Bennett's total uselessness at "researching" everything and anything

tigerloaf » Sun Oct 19, 2014 2:08 pm

Every single thing that Bennett posts is proven to be based on the most abominable levels of "research".

His total uselessness at "researching" everything and anything is the biggest flaw in his character.

Tony Bennett, the moronic, failed and disgraced ex-solicitor from Harlow leaps like a rabid dog on the flimsiest of possible connections between things and spins the most lurid and sensational conspiracies and idiocies from what are in effect his own failed "researches".

Here we have yet another of his stupid attempts to connect what is not in reality connected at all. Here we have yet another example that proves how lacking in the fundamental "research" skills this legal lackbrain really is.

I wonder how long you had to spend using the Internet to prove this buffoon was once again showing just what a total moron he really is? Two hours, an hour, half an hour, ten minutes? Probably less than ten minutes.

But Buffoon Bennett doesn't even make the effort. His whole life depends on his crackpot theories so he spends not a second on actually testing the garbage he posts. He has an idea. He sees something which in his immature mind looks like a connection. Therefore there is a connection. Nobody who is serious about law, about "research" or about truth would ever behave in the frankly ridiculous way he behaves.

To the morons and numpties and tinfoil hat wearers who latch onto anything which even remotely hints of salacious sexual misdemeanours, nefarious McCann activity or anti-establisment conspiracy, Tony Bennett the disgraced and convicted failed solicitor from Harlow is a balding messiah whose every word should be taken as gospel.

To anyone with the tiniest ability to discriminate between reality and fantasy, Bennett's contribution to the legal and social corpus of knowledge is not even on the radar of something that needs to be consulted. Bennett is not even a naughty boy. He is a silly boy who has always had issues with authority. One has to wonder about the father/son relationship which produced a man who has no respect for authority or morality (his blatant lies and his underhanded dealing with others including his siphoning of money from his employers), who has no ability to do the research he so admires and who seems to be unable to succeed in anything he tries.

What all these people seem to forget is that their hatred of the McCanns verging on obsessive lunacy in many cases, all their lies and their failures, their abuse and their libel online is their legacy to their families and descendants. It will be available for all to see for decades to come. It is unfortunate for the family of Brenda Leyland that her list of 4500 tweets, not one of which suggests a single nice aspect of her character will for decades be the first thing anyone finds relating to her. It is unfortunate for the grandchildren of Tony Bennett that the fame of their grandfather will be based on his criminal conviction for hounding the parents of a missing little girl, the obscene "poetry" he has posted about the child, the fact that he is a complete failure with obsessive tendencies and no thought for the effect of his actions on his own family. When the next hater is exposed (as they most certainly will be) I hope that they will be able to cope with the reality of the situtation.

What people post online is real. It doesn't magically disappear. It is your legacy. I am proud of my online legacy. I have stood up for decency, truth and legality. Many of the haters and hounders cannot defend their actions in the same way.

This is why the fool is laughed at by anyone with the most basic knowledge of the British legal system. This is why he is the butt of jokes from anyone who has a GCSE of any grade in just about any subject at all. Apparently his father was a headmaster somewhere but failed to get across to his son the basics of the English language. One of those basics being that in general English as opposed to legal prose the context of both the phrase quoted and the text as a whole is vital to gaining a correct understanding when any possibility of confusion might arise. Just as no sane person would attempt to read a Shakespeare play without some understanding of the historical and internal contexts so no sane person would read news reports without similar consideration.

On the basis of the single sentence he quotes he has concocted a bizarre theory that Brenda Leyland (aka Sweepyface the extremely nasty online hounder and abuser) was sent by some unknown person or persons to the hotel where she later died of, as yet, unknown causes.

Though, the most basic reading of the sentence in context reveals that there is no such indication within the story, this bizarre and bonkers theory from the head honcho of the Anti McCann "research" outfit has led him to come up with a series of questions with which he will no doubt waste the time of various organisations (and taxpayers money) in submitting FOI requests. And all because the man can't bloody well read with the comprehension level expected of a junior school child.

I have no doubt that the numpties and haters who worship at the feet of this bonkers, disgraced and convicted legal lackbrain will grasp this "theory" and hold it to their bosoms in their desperate attempts to whitewash the disgusting behaviour of Brenda Leyland and turn her into a martyr for their hate campaign. They will embellish this theory built from the illiteracy of their leader and spend hours, days, weeks even, asking perverse questions such as was she sent there to be silenced, to be interrogated, to be softened up, to be held captive, perhaps to be murdered? And please don't suggest I am exaggerating because a cursory glance at the output of these numpties and haters will confirm that these nonsensical ideas have already been proposed even without this further "research" from the boss buffoon himself.

Bennett has a serious flaw. It has been evident in absolutely everything he has ever written about the McCann case (and previously about other cases). He does not work from the evidence but allows his own presumptions to direct his understanding of the evidence. It is a direct result of his morbidly obsessive grasping onto the cases. He never looks at the evidence objectively but has to see it fitting into his own perverse theories. I recall his comments about a certain converted barn not having as many windows as he believed were necessary. Total garbage when planning permission and use of rooflights were noted. I remember his ignorant misunderstanding of the phrase used by Mitchell about assumptions. I remember his weaving a conspiracy about Norfolk from evidence which bore no relation to the warped alleyways his mind wanted it to describe. And so on. He is so fixated on a particular viewpoint that even the simple sentence he quotes out of context above becomes some kind of mad conspiracy instead of the simple report of an officer sent to respond to a call from the hotel.

All the while that Bennett clings to his fixed view of the world, all the while that instead of approaching evidence objectively he sees it as some part of his pre-determined jigsaw, he will continue to fail to grasp what really happened in Praia da Luz.

And what is genuinely the saddest aspect is that all the while that Bennett (in his pursuit of his obsession) continues to churn out such rubbish as this idiotic idea of the troll Leyland having been sent by an unknown person or organisation to the hotel, there are those stupid enough to hang on to his every word, people who are even more stupid it seems than Bennett, whose judgement is not their own but is directed by this failure of a man.

To put it in terms that these people might more easily understand and to use Bennett's own avatar as a teaching aid for them, the fact is that more genuine "truth will come out" of the backside of the average farmyard animal than ever comes from the keyboard of their leading "researcher". He makes a complete mockery of the term "research" when he shows that he cannot even read properly with a modicum of common sense.

ps I still have interesting comments to post about Tony Bennett and his recent activities and they will appear in the near future. Better I feel to be 100% accurate though, with the information, than to do a "Bennett" by not ensuring my research is undertaken properly.

tigerloaf » Mon Nov 03, 2014 12:58 am
It looks like Buffoon Bennett (the chap who has never heard of police officers being "sent" to the scene of a potential crime) hasn't managed to work out what has actually happened yet. He is apparently aware that his forum is being side-lined but as to how, why and who is behind it he seems completely clueless. Perhaps he should take a step back and look at the wider picture?

A little birdy tells me a lot more is going on than his permanently flawed "research" and myopic obsession is suggesting to him, but I am sure one of his hangers-on (perhaps the pretendy cop who must have a few contacts he can talk to) can find the clues.

And for the record sending the odd twit to @google as some of the numpties are trying won't get them very far at all. About as much use as an ant walking down the central reservation of the M1 waving at the cars and lorries hoping to stop one of them so that the driver can take a message to Downing Street. Actually I think the ant would have a better chance of success.

tigerloaf » Mon Nov 03, 2014 1:20 am
I see Buffoon Bennett has admitted that his barking mad post about Brenda Leyland being sent to the hotel was completely wrong.

No apology, of course. Just another of his many errors of "research".

And what is his explanation for this bonkers post? Oh, he claimed the sentence was "sloppy".

So he proves my point. A proper researcher when encountering a "sloppy" sentence would be wary. Not Buffoon Bennett, though. What did he do?

The idiot built a whole conspiracy theory from this "sloppy" sentence which fitted in with his obsessive and lunatic beliefs.

No proper researcher would have done that. Only a buffoon like Bennett. Any proper researcher would have looked carefully at the context, at other reports and would have applied just a tiny bit of common sense. None of these were in the repertoire of the failed and disgraced solicitor, the convicted liar and the head honcho of the worst "researchers" ever to bestow the title on themselves.

Mad as the proverbial box of frogs?

And actually his excuse does not hold water. There isn't anything truly "sloppy" about the sentence at all. The meaning is perfectly clear to anyone with a reasonable understanding of tenses, sentence structure and the nature of transitive/intransitive verbs.

Police Sergeant Kevin Taylor told the coroner he was informed that Mrs Leyland was dead after being sent to the Marriott Hotel in Enderby.

You simply would not say "She was dead after being sent to the Marriott Hotel". You would say "She died/had died after being sent to the Marriott Hotel".

And on another matter close to the heart of the head honcho of the hounders "researchers" they are still thousands and thousands of signatures away from that 10,000 mark on the petition. Absolutely hilarious.

Over the last week this daft petition has had five signatures per day. To get to 10,000 it will have to pick up a bit though, it needs around 50 every single day. The trouble is, it isn't a pretendy petition. People have to identify themselves and the government gets their names and details and his forum numbers simply are not real are they?

Still he has a very remote chance of winning the bet I made. That's only 2000 signatures. Surely he can manage to get 4 numpties to add their names and details each day till the end of March next year? Surely that is not beyond him? Is it? We'll see.