McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Robittybob1]

I have received a warning for libel - could a mod kindly tell me who I have libelled please?  If I don't know who or how I have libelled I am liable to libel again.  Many thanks for your co-operation.

You must have libelled the McCanns.

[Venturi Swirl]

You must have libelled the McCanns.

No, I’ve just told you who I allegedly libelled (by making a factual statement).

[G-Unit]

Is that stipulated in the ECHR rules, i.e "once you retire you can defame your previous suspects"?   Who told him that?

As a serving PJ officer there were restrictions on Amaral's freedom of expression. Nothing to do with defamation, obviously. Not being as daft as people think, he knew that, which is why he resigned.

The judge of the first instance argued that his freedom of speech was still restricted, and used that argument to weight the balance between the competing rights in favour of the McCanns, but the appeal court disagreed.

[Eleanor]

Amaral requested early retirement so that he could publish a book that he knew would probably make him lots of money.  Apparently it is libellous to say so though - it’s a 15% warning transgression.

But his book did make him lots of money.

[Mr Gray]

As a serving PJ officer there were restrictions on Amaral's freedom of expression. Nothing to do with defamation, obviously. Not being as daft as people think, he knew that, which is why he resigned.

The judge of the first instance argued that his freedom of speech was still restricted, and used that argument to weight the balance between the competing rights in favour of the McCanns, but the appeal court disagreed.

What competing rights would that be...the McCanns right to  agood name.If amaral had not libelled them as you have claimed...what rights are you talking about

[Robittybob1]

No, I’ve just told you who I allegedly libelled (by making a factual statement).

You're obviously not a retired Portuguese police officer, or you'd have gotten away with it.

As a serving PJ officer there were restrictions on Amaral's freedom of expression. Nothing to do with defamation, obviously. Not being as daft as people think, he knew that, which is why he resigned.

The judge of the first instance argued that his freedom of speech was still restricted, and used that argument to weight the balance between the competing rights in favour of the McCanns, but the appeal court disagreed.

And hopefully the ECHR sees it differently.  It should not matter whether the person is retired or not. 

[Venturi Swirl]

But his book did make him lots of money.

I know, so it is true to say that he resigned in order to cash in on the case IMO.  But you mustn’t actually say so because you’ll get punished.

[Mr Gray]

I'm quite sure the McCanns were upset by the book. They thought the final report said they were innocent, then a book which suggests they weren't becomes a best seller in Portugal and sells well in other countries too. The nightmare wasn't over, it was continuing.

I wonder how upsetting it was when the Supreme Court judges disclosed that the final report didn't say they were innocent.

You obviously dont have a cite because as far as I know what you are saying isnt true. Could you therefore amend your post to show you are stating opinion not fact.

[jassi]

But his book did make him lots of money.

Is that a problem ?

[Eleanor]

I know, so it is true to say that he resigned in order to cash in on the case.  But you mustn’t actually say so because you’ll get punished.

As I have already stated, Amaral asked The PJ for permission to publish his book while still working for them.  They refused, so he had to retire in order to cash in on the case.

[Eleanor]

Is that a problem ?

It could well be for Amaral.

[jassi]

It could well be for Amaral.

In what way?

[Eleanor]

In what way?

I would have thought that this was obvious.

[Robittybob1]

I would have thought that this was obvious.

Not to me, it's not, so I'm curious as to what you come up with.

[jassi]

I would have thought that this was obvious.

Not to me. Please explain.