Is it right to imprison weirdo Tony Bennet for disgusting slander of poor victims McCanns?

Great Debates
1

I made the title how it is so my personal bias is entirely obvious. I will however try to sum up the facts in a neutral way.

Almost everyone in the UK will remember the disappearence of Madeline McCann - and I suspect that applies to loads outside of the UK as well. However for those of you who don’t remember, basically this toddler named Madeline McCann went missing a few years ago and there was a tabolid shitstorm. Not just because of the nature of the story, but because the parents who were super smart middle class (in the UK sense, not the US sense) did their absolute best, understandably, to keep the story in the news as best as possible to give Madeline the best possible chance (as they saw it) of publicity, if she had been abducted.

Anyway various people thought the parents did it for various reasons, which are not particularly important for the purposes of this thread except suffice to say except in Portugal no court of law or law enforcement person has thought they have the remotest merit. In Portugal the person leading the case thought they did, but the court system disagrees and the person leading the case would have joined the police in the time that Salazar’s influence was still felt.

Anyhoo some of the sillier stories were printed in the British press and much fun was had by libel lawyers - and much money was transferred to the McCanns (second) and to the lawyers (first).

Now we get onto the debate itself. A small group of, shall we say, the kind of people you would find on a David Icke (think Alec Jones) forum got together to start something caused the Madeline Foundation, and started publishing various things that implicate dthe McCanns. In particular, there was a book - “What Really Happened to Madeleine McCann? 60 Reasons which suggest she was not abducted” which was banned in 2009 by a high court order.

The McCanns are now about to go back to court to try to imprison Tony Bennet for basically ignoring this order by publishing various things like “The Madeleine McCann Case Files: Volume 1” which although I’ve never read any of this stuff is presumably more or less the same thing.

So the debate - should they be allowed to shut this dude and his foundation up? On the one hand, unquestionably he is causing them enormous mental distress, and is also very likely causing their search for their daughter to be fubared (although if I may interject my opinion here again, I think their daughter is blatantly dead) - not to mention who would want to be treated by doctors (and their friends, this is more complex in a boring way - google “tapas five”) who are murderers? And if they can, is prison the best way given that he doesn’t seem to shut up?

On the other hand - do we really want to let potential murderers - as ridiculous as it is to call the McCanns that - shut people who fight to expose them up?

One last point before you answer the latter question, which seems to seal things - remember that all that this guy is saying has been tested in a court of law and found to be bollocks.

2

You fail to provide any links, but you do mention that Mr. Bennet has apparently violated a court order. Willful violation of a court order is traditionally punishable by incarceration, among other remedies, on this side of the pond. Assuming U.K. law is similar, then yes, it is right to imprison Mr. Bennet upon proof of his willful violation of an existing court order.

3

Nitpick: That means it’s legal, not “right”. To discuss the difference is probably a hijack, though.

OTOH, I don’t have an answer as to what would be right. This does appear to be a difficult question.

4

Links

Not being facetious in providing that - but seriously I have no better way of finding links than google myself and all the links in the top are relevant. Note that the first tells things from Mr. Bennet’s point of view - and also makes it clear the opposing solicitors are Carter-Ruck, which every well informed UK person has heard of and knows they are the best libel lot in town (from either side). The only other thing us well informed UK people have heard of, by the way, at least off the top of my head, are the “magic circle” firms, so we don’t know many law firms… maybe we know about the legal 500 :slight_smile:

By the way Bennet himself is a former solicitor, now a current looney.

5

ignore this post it’s no use

6

One aspect of this situation that will skew this thread is that the U.S. and U.K. have widely differing approaches to libel.
Oversimplified, in the U.S. malice or reckless disregard for the truth must be shown on the part of the defendant. In the U.K. the only defense against a charge of libel is “truth” (or, at least, the presentation of facts). That was why David Irving tried to hammer Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher in British courts, even though she wrote and published in the U.S. He figured that regardless of her motives and fact-checking, if she could not factually prove her perspective he could shut her down. (Fortunately, her fact-checking was beyond good and he lost.)

Depending on whether one want to argue the “law” or “what is right,” the views on this thread will diverge enormously.

7

Well fwiw’s this OP’s intent is all about what is right - in the sense of what the law should say.

Which is closer to “what is right” but not exactly equivilant - a month ago I attended a talk/debate by someone who argued that those in their last days of life ought to be euthanised… but said euthanasia ought to be illegal. And he’d just been awarded a PhD arguing that…

My personal view, and I believe it is the view of most people, is that the law should permit what is right - but not necessarily enforce it.

P.S. Tom the Irving/Lipstadt case was more complex than that, you can find it on bailii )warning: HUGE judgement). It was certainly characterised as that and yes it was ultimately denier V reasonable person, but there were many more nuances.

8

Got a cite showing that is the standard for defamation of private citizens as opposed to public figures?

9

Oaky, please don’t do that as the guaranteed response will be that the McCanns became public figures, and then there will a billion posts of argument.

Let’s keep focussed on this issue in my thread please.

10

Its sort of hard to find info on the case that isn’t from Bennett’s group, but IIRC, he kept repeating factual claims that were unambiguously untrue even after it’d been shown he was wrong. So I don’t think the US vs UK distinction really matters in this case: it would’ve been libel on either side of the pond.

And its a little unclear from news articles, but I think Bennett was found guilty of harassment as well as libel. He not just knowingly published lies, but papered the McCann’s home town with a pamphlet repeating those lies and suggesting they’d murdered their daughter.

So while I’m usually against the UK’s strong libel laws, in this case I’d say telling Bennett to knock it off is justified, as is sending him to prison if he refuses to do so.

11

Yes, its perfectly right. The proper remedy against a judgement, decree or order of a Court is an appeal. Willfully disobeying said judgement, decree or orders is not the way to go and it is not in anyone interest for the same to be condoned. Contempt of court needs to be dealt with, severely.

And for the 8343rd time, there is no such thing as “UK Law”.