McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[stephen25000]

Google article 8 and defemation

Article 8 has already been posted and read.

[Mr Gray]

Article 8 has already been posted and read.

Article 8 covers defamation

[stephen25000]

Article 8 covers defamation

You do realize by know, you have no chance whatsoever of convincing me of that.

The Portuguese case is done and dusted.

[slartibartfast]

Article 8 covers defamation

It is used to cover a number of things. Invoking it is not straightforward.

[Mr Gray]

It is used to cover a number of things. Invoking it is not straightforward.

I wouldn't expect it be straight forward

[sadie]

IMO it's not good enough -  especially for Judges  - to state that the facts in the book etc are MOSTLY facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such..      How much is 'MOSTLY in their opinion?    With no clarification It could be anything from 99% down to 51%.
   
AFAIAC this is the same as saying that as long as MOST of the book is factual  and documented as such  - then the fact that parts of it are  NOT factual and documented  doesn't matter  - even if those parts  have been presented to the public as if they were true documented facts and insodoing have damaged another person's reputation.

How anyone can agree that Judges using the 'MOSTLY.' criterion as proof that a book is not defamatory -  is a fair and acceptable method is inexplicable to me.

The book is either libellous or it isn't.   It can't be a little bit libellous.

I'm interested to hear your own opinion of the book G?

AIMHO

 

Brilliant post Benice.   I thought exactly the same but couldn't have worded it as clearly as you did

[Lace]

IMO it's not good enough -  especially for Judges  - to state that the facts in the book etc are MOSTLY facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such..      How much is 'MOSTLY in their opinion?    With no clarification It could be anything from 99% down to 51%.
   
AFAIAC this is the same as saying that as long as MOST of the book is factual  and documented as such  - then the fact that parts of it are  NOT factual and documented  doesn't matter  - even if those parts  have been presented to the public as if they were true documented facts and insodoing have damaged another person's reputation.

How anyone can agree that Judges using the 'MOSTLY.' criterion as proof that a book is not defamatory -  is a fair and acceptable method is inexplicable to me.

The book is either libellous or it isn't.   It can't be a little bit libellous.

I'm interested to hear your own opinion of the book G?

AIMHO

Well said Benice.

The important bits in my opinion were not true.

[Mr Gray]

You do realize by know, you have no chance whatsoever of convincing me of that.

The Portuguese case is done and dusted.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything...just giving my opinions

[Brietta]

Are we saying we cannot take as fact that Eddie did not discover a body at Jersey....I did think that was a fact that no body was found

It is a fact that no cadavers were found in Jersey.

https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf

[Brietta]

Human bones were found.

It is a fact that no cadavers were found.

The bones were historic and the milk teeth also found were just that ... milk teeth.

The 'coconut' was not a child's skull.

Please read the link if you can't accept my word for it, thank you.

https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf

[Brietta]

Polite reminder ... we are off topic ... the topic is  'McCanns  appeal to the European Court of Human Rights'

[slartibartfast]

Polite reminder ... we are off topic ... the topic is  'McCanns  appeal to the European Court of Human Rights'

Beat me to it.

[barrier]

Then physician heal thyself,quick enough to delete my post.

[stephen25000]

So, is there actually any proof the Mccanns have appealed  ?

[barrier]

So, is there actually any proof the Mccanns have appealed  ?

No,except for some tittle tattle in a newspaper article from a man who the head of the Portuguese police federation was less than complimentary about.