bureau is no friend of Mr Tony Bennett, for reasons that go a great deal deeper than personality clashes: in fact we strongly disagree with just about every action he has ever taken in the Madeleine McCann affair.

But a quick tour yesterday through the low-lying blog and forum marshland which the few dozen professional McCann believers so noisily inhabit was a saddening experience. The news that Mr Bennett is now being pursued for libel by Ed the Expunger and for contempt of court by the McCanns has been welcomed not with satisfaction so much as intense pleasure. The excited interchanges, indeed, about the time this old man might spend in prison – years, we hope! – or the prospect of him and his wife living rough for the rest of their days – wonderful! – remind one of the collective drooling of an S&M webporn ring.

Don’t any of them have even a moment of doubt at what they are writing? It seems not.




PS - considering the filthy stories Bennett has been making up, perhaps mentioning S & M and webporn was not the best choice of simile.

PPS - Bennett is NOT old, he is only 63; he hasn't even reached retiral age yet.

He only seems to be eleventy-nine.

[sans_souci]

What utter bullshit.

Prison for contempt is one, very little used, option in civil cases. As extensively discussed here.

And I do seem to recall in the days of the 3A form much more excited anticipation of the treatment that the McCanns would receive in a Portuguese prison.

All that Bennett has to do to remove even the remotest possibility of a judge finding his so irritating and intractable that a short spell in prison may be required is to keep the promise he bloody well made.

[crazytony]

Bennett, says the allegedly offending posts on E Smethurst Facebook, date back to 2009. He became aware of them some months ago, or so he says.
He never reported these posts to the Police; but, he did not hesitate to report myself, V8 and Muratfan, to Law Enforcement because we dissed him on our blogs.

Nothing pornographic on our blogs, no words or description of bestiality. No mention of children being kept quiet in the most grotesque way. But yet, he reports our blogs and not E Smethurst's, to the Police?
Anyone see anything wrong with this picture?

[bb1]

anotherviv Viv
@
@TigerTiger439 @astagive Bennett has done an excellent job of making those who oppose #mccann look like nutcases the pillow also

Credit where credit's due - Brat is doing a fantastic demolition job on the pitchforkers too

[bb1]

Bennett, says the allegedly offending posts on E Smethurst Facebook, date back to 2009. He became aware of them some months ago, or so he says.
He never reported these posts to the Police; but, he did not hesitate to report myself, V8 and Muratfan, to Law Enforcement because we dissed him on our blogs.

Nothing pornographic on our blogs, no words or description of bestiality. No mention of children being kept quiet in the most grotesque way. But yet, he reports our blogs and not E Smethurst's, to the Police?
Anyone see anything wrong with this picture?

Oh, big-time, Tony. I think there is an excellent reason he didn't go to the police...

[crazytony]

Bennett, says the allegedly offending posts on E Smethurst Facebook, date back to 2009. He became aware of them some months ago, or so he says.
He never reported these posts to the Police; but, he did not hesitate to report myself, V8 and Muratfan, to Law Enforcement because we dissed him on our blogs.

Nothing pornographic on our blogs, no words or description of bestiality. No mention of children being kept quiet in the most grotesque way. But yet, he reports our blogs and not E Smethurst's, to the Police?
Anyone see anything wrong with this picture?

Oh, big-time, Tony. I think there is an excellent reason he didn't go to the police...

Glad someone sees what I can

[bb1]

Bennett is four years YOUNGER than Mick Jagger

[Lamplighter]

Bennett is four years YOUNGER than Mick Jagger

And 8 years younger than me!! LL

[bb1]

DCB2 has posted a reminder of what Bennett agreed to on pfa, in the thread where Hare has been making a fool of himself yet again:

http://www.pfa2.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8323&start=75

I confirm my undertaking to deliver up all hard copies in my possession or
control of my book: “What Really Happened to Madeleine McCann? - 60
Reasons which suggest that she was not abducted” and the leaflet: “What
Really Happened to Madeleine McCann? - 10 key reasons which suggest that
she was not abducted”. I did this by delivering in person a parcel containing
the remaining copies of those publications in my possession to your Shoe
Lane office on Saturday 31 October. All electronic versions of those
documents on my computer have been deleted.
I further undertake to use my best endeavours to delete or otherwise
prevent access to any previous defamatory allegations of mine concerning
your clients on the four websites you mention in your letter. Further, I
undertake not to repeat allegations that your clients are guilty of, or are to
be suspected of, causing the death of their daughter Madeleine McCann,
and/or of disposing of her body, and/or lying about what happened and/or
seeking to cover up what they had done, nor to repeat any similar
allegations, whether by myself or my servants or agents or otherwise
howsoever.

All of which he has ignored, and the whole thing has been topped off by that disgraceful masthead on Havern's.

[lily]

Bennett, says the allegedly offending posts on E Smethurst Facebook, date back to 2009. He became aware of them some months ago, or so he says.
He never reported these posts to the Police; but, he did not hesitate to report myself, V8 and Muratfan, to Law Enforcement because we dissed him on our blogs.

Nothing pornographic on our blogs, no words or description of bestiality. No mention of children being kept quiet in the most grotesque way. But yet, he reports our blogs and not E Smethurst's, to the Police?
Anyone see anything wrong with this picture?

Oh, big-time, Tony. I think there is an excellent reason he didn't go to the police...

Glad someone sees what I can

[bb1]

Glad someone had it to hand, it's crystal clear Bennett has driven a coach and horses through it.

From Tony:

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.com/?zx=bd7d5ff2f7285e1a

Bennett, says the allegedly offending posts on E Smethurst Facebook, date back to 2009. He became aware of them some months ago, or so he says.


He never reported these posts to the Police; but, he did not hesitate to report myself, V8 and Muratfan, to Law Enforcement because we dissed him on our blogs.


Nothing pornographic on our blogs, no words or description of bestiality. No mention of children being kept quiet in the most grotesque way. But yet, he reports our blogs and not E Smethurst's, to the Police?
I hasten to add, UK Crown Prosecution Service Deemed No Crime Was Committed By All Three.

The Point I Am Making Is This, If He Found My Blog Offensive; Why Didn't Bennett Report His Alleged Findings On E Smethurst, To Law Enforcement?

Trust Me, Bennett Would Have Loved To Have Seen One Of The Big Fish, Who Was Even Remotely Connected To The McCanns, Arrested. Hell, He Even Reports The Police To The Police!

But Yet, He Never Made A Move Against Mr. Smethurst?
Could It Be; The Posts He Alleges Exist, Don't?

Precisely....

Trust Me, Bennett Would Have Loved To Have Seen One Of The Big Fish, Who Was Even Remotely Connected To The McCanns, Arrested. Hell, He Even Reports The Police To The Police!

Of course he would have, and written a 50,000 word post about it.

I don't think they exist.

SWALK has seen the filth and she says it is really, really filthy, simply is not good enough.

Bennett must have screenshots of the 'filth', so why has he not produced it?

Also, as all this 'filth' was allegedly on more or less public view, then it would have been picked up long ago by people like CEOPS, and action taken. FB would have handed over ISPs and account details, no problem.

So, why did none of this happen? It's almost as if there never was any 'filth'....

[crazytony]

Something is not right on this one. If the facebook was so bad, Bennett would have called the law in. Something stinks about the accusation.

[Sabot]

He SAYS they were really filthy. He couldn't get screen shots because he doesn't know how to. And now they have gone.

Very convenient. Where have I heard that before?

[Sponsored content]