McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[G-Unit]

ive summed it up many times but no one sinterested.

The deciision of both the SC and the ECHR was how to balance the conficting rights of article 8 vs article 10...article 8 with respect to the right to reputation.


One of the important factors and in this case the deciding factor was the veracity of the claim. It seems quite fair in as much that you can say what you like about someone as long as it has  a reasonable basis in fact .


the proven facts...which of course were  never proven or facts was the basis of the SC judgement. They gave amaral the legitimite right to his freedom of expression.....they gave his thesis veracity.


Unfortunately for the McCannns the ECHR do not question the facts from the initial trial so ruled that Amarals thesis was based on true facts....they werent....and has sufficient factual basis for article 10 to prevail.

The McCanns lawyers should have insisted on questioning the facts but initially it was not really a libel trial ...it was whether the book had caused damage to the mCCann family.......i could go into more detail but its complex

How wise you are; after the event, of course. It's a shame this problem you think you've unearthed didn't occur to you when you were forecasting a McCann win.

[Mr Gray]

How wise you are; after the event, of course. It's a shame this problem you think you've unearthed didn't occur to you when you were forecasting a McCann win.

It really does annoy you I've got such a good understanding of the principles I involve doesn't it...you can't add anything to it just jealous sniping lol...there's more I can say about it..al the fault of the McCanns lawyers.
Let's see if anyone can critique my analysis..you've certainly failed

[G-Unit]

It really does annoy you I've got such a good understanding of the principles I involve doesn't it...you can't add anything to it just jealous sniping lol...there's more I can say about it..al the fault of the McCanns lawyers.
Let's see if anyone can critique my analysis..you've certainly failed

Your utter refusal to believe that you don't understand the terminology used by the Portuguese courts prevents you from progressing, unfortunately.

[Mr Gray]

Your utter refusal to believe that you don't understand the terminology used by the Portuguese courts prevents you from progressing, unfortunately.

Your post makes no sense whatsoever....what terminology do you think I dont understand,,...and you do. I guarantee that if you try to answer you will make a complete and utter fool of yourself.

you have staed your post a s fact...not opinion ./..so you need to have a convincing explanation to justify your claim

[G-Unit]

Your post makes no sense whatsoever....what terminology do you think I dont understand,,...and you do. I guarantee that if you try to answer you will make a complete and utter fool of yourself.

you have staed your post a s fact...not opinion ./..so you need to have a convincing explanation to justify your claim

What you don't understand is that 'facts appearing in the PJ files' and 'true facts appearing in the PJ files' were two different things. Had the truth of the information in the files had any relevance to this case the first instance judge wouldn't have dismissed Gerry McCann's attempts to get her involved in that discussion. Ignoring that, you are still trying to convince people that it is relevant. It's not going to work though.

[sadie]

And the direction in which he was walking.

And the pyjamas with the unusual detail at the ankle

And the urgency with which he was walking

And the fact that the little girl was being carried in an awkward and very tiring way.   Which no experienced father would use.  Tannerman was never a father, by which I mean that he had never hung around to help bring  up any of his possible offspring.   Tannerman didn't know how to carry a young child.

Had it been Dr Totman and his little girl  returning to his flat, then he would have been walking in front of Jane en route to his flat.  Cos Janes flat involved a walk in the westerly direction as did Tannermans.

Even you disbelievers cannot reasonably claim that Jane could have thought that the man was walking tangentially in an easterly direction, to her northerly direction, when in actual fact he was walking in a westerly direction ... and was closely preseding her for a substantial distance en route to his flat.   Can you?


I don't believe any of you are that thick.

[sadie]

Irrelevant. Jane Tanners witness statement is inadmissible as evidence.

It's strong evidence

[sadie]

How wise you are; after the event, of course. It's a shame this problem you think you've unearthed didn't occur to you when you were forecasting a McCann win.

What a snide person you are to make that comment.   Shame on you; you prefer injustice to justice.  That is plain to see.

[Mr Gray]

What you don't understand is that 'facts appearing in the PJ files' and 'true facts appearing in the PJ files' were two different things. Had the truth of the information in the files had any relevance to this case the first instance judge wouldn't have dismissed Gerry McCann's attempts to get her involved in that discussion. Ignoring that, you are still trying to convince people that it is relevant. It's not going to work though.

posting as   fact again.....so...

As you claim I dont understand, whats the difference between "Facts appearing in the PJ files" and "True facts appearing in the PJ files". It sounds as though you are very confused so lets hear your explanation

[G-Unit]

What a snide person you are to make that comment.   Shame on you; you prefer injustice to justice.  That is plain to see.

What a judgemental person you are. Shame on you for your unjust criticism of me.

[G-Unit]

posting as   fact again.....so...

As you claim I dont understand, whats the difference between "Facts appearing in the PJ files" and "True facts appearing in the PJ files". It sounds as though you are very confused so lets hear your explanation

How many more times do you need things explaining to you? Read this thread.

[Eleanor]

How many more times do you need things explaining to you? Read this thread.

There is a difference between "Facts" and "True Facts" which you don't appear to be able to see.

[Venturi Swirl]

It's a crazy mixed up shook up world where facts can be seen as distinct from true facts.  Is this like the difference between the truth and my truth?

[G-Unit]

There is a difference between "Facts" and "True Facts" which you don't appear to be able to see.

A fact is simply a true statement. A true statement is not the same as a statement of truth.
https://www.rollinsperformancegroup.com/blog/the-difference-between-facts-and-truth

[Venturi Swirl]

A fact is simply a true statement. A true statement is not the same as a statement of truth.
https://www.rollinsperformancegroup.com/blog/the-difference-between-facts-and-truth

It would be more helpful if you could give us an example of a fact and a true fact from the case we are discussing.