Latest from the Lunatic

From Barmy Bennett, the following:

 Seven terrorist plots in the past year - Freedom of Information Request, 17 November 2015

  Tony Bennett on Tue Nov 17, 2015 7:17 pm

I've sent this request to the Home Office and have already had an acknowledgment:

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

Information about seven terrorist plots in the U.K. in the past year  

 

In the Daily Telegraph yesterday (16 November 2015) I read these words about ‘seven terrorist plots’ that had been ‘foiled’ in the past year:

QUOTE: 

 “British intelligence services have foiled seven terror attacks in the past year, including one in the last month, David Cameron has revealed. The Prime Minister warned that while the plots were on a smaller scale than what has been witnessed in Paris, the attacks in the French capital were "the sort of thing we have been preparing for" and that such attacks "could happen in London". Mr Cameron told a press conference at the G20: “Seven is the correct number – obviously I can't go into too much detail. It is seven plots that have been started in the previous months.”

“Number 10 earlier clarified the number of British terror attacks that have been foiled in recent months after conflicting reports. The clarification suggests that a terrorist attack on UK soil may have been thwarted in the last few weeks given comments by a spy chief last month. On October 28 - less than three weeks ago - Andrew Parker, the director general of MI5, said there had been six plots stopped in the last year. The Prime Minister's official spokesman declined to be drawn on any detail of the plots”.

UNQUOTE

Other news media reported the same facts.

I am requesting information about these foiled terrorist plots. Whilst I fully understand that under normal situations, intelligence matters must remain secret, nevertheless:

(a) These foiled terrorist plots have been made public by the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Head of MI5, Andrew Parker, in recent months (and quite rightly too) and   
(b) The British public has heightened concern because of the number of terrorist plots referred to (seven) and because of the recent atrocities in Paris.

The British public needs to know (1) what these plots were (2) where they were being planned and (3) who was behind them. We need this information so that each and every one of us becomes aware of the source of the threat and where attacks are most likely to occur. I suggest it is inadequate for the government to merely refer to ‘seven terrorist plots’ and then keep us all completely in the dark about them, giving us no more information.

I therefore ask the following Freedom of Information Act questions:

1. Give the precise dates (or if not known, give the approximate dates) when these seven terrorist attacks were planned to take place. 

2. In each case, give the locations where these terrorist attacks were planned to take place. 

3. In each case, state how many individuals are known or thought to have been involved in conspiring to commit each terrorist attack.

4. In each case, state how many individuals have been:
A - arrested and questioned andBcharged with a criminal offence (if charged, state what offence they were charged with) and
B - successfully prosecuted ad convicted of terrorist-related offences.

5. Overall, out of the total numbers involved in planning these terrorist offences, please state how many are now either in custody or prison. 

What on earth makes you think that anyone will or should give that information to you?! These are subject to ongoing investigations by police and other agencies. 

It is none of your business

To release information to you could compromise the safety of  others
It could compromise any future investigations
It could compromise any future convictions
It could reveal details of police procedures and damage the success of future anti-terrorist operations

You are completely mad, and hopefully they will tell you to fuck off

King of the Loons

Latest piece of ignorant lunacy from ''King of the Researchers'', Tony Bennett

''There are many many mysteries about the cameras used on that holiday and what happened to the many photographs on them.

I think the incident you are thinking of is how an Olympus camera, almost certainly belonging to the Paynes, plus two SD memory cards, ended up at the home of Hampshire police officer Detective Constable Martin on the evening of Tuesday 8 May, less than 5 days from Madeleine's disappearance.''

The camera DID NOT belong to the Paynes. There is a perfectly clear paper trail covering this camera, which belonged to a family holidaying in PdL the same week - nothing to do with the Paynes

They got in touch with the UK police on their return to the UK and arrangements were made for a local officer who was an IT specialist to recover the SD cards, images and video footage, which he did. This is the Hampshire police officer mentioned above.

''These items, plus some video footage taken in Praia da Luz, were examined at the Hampshire Police Hi-Tech Crime Unit at Notley the following day. '' 

Yes, as I have stated 

''As far as we know the PJ never knew about this and again IIRC Goncalo Amaral doesn't mention this in his book.''

The PJ certainly knew about it, the correspondence is in the files, which you presumably have not read. Nothing significant was found. 

''I think it is probable that a very senior British police or security services officer from MI5 or Special Branch jetted from Portugal to England earlier that day carrying the camera, the memory cards and the video film with him. ''

No, they were taken home from PdL by the family to whom they belonged. First class looning here; well done. 

''On the very day that D.C. Martin was examining the Olympus and the SD cards in Hampshire (9 May), Gerry McCann and Michael Wright had an appointment with the PJ in Portimao.''

Irrelevant 

''They handed in two CD's of pdf. photo images, which had been carefully edited over the preceding few days by Gerry McCann, Michael Wright and the Head of Risk and Public Relations at one of the world's largest and most successful PR companies, Bell Pottinger.

The three of them had deleted and cropped many images before putting them on the CDs.''

Can you clarify where this information comes from? 

It is pretty shameful that this myth about the Olympus camera is still doing the rounds 8 years later, when the information is in the files

Please choose option A = Yes, or option B = Yes.

Anyone noticed the options Baldy offers on his latest ''Poll''?

Basically, all his polls are the same. They go something like this:


A) I believe in Tony 100% and think he should be Prime Minister too

B) I am wrong

C) I am wrong, and also a twat.



So here is his latest

THE LAST PHOTO...

1. I agree with Textusa; this is a composite of three different photographs, like she says

 

2. I don't agree with Textusa but do agree that this photo has been photoshopped in some way

 

3. I agree with the two experts consulted by PeterMac that the Last Photo is a genuine photograph, and probably taken on Sunday or Monday that week

 

4. I have some other explanation for the Last Photo

 

5. I don't know

So, let's take a look at No3, shall we? Which is clearly Tony's preferred answer

It says

''I agree with the two experts consulted by PeterMac that the Last Photo is a genuine photograph, and probably taken on Sunday or Monday that week"

There are two components to that answer

1) That the photograph is genuine

2) That it was probably taken on the Sunday or Monday

However, the question is deliberately designed to mislead, suggesting as it does that the experts agree the picture was taken on the Sunday or Monday.

They do not. That is simply Bennett's theory, based on nothing more tangible than those days were supposedly sunnier, and manufactured to fit his own scenario.

The poll is, therefore, entirely dishonest.

I have no doubt the photo is genuine. And there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest it was taken on a different day  

Return of the Tramp

Well it seems Baldy is really rattled by Pat Brown

QUOTE    "For example, one of the most interesting FACTS is that the McCanns showed NO interest in Smithman and when Kate wrote her book made a statement that IF Smithman was indeed the abductor he had to be the same man Jane saw".    UNQUOTE

REPLY:    I cannot possibly agree with you that this is a fact.

Why not? It is.

These for example are a series of known and admitted facts about the McCanns and 'Smithman':

I doubt that somehow

1. Brian Kennedy, on behalf of the McCanns, contacted the Smiths in December 2007.

Where does that date come from? We know there was an earlier contact 

2. Newspaper articles on 3 January 2008 reported that Martin Smith was 'ready to meet Metodo 3' representatives.

Since when are newspaper articles ''evidence''? 

3. At some time probably in the spring of 2008 Henri Exton and maybe someone else from either Medoto 3 or Oakley International visited the Smiths and drew up two e-fits of faces who look quite different from each ofther.

They drew up two efits. It is your opinion that they look quite different to each other. One would expect two people to have a different recollection 

4. In the Channel 4/Mentorn Media 'Mockumentary' of May 2009, the McCanns TWICE referred to the 'Smithman sighting' in the film, stromgly suggesting that 'Tannerman' and 'Smithman' were one and the same.

But still placing the emphasis on the 'tannerman' sighting 

5. Immediately following the programme, the McCanns uploaded a 30-second audio recording onto their 'Find Madeleine' website of a man with an Irish accent clearly intended to be Martin Smith describing his alleged 'Smithman' sighting. It has been there ever since and is there today, over six-and-a-half years later. That audio recording of the 'Smithman sighting' has been there on their website for a conrinuous period of 2,375 days

And? 

6. Not only that, but in that audio recording, the voice gives the age of the suspected abductor as '34-35', a change from TWO previous statements by Martin Smith in which he had claimed that the man he said he saw was up to 40 years old. It is likely, though not proved, that Martin Smith must have consented to this SECOND change in his evidence.   

Why must he? Have you any evidence that this is the case?

The rest of the extent of the McCanns' use of Smithman is set out on this thread here:     

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11521-smithman-8-the-nine-phases-of-smithman-how-the-smiths-became-part-of-the-mccann-team-in-january-2008

That particular thread is the biggest load of old bollocks I have ever read 

I would respectfully invite you to read and consider what I've said there.

Pat, if I may say so, there is more than a hint of impatience, even possibly anger, in your recent articles which, in short, ask us all over here to accept as a fact that Madeleine died after 6pm on Thursday 3 May.

It is a fact. There are witnesses to her still being alive prior to this

Please accept that there is EVIDENCE, 'Facts' if you will, that suggest otherwise.

No there is not. Not a single scrap.

As a researcher and investigator yourself, please accept that some of us will continue to explore that evidence.

No-one expects you to stop looning 

And, if only just for a moment, please consider that you
may actually be mistaken about this.  

She isn't. 

- Very disappointed, Harlow 

Tough titties.

It's a long way to Tipp-a-Loony..........

Earlier today Pat Brown published a very sensible, well-constructed and interesting post.

She pointed out, as I have, that if you make up stories and theories which are a load of bollocks it is music to the McCann ears, reinforcing the idea that the web is full of tin-hatted loons. (I may have paraphrased slightly)

Predictably, this drew the Head Loon out of his cage, or lead-lined bunker or wherever it is that he lays his hat, to say the following:

 Re: Pat Brown: Why the McCanns Love Conspiracy Theorists

  Tony Bennett Yesterday at 10:34 pm

Hi Pat, if you are reading this.

I'm sorry Pat, but I think you are making a big, big mistake here.

She isn't. You're probably about to, though 

You penultimate paragraph says this:

"If only all the focus of everyone - the public, the police, and professionals - simply looked back at May 3rd, 2007 and analysed what went wrong that evening, how the McCanns likely dealt with it, and what they could have done to destroy the evidence of their involvement and, most importantly, focused on where her body might be  - the one piece of evidence that could lead to an actual conviction - maybe then, this case would have a chance of being solved and justice done".

Indeed. A very good point

Your analysis is virtually identical to that set out by Goncalo Amaral over seven years ago. "Madeleine had high tea with the nanny Cat Baker at 5.30pm to 6pm. Cat Baker is an honest and credible witness. The family went back to their apartment around 6pm. Some time after that, Madeleine suffered a fatality in the apartment. The McCanns quickly got rid of the body from the apartment and no-one knows where it is or what happened to it. The McCanns pretended that Madeleine had been abducted and raised the alarm about 10pm that evening, or a few minutes before". And that's it.

What - you mean the vastly experienced senior detective who was on the scene and involved in the case from the beginning? Yes, how could he possibly know more than a balding bespectacled failed solicitor with a mac and a shopping trolley? Unfathomable....... 

But if you still buy that, how, please, can you account for:

(1) the wholesale contradictions between the accounts of Gerry and Kate McCann, Cat Baker and Charlotte Pennington about the alleged 'high tea' at 5.30pm, so painstakingly analysed by Lizzy 'HiDeHo' and others?

There are no ''wholesale contradictions'' In fact, there are barely any contradictions at all

(2) the immediate and long-term involvement of a raft of top government media advisers, Foreign Office officials and ambassadors, leading members of public relations firms, assorted branches of the British security services, dozens of lawyers, a $12-million, four-and-a-half-year long enquiry which has got precisley (sic) nowhere, and so on? 

Media advisors - there was a huge media presence in what was potentially an embarrassing case, coming as it did hot on the heels of the arrest of some brits in the USA for leaving their kids alone while they went out to a fireworks display.

FO officials etc -  any UK national is entitled to Consular assistance when abroad

PR firm - employed by Mark Warner

Branches of the security services - like who?

Lawyers - brought in by the McCanns and Mark Warner

a £12m enquiry - Well, Medusa had his nuts in a bench vice. 

(3) the clear lines of evidence suggesting that the so-called 'Last Photo' was not taken on the Thursday afternoon, 3rd May? 

This is another of your cons. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that the photo was not taken on the Thursday. Repeatedly saying ''It was sunnier on Sunday'' is utterly meaningless. Also, We know that other photographs exist of Madeleine on the same day, so your ''theory'' is completely nuts.

You do this a lot, Bennett; claim that there is 'clear' evidence, when in fact you have simply made it up. 

(4) the apparent lack of clear and credible evidence of Madeleine being seen by anyone after the Sunday of that week, as set out in a very clear article published here last month, also by Lizzy 'HideHo'? - and

Well, that is total and utter hogwash. There are numerous witnesses that can attest to her presence, plus a written record from the Kid's Club, and her image captured in photographs. HideHo is a half-witted fence painter with too much time on her hands 

(5) the evident advance planning of the manifestly fabricated statement of Nuno Lourenco about the alleged near-kidnapping of his daughter at Sagres, and along with that...   

Evident advance planning - according to you
Manifestly fabricated - according to you

Again, these are merely your opinions at best, delusions at worst. There is no evidence of planning or of falsehoods in the statement - you just need people to think so to fit your bonkers theory. 

          

(6) the near-identical descriptions of 'Tannerman' by Jane Tanner and of Wojchiech Krokowski by Nuno Lourenco - and, for that matter, of 'Smithman' by the Smiths.

They are not ''near identical'' and I have covered this before in some detail. I think you are of the opinion that if you repeat something often enough it becomes the truth.

One significant difference for example is that Krokowski had quite long hair, and was wearing it in a ponytail when Lourenco saw him. He also clearly has long hair in the CCTV footage. That does not match either of the other descriptions, and that's just for starters.

Of course, you neglect to mention that Tannerman has been identified and eliminated. You neglect to mention it because it does not fit with your  halfwitted theory.

Unless you have got simple, pat answers to all of these conundrums, you might be more helpful if you supported and backed those who engage with these issues and try to find honest answers to them.

No conundrums there. That took me about ten minutes - there you go, consider it a gift. 
Why should anyone support and back you? You couldn't find your arse with both hands, and you are full of crap. 

As a criminal profiler and someone experienced in the workings of the criminal mind, surely you must acknowledge that every attempt there has ever been to cover up any crime, big or small, is a 'conspiracy' of some kind?

She is. You're not.

Some criminal conspiracies are much more complicated than others - and I think I've helped to uncover two pretty big ones in my time: 1. the passing-off of the killing of Stuart Lubbock as a 'drowning',

The cause of death was drowning. To the best of my knowledge, no-one has been found guilty of any charge relating to his death, and nor has an alternative cause of death been ascertained.

and 2. the alleged 'tragic accident' of Lee Balkwell being killed whilst allegedly working in pitch black on a concrete mixer at 1.03am in the morning. 

There is no proof that it was anything other than an accident. His employer was found not guilty of Manslaughter, but convicted of Health and Safety breaches. I seem to recall your claim - again unfounded - was that he was murdered. 

I agree that some of the ideas about the crime of responsibilty (sic) for Madeleine's disappearance are frankly crackpot, such as the obsession some have with angles in Gerry's sunglasses.

That is a crackpot one, but no more so than many of yours, especially the Sagres nonsense 

But you may be over-reaching yourself if you think all of us with enquiring minds

You don't have an enquiring mind. You have a suspicious and stagnating one

should simply swallow wholesale the claim that Madeleine suffered a fatality between 6pm and 10pm on 3rd May, pack up enquiring and, as you put it, 'focus on where her body might be'.

It's probably the only way the case will be solved. It certainly won't be solved by you looning over a Pole.  

- Disappointed, Harlow

Ah, diddums.