Hounders moaning about success of Hacked Off petition

4,904 - that's more like it!

Bennett never ceases to entertain, does he? Just when you think he can't do anything more stupid and self-destructive - he manages it.

hounders petition? no thanks. it is neither welcome nor needed.

Don't worry, Pedro, it's just Bennett wanting attention, and making a fool of himself, as usual. He probably fancies himself sitting on the 'independent panel', telling the press to only print nice things about him.

Incidentally, has Bennett forgotten all the abuse and libel he sent to Cameron not that long ago? I really don't see Cameron welcoming support from the likes of Bennett.

bb1 wrote:4,904 - that's more like it!

Bennett never ceases to entertain, does he? Just when you think he can't do anything more stupid and self-destructive - he manages it.

Cough

Oh yes he can, Bonny.

xxxhttp://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/search?q=anthony+bennett

And his rejects

xxxhttp://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/search?q=anthony+bennett&state=rejected .

Look at the different names he's used

I would love to know how many hundreds of thousands of taxpayer pounds Bennett has wasted, between his stupid petitions, his endless prodnosing, sorry, I mean FOI demands, and his interminable fights with the police/fights in which the police have to intervene as with Tango.

bb1, your words are mine:

"I would love to know how many hundreds of thousands of taxpayer pounds Bennett has wasted, between his stupid petitions, his endless prodnosing, sorry, I mean FOI demands, and his interminable fights with the police/fights in which the police have to intervene as with Tango.", which includes also the disgusting flyers TB with antis used.

5,000 on the best petition

Bennett will beat that easily, muratfan - indeed, it shouldn't take him long to overtake the big petition, as 'everyone' agrees with him.

I see there are supposedly 77 sigs on his petition; whatever could they be?


Tiny Bonnett; Bent Tony; Ban Then Net Tony; Alan Marc Lagoa; Barbara Nottage; Ray Stevens; Bent Net Tony; LuzLady; Freudian Slip; Seamus O'Guigan; Rochdale Eye.........is it me, or are they all strangely familiar?

Oh all real names then

Bennett doesn't care about the press, any more than he cares about children - he just thinks he's entitled to carry on libelling and smearing people without being challenged.

But oh! Watch him shriek and moan if the media, which he endlessly courts, misquotes him.

133688 on the real one - Bennett will have to knit himself a lot of new socks.

This is what Bennett wants to stop:

http://hackinginquiry.org/comment/whos-independent/

Who’s independent?

Posted December 3rd, 2012 by Hacked Off & filed under Comment, Debunking.

by Brian Cathcart

The national papers are desperately scratching around for the names of people who might be regarded as sufficiently independent to serve on their new regulator. Let’s give them some help.

First, editors and proprietors are anything but independent. They are not only wholly partisan, but most of them are tainted by their longtime advocacy of the discredited Press Complaints Commission and by their record of, as the Leveson report puts it, ‘wreaking havoc in the lives of ordinary people’. So the less they have to do with setting up an independent regulatory body that is supposed to put the interests of the public before those of the industry, the better.

Second, Lords Hunt and Black are not independent. They are both tainted by their advocacy of a plan for press self-regulation which was rejected as insufficient by victims of press abuses, and fell far short of what was required by Lord Justice Leveson. They promised something independent and offered another thinly-veiled figleaf for editorial whim. Their lordships both also happen to be active politicians, taking a party whip in the House of Lords, which is hardly a very independent thing to be.

Third, anyone suggested by these people is by definition not independent. It is simply not appropriate that editors, proprietors and their associates should lead the discussion about appointing independent regulators. Not just because of their record, but because they are among many stakeholders in the future of the press.

What about serving journalists? The NUJ should have a role. What about the public? What about the people who have suffered press abuses, who have campaigned on this for no other reason than that they want to prevent others experiencing the treatment they have endured?

And that only gets us half way. When the Paul Dacres, Dominic Mohans, Hugh Whittows, John Witherows and others have had their say, who will check that they have come up with something credible?

Will it be the Culture Secretary or the Prime Minister? Surely not. That would be direct political interference in the press, and nobody wants that. Will it be some other bunch of people hand-picked by the editors and proprietors? Never. That smacks just too much of the old PCC.

It’s all a bit complicated and difficult. So complicated and difficult, in fact, that it might be an idea to hand the problem over to a judge and see what he thinks. A judge like Sir Brian Leveson perhaps.

-----------------

The hounders ENJOY wreaking havoc in the lives of ordinary people. Look at Bennett and his 'dossiers', and the way they were all fascinated by Ed Smethurst's interior decor.

No-one has forgotten their absolutely vile attacks on members of the late Ms Yeates' family, or Bennett's 'theory' about her grieving fiance - the one whose lips were the wrong shape.

It must really gall them to see Chris Jeffries, another target of their filth because his hair stuck out, fronting up this petition, along with Gerry McCann.

It must really gall them to see Chris Jeffries, another target of their filth because his hair stuck out, fronting up this petition, along with Gerry McCann.

Thanks Bonny, tea all over my desk.

You obviously meant, his hair stuck out, but he wasn't pulling a manky shopping trolley.
Bennett can hardly talk, about anyone else's hair, can he?

I mean, just look at my avatar

Bennett demonstrates his usual modesty:

The Sun - lagging behind as usual
Tony Bennett Today
sammyc wrote:
I've just got home and logged in here, noticed the topic and signed straightaway.

All the very best Tony
.
Thanks again to all who have signed, we are at 418 already, well on the way to the first 1,000. The 'HackedOff' petition is riddled with bogus and multiple names so can't be taken seriously.

I've just seen this tweet from McCann-sceptic 'Humpty Bumpty':

Humpty Bumpty ‏@RealHumptyB

#HackedOff petition stands at 130k+ sigs as new Sun-backed e-petition launched to oppose press law. #leveson

...so it looks like the Sun will be following my lead!

================

The Sun and Bennett - what a team! There's a campaign to avoid like the plague!

Oh look, it's a hounder owning up to playing silly beggars with the REAL petition:

Re: Hacked Off Campaign.
Bob Southgate Today

It might be time to bring out two of my alter ego's, Seymour Titz and Hugh Janus just for the hacked off petition

Sadly for them, the silly beggars are being rooted out.

They really should get something clear in whatever passes for their 'brains'.

By signing Bennett's sock petition, they are saying that they think it is acceptable for the press to terrorise, smear and wreck the lives of anyone unfortunate enough to be caught up in a media circus.

But they enjoy hounding and harrassing innocent people, so what else can you expect from the likes of them?

Wasn't there a case of a Laffin Hounder whinging about being harassed by the newspapers??
Can't have to both ways can they,

And then Bennett moaning his interview was taken out of context

Odd that he's trying to cosy up to the press now.....

Debbie Butler - Formal Complaint to Sun, Express and P.C.C.
Dear Editor of the Sunday Express

Sorry to send this to so many addresses at once, but we were not sure from your website how to reach the Sunday Express editor or his Secretary.

I act for Miss Debbie Butler in the matter of her formal complaint to you about the contents of Sunday's front-page article: "The McCanns' Stalker".

This is a formal complaint under the Press Complaints Commission code and a copy is being sent to Scott Langham at the Press Complaints Commission for immediate action.

A summary of Miss Butler's complaints are as follows:

++++++

The 'Sunday Express', like all other newspapers, has a duty under the Press Complaints Code to be fair and accurate.

Against those benchmarks, here are the complaints about the Sunday article that Miss Butler now makes. For the record, her address is *** *****, *****, *****:

1. Describing Debbie Butler as a 'stalker' in respect of one leaflet drop in Rothley and nothing else was neither fair nor accurate.

Making it a front-page leaflet with a picture clearly exposes her to risk of unfair attack. What she has done is distribute a factual leaflet. There is absolutely no course of conduct by her in relation to the McCanns that could remotely be described as 'stalking'.

2. Describing '10 Reasons' as a 'hate leaflet' (one villager was quoted as saying the leaflet was 'drumming up hate' and the 'Sunday Express' described it as 'highly inflammatory') was grossly unfair and grossly inaccurate, especially as the 'Sunday Express' did not explain the contents of the leaflet

3. The 'Sunday Express' deliberately chose the worst photograph they could take of her to portray her as 'a hard cow', which she was not. That was manifestly unfair

4. Neither Debbie Butler nor anyone else in the Madeleine Foundation sent a leaflet to Brian and Janet Kennedy. We do not know where she lives. Inaccurate

5. It was not a 'late-night' leaflet drop. It took place between 3pm and 6pm. Inaccurate

6. The leaflet drop did not involve 10 people, it involved 3. Inaccurate

7. Dr Gerald McCann was allowed to get away with describing the leaflet as 'despicable lies'. The 'Sunday Express' made no attempt to inform its readers that the content of the leaflet was the truth and that the McCanns had never rebutted any of the claims made in either '60 Reasons' or '10 Reasons'. This was grossly unfair and inaccurate. The leaflet was not 'lies' nor 'despicable lies'. It was the truth.

8. Debbie Butler was described in the 'Sunday Express' article as 'a single parent family with two children'. A more accurate description would have been 'a successful Kent bsuinesswoman' - a fact which the reporter was made well aware of. The mere description of her as 'single parent' was unfair,

As remedies, Debbie Butler seeks:

1. A full retraction on the 'Sunday Express' front page of the description of her as 'The McCanns' Stalker'

2. A fulsome apology.

3, A payment of compensation which she tells me, if awarded, she would like to be paid in full to ChildLine.

Tony Bennett


That would be different, I expect - the hounders seem to think there are different laws from them.

Where that will end up

The PCC telling Bennett to take a hike:


http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t3208-daily-star-justified-in-calling-rothley-leaflet-distributors-sickos-press-complaints-commission-decision

Commission’s decision in the case of Bennett v Sunday Express/Daily Star

The
articles reported that the Madeleine Foundation had distributed copies
of their leaflet ‘What really happened to Madeleine McCann? Ten key
reasons which suggest that she was not abducted’ in the McCanns’ home
town of Rothley , Leicestershire.

The articles variously
referred to the leaflet as a “hate leaflet” and “highly inflammatory”,
claiming that it contained “despicable lies” and that it was part of a
“smear campaign”. The articles also claimed that the McCanns had been
targeted by “sickos” and that the Chairman of the Madeleine Foundation
was a “stalker”. The complainant said that all these claims were
inaccurate and misleading.

In this case, it was clear to the
Commission that the references to a “hate leaflet” and to the leaflet
being “highly inflammatory” represented the newspaper’s robust position
on the content of the literature being distributed by the complainant
and his organisation, which could reasonably be described as
controversial. The newspapers had the absolute right to do so, within
the parameters of the Code of Practice.

Clause 1 (Accuracy) of
the Code states that newspapers must distinguish clearly between
comment, conjecture and fact. The Commission considered that – given
the nature of the references, which were plainly subjective – readers
would have understood that they related to the newspapers’ own views of
the leaflet, which they were entitled to take. Equally, the Daily Star
had been perfectly entitled to offer its opinion of the individuals
behind the campaign (“sickos”) which, it was said, had caused distress
to the McCanns. It was difficult to see how such a subjective term
could have been interpreted as verifiable fact. The complainant may
have disagreed with such a description, but this did not make it
inaccurate in breach of the Code. Similarly, the Commission was
satisfied that the newspaper had been entitled, in the circumstances,
to refer to the leafleting as part of a “smear campaign”, or, by
extension, “stalking”. Both terms clearly represented the newspapers’
opinion of the activities of the organisation. The reference to
“despicable lies” had, in addition, been attributed clearly to a
“source close to the couple”, in the case of the Sunday Express, and a
“family pal” in the case of the Daily Star. There was no breach of the
Code on these points.

The complainant had also claimed that the
circumstances of the leaflet drop had been misrepresented. In the
Commission’s view, however, the question of when the leaflets were
distributed – at night-time or between 3pm and 6pm – and how many
people were involved was immaterial to any general understanding of the
matter. These references certainly did not amount to a significant
inaccuracy under the terms of Clause 1 (ii). Finally, the complainant
had said that it was not the case that the Madeleine Foundation had
sent the leaflet to Brian and Janet Kennedy. Given that he had stated
that he was unaware of their address, it was difficult to see how he
knew that this was the position. In any case, there had been no
complaint from Kennedys on the point.

Scott Langham
Head of Complaints
Press Complaints Commission

--------------------

Classic bit of nonsense from Bennett:

4. Neither Debbie Butler nor anyone else in the Madeleine Foundation sent a leaflet to Brian and Janet Kennedy. We do not know where she lives. Inaccurate

If they didn't know where the Kennedys lived, then they couldn't have known whether or not they had delivered their nasty leaflets there.

He's an utter hypocrite, muratfan. I don't know how on earth he can carry on like this, when he screams the place down if the press fail to be as obsequious as his cult.

Bennett sneers at the Leveson report:


What about the grief and distress caused to the McCanns by the press? Well, I am not going to comment.

Well, he wouldn't, would he, as there is nothing he enjoys more than adding to it.

Roll on January.

Bennett sneers at the anguish of others:

Celebs should learn to be a bit more thick-skinned, especially if they actively court the media. I seriously had to laugh a couple of days ago when the news kicked off by saying: "Victims of press intrusion, led by Gerry McCann..."


Well, Bennett would say that, wouldn't he, as he and the hounders really enjoy intruding on other people, and discussing their choice of soft furnishings.

Roll on January. With any luck the media will be doing a bit of expose-ing on Bennett and the Hounders.

hey TB, this is for you:

"What about the grief and distress you TB caused to the McCanns, with your despicable behaviour?"

He really is showing his true, hateful colours over this, Pedro. His latest sicko remark:


As Cameron said (and whether you like him or not) we have avoided state interference witj[sic] the press for 300 years. The McCanns are leading the campaign to undo this.

He doesn't care about anything except hurting the McCanns - if they were against reform, he would be in favour of it.

He's also talking sh*te, if he really thinks the state doesn't interfere with the press when it suits it.

Oh, and he seems to have forgotten his previous whines about the McCanns 'controlling' the press, the government, the entire world, in fact.

Roll on January and Bennett getting his just desserts.

Anthony Bennett ‏@zampos
Now No.1 trending petition on PMs website http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/42582 AGAINST #McCann inspired #Leveson call for state regulation of press PLS SIGN

Every single word shows his sick, childish glee and hatred of the whole McCann family.