The Madeleine Foundation in Dr Kate's book

by **Tony Bennett** 12.05.11 11:54

I have Dr Kate McCann's book.

As expected, there are hostile references to The Madeleine Foundation and to me, though neither of us are named.

I assume that as these passages refer to us we can quote selected extracts and comment on them.

On page 311, she writes:

"...there are the publicity-seekers, like one group set up by a man who had the gall to use our daughter's name in the title of his nasty little organisation. He and his cohorts prey on vulnerable families who have experienced tragedy. We are not the first to be targeted and, sadly, we probably won't be the last".

She continues:

"...this bunch have been more of a nuisance than anything else. The only time their activities have seriously distressed me was when they leafleted our village just before Sean and Amelie were due to start primary school". She adds how a lady in the village knocked on her door and handed her 'the offensive pamphlet'.

She goes on:

"Apparently, this had been delivered to all the houses in Rothley except ours and handed out in the village during the day".

Next she says: "This incident grieved me more than I would have expected. Up to that point, this man's activities had always been confined to the internet and therefore, presumably, to like-minded individuals. Now he was spreading them in the community and, worse still, in our community. I knew most of the villagers were behind us..."

On page 312:

"...I feared that any unpleasant gossip might poison the atmosphere at the twins' new school and create problems for them at this crucial time. How could someone do this to two four-year-olds?"

She continues that she logged a formal complaint about the leafleting with Leicestershire Police but that they didn't do anything about it.

Then she mentions the threat of legal proceedings against me, pointing out that I paiod £400 court costs to them. She writes:

"..he undertook not to repeat his allegations. It hasn't made a great deal of difference. He is still going around insinuating that we were involved in Madeleine's disappearance, only now he is just being slightly more careful about how he says it".

END QUOTES

+++++++++++++++++

FACT: Rothley has over 1,600 houses and only about 150 were leafleted on 12 August 2009, the day we leafleted in Leicestershire. We have not delivered any of this leaflet or any other leaflet in Rothley on any other occasion.

by Ringo 12.05.11 13:02

Are you proud of the distress you caused this woman, Tony - did you experience more "schadenfreude" when you read that?

by DocMartin 12.05.11 13:07

Ringo, what do you think about the distress 'this woman' caused to her three young children when they were left alone in the dark? What do you think about 'this woman' who was responsible for the disappearance of her first born?

Or are leaflets more important?

by Ringo 12.05.11 13:32

DocMartin wrote:Ringo, what do you think about the distress 'this woman' caused to her three young children when they were left alone in the dark? What do you think about 'this woman' who was responsible for the disappearance of her first born?

Or are leaflets more important?

With respect I was asking Tony how he felt when he read that part of Kate's book. I hope he will answer honestly without twisting my question around as you have done.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.05.11 13:52

Ringo wrote:Are you proud of the distress you caused this woman, Tony - did you experience more "schadenfreude" when you read that?

The object of the exercise, which had been running across the country since March, months before the leafletting exercise in Leicestershire, was to inform people.

We told people about '10 clear reasons' for questioning the McCanns' account.

The leafletting in Rothley was controversial but led to hundreds of new orders for our book, two dozen new members, and hundreds of thousands of hits on our website, plus offers of help etc.

Now, Dr K McCann could have been distressed for two alternative reasons:

1. Madeleine really went missing just as the McCanns have claimed and she would be distressed at villagers being told a load of lies

OR

2. Madeleine was not abducted and she was distressed that too many people were finding out what might really have happened to Madeleine.

In either case, I do not for one moment rejoice in her distress, or anyone else's for that matter.

by Ringo 12.05.11 14:17

Tony Bennett wrote:
In either case, I do not for one moment rejoice in her distress, or anyone else's for that matter.

Do you know what schadenfreude means? Because you used it earlier in connection when discussing [name withheld v- ADMIN].

In case you are unaware it means:

"satisfaction or pleasure felt at someone else's misfortune".

So either

1) it would be untrue to say that you do not rejoice in other's distress or

2) you don't know the meaning of the word and used it out of context.

Now, Kate McCann didn't give either of the two reasons you describe above for her distress. The reason she gives is that she "feared that any unpleasant gossip might poison the atmosphere at the twins' new school and create problems for them at this crucial time. How could someone do this to two four-year-olds?"

How does that make you feel, Tony to know now that your group's actions could potentially have created upset and unpleasantness for 2 four year olds at their new school?

by **Tony Bennett** 12.05.11 14:39

This post has been deleted at the request of Carter-Ruck on behalf of one of their clients, who considers that s/he may have been libelled by parts of it - ADMIN.

by Ringo 12.05.11 15:25

The first part of this post has been deleted at the request of Carter-Ruck on behalf of one of their clients, who considers that s/he may have been libelled by parts of it - ADMIN.

Tony Bennett wrote:
Ringo wrote:Now, Kate McCann didn't give either of the two reasons you describe above for her distress. The reason she gives is that she "feared that any unpleasant gossip might poison the atmosphere at the twins' new school and create problems for them at this crucial time. How could someone do this to two four-year-olds?"

How does that make you feel, Tony to know now that your group's actions could potentially have created upset and unpleasantness for 2 four year olds at their new school?
REPLY: Well, that didn't happen, and there was no reason why it should have happened. It was never going to be likely that four-year-olds were going to discuss the finer points of the '10 Reasons' leaflet in the playground. Was there ever really likely to be a 'poisoned atmosphere' in the reception class of the twins' school?

Come off it

It didn't happen (as far as we know) but it could have happened. I very much doubt that 4 year olds would ever have been discussing your leaflet specifically, but if your had acheived your intended outcome with this campaign, what it may very well have done is provoked a conversation in the houses of various of the twins' school mates which they may have picked up on and repeated in school along the lines of the "my daddy thinks your daddy knows where Madeleine is and that she is dead" or "your mum is a liar" variety.

Anyway, how successful was your leafleting of Rothley would you say? Did you succeed in turning the McCanns' neighbourhood against them?

by **Tony Bennett** 12.05.11 15:35

Ringo wrote:Anyway, how successful was your leafleting of Rothley would you say? Did you succeed in turning the McCanns' neighbourhood against them?

As I've said before, the results of our leafleting and especially the negative publicity that followed were:

* hundreds of '60 Reasons' sold
* two dozen new members
* tens of thousands of extra hits on our website
* many offers of help and some donations.

I don't think we ever wanted to 'turn people in Rothley against the McCanns' - but since you put it that way, there are a lot more people than you might imagine in Rothley who would be classed as 'McCann-sceptics'. They tell us what they think - but won't go on the record to the TV and press because there is a virtual conspiracy of silence on the issue in the village, which (like the rest of the country) is deeply divided on the issue of whether or not the McCanns are telling the truth about what really happened to Madeleine.

by Ringo 12.05.11 16:15

Tony Bennett wrote:
Ringo wrote:Anyway, how successful was your leafleting of Rothley would you say? Did you succeed in turning the McCanns' neighbourhood against them?
As I've said before, the results of our leafleting and especially the negative publicity that followed were:

* hundreds of '60 Reasons' sold
* two dozen new members
* tens of thousands of extra hits on our website
* many offers of help and some donations.

I don't think we ever wanted to 'turn people in Rothley against the McCanns' - but since you put it that way, there are a lot more people than you might imagine in Rothley who would be classed as 'McCann-sceptics'. They tell us what they think - but won't go on the record to the TV and press because there is a virtual conspiracy of silence on the issue in the village, which (like the rest of the country) is deeply divided on the issue of whether or not the McCanns are telling the truth about what really happened to Madeleine.

How many "McCann Sceptics" will you have to recruit until you reach a tipping point do you think? How far away from that objective are you currently would you say? When you have achieved 'critical mass', what will be the next stage in your campaign? At the moment we see the governments dragging their heels about conducting a full and independent review of the case, and that is despite very much more public support nationally and internationally for the McCanns than you currently enjoy, so how do you actually hope to achieve your aims? Sorry for so many questions but I really am very unclear what you hope to achieve by digging around in people's private lives and posting pictures of their houses online and handing out leaflets in shopping centres. It simply looks to me like stalking and smearing with no real coherent plan.

by **PeterMac** 13.05.11 8:12

"...I feared that any unpleasant gossip might poison the atmosphere at the twins' new school and create problems for them at this crucial time. How could someone do this to two four-year-olds?"
But the twins now have to go to school where a description of their big sister's ge**** has been published to the world by their own mother. How could a mother do that to anyone, let alone her two surviving twins.

by ufercoffy 13.05.11 8:17

PeterMac wrote:"...I feared that any unpleasant gossip might poison the atmosphere at the twins' new school and create problems for them at this crucial time. How could someone do this to two four-year-olds?"
But the twins now have to go to school where a description of their big sister's ge**** has been published to the world by their own mother. How could a mother do that to anyone, let alone her two surviving twins.

Don't forget the twins' parents sex lives has also been on the front page of the Sun.

by **PeterMac** 13.05.11 10:28

Yes. But parent's sex lives are non existent. We all remember that from our early years. It is just unimaginable.
But to have a PaedoDisney description of your own sister's ...... !
WTF !
I read that this sentence had been taken off some of the supporters' sites. I am not surprised. There are still some people with values out there, even if they don't see things through the same critical filter. Or they may have realised that that sentence alone is enough to turn most normal people against the McCanns.

by Ringo 13.05.11 11:09

PeterMac wrote:"...I feared that any unpleasant gossip might poison the atmosphere at the twins' new school and create problems for them at this crucial time. How could someone do this to two four-year-olds?"
But the twins now have to go to school where a description of their big sister's ge**** has been published to the world by their own mother. How could a mother do that to anyone, let alone her two surviving twins.

Is genitals now considered a swear word or something?

by **PeterMac** 13.05.11 14:12

No it is not. It is just totally inappropriate in a book Kate hopes will be read by the alleged predatory Pae****, and possibly by the whole Pae*** community, by children, when she has said she hopes Madeleine herself will read it, by the twins when they are old enough, which is only a couple of years away, and when everyone would have understood "badly injured" in that particular context.