Madeleine McCann: Noticing Tony Bennett, Madeleine’s Law And What Crime
MADDIE WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann, Kate McCann and Gerry McCann
SUNDAY PEOPLE: “McCanns fury over ‘neglect’”
Missing Maddie McCann’s furious parents have vowed to sue a lawyer who suggests they are guilty of child neglect. Anthony Bennett, 61, is urging the Government to bring in a “Madeleine’s Law” making it a criminal offence to leave children under 12 on their own.
Anthony Bennett has written to Anorak numerous times. Surely, if the McCanns sue him, they will give him the day in court he craves?
Madeleine’s Law sounds like a unworkable project, something that has no chance of ever being approved let alone policed effectively.
And who is Tony Bennet, the man who likes a cause celebre? Is he worth the McCanns’ bother? Say they do sue him and win. Then what? Is he a man of substance or a man of straw? Will it raise money for Our Maddie or deplete the family’s fund? Will it just make Bennett famous?
His website attacks doctors Kate and Gerry McCann, both 41, over the disappearance of Maddie, now five, from their holiday flat in Portugal last year.
Indeed it has. He is not without his supporters.
McCann spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: “Our lawyers are watching him. They are constantly monitoring his claims, which we consider are libellous.”
It all sounds not a little threatening. The McCanns are innocent but can they make it so no-one dares to raise an objection or a critical voice? What good can come of suing a man who says the McCanns failed their child? And haven’t the parents already blamed themselves for not taking enough care?
A legal source close to the McCanns, of Rothley, Leics, said: “They are more than annoyed and deeply offended. They say enough is enough. All they are trying to do is get their daughter back.”
But how do Bennett’s claims of neglect prevent the safe return to Madeleine McCann?
Madeleine McCann is missing and after months of speculation and investigation, reader remain unsure what crime – if any – has been committed…
Posted: 26th, October 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann, Media Comments (183) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
October 27th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Thank you, Garth!
It’s a wonder I managed to get it on any MM thread at all; was writing something about how to go bankrupt in one easy step for the Forums.
And good to read you too, Baby Jane.
I’m still somewhat flummoxed about Haider; how is it going over there?
October 27th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
The truth is, you have kind of an disarming effect on me, Garth.
chenier, help!
October 27th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Garth Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
chenier Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
————–
Now come on, be fair…….. thats just pure silliness and BJ would most certainly find it illogical.
Aint that right BJ?
October 27th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Thank you Garth, you are a gentleman! x!
Hello chenier! Good to read you!
October 27th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
chenier Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
BabyJane
I’m sure they were paying rigourous attention, though it’s a miracle any of them survived the meal.
Attempting to eat one’s dinner standing up with one’s eyes glued to an ill-lit apartment 70 yards away is almost a certain method of poking someone with a fork, or even a knife in some vital spot.
No wonder they didn’t feel up to going out to look for her…
—————
There you go………. i put post in the right thread. Aint that good of me?
October 27th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Yes, I do. But it’s illogical.
October 27th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Of course i do. But do you get my point?
October 27th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
You know exactly what I mean!
October 27th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Watching out for an abductor? Is that what you mean BJ?
October 27th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
What I mean, Garth, and what you know I mean, is the following: What is the point of good sight if you’re not watching?
October 27th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
BabyJane Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Good evening!
If the sight was so excellent, why didn’t hey see the “abductor” go in and come out? Didn’t they pay attention?
—————
Excellent point!
You know, i think they should have foxed up a snare or two just outside the door. Even if they didnt see the bugger they would certainly would have heard him…… unless of course they were pissed and doing the yokey cokey? Hmm…… makes you wonder………the swines!
October 27th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Pamela Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
“Oh, it’s very well lit? That’s quite unusual for a seedy bar, isn’t it? I mean, that
really sounds more like a restaurant where people go to have dinner”
It is extremely well lit in the pictures I see.
Nighttime pics of course.
Your ? mark indicates that you are not viewing a nighttime interior of the Tapas
Restaurant.
There is a Tapas Restaurant and indeed a Tapas Bar.
Both entirely separate entities.
And neither only are 40 yards from the apartment.
The Tapas Restaurant is a very well lit one.
October 27th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Hang on a minute Pam……. how can you be sure that the photo you are studying wasn’t actually taken from the top rung of a 10′ ladder eh?
This is where we have the problem….
October 27th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Can’t believe we are, almost word by word, discussing the same stuff as months ago!
October 27th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Good evening!
If the sight was so excellent, why didn’t hey see the “abductor” go in and come out? Didn’t they pay attention?
October 27th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Oh, it’s very well lit? That’s quite unusual for a seedy bar, isn’t it? I mean, that really sounds more like a restaurant where people go to have dinner. I’m so confused.
I am looking at such a photograph, and I am seeing glass. Are there doors AND a window on the patio, or are these large glass items, in fact, the doors?
October 27th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
The sight of the door is irrelevant.
The apartment itself was in close proximity and visible from the tapas bar.
October 27th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Pamela Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
You should familiarize yourself with the pictures of the “view” of the
apartment from inside a very well lit Tapas at night.
5a’s door cannot be seen.
October 27th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Yes, I’m a family member–the McCann’s have TONS of relatives in north Alabama, or hadn’t you heard? We’re all just thisclose and wearing tartan.
Moron.
So, then, all the television footage and still photography I’ve seen from the poolside Tapas restaurant to the sliding patio doors was shot from atop a ten-foot ladder? Who knew? I will be sure and keep that in mind for furture reference. Gosh, you know, how tall you reckon that ceiling is? ‘Cause, you know, it just doesn’t LOOK that high.
And they were all sloshed? Really? Dear lord, you’ve have thought ONE of the gazillion police reports would have noted that! So glad we have you for this top secret, insider info that the police missed. Oh, wait. You think the police did a great job, right? Oh, now, this IS a puzzlement, but if you say they were tanked, I supposed I’d best take you at your word, because you weren’t there at all and that makes you, like, completely objective.
Did you have any actual responses then, or was it all just pretty much more bullshit?
October 27th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
a·ban·doned, a·ban·don·ing, a·ban·dons
To withdraw one’s support or help from, especially in spite of duty, allegiance, or responsibility; desert: abandon a friend in trouble.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abandoned%2
October 27th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
No luv, i think silly quote by you.
Abandoned? What planet are you on ffs?
October 27th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
“Madeleine’s parents were at DINNER within sight of their door”
silly quote by pamela
no they couldent see the door or the appartment it was shown on GMTV to be totally out of sight
“at dinner” you gotta be kidding me pammy , getting legless more like
you should be ashamed of yourself for neglecting to support an innocent child
madeline was abandoned by her parents and you know it
October 27th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
What neglect?
October 27th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
…….having said that, it looks like we’ve got a few crackpots followers on here…..
October 27th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Matt. Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Pamela Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Unless they stood on top rung of a 10 ft ladder, they would not have been able to
“see” their apartment from the Tapas.
—————-
Hmm, is this another one of your well thought out theories? lol
October 27th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Pamela Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Unless they stood on top rung of a 10 ft ladder, they would not have been able to
“see” their apartment from the Tapas.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
pamela
they were not in sight of the door you silly woman can you not realise that, stop defending them or are you with them
would you do the same thing with your child
October 27th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Grande Finale
I truly do not think the public would tolerate another attempt by the McCanns to get
more money and not sure who is calling the shots here. There is absolutely no reason
for the McCanns to have a Spokesman now and I really don”t know why CM keeps
their name in the Press.
We are awaiting the Home Office response to the request for the LP files to be
made public, this is not going to be soon with the economic meltdown which is a pity
because the April 2008 interviews would be in English and easier to understand.
October 27th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
val Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Kerry
I agree with you, just hope Tony has his facts right and doesn”t get sued!!!!!!!!!
************************
There would only be one reason if they tried, in an effort to shut him up ! WHY ?
That’s why they put so much effort into getting the files, they didn’t bargain on them being made public !!
October 27th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Kerry
I agree with you, just hope Tony has his facts right and doesn”t get sued!!!!!!!!!