A question for Mike Gunnill, alias \'petert\' on JATYK, alias Peter Tarwin, alias Jason Peters

Tony Bennett wrote:

ufercoffy wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

ufercoffy wrote:Under whose instructions were you working...erm, Jo?

http://justathoughtyouknow.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=chat&action=display&thread=354&page=2

Someone who pays good money for Mr Gunnill/Peter Tarwin/Michael Sangerte/Jason Peters/'petert'/JoMc/ to obey instructions.

Ker-ching!

You're so naughty Mr B.

Did you hear anything from Carter Ruck after erm...Jo packed up his book and sent it by courier to the *cough* third party?

Yes, very quickly...they wrote to me on 5 February 2010, very swiftly indeed after Mike Gunnill travelled to London to the offices of Carter-Ruck, all expenses paid, and proudly handed them a copy of that dreaded book, "What Really Happened to Madeleine McCann? - 60 Reasons Which Suggest that she was not abducted".

The Carter-Ruck letter (which they marked 'Strictly Private and Confidential', claimed I was still selling the book. It also made demands about the contents of our website.

Those parts of my reply to Carter-Ruck dated 8 February 2010 that dealt with the issue of their false claim that I am still selling the book are reproduced verbatim below:

From: Anthony Bennett M.A. 66 Chippingfield
Tel: 01279 635789 HARLOW
Essex
CM17 ODJ
e-mail: ajsbennett@btinternet.com



Carter-Ruck Monday 8 February 2010
Solicitors
6 St Andrew Street
LONDON
EC4 3AE

Your Ref: IH/DXM/13837.5

THIS LETTER IS NOT CONFIDENTIAL

Dear Sirs

For the attention of Isabel Hudson

re: Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann - Your Letter of 5 February 2010

I am in receipt of your letter of 5 February.

So far as the fourth paragraph of your letter is concerned, so far as I am aware on the new Madeleine Foundation website there is no promotion of the ‘60 Reasons’ book whatsoever. There we have made clear statements that it is no longer available for sale.

I have myself on a few occasions directed people to websites where ‘60 Reasons’ is available to read on the internet. I emphasise once again that I have not in any way helped or encouraged these websites to reproduce the booklet. So far as the ‘Wikileaks’ site is concerned, which is where I directed some people, my understanding is that it has been closed until further notice due to lack of funds or for some other reason. The ‘60 Reasons’ booklet is therefore no longer available to read on that site.

I did not regard referring people to where they could read ‘60 Reasons’ as a breach of my undertakings in respect of the selling and distribution of physical copies, and I don’t think it is. However, in the light of your claim that merely to refer people to such a site ‘constitutes further publication of the libels in the booklet’, I will no longer do so and I will make sure that The Madeleine Foundation website does not do so either.

I was not aware either that a court could ‘deem this as having participated in the publication of the libels in the booklet’. I am further willing to endeavour to contact any website that may have reproduced ‘60 Reasons’ (in all cases without my consent I may add) and ask them to remove it from their sites forthwith.

You refer in the same paragraph to ‘at least one copy of the booklet’ being sold. On 13 January this year, a Mr Mike Gunnill, a freelance photojournalist who is in contact with you, attempted to buy a booklet using the false name of Michael Sangerte, and purporting to live in ‘Reading, Berkshire’. He also claimed to be willing to pay ‘a good price’ for it. He followed up this deception by insisting that he required a hard copy of it as he believed it would become ‘an important historical document’.

At this stage I suspected that his was not a genuine customer and accordingly a booklet was sold to him. Believing that it would yield me useful information, a booklet was indeed sent to him last week.

And, as I predicted, it has yielded useful information, namely that Mike Gunnill uses at least three aliases - Peter Tarwin, Jason Peters and now Michael Sangerte - and that he posts as ‘petert’ on a forum known a ‘Just A Thought You Know’, where numerous actionable libels of me are continually posted. It is my belief that in this respect Mr Gunnill may have been acting as your agent.

The ‘60 Reasons’ booklet is not for sale and below I reproduce a specimen recent exchange of correspondence I have had with Nielsen BookNet and Gardners books, who have previously placed orders for ’60 Reasons’:

=====================================================

24 January Nielsen Bookdata to Anthony Bennett

BookNet Web Online Order Collection Service for publisher/distributors - email notification

The Madeleine Foundation (00215736)
66 Chippingfield
Harlow
Essex
CM17 0DJ

Dear Distributor

You have 1 order lines awaiting collection. Please click here: http://bookorders.nielsenbooknet.com/maillogin.do?1sjpvp0d849gj001 to access and acknowledge these orders.

Or log on to http://bookorders.nielsenbooknet.com/ using your Distributor Key, User ID and Password.

Please do not respond to this email. If you have any queries about this service, then please contact our Help Desk:

Our UK based Help Desk is open Monday to Friday, 08.30-17.30
t: +44 (0)1483 712260 / f: +44 (0)1483 712261
e: help.book@nielsen.com

**************
26 January Anthony Bennett to Nielesn Bookdata and Gardners Books

From: ANTHONY BENNETT [mailto@btinternet.com]
Sent: 26 January 2010 07:56
To: help.book@nielsen.com; Lynda Teixeira; Martin Watson
Subject: What really happened to Madeleine McCann 978-0-9507954-7-8

Dear Sirs

We have received the following request from Gardners Books:

[details as above]

This is to inform you that our booklet is currently not in circulation.

Following action by Gerry and Kate McCann via their lawyers, an undertaking has been given by myself as the author not to sell or distribute the book and to destroy all existing copies in the possession or control of myself. Unless circumstances change, this booklet will be unavailable until further notice.

Yours faithfully

Anthony Bennett 01279 635789

**************
27 January Gardners Books to Anthony Bennett

Dear Anthony,

I have noted this thank you, and cancelled this order on our system.

I have also taken out of the ordering route until further notice.

Regards

Jim Starnes, Buying Services Supervisor, Gardners Books, 01323 525631
========================================================

So far as the fifth paragraph of your letter is concerned, we are surprised that your clients’...

[REST SNIPPED]

Pascal wrote:Tony, sorry to add to the hassle, but could you tell me how Majic got hold of Ambersuz's business address? She claims that you were the only person to know of it. Thanks.

Mgunnill wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

ufercoffy wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

ufercoffy wrote:Under whose instructions were you working...erm, Jo?
Someone who pays good money for Mr Gunnill/Peter Tarwin/Michael Sangerte/Jason Peters/'petert'/JoMc/ to obey instructions.

Ker-ching!

You're so naughty Mr B.

Did you hear anything from Carter Ruck after erm...Jo packed up his book and sent it by courier to the *cough* third party?

Yes, very quickly...they wrote to me on 5 February 2010, very swiftly indeed after Mike Gunnill travelled to London to the offices of Carter-Ruck, all expenses paid, and proudly handed them a copy of that dreaded book, "What Really Happened to Madeleine McCann? - 60 Reasons Which Suggest that she was not abducted".

- Yes, very quickly...they wrote to me on 5 February 2010, very swiftly indeed after Mike Gunnill travelled to London to the offices of Carter-Ruck, all expenses paid, and proudly handed them a copy of that dreaded book, "What Really Happened to Madeleine McCann? - 60 Reasons Which Suggest that she was not abducted".

...and you can prove the above statement? No I didn't think so!

Mgunnill wrote:Dear Dick: are you starting to forget things again? It has been mentioned before, as you know- some by yourself or perhaps you forgot that as well! Magic

aiyoyo wrote:Pascal,
What made you think it came from TB?
I had thought that's majic speciality ie, outing people.
Bear in mind he's working under instructions. Also he claimed to have friends working alongside him, plenty lackies to dig things up for him.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Pascal wrote:Tony, sorry to add to the hassle, but could you tell me how Majic got hold of Ambersuz's business address? She claims that you were the only person to know of it. Thanks.

You will have to ask 'Majic' how he got it, if he has got it, that is.

He did contact me in November last year about some disgraceful action of Ms Menez, here is part of his letter:

Mr Bennett,

As you will recall I spoke to you Thursday regarding an incident on the MIssing Madeleine forum where Susan had posted up the Facebook details of a child under 18 including their pictures. You asked for proof that this had taken place and also proof of the sexual swear words used to describe the child.

Susan has now posted these details again, minus the sexual references; however my concern is that she has posted the details of a child under eighteen on an adult website, I have been advised by the UK Justice Ministry that there is an absolute prohibition of such activities taking place. Susan is also indicating that the images are pornographic, or contain link to pornographic websites, which they do not.

Both my colleagues and I are outraged by this latest stunt and have already began contacting various web foundation monitoring organisations and [names snipped for confidentiality] have reported this, as I have to the internet crimes division.

There is libellous content about yourself on this site which I am sure you are aware of, for your review please go to :

http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/tony-bennett-fraudster-friends-f84/exposing-the-trolls-t5393.htm

Here you will find the post made by Susan regarding... [REST SNIPPED FOR REASONS OF CONFIDENTIALITY]

Pascal wrote:I just wanted Tony to confirm or deny for my own peace of mind. See, I'm getting a bit hacked off with the games and agendas.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Pascal wrote:I just wanted Tony to confirm or deny for my own peace of mind. See, I'm getting a bit hacked off with the games and agendas.

Might I respectfully suggest, in terms of people playing games and with agendas, that you place three people very firmly under your miscroscope: Susan Menez, Debbie Butler and Brenda Ryan.

Whatever else you may say about me, and I've never proclaimed to be perfect, I have always been crystal clear and transparent about who I am and what my agenda is, insofar as the mystery of why Madeleine McCann disappeared is concerned. The Madeleine Foundation and its activities are open and transparent, even though many will not agree with what we stand for and what we do.

Why Menez is running an internet vilification campaign against me, why Butler made a series of utterly false allegations against me, and why Ryan did some of the things she did as owner/manager of 3As - these are very much to do with games and agenda.

That's quite besides all the nefarious agendas and games of the 'pros', of course.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Pascal wrote:I just wanted Tony to confirm or deny for my own peace of mind. See, I'm getting a bit hacked off with the games and agendas.

Might I respectfully suggest, in terms of people playing games and with agendas, that you place three people very firmly under your miscroscope: Susan Menez, Debbie Butler and Brenda Ryan.


so you and Majic do have a common enemy then?

Whatever else you may say about me, and I've never proclaimed to be perfect, I have always been crystal clear and transparent about who I am and what my agenda is, insofar as the mystery of why Madeleine McCann disappeared is concerned. The Madeleine Foundation and its activities are open and transparent, even though many will not agree with what we stand for and what we do.

first off Tony, I've said nothing about you or anybody else. I've made it plain that I disagree with your actions - choosing to see the good before the bad in everyone. After all who am I to JUDGE people?

Why Menez is running an internet vilification campaign against me, why Butler made a series of utterly false allegations against me, and why Ryan did some of the things she did as owner/manager of 3As - these are very much to do with games and agenda.

In all honestly, I haven't seen a hate campaign toward you by Ambersuz or Bren. I think you may be over egging the pudding there with that one. I've seen some unpleasant comments, but equally the same could be applied to yourself. I agree there have been some wholly unacceptable insults by Vee8 and Bonnybonkers - but you're a big lad Tony, you know your actions will be open to criticism and attack. you either grow a skin and get on with it or you bleat like a lamb and continually post up exchanges.

That's quite besides all the nefarious agendas and games of the 'pros', of course.

ufercoffy wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Pascal wrote:I just wanted Tony to confirm or deny for my own peace of mind. See, I'm getting a bit hacked off with the games and agendas.

Might I respectfully suggest, in terms of people playing games and with agendas, that you place three people very firmly under your miscroscope: Susan Menez, Debbie Butler and Brenda Ryan.

Whatever else you may say about me, and I've never proclaimed to be perfect, I have always been crystal clear and transparent about who I am and what my agenda is, insofar as the mystery of why Madeleine McCann disappeared is concerned. The Madeleine Foundation and its activities are open and transparent, even though many will not agree with what we stand for and what we do.

Why Menez is running an internet vilification campaign against me, why Butler made a series of utterly false allegations against me, and why Ryan did some of the things she did as owner/manager of 3As - these are very much to do with games and agenda.

That's quite besides all the nefarious agendas and games of the 'pros', of course.

There's that 'campaign' word again that... erm, Jo has referred to. Of course he's quite pally with Susan and Deborah. Early days in the campaign yet, though, he says.

Pascal wrote:Ok Tony, see that's another issue isn't it? Majic writes to you about Ambersuz and you pass judgement on her 'disgraceful' actions.

Is this true, or is it not true: "Susan had posted up the Facebook details of a child under 18 including their pictures..."

Majic posted her business details up on his website and she is adamant that those details came from you.

I didn't know Majic had done that, and if so, he can no doubt account for how he obtained that information.

I don't think you are in any position to make judgements on other people Tony. You let yourself down in doing so.

Noted

ETA Why do you take anything Majic says with anything other than a pinch of salt?

Who says I don't take what he says with more than a pinch of salt? Sometimes he's right about things; sometimes he's wrong.

His main objective was to break up the fora. He has had a hand in doing so.

I am not aware of that at all and that is a major accusation to make agaisnt him. Please provide details of this accusation so that we all on here can make a valid judgment on how true your statements are.

I find it odd that you should even keep his correspondence, let alone post it up at will.

I rarely have time to delete messages. Simple as. I have all Menez's messages too before the great 180-degree turn around of her and Ms Butler.

Are you in this for Madeleine? Are you really? You don't seem too bothered that the fora are at each other's throats.

What?? And if the fora are at each other's throats, what has that got to do with either me or Majic? I post happily wherever people are seriously discussing what really happened to Madeleine, as my track record shows, it's plain for anyone to see. I support any place that is genuinely discussing what happened to Madeleine.

This is a missing child we're talking about Tony. You know, I want to be wrong about you.

Yes, a missing child. I was so concerned at the way she and the twins were left six nights in a row by her parents that I tried to get the parents prosecuted for child neglect. The Portuguese Police didn't do it. The British Police and British Social Services didn't do it either. In fact no-one else did it. And in return for doing that, I was massively criticised by many for being 'heartless', 'insensitive', 'scum' and worse. Then I wrote a book, because to me and many others, the abduction story didn't seem to stand up. Moreover, I have to choose my words very carefully at this point because the words in that book caused me to be taken almost to the door of the High Court before I agreed to sign certain binding undertakings. I've never made a penny out of the name Madeleine, in fact I'm out of pocket - and on top of that have suffered the persistent abuse from Menez, Butler and many others on the 'MM' forum falsely claiming that The Madeleine Foundation is 'another moneymaking scam' of mine.

Pray, Pascal, that we will have the real truth about what happend to Madeleine sooner rarther than later. Then perhaps these senseless forum wars, games and agendas will be behind us all.

Pascal wrote:

ufercoffy wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Pascal wrote:I just wanted Tony to confirm or deny for my own peace of mind. See, I'm getting a bit hacked off with the games and agendas.

Might I respectfully suggest, in terms of people playing games and with agendas, that you place three people very firmly under your miscroscope: Susan Menez, Debbie Butler and Brenda Ryan.

Whatever else you may say about me, and I've never proclaimed to be perfect, I have always been crystal clear and transparent about who I am and what my agenda is, insofar as the mystery of why Madeleine McCann disappeared is concerned. The Madeleine Foundation and its activities are open and transparent, even though many will not agree with what we stand for and what we do.

Why Menez is running an internet vilification campaign against me, why Butler made a series of utterly false allegations against me, and why Ryan did some of the things she did as owner/manager of 3As - these are very much to do with games and agenda.

That's quite besides all the nefarious agendas and games of the 'pros', of course.

There's that 'campaign' word again that... erm, Jo has referred to. Of course he's quite pally with Susan and Deborah. Early days in the campaign yet, though, he says.

Uffer for the sake of my sanity; are you suggesting that Amber and DB are in cohorts with Majic? Who the F is Jo please?
One of us is barking at the wrong dog and I think for all our sakes we should know. Ta.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Pascal wrote:Ok Tony, see that's another issue isn't it? Majic writes to you about Ambersuz and you pass judgement on her 'disgraceful' actions.

Is this true, or is it not true: "Susan had posted up the Facebook details of a child under 18 including their pictures..."

Majic posted her business details up on his website and she is adamant that those details came from you.

I didn't know Majic had done that, and if so, he can no doubt account for how he obtained that information.

I don't think you are in any position to make judgements on other people Tony. You let yourself down in doing so.

Noted

ETA Why do you take anything Majic says with anything other than a pinch of salt?

Who says I don't take what he says with more than a pinch of salt? Sometimes he's right about things; sometimes he's wrong.

His main objective was to break up the fora. He has had a hand in doing so.

I am not aware of that at all and that is a major accusation to make agaisnt him. Please provide details of this accusation so that we all on here can make a valid judgment on how true your statements are.

I find it odd that you should even keep his correspondence, let alone post it up at will.

I rarely have time to delete messages. Simple as. I have all Menez's messages too before the great 180-degree turn around of her and Ms Butler.

Are you in this for Madeleine? Are you really? You don't seem too bothered that the fora are at each other's throats.

What?? And if the fora are at each other's throats, what has that got to do with either me or Majic? I post happily wherever people are seriously discussing what really happened to Madeleine, as my track record shows, it's plain for anyone to see. I support any place that is genuinely discussing what happened to Madeleine.

This is a missing child we're talking about Tony. You know, I want to be wrong about you.

Yes, a missing child. I was so concerned at the way she and the twins were left six nights in a row by her parents that I tried to get the parents prosecuted for child neglect. The Portuguese Police didn't do it. The British Police and British Social Services didn't do it either. In fact no-one else did it. And in return for doing that, I was massively criticised by many for being 'heartless', 'insensitive', 'scum' and worse. Then I wrote a book, because to me and many others, the abduction story didn't seem to stand up. Moreover, I have to choose my words very carefully at this point because the words in that book caused me to be taken almost to the door of the High Court before I agreed to sign certain binding undertakings. I've never made a penny out of the name Madeleine, in fact I'm out of pocket - and on top of that have suffered the persistent abuse from Menez, Butler and many others on the 'MM' forum falsely claiming that The Madeleine Foundation is 'another moneymaking scam' of mine.

Pray, Pascal, that we will have the real truth about what happend to Madeleine sooner rarther than later. Then perhaps these senseless forum wars, games and agendas will be behind us all.

Pascal wrote:Ok Tony, see that's another issue isn't it? Majic writes to you about Ambersuz and you pass judgement on her 'disgraceful' actions.

Is this true, or is it not true: "Susan had posted up the Facebook details of a child under 18 including their pictures..."

Majic posted her business details up on his website and she is adamant that those details came from you.

I didn't know Majic had done that, and if so, he can no doubt account for how he obtained that information.

ufercoffy wrote:

Pascal wrote:Ok Tony, see that's another issue isn't it? Majic writes to you about Ambersuz and you pass judgement on her 'disgraceful' actions.

Is this true, or is it not true: "Susan had posted up the Facebook details of a child under 18 including their pictures..."

Majic posted her business details up on his website and she is adamant that those details came from you.

I didn't know Majic had done that, and if so, he can no doubt account for how he obtained that information.

Muratfan has posted up Amber's details many times. Pascal, why not ask him/her/it where it all came from?

Pascal wrote:Uffer for the sake of my sanity; are you suggesting that Amber and DB are in cohorts with Majic? Who the F is Jo please? One of us is barking at the wrong dog and I think for all our sakes we should know. Ta.

Laffin Assasin wrote:Tony, Majic is mostly wrong !

Can you recall when the death threats you received were published in one of the Portuguese papers, I sent you the "threat" I'd received, that came from 'Majic' or one of his accomplices..he tried to blame his mate Clarky aka Andrew Waite of Apiphiny fame.

Pascal wrote:That doesn't explain to me why you give Majic the time of day. Are you in collusion with him? Is it because you wouldn't mind him annihilating the other fora? All a bit juvenile isn't it?