Thursday, 15 October 2015


Evening all

Most of the time, I ignore Bennett's nonsense as there just isn't enough time, you know?

But I can't just let this particular load of bollocks go 

Something is happening...say quite a few people

Post  Tony Bennett Yesterday at 10:22 pm
@The Rooster wrote:Pennylane I hear what you say but a white wash with this level of exposure defies logic and reason.
At times like this, @ The Rooster, I bring to mind the wholesale involvement in this case of the top levels of the British government and the security services, such as, in this case:

* PM Gordon Brown - made the PJ release Jane Tanner's fabricated sighting, told the Portuguese govt to get rid of Amara
He couldn't MAKE them do anything. He might have applied pressure, but at the end of the day, they didn't have to do as he asked.  
* PM David Cameron - badgered by Rebekah Brooks into setting up Operation Grange
Probably. I dare say she knew about the pig 
* PM Tony Blair - appointed his top Media Monitoring man, Clarence Mitchell, to run PR for the McCanns for 8 years
Bullshit. Clarence was sent there for about a month. He later left and went to work for the McCanns privately, nothing to do with the government 
* Govt-funded Control Risks Group brought in
Cobblers. Control Risks are not government funded, they are a private company who provide risk reduction services to many blue chip companies. They were brought in by Mark Warner's and not funded by the government.
* MI5 involved
According to Amaral. No independent confirmation of this 
* Special Branch give lifts to the McCanns, meet them at the airport etc.
On one occasion that we know of and understandable considering the public mood at that time 
* Security services profile Murat as the likely abductor
Bullshit - CEOP did. They are a police department, not a security service.
* Home Sec Jacqui Smith holds up Rogatory interviews and blocks disclosure of documents
Blocks disclosure of documents to nosey bastards like you. She didn't 'hold up' rogatory interviews
* British Ambassador says - let the McCanns wash their clothes
No he didn't 
* Henri Exton, former Head of Covert Intelligence at MI5 brought in to manufacture dodgy efits of the Smiths  
Cobblers. This fanciful story of him manufacturing E-fits is absolute nonsense, invented by you. And he was brought in by the McCanns, not the government.
* Kevin Halligen with defence industry connections brought in
Brought in by the McCanns - nothing to do with the government, and he had fewer defence connections than you. 
* Freedom of Information requests refused on grounds of 'national security
As would any request be that potentially revealed police procedures to a nosey interfering fart-hurdling cocksocket. 
* Secret top-level committee set up chaired by Chief Constable of Leics, Matt Baggott, on 8 May 2007, govt. refuse FoI Act request asking to disclose who sat on it...
It was not secret, it was covered in the Levenson Inquiry

Why should they tell you? It's none of your business.

...and more.    

And then I bring to mind this quote, from Josef Goebbels, the head of the Nazi propaganda machine: 

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

It worked for Adolf Hitler.
You know what they say about the first person to bring up Hitler?

Why should it not be working right now for Operation Grange? 

Because they are not a Nazi government agency, probably  

You come out with some cobblers, Bennett. I might go and do the same with your preposterous Smithman posts next.......

Friday, 2 October 2015

Ten reasons why Bennett is lying out of his arse

Well, I'm bored. 

Let's have a look at what Baldybonce has been up to, shall we?

I'll do the same as I do with Textusa. My comments in red

Oh I might include a Tony Poll

You know the kind of thing - where all answers mean you agree with him?


Post  Tony Bennett Yesterday at 10:31 pm

1. On her own admission, she did not report the crying incident to the police at the time, or later
She did not report it at the time. Why should she? She did report it in her later statement 

2. She appears to have been prompted into making her statement by the McCann Team
Absolute cobblers.
Her niece spoke to the UK police shortly after Madeleine went missing, and gave a statement but it appears the PJ did not get around to taking a statement from Mrs Fenn for some time. There is no evidence whatsoever that she was ''prompted by the McCann team'' 

[BRIEF EXPLANATION: In early August, the McCann Team were reeling from Martin Grime’s visit to Praia da Luz, and from a stream of lurid headlines about blood, a corpse, DNA etc.
Then suddenly, on Saturday 18 August 2007, a spate of stories about Madeleine appeared in the British mainstream press. These stories spoke of three events: (i) a burglary (either 1, 2, 3 or ‘several’ weeks before the week of 28 April to 5 May), (ii) a suspicious blond man allegedly seen quietly opening and closing the gate to the McCanns’ apartment garden, and (iii) Madeleine crying for 75 minutes on the night of Tuesday 1 May.
These stories show clear evidence of having been planted by the McCann Team.
Possibly. Or by leaks from the PJ 

These stories contained correct information about when Mrs Fenn was going to be interviewed and exactly what she was going to say – two days before she was interviewed.
This is suggestive at least of co-operation between the McCann Team and Mrs Fenn.
No it isn't. It does suggest however that the McCanns might have been told that when they met with the police 

Her story fed the public with images of burglars and suspicious men, confirmed that Madeleine was alive on 1st May, and corroborated the McCanns’ account of the McCanns leaving their children in the apartment for periods whilst they dined out]
Her niece had already given a statement about the attempted burglary. Madeleine was clearly still alive on the 1st and there is multiple witness testimony that supports the fact that the McCann party were leaving their children unattended, however much you pretend otherwise 

3. Mrs Fenn’s account of a burglary at her home in the weeks before 28th April is at the very least open to doubt. If she was not truthful about that, we simply cannot use her statement as evidence of anything.
It is not open to doubt. She spoke to others about it and would have no reason to invent it 

4Despite a child allegedly continually crying and sobbing for 75 minutes, with other properties all around, not one other person has ever corroborated the ‘crying incident’. No-one else heard it.
So what? All that suggests is that the crying was only audible in her flat and in 5A. Lack of corroboration is no excuse for suggesting it didn't happen.

5. Mrs Fenn says that she ’phoned and spoke to a Mrs Edna Glyn ‘some time after 11.00pm’, that is, after the crying had been going on for over half-an-hour. We have never seen any corroboration of this from Mrs Glyn
So? Why should you? Was she asked by the police to provide any? No. The police were trying to solve a crime, not cater to the whims of some self-appointed busybody 8 years down the line.

6. It is claimed by Mrs Fenn that when she spoke to Mrs Glyn, she replied: ‘I am not surprised’. According to Mrs Fenn’s evidence, the child she heard crying was sobbing continually - and so must have been audible to her and Mrs Glyn as they were talking (if they were). Yet on Mrs Fenn’s evidence, neither of them bothered to lift a finger about it. They could have called the police or the Ocean Club. But they did nothing
Mrs Fenn never described the child as ''sobbing'', let alone ''sobbing continuously''. There is no reason to suppose the crying would be audible to Mrs Glyn. Why should either of them lift a finger? She wasn't their child, and they had no reason to suppose it was anything other than a nightmare, or teething. To suggest calling the police after a child cries for an hour is plain ridiculous. Mrs Fenn was also unaware that the children were alone 

7. In any event, Mrs Fenn’s account of contacting Mrs Glyn about the crying appears to conflict with the account of a police officer, who testified that Robert Murat had said that ‘some foreign woman’ had ’phoned him up on the night of the ‘crying incident’
Ah - a Bennett special! You really have been flogging this lie for all you are worth. 
At no point did Robert Murat say anything about the night of the crying incident. What the officer reported was that Robert Murat had been contacted by a foreign woman who had already been spoken to by the police because she could hear a child crying. It is perfectly clear if you read it properly that they are talking about someone else altogether, who hears a child crying and isn't sure what to do, so phones Murat for his help.

8. The description Mrs Fenn gives about the age of the child that she says she heard crying is strange, clumsy and contrived. Allowing for the possibility that something may have been ‘lost in translation’, her statement says that the crying was coming from directly below her and that “the tone of the crying seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger”. The twins were two years and two months during the holiday in Praia da Luz. Thus Pamela Fenn’s statement appears to rule them out. There is at least a suspicion therefore that her statement has been carefully crafted to suggest that it was Madeleine that was crying   
This is absolute cobblers. The police knew that there were other children present and the questioning would have been specifically to exclude the possibility that the crying came from a younger child. There is nothing abnormal about this at all

9. A news clip about Mrs Fenn appeared on SIC TV, Portugal, on 22 August two days after her statement at Portimao Police Station. In it, she denied having any information about the case:
No she didn't. Her words are perfectly audible. She said that she had never spoken to any journalist in the three months which had passed,and indicated that the articles in the paper were all ''rubbish'' 

“Mrs Pamela Fenn, the British octogenarian who lives above the apartment from where Maddie disappeared, says she has been harassed by the unwanted interest of journalist, and has denied having spoken with the police. [b>She said she didn't have any information about the case.
Incorrect - she did not deny speaking to the police and she did not say she had no information about the case. 

At the age 81, this quiet, retired British woman seems to have been seriously shaken. After an outburst by her at her hairdressers, news that she was a witness in the Madeleine McCann case quickly became known to journalists' ears…According to what she was said to have told the police, the night before Madeleine was reported missing, she heard a child crying and calling for her father for a long time. 
Which she did 

The fact that she spends most of the day on her veranda, with a view across to the Tapas restaurant, made the police return to the Ocean Club on Monday morning. Detectives quizzed her for about four hours to see if she had seen someone from the McCann group leave the restaurant to go and check on the children. .

Angry at the journalists' questions, Mrs Fenn denied being a witness in the case and said that what the press were saying was ‘pure speculation’.
No, she didn't say that at all 

10. Mrs Fenn herself was interviewed for the programme and said that anything she was supposed to have said to the police was ‘rubbish’.
No she didn't. She said it was ''rubbish'' that she had spoken to any journalist 

Honestly, I have... I know nothing. I have been here three months. [She means: ‘This happened three months ago’. Mrs Fenn had lived I Praia da Luz for years]  Until all this happened, I've never spoken to a journalist, they've written rubbish in the newspapers. I've never even uttered a word! I've never (sighing)... it's all rubbish! Please, please, just forget it”. ]
So if you have the transcript, why are you making the claims you have made above?


You have produced absolutely nothing to suggest that she did not hear a child crying. So, are you going to withdraw your false claim?