16 Questions to Tony Bennett from 'What the Papers Never Say' - ANSWERED

Stephanie wrote:Well I do welcome debate and reading through the majority of posts IMO they do also ,I agree personal insults about your private life or work practices have no place on here ,have already said in a previous post somewhere on here I dont join in the personal attack threads .So I am here to debate Madeleine McCann,so let's debate not throw insults at each other.
Stephanie

I wish everyone thought like that.

Thank you Stephanie.

Tony Bennett wrote:

vaguely wrote:I'm sure you do. Same as those who think there's a chance Madeleine is still alive hate being branded 'McCann believers' or 'Neglect supporters'. Who's going to be big enough to stop it first?

'Neglect supporters' is an unfair epithet, I agree.

But the term 'McCann-believer' is fully accurate. I use the term to refer to those - like yourself -who insist that the McCanns and the 'Tapas 9' are all telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in persisting with their claim that Madeleine was abducted.

I bet there's not one statement by the McCanns or any of the 'Tapas 9' about what really happened to Madeleine McCann that you seriously question.

Then you pass judgement on me, yet again, without knowing my thoughts on the case. I actually thought that's why I appeared on your list - because you can't write me off as a 'McCann Believer'. I thought that's what made it difficult for you to understand why I questioned the accuracy and wisdom of your leaflets. Or is that why I must be a 'McCann believer' because surely no one of a right thinking mind could ever do that?

McCann believer is a belittling and unnecessary term and it prevents debate and promotes bad feeling.


oh.

jkh wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Well I do welcome debate and reading through the majority of posts IMO they do also ,I agree personal insults about your private life or work practices have no place on here ,have already said in a previous post somewhere on here I dont join in the personal attack threads .So I am here to debate Madeleine McCann,so let's debate not throw insults at each other.
Stephanie

I wish everyone thought like that.

Thank you Stephanie.

No need to thank me Jill,thankyou for allowing free debate on your forum is what I say.
Anyone using personal insults to get "one up " on another poster has no place on a forum.
I admit sometimes I am not always tactful :oops: but personal insults never!

And Jill have never mentioned it before probably as I am still grieving the loss of my own Mom, and to touch on such a subject still drives a nail through my heart, but I wish you peace and the knowledge that however bad it seems in the light of day you take every moment and every second left and you store them and keep them for your future memories.

Lots of posters on here are going through heartache of that I'm sure and will understand and condone the appalling situation you find yourself and your family in, we cannot change destiny but we can store it for when those moments come when our memories become buffers and we can use them to heal and just simply remember.
My thoughts are with you and hopefully you will have many more memories to gather.
Even what seems like bad memories at the moment will bring you comfort at a later date of that I promise, (and I am not talking about the disgraceful and sickening abuse going on,on certain websites at the moment).

Stephanie

Stephanie wrote:

jkh wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Well I do welcome debate and reading through the majority of posts IMO they do also ,I agree personal insults about your private life or work practices have no place on here ,have already said in a previous post somewhere on here I dont join in the personal attack threads .So I am here to debate Madeleine McCann,so let's debate not throw insults at each other.
Stephanie

I wish everyone thought like that.

Thank you Stephanie.

No need to thank me Jill,thankyou for allowing free debate on your forum is what I say.
Anyone using personal insults to get "one up " on another poster has no place on a forum.
I admit sometimes I am not always tactful :oops: but personal insults never!

And Jill have never mentioned it before probably as I am still grieving the loss of my own Mom, and to touch on such a subject still drives a nail through my heart, but I wish you peace and the knowledge that however bad it seems in the light of day you take every moment and every second left and you store them and keep them for your future memories.

Lots of posters on here are going through heartache of that I'm sure and will understand and condone the appalling situation you find yourself and your family in, we cannot change destiny but we can store it for when those moments come when our memories become buffers and we can use them to heal and just simply remember.
My thoughts are with you and hopefully you will have many more memories to gather.
Even what seems like bad memories at the moment will bring you comfort at a later date of that I promise, (and I am not talking about the disgraceful and sickening abuse going on,on certain websites at the moment).

Stephanie

Thank you Stephanie. I get a little grouchy at the moment because mum is suffering so badly and I can't bear to see her like this.

Sorry everyone if I'm upsetting anyone - except those who need to be upset for posting crap on here, of course. Like Aristocrat for example.

Please do the research before you try to put people down Tony

4. Can you be sued if you don't name the person being defamed? Yes, if the group is small enough for the individuals to be identifiable. For example, an allegation that a regional CID officer had committed an offence without naming the officer entitled all 12 CID officers in the region to successfully sue. Also, a person could be defamed by implication even if they are not named if the target audience is people with sufficient specialised knowledge to understand the allegation being made. This is particularly the case with blogs targeted at a specific industry or interest group. (Amali de Silva).

http://www.creativematch.com/viewNews/?93933


So sorry Mr Bennett but you have been proven to be wrong again.

Tony, you said that eddie has never made a mistake....he has and you know he has. Ask the parents of the coconut Eddie found.

rockyrobin wrote:Tony, you said that eddie has never made a mistake....he has and you know he has. Ask the parents of the coconut Eddie found.

Eddie didn't alert to the coconut. He alerted to cadaver scent but the humans dug up coconut hence Martin Grime saying human's can't be right 100% of the time or they wouldn't be humans"

As I said before, if you have an issue with the dogs at Haut de la Garenne, take it up with the survivors and see what reaction you get.

jkh wrote:

rockyrobin wrote:Tony, you said that eddie has never made a mistake....he has and you know he has. Ask the parents of the coconut Eddie found.

Eddie didn't alert to the coconut. He alerted to cadaver scent but the humans dug up coconut hence Martin Grime saying human's can't be right 100% of the time or they wouldn't be humans"

As I said before, if you have an issue with the dogs at Haut de la Garenne, take it up with the survivors and see what reaction you get.

Sorry i read reports that Eddie alerted to the coconut, and the humans dug it up. Nobody really knows what Eddie alerted to really do they

rockyrobin wrote:

jkh wrote:

rockyrobin wrote:Tony, you said that eddie has never made a mistake....he has and you know he has. Ask the parents of the coconut Eddie found.

Eddie didn't alert to the coconut. He alerted to cadaver scent but the humans dug up coconut hence Martin Grime saying human's can't be right 100% of the time or they wouldn't be humans"

As I said before, if you have an issue with the dogs at Haut de la Garenne, take it up with the survivors and see what reaction you get.

Sorry i read reports that Eddie alerted to the coconut, and the humans dug it up. Nobody really knows what Eddie alerted to really do they

Where's the links to the reports that said Eddie alerted to coconut?

jkh wrote:

Where's the links to the reports that said Eddie alerted to coconut?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-567013/Human-bone-centre-Jersey-childrens-home-inquiry-actually-piece-wood-coconut-shell.html

Heres one i will find some more for you

rockyrobin wrote:

jkh wrote:

Where's the links to the reports that said Eddie alerted to coconut?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-567013/Human-bone-centre-Jersey-childrens-home-inquiry-actually-piece-wood-coconut-shell.html

Heres one i will find some more for you

Police discovered the coconut. Doesn't mean to say Eddie alerted to cocunut - he only alerts to death scent, not coconut. As I said before, take this up with the survivors on Senator Stuart Syvret's blog and see what reaction you get - if you're brave enough. Personally I wouldn't insult them by telling them their account of what happened there is based on something published in the media that is renowned for brainwashing people into believing what they want us to believe when they are covering something up.

Statement by Carrie Modral on Behalf of Jersey Survivors

For the past 2 years or so the people of Jersey have lived with the horrors of the unfolding story of Haut de la Garenne and related matters. We, on the other hand, the so called “victims of historic child abuse” have lived with the horrors for decades.

We are a group of people only because we all share a similar dreadful experience. We were all innocent children but we are as different from one another as any other people in society. We all had our own individual characters, ambitions and abilities.

Some of us have survived our experience better than others. Some have found happiness with our own families but some have found personal relationships impossible to achieve. Others sadly have succumbed to despair. But, we were all damaged in some way as a result of the abuse that we suffered whilst in the care of the States of Jersey.

When the States of Jersey Police announced 2 years ago that investigations were being commenced into child abuse allegations at various care homes, we responded with some reluctance to the call to come forward with our testimonies.

Many of us have tried to make complaints to officials about our abuse in the past, but have not been believed or have been further humiliated or worse. To re-live the experiences of our childhood abuse, even amongst family and friends, is an extremely stressful experience and it is not something that we undertake with any enthusiasm.

Nevertheless, we were given every assurance by Lenny Harper and his Police team that our experiences would be treated seriously and would be properly investigated and so far as we are aware, the investigations by Lenny Harper and his team were carried out with care and sympathetically.

We had no reason at all to believe that the Jersey Police were not managing our cases in a professional manner. We were at all times kept informed of the progress of our individual cases and we were led to believe that those who had abused us would be prosecuted where ever possible. We had no complaints about our treatment by the States of Jersey Police whilst Lenny Harper was in charge of the investigations.

However, since Lenny Harper retired, we have found that the States of Jersey Police have consistently failed to communicate directly with us, or to keep us informed of progress on our individual cases or the investigation in general.

On the contrary, we have repeatedly discovered through the media that the standards of Police conduct are hotly disputed; that there are allegations of incompetence and malpractice and such information has not been the result of casual rumour, but the deliberate outpourings of the most Senior Police Officers themselves. And most of us have learned, by the same means that more and more cases have been abandoned and that now, only one or two prosecutions might yet be initiated, but we do not know which these might be, if any. There have only been three cases taken to Court to date, all of which came back with a guilty verdict and all as a result of the work carried out by Lenny Harper and his team.

During the past 2 years we have had the most private and painful details of our lives broadcast world-wide. These details have been discussed, analysed, argued and fought over, in public, by police officers, politicians, lawyers, journalists and every Tom, Dick or Harry. Our emotions have been mangled. Our dignity stripped bare and our reputations and motivations called into question.

We did not and do not deserve such treatment.

During the past two weeks the public of Jersey has been exposed to a barrage of information, via the Jersey media, from, and interviews with, retiring police officer Gradwell which has totally rubbished the credibility of the entire investigation carried out by Lenny Harper and his team. In addition, the public have been told that the enormous expenditure is not justified.

All this has taken place in an Island where the Chief of Police is suspended from duty for reasons which have not been made public and our Political and Judicial heads seem to take every opportunity to discredit us, our complaints or the manner in which these have been dealt with. Yet, nobody made any official attempt to warn us that these things were likely to happen or that our cases might have been handled with such incompetence. Nobody has offered us even the hint of an apology that such things have been allowed to happen. They should all hang their heads in shame.

Once again, we who were abused as children and at every turn when we sought help have been treated with contempt by the Jersey Police and other island authorities. We have been humiliated yet again and are now presented in the public mind as the cause of many problems whereas we are, in fact the totally innocent victims.

Now, the investigation is in disarray. But our lives are more damaged than they were 2 years ago because we have dared to trust in the Jersey Judicial system and to co-operate with the Jersey Police, we are being abused all over again.

We are reluctant to offer any public statement on these matters because every word that is uttered only adds to our grief and the discontent among our families and friends. We are also aware that enquiries still continue and we do not want to say anything that could harm these cases.

But we want the public of Jersey to understand that we did not wish for any of these things to happen. We have only sought to achieve justice for the wrongs committed against us when we were children whist in the care of the States of Jersey and we have been let down very, very badly, all over again.

May God forgive you.


Carrie Modral

8th September, 2009.

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.com/2009/09/statement-by-carrie-modral-on-behalf-of.html

Unfortunatly the evidence points to nothing happened. I am sure that something DID happen though.

candyfloss wrote:

PearlB wrote:Mr.Bennett, the sad fact is that many more people would take you seriously and possibly back causes that you were right to be suspicious of, if it wasn't for your totally foul behaviour over the McCanns. A case with absolutely NO EVIDENCE that the parents were involved,nor ANY EVIDENCE that Madeleine was harmed in that apartment. FINALLY there is no EVIDENCE of who or what the dog alerted to in that apartment.

If the dogs are so unreliable, then why on earth do Police forces across the world use them. They wouldn't would they? It doesn't make sense for the PJ to call them from England, and a huge cost, if they were unreliable. They are used all over the world, from solving murders, to sniffing out corpses in collapsed buildings in earthquakes. How anyone can dismiss these dogs is beyond belief.

They are used as a pointer sometimes leading the Police in the right direction. There has to be proof after the event that they were infact accurate. How many times do we ever hear/read that dogs failed, not many. When you are selling a service you keep that part quiet I'd have thought.

rockyrobin wrote:Unfortunatly the evidence points to nothing happened. I am sure that something DID happen though.

Try keeping up with this horrendous story on Senator Stuart Syvret's blog - he and Lenny Harper are the scapegoats for the cover up of what happened there.

jkh wrote:Statement by Carrie Modral on Behalf of Jersey Survivors

For the past 2 years or so the people of Jersey have lived with the horrors of the unfolding story of Haut de la Garenne and related matters. We, on the other hand, the so called “victims of historic child abuse” have lived with the horrors for decades. We are a group of people only because we all share a similar dreadful experience. We were all innocent children...Many of us have tried to make complaints to officials about our abuse in the past, but have not been believed or have been further humiliated or worse. To re-live the experiences of our childhood abuse, even amongst family and friends, is an extremely stressful experience...During the past 2 years we have had the most private and painful details of our lives broadcast world-wide. These details have been discussed, analysed, argued and fought over, in public, by police officers, politicians, lawyers, journalists and every Tom, Dick or Harry. Our emotions have been mangled. Our dignity stripped bare and our reputations and motivations called into question. We did not and do not deserve such treatment.

Once again, we who were abused as children and at every turn when we sought help have been treated with contempt by the Jersey Police and other island authorities...

REST SNIPPED

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.com/2009/09/statement-by-carrie-modral-on-behalf-of.html

Well, thanks very much Jill for posting this sobering and heart-rending account. Let those who so willingly on the forum mock Eddie's ability to detect corpses take heed.

Here's a different but equally raw presentation of the horrors of child abuse - a former Irish mayor speaking out on Irish TV earlier this year after the Ryan Commission finally reported on a catalogue of horrendous abuse by Roman Catholic priests (about 5 minutes, very vivid, very instructive):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jHqndf9Kx4

Both Carrie Modral's powerful statement and the Irish mayor's raw cries of pain remind us once again that systematic child sexual abuse is often practised by people in positions of power - priests, politicians, social workers, teachers, judges, even police officers and doctors - and who have the levers of power and the money to prevent their crimes against humanity becoming known.

Look at the high-level cover-ups in Belgium (Mark Dutroux), Portugal (Casa Pia) and in our own country - Kincora Boys, North Wales Childrens' Homes, Islington Children's Homes...Dublane.

The thousands of boys sodomised by Roman Catholic priests the world over.

Powerful people abusing little kids in every single case.

Should they not be made to suffer even one-tenth of the humiliation and pain they have so cruelly inflicted on young children?

In the Dugard case, the Police Suspected that Garrard had Other Bodies in his Backyard.
They Brought in Dogs.
The Dogs Alerted Again and Again.
The police Dug Up the backyard.
They Found Nothing
The Dogs were Not Wrong and Surely Smelled what they Smelled.
But there was No Human Evidence to Back it Up.
We Cannot Ask them Why, and So, There is No Evidence of Anything.

There is Other Evidence is Both the Jersey Child Abuse Case and Dublin Child Abuse Case that have Nothing to Do with Forensic Evidence that Show the Truth Behind Both of Those Cases; in the McCann Case, the Lynchpin of Some Theories is Forensics that Have No Evidence to Back Them Up; THat is the Difference. The Irish and Jersey Cases do Not Rely on Forensics Solely.

aliberte2 wrote:In the Dugard case, the Police Suspected that Garrard had Other Bodies in his Backyard.
They Brought in Dogs.
The Dogs Alerted Again and Again.
The police Dug Up the backyard.
They Found Nothing
The Dogs were Not Wrong and Surely Smelled what they Smelled.
But there was No Human Evidence to Back it Up.
We Cannot Ask them Why, and So, There is No Evidence of Anything.

There is Other Evidence is Both the Jersey Child Abuse Case and Dublin Child Abuse Case that have Nothing to Do with Forensic Evidence that Show the Truth Behind Both of Those Cases; in the McCann Case, the Lynchpin of Some Theories is Forensics that Have No Evidence to Back Them Up; THat is the Difference. The Irish and Jersey Cases do Not Rely on Forensics Solely.

Exactly aliberte.

Tony Bennett wrote:

candyfloss wrote:If the dogs are so unreliable, then why on earth do Police forces across the world use them?

PREDICTION: You won't get one single coherent answer from the 4 dozen or so McCann-believers on this forum to what is undoubtedly a pivotal question in this whole mystery. It's the one question they always avoid, fudge, or divert away from answering.

The dogs are used everywhere. But any anti McCann folk decide to take a somewhat selective view on their operation.
First of all, Eddie is a victim recovery dog, (Grime tacked on the 'enhanced' part to make it sound like Eddie has super powers. EVRD is only used in reference to Eddie. It is not a recognised term.)
Victim recovery dogs are used mainly in recovering bodies. The most famous example was their use in recovering body parts in the debris of the world trade centre.
Their use in crime scenes in the absence of actual bodies or body parts needs corroboration as both dogs will alert to blood.
The forensics did not corroborate the dogs' alerts so there alerts are meaningless.
This is according to the DOG HANDLER HIMSELF.
Eddie has been used in crime scenes where his blood detection skills have been highlighted.
Remember, both dogs cannot draw a distinction between dried blood from a live or dead person. It's all the same to them.
What I would like any anti to answer is why they think that the results do not need to be corroborated even if the dog handler himself says that the alerts are unreliable without corroboration.
And if any anti has the answer to that question I suggest telling Goncalo Amaral because he needs all the help he can get on this matter.

Hi Slartibartfast
Quite simply because too many people have been wrongly hanged or put in prison when they should not have been and if in the McCann's shoes I would wish for more evidence to be shown that I had done wrong than a dog wagging its tail and barking. I would hazard a guess that the Criminal Prosecution Service would not take a case to court based solely upon the dogs reacting for any potential crime.

I think the way that all trained dogs used to help us human folk is marvellous but without the extra proof it does seem a bridge too far to be so sure that somebody harmed their child.

I answer as somebody with my legs straddling the fence and one foot on the maybe they did harm her side. I am truly glad it is not a high fence or I might have done myself some harm by now.

Take care

Slartibartfast wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

candyfloss wrote:If the dogs are so unreliable, then why on earth do Police forces across the world use them?

PREDICTION: You won't get one single coherent answer from the 4 dozen or so McCann-believers on this forum to what is undoubtedly a pivotal question in this whole mystery. It's the one question they always avoid, fudge, or divert away from answering.

The dogs are used everywhere. But any anti McCann folk decide to take a somewhat selective view on their operation.
First of all, Eddie is a victim recovery dog, (Grime tacked on the 'enhanced' part to make it sound like Eddie has super powers. EVRD is only used in reference to Eddie. It is not a recognised term.)
Victim recovery dogs are used mainly in recovering bodies. The most famous example was their use in recovering body parts in the debris of the world trade centre.
Their use in crime scenes in the absence of actual bodies or body parts needs corroboration as both dogs will alert to blood.
The forensics did not corroborate the dogs' alerts so there alerts are meaningless.
This is according to the DOG HANDLER HIMSELF.
Eddie has been used in crime scenes where his blood detection skills have been highlighted.
Remember, both dogs cannot draw a distinction between dried blood from a live or dead person. It's all the same to them.
What I would like any anti to answer is why they think that the results do not need to be corroborated even if the dog handler himself says that the alerts are unreliable without corroboration.
And if any anti has the answer to that question I suggest telling Goncalo Amaral because he needs all the help he can get on this matter.

So you think it is merely a huge coincidence that the dogs alerted only in places and items Mccann and nowhere else? An apartment from where a child 'disappeared', no less. Dogs that have a highly successful record of positive alerts, I have read 100%? And BOTH dogs alerted. Do you not find their reaction to the dogs' alerts worrying? In that instead of an emotional, distressed response as would be expected, they made a myriad of bizarre excuses?

Finally wrote:Hi Slartibartfast
Quite simply because too many people have been wrongly hanged or put in prison when they should not have been and if in the McCann's shoes I would wish for more evidence to be shown that I had done wrong than a dog wagging its tail and barking. I would hazard a guess that the Criminal Prosecution Service would not take a case to court based solely upon the dogs reacting for any potential crime.

I think the way that all trained dogs used to help us human folk is marvellous but without the extra proof it does seem a bridge too far to be so sure that somebody harmed their child.

I answer as somebody with my legs straddling the fence and one foot on the maybe they did harm her side. I am truly glad it is not a high fence or I might have done myself some harm by now.

Take care

Nice post Finally.

Prefer Marigold's, but I can see why you don't

Thank you Ruby :flower:

marigold wrote:

Slartibartfast wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

candyfloss wrote:If the dogs are so unreliable, then why on earth do Police forces across the world use them?

PREDICTION: You won't get one single coherent answer from the 4 dozen or so McCann-believers on this forum to what is undoubtedly a pivotal question in this whole mystery. It's the one question they always avoid, fudge, or divert away from answering.

The dogs are used everywhere. But any anti McCann folk decide to take a somewhat selective view on their operation.
First of all, Eddie is a victim recovery dog, (Grime tacked on the 'enhanced' part to make it sound like Eddie has super powers. EVRD is only used in reference to Eddie. It is not a recognised term.)
Victim recovery dogs are used mainly in recovering bodies. The most famous example was their use in recovering body parts in the debris of the world trade centre.
Their use in crime scenes in the absence of actual bodies or body parts needs corroboration as both dogs will alert to blood.
The forensics did not corroborate the dogs' alerts so there alerts are meaningless.
This is according to the DOG HANDLER HIMSELF.
Eddie has been used in crime scenes where his blood detection skills have been highlighted.
Remember, both dogs cannot draw a distinction between dried blood from a live or dead person. It's all the same to them.
What I would like any anti to answer is why they think that the results do not need to be corroborated even if the dog handler himself says that the alerts are unreliable without corroboration.
And if any anti has the answer to that question I suggest telling Goncalo Amaral because he needs all the help he can get on this matter.

So you think it is merely a huge coincidence that the dogs alerted only in places and items Mccann and nowhere else? An apartment from where a child 'disappeared', no less. Dogs that have a highly successful record of positive alerts, I have read 100%? And BOTH dogs alerted. Do you not find their reaction to the dogs' alerts worrying? In that instead of an emotional, distressed response as would be expected, they made a myriad of bizarre excuses?

First of all, you have read 100% not alerting to foodstuffs. There is no other record of their success rate. Not to mention, any independent record.
In fact, there are two questionable alerts by the dogs in this case.
Both dogs could have been alerting to the same thing. They are both trained to detect blood that can come from a living person as long as it has dried.
The dogs are used as part of the collection of forensics. They are not an end unto themselves.
When the dog alerts the forensic collection team gather evidence from that alert point.
The lab analysis is the result not the barking dog. In this case the lab analysis yielded nothing conclusive to suggest anyone was dead.
That's how it works. There is nobody saying, not even the dog handler, that the dogs alerts should be interpreted without the forensics to back it up.
With regard to the McCanns, you expect other people to behave in a certain way but you have never even met them or know exactly what they said.
I can guarantee you that if the McCanns came up with any explanation for the dog alerts it would be seen as incriminating because people have already decided on their guilt
You did not witness their behaviour first hand. You saw it through newspaper articles and other people's opinions of them.

Ruby wrote:Prefer Marigold's, but I can see why you don't

Because They Have a Different Opinion Than you?

marigold wrote:

So you think it is merely a huge coincidence that the dogs alerted only in places and items Mccann and nowhere else? An apartment from where a child 'disappeared', no less. Dogs that have a highly successful record of positive alerts, I have read 100%? And BOTH dogs alerted. Do you not find their reaction to the dogs' alerts worrying? In that instead of an emotional, distressed response as would be expected, they made a myriad of bizarre excuses?

That's Not the Point. At all. Either Rely on the so-called Alerts or Rely on the McCanns' Supposedly Guilty Reaction (Guilty According to Who?). But You Can't Smush them together and make a Case. It's Bad Policework and that's why Amaral failed.

The reason every ANTI makes a big song and dance of the dogs is because they know every other single bit of evidence shows the McCanns were not involved, so they cling onto the 100% success rate <> of the dogs.
Fact is this 100% quote was from the handler himself and not been verified at all. Grimes says he has been on 200 cases yet try finding them, you can't, only about 20. So has someone extended the truth to get jobs, which most people do everyday?
And bear this in mind the dogs and the handlers business venture is not that old.

aliberte2 wrote:

Ruby wrote:Prefer Marigold's, but I can see why you don't

Because They Have a Different Opinion Than you?

No I Just Stopped Believing In Fairy Stories A Long Time Ago ffs how can you keep that caps thing up :megashock: