'smith' isn't very polite. 'Manners makyth man' - Shakespeare

by **Tony Bennett** 30.11.09 20:11

smith wrote:Right, I said I didn't want to add to your longest suicide note in history but you appear to take exception to my remarks - although I am glad that you haven't threatened legal action against me like you have certain other forum owners and posters in the past.

So, it's simple. What is the legal status of the "Madeleine Foundation"? Is it a company and if so what sort of company - limited, sole proprietorship, partnership, limited by guarantee? If it is not a company what is its legal status?

I repeat my allegation. Any reasonable person sending money to something that calls itself "The Madeleine Foundation", whether in return for leaflets or not, would have the rational expectation that funds will not be diverted in a discretionary manner to an individual who is not named Madeleine. If that expectation is not met then taking funds in its name is potentially fraudulent.

I ask again, what is the legal status of the Madeleine Foundation, as confirmed by registration, memorandum and articles of association, registered office etc? What is it?

You don't score high marks for tone, 'smith', nor for legal knowledge about companies, associations and donations etc.

This paragraph of yours is especially baffling:

Any reasonable person sending money to something that calls itself "The Madeleine Foundation", whether in return for leaflets or not, would have the rational expectation that funds will not be diverted in a discretionary manner to an individual who is not named Madeleine. If that expectation is not met then taking funds in its name is potentially fraudulent.
Er, what funds have been 'diverted in discretionary manner to an individual who is not mamed Madeleine'? What on earth is all that about?

And to which 'individua'l have 'funds been diverted'? And what do you mean by 'taking funds in its name'?

I also found the concept of something being 'potentially fruadulent' somewhat interesting. It's not a legal concept I'm aware of. Perhaps you could post up an example of soemthing that's 'potentially' fraudulent.

Normally speaking I wouldn't answer someone who hasn't got the manners to ask politely.

But for the benefit of anyone interested in our legal status who doesn't already know - as we have said right from the start, and as our constitution, adopted in January 2008 makes clear, we are an...

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION

by Guest 30.11.09 20:20

BENNETT WILL YOU PAY BACK YOUR HALF OF THE £500 THE FOUNDATION PAID TO KIRWINS.

YES OR NO, SIMPLE QUESTION FOR YOU.

by **Tony Bennett** 30.11.09 20:31

murat_fan wrote:BENNETT WILL YOU PAY BACK YOUR HALF OF THE £500 THE FOUNDATION PAID TO KIRWINS.

YES OR NO, SIMPLE QUESTION FOR YOU.

No, for the reasons already given. The Committee and members are fully satisfied that the legal advice given to me on 2 October and which has been provided in turn to The Madeleine Foundation represents reasonable expenditure in pursuit of The Madeleine Foundation's stated aims. Once again, I repeat that not one member has raised any objection to the payment to Kirwans. Nor was any non-member been deceived into making a donation to us byh my statement on 17 September.

by Guest 30.11.09 20:44

So you slagged off the McCanns for doing the same thing. Hypocrite aren't you

by Guest 30.11.09 20:44

Tony Bennett wrote:
murat_fan wrote:BENNETT WILL YOU PAY BACK YOUR HALF OF THE £500 THE FOUNDATION PAID TO KIRWINS.

YES OR NO, SIMPLE QUESTION FOR YOU.
No, for the reasons already given. The Committee and members are fully satisfied that the legal advice given to me on 2 October and which has been provided in turn to The Madeleine Foundation represents reasonable expenditure in pursuit of The Madeleine Foundation's stated aims. Once again, I repeat that not one member has raised any objection to the payment to Kirwans. Nor was any non-member been deceived into making a donation to us byh my statement on 17 September.

Mr Bennett, weren't Carter Ruck intending to sue you and Ms Butler PERSONALLY. They weren't intending to sue the Madeleine Foundation as such were they? So why did you use the Madeleine foundation to pay for your legal bill?

by Guest 30.11.09 20:45

Tony Bennett said: “You don't score high marks for tone, 'smith', nor for legal knowledge about companies, associations and donations etc. Normally speaking I wouldn't answer someone who hasn't got the manners to ask politely. ”

Don’t pick a fight with me Bennett, you fucking crook. You know perfectly well what you’ve been doing - you’ve been deliberately operating in a grey area where you think you can get away with it.

You ask me what I meant. I’ll tell you what I meant, you fucking crook – you took money that wasn’t yours. You are a cheat and a crook and you deliberately took money that did not belong to you, legally or morally.

After that little outburst I invite posters to look carefully at the charges I made against the fucking little crook and the way he hasn’t answered one of them.

Bennett, you fucking little crook, you disgust me.

Like to sue me?

ETA: You'll find my real name is easily available,crook - I posted it on the forums. I await your threatening letter for calling you a fucking little crook.

by Majic 30.11.09 20:53

smith wrote:Tony Bennett said: “You don't score high marks for tone, 'smith', nor for legal knowledge about companies, associations and donations etc. Normally speaking I wouldn't answer someone who hasn't got the manners to ask politely. ”

Don’t pick a fight with me Bennett, you ....

Well you have lost credibility by using such expletives in a post, how can you expect to put forward an opinion when you have to resort to such language ?

by Guest 30.11.09 20:55

Stay out of it majic - this is big boy's stuff.

by Majic 30.11.09 20:57

smith wrote:Stay out of it majic - this is big boy's stuff.

big boys stuff ? Are you saying that you are obese ?

by Guest 30.11.09 20:58

According to an email he posted today the suggestion that they may be willing to work 'pro bono' came from Nick Mason, who is a PR man for Kirwans. He actually approached Bennett and offered to put him in touch with David Kirwan.

I also notice that David Kirwan is going to stand as an independent parliamentary candidate in the next election, on an anti-sleaze platform

Why did THEY offer to represent you Mr Bennett? After reading the leaflets and forum postings (who could forget the Silent Night debarcle and the "Voice of Madeleine from the grave" you composed), did David Kirwan think that he'd best steer WELL WELL clear if his political career is ever to get off the ground?

by Guest 30.11.09 20:59

Tony Bennett wrote:
No, for the reasons already given. The Committee and members are fully satisfied that the legal advice given to me on 2 October and which has been provided in turn to The Madeleine Foundation represents reasonable expenditure in pursuit of The Madeleine Foundation's stated aims. Once again, I repeat that not one member has raised any objection to the payment to Kirwans. Nor was any non-member been deceived into making a donation to us byh my statement on 17 September.

Was it explained to the members that, by allowing the Foundation to pay Kirwan's legal costs, the Foundation would be the focus of any potential future legal action on the part of CR? And that if damages and legal costs were, in fact, claimed - then it would be the membership that would be liable to pay? Is this the real reason why you and Butler signed that cheque in Kirwan's office? Is that why you remembered to take the Foundation's cheque book with you - and forgot your own personal credit cards?

by **Jill Havern** 30.11.09 20:59

smith wrote:Stay out of it majic - this is big boy's stuff.

Am I to stay out of it too? I've asked everyone to debate in a civilised manner and that includes you.

by scampi 30.11.09 21:01

smith wrote:Tony Bennett said: “You don't score high marks for tone, 'smith', nor for legal knowledge about companies, associations and donations etc. Normally speaking I wouldn't answer someone who hasn't got the manners to ask politely. ”

Don’t pick a fight with me Bennett, you fucking crook. You know perfectly well what you’ve been doing - you’ve been deliberately operating in a grey area where you think you can get away with it.

You ask me what I meant. I’ll tell you what I meant, you fucking crook – you took money that wasn’t yours. You are a cheat and a crook and you deliberately took money that did not belong to you, legally or morally.

After that little outburst I invite posters to look carefully at the charges I made against the fucking little crook and the way he hasn’t answered one of them.

Bennett, you fucking little crook, you disgust me.

Like to sue me?

ETA: You'll find my real name is easily available,crook - I posted it on the forums. I await your threatening letter for calling you a fucking little crook.

Seconded

by Guest 30.11.09 21:03

scrimas wrote: Is this the real reason why you and Butler signed that cheque in Kirwan's office? Is that why you remembered to take the Foundation's cheque book with you - and forgot your own personal credit cards?

That is a good point, Mr Bennett remembered to take the MF cheque book, or was it Ms Butler as she was asked to send cheques through the post on other occasions? Did she sign the cheque under sufferance or was she happy to do so?

by littlepixie 30.11.09 21:05

They were on MF business when they visited the solicitors so why not take the cheque book. I dont use my personal cheque book when I am dealing with things regarding the business, that would make the book-keeping really messy.

by baconbutty 30.11.09 21:07

smith wrote:Stay out of it majic - this is big boy's stuff.

Blacksmith, in another place at another time, I had a hell of a lot of respect for you.
That has just evaporated.

For a writer, your vocabulary is strangely limited tonight.
We don't do testosterone-laden 'big boy's stuff' on here. We are all trying to get along in a reasonably polite fashion. And quite frankly, Jill has enough on her plate right now without having to read posts like that.

Maybe you need to take yourself and your rather inappropriate hissy fit back to Bren's tumbleweed forum, where you can calm down in peace and quiet. After all, there'll be no-one to disturb you over there.

by Guest 30.11.09 21:09

littlepixie wrote:They were on MF business when they visited the solicitors so why not take the cheque book. I dont use my personal cheque book when I am dealing with things regarding the business, that would make the book-keeping really messy.

Mr Bennett and Ms Butler were the ones going to be sued, NOT the Madeleine Foundation as a group. Isn't that correct Mr Bennett?

by Majic 30.11.09 21:09

smith wrote:Stay out of it majic - this is big boy's stuff.

Smith, are you finished with that short sharp comment ? You can post on forums you know without having to feel the need that you have the protection of Brenda. So please do elaborate on why this is "big boys" business ?

by Mike 30.11.09 21:11

littlepixie wrote:They were on MF business when they visited the solicitors so why not take the cheque book. I dont use my personal cheque book when I am dealing with things regarding the business, that would make the book-keeping really messy.

your wasting your time littlepixie,mr bennett is damed if he dont and damed if he does

by Guest 30.11.09 21:15

Little majic - who doesn't honour the real world with his real name - the Superior Person who decides what is and is not acceptable, such as SYM's avatar - has missed the point as usual.

I am deliberately libelling Tony Bennett in the crudest and most offensive terms so that he can threaten to sue me under my real name which I have posted on these forums if he believes that my description of him as "a fucking little crook" is not accurate.

I know what I'd do if someone libelled me like that and I knew their real name.

Bennett will do nothing.

by scampi 30.11.09 21:19

smith wrote:Little majic - who doesn't honour the real world with his real name - the Superior Person who decides what is and is not acceptable, such as SYM's avatar - has missed the point as usual.

I am deliberately libelling Tony Bennett in the crudest and most offensive terms so that he can threaten to sue me under my real name which I have posted on these forums if he believes that my description of him as "a fucking little crook" is not accurate.

I know what I'd do if someone libelled me like that and I knew their real name.

Bennett will do nothing.

Smith. A little bit of respect for fellow posters might not go astray.

I get the point you are making but there is no need to be condescending to Majic.

by Guest 30.11.09 21:20

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS – LIABILITY OF MEMBERS, OFFICERS AND TRUSTEES

An unincorporated members’ club cannot sue nor be sued, or hold property in its own name. Accordingly, when an outsider is trying to sue an unincorporated association an important question is, who is actually liable? It must be pointed out that instances of members and officers becoming liable for debts incurred by an unincorporated club are rare, this being due either to the fact that third parties are reluctant to sue individual members and officers, or are unsure of the legal outcome of their actions. Where action is brought it is usually against the chairman and secretary in the first instance, the action can be extremely distressing for the club officers involved.

This is a confusing area of the law and because of the lack of case law it is difficult to be definitive on the outcome of any action brought. The distress felt by members and officers is often compounded by this uncertainty and attempts to determine what their actual liability is. Club members tend to have two conflicting views of the position, either they believe they are not liable for any debt, or that they have unlimited liability. As a general rule a member’s liability is limited to the amount of the subscription because when he joins a club he does not intend to incur any liability beyond his subscriptions payable under the rules. However, if a member or officer is found liable for a debt his liability is usually unlimited.

http://www.jeffsrowe.co.uk/faqCONST.html#203

by Majic 30.11.09 21:22

smith wrote:Little majic - who doesn't honour the real world with his real name - the Superior Person who decides what is and is not acceptable, such as SYM's avatar - has missed the point as usual.

I am deliberately libelling Tony Bennett in the crudest and most offensive terms so that he can threaten to sue me under my real name which I have posted on these forums if he believes that my description of him as "a fucking little crook" is not accurate.

I know what I'd do if someone libelled me like that and I knew their real name.

Bennett will do nothing.

Honour the real world with my real name ?

What has that got to do with anything - you tell me yours then.

Using that language does nothing, it really doesn't. It's not big and it's not clever. You obviously are not wanting a reply to this from Bennett or else you would have put the question in a way that would encourage an answer. The way you have posted will be ensure that you are ignored. This is what happens when you cut your teeth debating on a forum that was rotten to the core, and I believe you were the sort who would go running to Brenda when your side of the debate did not hold up to close scrutiny.

Instead of backing up your opinion in a debate you went crying to Brenda and she removed your oppenent for you. This behaviour hardly endears you to people.

by sina 30.11.09 21:23

smith wrote:Little majic - who doesn't honour the real world with his real name -

Errrr just a quick question: where have YOU been the last 12 months or so????

by scampi 30.11.09 21:26

sina wrote:
smith wrote:Little majic - who doesn't honour the real world with his real name -

Errrr just a quick question: where have YOU been the last 12 months or so????

Exactly. Everyone knows who Majic is...

Why The Madeleine Foundation - not Tony and Debbie personally - paid Kirwans £500 on 2 October 2009

'smith' isn't very polite. 'Manners makyth man' - Shakespeare

BENNETT REFUSES TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION

Not one member has raised any objection to the payment of £500 to Kirwans

Re: Why The Madeleine Foundation - not Tony and Debbie personally - paid Kirwans £500 on 2 October 2009

Re: Why The Madeleine Foundation - not Tony and Debbie personally - paid Kirwans £500 on 2 October 2009

Bennett is a crook

Re: Why The Madeleine Foundation - not Tony and Debbie personally - paid Kirwans £500 on 2 October 2009

Majic has decided

Re: Why The Madeleine Foundation - not Tony and Debbie personally - paid Kirwans £500 on 2 October 2009

Re: Why The Madeleine Foundation - not Tony and Debbie personally - paid Kirwans £500 on 2 October 2009

Re: Why The Madeleine Foundation - not Tony and Debbie personally - paid Kirwans £500 on 2 October 2009

Re: Why The Madeleine Foundation - not Tony and Debbie personally - paid Kirwans £500 on 2 October 2009

Re: Why The Madeleine Foundation - not Tony and Debbie personally - paid Kirwans £500 on 2 October 2009

Re: Why The Madeleine Foundation - not Tony and Debbie personally - paid Kirwans £500 on 2 October 2009

Re: Why The Madeleine Foundation - not Tony and Debbie personally - paid Kirwans £500 on 2 October 2009

Re: Why The Madeleine Foundation - not Tony and Debbie personally - paid Kirwans £500 on 2 October 2009

Re: Why The Madeleine Foundation - not Tony and Debbie personally - paid Kirwans £500 on 2 October 2009

Re: Why The Madeleine Foundation - not Tony and Debbie personally - paid Kirwans £500 on 2 October 2009

Re: Why The Madeleine Foundation - not Tony and Debbie personally - paid Kirwans £500 on 2 October 2009

One more

Re: Why The Madeleine Foundation - not Tony and Debbie personally - paid Kirwans £500 on 2 October 2009

Re: Why The Madeleine Foundation - not Tony and Debbie personally - paid Kirwans £500 on 2 October 2009

Re: Why The Madeleine Foundation - not Tony and Debbie personally - paid Kirwans £500 on 2 October 2009

Re: Why The Madeleine Foundation - not Tony and Debbie personally - paid Kirwans £500 on 2 October 2009

Re: Why The Madeleine Foundation - not Tony and Debbie personally - paid Kirwans £500 on 2 October 2009

Log in for more topics