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

by Guest 02.12.09 7:55

Jolie wrote:
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.

Jolie - no offence taken and certainly no need for apologies. This board does seem to be one of high 'emotion'. It's not my intention to badger - but one has to wonder why Tony Bennett has chosen to overlook that post. I'm not expecting a reply now - his lack of response is answer enough, I think. Fortunately, for me, I'm not a member of the Foundation. Possibly he may take more notice if those questions were posed by a member.

Yes, the avatar caught my eye too - I can take no credit for it, its solely due to the wonders of google (and someone else's efforts).

by Ruby 02.12.09 8:39

littlepixie wrote: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.

my sentiments exactly, littlepixie!
i just can't square it thinking

by Guest 02.12.09 11:27

Bennett, have you informed the members of your foundation of their potential liability should YOU break the terms of your settlement with the High Court?

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 Guest 02.12.09 12:39

littlepixie wrote: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.

But Bennett had already ousted the Chairwoman and taken over the Foundation.

Using means that appear to be at odds with the constitution, at a meeting with a very small number of members (how small no-one knows cuz they aint telling), and installing his best mates.
And all that happened before much of what Butler had been making waves about even became public.
I'm not surprised she's annoyed, really.

by sans_souci 02.12.09 14:54

Not me though Jolie. Have just registered. And can confirm that I have no idea who scrimas is.

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