A poisonous attack on Tony Bennett by bluj1515 – but how much of it is true? (Right to Reply)

A poisonous attack on Tony Bennett by bluj1515 – but how much of it is true?

I reproduce below, with my responses interleaved, a poisonous attack on me published on a forum called ‘PFA2’.

This post, by someone don’t of course know called ‘bluj1515’ has been cheered to the rafters by other posters there and another forum called JATYK which accord posts they approve of the status of an ‘exalt’. The PFA posters include one who says: “Bennett is an epic failure as a human being”, whilst others describe bluj1515’s post as, and I quote, “truly excellent”, “wonderful”, or in the case of Nigel Nessling of Ipswich, “PERFECT” (and, yes, it was in capitals in the original).

Let’s have a look at this ‘wonderful, ‘truly excellent’ and indeed ‘perfect’ post and examine it. Then we will have a better idea of the kind of people who are prepared to rate it so highly.

bluj1515:

"Plus" he "hopes" to carry on? He's doing exactly what he did to every "wronged" person/family he did worked with in the past. Same set-up, too. Sets up a fraudulent fund, something dodgy happens that seems to always involved Bennett and payments to his pocket, and he runs off.

REPLY: FACT: I have never set up a ‘fraudulent fund’. Nor have I profited financially from any of the many campaigns I’ve been involved in over the years. Nothing has gone ‘into my pocket’ except that which I’ve earned. In relation to Terry Lubbock, nothing ‘dodgy’ happened except for Harry Cichy’s actions in deliberately and cunningly denying me any income from the book I wrote for Terry Lubbock about the death of his son, which I’ve covered elsewhere. Yes, I was paid a share of The Lubbock Trust’s income, almost all of which was earnt by payments from two newspapers for the serialisation of my book, which we split equally, as agreed between the three Trust members. The book and serialisation were based entirely on the extensive research and analysis that I carried out on the case over a period of months. The News of the World and the Daily Mail were both prepared to pay good money for the quality of that analysis.

The best part about Madeleine's case, for Bennett, is that he could position himself against her parents and therefore not have to deal with the family and pretend to give a crap about them like he usually does. No family members within the organization to object to his plots and demands. Could install his right-hand yes-men like the Greens to ensure he could get away with it. And by far the most high-profile case yet, so more potential for more donations to be directed into his pocket.

REPLY: Has it occurred to bluj that I might just have been motivated, as so many others have been, because I simply found the abduction claim of the McCanns did not in my opinion stand up, plus my concerns about the extraordinary level of government involvement in the case which, like many others, I considered warranted further examination. Or that I only became actively involved after many hours and days of researching the case as thoroughly as I could?

bluj speaks of ‘more donations to his pocket’. There haven’t been any. I’ve paid Carter-Ruck £400 and donations haven’t cover that. I’m also out of pocket in relation to other Madeleine Foundation activity not reimbursed. I can truly say that not only have I not made a penny from my campaigning re Madeleine, but that I have actually made a small loss. Yet bluj and many others say I’ve been making money from all this when I haven’t. For what reason do they make these baseless allegations?

Bet he didn't expect Amaral to write his own book - probably offered to write it for him so he could collect royalties.

REPLY: ’60 Reasons’ was published after ‘La Verdada da Mentira’ - The Truth About A Lie’ - was published.

Bennett is ditching Madeleine's case. He is no longer interested, pure and simple. He will gallop off into the sunset, leaving behind the destruction he caused, and the pain he caused the McCanns, and the damage done to the investigation, and he will never blink an eye.

REPLY: Restoring the Madeleine Foundation website, holding two Madeleine Foundation meetings in the past month, writing articles about Madeleine McCann for the website, and continuing on forums to question the claims that Madeleine was abducted doesn’t sound like ‘galloping off into the sunset’ to most people. The official ‘investigation’ into Madeleine’s disappearance ended in July 2008, three months before our website was set up and five months before ‘60 Reasons’ was published. Indeed, the publication of these were deliberately delayed until after the official investigation was concluded, for the very good reason that until it was concluded many of us had been expecting that the police would charge someone in connection with Madeleine’s disappearance.

He doesn't give a damn about what happened to Madeleine McCann. He doesn't give a damn if she was abducted and he doesn't give a damn if her parents were somehow involved. He doesn't give a damn about Madeleine McCann. She was a means to an end; the newest shiny "thing" that came and took his attention away from speed limits in metric for a moment. Dollar signs flashing in his eyes. Infamy as a crusader. The only person he cares about is himself.

REPLY: I won’t comment on all that.

He wants to talk about police corruption? He supports the lead investigator into a totally corrupt and botched investigation into finding what happened to a THREE YEAR OLD GIRL TAKEN FROM HER BED IN HER VACATION RENTAL. A man CONVICTED of corruption, of standing by idly while men under his command beat up a suspect. Isn't that the most basic form of police brutality and corruption?

REPLY: The conviction of Goncalo Amaral for making a false report was IMO a political conviction of an honest officer. Amaral was chiefly responsible for putting behind bars the drug-crazed monsters Leonor Cipriano and Joao Cipriano, the mother and uncle respectively of eight-year-old Joana who cruelly murdered their daughter/ niece. The jail sentences of 16 and 20 years were no less than they deserved. And Leonor Cipriano’s lawyer has confessed to lying to Leonor Cipriano in order to get her to come up with a new story, here’s the account from TSF:

QUOTE

Lawyer Aragão Correia, who defends Leonor Cipriano, Joana’s mother, told TSF this Tuesday that he lied to obtain a written confession from João Cipriano, who revealed that he tried to sell the child.

Aragão Correia had already requested the opening of a new inquiry after Leonor Cipriano confessed to him that she handed over her daughter to her brother, for him to sell her.

Now, the lawyer revealed that he visited João Cipriano in prison and that the latter confessed that he tried to sell the little girl. But in order to force a confession, in writing, Aragão Correia admitted to bluffing.

The lawyer confessed that he told João Cipriano that the persons who wanted to buy Joana “gave an order to murder him in prison”. “He was very fearful, which confirms that Leonor was telling the truth”, he added.

(TSF 19.5.2009)

UNQUOTE

He supports Morais…

REPLY: I believe Joana Morais has done a magnificent job of keeping people in Portugal and many other countries aware of many of the salient facts about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and I also congratulate her on the speedy setting up of an excellent forum to discuss issues relating to Madeleine’s disappearance to replace the 3As forum when that vanished without explanation at the end of August.

…and her campaign to protest outside the courthouse and throw things at the McCanns.

REPLY: I think she has every right to protest outside the courthouse, assuming this is allowed by Portuguese law. Of course I do not support ‘throwing things at the McCanns’. But, bluj , making that cheap and false allegation rather undermines the rest of what you say, doesn’t it? It might suggest that your whole post is full of cheap and false allegations.

Why so scared to see the McCanns in court?

REPLY: The advice that if one statement of opinion in the book could be held to be libel would probably result in complete financial ruin, given the McCanns’ likely costs in mounting a libel action, was the reason I and Debbie Butler both decided to accede to Carter-Ruck’s demands, as I’ve said elsewhere. Scared? Yes. Fearful I could lose my entire life savings and half my home. I admit that.

Is it because you're aware that the investigation was deeply flawed? Is it because you know that book and his claims are straight libel, from Britain to Portugal to the United States? Because you know damn well that Amaral has no evidence, no smoking gun, because if he did he'd be in great violation of the law to have not done something about it, turned it over to the police, shouted it from the rooftops? Because the leaflet is based on the libelous joke of a book?

REPLY: No. It’s for the reason I just gave above. The fight in the High Court would have been on grossly unequal terms.

And after all of this, you're going to turn around, and take your ill-gotten gains…

REPLY: There are none.

…and take 500 vacations a year, and go home to your wife, and spray paint a Metric sign, and latch yourself onto the next vulnerable people you can find…

REPLY: People come to me for help. I do not go to them.

…although I think you've learned a big lesson here - make sure it's a foreign case, make sure it's a child, and make sure the police have turned on the family. Then pile on their misery. Bankrupt a corrupt and incompetent cop…

REPLY: Que?

…and a woman you refer to as a bimbo…

REPLY: That would appear to mark you out as someone who believes all that Debbie Butler says.

…while you're at it. It's the new How to Win Friends and Influence People.

And Madeleine McCann will still be missing. And you will have helped no one get closer to finding that out, only further away. And her parents - not Amaral, not the PJ, only her parents - will continue to be the only ones looking for her and the only ones following the protocols and advice of organizations that have actually found missing children…

REPLY: Um, did they follow the advice of the Portuguese Police not to draw attention to Madeleine’s coloboma eye defect? No. And shall I tell you why? I don’t need to, you know already. Because it was ‘a good marketing ploy’. And yet you accuse me - falsely - of having ‘dollars in front of my eyes’?

…and brought people to justice - unlike your abysmal track record. You are a sociopath and a disgrace.

REPLY: O.K., my achievements may be few. But at least I write in my own name and don’t stoop as low as hiding in the dark behind a username making false allegations against others.

Let’s see if those who run the forum you posted your message on and other forums who have published your poisonous diatribe have the decency to publish my reply to you.

Tony, I wish you wouldn't let these people upset you so. Rise above! Rise above!

"REPLY: The advice that if one statement of opinion in the book could be held to be libel would probably result in complete financial ruin, given the McCanns’ likely costs in mounting a libel action, was the reason I and Debbie Butler both decided to accede to Carter-Ruck’s demands, as I’ve said elsewhere. Scared? Yes. Fearful I could lose my entire life savings and half my home. I admit that."

You refused to listen to people that quite frankly were trying to point out the errors.

You should have thought about the financial ruin before you published.

You should have thought about your half of the family home before you published.

You are not a victim.

The poster does not appear to know what he was talking about imo He should reserve his/her scorn and outrage for the Mccanns paying their mortgage out of money donated to find Madeleine NOT to fund their mortgage payments.

Amaral was convicted of perjury by (drumroll) the Portuguese judiciary.

Corruption does not come more simply than police brutality.

It seems Mr. Bennett is somewhat selective in his interpretation of corruption.

Cherry wrote:The poster does not appear to know what he was talking about imo He should reserve his/her scorn and outrage for the Mccanns paying their mortgage out of money donated to find Madeleine NOT to fund their mortgage payments.

It was setup to assist them while they were looking for their daughter.

Only twisted petty folk like yourself would begrudge the family of a missing child that.

Say more abut you then them.

You spend time on the 'poisonous attack' but have declined to return to the thread where you were shown to be wrong about the CEOP manuals.

People draw their own conclusions about this sort of behaviour Mr Bennett, and they are entitled to.

Every time you are shown to be wrong on a specific point you just drop it and move on to the next.

It's why you ended up getting Carter Rucked and I have no doubt it will happen again.

slartibartfast I wonder why you have to resort to abuse! People who donated money did not expect it to be used for mortgage payments. Gerry was in a well paid job, they also had family and friends. There should have been no need to use fund money to pay for their mortgage.

Cherry wrote:slartibartfast I wonder why you have to resort to abuse! People who donated money did not expect it to be used for mortgage payments. Gerry was in a well paid job, they also had family and friends. There should have been no need to use fund money to pay for their mortgage.

That's your take on it.

If I donated money to the parents of a missing child I would not have a problem with them using that money to provide ANY relief to their situation.

Obviously you do. So it say more about you than them.

Simples.

Yes I agree with you on that one, it does say more about me. the fact that I dont believe in people conning the public, especially when we are told some of those who donated were pensioners and children, pensioners and children funding the Mccanns mortgage when I repeat Gerry was in a well paid job, they have friends and family in well paid jobs, well sorry that sits badly with me pensioners and children funding their morgage payments, There was no need for it, they could have got help from friends and family to pay the morgage if they were that desperate.

Cherry wrote:Yes I agree with you on that one, it does say more about me. the fact that I dont believe in people conning the public, especially when we are told some of those who donated were pensioners and children, pensioners and children funding the Mccanns mortgage when I repeat Gerry was in a well paid job, they have friends and family in well paid jobs, well sorry that sits badly with me pensioners and children funding their morgage payments, There was no need for it, they could have got help from friends and family to pay the morgage if they were that desperate.

He wasn't working at the time he was In Portugal.

You do not speak for the people who donated money to the fund.

Just your own embittered begrudging nature shines through.

The fund was set up to provide assistance to the McCanns.

Yes indeed I do begrudge the public being conned out of money and the impression being given it was a charity when it wasnt. As I repeat they had friends and family who could have helped out. imo morally it was also wrong to take money donated by the public to pay for their mortgage. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Cherry wrote:Yes indeed I do begrudge the public being conned out of money and the impression being given it was a charity when it wasnt. As I repeat they had friends and family who could have helped out. imo morally it was also wrong to take money donated by the public to pay for their mortgage. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Nobody ever gave the impression it was a charity. It was a fund to set up to help the McCann family. But don't let the facts get in the way.

It is morally wrong to lambast the parents of a missing child.

I think most sane people would agree with that. Sane being the operative word.

Oh dear Slartibartfast still unable to debate and disagree without resorting to insults. I have noticed that people who support the Mccanns seem frequently to resort to insults and abuse against others. I could think of a whole load of personal comments against you but being an adult I refrain from posting these.

As to facts, FACT it is well documented (and I believe there is a site directly relating to the Fund where these FACTS and others are posted). I will give one example, Clarence Mitchell was interviewed on Talksport by James Whale, twice James referred to the fund as a CHARITY - at NO time did Clarence say, excuse me James I need to correct you here it is NOT in fact a charity. As spokesman for the Mccanns and not wishing to mislead the public he should have made it clear to James and the listening public it was NOT a charity but he chose NOT to do so. Strange that, I would call that clearly misleading the public. the actual interview I believe was posted up on the Fraudulent Fund site together with other examples - all facts by the way.

If you notice I have not lambasted the parents of a missing child, I have lambasted their actions in relation to the fund - there is a difference there. There is a difference in criticising someone personally - as so many people here have been doing against Tony - and criticising the actions of someone. if I feel the actions of someone are morally wrong and misleading as this is still a democratic country and at the moment we kind of have freedom of speech although some are trying to curtail freedom of speech, I have every right to give my opinion on those actions and refuse to be intimidated otherwise. Sorry.

Sorry forgot to say if you are concerned about people being lambasted as you put it why have you not spoken out against the lambasting against Tony which has included personal attacks, personal insults against him as a person. Nobody I can see has made personal insults at the Mccanns themselves or used abusive language when talking about the Mccanns.

Cherry wrote:Sorry forgot to say if you are concerned about people being lambasted as you put it why have you not spoken out against the lambasting against Tony which has included personal attacks, personal insults against him as a person. Nobody I can see has made personal insults at the Mccanns themselves or used abusive language when talking about the Mccanns.

Because I don't care about Tony Bennett.

He is a grown man well able to take care of himself.

He also hasn't lost a child.

Cherry wrote:Oh dear Slartibartfast still unable to debate and disagree without resorting to insults. I have noticed that people who support the Mccanns seem frequently to resort to insults and abuse against others. I could think of a whole load of personal comments against you but being an adult I refrain from posting these.

As to facts, FACT it is well documented (and I believe there is a site directly relating to the Fund where these FACTS and others are posted). I will give one example, Clarence Mitchell was interviewed on Talksport by James Whale, twice James referred to the fund as a CHARITY - at NO time did Clarence say, excuse me James I need to correct you here it is NOT in fact a charity. As spokesman for the Mccanns and not wishing to mislead the public he should have made it clear to James and the listening public it was NOT a charity but he chose NOT to do so. Strange that, I would call that clearly misleading the public. the actual interview I believe was posted up on the Fraudulent Fund site together with other examples - all facts by the way.

If you notice I have not lambasted the parents of a missing child, I have lambasted their actions in relation to the fund - there is a difference there. There is a difference in criticising someone personally - as so many people here have been doing against Tony - and criticising the actions of someone. if I feel the actions of someone are morally wrong and misleading as this is still a democratic country and at the moment we kind of have freedom of speech although some are trying to curtail freedom of speech, I have every right to give my opinion on those actions and refuse to be intimidated otherwise. Sorry.

You have by your very words.

You do it all of the time. You begrudge the parents of a missing child assistance in their lives under very trying circumstances.

You accuse them of being morally reprehensible.

I am not trying to stop you from saying anything so you can save your grandstanding and rhetoric for someone who gives a damn.

The fact of the matter is that the Fund is not a Charity. It's on record.

If you find my postings insulting that's because I find your behaviour and vilification of people in terrible situations pretty low.

Do you think there is any possibility that the McCanns may ask for the case to be re-opened in order that the official police may continue their investigations into Madeleine's disappearance?

Oh Slartibartfast you gave the impression you did not like people being lambasted. I would like to think that human beings care about one another. In relation to this case unfortunately we have seen how people band together and think it is amusing and acceptable to bully, insult, intimidate and abuse others. I think that is rather sad. In relation to losing a child I would suggest that anyone has sympathy for someone who has lost a child. When you choose to have children you have to put your children before your own selfish needs, you never ever go off and enjoy yourself and leave three young children alone, NEVER. The fact that Madeleine has gone is a direct consequence of the fact the parents chose to put their own needs before those of protecting and being there for their children, who could not protect themselves.
So if someone is a grown man and can take care of themselves does that give anyone the right to abuse, bully, hate, intimidate, in my book NO. Taking your analogy it is acceptable to bully people at work then is it, to abuse people at work because they are adults and can take care of themselves? NO it is wrong. Nobody should be abusing anyone, people should be adult enough to debate and disagree politely without resorting to insults and abuse.

Autumn I think it is strange the Mccanns have not asked for the case to be reopened, if my child had gone missing I would be begging the Police day after day to reopen the case, I would be desperate for something to be done.

They cannot simply ask for the case to be reopened.

It does not work like that.

Read the prosecutor's report.

Pay particular attention to the last few paragraphs that gives the criteria for the case being reopened.

Cherry wrote:Oh Slartibartfast you gave the impression you did not like people being lambasted. I would like to think that human beings care about one another. In relation to this case unfortunately we have seen how people band together and think it is amusing and acceptable to bully, insult, intimidate and abuse others. I think that is rather sad. In relation to losing a child I would suggest that anyone has sympathy for someone who has lost a child. When you choose to have children you have to put your children before your own selfish needs, you never ever go off and enjoy yourself and leave three young children alone, NEVER. The fact that Madeleine has gone is a direct consequence of the fact the parents chose to put their own needs before those of protecting and being there for their children, who could not protect themselves.
So if someone is a grown man and can take care of themselves does that give anyone the right to abuse, bully, hate, intimidate, in my book NO. Taking your analogy it is acceptable to bully people at work then is it, to abuse people at work because they are adults and can take care of themselves? NO it is wrong. Nobody should be abusing anyone, people should be adult enough to debate and disagree politely without resorting to insults and abuse.

I have not bullied Tony Bennett and I think Mr. Bennett can defend himself without having his cheerleaders jump up and down every time someone levels a criticism at him.

He's a big boy now and got himself into very hot water because he lied in his book. For that he has set himself up to be criticised. I do not see Mr. Bennett as a shrinking violet.

No matter what the McCanns did they still lost a child.

We might as well chastise Denise Bulger for leaving her child outside the shop by your reasoning.

Nobody is objecting to constructive criticism, it is personal insults,name calling and abuse which is objected to.

If you examine the interviews the Mccanns have given you can also see they appear to have lied, one minute they say one thing the next something totally different so they have set themselves up by your reasoning to be criticised. However nobody I can see has been abusive about the Mccanns but people have been abusive and insulting about Tony.

In my post I believe I said anyone has sympathy for parents who have lost a child. I personally have sympathy for the Mccanns for losing a child but I have a right to say I think they were wrong in taking fund money for the mortgage and wrong they put their own needs before protecting their children.

As I said before we can agree to disagree, we obviously have different views.

Cherry wrote:Nobody is objecting to constructive criticism, it is personal insults,name calling and abuse which is objected to.

If you examine the interviews the Mccanns have given you can also see they appear to have lied, one minute they say one thing the next something totally different so they have set themselves up by your reasoning to be criticised. However nobody I can see has been abusive about the Mccanns but people have been abusive and insulting about Tony.

In my post I believe I said anyone has sympathy for parents who have lost a child. I personally have sympathy for the Mccanns for losing a child but I have a right to say I think they were wrong in taking fund money for the mortgage and wrong they put their own needs before protecting their children.

As I said before we can agree to disagree, we obviously have different views.

Cherry, at least stop the disingenuous crap about having sympathy for the McCanns. You don't. Not one iota.

The problem with most antis is that they cannot face up to the fact that they don't like two people they have never met.

It's that simple. Your begrudging of assistance is testimony to that.

Would you have begrudged Sarah Payne or Denise Bulger paying their mortgage while their children were missing?

Your interpretation of whether the McCanns lied is your own. There is nothing "obvious" about it. ie there is no proof that they lied just your own warped and biased interpretation of it.

I dont like anyone who goes out on the p*ss and leaves their toddlers alone. I dont like people who use their remaining two children for photo-shoots knowing that there could have been an abductor on the loose.
"Yeah, your're right, they were watching us" Kate.

Does'nt stack up.