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
- Anorak on Jamie Cullum Sings The Pursuit, In Pictures
- Desperate Dan on Jamie Cullum Sings The Pursuit, In Pictures
- June on Wikileaks Publishes 500,000 9/11 FBI And NYPD Pager Messages, Conspiracy Theorists Read On
- June on Chilcot Inquiry Into Iraq War: Day 2 In Pictures
- percy stilton on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
October 26th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
On the neglect issue, did any of the holidaymakers leave their children unattended whilst enjoying an evening out?
October 26th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
jass Says:
“This neglect thing is a red herring.”
I’ll second that.
“But WHY would they let the McCanns say they ALL behaved so dreadfully to their children?”
How could they stop them? To speak out or contradict would be to cast aspersions on the others who also were not with their children the whole time as well.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
SpongeBob Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
“Stig
he may be more to be pitied than scorned.”
Hmmmm…..
Thinking about it….
Thinking about it….
Hmmmm…..
Nah.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Can you see the Whips leaving their brandy and campaigning for Mr Bennett, knowing that the Sun is biding its time for the ‘exclusive’ on his curious views?
If Mr Bennett was so serious in his aim of Madeleine’s Law, he would have had the insight to realise that he is a PR liability and would have had one of his good followers head the campaign.
Which only leads me back to my original view: that it is all merely self seeking self publication
October 26th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
This neglect thing is a red herring.
Yes, by all accounts what these parents ALL did is just about unbelievable - left their tiny children, from babies up to three years old, quite alone while they caroused.
No group would ever be so hopelessly useless.
There might be one drinks-mad/anti-child couple who tried to insist it was OK to leave the kids alone, but there would be so many other couples who refused to go along with this.
Kate said “we were so into each other” to maybe reinorce the idea they were fun-loving adults who liked to dump babies and toddlers alone in holiday flats.
As evidence is beginning to show, Rachel Oldfield, M O’Brien etc took their own decisions about looking after their tiny kids.
But WHY would they let the McCanns say they ALL behaved so dreadfully to their children?
October 26th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Stig
he may be more to be pitied than scorned.
October 26th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
oh dear the poor lawyers , how infuriating to have to read all that info on the site !
October 26th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
On the subject of jurisdiction of law….
I have been biting my tongue - it’s ok Willo, it’s not bleeding - every time someone asks why the McCann’s aren’t suing Amaral.
The answer is that he has not said anything in the UK so they would have to sue him in Portugal, under Portuguese law. I don’t know what Portuguese law on libel is like, but it may be impractical, inapplicable in this case, etc.
I believe there is not a lot of scope for suing for libel in the US because of the constitutional provisions guaranteeing free speech - as an example.
October 26th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
willo Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
SpongeBob Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
………..Ah indeed it will be another example of the corruption of the politicians against the pure minded.
At last. Good to see your slowly getting your mind around the fact that you do agree with Amaral, Mr. Bennett and the rest of us pure minded people. Progress!
–
Ah now at least I understand your situation: your inability to understand anything other the literal word explains your general confusion and comprehension of the world
October 26th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Thanks Rasputin. That makes sense as well.
October 26th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Lamplighters: Prostitutes. Often shortened to lampers.
October 26th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Yampster
They may well be of an age. My father was in the war.
I think I have made a further discovery. My father was a big fan of John Le Carre novels, one of which ‘A Small Town in Germany’ I suspect may contain a German with an unsavory past. Le Carre makes references to ‘lamplighters’. Perhaps there is also a reference to ‘gauletier’ in this book.
October 26th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Rasputin
Indeed
What did happen to that particular fund?
October 26th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
SpongeBob Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
………..Ah indeed it will be another example of the corruption of the politicians against the pure minded.
At last. Good to see your slowly getting your mind around the fact that you do agree with Amaral, Mr. Bennett and the rest of us pure minded people. Progress!
October 26th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Stig,
That’s the word. Your dad and mine would probably be about the same age. He used to refer to the local Union Official as a little Gauleiter when he tried to insist dad take down his Conservative and Unionist party poster ‘for his own safety’
October 26th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Châtelaine
Thanks, yes I did google it and now realise it does not have the meaning I had thought.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Watcher
You can not legislate for ‘common sense’. Such a law would not save the life of a single child in 100 years. The only thing it could do is facilitate the self-righteous in gaining their pleasure from watching society further punish the grieving.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
The Real Stig Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Grande Finale Says:
[...] No parents should be allowed to sleep - it should be the law!
****
They were not sleeping. They were eating and drinking …
But, of course, I may be too simple minded
And, again, a Gauleiter is NOT someone lighting the street lamps… But you probably googled that yourself already, didn’t you? You’re father’s right in the sense that it’s no good people, though.
October 26th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
I did think of that RS. It wouldn’t help Madeleine, for several reasons. But if there was a clear law that children under 12 should not be left at home alone I think it would be a good start.
What if you are in the back garden and your child is watching telly? That’s your judgement call.
What if your child is 12 next week and you go next door for two minutes to borrow a cup of sugar? That’s your judgement call.
But if you leave a child for any length of time you are, in fact, breaking the law, everyone would know that and it would be absorbed into the public consciousness, like “don’t drink and drive”. Therefore, hopefully, it would be a guideline to take on holiday with you, whether the rule applies in that country or not.
October 26th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Potential law my arse. No politician in his right mind would support the likes of Bennett.
Ah indeed it will be another example of the corruption of the politicians against the pure minded
October 26th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Yampster
Thanks, I did see the suggestion that the word might actually have been Gauletier. I think that is probably the word my father used. It is a perfect fit for his usage of it in the context of ‘a nasty piece of work’.
Speaking of which, have all those stampeding to sign the Tuberculosis petition, stopped to think that even if the legislation it seeks to create had existed two years ago, it would not have been applicable to the disappearance of Madeleine?
When Tuberculosis tried his previous unsavory exercise in private persecution, it was immediately dismissed:
“But a district judge threw out the case after ruling a British court could not have jurisdiction over something that took place in Portugal.”
October 26th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
I think my post was reasonable, but let me try it this way: how are you planning to enforce this potential law? How old must a sitter or sibling be for the younger children to be considered safely looked after? By how many feet must parent and child be separated for the child to be considered unattended? For how long? If a sitter or care giver injures or neglects the child, will the parent be considered responsible for making a bad choice? Do boarding schools and summer camps count as “attended”? Are children allowed to play outside without an adult? Are they allowed to walk or bike to the library or for an ice cream? How far? Are they allowed to walk or bike to school? At what age? What possible parental punishments are in the best interests of the child?
October 26th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Or do the McCanns want Madeleine’s law to be that we can leave our kids under 12 home alone?
October 26th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Could start with making a crime of people leaving children under 6 alone-It sounds incredulous that we need a law at all-common bloody sense!
What is their objection -after all it would surely stop children like Madeleine ‘vanishing’ isn’t that what it is all about?
Out of interest does anyone know whether any country does have such a law?
October 26th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
And, when we’ve all finished rolling around laughing at the Real Stig’s rapier wit, we can go back to reading something which might make some sort of sense.
I recommend reading ‘Why Children Die’, which, if nothing else, will provide the Real Stig with yet more hilarious examples of dead children…
http://www.cemach.org.uk/getattachment/72d46ead-b529-466d-b0c3-4794d6a30203/Why-Children-Die–A-pilot-study-(2006).aspx
October 26th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Stig,
Are you the one who wanted to know about your Dad’s Gow Lighter? I may have the answer
October 26th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Grande Finale Says:
“Never leave babies or young children. home alone (whether. sleeping or awake).
NSPCC”
I agree wholeheartedly, parents must never sleep until the child is at least 12 years of age. They have NO excuses anymore. Plenty of products with caffeine in them or there’s Modafinil and others.
I can’t imagine how a loving parent could ever be so selfish and irresponsible as to ever go to sleep. Don’t they know that anything might happen?
A child could wake up, throw up, choke on the vomit and die - all while their selfish parents are indulging themselves with a nice sleep, oblivious.
A fire could start in another room and the children could die of smoke inhalation while their parents are off gallivanting around in the land of nod.
No parents should be allowed to sleep - it should be the law!
October 26th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Grande Finale
Very good question
Watcher
I don’t know. I saw a terrible photo. I think with all the injuries, she had to go to a hospital to a doctor and may be X-ray. and, of course, it had described there. I don’t know, however,who took the foto,who described the injuries. And I don’t know, who gave this foto to the british press.
October 26th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Grande Finale,
I think they would sue for the use of their “trademark”.
October 26th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Calling for “Madeleine’s Law” shows concern for the safety and welfare of young children.
Do the Mccann family and CM not share this concern ?