The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann. Please note that your username should be different from your email address!

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

(Please note: if you register with the sole intention of disrupting or spamming, please don't expect to be a member for too long.)

Many thanks,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Page 2 of 11 Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 9, 10, 11  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by rainbow-fairy on 19.02.12 15:39

I agree with Shubob. Mr Gunnill IMO is furiously back-pedalling, as he knows he's messed up and this could open a BIG can of worms. Didn't he originally boast that he bought the book on behalf of a 'third party'?
I wonder - Tony. As Gunnill has signed his affidavit, would it be possible to get a witness from the Express? After all, he said he'd had some form of agreement to 'running a story' - Who, if anyone, gave him that notion?
I find it unlikely. It has the hallmarks of Team McCann and CR.
FWIW, imo journo's going 'undercover' to expose abuse in care homes etc is in the public interest. Inciting a retired solicitor to sell a book that didn't deserve to be banned in the first place is hardly in the same vein, is it?

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.
avatar
rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 43
Location : going round in circles

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by Guest on 19.02.12 15:59

1) A courier this morning at 08.00 collected the envelope, 60 Reasons
book, 10 Reasons leaflet, a receipt signed by Anthony Bennett plus
emails between myself and Mr Bennett. The book was purchased by
contacting Mr Bennett directly via email. The money was posted to his
home address in Harlow. Cash was sent ( £5 ) as payment, because I
didn't want to send a cheque made payable to Mrs Bennett as requested
by Anthony Bennett at the same address.


2) Mr Bennett has admitted selling a copy of 60 Reasons to me. There
are two further examples but I only required proof of one sale.

3) I am grateful to this forum for allowing me to make public and open
contact with Mr Anthony Bennett.

4) The third party has asked me not make any further comment or
postings, which I have agreed to do. I have also agreed to make a
personal statement to the third party
.



The bit in red does not sound like a newspaper does it. thinking
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by tigger on 19.02.12 16:02

candyfloss wrote:
@Kololi wrote:I think Mr Bennett has already said that postage was additional to the £5.

This is on the forum..............

1) A courier this morning at 08.00 collected the envelope, 60 Reasons book, 10 Reasons leaflet, a receipt signed by Anthony Bennett plus emails between myself and Mr Bennett. The book was purchased by contacting Mr Bennett directly via email. The money was posted to his home address in Harlow. Cash was sent ( £5 ) as payment, because I didn't want to send a cheque made payable to Mrs Bennett as requested by Anthony Bennett at the same address.

From the above I would infer that the P & P is included in the cash payment, otherwise he would have had to send loose change with it.
He also states that HE didn't want to pay by cheque. TB presumably didn't mind if he did pay that way and so the cash payment was MG's idea.
Imo the cost of the booklet/paper/ink/enveloppe and the time spent sending it, must just about be covered by that payment.

Imo also - I am thinking more of 'entrapment' such as was thrown out by a judge in the Wimbledon murder case, years ago.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 44
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by ShuBob on 19.02.12 16:08

Had the "third party" being the Express or someone acting as a middleman on their behalf, no way would Gunnill have been allowed to give the game away by immediately posting the details on the internet BEFORE the story went to press. His behaviour is reminiscent of the actions of the infamous Lori Campbell of the Sunday Mirror who chose to speak to Sky News about her "scoop" instead of giving it to her employers who presumably were paying for her to be in Portugal in the first place lol!

ShuBob

Posts : 1896
Reputation : 67
Join date : 2012-02-07

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by rainbow-fairy on 19.02.12 16:28

Nope, Candyfloss, doesn't sound like a newspaper to me, either!

Just found this on the front of February's parish newsletter. Whilst I'm not a Christian, the sentiment seems to cover what is happening to Tony right now;

Thoughts from the Rectory, taken from Acts chapter 7: verses 51-60

It's difficult to be the one who brings bad news. The TV weather presenter can upset people just by telling them it is going to rain the next day, yet he did not make the weather - he just tells us.
On a more serious note, when Stephen addressed the religious leaders of Israel, he incurred their wrath because he boldly told them the truth about themselves. He criticised their ancestors and implicated the whole council in the murder of Jesus. Everything he said was true. So what did they do with this indictment? They "gnashed their teeth at him" (Acts 7:54). They threw him out of the city and put him to death. Because he told the truth, Stephen died under a barrage of stones.
When we speak out for purity, righteousness, justice and godliness in a sinful, pleasure-loving world that seems destined to self-destruct, we too will be criticised. But no matter what happens to us, we can call on God as Stephen did. We can take comfort in knowing that we belong to him.
As Christian people trying to follow God, let us hope and pray that we have the courage to face discrimination and other injustices and tell it like it is.


Be strong Tony. You are in the right. There is more than freedom of speech stake here. My thoughts are with you and if there is anything I can do to help (however small) please don't hesitate to ask.

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.
avatar
rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 43
Location : going round in circles

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by ShuBob on 19.02.12 16:47

Nice post, rainbow-fairy

ShuBob

Posts : 1896
Reputation : 67
Join date : 2012-02-07

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by aiyoyo on 19.02.12 17:36

@Kololi wrote:Aiyoyo I understand your point re: apples and pears and accept that.

I mentioned the care home scandals etc however, purely to show that it happens and when it does happen and it is something that Joe Public considers wrong, ie the abuse of vulnerable people, we applaud it. We do not condemn the use of sneaky tactics then. Hacking is not the same in my opinion but I respect that you feel that it is.

kololi,
Don't you feel there is a vast difference between 1) deceiving an honest and upright citizen to breach an undertaking and 2) exposing systematically abuse of vulnerable people, be they young or old, left in the care of establishments or organizations?
The former is entrapment which is unethical and likely illegal, while the latter is about exposing criminal activities which is in the public interest to know hence deserving praise. They are opposite end of the spectrum, north and south poles - two different issues altogether.
So I don't understand your comparison or use of that for analogy.
Sorry to say, this is not just moralistic ground you assumed as you seemed to suggest. The way I see it, maybe you are trying to obfuscate the issue.


The guy probably guessed that if he contacted Mr Bennett as himself he was unlikely to get his "scoop" so maybe he resorted to underhand tactics. Big deal because at the end of the day his request could have been refused. If he had pretended to be Prince Philip, surely having agreed to the undertaking you would check out his credentials first because there is too much to lose if you get it wrong.

I feel you are unnecessary critical of TB. No one in their right mind check out credentials of one so claimed researcher just for the sake of sending a 5 pound in total inclusive of postage worth of booklet? The price of the booklet is negligible but the time needed to check out credentials might be extensive and would lead to nowhere anyhow when deceit was involved.
You are missing the point altogether, MG used a phoney name and a real address, how is anyone expect to check that? Oh, are you perhaps suggesting TB should have hired pte detective to check out one so claimed researcher ?
MG only exposed himself and boasted about his fiat accompli after he'd achieved his objective.


The pertinent point being TB hadn't done anything wrong when he agreed to help a researcher to source a booklet for the price of postage. It wasn't a deliberate attempt to breach the way I understand it. I stand corrected, but I thought TB conceded he breaches the undertaking under duress when he found out he was deceived.

Are you suggesting perhaps that he was proactively selling the booklet? Where is your evidence to support that?
If this is an exceptional one-off, then any wise judge might take the "deceitful methods" into consideration.

I echo Shubob's view that MG's story about collaboration with Express should be checked out.
I don't remember Express running anything about it.
Either MG didnt submit his story or he lied about that, or Express went back on their promise.
If Express went back on their promise to him, why would he boast about his mission accomplished and target hit? Surely he's shooting himself in the foot.
It would be interesting to see how MG is going to substantial his story in his affidavit.
He would be obliged under oath to name names in the Express or be exposed for what he is. And even that does not excuse his unethical methods.



I have already eaten humble pie on this matter and will happily eat as much more as I need to, if indeed I do need to. The Judge may well think Mr Gunnill is a scheming little monkey and may look favourably at Mr Bennett's reasons for selling to him - good luck to Mr Bennett if he does. Maybe it is my upbringing Aiyoyo but my own sense of right and wrong tells me that you do not under any circumstances whatsover show your backside to an English court and say "kiss that". I imagine that if I had been wearing Mr Bennett's shoes that day I would have probably have contacted the courts or a legal advisor and explained the request that had been made to me and checked out first whether I would be in any breach of my undertaking if I did give the guy a book. All above board then and transparent and not a form of flicking a v at the courts becuase I thought I would get away with it.



I am probably being very moralistic about this and apologies to whoever that may offend but, let's not forget, I have also been pretty moralistic when stating that I think by leaving their children alone that night the McCanns were more than a tadge neglectful and nobody has criticised me here for that. We shouldn't cherry pick - in my humble opinion the McCanns were wrong that night but equally, so was Mr Bennett for selling that book and for instigating the sale of others via Sym or whatever she was called as we were led to believe that he did at the time.

I dont know what you are suggesting here Kololi? That TB has no sense of right and wrong in his tireless work for Justice for Madeleine ? What then?

Using your moralistic value as yardstick to compare lying mccanns in their less than honest account of the mystery of their missing daughter to upright and courageous TB whose sense of right and justice for the victim is commendable, is so laughable.
Again, with due respect, you are not comparing apple to apple; so taking your high moral ground as excuse for the poor comparison is perhaps a tad...hmmm......? obvious?


avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 319
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by Kololi on 19.02.12 20:23

Aiyoyo.

Whether there is a great difference between the example I gave and Mr Gunnil's nonsense with Mr Bennett or not doesn't alter my belief that journalists will resort to sneaky tactics to obtain a story and that when doing so in some cases we, Joe Public, ignore the sneaky tactics to applaud them. I consider nicking a Mars Bar from your corner shop and robbing a bank to be theft. One might be greater than the other but both are theft. Best we agree to disagree or we will bore the pants off other posters with our disagreeing.

I am open to being put right here but I was under the impression that entrapment is only something that the police or authorities can be found to be at fault doing. Mr Gunnill is not a policeman and so I don't see his sneakiness as a form of entrapment. Crafty, sneaky, dirty little trick even, but not entrapment.

If my home, livelihood and liberty hinged upon me selling a book and getting caught you can beat your bottom dollar that I would make a phonecall and check out whether I should do it or not. I wouldn't care if the Queen of Sheba complete with ID card turned up at my door with a history book and quill pen in her hands. She would not have gotten that book until I had found out if my home, livelihood and freedom was at risk if I gave it to her. Maybe that makes me anal but it also leaves me with my home, my livelihood and my freedom. Mr Bennett is not a silly man in the slightest although I do think that you suggesting that I might be suggesting that he should have hired a private eye is rather silly. He knows that people watch him and look for his weaknesses and so I am surprised that he allowed himself to get caught out the way he did. Because of this and the other stuff with Sym, a part of me does wonder if he did it believing that he would get away with it . Now under the freedom of speech banner surely I am entitled to that opinion????

We agree that Mr Bennett recognises that it was a breach of his undertaking although the word "duress" made my eyes pop a little. I always understood duress to mean under unfair force or against your will but maybe I am wrong. If I am not then I cannot see how duress comes into this. From all the accounts we had at the time Mr Gunnill was not forcing Mr Bennett to part with the book and Mr Bennett obviously made a decision freely to supply it.

I am not suggesting anything other than what was being freely discussed on forums at the time. I do wish Sym was still a member but feel sure that somewhere in the bowels of one or two of the forums the emails that we saw still exist. Feel free to look for them if you wish.

I totally agree that Shubob has a good suggestion and if Mr Gunnill hasn't lied in his affidavit he ought to be able to substantiate his claim.

I don't know why you made your last comment Aiyoyo. You have known for some time that I will not jump off my fence and agree to something just because somebody says I must. Mr Bennett does what he does and some of it I agree with. The McCanns did what they did and do what they do and some of it I agree with. Equally the three of them do what they do and some of it I disagree with. You carry on spotting us "obvious" people and I will carry on not falling off the cliff.

avatar
Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by aiyoyo on 20.02.12 8:43

Kololi wrote:
Mr Bennett does what he does and some of it I agree with. The McCanns did what they did and do what they do and some of it I agree with.

Oh wow, bravo for exposing yourself further!
Let's hear which "some" of those things may be that the mccanns did and do that you agree with.
avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 319
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by Spaniel on 20.02.12 10:53

As Tony alone has been targetted more than once, whilst the rest of the internet is left alone, is it not "Vexacious Litigation"?
avatar
Spaniel

Posts : 742
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2012-01-24

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by PeterMac on 20.02.12 11:03

@Spaniel wrote:As Tony alone has been targetted more than once, whilst the rest of the internet is left alone, is it not "Vexacious Litigation"?
It is certainly vindictive.

____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 163
Join date : 2010-12-06

Back to top Go down

Karry on Kololi

Post by Tony Bennett on 20.02.12 11:13

@Spaniel wrote:As Tony alone has been targetted more than once, whilst the rest of the internet is left alone, is it not "Vexatious Litigation"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation

@aiyoyo wrote:
@Kololi wrote:wrote:Mr Bennett does what he does and some of it I agree with. The McCanns did what they did and do what they do and some of it I agree with.
Oh wow, bravo for exposing yourself further! Let's hear which 'some' of those things may be that the McCanns did and do that you agree with.
'aiyoyo' is absolutely spot on. 'Kololi' is an ardent McCann supporter who disguises her true intent here by coating her persistent criticisms of me with a sugary layer of phrases like 'I generally support Tony' and 'I agree with some of what he does'. She is basically prepared to back the rat Mike Gunnill for trying to get me into bother (so he says) just to earn a few grubby tenners from the editor of the Sunday Express, whilst criticising me for initially point blank refusing to sell Sangerte/Gunnill/Tarwin/Peters etc. a book, and then arranging at his request to get a copy from my mother because I thought he had a genuine reason - 'it will prove to be an important historical document' - for needing a hard copy when he already admitted he had read '60 Reasons' online.

Karry on Kololi

____________________

 Daily Mail journalist Daniel Bates wrote: “Kate and Gerry McCann have released a new picture of their daughter Madeleine as they prepare to commemorate tomorrow’s third anniversary of her disappearance. The photo shows her when she was three after a raid on the dressing-up box. She has a pink bow in her hair and a gold bead necklace and is wearing blue eyeshadow. It was taken weeks before the fateful family holiday to the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz when Madeleine vanished”

avatar
Tony Bennett

Posts : 14662
Reputation : 2801
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by Ollie on 20.02.12 12:58

Does MG explain why, when the Express didn't print the story about the book he had obtained, he then handed it to CR? Journalist with some morals? I think not!

Ollie

Posts : 262
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2011-05-22

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by jmac on 20.02.12 13:30

This whole business opens up the huge chasm there often is between the `law` and ethics. They are not the same thing. The law might say that Tony Bennett has no right to exchange his ideas, but that`s the law. It isn`t right.

We need to get rid of these laws and not argue about their `finer` points. It is pointless if the arguments do not help Tony Bennett with his court case.

jmac

Posts : 121
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-09-29

Back to top Go down

More questions for Gunnill and Carter-Ruck

Post by Tony Bennett on 20.02.12 13:34

@Ollie wrote:Does MG explain why, when the Express didn't print the story about the book he had obtained, he then handed it to CR? Journalist with some morals? I think not!
A very good question, Ollie, and one that I shall no doubt be asking Mike Gunnill at the trial.

Let's just recap with Mike Gunnill's triumphant message on this forum, posted on 4 February 2010:

1) A courier this morning at 08.00 collected the envelope, 60 Reasons book, 10 Reasons leaflet, a receipt signed by Anthony Bennett plus emails between myself and Mr Bennett. The book was purchased by contacting Mr Bennett directly via email. The money was posted to his
home address in Harlow. Cash was sent ( £5 ) as payment, because I didn't want to send a cheque made payable to Mrs Bennett as requested by Anthony Bennett at the same address.

2) Mr Bennett has admitted selling a copy of 60 Reasons to me. There are two further examples but I only required proof of one sale.

3) I am grateful to this forum for allowing me to make public and open contact with Mr Anthony Bennett.

4) The third party has asked me not make any further comment or postings, which I have agreed to do. I have also agreed to make a personal statement to the third party.

by mikegunnill
on Thu Feb 04, 2010 9:09 am
Search in: Madeleine Foundation issues
Topic: PCC Complaint Question
Replies: 126
Views: 1389

How was it then that on Friday 5 February (the day after Gunnill's triumphant message), Carter-Ruck were able to write: "In the meantime, and of far greater concern, is the fact that we have received evidence...that you have directly sold at least one copy of the '60 Reasons' booklet"?

More questions at the trial, I think, not only for Mike Gunnill to clear up, but also Isabel Hudson of Carter-Ruck.

[P.S. Gunnill is of course a forum member here, has frequently been online here in the past few days, and could of course easily provide full and honest answers to these questions. Mind you, the 'third party' did ask him 'not to make any further comment'. Silenced by the editor of the Sunday Express, then! ]



____________________

 Daily Mail journalist Daniel Bates wrote: “Kate and Gerry McCann have released a new picture of their daughter Madeleine as they prepare to commemorate tomorrow’s third anniversary of her disappearance. The photo shows her when she was three after a raid on the dressing-up box. She has a pink bow in her hair and a gold bead necklace and is wearing blue eyeshadow. It was taken weeks before the fateful family holiday to the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz when Madeleine vanished”

avatar
Tony Bennett

Posts : 14662
Reputation : 2801
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

The exception that proves the rule

Post by Tony Bennett on 20.02.12 13:39

@jmac wrote:This whole business opens up the huge chasm there often is between the `law` and ethics. They are not the same thing. The law might say that Tony Bennett has no right to exchange his ideas...
...although a billion people elsewhere can buy, read, discuss and debate Goncalo Amaral's book in their own native languages, 1,615 out of 1,616 people on this forum can also do so (since there are translations of it on the internet), and everyone else in the country can do so. Except me

____________________

 Daily Mail journalist Daniel Bates wrote: “Kate and Gerry McCann have released a new picture of their daughter Madeleine as they prepare to commemorate tomorrow’s third anniversary of her disappearance. The photo shows her when she was three after a raid on the dressing-up box. She has a pink bow in her hair and a gold bead necklace and is wearing blue eyeshadow. It was taken weeks before the fateful family holiday to the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz when Madeleine vanished”

avatar
Tony Bennett

Posts : 14662
Reputation : 2801
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Slimey snake

Post by missviv on 20.02.12 14:13

What a slimey snake of a journalist,i had never heard of his actions until i read it on twitter and i will never buy the express again,it's a pity he didn't/doesn't do a thorough journalistic investigation of the McCann's and the tapas 7's version of events,instead of acting like a Uriah Heep of a journo.

missviv

Posts : 1
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by Kololi on 20.02.12 14:16

@aiyoyo wrote:
Kololi wrote:
Mr Bennett does what he does and some of it I agree with. The McCanns did what they did and do what they do and some of it I agree with.

Oh wow, bravo for exposing yourself further!
Let's hear which "some" of those things may be that the mccanns did and do that you agree with.

You cherry picked Aiyoyo.

I also said that the three of them do things that I don't agree with. Did you miss that part? The thing that I admire, more about Kate McCann actually, is her continuing to push herself out there despite all that is said about her and despite believe it or not, not particularly warming to her. Despite all the crap that get's said such as whether she wears earrings or look at her cardigan, she doesn't falter and pushes what she believes in. Despite all the uncalled for nastiness she holds her head up. How many of us would have managed that after having been dissected publicly the way she been? I disagree with Mr Bennett and you go into some mini melt down so how long would you last if the eyes of the world were upon you Aiyoyo?


And Mr Bennett you couldn't be further from the truth although I am not going to divulge anything about me by stating in public anything that I might admire about you. Whilst I do think, oddly enough, that your heart is in the right place, I do wonder sometimes if you think things through before you do them. You aren't alone in provoking those feelings in me - the whole Rothley letter drop thing made me wonder how I would feel to have that done to me.

You Karry on feeling picked upon but at least be honest when making such statements. I only pick up on the stuff that appears to land you in hot water and have reminded you of what you have to lose. I wouldn't pat you on the back and say, "hey Tone I am right there behind you" because it isn't my house, income and liberty on the line, it is yours and so therefore I don't have a right to edge you on into something that might cost you most of what you have. And if you are happy to be honest, perhaps you might like to produce the emails that went between you and Sym way back in the early days of this forum.

I think you are totally foolish for having pushed your luck the way you did but having said that I truly hope that some luck is on your side and that the Judge looks favourably upon you.

avatar
Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by rainbow-fairy on 20.02.12 14:17

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Spaniel wrote:As Tony alone has been targetted more than once, whilst the rest of the internet is left alone, is it not "Vexatious Litigation"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation

@aiyoyo wrote:
@Kololi wrote:wrote:Mr Bennett does what he does and some of it I agree with. The McCanns did what they did and do what they do and some of it I agree with.
Oh wow, bravo for exposing yourself further! Let's hear which 'some' of those things may be that the McCanns did and do that you agree with.
'aiyoyo' is absolutely spot on. 'Kololi' is an ardent McCann supporter who disguises her true intent here by coating her persistent criticisms of me with a sugary layer of phrases like 'I generally support Tony' and 'I agree with some of what he does'. She is basically prepared to back the rat Mike Gunnill for trying to get me into bother (so he says) just to earn a few grubby tenners from the editor of the Sunday Express, whilst criticising me for initially point blank refusing to sell Sangerte/Gunnill/Tarwin/Peters etc. a book, and then arranging at his request to get a copy from my mother because I thought he had a genuine reason - 'it will prove to be an important historical document' - for needing a hard copy when he already admitted he had read '60 Reasons' online.

Karry on Kololi
It seems we have two or three out and out ardent McCann worshippers here at the moment.
Tony, I back you all the way. Please look into whether you can get a witness from the Express (personally I don't believe Gunnill's story about that). All the best.

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.
avatar
rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 43
Location : going round in circles

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by Kololi on 20.02.12 14:20

@rainbow-fairy wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Spaniel wrote:As Tony alone has been targetted more than once, whilst the rest of the internet is left alone, is it not "Vexatious Litigation"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation

@aiyoyo wrote:
@Kololi wrote:wrote:Mr Bennett does what he does and some of it I agree with. The McCanns did what they did and do what they do and some of it I agree with.
Oh wow, bravo for exposing yourself further! Let's hear which 'some' of those things may be that the McCanns did and do that you agree with.
'aiyoyo' is absolutely spot on. 'Kololi' is an ardent McCann supporter who disguises her true intent here by coating her persistent criticisms of me with a sugary layer of phrases like 'I generally support Tony' and 'I agree with some of what he does'. She is basically prepared to back the rat Mike Gunnill for trying to get me into bother (so he says) just to earn a few grubby tenners from the editor of the Sunday Express, whilst criticising me for initially point blank refusing to sell Sangerte/Gunnill/Tarwin/Peters etc. a book, and then arranging at his request to get a copy from my mother because I thought he had a genuine reason - 'it will prove to be an important historical document' - for needing a hard copy when he already admitted he had read '60 Reasons' online.

Karry on Kololi
It seems we have two or three out and out ardent McCann worshippers here at the moment.
Tony, I back you all the way. Please look into whether you can get a witness from the Express (personally I don't believe Gunnill's story about that). All the best.


Lolol - you honestly do not have a clue what I think about the whole Madeleine McCann affair and all who surround it because I rarely publicise what I think.
avatar
Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by rainbow-fairy on 20.02.12 14:41

@Kololi wrote:
@rainbow-fairy wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Spaniel wrote:As Tony alone has been targetted more than once, whilst the rest of the internet is left alone, is it not "Vexatious Litigation"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation

@aiyoyo wrote:
@Kololi wrote:wrote:Mr Bennett does what he does and some of it I agree with. The McCanns did what they did and do what they do and some of it I agree with.
Oh wow, bravo for exposing yourself further! Let's hear which 'some' of those things may be that the McCanns did and do that you agree with.
'aiyoyo' is absolutely spot on. 'Kololi' is an ardent McCann supporter who disguises her true intent here by coating her persistent criticisms of me with a sugary layer of phrases like 'I generally support Tony' and 'I agree with some of what he does'. She is basically prepared to back the rat Mike Gunnill for trying to get me into bother (so he says) just to earn a few grubby tenners from the editor of the Sunday Express, whilst criticising me for initially point blank refusing to sell Sangerte/Gunnill/Tarwin/Peters etc. a book, and then arranging at his request to get a copy from my mother because I thought he had a genuine reason - 'it will prove to be an important historical document' - for needing a hard copy when he already admitted he had read '60 Reasons' online.

Karry on Kololi
It seems we have two or three out and out ardent McCann worshippers here at the moment.
Tony, I back you all the way. Please look into whether you can get a witness from the Express (personally I don't believe Gunnill's story about that). All the best.


Lolol - you honestly do not have a clue what I think about the whole Madeleine McCann affair and all who surround it because I rarely publicise what I think.
Lol lol lol - why so defensive, Kololi? Where do you see your name in my reply? I don't recall writing 'Kololi' at all.
Nonetheless, your quick 'You don't know what I think about it all' speaks volumes. An apple does not have to state 'I am an apple' for others to clearly see it is...

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.
avatar
rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 43
Location : going round in circles

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by aiyoyo on 20.02.12 15:19

@Kololi wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:
Kololi wrote:
Mr Bennett does what he does and some of it I agree with. The McCanns did what they did and do what they do and some of it I agree with.

Oh wow, bravo for exposing yourself further!
Let's hear which "some" of those things may be that the mccanns did and do that you agree with.

You cherry picked Aiyoyo.

I also said that the three of them do things that I don't agree with. Did you miss that part?

No, as a matter of fact I didn't (cherry picked or missed that part).
I just happened to want to know your answer to your other point!
It seems you're the one who is cherry picking which one you want to answer, rather than answer to the point without being unnecessary confrontational just because you didnt like being asked about the comments you made in the first place!


The thing that I admire, more about Kate McCann actually, is her continuing to push herself out there despite all that is said about her and despite believe it or not, not particularly warming to her. Despite all the crap that get's said such as whether she wears earrings or look at her cardigan, she doesn't falter and pushes what she believes in. Despite all the uncalled for nastiness she holds her head up. How many of us would have managed that after having been dissected publicly the way she been? I disagree with Mr Bennett and you go into some mini melt down so how long would you last if the eyes of the world were upon you Aiyoyo?

Oh, right, I see - so here we have it straight from the horse's mouth - that you admire a narcissistic woman who pushes herself out there to save her arse after losing her first born in a questionable manner;and not because she can hold her head high for proud accomplishment! Unless you regard her lying, scheming, manipulative and evil ways as brilliant achievement for someone obscure if not for missing Madeleine. Well, good for you Kololi. Would that by chance be mutual appreciation between you two?

I wont be caught dead in her position so not a chance in hell the eyes of the world will be on me. If my child were missing i wont be seeking limelight as if a celebrity with reason to be proud of - Yuck!
I most certainly wouldn't be caught dead doing what she did ie spin and beg for money to sue people for evil reason and hope to get past St. Peter's gate.
If you didn't understand that, I guess your high moral ground is as fake as kate's abduction tale and her incongruent facade.
.


And Mr Bennett you couldn't be further from the truth although I am not going to divulge anything about me by stating in public anything that I might admire about you. Whilst I do think, oddly enough, that your heart is in the right place, I do wonder sometimes if you think things through before you do them. You aren't alone in provoking those feelings in me - the whole Rothley letter drop thing made me wonder how I would feel to have that done to me.

You Karry on feeling picked upon but at least be honest when making such statements. I only pick up on the stuff that appears to land you in hot water and have reminded you of what you have to lose. I wouldn't pat you on the back and say, "hey Tone I am right there behind you" because it isn't my house, income and liberty on the line, it is yours and so therefore I don't have a right to edge you on into something that might cost you most of what you have. And if you are happy to be honest, perhaps you might like to produce the emails that went between you and Sym way back in the early days of this forum.

I think you are totally foolish for having pushed your luck the way you did but having said that I truly hope that some luck is on your side and that the Judge looks favourably upon you.

The one thing I am glad about your confrontational attitude is at least your mask is off. Kate was certainly your role model.
avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 319
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by tigger on 20.02.12 16:39

Kololi wrote: Lolol - you honestly do not have a clue what I think about the whole Madeleine McCann affair and all who surround it because I rarely publicise what I think.

Kololi unquote

Kololi, the sad truth for you is this: we're just not interested in what you think. Full stop.







____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 44
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by aquila on 20.02.12 18:06

@tigger wrote:Kololi wrote: Lolol - you honestly do not have a clue what I think about the whole Madeleine McCann affair and all who surround it because I rarely publicise what I think.

Kololi unquote

Kololi, the sad truth for you is this: we're just not interested in what you think. Full stop.







Kololi, a lot of people on this forum actually DO publish what they think. It's out there in the open for people to discuss, agree/disagree with in the hope that some light is shed and truth for Madeleine is found. I'm interested in what most people think. It's just a shame that the forum is being soured by people who don't give anything other than to denigrate other people's posts. It's easy to piddle on the parade. It's not so easy to give your true, honest opinion and take part in the common goal of finding Madeleine. So, to all on this forum who are prepared to openly join in, with all their various expertise and research. I THANK YOU.
avatar
aquila

Posts : 8461
Reputation : 1566
Join date : 2011-09-03

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

Post by rainbow-fairy on 20.02.12 18:31

@aquila wrote:
@tigger wrote:Kololi wrote: Lolol - you honestly do not have a clue what I think about the whole Madeleine McCann affair and all who surround it because I rarely publicise what I think.

Kololi unquote

Kololi, the sad truth for you is this: we're just not interested in what you think. Full stop.







Kololi, a lot of people on this forum actually DO publish what they think. It's out there in the open for people to discuss, agree/disagree with in the hope that some light is shed and truth for Madeleine is found. I'm interested in what most people think. It's just a shame that the forum is being soured by people who don't give anything other than to denigrate other people's posts. It's easy to piddle on the parade. It's not so easy to give your true, honest opinion and take part in the common goal of finding Madeleine. So, to all on this forum who are prepared to openly join in, with all their various expertise and research. I THANK YOU.
I echo your thanks, aquila.
Is it really so hard to say what thoughts you have? For the most part we are anonymous, though a few members know my real name, and if I had the choice of 1)be a member in my name or 2)not be one, I'd take option 1!
For the life of me I just don't understand certain posters reasons for being here? Why be here if you don't share the common goal of justice for Madeleine? I don't get it.

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.
avatar
rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 43
Location : going round in circles

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 11 Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 9, 10, 11  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum