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

by Guest 11.12.09 21:25

slartibartfast, it seems to anger you that people can still have sympathy for the Mccanns in losing a child but criticise their behaviour. If you knew me you would know unlike many people I do not go on forums to play games and I do not go on forums to lie. I have genuine sympathy for anyone who has lost a child, if you dont believe that - that is up to you, I dont need your approval or belief in my beliefs.
As for Sara Payne and Denise Bulger those cases cannot in any way be compared. to my knowledge they did not go and do numerous interviews where one minute they say one thing and the next minute another. If you research these interviews you will see it for yourself - it is a fact. It is not my interpretation they are words coming out of their own mouths. Denise Bulger and Sara Payne also did not refuse to co-operate with the Police.
Once again you resort to insults, I thought we were all adults here. Most of your postings seem to hurl abuse and insults at people almost as if you think it is funny and to be applauded by others who join in with the same behaviour.
I have not insulted you or called you names or been abusive about your views, it would be nice if you could afford others the same respect.

by Guest 11.12.09 21:35

Autumn wrote: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?

The police aren't interested in opening the case. How many times does that have to be said?

by Slartibartfast 11.12.09 21:37

Cherry wrote:slartibartfast, it seems to anger you that people can still have sympathy for the Mccanns in losing a child but criticise their behaviour. If you knew me you would know unlike many people I do not go on forums to play games and I do not go on forums to lie. I have genuine sympathy for anyone who has lost a child, if you dont believe that - that is up to you, I dont need your approval or belief in my beliefs.
As for Sara Payne and Denise Bulger those cases cannot in any way be compared. to my knowledge they did not go and do numerous interviews where one minute they say one thing and the next minute another. If you research these interviews you will see it for yourself - it is a fact. It is not my interpretation they are words coming out of their own mouths. Denise Bulger and Sara Payne also did not refuse to co-operate with the Police.
Once again you resort to insults, I thought we were all adults here. Most of your postings seem to hurl abuse and insults at people almost as if you think it is funny and to be applauded by others who join in with the same behaviour.
I have not insulted you or called you names or been abusive about your views, it would be nice if you could afford others the same respect.

Neither have I. I just have an opinion like you. You just don't like my opinion of you. Boo hoo.

I think you are disingenuous. You spend most of your time criticising the parents of a lost child. That's not exactly magnanimous behaviour in my book. Sorry if you don't like it.

My point is that both Denise Bulger and Sarah Payne could not have foreseen what would have happened which was exactly the reasoning the prosecutor gave when assessing if the McCanns were being criminally negligent. How could they have known?

When did the McCanns refuse to cooperate with the police? the 48 questions? I think you'll find that's called the right to silence which is in place to stop people incriminating themselves.

Most of the questions were there to implicate Kate McCann in a crime. Why do you want to deny people their rights.

It's obvious from the questions being asked that the PJ had given up on looking for Madeleine.

by Slartibartfast 11.12.09 21:38

Raffle wrote:
Autumn wrote: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?

The police aren't interested in opening the case. How many times does that have to be said?

Some people don't get the fact that people cannot simply demand the opening of a case.

No matter what their relation to it is.

by Guest 11.12.09 21:49

slartibartfast, your opinion of me does not concern me in the slightest. You still dont get it. I repeat most of your postings contain personal attacks, name calling, that is the behaviour of kids in the school playground not adults. I have not resorted to any name calling or abuse and I repeat it is a shame you cannot afford people the same respect. people should be able to disagree and have different points of view and agree to differ and debate as adults. But sadly many people on here seem not to be able to do so without personal insults and name slinging. There is no need to attack people in that way, whoever they are, people can disagree in a friendly way without nastiness.

by Slartibartfast 11.12.09 21:53

Cherry wrote:slartibartfast, your opinion of me does not concern me in the slightest. You still dont get it. I repeat most of your postings contain personal attacks, name calling, that is the behaviour of kids in the school playground not adults. I have not resorted to any name calling or abuse and I repeat it is a shame you cannot afford people the same respect. people should be able to disagree and have different points of view and agree to differ and debate as adults. But sadly many people on here seem not to be able to do so without personal insults and name slinging. There is no need to attack people in that way, whoever they are, people can disagree in a friendly way without nastiness.

I have not resorted to anything remotely approaching name calling.

I really don't think you are sane. That's not an insult it is an opinion.

by **Jill Havern** 11.12.09 21:57

Slartibartfast wrote:
Cherry wrote:slartibartfast, your opinion of me does not concern me in the slightest. You still dont get it. I repeat most of your postings contain personal attacks, name calling, that is the behaviour of kids in the school playground not adults. I have not resorted to any name calling or abuse and I repeat it is a shame you cannot afford people the same respect. people should be able to disagree and have different points of view and agree to differ and debate as adults. But sadly many people on here seem not to be able to do so without personal insults and name slinging. There is no need to attack people in that way, whoever they are, people can disagree in a friendly way without nastiness.

I have not resorted to anything remotely approaching name calling.

I really don't think you are sane. That's not an insult it is an opinion.

Enough already. You'll be better suited on my hijacked forum where sym posts.

http://jillhavernunleashed.forumotion.com/

by Slartibartfast 11.12.09 22:05

Thank you for your impartial moderation, Jill.

You do a seriously good impression of Ambersuz.

by Slartibartfast 11.12.09 22:09

A parting shot for the lovely Cherry.

Hi Our Lady of Fatima,

You are up early? what country are you in? thanks for your message. I kind of think that paedophilia may have something to do with it due to the fact of the government involvement and everyone there desperate to not say anything bad about the mccanns, the reason why I think satanic and occult could be involved is due to the fact that from what I have read the higher up masons and the elite paedophile rings seem to be involved in this kind of stuff which makes me think it could be the reason for the coverup, also the involvement of JK Rowling who people say is involved in the occult. I have noticed though when you put something like that on some posters start calling it looney and far fetched etc., so it makes you think twice about posting it but this is what I have got through researching the masons and elite paedophile rings - just like people accused the poor kids in Jersey of being looney and off their heads some posters are saying that when you put stuff up about satanic, occult,etc. I am not saying that is involved as I dont know but it is worthy of being discussed because it could be a possibility and people shouldnt be ridiculed for bringing it up but maybe those people are doing so because it is near the truth? who knows? I think posts relating to that have been made under the Masons thread - although others started a new masons thread as they thought some of the stuff was looney and also under operation ore thread. I just hope the truth will come out one day. Anyway you have nice rest of the day.

As I said Cherry is insane.

by Guest 11.12.09 22:17

Sorry to disappoint you but not insane at all. There are many who think paedophilia could feature in this case, I dont know whether it does or not but it is one theory which should be explored. For your information the Police have set up specialist departments to investigate satanic abuse and recognise that this does happen - therefore by your reckoning the police must be insane. Adults who were abused as children in Jersey have been called insane/looney - that is why and how paedophile rings - and I suggest you research elite and masonic paedophile rings - get away with it, they make out the victims of abuse are insane and or intimidate and threaten them into silence.
Again it is sad you cannot debate as an adult, but think it is clever to resort to abuse and insults.

by **Jill Havern** 11.12.09 22:19

Slartibartfast wrote:Thank you for your impartial moderation, Jill.

You do a seriously good impression of Ambersuz.

I've said umpteem times if you can't debate in a civil manner you're out of here.

If you want to push your luck then that's fine, there's always my hijacked forum that sym posts on where you can abuse people.

Not here.

The difference between me and Amber is that she allows and encourages it whereas I don't.

by Guest 11.12.09 22:25

I seem to have popped up on the end of this thread!! Is Tony Not going to Work on the Foundation anymore?? I couldn't make heads or tails of that first post, unfortunately! Tony, what are your plans for 2010?

by Guest 11.12.09 22:27

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

Tony, You are entitled to have savings! No one should be able to take that away from you! ANy one can see from the way you are living that you are no rich man!

by Slartibartfast 11.12.09 22:35

Cherry wrote:Sorry to disappoint you but not insane at all. There are many who think paedophilia could feature in this case, I dont know whether it does or not but it is one theory which should be explored. For your information the Police have set up specialist departments to investigate satanic abuse and recognise that this does happen - therefore by your reckoning the police must be insane. Adults who were abused as children in Jersey have been called insane/looney - that is why and how paedophile rings - and I suggest you research elite and masonic paedophile rings - get away with it, they make out the victims of abuse are insane and or intimidate and threaten them into silence.
Again it is sad you cannot debate as an adult, but think it is clever to resort to abuse and insults.

The fact that there is a grand total of 0 evidence of it for a start in this case, Cherry.

I am not going to research nonsense masonic loopy conspiracy rubbish if you don't mind.

by Slartibartfast 11.12.09 22:38

jkh wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:Thank you for your impartial moderation, Jill.

You do a seriously good impression of Ambersuz.

I've said umpteem times if you can't debate in a civil manner you're out of here.

If you want to push your luck then that's fine, there's always my hijacked forum that sym posts on where you can abuse people.

Not here.

The difference between me and Amber is that she allows and encourages it whereas I don't.

No Amber says things like there are other forums you can post in.

Just like what you just did there.

Sym is an absolute nutcase.

I happen to think the masonic paedophile stuff is the realm of the deranged and conspiracy nutcases.

Where's the problem in saying that.

But in the interest of fairness I will abide by your rules, Jill.

by **Tony Bennett** 11.12.09 23:23

Just coming back from an evening out, and I have been informed that bluj1515 has posted a reply to my reply on PFA2 and is demanding I post it here.

I don't have a problem posting it here, but I do have a problem replying or commenting on it as I'm off to see my mother for the weekend, so it'll be a day or two, at least, before I get round to replying (if it merits a reply).

Have a good weekend everybody, I hear it'll be a cold one, nice break from all that global warming. P.S. Why ARE the ice caps melting on Mars as well as here? - I would be very interested in the University of East Anglia's Climate Change Unit's spin, whoops I mean science, on that one:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

bluj1515 - Reply To Bennett
by bluj1515 » Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:13 pm

First of all, you don't explain at all why you made that post to begin with, and the post is clearly designed to start to convince people who are interested in Madeleine and her fate to get involved in you other crusades. You are piggy-backing on your perceived "success" in Madeleine's case to support your other crusades. And there is something deeply wrong with that. Madeleine McCann is not one of many in a long line of Essex police corruption cases, she is not a speech limit sign in Metric, she is not a political referendum or initiative, she is a missing child, and she is still missing. Whatever happened to her is still unknown.

So why are you using Madeleine McCann-centric forums to troll for support for your other initiatives?

As for the rest of it:
Basically you say I've not made any money - well of course not, you didn't anticipate the libel cases, Butler blowing the whistle on the Foundation, fighting with Bren, etc. That doesn't mean you didn't try. That doesn't mean it wasn't your motivation; that doesn't mean that the brilliant idea of setting up the Foundation wasn't for the glorification of your ego. And I can hear the refrain now: if I wanted it to be about me, why wasn't I chairperson? Because you didn't want the liability and wanted to lurk in the shadows like Gollum to pull the strings without having your face plastered on the front of the Sunday Express like Butler's. So please, spare us that.

You blow off the Amaral conviction as "political" but apparently the case wasn't "political" enough to convict the others on trial with him, and if one believes you that Correia is a crackpot, etc., why would Correia have any political influence? If the PJ and Portugal are all behind Amaral, how does a "political" conviction equate to his conviction?

The Ciprianos could be guilty as sin; it doesn't explain Leonor's bruises and fear and beating up suspects and looking the other way as your men do so is not ok. It doesn't MATTER if they are drug-crazed child murderers something went on in that police station that was corrupt and violent. I dare say if a drug-crazed child murderer had come out of an interrogation with the Essex police looking the same way, and the police with confession in hand, you would be setting up a Foundation and bleating to the high heavens as we speak.

A Portuguese jury thought that Goncalo Amaral had a duty to prevent those bruises and fear and that he looked the other way. A corrupt police force can bring about a correct conviction; it can also bring about false ones. It leaves everything in doubt, as Bennett well knows or he wouldn't be fighting against it. Leonor Cipriano had bruises and injuries that a Portuguese Dr. stood on the stand and told the world, were not caused by falling down the stairs. The amount of evidence in the Cipriano case if you throw out the confessions is shockingly small. Bennett can't help but insult them in his very description of the case; who's drank the Kool-Aid, then?

Bennett, if you don't support things like throwing things at the McCanns, why don't you publicly come down on that kind of behavior? You have never said, "there are lines, and here they are." Instead, you created and supported a leaflet campaign that slid leaflets through the doors of the McCanns' neighbors and friends and family. A leaflet campaign that you keep crowing was successful and drummed up interest, even though NO ONE believes that, pro, anti, or not. Everyone else can see the damage that leaflet campaign did and why it was wrong but YOU and a few of your Flying Monkeys.

That libel rule is true everywhere, Bennett. It's not one of the unfair parts of the British system. It's a straightforward rule. If you libel someone, you libel someone. If you are found guilty of that libel, you pay. The fact that you're scared of losing is a tacit admission that there is libel somewhere in that leaflet. Whatever that libel is, it sure as hell isn't based on the files as you claim. It is not grossly unequal terms to find even a sentence of libel and have to pay damages; it has nothing to do with the British system and fairness. A libel is a libel and if you do it, you must pay. The leaflet is based on conclusions from your head, not the files at all. That's where the libel is - all those insults and opinion pieces and snide little asides you can't help but make. And the leaflet's chock full of it, so you were right to be scared.

Madeleine did not come to you for help. She was missing. No one came to you for help to set up the Foundation. The Foundation is all you, all about you. Your meanderings, your writings, your Foundation, all you.

I was not including the PJ in the list of organizations that have actually found missing children since they have an abysmal record and instead choose to believe the children were killed by their families, a body was never found, were put in a freezer, and disappeared somewhere. Twice. By two different families from two different countries with two different educations and backgrounds, etc. Yet they were responsible for their daughters' disappearance in the exact same ways.

This is a police organization that puts "judicial secrecy" above releasing a basic initial description of a missing children - the basics of what they look like, what they were wearing; yet run investigations based entirely on leaks to the media to poison public opinion. I would not listen to them either. The coloboma IS her only distinctive feature. They wanted their daughter found and were dealing with a force that hadn't called together the media, hadn't given them a picture of their child, hadn't told them her name, hadn't told them the pajamas she had on. PDL would have woken up that morning and never, ever known a child had gone missing. Where I live, they broadcast missing children's descriptions over the TV, radio, highway road signs. And those descriptions ALWAYS include things like the coloboma when they are visible, as on the child's face, wrist, etc. The PJ were wrong, period.

Besides, why do you care what the McCanns did post-disappearance? if you believe they knew she was dead, IT DOESN'T MATTER if they didn't listen to the PJ about the coloboma. IT DOESN'T MATTER. It can't be one of their FAILINGS if you believe they knew she was dead. You just pile on with these perceived flaws to try to create a picture of monsters because that is the only way a normal person will believe yours and Amaral's thesis. And no one knows the importance of smearing suspects to the media quite like Amaral.

It's not a question of whether the forums I am a member of will post your response. It's a question of whether the forums you post on will, or if Joana Morais will translate this into Portuguese and turn it into a pro-Amaral piece as she is wont to do, or simply ignore it, as she does with news she doesn't like. We are not scared of a dialogue with you. It is you who "recommend" that posters be banned, and forums be made empty of "pros", not us.

by Old Nick 11.12.09 23:57

I hear Mars is lovely this time of year. Keep warm Tony.

by Guest 12.12.09 0:22

Have a good weekend with your mum Tony, night everyone :flower:

by **Tony Bennett** 12.12.09 0:31

Tony Bennett wrote:Just coming back from an evening out, and I have been informed that bluj1515 has posted a reply to my reply on PFA2 and is demanding I post it here.

I don't have a problem posting it here, but I do have a problem replying or commenting on it as I'm off to see my mother for the weekend, so it'll be a day or two, at least, before I get round to replying (if it merits a reply).

More from bluj1515 on PFA2 tonight:

"He is also threatening to not reply. Needs a few days to look at it.

I didn't need a few days to toss out my response to your pile of cr*p, Tony. It's easy when you tell the truth, when you don't need to spin things, when you believe what you are saying.

But take your latest convenient trip to your mother's and think about it for the weekend.

bluj1515, I admit it. I'm probably not going to my mother's at all ('another Bennett lie' as they say so often), but whether I'm going to my mother's or not, I agree that I need all that time I can lay my hands on to respond to all the massively important points you make.

Actually, two of the most important points you make are above:

1) calling my reply 'a pile of cr*p' (not consistent with Jill Havern's debating rules, you know, but no doubt the sort of language they embrace on PFA2) and

2) claiming my visit to my mother is a convenient way of avoiding replying to your important points.

lol!

P.S. 'Threatening to not reply'.

Keep 'em coming, bluj

by Guest 12.12.09 15:58

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.

What you mean like someone paying for their legal fees from donations? That would never happen with the Foundation would it. And it was not £500, it was over £900 in total that was paid out

by Guest 12.12.09 16:01

Cherry wrote: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.

This is a old classic to attack the McCanns. The case was closed as their was NO EVIDENCE. It will only be re-opened when there is CONCRETE EVIDENCE pointing towards a suspect, any suspect.

by Autumn 12.12.09 16:01

murat_fan wrote:
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.

What you mean like someone paying for their legal fees from donations? That would never happen with the Foundation would it. And it was not £500, it was over £900 in total that was paid out

Your thinly veiled attacks on Mr Bennett are getting tiresome.

by Guest 12.12.09 16:05

It is a post to point out how hypocritical some people are. Attack the McCanns for using money to keep a roof over their heads. Bennett did the same.

by Autumn 12.12.09 16:12

I am sure that the children who donated the proceeds of their cakes sale to the McCann fund would be delighted to know how the money has been squandered on a series of dodgy private detective agencies and expensive legal costs.

by Guest 12.12.09 16:14

Autumn wrote:I am sure that the children who donated the proceeds of their cakes sale to the McCann fund would be delighted to know how the money has been squandered on a series of dodgy private detective agencies and expensive legal costs.

And the minor idiots who supplied Bennett with money after he insisted that "EVERYTHING IN MY BOOK/LEAFLETS WILL STAND UP IN COURT.AND I AM PREPARED TO GO TO COURT TO PROVE IT" Then he just gave in.

£900 he raided from the Foundation

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