Bennet caught lying again

Bennett lying again

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/mccann-case-f3/mf-urgent-letter-to-home-affairs-select-committee-re-jim-gamble-and-ceop-t1531.htm

MF Urgent letter to Home Affairs Select Committee re Jim Gamble and CEOP

Post Tony Bennett Today at 10:07 am
From: The Madeleine Foundation
Asking the questions about what really happened to Madeleine McCann
66 Chippingfield
HARLOW
Essex
CM17 0DJ
Website: www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk
e-mail: ajsbennett@btinternet.com

Sent to:

homeaffcom@parliament.uk
Rt. Hon. Keith Vaz, Chairman of the Select Committee vazk@parliament.uk
Nicola Blackwood nicola.blackwood.mp@parliament.uk
Mr Aidan Burley aidan.burley.mp@parliament.uk
Lorraine Fullbrook lorraine.fullbrook.mp@parliament.uk
Dr Julian Huppert julian.huppert.mp@parliament.uk
Mary Macleod mary.macleod.mp@parliament.uk
Steve McCabe mccabes@parliament.uk
Rt Hon Alun Michael alunmichaelmp@parliament.uk
Bridget Phillipson bridget.phillipson.mp@parliament.uk
Mark Reckless mark.reckless.mp@parliament.uk
Mr David Winnick winnickd@parliament.uk

Monday 11 October 2010

Dear member of the Home Affairs Select Committee

Why Theresa may was right to accept the resignation of Jim Gamble, Chief Executive of CEOP

We write to express our support for Home Secretary Theresa May’s decision to accept the resignation of the head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP).

We do so against the background of this hagiographic comment about Jim Gamble by your Chairman, Keith Vaz:

“We have long been aware of the magnificent specialised work done by CEOP in protecting children from sexual exploitation, making the internet a safer environment for children, combating child trafficking, and tracking down missing paedophiles. We are alarmed that Mr Gamble considers that the proposed merger of CEOP into the National Crime Agency would place this work in jeopardy, and we are therefore taking an early opportunity to explore with him the nature of his concerns”.

We learnt over the weekend that your Committee will tomorrow (12 October) at 12.30pm be holding a special session, a ‘topical evidence session’, to discuss the work of CEOP with its current Chief Executive, Jim Gamble, and in particular to explore his concerns about the future of this agency that have led Mr Gamble to resign from his post.

We support Theresa May’s decision for a number of reasons, set out below.

The views of Andrew Murray

We would first of all respectfully refer you to the views of Mr Andrew Murray, set out in the most recent edition of the magazine ‘I.T. Lawyer’. I think it would be helpful to you if I quoted the full article:

QUOTE

I realise I am going to be on very unsteady ground here but I'm usually a straight down the middle guy who doesn't rock the boat so I'm going out on a limb with a slightly controversial piece here.

In the few days since Jim Gamble announced his resignation from his role as Chief Executive of the Child Exploitation and On-Line Protection Centre (CEOP) he has been accorded almost universal adulation by the British media and has been followed out of the door by three other senior executives at CEOP. To believe the media Mr. Gamble was an irreplaceable hero who single-handedly protected our children from online harm. Here are a selection of stories from the last 48 hours.

"Top Abuse Boss Quitting Puts Kids in Danger" says The Sun; "Resignation A Sad Day" says BBC News; "Victim's Group Slams Home Secretary" says the Daily Mail and in this weeks most tabloid friendly collision of stories "Kate and Gerry McCann 'Very Upset' at Resignation" says the Daily Mail natch.

Now I'm not denying Jim Gamble was/is a man with a mission and a very laudable one at that. His aim is to prevent the abuse of children. This is something which is unarguable and inalienable. I though have met Mr. Gamble on more than one occasion (and more than two for the wags at the back) and there was something very undesirable about his methods and his message.

In a cry that echoed back to the radical feminist cry "All Men are Rapists" Mr. Gamble in public speeches seemed to suggest that all men were paedophiles. The role of CEOP was to protect children at all costs from these almost primeval urges. He also seemed to be suggesting that only CEOP could fulfil this role in the UK. The view of many in industry and the legal profession is he was an empire builder who had a particularly narrow and skewed view of society and in particular the relationship between adults and children. I still have a marginal note I made at one of his speeches where I noted down “I am not a paedophile and I resent the implication I am because I happen to be a man”.

I wasn't the only one less than happy with his methods. As the BBC profile of him (linked above) notes:

Gamble began to gain his reputation as the UK's foremost hunter of paedophiles, heading up Operation Ore, the UK's largest ever police investigation into who was viewing internet child abuse images.The operation identified over 7,000 suspects and led to more than 2,000 convictions but it proved highly controversial. There were criticisms that the net was hauling in too many innocent people and that some of those convicted had not viewed images of child abuse at all but were actually victims of identity theft.

The specialist press were even more direct. In January 2009 ISPs attacked his plans to pass on RIPA costs to ISPs (The Register) while in May 2007 a PCPro investigation revealed the flaws in Operation Ore in full. This is why I'm glad to see that The Register has yesterday put its head above the parapet to write the story 'Internet Firms Welcome CEOP Chief's Exit'.

I agree with the comment that this offers a clean slate. The protection of children is one of the most sacred responsibilities of any society. The UK takes it particularly seriously and UK ISPs working with CEOP and local and national police forces have gone a long way to eradicating its production and distribution via the internet in the UK. It is the responsibly of us all to take things forward. Jim Gamble should be thanked for his work to date but we need to move forward in a more streamlined and co-operative form of regulation within this area. My two cents is that Jim Gamble was not the right personality to work with ISPs on the next stage - his form of management was well suited to the Wild West of the internet between 1995-2005. It is not as well suited to the modern internet.

UNQUOTE

The controversial nature of Operation Ore is a major reason why Jim Gamble needed to go. A class action by some of those who were named as paedophiles by Operation Ore is about to commence in the British courts and there is likley to be severe crititicism of Gamble’s role in this operation.

Andrew Murray sums up the perception of many about Jim Gamble by his words: “The view of many in industry and the legal profession is he was an empire builder who had a particularly narrow and skewed view of society… Jim Gamble was not the right personality to work with ISPs on the next stage - his form of management was well suited to the Wild West of the internet between 1995-2005. It is not as well suited to the modern internet”.

Gamble did not consider the viewing of child sex abuse to be serious

Further, despite the perception of Mr Gamble as a hero valiantly comabting the evils of child sexual abuse ands child pornography, he took a noriously ‘soft’ position on those who view child pornography. The BBC carried a report on 1 June 2007 of one of Mr Gamble’s more cotroversial public sttaements on the subject. Here are some extracts from that report:

QUOTE

“Some child sex offenders should be encouraged to seek treatment rather than be sent to prison, the police's child protection chief says. Jim Gamble, of CEOP, said some offenders who viewed child porn could be given a police caution. He believes treatment in the community is a practical way of dealing with the huge scale of the problem.

Some children's charities criticised Mr Gamble but he pointed out that cautions were already used to manage people who had viewed internet porn. “Not everyone does go to prison at the minute. Let's make sure the right people go to prison and let's manage the rest in a way that protects our children best”, he told BBC News.
Earlier Mr Gamble said the information flow on paedophilia was increasing massively. He suggested that to deal with the scale of the problem, some offenders should receive a police caution and then be managed within the community. We shouldn't be sending everyone that ever commits an offence - particularly of the viewing kind - to prison. There are people who have been dealt with by police caution who can be dealt with successfully in a way that allows them to maintain their lives and their families”.

UNQUOTE

Those who view child pornography are watching children being abused. Many felt - as we do - that to send out a message that such an offence merited being let off with merely a caution handed out in a police station was minimising the gravity of this offence.

Gamble’s questionable role in the Madeleine McCann case

Mr Gamble’s role in the case of missing Madeleine McCann was highly questionable, for a number of reasons. We appreciate that the members of the Home Office Select Committee may not have much information on some of the matters; however, we can only set out briefly in this letters our concern about his actions.

Mr Gamble’s involvement in the case began with his sending some of his staff out to Praia da Luz within two days of Madeleine having been reported missing - even before three police officers from Leicestershire Police arrived. The role of these CEOP staff in the early days was highly controversial in at least three aspects:

(1) They came up with a profile of the kind of person who might have taken Madeleine McCann, and, from information gained by the Portuguese Police about Mr Robert Murat, said they were 90% certain that Murat was the person who abducted Madeleine

(2) CEOP staff spoke to the McCanns’ friend Jane Tanner, who had given a description (which changed a number of times) about a man she claimed to have seen carrying a child at around 9.15pm on the night Madeleine was reported missing by the McCanns. Their input to Jane Tanner appears to have influenced her, on Sunday 13 May 2007 (ten days after Madeleine was reported missing) to positively identify Robert Murt as the person she had seen ten days earlier. This was despite obvious physical differences between her description of the man she had seen, and Robert Murat. Murat was arrested the following day on the basis of (a) CEOP’s profiling and (b) Jane Tanner’s identification exercise

(3) In the early days after Madeleine was reported missing, Mr Gamble made a public appeal for tourists in the area to send photographs they had taken whilst on holiday at that time direct to CEOP. It is not known whether that action had the consent of the Portuguese Police. What we do know for certain is that these photographs were never disclosed to the Portuguese Police.

The primary source for the information in items (1) and (2) above is the book ‘The Truth About A Lie’, written by Goncalo Amaral, the original senior detective in the case who declared the McCanns official suspects on 7 September 2007. A fuller analysis of CEOP’s actions in this case can be found in our research report on Robert Murat which can be found in the ‘Articles’ section of our website at:
www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk

As Committee members will know, in July 2008 the Portuguese authorities archived the investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance. They did so while explicitly leaving open two possible explanations for her disappearance: (a) that she had been abducted by a person or persons as yet unknown, or (b) that she had died in the McCanns’ holiday apartment and that her parents were involved in arranging for her body to be hidden. There remains huge controversy about what really happened to Madeleine McCann. Even the McCanns’ own spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, told a Channel 4 interviewer in March 2010 that this was ‘a complete mystery’. In the only public opinion survey ever carried out in the U.K. on the issue, 80% of respondents did not believe that the McCanns were telling the whole truth about what happened to Madeleine.

It is also relevant to point out that, on their own admission, the McCanns, for six nights in a row, left three children all under four in a bedroom a minute-and-a-half’s walk away and out of sight. Whilst they claimed to be carrying out regular checks on the children, a claim disputed by some witnesses who were staff of the complex where they were staying, the N.S.P.C.C. and other child welfare organisations are very clear in their advice: “Never leave young children on their own”. The McCanns therefore were scarcely examples of how to protect children, which CEOP claims as its role.

Yet against that background, Mr Gamble relentlessly associated CEOP with the McCanns. From 2007 onwards, he heavily featured Madeleine on the CEOP website and in various CEOP publications. Around the time of the second anniversary of Madeleine’s disappearance, 17 months ago, he appeared together with the McCanns in a so-called one-minute ‘viral video’, strongly emphasising that Madeleine was still alive and needed to be found. Later he also appeared on morning news shows side by side with the McCanns.

Still more significantly, he invited Dr Gerald McCann in January 2010 to be the keynote speaker at a conference on the abduction of children by paedophiles. Why Dr McCann was considered by Gamble to be qualified to contribute to that conference, never mind being the ‘keynote speaker’, given the raft of uncertainties about the circumstances in which Madeleine disappeared, has never been explained either by the McCanns or by Jim Gamble.

Furthermore, it was reported - and confirmed by a Home Office Freedom of Information Act request - that in October 2009, the McCanns had a private interview with the McCanns.


Following that, several press reports (not denied) indicated that the Home Secretary asked Jim Gamble to recommend a new British police force to carry out a review and possibly a re-investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance.

Some reports suggested that he had recommended West Yorkshire Police to carry out such a review. But the Home Office was unwilling to confirm or deny this. It was baffling why the Home Secretary, knowing Jim Gamble’s extreme closeness to the McCanns, should choose him to recommend who should carry out any independent review into Madeleine’s disappearance.

The close nexus between Jim Gamble and the McCanns has been illustrated in recent days by the McCanns putting out statements strongly supporting him, thanking him for his work on their behalf, and querying the Coalition government’s decision to incorporate CEOP within the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) or new National Crime Agency (NCAS). They described Gamble’s departure in graphic terms as ‘a huge loss to child protection’.

Perhaps most controversially of all, the McCann Team, in conjunction with Gamble, published a video about Madeleine and circulated it round the internet which many believed showed her inappropriately posed in heavy make-up. The video in question featured three images of Madeleine. One very striking one shows her in an unusual pose, shot by the photographer from well below her face, wearing make-up, including much blue eyeshadow, lipstick and jewellery, and looking unhappy.

The McCanns publicly claimed that ‘the photo shows her when she was three after a raid on the dressing box’. However, it is very unlikely that Madeleine could have put the necklace on herself, nor applied eyeshadow in the manner shown in the photograph, nor applied the pink bow to her hair. The evidence from the photograph suggests that an adult made her up and of course an adult was on hand to take that particular image of her. The McCanns did not say who took the photograph. Even if Madeleine had ‘raided the dressing box’, as claimed, it is one thing to take a photo of something like that for your family photo album, but altogether another matter to release it for millions to see.

The McCanns explicitly approved the very public release of this video and the images on it. As one newspaper reported: “Parents of Madeleine McCann, who went missing three years ago, have released a new video and photo of their missing daughter to mark the third anniversary of the girl's disappearance”. The photo the McCanns specifically chose to highlight in the video was the one with Madeleine wearing heavy make-up, apparently applied by an adult and not by herself.

There was strong adverse reaction by many members of the public to this image being used in connection with a missing child. Not least was the opinion of Mr Mark Williams-Thomas, a former police detective and now leading criminologist and child protection expert, who has often in the past spoken with strong sympathy and understanding for the McCanns. His unambiguous reaction to this particular photograph, promoted on his ‘Twitter’ blog, was that it was ‘so inappropriate’ and ‘so damaging’. We agree with him.

The McCanns have from the day Madeleine was reported missing claimed explicitly and on many occasions that Madeleine must have been abducted by a paedophile, or paedophiles, often described by them as ‘predatory’, ‘evil’, or ‘ monsters’. Yet the photo of Madeleine featured by her parents shows a child looking much older than her actual three years, due to the make-up and jewellery, as all the news media quickly picked up the following day.

The McCanns said a number of times that they were advised by the police ‘not to show any emotion’ in front of the cameras. One newspaper reported, around the time the McCanns appeared on the Oprah Winfrey Show: “The couple also admitted they had been advised not to show any emotion while in front of the media, because any potential abductor ‘may get a kick out of it’.” It was all the more surprising, therefore, that the McCanns should use this short video to project and promote an image of Madeleine which might well appeal to certain paedophiles, some of whom are unfortunately attracted to young children. It was even more surprising that Jim Gamble and CEOP should support them in this.

One person commented on ‘Twitter’ about the direct promotion of this video by CEOP Chief Executive Jim Gamble, writing: “If CEOP endorse this type of public relations for a supposed missing child, then their role in child protection has to be questioned!”

By-passing local police forces

Finally, there were concerns that Mr Gamble was introducing confusion in the field of child protection by demanding that people report child abuse matters direct to CEOP. There was the controversy over his public threats to Facebook when they refused to yield to his demands for a ‘panic button’, connected directly to CEOP, to be added to their website features. If one suspects child abuse or ‘grooming’, one is encouraged, and rightly so, to report these matters to the local police force. Gamble’s actions confused the public as to where they should report child protection concerns. There were also question marks raised about encouraging children and parents to report their suspicions about someone online to CEOP, rather than to contact some other child welfare agency or the police.

For all the above reasons, we strongly support Theresa May’s decision to accept Mr Gamble’s resignation. However, because of our concerns about many other aspects of CEOP’s work, we also support its merger with the new proposed NCA, irrespective of who may become CEOP’s future Chief Executive.

Yours sincerely

Tony Bennett
Secretary
The Madeleine Foundation

Lies:
* Bennett uses a poll from september 2007 : not representative
* McCanns interview McCanns..
* Jane Tanners statements are consistent
* There is no proof that Jane accused Murat being the abductor of Madeleine.
* Bennett wants a law to protect children, yet there is no need for, police can handle the protection
of all the children, especially on the Internet
* Robert Murat was given the arguido status, but he was never arrested.

******Growing concerns about Bennett's disgusting 'paedophilic' view on a picture from Madeleine playing with Mum's make up box.

Why is Bennett so against anyone that tries to catch Peado's and sex offenders?
I find this rather odd and very sinister behaviour from people who think Gambles resignation is a good thing.
Really makes you wonder

christabel wrote:Why is Bennett so against anyone that tries to catch Peado's and sex offenders?
I find this rather odd and very sinister behaviour from people who think Gambles resignation is a good thing.
Really makes you wonder

It really does make you wonder Chris, doesn't it. He has targetted anyone that has tried to help Madeleine. There is indeed a very sinister undercurrent here.

TB, you´re really stupid, don´t you have kids of your own? What a moron you are.

Pedro, I believe he does have grown up children. Truth be known they probably don't like him either, he is not exactly someone you would want for a father is he!

It is also relevant to point out that, on their own admission, the McCanns, for six nights in a row, left three children all under four in a bedroom a minute-and-a-half’s walk away and out of sight.

More libel from Bennett. He has been told over and over again that this is just not true, and then writes it in a letter to MP's. I couldnt force myself to read the rest of that waffle.

In the only public opinion survey ever carried out in the U.K. on the issue, 80% of respondents did not believe that the McCanns were telling the whole truth about what happened to Madeleine.

Irrelevant and also misleading, as that poll was taken after they were made arguidos and before the truth about the poor investigation (etc) was made public. The MP's are more than likely aware of this, and any points that Bennett may have had that are justifiable are instantly shot down because he is trying to be manipulative and it is obviously so. In other words, he shows an agenda which has nothing to do with Jim Gamble resigning.

If Bennett thinks that Gamble's resignations is a good thing, then fine. If he believes it to be for political purposes, then fine. If he believes that Gambles methods are objectionable, then fine. But dont put in libel and lies, that are actually irrelevant to Gamble's resignation or reistatement, about the MCanns and Madeleine's disappearance.

What on earth should the Home Affairs Select Committee want to know all that rubbish about the McCanns and Madeleine for, especially the prattling on about who put the make-up on Madeleine. Surely they are there to discuss Jim Gamble and his resignation. I really do wonder when the men in white coats will come to take Bennett away! I should imagine every single MP in the country will be wishing the same. Perhaps we should start a petition.

Tinkerbell43 wrote:Pedro, I believe he does have grown up children. Truth be known they probably don't like him either, he is not exactly someone you would want for a father is he!

I feel sorry for his family.

Tinkerbell my friend, I agree with you.

Thanks to
http://justathoughtyouknow.proboards.com/index.cgi?

Shocking - MM have actually changed a news report to suit themselves:

Microsoft set to pull support of CEOP, says chief
Punjania Today

Microsoft set to pull support of CEOP, says chief | Security ...
1 day ago by feedback@zdnet.co.uk (Editors)
The technology giant has told Jim Gamble, the outgoing chief of CEOP, that it is 'unlikely' to continue backing the child protection taskforce if it.

Microsoft set to pull support of CEOP, says chief | Security

Totally untrue..


Furthermore, current philanthropic backers may pull their support from the organisation. According to a ZDNet UK report, Microsoft is considering pulling its money if CEOP is merged.

ZDNet stated that Gamble told the Home Affairs Select Committee: “I have a statement from Microsoft… they feel it extremely unlikely that they will continue philanthropic support of CEOP.”

A quarter of CEOP’s current budget comes from donors such as Microsoft and AOL.

---------------
I wonder if they grasp that - they must be really desperate if they are reduced to manipulating news.
Still, it won't change reality one bit.



He just can't help himself can he? Very crafty alteration of proper wording NOT!!

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/security/2010/10/12/microsoft-set-to-pull-support-of-ceop-says-chief-40090506/

Remember Chris......Bennett does not lie !


He makes "errors " occasionally...

Because of TB´s so many lies, I wonder how this guy still have a nose.

I wonder how he sleeps at night.
He must be like an over excited schoolboy on Christmas Eve, waiting to see what else the day brings him.
He is surely loving all this attention he is getting from a small like minded crew. Sad, sad man. Poor Madeleine having her name and her case used to grab the attention he craves.
tony bennett I hope you rot in hell.