Yet another sex'n'travel option for Bennett

nothing better than a shower of pitchforking fools?


That's what most of them are.  You can't change them, sorry to say.

It's important to be correct so I managed to find the original version of the interview in French

- Hoho manages to foul up on the safe haven of the hounders - no wonder she ran away from Injustice when she was challenged.

Incidentally, she appears to be regurgitating stuff which, yet again, was traced back to that well known fraudster, Duarte Levy, under one of his many alternative ids. Why isn't she making it clear that this was all debunked years ago?

And the hounders show their devotion to Free Speach by banning someone for pointing out that Queen Hoho was talking mince, as usual. Why do they do that? It's not as if that is going to make Hoho's clunking propaganda mysteriously turn into anything resembling reality.

Ah well, not our problem - but always entertaining to observe such stunning hypocrisy from McCann-haters.

Lord save us, now Queen Hoho is quoting that old fraud, Beachy.

Still, if she's reduced to bolstering her sick cause with tripe from that WUM and fantasist.....

Oh, how we laughed when Beachy boasted about being a 'young copper' in the UK at the same time she was supposedly marching with Dr Martin Luther King! And that time when she brought in a serial killer all by herself! And was allowed to transport said serial killer across the US all by herself!

And her tall tales about her adventures at Quantico! And her husband with the jutting jaw, who fought off muggers in Moscow single handed! And had the rarest deadly illness in the entire universe from which he naturally recovered in 24 hours! And about how she was descended from Geromino!

Big Chief Lying Forker, more like. Still, it gives them hope - but it doesn't say much about their ability to tell fact from fiction.

Beachy the Wonder Woman of the 3As.  

Its actually rather sad that they kicks by following anyone who will tel them what they want to hear. Which is that

(a) Madeleine is dead
(b) It was her parents wot dun it.

Queen HoHo? Beachy?

Now Tony Bennett happily quoting from newspaper reports dating back to September 2007.

Mind you, this is not surprising. Mr Justice Tugendhut was kind in commenting that Bennett "conducted his defense robustly and not without skill".

Its just that it was a defense to a completely different trial.

Ironically "Xavier", who was name checked in the forum today, was the only one to take the trouble to point this out to Bennett. And was roundly condemned by Bennett and his fellow shining wits on his forum. Had he heeded the advice, he would have saved himself a great deal of strife, but there you go.

Words, quite frankly, fail me.

Oh, I am beyond being surprised by them, Jean-Pierre - one of the many reasons I don't bother with any of this 'debating' stuff they're always chuntering on about. What's the point, when their most beloved shibboleths are based on total garbage?

And if anyone dares point this out to them, they get abused, and accused of being Evil Clarrie. Or even a member of the McCann family.

They are, IMO, nothing but blind bigots - by choice. They'd be well advised to trace the garbage they recycle back to its source, which often turns out to be Duarte Levy selling inventions to a news-hungry media, do some real research for a change.

Also, this way they imagine they are entitled to discuss anyone they decide is involved - especially children - in the course of their pitchforking makes my skin crawl, frankly.

They've never once been right about anything in more than eight years, yet it never seems to occur to them that it is them that are wrong, and in the wrong, not the rest of the world. So much easier to invent lurid conspiracies, no doubt, and blame it on their favourite cliche, POLITICAL INTERFERENCE.

Incidentally, why on earth does Bennett think he is entitled to know anything at all about ongoing efforts to prevent terrorist attacks?


I therefore ask the following Freedom of Information Act questions:

1. Give the precise dates (or if not known, give the approximate dates) when these seven terrorist attacks were planned to take place.

2. In each case, give the locations where these terrorist attacks were planned to take place

3. In each case, state how many individuals are known or thought to have been involved in conspiring to commit each terrorist attack.

4. In each case, state how many individuals have been:
A - arrested and questioned andBcharged with a criminal offence (if charged, state what offence they were charged with) and
B - successfully prosecuted ad convicted of terrorist-related offences.

5. Overall, out of the total numbers involved in planning these terrorist offences, please state how many are now either in custody or prison


Absolutely astounding arrogance - not to mention endangering the British public. Or it would be, if there was the slightest chance of him getting anything but the now-traditional sex'n'travel option.

Just exactly WHO DOES HE THINK HE IS? 

Maybe he'll get an answer.

In the shape of an orange jumpsuit.

You just never know, J-P.  

Hounders, of this:



The blind could be pushed up to a certain position and no more, would not stay up if not supported. You could tell that from Petermac's film he made when there, and when let go it rattled down pretty loudly. He felt, I believe, it couldn't be wide open enough to allow anyone to get in, would need someone else to hold it , even if trying to use it.

======
The blind will only stay up if either opened with the pulley from the inside, or, pushed up manually and propped up with bricks or wood resting on the outer sill


Bricks? Lengths of wood? Have none of these idiots heard of STRING - it's only a bit of plastic, after all.

I think you will find that no one was authorised to use string.

The hyperbole about bricks is a classic example of their ability to make mysteries out of naff-all, IMO, Jean-Pierre.

They are absolutely obsessed with windows and curtains - unlike the PJ, as they would know if they ever bothered to actually read and UNDERSTAND the police files. Just look at the total bollox they spout about imaginary 'fingerprints' on the shutters for starters.

I personally suspect that the whole 'window' business is rather a red herring - someone inside may have opened the shutters from inside to check the coast was clear, for instance. I don't know - you'd have to ask the abductor.

But supposing the window is of relevance - why are they trying to pretend it's difficult to raise a cheap set of shutters (as demonstrated by supersleuth dirtymac) then keep them raised with a bit of string or a rubber band?

It's not rocket science - and no bricks are involved...

PS - Whatever has happened to dirtymac? His disappearance from the forking scene raises all sorts of interesting questions about his involvement in the Scrounge Fund.

antis: insane fools, all of them.

The hounders have all been high-fiving themselves and Bennett because he moaned to the Express about a headline - and it seemed to have been a success...

However.....

https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/rulings/resolution-statements/detail.html?id=57

Resolution statements

Complaint
Complaint 03363-15 Bennett v Daily Express

Summary of complaint
1. Mr Anthony Bennett complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Express had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in a front-page headline “Maddy: Detective did lie about death cover-up”, published on 29 April 2015.

2. The front-page headline referred to an article on page 11 with the headline “McCanns win £428,000 over police chief’s slurs”. The article explained that the parents of Madeleine McCann had been awarded £428,000 in damages against Goncalo Amaral, a former Portuguese detective, who had libelled them in a book about the search for their daughter.

3. The complainant said that it was inaccurate to report that Mr Amaral had “lied”, as the court had not made any judgment on the truth of the detective's claims, and had merely focused on whether or not the detective's right to freedom of expression outweighed the McCanns’ right to reputation.

4. The newspaper accepted that the headline on the front page was inaccurate, and agreed that the truth of Mr Amaral’s claims were not examined during the trial. However, it did not accept that the front page headline represented a significant inaccuracy because the article itself did not report that the detective had lied, and was an accurate interpretation of the judgment. It said the headline had been written by a sub-editor who, in summarising the position of the Portuguese court, had made an assumption that the decision had been based on the truth of Mr Amaral’s claims, which is usually the case in English libel law.

Relevant Code Provisions

5. Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published. In cases involving the Regulator, prominence should be agreed with the Regulator in advance.

iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Mediated outcome
6. The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.

7. The newspaper published the following correction in its Amplifications and Clarifications column:

On the 29 April 2015 we published a headline on the front page which said “Maddy detective did lie about death cover up claim”. We would like to make it clear that there was no determination by the Portuguese court that Mr Amaral lied. In fact what the court decided was that Mr Amaral had breached the McCanns’ right to reputation and ordered him to pay damages to them.

8. The complainant said these actions resolved the matter to his satisfaction.

9. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code.

Date complaint received: 05/05/2015
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 27/11/2015

4. The newspaper accepted that the headline on the front page was inaccurate, and agreed that the truth of Mr Amaral’s claims were not examined during the trial. However, it did not accept that the front page headline represented a significant inaccuracy because the article itself did not report that the detective had lied, and was an accurate interpretation of the judgment. It said the headline had been written by a sub-editor who, in summarising the position of the Portuguese court, had made an assumption that the decision had been based on the truth of Mr Amaral’s claims, which is usually the case in English libel law.


The sub was scarcely to know how downright peculiar Portuguese law is - not one word of that makes Gonzo look the slightest bit better.

Is that what Bennett lives for?  Complaining?

Sez Bennett, today:


Because IPSO has been involved, in a few days they will publish on their website their formal ruling on (if one wants to style it this way) Tony Bennett v Express Newspapers. We will all be able to see it next week, I will bring the link here.


No need to wait, there's a copy of it here ^^^^^ and a link to the original.

Bennett:


Next week, all those in the media and newsprint publishing industry will be able to read that the Daily Express lied about Goncalo Amaral

No, they won't, because that's not what it says.

Next week, all those in the media and newsprint publishing industry will be able to read that the Daily Express lied about Goncalo Amaral

I strongly agree with what Bonny wrote:-

No, they won't, because that's not what it says.  


Can he never get it right.

Bennett claims:

Daily Express: "We LIED about Goncalo Amaral" - December 2015

The truth:

[The Express] it did not accept that the front page headline represented a significant inaccuracy

Therefore Bennett LIED.  Nothing unusual about that.  

Fawning hounder:

Its great that one compleat lie has been overturned ,I just hope many will see this in paper ,and begin to understand ,not all we are given to read IS TRUTH,GREAT WORK TONY . JOYCE1938

Yes, it would be great if the forkers stopped believing bullsh*t about 'treasure maps', 'DNA matches' and all the other crap that was fed to them by a media desperate to sell more papers.

Of course, that would mean facing the unpalatable truth that they have been horribly wrong all along, and are nothing but a vigilante lynch mob - pitchforkers, in short.

Bennett -v- Daily Express. A big Court Case was it?

An inch in the Express, Sabot - much ado about nothing. Bennett tried to spin it as a major victory for Gonzo. When in fact, all that had happened was that the sub that wrote the headline made the understandable mistake of thinking Portugal had a sane legal system.