McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Mr Gray]

Watcha Billy, now article 8 was a right to private and family life, how was this judgement based on a lie ?



Conclusion(s)
No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations
Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)

do I really have to expalin everything to you...article 8 covers defamation....have another read

[barrier]

your a liar....I said article 8...stop lying

I knew you brought article 10 into it.

the case will decide whether what amaral said was backed by evidence ....thats how the balance between 8 and 10 is decided

[barrier]

do I really have to expalin everything to you...article 8 covers defamation....have another read

Go on then.

https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_8_eng.pdf

[Mr Gray]

Go on then.

https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_8_eng.pdf

its there section 185..
2. Protection of individual reputation; defamation 185.  Reputation is protected by Article 8 of the Convention as part of the right to respect for private life (Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], 2012, § 83; Chauvy and Others v. France, 2004, § 70; Pfeifer v. Austria, § 35; Petrina v. Romania, § 28; Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain, § 40

[barrier]

its there section 185..
2. Protection of individual reputation; defamation 185.  Reputation is protected by Article 8 of the Convention as part of the right to respect for private life (Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], 2012, § 83; Chauvy and Others v. France, 2004, § 70; Pfeifer v. Austria, § 35; Petrina v. Romania, § 28; Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain, § 40

186,. In order for Article 8 to come into play, an attack on a person’s reputation must attain a certain
level of seriousness and be made in a manner causing prejudice to personal enjoyment of the right
to respect for private life

So the ECHR didn't see any thing untoward.

So back to the judgement which concluded last year, what lie was it based upon.

[Mr Gray]

186,. In order for Article 8 to come into play, an attack on a person’s reputation must attain a certain
level of seriousness and be made in a manner causing prejudice to personal enjoyment of the right
to respect for private life

So the ECHR didn't see any thing untoward.

So back to the judgement which concluded last year, what lie was it based upon.

The lie that the dogs detected cadaver odour..they may or may not have but it's a lie to claim it as a fact. It's not true to claim the ECHR found no violation of article 8..

[G-Unit]

The lie that the dogs detected cadaver odour..they may or may not have but it's a lie to claim it as a fact. It's not true to claim the ECHR found no violation of article 8..

No judge claimed it was true. The claim was that it was true that it was written in the PJ's investigation files.

[Mr Gray]

No judge claimed it was true. The claim was that it was true that it was written in the PJ's investigation files.

Stop telling lies...it's listed as a proven fact

Where was it proven

[G-Unit]

Stop telling lies...it's listed as a proven fact

Where was it proven

It's been proved that you don't understand what the judge meant by a 'proven fact'.

[Mr Gray]

It's been proved that you don't understand what the judge meant by a 'proven fact'.

Liar

[barrier]

The lie that the dogs detected cadaver odour..they may or may not have but it's a lie to claim it as a fact. It's not true to claim the ECHR found no violation of article 8..

What does no violation mean in Mr Gray land then.

Conclusion(s)
No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations
Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)

[Brietta]

Sadly, imo, I think the McCanns were seen, not least in the eyes of Amaral & PJ, to be using the media to promote  Madeleine's disappearance only as abduction almost from the beginning. Rightly or wrongly, I think the courts considered Amaral's opinion of events, via his book based on PJ files, carried equal weight in the absence of proven truth.
The McCanns had little choice other than to use the media if they were to stand any chance of finding Madeleine. We are fully aware of the legal restrictions placed on PJ in relation to media and secrecy but many people, including the McCanns, found ways to circumvent both this and libel laws irrespective of the nature of their opinions.
Having followed Nicola Bulley's case it's apparent what harm publicity and free speech can be done to a victim, their family and the police personnel who have the unenviable task of investigating someone's disappearance. Words shouldn't be more important than actions but we seem to be moving towards a society in which there are ever-increasing repercussions for expressing our viewpoint.

"... we seem to be moving towards a society in which there are ever-increasing repercussions for expressing our viewpoint."

Ask Gary Linekar about that one 🙄  Interestingly enough, even the ECHR is now making an appearance in the wider issues of the debate.

[G-Unit]

Liar

What a silly answer. Gerry McCann said the dogs 'never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour'

The judge was quite clear in her reply. 'We are not here to ascertain that'

It's obvious that by Proven Facts the judge didn't mean that those facts were true, therefore.

[G-Unit]

Sadly, imo, I think the McCanns were seen, not least in the eyes of Amaral & PJ, to be using the media to promote  Madeleine's disappearance only as abduction almost from the beginning. Rightly or wrongly, I think the courts considered Amaral's opinion of events, via his book based on PJ files, carried equal weight in the absence of proven truth.
The McCanns had little choice other than to use the media if they were to stand any chance of finding Madeleine. We are fully aware of the legal restrictions placed on PJ in relation to media and secrecy but many people, including the McCanns, found ways to circumvent both this and libel laws irrespective of the nature of their opinions.
Having followed Nicola Bulley's case it's apparent what harm publicity and free speech can be done to a victim, their family and the police personnel who have the unenviable task of investigating someone's disappearance. Words shouldn't be more important than actions but we seem to be moving towards a society in which there are ever-increasing repercussions for expressing our viewpoint.

Friday 4th May 2007 'Please, if you have Madeleine, let her come home...' said Gerry McCann in a media appeal. He made it about abduction immediately and he used the media to spread his opinion.

[Wonderfulspam]

"... we seem to be moving towards a society in which there are ever-increasing repercussions for expressing our viewpoint."

Ask Gary Linekar about that one 🙄  Interestingly enough, even the ECHR is now making an appearance in the wider issues of the debate.

I used to like him as a footballer, now I hate him all round, because I couldn't disagree more with his political leaning. What's more, he likes to seem holier than thou, but in reality, he advertised Walkers crisps for years, disgustingly unhealthy junk food. I dread to think how many people have died from high cholesterol & obesity because of him.