Daily Star justified in calling Rothley leaflet distributors 'sickos' - Press Complaints Commission decision
Tony Bennett Today at 7:55 am
Late yesterday I received by e-mail the text of the decision of the Press Complaints Commission regarding complaints we made about coverage in the 'Daily Star' of 15 August 2009 (the 'sickos' article) and 16 August 2009 (the 'stalker' article).
It must be remembered that despite the hostile tone of these two press articles, and a similar article in 'The Sun', the Madeleine Foundation received hundreds of thousands of extra hits on our website in the days following those news reports, numerous compliments about the '30 Reasons' article on our website, and a surge of orders for the now-banned '60 Reasons' booklet.
Here is the e-mail and the Press Complaints Commission judgment:
From: Scott Langham <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Subject: 093429 / 093527 Sunday Express / Daily Star
To: "ANTHONY BENNETT" <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 22 December, 2009, 17:19
By email
Our references: 093429 / 093527
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
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
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
Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London EC1N 2JD
Tel: 020 7831 0022
Website: www.pcc.org.uk
Peter over at the Just A Thought forum clarified the situation further:
Note - though Bennett has tried to hide it, that ruling
COVERED THE EXPRESS TOO
The PCC ruling is good to hear. It should be remembered that the complaint was just about the headline & story. There was NO complaint against the photographer Mike Gunnill. This despite posted items which were pure fiction and Bennett, Butler & the one handed* Stevo knew this. Especially Bennett & Stevo, since revealed as Stephen B. Marsden took their dirty little campaign and continued to harass the photographer. Note the fake web site ( mikegunnill.info ) which still carries details that have now been proved to be fiction-and this is the polite term. One handed* Stephen B. Marsden has posted several items in a number of forums over the months which were and are - just from his imagination, made up for effect.
Stevo, Stephen B. Marsden is full of his own importance and now the restriction while the PCC sat in judgment has been removed, a new chapter can begin. Actions have already started in the USA against Marsden and these are not idle threats or remarks as time will tell. Helped by several British MP's, documents have been filed within the American legal system which will highlight web hate crimes. Residents in the USA will no longer be able to hide behind freedom laws and they will no longer be able to abuse the American Constitution.
Finally remember what was said about this case, the Sunday Express and the two who covered the story. The flack they had to take from people who didn't know what they were talking about. Some people took all this in, as the truth. Now look and read what is continued to be told by Bennett & one handed Stevo, Stephen B. Marsden. Can you trust them to speak any truth at all? The remarks by Bennett & Marsden are worth nothing, the books produced by Stevo under what ever name he wants to use, mean NOTHING.
Peter.
