The punishment for making a false allegation

Tony Bennett wrote:

trunky wrote:In actual fact you expelled her AFTER her allegations, so stop twisting stuff again.

Wholly wrong.

9am Weds 4 Nov - Debbie Butler given notice of expulsion.

Later on 4 Nov - Goes to bank to freeze account. Goes to talk to Det. Sgt. Ryder at Maidstone Police Office who describes her as 'gibbering' and takes no notice, believing her complaints to be false and malicious.

trunky wrote:

sym wrote:

trunky wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

trunky wrote:In actual fact you expelled her AFTER her allegations, so stop twisting stuff again.

Wholly wrong.

9am Weds 4 Nov - Debbie Butler given notice of expulsion.

Later on 4 Nov - Goes to bank to freeze account. Goes to talk to Det. Sgt. Ryder at Maidstone Police Office who describes her as 'gibbering' and takes no notice, believing her complaints to be false and malicious.

5 Nov - Steve Marsden headlines former Madeleine Foundation website: 'Serious fraud in Madeleine Foundation' based on ms Butler's claims.

There was no allegation of fraud prior to her expulsion.

NONSENSE

she was making allegations of fraud well before that, on the MF website. She may not have gone to the cops before then, but she was telling anyone who would listen.

And that is why you expelled her.

I am heartily sick of your lies and obfuscations - you must think the whole damn world is daft!

Pretty good reason for expulsion I would say. go and accuse your boss or colleagues of fraud, see the reaction

You dont give a damn that he just lied to you here on this forum, claiming that she made the accusations because she was expelled?

When it was the other way round?

Is there NOTHING this person can do that will make you go - WTF?????

trunky wrote:From the MF website, Nov 5th:

Steve,

I cannot believe you have just posted this. The two of you - you and Debbie - seem to have gone utterly insane:

http://madeleinefoundation.org/main/2009....-debbie-butler/

There is absolutely nothing in what Debbie says, same as for much else that she has said in the past two weeks. In fact it is an outrageous and deliberate lie. The accounts have been scrupulously kept and Debbie has always known about all payments in and out of The Foundation, as my frequent e-mails to hear bear testimony. No cheques have been paid out since 2 October when we met Kirwans in Liverpool.

Your own creibility will suffer as a result of this Steve. Very much so. I cannot afford to take libel proceedings agisnt you or issue writs, but this is almost an unpardonable offence the two of you have committed. It would be very hard for me to forgive this one. Especially as in fact the Foundation owes me money in respect of postage etc. as yet unclaimed.

I must insist you remove this straightaway and apologise for posting it up.

By the way, I went to the bank several days ago, properly notified them there was a dispute according to established procedure, explained that a new Committee was in operation, and added that new signatories to the account would be provided after our meeting on 14 November.


And none of this happened until after you had expelled her, huh?

scrafen wrote:no, tony. you make it sound, as if debbie run to the bank on 4 nov - fully out of the blue.

it had started already some weeks ago, that she questioned you about things in the finances she didnt understand.

when she stayed determined on the finance issues, and didnt take any shallow explanations => you eventually expelled her on 4 nov.

THEN - she, tricked out, but in need to safe the remaining money, went to the bank.

Tony Bennett wrote:

trunky wrote:From the MF website, Nov 5th:

Steve,

I cannot believe you have just posted this. The two of you - you and Debbie - seem to have gone utterly insane:

http://madeleinefoundation.org/main/2009....-debbie-butler/

There is absolutely nothing in what Debbie says, same as for much else that she has said in the past two weeks. In fact it is an outrageous and deliberate lie. The accounts have been scrupulously kept and Debbie has always known about all payments in and out of The Foundation, as my frequent e-mails to hear bear testimony. No cheques have been paid out since 2 October when we met Kirwans in Liverpool.

Your own creibility will suffer as a result of this Steve. Very much so. I cannot afford to take libel proceedings agisnt you or issue writs, but this is almost an unpardonable offence the two of you have committed. It would be very hard for me to forgive this one. Especially as in fact the Foundation owes me money in respect of postage etc. as yet unclaimed.

I must insist you remove this straightaway and apologise for posting it up.

By the way, I went to the bank several days ago, properly notified them there was a dispute according to established procedure, explained that a new Committee was in operation, and added that new signatories to the account would be provided after our meeting on 14 November.


And none of this happened until after you had expelled her, huh?

You are wrong again and again and again.

From 26 October Ms Butler made allegations that I had gone to Liverpool knowing in advance that I would concede. They were NOT allegations of fraud.

It was on 2 November that I notified the bank, very properly, that there was a potential dispute. That was duly noted by the bank.

Ms Butler was notified of her expulsion on the morning of 4 November and only THEN did she race off to the bank, the police, the press and Steve Marsden and tell everyone who would listen that there was, and I quote, 'serious fraud' within The Madeleine Foundation. It was on 5 November that Steve Marsden made his fateful decision, for whatever motive, to believe Ms Butler's allegations and to post them on the website he ahd taken over from us on 2 October. The website's rapid decline following my exit was then soon followed by its demise.

Those are the facts.

JKH wrote:Gibbering? Really... not so's I'd noticed :lol:

murat_fan wrote:I think if you libel someone you should go round with oversized (80's) glasses on and sport a stupid hairstyle.

Tony Bennett wrote:

scrafen wrote:no, tony. you make it sound, as if debbie run to the bank on 4 nov - fully out of the blue.

it had started already some weeks ago, that she questioned you about things in the finances she didnt understand.

when she stayed determined on the finance issues, and didnt take any shallow explanations => you eventually expelled her on 4 nov.

THEN - she, tricked out, but in need to safe the remaining money, went to the bank.

Completely untrue.

No questions were asked by Ms Butler nor allegations made until 4 November when she was expelled. Is there any email where she even asked me about cheques, or the accounts, or fraud? No - and Ms Butler hasn't been able to produce any.

scrafen, if it wasn't clear to everyone already, you have completley given away your prejudiced view on this matter.

You claim Ms Butler alleged financial impropriety and was asking questions before 4 November - but there is not one posting nor email from her before 4 November you or she can refer to which shows that she did.

If you were fair, honest and impartial, you would concede that.

But you are not.

trunky wrote:Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

What's this then, scotch mist?

Posts on MM forum :

26-10-2009
Bren (23:10) :
I have just got off the phone with Debbie, she is upset and furious at the turn of events that have happened today. She will keep you informed and has asked me to say should anybody now feel that they want a return of donation to contact her.

REPLY: Er, the 'turn of events' was (a) the fact that earlier that evening she had been visited by Kent Police and cautioned about her campaign of harassment against Mike Gunnill and (b) that she herself had plastered a private email sent by me to her earlier that evening on the 'Missing Madeleine' forum (soon to be followed by disclosing private information about my savings to the world). The email referred to her totally bizarre claim that I had driven her all the way up to Kirwans in Liverpool knowing fine well in advance that I was going to concede. As the email showed, I offered to talk to her about her concerns.

Amber (23:11) : Debbie as far as I know is not in control of the funds in the MF account so where is it, how much is left and who should have that money?

REPLY: Debbie Butler was in FULL control of The Madeleine Foundation accounts as not one penny could be taken from the accounts without her signing a cheque. She reguarly signed 2, 3 or 4 cheques in advance, in common with the practice in many such small organisations, to avoid cheques going back and forth in the post. On the date Debbie Butler froze the account there was £2,766 in the account. As to 'who should have that money? - why, the members, of course, who are currently being deprived of it by Debbie Butler.

deborah (23:27) :
I did not want to do this but I am not going to be used or made a fool of even though TB is more intelligent than me by miles , I have been asked to sign 4 cheques" just in case . I have not signed as I do not know what they are for ....

REPLY: I repeat that all the allegations of 'serious fraud' etc. were made to the bank, the police and webmaster Steve Marsden only AFTER Debbie Butler was expelled from membership on 4 November. No allegations, queries etc, about The Madeleine Foundation accounts, no requests for receipts etc. were made by Debbie Butler prior to 4 November. We simply have her raising for the first time on 'MM' a query about our custom and practice of her pre-signing one or two cheques for administrative convenience.

SYM* wrote:If being shot with balls of their own shit is not ok how about tie them up and force them to lsiten to a recording of Murat questioning Bennet?

murat_fan wrote:

SYM* wrote:If being shot with balls of their own shit is not ok how about tie them up and force them to lsiten to a recording of Murat questioning Bennet?

Are you just here to give us your lack of wit and wisdom?

Tony Bennett wrote:

trunky wrote:Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

What's this then, scotch mist?

Posts on MM forum :

26-10-2009
Bren (23:10) :
I have just got off the phone with Debbie, she is upset and furious at the turn of events that have happened today. She will keep you informed and has asked me to say should anybody now feel that they want a return of donation to contact her.

REPLY: Er, the 'turn of events' was (a) the fact that earlier that evening she had been visited by Kent Police and cautioned about her campaign of harassment against Mike Gunnill and (b) that she herself had plastered a private email sent by me to her earlier that evening on the 'Missing Madeleine' forum (soon to be followed by disclosing private information about my savings to the world). The email referred to her totally bizarre claim that I had driven her all the way up to Kirwans in Liverpool knowing fine well in advance that I was going to concede. As the email showed, I offered to talk to her about her concerns.

Amber (23:11) : Debbie as far as I know is not in control of the funds in the MF account so where is it, how much is left and who should have that money?

REPLY: Debbie Butler was in FULL control of The Madeleine Foundation accounts as not one penny could be taken from the accounts without her signing a cheque. She reguarly signed 2, 3 or 4 cheques in advance, in common with the practice in many such small organisations, to avoid cheques going back and forth in the post. On the date Debbie Butler froze the account there was £2,766 in the account. As to 'who should have that money? - why, the members, of course, who are currently being deprived of it by Debbie Butler.

deborah (23:27) :
I did not want to do this but I am not going to be used or made a fool of even though TB is more intelligent than me by miles , I have been asked to sign 4 cheques" just in case . I have not signed as I do not know what they are for ....

REPLY: I repeat that all the allegations of 'serious fraud' etc. were made to the bank, the police and webmaster Steve Marsden only AFTER Debbie Butler was expelled from membership on 4 November. No allegations, queries etc, about The Madeleine Foundation accounts, no requests for receipts etc. were made by Debbie Butler prior to 4 November. We simply have her raising for the first time on 'MM' a query about our custom and practice of her pre-signing one or two cheques for administrative convenience.

Old Nick wrote:I believe in Tony 100%. He makes me very, very proud.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Chicane wrote:Are you doing a research what may become of you once found guilty of fraud and making allegations to others???

'clarity' and 'Chicane' [nearly said 'chicanery' there],

You may not have understood something.

It is one thing for a person like Ms Butler to go running to the police, having been expelled from membership of an organisation for very valid reasons, and make a highly specific allegation that a person has committed fraud, knowing fine well that it is untrue.

It is quite another thing to analyse a crime which has been in the public domain, citing official police enquiries and documents, come to a conclusion which as it happens is identical to the conclusion reached by the original senior detective in the case, and then write a booklet about it. That's not a crime. But it might well attract a letter from a certain law firm which represents characters like Robert Maxwell and Trafigura.

clarity wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Chicane wrote:Are you doing a research what may become of you once found guilty of fraud and making allegations to others???

'clarity' and 'Chicane' [nearly said 'chicanery' there],

You may not have understood something.

It is one thing for a person like Ms Butler to go running to the police, having been expelled from membership of an organisation for very valid reasons, and make a highly specific allegation that a person has committed fraud, knowing fine well that it is untrue.

It is quite another thing to analyse a crime which has been in the public domain, citing official police enquiries and documents, come to a conclusion which as it happens is identical to the conclusion reached by the original senior detective in the case, and then write a booklet about it. That's not a crime. But it might well attract a letter from a certain law firm which represents characters like Robert Maxwell and Trafigura.

Mr Bennett it may have escaped your notice but the original senior detective was removed from the case and the theories and possibilities held 5 months into the investigation were no longer held 12 months into the investigation, such is the nature of investigations. Would you like to go back to every crime investigated over the past, however many years, choose an arbitrary point in time and decide that that point is more factual and based on truth than at the end? That, Mr Bennett sounds dangerously nutso.