Re: The Portuguese Constitution

by Autumn 16.12.09 22:08

by Patty O'Daws 16.12.09 22:12

Thank you for being here Autumn. Not being sarcastic, I mean it.

Your link doesn't work though.

by Autumn 16.12.09 22:17

Patty O'Daws wrote:Thank you for being here Autumn. Not being sarcastic, I mean it.

Your link doesn't work though.

Shame, Patty, as its a lovely vid Sad

The vid can be seen on Joana's site (Carnations in December) thread - could someone get a link to it please :flower:

by Guest 16.12.09 22:19

MaryB wrote:victims of what exactly? And protocol put in place. A personal spin doctor?

their child was allegedly abducted from her bed, this is a horrific crime against a family.

protocols need to put in place that are standard in police investigations, allegedly according to various portuguese experts this was a difficult case because it was so unusual and new to the police, and according to an interview Amaral gave last year sometime there has now been a handbook of protocols drawn up, including how to collect forensic evidence among other things.

in the uk the protocols in place for a mmissing person are exactly the same as the ones for a murder enquiry, this means that if a case were to sadly change then there would be no delay in continuing and nothing will have been missed, this seems a smart idea. Similarly in the uk, in a missing child case, questioning the parents to clear them would be a priority, again this seems a smart idea. I have no doubt portugal will have learned a lot from their experience with the Madeleine case and this will no doubt help others.

by **Tony Bennett** 16.12.09 22:26

Patty O'Daws wrote:Oh look! Someone else with just 1 post registered to have a go at TB.

It has happened on every forum where I post.

Just the names change, that's all.

by Guest 16.12.09 22:31

Tony Bennett wrote:
Patty O'Daws wrote:Oh look! Someone else with just 1 post registered to have a go at TB.
It has happened on every forum where I post.

Just the names change, that's all.

Could be worse, at least they don't turn up taking pictures of your house. Shocked

by **Tony Bennett** 16.12.09 22:32

Honoria wrote:…you recently chose to plumb new depths by posting leaflets to residents of the village in which our clients live with their children”. Is the response Carter Ruck chose to use, feel free to correct this if its wrong.

The quote is correct but the content is not, since I have not delivered any leaflets in Rothley at any time. Whilst two or three Rothley people were found to complain about the leaflet, you'll find more than a few who were glad to receive them. The publicity generated by the leaflet drop, though unfavourable, nevertheless triggered many new orders for both '10 Reasons' and '60 Reasons' and we had a spate of new subscriptions to The Madeleine Foundation - plus hundreds of thousands of extra hits on our (former) website.

by Guest 16.12.09 22:34

Raffle wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Patty O'Daws wrote:Oh look! Someone else with just 1 post registered to have a go at TB.
It has happened on every forum where I post.

Just the names change, that's all.

Could be worse, at least they don't turn up taking pictures of your house.

Or using unlikely tabloid headlines as proof of your wrongdoing, you wouldn't want your neighbours waking up to leaflets alleging in all seriousness that you have defrauded people 90 thousand pounds....

by **Tony Bennett** 16.12.09 22:35

Raffle wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Patty O'Daws wrote:Oh look! Someone else with just 1 post registered to have a go at TB.
It has happened on every forum where I post.

Just the names change, that's all.

Could be worse, at least they don't turn up taking pictures of your house.

Which I've never posted up anywhere.

But...now look, who has posted it up for all to see?

Photon, today, on 'Missing Madeleine'.

by Guest 16.12.09 22:35

Tony Bennett wrote:
Honoria wrote:…you recently chose to plumb new depths by posting leaflets to residents of the village in which our clients live with their children”. Is the response Carter Ruck chose to use, feel free to correct this if its wrong.
The quote is correct but the content is not, since I have not delivered any leaflets in Rothley at any time. Whilst two or three Rothley people were found to complain about the leaflet, you'll find more than a few who were glad to receive them. The publicity generated by the leaflet drop, though unfavourable, nevertheless triggered many new orders for both '10 Reasons' and '60 Reasons' and we had a spate of new subscriptions to The Madeleine Foundation - plus hundreds of thousands of extra hits on our (former) website.

hundreds of thousands of hits on the website? And 40 members, bit if a difference in numbers if you don't mind me saying so.

by Guest 16.12.09 22:37

Tony Bennett wrote:
Raffle wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Patty O'Daws wrote:Oh look! Someone else with just 1 post registered to have a go at TB.
It has happened on every forum where I post.

Just the names change, that's all.

Could be worse, at least they don't turn up taking pictures of your house.
Which I've never posted up anywhere.

But...now look, who has posted it up for all to see?

Photon, today, on 'Missing Madeleine'.

You sent the pictures to them asking if they wanted to use any of them and saying if they did acknowlegement of your taking them would be nice.

What on earth did you think they would be doing with them? Handing them out as Christmas cards or something?

by **Tony Bennett** 16.12.09 22:37

tyra wrote:Or using unlikely tabloid headlines as proof of your wrongdoing, you wouldn't want your neighbours waking up to leaflets alleging in all seriousness that you have defrauded people 90 thousand pounds...

Indeed not, because that allegation is false.

Tell me one specific allegation in '10 Reasons' that was false. You can't. Because there were no false statements in '10 Reasons'.

'10 Reasons' is available for view on Wikileaks:

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Suppressed_Madeleine_Foundation_leaflet,_2009

Click on it and see if you can find a false statement

by Guest 16.12.09 22:41

Tony Bennett wrote:
tyra wrote:Or using unlikely tabloid headlines as proof of your wrongdoing, you wouldn't want your neighbours waking up to leaflets alleging in all seriousness that you have defrauded people 90 thousand pounds...
Indeed not, because that allegation is false.

Tell me one specific allegation in '10 Reasons' that was false. You can't. because there were no false statements in '10 Reasons'.

'10 Reasons' is available for view on Wikileaks:

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Suppressed_Madeleine_Foundation_leaflet,_2009

Click on it and see if you can find a false statement

People have been through the various lies in those leaflets numerous times. You chose to bury your head in the sand and say people were attacking you instead of looking at it objectively. Those actions cost you the letters from Carter Ruck and national press attention.

People tried and tried to tell you but you wouldn't listen.

by the way

should you really be advertising that link? Isn't it against the t&c's of your suspennded libel hearing?

by vaguely 16.12.09 22:42

I think that a lot of this have been through this before, and when issues were brought to your attention you just became personally abusive.

by Guest 16.12.09 22:43

Tony Bennett wrote:
tyra wrote:Or using unlikely tabloid headlines as proof of your wrongdoing, you wouldn't want your neighbours waking up to leaflets alleging in all seriousness that you have defrauded people 90 thousand pounds...
Indeed not, because that allegation is false.

Tell me one specific allegation in '10 Reasons' that was false. You can't. Because there were no false statements in '10 Reasons'.

'10 Reasons' is available for view on Wikileaks:

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Suppressed_Madeleine_Foundation_leaflet,_2009

Click on it and see if you can find a false statement

I already did mr bennett, on several occasions, usually it gets me nowhere except banned. I'm disappointed you don't recall those occasions but then I suppose it happens so often, we must all just meld into one annoying, smart, well informed irritant *shrug*

by **Tony Bennett** 16.12.09 22:50

Raffle wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
tyra wrote:Or using unlikely tabloid headlines as proof of your wrongdoing, you wouldn't want your neighbours waking up to leaflets alleging in all seriousness that you have defrauded people 90 thousand pounds...
Indeed not, because that allegation is false.

Tell me one specific allegation in '10 Reasons' that was false. You can't. because there were no false statements in '10 Reasons'.

'10 Reasons' is available for view on Wikileaks:

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Suppressed_Madeleine_Foundation_leaflet,_2009

Click on it and see if you can find a false statement
People have been through the various lies in those leaflets numerous times. You chose to bury your head in the sand and say people were attacking you instead of looking at it objectively. Those actions cost you the letters from Carter Ruck and national press attention.

People tried and tried to tell you but you wouldn't listen.

by the way

should you really be advertising that link? Isn't it against the t&c's of your suspennded libel hearing?

Neither you nor tyra can come up with even one false allegation in '10 Reasons'.

And, no, giving a link to '10 Reasons', particularly in response to a specific question about '10 Reasons' on a forum where allegations have been made about its content, does not breach the 't&c's.

The 't&c's are very specifically worded.

by vaguely 16.12.09 22:52

I've seen plenty of people coming up with the errors in your leaflets.

You become personally abusive.

Nobody is playing your game anymore.

If there's nothing wrong with the leaflets then start handing them out again.

by Guest 16.12.09 22:53

vaguely wrote:I've seen plenty of people coming up with the errors in your leaflets.

You become personally abusive.

Nobody is playing your game anymore.

If there's nothing wrong with the leaflets then start handing them out again.

That last bit is a good point.

by **Tony Bennett** 16.12.09 22:55

vaguely wrote:I've seen plenty of people coming up with the errors in your leaflets.
You become personally abusive. Nobody is playing your game anymore.

Yet another poster who can't name one false allegation in that leaflet.

by vaguely 16.12.09 22:57

I did. You chose to ignore them.

Hand your leaflets out. If you don't then I can only assume that you know there's a fault with them. Probably the same faults that have been pointed out to you countless times by countless people.

by **Tony Bennett** 16.12.09 22:58

Raffle wrote:
vaguely wrote:If there's nothing wrong with the leaflets then start handing them out again.
That last bit is a good point.

No it's not a good point. I'm simply not allowed to.

by Autumn 16.12.09 22:58

Oh dear, they are not good losers are they? laugh

by Guest 16.12.09 22:59

Clearly you know that it contains false allegations otherwise you wouldn't have acceeded to Carter Rucks request. The truth is in your reaction mr bennett, your behaviour speaks volumes.

I have already gone through your 'reasons' in detail but you feign surprise every single time I do.

by **Tony Bennett** 16.12.09 23:00

vaguely wrote:I did. You chose to ignore them.

Hand your leaflets out. If you don't then I can only assume that you know there's a fault with them. Probably the same faults that have been pointed out to you countless times by countless people.

Not true, as is rapidly becoming clear on this thread.

A succession of posters cannot point to even one false allegation in the leaflet. It's no good yelling 'countless' if you can't even count up to one.

by Slartibartfast 16.12.09 23:01

Tony Bennett wrote:
tyra wrote:Or using unlikely tabloid headlines as proof of your wrongdoing, you wouldn't want your neighbours waking up to leaflets alleging in all seriousness that you have defrauded people 90 thousand pounds...
Indeed not, because that allegation is false.

Tell me one specific allegation in '10 Reasons' that was false. You can't. Because there were no false statements in '10 Reasons'.

'10 Reasons' is available for view on Wikileaks:

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Suppressed_Madeleine_Foundation_leaflet,_2009

Click on it and see if you can find a false statement

This one.

Eddie alerts only to human cadaverine - the scent of a human corpse. This is usually only produced in a corpse when the body has been dead for over 2 hours

You know that's wrong.

by Guest 16.12.09 23:01

Tony Bennett wrote:
vaguely wrote:I did. You chose to ignore them.

Hand your leaflets out. If you don't then I can only assume that you know there's a fault with them. Probably the same faults that have been pointed out to you countless times by countless people.
Not true, as is rapidly becoming clear on this thread.

A succession of posters cannot point to even one false allegation in the leaflet. It's no good yelling 'countless' if you can't even count up to one.

It's like deja vu.

by Guest 16.12.09 23:02

Autumn wrote:Oh dear, they are not good losers are they?

The only loser here is mr bennett who printed leaflets containing false information, hoping that a grieving family would be too numb to defend themselves, and perhaps if Madeleine was proven to be gone forever they may not have but while there is any chance of their child being alive they will use everything they can to stop people like mr bennett trying to harm her. He miscalculated the love a parent has for their children.

by vaguely 16.12.09 23:03

Tony Bennett wrote:
Raffle wrote:
vaguely wrote:If there's nothing wrong with the leaflets then start handing them out again.
That last bit is a good point.
No it's not a good point. I'm simply not allowed to.

Oh that's true.

Did you speak with Mr Grime yet about the way you have re-worded one of his quotes in order to make the dogs evidence appear more weighty?

Or did you find the exactly figures for child abduction by strangers - bearing in mind child abduction is not listed as a crime when it is followed by sexual assault or murder this making the recorded numbers of this type of crime very low in comparison to actual events?

by Slartibartfast 16.12.09 23:04

Tony Bennett wrote:
tyra wrote:Or using unlikely tabloid headlines as proof of your wrongdoing, you wouldn't want your neighbours waking up to leaflets alleging in all seriousness that you have defrauded people 90 thousand pounds...
Indeed not, because that allegation is false.

Tell me one specific allegation in '10 Reasons' that was false. You can't. Because there were no false statements in '10 Reasons'.

'10 Reasons' is available for view on Wikileaks:

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Suppressed_Madeleine_Foundation_leaflet,_2009

Click on it and see if you can find a false statement

This one.

Eddie alerts only to human cadaverine - the scent of a human corpse. This is usually only produced in a corpse when the body has been dead for over 2 hours

You know that's wrong.