McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[The General]

Do you believe they knew it was a waste of time and money before embarking on this step and if so why would they still pursue this action?

Maybe because they're gambling with someone else's money.

[Erngath]

Maybe because they're gambling with someone else's money.

They could have kept that money and spent  it elsewhere?
Something that would not mean they would lose that money.
Some sceptics believe they are living a millionaire lifestyle with someone else's money.
Why waste any on a pointless task?
They could have used it to even more enhance their millionaire lifestyle!

[Mr Gray]

Given the ECHR cannot turn over any judgement how does that work?

As I understand  the ECHR can order that amarals book is libellous... It could then be banned... That's how it works

[Mr Gray]

Is that why the argument fell down then becasue they didn't sue for libel?

Read the  SC judgement... It talks of almost nothing but libel

[G-Unit]

Cite for not libellous... I haven't seen that stated anywhere

Did the Portuguese Courts find against Amaral? The first instance judge did, but only by saying his freedom of expression was restricted. That suggests that she wouldn't have reached that conclusion had he not been a retired policeman.

[Mr Gray]

Did the Portuguese Courts find against Amaral? The first instance judge did, but only by saying his freedom of expression was restricted. That suggests that she wouldn't have reached that conclusion had he not been a retired policeman.

The court found in favour of amarals freedom of speech even though it damaged the mccanns reputation... Have you read the judgement... So they have not said amarals claims were not libellous

[Mr Gray]

Did the Portuguese Courts find against Amaral? The first instance judge did, but only by saying his freedom of expression was restricted. That suggests that she wouldn't have reached that conclusion had he not been a retired policeman.

Cite fior not libellous... The court never made any such statement

[G-Unit]

The court found in favour of amarals freedom of speech even though it damaged the mccanns reputation... Have you read the judgement... So they have not said amarals claims were not libellous

Where was it acknowleged that Amaral damaged the McCann's reputation?

[Mr Gray]

Where was it acknowleged that Amaral damaged the McCann's reputation?

have you read the SC judgement

[Mr Gray]

Libellous in your opinion but not in the opinion of the Portuguese courts.

cite for not in the courts opinion...third time of asking

[Mr Gray]

Where was it acknowleged that Amaral damaged the McCann's reputation?

you may have raed it but did you understand it...

For this purpose, it is necessary to introduce the respective evaluation criteria in the pan of freedom of expression or in the pan of honour.

And it is playing with weights and counterweights that, in the end, it will appear which of the pans weighs more.


If there was no damage to reputation that pan would be empty...it wasnt...so there was damage to reputation....simple logic...

thats my cite...wheres yours

[Robittybob1]

Where was it acknowleged that Amaral damaged the McCann's reputation?

The McCanns won the first case. 

[Robittybob1]

cite for not in the courts opinion...third time of asking

The fact that the SC did not support the McCanns appeal implies it wasn't over all libellous as right to freedom of speech dominated.  We might disagree with the balance of weighting but we'll have to wait for the ECHR judgement.

[The General]

They could have kept that money and spent  it elsewhere?
Something that would not mean they would lose that money.
Some sceptics believe they are living a millionaire lifestyle with someone else's money.
Why waste any on a pointless task?
They could have used it to even more enhance their millionaire lifestyle!

Not if they're using someone else's money; having said that, would it be the first time they'd misappropriated gifted funds?

[Mr Gray]

The fact that the SC did not support the McCanns appeal implies it wasn't over all libellous as right to freedom of speech dominated.  We might disagree with the balance of weighting but we'll have to wait for the ECHR judgement.

thats your opinion....not fact...the court did not state that amarals book was not libellous...they stated that there was damage to reputation...which is libel

your post only confirms gunit is stating opinion as fact and for some strange raeson you are supporting it

if we have a rule re opinion as fact...it needs to apply to everyone..dont you agree