Open questions for Tony Bennett re: The Madeleine Foundation

Dear Tony,

I’m aware that you do not post on this board but I understand that you are able to reply through Stevo.

As a retired solicitor, I am sure you are familiar with the need to ask questions before passing judgement. What follows is not an attempt to discredit you or the Madeleine Foundation, nor to imply any scam, but an attempt to get answers to a number of questions that concern me.

I understand that any action proposed by The Madeleine Foundation will not begin until the Portuguese legal system has taken its course. Only if no charges are brought will you ‘activate’ your proposed aims. It is therefore fundamentally wrong of people, like Stevo, to state on here that ‘The law isn’t doing anything’. Something is happening and to imply that it is nothing is an insult to the hard work and diligence of the Policia Judiciaria. It smacks of psychological pressure to ‘join up now’ whilst the dinner is still warm.

Anyway, my questions are as follows:

1) The Telegraph reports that the Madeleine Foundation is a fund. If so, why has it not been registered as a company with Companies House?

Companies House guidelines state the following about the use of certain words in company titles:

‘benevolent, foundation or fund – names that include any of these words will be refused if they unjustifiably give the impression that the company has charitable status. If the company is limited by guarantee and has a non-profit distribution clause in the memorandum of association, then the name will normally be approved.’

So, one would assume, based on this guidance that The Madeleine Foundation had been set up as a company ‘limited by guarantee’ – much the same as the McCanns did with Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited.

However, a quick search of registered company names reveals no result for ‘Madeleine Foundation’ or ‘The Madeleine Foundation’, either in established or pending company names. Could you explain why this should be so considering that The Madeleine Foundation has been established at least since the LSE conference in January?

2) At the moment, I, or anyone else, could register the name ‘The Madeleine Foundation’ with Companies House. Does that bother you? Why would you be so cavalier and unprofessional given that you are committing yourself to such wide-ranging and long term goals, as stated in your 7 aims?

3) If there has been no company registered then I presume you’ve made no attempt to trademark the business name either. I’ve some experience of trademarks and I’m 99% certain you would be refused the trademark because it is so similar to Madeleine’s Fund.

Maybe you’re not bothered about trademarks but the scope of the aims you’re seeking to implement will take years. Are you not really serious about protecting that?

4) My understanding is that a person can set themselves up as a self employed sole trader but that after 3 months they must inform the Inland Revenue. Given that donations have already been received, how have these been accounted for within the The Madeleine Foundation set up?

5) I believe you describe The Madeleine Foundation as a ‘democratic membership organisation’ – what on earth is that? It sounds rather grand but an office tea club could successfully argue similar claims.

6) Why did you choose the name ‘The Madeleine Foundation’? Use of the words ‘fund’ and ‘foundation’ give very clear implications that a company has charitable status. Yours clearly does not. I’m afraid it just comes across as being a bit weasly and misleading and, dare I say it, consistent with the actions of the McCanns.

7) You have proposed a yearly subscription fee of £10.00. Why are you seeking yearly subscriptions? Is this to fund your long term aims? If so, will you be promoting all those aims with as much vigour as you devote to the McCann ‘neglect’ issue?

Eight) You have an established bank account, presumably under the name ‘The Madeleine Foundation’ – as that is the name you request on cheques. How did you explain your ‘business’ to the bank? Did they not ask for evidence that you were a bona fide company? If so, again, why is there no company name registered?

9) If the Policia Judiciaria charge the McCanns with abandonment, will you refund donations? I understand that, much like Madeleine’s Fund, your aims are wider than simply bringing a charge against the McCanns but, in my opinion, it would be solely the prospect of bringing charges against the McCanns that people would be donating towards. Of course, people must read the small print before donating but there’s no small print in newspaper articles.

10) Who are the people behind The Madeleine Foundation? Much like there was with seymour’s ‘madeleinesearch’ site, there seems to be a hazy reference, or implication towards a group of people being involved but no clear disclosure of who those people are. I will ask you a direct question: Are Seymour and/or Stevo involved in The Madeleine Foundation? You may say that is none of my business but given that you’re asking people to make a financial commitment to your cause then it should be in the public domain.

11) Your previous action against the McCanns was unsuccessful, why would this further proposed action be any different?

12) The Madeleine Foundation has been in existence since at least January. Why, 6 months later, have you still not got an operational website?

12) These are your 7 aims and my comments:

a) to make every effort to ensure that Kate and Gerry McCann are prosecuted for their admitted abandoning of their children six nights in a row in Praia da Luz

Yes, very good. But this is what the Policia Judiciaria have been doing for 14 months with greater resources, knowledge and skills than you could possibly possess. Why do you think you would have more success in bringing such a charge than them?

b) to change the law in whatever way is needed in order to send out a clear message to all parents that leaving young children on their own is never acceptable, and to strive for the adoption of a ‘Madeleine’s Law’ with its key message: “Never leave young children on their own”

Madeleine’s Law? Where did that come from? Have you registered the business or protected the trademark? The domain names madeleineslaw.co.uk, along with .com and .org extensions have been registered but yield no result when searched. Were these names purchased by The Madeleine Foundation? If so, are you cyber-squatting them?

c) to pursue – in conjunction with others – the truth about Madeleine McCann’s disappearance on 3 May 2007, and in particular to encourage Kate and Gerry McCann and the friends who were with them in Praia da Luz to tell the truth about Madeleine’s disappearance

Mmm, I think you can cross this one off your list! How do you intend to ‘encourage’ the McCanns and Tapas 7 to tell the truth? Do you fully appreciate what is at stake here? They haven’t just stolen some sweeties from the corner shop.

d) to investigate the facts behind the extent of British government involvement in this case and the reasons for it

You mean the British government that approved the rogatory letter and has severed all ties with the McCanns? Yes, the government were hoodwinked and the McCanns were courted by Gordon Brown in a desire to show people, unsuccessfully, that he had the common touch. But beyond that there is nothing. How do you propose to ‘investiagte the facts’?

e) to ensure that the media, in particular the British media, report this case accurately and give due weight to the opinions of so many of the general public that the McCanns are withholding the truth about Madeleine’s disappearance

The British media are not the slightest bit interested in the McCanns innocence or guilt. To suggest that they will suddenly decide to reflect the opinions of the general public as a result of you undertaking some unspecified actions is naive. They will reflect those opinions when they consider that they will sell more papers that way. It will be a business decision not an emotional one.

f) to demand a full-scale investigation by the relevant authorities into the activities of the Find Madeleine Fund private trust and to encourage the trustees of that fund to give full particulars about its income and expenditure to the public who have donated so generously to it with the express purpose of finding Madeleine

I trust the British police to undertake/already be undertaking this work. The way in which Madeleine’s Fund has been set up ensures that they do not need to disclose their accounts in any great detail to the public. Disgraceful, I know, but unfortunately true.

g) to generally promote the welfare of children, in particular by ensuring that parents are aware of the psychological needs of their children and ensuring that the relevant authorities take appropriate action to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.

Very noble but desperately woolly and completely beyond your scope. How exactly are you planning to ‘promote’ the welfare of children and ‘ensure’ that parents toe-the-line?

13) There then follows a statement that sets off alarm bells in my head and makes me incredibly angry:

‘The Madeleine Foundation is only for those committed to achieving our above aims.’

This is classic emotional psycho-pressure to force people to ‘join now’ and send money. What you are effectively saying here is that unless you donate you are not really committed to finding truth and justice for Madeleine. You are presenting The Madeleine Foundation as an exclusive club for members who are ‘the real, committed ones’. Absolute bullsh*t!

I’ve raised a number of questions here and hope you will find time to address them in full.

Many thanks,

Nige

Hat-Tip to 3As forum

Advertisements

Tags: , , ,

25 Responses to “Open questions for Tony Bennett re: The Madeleine Foundation”

  1. Liz Thompson Says:

    So what is this then a club or a foundation or just send Tony Bennett a Tenner club , not on your nelly. An injunction should be sought on this mans actions.

  2. John Hirst Says:

    Liz: I wonder if he does a stand up comedy act? I have posted his constitution on my satire blog. It might not be satire but it ought to be.

  3. katherine graf Says:

    hello, i am from colombia and i hope all about Madeleine will be to resolve next time, God is with us and the justice, Madeleine`s parents must pay their bad things, i dont know if they make something bad to the little girl, but all time fight with the judiciaria police from portugal for dont find the true, all time make tricks and play with silence and the last time dont make the reconstruction of the case and all time say they are the most interesed to find the little girl. I hope you can make one good work and we can look the reality about gerry and kate, but they are no good parents, i ear about donation to your homepage but i dont see one link for do it. Thanks and god help you for end wath you beginn and make justice.

  4. Tim Says:

    A debate is very interesting on fundamental topics close to anyone who values ‘the family’.

    How long 3 year olds and younger can be left out of sight, out of sound range in accommodation is a very worthy topic.

    Some might say never, others 2 minutes, others might say lock ’em in and lets get down the pub and get slayed with the local hooch.

    The results of this debate result in a Law that declares out side of certain practical limits its illegal with a prescribed list of punishments for those who step beyond these limits seems a very good idea.

    I think Tony it honestly trying to get the ‘debate’ started in the UK, so more power to his elbow.

    The detail may or may not grate with some but at least he has got off his tail and has started a small snowball rolling which may gain size.

    Getting into detail of Ltd company status or registering web names is a bit over the top and not very relevant to the fundamentals of a quality debate which may lead to change in Law.

    One thing I’m 100% sure of, its not a Beer Fund for Tony.

    Tim 9th July 2008 8.33pm

  5. Tony Bennett Says:

    A REPLY TO NIGE FROM TONY BENNETT – 8 July 2008: PART ONE

    TB: Here is my on-the-record reply to ‘Nige’, who by the way knows my e-mail address and telephone number but has never contacted me. I note that from Nige’s final paragraph , he says he is ‘incredibly angry’. It seems to me, Nige, that you were very angry when you wrote your post; it was written in anger, it seems

    ‘gord’ on websleuths: hello everyone. Thee is quite a few questions being asked about Tony Bennet and his fund

    TB: Wait a minute. ‘His fund’? This is a membership organisation which anyone who supports our aims can join. I am currently the Secretary of it. A ‘fund’? No, it is an organisation. An organisation with a properly-set up bank account in the name of The Madeleine Foundation. PS for the record: correct spelling – Tony Bennett

    gord: all over the web. To give some balance below is a particular no them put by a poster called Redwave on the 3 arguidos – certainly food for thought . I would do a bit of pondering before rushing to get your cheque book out.

    TB: No problem about that, ‘gord’, and in fact, I’m glad you did post it up as it gives me another chance to say more about The Madeleine Foundation and its aims. Incidentally I could have drawn attention to The Madeleine Foundation here on websleuths but have not sought to take advantage of my membership of this forum to do so. My previous posts here are in my name and can be viewed

    gord: quote from http://www.the3arguidos.net/forum/vi…hp?f=1&t=17747

    Nige: Dear Tony, I’m aware that you do not post on this board but I understand that you are able to reply through Stevo.

    TB: Not quite right. I asked Stevo on one occasion to post a series of corrections to some statements that were made about me on 3Arguidos. I do not intend to ask him again and I do not intend to join a third forum. Websleuths and ‘Truth for Madeleine’ are enough. My e-mail address is ajsbennett@btinternet.com – anyone can ask me questions about The Madeleine Foundation and I will answer them openly and honestly, and you are at all times welcome to publish my replies

    Nige: As a retired solicitor, I am sure you are familiar with the need to ask questions before passing judgement.

    TB: No problem at all with that.

    Nige: What follows is not an attempt to discredit you or the Madeleine Foundation, nor to imply any scam, but an attempt to get answers to a number of questions that concern me.

    TB: Noted.

    Nige: I understand that any action proposed by The Madeleine Foundation will not begin until the Portuguese legal system has taken its course.

    TB: No, that is not really correct. Insofar as we are considering a further attempt to prosecute Kate and Gerry McCann for child neglect – subject to receiving an expert barrister’s opinion on the whole issue – it would seem prudent to delay any action for at least a few weeks whilst there is some prospect of the Portuguese Judiciara prosecuting them for child neglect and abandonment. From what I have read in the Portuguese press, this remains a distinct possibility. Similarly, we want an Inquest on Madeleine if the PJ do not press charges against the McCanns of either negligently causing Madeleine’s death, or hiding a corpse, or perverting (or interfering with) the course of justice, or whatever are the equivalent charges under Portuguese law. Once again, there seems to be a realistic prospect of one or more of those charges being laid within the next few weeks. There are other actions we propose that do not depend on whether the PJ press charges or not.

    Nige: Only if no charges are brought will you ‘activate’ your proposed aims.

    TB: See above.

    Nige: It is therefore fundamentally wrong of people, like Stevo, to state on here that ‘The law isn’t doing anything’. Something is happening and to imply that it is nothing is an insult to the hard work and diligence of the Policia Judiciaria. It smacks of psychological pressure to ‘join up now’ whilst the dinner is still warm.

    TB: You are referring to a comment made by Stevo. I cannot answer for comments made by someone else in his own right. I would not, speaking personally, say ‘the law isn’t doing anything’. Anyone who has seen even a selection of my public posts on forums about Madeleine would know I have a deep suspicion of possible British government involvement in trying to suppress the possible prosecution of the McCanns and many times I have praised the PJ for having worked under the most enormous pressure to try to find out the truth. It is my personal view that the McCanns have mounted the mother of all diversionary tactics regarding Madeleine’s ‘disappearance’ and have been aided and abetted in this by most of the media and possibly by sinister forces within the British government. I do not of course know about the quality of the work done by the PJ, but reading between the lines, my provisional verdict would be: ‘done a great job under very adverse circumstances

    Nige: Anyway, my questions are as follows:

    1) The Telegraph reports that the Madeleine Foundation is a fund. If so, why has it not been registered as a company with Companies House?

    TB: Very simple. The Madeleine Foundation has been set up as a simple membership association. Which anyone who supports our aims can join. I should say I have been involved in the setting up of a number of similar associations in my time. It is, if you like, a club, or society, or association, no different from any other association of like-minded individuals who join together for a common purpose. It has a broadly similar constitution to that of, say, the Anytown Allotments Association or the Blandshire Campaign for Road Safety.

    Nige: Companies House guidelines state the following about the use of certain words in company titles:

    ‘benevolent, foundation or fund – names that include any of these words will be refused if they unjustifiably give the impression that the company has charitable status. If the company is limited by guarantee and has a non-profit distribution clause in the memorandum of association, then the name will normally be approved.’

    So, one would assume, based on this guidance that The Madeleine Foundation had been set up as a company ‘limited by guarantee’ – much the same as the McCanns did with Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited.

    TB: Completely wrong assumption on your part, which you could easily have checked by contacting me. The Madeleine Foundation is not a company, so none of the above applies.

    Nige: However, a quick search of registered company names reveals no result for ‘Madeleine Foundation’ or ‘The Madeleine Foundation’, either in established or pending company names. Could you explain why this should be so considering that The Madeleine Foundation has been established at least since the LSE conference in January?

    TB: Explained above. We are not a company

    PART ONE ENDS

    A REPLY TO NIGE FROM TONY BENNETT – 8 July 2008: PART TWO

    Nige: 2) At the moment, I, or anyone else, could register the name ‘The Madeleine Foundation’ with Companies House. Does that bother you? Why would you be so cavalier and unprofessional given that you are committing yourself to such wide-ranging and long term goals, as stated in your 7 aims?

    TB: There is nothing ‘cavalier’ or ‘unprofessional’ about our choosing the name we have done for our association. You seem to be throwing out an awful lot of accusations. If I became aware that someone else had subsequently registered a company called ‘The Madeleine Foundation, I would immediately contact Companies House and, based on my previous knowledge of them I would expect the to de-register it in pretty short order

    Nige: 3) If there has been no company registered then I presume you’ve made no attempt to trademark the business name either. I’ve some experience of trademarks and I’m 99% certain you would be refused the trademark because it is so similar to Madeleine’s Fund.

    TB: We’ve made no attempt to trademark ‘The Madeleine Foundation’ and we do not think we need to

    Nige: Maybe you’re not bothered about trademarks but the scope of the aims you’re seeking to implement will take years. Are you not really serious about protecting that?

    TB: I repeat that when we set up The Madeleine Foundation, we saw no need to trademark our name. Now that you have raised the subject, we will take advice on it

    Nige: 4) My understanding is that a person can set themselves up as a self employed sole trader but that after 3 months they must inform the Inland Revenue. Given that donations have already been received, how have these been accounted for within the The Madeleine Foundation set up?

    TB: Monies in and out of an association bank account have nothing whatsoever to do with the Inland Revenue. Had you bothered to establish with us that The Madeleine Foundation is a membership organisation, you wouldn’t have needed to ask that question

    Nige: 5) I believe you describe The Madeleine Foundation as a ‘democratic membership organisation’ – what on earth is that? It sounds rather grand but an office tea club could successfully argue similar claims.

    TB: Please see what I have said above

    Nige: 6) Why did you choose the name ‘The Madeleine Foundation’? Use of the words ‘fund’ and ‘foundation’ give very clear implications that a company has charitable status. Yours clearly does not. I’m afraid it just comes across as being a bit weasly and misleading and, dare I say it, consistent with the actions of the McCanns.

    TB: Foundation is a common title for groups and associations that have a serious campaigning aim. There are tens of thousands of ‘Foundations’ in existence, many of which are not charities. The home page on our website, already prepared, deals with all the above points and will not mislead anyone

    Nige: 7) You have proposed a yearly subscription fee of £10.00. Why are you seeking yearly subscriptions? Is this to fund your long term aims? If so, will you be promoting all those aims with as much vigour as you devote to the McCann ‘neglect’ issue?

    TB: Virtually all membership organisations have a membership fee. The extent to which we pursue any of our aims depend on who joins and what talents and ideas they bring

    Nige: You have an established bank account, presumably under the name ‘The Madeleine Foundation’ – as that is the name you request on cheques. How did you explain your ‘business’ to the bank? Did they not ask for evidence that you were a bona fide company? If so, again, why is there no company name registered?

    TB: Simple. We are an association and provided our bankers with a copy of our constitution. Plus completed all the usual and – these days – very extensive bank account application forms

    Nige: 9) If the Policia Judiciaria charge the McCanns with abandonment, will you refund donations? I understand that, much like Madeleine’s Fund, your aims are wider than simply bringing a charge against the McCanns but, in my opinion, it would be solely the prospect of bringing charges against the McCanns that people would be donating towards. Of course, people must read the small print before donating but there’s no small print in newspaper articles.

    TB: Donations made to date are in full knowledge of the seven aims of The Madeleine Foundation. If any person donated specifying something like: ‘This is only to go towards a barrister’s opinion’ or ‘This is only for legal expenses if you successfully charge the McCanns with neglect’, that would be fully respected. We are much more interested in people with ideas, energy and talents joining us than in donations. We want members rather than money

    Nige: 10) Who are the people behind The Madeleine Foundation? Much like there was with seymour’s ‘madeleinesearch’ site, there seems to be a hazy reference, or implication towards a group of people being involved but no clear disclosure of who those people are. I will ask you a direct question: Are Seymour and/or Stevo involved in The Madeleine Foundation? You may say that is none of my business but given that you’re asking people to make a financial commitment to your cause then it should be in the public domain.

    TB: I do not wish to disclose who is and who is not a member, I do not have theor permission in any event. But I will confirm that Ms Debbie Butler from Kent is our Chairman

    Nige: 11) Your previous action against the McCanns was unsuccessful, why would this further proposed action be any different?

    TB: My action in November was without the benefit of a barrister’s opinion. If we can raise sufficient funds, our members would like us to get a comprehensive legal Opinion on the prospects of bringing an action against the McCanns for child neglect under the Children and Young Person’s Act. We would need to ask that barrister a number of questions, including the question of which is the proper court in which any action should be commenced (which involves questions of international law), the current state of case precedent in the courts on neglect, and the question of the strength of the evidence we could bring against the McCanns). I hasten to add that I considered that Article 17 of the Hague Convention made it clear that child protection issues should be brought in the country where a parent was resident, not where a child protection incident had actually happened, but the Leicestershire and Rutland Magistrates Court were not sufficiently persuaded by that

    Nige: 12) The Madeleine Foundation has been in existence since at least January. Why, 6 months later, have you still not got an operational website?

    TB: A good question, it is mainly my fault as I have not been able to give enough time to finalising the contents

    PART TWO ENDS

    A REPLY TO NIGE FROM TONY BENNETT – 8 July 2008: PART THREE

    Nige: 12) These are your 7 aims and my comments:

    a) to make every effort to ensure that Kate and Gerry McCann are prosecuted for their admitted abandoning of their children six nights in a row in Praia da Luz

    Nige’s comment: Yes, very good. But this is what the Policia Judiciaria have been doing for 14 months with greater resources, knowledge and skills than you could possibly possess. Why do you think you would have more success in bringing such a charge than them?

    TB: My concern in November was that the Leicestershire Police and Leicestershire Social Services had emphatically said there would be no prosecution of the McCanns for child neglect. At the time, there was also no sign of the PJ being anywhere near charging then with neglect. Charges like this should be brought as soon as practicable after the event. Now, our main concern would be – what if the PJ do not charge the McCanns with child neglect? Is it OK under English law to go out boozing every night for several hours leaving three young children under 4 on their own? If the McCanns are not prosecuted, what kid of message does that send out to other parents?

    b) to change the law in whatever way is needed in order to send out a clear message to all parents that leaving young children on their own is never acceptable, and to strive for the adoption of a ‘Madeleine’s Law’ with its key message: “Never leave young children on their own”

    Nige’s comment: Madeleine’s Law? Where did that come from? Have you registered the business or protected the trademark? The domain names madeleineslaw.co.uk, along with .com and .org extensions have been registered but yield no result when searched. Were these names purchased by The Madeleine Foundation? If so, are you cyber-squatting them?

    TB: We think a ‘Madeleine’s Law’ which would help to protect other children from being neglected by being left on their own by their parents would be a fitting tribute to Madeleine. I do not know what ‘cyber-squatting’ means but, yes, we have purchased three domain names, using the limited funds we have

    c) to pursue – in conjunction with others – the truth about Madeleine McCann’s disappearance on 3 May 2007, and in particular to encourage Kate and Gerry McCann and the friends who were with them in Praia da Luz to tell the truth about Madeleine’s disappearance

    Nige’s comment: Mmm, I think you can cross this one off your list! How do you intend to ‘encourage’ the McCanns and Tapas 7 to tell the truth? Do you fully appreciate what is at stake here? They haven’t just stolen some sweeties from the corner shop.

    TB: Your comment noted. We intend to write to each of the ‘Tapas 9’ formally at some point

    d) to investigate the facts behind the extent of British government involvement in this case and the reasons for it

    Nige’s comment: You mean the British government that approved the rogatory letter and has severed all ties with the McCanns? Yes, the government were hoodwinked and the McCanns were courted by Gordon Brown in a desire to show people, unsuccessfully, that he had the common touch. But beyond that there is nothing. How do you propose to ‘investiagte the facts’?

    TB: We have made a start by successfully submitting a Freedom of Information Act 2000 request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about the amazing speed with which the British Consul in Portugal was able to get information into the British press and media the day following Madeleine’s ‘disappearance’. We shall publish the reply in due course on our website. We shall investigate matters relating to the involvement of the British government where and when we can, just as others are doing on the forums

    e) to ensure that the media, in particular the British media, report this case accurately and give due weight to the opinions of so many of the general public that the McCanns are withholding the truth about Madeleine’s disappearance

    Nige’s comment: The British media are not the slightest bit interested in the McCanns innocence or guilt. To suggest that they will suddenly decide to reflect the opinions of the general public as a result of you undertaking some unspecified actions is naive. They will reflect those opinions when they consider that they will sell more papers that way. It will be a business decision not an emotional one.

    TB: Noted

    f) to demand a full-scale investigation by the relevant authorities into the activities of the Find Madeleine Fund private trust and to encourage the trustees of that fund to give full particulars about its income and expenditure to the public who have donated so generously to it with the express purpose of finding Madeleine

    Nige’s comment: I trust the British police to undertake/already be undertaking this work.

    TB: I do not think that they are, but in due course we shall ask them directly

    Nige’s comment: The way in which Madeleine’s Fund has been set up ensures that they do not need to disclose their accounts in any great detail to the public. Disgraceful, I know, but unfortunately true.

    TB: Agreed

    g) to generally promote the welfare of children, in particular by ensuring that parents are aware of the psychological needs of their children and ensuring that the relevant authorities take appropriate action to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.

    Nige’s comment: Very noble but desperately woolly and completely beyond your scope. How exactly are you planning to ‘promote’ the welfare of children and ‘ensure’ that parents toe-the-line?

    TB: Deliberately worded in general terms but obviously intended to include leaving young children on their own

    Nige: 13) There then follows a statement that sets off alarm bells in my head and makes me incredibly angry:

    ‘The Madeleine Foundation is only for those committed to achieving our above aims.’

    This is classic emotional psycho-pressure to force people to ‘join now’ and send money.

    TB: Oh dear! That is most definitely one accusation too far and, with the greatest of respect, a gross over-reaction on your part. The meeting in Harlow which set up the The Madeleine Foundation was deliberately not publicised. I organised it and only invited those I knew by e-mail or ’phone contact to be committed McCann-sceptics i.e. those who were definitely questioning the McCanns’ account of events. As you surely must know, in this battle which is being played for very high stakes, the McCanns have supporters out there who are trying to neuter the efforts of so many people who sincerely want truth and justice for Madeleine.

    Nige: What you are effectively saying here is that unless you donate you are not really committed to finding truth and justice for Madeleine. You are presenting The Madeleine Foundation as an exclusive club for members who are ‘the real, committed ones’. Absolute bullsh*t!

    TB: I do not think anyone really thinks that the sentence you have quoted above means that. In many spheres, again as you must know – and especially where the stakes are high – people join associations with the sole purpose of disrupting them and rendering them ineffective. Our statement is a simple one, namely that we will only accept members who sign up to our aims. We do not for example want McCann-supporters seeing our e-mail communications. Of course we respect and admire the efforts of many other people involved in this tragic and convoluted case and we applaud them. Our efforts are simply meant to parallel other’s efforts and hopefully add a new dimension. Or to put it another way, add another string to our collective bow

    Nige: I’ve raised a number of questions here and hope you will find time to address them in full. Many thanks, Nige

    TB: Done the very same day you asked them. Please e-mail me your questions in future, or ‘phone me. It’ll save time all round

    PART THREE ENDS

  6. Twizzel Says:

    Not Sure Tony Bennett is the is the right man or has the cred for this so called Madeline Foundation.

  7. Debbie Says:

    Could you tell me how long Mr Bennett was a Solicitor for?

  8. Kyle Says:

    Tony Bennett.
    I applaud you Sir….if only there were more people with the morals and ethics you display.
    To walk in the face of adversity in the quest for truth, you show strength i admire.
    The path will be long and difficult .
    It has become very apparent to me the corruption that is so rife in the politicians and high ranking members of institutes within the UK.
    Good luck and respect.

  9. Debbie Says:

    And there go’s another tenner down the drain!!!

  10. Kyle Says:

    Debbie…better that..(your above comment)…. than the justice of a child going down the drain, as appears to be the case. Monday hopefully will prove me wrong!

  11. Debbie Says:

    I do not agree Tony Bennett’s ‘Madeleine Foundation’ is a complete waste of time & money he will not be getting my £10.

  12. Kyle Says:

    Debbie…who are you?
    are you the great power of what is a waste of time and money?
    Tell me….do you think Madeleine has had justice to date?

  13. Debbie Says:

    I am someone that will not be giving money to Mr Bennett.

    I am no power just saying what I think, like yourself.

    Justice for Madeleine not through Tony Bennett that is for certain.

  14. Kyle Says:

    Debbie..read back. you made the comment about other peoples money! you could have just said what your saying now!
    Also you have avoided the last question?
    Also i have donated no money but admire what Mr Bennett is trying to do!

    If you feel like me that this case is heading towards a white wash…monday will let us know i am lead to believe.
    What would you do?
    accept and forget, if so how terrible and weak!

    I am not aware of anybody else who is prepared to challenge the case?
    I believe the goings on of this case should be exposed.
    It certainly as many aspects to it that seem not to make sense legally, morally and logically.

    so if you do feel you want to offer me advice, please feel free… i have ears and respond better than snide comments.

    Lastly as i have never blogged here prior to the last few days….What are your views on the case?

  15. Debbie Says:

    My view is the same peoples money down the drain to Mr Bennett.

  16. Kyle Says:

    Debbie..forget it, my view is the same of you
    who are you

  17. Debbie Says:

    I am more interested in finding little Madeleine arn’t you?

  18. Kyle Says:

    Debbie.. yes i am.
    What have you done or are doing to achieve that?

  19. Kyle Says:

    Debbie..I should add that what i am interested in finding is the truth of what happened!……… so justice for madeleine is acheieved.
    I believe Madeleine is no longer with us and the abduction is nothing more than a Fraudlent hoax.
    I also believe with all my heart, that the case will be re-opened and that a convction will be realised in the future.
    It will need the dedication of individuals that really desire to see justice done on this case, and are prepared to go the extra mile.
    Many people i feel will come together over this and only now will the fight for justice begin.

  20. Debbie Says:

    You will not find Madeleine through Mr Bennett’s route or his extra mile, what ever that is.

  21. Rex Says:

    Anthony Bennett’s Madeleine Foundation???????????????

  22. Dorothy Says:

    I can feel a book comming on from Mr Bennett more £’s

  23. Debbie Says:

    Anthony Bennett & his Madeleine Foundation seem to becoming a public nuisance. He is clearly out to make money in the name of Madeleine, what a total disgrace.

  24. Grenville Green Says:

    Debbie,

    Google Madeleine McCann / Rothley Woman and listen to what she has to say. Unlike you, this unknown lady talks a lot of sense.
    FACT.
    Three small children were left unattended by their parents, now one of these innocents is missing.

    Grenville Green

  25. Dorothy Says:

    60 REASONS BOOK Profits made out of Madeleine McCann. Pay penny’s for printing ? Sell for £4.00 A GOOD PROFIT = £90,000 in PRIVATE ACCOUNTS DISGRACE
    MR BENNETT YOU ARE ONLY INTERESTED IN £

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: