McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Robittybob1]

You can’t libel anonymous individuals on the internet.

Who said?  I felt Davel was pointing the finger back at posters here on this forum.  So they aren't really that anonymous are they, as we all registered to join.

[Eleanor]

Who said?  I felt Davel was pointing the finger back at posters here on this forum.  So they aren't really that anonymous are they, as we all registered to join.

Nonsense.  Registered with false names mostly.

[Robittybob1]

Nonsense.  Registered with false names mostly.

Well, I didn't.  Did you register with a false name?  How can you make a claim like that? 

[Eleanor]

Well, I didn't.  Did you register with a false name?  How can you make a claim like that?

You only have to supply a User Name and an email address.  My email address contains my real name and Eleanor is one of my real names..

[Venturi Swirl]

Who said?  I felt Davel was pointing the finger back at posters here on this forum.  So they aren't really that anonymous are they, as we all registered to join.

How can you damage someone’s reputation if no one knows who you’re talking about?

[Eleanor]

Most people on this Site are anonymous.

[Robittybob1]

Most people on this Site are anonymous.

But that doesn't give members the right to libel others, does it?    Well, The question was originally directed to Davel, and one day he might reply himself.
I half pie predict that it will be some over the top rant about something I have done, giving him the excuse of not answering my question.  That is my prediction.

[Robittybob1]

How can you damage someone’s reputation if no one knows who you’re talking about?

You could be damaging everyone's reputation, IMO. 

eg http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.msg639442#msg639442  Painting a lot people with the same brush with a stroke of a pen or keyboard.

[G-Unit]

a couple of posters here seem to believe its true

Maybe, maybe not. Often people pretend to believe things just to annoy others imo.

[Mr Gray]

Maybe, maybe not. Often people pretend to believe things just to annoy others imo.

I seem to remember two posters who have said the SC stated the McCanns have not been proven innocent... Both seemed quite sincere

[G-Unit]

I seem to remember two posters who have said the SC stated the McCanns have not been proven innocent... Both seemed quite sincere

It's true that this passage occurs in the SC judgement;

We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence in relation to the fateful event.
Page 23 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.0

They aren't the words or thoughts of the SC judges, however, it's a quote taken from the archiving document.

[Mr Gray]

It's true that this passage occurs in the SC judgement;

We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence in relation to the fateful event.
Page 23 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.0

They aren't the words or thoughts of the SC judges, however, it's a quote taken from the archiving document.

I'm well aware of that... It seems some are not.

[Venturi Swirl]

My point is that as Amaral was found not guilty of libelling the McCanns by the highest court in Portugal it cannot be stated here as a fact that he did libel the McCanns.

Cite please - third request.

[G-Unit]

Cite please - third request.

In a lengthy ruling on Tuesday, Amaral was found guilty of libelling the pair
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/28/madeleine-mccann-parents-win-libel-damages-goncalo-amaral-trial#:~:text=Madeleine%20McCann's%20parents%20win%20libel%20damages%20in%20trial%20of%20police%20chief,-This%20article%20is&text=In%20a%20lengthy%20ruling%20on,the%20Truth%20of%20the%20Lie.

That was the initial finding, therefore it stands to reason that both appeal courts found him not guilty of libelling the pair.

[Venturi Swirl]

In a lengthy ruling on Tuesday, Amaral was found guilty of libelling the pair
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/28/madeleine-mccann-parents-win-libel-damages-goncalo-amaral-trial#:~:text=Madeleine%20McCann's%20parents%20win%20libel%20damages%20in%20trial%20of%20police%20chief,-This%20article%20is&text=In%20a%20lengthy%20ruling%20on,the%20Truth%20of%20the%20Lie.

That was the initial finding, therefore it stands to reason that both appeal courts found him not guilty of libelling the pair.

I don’t think it “stand to reason” at all unless you can find the specific judgement which states no libel was commited?