McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[jassi]

Dream on.

[Mr Gray]

Dream on.

Unfortunately for sceptics everything I've posted is based on facts... Unlike your comment

When it comes to balance between articles 8 and 10 what the ECHR sees as important is the veracity of the claims.
It clearly seems the SC got it wrong and believed there was evidence against the McCanns to support Amarals claims.
We know as a fact his claims were not supported by evidence

[jassi]

Not really interested in your opinion of what you think will happen, interested in what will actually happen and what impact it will have  -  something that none of us yet know.

[Mr Gray]

Not really interested in your opinion of what you think will happen, interested in what will actually happen and what impact it will have  -  something that none of us yet know.

I'm not bothered about your opinion either..In fact the forum is full of opinions.  Most of those opinions are based on next to nothing... Mines based on facts.  That's the difference of

[jassi]

I'm not bothered about your opinion either..In fact the forum is full of opinions.  Most of those opinions are based on next to nothing... Mines based on facts. That's the difference of

So you believe.
In reality, as far as ECHR is concerned, all that matters is what the judges decide - and I don't think they will be consulting you.

[G-Unit]

Unfortunately for sceptics everything I've posted is based on facts... Unlike your comment

When it comes to balance between articles 8 and 10 what the ECHR sees as important is the veracity of the claims.
It clearly seems the SC got it wrong and believed there was evidence against the McCanns to support Amarals claims.
We know as a fact his claims were not supported by evidence

I think you are pinning your hopes on an incorrect understanding of the scope of an ECHR investigation. The truth of an opinion can't be decided upon by the ECHR. All they can do is judge whether the opinion was based upon facts or just invented. The facts used by Amaral to form his opinion were mostly taken from the official investigation, and that's enough, imo, to answer that question.

You are taking it a step further and expecting the ECHR to judge whether Amaral formed the correct opinion. That's beyond the remit of the ECHR imo.

[Mr Gray]

I think you are pinning your hopes on an incorrect understanding of the scope of an ECHR investigation. The truth of an opinion can't be decided upon by the ECHR. All they can do is judge whether the opinion was based upon facts or just invented. The facts used by Amaral to form his opinion were mostly taken from the official investigation, and that's enough, imo, to answer that question.

You are taking it a step further and expecting the ECHR to judge whether Amaral formed the correct opinion. That's beyond the remit of the ECHR imo.

You seem to totally misunderstand my post and the scope of  the ECHR.
It is as simple as I've described . It's based on the veracity of the facts amaral used to support his clains. ...plus.. Was it balanced.
Much of the important things Amaral said, are not in the files. ...and his book is certainly not a balanced review
You just can't seem to accept reality imo.

[G-Unit]

You seem to totally misunderstand my post and the scope of  the ECHR.
It is as simple as I've described . It's based on the veracity of the facts amaral used to support his clains. ...plus.. Was it balanced.
Much of the important things Amaral said, are not in the files. ...and his book is certainly not a balanced review
You just can't seem to accept reality imo.

I understand what you say, I just don't agree with it. Your reality isn't mine.

[Mr Gray]

I understand what you say, I just don't agree with it. Your reality isn't mine.

My reality is what the ECHR clearly state and the results of past cases.  That seems logical to me.. I suspect yours is dogs don't lie

[barrier]

You seem to totally misunderstand my post and the scope of  the ECHR.
It is as simple as I've described . It's based on the veracity of the facts amaral used to support his clains. ...plus.. Was it balanced.
Much of the important things Amaral said, are not in the files. ...and his book is certainly not a balanced review
You just can't seem to accept reality imo.

Your opinion is a biased view, the Judges will not be.

[barrier]

So you believe.
In reality, as far as ECHR is concerned, all that matters is what the judges decide - and I don't think they will be consulting you.

Touché

[Mr Gray]

Your opinion is a biased view, the Judges will not be.

All you can do is make baseless accusations and contribute no facts to the discussion... My opinion is based on facts... Your opinion is not

[Mr Gray]

So you believe.
In reality, as far as ECHR is concerned, all that matters is what the judges decide - and I don't think they will be consulting you.

Same as barrier.. A sniping post with nothing to add to thee discussion.  For someone who claims you are not interested in my opinion you ate paying a lot of attention to it.. Lol

[jassi]

All you can do is make baseless accusations and contribute no facts to the discussion... My opinion is based on facts... Your opinion is not

But only as you interpret them.

[Mr Gray]

But only as you interpret them.

Nope.. As the ECHR interpret them in past cases