Back in November 2007, I came into contact with a man from Harlow named Anthony John Stuart Bennett, at first I thought this man could be sincere and wanted to do all he could to help protect children. I genuinely thought he had a child’s welfare at heart. All he cared about was protecting children.
My encounter with him started because I was following the Madeleine McCann case. Yes at the time, due to media reports emanating from both Portugal and the United Kingdom, I did for nearly 3 years think that the McCanns could have been complicit in what happened to their daughter. My opinion changed, but I am not going to discuss the McCann case on this blog, other than to say I wish Gerry and Kate McCann every success in finding their first born and I hope and pray Madeleine will be reunited with her parents soon.
Well Anthony John Stuart Bennett, Tony Bennett for short, has been involved in several cases apart from the McCann case, which he is now due to appear in court about, for breaching an order he undertook in November 2009, where he agreed not to accuse the McCanns of being involved in their daughter’s disappearance, which as you can guess he has now breached and is facing Contempt of Court proceedings against him.
He was a solicitor, but since retired and he never renewed his practicising certificate and he was even found guilty of conduct unbefitting of a solicitor by the Law Society
Anthony John Stuart Bennett
Hearing 9 September 2003;
Reasons 20 October 2003
The SDT ordered that the respondent, of 22 Laceys Avenue, Leverton, Boston, Lincolnshire PE22 0BG (formerly of 66 Chippingfield, Harlow, Essex CM17 0DJ), who did not hold a current practising certificate, be reprimanded for unbefitting conduct in that he had failed to comply with a finding of inadequate professional serviced dated 20 July 2001, confirmed on appeal on 30 August 2001; he had failed to act in the best interests of clients in that he had acted for them in a private capacity thereby outside the scope of the Solicitors Indemnity Fund Rules 1995; he had acted in breach of principle 17.01 in that he had accounted to clients in a personal capacity and not as an employee of his firm, thereby failing to act with frankness and good faith towards his employers; and that as a result he had brought the profession into disrepute. The SDT found that he had been misguided in the way he had approached his aim of helping people. It was important that solicitors complied with directions of the regulatory body and did not ignore them merely because they disagreed with them. The respondent had not previously appeared before the SDT and did not have a practising certificate. He had indicated that he did not intend to return to the profession. The SDT accepted the respondent’s undertaking to comply with the decision of inadequate professional service within 28 days of the hearing, and would therefore not make the order sought by the applicant regarding the enforcement of that decision. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of 3,000.
If Tony Bennett, is not being found guilty of one offence he is of another, and you can read much about him on the internet about the way he defaces road signs and his various battles in one court or another.
What I have witnessed online is abhorrent behaviour from this man. I have witnessed personal emails being posted on various sites, especially if he is in contention with the sender. I know this to be correct as he has posted up emails that I sent him that were marked ‘Private and Confidential’. But that is neither here nor there, because you see, I wouldn’t put anything in an email that I wouldn’t have the courage or be prepared to say to a persons face.
Tony Bennett, has been involved in the case of Lee Balkwell. A man who died and whose father wanted to get to the truth. Today Tony Bennett posted up on a forum he posts on details of a conversation between him and the Officer in the case. You see, the Officer had no alternative but to speak to Tony Bennett, because he is acting as the representative of Les Balkwell, the victims father.
Now to the point, this man advocates that he cares for children. Well you see there is video online on Youtube, where there is graphic pictures of the victim as he laid crushed underneath a cement mixer. The victim has a son who is now 10 years old.
It is only natural that the mother of this child wants to protect her son from the horrors of what happened. When the video was first uploaded this child’s mother pleaded with him to remove it… HE REFUSED. Bearing in mind that the video was uploaded in October 2010, that little boy at the time would not have been 10 he was EIGHT years old..
How can a man who proclaims that he cares about the welfare of children, oh by the way one more snippet of info, he was a Social Worker at one time, not do as a mother asks?
Today after his posting about his success, and naming of suspects who he believes were the people arrested, which I gather is something the Police will not condone, he writes this about a 10 year old child.
This is a very controversial and bitterly disputed case. The boy, now 10, knows how his father died. The case is routinely discussed in and around where he lives. His mother has made sure he doesn’t see the video (on which the graphic images have been kept to an absolute minumum[sic]). At the end of the day, it is very important for this young man’s future that he knows as much as possible about the true reasons why he doesn’t have a father to help bring him up.
I am a mother, of a grown up son, and I know how little boys get weird thoughts in their heads, I understand the turmoil young boy’s go through as they reach puberty. I understand how this little boy must be feeling, when his own father is dead and he sees other fathers playing with their sons.
You see I have the courage of my convictions, if I feel something is wrong, I will say it is wrong. If I feel a child’s best interests are not being taken into consideration, I will say so. Our children are our future. They’re innocent little beings who need to grow up without knowing the full horrors of what this world is really like. Parents know when it is the right time is to tell them something that could have a great impact on them emotionally. They know when it is right for them to speak about something that they have been shielding them from. And a mother or father, knows their own child and they know how to broach the subject and how to minimise the impact of what is being said. The last thing any parent wants is for their child to walk come in from playing in a state because they have found something on the net that relates to their mother or their father.
It is not down to me nor you, to tell another parent when the time is right and it definitely isn’t down to Tony Bennett. Tony Bennetts full reply to my concerns about him posting about this video can be seen by clicking here.
I believe in being truthful so therefore I will copy my posts that I made about this subject, for my readers to read and to form their own opinion.
Bren – Initial Post – The man makes me want to vomit… he is an attention seeking wannabe…
Tony Bennett – Response – Er, what happened to the STM call to avoid personal abuse?
Bren – 2nd Response – That is not personal abuse, that is how you make me feel over this case, that is me and my freedom of speech being used, you know the freedom of speech where you think you can say what you like without any comebacks.
Bren – Initial Post – He advocates that he cares about truth, justice and the welfare of children, yet he sacrifices one child in order to gain glory. Did he care about how Lee Balkwell’s son could react should he have stumbled across that video? Did he care that this little boy was going to see horrific pictures (and we know that’s true because there is a warning on the video)? Did he care that a little boy could have nightmares after watching that video? Did he care for Lee Balkwell’s flesh and blood? No.
Tony Bennett – Response – This is a very controversial and bitterly disputed case. The boy, now 10, knows how his father died. The case is routinely discussed in and around where he lives. His mother has made sure he doesn’t see the video (on which the graphic images have been kept to an absolute minumum). At the end of the day, it is very important for this young man’s future that he knows as much as possible about the true reasons why he doesn’t have a father to help bring him up.
Bren – 2nd Response - His mother made sure that doesn’t see the video. Can his mother be behind a 10 year old 24/7? Does this little boy have no friends that he plays with? Does he not have a computer or uses a computer at school or at a friends home? What if he was playing with friends at their home and they went on the computer and looked at youtube? What if he puts his father’s name into google and up pops that video? I agree about his future that he knows as much as possible about how his father died, BUT NOT BY YOU, YOU MEDDLING MAN, it is down to his mother to tell him and to tell him when she thinks the time is right. IT IS NOT DOWN TO YOU. So I stand by what I said, and REPEAT you have NO right to advocate that you care for children when you promote and upload videos that could make a 10 year old boy have nightmares. His mother is shielding him and you are doing all you can to stop her protecting her son.
Now I don’t know about you, but I don’t think this man has any child’s interest at heart, do you? The mother of this little boy pleaded for him to stop… she pleaded for her son, just like any mother she wanted to protect him for the cold stark realities of his father’s death. Protect her son,so that he did not have to stumble across the various postings Tony Bennett was making about this case.
There was nothing stopping Tony Bennett helping Les Balkwell. the father of the victim. There was nothing stopping him writing letters, phoning the police, doing all he could to get the case re-investigated. What he could have done is conduct this business off of the internet in order to protect an innocent child. He DIDN’T and when asked to HE REFUSED.