Er...mr Bennett....

by Guest 01.12.09 14:13

Now that you have a place where you can print whatever you wish, I would very much like to read ALL the pm's or emails to Ambersuz, where in you DEMANDED the ban of all the members that did not approve with your theories
on the case of Madeleine McCann.

There were a quite a lot of new members 'who found a new home on that cheap MM forum after 3A was closed' and most were banned on behalf of you or Debbie Butler. (Butler asked my exit btw).

I hope that the owner of this forum, which seems to be a succes, will NOT fall for your requests or demands to ban members here because, like it or not, all the people, anti, pro, fencesitters have A RIGHT TO REPLY!

Let us see what you not only did to the McCann family but also to people on forums that did not deserve to be treated that way.

by Majic 01.12.09 15:47

Mr Bennett, I would also like to know whether this is the case in that you requested members to be removed from a forum for questioning you. As I am sure I do not need to point out this goes against the very spirit of free speech and we have discussed how important it is I believe.

Since no one will believe anything the administrator at the Missing Maadeleine forum says it will be down to you.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.12.09 18:29

Majic wrote:Mr Bennett, I would also like to know whether this is the case in that you requested members to be removed from a forum for questioning you. As I am sure I do not need to point out this goes against the very spirit of free speech and we have discussed how important it is I believe.

Since no one will believe anything the administrator at the Missing Maadeleine forum says it will be down to you.

I have never requested anyone to be removed from a forum for questioning me.

I have on occasions expressed my views in public and to forum-owners that those who come on a forum mainly to disrupt should be removed.

I believe in free speech, except where things like the incitement of violence or racial hatred is concerned.

But as I've said before, if for example you are in favour of banning hunting, you don't invite the Master of the Hounds to join your forum.

If you ardently believe in man-made climate change, you don't open your forum to climate change sceptics.

I am far more tolerant than you think considering the abuse I have suffered on all manner of forums; I did draw the line at Nigel Nessling deliberately circulating to others claims that I had spent time in a mental hospital when nothing like that is remotely true. That's why that became a police matter.

Most of those on the 'pro-McCann' side cheered Nesling on as he made these and other false and obscene suggestions about me.

by Majic 01.12.09 18:49

Mr Bennett, with the Foundation you are all bound to have very vocal critics. It is important though that the critics be allowed to speak no matter what they say. If what they say is untrue then that is dealt with in the future by the correct channels. I have to disagree with you about talking to administrators of a site regarding resistance of members. Members of a forum are given the option to report posts and then it is up to the administrators to action that report.

Suggesting members for review by the administrator is not something I agree with, especially on forums where the staff are emotionally involved with the core topic of the site, for an example of this just look at the owner of the Missing Madeleine forum.

The spirit of the internet forum is to invite all to have their say without fear of attack or ridicule. Each member has a responsibility when posting evidence or subject matter of fact to be challenged unless it is self evident.

To take your example, if you run an anti hunting site then you would wary of the Master of the Hounds joining it, but that in itself does not mean you immediately ban them or encourage members to give them a hard time. No matter how much we disagree with someone's opinion, isn't it right that we should defend their right to say it ?

by Guest 01.12.09 18:52

Tony Bennett wrote:
I have on occasions expressed my views in public and to forum-owners that those who come on a forum mainly to disrupt should be removed.

That was your excuse for all those banned members: disrupters because they protest your views on the McCann case, your reasons, booklets, leaflets, not good for the commerce.

Btw talking about your booklet. Care to explain the Parent Aid issue?
What is it with you that an organisation, a registered charity, was forced to put a disclaimer on their website, that
they don't have or won't have anything to do with you??

Er...mr Bennett.... 802023861_500_500_bmOL

Er...mr Bennett.... 802023861_500_500_bmOL

by MaryB 01.12.09 18:57

Can't see that this is any of your business. Sorry.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.12.09 18:58

Majic wrote:No matter how much we disagree with someone's opinion, isn't it right that we should defend their right to say it ?

Subject to my reservations about incitement to violence and incitement to racial hatred, and subject also I might say to the reasonable control of things like child pornography and obscenity on the internet, I agree with you.

The Forum Owner is like the master or mistress of a house.

You come in as a guest.

If you object to the behaviour of other guests, you complain to the owner.

I've not run to the owner of this forum even when 'smith' made his notorious and unjustified claims about me.

But the point is context.

A person has the right of free speech e.g. at Speakers Corner to say 'Jesus Christ never existed'.

But not to stand up in the middle of a church service when people are at prayer and shout the same thing.

by ROCKY 01.12.09 19:03

Good evening Tony, speaking of false and obscene suggestions. It seems that Goncalo Amaral is experiencing the same problem . I of course refer to Rosiepops who its seems now has a direct line to 'Marco Correia' . BB1 seems to suddenly find a poster that she once despised a great companion as they rip to shreds Joana Morais. Rosiepops it seems is now also fluent in Portuguese. They seem surprised to find that Amaral has a house with a swimming pool. Portugal is a hot country and a lot of people have swimming pools, there is nothing unusual in this. There is also a tape that is alleged to be of Amarals voice having an argument with an alleged ex lovers husband. The Mccanns as we now know have hired a PR team in Portugal their reasons, were to make themselves 'warm ' to the people of Portugal I think it is now becoming clear that the Mccanns had a much more sinister reason. Suddenly all of this 'dirt ' about Amarals private life is on the Internet and being digested with enjoyment by a pack of hungry wolves. If GA beat his wife every night and had 100 lovers what has this to do with the Mccann case. It changes nothing. My question can Amaral do anything to stop this? Debating and disagreeing is one thing but this is character assassination.

by Guest 01.12.09 19:08

Tony Bennett wrote:
I am far more tolerant than you think considering the abuse I have suffered on all manner of forums; I did draw the line at Nigel Nessling deliberately circulating to others claims that I had spent time in a mental hospital when nothing like that is remotely true. That's why that became a police matter.

Most of those on the 'pro-McCann' side cheered Nesling on as he made these and other false and obscene suggestions about me.

What about the abuse the McCanns have suffered from your Song for Christmas?
Or your Letter from Madeleine. Both send by you to the McCanns, days before Xmas?
Or your leaflet drop in their own home town. Or you having your lunch/dinner at the
restaurant in the hospital where Gerry McCann works.

And you are complaining having suffered?

You are accusing a very nice, decent and popular man here: Nigel Nessling.
He denies your accusations. I believe him and many others with me.
There is no police investigation on Nigel Nessling. There is a police investigation on you, that is for sure.

This has nothing to do with pro's or anti's, this is just you being a controversial person.

by Guest 01.12.09 19:10

MaryB wrote:Can't see that this is any of your business. Sorry.

Hi Brenda, finally found the url and your keyboard??

by **Tony Bennett** 01.12.09 19:12

Chicane wrote:Btw talking about your booklet. Care to explain the Parent Aid issue?
What is it with you that an organisation, a registered charity, was forced to put a disclaimer on their website, that they don't have or won't have anything to do with you?

The Parents Aid quote says:

"We understand that our name may have been attached to [the Madeleine Foundation's] literature without our permission".

In fact, none of our literature refers to Parents Aid at all.

Parents Aid were contacted by a notorious pro-McCanner who misinformed them.

The publisher of '60 Reasons' is The Madeleine Foundation not Parents Aid. The ISBN we used belonged to me personally.

Incidentally I suspect that those who now run Parents Aid would be horrified at parents who leave a child sobbing 'Daddy, Daddy' for 75 minutes while they are out wining and dining with their Doctor friends. And even more shocked that Madeleine's two-year-old siblings were there as well. Why don't you ring Parents Aid, now you know their 'phone number, and ask them what they think about parents who could do that?

And then go out again even after Madeleine has told them that she and Sean were crying the pervious night when no-one was there to comfort them.

Yes, I'd like to see an official Parents Aid comment about that.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.12.09 19:16

Chicane wrote:What about the abuse the McCanns have suffered from your Song for Christmas? Or your Letter from Madeleine. Both sent by you to the McCanns, days before Xmas?

UNTRUE - Neither were sent to the McCanns.

Or your leaflet drop in their own home town. Or you having your lunch/dinner at the
restaurant in the hospital where Gerry McCann works. And you are complaining having suffered? You are accusing a very nice, decent and popular man here: Nigel Nessling.
He denies your accusations. I believe him and many others with me.

I have the proof. So do the police.

by Guest 01.12.09 19:17

Well show us the proof.

by Jamie 01.12.09 19:18

Chicane wrote:Well show us the proof.

Who are you? Inspector Morse?

by Majic 01.12.09 19:21

Tony Bennett wrote:
Subject to my reservations about incitement to violence and incitement to racial hatred, and subject also I might say to the reasonable control of things like child pornography and obscenity on the internet, I agree with you.

The Forum Owner is like the master or mistress of a house.

You come in as a guest.

If you object to the behaviour of other guests, you complain to the owner.

I've not run to the owner of this forum even when 'smith' made his notorious and unjustified claims about me.

But the point is context.

A person has the right of free speech e.g. at Speakers Corner to say 'Jesus Christ never existed'.

But not to stand up in the middle of a church service when people are at prayer and shout the same thing.

I agree. Obviously racial hatred, incitement to violence, child pornography and obscenity it against the law. Any such incidents involving these must be dealt with immediately.

However, smith is just a critic. That's all. OK, he is also a spokeshole for Brenda Ryan so you can see right there that you are going to get an unhinged and pointless attack. There are others that are critical because of your chosen opinion, and they have every right to question you about that opinion.

In the past smith has said all manner of derogatory things about me, but as you can see, their opinion is just as worthless as Brenda Ryan and commands very little respect.

by Guest 01.12.09 19:37

Tony Bennett wrote:

Parents Aid were contacted by a notorious pro-McCanner who misinformed them.

Parents Aid was contacted by a criticaster of Tony Bennett.

The publisher of '60 Reasons' is The Madeleine Foundation not Parents Aid. The ISBN we used belonged to me personally.

ISBN Shows: Publisher: Parents Aid!
Not MF.

Incidentally I suspect that those who now run Parents Aid would be horrified at parents who leave a child sobbing 'Daddy, Daddy' for 75 minutes while they are out wining and dining with their Doctor friends.

There is no legal evidence at all that this was Madeleine McCann.

And even more shocked that Madeleine's two-year-old siblings were there as well. Why don't you ring Parents Aid, now you know their 'phone number, and ask them what they think about parents who could do that?

Parents Aid have already distanced themselves of your extreme thoughts on what was a dramatic misjudgement by parents like us: not perfect. Ring them yourself to hear their view on this.

And then go out again even after Madeleine has told them that she and Sean were crying the pervious night when no-one was there to comfort them.

It is already known for more than 2 years now that is was a terrible mistake and McCanns and Madeleine are suffering from this from that day on. Does it help to improve the situation to go on and on about what went wrong?
This is not your trauma. It is their living hell.

Yes, I'd like to see an official Parents Aid comment about that.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.12.09 19:38

Majic wrote:There are others that are critical because of your chosen opinion, and they have every right to question you about that opinion.

That I don't object to. And any facts - and I mean facts - about my history may also be relevant.

What I do object to is the multiple falsehoods about me. And in this respect I appreciate your recent efforts to correct some of those.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.12.09 19:41

Chicane wrote:The publisher of '60 Reasons' is The Madeleine Foundation not Parents Aid. The ISBN we used belonged to me personally.

ISBN Shows: Publisher: Parents Aid!
Not MF.

The simple problem there is that the current Parents Aid is NOT the same group as the original Parents Aid which incidentally I founded in 1979.

In fact they called themselves 'Parents Aid Southern Essex' to distinguish them from the original Parents Aid, which folded years ago. Have a look at their own website if you don't believe me.

If the ISBN authorities have named the publisher as 'Parents Aid', they are in error, and perhaps you could kindly advise Parents Aid Southern Essex to take up any complaint with them, as it's their error.

by Patty O'Daws 01.12.09 19:56

I would just like to say that I think Mr Bennett is very brave to post on any forum after he's been slaughtered so many times on others. I've seen how posters treated him on the BDF, 3a's JATYK, PFA and MM and it's really very shocking. I have always found Mr Bennett to be very professional in any of his responses, even to those like 'smith'.

I'm suprised Tony doesn't give forums a wide berth but it's good that he can have his say here.

I also hope this forum does NOT become like the MM which is an absolute disgrace. I cannot believe Deborah Butler was actually the Chairman of the Madeleine Foundation and had a hidden personality like that Hissyfit

waiting to explode. I think it's only right she was gotten rid of.

Tony, I hope you and your members will find a way forward for Maddy McCann.

by Majic 01.12.09 20:05

Tony Bennett wrote:

What I do object to is the multiple falsehoods about me. And in this respect I appreciate your recent efforts to correct some of those.

Mr Bennett, I am only after the truth and my site has been responsible for circulating inaccurate information. When I discovered this I corrected all of the issues and removed those members responsible. I can't have a website proclaiming "the truth matters" when the truth is not present.

by Patty O'Daws 01.12.09 20:07

What is your site please?

by Majic 01.12.09 20:11

Patty O'Daws wrote:... BDF, 3a's JATYK, PFA and MM and it's really very shocking....

Patty, I disagree with this, two of these sites namely Just a thought and PFA are critical of the Foundation. If you are shocked by what takes place on there then maybe you just can't handle the criticism. I have no knowledge of the BDF or Missing Madeleine forum, but since the MM forum is a hate site then I would agree that what you will read on there is very shocking by design.

by Autumn 01.12.09 20:12

I dont know how Mr Bennett keeps his cool, in the face of such rudeness from some posters. Regardless of the often aggressive manner adopted by some people, demanding that he answer their relentless questions, Mr Bennett never fails to respond politely. Perhaps a start would be to address him as 'Mr Bennett' or 'Tony', as opposed to 'Bennett' which to my mind seems a bit rude :flower:

by Guest 01.12.09 20:15

Mr Bennett is not a victim here. Sadly, the victim is Madeleine.

by Guest 01.12.09 20:16

From Ambersuz, illuminating a little the opening question about just how far Mr Bennett's love of free speech actually extends, and also reminding us of his determination to go to court to defend his thesis:

From: ANTHONY BENNETT
Subject: The future of MM
To: "s s"
Cc: butler683@btinternet.com
Date: Wednesday, 9 September, 2009, 5:51 PM

Dear Susan

I have seen your message today on the forum about banning people.

I think you have some hard choices here, but my own wish would be to see all the pro-McCann disruptors banned immediately.

Undoubtedly this will reduce your volume of traffic very considerably. The disruptors have a knack of knowing how to either goad or entice people into responding. For me, it's like walking on a road and then suddenly being sucked under with quicksand - which is how I feel about MM in the past three weeks. None of them are here for genuine reasons.

If you ban them, there will be cries from them of: 'No debate allowed', 'Censorship', and something like 'Bennett's puppets' and probably worse.

Anyway, it is your decision and your forum, I always think of it as being invited into someone's home and you should behave accordingly.

To sum up.

I know Madeleine died in 5A.

So does Goncalo Amaral.

Something very evil lurks behind the insistence that Madeleine is still alive.

I will continue with my assertions on the case and will try to back up what I say as tightly as possible.

If taken to court, I shall defend the contents of 60 Reasons.

As a gesture of faith in my argument and in the '10 Reasons' leaflet I have today sent you by Air Mail about another 100 leaflets, 700g...weight, and I hope you'll continue distributing them. There's always more when you want them.

Thanks so much for your help, and please deal with these wolves in sheeps' clothing.

Tony