Anthony John Stuart Bennett

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

Application 8788/2003;
Admitted 1995;
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.



  1. DMK says:

    It’s not ok to post contents of an email but it is ok to post someone’s full name and address along with highly emotive reasons as to why this person should be made into a pariah?
    Freedom of speech is good for airing one’s opinions but if you disagree you should shut up and crawl under a stone?
    When I read spiteful and malicious efforts to discredit and silence people, I wonder if there’s any substance or motive other than hatred. If anyone hates someone because of a stranger’s say-so, they should beware of wolves.


    1. Bren says:

      I don’t know if you know what Tony Bennett is like, or whether you think think this post is malicious or not, but you can’t seem to understand why this man needs to be stopped. You only have to google his actions in the Madeleine McCann case to see the distress he has caused a missing child’s parents.

      As for putting his name and address about, well, Mr Bennett does that freely.. he openly posts his address and his phone numbers, especially when he is hungry for media attention.

      Whether you agree with me or not, is irrelevant, but this man needs to be stopped. Especially at his moral compass of how he proclaims he cares for children yet doesn’t care if they get hurt in the process. That behaviour is not acceptable.


  2. DMK says:

    It’s his address to give out, not anybody else’s! Just because you’ve said he does it, it doesn’t make it right that anyone else should follow suit.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t he have a job to do? Isn’t he trying to raise awareness of what happened to this young man on behalf of his father and gain justice? If he’s forced to keep some of it under wraps, that makes him no better than the people who have already covered up the man’s death. It makes a mockery of the man’s death because nobody’s allowed to speak.

    I don’t understand why people want others to always tell the truth but to some people, they’re only allowed to tell the fluffy version of the truth that everyone wants to hear. As soon as it gets a bit contentious, s/he’s got to be stopped at all costs. What is wrong with this country? So many cover-up’s, so many people fighting for justice, yet those who are seemingly unrelated take it upon themselves to campaign against those who are battling to expose the cover-ups for truth and justice.

    Either people want cover-up’s or they don’t. We can’t possibly have it both ways.


    1. Anon says:

      What cover ups is Bennett fighting about? There is no cover-up in the McCann case. The case was closed because the PJ failed to find out even what happened, never mind who did it. There is no cover up in that case now either. Scotland Yard no less are dealing with it.

      And what cover up is there in the Balkwell case? Aren’t a handful of people now being prosecuted? How does that work out as a cover-up?

      I think you should get a grip on reality and realise that these cover-ups are in your own imagination which has been fuelled of course by evil little meddlers like Tony Bennett.


      1. DMK says:

        Anon, Bren

        Firstly, where have I mentioned Madeleine McCann’s disappearance?

        Regarding cover-up’s, surely the fact that this case has been covered up for so long means there has been a cover up, no?

        Repeating something personal that is in the public domain is right, is it? Since you mentioned Madeleine McCann, I have spent the last half an hour reading up about Mr Bennett and his involvement. Well, well well! I noticed that Mr Bennett is being taken to court for repeating something that is IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. So, as he is actually a victim of something you say is lawful, I suggest you think again.

        As for getting a grip on reality, I find you hostile, small minded and seem to change your view on what is right and what is wrong depending on the person you’re talking about. I’m extrapolating from that you condone cover-up’s depending on who is accused.

        Nobody could accuse you of objectivity!


        1. Bren says:

          Yes both I am anon did mention the Madeleine McCann case and the orchestrated campaign he has conducted against her family is despicable. If you can’t see that, leafleting neighbours and standing on street corners handing out leaflets is not vindictive and nothing but the actions of a lynch mob, then I really do despair at what some people think is right and wrong.

          How would you like it if someone decided that something you did warranted such actions? How would you feel if some tragedy happened in your family and a group of people decided to launch a campaign against you or your family?

          Mr Bennett took it from discussing things on the internet to a pro-active campaign and that is what I find deplorable and despicable… and the rubbish he was peddling as facts was nothing but pure speculation.

          The post in questions is NOT about the McCann family and the disappearance of Madeleine, it is about his actions when a mother asked him to stop and how he refused.


          1. DMK says:

            I beg to differ. I’d say your feelings for Mr Bennett have everything to do with the McCann saga and nothing to do with the case I’m particularly interested in. You appear to be so heavily biased against this poor man for some reason that you’re prepared to compromise your own beliefs and principles to take a shot at him. That takes hatred and obsession to another level. Why do you care so much that you’ve made it a personal vendetta? Is he an ex or something?

            I take it you believe in freedom of speech?


  3. Bren says:

    Firstly to correct you on one thing, that address etc is a direct copy and paste from the Law Gazette site.. so if you think it is wrong, may I suggest you raise your concerns with them. It is not about cover-ups etc. is it, it is about a child whose mother asked him to stop and he refused.

    Put yourself in her position, there you are you have lost your partner, and you have a small child, it is only natural you would want to protect your child from the harsh realities of what happened to their father until they were old enough to understand and not be traumatised by the circumstances of their father’s death, isn’t it. Then someone comes along and start posting on the internet the gruesome details because they are acting on behalf of someone else. You don’t want your child to find what is being posted and you want to protect your child… are you telling me that it would be OK and you wouldn’t bother asking this man to stop?

    I have no time for Tony Bennett and I won’t make out I do… but he has no right to advocate that he cares for children when he won’t event take another child’s welfare into consideration and stop his postings about this case


  4. Bren says:

    I beg to differ. I’d say your feelings for Mr Bennett have everything to do with the McCann saga and nothing to do with the case I’m particularly interested in. You appear to be so heavily biased against this poor man for some reason that you’re prepared to compromise your own beliefs and principles to take a shot at him. That takes hatred and obsession to another level. Why do you care so much that you’ve made it a personal vendetta? Is he an ex or something?

    I take it you believe in freedom of speech?

    I suppose you are right in a way, I have found his actions in the McCann case deplorable.. there again I find the actions of all those that leafleted and stood on street corners with him deplorable and despicable. I find that nothing but vigilante behaviour.

    As for being an ex, well that has me rolling on the floor in laughter… don’t be so absurd.

    This man takes the law into his own hands, if he feels you have committed a crime he will do whatever in his power to hound you. If anything the person who has a personal vendetta against people is actually the man we are talking about, because he certainly has that against the McCanns, the Police and any other person who disagrees with him.


    1. DMK says:

      The reason I asked if he was an ex is because this doesn’t seem like a regular “I don’t like what he’s done” statement. There’s a lot of animosity and people have gone to a lot of trouble to suggest he’s the devil incarnate. Not for just the one reason either; it appears far more weighty, like it’s meant to be an attack towards him rather than an opinion. Therein lies my confusion and my reason for the “ex” question. There’s more to this than there seems at first glance.

      My next question is: if you aren’t personally related to him or either of the families you say he’s harassing; that is, you’re not involved personally, why do you care so much that you have formulated your own list of his wrongdoings and are so bothered that you make such a point of explaining it all in such depth?

      That’s what’s puzzling me. Forget Anthony Bennett, you have an axe to grind that is so deep on a personal level it affects whatever he does. I’m finding it a bit uneasy, if truth be told.


      1. Bren says:

        DMK, I don’t know what you find uneasy, either you believe in vigilante action or you don’t. There is no relationship between Tony Bennett and I and there never was or will be.. to be honest I have never met the guy. But what I don’t believe in is lynch mob mentality and this is what this man creates around him. I am not linked to the Balkwells or the McCanns but I just happen to believe this man is doing nothing to help these families, but creating as much harm has he can. Maybe he is helping Les Balkwell but at the expense of Lee’s son and against the wishes of this child’s mother.. As for the McCann surely you don’t agree with leafleting neighbours and all the other things he has done in this case, do you?

        I am not the only person that is appalled with what this man does. I won’t be the first and I definitely won’t be the last and yes this is my opinion and to be perfectly honest, I am entitled to voice my opinion. Nothing I have said is libellous or defamatory, all I have said is the truth.


  5. DMK says:

    What I’m uneasy about is that you seem to be protesting an awful lot for someone who has no personal involvement. Most people would have a moan but that would be it. I sense a lot of hatred from you towards someone you don’t know and that’s more than a bit unhealthy and disconcerting.

    I believe in free speech, so long as it’s personal opinion. I agree that everyone is entitled to voice their opinion which brings about the question of Mr Bennett’s leafleting activity, surely he’s entitled to his opinion too?

    Me, agreeing with vigilante action? That would be a hefty ‘no’. Too many people sticking their noses in without invitation. It’s the same with lynch mob mentality. That’s why I’m so uneasy about your stance. There seems to be more than a bit of that mentality going on and two wrongs don’t make a right. If someone does something wrong then it’s down to the law to deal with, not complete strangers!


    1. Bren says:

      Well DMK we are going around in circles here, I have my opinion, you have yours and I don’t think we will ever agree, so maybe best to agree to disagree in this case. And as only you and I are commentating on this thread, I will leave the comments and thread open for others to read, but will stop the comments.


Comments are closed.