Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it
Page 1 of 3 • Share
Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3 
Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it
by Tony Bennett 29.03.11 18:44
I understand that earlier today, a poster named ‘Jayelles’, who writes many posts on the ‘PFA2’ and ‘JustAThoughtYouKnow’ forums, wrote: “I'd love to go head to head with Bennett. Do you think he'd agree to meet me?” One of Jayelles’ friends on these forums has added: “The man is a coward. He would never agree to a head to head debate”.
The challenge was made via a forum and not directly to me. However, I accept the challenge, even though his personal comments about me, which he wrote in an article today (see below), might suggest that I would be unwise to do so. So here is my open letter to Jayelles, followed by his post earlier today and, below that, a few comments on his post.
Dear Jayelles
I have been informed of your above comment.
I accept the challenge of a debate with you about what really happened to Madeleine McCann.
I suggest the following terms for such a debate. First, to achieve equality, you must identify yourself so that everybody knows who both parties are, not just one of us. Second, I suggest that the debate is chaired.
As it is unlikely that you and I would agree on a neutral chairman, I suggest that each of us nominates a co-chairman for the debate. Third, I suggest that the debate begins with a statement by each of us, who goes first to be determined by the toss of a coin, followed by a debate of say 30 minutes to 1 hour on the following topic: “Mr Clarence Mitchell recently said that the claim that Madeleine McCann was abducted was a ‘hypothesis’ or an ‘assumption’. What is the evidence in favour of and against that hypothesis?”, to be followed by the two of us giving a 2-minute summary at the end in the reverse order to the opening speeches.
I suggest that the whole proceedings are videoed and made available to the public.
Please reply directly to me, you have my contact details.
Tony Bennett
29 March 2011
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
JAYELLES’ POST TODAY :
Tony Bennett - Disingenuous or Mentally Challenged?
by Jayelles: Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:39 am
Tony Bennett is a man who dedicates his life to obsessively attacking the parents of a missing child. In particular, he inundates the family and their lawyers with long lists of ridiculous questions about the family and their efforts to find their missing daughter. As a former solicitor, Bennett SHOULD have some idea about the way the legal profession works, however, his antics are often those of a person with NO idea of how the legal profession works. Perhaps that is why is is a "former" solicitor.
One of Bennett's gripes against the family is with regard to their legal costs. The McCanns' legal costs can be roughly divided into three:-
1) The setting up and upkeep of the Madeleine McCann search fund - a "not for profit" organisation. Under British law, the fund cannot have charitable status as it's purpose is to fund the search for Madeleine McCann - an individual. In order to qualify for charitable status, an organisation must benefit the public at large. The Fund's legal fees are financed from the fund itself - this is standard procedure with any such organisation whether it be "not for profit" or charity. Even the Red Cross and Cancer Research organisations have legal fees which they must pay.
2) During their period of arguido status, the McCanns required legal defense. This was paid for by several benefactors including Richard Branson who contributed £100,000 in the first instance. We know the McCanns have several other wealthy and generous backers including Brian Kennedy (Everest Windows) and J K Rowling.
3) The McCanns have raised legal action against the media for defamation and indeed against Tony Bennett. They won their libel case against the media and paid the compensation directly into the fund. This gave the fund a much needed boost. OTOH, Tony Bennett capitulated and undertook to cease his defamatory behaviours against the family. However, Bennett continues to harass the family and their lawyers whilst simultaneously airing his grievances against the family for their use of lawyers. Recently, his behaviours have escalated. Tony Bennett has been accused on many occasions of being a publicity-seeker and/or an attention-seeker. It certainly seems to many of us that Tony Bennett has been desperately seeking to inject himself into the McCann case in order to gain attention for himself. For example, when he set up his "Madeleine Foundation", it was done in the name of child protection, yet neither Tony Bennett not his foundation have done a single thing for child protection. All they have done is attack the McCann family and attempt to obstruct the search for Madeleine McCann.
Last year, Bennett wrote to Carter Ruck, the McCanns' lawyers demanding to know how much of the search fund had been used to pay their personal legal fees. Carter Ruck usually ignore Bennett's correspondences which are petty, filled with erroneous deduction and frankly, a waste of everybody's time. Bennett has a rather warped view of non-responses and often interprets this as compliance. However, on this occasion, Carter Ruck did respond and in a letter to Tony Bennettdated 3rd August 2010, they said:-
You have speculated as to the financial basis on which our clients instruct us. This is, of course, no concern of yours, but suffice to say, that your speculation about our clients’ funding arrangements is entirely misplaced. In particular, we have never been paid a penny by the Find Madeleine Fund.
Despite this very clear response, Bennett continues with his misplaced speculation about the McCanns' use of the Fund to pay their personal legal fees and in doing so, he persistently OMITS the response which he received from Carter Ruck on the matter. One can only presume that he does so in order to deceive those who may read his diatribes, the alternative explanation is that Bennett is intellectually challenged and unable to comprehend Carter Ruck's above statement.
Here is one of his latest posts about the fund (bear in mind these are the conclusions of a ‘former’ solicitor). Yet again he is speculating. The McCanns released detailed accounts of the Fund in the first year of its existence. Since then, only the mandatory ‘bottom line’ figures have been released. Bennett says:-
If the McCanns spent £180,321 on lawyers in 2007-8, no doubt they spent similar sums in the following two years; that would make a total of over £500,000.
Eh no...surely even a ‘former’ solicitor would know that the bulk of legal fees for any organisation is incurred at set-up? He continues:-
However, although the McCann Team have been secretive and evasive about how much of their 'Find Madeleine Fund' has recently been used for lawyers,
No, they have not been ‘secretive and evasive’. They have complied fully with the legal requirements for publishing their accounts and in the same manner employed by the vast majority of organisations who need to do so.
they have admitted that their Fund HAS been used in the past year to pay lawyers.
And this is where Bennett really endeavours to mislead his readers because he knows full and well that legal costs are unfortunately an essential requirement for any such organisation and that it would have been decidedly suspicious if they had NOT had legal fees for the Madeleine Fund.
Alas, Tony Bennett preaches to a group of people who are neither renowned for their thinking capabilities nor their inclination to challenge him. Over the years we have all seen that those who do challenge him are swiftly removed from the forum. The few who remain admire this man who is both a failed solicitor (see Solicitor's from Hell) and a failed politician (see the wiki page about Tony Bennett). The fact that these days Bennett preaches only to a bunch of non-thinking nodding dogs who never challenge his lies and erroneous speculations, is a mark of how low he has sunk in life - and Tony Bennett had every opportunity to succeed (a private education followed by a succession of university courses). He had educational opportunities in life than many of us could only dream of but instead of making the most of them, he demonstrates only a total inability to comprehend the written word or to do even the most basic research.
Normally I would post this in the "Antis Bloomers" section of the forum, but I really do want to warn any thinking member of the public who may arrive here looking for information about the McCann case that this man is NOT to be trusted. He lies and twists in an effort to mislead people into joining hin in his evil crusade against a missing child and her family.
TONY’S COMMENTS (IN BLUE):
Jayelles has written 21 negative comments about me which I list below. I have commented where I thought it appropriate to do so:
(1) a man who dedicates his life to obsessively attacking the parents of a missing child.
(2) a man who inundates the family and their lawyers with long lists of ridiculous questions
(3) his antics are often those of a person with NO idea of how the legal profession works
(4) Tony Bennett capitulated [to Carter-Ruck]
(5) he continues to harass the family and their lawyers
(6) his behaviours have escalated
REPLY BY TB: Point 6 contradicts point 4.
(7) Tony Bennett has been desperately seeking to inject himself into the McCann case in order to gain attention for himself.
REPLY BY TB: Or might it be because he is concerned that there is not much evidence to support the abduction hypothesis?
(8) when he set up his "Madeleine Foundation", it was done in the name of child protection, yet neither Tony Bennett not his Foundation have done a single thing for child protection
REPLY BT TB: On the contrary, in 2008 and 2009 we ran a petition on the Prime Minister’s website calling for laws to make it a criminal offence for young children to be left on their own, a law which would have given extra protection to children, and which - if Madeleine really was abducted - might have prevented the McCanns from leaving their three children under four on their own all evening with only cursory checks being made to see if they were all right. The Prime Minister responded directly to the petition as the petition easily surpassed the numbers required to trigger a response from the PM. As a direct result of this petition, I took part in a live Radio Five debate in early 2009 on the vexed subject of ‘Home Alone’ children. A Madeleine Foundation member attended the Rally Against Child Abuse in the summer of last year, and two Madeleine Foundation members recently attended a packed Houses of Parliament lobby on the need to protect children from child abuse, pornography and far-too-early sexualisation.
(9) All they have done is attack the McCann family and attempt to obstruct the search for Madeleine McCann.
(10) Bennett's correspondences are petty, filled with erroneous deduction and frankly, a waste of everybody's time
(11) Bennett continues with his misplaced speculation about the McCanns' use of the Fund to pay their personal legal fees
REPLY BY TB: Let me just remind ‘Jayelles’ at this point that I am NOT talking about the McCanns’ payments to Carter-Ruck. Carter-Ruck say that the Find Madeleine Fund is not paying them, but in line with the McCanns’ secretive nature, neither the McCanns nor Carter-Ruck will disclose whether they or someone else is paying their legal fees. Why innocent parents should be so secretive is a question that many have asked.
Jayelles has failed to spot that I am mainly talking about the legal expenses that the McCanns have incurred by using Portuguese lawyers, which include both their own costs and Mr Amaral’s large legal costs, awarded against them in the McCanns’ recent legal defeats in the Portuguese Court of Appeal and more recently in their Supreme Court. On this topic, may I respectfully remind Jayelles of the article entitled: “Fund pays for luxury hotel”, in the Portuguese papers Correos de Manha and 24 Horas, published on 15 January 2009, which ran as follows:
QUOTE
Madeleine’s father and the English lawyer who accompanied him on the visit to Portugal, on Tuesday, were lodged at the D. Pedro Palace, a five-star hotel, and one of the most luxurious ones in Lisbon. Everything, of course, financed by the ‘Find Madeleine’ Fund.
As far as CM was able to establish, one night at the D. Pedro, in a single room, may cost between 214 and 254 euros. This means that Gerry and the lawyer spent, at least, more than 400 euros for one night.
According to Clarence Mitchell, Madeleine’s parents’ spokesman, Gerry stayed in a single room and the hotel was chosen not for being five-star, but merely because it is located close to lawyer Rogério Alves’ office and because it is discreet: “We didn’t want to transform Gerry’s visit into a media show”.
Concerning the fact that the Fund paid for this, Clarence Mitchell merely recalled the purpose for which it was created: “This type of travel obviously fits into the search for Madeleine which is the Fund’s purpose. That was what it was created for - and Madeleine’s parents will never use it for anything else apart from that”, he stated.
Beyond that, Mitchell gave assurances that the Fund to search for the child still has plenty of money: “We have £800,000 [which is 880,170 euros and 36 cents]. We don’t have money problems. People continue to help us’. The Fund, which was created in 2007, shortly after Madeleine disappeared from the resort at Praia da Luz, had two million euros at some point in time.
UNQUOTE
The fact that the Fund is used to pay for the McCann’s luxurious lifestyle whilst travelling abroad is not denied by the McCanns’ supporters but, on the contrary, is praised. One of them, for example, wrote:
“On the subject of their legal fees, plans change. Personally, I’ve twice donated money to the Find Madeleine Fund, and whilst £100,000 seems like a lot of money for legal fees, solicitors are expensive and I suspect their legal situation has become quite complex. These are two professional people who would presumably have stayed in a similar hotel if they were paying for it themselves. Considering their additional (and obvious) need for discretion a high quality hotel was the only choice. I’ve donated money to Find Madeleine Fund and I’m not even slightly worried that it is being spent this way. The idea that they could just stay in a B & B is very naïve…”
(12) he does so either to deceive those who may read his diatribes, or [because he is] intellectually challenged and unable to comprehend Carter-Ruck's above statement.
(13) Bennett continues with his misplaced speculation about the McCanns' use of the Fund
REPLY BY TB: As the McCanns and their lawyers and advisers insist on so much secrecy, in particular failing to give a detailed breakdown of their income and expenses in their annual accounts, it’s inevitable people will speculate…e.g.: how much did they pay Kevin Halligen? how much did they pay Metodo 3? how much have they paid out of the Fund to the Portuguese lawyers? why do the McCanns stay in the most luxurious 5-star hotels when the money has been given by children giving up their weekly pocket money and pensioners giving up their weekly pension? - and so on.
(14) Tony Bennett preaches to a group of people who are neither renowned for their thinking capabilities nor their inclination to challenge him
(15) those who do challenge him are swiftly removed from the forum
(16) a failed solicitor (see Solicitor's from Hell)
REPLY BY TB: There is indeed an entry - only one - for me on the ‘Solicitors’ from Hell’ website. The entry reads: “Has not had a Solicitors’ practising certificate since 1999, thus not qualified to act as a Solicitor”. That is, in essence, a perfectly correct statement, though as a qualified Solicitor I am still able to act as a Solicitor in limited circumstances. As I’ve always made clear, I gave up my legal practice in 1999 when appointed as the full-time Political Secretary to a Member of the European Parliament, an honest one, I may add, who in no way abused his expenses allowances. I could reapply successfully for a Solicitors’ practising certificate tomorrow, but since 1999 have chosen a different career path.
(17) a failed politician
(18) these days Bennett preaches only to a bunch of non-thinking nodding dogs who never challenge his lies and erroneous speculations
(19) how low he has sunk in life
(20) he demonstrates only a total inability to comprehend the written word or to do even the most basic research.
(21) this man is NOT to be trusted.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[ P.S. Jayelles is considered by his friends on PFA2 and JATYK to be immensely articulate and an intellectual giant. ]
The challenge was made via a forum and not directly to me. However, I accept the challenge, even though his personal comments about me, which he wrote in an article today (see below), might suggest that I would be unwise to do so. So here is my open letter to Jayelles, followed by his post earlier today and, below that, a few comments on his post.
Dear Jayelles
I have been informed of your above comment.
I accept the challenge of a debate with you about what really happened to Madeleine McCann.
I suggest the following terms for such a debate. First, to achieve equality, you must identify yourself so that everybody knows who both parties are, not just one of us. Second, I suggest that the debate is chaired.
As it is unlikely that you and I would agree on a neutral chairman, I suggest that each of us nominates a co-chairman for the debate. Third, I suggest that the debate begins with a statement by each of us, who goes first to be determined by the toss of a coin, followed by a debate of say 30 minutes to 1 hour on the following topic: “Mr Clarence Mitchell recently said that the claim that Madeleine McCann was abducted was a ‘hypothesis’ or an ‘assumption’. What is the evidence in favour of and against that hypothesis?”, to be followed by the two of us giving a 2-minute summary at the end in the reverse order to the opening speeches.
I suggest that the whole proceedings are videoed and made available to the public.
Please reply directly to me, you have my contact details.
Tony Bennett
29 March 2011
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
JAYELLES’ POST TODAY :
Tony Bennett - Disingenuous or Mentally Challenged?
by Jayelles: Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:39 am
Tony Bennett is a man who dedicates his life to obsessively attacking the parents of a missing child. In particular, he inundates the family and their lawyers with long lists of ridiculous questions about the family and their efforts to find their missing daughter. As a former solicitor, Bennett SHOULD have some idea about the way the legal profession works, however, his antics are often those of a person with NO idea of how the legal profession works. Perhaps that is why is is a "former" solicitor.
One of Bennett's gripes against the family is with regard to their legal costs. The McCanns' legal costs can be roughly divided into three:-
1) The setting up and upkeep of the Madeleine McCann search fund - a "not for profit" organisation. Under British law, the fund cannot have charitable status as it's purpose is to fund the search for Madeleine McCann - an individual. In order to qualify for charitable status, an organisation must benefit the public at large. The Fund's legal fees are financed from the fund itself - this is standard procedure with any such organisation whether it be "not for profit" or charity. Even the Red Cross and Cancer Research organisations have legal fees which they must pay.
2) During their period of arguido status, the McCanns required legal defense. This was paid for by several benefactors including Richard Branson who contributed £100,000 in the first instance. We know the McCanns have several other wealthy and generous backers including Brian Kennedy (Everest Windows) and J K Rowling.
3) The McCanns have raised legal action against the media for defamation and indeed against Tony Bennett. They won their libel case against the media and paid the compensation directly into the fund. This gave the fund a much needed boost. OTOH, Tony Bennett capitulated and undertook to cease his defamatory behaviours against the family. However, Bennett continues to harass the family and their lawyers whilst simultaneously airing his grievances against the family for their use of lawyers. Recently, his behaviours have escalated. Tony Bennett has been accused on many occasions of being a publicity-seeker and/or an attention-seeker. It certainly seems to many of us that Tony Bennett has been desperately seeking to inject himself into the McCann case in order to gain attention for himself. For example, when he set up his "Madeleine Foundation", it was done in the name of child protection, yet neither Tony Bennett not his foundation have done a single thing for child protection. All they have done is attack the McCann family and attempt to obstruct the search for Madeleine McCann.
Last year, Bennett wrote to Carter Ruck, the McCanns' lawyers demanding to know how much of the search fund had been used to pay their personal legal fees. Carter Ruck usually ignore Bennett's correspondences which are petty, filled with erroneous deduction and frankly, a waste of everybody's time. Bennett has a rather warped view of non-responses and often interprets this as compliance. However, on this occasion, Carter Ruck did respond and in a letter to Tony Bennettdated 3rd August 2010, they said:-
You have speculated as to the financial basis on which our clients instruct us. This is, of course, no concern of yours, but suffice to say, that your speculation about our clients’ funding arrangements is entirely misplaced. In particular, we have never been paid a penny by the Find Madeleine Fund.
Despite this very clear response, Bennett continues with his misplaced speculation about the McCanns' use of the Fund to pay their personal legal fees and in doing so, he persistently OMITS the response which he received from Carter Ruck on the matter. One can only presume that he does so in order to deceive those who may read his diatribes, the alternative explanation is that Bennett is intellectually challenged and unable to comprehend Carter Ruck's above statement.
Here is one of his latest posts about the fund (bear in mind these are the conclusions of a ‘former’ solicitor). Yet again he is speculating. The McCanns released detailed accounts of the Fund in the first year of its existence. Since then, only the mandatory ‘bottom line’ figures have been released. Bennett says:-
If the McCanns spent £180,321 on lawyers in 2007-8, no doubt they spent similar sums in the following two years; that would make a total of over £500,000.
Eh no...surely even a ‘former’ solicitor would know that the bulk of legal fees for any organisation is incurred at set-up? He continues:-
However, although the McCann Team have been secretive and evasive about how much of their 'Find Madeleine Fund' has recently been used for lawyers,
No, they have not been ‘secretive and evasive’. They have complied fully with the legal requirements for publishing their accounts and in the same manner employed by the vast majority of organisations who need to do so.
they have admitted that their Fund HAS been used in the past year to pay lawyers.
And this is where Bennett really endeavours to mislead his readers because he knows full and well that legal costs are unfortunately an essential requirement for any such organisation and that it would have been decidedly suspicious if they had NOT had legal fees for the Madeleine Fund.
Alas, Tony Bennett preaches to a group of people who are neither renowned for their thinking capabilities nor their inclination to challenge him. Over the years we have all seen that those who do challenge him are swiftly removed from the forum. The few who remain admire this man who is both a failed solicitor (see Solicitor's from Hell) and a failed politician (see the wiki page about Tony Bennett). The fact that these days Bennett preaches only to a bunch of non-thinking nodding dogs who never challenge his lies and erroneous speculations, is a mark of how low he has sunk in life - and Tony Bennett had every opportunity to succeed (a private education followed by a succession of university courses). He had educational opportunities in life than many of us could only dream of but instead of making the most of them, he demonstrates only a total inability to comprehend the written word or to do even the most basic research.
Normally I would post this in the "Antis Bloomers" section of the forum, but I really do want to warn any thinking member of the public who may arrive here looking for information about the McCann case that this man is NOT to be trusted. He lies and twists in an effort to mislead people into joining hin in his evil crusade against a missing child and her family.
TONY’S COMMENTS (IN BLUE):
Jayelles has written 21 negative comments about me which I list below. I have commented where I thought it appropriate to do so:
(1) a man who dedicates his life to obsessively attacking the parents of a missing child.
(2) a man who inundates the family and their lawyers with long lists of ridiculous questions
(3) his antics are often those of a person with NO idea of how the legal profession works
(4) Tony Bennett capitulated [to Carter-Ruck]
(5) he continues to harass the family and their lawyers
(6) his behaviours have escalated
REPLY BY TB: Point 6 contradicts point 4.
(7) Tony Bennett has been desperately seeking to inject himself into the McCann case in order to gain attention for himself.
REPLY BY TB: Or might it be because he is concerned that there is not much evidence to support the abduction hypothesis?
(8) when he set up his "Madeleine Foundation", it was done in the name of child protection, yet neither Tony Bennett not his Foundation have done a single thing for child protection
REPLY BT TB: On the contrary, in 2008 and 2009 we ran a petition on the Prime Minister’s website calling for laws to make it a criminal offence for young children to be left on their own, a law which would have given extra protection to children, and which - if Madeleine really was abducted - might have prevented the McCanns from leaving their three children under four on their own all evening with only cursory checks being made to see if they were all right. The Prime Minister responded directly to the petition as the petition easily surpassed the numbers required to trigger a response from the PM. As a direct result of this petition, I took part in a live Radio Five debate in early 2009 on the vexed subject of ‘Home Alone’ children. A Madeleine Foundation member attended the Rally Against Child Abuse in the summer of last year, and two Madeleine Foundation members recently attended a packed Houses of Parliament lobby on the need to protect children from child abuse, pornography and far-too-early sexualisation.
(9) All they have done is attack the McCann family and attempt to obstruct the search for Madeleine McCann.
(10) Bennett's correspondences are petty, filled with erroneous deduction and frankly, a waste of everybody's time
(11) Bennett continues with his misplaced speculation about the McCanns' use of the Fund to pay their personal legal fees
REPLY BY TB: Let me just remind ‘Jayelles’ at this point that I am NOT talking about the McCanns’ payments to Carter-Ruck. Carter-Ruck say that the Find Madeleine Fund is not paying them, but in line with the McCanns’ secretive nature, neither the McCanns nor Carter-Ruck will disclose whether they or someone else is paying their legal fees. Why innocent parents should be so secretive is a question that many have asked.
Jayelles has failed to spot that I am mainly talking about the legal expenses that the McCanns have incurred by using Portuguese lawyers, which include both their own costs and Mr Amaral’s large legal costs, awarded against them in the McCanns’ recent legal defeats in the Portuguese Court of Appeal and more recently in their Supreme Court. On this topic, may I respectfully remind Jayelles of the article entitled: “Fund pays for luxury hotel”, in the Portuguese papers Correos de Manha and 24 Horas, published on 15 January 2009, which ran as follows:
QUOTE
Madeleine’s father and the English lawyer who accompanied him on the visit to Portugal, on Tuesday, were lodged at the D. Pedro Palace, a five-star hotel, and one of the most luxurious ones in Lisbon. Everything, of course, financed by the ‘Find Madeleine’ Fund.
As far as CM was able to establish, one night at the D. Pedro, in a single room, may cost between 214 and 254 euros. This means that Gerry and the lawyer spent, at least, more than 400 euros for one night.
According to Clarence Mitchell, Madeleine’s parents’ spokesman, Gerry stayed in a single room and the hotel was chosen not for being five-star, but merely because it is located close to lawyer Rogério Alves’ office and because it is discreet: “We didn’t want to transform Gerry’s visit into a media show”.
Concerning the fact that the Fund paid for this, Clarence Mitchell merely recalled the purpose for which it was created: “This type of travel obviously fits into the search for Madeleine which is the Fund’s purpose. That was what it was created for - and Madeleine’s parents will never use it for anything else apart from that”, he stated.
Beyond that, Mitchell gave assurances that the Fund to search for the child still has plenty of money: “We have £800,000 [which is 880,170 euros and 36 cents]. We don’t have money problems. People continue to help us’. The Fund, which was created in 2007, shortly after Madeleine disappeared from the resort at Praia da Luz, had two million euros at some point in time.
UNQUOTE
The fact that the Fund is used to pay for the McCann’s luxurious lifestyle whilst travelling abroad is not denied by the McCanns’ supporters but, on the contrary, is praised. One of them, for example, wrote:
“On the subject of their legal fees, plans change. Personally, I’ve twice donated money to the Find Madeleine Fund, and whilst £100,000 seems like a lot of money for legal fees, solicitors are expensive and I suspect their legal situation has become quite complex. These are two professional people who would presumably have stayed in a similar hotel if they were paying for it themselves. Considering their additional (and obvious) need for discretion a high quality hotel was the only choice. I’ve donated money to Find Madeleine Fund and I’m not even slightly worried that it is being spent this way. The idea that they could just stay in a B & B is very naïve…”
(12) he does so either to deceive those who may read his diatribes, or [because he is] intellectually challenged and unable to comprehend Carter-Ruck's above statement.
(13) Bennett continues with his misplaced speculation about the McCanns' use of the Fund
REPLY BY TB: As the McCanns and their lawyers and advisers insist on so much secrecy, in particular failing to give a detailed breakdown of their income and expenses in their annual accounts, it’s inevitable people will speculate…e.g.: how much did they pay Kevin Halligen? how much did they pay Metodo 3? how much have they paid out of the Fund to the Portuguese lawyers? why do the McCanns stay in the most luxurious 5-star hotels when the money has been given by children giving up their weekly pocket money and pensioners giving up their weekly pension? - and so on.
(14) Tony Bennett preaches to a group of people who are neither renowned for their thinking capabilities nor their inclination to challenge him
(15) those who do challenge him are swiftly removed from the forum
(16) a failed solicitor (see Solicitor's from Hell)
REPLY BY TB: There is indeed an entry - only one - for me on the ‘Solicitors’ from Hell’ website. The entry reads: “Has not had a Solicitors’ practising certificate since 1999, thus not qualified to act as a Solicitor”. That is, in essence, a perfectly correct statement, though as a qualified Solicitor I am still able to act as a Solicitor in limited circumstances. As I’ve always made clear, I gave up my legal practice in 1999 when appointed as the full-time Political Secretary to a Member of the European Parliament, an honest one, I may add, who in no way abused his expenses allowances. I could reapply successfully for a Solicitors’ practising certificate tomorrow, but since 1999 have chosen a different career path.
(17) a failed politician
(18) these days Bennett preaches only to a bunch of non-thinking nodding dogs who never challenge his lies and erroneous speculations
(19) how low he has sunk in life
(20) he demonstrates only a total inability to comprehend the written word or to do even the most basic research.
(21) this man is NOT to be trusted.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[ P.S. Jayelles is considered by his friends on PFA2 and JATYK to be immensely articulate and an intellectual giant. ]
Tony Bennett- Researcher
- Posts : 16906
Activity : 24770
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 76
Location : Shropshire
Re: Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it
by sharonl 29.03.11 19:05
Tony Bennett wrote:
I suggest that the whole proceedings are videoed and made available to the public.
Excellent, I was just about to suggest that the debate be videoed, you beat me to that.
This should really take place in public with a number of supporters on both sides, there should be some rules obviously, no abuse, no butting in from supporters, just good debate between Jayelles and yourself. We should agree before hand that each of you get a copy of the video and that both of you are free to upload it wherever and whenever you wish.
Just let me know how many supporters are likely to turn up from each side and I will find you a suitable venue, that is assuming that the opposition don`t mind coming forward and identyfing themselves for the sake of the little girl that they believe to be missing and can be found.
sharonl- Forum Owner
- Posts : 8560
Activity : 11199
Likes received : 1397
Join date : 2009-12-29 -
Re: Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it
by Guest 29.03.11 19:29
Will be interesting to see if Jayelles takes up the challenge.
It is a pity that Jayelles appears not to have done their research before writing that post, for example, they do not seem to be aware of the work the Madeleine Foundation has done in areas unrelated to the Mccann case, Jayelles goes to great length to put Tony down, which again imo shows poor or little research, perhaps the poster should read up on the work Tony has done in relation to exposing corruption among some of Essex Police for example. It would also be interesting to know their views on the Mccanns spokesperson promoting the Fund to the public as if it were a charity!
It is a pity that Jayelles appears not to have done their research before writing that post, for example, they do not seem to be aware of the work the Madeleine Foundation has done in areas unrelated to the Mccann case, Jayelles goes to great length to put Tony down, which again imo shows poor or little research, perhaps the poster should read up on the work Tony has done in relation to exposing corruption among some of Essex Police for example. It would also be interesting to know their views on the Mccanns spokesperson promoting the Fund to the public as if it were a charity!
Guest- Guest
Re: Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it
by aiyoyo 30.03.11 9:44
I will be surprised if Jayelles reveals his real identity, let alone take up the challenge?
No way Hosey! Let's see!
No way Hosey! Let's see!
aiyoyo- Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28
Jayelles has replied, though not directly
by Tony Bennett 30.03.11 22:09
JAYELLES REPLIES. MY REPLIES TO HIM/HER IN BLUE:
These are the comments today of Jayelles on PFA2. S/he has not contacted me direct.
Jayelles, I address my replies directly to you.
Today I stated that I would love to go head to head with Tony Bennett. I have just come online to find that he accepts my challenge. Well, I accept his acceptance but certainly not his ridiculous conditions.
REPLY: You said "I would love to go head to head". This now seems to have been rapidly replaced by 'keyboard to keyboard'.
Alas I fear that he set down such unreasonable conditions in expectation of my declining them.
REPLY: Not at all. A proper 'head to head' debate takes place exactly as I suggested. The topic, or motion for debate, is agreed, the speakers/debaters speak and debate, there is a neutral chairman, and the session is videoed so that all can judge the outcome of the debate for themselves.
However, unlike many of his sheeples...
REPLY: Why do you - and by the way so many on your side of the debate - have to resort to abuse? Do you not understand that abusing an opponent in a debate and making 'ad hominem' comments are clear signs that you have lost the argument? All agree that in a debate, you thrash out the issues, not attack the debaters.
...I have been online and using the hat Jayelles for eleven years. I am well known on some crime forums and my identity and reputation are well established (for good or bad). There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for me to provide a known stalker and nutjob with my personal information.
REPLY: More abuse.
It's not as if we're standing for government. The Internet has plenty of conferencing facilities which will allow a two way discussion. It can be a forum or a chatroom. Forum is probably best as it is most accomodating timewise. We can agree conditions like tit for tat posting (I ask him a question, he replies and asks me a question). If he feels the need to have someone to hold his hand for that, then I'm sure something can be arranged.
REPLY: I accept any reasonable debate with you without you either having to be 'head to head' in person or reveal your identity.
I want to challenge him on his "Reasons".
REPLY: Well, the real issue in this case is the evidence for or against the hypothesis that Madeleine McCann was abducted. If a debate were to be held between a McCann-believer like yourself and a McCann-sceptic like me, the motion for debate should probably be along these lines: "The evidence in this case suggests that Madeleine McCann was abducted". Are you willing to debate that, keyboard to keyboard, whether on a forum or otherwise? You will speak for the motion, I will speak against it.
If, separately, you wish to debate the contents of '60 Reasons', fine. I suggest that is done point by point starting with Reason 1. You can raise your objections, I will reply. I will consider any reasonable manner in which this can be done.
I will even tell him which reasons in advance to let him prepare his defence! However, I am not interested in discussing any point which is a non-starter on account of Bennett getting his facts arse about face (i.e. that only 13% of the search fund was actually used to search for Madeleine). I will give Bennet the opportunity to check his facts beforehand and withdraw any "Reason" he feels may not meet close scrutiny.
REPLY: If you think I have got any of my facts wrong, you are free to say so, of course.
Of course I expect Bennett to back out unless I agree to expose my identity.
REPLY: Not at all. I am very happy to debate the issues in this case with you, and will be as accommodating as I can, so long as we achieve a fair debate on the isuses that matter.
But that would only confirm that he is indeed a coward.
REPLY: You can't put two or three sentences together without resorting to abuse, can you?
I would not insist on him revealing his personal details to me if the roles were reversed.
Oh and BTW, he'll need more than 30-90 mins. I have plenty to challenge him about.
REPLY: Well, if we're debating the evidence for and against the hypothesis that Madeleine McCann was abducted, I can assure you I'll have plenty to challenge you about as well. If it is now to be a keyboard debate rather than a 'head to head', I'm quite happy to give it the time it will need.
Yes I think so. Debating his "Reasons" is a fair start. I will be challenging the validity of many of them since I have done my research and will be entering the debate armed with the proof that many do NOT stand up to scrutiny. I am eager to have his reponses to these rebuttals on record.
If he really stands by his "Reasons", then he will agree to these terms.
REPLY: If you want to debate the '60 Reasons' as well, then let us do so, but the core debate must surely be: 'Does the evidence support the abduction hypothesis, or not?'
No worries Mel. As I said at JATYK, I have never abused my anonymity on the Internet
REPLY: Yet here you are hiding under your cloak of anonymity shouting abuse at someone who is prepared to name himself: 'sheeples', 'stalker', 'nutjob', 'coward', 'dedicates his life to obsessively attacking the parents of a missing child', 'no idea of how the legal profession works', 'to harasses the family and their lawyers', 'obstructing the search for Madeleine', 'deceives people or is intellectually challenged', 'preaches to a group of people who are not renowned for their thinking capabilities', 'a failed solicitor', 'failed politician', 'preaches only to a bunch of non-thinking nodding dogs who never challenge his lies', 'how low he has sunk in life', 'demonstrates only a total inability to comprehend the written word or to do even the most basic research', 'not to be trusted'. And that only a selection of personally abusive comments in just two short posts of yours.
and I therefore believe I have earned the right to preserve it. I'm not an unknown entity either. I've always used the same hat since 2000 and I've been mentioned on American TV and radio with regard to the Ramsey case.
REPLY: I have no idea even whether you are male or female, let alone anything else about you. At the very minimum, perhaps before the debate begins you would at least do me the courtesy of directing me to where I can read about your views on the JonBenet Ramsey case.
LOL apparently one of the Sharon's is talking about "venues" and "supporters".
I do hope my refusal to reveal my identity and expose myself and my family to known stalkers and nutjobs won't be a deal-breaker for the goon.
REPLY: Are you able to stop the flow of abusive comments? Or not? Will this level of personal abuse also be a feature of our debate?
SOunds good to me. I would hope there wouldn't be any interference from moderators though. What I do NOT want is one of his Goons "protecting" him from difficult questions or from questions which have to be repeated because the Goon has evaded it.
That would defeat the entire purpose. I want to challenge the coward on his "Reasons" leaflet without any "help" from his henchmen.
REPLY: Ending your posts on PFA2 today with 'goons', 'coward' and 'henchmen'. Hmmm. I hope you'll be able to raise your game for the debate you would 'love to have'. I'm awaiting your reply; it would be much better if this could be conducted 'head to head' so to speak, instead of me having to learn of your comments secondhand, on a forum - you are free to choose any method of communication, e.g. via a forum or a third party, which doesn't disclose your identity.
These are the comments today of Jayelles on PFA2. S/he has not contacted me direct.
Jayelles, I address my replies directly to you.
Today I stated that I would love to go head to head with Tony Bennett. I have just come online to find that he accepts my challenge. Well, I accept his acceptance but certainly not his ridiculous conditions.
REPLY: You said "I would love to go head to head". This now seems to have been rapidly replaced by 'keyboard to keyboard'.
Alas I fear that he set down such unreasonable conditions in expectation of my declining them.
REPLY: Not at all. A proper 'head to head' debate takes place exactly as I suggested. The topic, or motion for debate, is agreed, the speakers/debaters speak and debate, there is a neutral chairman, and the session is videoed so that all can judge the outcome of the debate for themselves.
However, unlike many of his sheeples...
REPLY: Why do you - and by the way so many on your side of the debate - have to resort to abuse? Do you not understand that abusing an opponent in a debate and making 'ad hominem' comments are clear signs that you have lost the argument? All agree that in a debate, you thrash out the issues, not attack the debaters.
...I have been online and using the hat Jayelles for eleven years. I am well known on some crime forums and my identity and reputation are well established (for good or bad). There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for me to provide a known stalker and nutjob with my personal information.
REPLY: More abuse.
It's not as if we're standing for government. The Internet has plenty of conferencing facilities which will allow a two way discussion. It can be a forum or a chatroom. Forum is probably best as it is most accomodating timewise. We can agree conditions like tit for tat posting (I ask him a question, he replies and asks me a question). If he feels the need to have someone to hold his hand for that, then I'm sure something can be arranged.
REPLY: I accept any reasonable debate with you without you either having to be 'head to head' in person or reveal your identity.
I want to challenge him on his "Reasons".
REPLY: Well, the real issue in this case is the evidence for or against the hypothesis that Madeleine McCann was abducted. If a debate were to be held between a McCann-believer like yourself and a McCann-sceptic like me, the motion for debate should probably be along these lines: "The evidence in this case suggests that Madeleine McCann was abducted". Are you willing to debate that, keyboard to keyboard, whether on a forum or otherwise? You will speak for the motion, I will speak against it.
If, separately, you wish to debate the contents of '60 Reasons', fine. I suggest that is done point by point starting with Reason 1. You can raise your objections, I will reply. I will consider any reasonable manner in which this can be done.
I will even tell him which reasons in advance to let him prepare his defence! However, I am not interested in discussing any point which is a non-starter on account of Bennett getting his facts arse about face (i.e. that only 13% of the search fund was actually used to search for Madeleine). I will give Bennet the opportunity to check his facts beforehand and withdraw any "Reason" he feels may not meet close scrutiny.
REPLY: If you think I have got any of my facts wrong, you are free to say so, of course.
Of course I expect Bennett to back out unless I agree to expose my identity.
REPLY: Not at all. I am very happy to debate the issues in this case with you, and will be as accommodating as I can, so long as we achieve a fair debate on the isuses that matter.
But that would only confirm that he is indeed a coward.
REPLY: You can't put two or three sentences together without resorting to abuse, can you?
I would not insist on him revealing his personal details to me if the roles were reversed.
Oh and BTW, he'll need more than 30-90 mins. I have plenty to challenge him about.
REPLY: Well, if we're debating the evidence for and against the hypothesis that Madeleine McCann was abducted, I can assure you I'll have plenty to challenge you about as well. If it is now to be a keyboard debate rather than a 'head to head', I'm quite happy to give it the time it will need.
Yes I think so. Debating his "Reasons" is a fair start. I will be challenging the validity of many of them since I have done my research and will be entering the debate armed with the proof that many do NOT stand up to scrutiny. I am eager to have his reponses to these rebuttals on record.
If he really stands by his "Reasons", then he will agree to these terms.
REPLY: If you want to debate the '60 Reasons' as well, then let us do so, but the core debate must surely be: 'Does the evidence support the abduction hypothesis, or not?'
No worries Mel. As I said at JATYK, I have never abused my anonymity on the Internet
REPLY: Yet here you are hiding under your cloak of anonymity shouting abuse at someone who is prepared to name himself: 'sheeples', 'stalker', 'nutjob', 'coward', 'dedicates his life to obsessively attacking the parents of a missing child', 'no idea of how the legal profession works', 'to harasses the family and their lawyers', 'obstructing the search for Madeleine', 'deceives people or is intellectually challenged', 'preaches to a group of people who are not renowned for their thinking capabilities', 'a failed solicitor', 'failed politician', 'preaches only to a bunch of non-thinking nodding dogs who never challenge his lies', 'how low he has sunk in life', 'demonstrates only a total inability to comprehend the written word or to do even the most basic research', 'not to be trusted'. And that only a selection of personally abusive comments in just two short posts of yours.
and I therefore believe I have earned the right to preserve it. I'm not an unknown entity either. I've always used the same hat since 2000 and I've been mentioned on American TV and radio with regard to the Ramsey case.
REPLY: I have no idea even whether you are male or female, let alone anything else about you. At the very minimum, perhaps before the debate begins you would at least do me the courtesy of directing me to where I can read about your views on the JonBenet Ramsey case.
LOL apparently one of the Sharon's is talking about "venues" and "supporters".
I do hope my refusal to reveal my identity and expose myself and my family to known stalkers and nutjobs won't be a deal-breaker for the goon.
REPLY: Are you able to stop the flow of abusive comments? Or not? Will this level of personal abuse also be a feature of our debate?
SOunds good to me. I would hope there wouldn't be any interference from moderators though. What I do NOT want is one of his Goons "protecting" him from difficult questions or from questions which have to be repeated because the Goon has evaded it.
That would defeat the entire purpose. I want to challenge the coward on his "Reasons" leaflet without any "help" from his henchmen.
REPLY: Ending your posts on PFA2 today with 'goons', 'coward' and 'henchmen'. Hmmm. I hope you'll be able to raise your game for the debate you would 'love to have'. I'm awaiting your reply; it would be much better if this could be conducted 'head to head' so to speak, instead of me having to learn of your comments secondhand, on a forum - you are free to choose any method of communication, e.g. via a forum or a third party, which doesn't disclose your identity.
Tony Bennett- Researcher
- Posts : 16906
Activity : 24770
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 76
Location : Shropshire
Re: Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it
by Tony Bennett 31.03.11 1:02
JAYELLES' FURTHER REPLY AND MY RESPONSE:
Message to Tony Bennett:-
1. All of my communications to you will be done publicly. I do not engage in private communication with people I do not trust.
REPLY: I am quite content for all communications between us to be in public.
2. Yes I agree to a discussion about your "Reasons" - point by point. That is what I am interested in (as per my post at JATYK which you somehow managed to translate into a video taped debate about whether Madeleine McCann was abducted).
REPLY: The central question in this case remains: Does the evidence support the abduction hypothesis? Are you willing to debate that with me? I hope you will agree.
3. You can google my name and find any number of Ramsey case sources which I am associated with. My views on the case are well known. Websleuths, ForumsforJustice and Crimenews (now TruTV). I contributed to the Ramsey wiki and to some of the resources at acandyrose too. Websleuths is the oldest membership. I joined it in 2000 and stayed with it through various subsequent incarnations.
REPLY: I will do that, and if that doesn't work, I'll ask you for links.
4. Since you are a former politician (albeit not a very successful one), then you should be used to insults (I have seen the House of Common debates on TV). If we are to discuss "head to head" (figuratively speaking) then I shall consider calling you the "honourable goon".
REPLY: Noted.
5. I will respond more fully when I have time.
REPLY: Noted. If and when we debate the contents of '60 Reasons', I suggest that this is covered from Reason 1 down to Reason 60 in order. I would suggest that you make your allegation against each reason, then I respond, then we move on to Reason 2 and so on. I think it would be sensible to have a word limit for each contribution, I would suggest around 300 words each. I will leave it to you to make practical suggestions on how and where this debate should be conducted.
Message to Tony Bennett:-
1. All of my communications to you will be done publicly. I do not engage in private communication with people I do not trust.
REPLY: I am quite content for all communications between us to be in public.
2. Yes I agree to a discussion about your "Reasons" - point by point. That is what I am interested in (as per my post at JATYK which you somehow managed to translate into a video taped debate about whether Madeleine McCann was abducted).
REPLY: The central question in this case remains: Does the evidence support the abduction hypothesis? Are you willing to debate that with me? I hope you will agree.
3. You can google my name and find any number of Ramsey case sources which I am associated with. My views on the case are well known. Websleuths, ForumsforJustice and Crimenews (now TruTV). I contributed to the Ramsey wiki and to some of the resources at acandyrose too. Websleuths is the oldest membership. I joined it in 2000 and stayed with it through various subsequent incarnations.
REPLY: I will do that, and if that doesn't work, I'll ask you for links.
4. Since you are a former politician (albeit not a very successful one), then you should be used to insults (I have seen the House of Common debates on TV). If we are to discuss "head to head" (figuratively speaking) then I shall consider calling you the "honourable goon".
REPLY: Noted.
5. I will respond more fully when I have time.
REPLY: Noted. If and when we debate the contents of '60 Reasons', I suggest that this is covered from Reason 1 down to Reason 60 in order. I would suggest that you make your allegation against each reason, then I respond, then we move on to Reason 2 and so on. I think it would be sensible to have a word limit for each contribution, I would suggest around 300 words each. I will leave it to you to make practical suggestions on how and where this debate should be conducted.
Tony Bennett- Researcher
- Posts : 16906
Activity : 24770
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 76
Location : Shropshire
Re: Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it
by aiyoyo 31.03.11 1:49
Alll sort of excuses from Jayelle to reject TB's acceptance.
What is the problem with her? She issued a challenged yet she has no guts to see through it - tpypical isnt of the mccanns camp?
Jayelle has lost the debate even before starting - all Jayelle is capable of is more abuse.
The pros simply have no legs to stand on and they know IT!
What is the problem with her? She issued a challenged yet she has no guts to see through it - tpypical isnt of the mccanns camp?
Jayelle has lost the debate even before starting - all Jayelle is capable of is more abuse.
The pros simply have no legs to stand on and they know IT!
aiyoyo- Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28
Re: Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it
by Guest 31.03.11 18:13
It amazes me that Jayelles cannot seem to hold a conversation without resorting to abuse, why is this necessary, why cant Jayelles act like a decent human being. What is funny about being rude and abusive and nasty and spiteful. Well on this public forum which is viewed by many Jayelles has shown himself or herself up and made it known exactly what type of person he or she is, one that resorts to abuse and insults. How very adultlike is that!
Guest- Guest
Re: Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it
by HiDeHo 31.03.11 19:59
I would be very interested to see this debate.
I continue to be curious about what the responses would be regarding the information in the Official Police Files if the contents were freely reported in the British press.
It's easy to promote one side of a 'debate' when all the information has not been available for easy public access.
Knowledge is power and until the UK public have that knowledge it stands to reason that any debate will be one sided.
I don't believe Tony is trying to attack the McCanns, I believe he is making the effort to give the British public the knowledge and to give them the power to base their opinions on facts rather than opinions of others.
If, after reading and debating the police files, the British public continue to come to the current conclusion that the McCanns are being wrongfully attacked then I would respect that opinion.
How can anyone respect opinions based on information that has not been scrutinised and checked and is based on intimidation and the perception of others?
Tony's 'facts' are based on known information in the files.
There have been little, if any, credible and honest explanations from the McCanns.
On a level playing field this would make Tony's side of the story tough to dispute.
Unfortunately, for now, the playing field is far from equal.
One day, the British public will not have information 'hidden' from them and Tony's comments will be scrutinised for their credibility by people that have knowledge to base their opinions on, and not attacked because of a possible unscrupulous agenda and blindly believed by those that rely on others to formulate their opinions.
IMO
I continue to be curious about what the responses would be regarding the information in the Official Police Files if the contents were freely reported in the British press.
It's easy to promote one side of a 'debate' when all the information has not been available for easy public access.
Knowledge is power and until the UK public have that knowledge it stands to reason that any debate will be one sided.
I don't believe Tony is trying to attack the McCanns, I believe he is making the effort to give the British public the knowledge and to give them the power to base their opinions on facts rather than opinions of others.
If, after reading and debating the police files, the British public continue to come to the current conclusion that the McCanns are being wrongfully attacked then I would respect that opinion.
How can anyone respect opinions based on information that has not been scrutinised and checked and is based on intimidation and the perception of others?
Tony's 'facts' are based on known information in the files.
There have been little, if any, credible and honest explanations from the McCanns.
On a level playing field this would make Tony's side of the story tough to dispute.
Unfortunately, for now, the playing field is far from equal.
One day, the British public will not have information 'hidden' from them and Tony's comments will be scrutinised for their credibility by people that have knowledge to base their opinions on, and not attacked because of a possible unscrupulous agenda and blindly believed by those that rely on others to formulate their opinions.
IMO
HiDeHo- Researcher
- Posts : 3324
Activity : 5076
Likes received : 1065
Join date : 2010-05-07 -
Re: Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it
by aiyoyo 31.03.11 22:25
HiDeHo wrote:I would be very interested to see this debate.
I continue to be curious about what the responses would be regarding the information in the Official Police Files if the contents were freely reported in the British press.
It's easy to promote one side of a 'debate' when all the information has not been available for easy public access.
Knowledge is power and until the UK public have that knowledge it stands to reason that any debate will be one sided.
I don't believe Tony is trying to attack the McCanns, I believe he is making the effort to give the British public the knowledge and to give them the power to base their opinions on facts rather than opinions of others.
If, after reading and debating the police files, the British public continue to come to the current conclusion that the McCanns are being wrongfully attacked then I would respect that opinion.
How can anyone respect opinions based on information that has not been scrutinised and checked and is based on intimidation and the perception of others?
Tony's 'facts' are based on known information in the files.
There have been little, if any, credible and honest explanations from the McCanns.
On a level playing field this would make Tony's side of the story tough to dispute.
Unfortunately, for now, the playing field is far from equal.
One day, the British public will not have information 'hidden' from them and Tony's comments will be scrutinised for their credibility by people that have knowledge to base their opinions on, and not attacked because of a possible unscrupulous agenda and blindly believed by those that rely on others to formulate their opinions.
IMO
Wouldnt it be just? Be interesting to see team mccanns and/or pro mccanns going head to head with TB in a public debate. That's not going to happen in a million-year - they'll never dare to risk that - not even over their dead bodies I suspect.
TB's hard work will not be recognised for its real value until the mccanns are stripped of their mask. But, that's not going to happen in the near future nor for a very long time yet.
Not wanting to sound negative, but I doubt the day of free information for all will ever come. I see the mccanns always suppress that from the UK public thus their constant need to boost up fund to afford retaining lawyers and for their private detectives hire whose activities are not transparent at all. In fact it's so obscure that I'm surprised the donating public hadnt raised questions about that.
Imo the release of their book contrary to popluar belief is not going to address the real circumstances ..not .about circumstances leading to nor surrounding her abduction - not by a long mark. It will be about dissing and bashing the PJ, scatching them about their incompetency and more.
More importantly what's betting that Amaral will get featured prominently in their book as main detective who bungled their case and dont be surprised if Amaral's perjury and possibly circumstances leading to that in the Joanna Cipriano's case will be used as example to discredit him. If UK police were mentioned at all, it would be to praise them on how the UK police showed deference to them and sensitivity to their situation to the point of reverence of a pair of doctors whose influence is far and wide. Most of all the book imo will be about their pain and the the search they pushed so often in people's faces without giving too much away as to the operations of their private dicks. Doubtless they will rave about those guillable public who supported them and some well known names will get special mention to lend weight to the mccanns importance.
If that book is about Maddie or how they thought she was taken in what circumstances or detailing the works and leads of their PIs and how the public can help towards that search pigs will fly.
aiyoyo- Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28
Waiting...
by Tony Bennett 01.04.11 23:41
48 hours have nearly gone by and I have not heard a thing from 'Jayelles' or anyone else on Jayelles' behalf.
She opened this whole thing up with the words: "I would love to go head to head with Bennett".
I'm ready for the challenge, anyway.
She opened this whole thing up with the words: "I would love to go head to head with Bennett".
I'm ready for the challenge, anyway.
Tony Bennett- Researcher
- Posts : 16906
Activity : 24770
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 76
Location : Shropshire
Re: Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it
by aiyoyo 03.04.11 5:43
Tortoise with head in shell comes to mind.
aiyoyo- Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28
Re: Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it
by ufercoffy 03.04.11 9:20
Tony Bennett wrote:48 hours have nearly gone by and I have not heard a thing from 'Jayelles' or anyone else on Jayelles' behalf.
She opened this whole thing up with the words: "I would love to go head to head with Bennett".
I'm ready for the challenge, anyway.
Typical of the pro's. Chuck abuse and challenges then retreat.
I'm sure it's your fault though Tony
____________________
Whose cadaver scent and bodily fluid was found in the McCann's apartment and hire car if not Madeleine's?
ufercoffy- Posts : 1662
Activity : 2101
Likes received : 32
Join date : 2010-01-04
Tony Bennett accepts Jayelles' challenge
by Guest 04.04.11 17:03
People like Jayelles who use offensive and disrespectful language don't deserve to be heard and I for one hope he or she has gone for good.
Guest- Guest
Guest- Guest
Tony Bennett accepts Jayelles' challenge
by Guest 04.04.11 19:40
I certainly agree with Marian. I normally do my best to respect other people's opinions even when they are the complete opposite of mine but, in Jayelles' case, that isn't possible. When one's only form of defence is to attack others, one must have a very weak argument in the first place. Don't hurry back Jayelles!
Guest- Guest
Re: Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it
by Guest 04.04.11 19:42
Jean wrote:I certainly agree with Marian. I normally do my best to respect other people's opinions even when they are the complete opposite of mine but, in Jayelles' case, that isn't possible. When one's only form of defence is to attack others, one must have a very weak argument in the first place. Don't hurry back Jayelles!
Guest- Guest
Re: Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it
by aiyoyo 05.04.11 3:28
Jean wrote:I certainly agree with Marian. I normally do my best to respect other people's opinions even when they are the complete opposite of mine but, in Jayelles' case, that isn't possible. When one's only form of defence is to attack others, one must have a very weak argument in the first place. Don't hurry back Jayelles!
Dont worry she wont come back j'en suis sure.
She couldnt slither away fast enough.
The pro has no leg to stand on - simple as.
aiyoyo- Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28
Re: Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it
by hentie 06.04.11 7:19
The retreat by Jayelles reminds me of the retreat from Portugal by the McC's 
hentie- Madeleine Foundation
- Posts : 756
Activity : 1020
Likes received : 266
Join date : 2009-11-26
Re: Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it
by aiyoyo 07.04.11 14:37
Oh I would say she ran like the wind.....exited faster than her master 'the mccanns' did from PDL.
aiyoyo- Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28
Re: Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it
by pennylane 07.04.11 14:51
Oh dear, how very typical! 
pennylane- Posts : 2770
Activity : 4406
Likes received : 1638
Join date : 2009-12-07
Not a word from Jayelles - is she too scared?
by Tony Bennett 07.04.11 17:21
Another week has slipped by.Tony Bennett wrote:48 hours have nearly gone by and I have not heard a thing from 'Jayelles' or anyone else on Jayelles' behalf.
She opened this whole thing up with the words: "I would love to go head to head with Bennett".
I'm ready for the challenge, anyway.
First of all, the brave Jayellles said: "I would love to go head to head with Bennett".
No sooner had I agreed then it was more like:
"Well, er, I suppose I would be prepared to go, er, keyboard to keyboard, er, subject to certain conditions etc.".
Come on Jayelles, I've accepted the challenge, and I'm even allowing you to keep moving the goalposts.
There are numerous ways you can contact me if you really want this debate.
It started off with : 'Challenge!'
My rapid response was; 'Challenge accepted!'
A week later it's looking like: 'I'm too scared to go ahead with my challenge'.
Tony Bennett- Researcher
- Posts : 16906
Activity : 24770
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 76
Location : Shropshire
Re: Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it
by aiyoyo 08.04.11 1:33
She's probably reported back to HQs and awaiting next set of instructions.
aiyoyo- Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28
Re: Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it
by Dougall 08.04.11 12:29
Have you read the thread over there? It's hilarious how posters were queueing up to give "Jeyelles" a way to duck out, then started slapping each other on the back for keeping the moral high ground! 
How embarrassing!
How embarrassing!
Dougall- Posts : 26
Activity : 38
Likes received : 8
Join date : 2010-09-25
Re: Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it
by truthisoutthere 08.04.11 13:49
Hi all.
Have just had a look at that justathoughtyouknow website.. Every thread is about this site. How obsessed are these people?? Cannot for the life of me see any sign of intelligence in there just insults and verbal abuse toward members of this forum who imo are positively seeking truths rather than hanging onto the words of two people who I believe should have been charged with child neglect at the very least.
I guess I have now opened myself up to a barrage of abuse from them by simply having an opinion, well so be it.
Have just had a look at that justathoughtyouknow website.. Every thread is about this site. How obsessed are these people?? Cannot for the life of me see any sign of intelligence in there just insults and verbal abuse toward members of this forum who imo are positively seeking truths rather than hanging onto the words of two people who I believe should have been charged with child neglect at the very least.
I guess I have now opened myself up to a barrage of abuse from them by simply having an opinion, well so be it.
truthisoutthere- Posts : 2
Activity : 2
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2011-04-04
Age : 55
Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Page 1 of 3
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
