McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[kizzy]

Note to mods the topic is the appeal to the ECHR... Or is it to be just another McCann bashing thread.

It is about the ECHR  SC PAGE 39 regarding reputation ...what you D brought up.

It seems again if it doesn't fit your agenda ... anything to do with mcc bashing.

[Venturi Swirl]

 THAT is worse.

Nothing can be worse than allegedly fiding your 3-year-old child gone.

That could only be IMO if you hadn't found your 3-year-old child gone.

I have demonstrated how it could be worse and you have ignored it which IMO demonstrates evasion on your part or a complete lack of understanding.

[Venturi Swirl]

What seems to be being argued here is that because the McCanns have claimed to suffer the worst anguish imaginable (losing a child) it is impossible to add to their suffering because their "sufferometer" is already at the top of the red.  That is patent ballcocks imo.   What you're saying is you can do anything hurthful at all you want to these people and it won't count because they're already at the limits of their agony.

[G-Unit]

The ECHR claim can only be concerned with the balance between articles 8 and 10 and the POI. Nothing else.. Nothing to do with the McCanns being affected and depressed by the book... I thought you would realise that

Article 8 is not involved, it is about Article 10 (2), particularly the bolded bit;

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Article 6 describes the POI, which the McCanns claim Amaral interfered with.

[Mr Gray]

Article 8 is not involved, it is about Article 10 (2), particularly the bolded bit;

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Article 6 describes the POI, which the McCanns claim Amaral interfered with.

That isn't what the SC of Portugal say... Do you know better

Defamation is covered by 8...ive provided enough cites to show that

[Mr Gray]

It is about the ECHR  SC PAGE 39 regarding reputation ...what you D brought up.

It seems again if it doesn't fit your agenda ... anything to do with mcc bashing.

The ECHR action concerns how amarals book and video damaged their reputation.. Nothing else

[kizzy]

Imagine one of your kids disappears.  You have no idea what happened to them.  You are anguished, inconsolable, can't sleep, can't eat, in the pits of despair.  Weeks and months go by.  You feel no less anguished but you have learned to live with the torment and are functioning again as best you can.  Then, the ex-cop who was working on the case decides to write a book about the disappearance placing you as the villains of the piece, the person who made your child disappear, who covered up her death.  Are you claiming that his actions would not trouble you in the slightest?  That as it climbed the best sellers list and the author was appearing on TV adding further suspicions and allegations that it would all be water off a duck's back for you?  Because if you say it would not add in any way to your anguish I think you are not being very honest.

OK, anger you could accept. spose.

Insomnia lack of appitite etc I would say part and parcel of grief losing your child whatever the circumstances.

[G-Unit]

What seems to be being argued here is that because the McCanns have claimed to suffer the worst anguish imaginable (losing a child) it is impossible to add to their suffering because their "sufferometer" is already at the top of the red.  That is patent ballcocks imo.   What you're saying is you can do anything hurthful at all you want to these people and it won't count because they're already at the limits of their agony.

What was claimed was that the McCanns lives, feelings, mental states or whatever worsened following the release of the book, DVD and interview. What was not available was any proof of that.

[kizzy]

I have demonstrated how it could be worse and you have ignored it which IMO demonstrates evasion on your part or a complete lack of understanding.

Not lack of understanding at all VS.

Just my opinion vs your opinion,

[Mr Gray]

What was claimed was that the McCanns lives, feelings, mental states or whatever worsened following the release of the book, DVD and interview. What was not available was any proof of that.

nothing to do with the ECHR

[kizzy]

The ECHR action concerns how amarals book and video damaged their reputation.. Nothing else

Don't you think their reputation was already damaged through acts of there own IMO

The book was written mainly on facts from the investigation.

The ECHR it seems though their reputation had already been damaged imo

[Mr Gray]

Don't you think their reputation was already damaged through acts of there own IMO

The book was written mainly on facts from the investigation.

The ECHR it seems though their reputation had already been damaged imo

nothing to do with the ECHR....the ECHR is concerned specifically with the contents of the book and video

[Venturi Swirl]

What was claimed was that the McCanns lives, feelings, mental states or whatever worsened following the release of the book, DVD and interview. What was not available was any proof of that.

Impossible to prove, though OBVIOUSLY it would.  Why on earth would it not? 

[Venturi Swirl]

OK, anger you could accept. spose.

Insomnia lack of appitite etc I would say part and parcel of grief losing your child whatever the circumstances.

So it wouldn't distress you or cause you any anxiety to have an ex-cop make a living out of publicly accusing you of committing such heinous acts?  You'd just feel a bit cross?

[kizzy]

nothing to do with the ECHR....the ECHR is concerned specifically with the contents of the book and video

the ECHR is concerned specifically with the contents of the book and video

Well right now -  you don't know whether the ECHR are interested or not
.

Let's face it it could be thrown out ...so its wrong to claim your post as a fact.