McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Mr Gray]

Yes, I am aware of those articles along with others.

There is no point in trying to beat a dead horse into submission; by posting those two paragraphs to make a point, then renaging when asked to identify which parts are relevent to the McCann case; you shy away.

Here are the facts which some die hard supporters may not want to read:

ECHR will NOT offer compensation to McCanns
.........Will NOT sent Amaral to prison
.........will NOT declare the McCanns innocent of anything - as no charges of a crime have been submitted
.........will NOT order the destruction of Portugual and a firing squad for the investigating PJ.

Something the UK press want to start rethinking their headlines.

The fact is... From what you have posted.. Is that even after the echr case has been discussed for two years you still don't seem to realise the significance of article 8 to the McCann case

[Miss Taken Identity]

The fact is... From what you have posted.. Is that even after the echr case has been discussed for two years you still don't seem to realise the significance of article 8 to the McCann case

Yes, that is correct i don't see the significance in their case. I would go as far as to say, based on this, they really don't have one.

[Mr Gray]

Yes, that is correct i don't see the significance in their case. I would go as far as to say, based on this, they really don't have one.

Article 8 deals with defamation...one case I've quoted also deals with the presumption of innocence.
Based on the cites I've given I would say they have a very,  very strong case

[Miss Taken Identity]

Article 8 deals with defamation...one case I've quoted also deals with the presumption of innocence.
Based on the cites I've given I would say they have a very,  very strong case

I am sorry Davel, what you have quoted does NOT apply to the SC and the McCanns claims.

No one defamed them- a book was written describing a theory based on a police investigation to which the McCanns were suspects at that time.

As they were NOT charged with anything why would they be presumed innocent? There is nothing to suggest they were treated badly or illegally.

[Mr Gray]

I am sorry Davel, what you have quoted does NOT apply to the SC and the McCanns claims.

No one defamed them- a book was written describing a theory based on a police investigation to which the McCanns were suspects at that time.

As they were NOT charged with anything why would they be presumed innocent? There is nothing to suggest they were treated badly or illegally.

You don't seem to have a clue... Read the SC judgement
You don't have to be charged to be entitled to the presumption of innocence... Again I quoted an ECHR case showing this.

[jassi]

The latest about THAT case from the Sun - https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9941816/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-brexit-uncertainty-delay-court-battle-amaral-cop/amp/


Despite the headline, there is no explanation of the role of Brexit in this saga.

The overall tone of the McCanns and their mouthpieces sounds despondent -  IMO

[G-Unit]

The latest about THAT case from the Sun - https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9941816/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-brexit-uncertainty-delay-court-battle-amaral-cop/amp/


Despite the headline, there is no explanation of the role of Brexit in this saga.

The overall tone of the McCanns and their mouthpieces sounds despondent -  IMO

So it's not been declared admissible yet, it's just an application. Entirely false is the suggestion that the ECHR can award damages and/or compensation to Amaral. He isn't involved in the case at all.

[jassi]

So it's not been declared admissible yet, it's just an application. Entirely false is the suggestion that the ECHR can award damages and/or compensation to Amaral. He isn't involved in the case at all.

From the Sun article -

Of Maddie’s parents appeal a spokesperson said: “It is impossible to speculate on how long it will take the court to examine this application.

“It varies depending on many factors and the court takes into account the importance and urgency of the issues.

“But for now it’s just one of almost 57,000 applications pending – more than a fifth of them from Russians.

“The case is under consideration and no timeframe has been fixed as to the examination of its admissibility.”

[G-Unit]

From the Sun article -

Of Maddie’s parents appeal a spokesperson said: “It is impossible to speculate on how long it will take the court to examine this application.

“It varies depending on many factors and the court takes into account the importance and urgency of the issues.

“But for now it’s just one of almost 57,000 applications pending – more than a fifth of them from Russians.

“The case is under consideration and no timeframe has been fixed as to the examination of its admissibility.”

If importance and urgency are the criteria then it will never reach the top of the list imo.

[jassi]

"In March it was revealed that Kate and Gerry had already forked out £24,000 in legal fees to the ‘tormentor’ ex cop with a further £5,500 still due."

Didn't know that. Must have missed that announcement

[Venturi Swirl]

"In March it was revealed that Kate and Gerry had already forked out £24,000 in legal fees to the ‘tormentor’ ex cop with a further £5,500 still due."

Didn't know that. Must have missed that announcement

I remember seeing that, and thinking "is that all?"  I thought they were going to be bankrupted by the legal action, or rather that seemed to be the hope of some.

[The General]

"In March it was revealed that Kate and Gerry had already forked out £24,000 in legal fees to the ‘tormentor’ ex cop with a further £5,500 still due."

Didn't know that. Must have missed that announcement

Is that all?

[G-Unit]

"In March it was revealed that Kate and Gerry had already forked out £24,000 in legal fees to the ‘tormentor’ ex cop with a further £5,500 still due."

Didn't know that. Must have missed that announcement

23rd March
The Sun on Sunday has seen court files showing they have had to pay him £24,000 — and now they are about to be told to cough up another £5,500...

The extra £5,500 is to cover further costs being run up by his lawyers defending their final appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8705813/maddie-mccann-kate-gerry-libel-bill-goncalo-amaral/

Maybe they did have to pay the £24k, but the reason given for the £5.5k is ridiculous.

[Venturi Swirl]

Is that all?

SNAP.

[jassi]

The claim of the fund being wiped out sounds a gross exaggeration to me.
Perhaps deliberately so to garner sympathy from a gullible public.