McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Mr Gray]

If the McCann case doesn't get passed the application stage, it won't matter what other decisions the ECHR make.

Having looked at the admission criteria I don't see any reason why it would be rejected...do you?

[The General]

Do you have an affliction of some sort?

So sorry.  I should get to bed with a hotw..er bottle if I were you.  It sounds as tho it is getting worse !

Don't be sorry.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Don't be sorry.

No, I can't stop laughing- seriously? on the topic of Human rights  you are being denied free speech!


It is just toooooo funny!   Bucket full or Irony or what.

[John]

Please keep comments convivial folks.

[G-Unit]

Please keep comments convivial folks.

I have rarely seen any conviviality on this board. If by convivial you mean friendly, genial, affable, amiable, congenial, agreeable, good-humoured, cordial, warm, sociable, outgoing, gregarious, clubbable, companionable, hail-fellow-well-met. cheerful, jolly, jovial, merry, lively, enjoyable, festive.

[Mr Gray]

I have rarely seen any conviviality on this board. If by convivial you mean friendly, genial, affable, amiable, congenial, agreeable, good-humoured, cordial, warm, sociable, outgoing, gregarious, clubbable, companionable, hail-fellow-well-met. cheerful, jolly, jovial, merry, lively, enjoyable, festive.

I have. . although I disagree on several points with the General. .I've never really had a problem with him..or him with me ...same with pathfinder

[Venturi Swirl]

I have rarely seen any conviviality on this board. If by convivial you mean friendly, genial, affable, amiable, congenial, agreeable, good-humoured, cordial, warm, sociable, outgoing, gregarious, clubbable, companionable, hail-fellow-well-met. cheerful, jolly, jovial, merry, lively, enjoyable, festive.

I am literally all of those things, unless you insult me or my intelligence -  then not so much. 

[Mr Gray]

Barrier posted..

So you agree there'll be no book banning,so what of the author? we'd best continue in the echr thread.

i think its logically clear that if the ECHR rule in the McCanns favour then if the book is still on sale and amaral repeats his claims he could be hauled back to court and the McCanns having an ECHR ruling would have a watertight case

[G-Unit]

Barrier posted..

So you agree there'll be no book banning,so what of the author? we'd best continue in the echr thread.

i think its logically clear that if the ECHR rule in the McCanns favour then if the book is still on sale and amaral repeats his claims he could be hauled back to court and the McCanns having an ECHR ruling would have a watertight case

The contents of the book are widely known and available and Amaral can say what he wants unless the McCanns want to follow him around suing him in different jurisdictions.

[Mr Gray]

The contents of the book are widely known and available and Amaral can say what he wants unless the McCanns want to follow him around suing him in different jurisdictions.

with a ruling from the ECHR they might just do that...it would be very easy for them

[barrier]

IMO the ECHR will not make a ruling until the case is closed,think about it!

[Mr Gray]

IMO the ECHR will not make a ruling until the case is closed,think about it!

i dont agree ..think about it.

[Miss Taken Identity]

IMO the ECHR will not make a ruling until the case is closed,think about it!

Grrrrr ECHR on both threads- I will post this on both.

a little reminder of the action the McCanns took against Amaral/book.

The  McCanns did not sue for libel. So the ECHR will not be able to rule on that.

 Their claim was based on the book stopping people from searching for their daughter- they also were seeking compensation for themselves, their three children- even though one  of them could have been dead.

The SC ruled that Amaral had freedom of expression to write the book, which was based on the theory discussed/believed by those investigating MBM's disappearance at that time.  The McCanns failed to prove that Amarals book did cause the harm they claimed.

There was no question of compensation being offered to the parents as they had no evidence to back up their claims, and the babies were too young to know pain about an 'abducted daughter'.

[Mr Gray]

Grrrrr ECHR on both threads- I will post this on both.

a little reminder of the action the McCanns took against Amaral/book.

The  McCanns did not sue for libel. So the ECHR will not be able to rule on that.

 Their claim was based on the book stopping people from searching for their daughter- they also were seeking compensation for themselves, their three children- even though one  of them could have been dead.

The SC ruled that Amaral had freedom of expression to write the book, which was based on the theory discussed/believed by those investigating MBM's disappearance at that time.  The McCanns failed to prove that Amarals book did cause the harm they claimed.

There was no question of compensation being offered to the parents as they had no evidence to back up their claims, and the babies were too young to know pain about an 'abducted daughter'.

you need to look at the SC ruling and you will see you are quite wrong...

this is the response to the request for the annulment as translated by amaral supporters on the PJGA Blogspot..
1. The McCanns have invoked the principle of presumption of innocence to justify the restrictions they want imposed on dr. Amaral's freedom of expression;

2. The Supreme Court stated, in its ruling, that the above is no argument because the McCanns were not considered innocent by the investigation and the case was archived because not enough evidence was found to charge them.

3. The McCanns, because they believe the above argument is false, request for the Supreme Court's decision to be nullified.

[Miss Taken Identity]

you need to look at the SC ruling and you will see you are quite wrong...

this is the response to the request for the annulment as translated by amaral supporters on the PJGA Blogspot..
1. The McCanns have invoked the principle of presumption of innocence to justify the restrictions they want imposed on dr. Amaral's freedom of expression;

2. The Supreme Court stated, in its ruling, that the above is no argument because the McCanns were not considered innocent by the investigation and the case was archived because not enough evidence was found to charge them.

3. The McCanns, because they believe the above argument is false, request for the Supreme Court's decision to be nullified.

I don't think I am wrong- the McCanns did not sue Amaral for libel!- because the 'argument' is them claiming innocence and the SC saying they have not been declared innocent- which they haven't because they have not been tried in a court of law.  Presumption  of innocence has not been affected as it is the right of the PJ to continue to suspect wrong doing by the parents.  That is why the case was archived. They opened the case and still not declared the McCanns innocent or guilty.

ECHR would be looking at Portugal,  to see if they managed the actual claims correctly-not Amaral, and his outcome will not be affected.