Val/Photon/scrimas etc. etc. - the day the scales fell off my eyes

Raffle wrote:So

we now have Mr Bennett PHYSICALLY placed at;

the canteen of the hospital where Madeleine's dad works

the Select Committee

outside of her parents house taking photos of it

anyone else noticing a very OBVIOUS stalking pattern going on?

DCB1 wrote:photon has said: "ETA - there is a mismatch in the EXIF data (December) and the name given to the series if images Bennet sent (October)"

The light in Oct seems more accurate to the picture.

tyra wrote:has she posted it on the open forum????

Finally wrote:Hi

I honestly do not know who is the bad guys and girls and who isn't because I wasn't around or a part of this 3A stuff that appears to have happened. I hope that allows me to just read a post with an open mind rather than being biassed before I read the content due to the name of the poster.

Having said that and with no knowledge of whether Photon is a mischief maker or not, I do think that her request for the email to stay private should have been respected, Mr Bennett. When I read your post it felt a little like "right she has pissed me off and is of no use to me anymore so bugger her - it is payback time".

I am guessing that you felt a little hurt by her actions but in fairness, as I read it, her explanation of using a different name to come here and the reason she gave for repeating those questions was not unreasonable. She appears to have wanted a fresh start on this forum without all the nonsense that surrounded her on MM or 3A. That is not unreasonable and if she was a serial mischiefmaker by nature as some proclaim she would not have been able to help herself and Scrimas would soon have been raising eyebrows here allowing people to make their own judgement of her based upon her actions.

I just wonder if, in the future, somebody thinks they may have a piece of advice that could help you whether they would be so keen to send it to you in an email. After all, one step out of place and that email might well find its way onto a public forum for all and sundry to read regardless of whether the sender wishes it be shared with others or not.

Sorry to be a bore about this but I just wonder how Photon and Murat-fan must have been feeling with all those accusations about them having been made and yet no absoloute prooof to back them up.

I shall bugger off and stop nagging now

Take care

sans_souci wrote:In the OP, Tony, you made the following observation:

It was a series of four questions, first posted by noted McCann-believer sans-souci. These four questions were based on the wholly false premise that members of the Madeleine Foundation might be personally liable for the actions of, say, myself. That is complete and utter legal nonsense, and as I’m frequently asked time-wasting questions just for sport by the McCann-believer side, I ignored the question on this occasion.

You are pretty good at ignoring tricky questions. Well, now is your opportunity to refute, with reasoned argument, the points I raised, and in doing so reassure your members and former members.

sans_souci wrote:I think perhaps "uncomfortable legal truth" may be a little nearer to the mark. And I am delighted to hear that Bennett has been able to reassure his members. Perhaps by reassuring them that everything is fine, don't worry your pretty little heads about it.

sans_souci wrote:A figure of speech. And it was quite dark at the time. And there is such a thing as inner beauty.

Chinagirl wrote:TB, you stated that Sans-Souci's observation was "complete and utter legal nonsense." Sans-Souci has invited your refutation, which is what many of us would like to see you do. That your members have been "reassured" is neither here nor there in this context. It is your legal argument that we would like to read.