Re: Sonia Poulton 'Teaser Trailer' out now (4 Oct 2015)

by sonic72 24.10.15 18:21

Do you have Andrew's address?

by **Tony Bennett** 24.10.15 18:36

sonic72 wrote:Do you have Andrew's address?

No. We know he lives in Yorkshire, probably somewhere north of Pontefract along the A1 corridor. He is known to be a serious gambler and a serious drinker so probably lives in a town not too far from a betting shop and a pub. I have given the police the ISP address he normally uses

by Guest 24.10.15 19:04

Tony Bennett wrote:
sonic72 wrote:Do you have Andrew's address?
No. We know he lives in Yorkshire, probably somewhere north of Pontefract along the A1 corridor. He is known to be a serious gambler and a serious drinker so probably lives in a town not too far from a betting shop and a pub. I have given the police the ISP address he normally uses

There's the dating website where he posted too.

by Guest 24.10.15 19:47

To whom it may concern..

@ Andrew

As the Essex police has taken the claim seriously, you can be sure that evidence to support the claim has been submitted by Mr. Bennett. You can write what ever you wish on the internet but your authenticity hangs in the balance until you can prove Mr Bennett's accusation to be false. Can you do that? Meanwhile perhaps you should take a back seat and at the same time drop the attitude.

@ Rosalinda Cristobell, Hutton

This is not a playground, when a claim has been submitted to the police for investigation, you can't use the excuse 'you did it because he did it' as your defence. Nor can you counter claim using information unconnected with the charge against you. As regards your good self, should you intend to lodge a complaint of some description against Mr. Bennett, I think you will find it very difficult to produce evidence that Mr Bennett has slandered, abused or threatened you whereas social networkings is littered with your slander, abuse and threats against Mr Bennett (and others) - so I think you should drop the bravado.

@candyfloss

Sorry to hear of your sad personal circumstances, life can be tough at times - to add insult to injury at the same time as your forum needs you most. Still, an internet forum pales into insignificance when compared to family matters, you certainly don't need the truck do you.

by **Jill Havern** 24.10.15 19:55

Verdi wrote:To whom it may concern..
@ Rosalinda Cristobell, Hutton

This is not a playground, when a claim has been submitted to the police for investigation, you can't use the excuse 'you did it because he did it' as your defence. Nor can you counter claim using information unconnected with the charge against you. As regards your good self, should you intend to lodge a complaint of some description against Mr. Bennett, I think you will find it very difficult to produce evidence that Mr Bennett has slandered, abused or threatened you whereas social networkings is littered with your slander, abuse and threats against Mr Bennett (and others) - so I think you should drop the bravado.

Ah, but, Cristobell has said she only posted the kiddi diddler accusation under a # on twitter so I guess that doesn't count (even though thousands of people could see it and would retweet it to their thousands of followers)?

by **Jill Havern** 24.10.15 19:57

jeanmonroe wrote:With regards to SP and her very 'public' 'disgusting, vile, evil, 'troll' agenda, will SP be 'dis-associating' herself, anytime soon, from RH?

SP's 'moral' high ground, on 'disgusting trolling', will be pdq 'eroded' when people 'find' out her 'bosom buddy' is being investigated, by Essex and Kent Police, for, 'trolling' (Malicious Communications Act) a pensioner.

As RH, prophetically, as it turns out, said, 'let the truth be known!'

The 'truth' is NOW 'known'! (it seems)

Will SP be 'tweeting' about her 'mate' being investigated under the Malicious Communications Act for 'trolling' a pensioner?

Don't think so, do you?

'Trolling' a 'pensioner'?

Now, 'where' have i 'heard' THAT, before?

The very 'cause' that upset SP 'so much' and set her 'on her road' to the 'find the 'truth''

R.I.P. Brenda L.

by plebgate 24.10.15 20:21

Shaking head in disbelief at what is reported to have been said and threats against Tony.

This is absolutely unacceptable and I am glad that Tony has now reported it. I believe he is a man of integrity and a Christian but there's only so many times a person can turn the other cheek.

I hope that this is stopped in its tracks and Tony can be left alone to post his opinions in peace.

Best wishes to Tony and his family.

by Angelique 24.10.15 22:50

I think it is wholly unacceptable to threaten and maliciously accuse Tony in this way. He has shown considerable patience and now has taken appropriate action.

I can't help thinking "birds of a feather" and that maybe there was/is an underlying agenda operating.

Are TM trying one way or another to shut down discussion forums.

by Guest 24.10.15 23:05

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Verdi wrote:To whom it may concern..
@ Rosalinda Cristobell, Hutton

This is not a playground, when a claim has been submitted to the police for investigation, you can't use the excuse 'you did it because he did it' as your defence. Nor can you counter claim using information unconnected with the charge against you. As regards your good self, should you intend to lodge a complaint of some description against Mr. Bennett, I think you will find it very difficult to produce evidence that Mr Bennett has slandered, abused or threatened you whereas social networkings is littered with your slander, abuse and threats against Mr Bennett (and others) - so I think you should drop the bravado.

Ah, but, Cristobell has said she only posted the kiddi diddler accusation under a # on twitter so I guess that doesn't count (even though thousands of people could see it and would retweet it to their thousands of followers)?

Well that makes is OK then! Clearly she forgets all the other insults she's been spreading across social networking. Meanwhile earlier today..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
So King of Stalkers and Malicious Communications Bennett is now claiming he is the victim. Too funny.

Good to hear she finds it all so amusing - maybe she'll be lol'ing on the other side of her face before too long - or is it part of the wider agenda to claim diminished responsibility?

Tis no surprise she's the star of the elusive documentary.

ETA: Just noticed - she has published Andrew's offensive on her blog but further adds that she wants no part of the Andrew/Bennett conflict. Why might that be I ask myself..

by sallypelt 24.10.15 23:41

Oh dear! What HAS been going on while I have been away? Just catching up with the latest information on the forum, as I have been out at a birthday party, and haven't long got home. I can see the lies are flowing like wine on Ms Bossy's blog. Take this, for example:

Anonymous[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Not only Aquila,Havern as well.She must fear losing traffic and therefore cash if he goes.
Sallypelt and Pennylane can't make a post without praising Bennett.Are they scared of being banned or concerned about their"investment"?
Sorry ladies ,it's gone.

So, I "can't make a post without praising Bennett" according to "Anonymous". Well, take a look at all my posts, and it's there for all to see, that I rarely mention Tony in my posts. Two pet hates of mine are liars and hypocrites, and what I have read on other forums make me wonder how low can these people sink. "Afraid of being banned" Don't make me laugh.

There, I have said my piece about these lying pieces of dog turds, so I won't be lowering myself further to make any other comments about them. I will take head to the saying "never argue with idiots, because they will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

by aiyoyo 24.10.15 23:55

Verdi wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Verdi wrote:To whom it may concern..
@ Rosalinda Cristobell, Hutton

This is not a playground, when a claim has been submitted to the police for investigation, you can't use the excuse 'you did it because he did it' as your defence. Nor can you counter claim using information unconnected with the charge against you. As regards your good self, should you intend to lodge a complaint of some description against Mr. Bennett, I think you will find it very difficult to produce evidence that Mr Bennett has slandered, abused or threatened you whereas social networkings is littered with your slander, abuse and threats against Mr Bennett (and others) - so I think you should drop the bravado.

Ah, but, Cristobell has said she only posted the kiddi diddler accusation under a # on twitter so I guess that doesn't count (even though thousands of people could see it and would retweet it to their thousands of followers)?
Well that makes is OK then! Clearly she forgets all the other insults she's been spreading across social networking. Meanwhile earlier today..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
So King of Stalkers and Malicious Communications Bennett is now claiming he is the victim. Too funny.

Good to hear she finds it all so amusing - maybe she'll be lol'ing on the other side of her face before too long - or is it part of the wider agenda to claim diminished responsibility?

Tis no surprise she's the star of the elusive documentary.

ETA: Just noticed - she has published Andrew's offensive on her blog but further adds that she wants no part of the Andrew/Bennett conflict. Why might that be I ask myself..

Didn't she claim she was a legal secretary ? Embellishing ?
Clearly she knows diddly squat about the law.

Ever since she was suspended from here she went into meltdown and hasn't stopped.
She's having another one of her episodes....

by **Jill Havern** 25.10.15 5:40

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The matter has been referred to Kent police, Cristobell.

If it was all a lie, why you be advised to get a solicitor?

by **Jill Havern** 25.10.15 9:54

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by snook 25.10.15 10:31

And again Ms Hutton demonstrates her expertise in every subject under the sun

So if I understand correctly. She returns from an evening with friends to find the internet ready crash so awash with libellous content regarding herself. She, on the advice of friends contacts the police ( well gone midnight) who inform her the crime number is false and confirm her opinion that she has committed no criminal crime, her shall we say faux pas is a civil matter .
Ever helpful Essex police do however advise her to consult a solicitor.
So accusing someone of being a child abuser on social media is not a criminal offence (I think lord McAlpine would disagree) however to suggest someone is subject to police investigation is and what's more she has good grounds should this information remain or be repeated.

I wonder which solicitor told her this, out of hours and at the weekend. Did the police direct her to one of their duty solicitors so heinous was the crime against her?

by hentie 25.10.15 10:40

snook wrote:And again Ms Hutton demonstrates her expertise in every subject under the sun

So if I understand correctly. She returns from an evening with friends to find the internet ready crash so awash with libellous content regarding herself. She, on the advice of friends contacts the police ( well gone midnight) who inform her the crime number is false and confirm her opinion that she has committed no criminal crime, her shall we say faux pas is a civil matter .
Ever helpful Essex police do however advise her to consult a solicitor.
So accusing someone of being a child abuser on social media is not a criminal offence (I think lord McAlpine would disagree) however to suggest someone is subject to police investigation is and what's more she has good grounds should this information remain or be repeated.

I wonder which solicitor told her this, out of hours and at the weekend. Did the police direct her to one of their duty solicitors so heinous was the crime against her?

If I were her, thank goodness I'm not, I would keep a very low profile..disappear from the Internet.
As it is she's digging a deeper hole!

by sallypelt 25.10.15 10:49

I would give the woman a wide berth. She is obviously in need of medical attention. Look at the way she's flip flopping between "a civil offence" when anything refers to her and therefore NOT criminal, to "libel" when it's about her. The woman is NUTS!!!

Edited to add, I am not referring to SP

by Joss 25.10.15 10:50

snook wrote:And again Ms Hutton demonstrates her expertise in every subject under the sun

So if I understand correctly. She returns from an evening with friends to find the internet ready crash so awash with libellous content regarding herself. She, on the advice of friends contacts the police ( well gone midnight) who inform her the crime number is false and confirm her opinion that she has committed no criminal crime, her shall we say faux pas is a civil matter .
Ever helpful Essex police do however advise her to consult a solicitor.
So accusing someone of being a child abuser on social media is not a criminal offence (I think lord McAlpine would disagree) however to suggest someone is subject to police investigation is and what's more she has good grounds should this information remain or be repeated.

I wonder which solicitor told her this, out of hours and at the weekend. Did the police direct her to one of their duty solicitors so heinous was the crime against her?

I do not believe anything she says, she has been proven to be a Liar as has been previously pointed out by others that have caught her out in her lies, and she is a manipulator IMO.

by Guest 25.10.15 10:51

"I have referred the warning to Kent". What warning? or am I just being thick?

by Joss 25.10.15 10:54

HKP wrote:"I have referred the warning to Kent". What warning? or am I just being thick?

No you're not being thick & good question.

by hentie 25.10.15 11:03

Those agreeing with her every word, in effect backing her, are doing her no favours IMO.
She has either a mental condition or is pretty evil (I put 'pretty' evil as it seems less harsh)
Either way she is not being honest, either to her readers or herself.

If there was someone who cared for her (difficult in view of her attitude) they should take her to one side.

by Guest 25.10.15 11:10

Tony Bennett wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
I also suggest that Hutton deliberately triggered her suspension here in order to commence attacks on CMOMM and myself, for that is exactly what took off after afterwards.

And has been going on incessantly now for 15 months....
Supported, of course, by our ex moderators (the anonymous) Candyfloss* (who allowed trolls to disrupt this forum, started false rumours about us being able to read private messages* and encouraged our members to delete their accounts*) and Freedom (who admitted to one of our dual-members that she has a list of sock accounts for other people to use here) who all divided this forum and then started their own copycat forum which contained at least 8 threads (many of them locked having reach maximum capacity) that attacks CMOMM.

Also supported by their number one member, Andrew, their "loved" member (who was actually banned from here by candyfloss) who admits to being obsessed with you, has threatened you with violence, has phoned you in the early hours of the morning, and admits to trolling this forum, and who trolled this forum again last night on the 'Petition'...
...and this happened at just after half past five this morning:

5.32am - Phone rang - both of us woken up

5.34am - Phone rang again, message left by Andrew (I recognise his voice and his Yorkshire accent), the message left was:

Tony f***ing Bennett -
You're a dead man -
I'm gonna come and get yer -
You're a f***ing idiot

So, both us of us woken up, and a death threat. As this is repeat conduct amounting to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act, I'll be reporting this to the police later today (he has made other 'phone calls in recent weeks, ringing from a 'Withheld' number, and spoke to me on one of those occasions).

I will also report here that Kent Police are currently investigating Hutton under the Malicious Communications Act, in respect of a series of posts on he blog which have publicly accused me of:

* being a paedophile
* being of similar character to Jimmy Savile
* being a deviant, and
* having been cautioned for an offence of 'cottaging' in the 1990s.

I hasten to add that there is not the remotest truth in any of these libels.

I will also state that I wrote to candyfloss, owner of the MMM forum, after Andrew publicly admitted that he was 'obsessed' with me. I asked candyfloss either to ban him from her forum, or to restrain him from carrying on his campaign against me on MMM. After Andrew admitted his obsession, he said publicly that he thought he should leave the forum in the intersts of MMM.

candyfloss responded by publicly saying 'I love you, Andrew' and begged him to stay. Several other members also said how much they 'loved' him, and his work on the forum, also begging him to stay on the forum. So he has stayed. And continues his personal attacks on me there, day after day

Posted yesterday by TB. Nowhere in this post or on the forum has TB claimed that Rosalinda Hutton is facing criminal charges, as she is falsely asserting all over the place.
I hope she receives at least a warning for her offensive and untrue allegations.

by Guest 25.10.15 11:18

hentie wrote:Those agreeing with her every word, in effect backing her, are doing her no favours IMO.
She has either a mental condition or is pretty evil (I put 'pretty' evil as it seems less harsh)
Either way she is not being honest, either to her readers or herself.

If there was someone who cared for her (difficult in view of her attitude) they should take her to one side.

She's got too much time on her hands, allowing her craziness to spiral out of control. Why doesn't she get a job instead of sitting at a computer all day spouting bile.

by Guest 25.10.15 11:19

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Rosalinda Hutton[size=34], address known, Kent: 42/91200/15 - Publicly accusing another of being a paedophile: Malicious Communications Act, currently being investigated by Essex & Kent Police forces [/size]

[size=34]I think being investigated by Essex & Kent police forces does imply 'criminal'[/size]

by Liz Eagles 25.10.15 11:23

Ladyinred wrote:
hentie wrote:Those agreeing with her every word, in effect backing her, are doing her no favours IMO.
She has either a mental condition or is pretty evil (I put 'pretty' evil as it seems less harsh)
Either way she is not being honest, either to her readers or herself.

If there was someone who cared for her (difficult in view of her attitude) they should take her to one side.

She's got too much time on her hands, allowing her craziness to spiral out of control. Why doesn't she get a job instead of sitting at a computer all day spouting bile.

She has a job Ladyinred, she's an author, playwright and journalist.

by Guest 25.10.15 11:24

HKP wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Rosalinda Hutton[size=34], address known, Kent: 42/91200/15 - Publicly accusing another of being a paedophile: Malicious Communications Act, currently being investigated by Essex & Kent Police forces [/size]

[size=34]I think being investigated by Essex & Kent police forces does imply 'criminal'[/size]

"criminal charges"

by Guest 25.10.15 11:25

aquila wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:
hentie wrote:Those agreeing with her every word, in effect backing her, are doing her no favours IMO.
She has either a mental condition or is pretty evil (I put 'pretty' evil as it seems less harsh)
Either way she is not being honest, either to her readers or herself.

If there was someone who cared for her (difficult in view of her attitude) they should take her to one side.

She's got too much time on her hands, allowing her craziness to spiral out of control. Why doesn't she get a job instead of sitting at a computer all day spouting bile.
She has a job Ladyinred, she's an author, playwright and journalist.

Good one

by Guest 25.10.15 11:27

aquila wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:
hentie wrote:Those agreeing with her every word, in effect backing her, are doing her no favours IMO.
She has either a mental condition or is pretty evil (I put 'pretty' evil as it seems less harsh)
Either way she is not being honest, either to her readers or herself.

If there was someone who cared for her (difficult in view of her attitude) they should take her to one side.

She's got too much time on her hands, allowing her craziness to spiral out of control. Why doesn't she get a job instead of sitting at a computer all day spouting bile.
She has a job Ladyinred, she's an author, playwright and journalist.

Specializing in fiction and fantasy.

by Joss 25.10.15 11:27

HKP wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Rosalinda Hutton[size=34], address known, Kent: 42/91200/15 - Publicly accusing another of being a paedophile: Malicious Communications Act, currently being investigated by Essex & Kent Police forces [/size]

[size=34]I think being investigated by Essex & Kent police forces does imply 'criminal'[/size]

I would think the Police would determine exactly what type of offense has been committed after they investigate things, whether civil or criminal, if that is how they do things in such a case?

by Liz Eagles 25.10.15 11:30

Ladyinred wrote:
aquila wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:
hentie wrote:Those agreeing with her every word, in effect backing her, are doing her no favours IMO.
She has either a mental condition or is pretty evil (I put 'pretty' evil as it seems less harsh)
Either way she is not being honest, either to her readers or herself.

If there was someone who cared for her (difficult in view of her attitude) they should take her to one side.

She's got too much time on her hands, allowing her craziness to spiral out of control. Why doesn't she get a job instead of sitting at a computer all day spouting bile.
She has a job Ladyinred, she's an author, playwright and journalist.

Specializing in fiction and fantasy.

Today's general theme for Ms Hutton is anatomical - anus and rectum, along with calling Tony Bennett a 'two bit conman'.

by Guest 25.10.15 11:31

Joss wrote:
HKP wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Rosalinda Hutton[size=44], address known, Kent: 42/91200/15 - Publicly accusing another of being a paedophile: Malicious Communications Act, currently being investigated by Essex & Kent Police forces [/size]

[size=44]I think being investigated by Essex & Kent police forces does imply 'criminal'[/size]
I would think the Police would determine exactly what type of offense has been committed after they investigate things, whether civil or criminal, if that is how they do things in such a case?

I agree however if you're reported to police it's generally because someone thinks you have conducted a crime as such. Don't really see how it can be a civil matter in this case IMO.