McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Sunny]

i havent used the words overruled or invalid......but they can correct it.....

You have said that following an ECHR "correction" the SC ruling will not be legally binding any more. That is wrong IMO

[Mr Gray]

Only if the state in question changes its laws.

not at all....if the ECHR rule that amarals comments are a violation of article 8...and he repeats them.... then the mccanns ould take out a new case armed with an ECHR ruling

[Robittybob1]

i havent used the words overruled or invalid......but they can correct it.....

If it was "corrected" could Amaral still sue the the McCanns on the basis of the old ruling?

[Mr Gray]

You have said that following an ECHR "correction" the SC ruling will not be legally binding any more. That is wrong IMO

I never said that either ....cite.......the SC ruling cannot be changed is what I said

[Mr Gray]

If it was "corrected" could Amaral still sue the the McCanns on the basis of the old ruling?

as that would then be a new case governed by the new ruling...i would think no....so amral should sue before any ECHR case.....if he has any grounds

[Sunny]

I never said that either ....cite.......the SC ruling cannot be changed is what I said

"Legally binding up to the moment...." - NO it would still be legally binding Davel

its legally binding up to the moment it was made but can be corrected by the ECHR....I believe two SC decisions have been corrected in the last few months

[slartibartfast]

if its declared inadmissable its complete

They don’t appear in the searchable database.

[Mr Gray]

They don’t appear in the searchable database.

They may well be if you could search it

[Mr Gray]

"Legally binding up to the moment...." - NO it would still be legally binding Davel

its legally binding up to the moment it was made but can be corrected by the ECHR....I believe two SC decisions have been corrected in the last few months

It would be legally binding and could not be changed.... Is what I have said all along....

[Sunny]

It would be legally binding and could not be changed.... Is what I have said all along....

So what was the "up to the moment" bit about then Davel?

[Mr Gray]

So what was the "up to the moment" bit about then Davel?

Ive expalined several times........if the mccanns receive a favourable judgeemnt at the ECHR.....and amaral repeats his claims....then a new trial could be held and the court would need to enforce current ECHr law and find in favour of the McCanns....If the mccanns had not gone to the ECHR....amaral could continualy repeat his claims with impunity...in reality hes gone rather quiet

[Sunny]

Ive expalined several times........if the mccanns receive a favourable judgeemnt at the ECHR.....and amaral repeats his claims....then a new trial could be held and the court would need to enforce current ECHr law and find in favour of the McCanns....If the mccanns had not gone to the ECHR....amaral could continualy repeat his claims with impunity...in reality hes gone rather quiet

So it would be still legally binding and your "up to the moment" was wrong then Davel.

[Mr Gray]

So it would be still legally binding and your "up to the moment" was wrong then Davel.

nope...and I think its about time you stopped this pathetic persistent arguing

[Alice Purjorick]

nope...and I think its about time you stopped this pathetic persistent arguing

How droll.
Pots, kettles, black.

Or is that post a note to yourself?

[Mr Gray]

How droll.
Pots, kettles, black.

Or is that post a note to yourself?

Its been 12 hours now since sunnys first off topic ad hom post was directed at me...and still not stopped ...carry on the pointless posts...are the sceptics trying to set a record today