Thursday, 16 July 2015

PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE, WHERE DO WE BEGIN?


 
Tony Bennett is certain he is right and he is on a mission it seems to discredit an innocent family who did no more than report seeing a man on the night of May 3rd 2007 who looked like Gerry McCann.  Tony's mission is to blow their evidence out of the water and discredit them before or if, a trial ever takes  place in the case of missing Madeleine McCann. 

Tony believes he has the right to question and interfere with anyone he chooses.  The means are available, through his computer he has access to as much private information about his victims as he likes and the will to seek and destroy them.  He is driven by hatred, probably wakes up each morning and thinks what poor fucker can I set about today, misery is my gospel, repent and ye shall be saved. 

He is bored with Kate and Gerry, and he's never had much interest in the Tapas friends, or indeed any of the central characters involved in this case.  He is in the midst of a two pronged attack - destroy the witnesses for the prosecution and 2, destroy the enemies of himself.  He has worked way too hard to have his limelight stolen by manicured and coiffered bimbos.  I can imagine him weeping to 'It should have been me', when the very attractive DCI Wall took over the Madeleine investigation.  He uses her picture as an avatar to keep his bile bubbling away and if Verdi is his sock, he is revealing a dark, twisted sexuality that he is blissfully unaware of.

Bennett seems to have spent the last two years (at least) attacking the enemies of the McCanns, his eye is definitely not on the ball, the ball being the questionable abduction, to focus on the only credible witnesses for the potential prosecution in case members of CMoMM forgot. 

Most of the people Tony now attacks weren't even in PDL at the relevant time, but it matters not to TB.  His enemies now are those who would relieve him of his imaginary crown.  Every theory, other than his own must be stamped out, his opposition to Sonia Poulton's documentary has reached epic, paranoid, proportions.  He must convince the world, that those striving to expose the truth are the bad guys.  He forgets, there is only ONE truth, and it doesn't matter one iota how anyone gets to it.  Richard Hall gave it a good shot, but he should have done his homework.  Unfortunately, TB pitches volumes of dross, and people prefer to take his word, rather than trawl through it themselves, on the assumption that he has done so much research, he can't possibly be wrong.  A shame really, because it doesn't stand up to even the flimsiest reading, it is biased with a foregone conclusion, ergo it is worthless. 

Tony, for whatever reason, is desperate to prove that the most important witnesses in this case are liars.  He has been smearing this innocent family for over 2 years and becomes apoplectic if anyone opines that the Smith family saw Gerry on that fateful night.  We all have the power and/or ability to stalk our enemies, the internet, our lives are more public than they have ever been.  But just because we can, doesn't mean we should and happily most of us respect each other's privacy.  For Bennett, there are no moral or social boundaries, he is without conscious or empathy, one of the witnesses he is smearing was 12 years old at the time of the incident!  Why he has never faced criminal charges for interfering in a live police investigation, I will never know.  A cynic might say, any potential trial is fucked before it begins. 

Some very nasty characters have attached themselves to this case, not least Mr. Bennett, who has done as much, if not more, to keep the case of missing Madeleine on the front page of the tabloid newspapers.  This angry preacher of mob justice, has for too long been seen as the face of those who do not believe the abduction story.  His angry diatribes and physical presence in the parents home town sealed the myth that doubters were 'haters' and 'pitchforkers' - even though the majority of us were as shocked and appalled by his actions as everyone else. 

I don't think he is acting with or for the McCanns, though he may have 'threats' hanging over him for other matters.  He is disingenuous, and more than willing to lie to smear his opponents or defend himself, that he may well be putty in the hands of someone who has something on him. 

People like Tony are very easy to manipulate.  He is an easy target, ergo he is corruptible.  Why is he corruptible?  Simple, he has set himself up on a pedestal, he declares himself to be a man of faith with high moral values, he doesn't drink, smoke, party or do drugs.  He is a middle class professional in a suit, there is no white cider in his fridge or tracky bottoms in his wardrobe.  He sees himself as several notches above the rest of us on the evolutionary ladder and sadly, he has been able to convince several others beneath him, to look up to and admire the bleeding heart, religious zealot he has created.  Those a few rungs up however, merely see him as the twat he is.

Tony is playing the game of the many weeping television evangelists who have gone before him, though far less successfully it must be said.  Sadly for him, he has the face, if not the voice, for radio and he lacks a shapely, multi-(eye)lashed Babe and of course, Charisma.  Tony wants to lead an army of the people in a quest for justice, he wants to create a legacy.  Any 'cause' will do - from road signs to celebrities caught in sex scandals to a little girl who disappeared on her holiday - the causes Tony attaches himself to, come with newspaper headlines and precious television airtime for his loony beliefs - he wants to spread the word, the word of course, being his own. 

The best that can be said of Tony, is that no-one doubts his sincerity. Anyone who can argue creationism with a straight face, takes seriously deluded off the scale.  This is a man with beliefs carved in stone, there is no room for discussion or debate, he is right. End of.  You can kind of see, why he has never achieved his goals, unwieldy people in any sphere whatsoever, workplace, domestic, etc, are impossible to work with, unless of course, they achieve the tyrannical status they desire, in which case, no-one has a choice.  Tony pretends to be open minded while taking notes to use against his correspondent later - to him, everyone is a potential enemy - it is why he has to keep such close tracks on anyone who joins his forum.  He lives in permanent fear of being 'found out' - most weeping evangelists do.  We can only guess at what it is he fears, but he sure as hell fears something.  The disingenuous always do.   

I am not knocking him entirely, anyone who wants to leave a legacy (if they are honest) will do the same, from Joan of Arc leading an army to Jim Gamble cleaning up Sin City to the humble writer trying to get a break.  I used my time in the convent to get a book deal with a major publisher, but it was too honest, it didn't contain any graphic sexual violence because I didn't see any.  I saw only the cruelty and the physical violence, I found out about the sexual abuse of others after I left.  Honesty has always been my downfall and my opinions on the McCann case was the kiss of death to my writing career.  Seriously, what (sane) writer would comment negatively about the McCanns knowing that they had a book being released by a major publisher?  In 2011 (having been delayed a year), when my book came out, Kate and Gerry were virtual Saints, no-one dared to criticise them at that time and trust me, being at the top of their dossier/blacklist did me no favours whatsoever.

By 2010 (when I got my book deal), I had been commenting on the McCanns for nearly 3 years, and yes, I'm sure they have all the screenshots, lol.  Had they left me alone, I may have dropped out and moved onto other projects but they have pursued me relentlessly.  To be honest, I don't know whether to thank them for their tenacity or curse them for distracting me from other things, but without doubt, they have driven me to pursue this case to the end.  When I get my (at the moment very sore*) teeth into a subject, I am a finisher.  
 
But back to Mr. Bennett.  Clean living, quasi intellectuals and zealots can and do inspire followers - people who admire devotion, sacrifice, high moral values and quasi egalitarianism - qualities essential for all leaders and wannabe despots (on the surface at least) - they must be better than us, in order to lead us.  Our leaders must not be tempted by frivolity and sins of the flesh and we prefer that they not get high during world peace summits - though some might argue, that they should  :)  
 
Unfortunately for the clean living (I've never attempted it myself, lol), they must keep up the façade for evermore.  No-one can ever smell liquor on their breath or discover a bong in their filing cabinet.  As for off limits hanky panky, forget it.  For the holier than thou, it is one partner for life and sex is for procreation only. The truly zealous want bibles and cameras in the nation's bedrooms to ensure everyone adheres to the missionary position. 

This case has unfortunately, attracted more than its fair share of the morally righteous, from those who would never have left their babies on their own, myself included, to those want blood.  Quite literally.  They are eschewing the natural order and the law of the land by acting as investigators, judge and jury, themselves and Bennett is chief rabble rouser.  Tony will not be the hero who solves this crime, though he believes he is, and he will not be the one issuing the punishment (his orgasmic moment), the fate of the child's aggressors, is, thank God, in the hands of a democratic, cilivised society - we hope.   

I can't normally be arsed to comment on Bennett anymore, but his latest rantings against the unfortunate Smith family, dragged into this circus through no fault of their own, happens to coincide with my recovery from major dental surgery (*I had a tooth out :() and I am a bear(ess) with a bit of a sore head. 



67 comments:

  1. Bang on Ros, you have him to a tee.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For someone like myself who studies human behaviour, this case is a treasure trove of textbook 'baddies'. Tony is but a peripheral character desperate to get into the main frame, but long since rejected.

      Very few, if any, are taking his ridiculous claims seriously. His latest poll shows 5 people believe him, and at least 3 of them are probably himself under different guises.

      His loony theories matter not one iota, he has served his role, he has helped to keep the McCanns on the front pages of the tabloids (presumably sans the 500K paid to Bell Pottinger) and given them evidence of persecution for their libel claims.

      Their lawyers Carter Ruck have been gainfully employed reading his volumes of tripe this past 8 years (I suppose someone has to) - they may even have gathered enough to plead for a mistrial, who knows.

      I usually ignore him these days for the gnat he is, but his complete lack of honesty and integrity in what he researches and reports publically, sickens me to the stomach. What right does he have to intrude on these peoples' lives?

      Whilst I am the fiercest defender of freedom of speech and freedom of information, sadly, it gives real life curtain twitchers like Bennett, the means with which to pry into the personal lives of whoever they choose. Bennett is accusing the Smith family of lying, so he must find reasons for them to lie, ergo he justifies his peeping tom activities as research. Chicken and egg. Or, yuck and yuck.



      Delete
  2. A question:

    What do they call a group of people who gather on an internet forum that posts photos of a young girl, analyse those photos to find sexual connotations and pass comments to each other on those connotations?

    Answer:

    Paedophiles.

    That is a forum that Bennett advertises far a wide and the type of "research" that he not only encourages, but joins in with.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Strange, the people who 'picked up' on the paedophile connotations of the Maddie in make up pics, Mark Williams-Thomas and a clutch of CMoMM members.

      Delete
  3. What Bennett can't seem to grasp is, it doesn't really matter whether the Smiths say they couldn't identify the man if they saw him again .... etc, etc, etc, etc, and all the other 33 points or 12 points he keeps regurgitating over and over again trying to prove that it WASN'T Gerry McCann they saw that night ..... what matters is - it is still possible that it WAS Gerry McCann regardless of whether a family couldn't see him clearly.

    After all, there isn't too many men it could have been, plus Gerry was there, in the vicinity. Tony Bennett is trying to convince everyone that it COULDN'T have been Gerry McCann, when quite clearly IT COULD HAVE BEEN.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said.

      What matters is that “Tannerman” is not “Smithsman” as Kate McCann wants us to believe.

      From “Madeleine” by Kate McCann

      The police did not appear to feel that Jane’s sighting in Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva and the man and child reported by the Irish holidaymakers in Rua da Escola Primaria were related. They seem to have concluded that these were in all likelihood two different men carrying two different children (if, they implied, these two men actually existed at all). The only reason for their skepticism appeared to be an unexplained time lapse between the two sightings. They didn’t dovetail perfectly. To me, the similarities seem far more significant than any discrepancy in timing.

      (…remember – Jane’s description had not been released to the public before the Irish witnesses made their statements), I am staggered by how alike they are, almost identical in parts.

      And then "Crecheman" comes forward, if we have to believe SY.

      It's a funny old world. NL

      Delete
    2. Mr. Bennett believes repetition will drum the point home, but he is failing spectacularly - does anyone even read the 'points' anymore?

      Good point about Gerry having hazy evidence to support his whereabouts at that particular time. And tis true, a cross-section of middle age men would produce a diverse variety of colours, shapes and sizes - very, very, few fitting the complete 'picture' of the man seen by the Smiths. Short, neatly cut hair for example, would rule out 50-80%, colour, stature, build etc, most of what remains. Whilst his pals Russell and Matt, could arguably remain (on the short hair basis), their height and stature rules them out.

      Ergo, was there at the very least, ONE other man in PDL that night who looked exactly like Gerry McCann? And to raise the stakes higher, carrying a child who looked exactly like his daughter, the same age, hair colour, build etc, as the missing child?

      Delete
  4. Bennett believed Aoife Smith was an adult and wrote extensive reams of rubbish about it before being exposed as a liar

    Bennett believed Martin Smith had a golf company and wrote extensive reams of rubbish about it before being exposed as a liar

    Bennett claimed there were 17 similarities in the Smithman sighting and wrote extensive reams of rubbish about it before being exposed as a liar

    Bennett claims Smithman could not be Gerry as Gerry has a cast iron alibi provided by witnesses who turn out to be the Tapas 7!!!

    The man needs urgent medical help!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anyone who knows anything about this case can't fail to see that only those people, the McCann's and their mates were involved in Madeleine's disappearance, and no-one will convince me otherwise.

    I think the Smiths were scared stiff, and that's why they changed their mind about going to Portugal to be interviewed. When Jane Tanner took part in the reconstruction Jerry bullied her saying he was on the opposite side of the road to what she had said. I often wonder if it was fear of Jerry that made her cry, that she was worried she'd said the wrong thing. After-all we have all seen Jerry in a temper on video, imagine what it would be like getting on the wrong side of him in real life.

    Bennett and most of his followers are that far up their own backsides, I'm surprised they see the light of day. LOL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Smith family must have been in absolute turmoil, I completely empathised with Mr. Smith on reading his statement. This family were caught up in this circus through absolutely no fault of their own, and it is to their credit, that they have maintained their dignity and integrity throughout. They CANT respond to Bennett, but I bleddy well can and will!

      Delete
  6. Has anyone bothered to check where Bennett was when Maddy went missing? he is so up the McCann's arse it is unbelievable.
    If and when this case is ever solved, I hope Robert Murat's lawers skin him alive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He holds the same morals, values and beliefs as Team McCann and the same malevolent nature, it was inevitable that eventually the twain would meet. He will never make the inner circle though, he is more like a puppet on a string.

      Delete
  7. In Bennetts latest diatribe he states Martin Smith gave a statement to the PJ on May 26, 2008 about knowing Robert Murat.(Point 10)

    Is this his usual slap dash "research "or a deliberate lie?

    Mr Bennett should stop leading his disciples up the garden path and check a few facts.
    He should get some stronger medication and forego his pre-occupation with a 12 year old girl as then;
    Aoife deserves to live her life without this constant unremitting harassment.

    Why does CMOMM allow this to continue every day?


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately for the owner of CMoMM, she lost control of her forum to the rantings of Bennett long ago, the rotten apple taints everything it touches.

      I actually felt sorry for Richard D. Hall at being so badly misled by Bennett's flawed research, in my opinion it has invalidated his entire body of work on the McCann case, which is a crying shame, for him especially.

      There is so much 'information' on the McCann case, that a reader has to be discerning if they want to get to the heart of it. I stop reading when the author discards the evidence of the dogs and/or pushes their own personal theory above all others. It has saved me a lot of wasted time over the years.

      Having spent one summer marking A level English papers, I became quite adept at sorting the wheat from the chaff - those who had grasped the major themes, and those for whom all the important points had gone right over their heads. Bennett's work would have been 'D' or unclassified, a few marks for spelling and grammar perhaps but his analysis is seriously flawed, because he has failed to present or discuss any alternatives. He is not presenting a debate, so much as presenting a final solution. In the academic world, nothing he has compiled would ever be taken seriously, his pompous lawyer prose, might impress the average reader, but in reality it is meaningless.

      Lawyers can and do spout volumes of bumf - they have to blur the issues with as many words as they can in the hope that the opposition will die of boredom and/or old age. It keeps their coffers filled, more words = more cash. The game of dropping off hundreds of box files of documents and legal arguments between Carter Ruck and Tony Bennett, has been going on for years and a good living is being earned by many.

      As for his disciples? They remain impressed by his 'big' words, he is a 'lawyer', ergo he must be clever. There is a presumption that those who study and practice the law are somehow elevated above the rest of us, we accept what they say without question on the grounds that they 'know better'. The same applies with doctors. We elevate them to a 'God' like status and they accept it as their divine right.

      Most people accept what lawyers say because to challenge them would involve spending the rest of their days reading dusty old law books in order to justify every point they are trying to make. Imagine being married to a lawyer 'Under Section 5(b) of sub-section A, Part (xviii) it clearly states it is your turn to do the washing up'. I rest my case ;)

      Delete
  8. I have recently started to read your blog and commented on your last post.Although I didn't agree with some of what you said,I was impressed that you published my comments and replied.I cannot comment on Tony Bennett as I know little about him.However I do read his forum occasionally .There is a post re Isabelle McFadden where she has asked for a video of her discussing the Smith sighting to be put on his forum.I watched the video which had some interesting points.I was then quite shocked at the comments TB had then wrote regarding her.I felt they were totally uncalled for.I think debate is good in the McCann case ,and others views should be respected.He then went on to a personal attack of Isabelle for which there was no need to do .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I read that thread 03:48. Isabelle raises valid and interesting points, I agree with her, the media can present any story in any way it chooses, making heroes or villains of its subjects depending on which way the political wind blows. We often underestimate its' power, and we really shouldn't.

      Isabelle presents the human explanation of the few bits of information we have on the Smith family. The McCann media circus was in full swing by the morning of 4th May 2007 - before the Smith family even awoke, who on earth would have wanted to be caught up in that?

      Mr. Bennett is deeply unpleasant man, and in my opinion, a complete misogynist. What on earth has the top Isabelle was wearing got to do with the issues being discussed?

      He is fortunate that those he fires arrows at for their appearance have the good grace, not fire those same arrows back at him. Are his opinions and views influenced by the way he looks and the clothes he wears? Do they tell us what kind of man he is?

      Having incurred the wrath of Bennett, Isabelle will now receive an onslaught of character smearing from the sexually screwed up misogynists who cling onto Bennett's every word. Happily, she is a feisty gal, I doubt it will bother her too much, at least I hope not.

      Bennett's need to stamp out alternate opinions is quite bizarre. What does it matter to him? As much as I dislike the man, I wouldn't dream of taking away his toys, he is as entitled to his opinion as anyone else, whether we like it or not. If we don't like it, we have the same tools with which to respond and put forward counter arguments - when you need to annihilate your enemy, you have run of words.

      Tony has long been calling for myself to be blacklisted and my blogs to be ignored. He lifts my work in its entirety and transfers it to his own forum to ensure that he gets the 'hits' for my writing, not I. He believes I get paid for my blogs (wish someone would tell me how? lol) and he can't have that. He will no doubt, now pillage the work of Isabelle in the same way, tis all part of his parasitical nature, his own writing lacks appeal, ergo he steals the work of others.

      Delete
  9. why dont richard hall speak for his self on cmomm. tony is always praising him when someone is a bit questionable. has tony got a crush on him or something.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Richard Hall may well now be embarrassed at his close association with Bennett, and perhaps even angered that he has wasted so much time and money on pushing forward Bennett's theories.

      I cannot speak for other viewers of Richard's videos, but in all good conscience, I personally could not endorse or promote them and I imagine many felt the same. Tony's obsession with the Smith family and Robert Murat took the videos completely off track and invalidated everything else.

      Whilst I sympathise with Richard, he should not have relied on one, very flawed and biased source for his information, he should have done his own homework.

      Delete
    2. And all he got out of it was his name in the colour of blue.

      Delete
  10. So anyone who questions Hall have their posts deleted and replaced with an admin message. It is obvious to anyone who knows this case that Hall's videos are based mainly on bennett's theories and I am sure that bennett is/has shared any income received from them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Two shit shills together as one so it appears. RH has TB. And its contagious
      verdi is in isolation showing symptoms. Fucking idiots all of them

      Delete
    2. Verdi shows all the outward signs of a psychopathic sex offender - I sometimes wonder if he is a 'sock' of Bennett's. He is eaten up with bitterness, probably the result of a lifetime of a rejection, but it is hard to feel sympathy for him because he blames the world, rather than his only ugly character traits. You can't help people like that.

      Delete
    3. Verdi isn't a Bennett sock. Goes by the name ''bluesy'' elsewhere and is a twat of the highest order. So far up Bennett's colon he can only be identified by the pattern on his trainers.

      Frequently gives you a hard time, btw. I wouldn't worry, no-one listens

      Delete
  11. I have always hated forums because of the amount of brainwashing that goes on, it's a case of agree with the owners, and their followers or you are out. What a childish way to carry-on, I'm surprised they have any members left on the CMoMM, they've lost lots of good posters over the years whose contributions were informative, and worthy of discussion. Certainly not nodding donkeys!! Where are they now I ask myself?? They've been ganged up on and bullied off... so the King keeps his crown and the status he thinks he's worthy of.

    Carry on Cristobell you're doing a grand job.Your blogs will never be ignored because they're interesting, witty, and you have a sense of humor. That's more than you can say about the other place.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Re: Tone the Comb: the sign of the sociopath - apart from the obvious lack of empathy for other people - is, that they don't need affection but they crave attention.

    Almost 'nuff said about that cantankerous git.

    Re: 21:13: very true, brilliant posters (of many backgrounds/nationalities) ran
    for the hills when forums became bitchy, political ego trips-see Tone the Comb above. When it ceased to be about what happened to Madeleine McCann and became a preening mirror for a failed solicitor/author/social HAHAHA - worker.

    There seemed no point in continuing

    ReplyDelete
  13. Irrespective of Tony's efforts, there is one thing only that convinces me that the Smith sighting has significance and that is the reaction of the McCanns themselves to it. Unlike the massive press conferences and police style sketches arranged for a bloke seen looking a bit creepy on the beach in PDL the week before they arrived, or the woman seen in Barcelona several days after Maddie's disappearance saying something about a 'daughter' (and reported a year after the event) it was barely mentioned. And when it was, it was conflated with Jane Tanner's sighting. It makes absolutely no sense at all to ask the public to look out for a woman seen in Barcelona talking about a 'daughter' when you have details of a man seen in the place and at the time of your child's disappearance carrying a girl fitting her description exactly.
    Had the McCanns treated this sighting the same (or better) than their other two highly speculative leads, I might also have wondered whether the Smiths could have been mistaken or been influenced by news stories in their description. The reaction of the parents, who were supposedly promoting any possible clue in the hope of finding their missing child, is what convinces me. How could they possibly know that such a brilliant lead - a man seen with a girl who looked exactly like Maddie walking the streets of PDL at the time of her abduction - wasn't worth promoting while Barcelona 'Posh Spice' was?
    The Smith sighting is valuable mainly because of what it revealed about the McCanns and their investigative priorities.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Totally agree 09.38, the McCanns gargantuan efforts to brush the Smith sighting under the carpet convinced me they were credible too.

      Delete
  14. "Portuguese2 Today at 10:14 am
    I am the poster Portuguese, now renamed Portuguese2 and am outraged with this forum.

    I am Portuguese and my name is PEDRO SILVA. For the ignorant, my name is VERY COMMON in Portugal so I share the name with thousands of my countrymen.

    I can only blame my parents for naming me Pedro and my family for being Silva.

    I do not see what ignorance about my country is revealed in asking someone from where they got the basis for accusing a country's legal system to be corrupt and incompetent.

    When I tried to log in to respond to the xenophobic and baseless reply from Tony Bennett I found I was banned. Reason given: disruption.

    Yet Bennett's xenophobic remark remains still there.

    You don't need enemies. Have a good day."

    Of course bennett says his forum is open to everyone and once again he has shown he is not prepared to accept any opposition to his sick views.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry you have been treated so disrespectfully Pedro. Please be assured that Bennett and his tiny group of xenophobes on CMoMM are a very small minority, I don't think anybody respects their views.

      Delete
    2. @ Ros 12.57.

      I posted the comment from Pedro from bennett's forum. I enclosed it in quotation marks to show that it was a quote. Mt comments are outside the quotation marks.

      I am not Pedro.

      n.b I didn't provide a link because you have said in the past that you don't look at links.

      Delete
    3. Apologies I did not see the quotes, my eyes are not what they were.

      As for links, I do not go off on wild good chases at the instigation of pro McCann trolls, its a trick they use to keep their enemies otherwise occupied. Nor do I do other people's research for them.

      If a link is appropriate, I will of course take a look.

      Delete
  15. Why is Tigger back up Tonys arse. Better still, why has Tony let her rummage back up his arse

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The creepy anonymous environment of CMoMM is tigger's natural habitat, he/she/it loves nothing more than ripping people to shreds and CMoMM allows 'her' to hide behind others and throw poison darts without anyone discovering her identity. Of all the malevolent creeps eager to feed on the tragedy of others in this case, tigger is jostling for the position of head vulture, she wants to be first in line when they start ripping the flesh off the bones.

      Delete
    2. tigger is anti Mccann - I agree wholeheartedly with Ros's comments.

      Delete
    3. Tigger is a strange one for sure - why so paranoid about her identity being revealed?

      Delete
    4. What do you mean Ros re Tigger being paranoid about her identity being revealed?

      Not that I blame anyone for remaining anonymous when discussing this case - we all know what vile creatures are out there and most of them are not the ones who don't believe the McCanns.

      Delete
    5. Tigger sure is paranoid lol, went apoplectic when I mentioned my spam box, as too did the members of freaky hate site JATKY2, they even have a dedicated thread, lol. That they believe I want to delve into their murky lives amuses me endlessly, there is such a big beautiful world out there and so little time, researching them would be like devoting your life to a colony of ants, ha ha.

      Delete
    6. I have to say that, with its screaming headline topics about you and Sonia, it can be hard to distinguish between CMoMM and JATYK2 these days.

      Delete
  16. You really are a nasty, self deluded mare. Get help.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ten words constructed to form a sentence. Well done you! Another visitor from JATKY2 perhaps?

      Another forum like CMoMM that STEALS my work because they lack the vocabulary and skills to put forward work of their own. Pathetic.

      Delete
    2. The least they could have done is ask your permission, have em done for plagiarism..LOL :)

      Delete
    3. I bleddy should, the thieving sods! They lift my blogs in their entirety, supposedly for critical analysis, but really because their own boring words have as much appeal as a pile of dung.

      They try to hurt me by stealing my 'hits', but it bothers me not. Wherever I go, my 'talent' goes with me, it is something no Law Court or deranged evangelist can ever take away. And just to rub a bit more salt in, I can pick and choose where and when I use it. :)

      Delete
  17. Tony hates anyone who believes in the Hollie Greig episode. Well Richard D Hall does. Strange how they became united simply to discredit the Smiths.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Holly Greig, another sham story. Ask yourself this, wouldn't a child as young as Holly was supposed have been when these alleged multiple rapes started have shown physical signs of abuse and damage? And wouldn't this caring mother have noticed this damage? And wouldn't, given the numbers allegedly involved mean she was away from this loving mother for long periods of time? And would a severely mentally challenged child be incapable of being threatened to keep quiet about these rapes by persons who in some cases have been proven to not even exist? Why this is perpetuated by the 'alternative' media I will never know. Holly, poor girl can't even string a sentence together let alone provide a coherent statement naming times, places, etc. She is and has been abused for certain. By her seriously mentally ill mother.

      Delete
  18. "Tony Bennett Today at 9:06 pm @ Nuala - It doesn't look from the debate so far that we are moving much closer. I must abandon this debate for a while for practical reasons, but if you want to make further points I will happily respond when I can"
    ------------------------------------

    How strange then that his practical reasons don't stop him from posting about McFadden and bonkers birch afterwards.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh and look - his practical reasons have not stopped him starting yet another Smith thread:

      Tony Bennett Today at 8:14 am
      THE NINE PHASES OF SMITHMAN

      Delete
    2. If Gerry McCann actually admitted to being 'Smithman,' I think Tony Bennett would tell him he must be mistaken as it was dark, he didn't admit it for 8 years, his mates said he was in the Tapas bar with them, etc, etc, etc.

      Plus, he would tell him all this in nice royal blue writing!

      Delete
  19. http://anthonybennett-fraudster.blogspot.co.uk/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 5 years out of date?

      Delete
    2. A leopard never changes its spots

      Delete
  20. splendid post Cris - agree with it all, re: Victorian Dad Bennett

    however there is no such word as 'bearess'

    a female bear is called a 'sow'

    hope your tooth is better/don't bet your mortgage on the Grime/Levy dogs

    ReplyDelete
  21. has that spineless prick not responded to nuala yet shame on all you cmomm members who stand by that despicable control freak

    ReplyDelete
  22. Well done to Nuala for showing everyone what a complete arse that bennett is.

    For practical reasons he can post on most topics and start new threads but he cannot answer the questions raised by Nuala.

    I rest my case.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Tony Bennett Today at 4:55 pm I have set out the case that Goncalo Amaral is the victim of a judicial system which, as I've demonstrated with a number of quotes from independent and experienced sources, is at one and the same time inefficient, incompetent and riddled with corruption - at least to a significant degree."
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    So if Amaral wins his appeal it will be inefficient, incompetent and riddled with corruption. Makes perfect sense!

    ReplyDelete
  24. "The Battle of the Bilge"
    Nuala knocked that fucker on his ass.

    ReplyDelete
  25. As my name's been mentioned here, this is just to let readers know that my membership of CMoMM has been suspended, without notice and without reason. Just after I posted on the forum yesterday evening I logged out, then later tried to log back in but I can't. The message I get is that my username is "inactive".

    I've sent a message to Admin asking for clarification but have so far received no reply.

    I thought I would let readers here know, because if there are further posts on the Smithman 5 thread on the CMoMM forum I won't be able to reply to them, and I didn't want my silence to be misunderstood. I'm more than happy to continue the debate if I'm allowed to do so.

    Regrettably, it seems Mr Bennett is happier if I'm prevented from doing that.

    Nuala

    ReplyDelete
  26. Nuala, I salute you! I, and many others have watching your very interesting debate with Tony - you have deconstructed his ridiculous theories so concisely and eloquently, no-one is in any doubt as to the winner. He literally had nothing left - hence your ban! You come away with masses of respect and your head held high, you have much to be proud of!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rosalinda,

      Thank you for your kind words :)

      Although the debate has been stopped at the moment, I hope I can join in again soon (I still haven't had any reply from CMoMM Admin).

      Meantime if anyone wants to know more about the Smith sighting, Textusa has some very detailed posts about it on her blog, which is where I got all my knowledge about it from :)

      Nuala

      Delete
    2. Nuala, I am happy to offer you a guest blog, an opportunity to reply? You have a captive audience, and many of us are interested in what your response would have been had the carpet not been pulled from under you! My email address is Rosalindhutton@aol.com :)

      Delete
    3. Rosalinda,

      Thank you for your generous offer :)

      I already have a reply typed in response to the post Mr Bennett made on the Smithman 5 thread on Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:00 pm countering each point he made, but rather than posting it here as a guest blog Mr Bennett should allow me back on CMoMM so I can post it there.

      My ban was without notice and without any reason given, and despite sending them two messages, I've heard nothing back from CMoMM Admin. I did nothing to warrant a ban, I was banned because I was showing Mr Bennett's "contradictions" about the Smith sighting to be largely without merit.

      So I issue this challenge to Mr Bennett, allow me back on CMoMM to continue debating on the Smithman 5 thread. If you don't, we will all see
      that not only were you unable to counter the points I made but also that you knew you couldn't, so you had to remove me from the forum.

      If you want to retain any credibilty at all, you will allow me back on CMoMM and we can continue our debate.

      I look forward to your response.

      Nuala

      Delete
  27. I am intrigued, any chance of a potted (or full) history of the Nuala/Tone exchange?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll just post a link to the topic; it is open to non-members.

      http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11056-smithman-5-the-evidence-of-the-smith-family-from-drogheda-ireland-the-twelve-sets-of-contradictions

      Delete
    2. Jenny,

      Thank you for posting the link :)

      As we can all see from the latest posts, the idea is to discredit the messenger because the message is unacceptable, having made sure first that the messenger is unable to reply.

      So I've been banned from the CMoMM forum for reasons that Mr Bennett says "most of us can probably understand why" and that's followed by an assessment that I was there to be "muddying the waters".

      I'm not sure what the reasons were for banning me that were so understandable. I hope anyone reading my posts can see that I'm not abusive, I don't attack people personally, and I'm not rude or disruptive.

      What I do is debate facts.

      I can only assume therefore, that it's the debating of facts that is so unacceptable on CMoMM, if those facts aren't in line with what Mr Bennett thinks they should be.

      There is nothing I can do about that, except leave readers of the thread to make up their own minds.

      Nuala

      Delete
    3. Thank you kindly Jenny,

      Nuala makes mincemeat out of Tone

      Delete
    4. The same thing happened last year when people were debating (in the main very politely) with Tony about the Smith sighting. Suddenly there were bannings or suspensions all over the place and claims of gangs of trolls in Internet cafes trying to disrupt the forum.

      Now he's just talking to himself as Verdi and I say let him get on with it; we can all come to our own conclusions as to who it is who really has an agenda.

      Delete
  28. So it seems that bennett's "practical reasons" were to wait until Nuala was banned and then pretend he doesn't know why!

    ReplyDelete