Re: Why The Madeleine Foundation - not Tony and Debbie personally - paid Kirwans £500 on 2 October 2009

by Guest 30.11.09 23:18

LadyBear wrote:Hi Murat, let us wait and see what the police make of everything.

Many police forces must be sick to death of people who have inserted themselves slap bang in the middle of all this wasting their time with petty squabbles.

Thank the lord the polis told Bren to shut up and just turn her computer off. That sure showed what they thought of her. lol!

Police should be out investigating SERIOUS things, not dealing with petty squabbles.

Talking of which, is it just me or has Stevo vanished off the face of the earth since his name and contact details were put up?

by Jamie 30.11.09 23:19

smith wrote:Tony Bennett said: “You don't score high marks for tone, 'smith', nor for legal knowledge about companies, associations and donations etc. Normally speaking I wouldn't answer someone who hasn't got the manners to ask politely. ”

Don’t pick a fight with me Bennett, you fucking crook. You know perfectly well what you’ve been doing - you’ve been deliberately operating in a grey area where you think you can get away with it.

You ask me what I meant. I’ll tell you what I meant, you fucking crook – you took money that wasn’t yours. You are a cheat and a crook and you deliberately took money that did not belong to you, legally or morally.

After that little outburst I invite posters to look carefully at the charges I made against the fucking little crook and the way he hasn’t answered one of them.

Bennett, you fucking little crook, you disgust me.

Like to sue me?

ETA: You'll find my real name is easily available,crook - I posted it on the forums. I await your threatening letter for calling you a fucking little crook.

LOL unlike some here I appreciate the over use of the word fuck in your comment.. :flower:

by Jamie 30.11.09 23:23

scampi wrote:
smith wrote:I'm not interested in majic.

I'm not interested in whether I lose face, credibility or anything else on this forum - that is why I like and admire SYM, or Guest. My debate was with Tony Bennett and issues of truth and untruths.

I'm telling you Bennett, who has threatened people on forums in the past for dissing him - yes, he really did threaten them with legal action - will run away from my defamatory comments without taking any action against me, of any sort, for calling him a "fucking little crook".

Why?

Mr Bennett appears to have left the building.

Is Elvis with him? :D

by Jamie 30.11.09 23:26

murat_fan wrote:
SYM* wrote:
murat_fan wrote:Tony when are you going to answer my question.

ARE YOU GOING TO REFUND OR PAY BACK YOUR PART OF THE £500 PAID TO KIRWANS BY THE FUND, AFTER ALL YOU STATED IT WAS WRONG TO DO THAT.
IT WOULD BE A GOOD AND NICE GESTURE.
Fuck me you go on and on..Remind me are you or have you ever been a foundation member? Have you ever donated to them?...I already know the answer and mine to it woud be two words second one is off.

Yes i did donate thank you. Have you. Oh don't you look silly now

mY next one was going to be and still is...
Give the fucking jerk her money back FFS..Im sure we can get a whip round..Im in to stop this barrage of twenty questions from you.

by Guest 30.11.09 23:31

**Yawn** Boring foul mouthed Sym back on here

by Jamie 01.12.09 0:06

murat_fan wrote:**Yawn** Boring foul mouthed Sym back on here

:sleep: Yawn is Muratfan still banging on here?

by miller 01.12.09 1:37

murat_fan wrote:**Yawn** Boring foul mouthed Sym back on here

Seems one of those threads that gets posters riled but I agree with whoever said the language doesnt help get points across.

by Jamie 01.12.09 2:01

by Jolie 01.12.09 5:23

Majic wrote:
smith wrote:Tony Bennett said: “You don't score high marks for tone, 'smith', nor for legal knowledge about companies, associations and donations etc. Normally speaking I wouldn't answer someone who hasn't got the manners to ask politely. ”

Don’t pick a fight with me Bennett, you ....

Well you have lost credibility by using such expletives in a post, how can you expect to put forward an opinion when you have to resort to such language ?

Not only credibility, but a lot of my respect, too, smith. Damn, that was rude of you. How can anyone who writes such thoughtful, intelligent blog articles be such a shit to other people online. I think you owe Tony Bennett an apology, but I doubt you'll be big enough to offer him one.

by Jolie 01.12.09 5:58

Hi, Tony

I read your response to me on this subject, on the other thread re. Ambersuz's PM, and wish to acknowledge it here.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my concerns and criticisms.

I hope that you will double check the legalities of both you and Debbie using MF funds prior to getting approval to do so for paying the Kirwans bill so that you will not be caught up in trouble for that decision, no matter what your intention at the time was. You don't need to have any further legal bills racked up, I'm guessing, so it would be better to nip any problems in the bud, even if it means paying your half of the 500 pound legal fee back into the Fund. If you decide to do that, I would be glad to contribute monies personally to you toward that end. Perhaps others would be willing to contribute, too. I suspect that unless and until you do reimburse the Fund, despite the Committee's retroactive approval of the payment, you will be hounded by critics for having the Foundation foot that legal bill. You will have to decide, of course, what you want to do.

As long as you work toward bringing the facts of the McCann investigation to the general public, you will be targeted for abuse and defamation. Every step you take, word you speak, and choice you make must be made keeping that in mind.

I believe in what you have been working toward, while not always agreeing in your choices along the way, and will continue to support you, Tony, unless it is proven beyond a doubt that you have committed fraud.

May I suggest that before publishing and distributing any future publications, to have a lawyer experienced in libel to go over the text with a fine-toothed comb to be sure it is completely bulletproof. I will be also be glad to contribute to the Foundation for a future publication distribution directly related to the evidence contained in the Portuguese investigation files.

I want the fight to continue and am here to help those efforts to bring about a truthful resolution to the case of Madeleine McCann's disappearance.

by heresthetruth 01.12.09 10:11

smith wrote:Tony Bennett said: “You don't score high marks for tone, 'smith', nor for legal knowledge about companies, associations and donations etc. Normally speaking I wouldn't answer someone who hasn't got the manners to ask politely. ”

Don’t pick a fight with me Bennett, you fucking crook. You know perfectly well what you’ve been doing - you’ve been deliberately operating in a grey area where you think you can get away with it.

You ask me what I meant. I’ll tell you what I meant, you fucking crook – you took money that wasn’t yours. You are a cheat and a crook and you deliberately took money that did not belong to you, legally or morally.

After that little outburst I invite posters to look carefully at the charges I made against the fucking little crook and the way he hasn’t answered one of them.

Bennett, you fucking little crook, you disgust me.

Like to sue me?

ETA: You'll find my real name is easily available,crook - I posted it on the forums. I await your threatening letter for calling you a fucking little crook.

Oh dear Smithy wash out your mouth, you do know Bren is not here to protect you from the big boys, last time you encountered Snoop you went crying to Bren, dearie me any opportunity to knock people.
now you have shown yourself up, be a good lad and go back to Brens dead forum, its nice and empty and needs filling with your usual crap.

by Guest 01.12.09 10:17

scrimas wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
No, for the reasons already given. The Committee and members are fully satisfied that the legal advice given to me on 2 October and which has been provided in turn to The Madeleine Foundation represents reasonable expenditure in pursuit of The Madeleine Foundation's stated aims. Once again, I repeat that not one member has raised any objection to the payment to Kirwans. Nor was any non-member been deceived into making a donation to us byh my statement on 17 September.

Was it explained to the members that, by allowing the Foundation to pay Kirwan's legal costs, the Foundation would be the focus of any potential future legal action on the part of CR? And that if damages and legal costs were, in fact, claimed - then it would be the membership that would be liable to pay? Is this the real reason why you and Butler signed that cheque in Kirwan's office? Is that why you remembered to take the Foundation's cheque book with you - and forgot your own personal credit cards?

by Guest 01.12.09 20:01

scrimas wrote:
scrimas wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
No, for the reasons already given. The Committee and members are fully satisfied that the legal advice given to me on 2 October and which has been provided in turn to The Madeleine Foundation represents reasonable expenditure in pursuit of The Madeleine Foundation's stated aims. Once again, I repeat that not one member has raised any objection to the payment to Kirwans. Nor was any non-member been deceived into making a donation to us byh my statement on 17 September.

Was it explained to the members that, by allowing the Foundation to pay Kirwan's legal costs, the Foundation would be the focus of any potential future legal action on the part of CR? And that if damages and legal costs were, in fact, claimed - then it would be the membership that would be liable to pay? Is this the real reason why you and Butler signed that cheque in Kirwan's office? Is that why you remembered to take the Foundation's cheque book with you - and forgot your own personal credit cards?

Bumping for the attention of Tony Bennet, who started this thread.

by Jolie 01.12.09 23:13

I was reading over on the MM 'Tear Tony Apart' section and much of what sans_souci was posting on this subject is what you have been writing here. Here is an example:

QUOTE

Re: Madeleine Foundation2 - Bennett
sans_souci on Mon 30 Nov 2009, 2:42 pm

Ambersuz wrote:
Aspie thats the million dollar question....

If the Chairman didnt know who the members were or who was sending money for booklets then whats to stop the Secretary fiddling the records now he knows there is a police investigation?

I know this comment will upset alot of Bennett supporters but if we sat here complaining the McCanns were using their funds for their own needs then why is it wrong to query what Bennet was doing with the MF funds?

I will not support someone who is conning people and in my opinion he was....and the moment Debbie suspected him and asked him the wrong questions she out pushed out.

Its more of a two thousand quid question, Amber.

It also brings to mind some boring (but crucial) legal questions. Such as - what is the status of the 'foundation'?

The main logical choice are a company limited by guarantee, or an unicorporated association.

It does not seem to be a company limited by guarantee. So it is most likely an unicorporated association. This means that it can operate as a legal entity, but if somethig goes wrong (eg if it gets carter rucked for £50k plus costs) all of the members could be held to be jointly and severally liable. By paying the legal bill from the account, this could be taken as consent to liability for the association (as opposed to Bennett and Butler personally).

All very boring and tedious and irrelevant. Unless the behavioural sh1T hits the legal fan, in which case it may be that every member and former member of the 'foundation' will become very very interested. All of whom should be asking themselves three questions.

1 Do I trust Bennett not to provoke the McCanns into taking the legal action they have threatened?

2 If the legal action is triggered by some act of his, do I think he will take it on the chin and dip into his savings to pay the damages and legal costs personally - or will he try to avoid paying the costs himself, even providing details of membership to the court?

3 If the latter, are you happy to pay your share of what could be a significant sum.
sans_souci
Newbie

Number of posts: 16
Warning:

Points: 23
Registration date: 2009-11-24

END QUOTE

Coincidence, plagarism, or dual identities?

Scrimas, if you and sans_souci are one and the same, why the need to have a different user name here?

by Guest 01.12.09 23:16

Jolie....

I think you'll find there are many here hiding behind new usernames.

by Jolie 01.12.09 23:18

Mumbles wrote:Jolie....

I think you'll find there are many here hiding behind new usernames.

All this game playing gets very tedious, imo.

by Guest 01.12.09 23:24

Jolie wrote:
Mumbles wrote:Jolie....

I think you'll find there are many here hiding behind new usernames.

All this game playing gets very tedious, imo.

If you believe in the power of your conviction why be afraid to post under the name you are most recognised by?

by Old Nick 01.12.09 23:25

Mumbles wrote:
Jolie wrote:
Mumbles wrote:Jolie....

I think you'll find there are many here hiding behind new usernames.

All this game playing gets very tedious, imo.

If you believe in the power of your conviction why be afraid to post under the name you are most recognised by?

Hear, hear - well said Mumbles. Better still post under your real name like Tony Bennett and I do.

by Guest 01.12.09 23:25

Sorry to disappoint (as I'm sure it will) but you'll have to be satisfied with coincidence, which is actually the truth. Can you deal with that? Tony Bennett, himself, declared that the Foundation was an unincorporated association. Check out http://www.burness.co.uk/eMailshots/UnincorporatedAssociationsMarch09.pdf if you can't be bothered googling. Perhaps you should also consider Tara9's viewpoint, too. Just waiting for an answer. Is that OK with you?

by Guest 01.12.09 23:28

Old Nick wrote:
Mumbles wrote:
Jolie wrote:
Mumbles wrote:Jolie....

I think you'll find there are many here hiding behind new usernames.

All this game playing gets very tedious, imo.

If you believe in the power of your conviction why be afraid to post under the name you are most recognised by?

Hear, hear - well said Mumbles. Better still post under your real name like Tony Bennett and I do.

You old devil! lol!

by Guest 01.12.09 23:41

This comment by Sans-Souci on 30 Nov. is highly significant and worth repeating. One wonders if Bennett has ever informed the members of his foundation of their potential liability for HIS actions.

Its more of a two thousand quid question, Amber.

It also brings to mind some boring (but crucial) legal questions. Such as - what is the status of the 'foundation'?

The main logical choice are a company limited by guarantee, or an unicorporated association.

It does not seem to be a company limited by guarantee. So it is most likely an unicorporated association. This means that it can operate as a legal entity, but if somethig goes wrong (eg if it gets carter rucked for £50k plus costs) all of the members could be held to be jointly and severally liable. By paying the legal bill from the account, this could be taken as consent to liability for the association (as opposed to Bennett and Butler personally).

All very boring and tedious and irrelevant. Unless the behavioural sh1T hits the legal fan, in which case it may be that every member and former member of the 'foundation' will become very very interested. All of whom should be asking themselves three questions.

1 Do I trust Bennett not to provoke the McCanns into taking the legal action they have threatened?

2 If the legal action is triggered by some act of his, do I think he will take it on the chin and dip into his savings to pay the damages and legal costs personally - or will he try to avoid paying the costs himself, even providing details of membership to the court?

3 If the latter, are you happy to pay your share of what could be a significant sum.

by littlepixie 02.12.09 0:00

I can understand wanting to distance yourself from someone if you had both jointly agreed with solicitors not to do a certain thing and you were scared that the other person may carry on afterwards and drop you in it.

But I still can't get my head around distancing yourself by calling them a thief and dragging up every detail of their past life and twisting it and appealing on twitter for dirt on them.

It does not make sense. If I was that scared of them blabbing I would resign and walk away. I would not try to smear the other person - unless maybe - I wanted to oust them and take over myself.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.12.09 0:05

Chinagirl wrote:This comment by Sans-Souci on 30 Nov. is highly significant and worth repeating. One wonders if Bennett has ever informed the members of his foundation of their potential liability for HIS actions.

Its more of a two thousand quid question, Amber.

It also brings to mind some boring (but crucial) legal questions. Such as - what is the status of the 'foundation'?

The main logical choice are a company limited by guarantee, or an unicorporated association.

It does not seem to be a company limited by guarantee. So it is most likely an unicorporated association. This means that it can operate as a legal entity, but if somethig goes wrong (eg if it gets carter rucked for £50k plus costs) all of the members could be held to be jointly and severally liable. By paying the legal bill from the account, this could be taken as consent to liability for the association (as opposed to Bennett and Butler personally).

All very boring and tedious and irrelevant. Unless the behavioural sh1T hits the legal fan, in which case it may be that every member and former member of the 'foundation' will become very very interested. All of whom should be asking themselves three questions.

1 Do I trust Bennett not to provoke the McCanns into taking the legal action they have threatened?

2 If the legal action is triggered by some act of his, do I think he will take it on the chin and dip into his savings to pay the damages and legal costs personally - or will he try to avoid paying the costs himself, even providing details of membership to the court?

3 If the latter, are you happy to pay your share of what could be a significant sum.

Such a touching concern for the welfare of the members of The Madeleine Foundation, Chinagirl, I really appreciate it. And I mean that most sincerely.

Just think, if I'd dislcosed the members' list to Debbie Butler when she first asked for it on 30 October this year, she could eagerly have passed on sans_souci's wisdom to all of them by now.

Do tell sans_souci that I had a glorious walk around Sans Souci Park in Potsdam a week last Monday; those Hohenzollerns sure knew how to build a palace! My visits to the Jewish Holocaust Memorial, what's left of the Berlin Wall and the Sachsenhausen concentration camp were however cause for reflection about the great evils perpertrated by the fascists and then the communists.

by Jolie 02.12.09 0:38

scrimas wrote:Sorry to disappoint (as I'm sure it will) but you'll have to be satisfied with coincidence, which is actually the truth. Can you deal with that? Tony Bennett, himself, declared that the Foundation was an unincorporated association. Check out http://www.burness.co.uk/eMailshots/UnincorporatedAssociationsMarch09.pdf if you can't be bothered googling. Perhaps you should also consider Tara9's viewpoint, too. Just waiting for an answer. Is that OK with you?

I was only asking as I thought it could be true. There's so much cloak and dagger stuff going on in the forums, you can't blame someone for wondering when she comes across two posters punching away at the same point on two different forums with two different names. I haven't read anyone else posting on that particular point, so I was curious if you and he/she were the same person. My apologies if that offended you.

You posted the one message directed at Tony Bennett here two or three times and then bumped the thread again, and that caught my attention, too. I'm sure Tony Bennett will answer the points he wants to and bypass those he doesn't. After a couple of times asking, continuing to repeat a message, insisting on having an answer becomes badgering, imo.

I like your avatar, btw.

by Guest 02.12.09 3:07

Such a touching concern for the welfare of the members of The Madeleine Foundation, Chinagirl, I really appreciate it. And I mean that most sincerely.

Just think, if I'd dislcosed the members' list to Debbie Butler when she first asked for it on 30 October this year, she could eagerly have passed on sans_souci's wisdom to all of them by now.

Do tell sans_souci that I had a glorious walk around Sans Souci Park in Potsdam a week last Monday; those Hohenzollerns sure knew how to build a palace! My visits to the Jewish Holocaust Memorial, what's left of the Berlin Wall and the Sachsenhausen concentration camp were however cause for reflection about the great evils perpertrated by the fascists and then the communists.
Tony Bennett

Posts: 123
Join date: 2009-11-25

Sans-Souci's wisdom most certainly should be passed on to Bennett's foundation members. Has he done so? If not, why not? Comments about fascists and communists are irrelevant.

Why The Madeleine Foundation - not Tony and Debbie personally - paid Kirwans £500 on 2 October 2009