ANOTHER FAILURE FOR BENNETT

by Guest Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:18 pm

Ofcom received a number of
coomplaints about the programme which related to a number of points.
Principally complainants considered that the programme
was misleading and only gave Kate and Gerry McCann's perspective on the
disappearance of their daughter and did not acknowledge or include other
theories for her disappearance. In particular complainants considered that:

a) the programme was bias in favour of the theory that Madeleine McCann
was abducted ("the abduction theory")

b) it was wrong for viewers to be directed to the "Find Madeleine"
website,thereby being invited to contribute to the Madeleine McCann
campaign

c) the programme focussed on the abduction theory,when the Portuguese
police have stared that there is not any evidence to support the theory that
Madeleine McCann was abducted

d) it was misleading for the programme to suggest that the man seen by Jane
Tanner and the Smith family were the same man. For example, some
complainants felt that the programme suggested that the two sightings were of
the same man in the same clothes. Whereas, int he complainant's opinion
nothing connects these sightings,and the descriptions actually differ

e) with regard to the sighting by the Smith family the theory that the man
carrying Madeleine may have been Gerry McCann has not been ruled out by
the police as was stated in the programme and

f) the so-called "ugly man" that was the focus of the reconstruction in the
programme had been identified by the Portuguese police,his name being
Michael Anthony Green

With regards to a) it should be noted that ofcom does not regulate the
accuracy as such of programmes outside of news. Furthermore under section
5 of the code ofcom can only consider complaints concerning bias or "due
impartiality" outside of news in: matters of political or industrial controversy
and matters relating to current public policy". Ofcom considered that the
impartiality
rules of the code were not engaged due to the nature of the subject
matter of this programme. As a consequence, ofcom cannot consider
any complaint that the programme was bias.

With regards to b) ofcom noted that during the programme there was a brief
visual shot of a webpage that showed pictures of Madeleine McCann and
listed an email address linked to the Find Madeleine campaign. However,
Ofcom also noted that no reference was made to this webpage in the
programme commentary and there was no reference either in the webpage
featured or anywhere else within the programme that could be reasonably
interpreted
as soliciting of funds for the Madeleine McCann campaign. Ofcom
therefore considered that the featured webpage presented no issue under
the code.

However in regard to the programme generall and in particular points c)-f) we
asked channel 4 for its comments under rule 2.2. of the code which states
that: Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not
materially mislead the audience"

In its response channel 4 said that the programme was "an observational
documentary
which looked at how..Kate and Gerry McCann two years after the even
were having to continue with as normal a life as possible for the
sake of Madeleine's siblings whilst pursuing their campaign to find her". The
broadcaster considered that the programme complied with rule 2.2 and in
relation to the specific points c)-f) above, channel 4 made a number of points

c) channel 4 refuted the suggestion made by some complainants that the
portuguese police have stated that there is no evidence to support the
abduction theory pointing to the fact that the portuguese police had stated in
their final report dated 20 june 2008 (the "Final Police Report"), that:

"The hypotheses (of abduction) were considered in the double notion of the
illicit of abduction (if that happened) that could have occurred due to feelings
of revenge byy the kidnapper(s) towards the parents (intended abduction) or
by taking merely the opportunity of the child being at a vulnerable situation
(opportunity abduction)"

Furthermore the broadcaster pointed to the fact that the portuguese district
attorney, Jose de Magalhaes e Menezes,in his summary report (the "District
Attorney's Report") ruled out Kate and Gerry McCann's involvement in their
daughter's disappearance. In addition, Portugal's Attorney General, Fernando
Jose Pinto Menteiro, said in a statement when lifting Kate and Gerry
McCann's "arguido status in July 2008 that he had ordered the police
investigation to be shelved, following magistrates deciding to close the
investigation file:
"Due to lack of evidence that any crime was committed by the
persons placed under formal investigation"

d) Channel 4 said that the programme made clear that: "the sightings (by
Jane Tanner and Martin Smith) were very similar in nature, but not identical".

The broadcaster pointed to the various statements in the portuguese police
files made by Jane Tanner and Martin Smith, which outlined that both the men
these witnesses saw, wore similar clothing. Channel 4 said that: "It was
entirely reasonable and accurate to portray each man who was seen in
clothing that accorded with each witness statement, accompanied by
narration that highlighted the similarities but did not mislead viewers into
thinking the sightings were definitely of the same man. Where any
consistencies (should this read inconsistences??) in the statements did exist,care was taken to ensure they were
reflected in the portrayal in the programme. For example the man's hair was
tucked into his collar where (Martin) Smith said it was shorter than that on the
man seen by Jane Tanner"

e) Concerning Martin Smith's allegation that hte man he saw might be Gerry
McCann the broadcaster pointed to the Final Police Report which dismissed
this theory saying that:
"Some time later the witness (Martin Smith) alleged that, by its
stance the individual who carried the child could be Gerald McCann..It was
established that at the time that was being mentioned Gerald McCann was
sitting at the table in the Tapas Restaraunt".

In addition Channel 4 added tha the District Attorney's Report had stated that
there was no evidence to link Kate and Gerry McCann to their daughter's
disappearance.

f) Concerning the allegation tha the so-called "Ugly Man" was Michael Anthony
Green Channel 4 pointed out that Mr Green had been ruled out of the
investigation because he had an alibi that he was in Lisbon at the time caring
for his ill son. The broadcaster added that the12 year old girl who saw the
man portrayed in the reconstruction had additionally been shown a picture of
Mr Green at the time, when he had a beard. Channel 4 said that this witness
had: "confirmed Green was not the man she saw. Therefore the
reconstruction correctly, and accurately, portrayed her sighting of a clean
shaven man, one who, to this day, remains unidentified".

Ofcom noted that this programme was not an investigative documentary
looking into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Rather the programme
could be considered as a "human interest" documentary, which followed Kate
and Gerry McCann as they approached the second anniversary of their
daughter's disappearance. The programme showed Gerry McCann and the
investigators engaged by the McCanns, returning to Praia de Luz to
reconstruct key sightings described by witnesses. The programme also
showed the McCanns travelling to the USA to appear on The Oprah Winfrey
Show as well as visiting a child recovery expert.

In arriving at its decision Ofcome has exercised its duties in a way which is
compatible with article 10 of the european convention of human rights, Article
10 provides for the right of freedom of expression, which encompasses the
right to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without
interference by public authority. Applied to broadcasting, Article 10 therefore
protects the broadcaster's right to transmit material as well as the audience's
right to receive it as long as the broadcaster ensures compliance with the
rules of the code and the requirements of statutory and common law.

Furthermore in considering the complaints under rule 2.2. ofcom is reuqired to
guard against the actual or potential harm or offence, which may result from
misleading material in relation to the representation of factual issues. Whether
a programme is "materially" misleading depends on a number of factors such
as context, the editorial approach taken in the programme and above all what the potential effect could be.

Ofcom recognised that the disappearance of Madeleine McCann remains a
controversial subject which can divide people concerning the possible
theories surrounding Madeleine's disappearance. However as mentioned
above the requirement to maintain due impartiality and include different
viewpoints on a subject, only arises in non-news programmes, if a programme
is discussing a matter of political or industrial controversy or a matter relating
to current policy, which was not the case in this programme. Just because a
subject elicits strong reactions and differences of opinion does not mean
thebroadcaster has to include all possible perspectives on the subject.

Therefore, broadcasters are free to include any material they wish in a
programme, as long as they comply with the Code. In particular, certain
theories on a given subject can be explored so long as they are not so
materially misleading as to cause harm and offence.

Much of this programme focused on the Mccann's continuing efforts to look for
their daughter, on the basis that Madeleine was abducted, and in particular
the McCann's belief that the sightings of potential abductors by Jane Tanner
and Martin Smith might be linked. For example, the programme
commentary said
"In the files Kate believes another witness statement from an Irish
family describes a very similar sighting to Janes"

Ofcom noted that: the programme referred to a possible link between the two
different sightings; the programme commentary did not state that the two
sightings were categorically linked, but rather were similar; and the actors
used in the reconstructions tailed with the descriptions from the original
witness police statements. Furthermore, we noted that the abduction theory
had not been dismissed by police as some complainants had maintained.

Rather, we noted that the case remains unsolved, as the District Attorneys
Report concluded:
"We do not therefore have any grounds whatsoever for saying, wiht
thenecessary degree of certainty exactly what crime(s) may have been
committed against Madeleine McCann".

We also noted tha the Mcann's were no longer official suspects ("arguidos"),
and that the Portuguese police had not identified the so-called "Ugly Man" as
Michael Anthony Green or anyone else.

Given all of the above and that this programme was a serious documentary
that gave context and sufficient qualifications to any theories it was
espousing, ofcom considered that the programme coverage of the McCanns
generally,
and the various issues surrounding the abduction theory in particular,
did not materially mislead the audience so as to case harm and offence.
As a consequence, the programme was not in breach of rule 2.2.

I
would like to take this opportunity to thank you for raising this issue
with us and for taking the time to contact us with your concerns.

Yours sincerely

by Guest Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:23 pm

Mr Bennett encourages complaining to their mp about ofcom..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
have recent experience of complaining to OFCOM, namely about my
interview by James Whale on TalkSport on 2 Decemebr 2007 (long time ago
now!).

Inter alia, during that interview and during James Whale's response to callers, he made these comments about me:

"using the crowd mentality when vigilantes chase somebody down, whether the person is innocent or guilty"

"revelling in the McCanns' mistake"

"you are making my stomach churn"

"most despicable and disgusting thing I have ever heard"

"I think you're an idiot".

OFCOM's
decision, which was reached after a great deal of submissions and
counter-submissions on both sides, can be summarised in this actual
quote from their decision, which was published on their website last
year [2008]:

"OFCOM considered that the treatment received by Mr
Bennett was not unfair as it had been in keeping with the
well-established nature of The James Whale Show...OFCOM found no
unfairness to Mr Bennett..."

Another way of putting this might
be: "You know James Whale is habitually unfair to some of his guests,
so you shouldn't have agreed to go on the programme".

I would like to make the following points about OFCOM:

*
It is staffed by people who swim in the media/celebrity
industry/culture and those people who work for OFCOm, especially on the
managerial side, tend to have similar values to those in that culture

* It very very rarely upholds a complaint

*
It allows fantastic latitude to the media to do what they like; about
the only thing they try to police, and not always very well, is the
'9.00pm watershed', before which you are not supposed to expose
children to e.g. violence, obscentity, horror

* It is IMO highly 'politically correct'.

I
maintain it was right to complain loudly and clearly to Mentorn,
Channel 4 and OFCOM about a clearly biased and inaccurate programme, in
a case where accuracy, balanced and fairness were required more than in
most programmes.

As the complaints I made before the programme,
especially about the child being used to re-enact the claimed
abduction, have not been answered, I shall personally be pursuing that
complaint with OFCOM.

On reviewing this thread [I did reply to
Ian's comments on here by 'pm' before the 'pm' facility was withdrawn],
my advice would be as follows:

Do not waste time with further
fruitless correspondence with OFCOM. If OFCOM did not answer your
complaints properly, and if for example they did not deal with specific
issues such as the way Mr Smith saw the child being carried, write a
letter to your MP along the following lines:

"Dear MP,

As you know, OFCOM is supposed to uphold fair and accurate broadcasting.

The
recent Channel 4 'documentary' on Madeleine McCann was neither fair nor
accurate as I set out in my letter/e-mail of complaint (enclosed).

Channel 4's reply (enclosed) has failed to deal adequately with the points I raised, namely:

a)

b)

c)

etc.

I
believe that OFCOM is failing in its duty to uphold fairness and
accuracy and I would request you to write to OFCOM and ask them why
they have not dealt with the specific points I raised. This country
needs our television to broadcast only fair and accurate material.

Yours..."

++++++++++++++++++++

I
do not think any MP could reasonably refuse to take up such a complaint
with OFCOM, if the complaint is set out politely and clearly, and if,
on the face of it, it demonstrates that OFCOM is not doing its job
properly

James Whale ROCKS bellylaugh

by vee8 Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:46 pm

Jesus H. Christ on a bicycle, when will that bald headed twat give it up? bennett, you are fighting a LOOSING battle, because the vast majority of the British population DON'T agree with your exploitation of this family. Get a bloody life, will you!

by Rosie Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:52 am

Mulleena wrote:Mr Bennett encourages complaining to their mp about ofcom..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
have recent experience of complaining to OFCOM, namely about my
interview by James Whale on TalkSport on 2 Decemebr 2007 (long time ago
now!).

Inter alia, during that interview and during James Whale's response to callers, he made these comments about me:

"using the crowd mentality when vigilantes chase somebody down, whether the person is innocent or guilty" Tick

"revelling in the McCanns' mistake" Tick

"you are making my stomach churn" Tick

"most despicable and disgusting thing I have ever heard" Tick

"I think you're an idiot". Tick Tick Tick

OFCOM's
decision, which was reached after a great deal of submissions and
counter-submissions on both sides, can be summarised in this actual
quote from their decision, which was published on their website last
year [2008]:

"OFCOM considered that the treatment received by Mr
Bennett was not unfair as it had been in keeping with the
well-established nature of The James Whale Show...OFCOM found no
unfairness to Mr Bennett..." Tick ....(This is correct actually, James Whale does not suffer fools gladly and Bennett, is obviously a fool, so Tick)

Another way of putting this might
be: "You know James Whale is habitually unfair to some of his guests,
so you shouldn't have agreed to go on the programme".

I would like to make the following points about OFCOM:

*
It is staffed by people who swim in the media/celebrity
industry/culture and those people who work for OFCOm, especially on the
managerial side, tend to have similar values to those in that culture
Why because they do not agree with the very vexatious Tony Bennett?

* It very very rarely upholds a complaint
(Yours especially as they are all vexatious and unfounded)

*
It allows fantastic latitude to the media to do what they like; about
the only thing they try to police, and not always very well, is the
'9.00pm watershed', before which you are not supposed to expose
children to e.g. violence, obscentity, horror
(Yeah well that says it all actually, you have been allowed to drip your unfounded obscure barking mad opinions around haven't you?)

* It is IMO highly 'politically correct'.

I maintain it was right to complain loudly and clearly to Mentorn,
Channel 4 and OFCOM about a clearly biased and inaccurate programme, in
a case where accuracy, balanced and fairness were required more than in
most programmes.

(Well you have had your little vexatious rant, now run along like a good boy and earn how to behave in the real world.)

As the complaints I made before the programme,
especially about the child being used to re-enact the claimed
abduction, have not been answered, I shall personally be pursuing that
complaint with OFCOM.

(Oh personally pursue it you plonker, the child's parents gave their permission, not you, you were not even there so know nothing [no change there then] Bye Bye)

On reviewing this thread [I did reply to
Ian's comments on here by 'pm' before the 'pm' facility was withdrawn],
my advice would be as follows:

Do not waste time with further
fruitless correspondence with OFCOM. If OFCOM did not answer your
complaints properly, and if for example they did not deal with specific
issues such as the way Mr Smith saw the child being carried, write a
letter to your MP along the following lines:

(Why are you always wasting your time making these ridiculous complaints, are you aware that you are making yourself look like a complete banana?)

"Dear MP,

As you know, OFCOM is supposed to uphold fair and accurate broadcasting.

The
recent Channel 4 'documentary' on Madeleine McCann was neither fair nor
accurate as I set out in my letter/e-mail of complaint (enclosed).

Channel 4's reply (enclosed) has failed to deal adequately with the points I raised, namely:

a)

b)

c)

etc.

I
believe that OFCOM is failing in its duty to uphold fairness and
accuracy and I would request you to write to OFCOM and ask them why
they have not dealt with the specific points I raised. This country
needs our television to broadcast only fair and accurate material.

Yours..."

++++++++++++++++++++

I
do not think any MP could reasonably refuse to take up such a complaint
with OFCOM, if the complaint is set out politely and clearly, and if,
on the face of it, it demonstrates that OFCOM is not doing its job
properly

James Whale ROCKS

When is the British attorney general going to make Tony Bennett a vexatious litigant? They must have enough material now, he has

Jumped on the road signs bandwagon
Got himself arrested
Had some toilet problems
Stalked Michael Barrymore
Tried to sue Michael Barrymore
Written a book about Stuart Lubbock
Stalked Barrymore some more in the BB house.
Upset Stuarts father
Filed a vexatious law suit against the McCanns he could not hope to win
Stalked the McCanns
Malevolently parking himself behind Gerry at the press meeting
Stalked Clarence Mitchell
Turned up armed with a some fools and leaflets at Oxford University
Got kicked out of a market while trying to flog that pamphlet
Has been on radio stations trying to spread his ridiculous a poorly research guff
Was kicked off another radio station by James Whale
Has written libellous pamphlet about the McCanns
Has a ridiculous website dedicated to bashing two innocent people
Was reprimanded by the Law Society and given a hefty fine for conduct unbefitting of a solicitor and for bringing the legal professions into disrepute.

It just goes on and on and on, my question is; "when is the attorney general going to step in and stop this man from making a nuisance of himself and harassing innocent people in the future?

How much does it actually take for the law to stop this kind of behaviour?

by christabel Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:01 am

Tony Bennett Post subject: Re: BEO HAS HAD ENOUGH (merged)Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:18 pm

Hardened Criminal

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:49 pm
Posts: 1702
Location: Harlow, Essex I logged on a few minutes ago to discover this new thread.

I wish to inform all 3As members that I have in the past few minutes given Beowulf formal notice that I would like to put in a bid, in conjunction with others, to take over and run this forum.

Being semi-retired, I have spare time. I don't think most people here would quarrel with my personal commitment to seeking truth and justice for Madeleine, even though some may disagree with some aspects of what I've done.

IMO the forum has faults, but it's unbeatable in terms of research content and discussion for those seriously committed to unearthing the truth about Madeleine.

I do not have technical/internet skills. I do not know about the financial side of running the forum and could not make much of a personal financial investment in it. I believe I could secure financial help from others if finance were needed to keep it going.

I could only make a formal bid to Beowulf as part of a team that could offer him the necessary confidence to sell/give the forum to that team.

I would like therefore to hear from anyone, including current Mods and Admin, who might want to be part of a formal bid.

[ETA: Contact details: ajsbennett@btinternet.com Tel: 01279 635789 Mobile: 07835 716537]

I would also like to place on record that if Beowulf sells/offers the forum to another bidder, I will offer my help (if needed) to the new buyer/owner of the forum.

I also wish finally to place on record my personal thanks to Beowulf and to those who have helped him to run this forum to date, and to thank him for assistance given to The Madeleine Foundation to place some of our material on the site here.

This has been one of the biggest stories of the past few decades. 3As has been the biggest asset to uncovering the truth about this story.

_________________
Clarence Mitchell, 4.4.09: “Gerry will stop at nothing to discover what happened to her in that flat, no matter how difficult and painful it is".

http://petitions.number10.g... To 21 June 381 have signed the petition to the PM re the truth about Madeleine: 119 more needed

Last edited by Tony Bennett on Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ANOTHER FAILURE FOR BENNETT 217454

by Pink Panther Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:29 am

And he got the order of the boot! No thanks, said Beowolf in so many words so he had to withdraw his bid. Now it's step forward carlymichelle! Someone has suggested Stevo and Bennett 'the dream team! Oh, and carlym has opened an 'emergency' forum in case the 3As should vanish! Now, in my mind that looks like pre-planning!
bahhumbug

by sadie Mon Jun 22, 2009 5:30 am

This guy is a LOSER, with a capital L

Give it a rest, Tone

It's all bahhumbug

Get on yer bike, mate

With a bit of luck, you might stay out of Ididn'tdoit

then

I actually feel sorry for this guy; he's on to every lame duck 'cause' there is. What's the matter with him? He's is obviously conceited and thinks he is the saviour of Madeleine, just like he thought that he was the saviour of British road signs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1911241.stm

In fact the signs were illegal, because they were marked in metres rather than yards, but they were warning of humps and roadworks and he STOLE them and defaced them. He took it upon himself to police the roads: Wonder what the situation would have been, had anyone had an accident through the removal of these warning signs?

The interesting thing to me, is that he was represented in Court by no other then our friend Michael Shrimpton, author of The Shrimpton Report which was supposedly an intelligence report about what happened to Madeleine after she was abducted. Guess most of you will have seen that, it seems to have been whooshed pretty well from the internet now. The report made interesting reading, but to this day no-one seems to know whether the findings in it were real or made up. Very clever if it was a hoax.

Delusioned seems the word for our Tone. So sad, - is he sick?

by christabel Mon Jun 22, 2009 5:38 am

Sadie, he thinks he's Top Cop Commander in Chief (of what don't ask). kissmyar*e

More like Top Cat :annoygnat:

by clairesy Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:32 am

I wonder what he will do when he actually proved wrong though....And
Madeleine IS found which she will be...what is he going to say to
excuse his behavior.

Like gonc...what will he do or say after this case is investigated and
the truth is there smack bang inbetween his eyes..............that
Madeleine is home and someone as been arrested for it.

The reason he is sooo adamant the mcanns are guilty baffles me.It isnt
as if he as got any concrete evidence in which to base his deluded
theory on.So why???One might be inclined to think he is doing it for
other reasons ??Hmmm

[flash] ANOTHER FAILURE FOR BENNETT Rosieprotesters

ANOTHER FAILURE FOR BENNETT Rosieprotesters

[/flash]

by Guest Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:25 am

His arrogance knows no bounds Clairesy if Madeleine was found he would be organising a petition to stop her being reunited with her parents.
Its not about Madeleine imo, but his deep hatred of her parents.
How he can call himself a christian whilst inflicting misery on a family going through a parents worst nightmare. gagging

by Rosie Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:33 am

OMG That picture of yours Clairesy I just noticed it, it so funny, I can't stop laughing!

That is really funny.

by vee8 Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:31 am

I have said it before, and I'll say it again. He is exploiting the McCann family in order to persue a future political career, one based on being tough on child neglect. The McCann's, Madeleine, 3a's and even his fantasy foundation are all nought but stepping stones, to be dropped like hot potatoes once he achieves his ambition, a seat in parliament. Unfortunately he is going to have to hold on to those potatoes a very long time, because his dream is NEVER going to happen.

by dianeh Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:17 am

NOT very politically savvy if he thinks that being associated with a hate site like 3A's would be helpful to a political career, especially if his platform would be on being tough on child neglect.

by Rosie Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:54 am

Bennett Said....

I wish to inform all 3As members that I have in the past few minutes given Beowulf formal notice that I would like to put in a bid, in conjunction with others, to take over and run this forum.

Who the hell does he think he is?

On the other hand I wish he had succeeded in taking that scum place over, because that would really have finished it off.
There is no way that Luis is going to allow Bennett to take over mien furor!
Can you imagine that forum with Bennett in charge, it would end up some perpetual advertisement for his bizarre and insane beliefs and a platform to advertise his extreme right wing factions.
I hope that BOWulf (BodyOdourwulf) has his wits about him, because reading between the lines there, if Bennett gets enough people contact him, he will make a take over bid and if that doesn't succeed, you will see the that stinking cesspit split into some monster with two grotesque heads!

I cannot believe he said the 3 A's was a good resource, if he used this for his pamphlet no wonder he couldn't give it away in the end, I hear the majority of the MPs wrote their expense claims on the back of it and then claimed for the paper!

by dianeh Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:57 am

Rosie

Not only, who does Bennett think he is, but what the hell does he thing the 3A's is?

It is not some bloody business venture or charity site. It is a hate site full of pond scum.

AND whoever is in charge is ultimately going to be the one to go for libel. One would imagine that if ownership went to someone in the UK, then it would be much easier to take libel action against the owner. Assuming of course that ownership was previously outside of the UK, as I thought this was the case going from what Tony (the other one) and Chaos Raptor say.

by clairesy Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:59 am

OMG!!! you are joking??...tony bennet wants to take over the 3a site? PMSL....well hes suited there isn't he that's for sure!

odd that the Bwulf takes a sharp departure at such a crucial time in the investigation to i think.Hmmmm somethign given him the chills.I wonder if hes filled Bennett in on all the goings on over there.I doubt it,Bennett's taking on more than he can chew i think !!! Laffin

yes rosie you are right Laffin

by Rosie Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:05 am

What would happen is he would retain the membership and clean the site up. Under new management so-to-speak.

It shows how crazy and how far Bennett's delusions have progressed, that he honestly believes that is a good site for knowledge, it is hated by every sane sensible logical thinking person.
Bennett is totally deluded and not only that he looks to be suffering from delusions of grandeur too, he needs treatment in my opinion!
He would turn that forum into some kind of advertisement for his warped opinions, from where he would form attacks on anyone he saw as weak and defenseless, a cursory look at his past tells us this!
It is about time that our attorney general actually done something about him, he cannot be allowed to continue in this fashion, he is not right in the head, In my humble opinion of course!

by calcite51 Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:11 pm

Does Bennett not have any family? Goodness gracious - I like the way he stated he really didn't have the funds to keep the site going - wonder if any of the idiots will offer to start up a fund for him?

Bennett's 15 minutes of shame were over a long time ago - too bad he didn't realize it. Enough is enough and the attorney general should do something about him. Actually, it's time for all those self-serving hate filled blogs be dealt with in a court of law. Too much damage has been done to people who have not been charged in a court of law but have been found guilty in the public opinion arena - ie Gerry, Kate, David, etc....

by vee8 Mon Jun 22, 2009 4:36 pm

Latest on the grapevine is that beo has told him to sod off!

by Guest Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:07 pm

Perhaps bennett can leave a tips plate out in Leverton Lavatories to boost his earnings Laffin

by Rosie Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:22 pm

Mulleena wrote:Perhaps bennett can leave a tips plate out in Leverton Lavatories to boost his earnings

In my opinion, of course his reference to not having much funds was a huge colossal hint, which was really saying, look I want to but the 3 arguidos but not with my money with yours you saps, now get your cheque books out!

That was a blatant attempt at manipulation, pity we spotted it a mile off.

Watch now Body Odour Wulf has given him the flick, Bennett will probably attempt to open up a rival forum and steal the gravy train members from the 3 A's. Which is all he probably wants them for. He must be low on funds to finance his next crackpot scheme.

by Catkins Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:05 am

vee8 wrote:Latest on the grapevine is that beo has told him to sod off!

He truly is a sandwich short of a picnic isn't he?...Doesn't he realise he's a laughing stock.......IDIOT !!

by Sponsored content

ANOTHER FAILURE FOR BENNETT

ANOTHER FAILURE FOR BENNETT

Re: ANOTHER FAILURE FOR BENNETT

Re: ANOTHER FAILURE FOR BENNETT

Re: ANOTHER FAILURE FOR BENNETT

Re: ANOTHER FAILURE FOR BENNETT

Re: ANOTHER FAILURE FOR BENNETT

Re: ANOTHER FAILURE FOR BENNETT

Re: ANOTHER FAILURE FOR BENNETT

Re: ANOTHER FAILURE FOR BENNETT

Re: ANOTHER FAILURE FOR BENNETT

Re: ANOTHER FAILURE FOR BENNETT

Re: ANOTHER FAILURE FOR BENNETT

Re: ANOTHER FAILURE FOR BENNETT

Re: ANOTHER FAILURE FOR BENNETT

Re: ANOTHER FAILURE FOR BENNETT

Re: ANOTHER FAILURE FOR BENNETT

Re: ANOTHER FAILURE FOR BENNETT

Re: ANOTHER FAILURE FOR BENNETT

Re: ANOTHER FAILURE FOR BENNETT

Re: ANOTHER FAILURE FOR BENNETT

Re: ANOTHER FAILURE FOR BENNETT

Re: ANOTHER FAILURE FOR BENNETT

Re: ANOTHER FAILURE FOR BENNETT