'muratfan' and my father - a new low for 'muratfan'?

by **Tony Bennett** 22.08.10 22:16

No, not a new low for 'muratfan', just another low.

'muratfan' and his mates bonnybraes, anna raccoon, Mike Gunnill, Nigel Nessling and the rest of them that share the same world-view, have recently used up page after page of cyberspace on JATYK to speculate that my father was...not British, an extreme right-winger, never in the army at all as I claimed, etc. etc.

They accuse me, in terms, of lying about my father.

When this was confined to those who inhabit the blue cabbage patch, I let it go, but 'muratfan' has brought this campaign to denigrate my father and his memory on to Yahoo! Answers:

So I've felt compelled to make a reply.

Here they both are:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjrAd9X.6FFYHbF5yWPGYowjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20100822111749AA5Io6G

by Rainbow 22.08.10 22:43

I am sorry you have had to defend your Father's background on the internet and that such allegations have obviously caused you personal sadness and pain.Whatever our stance in this case some things just shouldn't be brought into it.

by Judge Mental 22.08.10 23:16

@ Rainbow

One is inspired by your sense of morality, especially after having read some of the most distasteful posts one has ever seen concerning Madeleine's case.

This is abominable and disgraceful behaviour from a group who purport to be fine upholders of the law and knowledgable on all that is 'the minefield' of libel and defamation.

This post landed in one's message box with a request to post on the board. Unfortunately, one has not received a reply to one's own request whereby one was seeking permission to divulge why this has been sent.
It rather looks as if it is not only pro Madeleine posters such as ourselves who are under attack, but that members of anti Madeleine groups are feeling threatened by their peers.

''On Sat Dec 01, 2007 6:47 pm, bonnybraes1 said:

I felt since the beginning of May that Madeleine McCann was, sadly, dead, almost certainly at the hands of her parents. I only hope that whatever happened was an an accident, though I sometimes have doubts about that. I'm sure that the PJ had an idea what had happened fairly quickly- police efforts to get sense out of the parents and the Tapas crew must have set alarm bells ringing. Months down the line, we don't even know who was the last person to see the child alive. All we can hope for is that those responsible answer in court - and that involves everyone involved in the cover-up, and the fraudulent fund. Arguements about percentages in DNA are a smokescreen, forensics, etc. will bring the whole thing together. In the unlikely event that the McCanns are not involved in their daughter's death, then yes, they should be prosecuted for neglect, as a very stern warning that this is never acceptable. I fear for the mental state of many good-hearted people as this moves to its inevitable conclusion - many folk simply do not see evil if it has a smiling face, and this case is a most terrible betrayal of trust, on every single level. We cannot do much from behind a keyboard, but we can ask questions, make a fuss and write letters. We can pray that this child can be laid to rest with dignity, and send a clear message that the littlest members of society has as much right to the protection of the law as the mightiest. In our own lives, we can always step in to protect victims from the cruel and wicked. Justice for Madeleine McCann, and for the helpless and frightened everywhere.''

by Guest 22.08.10 23:18

Tony these 'people' are clearly very disturbed individuals and I think any decent genuine people can see exactly what kind of people they are. There is nothing funny or clever about hurting others. Those who seem to take glee in hurting others and those who laugh at them and goad them on should hang their heads in shame.

It would also be nice to see some of their 'supporters' to have the guts to speak out against this nastiness instead of going along with it, endorsing it, and joining in with these cowardly attacks.

by **sharonl** 22.08.10 23:53

What worries me about these online attacks is the reasons for them.

If Muratfan was just an ordinary guy who believed that Madeleine had been abducted, would he behave in this manner? I think not

He may argue the case and bring things to Tony`s attention - he may say, hey Tony, what about this piece of evidence or that`s not quite right Tony have you read this.? But instead, Muratfan resorts to namecalling, mudslinging and personal attacks - so who behaves that way and why?

1. Is he of low intellect and unable to express himself in any other way
2. Is he being paid for his this service
3. Is he afraid that if the game was up with some, it would also be up with many others ( you know what that means, don`t you Ian?)

by Judge Mental 23.08.10 0:05

It means that wherever he ends up, there will be a shortage of soap.

by Judge Mental 23.08.10 0:26

Not one scintilla of evidence has been shown to point the police in the direction of an abduction theory, yet this person chose to switch their allegiance to the Tapas 9 after writing some quite despicable comments about them.

After writing the lines below, how could this person begin to criticise Tony Bennett, The Madeleine Foundation or any other posters, for continuing to send out the same clear message that she herself used to regularly send out?

''We cannot do much from behind a keyboard, but we can ask questions, make a fuss and write letters. We can pray that this child can be laid to rest with dignity, and send a clear message that the littlest members of society has as much right to the protection of the law as the mightiest. In our own lives, we can always step in to protect victims from the cruel and wicked. Justice for Madeleine McCann, and for the helpless and frightened everywhere.''

by aiyoyo 23.08.10 4:07

The mccannc cult followers are clearly incapable of discerning right from wrong.

If it's about mccanns and TB campaign work, then stick to that perimeter.

Foraying into TB's family background, attacking and smearing his parents in that senseless manner devoid of basic human decency goes beyond malicious spiteful. In a sense it's their evilness showing forth.

All this done in the name of mccanns interest? I hope the mccanns are proud of those animal-minded supporters?

by Irish Eyes 23.08.10 11:00

Judge Mental wrote:''On Sat Dec 01, 2007 6:47 pm, bonnybraes1 said:

I felt since the beginning of May that Madeleine McCann was, sadly, dead, almost certainly at the hands of her parents. I only hope that whatever happened was an an accident, though I sometimes have doubts about that. I'm sure that the PJ had an idea what had happened fairly quickly- police efforts to get sense out of the parents and the Tapas crew must have set alarm bells ringing. Months down the line, we don't even know who was the last person to see the child alive. All we can hope for is that those responsible answer in court - and that involves everyone involved in the cover-up, and the fraudulent fund. Arguements about percentages in DNA are a smokescreen, forensics, etc. will bring the whole thing together. In the unlikely event that the McCanns are not involved in their daughter's death, then yes, they should be prosecuted for neglect, as a very stern warning that this is never acceptable. I fear for the mental state of many good-hearted people as this moves to its inevitable conclusion - many folk simply do not see evil if it has a smiling face, and this case is a most terrible betrayal of trust, on every single level. We cannot do much from behind a keyboard, but we can ask questions, make a fuss and write letters. We can pray that this child can be laid to rest with dignity, and send a clear message that the littlest members of society has as much right to the protection of the law as the mightiest. In our own lives, we can always step in to protect victims from the cruel and wicked. Justice for Madeleine McCann, and for the helpless and frightened everywhere.''

'muratfan' and my father - a new low for 'muratfan'? 890363

How can she go from saying this to what she says now??? 'muratfan' and my father - a new low for 'muratfan'? 234726

by aiyoyo 23.08.10 11:51

Irish Eyes wrote:
Judge Mental wrote:''On Sat Dec 01, 2007 6:47 pm, bonnybraes1 said:

I felt since the beginning of May that Madeleine McCann was, sadly, dead, almost certainly at the hands of her parents.

How can she go from saying this to what she says now???

QUOI?

Who'd said that? Bonnyb?

by WOODWARD 23.08.10 12:46

Muratfan is outraged that Mr Bennet has claimed his mother was born in Croatia AND Yugoslavia. Muratfans level of education and intellect is so low ,he doesnt know that Croatia is IN the country formally known as Yugoslavia. This is no mastermind ,just some lowlife causing trouble on the internet for fun, difficult to ignore if one is a target but more to be pitied, to live ones entire life at that level of stupidity must be difficult.

by ufercoffy 23.08.10 13:21

I think it's high time he learned how to spontaneously self combust.

by aiyoyo 23.08.10 15:16

ufercoffy wrote:I think it's high time he learned how to spontaneously self combust.

I bet that bottom feeder lowly uneducated wouldnt understand big words like 'self combust'! 'muratfan' and my father - a new low for 'muratfan'? 145161

by Kololi 23.08.10 17:41

Hi Mr Bennett

You and I have our differences of opinion on a good few things but I would not wish to pat anyone on their back for using another person's parents or any family member to score points. That said, and for what it may be worth, I do hope that you are able to either stop Muratfan from using your father in the way that he/she is doing to try and hurt you or are able to rise above it and ignore such crap totally.

Not nice at all and certainly not necessary.

Kololi

by Guest 23.08.10 17:51

It's nice to see posters, who although don't always agree with Tony, or other posters, condemn muratfan's appalling and totally uncalled for post on yahoo answers yesterday. thumbsup

He, (muratfan) and those who egg him on should hang their heads in shame. There is absolutely no need for it, and it just shows what sort of people they are. I wonder how they would feel and it was done to them! Perhaps they should take a minute to think about that.

by kangdang 23.08.10 18:16

I have a question for Muratfan, what did your parents get up to a few years ago whilst running their Skeggy Hotel?

by Guest 23.08.10 18:38

kangdang

I have removed your post re muratfan and his family for now, as I want Jill to decided whether to let it stand or not. Just don't feel comfortable with the kids names etc. I know what's good for the goose etc. but Jill can take a look and decide as it is her forum - I know we are all angry, but should we really be doing the same as him??

by Rainbow 23.08.10 18:47

No children should be named imo.

by kangdang 23.08.10 21:44

candyfloss wrote: kangdang

I have removed your post re muratfan and his family for now, as I want Jill to decided whether to let it stand or not. Just don't feel comfortable with the kids names etc. I know what's good for the goose etc. but Jill can take a look and decide as it is her forum - I know we are all angry, but should we really be doing the same as him??

I did not include the names of minors, just intials. Names listed were those of persons over the age of 16.

Perhaps you could re-instate the email addresses and IP number, I see no reason why this info cannot stand. It may even generate further information.

by kangdang 23.08.10 22:10

Bonny (which I can assure you she is not) braes said

But I have no doubt screenshots of that will be going to the police and to the hosts of the jkh site.
Oh, and to Carter Ruck as well.

I got there first BB1, several months ago, the police know all about Ian West...oops sorry "her..she" muratfan.

and

For another, every keystroke any of you make on that forum is being watched.
By legal people and by the media - background info, and all that.

Oh and just so you know, I have pages and pages of screenshots of posts that you made on 3A's. You know, the ones where you outwardly accuse the McCanns of being involved in their daughters demise. These along with many made by other anti turned pros, such as those made by the drunken old bint blondie2, will shortly be arriving at C-R big grin

by **Tony Bennett** 23.08.10 22:24

I'd like to thank Kololi for her comments on 'muratfan's excesses with respect to my father, that was appreciated.

On the question of 'muratfan's identity and his family, I have no problems discussing openly who he is and what his family circumstances are, so long as:

* it's not a case of mistaken identity and we don't end up discussing someone who is not 'muratfan'
* the information is accurate, and
* he is allowed, in one form or another, the right to reply to any serious and specific allegations about him.

I share candyfloss's discomfort at bringing other members of his family into it, especially of course naming children, though I understand 'kangdang' (whose post I didn't see) used only initials, not actual names.

Posters who post politely and do not make false accusations against others and who do not disrupt are entitled to the anonymity of a forum username. 'muratfan's persistent flouting of all normal internet etiquette IMO disqualifies himself from such protection.

I do not see a problem, for example - AND THIS IS ONLY AN EXAMPLE - saying: "I think 'muratfan' = Ian West and lives at x street y town, has a partner, and two children aged 5 and 3".

If there is a real Ian West at x street y town who is not 'muratfan', he can easily deal with any potential problems caused by the disclosure of this information by proving that neither he nor anyone else in his household is 'muratfan'.

by Guest 23.08.10 22:28

Tony have sent you a PM

by kangdang 24.08.10 1:20

JUST TO REITTERATE THOUGH TONY, YOU AND YOUR WORSHIPPERS FOR SOME REASON HAVE THE IDEA THAT A AM MALE. THANKS BUT I AM NOT. I KNOW I HAVE MORE BALLS THAN YOU EVER WILL HAVE BUT FOR YOUR LOT TO TARGET A INNOCENT FAMILY (and yes i know before there has been arguments about truth and his postings) BUT I CAN SAFELY SAY I AM NOT IAN WEST.
JILL HAS POSTED UP WHAT SHE SAYS IS MY IP, YET NOBODY MISSED THE GLARING MISTAKE OF THE AREA OF THE IP WAS TOTALLY DIFFERENT, NEVER MIND IT WAS EDITED LATER FOR KANGDANG TO POST.
JUST SO YOU KNOW IN FUTURE, I USE BT INTERNET SO THERE CAN BE NO CONFUSION OVER MY IP.

Edited was it West! Funny that, as I have all the orginal data (i.e. emails = email headers, comment & forum confirmation emails = username, email addys and IP, etc) on my pc. You have been tracked for over 2 years now, you have made many, many errors.

by kangdang 24.08.10 1:34

Return-Path:

X-Original-To: ianwestphotoenqu@sendfree.com

Delivered-To: incoming@sendfree.com

Received: by sendfree.com (Postfix, from userid 99)

id A357E7C070C; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:45:15 -0400 (EDT)

MIME-Version: 1.0

To: ianwestphotoenqu@sendfree.com

From: "Ian west" westleggett1972@ntlworld.com

Subject: Signup from your form

Message-Id: <20090911194515.A357E7C070C@sendfree.com>

Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:45:15 -0400 (EDT)Return-Path:

X-Original-To: ianwestphotoenqu@sendfree.com

Delivered-To: incoming@sendfree.com

Received: by sendfree.com (Postfix, from userid 99)

id A357E7C070C; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:45:15 -0400 (EDT)

Explain away West.

by Doceedo 24.08.10 7:35

kangdang wrote:
Return-Path:

X-Original-To: ianwestphotoenqu@sendfree.com

Delivered-To: incoming@sendfree.com

Received: by sendfree.com (Postfix, from userid 99)

id A357E7C070C; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:45:15 -0400 (EDT)

MIME-Version: 1.0

To: ianwestphotoenqu@sendfree.com

From: "Ian west" westleggett1972@ntlworld.com

Subject: Signup from your form

Message-Id: <20090911194515.A357E7C070C@sendfree.com>

Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:45:15 -0400 (EDT)Return-Path:

X-Original-To: ianwestphotoenqu@sendfree.com

Delivered-To: incoming@sendfree.com

Received: by sendfree.com (Postfix, from userid 99)

id A357E7C070C; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:45:15 -0400 (EDT)

Explain away West.