McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Mr Gray]

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.

you should have realised by now you need to provide  alink...and page number

[Mr Gray]

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

if its a fact a link or cite needs to be provided...you should know teh rules by now

[Robittybob1]

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

In my judgement rather than opinion.  I'm judging what is being said.  You are paranoid about my bias toward you.

[Robittybob1]

you should have realised by now you need to provide  alink...and page number

That would be taking it to the extreme.  Would you consistently comply to that level of compliance?

[Mr Gray]

That would be taking it to the extreme.  Would you consistently comply to that level of compliance?

I already have done on several occasions...gunit needs to show where this statement comes from..
gunit actually asked me for a page number and I complied..stop the harrassment

[Mr Gray]

Which page is that on?

there you are rob..and I complied..only yesterday...im getting close to putting you on ignore again...you deserve it

[Robittybob1]

I already have done on several occasions...gunit needs to show where this statement comes from..
gunit actually asked me for a page number and I complied..stop the harrassment

Keep up the good posting then.  Stop picking on me.

[Mr Gray]

Quote from: G-Unit on April 27, 2019, 09:46:14 AM
It's a legal right which protects those charged with a criminal offence. Defamation is a civil offence

You have incorrectly claimed several times that the presumption of innocence does not apply to a civil trial...read below which is an ECHR ruling and you will see 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
10
Factsheet – Protection of reputation
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

if teh SC have denied the mccanns the presumption of innnocence tehn clearly they are in error...so we have absolute confirmation taht the presumption off innocence should be taken into account in a civil defamation case




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

thers another

[Venturi Swirl]

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

I know, crazy isn’t it?! 

[G-Unit]

you should have realised by now you need to provide  alink...and page number

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

page 67

[Robittybob1]

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

page 67

How do you know where page 67 starts?

[Mr Gray]

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

page 67

I think your link is incorrect..its from pg 67 of the SC judgeemnt and teh full quote is this..


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, i.e an animus injuriandi, but rather an animus informandi and an animus defendendi. Note*

so its saying in their view there is no malicious intent to defame,,,it is not saying it is not defamatory... So your claim that the court said defamation had not taken place is false

[G-Unit]

I think your link is incorrect..its from pg 67 of the SC judgeemnt and teh full quote is this..


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, i.e an animus injuriandi, but rather an animus informandi and an animus defendendi. Note*

so its saying in their view there is no malicious intent to defame,,,it is not saying it is not defamatory... So your claim that the court said defamation had not taken place is false

Where is your evidence that they said it did?

[Mr Gray]

Where is your evidence that they said it did?

I've already given it and provided cites
Remember balancing the oans of freedom of speech and honour.. The SC decided free speech eas more important than the McCann's right to a good name... Therefore admitting defamation

[Robittybob1]

I've already given it and provided cites
Remember balancing the oans of freedom of speech and honour.. The SC decided free speech eas more important than the McCann's right to a good name... Therefore admitting defamation

Implying defamation rather than admitting to it IMO.