BENNETT FOLDS TO SMETHURST - DONATION TO FIND MADELEINE FUND

If, as Bennett says, you have to invite a friend to your facebook; does it mean the alleged screen-shots were taken by someone posing as Mr. Smethurst's friend?

An excellent question, Tony. Pity no-one except Bennett and SWALK have seen the alleged screen-shots, isn't it?

Pity no-one except Bennett and SWALK have seen the alleged screen-shots, isn't it?

Never mind, I'm sure Tone will do as the Judge requested and clear the matter up at the next hearing.

bb1 wrote:If, as Bennett says, you have to invite a friend to your facebook; does it mean the alleged screen-shots were taken by someone posing as Mr. Smethurst's friend?

An excellent question, Tony. Pity no-one except Bennett and SWALK have seen the alleged screen-shots, isn't it?

That, is exactly what I'm getting at, Bonny.

crazytony wrote:

bb1 wrote:If, as Bennett says, you have to invite a friend to your facebook; does it mean the alleged screen-shots were taken by someone posing as Mr. Smethurst's friend?

An excellent question, Tony. Pity no-one except Bennett and SWALK have seen the alleged screen-shots, isn't it?

That, is exactly what I'm getting at, Bonny.

Which is why the Judge said this?

The judge said: "Well it seems to be disputed, in which case Mr Bennett you will need to provide relevant evidence from Facebook to prove your assertion".

Oh, you mean the problem may be with the words


prove your assertion

lily wrote:

crazytony wrote:

bb1 wrote:If, as Bennett says, you have to invite a friend to your facebook; does it mean the alleged screen-shots were taken by someone posing as Mr. Smethurst's friend?

An excellent question, Tony. Pity no-one except Bennett and SWALK have seen the alleged screen-shots, isn't it?

That, is exactly what I'm getting at, Bonny.

Which is why the Judge said this?

The judge said: "Well it seems to be disputed, in which case Mr Bennett you will need to provide relevant evidence from Facebook to prove your assertion".

Would I be correct in saying, Mr. Smethurst deleted his facebook page?
So how is Bennett going to prove what settings the guy had on?

Why didn't he produce any of this yesterday, Tony? Instead, he settled, at a cost - so far - of £2,500. The Hounders may be taken in by this, but no-one else is.

bb1 wrote:Why didn't he produce any of this yesterday, Tony? Instead, he settled, at a cost - so far - of £2,500. The Hounders may be taken in by this, but no-one else is.

Something isn't right. I think there is more to this than Bennett is saying.

So do a lot of people, Tony - maybe not exactly what, but enough to know it isn't kosher. Is this some kind of new, Bennett-type law?

No, thanks, if you don't mind, I won't bother trying to prove what I'm saying is true - but I could prove it if I wanted to, oh yes, indeedy - I'd rather just give you several thousand pounds. Oh, and a payment for the costs as well, of course!

Oh, and why did 'Admin' post instructions in red not to say anything about the Smethurst family, and then hastily delete it?

Wasn't that when Bennett was hanging around their barn, or issuing orders for them to be stalked in Portugal.

bb1 wrote:Oh, you mean the problem may be with the words


prove your assertion

You got it, Bonny.

FB make cyber notes of anything you do on your FB pages, Tony. Even for something as small as changing your photo. I would imagine there is a cyber record of when, if he did, change his privacy settings?

Yes, Mr Smethurst did delete his FB account as he really didn't have much choice under the circumstances. As he had his very own FB stalker.

bb1 wrote:So do a lot of people, Tony - maybe not exactly what, but enough to know it isn't kosher. Is this some kind of new, Bennett-type law?

No, thanks, if you don't mind, I won't bother trying to prove what I'm saying is true - but I could prove it if I wanted to, oh yes, indeedy - I'd rather just give you several thousand pounds. Oh, and a payment for the costs as well, of course!

Maybe he is trying this as a precedent as he plans to settle everything in the new Bennett way?

Bennett is hoping he has got away with murder, if you ask me. Why would he want to pursue a minor discrepancy which could uncover what really happened on FaceBook?

Ah, but let's look at this carefully, Sabot. Has Bennett himself said he wants to go down this route? Not as far as I can see, it's the Hounders who have been telling him what to do.

Know what a lot of people think? They think that the very last thing Bennett wants is anyone investigating the provenance of the alleged filth from friends of friends....

He had his chance to say all this on Wednesday; he had his chance to produce screenshots to prove the existence of all this filth.

He chose not to; instead, he agreed to part with £££££ destined for the Find Madeleine fund.

Is that the action of a Truthseeker - or the action of a scared man with something to hide?

ETA, the Hounders are saying things like:

Tony you can produce the evidence no problem.

So, why didn't he when he had the chance? Why did he agree to part with cash instead?

Tony you can produce the evidence no problem.

So, why didn't he when he had the chance? Why did he agree to part with cash instead?

Was it because Bennett was filled with cheer and wanted to donate to the Fund?

d) whether Mr Smethurst’s claim for £100,000 damages was ‘proportional’: i.e. whether such a large claim was reasonable in respect of comments made on a small internet forum and which were removed on request

Did Bennett forget he had posted his libel on twitter?

It's Bennett = he has been economical with the truth, Tony.

There is simply no logical reason for him to fold as he did - other than there was no truth in his allegations to begin with.

bb1 wrote:It's Bennett = he has been economical with the truth, Tony.

There is simply no logical reason for him to fold as he did - other than there was no truth in his allegations to begin with.

But, if the meeting on the Dec. 7 was only a costing and not a trial, he really didn't have to fold. He could have continued to trial. Though, prior to trial, he would have to furnish Mr. Smethurst's lawyer with the evidence Bennett had collected. If the evidence existed I believe he would have won his case.

So, as he chose instead to fold yet again, he can't really complain when people draw the only logical assumption, can he?

bb1 wrote:So, as he chose instead to fold yet again, he can't really complain when people draw the only logical assumption, can he?

The evidence never existed.

Bennett lied about Ed Smethurst. There never was anything untoward. But we all knew that anyway. £2.500 is derisory, but there to you go. It should give us the price of Libel against Anthony Bennett. But anything that we have to say won't actually be libel.

crazytony wrote:

bb1 wrote:It's Bennett = he has been economical with the truth, Tony.

There is simply no logical reason for him to fold as he did - other than there was no truth in his allegations to begin with.

But, if the meeting on the Dec. 7 was only a costing and not a trial, he really didn't have to fold. He could have continued to trial. Though, prior to trial, he would have to furnish Mr. Smethurst's lawyer with the evidence Bennett had collected. If the evidence existed I believe he would have won his case.

I believe you are right, Tony. Mr Smethurst would have looked foolish if Bennett had the evidence against him but, of course, he didn't. Bennett made such heinous assertions which he could not prove so Bennett knew the game was up.

He can fool his Believers but not the courts.

crazytony wrote:

bb1 wrote:It's Bennett = he has been economical with the truth, Tony.

There is simply no logical reason for him to fold as he did - other than there was no truth in his allegations to begin with.

But, if the meeting on the Dec. 7 was only a costing and not a trial, he really didn't have to fold. He could have continued to trial. Though, prior to trial, he would have to furnish Mr. Smethurst's lawyer with the evidence Bennett had collected. If the evidence existed I believe he would have won his case.

What? I think you have missed the point. The accusations were only ever against the friend of a friend. By which Bennett attributed the something similar to Ed Smethurst. If his friend said it then he must have thought it. Get it?

This is beginning to really piss me off. This shite was never posted on Ed Smethurst's Face Book Page. Ed Smethurst was only accused because he was the friend of a friend who might have said something nasty on his own Face Book Page. Although we don't actually know because no one else saw it. Except for Bennett and Whatshername. Bennett made the whole thing up.. He can't prove it because it never happened.
Please God I don't have to go on repeating myself to people who ought to know better.

But that's the whole point, Sabot...Bennett and co spread the lie that this was on Mr Smethurst's page; that is how it was being told on Twitter, Sky, etc.

I have no idea whether or not it was on supposed friends of friends; I suspect not, as no-one has seen it except Bennett and SWALK.

The very last thing Bennett is going to do is follow the eager suggestions of his fellow Hounders.

Nice one, Tony.

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.com/2011/12/why-didnt-tony-bennett-produce-his.html

And that looks like a direct allegation I see in those tweets?