McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Mr Gray]

G  you can post this a thousand times. Some people will not understand, or want to accept it.

I dont accept it because its wrong and Ive posted a case from teh ECHR to show im right and gunit is wrong. The interesting question now is ...will you ...gunit and other sceptics accept the overwhelming evidence or just ignore it

[Robittybob1]

I dont accept it because its wrong and Ive posted a case from teh ECHR to show im right and gunit is wrong. The interesting question now is ...will you ...gunit and other sceptics accept the overwhelming evidence or just ignore it

We will wait for the ECHR to make their decision.

[Mr Gray]

We will wait for the ECHR to make their decision.

The point in dispute is, whether the POI applies in a civil case... I've provided proof it does... There's nothing to wait for on that point

[Miss Taken Identity]

I dont accept it because its wrong and Ive posted a case from teh ECHR to show im right and gunit is wrong. The interesting question now is ...will you ...gunit and other sceptics accept the overwhelming evidence or just ignore it

I am sorry Davel. I cannot accept the McCanns will win based from the cite you have given. The reason being they are two very different cases. You will understand each case may seem similar but they are very different, as an example; not everyone who commits murder/manslaughter has the same sentence. I am not saying this because I do not believe their thesis, I just believe they are different is all.

[Mr Gray]

I am sorry Davel. I cannot accept the McCanns will win based from the cite you have given. The reason being they are two very different cases. You will understand each case may seem similar but they are very different, as an example; not everyone who commits murder/manslaughter has the same sentence. I am not saying this because I do not believe their thesis, I just believe they are different is all.

In this post I haven't claimed they will win I've simply provided proof that the POI applies and that gunit is wrong

[Robittybob1]

The point in dispute is, whether the POI applies in a civil case... I've provided proof it does... There's nothing to wait for on that point

There could be other factors that upset the balances.

[Mr Gray]

There could be other factors that upset the balances.

If.. As gunit seems to think... The SC have said the POI does not apply in a civil case then that is a massive mistake by the SC

[John]

Posters are reminded of the forum rules and should not engage in any conduct which breaches those rules. Sniping, goading, use of inappropriate language, posting insulting comments and unnecessary criticism of other members should be avoided. Moderators are also reminded of the need to lead by example and should avoid inappropriate comment or unnecessary moderation.

Members can message me at any time if necessary.

[Miss Taken Identity]

In this post I haven't claimed they will win I've simply provided proof that the POI applies and that gunit is wrong

Cross purposes perhaps?

G has only ever discussed  surrounding and applying to the McCanns case regarding the  FOI and POI.

I thougth you had said they will win as they have a good case.  My mistake.

[Mr Gray]

Cross purposes perhaps?

G has only ever discussed  surrounding and applying to the McCanns case regarding the  FOI and POI.

I thougth you had said they will win as they have a good case.  My mistake.

No problem... I have made that point but this series of posts was specifically POI in a case, such as this...

[G-Unit]

I think its now 3 times Ive posted this...it shows that in a civil case for defamation the accused are entitled to the presumption of innocence. This is from the ECHR website...it proves conclusively that i am right an you are wrong..


Ruokanen and Others v. Finland
6 April 2010
The applicants were an editor-in-chief and a journalist and a publishing company. They
complained about their conviction of defamation following publication of an article stating
that a student had been raped in September 2000 by members of a baseball team at a
party to celebrate their victory in the Finnish championship. The applicants had been
ordered to pay over 80,000 euros in damages to compensate each member of the
baseball team.
The Court held that there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression)
of the Convention, finding that the domestic courts had struck a fair balance between the
competing interests involved, i.e. the applicants’ right to freedom of expression and the
right to reputation of the alleged perpetrators of a crime. It observed in particular that
imperatives other than matters of public concern had to be weighed up before an
incident was reported by the media to the public as fact. The right to presumption of
innocence and reputation of third parties was of equal importance especially where
serious accusations of sexual misconduct were concerned


www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Reputation_ENG.pdf.   page 11
ReplyQuoteNotify





Its about time you accepted you are wrong

You do realise that this was a case of crminal defamation, not civil?

[Venturi Swirl]

You do realise that this was a case of crminal defamation, not civil?

Defamation is a criminal offence in Portugal is it not? 

[Mr Gray]

You do realise that this was a case of crminal defamation, not civil?

not at the ECHR it wasnt

[Mr Gray]

Another interesting point is that from what I can see the players were never charged with any offence....but the ECHR still ruled they were entitled to the presumption of innocence

[Brietta]

G  you can post this a thousand times. Some people will not understand, or want to accept it.

I think sceptics tend to get themselves trapped in a groundhog time warp.

The civil case is over.
Everyone else has moved on to whatever the opinion and judgement of the European Court will be; in my opinion therefore making the past deliberations of the Portuguese judges an historic irrelevance as far as discussion is concerned.