Thursday 29 January 2015

TIME TO COME CLEAN ZAMPOS

Well Sonia has definitely upped the ante by several notches, in fact, another turn of the screw and several heads might explode.

I see the other place have once again responded with shock, horror and outrage at the proactive steps Sonia is taking to bring the truth about this case to the public's attention.  Chief Chinless Wonder and his entourage would prefer to spend another 7+ years discussing one theory within the moderated confines of a right wing forum that drives anyone away who doesn't agree with the lunacy of its leader.

Not only is it all going horribly wrong for the McCanns, it is also going horribly wrong for Mr. Bennett.  He wanted to be the Christian Soldier leading the search for (his) truth, he is the one who has suffered the most at the hands of the McCanns (even though he brought it all on himself) and he's the one who deserves the accolades.  That he is being overtaken by a strong, attractive, woman in make up and heels with, God forbid, painted nails, must be driving him insane, and the amount of new characters appearing on his forum to back him up, confirms it.

I'm completely baffled as to what CCW and his gang are hoping to achieve and how exactly they are hoping to achieve it. They have written off Sky News forever more on principle.  Err, OK, but does that include the entire Murdoch news empire?  In which case, Bennett or indeed any of them, can never speak to Sky, The Times, The Sun etc. Not really conducive to a group seeking to get the truth out there because if they choose to stand by their principles, there isn't a single news agency they can talk to, they can only talk to each other, if their consciences are to remain clear.

But the frenzy Bennett finds himself in, isn't just confined to the lovely Sonia, there is also an attractive strong woman now leading Operation Grange and it looks as though an ASW is about to deny the McCanns their next Million pound payout.  For Tony,  it all started to go wrong when they let women out of the kitchen. 

Can there be any doubts now as to which side Tony is on?  Lets look at the evidence:

1.   Bennett has completely written off the eye witness evidence of the Smith family for reasons listed in blue on 75% of the pages of Jill Havern's forum.

2.   Bennett MUST convince the world, the first arguido, Robert Murat is responsible for Madeleine's disappearance because he had some dodgy porn on his computer.  Ergo, RM is linked to an international paedophile ring that leads right to the heart of the British establishment, pop stars, writers, journos and indeed every other household as the world is full of sexual deviants.  His thinking in that runs pretty much along the same lines as chief McCann supporter Jim Gamble.

3.  His hijacking of the Richard T. Hall's videos, to purport his own theory of Robert Murat's involvement, and loony reasons why the Smith family made up their sighting on the night of 3rd May.

4.   His vigorous opposition to anyone attempting to get the truth out into the public domain.  His attacks on Sonia Poulton are no different to the attacks on Stop the Myths (the rabid McCann supporters site) and it is difficult to tell which pages are from CMoMM and which are from STM's - they sing in harmony and their goal is to destroy Sonia whatever the cost.  They won't succeed, the truth is coming out whether they like it or not.

5.  In the aftermath of the 'McCanns will lose Libel trial' headlines, Bennett opens up a discussion about Portugal's legal system and corruption.

6.   In view of the revelations of the past year or so (death in the apartment, digging for a body etc) why is Bennett still paying the McCanns £100+ per month and allowing their 'gagging' of him to stand?  His Freedom of Speech is at present severely curtailed - he is in a 'prison' that would send most writers and campaigners insane, yet he doesn't protest?

I am still saying to myself, no, its not possible, he couldn't have turned, but I met him once several years ago and came away with the memory of him saying he wasn't 100% sure the McCanns were involved.  I was alarmed by this because for myself, I couldn't and wouldn't criticise the parents of a missing child unless I was 100% convinced of their involvement.  In retrospect, he may have been with the McCanns from the start.  He has certainly helped to keep them in the news with his ill timed outrageous publicity stunts.

In the meanwhile, to Sonia, I would say 'You Go Girlfriend', finally this case is going from being discussed behind closed doors to causing media waves on twitter.  The MSM are not only taking notice of 'anti' groups, they are actually publishing stories that are unfavourable to the McCanns.  And there is good reason for this.  They are getting their information from a credible source!  Tony Bennett caused untold damage to the 'anti' cause, his extremist views and behaviour antagonised every media outlet he approached, and worse he was portrayed as representing all of us.  To all accounts he brought down the 3 Arguidoes, the 'first' and biggest anti McCann forum after Clarence had the Mirror discussions blocked.  Bennett was playing right into the hands of the McCann media monitors, or he was dancing to their tune?  Which was it?

In any event, in all these years, unfortunately for the McCanns they have never been able to produce a 'villain' - that is a leader of the anti's in the same vein as nasty BNP leader Nick Griffin, an extremist they could name and shame and put on talk shows to stir the populace up into a frenzy.  They must refer to their enemies as obscure, faceless, nobody's hiding away in their bedrooms and pitchforking among themselves.  The best they could come up with was a harmless, middle aged lady with 353 followers on twitter, and once they took her out all that was left was the remnants of the Madeleine Foundation, that is Mr. Bennett, and he is the only one left on pro McCann dossier collecting site Exposing the Myths too.     

Of course, Bennett has never cut the mustard as the villain of piece, as he instantly comes across as one of those barmy prophets of doom who used to wear bowler hats and stand on orange boxes in Hyde Park.  He was never going to face Paxman, or attract an audience bigger than 100 pigeons and a bemused office worker eating his sarnies. 

Sonia Poulton on the other hand has a big audience, and quite rightly.  She is attractive, intelligent, erudite and has her finger on the pulse of current and popular culture - and she presents the news and information in a format that is instantly accessible to EVERY viewer.  And that is what gives her the edge.  She is able to read and digest the news then pick out the key points so the viewer and reader doesn't have to.  We are grateful for this, most of don't have the time or inclination to wade through reams of documents underlined in blue  and we don't want them dictated to us from a pulpit.
 
But most of all Mr. Bennett, and I know you will read this.  Sonia is real.  She has a past, she is human, that doesn't make her a worse person, it makes her a better one, because she can empathise with the people she is reporting the news to, and they can empathise with her.  Very few can empathise with those up there on the moral high ground Mr. Bennett, and whilst you may have secured your place on the right hand side of the Good Lord, the rest of us prefer to party on the living side of life's journey with as many sins of the flesh as we can before the arthritis kicks in.  I hasten to add, I have no idea what Bennett are accusing Sonia of, I stopped reading his nonsense a long time ago, but I know its sins of the flesh that worry him most of all. 


47 comments:

  1. I enjoyed that immensely.
    Tony's carefully preserved man's world is crumbling.
    Does he still have six mistresses with whom to console himself?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well said Cristobell. Every time I see his reams of verbiage I inwardly groan and move on. Blacksmith is right: A bag of wind. It's his selfrighteousness that annoys me. I'm right and everyone else is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "sins of the flesh that worry him most of all."

    I think that should read: "sins of other peoples' flesh, that worry him most of all."

    Bonjour Cristobell.

    ReplyDelete
  4. " I hasten to add, I have no idea what Bennett are accusing Sonia of, I stopped reading his nonsense a long time ago"

    Oh really? It seems to me that you read everything he publishes.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sounds like mistress number three hasn't quite gotten over him yet.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ros, without doubt the most ridiculous text I've ever read in 8 years. Well done!

    You, the twitter and facebook folk aren't heading for a libel trial: you're heading for prison cells.

    Wake up! You are being manipulated by facebook people who are hiding behind your skirts. They would be delighted to see you and Sonia nicked.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @a 03:29,of course she reads every thing Bennett writes other wise she wouldn't have put this up you have sunk lower than a pro with this.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Gotta love these "friendy warners" running around, warning everyone, all friendly like.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey there's honour in taking a hit if it's going to achieve something, but stunts like knocking on people's doors (how brave!) are strictly for entertaining the easily pleased (and led).

      Delete
    2. Nicked for what 5:27? Having and voicing an opinion? The McCanns haven't got the legislation they want yet. My great grandmother had 6 sons on the Western Front, 4 of them did not return. They did not die so crooks and creeps could manipulate the laws of land to silence their descendants. I, and thousands of others out there know that a little girl died in very suspicious circumstances and we won't be fobbed off with lies anymore.

      Delete
    3. You don't know - you think you know. It's Chris Grayling who wants the legislation, to extend the maximum sentence (but the legislation exists already).

      Delete
  9. And he`s even got mistress No. 3, who is fed up with attention seeking women, paying his fine for him. Hubble bubble toil and trouble.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 05:27
    "Heading for a prison cell" That's so funny, you mean there'll still be room left when you lot are banged-up.There's enough libel in the other place you frequent.. to keep the slammer full for quite a long time.

    Good post Cristobell, keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Superb. Astute observations of Snr Bennetti and his crusade.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Bennett part of Team McCann? No, can't see that myself. The man is more Pinocchio than Machiavelli.


    IS




    ReplyDelete
  13. Mr B and his sockmates are the Controlled Opposition.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Cristobell,

    Any news on the tabloid interview that you volunteered to do at the behest of Sonia Poulton?

    I'm looking forward to reading.

    ReplyDelete
  15. In my experience, those who wear their faith on their sleeve, quote scripture and constantly project an image of pious integrity are usually hiding some dark and dirty secret.

    Good post, Cristobell.

    ReplyDelete
  16. is the attack on Bennett really necessary ? smacks of a bit of jealousy to me

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 05.30 - Are Tony Bennett's attacks on Sonia Poulton and myself for trying to get the truth out to the public really necessary? Smacks of jealousy and a maniacal need to protect the McCanns to me.

      Delete
    2. Why care about it? If your film is at least in part about the right of people to say what they think about the McCann case, you are being hypocritical to simultaneously say he can't say what he thinks about your film.

      Have you seen Sonia's script, Ros? Obviously nobody outside her circle has.

      Thus people have every right to think (and say) they fear the film may confirm everything the media (and politicians) say about 'trolls'. A project that began by saying it's aim was to defend Brenda may end up reinforcing what was written in the papers at that time.

      When nobody has a clue what Sonia is going to say in the film you can hardly blame some people for being concerned can you. If someone else was making a film, someone you had no connection with, you'd be every bit as much concerned.

      Delete
    3. I can assure you someone making a film wouldn't concern me in the slightest, why would it? I have no deep, dark secrets, my life is an open book - quite literally. And if someone wants to make a documentary or film exposing the truth about the McCanns and the faked abduction, they would not have to be Pulitzer or Nobel prize winners to have my support. I supported Richard T. Hall, until I saw how badly he had been deceived by Tony Bennett, and its a crying shame, as his videos could have had an impact if they hadn't been flawed by Bennett's disinformation.

      Why Tony and his mistresses (made me chuckle) are working themselves up into such a frenzy about Sonia's documentary is bizarre in the extreme. What does it matter to them?

      The only people who could possibly be 'harmed' by this documentary are those involved in the lies and the cover up. I can see that it is a huge threat to the McCanns and indeed a huge threat to Jim Gamble and his reputation, but what harm will it do to Tony Bennett and the CMoMM forum?

      Do Tony and his harem honestly believe that all their research and of course Tony's insistence that the Smith family lied and are trying to frame Gerry, will be produced and used in evidence should this case ever get to trial? The Defence might use it of course, but the prosecutors will stick with the official investigation.

      Delete
    4. So you didn't like some aspects of Hall's videos. If you'd known what he was going to say before they were released, would you have spoken about it or stayed silent?

      If you're making a film that's partly about a deceased woman, and so far nobody has indicated her family and friends endorse it, you'd surely expect to hear and be able to handle criticism about it.

      Delete
  17. If he had asked my opinion I would have given it. Other than that, your point is moot, its got feck all to do with me or anyone else what he puts in his video and the idea of criticizing it before seeing it, is ridiculous.

    You will note that Sonia is handling the 'pre' criticism rather well, in fact it hasn't fazed her in the slightest. Tis I pointing out the hypocrisy coming from certain quarters, and questioning the robust pro McCann, pro Gamble pro the news must be censored Mr. Bennett, who is busting a gut to stop the documentary that will hopefully reveal the truth behind the scam, going ahead.

    You are all tearing into a forthcoming production that you know feck all about and that is just about as ludicrous as you can get.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Because you are mixing the issues.

    I'm not remotely interested in Sonia's opinion about the case, or her ideas about how to make a film about it (that's her business).

    But the film's also about Brenda, and that's the part of it people are concerned about. That's very much either everybody's business, or - since you do not have endorsement from Brenda's family and friends - nobody's business but theirs.

    That's why you're getting criticism.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Has Gemma ever explained how it fucked up chasing after the wrong Smith family ?
    What a prized knob he/her/it/sock is

    ReplyDelete
  20. Great post! I was asking similar questions way back in 2008, copy blog post below

    28 Jan 2008




    Does Mr Bennett bat for the McCanns?



    If this man is a qualified solicitor then he would have know that these parents were being investigated for homicide, not simple child neglect. Therefore any summons in the Magistrates Court would have been doomed to failure. There is no way in a complex criminal investigation they were going to allow details of this case to start being unpacked before unqualified magistrates. Details of the evidence against them is precisely what the McCanns want so desperately. Why would they want it so desperately if they were innocent - they would know there cannot be any. So who was trying to give them a helping hand? Mr Bennett! Some may also consider the McCanns would give their eye teeth simply to be prosecuted for child neglect but again any qualified solicitor would have known that such a prosecution was impossible in the UK. The offence of child neglect was committed in Portugal and therefore the UK has no jurisdiction to prosecute them. The UK does have jurisdiction to prosecute them for the much more serious offence of homicide however - by virtue of a clause in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 which clearly states that any UK citizen who has committed homicide abroad may be prosecuted in the UK. Such prosecutions have gone ahead. It was no good the McCanns thinking rushing back to the UK was going to let them get away with murder - but it was going t let them get away with neglect. However, it seems to me that if the McCanns did not kill Madeleine by assaulting her, then they killed her by neglecting her - so the neglect is part and parcel of the offence of manslaughter by gross negligence in leaving her alone, possibly also, drugged up.

    If Mr Bennett does not bat for them - then he is just an attention seeked who "wants his 15 minutes of fame" and in my view, should be ignored.

    The question of parents going to the pub and leaving children unattended simply will not be put right by bringing in yet more laws - what difference would this make? The law is already there - you go to the pub and leave your kids and as a result one of them dies - you are on a manslaugher rap. If there is lesser harm - the law is also there - Children and Young Persons Act 1933. This is a social issue. We need to make it clear it is socially unacceptable to leave your kids alone. We need to make it clear the Portuguese way of not dumping their kids in bed but treating their children in an inclusive way and having their meal with the adults is the right way. This is about education. We re-educated the public that it is socially unacceptable to drink and drive by media campaigns. This is the way forward with rotten parents who do not know how to treat their children properly. Simply having yet another law on the statute book would not make a jot of difference.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Right back at ya on the great post front!

    Bennett is an absolute liability and for that reason alone, I still have a few doubts. However, what is beyond doubt, is the huge amount of assistance they have had from him.

    They have used him and his Foundation to claim victimisation, even recently in the Lisbon Courts. Other than Bennett's Madeleine Foundation, the McCanns had no evidence of the public threatening them or stalking them after the release of Goncalo Amaral's book. Bennett's leafleting of their neighbours in Rothley was all they had.

    Totally agree with and applaud your final paragraph. Just because something scrapes in on the parameters of the law doesn't make it right but parents like the McCanns will quote the law by the letter rather than admit they were tragically and fatally wrong.

    The neglect issue has bugged the hell out of me since the very start of this case Viv, and clearly it has affected you the same way! At the very beginning when asked if there are lessons to be learned, the McCanns replied, [no] because they did nothing wrong or words to that effect. Everyone does it said the dozy sofa queens in their efforts to get as far up the McCanns rectums as they were physically able, and the message was its perfectly OK, to leave your babies on their own while you go out on the piss as long as you keep checking on them!

    I was fuming about it then and I am fuming about it now! Like you, I believe education is the answer, yes, yes, yes to a big media campaign. Lessons should have been learned, the neglect should not have been brushed over. If Madeleine and those babies had not been left on their own, Madeleine would still be here.

    ReplyDelete
  22. In all the excitement you must have missed my question Cristobell, so if you don't mind I will ask again.

    Any news on the tabloid interview that you volunteered to do at the behest of Sonia Poulton?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is imminent, and the proverbial is about to hit the fan :)

      Delete
    2. Ooooh, that sounds exciting. I can't wait.

      Delete
    3. And I think that proves she knew exactly what the content would be.

      Delete
  23. Thanks. The law seems to have been tightened up with many parents doing a McCann facing a custodial sentence. So behind the scenes maybe it is accepted they have set child protection and encouraging parents to do the right thing by their kids back decades. In fact I think it was fashionable in the 50s and 60s to go on holiday and pop out, Butlins style or maybe get the neighbour to pop in and watch the kids.

    But that is one of the things that has always infuriated me the most about the McCanns. They minimise and excuse, they justify and profit by the most terrible parenting. They are doctors, they should be setting an example to society. Kate McCann was a trained GP, part of her role would be to liaise with social services about parents who behaved just as she did. With cases like Karen Matthews we can see the McCann effect on the ignorant who think they can cash in, in a similar way, although clearly lacked the intellect.

    It is wicked beyond belief really that our media celebrate them, in that patronising and sanctimonious way. And why is that? Not because they think they are great parents who can set an example to others, oh no, because McCann sell and get them masses of revenue from advertising etc. Money talks, not the needs of children - there is not one single UK paper that reports in a responsible way. Not one who can at least say, don't leave your children like the McCann did, had they not done so, she would still be here. But then again, would she? That neglect issue as you say, is a vexed question!

    ReplyDelete
  24. This has to be said: "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned". On the very day you bleat about Bennett and puff up your (and Sonia's) much vaunted truth-seeking skills, Bennett caps 12 years of solid work of research, effort and campaigning by bringing in a stunning reversal in the Balkwell case, with the CICA accepting Lee Balkwell WAS the victim of a crime of violence. Your blog has screamed out these 5 words for the past 6 months: "I AM JEALOUS OF BENNETT"
    echon a murder amd

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I haven't followed the Lee Balkwell case, but if Bennett has used his clerical skills to get justice for someone, then that can only be a good thing, and fair dues to him for that.

      In order for me to be jealous of Bennett, he would have to have something that I really wanted. I have wracked my brains, but nope, can't think of a single thing.

      Delete
    2. So Bennett merely has ' clerical skills ' where as the goddess that is Poulton can snuff THE truth after half hours research. Your idolatry is really sounding more manic everyday. Btw, could you point me in direction of her International journalistic prowess? It seems to have been missed by Google?

      Delete
  25. aquila, just fucking unbelievable how you have changed over the past six months. you make me sick

    ReplyDelete
  26. I admire both Sonia, and Cristobell, for trying to give the public new information on this now seemingly stagnant case. Surely, anything new is a good thing instead of chewing over the same cud day after day. Why criticize people that are trying to get to the bottom of this, it just doesn't make sense. After-all we are all wanting the same thing, I hope!!

    ReplyDelete
  27. I only hope that Sonia does a better job of checking the facts before airing her documentary than she did of proofreading her letter to Jim Gamble.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Glad to read I'm not the only one bemused by Bennett's volte face on the Smith Sighting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bennett has gone as far as he can with the charade...not the brightest of lawyers methinks

      Delete
  29. Lee Balkwell died by crushing whilst cleaning out a cement mixer and his employer has been convicted of health and safety offences. Criminal injuries could still be paid to his family because the death was still related to a criminal offence. It was clearly not a crime of violence although I am aware Bennett campaigned for years suggesting it was actually a case of murder. This has clearly not been accepted.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Well done for putting yourself out there Cristobell. What people who are criticising you don't seem to understand that while the tide is turning with the msm it has to happen slowly. The sun is drip feeding the masses and your article is just part of it. You opening yourself up to ridicule in pursuit of this should be admired. Have t o lol at poster who runs from forum to forum ranting about Sonia's grammar when she should be apluding the great open letter sent to hateful gamble.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Well put Cristobell!!! It is obvious that Bennett too has posted here, LOL. People should remember he is an instrument (pronounced 'tool' of the Crown. Is he really paying a monthly stipend to the McScams? Surely he would have no problem providing tangible proof of that by way of copies of his direct debits? My personal belief is that Bennett was in on it from the get-go. Imagine that, a 'lawyer' put in his place by the McScams.....that ought to put of others...hm? For sure he has a bee under his bonnet regarding you and Sonia Poulton...and there's me thinking he was after the TRUTH!! :/

    ReplyDelete
  32. A brilliant article! #mccann are all over Bennett like a rash! LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Regarding this poster...>>>Anonymous13 February 2015 at 16:32

    So Bennett merely has ' clerical skills ' where as the goddess that is Poulton can snuff THE truth after half hours research. Your idolatry is really sounding more manic everyday. Btw, could you point me in direction of her International journalistic prowess? It seems to have been missed by Google?

    Here ya go, PIG OUT! >>>

    www.soniapoulton.co.uk

    www.soniapoulton.com

    Now please do show us all what you've done, smart arse!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Thank you 12:59 and 13:01.

    Bennett has been a godsend to Team McCann, especially during slow news times, as he has helped to create sensational headlines. When the world as gripped with emotion and sympathy for the grief stricken parents, he hit the press trail sternly and angrily demanding the full force of law be brought down on them. His attention seeking antics got him the publicity he sought, but it also labelled everyone who disbelieved the McCanns as self righteous, interfering, hate filled fanatics and that label has stuck for 8 years.

    I honestly don't know if he is on the payroll, I suppose it depends on how desperate Team McCann are - he is too unstable to be trusted by anyone, no matter how desperate they are.

    There is no doubt that his actions have assisted the McCanns, it would be impossible not to fell sympathy for anyone targeted by the deranged Mr. Bennett for whatever reason. He has elevated stalking to new heights and given those who want to police the internet pretty much all the evidence they need. He uses Freedom of Information and Freedom of Speech to target those he hates, and I use the word hate deliberately here, because with Mr. Bennett the hate is chillingly very real.

    However he is, and continues to be, the author of his own misfortune. He oozes negativity, and that is what he attracts. Its kind of like watching a car crash in very slow motion, and I don't really want to look anymore.

    Unfortunately, the worse he becomes, the better he is to use as an example of those who are seeking justice for the dead child. He is the 'unreasonable' face of the anti campaign, the face that wins the McCanns public sympathy and donations to their Fund. He will always be the go to guy when they need an example of the 'hate' they have to put with up. They feed each other.

    ReplyDelete