Tony Bennett and the McCanns

Aardvark · 18-11-2007, 04:13 PM

TB, You stated in your first post the following:

P.P.S. Don't believe all - or indeed anything - of what Jane Tanner says on Panorama this Monday. She also went out boozing 6 nights in a row leaving a 3-year-old and *a 10-month-old* alone in their apartment

I think there is a little bit of pot and kettle here. You have effectively called Jane Tanner a liar since you say that we should not believe anything she says on Panorama. The fact that she went out boozing for 6 nights in a row doesn't mean she should not be believed (BTW is that dining out with a glass of wine with her meal or serious 'boozing'?).

What is your evidence that she is not telling the truth on Panorama? Have you seen the programme in advance or are you just speculating as to the contents of her interview? Do you have sworn statements that contradict what she will say? How do you know she is not believable?

I'll delete Clippo's allegation if you can provide clear proof that Jane Tanner is not believable prior to the Panorama programme. Can't say fairer than that.

C_steam · 18-11-2007, 04:36 PM

Tony

as referred to earlier, you wrote:-
"For reasons I may explain later, I think Options 2 and 3 best fit the known facts. If either of these is the case, the McCanns claiming that there had been an abduction would be one of the biggest smokescreens ever thrown up to cover a murder, or a death caused by culpable negligence"

Very clearly it can be reasonably inferred from the above that you believe that Madeleines death was either a murder by her parents, or death through the culpable negligence of her parents.

The fact you are trying to instigate a prosecution against the parents is in line with the above, correct me if I am wrong.

May i also point you in the direction of another extract from your posts:
My point?

That when you have done something terrible, you immediately invent a believeable ‘cover story’ to cover your tracks - unless you can perhaps claim a believeable alibi. Then, having invented your cover story, you have to stick with it at all costs.
Again, by reasonable inference, you are indicating that you believe the mcCanns did 'something terrible'.

However, as far as i can see, you have not explicitly stated that
"'Madeleine was killed by her parents'.

And clippo has not stated that you have stated as such. Clippo has voiced his own opinion based on his inference from your postings that:
"You have decided, in your almighty wisdom, that Madeleine McCann was killed by her parents".

It's his opinion. It is not the same as claiming that you have stated it explicitly, and i think that is an important distinction.

chikrodah · 18-11-2007, 05:34 PM

TB, I refer you and everyone else on the forum to your contributions on this subject elsewhere:

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:BRczFbcdOgsJ:www.ipetitions.com/petition/GuiltyOrNot/signatures-1.html+%22tony+bennett%22+%22madeleine+mccann%22+p etition&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=uk

(as retrieved by Google on 14 November 2007)

Quote:

Tony Bennett: There should be an organisation set up specifically to analyse the truth about the 'disappearance' of Madeleine McCann. Provisionally, I think it should be called 'Justice for Madeleine McCann'. I have just written a 400-page book about the death of Stuart Lubbock at Michael Barrymore's house, in which I proved that that was a case of a 'staged drowning'. This, I am sure, is a case of a 'staged abduction'. I will happily co-operate with others who want to keep all the contradictions of the various witnesses and the obvious lies and deceptions of the McCanns in the public eye. Tel: 01279 635789

http://www.truthformadeleine.com/tony_bennett.htm:

Quote:

BACKGROUND
Mr Bennett contacted this site because he supports the concept of finding out the truth about Madeleine McCann. His experience as a UK solicitor and his skills in campaigning and lobbying various groups in the UK meant that this site considered his input to be very valuable. We welcome Tony to the site and hope to eventually find out the real truth for Madeleine McCann.
BIOGRAPHY Tony Bennett, 60, is married with two children. He's lived for the past 30 years in Harlow, Essex. After gaining first class honours in Geography at Sheffield University in 1970, he qualified professionally as a social worker in 1975 and as a solicitor in 1993. Since giving up his solicitor's practice in 1999 to take a high profile job as a political secretary and researcher to a Member of the European Parliament, he has spent most of his work time researching and writing. Last year he wrote a 400-page book analysing the case of Stuart Lubbock, who died at celebrity Michael Barrymore's house in 2001 (see www.thelubbocktrust.org.uk). Tony's analysis was widely credited with forcing Essex Police to re-open the case in November 2006. He believes that the death of Stuart Lubbock and the 'disappearance' of Madeleine McCann are both cases where serious crimes have been covered up by elaborate and cunning hoaxes.

<... publicity about his book ...>

INTERVIEW WITH TONY
TruthForMadeleine: Hi Tony. Welcome to Truth For Madeleine. I first became aware of your interest in this case via your well thought out posts in Internet Forums. What was it that made you become so interested in this case?
Tony Bennett: More or less from Day One, I thought there was something very odd about the case.
For a start, I heard the parents were checking their children 'every 15 minutes', then 'every hour', then 'every half hour' etc. The idea that they would all be getting up in turn to check on their own children like that during a meal or drinking session struck me as strange behaviour.
Then I saw them on TV gallivanting round the world, meeting the Pope, going to America, being interviewed on German TV and so on. I wondered if their young twins were with them on these trips, and I discovered that mostly they were not. I saw one clip of the McCanns taking two very quiet and submissive-looking twins to the nursery in Praia da Luz so that the parents (their own words) could 'carry on campaigning'. I would have thought that having lost one precious child, they would want to spend every possible moment with the other two.
I thought no more about it particularly until journalists started asking questions and watched the McCanns' nervous reactions. Then as there were rumours about the McCanns becoming suspects, like tens of thousands of others I became interested in the case and wondered if the police, the Pope, and the public had all been victims of one almighty hoax. I noted that Gerry McCann was already talking about 'a long-term political campaign' and 'a 'wider agenda' and again this seemed strange, as if he never expected to get his daughter back.
And this all then began to connect with the work I had done in the past 18 months on another case where a major hoax was perpetrated - namely, the death of Stuart Lubbock at entertainer Michael Barrymore's home in March 2001. I published a book on the subject earlier in the year ['NOT AWIGHT: Getting Away With Murder] which demonstrated that Stuart Lubbock was never in the swimming pool that evening, and that the claim of a drowning was simply an elaborate hoax by those at Barrymore's house that night to cover up the awful reality of how Stuart Lubbock actually met his death.
Since then, I've researched the Madeleine McCann case avidly, and pretty soon realised that the parents - and probably their friends - knew exactly what had happened to Madeleine on 3rd May -but had perpetrated a cunning hoax on the media and the public.
...

As I understand it, the running of the Fund would be basically unaffected if they were charged with an offence; after all, you are deemed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. But if they were to be found guilty of murder, manslaughter or even lesser offences like disposing of a body or perverting the course of justice, that would suggest that the whole of the Find Madeleine Fund had been a deliberate fraud from the word 'go' (as I personally believe today).
In that case, I would expect the McCanns to be prosecuted in this country for 'obtaining money by deception'. And it's a large amount of money too. About £2 million has been donated to the Fund to date.

TruthForMadeleine: From your own independent research have you found any anomalies you'd like to share with us?
...

We cannot even be certain that Kate McCann's 'last photograph' of Madeleine, reportedly at 2.29pm, is genuine. There have been claims that Madeleine may have been 'added in' using Photoshop techniques, from another photograph, and even that the time may be a forgery. Nothing is quite what it seems in this bizarre case.

There are a multitude of posts and acknowledgements of emails sent by you to posters on "Maddie forums", all of which show quite clearly your stance on the subject.

IMHO there is no doubt that firstly, you have seen an opportunity to promote your book and secondly, you are happy to add to the morass of semi-informed debate on the subject. Not the action of somebody who should still be conducting himself according to the code of conduct for both solicitors and those "qualified in social work". But then, despite calling yourself a solicitor, you're not on the Law Society roll any more; despite calling yourself a political researcher, you're not employed by an MEP any more; IMHO you're not really concerned with the truth, are you?

Tony Bennett · 18-11-2007, 07:34 PM

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN AND TO THE MODERATORS OF ‘DEMOCRACY FORUM’ AND ITS SERVERS

At 1.49pm today, 18 November 2007, a ‘Democracy Forum’ member named ‘Clippo’ posted this - untrue - message about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann:

“You [Tony Bennett] have decided, in your almighty wisdom, that Madeleine McCann was killed by her parents”.

I notified the Forum soon afterwards that this was an untrue statement, which could not be justified by anything I have written about the case, and pointed out that the most that could ever be said about my statements was that one of the parents may have killed Madeleine McCann.

‘Clippo’ later pointedly refused to withdraw his statement, or prove that it was true, so I appealed direct to the Forum Moderators.

One Moderator, known as ‘aardvark’; real name Paul Wesson, said he would only be prepared to withdraw ‘Clippo’s false statement from the record if I fulfilled an absurd condition which he devised. He wrote: “I’ll delete Clippo’s allegation if you can provide clear proof that Jane Tanner is not believable prior to the Panorama programme [to be transmitted 19 November]”. That is simply not responsible moderation.

A senior Moderator of the Forum, known as ‘C_Steam’, then came on to the Forum. He posted a series of quotes from me made in recent weeks which only served to prove that I have never gone so far as to say ‘Madeline McCann was killed by her parents’. But again this ‘Senior Moderator’ refused to withdraw ‘Clippo’s statement, despite the fact that neither ‘Clippo’ nor either Moderator could substantiate it..

I therefore leave this posting here for the record and have saved it, in case there is any dispute whatsoever that I raised this issue of the false statement by ‘Clippo’ as early as I could - and that the author and the Moderators have refused after reasonable and polite requests to withdtaw his false statement.

For the record I must also add that in a number of aggressively-worded posts on this thread, a very considerable number of inaccurate statements about me have appeared. I do not have sufficient time right now to specify them all but I would respectfully ask people to only post what they know to be true about me. Please be careful - and that’s not meant as a threat. It’s a polite request.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clippo · 18-11-2007, 07:55 PM

So now we have the true measure of the man – if he can be called that.

He squeals ‘foul’ when people (including & perhaps especially myself) dare to question his interpretation of a crime – a crime of which he has no more definitely factual information than anybody outside of the Portuguese Police, the British Police, the McCanns themselves and a very few others.
It must be really painful for him to have his cosy little ego threatened.

But of course his snide innuendos of the behaviour of the McCanns won’t cause them anything like the grief he’s suffering, will it ????

I have said all I want to on this topic apart from congratulating Chikrodah on finding out the truth of Tony Bennett.
( He’s trying to sell a book would you believe) !!!!

Aardvark · 18-11-2007, 09:15 PM

TB,

What you actually mean, IMHO, is that you have no proof whatsoever that Jane Tanner should not be believed on Panorama tomorrow night. An ad hominem attack on me, and all regular posters know who I am, is not an answer. You accused Jane Tanner of not being believable (a liar). I still want you to prove that statement.

You accuse me of irresponsible moderation, but have sought to bring a very irresponsible private prosecution for which you do not have evidence to secure a conviction on the basis of the burden of proof in ciminal matters - beyond reasonable doubt.

I do not know whether your 400 page work on the Lubbock case is well researched or not and I will never find out as I won't be reading it.

I am concerned that the evidence that chikrodah has brought forward suggests that Clippo is reasonably close to the truth concerning your views on the matter and his post certainly falls into the bracket of 'fair comment'. I don't think, unless you clearly state that you believe, on the basis of your far ranging researches, the McCanns most definitely were not involved in the killing of their daughter that you would have a leg to stand on in a court of law (in my considered opinion).

TB do you believe that the McCanns are innocent of any involvement in their daughter's death?

If you say 'yes' then I will moderate Clippo's post.

Tony Bennett · 18-11-2007, 11:17 PM

Well, well.

Two more posts whose authors don't know the difference between:

1) Smith says A killed B

and

2) Smith says it's possible A killed B

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tony Bennett · 18-11-2007, 11:42 PM

LATEST UNSOLICITED LETTER OF SUPPORT BELOW

[Note: someone asked me to post letters of opposition I have received by e-mail. To date, I've had two, one of whom modified his position after I replied to him. Yes, I'll be happy to publish one. But since the preponderance of 'support' letters to 'antis' is currently over 250 to 1, I'll be happy to publish one of the two 'anti' letters I've received once I've posted, say, at least 100 letters of support. Agreed?]

QUOTE

Dear Mr. Bennett,

Just a quick email to express my 100% support for your brave attempt to bring the McCanns to justice for child negligence.

I have been a member of the Daily Mirror Forum on this case for the last 6 months - like most people on there I was drawn to the Forum because of my disgust that two doctors should leave 3 children under the age of 4 unattended at night, in an unlocked apartment with a main road on one side and a swmming pool on the other, in order to go and drink with their mates in a bar.

Leaving suspicions about any involvement in the disappearance aside, I am sickened and embarassed (in front of my Italian relatives) that many British celebrities seem to condone the McCanns' actions in leaving their children or make excuses for them: e.g. Fiona Philips, Richard & Judy, Alison Pearson, Tony Parsons.

Like many members of the Forum, I know a lot of the links and sources for info. off by heart, so if you need help in sourcing something I will try to help, but please keep my personal details anonymous.

Good luck with the proceedings.

Justice for Madeleine.

[Name and address withheld]

UNQUOTE

NickIrons · 19-11-2007, 12:39 AM

What a sad man you must be Tony Bennett.
Do you have nothing better to occupy your
time with?
There's a saying in French.
"Si ca te derange pas, pourquoi tu
en parles tout le temps"
I'll let you work it out.....
Sad sad sad.................

C_steam · 19-11-2007, 07:18 AM

well, well.

Someone else who still does not understand the difference between

a) Someone making their own opinion known on a discussion forum

and

b) Someone clearly stating an actionable falsehood

18-11-2007, 04:13 PM	#51 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,987	TB, You stated in your first post the following: P.P.S. Don't believe all - or indeed anything - of what Jane Tanner says on Panorama this Monday. She also went out boozing 6 nights in a row leaving a 3-year-old and a 10-month-old alone in their apartment I think there is a little bit of pot and kettle here. You have effectively called Jane Tanner a liar since you say that we should not believe anything she says on Panorama. The fact that she went out boozing for 6 nights in a row doesn't mean she should not be believed (BTW is that dining out with a glass of wine with her meal or serious 'boozing'?). What is your evidence that she is not telling the truth on Panorama? Have you seen the programme in advance or are you just speculating as to the contents of her interview? Do you have sworn statements that contradict what she will say? How do you know she is not believable? I'll delete Clippo's allegation if you can provide clear proof that Jane Tanner is not believable prior to the Panorama programme. Can't say fairer than that. __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

18-11-2007, 04:36 PM	#52 (permalink)
C_steam Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Paddling up 5hit creek..... Posts: 7,802	Tony as referred to earlier, you wrote:- "For reasons I may explain later, I think Options 2 and 3 best fit the known facts. If either of these is the case, the McCanns claiming that there had been an abduction would be one of the biggest smokescreens ever thrown up to cover a murder, or a death caused by culpable negligence" Very clearly it can be reasonably inferred from the above that you believe that Madeleines death was either a murder by her parents, or death through the culpable negligence of her parents. The fact you are trying to instigate a prosecution against the parents is in line with the above, correct me if I am wrong. May i also point you in the direction of another extract from your posts: My point? That when you have done something terrible, you immediately invent a believeable ‘cover story’ to cover your tracks - unless you can perhaps claim a believeable alibi. Then, having invented your cover story, you have to stick with it at all costs. Again, by reasonable inference, you are indicating that you believe the mcCanns did 'something terrible'. However, as far as i can see, you have not explicitly stated that "'Madeleine was killed by her parents'. And clippo has not stated that you have stated as such. Clippo has voiced his own opinion based on his inference from your postings that: "You have decided, in your almighty wisdom, that Madeleine McCann was killed by her parents". It's his opinion. It is not the same as claiming that you have stated it explicitly, and i think that is an important distinction. __________________ -------------------------------------------------- Users on ignore list: None. I've got to have people to laugh at. Cowardly Posters* list: BobFM, Bellatrix.People who post personal insults then refuse to reply . Last edited by C_steam; 18-11-2007 at 04:44 PM.*

18-11-2007, 07:34 PM	#54 (permalink)
Tony Bennett Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,036	SERVER - please note TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN AND TO THE MODERATORS OF ‘DEMOCRACY FORUM’ AND ITS SERVERS At 1.49pm today, 18 November 2007, a ‘Democracy Forum’ member named ‘Clippo’ posted this - untrue - message about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann: “You [Tony Bennett] have decided, in your almighty wisdom, that Madeleine McCann was killed by her parents”. I notified the Forum soon afterwards that this was an untrue statement, which could not be justified by anything I have written about the case, and pointed out that the most that could ever be said about my statements was that one of the parents may have killed Madeleine McCann. ‘Clippo’ later pointedly refused to withdraw his statement, or prove that it was true, so I appealed direct to the Forum Moderators. One Moderator, known as ‘aardvark’; real name Paul Wesson, said he would only be prepared to withdraw ‘Clippo’s false statement from the record if I fulfilled an absurd condition which he devised. He wrote: “I’ll delete Clippo’s allegation if you can provide clear proof that Jane Tanner is not believable prior to the Panorama programme [to be transmitted 19 November]”. That is simply not responsible moderation. A senior Moderator of the Forum, known as ‘C_Steam’, then came on to the Forum. He posted a series of quotes from me made in recent weeks which only served to prove that I have never gone so far as to say ‘Madeline McCann was killed by her parents’. But again this ‘Senior Moderator’ refused to withdraw ‘Clippo’s statement, despite the fact that neither ‘Clippo’ nor either Moderator could substantiate it.. I therefore leave this posting here for the record and have saved it, in case there is any dispute whatsoever that I raised this issue of the false statement by ‘Clippo’ as early as I could - and that the author and the Moderators have refused after reasonable and polite requests to withdtaw his false statement. For the record I must also add that in a number of aggressively-worded posts on this thread, a very considerable number of inaccurate statements about me have appeared. I do not have sufficient time right now to specify them all but I would respectfully ask people to only post what they know to be true about me. Please be careful - and that’s not meant as a threat. It’s a polite request. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

18-11-2007, 09:15 PM	#56 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,987	TB, What you actually mean, IMHO, is that you have no proof whatsoever that Jane Tanner should not be believed on Panorama tomorrow night. An ad hominem attack on me, and all regular posters know who I am, is not an answer. You accused Jane Tanner of not being believable (a liar). I still want you to prove that statement. You accuse me of irresponsible moderation, but have sought to bring a very irresponsible private prosecution for which you do not have evidence to secure a conviction on the basis of the burden of proof in ciminal matters - beyond reasonable doubt. I do not know whether your 400 page work on the Lubbock case is well researched or not and I will never find out as I won't be reading it. I am concerned that the evidence that chikrodah has brought forward suggests that Clippo is reasonably close to the truth concerning your views on the matter and his post certainly falls into the bracket of 'fair comment'. I don't think, unless you clearly state that you believe, on the basis of your far ranging researches, the McCanns most definitely were not involved in the killing of their daughter that you would have a leg to stand on in a court of law (in my considered opinion). TB do you believe that the McCanns are innocent of any involvement in their daughter's death? If you say 'yes' then I will moderate Clippo's post. __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

18-11-2007, 11:17 PM	#57 (permalink)
Tony Bennett Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,036	Failing an intelligence test Well, well. Two more posts whose authors don't know the difference between: 1) Smith says A killed B and 2) Smith says it's possible A killed B ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

18-11-2007, 07:55 PM	#55 (permalink)
Clippo Uber Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Cheshire Posts: 2,273	So now we have the true measure of the man – if he can be called that. He squeals ‘foul’ when people (including & perhaps especially myself) dare to question his interpretation of a crime – a crime of which he has no more definitely factual information than anybody outside of the Portuguese Police, the British Police, the McCanns themselves and a very few others. It must be really painful for him to have his cosy little ego threatened. But of course his snide innuendos of the behaviour of the McCanns won’t cause them anything like the grief he’s suffering, will it ???? I have said all I want to on this topic apart from congratulating Chikrodah on finding out the truth of Tony Bennett. ( He’s trying to sell a book would you believe) !!!!

18-11-2007, 11:42 PM	#58 (permalink)
Tony Bennett Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,036	Latest Unsolicited Letter Of Support Below LATEST UNSOLICITED LETTER OF SUPPORT BELOW [Note: someone asked me to post letters of opposition I have received by e-mail. To date, I've had two, one of whom modified his position after I replied to him. Yes, I'll be happy to publish one. But since the preponderance of 'support' letters to 'antis' is currently over 250 to 1, I'll be happy to publish one of the two 'anti' letters I've received once I've posted, say, at least 100 letters of support. Agreed?] QUOTE Dear Mr. Bennett, Just a quick email to express my 100% support for your brave attempt to bring the McCanns to justice for child negligence. I have been a member of the Daily Mirror Forum on this case for the last 6 months - like most people on there I was drawn to the Forum because of my disgust that two doctors should leave 3 children under the age of 4 unattended at night, in an unlocked apartment with a main road on one side and a swmming pool on the other, in order to go and drink with their mates in a bar. Leaving suspicions about any involvement in the disappearance aside, I am sickened and embarassed (in front of my Italian relatives) that many British celebrities seem to condone the McCanns' actions in leaving their children or make excuses for them: e.g. Fiona Philips, Richard & Judy, Alison Pearson, Tony Parsons. Like many members of the Forum, I know a lot of the links and sources for info. off by heart, so if you need help in sourcing something I will try to help, but please keep my personal details anonymous. Good luck with the proceedings. Justice for Madeleine. [Name and address withheld] UNQUOTE

19-11-2007, 12:39 AM	#59 (permalink)
NickIrons Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Bienne, Switzerland Posts: 494	What a sad man you must be Tony Bennett. Do you have nothing better to occupy your time with? There's a saying in French. "Si ca te derange pas, pourquoi tu en parles tout le temps" I'll let you work it out..... Sad sad sad.................

19-11-2007, 07:18 AM	#60 (permalink)
C_steam Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Paddling up 5hit creek..... Posts: 7,802	Failing an intelligence test well, well. Someone else who still does not understand the difference between a) Someone making their own opinion known on a discussion forum and b) Someone clearly stating an actionable falsehood __________________ -------------------------------------------------- Users on ignore list: None. I've got to have people to laugh at. Cowardly Posters* list: BobFM, Bellatrix.*People who post personal insults then refuse to reply .

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode