Judgement on Bennett

Taken from:

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

22 December 2009

Dear Mr Bennett

Further to our recent correspondence the Commission has now made its assessment of your complaint under the Code of Practice.

The
Commission members have asked me to thank you for giving them the
opportunity to consider the points you raise. However, their decision
was that there was no breach of the Code and a full explanation appears
below.

If you are dissatisfied with the way in which your
complaint has been handled - as opposed to the Commission ’s decision
itself - you should write within one month to the independent Charter
Commission er, whose details can be found in our How to Complain
leaflet or at http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/process.html

Thank you for taking this matter up with us.

Yours sincerely

Scott Langham
scott.langham@pcc.org.uk

===========

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

This is a good bit:

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.

Oh Lord, I have just seen the furious email one of the hounders sent the Mirror - he's succeeded in libelling both the McCanns AND Carter Ruck in the rant.

The hounder really should read this:

http://www.carter-ruck.com/Blog/?p=180

In fact, they all should. They might then begin to grasp how very, very wrong they are about a lot of things.

crazytony wrote:


I have only posted half of his vile sheit.....but I have the full letter he wrote saying it was from Madeleine beyond the grave!!!!!!!

Send it, Tony. I would if I had it. And I have never sent anything to anyone. But enough is enough.

I have just done so, Sabot.

I am sure the media received all kinds of material that Bennett likes to pretend he didn't post, today.

crazytony wrote:I have just done so, Sabot.

for you, Tony.

crazytony wrote:I have just done so, Sabot.

Merci beaucoup, Tony. I forget sometime, just how ill these people have made me feel.

deborah butler ‏@IWILLNOTGOAWAY
certain newspaper will be making an apology tomorrow to someone the #mccann s are trying to jail

What, like they did to her?

How soon they forget.

Oh good Lord, now Havern has Addressed the Nation about the greatness of Head Hounder.


Tony Bennett is a retired lawyer and a former social worker; he is a man of great integrity, he doesn't have a malicious bone in his body and it is wholly unfair that he is being portrayed as a man out to cause trouble

That's a gem .

I wonder what the Mirror thought of all those screenshots of Bennett posts, especially the really, really malicious ones like his desecration of Silent Night?

Top libel-laden rant, that, haven't seen anything so funny since Bren came to her senses, put down her pitchfork, and turned her back on the Forces of Darkness.

I give up, for a minute or two. But I doubt they believe their own shit.

How anyone can claim, with a straight face, that they have more than 2,000 members, I really do not know.

Maybe they should send out a mass email to them all, asking them to donate £10 each for Bennett so he can pay for a barrister? And I am sure many of those eager hounders would willingly pay more.

All his worries would be over. Oh wait, there's a problem with that, isn't there?

Wonder what the Mirror thought of material like this from Bennett:

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/i-wonder-if-bennett-remembers-this.html

Disgusted at his vile nasty taunts is the word that comes to mind, Bonny.

She says,

"The Full Libel Trial will be a real eye-opener should you or any of your journalists care to attend to listen to the evidence he will produce in court."

The evidence he will produce in court?

Is he calling Gonc to read from his book of lies? Martin Grime to explain his Duarte Levy videos of woofs with no forensic evidence to back it up? The video where Grime explained that his dog was barking at the door seal on the outside of the car, because the scent was leaking through, but he declined putting the dog inside the vehicle? Etc, etc, etc.


What is she wanting to do to him? Make him a look like the vile sicko that he is? With friends like her, who needs enemies?

If Bennett should ever forget his vile posts of yore, I will always be around to remind him.

crazytony wrote:If Bennett should ever forget his vile posts of yore, I will always be around to remind him.

Oh yes, Tony. I think we all know you will do that.

Oh dear, looks like they didn't bully the Mirror into doing as they demanded:

Re: MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT'S JUDGMENT IN MCCANNS v BENNETT issued 10.10 on 24.10.12
PeterMac Today

Incredibly it is still there on the on line editions.
11:23 BST

------------
candyfloss Today

It was promised there would be an apology??/rectification in the paper edition, has anyone seen it.

==========

What complete and utter hypocrites! They really, really need to go and reread all the filth, fabrication and speculation they have put online about so many people, not just the McCanns, over the last few years.

And if they think this is bad, what on earth are they going to be like when the court case starts?

bb1 wrote:Oh dear, looks like they didn't bully the Mirror into doing as they demanded:

Re: MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT'S JUDGMENT IN MCCANNS v BENNETT issued 10.10 on 24.10.12
PeterMac Today

Incredibly it is still there on the on line editions.
11:23 BST

------------
candyfloss Today

It was promised there would be an apology??/rectification in the paper edition, has anyone seen it.

==========

What complete and utter hypocrites! They really, really need to go and reread all the filth, fabrication and speculation they have put online about so many people, not just the McCanns, over the last few years.

And if they think this is bad, what on earth are they going to be like when the court case starts?

This is what the man at the Mirror wrote to Bennett:

I have asked for the clarification you require to be included in tomorrow's paper.


If you have any further issues on this matter please contact our legal department, headed by Charles Collier-Wright.

There was no mention of apologies. They should re-read the second sentence properly......

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...contempt-court

Courtesy of a friend on Websleuths.

Cannot get the website, Sabot.

Not found....will have a search.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/22/daily-mail-mirror-fined-contempt-court

Is this the link? LL