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
- susan jones on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
- The Real Stig on The Great Cathay Pacific Blocked Toilet Mystery
- SoDak-GhostDog on Interview With Survior Of James Arthur Ray’s Sedona Sweat Lodge
- Katie Norman on I’m A Celebrity: Joe Bugner’s Career In Pictures
- HOTWATER on Madeleine McCann: The Media Creates A New Maddie Monster And Twists The Facts
October 27th, 2008 at 2:41 am
Karen,
Or did they?
October 27th, 2008 at 2:40 am
I don’t half harp on about this - but - they left the back door unlocked! At night. And it was a ground-floor apartment, next to an alleyway.
That’s such a stupid thing to do that they deserve relentless tutting.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:32 am
Goodnight.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:31 am
Calm down, calm down!
October 27th, 2008 at 2:31 am
Oh Well, good night all.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:22 am
Saul Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 1:45 am
Artemis, I am not accusing you of being a liar or stupid, I certainly wouldn’t accuse you of lying. If some one logs on and makes a post you take it at face value. At the risk of falling out with you, you are here as a moderator, but that doesn’t make you immune from duplicity.
—–
M&A
Artemis
I read every damn post that comes over this Board, boring as it usually is. And now you claim that you say that you are not accusing me of being a liar, or stupid?
I would suggest that you re-read your own earlier posts. Bit difficult to construe them as anything other than the statement that I knew some dirty work going on, but was pretending I didn’t., or that I am so stupid not to notice. They are unambiguous statements; it’s a bit late now to pretend that you didn’t really mean them.
I trust you are wor
—–
You can quit now before you look too stupid.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:15 am
Dammit, and there’s me clean out of popcorn
October 27th, 2008 at 2:13 am
I will not comment on the grammar and spelling, that’s for you to sort out. Whoever you may be.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:07 am
Is that it?
October 27th, 2008 at 2:01 am
Maybe, but why now?
October 27th, 2008 at 2:01 am
Saul Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:23 am
Sorry to put you on the spot Artemis, but it is pretty obvious.
——-
M&A
Atermis
Wow, you are down to the fake apology stage.
Your apology is not accepted.
—————-
OK I take it back.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:53 am
Wahey!!! must have touched a nerve.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:45 am
Artemis, I am not accusing you of being a liar or stupid, I certainly wouldn’t accuse you of lying. If some one logs on and makes a post you take it at face value. At the risk of falling out with you, you are here as a moderator, but that doesn’t make you immune from duplicity.
—–
M&A
Artemis
I read every damn post that comes over this Board, boring as it usually is. And now you claim that you say that you are not accusing me of being a liar, or stupid?
I would suggest that you re-read your own earlier posts. Bit difficult to construe them as anything other than the statement that I knew some dirty work going on, but was pretending I didn’t., or that I am so stupid not to notice. They are unambiguous statements; it’s a bit late now to pretend that you didn’t really mean them.
I trust you are wor
October 27th, 2008 at 1:31 am
I have had some nice fun on this site but I’m afraid the duplicity that is inherent means that my visits will be restricted to the occasional smart *rse comment..
M&A
Artemis
And I am touched to know that your duplicity will be adorning the blog for times to come, though thankfully not as often..
Had you bothered to even try to answer my questions I would have given you the benefit of the doubt. But you didn’t even try.
The only duplicity is I see in this is yours.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:23 am
Sorry to put you on the spot Artemis, but it is pretty obvious.
——-
M&A
Atermis
Wow, you are down to the fake apology stage.
Your apology is not accepted.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:14 am
Sledgehammer/Reporter/Gandolph/Rasputin?
October 27th, 2008 at 1:11 am
Artemis,
Unfortunately I’m allergic to pain!
October 27th, 2008 at 1:10 am
Artemis, do you really think that anyone with half a brain doesn’t think that Rasputin is agw.
—–
M&A
Artemis
No, I don’t think he’s Rasputin. I see no evidence for it.
And I tend to be good on evidence. Unsurprisingly, some posters take up a great deal of a Mods time because they enjoy posting libels. Rasputin is one of rhem. And all the evidence I have is that Rasputin is not AGW.
I don’t know where you got this from, though I should be aware by now that people hurl accusations at Anorak with a great deal of heat and not much light.
I appreciate that this is the Web, and therefore people may well make up as many stories as possible, limited only by their bandwidth.
You asked me earlier not the think you had half a brain.
I accept that you have considerably more than half a brain, but you are not offering the same to me.
And of top of it you are disputing my integrity.
I don’t know who thought this one up, but you are accusing me of either being a liar, or stupid
But that’s fine with you, isn’t it….
October 27th, 2008 at 1:03 am
Artemis,
I like the sound of that! Anyone in particular?
——
M&A
Artemis
A volunteer! That’s very kind of you; I’ll try not to make the process too painful for you.
October 27th, 2008 at 12:42 am
Saul,
Dont know about that, but it sure has got boring over the last few days!
——
M&A
Artemis
OK, we can look for some new features. How about I get to hang, draw and quarter a poster every day, thus providing amusement for myself, if no-one else.
The rest of you can nominate and vote on the victim of the day.
A bit like a credit card, sorry, Big Brother.
October 27th, 2008 at 12:39 am
Oh Well!
It would be so much nicer if the Mods posted under their Anorak names.
At least then we could then differentiate between genuine posters and those with a different agenda.
—–
M&A
Artemis
I’m a bit baffled, Saul. Can you explain, please?
October 27th, 2008 at 12:37 am
I do hope so very much that whatever it is doris, has more substance than your non-existent fairy tale emails.
October 27th, 2008 at 12:23 am
they effing will
October 27th, 2008 at 12:22 am
Annie1
They were in Portugal, so Portuguese law applies. They are not answerable to British law when not in the UK - it does not have jurisdiction.
Portuguese law applies. Under that law, they have no case to answer as they and the children were on Mark Warner property at the time.
So they do not have to stand up and take it on the chin.
October 27th, 2008 at 12:18 am
annie1 - don’t be daft. Read what I said. I said that it wasn’t right to leave children alone. I’ve signed the damn petition to make it law for Christ sake.
October 27th, 2008 at 12:10 am
spongebob go to the site and read it , also read that there are others involved , i do know this and i also know it it not for own publicity , far from it , i am sickl of reading the nonsense you spout
October 27th, 2008 at 12:09 am
Watcher - You are either very old or very naive - Children should never be left alone - especially at the age that the 3 mc.children were left. The twins were only 2 years old!! Nobody in their right mind would leave children so young alone - not even for a few minutes
October 27th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Can anyone clarify for me - the law
With regard to the neglect issue - would it be the the Portugese law with regard to child neglect which would be the deciding factor should there be a case of child neglect brought. As the Mcs are back in the UK, would the courts in the Uk take into account that the Mcs were in Portugal when the “crime of neglect” was committed, and have to abide by the law in that country, or would the courts use the British law on neglect should they be prosecuted for this “crime”? Also - I assume that witnesses to the incident would need to be brought from Portugal, as there would obviously be ones who were not members of the Tapas Crew who would have valuable information with regard to how long and when the children were left alone. There is no question as to the consequences of the issue - Madeleine went missing, which in itself, in my opinion, is proof beyond doubt that the McCann children were left alone to their detriment. Children should not be left alone at that age, not even for a minute, and I am surprised that the McCanns - with all their campaigning - are so reluctant to stand up and be counted and take the charges of neglect squarely on the chin - anything less would surely jeopardise their campaign for alerts and God knows what else in the name of child protection. The care of any child is basically the responsibility of the parents - and anything less than 100 per cent full committment to parenting should be severely repremanded, especially if it results in the child coming to some harm - be it going missing of worse still dying.
October 27th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Stig you said you can’t legislate for common sense. No, but you can have a damn good try.
I said about “Don’t Drink and Drive”. That’s common sense. Or is it? Before the laws came in perfectly intelligent people would go out drinking and if they could stagger from their pub to the car they considered themselves home and hosed and responsible citizens.
Before seat belts became law people laughed at them and wouldn’t do them up. It takes time for good thinking to come permeating through to mass consciousness.
In the civilised world things have improved for children over the years. We no longer send the smallest and youngest up chimneys, or make them work in factories or as (even in my mother’s day) make them domestic servants where they worked from early morning to late. It was also considered parents’ Christian duty to thrash children for any perceived minor wrongdoing in the belief that “spare the rod and you spoil the child”.
Gradually things change and improve but the laws have to be passed first. Don’t ask me why, but history tells us this is the case.
Most people know perfectly well when they can leave their children safely and when they can’t, but a law passed would hammer the point home. If the McCanns thought, “Well this is a safe complex, it is OK to leave them, once they are asleep” the fact that there would be a UK law saying “NO you can’t leave them under the age of 12″
would disabuse them of that idea.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
‘listening service’ anyone?