Anthony Bennett, secretary of the Madeleine Foundation condemns latest hate attacks directed at Kate McCann that resulted in the Aled Jones forum being closed down.

[Jill Havern]

Posted on Chaos Raptors site:


In a statement given to this site, Mr Bennett wished to make the Madeleine Foundation's position very clear regarding these ongoing attacks.



He has said "The Madeleine Foundation does not in any way endorse any threat of violence towards or direct action against the McCanns, which we assume is what the BBC is referring to. We unreservedly condemn any such threats whether made direct to the McCanns, or on the BBC forum or anywhere else. We say this bearing in mind that I received a specific death threat myself in October 2008 three days after our website was set up.

People however had the right to express their views firmly but politely about the choice of the Aled Jones Show in inviting Dr Kate McCann on to the porgramme on Mothering Sunday, given their admitted leaving of their children unattended six evenings in a row on their holiday (albeit with checking them half-hourly as they claim) whilst dining with friends and their subsequent claim that a Social Services official had told them that this was 'well within the bounds of responsible parenting'".



These attacks that are coordinated from forums such as the 3 Arguidos and Forumotions Missing Madeleine site are escalating not only in their ferocity but also in their criminality.



Brenda Ryan and Susan Menez, owners of the fore mentioned sites declined to comment.

------



http://www.chaosraptors.com/portal/



-----



I wonder what Chaos Raptors has to say about his mate murafan whose own attacks on Tony Bennett and other people are escalating not only in ferocity but also in criminality.

[Pascal]

I think it's all trollocks. Same bunch of creeps causing the same trouble. I don't believe there were any attacks from either MM or 3A. Why on earth would anyone want to threaten Kate McCann? What would be the point?

[Jill Havern]

I think it's trollocks too, but just who does this Majic bloke think he is? And why does Tony feel he has to give statements to him?

Come on Tony... who is Majic?

[Pascal]

I have asked before if Tony is batting for the t'other side..

[Rainbow]

He's gay?

[Pascal]

Well I suppose he could be considered to have a sunny disposition.

[aiyoyo]

I dont believe it too.
Complaints about the choice of guest hardly constitue threat or attack.

Majic should do keep his feud with those people private instead of stirring mistrust. HIs employer must be getting desperate if he has had to resort to that measure.

Yes, who is Tony? Why is he agaisnt the antis?

edited: Meant to say:

Yes, who is Majic, Tony? Why is he (Majic) against the antis?

[littlepixie]

No one knows if any threats were made by anyone. I wonder if Bren, Amber and Tony were approached to make a comment and only Tony responded.
I wouldnt have thought Tony is against antis.

[Autumn]

I recall Clarence saying that what they did was 'well within the bounds of responsible parenting' but I was unaware, until having read Tony's post, that an official from Social Services had said that also

[Tony Bennett]

I think it's trollocks too, but just who does this Majic bloke think he is? And why does Tony feel he has to give statements to him? Come on Tony...who is Majic?

Jill, I have previously given quite a long explaantion on the board here about my recent dealings with 'Majic' (please see more below).

In correspondence with him I call him 'Mr Griffin' and believe him to be Mr Andy Griffin. But, hey, what with Mke Gunnill having at least 8 identities and no doubt more, and all the deception that goes on these forums, who really knows?

He did tell me, and this is no secret, that his mother was out in Praia da Luz at the time of Madeleine's disappearance and made a statement to the police. I haven't actually checked out that claim.

On this occasion, Mr Griffin asked me for a response (on saturday) and I gave him one (late on Sunday). If those running MM and the new3As didn't respond, that is a matter for them.

Previously I discussed with Mr Griffin the strapline on his blog, wich runs: 'Because the truth still matters'. I have attempted to hold him to that so far as The Madeleine Foundation is concerned and he has agreed to withdraw some of the links he previously posted that denigrated us. He has reproduced some other material that I have copied to him along with everyone else.of ours

Yes, 'Majic' can be described as a 'pro' and according to others he has had a chequered history on the internet. On this occasion I believe it has been beneficial to keep a line of communication open with him.

I have asked before if Tony is batting for the t'other side...

After Carter-Ruck threatened to bankrupt me, forcing me to stop selling '60 Reasons', to stop distributing '10-Reasons', to shut down our former website, to stop libelling the McCanns? As John McEnroe would have put it:

Yes, who is Tony? Why is he against the antis?

Que?

No one knows if any threats were made by anyone?
Exactly right. Has the e-mail been published? Do we know who it was from?
I wonder if Bren, Amber and Tony were approached to make a comment and only Tony responded.
That could be the case.
I wouldn't have thought Tony is against antis.
I've never like the terms 'pro' and 'anti'. I prefer the terms 'McCann-sceptic' and 'McCann-believer', which I think are much more descriptive. The division IMO is essentially between those who believe that the McCanns and their 'Tapas 7' friends have throughout told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - and those who don't believe that

I recall Clarence saying that what they did was 'well within the bounds of responsible parenting' but I was unaware, until having read Tony's post, that an official from Social Services had said that also...

Isn't it the case that Clarence or even Dr Gerald McCann himself quoted this unnamed Social Services official and then, as it were, they all hid behind that alleged quotation, maintaining forever and a day that a child welfare official had blessed their child care arrangements. No doubt they are all aware of what the N.S.P.C.C. says on the subject: "Never leave very young children on their own, even for a few minutes". But they have deliberately chosen never to mention this or anything like it.

[Pascal]

Magic = anti?

anti what?

Why is he on a mission to nobble the 'anti' forums.?

On this occasion, Mr Griffin asked me for a response (on saturday) and I gave him one (late on Sunday). If those running MM and the new3As didn't respond, that is a matter for them.

Actually Tony, I think they have decided to ignore him. Quite rightly imo.

Yes, 'Majic' can be described as an 'anti' and according to others he has had a chequered history on the internet. On this occasion I believe it has been beneficial to keep a line of communication open with him.

Beneficial to who Tony?

Tony have you asked yourself why the 'anti' forums fragmented? Do you think that perhaps you had a little to do with that? I hope you don't mind my asking. Best to be straightforward.

[Tony Bennett]

Magic = anti? anti what?

My mistake, of course he is a 'pro'. I've corrected my post.

Yes, 'Majic' can be described as a 'pro' and according to others he has had a chequered history on the internet. On this occasion I believe it has been beneficial to keep a line of communication open with him.

Beneficial to who Tony?

Beneficial to The Madeleine Foundation, because 'Majic' has removed several references to The Madeleine Foundation that were libellous and wholly false. I pointed out to him that his strapline: 'Because the truth still matters' applied just as much to The Madeleine Foundation as to anyone else.

Tony have you asked yourself why the 'anti' forums fragmented? Do you think that perhaps you had a little to do with that? I hope you don't mind my asking. Best to be straightforward.

You speak of the 'anti' forums fragmenting? Do you mean 3As, or others as well?

As for 3As, I've heard about two dozen versions of why they closed in mysterious circumstances at the end of August, I'm not sure I believe any of them, they all contradict each other.

Some say it was the distribution of the '10 Reasons' leaflet in Rothley that set off a train of events that led to the demise of 3As. Maybe so. It also led to many new people getting to know about The Madeleine Foundation, many orders for the '60 Reasons' booklet and the '10 Reasons' leaflet (produced in collaboration with two dozen or so 3As members), over a dozen new subscriptions and several offers of help.

The Madeleine Foundation conferences, four so far since August last year, have been a source of collaboration and co-operation, not fragmentation.

[Pascal]

Why do you suppose that many anti's do NOT support the foundation?

Why is it important what Magic has on his forum?

Sorry to fire questions, I'm concerned Autumn's banning stick might be twitching so I'm getting a move on.

I hope too you don't take offense at my questions. I feel it's about time people were a bit more direct and open about their motives.

[Autumn]

Pascal, stop getting your knickers in a twist over nothing. I have explained clearly in the lounge, the situation regarding Cath - yes, I have temporarily banned her for a couple of days so that Admin and the other mods can look at her posting history. For the record, that is the first time I have waved my banning stick.

[Pascal]

<<<< see that, thats you that is.

[Tony Bennett]

Why do you suppose that many anti's do NOT support the foundation?

REPLY: Quite a wide variety of reasons, but we're content with the 42 members we have (one more than yesterday) and we have a lot of support beyond that, much of it from people who do not inhabit Madeleine forums, by the way. And we've brought together 40 or so people at our conferences, not by any means all of them members, and if you talk to those who've attended our conferences they will almost to a man and woman tell you they were glad they came - and benefited from meeting like-minded people and exchanging information and opinions with them. And as the only formalised group of McCann-sceptics, with a membership and a following, we are in a position to write letters to officialdom as we have done to Gordon Brown last July and to the Home Secretary last week for example.

Why is it important what Majic [sp.] has on his forum?

REPLY: It is important to us what anyone says about The Madeleine Foundation on a blog or forum if it's untrue - though I have to say that the supposedly 'anti' Missing Madeleine forum is much worse about The Madeleine Foundation than Majic's blog.

Sorry to fire questions, I'm concerned Autumn's banning stick might be twitching so I'm getting a move on. I hope too you don't take offense at my questions. I feel it's about time people were a bit more direct and open about their motives.

REPLY: Of course it is, Pascal. Does that also hold true for you? Are you now going to start being 'direct and open' about your motives?

[Tony Bennett]

...see that, that's you that is...

Jill & admin,

Is there an award for 'Forum Goader of the Year'?

If there is, please can I nominate 'Pascal'

[Pascal]

I was joking Tony. Duh.

Trying to lighten things up a bit. y'know.

Oh well. Hit a brick wall there then.

[Pascal]

Why do you suppose that many anti's do NOT support the foundation?

REPLY: Quite a wide variety of reasons, but we're content with the 42 members we have (one more than yesterday) and we have a lot of support beyond that, much of it from people who do not inhabit Madeleine forums, by the way. And we've brought together 40 or so people at our conferences, not by any means all of them members, and if you talk to those who've attended our conferences they will almost to a man and woman tell you they were glad they came - and benefited from meeting like-minded people and exchanging information and opinions with them. And as the only formalised group of McCann-sceptics, with a membership and a following, we are in a position to write letters to officialdom as we have done to Gordon Brown last July and to the Home Secretary last week for example.

Why is it important what Majic [sp.] has on his forum?

REPLY: It is important to us what anyone says about The Madeleine Foundation on a blog or forum if it's untrue - though I have to say that the supposedly 'anti' Missing Madeleine forum is much worse about The Madeleine Foundation than Majic's blog.

Sorry to fire questions, I'm concerned Autumn's banning stick might be twitching so I'm getting a move on. I hope too you don't take offense at my questions. I feel it's about time people were a bit more direct and open about their motives.

REPLY: Of course it is, Pascal. Does that also hold true for you? Are you now going to start being 'direct and open' about your motives?

Thank you for the grammatical correction. It is late, but how like you to be so alert.

Tony, see this is where you fall down imo. If anyone asks you a direct question or two you become quite defensive. I've no motive - only an interest in the case. I don't share your views that distributing leaflets and booklets is the way forward in the same way as I disagree with Rosie & Co's literary efforts on Tesco's bookshelves.


Like many others who post on these forums, I don't wish to be tarred with the same feathers as those who rabble rouse and hate monger, no matter how well meaning they think they are.

There is a child still missing and not one of us here knows what happened to her.

Anyway I'm off to bed.

Night.

[aiyoyo]

Yes, who is Tony? Why is he against the antis?

Que?

Desolee, it was my mistake. I meant to say :"who is Majic"? And, why is he against the antis?
Isn't he also for the truth, which's the slogan of his blog, I believe?

It's a general belief Majic is Andy Griffin.
Seeing that Andy Griffin did not correct TB's salutation, we'll have to assume Majic acknowledges he's in fact Andy Griffin.
Even so, who is Andy Griffin?
What is his purpose, as in, why is he tasked with monitoring fora/blogs and closing them down?
Who tasked him? Why is he particularly targeting 3a, MF and MM?

I dont believe we will ever get anywhere near the truth about the forum warfare.

[Pascal]

Probably best we don't aiyoyo. It's likely too horrible for words.