Justice 4 ALL Madeleine McCann Family
You need to be a member of this forum in order to view its entire contents.
We welcome applications to join the forum from genuine caring compassionate people that wish to support Mr Mrs McCann in their never ending resolve to finding their daughter Madeleine and bringing her back home where she truly belongs.

All applicants are checked out so people with no sense, no moral compass, no rationality and only half a brain cell and even less grip on reality and who are devoid of all logic - need NOT apply!
This also applies to ex-members, who no longer want to be members, yet spend their lives viewing this forum and telling people they no longer want to be members.
This is said without prejudice with no one in particular in mind.

Bennetts Motive?

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Bennetts Motive?

Post by Guest on Fri Dec 26, 2008 10:44 pm

Tony Bennett
Post subject: Re: DisappearedPosted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 8:49 pm
Been Cautioned


Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:49 pm
Posts: 376
Location: Harlow, Essex
Magellen wrote:
All the detective work so far has produced no evidence that would stand up in a court of law...


Magellen, I am not sure that that is a correct statement. At the very minimum, if charges of (a) hiding a body and frustrating an inquest and (b) perverting [and/or interfering with] the course of justice were to be brought against the Doctors McCann, I think there is a very good chance that if a jury saw and heard all the evidence that the Policiara Judiciara has now made available, they would convict the McCanns.

P.S. Agree with other posters, this is a classic case of focussing the police's, the public's and media's attention on a 'cover story'. Karen Matthews tried it over Sharon. Only with the McCanns, it has been done with very high level help. Thousands of other parents who have been responsible for their children's deaths, whether by accident, negligence, neglect or deliberate act, have done the same - feigned an abduction

=================================

The above post by Bennet on 3A's. Ok he wants Kate and Gerry punished, we know that anyway. But why?

I am wondering if he has intentions of future political gains. Using fighting for childrens rights as a priority to win votes. He would settle for being seen as a leader for changing the laws on behalf of children even though he will fail. Vote him in and he will change things!! Actually this has made me also wonder about him carrying on regardless of not catching the fox. He can use the fact of losing to show that the current political atmosphere is not worried about child abuse.

I don't have a problem if he sincerely cares about child abuse and would like to change things for the benefit of children. But I don't like his methods one bit if what I think is true. Besides I never did like the guy as a politician and the fact that he was struck off as a solicitor for some underhand stuff does not fill me with confidence that he is entirely sincere.

This of course is an opinion made from trying to understand his motives.

Did anyone spot TB's mistake in his post above? The girls name is Shannon TB, not Sharon.
By the way, I have confirmation that the NSPCC do not agree with his views.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Bennetts Motive?

Post by Guest on Fri Dec 26, 2008 10:54 pm

Bennett quote/I think there is a very good chance that if a jury saw and heard all the evidence that the Policiara Judiciara has now made available, they would convict the McCanns.
unquote.

Oh really o'reilly!!

Seeing as there is not enough evidence that the PJ has now available to bring charges in the fist place so the case can be brought before a jury. How is a conviction going to be possible Mr wishy washy!!?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Bennetts Motive?

Post by Rosie on Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:35 am

Bennet Said...

Magellen, I am not sure that that is a correct statement. At the very minimum, if charges of (a) hiding a body and frustrating an inquest and (b) perverting [and/or interfering with] the course of justice were to be brought against the Doctors McCann, I think there is a very good chance that if a jury saw and heard all the evidence that the Policiara Judiciara has now made available, they would convict the McCanns.

Really? Well just what has come to light since the Portuguese prosecutor decided there was no evidence to charge and certainly no evidence to say that Madeleine is dead?
Odd, because we all follow this case and in case I missed it can anyone please inform me what has been discovered since the Portuguese prosecutor decided there was 'NO' case to answer?

What planet does this nonsense come from?
avatar
Rosie
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4358
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Bennetts Motive?

Post by vee8 on Sat Dec 27, 2008 10:07 am

If they made talking out of your ar*e an Olympic sport, the fool would be a gold medalist. Exactly rosie, no additional evidence has come to light, to add to the total lack of any evidence to begn with. In this country there wouldn't even be a trial, never mind a conviction, so he is playing a very devious game indeed. Just think, bent-tit as PM. Makes my skill crawl.
avatar
vee8
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 3113
Location : suffolk
Registration date : 2008-06-24

http://www.madeleine-adestinybegun.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Bennetts Motive?

Post by Guest on Sat Dec 27, 2008 7:03 pm

By the way Amarals book coming out in English is being hailed on 3A's. Maybe TB is viewing that as the new additional evidence?

Maybe Bennett should revert to mathamatics? Afterall he likes using figures and statistics.

I'll do the sums for you Bennett.

ZERO + ZERO = ZERO

STATISTICS + ZERO = STATISTICS

(BOOK + ZERO) x ADVERTISING = KERCHING!!

POLITICAL PROPAGANDA + 3A's = VOTES

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Bennetts Motive?

Post by vee8 on Sat Dec 27, 2008 7:31 pm

Did they say WHEN porky's book is coming out?
avatar
vee8
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 3113
Location : suffolk
Registration date : 2008-06-24

http://www.madeleine-adestinybegun.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Bennetts Motive?

Post by Guest on Sat Dec 27, 2008 8:22 pm

No dates as far as I could see.

It's a bit like saving your best and biggest firework until the end isn't it? Having seen the firework going off elsewhere and going off like a damp Catherine Wheel, all spin and no fire. I think 3A's are milking the build up before the let down.

The only thing this book has got is Amarals plugging a theory that many on 3A's agree with. I dont think it is a case of the book revealing anything other than to make the view of Madeleine being killed, buried, removed and then successfully hidden with the parents conspiring to cover it up more public and sanctioned by a Police Officer.

A Police Officer who misunderstood the FSS report to back up and use his theory as the most likely.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Bennetts Motive?

Post by Wanderer on Sat Dec 27, 2008 11:55 pm

Amarols theory is flawed and I can't see any policeman following this to the exclusion of anything else. The guy is just in it for the money now and the idiots on 3A think he walks on water plus they also believe that he actually posts on 3A Laffin

Wanderer
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 33
Location : uk
Registration date : 2008-12-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Bennetts Motive?

Post by honestbroker on Sun Dec 28, 2008 12:21 am

I've glanced at thread on 3As and I really can't believe it. Madeleine's body was kept in a freezer apparently!

I thought Bennett was publishing the book privately via his foundation. Has he found an official publisher?

If so, we must write to them.

honestbroker
Apprentice's Assistant
Apprentice's Assistant

Number of posts : 211
Location : britain
Registration date : 2008-08-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Bennetts Motive?

Post by Guest on Sun Dec 28, 2008 12:42 am

HB, I think he is self publishing. Dont suppose a publisher would risk being sued.

Wanderer, I was reading a post where the members of the Ex mods forum were displayed. You know the forum that 3A's dont like. Yet in there is the chap/gal who introduced Amaral to 3A's and also Cluadia!!

Good golly Miss Claudy. Somehow Bren has been set up, lol. Meethinks.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Bennetts Motive?

Post by Wanderer on Sun Dec 28, 2008 1:12 am

sorry modNrodder, I don't know where the ex mod forum is but i'm not surprised to hear that amaral posting on 3a is a joke. I can't believe so many people fell for it though

Wanderer
Rookie
Rookie

Number of posts : 33
Location : uk
Registration date : 2008-12-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Bennetts Motive?

Post by Tinkerbell43 on Sun Dec 28, 2008 6:39 am

The loonies on the 3a's only hang onto Amaral's words because they have no-one else. They have no high profile person supporting them, Amaral is as good as it gets Laffin and even Amarals own force dont believe him.

They cannot accept the fact that the McCanns have high profile business men, MP's, "A" list celebrities, world class bands and a majority of the public supporting them, not to mention the professional experts who also support the abduction theory, whilst all the anti's have is er erm Amaral LardyBoy and Bent-tit.

When you think about it, the anti's really are a sad minority. No wonder they are so p*ssed all the time Laughing Laughing Laughing
avatar
Tinkerbell43
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 1473
Age : 53
Registration date : 2008-04-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Bennetts Motive?

Post by honestbroker on Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:27 am

Well, I've attempted to do something positive. I've sent Mr Bennett the following email (principally in response to his second 'reason' which I quote).
I have read the threads on the 3Arguidos with increasing dismay and my frustration is increased because I can't post there, having been banned.

I really think we need to go back to basics, here. Are you aware that the evidence of Eddie's indicators point far more to the McCanns' innocence of Kate and Gerry of anything worse than leaving their children than their guilt? Below I quote in full your second 'reason' -- the evidence of the dogs with salient points underlined:


2. The evidence from two highly trained cadaver dogs that the ’smell of death’ was found in several places in the holiday apartment where the McCanns were staying - and in a car they hired three weeks later


As suspicions grew in the minds of the Portuguese police that Doctors Kate and Gerry McCann might know what had happened to their daughter, and might even have been involved in some way in her disappearance, the police turned to the British police to help them determine whether Madeleine might have died in Apartment 5a in Praia da Luz, where her parents had been staying from 28th April to 3rd May, the day she was reported missing.
They turned for advice to experienced Leicestershire detective Mark Harrison, who, after a week’s visit to Praia da Luz in July 2007 - in which he analysed all the evidence - advised that the Portuguese police should proceed on the working assumption that Madeleine had died in the McCanns’ apartment, and her body hidden or otherwise disposed of. He then brought in a top police dog handler, Mr Martin Grime, who had two highly-trained dogs under his command: ‘Eddie’, who could detect human cadaverine, the so-called smell of death, and ‘Keela’, a blood-hound, who could detect the presence of blood.
Dogs, it should be noted, are known to have a sense of smell 10,000 times as strong as that of humans, which is almost beyond comprehension given that we ourselves have such a highly developed sense of smell. The two dogs, trained and used successfully by top police dog-handler Martin Grime over many years, had the ability to use their faculties in two highly specific areas.
Eddie, who has been called ‘the cadaver dog’, can detect the presence of human ‘cadaverine’, a special chemical released from a dead body, usually after the body has been dead for at least two hours (sometimes as short as an hour-and-a-half). It’s important to understand that Eddie is trained only to sense the presence of the special type of cadaverine released by a human corpse. The scent of death from animals is a different form of cadaverine. Keela is a dog trained specifically to detect the presence of blood. She is a ‘blood-hound’. She has been trained to ignore decomposing body materials other than human blood, freezing with her nose as near to the blood as possible without touching the item, to enable scientists to recover the sample quickly and efficiently. She can even pick out traces of blood after clothing or weapons have been washed many times; when Keela was working on the Abigail Witchalls case, she found eight pieces of blood-stained clothing in just one day.
Claims have been made by the McCanns and their team of legal and PR advisers about the alleged unreliability of cadaver dogs, including suggestions that they have on occasions mistaken pork for cadaver scent. But cadaver dogs have an excellent track record and have been used successfully in several murder trials. They are able to detect the smell of death up to dozens of feet below the surface and even after a body has lain there for years. Spectacular examples of their work can be viewed on many websites on the Internet. In addition, Mr Harrison and Mr Grime, who trained Eddie and Keela, patiently explained that the dogs had traced the ‘smell of death’ - human cadaverine - on around 200 previous occasions. They had never once been wrong.
So what did Mr Martin Grime’s cadaver dog and blood-hound find?
According to the official police summary report released in July this year - and confirmed by video evidence of the dogs in action in Praia da Luz, widely available on the Internet - Eddie, the cadaver dog, found the ‘smell of death’ in the following places. We quote the exact words of the report:
a)in the McCanns’ apartment, Apartment 5A, Eddie the cadaver the dog detected the scent of a human corpse (human cadaverine):

(i)in the couple’s bedroom, in a corner, around a wardrobe, and
(ii)in the living room, behind the sofa, close to the external window of the apartment.

Also, a ‘lighter’ scent of death was found in the flower beds in the back yard, near the foot of the steps leading down from the patio.
b) on family items of clothing, Eddie found the scent of a corpse as follows:

(i)on two items of Kate McCann’s clothing, and
(ii)on one item of Madeleine’s clothing – a T-shirt.

c) in addition, Eddie the cadaver dog was taken to the house that the McCanns rented, in a different part of Praia da Luz, after they left Apartment 5A. Eddie found cadaverine on what was said to be Madeleine’s favourite pink soft toy, ‘Cuddle Cat’, which Dr Kate McCann always had with her when being interviewed by the media - but which Eddie detected lying in an otherwise empty cupboard. Here it should be noted that, earlier, Eddie had found Cuddle Cat in the living room at the McCanns’ rented home, tossed it in the air, but not actually ‘marked’ it by barking. He later marked it when the police re-located it in the cupboard.
d) on top of all that, Eddie, sniffing the car from the outside only, detected cadaverine in the car the McCanns hired on 22nd May, less than three weeks after Madeleine ‘disappeared’ - a Renault Scenic:

(i)on the car key
(ii)around the door of the front driver’s seat.

These findings, supported by other forensic evidence, show that a dead body must have begun to emit cadaverine in Apartment 5A - the McCanns’ apartment. That body must have lain dead in that apartment for at least 90 minutes, probably two hours or more. Once that ‘smell of death’ - cadaverine - had begun to be produced, it could then be transferred to other locations such as the hire car, Madeleine’s clothes, Dr Kate McCann’s clothes and Cuddle Cat.
That means that a corpse - that must have been dead for approximately two hours (in order for cadaverine to have been produced) - must have been in direct contact with all of these locations - floor, wardrobe, car, clothes etc. If the body had subsequently been moved, it would still emit cadaverine as it was decomposing. Meanwhile, Keela, the blood-hound, found the smell of blood - note, blood, not just ‘body fluids’:
a) in the living room, behind the sofa, close to the external window of the apartment (exactly where Eddie had found the scent of human cadaverine), and
b) in the McCanns’ hired Renault Scenic:

(i)on the car key
(ii)in the interior of the car boot.

We should note three very important things here. The dogs alerted to the smell of death/blood, separately, in exactly the same places in the apartment. Eddie the cadaver dog only alerted to the smell of death to the McCanns’ apartment, out of all the other ones he was taken to. Similarly, the McCanns’ car was the only one in the car compound that Eddie alerted to. Let us be very clear about where the dogs’ evidence takes us. Records have been checked by the Portuguese police, going back years. No-one else has ever died in Apartment 5A. No-one else has ever died in the Renault Scenic. There was a dead body in Apartment 5A. There was a dead body in the Renault Scenic hired by the McCanns. That dead body could only be one individual - already dead - who could have been in both Apartment 5A and in the Renault Scenic. It must have been Madeleine McCann.

Where to begin? Perhaps with the first point I underline. Eddie detects only cadaver scent? Wrong! I don't take this from a quote given by Sans_souci that prompted him to query the point which, I agree, might have been open to a different interpretation, but from a question put to Martin Grimes on this very point. His answer was unequivocal: Eddie is trained to detect a cadaverine scent as well as the scent of dried (but not fresh) blood lost from a living person.
Secondly to put a canard to bed. From the (true) observation that Eddie always goes first of the two dogs and Keela searches only where Eddie signals (nowhere else) comes a wholly fallacious assumption: the assumption that what Keela finds must be, or even is very highly likely to be, cadaverine. It might be or it might not, and the bods in the laboratories (alone) can make the judgment. The results from apartment 5a precisely illustrate the point.

Whilst it is true that Keela finds (alone) human blood, the scope of what there is to find needn't be limited to Keela's speciality. For instance, a tile containing human blood might well carry other substances, too, able to be identified in a laboratory.

Were you aware that DNA profiles were taken, not only of the McCanns, but also of all those to visit the apartment after the McCanns but before the British forensic team went in? Among them was a Mr Lino Henrique. From all the material taken up from the apartment ( floor tiles, the grouting in between, skirting boards and much else besides) a long series of reports were produced. Most of these reports did not indicate useful results, but a DNA profile akin to that of Mr Lino Henrique was established -- and also profiles of at least three people none matching the control profiles of anyone held. I think this exposes the circular reasoning and self-fulfilling prophesy of the line: there's no evidence of an abductor. Unless you actually hold a control DNA sample of the abductor, of course there'll be no useful DNA evidence. But who is to say that DNA profiles from apartment 5a not matching anyone known wasn't Madeleine's abductor?

In all the reports, the name of Madeleine appears just once. As with the finding from the car (to which I will return) it couldn't be determined with certainty that the profile was Madeleine's and neither could the substance from which the profile was developed be identified. Of course, to find Madeleine's DNA in the apartment would not, in and of itself, be remotely incriminating. She lived there the best part of a week. Naturally her DNA will be in the apartment.

Martin Grimes has never said (and would never say) that Eddie has never been wrong. Grimes has said (as you indicate) that the dog has never reacted to the scent of meat and has never reacted, either, to the cadaver scent of a wild dead animal. But that is the fullest extent of his claim about the dog. About Keela, he said that she has never once indicated the presence of blood without blood being found.

Mr Grimes explicitly refutes any such distinction as a 'light' (as in unsure) or positive signal. Eddie either signals or he doesn't, with an apparently 'unsure' or 'lighter' signal having a purely physiological explanation, such as that the dog is thirsty, or short of oxygen due to vigorous physical exercise. All the more surprising, then, that 'cuddle cat' should have had to be hidden before Eddie reacted to it. And the apparent scent in the flower bed should give us pause for thought, too. How did it get there? I think we can rule out that the McCanns would have dug up the flower bed to bury Madeleine, then relayed the flower bed (twice - assuming she's not still down there) without leaving evidence.

How do we explain a striking anomaly such as the 'death scent' being found only on Kate's clothes if, as Amaral claims, Gerry buried his daughter's body?

So to the car. Mr Lowe's report made plain both that the profile established could not be positively identified as Madeleine's and that, even if it could, an innocent explanation of how it got there, such as transference to the car of material from Madeleine attached to another agent was entirely possible. I'm unsure that's the most striking point, though, particularly for those with strong faith in Eddie. Eddie never indicated anything recovered from the car as cadaverine. He never reacted to the boot of the car (from where, alone, material was recovered) at all. He only reacted (after what seemed like an age) to the front driver's door, from where no material was recovered.

Martin Grimes states, quite explicitly, what his dogs do not do. They do not incriminate and it is no part of his (Grimes') job to evaluate evidence. I'm pretty sure he would dispute vehemently your (implied) claim that he was part of any consensus that Madeleine died in apartment 5a. And Mark Harrison explored thoroughly, and pretty much ruled out, any notion of Madeleine having been buried on the beach.

A final, slightly off-topic, point. Have you noticed a startling omission from the report in the official files of Martin Smith's encounter with the man he took to be Gerry? The time of the enounter is not recorded.

honestbroker
Apprentice's Assistant
Apprentice's Assistant

Number of posts : 211
Location : britain
Registration date : 2008-08-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Bennetts Motive?

Post by vee8 on Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:50 am

I would be very interested to read his reply, if any. He'll probably try to fob you off with a load of wishy-washy flannel, because you are just one of the ignorant masses, not a trained expert like himself.
avatar
vee8
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 3113
Location : suffolk
Registration date : 2008-06-24

http://www.madeleine-adestinybegun.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Bennetts Motive?

Post by Tinkerbell43 on Sun Dec 28, 2008 9:17 am

I understand they also took samples from people that stayed in the apartment prior to the McCanns.

This little snippet is in the files:-

"Still within the area of collection, treatment and analysis of residues, the identification of a stain on the cover of one of the beds in Madeleines bedroom (not the one she slept in) which raised some suspicions, should be pointed out.

Duly analysed, the stain configured a biological residue (saliva) that belonged to a child Charlie Gordon that had been on holidays earlier and with his parents, in the same apartment."

Staying with this, the Surname Gordon rings a bell with me, was this the person that refused an interview or something ? I seem to recall Kate begging someone to help.
avatar
Tinkerbell43
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 1473
Age : 53
Registration date : 2008-04-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Bennetts Motive?

Post by Guest on Sun Dec 28, 2008 9:46 am

I remember that Tinkerbell and the 3 As made a big thing about the McCanns pestering people!!
How dare they phone people and harrass them etc...

Yet on the other hand they are not doing bugger all etc...

pullinghairout

Whatever they do or dont they will always be in the wrong on that shoite/site.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Honestbroker

Post by dianeh on Sun Dec 28, 2008 9:53 am

Nice one. Wll written and argued. Funny how the simple truth is so effective.

Im sure that STBennet (stands for s### for Brains) will just ignore you. If he answers, then he knows that what he says will be made public and he will be held up for ridicule, because he is clearly misrepresenting the statements of various people and the so called evidence, reaching conclusions that are clearly opposite to the experts in the fields (such as the DNA evidence and the FSS). Lets just call him what he is "Wanker".
avatar
dianeh
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 3465
Age : 53
Location : Outback, Australia
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Bennetts Motive?

Post by dianeh on Sun Dec 28, 2008 10:00 am

Bennett quote/I think there is a very good chance that if a jury saw and heard all the evidence that the Policiara Judiciara has now made available, they would convict the McCanns.

This could quite possible happen

a) in Bennett's alternate reality where he seems to spend most of his time

OR

b) when Hell freezes over

As i said in previous post, he is a wanker, there is no evidence against the McCanns, if there were then the PJ would have laid charges. The stupidy of this man (and the idiots on 3A's that listen to him) continues to amaze me.

In fact, there is such scant evidence (whether due to poor gathering, poor police work or a really smart criminal) that if Madeleine werent missing, then it would appear that no crime had taken place at all. Which is itself and indication of an abduction, after all if a child is taken from an apartment which is unlocked, just how much evidence is expected to be left behind. Yet, if a child was killed in the apartment and the body hidden by the parents for a length of time, then one would expect evidence to exist. I have never understood the reasoning by the PJ (really Amoral) that if no evidence exists, then the parents must have done something, because common sense would actually say it is the reverse.
avatar
dianeh
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 3465
Age : 53
Location : Outback, Australia
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Bennetts Motive?

Post by Guest on Sun Dec 28, 2008 10:37 am

I think in Bennetts world all the Jury would see is all the 60 Lies he's amassed/plaigerised from Amorals fictional account!!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Bennetts Motive?

Post by Guest on Sun Dec 28, 2008 7:42 pm

Excellent stuff HB!!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Bennetts Motive?

Post by vee8 on Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:03 pm

NEWS OF THE WORLD



08:30

Sept 11, 2017.

Prime Minister passes new ruling.



Prime Minister Anthony Bennett today signed a new charter bringing into power what has become known as ‘Bennett’s Law’



Under this new law, the centuries old legal tradition of a defendant being ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ will be scrapped, in favour of a new maxim, ‘Guilty by weight of statistics.’ This new ruling was brought about by the PM’s past experience of child abduction, where he successfully proved that no child has ever been abducted by a stranger, and that therefore the parents are always guilty of murder.



A spokesman for the NSPCC has issued a statement, apologising for misleading the public for so long. “It seems we have been backing the wrong horse from the beginning. Mr Bennett has conclusively proved that no child has ever been snatched from their place of residence, and that therefore we were wrong in our efforts to support the families.” Other children’s charities are expected to make similar statements soon.



Speaking from the front doorstep of 10 Downing Street, the PM said, “This is a great day for children’s rights. From now on, no parent will be able to get away with murder.”

avatar
vee8
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 3113
Location : suffolk
Registration date : 2008-06-24

http://www.madeleine-adestinybegun.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Bennetts Motive?

Post by honestbroker on Sun Dec 28, 2008 9:08 pm

vee8 wrote: NEWS OF THE WORLD



08:30

Sept 11, 2017.

Prime Minister passes new ruling.



Prime Minister Anthony Bennett today signed a new charter bringing into power what has become known as ‘Bennett’s Law’



Under this new law, the centuries old legal tradition of a defendant being ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ will be scrapped, in favour of a new maxim, ‘Guilty by weight of statistics.’ This new ruling was brought about by the PM’s past experience of child abduction, where he successfully proved that no child has ever been abducted by a stranger, and that therefore the parents are always guilty of murder.



A spokesman for the NSPCC has issued a statement, apologising for misleading the public for so long. “It seems we have been backing the wrong horse from the beginning. Mr Bennett has conclusively proved that no child has ever been snatched from their place of residence, and that therefore we were wrong in our efforts to support the families.” Other children’s charities are expected to make similar statements soon.



Speaking from the front doorstep of 10 Downing Street, the PM said, “This is a great day for children’s rights. From now on, no parent will be able to get away with murder.”


Beeehave, Vee!! On second thoughts, don't!! lol!

I have actually had a short but very polite reply from Mr Bennett. He is sorry I've been banned. He is suffering from a heavy cold just now but will reply more fully later.

I give the man credit for polite discourse, if nothing else.

honestbroker
Apprentice's Assistant
Apprentice's Assistant

Number of posts : 211
Location : britain
Registration date : 2008-08-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Bennetts Motive?

Post by Pedro Silva on Sun Dec 28, 2008 9:47 pm

Oh, please, grow up Bennet. We don´t need your foolish comments. They are not welcome.

Pedro Silva
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 5571
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Bennetts Motive?

Post by Pedro Silva on Sun Dec 28, 2008 9:55 pm

Oh please, grow up Gonzo. We don´t need your foolish comments. We don´t need your book full of lies. Stop acting like a celebrity. If you want to do something right, donate half of the money (you raise with your book full of lies) to the Find Madeleine Fund, and the other half to a charity organization in Portugal, instead of keeping it in your pockets.

Pedro Silva
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 5571
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Bennetts Motive?

Post by Pedro Silva on Sun Dec 28, 2008 10:15 pm

Gonzo, instead of keeping the money (you got from your book full of lies) donate half of him to the Find Madeleine Fund, and the other half to Rui Pedro´s mother.

Pedro Silva
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 5571
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Bennetts Motive?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum