McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[G-Unit]

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

Finding against the McCanns equals rejecting their claim that Amaral libelled or defaned them.

[Erngath]

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

For the house extension?

[Mr Gray]

Finding against the McCanns equals rejecting their claim that Amaral libelled or defaned them.

in your opinion....if you read the SC judgement you will see the court acceoted damage to reputation but felt amarals freedom of speech was more important...thats a fact supported by evidence. It seems even when presented with proof your bias makes you unwilling to acceot it

[G-Unit]

in your opinion....if you read the SC judgement you will see the court acceoted damage to reputation but felt amarals freedom of speech was more important...thats a fact supported by evidence. It seems even when presented with proof your bias makes you unwilling to acceot it

Of all those circumstances does not result, in our view, that underlying the book, the documentary and the interview, exists an defamatory intention against the appellants........ the existence of a mere attack ad hominem to the persons of the appellants is not to be prefigured.

[ShiningInLuz]

in your opinion....if you read the SC judgement you will see the court acceoted damage to reputation but felt amarals freedom of speech was more important...thats a fact supported by evidence. It seems even when presented with proof your bias makes you unwilling to acceot it

Cripes!  Do we have freedom of speech in Portugal?  Just wondering as earlier today you were arguing that we don't.

There's flapping in the wind, and then there's flapping in the wind.

Which is it?

[Mr Gray]

Cripes!  Do we have freedom of speech in Portugal?  Just wondering as earlier today you were arguing that we don't.

There's flapping in the wind, and then there's flapping in the wind.

Which is it?

oh dear...do you still not understand,,,...try this...the answers yes...and No...its not flapping...its understanding reality rather than being ignorant of reality

[ShiningInLuz]

oh dear...do you still not understand,,,...try this...the answers yes...and No...its not flapping...its understanding reality rather than being ignorant of reality

Flap, flap, flap.

[Mr Gray]

Flap, flap, flap.

Ignorant *3..I don't think you are capable of understanding the principles  involved

[Robittybob1]

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

A court ruling can be reported as fact.  A fact until it is overturned on appeal.

[Mr Gray]

A court ruling can be reported as fact.  A fact until it is overturned on appeal.

  gunit is staing opinion as fact...but you are happy to ignore it

[Robittybob1]

in your opinion....if you read the SC judgement you will see the court acceoted damage to reputation but felt amarals freedom of speech was more important...thats a fact supported by evidence. It seems even when presented with proof your bias makes you unwilling to acceot it

I agree with you but saying "your bias makes you unwilling to accept it" is bordering on ad hom. 

[Robittybob1]

Of all those circumstances does not result, in our view, that underlying the book, the documentary and the interview, exists an defamatory intention against the appellants........ the existence of a mere attack ad hominem to the persons of the appellants is not to be prefigured.

Which parts of that is a quote and what is commentary?

[Robittybob1]

Ignorant *3..I don't think you are capable of understanding the principles  involved

You think this or you don't think this?

[Mr Gray]

I agree with you but saying "your bias makes you unwilling to accept it" is bordering on ad hom.

in you opinion...its been said to me lots...look like you are biased...but most can see that

[Robittybob1]

  gunit is staing opinion as fact...but you are happy to ignore it

What happens when the opinion is the same as the fact?  Is it only opinion or a fact?