The crucial private message from Ambersuz to one of her Mods/Admin which explains where Debbie got the idea that money was missing from the Foundation

More on Sukita here, in Bren's own words:

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:WXjY-jKgtG8J:3arguidosspitesite.blogspot.com/2009/04/stfu-bren-you-are-supposed-to-be-grown.html+princess+sukita+% 2B+bren&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

It includes this immortal line from Queen Bren:

Well as many of you can remember Princess Sukita caused a right stir on sangfroid and I was being accused of being her, well they did manage to get that right. I tried to bluff it out it was not me, and registered a complaint on freeforums, in hope they would accept that they could be wrong, so that Princess Sukita could still carry on spying.

Sad freak

Yet there are posters who still think Brenda is sane.

Vanessa seems to be laughing at you Jill, never mind its not you the News of the World are investigating is it.

Ah Vanessa the Super Sleuth. The person who thought i was a high flying city employee.

Ambersuz Today at 14:55


Photon wrote:
I think Jill is still on that steep part of the learning curve



Text (unedited):

Re: The crucial private message from Ambersuz to justagrannynow which explains where Debbie got the idea that money was missing from the Foundation

Post JKH Today at 2:11 pm
I've just received this in a PM:

Hiya

You may remember me from 3A.I was xxxxx and then changed to xxxxx cos I ws under attack from socks which I now believe were from Bren.

Bren sent many people pms from my box. She denied it and calls me a liar. But Sans Souci received one from me asking him to get Princess Sukita into a pro forum. She denies it and calls Sans a liar too.

You may quote me if you want to.

I also couldn't access the forum and of course Bren changed my password for me.

Evil bitch. It's why I hate her so much.

(I've removed the rest of the message because there were too many clues in it for Bren to guess who sent it)


Jill is well known for ganging up on people....its always her and one other...in this forum its her and Tony....before that it was her and Jeremy against Mike Hitchen!

I see she got the "Evil bitch" part in for effect before cutting off the rest

Now that looks like its been faked by her....can she screen shot it without all the modding like we've been seeing? Doubt it!

"... so that Princess Sukita could still carry on spying."

You couldn't make it up, could you?

"Carry On Spying", a tale of forum fun and frolics, starring --

Joan Sims as Bren ("just the one, Mrs Wembley?")
Hattie Jacques as Photon
Sid James as JJP
Charles Hawtrey as Laffin
Kenneth Williams as Stevo ("infamy, infamy!")

Six pages and so far not 1 post by Brenda Ryan?? And she still succeed in drawing all the attention to her.
Ofcourse she is here with one or more of her 60-75 socks..The evil and the influence of that person is beyond believe.

Back on topic...

At first I thought the pm was fake, but a person that I have become to learn to trust assured me, it is genuine.

Mr Bennett, this has nothing to do with pro or anti's. It is quite a cheap trick to avoid difficult questions or discussions.

The release of a name of someone who wants to remain anonymous is not done, but does give a picture of your integrity unless you thought justagrannynow is Brenda Ryan and in that case I forgive you.

Ambersuz is a machine gun in random shooting, absolutely power ill if you look at the sentence: until we decide what we are going to do with her. Very scary. This type of persons usually have little to no understanding about human emotions. So crying, absolutely normal and very healthy now and then, soon becomes a kind of break down.

As for mrs. Butler, I have absolutely no sympathy for her as she, like you, caused so much misery to the McCann family while their child is missing and that is unforgivable.

Mr Bennett, you think you can get benefit from the contents of this interesting pm, because of the negative image put down on Debbie Butler. I think you are wrong.

What we read in the pm clarifies the timing of events.
The pm is written one week after the, for Butler very disappointing, outcome of the Kirwan meeting on October 2, so the pm was written on 9 or 10 October 2009. (Read the pm jip)

Already on that date Butler started to make accusations against you and money missing from the Foundation. That was BEFORE the night you put the phone down on Butler and BEFORE your letter wherein you kicked Butler from her position as chairwoman of MF.

The pm shows how asthonised Ambersuz was about what Butler told her on the 10th of October 2009, but by the time Butler reported you for the alleged offense of fraud, after 26th October 2009, we all saw how Ambersuz turned 100% against you and banned you from MM. Why? Because the evidence that Butler had collected against you, convinced Ambersuz??

It is an illusion to even think that the police started the investigation based only on a voice in the head of Butler. There is more to it. Ofcourse she has her statement supported by at least some substantial evidence and it is the police's job to find out the real facts.

An official police investigation is still ongoing. That itself doesn't mean there is much to investigate or, conversely, the accusations against you for alleged fraud, is only the tip of the iceberg. Don't you agree??

We just have to wait for a follow up in the form of an arrest or the final outcome in which you are cleared of all accusations. If I were you I would not cheer too soon. That is fooling yourself.
And others.

heresthetruth wrote:Ambersuz Today at 14:55


Photon wrote:
I think Jill is still on that steep part of the learning curve

Jill is well known for ganging up on people....its always her and one other...in this forum its her and Tony....before that it was her and Jeremy against Mike Hitchen!

I see she got the "Evil bitch" part in for effect before cutting off the rest

Now that looks like its been faked by her....can she screen shot it without all the modding like we've been seeing? Doubt it!

Ah yes, Mike Hitchen... the one who has just registered at the MM forum just as this all kicked off. Funny how, despite all the evidence I've posted on my blog about Hitchen, she still defends him and says it was me and Jeremy against Hitchen when we were the ones trying to defend ourselves against him. And Jeremy's unborn baby of course. And the woman who Hitchen drove to attempt suicide.

Well Photon, Bren and Ambersuz, if you all want to defend Hitchen who can attack a baby you are lower than anything than can be picked up on the bottom of a shoe.

Thank God people have joined here to find out the truth about you scumbags.

Chicane wrote: The release of a name of someone who wants to remain anonymous is not done, but does give a picture of your integrity unless you thought justagrannynow is Brenda Ryan and in that case I forgive you.

Tony Bennett knows I am not Brenda Ryan. I have been a member of the Madeleine Foundation for over a year and made donations with cheques, ( made out to the Madeleine Foundation) which were signed with my own name but with covering letters containing my username too. We have both also been regular posters on the MM. Having said that, I have deliberately avoided taking sides since this dispute between Debbie Butler and Tony Bennett arose. Being a supporter of the MF is one thing, but I know neither Ms Butler or Tony Bennett personally and felt the proper course of action was to wait for a decision from the police. That stance does not make me a Bennett supporter.

As for the pm, if Amber had sent it to several people, she must have known she did not send it to me. I can understand her not doing that as I was opposed from the very beginning to Debbie posting her accusations on the forum and replied more than once to her posts advising her to shut up, so perhaps she felt I was not to be trusted, especially if she was being told was a troll. I cannot believe that accusation came from one of the Mods as, other than Ambers friend Claudia, I was the last Mod appointed so they wouldn't have done that if they had suspected me then.

Has anybody seen these screenshots yet of these posts I am accused of making on other forums? That is something else I would like cleared up.

This entire thing is very suspect.
I'm in no way convinced the PM is real, but I'm not surprised that Bennett decided to add gran's name to the long list of people he has aleardy outed.
He knows very well the trouble that Stevo for example took to keep his identity secret - his decision to out him was was sheer malignant spite.

And as for the 'explanation' of how he and Butler came to pay the Kirwan's fee out of MF money - it's possibly the least convincing of all his unconvincing 'explanations' for things.
It took him two days to come up with that pile of poop - that he just happened to have the MF chequebook to hand, and that in any case it was then sanctioned by the mysteriously 'co-opted' committee.
Tell me, how many people attended that meeting Bennett?
Where is the account of what happened at that meeting? Was Debbie really 'unwell' as you now claim or just 'out of contact' as you have tried to claim before, prior to it being pointed out to you that you actually spent the entire preceding day with her?

And why are you now claiming that the £500 had already been demanded by Kirwans prior to the meeting, when elsewhere you said that it was an amount picked out of the air on the day to recompense them for theirr trouble?

Every time you come on a forum to 'put things straight' you seem to have forgotten your previous efforts.
Not all of us have such bad memories.

Speaking of Claudia, is she still a member of MM?

I don't know baconbutty. Claudia didn't post much on the MM, but when all the 3A members plus others arrived the forum became very busy and I suggested Amber might want to appoint another Mod as I would be away from end November to March 2010. She appointed Claudia and said she had been a personal friend of Ambers for a long time.
That pm though is wrong about the number of Mods on the MM There wasn't just myself, David and eddie. There were 4 others, not counting Claudia.

Haven't seen Claudia on there for ages.

Thanks for the info justagranny and candyfloss.

candyfloss wrote:Haven't seen Claudia on there for ages.

Maybe she just posts in the SS section these days with Amber, Mike Hitchen, Bren and Debs...

Plotting and scheming.

Hope not, because I thought Claudia was ok.

[quote="Tony Bennett"]. It is well known as she has made it public that 'justagrannynow' could not stand the hate, backbiting and intrigue emanating from Ambersuz ....../quote] Today at 12.05pm

This is something else which is completely untrue. My beef was with Bren and Debbie. I never expressed any opinion at all about Amber and how she handled the MF accusations. I was extremely angry at the disruption Bren and Debbie were causing on the MM and frustrated by Ambers unwillingness to do anything about it, but "hate"? certainly not. It is Ambers forum and if she chooses to allow certain members to use it as a battlefield that is not my business. I expressed my concerns in the privacy of the Mod Lounge and when I decided I was hitting my head against a brick wall I got out.

Tony Bennett wrote:

sym wrote:Question from Rocky somewhere in here no one seems willing to answer.

New topic also opened for this:

From Tony Bennett:

I have been publicly called a 'liar' because Debbie and I paid Kirwans from The Madeleine Foundation chequebook the sum of £500.00, which appeared to contradict this statement I made on 17 September 2009:

We should just like to add this. Any fees incurred for legal advice will be met personally by ourselves and the funds in The Madeleine Foundation’s bank account will not be used.

This joint statement by me and Debbie followed what appeared to have been her resignation from The Madeleine Foundation, announced on 15 September on the 'Missing Madeleine' Forum. That took a few e-mails and 'phone calls to sort out and at the time I thought it was a temporary 'blip'.

Prior to our meeting with Kirwans on 2 October 2009, Debbie Butler informed me that Kirwans were asking for an upfront 'on account' payment of £500.00. I recommended that we waited until we saw them on 2 October.

At that meeting with Kirwans, as I've stated elsewhere, they advised us in the strongest possible terms and repeatedly that we both faced the possibility of financial ruin.

They then said they would charge us £5,000 [yes, three noughts] plus VAT (£750.00) for settling the exact terms of the settlement with Carter-Ruck based on our accession to their demands.

Debbie and I conferred over lunch and Debbie and I both felt we could not afford that. Debbie then suggested that we simply give them the £500.00 upfront fee they had demanded, as a gesture of goodwill for help and advice received to date, and reject their offer. I agreed.

Neither of us had £500 cash on us so we both signed a Madeleine Foundation cheque for £500.

The payment of this £500 to Kirwans was discussed by members at our meeting on 3 October in Cardiff. All members present were insistent that it would be unreasonable for Debbie and I to meet that cost out of personal funds and agreed that it was a legitimate expense for The Madeleine Foundation. I reported to the meeting in detail about the legal advice that was given to us and members felt that the payment of £500.00 for four hours' worth of legal advice plus the advice and help given by Kirwans before the meeting was good value for money so far as the future activities of The Madeleine Foundation were concerned.

Subsequently all 37 members were informed by letter of the payment. Not one member has even raised a query about £500.00 of MF funds being used to pay Kirwans. And it is to our members that the Committee is answerable.

I am not a member of the Madeleine Foundation but have been a supporter of it since the publication of the '60 Reasons' booklet. Personally, I see nothing wrong with using Foundation funds for the purpose of paying the Kirwans legal bills except that you and Debbie issued a statement earlier that said you specifically would not do this. Ask yourself why that public statement was made in the first place if you were unwilling to follow through with that commitment. Was it to point out a difference in the way the Foundation funds were handled in comparison to how the McCanns' Fund was/is handled, in stating they would not use the Fund for their legal expenses and then that changed? That the McCanns used the Fund for mortgage payments? Didn't they earn much disrespect from many for how the fund was used? How could you not know that by backtracking on that initial commitment to pay the legal bills yourself, you harmed your own standing and the value of your word? The next time you make a claim or statement, people will be less likely to believe you are telling the truth, that you can be trusted to honor your word. Trust is an important, essential part of any relationship. Successful leaders must earn trust by proving their trustworthiness.

I think you should be making a statement on your official, new MF website that the Madeleine Foundation paid the 500 pounds for the legal advice from Kirwans and perhaps offer that any donor (not a member) who contributed monies to the Foundation and would like their money returned to make an official request and that once the contribution is confirmed (and the bank account is unfrozen), the donation will be refunded. Another option would be to repay the Foundation fund the total amount of 500 pounds and announce that fact online and explain what happened and why. Transparency in use of Foundation funds is essential for holding trust. Didn't the McCanns refund their Fund for the mortgage payments (allegedly) after the public outcry?

Making an announcement that the e-mail related to Debbie Butler's mental health was sent to justagranny, without being sure of your facts first, without checking with her first and without concern as to how it might affect her by revealing that, is careless and thoughtless, in my opinion.

Tony, you have done so many good things in the cause of bringing information to the public about the Madeleine McCann case, and I have hope that you will continue to do so, even though you are under fire from so many people trying to get you to discontinue your efforts. I ask that you take great care in your words and actions to protect the integrity of what you do.

Tony said he and Debbie didn't have £500 cash on them at the time so used an MF cheque.

JKH wrote:Tony said he and Debbie didn't have £500 cash on them at the time so used an MF cheque.

That's something that I personally can't get my head around!

If I have to go and see a lawyer, accountant or whatever - I always PRESUME that I am about to be charged.
Let's face it - it's not often that you get something for free!

So - I always take either cash, cheque book , or bank card with me.

Yet neither Tony or Debbie did?

How strange!

JKH wrote:Tony said he and Debbie didn't have £500 cash on them at the time so used an MF cheque.

Then he reimbursed the Fund afterward? No, not according to the long post he wrote on this thread. The Foundation members approved the use of Foundation funds, after the fact, to pay the bill.

There is nothing legally or morally wrong with what Tony Bennett and Debbie Butler have done with respect to using Foundation funds. However, it is a strategic mistep and hurts their own reputation and causes people to lose confidence in them, by not following through with their original commitment, or at least, being more forthright with the public about the change of where the funding came from to pay the bill.

It's a matter of not having a double standard by judging the McCanns for their actions with regard to use of the Find Madeleine Fund but accepting the same behavior from the people you associate with. I don't think we should be hypocrites.

Mumbles wrote:

JKH wrote:Tony said he and Debbie didn't have £500 cash on them at the time so used an MF cheque.

That's something that I personally can't get my head around!

If I have to go and see a lawyer, accountant or whatever - I always PRESUME that I am about to be charged.
Let's face it - it's not often that you get something for free!

So - I always take either cash, cheque book , or bank card with me.

Yet neither Tony or Debbie did?

How strange!

I never took a cheque book when I went to my solicitor during my divorce - I was always billed afterwards.

JKH wrote:

Mumbles wrote:

JKH wrote:Tony said he and Debbie didn't have £500 cash on them at the time so used an MF cheque.

That's something that I personally can't get my head around!

If I have to go and see a lawyer, accountant or whatever - I always PRESUME that I am about to be charged.
Let's face it - it's not often that you get something for free!

So - I always take either cash, cheque book , or bank card with me.

Yet neither Tony or Debbie did?

How strange!

I never took a cheque book when I went to my solicitor during my divorce - I was always billed afterwards.

Aah - I've been in Spain too long.
Here - they expect paying there and then!

ETA: Actually - I still find it strange! I always carry means of 'paying' in my handbag!

JKH wrote:

Mumbles wrote:

JKH wrote:Tony said he and Debbie didn't have £500 cash on them at the time so used an MF cheque.

That's something that I personally can't get my head around!

If I have to go and see a lawyer, accountant or whatever - I always PRESUME that I am about to be charged.
Let's face it - it's not often that you get something for free!

So - I always take either cash, cheque book , or bank card with me.

Yet neither Tony or Debbie did?

How strange!

I never took a cheque book when I went to my solicitor during my divorce - I was always billed afterwards.

And yet, Tony wrote that Debbie told him in advance that Kirwans wanted an upfront fee paid of 500 pounds and he told her that they should wait until the October 2 meeting. Why would he not be prepared with a checkbook on that date, knowing those details in advance?

Tony wrote above

Prior to our meeting with Kirwans on 2 October 2009, Debbie Butler informed me that Kirwans were asking for an upfront 'on account' payment of £500.00. I recommended that we waited until we saw them on 2 October.

Was he being honest and forthright in his initial statement of September 17 that he and Debbie would personally cover the legal costs? Or did he all along intend and hope for the Foundation to cover the costs?

Let's take a closer look at the facts: If he didn't expect to pay on October 2 and planned on being billed, which is why he didn't bring a personal checkbook, why did he bring the MF checkbook to the meeting instead? Why did he tell Kirwans that the 500 pounds was a substantial portion of the Madeleine Foundation account? Why did he not state that he would send his own personal check to the office at a later date because he had not brought his own checkbook with him because he expected to be billed later?

Jolie wrote:And yet, Tony wrote that Debbie told him in advance that Kirwans wanted an upfront fee paid of 500 pounds and he told her that they should wait until the October 2 meeting. Why would he not be prepared with a checkbook on that date, knowing those details in advance?

i agree. everyone would have brought the money, they asked for in advance.

and its a difference, to have an ongoing case as a divorce, or - what tony and debbie had - a (one-time-)consulting. its usual practise to pay right afterwards. and tony will be aware of this.

imo, the foundation should be responsible for the fees, so it was to me quite astounding, when they announced they would pay it from personal money.

but, bottomline, its outrageous what tony bennett dishes up here - to everyone, whether pro-/fence-/anti-/mf-member/mf-supporter: everyone is taken for a fool.

nothing matches, nothing fits, everything changes - dates, names, events, amounts, emails, phone calls...
whenever i was not expecting tony bennett to be some simple straight person, but what has been revealed in the recent weeks, is even too much for me. i need some time, to settle with this...

how anyone can back him up blindly here, is beyond belief.