Bennett the poet. sick.

to Department of Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee on 'Press Standards, Privacy and Libel'



Tony Bennett
Post subject: Re: Press standards to be investigated by parliamentary
PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:42 pm
First Time Offender
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:49 pm
Posts: 600
Location: Harlow, Essex
The Madeleine Foundation's submission to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee on 'Press Standards, Privacy and Libel' has now been sent in. You will recall that this Select Committee centres on issues of press freeodm and press standards in the cases of (a) Madeleine McCann and (b) Max Mosley.

The closing date for submissions is this Wednesday (14 January).

We would like to place our full submisison on our website, but to be able to do this, we need permission from the Clerk to the Committee, and her response is awaited.

In the meantime, we reproduce below selected extracts from our 50-paragraph submission. If any McCann-sceptic who can undertake not to distribute the submission further would like a copy, please 'pm' me:

[P.S. Thanks to 'Laffin Assasin' who origianlly prompted us to work up this submission - and thanks too to those who have offered comments on our draft]

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

QUOTE

Executive Summary

The Madeleine McCann case has been unique. It would be unwise to change existing media procedures based just on this one case. Different considerations apply to the libel of Robert Murat and to the alleged libel of the McCanns.

‘Abduction’ has frequently been claimed by parents of young children when it later turns out that the child has died and the parents are responsible, whether the child has died as the result of an accident, negligence, neglect or deliberate act. It is important that the media are able to engage in reasonable and fair discussion of the weaknesses of any particular claim of abduction, without fearing the consequences of a possible expensive libel action.

The truth about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, and how that truth will shape the conclusions of the Select Committee

4. We cannot begin to discuss the role of the libel laws and the Press Complaints Commission in a case such as that of the ‘disappearance’ of Madeleine McCann unless we first take account of the context. Supremely, that context involves recognising that there are two very opposing views of what really happened to Madeleine in Praia da Luz in May 2007.

6. The Press Complaints Commission’s primary role is to ensure ‘fair’ and ‘accurate’ reporting, as its Code provides. This, we acknowledge, is a particularly difficult task when a factual issue is hotly contested and also becomes one of worldwide media interest, as was - and remains - the case, with the Madeleine McCann mystery. Here, then, is a summary of the two main views on the case, with a brief look at who supports each view.

Viewpoint A: Madeleine McCann was abducted at round about 9.15pm on Thursday 3 May while her parents and their friends were dining at a Tapas bar 120 yards away

Viewpoint B: Madeleine McCann died in Apartment 5A some time before the evening of 3rd May (for reasons that no-one can yet be sure about) and the McCanns and some of their friends have helped to cover this up by removing and hiding the body

9. Those who hold that Madeleine was abducted view all discussion of an alternative view with hostility - and the McCanns’ press spokesman Clarence Mitchell and unnamed legal ‘sources’ advising the McCanns have characterised such views as ‘libellous’. They have gone further and described the original investigator, Snr Amaral, was guilty of a deliberate attempt to smear them, and fabricate evidence against them, whilst at the same time deliberately failing to conduct a proper search for the alleged abductor.

Continued On next Post as it is too big.

Plus, dont know what happened between 9 and 19, as these were not on the forum.

Evidence that Madeleine was not abducted

19. For those who may not be aware of it, thousands of pages of evidence and exhibits on the case have now been disclosed by the Portuguese police. They include dozens of witness statements, including those by the McCanns and their friends, from which it is possible for example to identify significant contradictions and changes of story. We have already mentioned the release of videos of the cadaver dogs alerting at various places; there are also details and a nearly-full audit trail of DNA samples of fluids found in the apartment and in the hired car, and the results of other forensic evidence. All of this has been placed on several of what might be termed ‘McCann-sceptic’ forums, the leading one of which, for over a year, has been ‘The 3 Arguidos’. Here, videos can be viewed, original documents in Portuguese are being translated, and the evidence discussed. The 3 Arguidos, incidentally, has as its strap-line: “Because we do not believe in our press!”, and many contributors on that site explain how they have ceased to buy British newspapers because they are offering no discussion whatsoever of the evidence that Madeleine was not abducted.

20. In addition to all of that, we have a very comprehensive book by Snr Goncalo Amaral titled ‘La Verdada de Mentira’ (‘The Truth about a Lie’), in which he gives an investigator’s-eye view of the evidence and presents a convincing case that Madeleine McCann died in Apartment 5A (probably as the result of an accident, he says) and that the McCanns did indeed cover up her death. His first print-run of 200,000 copies has already sold out in Portugal and been translated into Danish and Norwegian. It is being translated into several other languages and English translations are available on the Internet. There is widespread discussion of its contents on the continent. But not in the U.K.

The impact of the libel awards on freedom of the press and free speech

21. This is what Mr Justice Eady said when announcing, in the High Court, the decision of Express Newspapers to agree to pay £550,000 damages to the McCanns:

“The general theme of the articles was to suggest that Mr and Mrs McCann were responsible for the death of Madeleine, or that there were strong or reasonable grounds for so suspecting, and that they had then disposed of her body; and that they had then conspired to cover up their actions, including by creating 'diversions' to divert the police's attention away from evidence which would expose their guilt. Many of these articles were published on the front pages of the newspapers and on their websites, accompanied by sensational headlines”.

22. Because of that libel award, and the other two, there is a reluctance to even discuss the mystery of Madeleine’s disappearance. There appear to be - we say contrary to the evidence - a general acceptance by the mainstream media that she was abducted, though we note that many newspapers take care to use phrases such as ‘disappeared’, ‘went missing’ or ‘reported missing’, rather than ‘abducted’. Discussion of the evidence emerging from the Portuguese police files has thus been stifled.

Clarence Mitchell’s speech to the Society of Editors, November 2008

24. Before drawing conclusions, we will briefly refer to parts of the speech given by Clarence Mitchell to the Society of Editors in November last year, just before the Select Committee set up the current enquiry.

25. Here are extracts from what he said: “Speaking at the Society of Editors conference in Bristol yesterday, Mitchell told delegates that he faced the daily problem of dealing with inaccuracies created by a hungry British press pack. He added that 99% of the stories coming out of the local media in Praia da Luiz were ‘totally inaccurate lies’. Mitchell said: ‘The British press out there in Portugal were lazy. The Portuguese police hid behind the law of judicial secrecy saying they weren't able to comment…but that didn't stop lots of information finding its way from police files into the Portuguese press. However, when the British press made inquiries they came up against a stone wall, so they resorted to sitting in the local bar, which had the lethal combination of free Wi-Fi and alcohol. They then sat every morning just going through whatever had been leaked to the Portuguese papers, 99% of it totally inaccurate lies, 1% distorted or misunderstood. This was then put to me, I would then deny or try to correct it, that would be a quote from me, ‘Mitchell's balanced it’, that was balanced journalism, and off it went’. He aded that British newspapers put reporters under pressure to come up with new angles and exclusive stories…‘I had certain reporters from certain groups almost in tears some mornings saying, ‘If you don't give me a front-page splash by 4pm I'm going to be fired’…Things that were allegations or suggestions in the Portuguese press were hardened up into absolute fact…’”

26. But despite Mitchell’s claims, much of the Portuguese material now being disclosed and translated confirms the accuracy of many of the 2007 press reports, especially regarding the evidence of the cadaver dogs and the contradictions and changes of story from the McCanns and their friends. We concede that some those 2007 reports were factually incorrect. No doubt they contained much speculation. There was sensationalism in the tabloids. But Mitchell’s bold claim that 99% of the leaks were ‘totally inaccurate lies’, and 1% ‘distorted or misunderstood’, was itself a gross misrepresentation, given all the information the Portuguese police have now allowed us to see.

27. We need to deal with one other matter. One person whom we believe was seriously libelled by many sections of the British press was the Senior Investigating Officer in the case, Snr Goncalo Amaral. He was frequently described in sections of the British press as a ‘disgraced cop’. The reason for this was partly over claims that he was removed from the Madeleine McCann enquiry because of unwarranted criticisms of the British government, but more because he was being accused of having ordered his officers to beat a confession out of Leonor Cipriano, the convicted murderess of her own daughter (see paragraph 15 above). At the time of submitting our report to the Select Committee, Snr Amaral is on trial in respect of this allegation in the court at Faro…If, as we expect, Snr Amaral is exonerated, we trust that those sections of the British press who have labelled him ‘the disgraced cop’ will have the decency to apologise and correct their statements. That is a matter that may yet come before the Press Complaints Commission.

Conclusions

30. In a case like this, where the abduction claim may turn out to be false, we believe it was - and is - in all our best interests that there is full and frank discussion of the evidence in the case, notwithstanding that the police are not actively pursing any lines of enquiry, so far as we know. Indeed, in some respects the Express Newspapers Group did a good job in the summer and autumn of 2007, to the extent that we now know that they were using accurately-sourced leaks from the Portuguese police - whether authorised or not. If they were embellishing and sensationalising, that is another matter. But if we now look at the Express Group’s articles on the cadaver dog evidence, these have since been proved to have be both fair and accurate. The Press Complaints Commission could have no complaint about those.

37. We now turn to: The interaction between the operation and effect of UK libel laws and press reporting. Here we say that there has been a very negative action on freedom of the press, which has been harmful. One of the man problems with our laws of libel is the fact that the libel courts are only available to the rich and powerful. The McCanns may not be wealthy themselves but they were doctors, one worked full-time as a cardiologist and the other as a part-time G.P. However, they clearly now have access to major sources of funding, for example from Richard Branson and Brian Kennedy, who have both given large sums of money to the McCanns, some of it perhaps to help them initiate legal action against sections of the British media. The McCanns may have also used money from the Helping to Find Madeleine Fund - a fund that, sadly, has not merited investigation or even questioning by journalists despite many and serious questions about its operation. The libel laws are not available to those on mild and low incomes. In this case, the McCanns have successfully stifled debate about the fate of Madeleine McCann - and that, we assert, is not in the public interest.

41. Two lessons must be learned. First, those who make allegations must take care about how these are framed. Second, the size of libel awards may deter free speech and a free press. We have certainly seen examples of how wealthy people who have done wrong have unfairly been able to silence the press; the cases of Jonathan Aitken and Lord Jeffrey Archer come to mind. In the Madeleine McCann case, serious discussion of the case has migrated to the internet. That is an inevitable consequence if the main media refuse to discuss a subject of real interest to a very significant section of the public.

43. We see no need by reason of the McCann case to control any further what is said on the Internet. No-one has been charged in the case. The police are no longer actively pursuing their investigation. Abduction of young children by a stranger from inside a family home almost never happens. Usually we find out later that the child is dead and the parents were in some way responsible. In those circumstances, free discussion of a case should be permitted, so long as people’s comments are moderate and do not stray into making libellous claims. There should be no attempt, for example, to restrain anyone on the Internet (or elsewhere) from saying: “There is little or no evidence that Madeleine was abducted” - and from going on to say why. By contrast, to say, with no reasonable basis, “The McCanns deliberately killed Madeleine”, would be libellous. If said on the Internet, it can be dealt with under existing procedures. If approached, any hoster would promptly remove such a comment. If the McCanns found out that that was being said, or other libellous comments about them, they could easily notify the hosters of those websites and ask for those comments to be removed.

46. We say that it is legitimate therefore to analyse, examine, explore and comment on their claims, as they are so much in the public eye. To give one specific example, the McCanns and the Fund have spent very large sums of money - donated by a sympathetic and willing public - on three private investigation agencies that appear to have no expertise whatsoever in tracing and finding missing children - Control Risks Group, Metodo 3 and the recently-formed Oakley International. It is legitimate, in view of the McCanns’ claims that they have hired these companies solely to find Madeleine, that the media and others should be able to ask questions, for example about how much has been spent on these companies, what those companies have been doing with the money, and on how in general the public money donated to the McCann fund has been used. It is not in the public interest to deter the media from investigating these matters.

48. To sum up, it is still a mystery as to how Madeleine McCann went missing. Some newspapers may have libelled the McCanns in specific ways and, if they did, they deserve to have been sued. But given the available evidence in this case, which is still emerging from the Portuguese police files, against a background where young children allegedly snatched from their own homes usually turn out to be dead and have been hidden, we suggest the British principles of free speech and free discussion must be upheld - so long as people take care in their comments and analysis of cases like the Madeleine McCann case not to make inaccurate statements and to make only fair comments based on the available evidence.

49. We think the Law Commission should again examine carefully whether large libel payouts to people still under active suspicion of committing a serious crime are in the public interest, unless the libel is very grave and the people’s reputation is seriously damaged. Otherwise, the rich and powerful who are accused of a crime under a cloud of suspicion in relation to an incident could use the libel laws to suppress reasonable, free discussion.

50. Madeleine McCann remains, officially, a missing person. But although there appears to be insufficient evidence at present to prosecute any person in either a Portuguese or U.K. court in respect of her disappearance, the McCanns have emphatically not been exonerated. We all - and especially the media - need to fully retain the right to discuss, in a fair and temperate manner, why she ‘went missing’ in the first place.

UNQUOTE

A quick comment,

The guy is a nutter. I will have read later on but suspect I will make the same comment.

Imagine sending to people via PM on the grounds they will keep it a secret. And Laffin Assassin is probably rolling on the floor laughing. What a load of crap this is? I take it this is the submission that was rejected on the grounds it was libellous. Imagine a submission saying that libel payouts shouldnt be allowed to people under active investigation, after saying that it is not being actively investigated, etc etc. Unprofessional cow poo, that is all it is.

What sort of idiot makes a submission that is libellous?

Those who hold the view Madeleine was abducted view all other alternatives with "HOSTILITY"

This is rich coming from someone who wont debate but uses newpaper quotes and recites the bible as answers

I'll put money on him and his cronies sabotaging Clarence Mitchells visit to the Oxford Union in a bid to gain the notariety he so craves!!

Thanks for posting this up

Im going to ramble on but surely he cant seriously expect this to be taken seriously

He's accusing the McCanns of influencing the press on their findings of Amaral.

Paragraph 41/Two lessons must be learned no1, we must be careful how these allegations are to be framed.

The irony is obviously lost on him.

So am I right in deducing he's basically seeking to do a hatchet job on this family in the press and asking permission to do so and in the event he will be
protected from being charged with libel?

Im such an "idiot" ive just clicked what he's trying to get passed and if he succeeds online newspaper forums will once again be able to host

such threads as seen on the MF and DS And McCann sceptic forums.

I pray this is laughed at by the Governing bodies who have to read his rubbish

It seems to me that he is asking that libel laws be suspended in cases that have not reached a resolution because people should be allowed to write whatever they like about it in the press and on the internet. And to support this assertion he says that libel laws are unfair because only the rich have the funds to sue. (Now, really he should be asking for a method where not rich people are able to invoke libel laws, not try to take it away from those who can).

He is also saying that the libel payouts stifled the press and that they are too scared to tell the truth. And that the truth is what he says it is and that the PJ"s files support this. As if they do.

He is saying that because no one knows what happened to Madeleine (and so he goes into details of the case, as if this is appropriate what a tosser) that the rights of freedom of speech means that libel laws should not apply. Like hell. Libel laws are there to stop this very thing. Does he not understand that it is freedom of speech allows for dissenting views on a subject but it doesnt allow for lies and vicious stalking of innocent people. This is not ideology, or religion, or even politics. This is accusations of a crime, and that without any proof is libel. that is why papers say alleged.

Did you know that a man in Melbourne threw his 4 yo daughter off the Westgate Bridge last week, a drop of 58 metres and she did of course die. Everyone was absolutely shocked and many tears have been shed over this beautiful little girl. Her name was Darcy and she was beautiful. He was going through a bad divorce and is now in a comatose state in a mental hospital. So I think he went mad. Anyway, he did it, no question. The question is whether he even knew what he was doing. And in our press and on the tv news etc, the father is referred to as the alleged murderer. And this is because it is libellous to call him a murderer. he did kill his daughter, but he may not have murdered her.

So basically because Bennett likes to the sport of McCann bashing on the internet, he wants the libel laws suspended because he can no longer participate in his favourite sport. And yes, I agree that he thinks he can then get away with libel.

Why else do you think he sent that rag of a booklet to the McCanns? He thinks because he sent it to them asking them to read it, and they never replied that they no longer have grounds for a libel suit. Well he is wrong. It is his responsibility to prove that what he says is true, and the person being libelled is not under any obligation to state objections to something prior to it being published, even if it is libellous.

I think it is time that Martin Brunt of someone went after Bennett.

Tony Bennett has posted up on that spite site that his 6 page A4 size leaflet is now ready for McCann sceptics to read.
Seemingly it wont be posted up for others to read until after its been distributed outside the Oxford Union on the 6th March.
He' also asking for voluteers to give them out on the day.
Anyone live in or around the Oxford area free on the 6th?
To distribute some rotten eggs

Have you read the posts of Cabro on that thread? To appreciate them, you have to understand that Bennett is teetotal and an ardent opponent of the demon drink.

Pink Panther wrote:

Mulleena wrote:Just been catching up on the Democracy forum, strange he's developed flu when his macabre rendition of silent night was put up for others to see!
Wonder if the Christian newspaper he purports to write for knows of his nasty little lyrics, I doubt they'ed think light of it

Did you notice his little helper, battydunce is also absent? She's also not been on her usual haunts ie missingmadeleine, sky, democracy etc. Could she be wiping his fevered brow while he tries to dig himself out of the cess pool he is fast sinking into? PP

Oh dear, maybe Battydunce is really Mrs. Bennett????

I nearly choked whilst reading cabos contributions to Bennetts and Stevos threads
You can hear Bennetts teeth grinding literally.
Bennetts instructions are to be sober and suitably smart attire.
Looks like a combover job for Bennett then

honestbroker wrote:Have you read the posts of Cabro on that thread? To appreciate them, you have to understand that Bennett is teetotal and an ardent opponent of the demon drink.

Also he has been accused (not by us) of being an opponent of Muslims, scientists, geologists, archeologists, athiests, single parents, gays, McCann supporters, freedom of speech supporters etc.

Mulleena wrote:Tony Bennett has posted up on that spite site that his 6 page A4 size leaflet is now ready for McCann sceptics to read.
Seemingly it wont be posted up for others to read until after its been distributed outside the Oxford Union on the 6th March.
He' also asking for voluteers to give them out on the day.
Anyone live in or around the Oxford area free on the 6th?
To distribute some rotten eggs

I hope he intends to pass out bottles of wine with his leaflets.....probably the only way the students will accept his ragsheet...............

Haha have a bottle of wine and a complimentary leaflet to use as a coaster

I like it!!

Does anyone have a copy of the letter bennett did supposedly written by Madeleine to her parents?

Or know where I can get hold of links.

Mulleena wrote:Does anyone have a copy of the letter bennett did supposedly written by Madeleine to her parents?

Or know where I can get hold of links.

by Tony Bennett on Tue Dec 30, 2008 5:04 pm

Or maybe this is more the kind of thing that Madeleine might be saying now?


A Message from Madeleine
----------------------------

I hope you’ll all pay attention for a few minutes, because, after all, the Madeleine McCann case is all about me, Madeleine, really.

Isn’t it?

I’d like to say a few little things to start with.

First of all, I’m in a safe and beautiful place now where I don’t have to worry about anything. So don’t shed any more tears for me. It’s lovely here, everyone is kind and looks after me and I’m completely safe.

Now I want to say something about my Mummy and Daddy and my brother xxxxand my sister xxxxxxx

Some people have said some very unkind things about my Mummy and Daddy. I will come in a moment to what happened to me on holiday in Praia da Luz last May.

But I want you to know that despite what happened there, I loved my Mummy and Daddy. And I still do. You see, Mummy did lots of things for me and with me. We had a lovely time at Christmas and when we had birthdays. My Mummy took me pony-riding one day. I loved it when Daddy had time to play with me. It was fun. And of course I love Sean and Amelie and miss them terribly.

But, Mummy and Daddy, I have some other things to say to you.

You know you left me, xxxxx and xxxxxx six nights in a row in Praia da Luz. You’ve both admitted it to all those newspapers you talk to. And recently, you admitted – at long last - that me and Sean had been crying late at night on Wednesday 2 May, the date before I disappeared. You know that the neighbour, Mrs Fenn, heard me crying ‘Daddy, Daddy’ for well over an hour, don’t you?

How do you think me and Sean felt? We were terrified. We cried. We sobbed our hearts out. We wanted you. We needed you to comfort us. But you were away in the Tapas Bar, eating and drinking with Auntie Jane, Uncle Russell, Auntie Fiona, Uncle David, Auntie Rachael and Uncle Matthew. You were not there for us. And you know exactly what happened that night.

Now, Mummy, Daddy. You didn’t tell the truth about talking to me at breakfast-time the following morning, did you? You made it up. And you told the world that, after finding out that me and xxxx had been crying, you went out again the very same evening and let me be abducted. That wasn’t very responsible, was it? Yet Daddy you said that experts advised you that your conduct ‘was well within the bounds of responsible parenting’. Well I don’t think it was. And Daddy, don’t make out that throughout the holiday you were checking on us every half-hour. You know you weren’t.

Let’s talk about the ‘abduction’, shall we? Daddy, Mummy, you know I wasn’t abducted. I know you were ashamed of what happened to me and didn’t want to get into any trouble. But I want you to tell the world the truth about why I am ‘missing’. I can’t do that from where I am now. Only you can.

You should have known what can happen when children are left alone. They might play with matches. They might get hold of pills thinking they are sweets. They might be sick and wake up. They might be scared. They might try and escape and hurt themselves. There might a fire. You were both Doctors. Didn’t you even think about all that?

And look what you’ve done by pretending it was an abduction. You got the Portuguese Police, Interpol and the police forces in dozens of countries looking for me. They’ve spent millions. You got millions of people all over the world to look for me.

And what about that fund you set up, the Find Madeleine Trust Fund? Daddy, that was really naughty. You made lots of people send you lots of money. You sold all those yellow bangles. Even children sent their pocket money and pensioners sent their weekly pension to you. And then you started spending it on your mortgage payments instead of on looking for me.

And anyway, that dodgy detective agency in Spain you’re using - Metodo 3 - they’re not really looking for me, are they? What are they doing with all that public money? And when are you going to tell people exactly how the Trust Fund money has been spent? There’s a lot more money going into it than you’ve admitted, isn’t there, Daddy?

And Auntie Jane, please tell the truth. You have told so many stories about the ‘abductor’ you claimed you saw. Nobody really believes that it took weeks of ‘cognitive therapy‘ to remember that you saw a girl in pink pyjamas – when that’s not what you told police for the first few months.

And all the rest of you. Uncle David! Why do you talk about a ‘Pact of Silence’? Do you really want you and the others at the Tapas Bar that night to be remembered for ever as the group who didn’t tell what they knew about Madeleine? Uncle David, did you really see me and xxxx and xxxxxx being put to bed on the evening of 3rd May? Or are you telling a lie to help Mummy and Daddy out?

Mummy, Daddy, please tell the truth, that’s all I want you to do now. I can forgive all that you did to me. Really I can. You say you are Christians. Well, Christians are supposed to tell the truth, aren’t they?

Stop promoting the Amber Alert scheme. That’s not going to help young children like me left alone, is it? And don’t spend time promoting all those organisations that help missing, abducted and exploited children. They do good work, but they’re not dealing with the issue of parents who leave their young children alone, are they? Stop going on the TV pretending I’ve been abducted and trying to become a celebrity.

I’ll tell you what I want. I want you to back the Childrens Legal Centre in their campaign for tougher penalties on parents who leave children alone. I want you to support any new law that will make parents think twice about leaving young children like me on their own.

Mummy, Daddy, I’m not there with you any more, but I want the circumstances of my going missing to be remembered. I want to help all other children in the world whose Mummies and Daddies think its O.K. to leave young children on their own.

I want to forgive you, Mummy and Daddy.

I wish you could cuddle me again.

I wish I could cuddle xxxxx and xxxxx again. Tell them I’m always thinking of them.

That’s all for now. I hope you’ll listen to what I’ve asked you to do.

Your loving daughter,

Madeleine

Thanks for reminding us all what totally contentious unpleasant things he writes. Fate will deal him a massive blow in time.

vee8 wrote:Thanks for reminding us all what totally contentious unpleasant things he writes. Fate will deal him a massive blow in time.

It's just more proof, that his lift does not go to the top level.

Just out of curiosity, I put his postcode, CM17 0DJ into GoogleEarth, and got a bit of a suprise. I was expecting something bigger than a mid-terrace! Has ever been sued for malpractise or something? Or maybe he was such a crap solicitor, he never made any money!!

vee8 wrote:Just out of curiosity, I put his postcode, CM17 0DJ into GoogleEarth, and got a bit of a suprise. I was expecting something bigger than a mid-terrace! Has ever been sued for malpractise or something? Or maybe he was such a crap solicitor, he never made any money!!

According to a previous post of his, elsewhere (Democratic forum if I remember correctly), he does not own a television (or so he says). His got his head buried up so and so's ass, his nose in the bible (which one I dont know, because it sure is not the general one we all know) and his fingers on the pc keyboard.......typing away at his latest compiled rubbish and posting on cesspit sites.
I suppose his cyber fame and stalker antiques take up much of his time. If he manages to sell his material to all the MP's (shame the poor suckers on that other forum who are paying for it to be done) and whoever else on his list........maybe then he will be able to afford to move to a semi detached house.

Good grief! is that a Yew tree I see in his backyard. Only joking.

Tony Bennett makes my flesh crawl.

According to a previous post of his, elsewhere (Democratic forum if I remember correctly), he does not own a television (or so he says). His got his head buried up so and so's ass, his nose in the bible (which one I dont know, because it sure is not the general one we all know) and his fingers on the pc keyboard.......typing away at his latest compiled rubbish and posting on cesspit sites.
I suppose his cyber fame and stalker antiques take up much of his time. If he manages to sell his material to all the MP's (shame the poor suckers on that other forum who are paying for it to be done) and whoever else on his list........maybe then he will be able to afford to move to a semi detached house.

Good grief! is that a Yew tree I see in his backyard. Only joking.[/quote]

I love it, Hael. You have a way with words

You know, it is the overly religious, the fundamentalists (in any religion) who are reputed to be the ones most likely to abuse children - read it somewhere when I was researching - dont know whether it is true! The reason given was that they rationalised it, that it was OK, via there religious beliefs .........(?)

According to a previous post of his, elsewhere (Democratic forum if I remember correctly), he does not own a television (or so he says). His got his head buried up so and so's ass, his nose in the bible (which one I dont know, because it sure is not the general one we all know) and his fingers on the pc keyboard.......typing away at his latest compiled rubbish and posting on cesspit sites.
I suppose his cyber fame and stalker antiques take up much of his time. If he manages to sell his material to all the MP's (shame the poor suckers on that other forum who are paying for it to be done) and whoever else on his list........maybe then he will be able to afford to move to a semi detached house.

Good grief! is that a Yew tree I see in his backyard. Only joking.[/quote]

He needs Pamphlet part 2.........for that Hael !!!

GoogleEarth flew me straight to the middle of a piece of dense woodland. Is there anything else, additional to CM17 ODJ, that I should have put in, Vee?

Thanks

sadie x

Catkins wrote:

Hael wrote:

vee8 wrote:Just out of curiosity, I put his postcode, CM17 0DJ into GoogleEarth, and got a bit of a suprise. I was expecting something bigger than a mid-terrace! Has ever been sued for malpractise or something? Or maybe he was such a crap solicitor, he never made any money!!

According to a previous post of his, elsewhere (Democratic forum if I remember correctly), he does not own a television (or so he says). His got his head buried up so and so's ass, his nose in the bible (which one I dont know, because it sure is not the general one we all know) and his fingers on the pc keyboard.......typing away at his latest compiled rubbish and posting on cesspit sites.
I suppose his cyber fame and stalker antiques take up much of his time. If he manages to sell his material to all the MP's (shame the poor suckers on that other forum who are paying for it to be done) and whoever else on his list........maybe then he will be able to afford to move to a semi detached house.

Good grief! is that a Yew tree I see in his backyard. Only joking.

He needs Pamphlet part 2.........for that Hael !!!

Please, how do you find that, Catkins?

sadie x