ANOTHER BLEEDING PETITION FROM THE OBSESSED SHOPPING TROLLEY MAN

Order the Home Office to publish a report on the Madeleine McCann inquiry

Enquiries by British (and Portuguese) police forces have cost around £15 million in 8 years. The public is now entitled to a full report on how that has been spent. The report should cover the role of the government, the security services & UK police forces.

Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton23 October 2015 at 13:18
12:04. Why Bennett thinks he personally, has a right to see and publish the findings of OG before they have finished their investigation is indeed baffling. And I can see why some might think he is in the McCanns' employ.

I still have doubts about that. He is too much of a loose cannon and his 'word' means absolutely nothing. Seeing him at the steps of the Royal Courts of Justice promising never to pester the McCanns again, and then doing the complete opposite, would make him unemployable to anyone.

It might be that they have 'something' on him, a way in which to get him to do what they want him to do. Right now I would imagine they would go to any lengths to find out exactly what Operation Grange are up to. Enter Mr. B. with his petition.

But it is probably more complex than that. Bennett sees himself as investigator, judge and jury. He believes the McCann case is a huge conspiracy and he is the only one who can be trusted. The police, the government and indeed those of us who disbelieve the abduction story are all part of the conspiracy, especially if we don't accept his findings and his conclusions.

We saw his judge and jury mentality back in 2008, when HE decided the two remaining children of the McCanns should be taken into care. I think it was at that stage the MSM wrote off ALL the anti McCanns as deluded pitchforkers and haters. Without doubt, his stalking activities have given the McCanns protection they might not have had otherwise. When they went to Court in Lisbon, the only evidence they had of harassment and threatening behaviour came from Bennett's Madeleine Foundation.

Of course, the answer to every question is money. The subscription based Madeleine Foundation was set up alongside the McCanns' golden egg, the Madeleine Fund. Something that was bound to cause confusion to the donors.

Then we have the mysterious £350k written off by the McCanns in their civil action against Bennett. As I said earlier, martyrs are usually prepared to die for their cause, Bennett rolled over and agreed to a monthly direct debit, whilst still continuing to harass the victors. All very odd.

I asked him once why he meekly continued to pay the McCanns every month, especially considering the amount of evidence that was coming out against the McCanns, including the digging up of the area around Apartment 5A. Naturally, he didn't give a direct answer. his continuing to pay that £100odd quid to his sworn enemies each month without so much as a protest, doesn't make him much of a rebel.

When people are passionate about drawing attention to an injustice, they don't care very much about what happens to themselves. His answer to Judge Tugendhat should have been 'No, I won't be silenced' and damn the consequences. Instead, he kept hold of all his worldly goods and broke all his promises anyway.

Since making that promise he has also invested in 4+ hours of anti McCann propaganda (are Carter Ruck snoozing?) and he is trying to stir up an angry mob with his latest petition. He has adjudicated that Operation Grange are not doing their job and the 'authorities' can't be trusted. He see's himself, not so much as the People's Princess, as the People's Champion or more accurately, Witchfinder General (there are a few in this case), it is his duty to root out evil and stir up the masses. But, more importantly, he wants sales of Richard Halls videos to go viral.

I asked him once why he meekly continued to pay the McCanns every month, especially considering the amount of evidence that was coming out against the McCanns, including the digging up of the area around Apartment 5A. Naturally, he didn't give a direct answer. his continuing to pay that £100odd quid to his sworn enemies each month without so much as a protest, doesn't make him much of a rebel.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Resolution statements

Complaint
Complaint 03363-15 Bennett v Daily Express

Summary of complaint
1. Mr Anthony Bennett complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Express had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in a front-page headline “Maddy: Detective did lie about death cover-up”, published on 29 April 2015.

2. The front-page headline referred to an article on page 11 with the headline “McCanns win £428,000 over police chief’s slurs”. The article explained that the parents of Madeleine McCann had been awarded £428,000 in damages against Goncalo Amaral, a former Portuguese detective, who had libelled them in a book about the search for their daughter.

3. The complainant said that it was inaccurate to report that Mr Amaral had “lied”, as the court had not made any judgment on the truth of the detective's claims, and had merely focused on whether or not the detective's right to freedom of expression outweighed the McCanns’ right to reputation.

4. The newspaper accepted that the headline on the front page was inaccurate, and agreed that the truth of Mr Amaral’s claims were not examined during the trial. However, it did not accept that the front page headline represented a significant inaccuracy because the article itself did not report that the detective had lied, and was an accurate interpretation of the judgment. It said the headline had been written by a sub-editor who, in summarising the position of the Portuguese court, had made an assumption that the decision had been based on the truth of Mr Amaral’s claims, which is usually the case in English libel law.

Relevant Code Provisions

5. Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published. In cases involving the Regulator, prominence should be agreed with the Regulator in advance.

iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Mediated outcome
6. The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.

7. The newspaper published the following correction in its Amplifications and Clarifications column:

On the 29 April 2015 we published a headline on the front page which said “Maddy detective did lie about death cover up claim”. We would like to make it clear that there was no determination by the Portuguese court that Mr Amaral lied. In fact what the court decided was that Mr Amaral had breached the McCanns’ right to reputation and ordered him to pay damages to them.

8. The complainant said these actions resolved the matter to his satisfaction.

9. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code.

Date complaint received: 05/05/2015
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 27/11/2015

Three new Freedom of Information Act requests re Operation Grange, made 12 December 2015

Post Tony Bennett Yesterday at 9:57 pm
1. London Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime

Dear Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime,

re: Operation Grange (Madeleine McCann case)

1. Please list all occasions, giving dates, when the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime and its Committee has considered verbal or written reports from the Metropolitan Police about the work of Operation Grange, giving particulars of any reports and/or minutes of such meetings.

2. Specify the number of representations received since 12 May 2011 by members of the public or others which have raised queries about the remit or conduct of Operation Grange.

Yours faithfully,

Anthony Bennett

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

2. Home Office

Dear Home Office,

re: Operation Grange (Madeleine McCann case)

Please list all dates when either the Home Secretary, other Home Office Ministers or their civil servants did any of the following:

1. Receive verbal or written reports from the Metropolitan Police about the progress of Operation Grange

2. Made decisions to authorise further expenditure of any kind

3. Approved decisions to increase or decrease the number of staff deployed by Operation Grange

4. Met with either Dr Gerald or Dr Kate McCann or any representatives of theirs, and

5. Met with any other individual, agency or organisation from the U.K. or Portugal to discuss any aspect of the remit or conduct of Operatiom Grange.

Yours faithfully,

Anthony Bennett

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

3. Metropolitan Police Service

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

re: Operation Grange (Madeleine McCann case)

Please provide the following information:

1. On what I.T. system, whether Holmes, ANCAPA or otherwise, is the work of Operation Grange recorded?

2. Dates of all occasions when the Senior Investigating Officer, or other responsible officer, has (a) reconsidered the remit of Operation Grange (b) made a recordable policy decision or (c) given reconsideration to the necessary or appropriate lines of enquiry for Operation Grange to follow.

Yours faithfully,

Anthony Bennett

Anthony Bennett ‏@zampos 16m16 minutes ago
Thanks to all 3,111 who signed the Maddie #McCann petition to the PM, it will be handed in to the PM on 29 Apr. More [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] …

Rat-a-tat-tat
Post Tony Bennett Today at 10:04 pm

Thank you all.

The petition was handed in at just before 1pm today. There was no press interest. I hadn't contacted any of the media about it.

I should perhaps explain the procedure.

Your presentation of the petition has to be approved in advance. You must give details in advance of the petition you want to present. You are allowed up to six people to present the petition. You must give their names, addresses and date and place of birth - and they then run security checks on everyone. Then, if all goes well, you get an e-mail telling you that you have been approved to present the petition. Negotiation then takes place about a suitable time and date.

On th day, all those presenting the petition must bring their passports with them. You are then checked again at security and searched. You then walk up to a constable patrolling outside 10 Downing Street and discuss with him any photographs you want to take. If the press are interested in the petition, there may be press there as well.

When that's finished, you are invited to go 'rat-a-tat-rat' on the large heavy metal door-knocker of No. 10.

A few seconds later, a smartly dressed footman appears, and asks: 'Do you have a petition?'

You say: 'Yes, here it is' and hand the petition to him.

He then answers: 'Thank you, your petition will be passed for the Prime Minister's attention straightaway'.

You then say: 'I am most grateful', or something similar, and he closes the door. And you all walk back down Downing Street.

In answer to a query above, no, there was no video taken, but I hope to put up a photograph of the event sometime tomorrow.

It may seem like a rather arcane procedure, but it is a little slice of our democratic procedures. And since the petition in this case was very much about the Prime Minister's personal decision to order Operation Grange to be set up, I thought it only right and proper that I knock personally on his door to bring it to his attention.

Friday 29 April 2016 (2nd letter)

Rt Hon David Cameron MP
Prime Minster
10 Downing Street
LONDON
SW1A  2AA

BY HAND

Dear Mr Cameron

re: Petition on the Prime Minister’s website to order the Home Secretary to publish a report on the Madeleine McCann Enquiry [Operation Grange] - ADDENDUM

I am submitting this Addendum to my letter in view of the extraordinary and ridiculous statements made, apparently on the record, by Operation Grange officers about what they think really happened to Madeleine McCann.

I will first set out the claims made by Operation Grange officers in three newspapers this week, the Star, the Sun and the Daily Mail.  

The Star

* Maddie McCann 'snatched in botched break-in' Cops sure they know what happened to girl

* Brit police are convinced they know what happened to Madeleine McCann – and believe they spoke to her attacker

* That theory is that the tot was snatched after disturbing burglars who had been targeting the Portuguese holiday block where she was staying

* Police believe three suspects they have been pursuing hold the key to the nine-year mystery

* The trio have already been declared arguidos – or suspects – and were interviewed at least twice.

* This remaining lead is thought to be key

* They are linked by a series of phone calls they made to each other near the McCanns’ apartment around the time she vanished

* The suspects are Jose Carlos da Silva, 30, who used to drive guests to their apartments at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz from where Madeleine vanished, drifter Ricardo Rodrigues, 24, and drug addict Paulo Ribeiro, 53.

Sun and Daily Mail

* Madeleine McCann 'was kidnapped during a botched burglary by a gang of thieves who British police have already quizzed' but are blocked from questioning again

* Madeleine McCann was snatched by a group of thieves, it has been claimed

* Police believe she disturbed them as they robbed her holiday apartment

* This is thought to be the final line of inquiry being considered by the Met

* Madeleine McCann was kidnapped by a group of thieves because she woke up while they robbed her family's holiday apartment, it has been claimed

* It is believed to centre on a group of thieves which included a 16-year-old teenager and a man who worked at the Mark Warner resort in Portugal when she disappeared in 2007.

* Phone calls raise questions about the group's actions on the night of the three-year-old's disappearance

* It's claimed they have been identified as suspects by British police, but officers are being blocked from accessing them by Portuguese cops who say no new evidence has been brought forward

* An officer told the paper: 'It has dogged the investigation all the way through and it's happening again. If we can't question the three suspects again the trail goes cold and the case will be shelved'

* When they were previously interviewed, the men admitted theft from apartments at the complex but denied any involvement in the youngster's disappearance.


In my first letter to you, in Section G, I referred to one of the criticisms of Operation Grange being its ‘procession of unlikely suspects’ which had been  paraded by Operation Grange at regular intervals in the British press.

One only has to give very brief thought to this latest bizarre claim by Operation Grange to see the extreme improbability of their claims. These are some of the most obvious problems with their tale:

1. Why would a team of three burglars raid that particular apartment, with the McCann and their friends regularly checking it?

2. Why did no-one else see or hear this team of burglars raiding the apartment and carrying away a child who – if she woke up and ‘disturbed’ the burglars – was presumably awake, struggling and probably screaming?

3. Does Scotland Yard have any forensic evidence whatsoever from the McCanns’ apartment linking any of these three men to their alleged presence in that apartment that night? – No forensic evidence of an intruder has ever been found

4. Did these alleged burglars actually steal anything from the apartment? The McCanns said nothing was missing from their apartment apart from Madeleine

5 Why on earth would any burglar, raiding an apartment which was in the dark, carry away a three-year-old child who woke up, instead of just making haste and making off?

6. Does the description of any of the three men match the man who was DCI Andy Redwood’s chief suspect – and ‘the centre of our focus’ - on the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special transmitted on 14 October 2013?

7. What other evidence is there of the alleged activity of these three men on the night in question, apart from their making ’phone calls to each other?

8. Is it seriously claimed by Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, other senior officers of the Met, and the entire Operation Grange team, that the Portuguese Police have been furnished by Operation Grange with overwhelming evidence of the guilt of these three Portuguese men’s guilt, and yet have failed to bring charges against them?  Is it not far, far more likely that the Portuguese Police can see this for what it really is - an utterly pathetic bogus claim and boast by Scotland Yard that they have ‘found’ those responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance - and are seeking, as they have done throughout, to blame the Portuguese authorities  for the failure to identify the person or persons really responsible.

You are the proud Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Can you honestly be associated with, and satisfied with, this outcome of an investigation which you personally set up, at Rebekah Brooks’ request, and has taken five years and cost around £14 million – to end up with this farcical claim by Operation Grange?

Yours sincerely

Anthony Bennett  

Tony Bennett Today at 2:49 pm

@Joss wrote:

BBM, Yeah I wonder if GA still holds exactly the same opinion as he did initially, that Madeleine had an accident in the apartment? If he thinks there could possibly be any other scenario that could have caused Madeleine to end up deceased?  

GA has said publicly that the case won't be fully solved until 'MI5 open up all the files'.

You know, like the order from the Director of MI5 to two of his subordinates in early August 2007: "Get on the next plane to Faro and make sure you stop that Martin Grime bloke and rough him up a bit"

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]