The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

Facts about McCann v. Bennett Mm11

Facts about McCann v. Bennett Regist10

Facts about McCann v. Bennett

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Facts about McCann v. Bennett Empty Facts about McCann v. Bennett

Post by Widows Son on 28.02.13 0:35

Tony Bennett was not convicted of anything. Breach of an undertaking is never an offense, but a civil tort, including when the perpetrator serves times in prison.

Tony's plight has nothing to do with libel law, because he was threatened with injunctive proceedings under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which makes a crime out of causing anyone "distress." If Tony had not given the Court the Undertaking demanded by Team McCann, they would have obtained injunctions using the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, in the same terms as his undertaking, but breach of that would be an offence, making him liable to an unlimited fine and a term in prison not exceeding five years.

Consequently, many of us do not understand complaints about English libel law. They can, and have, used the Harassment Act in its place with for them better results.

http://www.monbiot.com/2007/08/07/this-is-now-a-protest-for-democracy/
avatar
Widows Son

Posts : 21
Join date : 2010-11-15

Back to top Go down

Facts about McCann v. Bennett Empty Re: Facts about McCann v. Bennett

Post by tigger on 28.02.13 9:48

@Widows Son wrote:Tony Bennett was not convicted of anything. Breach of an undertaking is never an offense, but a civil tort, including when the perpetrator serves times in prison.

Tony's plight has nothing to do with libel law, because he was threatened with injunctive proceedings under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which makes a crime out of causing anyone "distress." If Tony had not given the Court the Undertaking demanded by Team McCann, they would have obtained injunctions using the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, in the same terms as his undertaking, but breach of that would be an offence, making him liable to an unlimited fine and a term in prison not exceeding five years.

Consequently, many of us do not understand complaints about English libel law. They can, and have, used the Harassment Act in its place with for them better results.

http://www.monbiot.com/2007/08/07/this-is-now-a-protest-for-democracy/


Thank you very much for that clear explanation. Is it also the 1997 law that has been quoted as in need of revision?
Did Cherie Booth have anything to do with it before or after she got to nr. 10 and busied herself with the Human rights Act?

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
tigger
tigger

Posts : 8114
Join date : 2011-07-20

http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Facts about McCann v. Bennett Empty Re: Facts about McCann v. Bennett

Post by Widows Son on 28.02.13 11:20

@tigger wrote:Is it also the 1997 law that has been quoted as in need of revision?

Not as far as I know, only by George Monbiot (as above), and possibly by his MP (a Welsh Nationalist did say something about it).

In Greater London, the police have instructions not to use their Harassment Act powers to stop people making recordings and taking photographs of their activities. Outside London, there is no such instruction, and the police can, and do, use the Harassment Act because they do not like the way someone is pointing a camera at them.

@tigger wrote:Did Cherie Booth have anything to do with it before or after she got to nr. 10 and busied herself with the Human rights Act?

No idea. There has been European concern about the personal criminal codes created by ASBOs (for example, an Autistic boy must not look at his neighbour nude bathing), but the Harassment Act does that with any injunction intended to restrain harassment, where "harassment" is defined as causing someone alarm or distress. Primary criminal law gets a lot more scrutiny than injunctions, for example, intended to protect parents from the "distress" of being exposed for what they did to Madeleine McCann.
avatar
Widows Son

Posts : 21
Join date : 2010-11-15

Back to top Go down

Facts about McCann v. Bennett Empty "What Really Happened to Madleine McCann"

Post by Mikey on 13.11.13 9:31

Have only now gained a pdf copy of Mr Tony Bennett's booklet, please could someone clarify if we are permitted to discuss any of the content therein?

At the writing of this, I am roughly 60% through reading (and re-reading certain sections).  It makes for some quite interesting study, that is clear, however that said, most if not all, is already fairly widely available on the web.
avatar
Mikey

Posts : 32
Join date : 2013-11-12

Back to top Go down

Facts about McCann v. Bennett Empty Re: Facts about McCann v. Bennett

Post by Guest on 13.11.13 9:36

I've noticed too that it's been posted elsewhere on the Internet and wondered if there was a problem with that.

The booklet was published over 4 years ago so maybe the information therein wasn't widely available then?
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum