Madeleine McCann's parents lose libel case with the European Court of Human Rights

[jassi]

I haven't had mine yet.  And The McCanns could well have more to say. Who is going to sue them in the light of this decision?

Why would anyone want to ?

[Eleanor]

Not always. The free speech of officials such as Prosecutors, media organisations and journalists have restrictions on their freedom of speech.

There doesn't appear to be any restriction on my right to Free Speech.

[sadie]

MORE CHEATING !!

In the address at the top, this topic has an https: sign with a black triangle across it.   This black triangle negates the security of that which is written.

In other words it changes Https to Http [No *s*]


Sorry guys, but anyone can write any nonsense here and get away with it.   Cheats.


I suggest that you dont believe a word of it until you have bona fide information


I hate cheats, liars and bullies.

[Eleanor]

Why would anyone want to ?

Good.

[jassi]

There doesn't appear to be any restriction on my right to Free Speech.

Probably not. but other than a few on here & perhaps elsewhere, who is going to listen ?

[Eleanor]

Probably not. but other than a few on here & perhaps elsewhere, who is going to listen ?

I only Post on this Forum.  My Right to Free Speech has been banned anywhere else.

[Wonderfulspam]

Why would anyone want to ?

Men vs McCann/Healy

In light of the McCanns comments that 'a bad man' took Maddie, I fully intend to pursue a civil action against the McCanns regarding this unfounded & damaging smearing of men, just as soon as I wrap up my other action, Paedophiles vs McCann.

[Eleanor]

Goodness me.  Some of you really don't get it.

[Wonderfulspam]

Was it a unanimous decision ? If so I cannot see how any appeal could succeed .

It appears a well considered judgement & probably difficult to overturn imo.

But who knows?

We'll just have to be patient & wait for the McCanns appeal, then a small matter of another 15 years to find out for sure.

[The General]

I've only come back to gloat.
AHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA.....ahhahaahahaaa.......

Laterz.

[jassi]

Goodness me.  Some of you really don't get it.

we might if we knew what you were talking about

[Wonderfulspam]

I've only come back to gloat.
AHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA.....ahhahaahahaaa.......

Laterz.

Glad to see you're still alive, I've missed your wummy sense of humour, don't stay away too long.

[sadie]

MORE CHEATING !!

In the address at the top, this topic has an https: sign with a black triangle across it.   This black triangle negates the security of that which is written.

In other words it changes Https to Http [No *s*]


Sorry guys, but anyone can write any nonsense here and get away with it.   Cheats.


I suggest that you dont believe a word of it until you have bona fide information


I hate cheats, liars and bullies.

Is nobody concerned?   The black triangle only shows on pages 1 and 2 of this topic.   In other words where the ECHR translation shows.

[Rossb]

Conversely, if you were infact guilty you might also be rather keen to have the book banned for that very reason, wouldn't you agree?

Unless you are a mastermind and guilty to go down that route. However its also humanistic to protect your status of innocence. Hypothetically i would do the same. Ppl do tend to get mad when i cud imagine if accused of covering up ur daughters death, lucky they were doctors and not from a council estate eh? You never know what violence these stereotyped council estate nutters could do.

[Brietta]

The judgement goes some way to make clear that it is not in any way suggestive that Gerry and Kate McCann were in any way involved in their daughter's disappearance.

Gonçalo Amaral did not defame the McCanns, that is the bottom line.

Makes one wonder exactly what has to be said or done in order to be considered defamatory.