Re: Debbie Butler's harassment campaign being investigated by Essex Police under Crime Reference D222B/19551/09

by Guest 03.12.09 17:57

I suppose it makes sense that criminals know more about this sort of thing than average law abiding citizens.

by Pussycat 03.12.09 17:59

clarity wrote:I suppose it makes sense that criminals know more about this sort of thing than average law abiding citizens.

Sorry, didn't realise Tony was a criminal, can you fill me in?

by Guest 03.12.09 17:59

Tony Bennett wrote:
murat_fan wrote:Remember the last time you claimed the police were investigating claims of harrasment Bennett. You posted the wrong crime number. At least this time you have quoted a whole number.
Wrong once again murat_fan.

I posted an Incident Number last time.

This time I posted a Crime Reference Number.

You don't even know the difference.

Do you?

No you said it was a CRIME NUMBER, even for a INCIDENT NUMBER it was too short a number. You really are a tosser aren't you

by Guest 03.12.09 18:00

Pussycat wrote:
clarity wrote:I suppose it makes sense that criminals know more about this sort of thing than average law abiding citizens.

Sorry, didn't realise Tony was a criminal, can you fillme in?

A shamed solicitor that admitted to fraud.

by Guest 03.12.09 18:02

Pussycat wrote:
clarity wrote:I suppose it makes sense that criminals know more about this sort of thing than average law abiding citizens.

Sorry, didn't realise Tony was a criminal, can you fillme in?

I beleive he has broken the law a few times in the past, or is that not true? When he brought his previous profession into disrepute and when he gave false details after being caught damaging public property etc

by Guest 03.12.09 18:07

murat_fan said:

You really are a tosser aren't you

Is there really any need for that, does it make your argument any more effective. That's twice now in a couple of posts. Can't you have a reasonable debate without resorting to profanities!! Shocked

by preciousramotswe 03.12.09 18:17

It beggars belief that there are people out there who actually give credence to the idea that 'Team McCann' would pay people to set up forums dedicated to trashing them and their extended family, and habitually make vile slurs about their friends, and suggest that their eldest child was abused.

Or that they would pay people to set up the Madeleine Foundation.

Or that they would pay people to set up the dozens of defamatory websites which constituted Marsden's empire.

Only a perverse and sick logic could even come up with such a suggestion.

It's like all the trash about that gross oaf Levy being 'Team McCann' all along - it's what you say when you are left staring at the abyss left behind by the stupidity, backstabbing, self-interest and plain nastiness of the 'leading lights' in the whole gross anti-McCann affair.

Anyopne still dragging along in Bennett's coat tails is a damn idiot.

by MaryB 03.12.09 18:19

All I can say to that is this. It might be a very long time before the fat lady sings.

by Guest 03.12.09 18:22

candyfloss wrote:murat_fan said:

You really are a tosser aren't you

Is there really any need for that, does it make your argument any more effective. That's twice now in a couple of posts. Can't you have a reasonable debate without resorting to profanities!!

Actually if you have read what he was accuse of doing in a public toilet, the it is not a profanity

by Guest 03.12.09 18:31

murat_fan wrote:
candyfloss wrote:murat_fan said:

You really are a tosser aren't you

Is there really any need for that, does it make your argument any more effective. That's twice now in a couple of posts. Can't you have a reasonable debate without resorting to profanities!!

Actually if you have read what he was accuse of doing in a public toilet, the it is not a profanity

No I haven't read it and certainly don't intend to read it. What has that got to do with anything?? Just more stirring. Can't you just discuss reasonably.

by Guest 03.12.09 18:34

Just giving Bennett some of the stick he likes to give out.

by Guest 03.12.09 18:36

murat_fan wrote:Just giving Bennett some of the stick he likes to give out.

Strange that. Mr Bennett argues his case rationally and calmly. I haven't seen him call you any names.

by baconbutty 03.12.09 18:37

Can anyone hear the bottom of a barrel being scraped? roll

by Avery 03.12.09 18:40

baconbutty wrote:Can anyone hear the bottom of a barrel being scraped?

Sadly I don't think we are there yet.

by Guest 03.12.09 18:46

Avery wrote:
baconbutty wrote:Can anyone hear the bottom of a barrel being scraped?

Sadly I don't think we are there yet.

There can't possibly be any more of this grubby, ugly nonsense to come out, can there?

by Old Nick 03.12.09 19:31

clarity wrote:
Avery wrote:
baconbutty wrote:Can anyone hear the bottom of a barrel being scraped?

Sadly I don't think we are there yet.

There can't possibly be any more of this grubby, ugly nonsense to come out, can there?

Grubby and ugly. Two of my favourite adjectives.

by Guest 03.12.09 19:59

And even ride a motorbike

by Guest 04.12.09 9:08

Jolie wrote:
clarity wrote:
Jolie wrote:
clarity wrote:Team McCann

It's obvious to most of us, if you don't have a clue or choose to participate in their activities of trying to fool the public and let criminals walk free, too bad for you. Repeating your nonsense over and over does nothing to dissuade those of us who have watched the concerted effort of powerful people to manipulate public perceptions on this case.

Oh Jolie please, this is silly.

The concerted effort of powerful people to manipulate public perception was nothing more than money making irresponsible journalism and you went and believed it, even after they were forced to admit to making it all up and apologise, you still believe it, ask yourself why you would prefer to believe stories that were admittedly false over the facts in the investigation files, I mean really, this is not about Clarence or Kate and Gerry or even Madeleine, it's about you, why did you make that choice?

You're wasting your time with me, Clarity. I don't know what your game is, if you're paid or voluntary staff or an independent who chooses to spin for fun, but I don't buy the bs and never will.

It's saddening to see how you've lost your inquisitive mind and have fallen for the brainwashing that's been going on.
Brainwashing that doesn't serve to find the truth about what's happened, doesn't serve to bring Justice, but does suit the agenda of people who are still trying to fill their pockets on the back of an innocent child that's still missing.

by Jolie 04.12.09 15:03

I used my curiosity to make up my own mind, objectively.

I don't know why people willingly choose to protect possible criminals from answering serious questions regarding the disappearance of their daughter, however, particularly when they don't personally know the people involved.

The McCanns should have had to face full scrutiny of their background, bank information, medical records, etc., and answer interview questions until the police were satisfied. This never happened.

Everyone who says they care about Madeleine's fate should have been insisting that the parents comply with all of these requirements.

Instead, the McCanns were treated differently than any other parents who have been in similar circumstances. They behaved differently than any other parents in similar circumstances.

Until the parents answer all the questions and provide all the background information as originally requested from the PJ in May 2007, and cooperate with their friends in a reconstruction of the night's events according to testimonies, I will always believe that they had something to do with whatever happened to Madeleine and covering up the evidence afterward. If they are innocent, they did themselves no favors by avoiding cooperating with the investigation.

Save your concern for your own brain, DeeDee, if you don't realize the above is true.

by preciousramotswe 04.12.09 15:45

Jolie, you missed it all didnt you - the McCanns were investigated, for a long period of time.

The type of financial information requested was provided, except a stupidly long run of credit card info which the authorities here objected too - presumably on the grounds of precedent - and the PJ were invited to put in another request with a shorter time span.

They never did so.

The child's family GP gave a statement, it's in the files. Medical records here are confidential and I beleive you need a court order to get access to them. That's the same for everyone. Presumably the PJ decided that wasn't worth it either.

Their background was investigated - the files make it clear that they were checked for any kind of criminal behaviour and it all came up a blank.

So, what else do you want??

Please don't start banging on about the 48 questions - as her lawyer made plain at the time, she had already answered most of them in the previous many hours of questioning and the others were clearly so hostile that she was under no obligation to do so and what's more she KNEW that they had nothing to do with any REAL investigation to find her daughter.
Why on earth should she be complicit in leading the police even further up a completely blind alley?

You are living in the past Jolie, living with your own lack of insight and your own determination not to be shown to have backed the wrong horse for two years. So don't sit here taking the mickey out of others who have better perception.

by **Tony Bennett** 04.12.09 16:02

badmanners wrote:You are living in the past Jolie, living with your own lack of insight and your own determination not to be shown to have backed the wrong horse for two years. So don't sit here taking the mickey out of others who have better perception.

Your 'side' is ahead at the moment, 'badmanners'.

Goncalo Amaral in all sorts of trouble, his book virtually banned. Money problems and a succession of expensive court cases.

'60 Reasons' and '10 Reasons' banned.

The Madeleine Foundation in a period of turbulence.

Debbie Butler, urged on by Ambersuz and Brenda Ryan, talking to Clarence Mitchell and getting offers to talk to the McCanns privately.

Some people, perhaps those who tend to be blown by the wind, have noticeably aligned themselves with the McCanns' view on what happened to Madeleine in recent months.

But folk like me and Jolie and many others won't be shifted from our views just because the current climate is against us.

by Old Nick 04.12.09 16:07

Stand firm Tony - you will have your day of glory eventually.

by Autumn 04.12.09 16:23

Jolie wrote:I used my curiosity to make up my own mind, objectively.

I don't know why people willingly choose to protect possible criminals from answering serious questions regarding the disappearance of their daughter, however, particularly when they don't personally know the people involved.

The McCanns should have had to face full scrutiny of their background, bank information, medical records, etc., and answer interview questions until the police were satisfied. This never happened.

Everyone who says they care about Madeleine's fate should have been insisting that the parents comply with all of these requirements.

Instead, the McCanns were treated differently than any other parents who have been in similar circumstances. They behaved differently than any other parents in similar circumstances.

Until the parents answer all the questions and provide all the background information as originally requested from the PJ in May 2007, and cooperate with their friends in a reconstruction of the night's events according to testimonies, I will always believe that they had something to do with whatever happened to Madeleine and covering up the evidence afterward. If they are innocent, they did themselves no favors by avoiding cooperating with the investigation.

Save your concern for your own brain, DeeDee, if you don't realize the above is true.

I think for some people, the McCanns have become idols to be worshipped. There is something very 'stepford wifish' about many of the 'pro' posts. God help anyone who even hints that the McCanns are less than perfect, their worshippers come out ranting and screeching in their defence. Im sure the McCanns would be impressed by such adulation but very much doubt they could give a damn.

by preciousramotswe 04.12.09 18:06

Tony Bennett wrote:
badmanners wrote:You are living in the past Jolie, living with your own lack of insight and your own determination not to be shown to have backed the wrong horse for two years. So don't sit here taking the mickey out of others who have better perception.
Your 'side' is ahead at the moment, 'badmanners'.

Yes Tony I'd noticed big grin

We have been 'ahead' as you put it for rather a long time now. It just took a while for others to realise that, and for you all to turn on each other when the ordure began to hit the fan.

by Old Nick 04.12.09 18:22

It's a battle of good versus evil and you know whose side I'm on obviously.

Debbie Butler's harassment campaign being investigated by Essex Police under Crime Reference D222B/19551/09