Val/Photon/scrimas etc. etc. - the day the scales fell off my eyes

On 12 December, Val/Photon/scrimas etc. etc. asked me a favour. As someone I had got to know if only by e-mail, I was happy to help.

However, some days before she had posted, in her false name of ‘scrimas’, a message hostile to the Madeleine Foundation. It was a series of four questions, first posted by noted McCann-believer sans-souci. These four questions were based on the wholly false premise that members of the Madeleine Foundation might be personally liable for the actions of, say, myself. That is complete and utter legal nonsense, and as I’m frequently asked time-wasting questions just for sport by the McCann-believer side, I ignored the question on this occasion.

I could scarcely believe it when Val/Photon/scrimas etc. etc . just a day after she had asked me for ‘a favour’ and I had granted her wish, turned out to be cunningly posting questions as an apparent pro-McCann.

As you’ll see below, Val/Photon/scrimas etc. etc. has tried to ‘spin’ this by claiming these were genuine questions to which people needed an answer. No they were not, Val/Photon/scrimas etc.etc. was playing silly games, asking time-wasting and hostile questions on a subject which in any event all our members have received advice on already.

The conduct of Val/Photon/scrimas etc. etc. was two-faced, indeed given all her other multiple identities, such as ‘sassy’ and ‘scuba_pro’ etc. etc., multi-faced would be a much better description.

Not only did I do Val a favour, as she asked, I also gave her a good recommendation to Jill, our hostess here, which (and I’m sorry about this Jill) was misplaced. Please see the run of e-mails below.

Normally I would not disclose a private email, unless there is a very good reason for doing so. In this case I think it is definitely of wider interest to see the whole correspondence of the past three days between me, Jill and Val/Photon/scrimas etc. etc., especially because there seems to be a pattern of cunning, deceitful game-playing by Val/Photon/scrimas etc. etc.

So here it is, unedited, including my email to Photon yesterday and her reply last night:

EMAIL BENNETT TO PHOTON 14 DEC

Val,

I arrived back from work today to find that you admitted to being 'scrimas' on Jill Havern's forum.

As 'scrimas', you posted this hostile message to me on 30 November 2009 on Jill Havern's 'Right to Reply' Forum:

Was it explained to the members that, by allowing the Foundation to pay Kirwan's legal costs, the Foundation would be the focus of any potential future legal action on the part of CR? And that if damages and legal costs were, in fact, claimed - then it would be the membership that would be liable to pay? Is this the real reason why you and Butler signed that cheque in Kirwan's office? Is that why you remembered to take the Foundation's cheque book with you - and forgot your own personal credit cards?

Unless you have a very good explanation for your conduct in this I am going to have to assume that you have indeed been playing games, alongside Brenda Ryan and Debbie Butler - as others claim the both of you have been doing for some time.

To say this is a disappointment after you claimed to be in general support of what I and the Madeleine Foundation have been doing is an understatement.

Unless you have a convincing reason for postng this list of rather hostile questions then that's it, Val, I will have to cross you off my list of those whom I have up to now believed to be in this genuinely for truth and justice for Madeleine and not for other reasons.

Tony Bennett

COMMENT ON ‘RIGHT TO REPLY’ BY PHOTON 14 DECEMBER

Tony didn't know that I was posting as Scrimas - why should he? We've never spoken on the phone. He's e-mailed me on occassions for various things. I contacted him on Sunday to forward an e-mail to Jill, as I didn't have her address. He did so, Jill and I exchanged e-mails - and then she e-mailed me this morning and asked me to register. You know very little, but you fabricate a lot, Chicane.

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

AND NOW BACK TO THE BEGINNING, PHOTON TO TONY 12 DECEMBER

From: Val Smith <[withheld]@hotmail.co.uk>
Subject: A Favour
To: ajsbennett@btinternet.com
Date: Saturday, 12 December, 2009, 23:34

Dear Tony

I hope you're keeping well under all of the stress arising from recent activities around the Foundation. I'd be very grateful if you could forward this onto Jill Havern, as I don't have her e-mail address.

I've been reading her forum and see that she's had to close her blog again because of abusive posts, which she suspected were from Muratfan. I see that I'm now being blamed for this - and I would dearly like to explain the facts of the matter to her. No, I most certainly didn't (and have never) posted abusive comments on Jill's blog (or anyone else's) nor did I hack her forum (I just don't have those sort of skills).

I logged on to the internet about 3.30pm today. When I read on Jill's forum that Muratfan was using invisiblesurfing ISP, I did a google search at 20.49 (history_01.jpg) and found the site. I logged onto thehoundingofthemccans site via that proxy at 20.52 - to see if this proxy was transparent or not - that is, to see if it revealed the underlying IP address. I discovered that it was transparent - and therefore would not recommend it. I then went onto 3A to do a test post to get a record of the IP (History_testpost.jpg) at 20.59 - and showed the IP address to be 67.159.44.51.

I searched both of Bren's forums - and found that a poster [withheld at Photon's request] had posted from that IP and had been banned. I also noticed in the user notes (I had made at the time of banning) that this IP address was one of the ones that had been used for hacking posters' accounts last June.

This is the first time that I had heard of that proxy. Crazytony has, however posted on JATYK - and this has been copied to Jill's forum by Chicane) - that his logs show that I visited his site using this proxy at 15.51. This is an absolute lie - he has edited that copy and paste, presumably to tie in with the timings of the abusive postings on Jill's blog.

I just want to reassure Jill that I am most genuinely sorry for her home circumstances - watching your parents come towards the end of their life is one of the most awful things I've had to deal with. She really does have all of my sympathy. I've always had a lot of respect for Jill - and would never, ever, abuse any of her sites in this way.

I've attached a zip file containing screenshots of all of my web access history for today and also screenshots of the other posts that I referred to. Many thanks for any help you can give with this, Tony.

Best wishes

Val

********

BENNETT’S REPLY TO PHOTON (INTERLEAVED) WITH PHOTON’S FOLLOW-UP EMAIL

Dear Tony

Many thanks for your reply. I have extracted your post, in bold, in the following reply:

I have been following all these developments quite closely not least because Jill Havern has kindly allowed me a platform to defend myself against all manner of wholly untrue and poisonous allegations against me.

I appreciate the situation you are in with regard to Jill's forum. As you may recall, although I wasn't a Foundation member I was always very supportive (including financially) of your efforts - and continue to be happy to help where I can. I have always been highly critical of Debbie Butler's behaviour (and have posted to that effect on MM) since events leading up to her marathon phone-in and subsequent publication in the online edition of the Sun. I was concerned when she made her first "I've left the Foundation" post (before the meeting I think) but as I wasn't sure what had happened, didn't have a view on it.

I was amazed for example when Brenda Ryan had the nerve to refer to me recently as 'despicable', this despite my having done more than anyone else in the country that I am aware of to bring to people's notice all the doubts about the McCanns' abduction claim. As you know after joining 3As I did not criticise Brenda Ryan about anything and indeed made sure MF made a modest donation to the work of 3As. Indeed I often praised her for keeping open what was the best reseach tool on the net re Madeleine.

I was equally amazed, Tony. Bren was posting in her own name - and not on behalf of the moderation team members. I considered this derogatory term to be highly inappropriate for a public forum. Sadly, I think some of it was for dramatic effect and to underpin her allegiance with Debbie and Amber

The fact, as I believe, that you are very close to Brenda and have been helping her with her new forum now causes me and others doubts about where your loyalties lie in all of this.

I became a mod on old 3A in July 2008 - and have worked almost continuously with the team since then. In the first instance, this was in recognition of the phenomenal resource that the old 3A database was - I believed it was worth 'fighting' for. As a consequence of that, I have worked with Bren, JJP, CaptnMorgan, Perrito, Roisin, Nanadebbie for almost 18 months (and also with the various ex-mod groups). I have a lot of time for Bren (and the other mods) - she is a very hard worker on the forum - but I don't always agree with everything she says and does.

For example, I was totally opposed to her "cunning plan" which she presented to Debbie just before Kirwans meeting (or so we were told in mod box), of suggesting that they 'work' with the McCanns in getting the case re-opened. I have asked to be de-modded on more than one occasion (Laffin Assasin can vouch for this), most recently about 10 days ago. I am currently 'green' - without my explicit consent. However, I will overlook that at the moment as the opposition have their "guns" aimed in my direction and I don't want to add to their ammunition by appearing to have "fallen out" with Bren.

The attacks on me by Brenda, Debbie Butler and Ambersuz and others who join in have been truly appalling, I repeat I have not made a penny out of Madeleine (nor any of the other campaings I've been involved in) yet Brenda amongst others continues to imply that I have; sadly she has also shown herself to be very hypocritical by her venomous attacks on me whilst condemning others elsewhere for attacking her.

As I have indicated earlier, I am not, at all, happy at the way Bren (and Amber) appear to be giving Debbie unconditional support and agree with your sentiments. My own personal view is that Debbie should have been banned from MM in early November. However, I'm only a poster on that forum

What I would like Val is your help in identifying who has been attacking Jill Havern. I have to say that in the minds of a great many of us Brenda Ryan and her acolytes are falling under suspicion here.They have the motive and the means to attack Jill. But so I guess to some of the McCann-believers whose aims include that of sowing dissesion in the McCann-doubters ranks.

I would dearly love to help - and am happy to do so in whatever way I can. I am totally sympathetic to Jill's situation. I was an only child - my mother died when I was 24 and my father died (after a 3rd stroke) when I was 27. In fact, the final stroke left dad in a persistent vegatative state for almost 3 months. The memories of that period of my life are still very strong and I would never wish that sort of experience on anyone. I am totally sympathetic and empathetic to what Jill must be going through.

I have never made abusive posts on anyone blog/forum - and it would never enter my head to do it with Jill's. When she started her human rights blog - I left a sympathetic comment but did ask her to amend her post as she was using my real name and employer in accusing me of hacking her blog. I really don't have those sorts of skills. I'm quick at getting to grips with new software - but am totally unskilled in the "engine room".

We seem to have entered a new phase of engagement. Rather than being attacked directly (on our forums) with trolls etc, we are now taking the blame for wrongdoings elsewhere. I do know, from recent chats in mod box, that Bren is very sympathetic to Jill's situation regarding her mum and appalled at what has happened to Jill's blog. So I am fairly confident that Jill's attacker isn't in our mod team - many of our mods don't even read outside our own forums + MM. In the past, when we have tried to retaliate - Bren's blog and JJP's Curtaintwitchers - we haven't been very successful. We're dealing with better organised and larger groups who are being highly devious and dishonest. I think Andy is the co-ordinator of the groups, and he appears more interested in attacking forums than in the case of Madeleine McCann. I think he has colleagues who have the technical expertise to hack, transmit trojans and re-mount downloaded backup files together with cracking passwords.

The nastiest posts against, for example, Laffin, Bren and myself have originated from Chaosraptors, Muratfan and Crazytony. Most active hate posts against you have probably come from Muratfan (remember the knifing post??) and Crazytony, with less coming from Chaosraptors (I think) - I've attached those 2 Muratfan screenshots I sent you and also a post from a Chaosraptors forum(Spawn) - where Legend Killer is Muratfan and Winters1 is Crazytony. So for me, these 3 would be the prime suspects.

Secondly, is there any reason why your message to me should not be posted up in toto on Jill's forum?

I'd be happy for the post content to be posted BUT WITH THE POSTER'S NAME (in red, below) REMOVED. I wouldn't want the screenshots posting - my browser history shows which proxies I'm using for JATYK etc!

So fas as I am aware you have never made a hostile reference to me and in view of your past help I have no reason under the sun to make one against you either. Despite what some people say about me, my focus remains on questioning the official account of what really happened to Madeleine and if that is also your focus in all of this I'll do what I can to help you.

The only posters I would make a hostile reference to (IN PM OR EMAIL) would be the 3 prime suspects l've identified above. We (you, Laffin and I) have suffered enough abuse and lies at their hands. I'm also astonished at the behaviour of Bonnybraes and MsMarbles - people I thought were friends this time last year - so, at the moment, I don't have a good word to say about those two either!

If it wasn't for my continued interest in the investigation of the disappearance of Madeleine, and finding the truth, I wouldn't be writing this e-mail. I would have left forum world months ago. I don't get any enjoyment at all out of being hated or seeing hate directed at others that I respect.

Sorry for the delay in replying - I had a "big shop" this morning!

Best wishes

Val

********

BENNETT TO PHOTON, 14 DECEMBER

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:24:43 +0000
From: ajsbennett@btinternet.com
Subject: Re: FW: A Favour - Request from 'Photon'/Val

To: [withheld]@hotmail.co.uk

Val, Noted. On JATYK they are claiming that the source of the problem is someone at the University of Liverpool. It would be good if we had irrefutable evidence of who posted these messages on Jill's blog. I'm sure you are aware of this - and you have many supporters out there - but on the McCann-doubter side there are those who interpret your continuing closeness to Brenda Ryan negatively.

Tony

********

PHOTON TO BENNETT 14 DECEMBER

Dear Tony

JATYK are out and out liars, I'm afraid - how can they know who spammed Jill's blog? Only Jill can access the logs to her forum. I can say, very confidently, that it was most definitely not me that spammed Jill's blog.

As I said earlier - I've worked with Bren and her team for best part of 18 months. She's not perfect - and I've been critical of some of the things that she's done and I certainly don't agree with everything that she says. But "they" are out to divide and conquer. And I have no desire to turn into a backstabber - I would rather just disappear from forum world.

Having just checked posting's on Jill's forum, I see this has been posted:

yeh andy - gonna be right wiv you. you listen and understand ok. i got pictures of you all yur family nad friends. I AM going to post them all over the net at places that dont like nonces and tell em yuou fvck kidz.you stop yur snooping and sticking yur nose where you dont belongh or welcome and i won't do it !! be a smart banker andy or else EVERYONE WILL KNOW THAT YOU ABUSE CHILDREN !!

I was not the sender of that e-mail and, in fact, informed Andy/Majic of that. They have consistently stated that ths e-mail was sent from the scuba_pro account of sassy - that is another downright lie. By the way, I suspect that Baconbutty is Pat/Bonnybraes = BB.

Best wishes

Val

********

PHOTON TO BENNETT, 14 DECEMBER

--- On Mon, 14/12/09,
Val Smith [withheld] wrote:
From: Val Smith
Subject: FW: A Favour - Request from 'Photon'/Val
To: ajsbennett@btinternet.com
Date: Monday, 14 December, 2009, 0:19

Dear Tony

Many thanks for forwarding that e-mail to Jill - below is my reply to her

Best wishes

Val

********

PHOTON TO JILL, 14 DECEMBER

From: [withheld]dr_val@hotmail.co.uk
To: [witheld]
Subject: RE: A Favour - Request from 'Photon'/Val
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:00:37 +0000

Dear Jill

I'll help you in whatever way I can - just tell me what I can do for you.

You have all of my sympathy around your caring for you mum, Jill. I remember well the thread you had on old 3A.

[This part of Photon's message withheld as it contans personal informtion - T.B.]

Whoever has spammed your blog (I didn't see it as it had been made by invitation only when I looked yesterday, but I think I've seen samples copied onto your forum) is truly despicable.

As Tony can confirm, he Laffin and I have been at the receiving end of libelous, defamatory, and outrageously lying posts for the best part of 12 months. Most of this has come from Muratfan, Crazytony and Chaosraptors site.

JATYK, more recently, seems to exist to maintain the hate - and seem to work in collaboration with the other 3. Muratfan and CrazyT, in particular, have posted some of the worst posts - I'd put Muratfan slightly ahead of Crazy on that score.

She was the one who posted "These stalkers need knifing" referring to Tony and Debbie in May - I have the screenshots.

I'll do anything to help, Jill - just tell me what you want

Take care

Val xxx
(real name - [withheld by T.B.]

********

JILL TO PHOTON 14 DECEMBER

From: [withheld]
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:35:12 -0500
Subject: Fwd: A Favour - Request from 'Photon'/Val
To: [withhheld]@hotmail.co.uk

Please help me to sort this out Val.

I cannot take much more of this.

Jill

********

BENNETT TO JILL 13 DECEMBER

--Forwarded Message Attachment--
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:07:59 +0000
From: ajsbennett@btinternet.com
Subject: A Favour - Request from 'Photon'/Val
To: [withheld]@hotmail.co.uk

Hallo Jill,

Val or 'Photon' as she is generally known is someone I've been in touch with by e-mail a few times. got to know on 3As, and have spoken to once when she asked me about computer/internet law/data protection which I confess I know little about.

On what I know of her - and that is not that much - I do not consider it likely that she could have originated or even partcipated in causing some of those vile messages to be posted on your blog.

Below is her denial and she has specifically asked me to forward this to you. I have done so but deleted the name of one poster as she requested. I have disclosed your e-mail to her which I hope you do not mind, she will I know keep it to herself and I think quite honestly she may be able to offer you some help in helping to track down those who are causing trouble.

At present, I am looking at the probability that those close to the McCanns are causing you this trouble. It could well be that Debbie is involved but if so she is using someone who has got technical expertise e.g. in using false/proxy e-mail addresses.

I would like to post Val/'Photon's message on 'Right to Reply' where as you know she is under suspicion and is being attacked. All good wishes to you Jill, thanks again for the 'Right to Reply' opportunity, and please accept my apologies if I cause you any problems by letting Val have your e-mail address.

Tony Bennett

********

PHOTON TO BENNETT 14 DECEMBER

--- On Mon, 14/12/09, Val Smith withheld]@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
From: Val Smith [withheld]@hotmail.co.uk>
Subject: FW: A Favour - Request from 'Photon'/Val
To: ajsbennett@btinternet.com
Date: Monday, 14 December, 2009, 0:19

Dear Tony

Many thanks for forwarding that e-mail to Jill - below is my reply to her

Best wishes

Val

********

PHOTON TO BENNETT 15 DECEMBER

--- On Tue, 15/12/09, Val Smith <dr_val@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

From: Val Smith [withheld]@hotmail.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Disappointed that as 'scrimas' you asked me hostile questions on Jill's Forum
To: ajsbennett@btinternet.com
Date: Tuesday, 15 December, 2009, 22:00

Dear Tony

That e-mail never arrived at this account until now (the hotmail.com account doesn't exist).

As I explained on Jill's forum, I registered as Scrimas to avoid being attacked by hostile posters and which would have caused significant disruption to Jill's forum. I did not want to do that.

Yes, I did make that post which consists of 4 questions which, in my opinion and based on posts being made by Sans Souci on MM, did actually need answering truthfully. You have lost a good number of supporters, Tony, who now have serious doubts about you.

If you had answered those questions honestly, that may well have helped to reassure your doubters and regain their support. You will also find a post I made in response to Cherry, where I asked her if didn't she want you to be exonerated of all accusations - and the best way of doing that (IMO) is to answer their questions.

That post (30th Nov) was never made with hostile intentions - the hostility is purely your perception, I'm afraid. As I said in an earlier post referring to Bren - I have no intention of back stabbing anyone. And that includes you. I am genuinely sorry that you believed that those 4 questions were hostile, that was never my intention - but I cannot apologise for asking them, as I believed that they needed answering.

Deborah's behaviour on MM has been deplorable (again, IMO) and I have let her know that. She has made posts on MM that should NEVER have been made. Again, purely my opinion, her behaviour has inflicted more damage on her own credibility than on yours. Nevertheless, you do need to address those doubts raised by some of the allegations that she has made around the Foundation.

I do have a mind of my own, Tony, and I do not follow "blindly". In the same way that I can recognise Bren's good qualities, without agreeing wholeheartedly with everything she says and does, I recognise your significant contribution to the work of the Foundation and applaud you for that.

I would NEVER "stab" either of you "in the back" (figuratively speaking). Nevertheless, there have been times when your behaviour has caused me concern and, at time some distress. I will admit that I have not shared this with you until now.

For example, I edited and posted a photo of the McCann's house which you sent me - which I uploaded to my hosting account. As a consequence of that, I was (and still am) accused of taking that picture and being a stalker. Did you ever rectify that misconception??

You sent me an email demanding the "strictest confidentiality" and I was not to discuss the content with any of the Mods. I agreed to that, and replied to your e-mail. What did you do?? Forward my reply to Bonnybraes - after she had left 3A.

And as a consequence of some of the content of that e-mail (forwarded on to Pat) I am STILL being accused of sending an abusive e-mail to Andy, which I never sent. This e-mail:

" yeh andy - gonna be right wiv you. you listen and understand ok. i got pictures of you all yur family nad friends. I AM going to post them all over the net at places that dont like nonces and tell em yuou fvck kidz.you stop yur snooping and sticking yur nose where you dont belongh or welcome and i won't do it !! be a smart banker andy or else EVERYONE WILL KNOW THAT YOU ABUSE CHILDREN !!"

WAS NOT WRITTEN BY ME AND DID NOT ORIGINATE FROM THE SCUBA_PRO E-MAIL ACCOUNT.

Similarly, I did not spam Jill's blog nor ring up the hospice to find the details of her mother.

You may be disappointed with Scrimas, Tony, but equally, there have been times when I've been disappointed by you.

Everything in this e-mail is the truth.

NONE OF THE CONTENT OF THIS E-MAIL SHOULD BE POSTED ON ANY FORUM WITHOUT MY EXPLICIT CONSENT AND APPROVAL OF CONTEXT.

Best wishes

Val

bcc'd to one other

BENNETT TO PHOTON 8AM THIS MORNING 16 DECEMBER

Val

Thank you for your reply.

sans-souci's four questions were time-wasting questions designed only to cause mischief for The Madeleine Foundation. There was no legal basis whatsoever for her/his claim that individual Foundation members were at financial risk.

If you were so concerned, genuinely, for us, you could have sent me a brief note asking me to answer those questions.

But, no, you chose to invent another of your multiple identities and re-post sans-souci's time-wasting questions on 'Right to Reply'. Your motives were not genuine as you profess. Your intent was unfriendly towards The Madeleine Foundation.

Then you wrote to me a few days later asking for 'a favour'. And I obliged.

Sorry, Val, you have acted deceptively, I can't now trust you.

The e-mail correspondence between me, you and Jill will be published on 'Right to Reply', with personal details removed.

Tony

********
ENDS

Are you keeping a league table of those you have publically sold up the river because it suited you to, Mr Bennett?

So who exactly is playing the games Vanessa, you or I and the community ?

You and your colleagues should be ashamed in the way you have hijacked Madeleine's name for your own selfish short comings in your characters. All of you continue to do so and hide behind the front of caring about missing children ?

You're sick. Really you are.

Majic wrote:So who exactly is playing the games Vanessa, you or I and the community ?

You and your colleagues should be ashamed in the way you have hijacked Madeleine's name for your own selfish short comings in your characters. All of you continue to do so and hide behind the front of caring about missing children ?

You're sick. Really you are.

Absolutely!

As the self appointed leader of the voice of Madeliene, hijacker of her name for your own ends, does it not fall to you to ensutre some dignity attaches to it?

How about the Balkwell case? Do you think your "He said /she said/ I am posting private mails" helps their cause?

No matter who the "Scrimas" person turned out to be, the questions that poster asked were quite valid, and still need answering. If Bennett is so certain Sans-Souci was time wasting for pointing the legal responsibility of the foundation members for costs and/or damages occurred in any libel action against Bennett, then I would like to see Bennett's counter argument to refute this.

"By the way, I suspect that Baconbutty is Pat/Bonnybraes = BB."


This bit made me laugh out loud.
So I'm putting it on record right now that baconbutty does NOT have a Scottish accent, or anything approaching one.
It's always somebody else's fault, isn't it, Photon?
Well I'll say this -- it's not my fault that 3a and MM became as fragrant as open sewers.
It's not my fault that the top bods in 3A and MM chose the paranoid, lying, cheating and scheming route in their Skype and SSS bunkers.
It's not my fault that their reputations are shot to pieces. They've done that themselves without any help from anyone else.

"Let all the poisons that are in the mud hatch out."
And let it be soon. The internet will be a much cleaner place.

baconbutty wrote:"By the way, I suspect that Baconbutty is Pat/Bonnybraes = BB."
This bit made me laugh out loud.

Yes! The idea that 'baconbutty' from (quote) 'Oop North' could be the Scottish flag-waving 'bonnybraes' in disguise was risible.

But it does give us a real insight into Photon's internet detective skills

baconbutty wrote:"By the way, I suspect that Baconbutty is Pat/Bonnybraes = BB."


This bit made me laugh out loud.
So I'm putting it on record right now that baconbutty does NOT have a Scottish accent, or anything approaching one.
It's always somebody else's fault, isn't it, Photon?
Well I'll say this -- it's not my fault that 3a and MM became as fragrant as open sewers.
It's not my fault that the top bods 3A and MM chose the paranoid, lying, cheating and scheming route their Skype and SSS bunkers.
It's not my fault that their reputations are shot to pieces. They've done that themselves without any help from anyone else.

"Let all the poisons that are the mud hatch out."
And let it be soon. The internet will be a much cleaner place.

Well said!!!

Made me laugh too Baconbutty :ambersuz:

"Always someone elses fault"applies to the lot of them, Photon, Bren, every one them tries to blame someone else. They are incapable of accepting responsibility for their actions even though everyone else sees it. Incredible isnt it?

Excellent post BaconButty!

Bea_Reasonable wrote:Are you keeping a league table of those you have publically sold up the river because it suited you to, Mr Bennett?

I totally agreed TB has proven again he is ever ready to shamelessly sell people up the river when it suited him.

Is his real problem facing his doubters and answering those 4 questions or photon using sock? Judging from him retorting to having to use this trick I suspect the latter fits the bill. Nonetheless, the 4 questions still await answers.

TB is showing himself up in bad light, and after yet another debacle of his doing, I would be surprised anyone dares trade email with him unless people are suicidal.

NONE OF THE CONTENT OF THIS E-MAIL SHOULD BE POSTED ON ANY FORUM WITHOUT MY EXPLICIT CONSENT AND APPROVAL OF CONTEXT.

Yet here it is ..... Did Bennett get the "explicit consent and approval of context?"

Seems Tony missed that bit. I agree with aiyoyo, who in their right mind would ever consider emailing anything to Tony Bennett?

No one could sell anyone up the river if the information in the email is accurate and correct. It's only when you set out to deceive that problems arise and a wider audience sometimes helps in this matter. We are of course assuming that Vanessa didn’t give permission for this to be reproduced, she may well have done – until she comments herself (for what that is worth) I take it at face value.

Majic wrote:No one could sell anyone up the river if the information in the email is accurate and correct. It's only when you set out to deceive that problems arise and a wider audience sometimes helps in this matter. We are of course assuming that Vanessa didn’t give permission for this to be reproduced, she may well have done – until she comments herself (for what that is worth) I take it at face value.

But Majic, did you not see she expressedly stated that the email was for the privilege of TB's eyes only - she expressedly printed it in CAPS for a reason, and TB had now made this privilege of all and sundry!

No matter his dissatisfaction with Photon, do you think it's right for TB to use it that way? That being the case, everyone emails to him is a ticking time bomb waiting for TB to detonate when it suits him. Surely you dont want your private correspondence with TB exposed in that manner?

aiyoyo wrote:

But Majic, did you not see she expressedly stated that the email was for the privilege of TB's eyes only - she expressedly printed it in CAPS for a reason, and TB had now made this privilege of all and sundry!

aiyoyo, unless you have specific information to the contrary, and I am not aware that Vanessa has made it publically known as yet, she could well have given him permission following that email.

Do you have further information to add to this as in you have spoken to Vanessa privately regarding this issue ?

Majic wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

But Majic, did you not see she expressedly stated that the email was for the privilege of TB's eyes only - she expressedly printed it in CAPS for a reason, and TB had now made this privilege of all and sundry!

aiyoyo, unless you have specific information to the contrary, and I am not aware that Vanessa has made it publically known as yet, she could well have given him permission following that email.

Do you have further information to add to this as in you have spoken to Vanessa privately regarding this issue ?

No, of course NOT. But since Vanessa is banned here how do people find out?

I am merely going by the caution she put in CAPS.

aiyoyo wrote:

No, of course NOT. But since Vanessa is banned here how do people find out?

I am merely going by the caution she put in CAPS.

Why are you emphasising the not ? You could just say that you have no further information. Stressing the not just makes people suspicious in an environment where trust is hard to come by

Now Vanessa has said she didn't give approval:

From MM;

Re: Reply to Tony Bennett
Photon Today at 11:32

.In response to a query regarding consent for publishing the content of my e-mail to Tony Bennett. NO, he did no seek consent or approval of context. In fact, he made the post on forum BEFORE he replied to that e-mail:

I received NO correspondence from him prior to that 8:10:55 e-mail today.

Are you a member of Missing Madeleine yoyo ?

Majic wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

No, of course NOT. But since Vanessa is banned here how do people find out?

I am merely going by the caution she put in CAPS.

Why are you emphasising the not ? You could just say that you have no further information. Stressing the not just makes people suspicious in an environment where trust is hard to come by

fair enough then.

But seriously, do you think photon would give permission? If so, then why did she need to emphasize the caution in caps?

edited to say: your earlier post must have crossed mine while I was in the midst. And voila, we now have the answer.

Majic wrote:Now Vanessa has said she didn't give approval:

From MM;

Re: Reply to Tony Bennett
Photon Today at 11:32

.In response to a query regarding consent for publishing the content of my e-mail to Tony Bennett. NO, he did no seek consent or approval of context. In fact, he made the post on forum BEFORE he replied to that e-mail:

I received NO correspondence from him prior to that 8:10:55 e-mail today.

Are you a member of Missing Madeleine yoyo ?

Nope.

Mr Bennett - a member on another forum has asked to highlight this:

For example, I edited and posted a photo of the McCann's house which you sent me - which I uploaded to my hosting account. As a consequence of that, I was (and still am) accused of taking that picture and being a stalker. Did you ever rectify that misconception??

The member has asked : can you ask Bennett why he was distributing a picture of the McCanns house and who took the picture please. ?

For example, I edited and posted a photo of the McCann's house which you sent me - which I uploaded to my hosting account. As a consequence of that, I was (and still am) accused of taking that picture and being a stalker. Did you ever rectify that misconception??

So now it would appear that it was actually Bennett that took that photo. One has to ask why? How does he think a photo of the McCann's house would progress the "truth" about Madeleine? And why did he allow Photon to take the flak for being the photographer, when it now appears that he was, in fact, the photographer and the stalker?

Personally, I don't have any sympathy for Photon whose thoroughly scurrilous behaviour has been exposed here over the last few days, but I have nothing but contempt and utter disgust for the devious Bennett who is so cowardly as to to try to hide behind the skirts of any willing female. He allowed Butler to be labelled a stalker in the national press, and Photon in these forums for taking that photo.

I would suggest that the only stalker atround here is Bennett himself!

aiyoyo wrote:

Nope.

On the 3 Arguidos ?

Sorry, Majic - your post was made as I was typing mine on the same subject!