Bennett already going back on promise he made on BBC Television

Bennett sez:


In the light of the e-mail from Carter-Ruck today, I feel I cannot say what the precise purpose of this list was - I have only come on here to make it absolutely clear that this was definitely NOT a 'list of people'.

Of course not. Perish the very thought that Bennett would backstab anyone. And hasn't he shown over the last week that he's a man of his word?

Oh wait.......

So THE FORUMS that he quoted were just Banner Headliners, were they? Never a name quoted. That won't do much good. A complete waste of time in fact. Who said what?

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/yes-brilliant-idea-post-under-another.html



Oh yes, I'd forgotten Joachim the creationist nutter.

Has anyone noticed any of them offering to go to Court to help out poor old Tone? To stand up in Court and admit that Pitch Forking was their own idea?
Thought not.

Frankly, anyone who doing that should expect to be taken away to someplace safe by the men in flapping white coats. I genuinely do not know what planet the hounders are on - not this one, that's for sure.

Montclair/Carolina is still at it on not-Bennett's site;

The PJ warned the parents about making Maddie's coloboma made public because it could put her life in danger but the parents insisted so much that the PJ gave in under the pressure.

Let me get this right. Gonc was so terrified of the McCanns, he gave in under pressure from them? She's having a laugh.

Someone should tell her that making up this carp on orders from Team Gonc HQ really isn't helping him one bit.

Dear me, what's this I am reading? Bennett boasting about what a success the Rothley Stalking had been, back in 2009?

'Millions' of hits to the old houndation site?

Thousands of copies of Reasons going out?

'Shoals' of emails supporting him?

Money flowing in - even from Lincolnshire? Must have been Laffinthug's elastic wad.

And it was all better than a paid-for ad?

I do hope he hasn't forgotten writing all this, and much else - could be a bit embarrassing for him in court.

If you go on my members only blog, you will fund all the recent postings by Bennett in his Admin area... Quite libelous as well. We ate collecting them all ready in time to send to people in the know

Hope it's an improvement on their public utterances, mf....

I wonder if the Judge T was aware that Maddie is a ward of court?

I hope Tony is including Dr. Martin Robert's pieces in his bundles if this does get into a British libel court.

No, of course he didn't, he didn't know anything at all about the legal background to the case. He's only a respected High Court judge, why would he be interested in all that legal stuff?

Oh yes, I think inflicting Dr Redsquare's rambling on the court would be a FANTASTIC idea. Especially his nonsense about Robert Murat being IN IT and involved with Madeleine's disappearance BEFORE May 3rd.

Judges just love inventions and imaginings like that! Who knows, he might even reward Bennett for putting that bolleaux in front of the court by SECTIONING the lunatic.

bb1 wrote:Bennett sez:


In the light of the e-mail from Carter-Ruck today, I feel I cannot say what the precise purpose of this list was - I have only come on here to make it absolutely clear that this was definitely NOT a 'list of people'.

Of course not. Perish the very thought that Bennett would backstab anyone. And hasn't he shown over the last week that he's a man of his word?

Oh wait.......

So why did he say 'Stella........' out loud in court in relation to that list?

He's playing with weasel words, IMO. Notice he's claiming that the 17 pages isn't a list of names. However, careful reading reveals that the list of names is within the 17 pages.

That lot won't notice, though.

Incidentally, I've decided that yoyo must be the CR mole - no-one could possibly be as thick as that and chew gum and walk at the same time.

And who on earth is 'Kevin'? Some more of their bizarre imaginings?

Could that be Halligan? They do get caught up with that.

There must be Names and Posts listed under the heading of FORUMS.

Just leave them to their delusions, they seem to have problems coping with reality. Have you ever seen such paranoid nonsense? And do they know any other words beside Kevin and TROLL?

I see it is Portia? Don't know what s/he is on about.

Just like that Monty Heck.

The admission on camera to Jane Hill that KMcC didn't search has always intrigued. It seems inconceivable that a mother in that position would not have searched until the point of physical collapse and many, many people have questioned why she was involved in only a mimimal amount of searching (if the book is to believed) if at all. It just occurred that, perhaps she was not in a position to do so because of being needed to regularly check the twins throughout that night, as described by FP? Both women anasthaetically trained, both children being periodically checked for signs that they were still breathing normally. Perhaps it was simply too risky to leave them before 4am or so, when they may have been confident that the twins had passed whatever critical point and could safely be left while the parents popped out for a swift trawl of the area, pre breakfast. Just trying to make sense of an otherwise unfathomable explanation, that it was rational to wait until light to look for a missing little one, depending on which of KMcC statements is most credible.

Apologies everyone as they have heard this before.............

There is a very good reason why she did not. It would have had to be either Gerry OR her searching.

When a child goes missing the police insist on someone close to the child remaining at home (either mother or father). There is a very obvious reason for that, should the child somehow find the way back home at whatever hour on whatever day, someone needs to be there for the child. To answer the door for one and to comfort the child, inform the authorities etc.

I am STUNNED that they have supposed ex-cops on that forum who have not made the point. This issue has been raised many times over there.

I know the above for a FACT as it happened to my friend when her son was abducted.

ETA: Just seen your post, Bonny. Agreed.

It seems inconceivable that a mother in that position would not have searched until the point of physical collapse

Really? In what alternate reality?

All these supposed 'ex-cops' don't even seem to know that it is normal police practise to STOP parents going looking when children go missing because of what they may find, sadly.

But it wouldn't make any difference to the likes of them what the McCanns did, Lily, they'd still find something to carp about.

If both parents had been out 24/7, then the 8rs would be whining because they had left the twins.

NOTHING is acceptable to them; which is one of the many reasons it is pointless playing the 8rs' game and 'debating'. Which actually means legitimizing their nonsense and bigotry.

I do know that they prefer the parents not go but as in my friend's case, the husband went out looking. I do appreciate that the big reason is what they might find.......

You are right, Bonny. There can be nothing approaching 'debate' with them for the reasons you correctly state.

Anyway, it's getting more strange about these ex-cops.

Oh dear...whoever is 'admin' today over yonder sez;

Actually 6RB as you have posted this malicious information you are no longer welcome here.

Go back to JATYK and rot amongst the other bad apples.

Away with you

but......

Re: Tugendhat's Committal Order and Directions for the Trial of Tony Bennett's Application
7RB Today at 11:47 am

So your understanding of freedom of speech does not include discussion. You merely accept what Tony Bennett claims as gospel and ban all dissent.

There was nothing malicious about my posts.

There was a list of people included among those seventeen pages. Tony conveniently ignored that inclusion by saying it was not a list. No but it included a list.

I understand your cowardice in the face of facts which do not gel with your views. It is unfortunately not real freedom of speech though.

Just saw that.

How can they have the cheek to demand Free Speach for Bennett and then deny it to people who don't agree with them?

Whoever's admin today:

I said go.

Please don't tell me you are here to debate when you register here with a troll email address ***************
It is not cowardice to only want genuine people here to discuss what really happened to Maddie McCann when it is your obvious intention to plant malicious information on this forum.

Now go.

Proving yet again that their idea of 'free speach' is silencing anyone who tells the truth.

*****deleted as publication of member email addies is breach of data protection****

Sabot wrote:
Just saw that.

How can they have the cheek to demand Free Speach for Bennett and then deny it to people who don't agree with them?

Oh, they're all good at that, aren't they?

They would win the Free Speach But Only For Me Global Award.

How can drawing their attention to what Bennett himself said in court be 'malicious information'?

Makes you wonder if they stopped publishing court reports because they didn't want the sheeples knowing just what Bennett had said.

Troofseekers really don't like the truth - or genuine free speech - do they?

Yes, I know, Bonny. Stupid question.

The only times that Site is interesting is when someone like 6RB turns up. Or Bennett starts mouthing off. The rest of the time it is just variations on a theme.

bb1 wrote:How can drawing their attention to what Bennett himself said in court be 'malicious information'?

Makes you wonder if they stopped publishing court reports because they didn't want the sheeples knowing just what Bennett had said.

Troofseekers really don't like the truth - or genuine free speech - do they?

Yes, I was a bit miffed about that. I wanted to read the rest of that report, it was getting really good.