McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Eleanor]

I think you have been rumbled.

Wrong again.

[slartibartfast]

Wrong again.

When a poster makes claims which are proven wrong with cites it generally means they are losing the argument.

[Miss Taken Identity]

What we have is sceptics posting opinion... Such as Angelo... Without any evidence to support it.  Sceptics claim the, application will or had been rejected but never suply any reasoned argument to support their view

So you have provided evidence of your opinion about an alledged abduction? I would LOVE to read that.

The ECHR deals only with countries who breach certain acts. So forget about Amaral being toast.

Portugal did NOT prosecute the McCanns for any crime, they were suspected of at one time(they may well still be), therefore, the judge was NOT ruling against them being innocent or guilty of anything. The judge rules that Amaral had the right to freedom of expression. Full stop!

 It was the McCanns who brought a case against Sr Amaral  in a BLAZE of publicity- which they have courted since day one! It was THEY who refused to cooperate fully with the investigation to establish any involvement  or not if that is the case-on their part.

So the specila bits to remember is: IT WAS THE MCCANNS, not Sr Amaral, NOT the SC who started this farce.

Now to cover the IFs bit-  If they were charged with something and  the courts did not allow them a right to a private life... well thing is, when you are charged with something you are going to go to court- in public place for all to see- so private life doesn't count does it? 
And second IF - If They were charged with anything- the judge in court would soon pick up on dodgy prosecuters not selling their tale with the presumption that the McCanns were innocent. So, back to the 'McCanns were not charged with anything'

With the daft notion of the McCanns right to a private life- you must be joking -it was splattered all over the Sun sleaze newspaper, to which Kate enjoys a nice relationship with.OMG some of those headlines!

[barrier]

Does GM going to the press or the press reporting on him now strengthen a right to privacy case?

[slartibartfast]

So you have provided evidence of your opinion about an alledged abduction? I would LOVE to read that.

The ECHR deals only with countries who breach certain acts. So forget about Amaral being toast.

Portugal did NOT prosecute the McCanns for any crime, they were suspected of at one time(they may well still be), therefore, the judge was NOT ruling against them being innocent or guilty of anything. The judge rules that Amaral had the right to freedom of expression. Full stop!

 It was the McCanns who brought a case against Sr Amaral  in a BLAZE of publicity- which they have courted since day one! It was THEY who refused to cooperate fully with the investigation to establish any involvement  or not if that is the case-on their part.

So the specila bits to remember is: IT WAS THE MCCANNS, not Sr Amaral, NOT the SC who started this farce.

Now to cover the IFs bit-  If they were charged with something and  the courts did not allow them a right to a private life... well thing is, when you are charged with something you are going to go to court- in public place for all to see- so private life doesn't count does it? 
And second IF - If They were charged with anything- the judge in court would soon pick up on dodgy prosecuters not selling their tale with the presumption that the McCanns were innocent. So, back to the 'McCanns were not charged with anything'

With the daft notion of the McCanns right to a private life- you must be joking -it was splattered all over the Sun sleaze newspaper, to which Kate enjoys a nice relationship with.OMG some of those headlines!

Agreed, the key point from the ECHR POV is that this action was instigated by the McCanns. No one was taken them to court.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Does GM going to the press or the press reporting on him now strengthen a right to privacy case?

Hmm what about the timing?  more money for the 'search'.? Why not do this on his daighters anniversary and why not get someone who didn't leave their children alone every night. There are planty of loving dads who,miss their daughter. My dad for one! = my sister.  Many other dads of murdered children must suffer greatly. Gerry is still thinking his daughter is alive... where is this claim to private life when it is on the BBC...

[Mr Gray]

I think you have been rumbled.

Cite

[Mr Gray]

When a poster makes claims which are proven wrong with cites it generally means they are losing the argument.

No cite has-been provided.... Re the overturn of the SC judgement... Nor the that I am supposed to have claimed amaral could not appeal... Provide cites if you are going to make this claim

[Alice Purjorick]

I was absolutely spot on... Amaral did lose that case...

Now find what I predicted for the appeal

Are you suggesting it was more than one case?

[Mr Gray]

It really is a compliment how so many sceptics try so hard to prove me wrong

[slartibartfast]

It really is a compliment how so many sceptics try so hard to prove me wrong

We don’t try.

[Mr Gray]

We don’t try.

You and others have tried very hard this morning... But still no cite

[Eleanor]

We don’t try.

You fail miserably anyway.

[jassi]

You fail miserably anyway.

You can't fail if you don't try. 
Anyone would think this was a competition. Maybe it is for some.

[Mr Gray]

Hmm what about the timing?  more money for the 'search'.? Why not do this on his daighters anniversary and why not get someone who didn't leave their children alone every night. There are planty of loving dads who,miss their daughter. My dad for one! = my sister.  Many other dads of murdered children must suffer greatly. Gerry is still thinking his daughter is alive... where is this claim to private life when it is on the BBC...

the claim under article 8 is defamation...not privacy..