Tony Bennett9 September 2014 06:36
POST 1
I reply to the accusations by yourself and others on this blog that I supplied some kind of list of people known to be McCann-sceptics, or members of CMOMM, to either Carter-Ruck or the judge in the contempt of court trial.
I do so with the greatest of reluctance as I have neither the time nor the money to spend refuting the countless wholly untrue and often libellous claims made by you and your commenters in a recent series of blog articles.
I feel sure that nothing is going to stop you from continuing to make accusation after accusation and encouraging an assortment of others to do so. Which is hard to take after the specific help I gave you with your book and in answer to subsequent private e-mails from you on other matters.
But I believe you will at least have the decency to publish in full this limited rebuttal of just three of the many false claims you and others have made about me. After all, you wrote: “Tony has the ability and the means to reply to anything posted to him here or elsewhere - something that has always been denied to his critics. Did Tony give the 'real' names of those posting on Jill's forum to the Judge or the other side, and if he did, why?”
(Incidentally, people have always had the unfettered right to put any argument against my views on CMOMM, just as you did; those who were banned from the forum were banned for clear breaches of forum rules such as ‘attack the post, not the poster’. That’s in contrast to the way in which, I am told, you have systematically removed all comments on your blog in support of me. Will you now publish all of those?).
Reply
Rosalinda Hutton9 September 2014 07:20
I have post 1 and I have post 3, but no post 2? Presumably in Part 2 you have answered the question of whether or not you handed over a list of antis?
I have no problem in publishing comments that support you Tony, however I will not publish comments that are attack me personally (nothing to do with case, sexual and abusive) and comments that attack other members who have left CMoMM.
Aiyoyo and Plebgate may have to change their style and contemptuous attitude if they want to be published here, I put up with them for way too long on your forum and I ain't putting up with them here.
POST 3
One of your commenters, SoJ, claimed, quote: “There was most definitely a list of names Ros. TB addressed it but wriggled out in his usual fashion. Amazing how so many are devotees yet maybe five were in court”.
S/he is utterly wrong about the ‘list of names’. On the question of ‘maybe five in court’ to support me, try asking any of the 50 or more who came, often from long distances, to support me, either on one or both days, the public gallery being so crowded that some who wanted to attend the court hearing could not get in. I shall always be grateful to them and regret that you entertain commenters who come up with such utter lies, without having the courtesy to check the facts with me first. Whose side are they really on, I wonder?
Which brings me to my final point. In response to the manifestly ludicrous allegation made by you and many others on your blog that I have been ‘bought’ by the McCanns, the plain facts are simply these: That in May 2013, with the help of my solicitor at the time, Robin Tilbrook (as no doubt he would confirm, he negotiated a deal whereby my costs bill was significantly reduced on condition that that I abandoned (a) my appeal, already lodged, to the Court of Appeal against Judge Tugendhat’s judgment and (b) my application, made 15 months earlier, to have the undertakings I had given to be revoked. Nothing else. These were decisions I had to take most reluctantly for financial, practical and family reasons. I continue to pay Carter Ruck directly £125 per calendar month and must do so until May 2023, when I’ll be 75 years old. That’s apart from lump sums already paid to them.
So I have not been ‘bought’ by the McCanns and those who know me know that I would be incapable of being ‘bought’ by anyone.
I do not intend to answer any further baseless allegations made on your blog. Will you please now remove any post or comment which suggests that I handed the judge in the case, or Carter Ruck, a list of individual names.
+
----
-
Rosalinda Hutton9 September 2014 08:06
But you still haven't replied Tony. You have said the commenter SoJ was utterly wrong about the list of names, but you didn't finish the sentence.
To be honest, I don't really care either way Tony, I've moved on now and I've learned a few lessons.
When we first met Tony, I admired your courage in challenging miscarriages of justice, but I did not agree with the ways in which you went about it. The only harm you appeared to be doing was to yourself, and that was your own choice. I doubt you listened to anyone.
Bizarrely, even though your politics are of the 'hang 'em and flog 'em' variety and I'm a chilled out tree hugger, I seem to have a little more respect for the Law than yourself. Whilst I believe we have the right to challenge an obvious miscarriage of justice, we have no right to interfere with the private lives of witnesses in a criminal investigation.
That will remain a fundamental difference between us.
I wish you well Tony, and I am going to bring this to a close later today.
Anonymous9 September 2014 08:43
Ros don,t give this deranged lunatic the publicity he craves.
He has put another anti-Smith rant on the CMoMM today.
Stark raving loony.
You cannot rationalise with a madman.
Save your energy and considerable talents for the McCanns.
Anonymous9 September 2014 07:39
Tony perhaps you would like to remove from your forum the libellous accusation that Cristobell impersonated Martin Smith and faked an email in his name along with an apology. After that you can address the matter of your disproved hypothesis that Smith and Murat are friends. No? Didn't think so, so don't come round here telling R what to publish or retract.
Reply
Anonymous9 September 2014 07:52
I think this is someone impersonating TB. I have evidence (circumstantial dontchaknow) so just ignore all of the above. Outrageous eh?
Reply
Anonymous9 September 2014 08:27
bennett said - "That’s apart from lump sums already paid to them."
How much?
Reply
Anonymous9 September 2014 08:29
Rosalinda Hutton - "I am going to bring this to a close later today."
why?
Anonymous9 September 2014 08:38
Part 2? Whooshed?
Come on Tone, we are all waiting for the"limited rebuttal" of the list of names.
Then Ros can close her blog.....
Reply
Anonymous9 September 2014 09:23
Tony B,
I'll accept that no personal details were handed over. I'd also expect that when it comes to libel involving Martin Smith and Robert Murat that you don't hand over the full list of forum members claiming that we support you. It would be wrong and that's why I left CMoMM because this is what it now stands for.
Reply
Anonymous9 September 2014 09:30
Kudos to you Christobell, for allowing Tone to respond on your blog.
I'm a lesser person and would just kick his duplicitous, wrinkled arse out of here.
'hang 'em and flog 'em' is spot on - Bennett sees himself as judge/jury and executioner -
McCanns - Roman Catholic - guilty by default
Smiths - Roman Catholic and worse - Irish - guilty by default
The Portuguese - Roman Catholic and foreign - guilty by default
It's never Bennett's fault is it? Everyone is at fault.
