bennett's reply to the Sun article.
+9
rosemary
Mulleena
Rosie
Peaceful1
maria theresa
dianeh
Catkins
christabel
vee8
13 posters
Page 1 of 1
bennett's reply to the Sun article.
by vee8 Tue Apr 20, 2010 4:27 am
HELENE DAVIES-GREEN:
A STATEMENT BY THE MADELEINE FOUNDATION
Friday 16 April 2010
Today, the Sun newspaper published an article about Helene Davies-
Green, who is a member of our Committee. The article criticised her in
respect of Madeleine Foundation leaflets, about Madeleine McCann,
distributed in Leicestershire last August (2009). The article also pointed
out that she is a Parliamentary candidate on behalf of the U.K.
Independence Party (UKIP) for the South Cambridgeshire constituency.
We wish to place a few statements about these matters on the record:
1. Helene wishes to make clear that her involvement with The Madeleine
Foundation is entirely separate from, and unconnected with, her
membership of UKIP.
2. Equally, we make it clear that The Madeleine Foundation is non-party
political and does not therefore support any political party.
3. The leaflet in question discussed the issue of what really happened to
Madeleine McCann. The distribution of that leaflet in Leicestershire,
including the McCanns’ home town of Rothley, in August last year,
was part of a nationwide campaign to distribute that leaflet.
4. The leaflet is no longer in circulation. Helene and The Madeleine
Foundation share the view that the issue of what really happened to
Madeleine McCann is one of the most important issues to have arisen
in the past three years and we believe we are entitled to comment on
the case and ask relevant questions about it. This is, after all, a country
renowned the world over for free speech.
In addition The Madeleine Foundation records its severe disappointment
with the tone of the Sun article and notes that in illustrating its piece, the
Sun actually stole the rights to the photograph they used, which was taken
by a Committee member. These matters are the subject of further action.
For further information about the Sun in relation to the Madeleine
McCann case,
A STATEMENT BY THE MADELEINE FOUNDATION
Friday 16 April 2010
Today, the Sun newspaper published an article about Helene Davies-
Green, who is a member of our Committee. The article criticised her in
respect of Madeleine Foundation leaflets, about Madeleine McCann,
distributed in Leicestershire last August (2009). The article also pointed
out that she is a Parliamentary candidate on behalf of the U.K.
Independence Party (UKIP) for the South Cambridgeshire constituency.
We wish to place a few statements about these matters on the record:
1. Helene wishes to make clear that her involvement with The Madeleine
Foundation is entirely separate from, and unconnected with, her
membership of UKIP.
2. Equally, we make it clear that The Madeleine Foundation is non-party
political and does not therefore support any political party.
3. The leaflet in question discussed the issue of what really happened to
Madeleine McCann. The distribution of that leaflet in Leicestershire,
including the McCanns’ home town of Rothley, in August last year,
was part of a nationwide campaign to distribute that leaflet.
4. The leaflet is no longer in circulation. Helene and The Madeleine
Foundation share the view that the issue of what really happened to
Madeleine McCann is one of the most important issues to have arisen
in the past three years and we believe we are entitled to comment on
the case and ask relevant questions about it. This is, after all, a country
renowned the world over for free speech.
In addition The Madeleine Foundation records its severe disappointment
with the tone of the Sun article and notes that in illustrating its piece, the
Sun actually stole the rights to the photograph they used, which was taken
by a Committee member. These matters are the subject of further action.
For further information about the Sun in relation to the Madeleine
McCann case,
vee8- Grand Member
- Number of posts : 3113
Location : suffolk
Registration date : 2008-06-24 -
Re: bennett's reply to the Sun article.
by christabel Tue Apr 20, 2010 6:02 am
4. The leaflet is no longer in circulation. Helene and The Madeleine
Foundation share the view that the issue of what really happened to
Madeleine McCann is one of the most important issues to have arisen
in the past three years and we believe we are entitled to comment on
the case and ask relevant questions about it.
You lying toerag Bennett, it was in circulation last week. Didn't you send one to Oliver Adam as asked to by GGGranville?
Please send a copy of the leaflet, that was dropped in ROTHLEY to Oliver Adam at the UKIP press office.
By the way we know you still have these leaflets, but please keep them
christabel- Admin
- Number of posts : 1637
Age : 74
Location : OK
Registration date : 2008-04-26
Re: bennett's reply to the Sun article.
by christabel Tue Apr 20, 2010 6:09 am
Found this on JATYK posted by LL.
Re bennett's 'training' as a solicitor, I found this on MM:
Quote: "Bennett did qualify as a solicitor for a few years, not by doing a law degree but just a twelve months law course and then the usual two years training." Unquote
That's hardly a training in legal expertise, which he has claimed he has on several occasions in the past. That's what you do if you want basic legal knowledge to work in something like a finance company where such understanding of basic law would be useful. It explains why he knows so little re Carter Ruck and how they work, the libel laws etc. He probably reads it up by googling things on the web. A little knowledge is a very dangerous thing.
http://justathoughtyouknow.proboards.com:8080/index.cgi?board=guests&action=display&thread=480&page=9
Re bennett's 'training' as a solicitor, I found this on MM:
Quote: "Bennett did qualify as a solicitor for a few years, not by doing a law degree but just a twelve months law course and then the usual two years training." Unquote
That's hardly a training in legal expertise, which he has claimed he has on several occasions in the past. That's what you do if you want basic legal knowledge to work in something like a finance company where such understanding of basic law would be useful. It explains why he knows so little re Carter Ruck and how they work, the libel laws etc. He probably reads it up by googling things on the web. A little knowledge is a very dangerous thing.
http://justathoughtyouknow.proboards.com:8080/index.cgi?board=guests&action=display&thread=480&page=9
christabel- Admin
- Number of posts : 1637
Age : 74
Location : OK
Registration date : 2008-04-26
Re: bennett's reply to the Sun article.
by vee8 Tue Apr 20, 2010 6:10 am
HELENE DAVIES-GREEN:
A STATEMENT BY THE MADELEINE FOUNDATION
Friday 16 April 2010
Today, the Sun newspaper published an article about Helene Davies-
Green, who is a member of our Committee. The article criticised her (Fairly, in most people's opinion,) in
respect of Madeleine Foundation (Highly libelous) leaflets, about Madeleine McCann,
distributed in Leicestershire last August (2009). The article also pointed
out that she is a Parliamentary candidate on behalf of the U.K.
Independence Party (UKIP) for the South Cambridgeshire constituency.
(That much is, sadly, correct.)
We wish to place a few statements about these matters on the record:
1. Helene wishes to make clear that her involvement with The Madeleine
Foundation is entirely separate from, and unconnected with, her
membership of UKIP.
(However, it does go to show the character of the woman. Anyone voting for her needs to know what her morales are.)
2. Equally, we make it clear that The Madeleine Foundation is non-party
political and does not therefore support any political party.
(While at the same time heaping critisism on the Conservative party for daring to hire the McCann's spokesman, Clarence Mitchel. Hypocrite,)
3. The leaflet in question discussed the issue of what really happened to
Madeleine McCann. The distribution of that leaflet in Leicestershire,
including the McCanns’ home town of Rothley, in August last year,
was part of a nationwide campaign to distribute that leaflet.
(Nationwide my hairy butt. It was distributed in, what, three locations? In total? Not exactly nationwide, was it, LIAR.)
4. The leaflet is no longer in circulation. (LIAR. Anyone writing to you and asking for one gets one. How many times have you ben caught out doing that?) Helene and The Madeleine
Foundation share the view that the issue of what really happened to
Madeleine McCann is one of the most important issues to have arisen
in the past three years (Important to a tiny minority of the public. We are under no illusions, as supporters of the McCann's, that while most members of the public have sympathy for the McCann's if asked, we know there are a vast number of topics that are far more important to most people. ) and we believe we are entitled to comment on
the case (Comment, yes.) and ask relevant questions about it. (Lie, distort and misinform, NO.) This is, after all, a country
renowned the world over for free speech.
(Which is exactly what the author of the article in the Sun is doing, by expressing his opinion that you, helene and the foundation are 'Vile.') In addition The Madeleine Foundation records its severe disappointment
with the tone of the Sun article (As most right thinking people express their disapointment in YOUR tone on your website, lying about, and continually libeling, the McCann's and anyone who supports them.) and notes that in illustrating its piece, the Sun actually stole the rights to the photograph they used, (As did you, when you used a photograph of Madeleine to illustrate your libelous books and leaflets.) which was taken
by a Committee member. These matters are the subject of further action.
For further information about the Sun in relation to the Madeleine
McCann case, (Stay tuned, I don't think it is going to be quite what you expect, bennett.)
A STATEMENT BY THE MADELEINE FOUNDATION
Friday 16 April 2010
Today, the Sun newspaper published an article about Helene Davies-
Green, who is a member of our Committee. The article criticised her (Fairly, in most people's opinion,) in
respect of Madeleine Foundation (Highly libelous) leaflets, about Madeleine McCann,
distributed in Leicestershire last August (2009). The article also pointed
out that she is a Parliamentary candidate on behalf of the U.K.
Independence Party (UKIP) for the South Cambridgeshire constituency.
(That much is, sadly, correct.)
We wish to place a few statements about these matters on the record:
1. Helene wishes to make clear that her involvement with The Madeleine
Foundation is entirely separate from, and unconnected with, her
membership of UKIP.
(However, it does go to show the character of the woman. Anyone voting for her needs to know what her morales are.)
2. Equally, we make it clear that The Madeleine Foundation is non-party
political and does not therefore support any political party.
(While at the same time heaping critisism on the Conservative party for daring to hire the McCann's spokesman, Clarence Mitchel. Hypocrite,)
3. The leaflet in question discussed the issue of what really happened to
Madeleine McCann. The distribution of that leaflet in Leicestershire,
including the McCanns’ home town of Rothley, in August last year,
was part of a nationwide campaign to distribute that leaflet.
(Nationwide my hairy butt. It was distributed in, what, three locations? In total? Not exactly nationwide, was it, LIAR.)
4. The leaflet is no longer in circulation. (LIAR. Anyone writing to you and asking for one gets one. How many times have you ben caught out doing that?) Helene and The Madeleine
Foundation share the view that the issue of what really happened to
Madeleine McCann is one of the most important issues to have arisen
in the past three years (Important to a tiny minority of the public. We are under no illusions, as supporters of the McCann's, that while most members of the public have sympathy for the McCann's if asked, we know there are a vast number of topics that are far more important to most people. ) and we believe we are entitled to comment on
the case (Comment, yes.) and ask relevant questions about it. (Lie, distort and misinform, NO.) This is, after all, a country
renowned the world over for free speech.
(Which is exactly what the author of the article in the Sun is doing, by expressing his opinion that you, helene and the foundation are 'Vile.') In addition The Madeleine Foundation records its severe disappointment
with the tone of the Sun article (As most right thinking people express their disapointment in YOUR tone on your website, lying about, and continually libeling, the McCann's and anyone who supports them.) and notes that in illustrating its piece, the Sun actually stole the rights to the photograph they used, (As did you, when you used a photograph of Madeleine to illustrate your libelous books and leaflets.) which was taken
by a Committee member. These matters are the subject of further action.
For further information about the Sun in relation to the Madeleine
McCann case, (Stay tuned, I don't think it is going to be quite what you expect, bennett.)
vee8- Grand Member
- Number of posts : 3113
Location : suffolk
Registration date : 2008-06-24 -
Catkins- Grand Member
- Number of posts : 1829
Location : UK
Registration date : 2009-02-11
Re: bennett's reply to the Sun article.
by dianeh Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:30 am
Vee
just wanted to highlight this point you made.
All aspects of a person's life comes under srutiny when they run for public office. And that is precisely because it shows the character of the person. It is of little consequence to me that Green runs for the UKIP, what is of much more consequence is that she has participated in a co-ordinated hate and harrassment campaign undertaken by the Houndation, of which she is a committee member.
BTW, in Aust, all people running for public office (whether Federal, State or Local) must declare membership in all organisations to allow for transparency and to prevent a conflict of interest. If Britain has the same laws, then Green should have declared her committee position in the Houndation. This is quite relevant, as if she was elected , she would be required to declare a conflict of interest with anything pertaining to the McCanns, including such things as the new alert system, also possible CEOP and Jim Gamble etc. After all, she has made enough comments for us to know her position on anything related to the McCanns, regardless of whether it benefits missing children. In fact, the comments made against the new alert are IMO, in direct contradiction to the stated aims of the Houndation. Whether Green made them personally or not is also beside the question, many comments have been made on behalf of the Houndation, and she is a committee person. IMO, this membership to the HOundation is completely relevant and should be made public, and if the UKIP were not informed of it, they should be demanding to know why. And if they were informed, then they need to question their agenda, and whether condoning libel and harrassment is what they want their party known for.
just wanted to highlight this point you made.
1. Helene wishes to make clear that her involvement with The Madeleine
Foundation is entirely separate from, and unconnected with, her
membership of UKIP.
(However, it does go to show the character of the woman. Anyone voting for her needs to know what her morales are.)
All aspects of a person's life comes under srutiny when they run for public office. And that is precisely because it shows the character of the person. It is of little consequence to me that Green runs for the UKIP, what is of much more consequence is that she has participated in a co-ordinated hate and harrassment campaign undertaken by the Houndation, of which she is a committee member.
BTW, in Aust, all people running for public office (whether Federal, State or Local) must declare membership in all organisations to allow for transparency and to prevent a conflict of interest. If Britain has the same laws, then Green should have declared her committee position in the Houndation. This is quite relevant, as if she was elected , she would be required to declare a conflict of interest with anything pertaining to the McCanns, including such things as the new alert system, also possible CEOP and Jim Gamble etc. After all, she has made enough comments for us to know her position on anything related to the McCanns, regardless of whether it benefits missing children. In fact, the comments made against the new alert are IMO, in direct contradiction to the stated aims of the Houndation. Whether Green made them personally or not is also beside the question, many comments have been made on behalf of the Houndation, and she is a committee person. IMO, this membership to the HOundation is completely relevant and should be made public, and if the UKIP were not informed of it, they should be demanding to know why. And if they were informed, then they need to question their agenda, and whether condoning libel and harrassment is what they want their party known for.
Last edited by dianeh on Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:32 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Wrote 'arrested' instead of 'elected', well we can all dream.)
dianeh- Grand Member
- Number of posts : 3465
Age : 60
Location : Outback, Australia
Registration date : 2008-04-27
Re: bennett's reply to the Sun article.
by maria theresa Tue Apr 20, 2010 11:07 am
Absolutely spot on, dianeh. Of COURSE there could be conflicts of interest. I'd be interested to know what UKIP have to say about it now.
maria theresa- Learner
- Number of posts : 112
Location : merseyside
Registration date : 2009-12-30
Re: bennett's reply to the Sun article.
by Peaceful1 Tue Apr 20, 2010 1:52 pm
Helene wishes to make clear that her involvement with The Madeleine
Foundation is entirely separate from, and unconnected with, her
membership of UKIP.
So bennett, why are you , the Madeleine Foundation,now harrassing Marcos??
Foundation is entirely separate from, and unconnected with, her
membership of UKIP.
So bennett, why are you , the Madeleine Foundation,now harrassing Marcos??
Peaceful1- Grand Member
- Number of posts : 1104
Location : Australia
Registration date : 2009-07-18
Re: bennett's reply to the Sun article.
by Rosie Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:26 pm
Sun actually stole the rights to the photograph they used, which was taken
by a Committee member. These matters are the subject of further action.
For further information about the Sun in relation to the Madeleine
McCann case,
This photograph and others were uploaded to the 3 arguidos forum before the forum was ordered to be taken down. The photos were all uploaded by PHOTON!
Now those photographs are now plastered all over the internet and no copyright has been attached to them, so tough luck Bennett, you are wrong again.
The real problem is of course that Helene Davies-Green does not want to be identified as the "Vile Sicko" in South Cambridge, too late she has been, if this offends her, then understand this; Helene Davies-Green offends me, her lies offends me, her right wing agenda offends me, who she is married to offends me, her persecution and stalking of two innocent parents offend me; her links with the National Front offends me, no matter how tenuous she says they are; the fact that she is on the committee of a hate campaign that is actively withholding information about a missing child offends me, the fatc that she is married to the chairman of that hate site offends me; the fact that she went distributing those vile leaflets into the heart of the McCanns village offends me; the fact that she did exactly the same in Cambridge and Oxford and in Oxford university offends me. ABOVE ALL ELSE, HER NEED TO FRUSTRATE, HINDER AND HAMPER AND HARM THE SEARCH FOR AN INNOCENT CHILD, MORTALLY OFFENDS ME!
Truth is of course they can complain all they like, the Sun did not print anything that wasn't true and it is not libellous to call someone a sicko, or a vile sicko, which Helene Davies Green actually is.
Green should be careful, I see that Bennett is using her for his own means to get publicity, he loves it and will land her in a load of trouble, exactly the same as he did to Butler and then he will walk away and leave her in it up to her neck, with the press beating her door down. Before Bennett is finished, he will have Green's face plastered all over the front of the tabloids. (I can't wait)
So keep on helping her is what I say, please don't stop. I look forward to seeing her exoposed on the front of the all the Sunday newspapers for exactly what she is.
Rosie- Admin
- Number of posts : 4358
Registration date : 2008-04-27
Re: bennett's reply to the Sun article.
by Mulleena Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:46 pm
Bloody well said Rosiepops 
Mulleena- Learner
- Number of posts : 122
Location : Wiltshire
Registration date : 2010-03-24
Re: bennett's reply to the Sun article.
by Rosie Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:47 pm
We wish to place a few statements about these matters on the record:
1. Helene wishes to make clear that her involvement with The Madeleine
Foundation is entirely separate from, and unconnected with, her
membership of UKIP
Not possible to separate, this is the truth and all voters in the South Cambridge constituency have a right to know *ALL* about Helene Davies-Greeen BEFORE they decide to vote UKIP. The hate foundation that Green is a member of may be unconnected previously, however it becomes an issue because Green has put herself up for election to parliament and then it becomes very much connected, the connection is Green herself.
We simply cannnot have people that have broken the law, taken part in a hate campaign against two INNOCENT people and who have actively hampered, hindered, frustrated and harmed the search for a missing child standing for election to parliament, or in parliament. This is very much an issue and the people of Cambridge have every right to know this before they decide to vote for this obnoxious vile woman. In fact this is not only an issue for South Cambridge, this is very much an issue for the whole country. It is our parliament and we do not want Green or her ilk in there, end of story.
There is also this point, why is Green wishing to make it known that she believes the two to be unconnected? Is she ashamed of being connected to the hate foundation and to Bennett's hate campaign? It sounds like she is, I would say this is entirely her fault and she cannot behave in this way and then expect not to be exposed when she stands for election to parliament.
Perhaps that vile sicko woman will think twice before she endorses another evile and vile vendetta against the parents of a missing child.
UKIP had the chance to act on this they missed it, they tried to do what they accuse other politicians of doing and wriggle out of it, by trying to explain away the vileness of green's personal hate campaign and vendetta against the parents of a missing child, as "free speech", they endoresd Green's actions,this makes them just as guilty and they do not deserve any votes at all and people must be made aware!
If she ever by any insanely small chance became elected to parliament, I would personally see to it that she did not take her seat up, there would be objections to her doing so. How this woman can try to make out she is a Christian is way beyond my comprehension, Green gives Christianity and the church a bad name. Personally in my opinion Green is not just a vile sicko, she is a vile hypocrtical sicko!
Rosie- Admin
- Number of posts : 4358
Registration date : 2008-04-27
Re: bennett's reply to the Sun article.
by rosemary Wed Apr 21, 2010 2:53 am
YES ROSIE!!!! Awesome writing in both posts!
The Grenville woman is Gone!!!!
The Grenville woman is Gone!!!!
rosemary- Star Poster
- Number of posts : 963
Location : spain
Registration date : 2009-05-13
vee8- Grand Member
- Number of posts : 3113
Location : suffolk
Registration date : 2008-06-24 -
Pedro Silva- Grand Member
- Number of posts : 5592
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-10-20
May- Master
- Number of posts : 498
Registration date : 2008-07-27
whymadeleine- Learner
- Number of posts : 175
Location : uk
Registration date : 2010-04-02 -
Re: bennett's reply to the Sun article.
by dianeh Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:15 am
Well said Rosie.
UKIP needs to get a better preselection process.
UKIP needs to get a better preselection process.
dianeh- Grand Member
- Number of posts : 3465
Age : 60
Location : Outback, Australia
Registration date : 2008-04-27
Re: bennett's reply to the Sun article.
by bluj1515 Wed Apr 21, 2010 2:09 pm
She's a long time party hack, and they need a sacrificial lamb. Sadly that's all they are going to care about. Someone willing to put up the money and fly the UKIP flag.
bluj1515- Grand Member
- Number of posts : 1017
Location : United States
Registration date : 2009-06-30
Re: bennett's reply to the Sun article.
by Catkins Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:38 pm
agree with you all......
Catkins- Grand Member
- Number of posts : 1829
Location : UK
Registration date : 2009-02-11
Re: bennett's reply to the Sun article.
by Rosie Thu Apr 22, 2010 2:46 am
bluj1515 wrote:She's a long time party hack, and they need a sacrificial lamb. Sadly that's all they are going to care about. Someone willing to put up the money and fly the UKIP flag.
Depends on who put the deposit up for her to stand, UKIP or herself? Hopefully she will poll very few votes and lose the deposit.
Rosie- Admin
- Number of posts : 4358
Registration date : 2008-04-27
Re: bennett's reply to the Sun article.
by bluj1515 Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:03 pm
Rosiepops wrote:bluj1515 wrote:She's a long time party hack, and they need a sacrificial lamb. Sadly that's all they are going to care about. Someone willing to put up the money and fly the UKIP flag.
Depends on who put the deposit up for her to stand, UKIP or herself? Hopefully she will poll very few votes and lose the deposit.
True, Rosie. I can't imagine though that she doesn't spend some time and money on it. She definitely will, I believe someone posted the %needed to get back the deposit and it's far higher than anything she's gotten before.
bluj1515- Grand Member
- Number of posts : 1017
Location : United States
Registration date : 2009-06-30
Re: bennett's reply to the Sun article.
by christabel Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:20 pm
bluj1515 wrote:Rosiepops wrote:bluj1515 wrote:She's a long time party hack, and they need a sacrificial lamb. Sadly that's all they are going to care about. Someone willing to put up the money and fly the UKIP flag.
Depends on who put the deposit up for her to stand, UKIP or herself? Hopefully she will poll very few votes and lose the deposit.
True, Rosie. I can't imagine though that she doesn't spend some time and money on it. She definitely will, I believe someone posted the %needed to get back the deposit and it's far higher than anything she's gotten before.
At the moment the deposit for a candidate is £500, but this can be changed very quickly. This deposit is returnable subject to gaining a 5% proportion of the votes. Otherwise the deposit is lost.
christabel- Admin
- Number of posts : 1637
Age : 74
Location : OK
Registration date : 2008-04-26
Re: bennett's reply to the Sun article.
by bluj1515 Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:06 am
I'm trying to find her vote totals - they were posted on PFA2 and JATYK - but I know they weren't close to 5% of the total votes cast.
bluj1515- Grand Member
- Number of posts : 1017
Location : United States
Registration date : 2009-06-30
Re: bennett's reply to the Sun article.
by bluj1515 Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:09 am
14 pm Sat Apr 17, 2010
From JATYK
Helene Davies Green stood for the UKIP in 2005
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/cons ... /cambridge
The 2005 general electionDavid Howarth, Liberal Democrat 19,152 43.9% Anne Campbell, Labour 14,813 34.0% Ian Lyon, Conservative 7,193 16.5% Martin Lucas-Smith, Green Party 1,245 2.9%
Helene Davies, UK Independence Party 596 1.4% Tom Woodcock, Respect - the Unity Coalition 477 1.1% Suzon Forscey-Moore, Independent 60 0.1% Graham Wilkinson, Independent
dcb2
I feel great
Posts: 791
Joined: 12:38 pm Sun Mar 07, 2010
From JATYK
Helene Davies Green stood for the UKIP in 2005
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/cons ... /cambridge
The 2005 general electionDavid Howarth, Liberal Democrat 19,152 43.9% Anne Campbell, Labour 14,813 34.0% Ian Lyon, Conservative 7,193 16.5% Martin Lucas-Smith, Green Party 1,245 2.9%
Helene Davies, UK Independence Party 596 1.4% Tom Woodcock, Respect - the Unity Coalition 477 1.1% Suzon Forscey-Moore, Independent 60 0.1% Graham Wilkinson, Independent
dcb2
I feel great
Posts: 791
Joined: 12:38 pm Sun Mar 07, 2010
bluj1515- Grand Member
- Number of posts : 1017
Location : United States
Registration date : 2009-06-30
Re: bennett's reply to the Sun article.
by dianeh Fri Apr 23, 2010 9:41 am
It will be interesting to see those % compared to this election. She did make the front page of the Sun after all, and for all the wrong reasons. I doubt that most UKIP voters will vote for her after that. No matter what party you vote for, no one wants to vote for someone known for stalking and harrassing, and libelling, the parents of a missing child. And to any normal person, that is what she has been doing. And most of the UKIP voters will be normal everyday people.
dianeh- Grand Member
- Number of posts : 3465
Age : 60
Location : Outback, Australia
Registration date : 2008-04-27
Similar topics» Bennetts cock up again
» Bennetts Motive?
» Bennetts Update.
» Seems like Bennetts a right old crook
» Bennetts Latest Ramblings.
» Bennetts Motive?
» Bennetts Update.
» Seems like Bennetts a right old crook
» Bennetts Latest Ramblings.
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum|
|
|