The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009

by **Tony Bennett** Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:21 pm

I reproduce here verbatim and without further comment a letter sent by Detective Chief Inspoector Roe to me on 17 December 209 following my two-hour meetng with him at my home:

17 December

Dear Mr Bennett

Thank you for our very helpful and constructive meeting today where we sought to deal with:

1) Complaint matters C/933/09 concerning D C Chissel and the investigation (1)
2) A number of other complaint matters and issues you have previously raised with Essex Police (2).

Let me first state that you have my personal undertaking that I will:

a) be your single point of contact for Essex Police, where I will deal with all matters
b) seek to review and progress matters where it is appropriate for me to do so
c) seek to resolve matters within police regulations, relevant statutes and Home Office Guidance.

My position to you is you have my trust and I am confident we can both work through all of the issues which are causing you distress and concern.

As stated above, I am your point of contact for any matters concerning Essex Police and I will do my utmost to deal with these issues. This is my pledge to you.

I look forward to our continued co-operation and endeavour.

Yours sincerely

NOTES

(1) This refers to complaints about the way Essex Police have handled, so far, the allegations of Ms Butler and also their (alleged) failures to get to grips with the campaign of harassment by Ms Butler against me and others

(2) This refers to the complaints I have made to Essex Police about e.g. a specific death threat and the malicious and false messages sent out to others by Nigel Nessling of Ipswich and others wrongly stating as a fact that I had been in mental hospital or received psychiatric treatement, and other untrue allegations which I would prefer not to reproduce here for reasons of decency.

by preciousramotswe Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:16 pm

So you have your own pet copper.

Well done, marvellous use of police resources.

by Guest Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:49 pm

Oh for god's sake what an utter utter waste of tax payer's money dealing with schoolground antics like these.

I am stunned you had the cheek to go to the police after what you personally have put Madeleine's family through---remember her---the one you are supposedly interested in helping? Hissyfit

by Guest Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:13 pm

Raffle wrote:Oh for god's sake what an utter utter waste of tax payer's money dealing with schoolground antics like these.

I am stunned you had the cheek to go to the police after what you personally have put Madeleine's family through---remember her---the one you are supposedly interested in helping?

I agree,pretty pathetic. catfight

by Cath Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:42 pm

Well like they say: the Police is your best friend.

by Guest Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:39 pm

Doesn't sound like the usual crap, filled with official jargon.
Is he a PR man?

by Guest Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:48 pm

Molly wrote:Doesn't sound like the usual crap, filled with official jargon.
Is he a PR man?

Doubt it, if he was, don't you think he would have at least attempted to use the spell check?

by **Jill Havern** Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:53 pm

DCI Roe seems to be quite friendly and I think he would have said something if he thought this matter was a waste of time.

[img] The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009 Dciroe

The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009 Dciroe

[/img]

by aiyoyo Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:02 pm

Raffle wrote:Oh for god's sake what an utter utter waste of tax payer's money dealing with schoolground antics like these.

I am stunned you had the cheek to go to the police after what you personally have put Madeleine's family through---remember her---the one you are supposedly interested in helping?

,

It's easy for you to say because you are not at receiving end of the harrassement.

Madeleine family's predication is their own doing when they 'lost' her then had the audaciy to spin the public unless you know absolutely otherwise. If you are going on a hypothetical thesis like everyone else then your argument falls flat on its face.

by Guest Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:07 pm

aiyoyo wrote:
Raffle wrote:Oh for god's sake what an utter utter waste of tax payer's money dealing with schoolground antics like these.

I am stunned you had the cheek to go to the police after what you personally have put Madeleine's family through---remember her---the one you are supposedly interested in helping?

,

It's easy for you to say because you are not at receiving end of the harrassement.

Madeleine family's predication is their own doing when they 'lost' her then had the audaciy to spin the public unless you know absolutely otherwise. If you are going on a hypothetical thesis like everyone else then your argument falls flat on its face.

Playground spat is what it is.

And to think he went head to head (if you pardon the pun) with the ex-axe murdererr to claim the title of "voice for Madeleine". :puke:

by aiyoyo Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:26 pm

Raffle wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Raffle wrote:Oh for god's sake what an utter utter waste of tax payer's money dealing with schoolground antics like these.

I am stunned you had the cheek to go to the police after what you personally have put Madeleine's family through---remember her---the one you are supposedly interested in helping?

,

It's easy for you to say because you are not at receiving end of the harrassement.

Madeleine family's predication is their own doing when they 'lost' her then had the audaciy to spin the public unless you know absolutely otherwise. If you are going on a hypothetical thesis like everyone else then your argument falls flat on its face.

Playground spat is what it is.

Are you starting one?
You are entitled to your opinion, but people are entitled to regard it as they deem fit.

And to think he went head to head (if you pardon the pun) with the ex-axe murdererr to claim the title of "voice for Madeleine".

Are you voice for Madeleine then? No offence, mind you, do you think your attiude/tone comes across any better?

:puke:

by Bea_Reasonable Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:39 pm

aiyoyo wrote:
Raffle wrote:Oh for god's sake what an utter utter waste of tax payer's money dealing with schoolground antics like these.

I am stunned you had the cheek to go to the police after what you personally have put Madeleine's family through---remember her---the one you are supposedly interested in helping?

,

It's easy for you to say because you are not at receiving end of the harrassement.

Madeleine family's predication is their own doing when they 'lost' her then had the audaciy to spin the public unless you know absolutely otherwise. If you are going on a hypothetical thesis like everyone else then your argument falls flat on its face.

What was the leafleting of Rothely if not harrasment?

by marigold Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:19 am

Bea_Reasonable wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Raffle wrote:Oh for god's sake what an utter utter waste of tax payer's money dealing with schoolground antics like these.

I am stunned you had the cheek to go to the police after what you personally have put Madeleine's family through---remember her---the one you are supposedly interested in helping?

,

It's easy for you to say because you are not at receiving end of the harrassement.

Madeleine family's predication is their own doing when they 'lost' her then had the audaciy to spin the public unless you know absolutely otherwise. If you are going on a hypothetical thesis like everyone else then your argument falls flat on its face.

What was the leafleting of Rothely if not harrasment?

No, not harrassment. Educating the public of the truth after so much media spin.

by aiyoyo Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:50 am

marigold wrote:
Bea_Reasonable wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Raffle wrote:Oh for god's sake what an utter utter waste of tax payer's money dealing with schoolground antics like these.

I am stunned you had the cheek to go to the police after what you personally have put Madeleine's family through---remember her---the one you are supposedly interested in helping?

,

It's easy for you to say because you are not at receiving end of the harrassement.

Madeleine family's predication is their own doing when they 'lost' her then had the audaciy to spin the public unless you know absolutely otherwise. If you are going on a hypothetical thesis like everyone else then your argument falls flat on its face.

What was the leafleting of Rothely if not harrasment?

No, not harrassment. Educating the public of the truth after so much media spin.

Absolutely!

If leafleting is harassement, perhaps I should report the local Chinese and Indian take away to the police!

by Guest Wed Dec 23, 2009 3:55 am

Leaflets advertising a Chinese takeaway cannot possibly be compared to leaflets suggesting a neighbour lied to the police and engaged in criminal activity! The one is a legitimate business practice; the other is harassment and libel, particularly when the police concerned have stated that there is not a shred of evidence for your claims! :evil:

by Guest Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:03 am

marigold wrote:
Bea_Reasonable wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Raffle wrote:Oh for god's sake what an utter utter waste of tax payer's money dealing with schoolground antics like these.

I am stunned you had the cheek to go to the police after what you personally have put Madeleine's family through---remember her---the one you are supposedly interested in helping?

,

It's easy for you to say because you are not at receiving end of the harrassement.

Madeleine family's predication is their own doing when they 'lost' her then had the audaciy to spin the public unless you know absolutely otherwise. If you are going on a hypothetical thesis like everyone else then your argument falls flat on its face.

What was the leafleting of Rothely if not harrasment?

No, not harrassment. Educating the public of the truth after so much media spin.

You don't know the truth, if you did you would surely already have been informing the authorities and providing them with evidence to back up your claims. What you have is your opinion and your interpretation of events (as do we all), why would the public need to be "educated" about that, aren't they just as capable as you to form their own opinions and reach their own conclusions?

Also, if there was no chance that the leaflet drop did would be viewed as harassment or libel in the eyes of the law, can someone please explain why the Foundation almost immediately decided to accept the demands of Carter Ruck, why not simply just go ahead and defend your stand point and let the matter get to court?

by **Tony Bennett** Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:38 am

JessicaPer wrote:You don't know the truth, if you did you would surely already have been informing the authorities and providing them with evidence to back up your claims. What you have is your opinion and your interpretation of events (as do we all), why would the public need to be "educated" about that, aren't they just as capable as you to form their own opinions and reach their own conclusions?

REPLY: Simple. Because the various facts set out in both '60 Reasons' and '10 Reasons' are those that have generally been hidden by the mainstream British press. Many people have written to us to thank us for informing them, NOT of our opinions, but of the FACTS

Also, if there was no chance that the leaflet drop did would be viewed as harassment or libel in the eyes of the law, can someone please explain why the Foundation almost immediately decided to accept the demands of Carter Ruck, why not simply just go ahead and defend your stand point and let the matter get to court?

REPLY: Because, in terms, we were told that if we were unable to prove one single statement in the booklet, because of the uncertainty and complexity of modern libel law, combined with the fact that we were dealing with the most expensive libel lawyers in the country whose clients the McCanns had access to unlimited funds, we faced complete financial ruin. Such is the state of the U.K.'s libel laws which, thankfully, are about to be reformed; they are under review now and are considered to breach the European Convention on Human Rights provisions on freedom of speech

by aiyoyo Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:05 am

JessicaPer wrote:
marigold wrote:
Bea_Reasonable wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Raffle wrote:Oh for god's sake what an utter utter waste of tax payer's money dealing with schoolground antics like these.

I am stunned you had the cheek to go to the police after what you personally have put Madeleine's family through---remember her---the one you are supposedly interested in helping?

,

It's easy for you to say because you are not at receiving end of the harrassement.

Madeleine family's predication is their own doing when they 'lost' her then had the audaciy to spin the public unless you know absolutely otherwise. If you are going on a hypothetical thesis like everyone else then your argument falls flat on its face.

What was the leafleting of Rothely if not harrasment?

No, not harrassment. Educating the public of the truth after so much media spin.

You don't know the truth, if you did you would surely already have been informing the authorities and providing them with evidence to back up your claims. What you have is your opinion and your interpretation of events (as do we all), why would the public need to be "educated" about that, aren't they just as capable as you to form their own opinions and reach their own conclusions?

Also, if there was no chance that the leaflet drop did would be viewed as harassment or libel in the eyes of the law, can someone please explain why the Foundation almost immediately decided to accept the demands of Carter Ruck, why not simply just go ahead and defend your stand point and let the matter get to court?

As you rightly pointed people are as capable as you and me to form their own opinions and come to a conclusion, but the pertinent point is they can only do so on available info, and so far the investigation files were prevented from reaching the mainstream press by the mccanns with their threat of libel.

Now, why would that be? Could it just possibly be because they are so afraid people are very capable of forming their own opinions as you pointed out and info in the files showed them up in different light not to their advantage perhaps hey?

Also as you rightly pointed out opinions are subjective to individuals and complaint about the leaflet came from one or two persons, while the rest of the receivors did not complain. Is it a given then the latter (in the majority btw) also free to form their opinions felt there was nothing to complain about having the extra info.

As to the police stepping in, even if there was only one complaint, they had to be seen attending to the complaint if nothing else - especially if the mccanns so keen to hide those info threw up a hallobula. Were they victimised? Imo, NO!. Maddie is the VICTIM!

As for mccanns using heavy weigh CR on people (MF), it just goes to show they are desperate to prevent those info from seeing light - as simple as that! Now, why would that be?

Why dont they expend their energy and resource looking for Maddie instead? She was reported narrowed down to languishing in cave not far from PDL - cant be that difficult to cover those radius with their money, unlimited support from BK, PIs and if they are decent they could involve the police. I am sure the police can't possibly refuse if they or their PIs show evidence Maddie is there!

Oh! and, another point - it isnt as if the locals in Rothley are supposed to search for Maddie are they - so how can the leaflet stop the search? I thought the net was cast so wide spreading over at least a few continents by the mccanns? And, incidentally AFAIK no one leafleted in those 10 km radius of PDL mentioned by their PIs.

by Guest Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:33 am

Thank you both for your considered replies.

by Guest Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:29 am

marigold wrote:
Bea_Reasonable wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Raffle wrote:Oh for god's sake what an utter utter waste of tax payer's money dealing with schoolground antics like these.

I am stunned you had the cheek to go to the police after what you personally have put Madeleine's family through---remember her---the one you are supposedly interested in helping?

,

It's easy for you to say because you are not at receiving end of the harrassement.

Madeleine family's predication is their own doing when they 'lost' her then had the audaciy to spin the public unless you know absolutely otherwise. If you are going on a hypothetical thesis like everyone else then your argument falls flat on its face.

What was the leafleting of Rothely if not harrasment?

No, not harrassment. Educating the public of the truth after so much media spin.

Bizarrely the leaflets were reinforcing the media spin, the media spin that was badly written, badly informed and mostly speculative in the first place and, in the main, had to be withdrawn.

by Guest Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:22 pm

Tony Bennett wrote:REPLY: Simple. Because the various facts set out in both '60 Reasons' and '10 Reasons' are those that have generally been hidden by the mainstream British press. Many people have written to us to thank us for informing them, NOT of our opinions, but of the FACTS

REPLY: Because, in terms, we were told that if we were unable to prove one single statement in the booklet, because of the uncertainty and complexity of modern libel law, combined with the fact that we were dealing with the most expensive libel lawyers in the country whose clients the McCanns had access to unlimited funds, we faced complete financial ruin. Such is the state of the U.K.'s libel laws which, thankfully, are about to be reformed; they are under review now and are considered to breach the European Convention on Human Rights provisions on freedom of speech

Most of the 'information' in the leaflet/booklet is based on what was published in the papers as well as the interpretation or myths created by posters on 3A's of what's in the files. At the time the booklet was published, many of the files weren't even translated.
Also for instance Nicked exposed several factual errors without even taking the trouble of going through all the 60 'reasons'.

by preciousramotswe Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:31 pm

and so far the investigation files were prevented from reaching the mainstream press by the mccanns with their threat of libel.

That's just nonsense.
The mainstream press had no intention of publishing long extracts from the files on the grounds of space, not libel.
They published edited snippets from the Prosecutor's report, because that was punchy and because it cut through the crap.
It told it like it is - there is no evidence of any wrongdoing that could lead to criminal charges against any of the arguidos.

That was good enough for the papers, and really it should have been good enough for everyone.

As for those of us interested enough to actually read the translations of the files - well, what's stopping us?

Nothing, that's what. The problem has come with the interpretation of the files, and the repetition of false media stories, such as put about by Amaral and Tony. It's them that are subject to libel proceedings, not the files themselves.
And please don't tell me that what those two have written is only 'what's in the files'.

It isn't, as anyone who has had a good look at the key points from all of them can soon see.

by Guest Wed Dec 23, 2009 5:55 pm

Tony Bennett wrote:
JessicaPer wrote:You don't know the truth, if you did you would surely already have been informing the authorities and providing them with evidence to back up your claims. What you have is your opinion and your interpretation of events (as do we all), why would the public need to be "educated" about that, aren't they just as capable as you to form their own opinions and reach their own conclusions?

REPLY: Simple. Because the various facts set out in both '60 Reasons' and '10 Reasons' are those that have generally been hidden by the mainstream British press. Many people have written to us to thank us for informing them, NOT of our opinions, but of the FACTS

Also, if there was no chance that the leaflet drop did would be viewed as harassment or libel in the eyes of the law, can someone please explain why the Foundation almost immediately decided to accept the demands of Carter Ruck, why not simply just go ahead and defend your stand point and let the matter get to court?

REPLY: Because, in terms, we were told that if we were unable to prove one single statement in the booklet, because of the uncertainty and complexity of modern libel law, combined with the fact that we were dealing with the most expensive libel lawyers in the country whose clients the McCanns had access to unlimited funds, we faced complete financial ruin. Such is the state of the U.K.'s libel laws which, thankfully, are about to be reformed; they are under review now and are considered to breach the European Convention on Human Rights provisions on freedom of speech

Mr Tony, can i explain to you. Your lovely leaflets have not been hidden by the press. Something that is not there cannot be hidden. There are no facts in your leaflets just opinions what Amaral had.

Also you did state that everything in your leaflet was correct and would stand up in court, and that you were prepared to go to court to prove it, however when push came to shove you bottled it therefore proving your leaflets are based upon a crock of cow dung.

by aiyoyo Thu Dec 24, 2009 4:21 am

badmanners wrote:and so far the investigation files were prevented from reaching the mainstream press by the mccanns with their threat of libel.

That's just nonsense.
The mainstream press had no intention of publishing long extracts from the files on the grounds of space, not libel.

Wow, are you saying short of copying and pasting the file in entirety, none of them in the Press has an ounce of intelligence to summarise points or even write up their own piece based on info? Wow, how did they survive for so long? Space constraints and not libel fear - really?

They published edited snippets from the Prosecutor's report, because that was punchy and because it cut through the crap.

It told it like it is - there is no evidence of any wrongdoing that could lead to criminal charges against any of the arguidos.
That was good enough for the papers, and really it should have been good enough for everyone.

Really! You take in EVERYTHING the press doze out - hook line, and sinker? Wow, Good for you! What is good enough for you may not be good for others - thanks goodness there are others who still have discerning ability! Otherwise, democracy and freedom of rights would go down the drain.

As for those of us interested enough to actually read the translations of the files - well, what's stopping us?
Nothing, that's what.

And, how do you propose those without pc or internet read the electronic version?
But, that’s not the point! Why should they feel a need to suppress those info? Explain their libel of blog/forum, MF and Amaral then? Anyone who attempted to put it out to daylight was cater-rucked.

Even the released investigation files contained a Report by a PJ officer that Maddie is dead and her parents possibly involved. Now, why did the Public Ministry deem it was appropriate to include in the release? Could it possibly be that it was indeed part of the investigation process and therefore good to stand because that fact cannot be altered.
And, you seriously think the mccanns will allow the press to print that? Even discounting the truth in that, the fact remained police did take that route, why was there a need to hide the process? Could it possibly be because the mccanns were afraid - of what if it was only a process? Because of their tendency to libel people every direction, you can't stop people positing that maybe guilt plays a part in their desire to suppress those info. Put it this way, if there was no truth in that process and mainstream did print it they could always counter it with the final PM’s conclusion, just like people did on the internet - what’s there to stop the mccanns?

The problem has come with the interpretation of the files, and the repetition of false media stories, such as put about by Amaral and Tony. It's them that are subject to libel proceedings, not the files themselves.
And please don't tell me that what those two have written is only 'what's in the files'.

It isn't, as anyone who has had a good look at the key points from all of them can soon see.

Make up your mind! Are people supposed to believe the media hook line sinker or be selective? One minute you were saying what the press printed was ‘good to stand’, the next you were saying ‘be selective’ - you can't have it both ways!

People (be it netizen or public) will be selective whether you like it or not and they will be selective based on their own discerning power, not what anyone want them to believe in particular, or to suit their agenda - as simple as that.

by Slartibartfast Thu Dec 24, 2009 10:36 am

aiyoyo wrote:

Make up your mind! Are people supposed to believe the media hook line sinker or be selective? One minute you were saying what the press printed was ‘good to stand’, the next you were saying ‘be selective’ - you can't have it both ways!

People (be it netizen or public) will be selective whether you like it or not and they will be selective based on their own discerning power, not what anyone want them to believe in particular, or to suit their agenda - as simple as that.

Well it helps when the general public have access to the actual information so that they can form an opinion.
Most people's opinions are influenced by what they digest either online or through the media reports.
Pools of blood and clumps of hair tend to paint a different picture to what was actually found, for example.
Discerning power is based on the information available. If that information is wrong/corrupted then the conclusions drawn will reflect that.