A look back at that attempted prosecution of the McCanns for neglect in November 2007 - in reply to an allegation by Chris Roberts of the 'Pond Appreciation Society' that I am a 'McCann plant'

by **Tony Bennett** 27.08.15 17:05

I have given this a new thread since I have found out that the main reason that Chris Roberts thinks I am a 'McCann plant' is because he thinks I was 'ignorant' and 'stupid' etc. to even think of bringing it. Moreover he has asked a series of other questions which I have no need to answer, but am happy top do so in order to set the record straight on a few things he has raised.

To what follows, I would add that, as most here know, I attempted to obtain a summons because to my mind the McCanns themselves had provided prima facie evidence that they had neglected their children, by publicly admitting - not least in two long articles by-lined by Lori Campbell in The Independent on Sunday and the Sunday Mirror on 5 August 2007 that they had left their three young children, all under four, alone every evening for six days for substantial periods of time.

Before making my application, I established that neither the Portuguese Police, nor the British Police, nor Leicesteshire Police, nor anyone else, was going to bring such an attempted prosecution.

Time after time I see people ask even today: "Why were the McCanns never prosecuted for neglect?" Well, one person at least tried.

Leicestershire Magistrates Court did not immediately reject my application. They passed my letter post haste to the Attrorney-General. He advised the Court not to issue a summons simply because I could not establish beyond doubt that that Court had jurisdiction to hear the case. I deal with that issue below in PART TWO of my answers to Roberts (see next post).

I am at a complete loss to understand why this should be such a big issue for Roberts or anyone else. What was lost by an attempt that failed? Nothing so far as I can see. The whole thing cost me nothing more than a few sheets of paper, a tiny bit of ink, and two postage stamps. The consequences of that action were that I got thousands of goodwill messages of support, and out of those, the Madeleine Foundation, and all that it did, was born:
:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Chris Roberts MAIN REASON for suspecting that I am a ‘McCann Plant’:

(1) It has long been my opinion that Bennett was a McCann "plant" because no-one who understands the law would come close to making the "mistake" that he did... and he's an ex solicitor.

(2) perhaps you should re-read the posts. It's my opinion that Bennett is a plant because only a crass idiot with no knowledge of the law whatsoever would attempt a private prosecution where there is no jurisdiction.

(3) you know me well enough. I don't form an opinion or speculate on fresh air, I form them on fact and/or logic. The logic is that no-one with even a fundamental understanding of the law would do what he did, i.e initiate a private prosecution where there is no jurisdictionfor the crime committed and therefore bound for certain failure.

(4)The logic also follows that having someone like TB as a "stalking horse" to demonstrate how wrong all of us antis are would suit the McCanns perfectly. If TB can demonstrate on what basis he actually believed that what he did had even a 1% chance of success I'd really like to read it. I'm sorry that we are at odds on this but in this scenario many things are not what they seem or purport to be.

(5) Helen, the evidence of a private prosecution without jurisdiction is an absolute given and is inarguable, that's what he did. Now I respect TB's advanced knowledge of the law…and therein lies the problem.

(6) Helen, there is clear evidence of unbelievable stupidity. In my experience, intelligent men don't normally do that.

CHRIS ROBERTS ALSO WROTE: "Jill Havern…first I will register that some [of the good people] here do not follow your adoration of Mr Bennett, it is their free choice so to do and this page is chock full of really quite the brightest and most intelligent people I have encountered anywhere on the net, facebook or anywhere else.

"In any event, thanks for this copious response but it doesn't answer the questions I would ask. As Mr Bennett seems reluctant to interact with me seemingly because he feels that I am in some way inferior to him. "(who is he anyway?)", we must therefore adopt a three cornered conversation. So, to kick it off...."

1 The costs order against you. Did you accept the summary judgement or did you request a detailed assessment ? If the latter, what was the outcome ?

REPLY: As I explained at the time to members on CMOMM, the events following the High Court judgment that I was in contempt of court for breaking the terms of a previous undertaking can be summarised as follows:

(1) At the time of the judgment against me, Carter-Ruck sent me notes of their costs to date, which amounted to over £288,000. During the final stags of all the court proceedings, they hired one of the most expensive Q.C.s in the country, Adrienne Page, to deal with me in the final hearings. This pushed the McCanns’ total costs bill to over £330,000.

(2) At the beginning of the contempt proceedings against me in late 2011, I made a counter-claim asking the High Court to revoke some of the undertakings I had signed under financial duress in 2009. Mr Justice Tugendhat refused to hear the counter-claim, saying, in terms: “First we deal with the alleged breach of your undertakings. After that you can apply for the undertakings to be revoked if you wish. Immediately after I was sentenced, Justice Tugendhat reminded me that I was free to pursue my counterclaim for the undertakings to be revoked, although warning me that this would in effect trigger full-scale libel proceedings.

(3) I did then apply (in March 2013) for the undertakings to be revoked.

(4) Furthermore, I also appealed Justice Tuegdnhat’s decision on a number of grounds.

(5) A date was in the process of being fixed, for my appeal to be heard.

(6) I took and paid for legal advice from a very helpful local solicitor and a very good friend, not a solicitor, who had plenty of experience in negotiating settlements in commercial and other disputes.

(7) Their advice was that I should consider offering to withdraw both my application and my appeal in exchange for a very substantial reduction in my costs bill.

(8) I was emotionally and mentally exhausted at the time and, had I proceeded with either my application or my appeals at the time, I would have been involving myself in much additional time and effort because I simple could not afford to hire a solicitor and barrister to represent me. I wrote to Carter-Ruck offering to withdraw my application and appeal in exchange for a very substantial reduction in my costs. The McCanns responded via Carter-Ruck with an offer. There was further correspondence. They replied with a revised offer. My solicitor and friend both agreed that this was a reasonable offer taking into account all the circumstances.

(9) I accepted it, paid a substantial lump-sum, and agreed to pay a further £125 a month from May 2013 to April 2015.

(10) So there was no summary judgment nor detailed assessment.

2. You refer to 60 reasons and that you "Sold thousands more copies to the public before it was banned". Please advise your sales and revenue for this publication.

REPLY Annual accounts have always been presented to our members.

Sales of and expenditure in relation to ’60 Reasons’ were not subject to separate accounting but formed part of the main Madeleine Foundation accounts.

To get as close as I am able to revenues from sale, and associated costs of sale, and to assist you so far as is practicable six years later, below are the income and expenses of the Madeleine Foundation for the period 26 January 2008 (date of formation) to 2 October 2009. To summarise the position in relation to ’60 Reasons’: When you add up all the figures, we just about covered our costs, which was our/my intention from the beginning. I was paid no fee of any kind for writing the book, it was done for and on behalf of the Madeleine Foundation:

Income                                   £    p

Loan from T Bennett               20 00

Loans from D Butler              350 00

Donations                            590 00

Cash subcriptions                     10 00

All Net PayPal Income
(payments for books,
subscriptions and
donations)                             5580 00

Cash sales of the booklet    1464 90

Direct Debit - Ocean Blue         70 00

Retail booksellers                    19 15

TOTAL                                      8104 05

Expenditure                               £   p

Printing of booklets               3340 00

Room Hire
Harlow 26.1.08                         70 00
Harlow 1.8.09                         387 50
Cardiff 3.10.09                        105 00

Two Placards                           233 63

Cheque refunds                        23 00

Clarence Mitchell leaflets          216 00

‘10 Reasons’ - Feb 2009           210 00

‘10 Reasons’ - Aug 2009          210 00

Hosting fees paid direct          135 84

Payments to Webmaster
(Steve Marsden)*                  275 00

Postage and Expenses
A Bennett                                905 00
D Butler                                  350 00

Kirwans Solicitors                     500 00

Payment to Vera Steinke
For German translations
   (made by T Bennett)             250 00

Refund of loan by D Butler        350 00


TOTAL                               7560 97

Balance: £543.08

* via PayPal

ANSWERS CONTINUED IN NEXT POST

by **Tony Bennett** 27.08.15 17:33

CONTINUED

3. You say that you "attempted to obtain a summons against the [McCanns] for child neglect under the Children & Young Persons Act 1933. This failed only because I could not prove beyond doubt that the case came under the jurisdiction of an English court as opposed to a Portuguese court." This is perhaps the crux of the matter because anyone with little knowledge of the law would have realised that;

(a) The "offence" could not possibly be dealt with in a UK court because it does not have jurisdiction over alleged offences committed in another country.

(b) Under Portuguese law, the McCanns were not guilty of neglect anyway.

My letter applying for a summons, dated 14 November 2007, is attached. You will see that far from being ignorant of the law, I researched it thoroughly, and quoted the Hagiu Convention which quite clearly states that The exercise of parental responsibility is governed by the law of the State of the child’s habitual residence.

From: Mr Anthony Bennett M.A.                              66 Chippingfield
Tel: 01279 635789                                                   HARLOW
Mobile: 07835 716537                                              Essex
e-mail: ajsbennett@btinternet.com                            CM17 0DJ

Clerk to the Justices                               Wednesday 14 November 2007
North Leicestershire Division
The Court House
Woodgate
LOUGHBOROUGH
Leicestershire
LE11 2XBChairman of the Bench
Leicestershire Magistrates Court

c/o North Leicestershire Division
The Court House
Woodgate
LOUGHBOROUGH
Leicestershire
LE11 2XB
Dear Sir/Madam,

re: NOTICE OF PRIVATE PROSECUTION – GERALD MCCANN and KATE MCCANN, 5 THE CRESCENT, ROTHLEY, LEICESTER, LE7 7RW

I wish to lay information concerning the crime of child neglect, within the meaning of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, allegedly committed by Mr Gerald McCann and Mrs Kate McCann whilst staying in Praia da Luz, Portugal, earlier this year. A copy of this letter is being sent to the Chairman of the Bench, following my telephone call to you this morning.

Please issue summonses for Mr Gerald McCann and Mrs Kate McCann to answer to the undermentioned charge. I am writing both to you and to the Clerk of the Leicestershire Magistrates Court at Loughborough.

Charge:

That on 28 April 2007, 29 April 2007, 30 April 2007, 1 May 2007, 2 May 2007 and 3 May 2007 Mr Gerald and Mrs Kate McCann, on their own admissions, left their three children aged 3, 2 and 2, on their own in their apartment at the Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, for substantial periods of time, whilst they went out for the evening with friends, eating and drinking, contrary to Section 1 Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

Particulars:

It is alleged that they left on their own, with no supervision, Madeleine aged three and twins Sean and Amelie aged 2. The McCanns have claimed that Madeleine was abducted around 9.30pm on the evening of 3 May. This could only have occurred through their own neglect. Details of the evidence on which it is proposed to rely are attached on a separate document.

Details of the relevant law are similarly attached.

Details of the Hague Convention, which from 1 January 2002 requires that legal matters regarding the protection of the welfare of children are prosecuted where the persons are resident, and not where matters relevant to the children’s welfare have occurred, is also attached.

It is considered that it is manifestly in the public interest that a summons be issued in this case and once again the reasons for asserting this are given in the accompanying document. In addition it should be noted that there has been a recent assertion by the chief publicist for the McCanns, Clarence Mitchell, that it is a ‘British thing’ to leave young children on their own. There has been much public discussion of his comments, which were reported in the ‘Irish Independent’ on 25 October as follows:

Quote

Of the criticism that the McCanns left their children by themselves on four evenings while they went for dinner, Mr Mitchell said there was a cultural difference between Britain and Portugal. "It is a British approach to get your children washed, bathed and in bed early in the evening if you can so you can have something of the evening to yourself. That is the British way of doing things. It doesn't mean it's wrong. It doesn't mean it's right," he said.

Unquote

Since those comments were made, there have been many voices calling for the courts to clarify the law on whether or not it is safe to leave very young children on their own for any length of time.

Additional Matters:

In sending you this letter I have, I believe, scrupulously followed the requirements of Section 7 of the Criminal Procedure Regulations 2005. I am not familiar with the procedure, however, therefore if the information I have supplied to you is in any way insufficient, please advise me as soon as possible and I will endeavour to promptly rectify any deficiencies.

I am aware of the powers of the Crown Prosecution Service to take over a case begun by a private individual and if they wish to do so and decide to prosecute it themselves, I would not object. I understand that they also have powers to discontinue a private prosecution but only, so I am led to believe, if it is ‘in the public interest’ to do so.

If there is any clarification you require regarding any of the contents of this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours faithfully

Anthony Bennett

Relevant law

Children and Young Persons Act 1933 c 12 – e
Cruelty to persons under sixteen

Section 1

(1) If any person who has attained the age of sixteen years and has the custody, charge, or care of any child or young person under that age wilfully assaults, ill-treats, neglects, abandons, or exposes him, or causes or procures him to be assaulted, ill-treated, neglected, abandoned, or exposed, in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering or injury to health (including injury to or loss of sight hearing, or limb, or organ of the body, and any mental derangement), that person shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and shall be liable -

(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or alternatively…or in addition thereto, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years;
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or alternatively…or in addition thereto, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months.

Case (1) R v Jasmin

In R v Jasmin, L (2004) 1CR, App.R (s) 3, the Appellants had left their child aged 16 months old alone in the home for periods of up to 3 hours, whilst they went off to work. This happened on approximately three separate occasions. The Appellants were both found guilty of offences relating to neglect contrary to Section 1(1) Childrens’ and Young Persons Act 1933 and were sentenced to concurrent terms of 2 years imprisonment.. Lord Justice Law in summing up stated that: “…there was no evidence of any physical harm resulting from this neglect [but] “that both parents had difficulty in accepting the idea that their child was in any danger”.

Case (2) M v Normand

In M v Normand (1995) SLT 1284, HCt Judiciary [Scottish case],the Appellant had parked his car leaving his son aged 18 months old strapped in a child’s car seat in the rear of the car whilst he and his wife went to do some Christmas shopping. A traffic warden was on duty when he saw the Appellants’ car with the chid in the car seat. The child was sitting quietly, appeared to be awake, not distressed and adequately clothed. The police were called and remained next to the car until the parents returned some 55 minutes later. The Appellant was found guilty of a contravention of Section 12 Childrens & Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 in that he did “wilfully neglect and abandon him in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering and injury to health”. It was submitted that “where a child of this age was left on its own for a substantial period, very little more was required in order to establish that the offfence had been committed…where the child might have become distressed simply by reason of it being left alone in that period of time, this was a circumstance which could cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health…”.

What the N.S.P.C.C. and Social Services say about leaving young children on their own

The following information [SNIPPED]

Recent cases

In recent weeks there have been succcessful prosecutions in the U.K. for
leaving a child alone in a car for half-an-hour (London case), and
leaving a nine-year-old child on his own while the parents went out drinking for the night (Norfolk case).

In 2005, Kelly Ann Rogerson received a six-month jail sentence, suspended for one year, after taking a two-week holiday in Turkey and leaving her three children with a teenage ‘babysitter’ (County Durham case)

Jurisdiction in England and Wales

It is submitted that by virtue of the Hague Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (see Article 17 below) that if the parents are resident in England and Wales and are alleged to have committed the offence of child neglect whilst temporarily abroad, then the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction to try the case. I reproduce below an extract from the official Internet reference to Article 17, reference:

http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.text’cid=70

HAGUE CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION, APPLICABLE LAW, RECOGNITION, ENFORCEMENT AND CO-OPERATION IN RESPECT OF PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY AND MEASURES FOR THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN (Concluded 19 October 1996) (Entered into force 1 January 2002)

Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children: Entry into force : 1-I-2002

Article 17

The exercise of parental responsibility is governed by the law of the State of the child’s habitual residence. If the child’s habitual residence changes, it is governed by the law of the State of the new habitual residence.”

+++++

4. You refer to "Children & Young Persons Act 1933". Please advise which section and clause of this act you considered to apply to the McCanns and gave any chance whatsoever of success in a UK Court.

REPLY: See previous answer.

5. Having been found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced appropriately, please advise on what basis you continue to comment on the case of Madeleine McCann. I would also ask why and how TB is apparently allowed to still comment on the case. He is undoubtedly a very intelligent man , no doubt no less intelligent than Clarence Mitchell…and so we must then ask ourselves are all "players" what they purport to be ?

REPLY:

It is just as I said in my reply to you via Jill Havern. Which was: “Since [the court case] I have continued to contribute to the debate about this controversial case whilst at the same time having to take great care not to libel the McCanns nor break the Court orders imposed on me in 2013”. To put it clearly: I am free to comment. But I am not free to break my undertakings nor to libel the McCanns”.

CHRIS ROBERTS: That will do for now.

REPLY: Please don’t expect me to answer any more questions. If you are not now thoroughly persuaded that I have always been sincere in my efforts on the McCann case, and that any notion, given my record, that I am a ‘McCann plant’ is utterly ridiculous, then our conversation is at an end.

But one or two points before I am finished.

I asked ‘Who is Chris Roberts?’ Contrary to your reaction to this question, it does not mean that I consider myself above you. It simply means I know nothing about you, except that (you run a Facebook group mysteriously called ‘The Pond Appreciation Society’ and that you are reported as being very aggressive to other people and have posted pornographic material on Mccann threads. I know nothing about what you have done to help find out the truth about what really happemed to Madeleine McCann.

You wrote: “As a quick calculation and assuming that TB is 65, at the rate he's paying the "debt" he'll be well over 200 years old by the time he's finished”. In answer, either you have misinformed yourself, or your Maths is bad, or both. I paid off a large sum back in May 2013. I agreed to pay the balance by £125 per calendar month from May 2013 to April 2023. I will then be 75.

There ware several other things you said about me that were completely untrue but having answered your questions as fully as possible, I am content to leave matters there.

by plebgate 27.08.15 18:34

Tony yet again I have to say that you do not need to reply to the allegations these people spout about.

When they have walked the walk then maybe they could demand answers from you. Until they do walk the walk - let them continue to talk the talk as only TM supporters (IMO of course) titter

will take any notice of them.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

by Marian Greaves 27.08.15 22:32

Tony

Having just read your response to Chris Roberts, i would like to ask you a couple of questions please. Firstly I can't find the court's result of the application you made to have them prosecuted for neglect, why did it fail? Also why did you use the a very old Children Act terms to prosecute. Would it not have been more beneficial to have tried under the terms of the 2004 or even the 1989 Children Act with massive reforms giving the child more rights.

by **Tony Bennett** 27.08.15 23:38

Marian Greaves wrote:Tony

Having just read your response to Chris Roberts, i would like to ask you a couple of questions please. Firstly I can't find the court's result of the application you made to have them prosecuted for neglect, why did it fail?

REPLY: I did deal with that quite fully in my long response to Chris Roberts, please have another read of it. But this report dated 20 November 2007 in the Daily Mail gives quite an accurate summary:

McCanns will not face a private prosecution for 'neglecting Madeleine'

Last updated at 13:57 20 November 2007

Madeleine McCann's parents will not face a private prosecution for allegedly neglecting her on the night she vanished, it was revealed today.

A solicitor had launched a bid to take the couple to court after claiming they should not have left Madeleine and her siblings alone in their apartment.

But a district judge threw out the case after ruling a British court could not have jurisdiction over something that took place in Portugal.

Officials insisted the matter was given "careful consideration" but said the application, lodged by solicitor Anthony Bennett, failed at the first hurdle.

Mr Bennett sent his request for a court summons for Kate and Gerry McCann to a courthouse in their home county of Leicestershire last week.

The 60-year-old father-of-two also faxed Loughborough magistrates' court half a dozen pages of what he claimed was evidence supporting his case.

He said he felt compelled to make the move because of the "lack of action" taken against the McCanns by the authorities in Leicestershire.

He also claimed he was motivated by comments by the McCanns' spokesman about their actions on the night Madeleine disappeared 202 days ago.

Clarence Mitchell had said the couple's decision to leave their children while dining at a nearby tapas restaurant was typical of many British families.

Speaking last week, Mr Bennett claimed: "By their own admission the McCanns left their children unattended for a significant period of time.

"I think the case is very simple. This matter should be put before the court. Do we want a society in which it is acceptable to leave children alone?"

The Judicial Communications Office said Mr Bennett's application had failed the first of two tests that all such requests have to pass.

A spokesman said: "Two elements are considered - whether the court has jurisdiction and whether there is sufficient evidence to issue a summons.

"If both elements succeed a case would proceed in the normal way a prosecution would proceed, with a summons and court hearings and so on.

"However, after careful consideration, this request has been refused, as it is clear that this court does not have the necessary jurisdiction."

The spokesman said that, because the court decided it did not have jurisdiction, it had not been necessary to consider Mr Bennett's "evidence".

Mr Bennett had previously failed in a bid to bring a private prosecution against fallen TV star Michael Barrymore over alleged drugs offences.

His attempt to prosecute Madeleine's parents, of Rothley, Leics, was launched under Section 1 of the 1933 Children and Young Persons Act.

Mr Bennett, of Chippingfield, Herts, alleged the couple neglected the youngster and their two-year-old twins Sean and Amelie by leaving them alone.

He had hoped his request would be taken up by Leicestershire police or the county council - though he conceded he did not expect it to succeed.

He said: "If this concentrates people's minds on whether it is ever acceptable to leave children alone then I will have achieved what I set out to achieve."

A JCO spokesman confirmed the case was thrown out without the need for any kind of court hearing, adding: "It was purely a 'papers' matter."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-495201/McCanns-face-private-prosecution-neglecting-Madeleine.html#ixzz3k3UeLAPP

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Also why did you use the a very old Children Act terms to prosecute. Would it not have been more beneficial to have tried under the terms of the 2004 or even the 1989 Children Act with massive reforms giving the child more rights.

REPLY: Because, to put it simply, I know the law on the prosecution of parents for the alleged offence of child neglect, having:

a) qualified as a professional social worker with an M.A. in Social Work and a C.Q.S.W. from Nottingham University in 1975
b) worked as a Child Care Officer 1972 to 1978
c) worked as a Child Protection Officer in inner London 2004-05
d) formed an action and support group, Parents Aid, in 1980, which helped to campaign for some of the changes brought about by the Children Act 1989
e) been commissioned by the Department of Health to write the script for a training manual video on the new Children Act 1989 ,and
f) written the best-selling Guide for Families with Children in Care (1981), which sold over 100,000 copies and went into six editions.

The Children Act 1989 as you say dealt with children's rights and the abuse of children, also with parental rights, but it focused on solutions such as Care Orders, Supervision Orders, Contact Orders, Emergency Protection Orders, Prohibited Steps Orders, Child Protection procedures and the like, not with the prosecution of parents for acts or omissions of neglect.

Such prosecutions are still brought today under Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, see this government website, here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/23-24/12/section/1

by Marian Greaves 28.08.15 0:15

hi Tony, thanks for that response, it was much easier to read the paper reporting, no i wondered if using a more recent act may have brought more success really, i can't open the link for the Hague convention regarding Jurisdiction as what you have quoted seemed to encompass their actions in the case, yet it was deemed the court didn't have jurisdiction???

by Grande Finale 28.08.15 2:18

It seems that the court decided that Jurisdiction lay within Portugal.

So is it not possible that a private prosecution could be initiated in Portugal ?

I know that CM would say "What after all this time ?"

But she is still missing, and nobody can deny that she must have suffered emotional if not
physical harm after being seperated from her family for so long.

Everybody now knows that it was the parents selfish disregard for their childrens safety
that caused this situation and that they alone are responsible for whatever happened.

by skyrocket 28.08.15 7:54

Ironical isn't it - here's a man having to answer a whole load of questions and accusations; to justify his actions; and not for the first time it sounds like. Scattered elsewhere are a group of people who have not been asked any questions for 7 years. When they were asked, their responses contained very little of substence; nothing of real use. One refused to answer a lot of questions. They have never been required to justify anything. How and who has managed to turn the tables so effectively?

The responses to the accusations and questions are a big tell.

IMO (there's that acronym again - a sign of politeness; an acknowledgement that others have a right to their opinions; its usage foreign to some people), honest people don't turn away from giving full, clear explanations; they go out of their way to explain things calmly, whenever asked, even if they have to repeat themselves; they can justify their actions; they want others to understand; they have nothing to hide. Dishonest people do none of these things. They say very little, and when they do speak it is in tongues; they struggle to justify their actions and anger never fails to creep in.

I have only one question - why is TB on the receiving end? What a waste of time and energy.

And, BTW, my avatar today is of an orangutan and its infant. Orangutans can live up to 45 years of age in the wild. They look after their young until they're between 8 and 10 years old. A female orangutan would never leave its 3 year old child alone, her instincts telling her that the world she lives in is full of too many real dangers.

by **Jill Havern** 28.08.15 8:23

skyrocket wrote:Ironical isn't it - here's a man having to answer a whole load of questions and accusations; to justify his actions; and not for the first time it sounds like. Scattered elsewhere are a group of people who have not been asked any questions for 7 years. When they were asked, their responses contained very little of substence; nothing of real use. One refused to answer a lot of questions. They have never been required to justify anything. How and who has managed to turn the tables so effectively?

The responses to the accusations and questions are a big tell.

IMO (there's that acronym again - a sign of politeness; an acknowledgement that others have a right to their opinions; its usage foreign to some people), honest people don't turn away from giving full, clear explanations; they go out of their way to explain things calmly, whenever asked, even if they have to repeat themselves; they can justify their actions; they want others to understand; they have nothing to hide. Dishonest people do none of these things. They say very little, and when they do speak it is in tongues; they struggle to justify their actions and anger never fails to creep in.

I have only one question - why is TB on the receiving end? What a waste of time and energy.

And, BTW, my avatar today is of an orangutan and its infant. Orangutans can live up to 45 years of age in the wild. They look after their young until they're between 8 and 10 years old. A female orangutan would never leave its 3 year old child alone, her instincts telling her that the world she lives in is full of too many real dangers.

You're right.

Tony never shies away from answering his critics, even knowing it will backfire on him.

Sonia Poulton and Ms Hutton demanded to know about Tony's financial commitment to the McCanns/Carter-Ruck so he even went so far as to post up his bank statement on this forum to prove he makes these monthly payments from his pension.

What happened? Tony was still not believed and the next accusation was "who is making these payments for him?"

Tony has answered Chris Roberts but that still won't be enough for Chris and he has already started writing a blog about this https://sentencedtothepillory.wordpress.com/

There will be more to come from Chris, too. He ain't finished yet. yes

by **Jill Havern** 28.08.15 8:37

P.S. That's why this thread was moved to 'Admin' yesterday - Sharon thought this thread would backfire on Tony but Tony and I decided it would still backfire on him if it wasn't put on the forum and we decided it was better for Tony to be upfront than to hide anything.

No matter what Tony does it is not right for some people whether they are in the 'pro' camp or, these days, in the 'anti' camp.

by skyrocket 28.08.15 9:02

@Get'EmGoncalo

The contined battering says a lot.

If it were me at the receiving end I'm sure I'd be doing what TB is - responding every time, but from the outside looking in my reaction is different. Possibly time to draw the line under all this rubbish - answering is obviously fuelling the fire not extinguishing it. Doesn't seem to be genuine queries or enquirers. It's a classic method of causing instability in the ranks - attack the credibility of those at the top i.e. in this case, the most active members. Seems to have been an orchestrated attack this week from several directions. The perpetrators are not remotely interested in the responses TB gives, I suspect they will continue the attack whether he answers them or not. And, have you noticed this week how effectively the attention has been drawn away from the real matter in hand? Could TB not prepare a short standard statement for any future onslaughts? Then of course he will have to resist the temptation of wading in - not an easy one!

by aiyoyo 28.08.15 9:06

Get'emGonçalo wrote:P.S. That's why this thread was moved to 'Admin' yesterday - Sharon thought this thread would backfire on Tony but Tony and I decided it would still backfire on him if it wasn't put on the forum and we decided it was better for Tony to be upfront than to hide anything.

No matter what Tony does it is not right for some people whether they are in the 'pro' camp or, these days, in the 'anti' camp.

IMO, TB shouldn't have bothered and no one sensible will think badly about him for not answering trolls. People can discern these people that demand answers to their allegations are just trolls and out to create trouble for TB.

That's what sensible people do, they don't entertain trolls, they ignore trolls.

The only people that are going to criticize him anyway whether he answers or not are the goaders and trolls.

If I were you I would leave trolls taking to themselves.

by guest12345 28.08.15 13:14

Grande Finale wrote:It seems that the court decided that Jurisdiction lay within Portugal.

So is it not possible that a private prosecution could be initiated in Portugal ?

I know that CM would say "What after all this time ?"

But she is still missing, and nobody can deny that she must have suffered emotional if not
physical harm after being seperated from her family for so long.

Everybody now knows that it was the parents selfish disregard for their childrens safety
that caused this situation and that they alone are responsible for whatever happened.

IMO, i doubt that would make it through court at this stage.

The Portuguese want to wait for the corpse to materialize or the guilty party to be brought to justice, so the parents can be charged with the higher charge of death by neglect.

This

by cockerspaniel 28.08.15 15:26

aiyoyo wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:P.S. That's why this thread was moved to 'Admin' yesterday - Sharon thought this thread would backfire on Tony but Tony and I decided it would still backfire on him if it wasn't put on the forum and we decided it was better for Tony to be upfront than to hide anything.

No matter what Tony does it is not right for some people whether they are in the 'pro' camp or, these days, in the 'anti' camp.

IMO, TB shouldn't have bothered and no one sensible will think badly about him for not answering trolls. People can discern these people that demand answers to their allegations are just trolls and out to create trouble for TB.

That's what sensible people do, they don't entertain trolls, they ignore trolls.

The only people that are going to criticize him anyway whether he answers or not are the goaders and trolls.

If I were you I would leave trolls taking to themselves.

Exactly Aiyoyo, I could not agree more !!!

A look back at that attempted prosecution of the McCanns for neglect in November 2007 - in reply to an allegation by Chris Roberts of the 'Pond Appreciation Society' that I am a 'McCann plant'

A look back at that attempted prosecution of the McCanns for neglect in November 2007 - in reply to an allegation by Chris Roberts of the 'Pond Appreciation Society' that I am a 'McCann plant'

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: A look back at that attempted prosecution of the McCanns for neglect in November 2007 - in reply to an allegation by Chris Roberts of the 'Pond Appreciation Society' that I am a 'McCann plant'

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: A look back at that attempted prosecution of the McCanns for neglect in November 2007 - in reply to an allegation by Chris Roberts of the 'Pond Appreciation Society' that I am a 'McCann plant'

Re: A look back at that attempted prosecution of the McCanns for neglect in November 2007 - in reply to an allegation by Chris Roberts of the 'Pond Appreciation Society' that I am a 'McCann plant'

Re: A look back at that attempted prosecution of the McCanns for neglect in November 2007 - in reply to an allegation by Chris Roberts of the 'Pond Appreciation Society' that I am a 'McCann plant'

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: A look back at that attempted prosecution of the McCanns for neglect in November 2007 - in reply to an allegation by Chris Roberts of the 'Pond Appreciation Society' that I am a 'McCann plant'

Re: A look back at that attempted prosecution of the McCanns for neglect in November 2007 - in reply to an allegation by Chris Roberts of the 'Pond Appreciation Society' that I am a 'McCann plant'

Re: A look back at that attempted prosecution of the McCanns for neglect in November 2007 - in reply to an allegation by Chris Roberts of the 'Pond Appreciation Society' that I am a 'McCann plant'

Re: A look back at that attempted prosecution of the McCanns for neglect in November 2007 - in reply to an allegation by Chris Roberts of the 'Pond Appreciation Society' that I am a 'McCann plant'

Re: A look back at that attempted prosecution of the McCanns for neglect in November 2007 - in reply to an allegation by Chris Roberts of the 'Pond Appreciation Society' that I am a 'McCann plant'

Re: A look back at that attempted prosecution of the McCanns for neglect in November 2007 - in reply to an allegation by Chris Roberts of the 'Pond Appreciation Society' that I am a 'McCann plant'

Re: A look back at that attempted prosecution of the McCanns for neglect in November 2007 - in reply to an allegation by Chris Roberts of the 'Pond Appreciation Society' that I am a 'McCann plant'

Re: A look back at that attempted prosecution of the McCanns for neglect in November 2007 - in reply to an allegation by Chris Roberts of the 'Pond Appreciation Society' that I am a 'McCann plant'

Re: A look back at that attempted prosecution of the McCanns for neglect in November 2007 - in reply to an allegation by Chris Roberts of the 'Pond Appreciation Society' that I am a 'McCann plant'

Latest topics