UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Angelo222 on July 08, 2018, 09:27:55 PM
-
IMO that action was indeterminable since it was not known what happened to the child and if the parents were as innocent as they claimed. I think this is even more relevant now given the SC statement. If in the end this turns out badly for the parents then that money will be repayable. The court should not have released that money until Maddie's fate has been legally established imo.
491
-
IMO that action was indeterminable since it was not known what happened to the child and if the parents were as innocent as they claimed. I think this is even more relevant now given the SC statement. If in the end this turns out badly for the parents then that money will be repayable. The court should not have released that money u til Maddie's fate is legally established imo.
you dont seem to understand uk libel law
the court complies with the law...so you now feel you are in a position to tell the court not to obey the law...LOL
-
you dont seem to understand uk libel law
the court complies with the law...so you now feel you are in a position to tell the court not to obey the law...LOL
Of course later the McCanns could be asked to repay the money as happened to Edwina Currie. She lied about her affair with John Major
I am not saying the McCanns lied
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/nov/24/uk.pressandpublishing
-
Of course later the McCanns could be asked to repay the money as happened to Edwina Currie. She lied about her affair with John Major
I am not saying the McCanns lied
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/nov/24/uk.pressandpublishing
from angelos post he doesnt understand uk libel law
-
from angelos post he doesnt understand uk libel law
Oh I see, sorry Davel. What happens in portugal's libel courts is it the same?
-
Oh I see, sorry Davel. What happens in portugal's libel courts is it the same?
no it isnt...quite different...amarals book would be libellous in the uk
-
you dont seem to understand uk libel law
the court complies with the law...so you now feel you are in a position to tell the court not to obey the law...LOL
You are misinformed, the McCanns have never won a libel case as such as every newspaper settled 'out of court'.
-
You are misinformed, the McCanns have never won a libel case as such as every newspaper settled 'out of court'.
ive never said they have...you are mistaken.....
-
Oh I see, sorry Davel. What happens in portugal's libel courts is it the same?
In the UK the person making the allegation has to prove it whereas in Portugal the person allegedly maligned has to prove that they were defamed. Thus why the McCanns lost the libel action against Amaral.
The McCanns have never had to defend any defamation allegation since every newspaper rolled over and paid up. In essence the newspapers would have to have proved their stories were true but to do that they needed to prove the parents guilty. That was an impossible ask.
-
IMO that action was indeterminable since it was not known what happened to the child and if the parents were as innocent as they claimed. I think this is even more relevant now given the SC statement. If in the end this turns out badly for the parents then that money will be repayable. The court should not have released that money until Maddie's fate has been legally established imo.
in the uk ...the onus is on the defendant to prove their allegations are true...so the fact maddies case hasnt been solved is of no relevance to the court...the court dont hold any money to release...its paid by the defendants
-
In the UK the person making the allegation has to prove it whereas in Portugal the person allegedly maligned has to prove that they were defamed. Thus why the McCanns lost the libel action against Amaral.
wrong again...the reason the mccanns lost is because the court decided amarals right under article 10 were more important than the mccanns right under article 8
-
In the UK the person making the allegation has to prove it whereas in Portugal the person allegedly maligned has to prove that they were defamed. Thus why the McCanns lost the libel action against Amaral.
But I guess if the money is paid out to the "maligned" and then the known facts change then the money would become repayable back to the original defendant.
If people like Edwina Currie can win whilst knowing she should not have, then IMO the UK method is totally unfair. I am sure I have read that Saville also won in libel cases about child abuse in the UK.
-
in the uk ...the onus is on the defendant to prove their allegations are true...so the fact maddies case hasnt been solved is of no relevance to the court...the court dont hold any money to release...its paid by the defendants
The court can freeze any settlement until such time as the matter is legally determined. It is not known who if anyone was defamed so the money should not have been paid over to the complainants.
-
But I guess if the money is paid out to the "maligned" and then the known facts change then the money would become repayable back to the original defendant.
If people like Edwina Currie can win whilst knowing she should not have, then IMO the UK method is totally unfair. I am sure I have read that Saville also won in libel cases about child abuse in the UK.
In actual fact its not the UK system anymore...its teh ECHR system...anyone who loses a libel case has the opportunity to take their case to the ECHR
-
wrong again...the reason the mccanns lost is because the court decided amarals right under article 10 were more important than the mccanns right under article 8
The truth is the McCanns failed to prove their case against Amaral as they were required to do.
-
The court can freeze any settlement until such time as the matter is legally determined. It is not known who if anyone was defamed so the money should not have been paid over to the complainants.
you just said they settled out of court...so the court has no say.....
-
The truth is the McCanns failed to prove their case against Amaral as they were required to do.
that was the damages part not the defamation..which is what the SC judgement was about..ive raed it several times
-
you just said they settled out of court...so the court has no say......
A court can still put conditions on any out of court settlement. I'm sure you understand that an out of court settlement is still agreed and signed off in a court. If you don't I suggest you read up on it.
-
A court can still put conditions on any out of court settlement. I'm sure you understand derstand that an out of court settlement is still agreed and signed off in a court.
the mccanns have to accept the out of court settlement......if the mccanns dont get the money they dont agree to settle...they then go to court...the court has no power to stop payment...the law is quite clear
what you are suggesting is not realistic....it would force a defendant to go to court when they wish to settle.....I dont see that as being possible,,...courts actually encourage out of court settlements
-
the mccanns have to accept the out of court settlement......if the mccanns dont get the money they dont agree to settle...they then go to court...the court has no power to stop payment...the law is quite clear
what you are suggesting is not realistic....it would force a defendant to go to court when they wish to settle.....I dont see that as being possible
Are you telling the mcCanns what they have to do? "the mccanns have to accept the out of court settlement". They could have gone to court...but then they may have lost I suppose.
-
Are you telling the mcCanns what they have to do? "the mccanns have to accept the out of court settlement". They could have gone to court...but then they may have lost I suppose.
have you followed the argument...angelo suggested that a judge could over rule the out of court settlement and withold the settlement...a ridiculous idea...if that wa sthe case...the mccanns do not have to accept the settlement and can go to court
-
have you followed the argument...angelo suggested that a judge could over rule the out of court settlement and withold the settlement...a ridiculous idea...if that wa sthe case...the mccanns do not have to accept the settlement and can go to court
I think you still don't understand the issue. The McCanns went to court in the UK when several newspapers printed stories claiming that they were involved in Maddie's disappearance. The McCanns knew that they didn't have to prove anything as that was down to the newspapers. The newspapers could not prove that their stories were true so offered to settle out of court. The McCanns accepted in every case as far as I am aware.
My point is that it is not known what the truth is so defamation cannot be proved or disproved. The newspapers paid out £ millions on the basis that they were wrong to make the claims they did. If it is later revealed that the newspapers were right or partly right then they can sue the McCanns to get their money back with interest.
An out of court settlement still involves a judge making an Order, taking it to trial would be a backward step.
-
I think you still don't understand the issue. The McCanns went to court in the UK when several newspapers printed stories claiming that they were involved in Maddie's disappearance. The McCanns knew that they didn't have to prove anything as that was down to the newspapers. The newspapers could not prove that their stories were true so offered to settle out of court. The McCanns accepted in every case as far as I am aware.
My point is that it is not known what the truth is so defamation cannot be proved or disproved. The newspapers paid out £ millions on the basis that they were wrong to make the claims they did. If it is later revealed that the newspapers were right then they can sue the McCanns to get their money back with interest.
no that was not your point and the posts are still there...you claimed that the courts should have witheld the money until maddies fate is known...that is not within the power of the courts...you are the one who is mistaken
-
no that was not your point and the posts are still there...you claimed that the courts should have witheld the money until maddies fate is known...that is not within the power of the courts...you are the one who is mistaken
You are wrong, the judge can make any order he wishes and that includes freezing any settlement where the facts of the case are still legally undetermined. He could have made a provisional order pending the outcome of the police investigation.
-
The court can freeze any settlement until such time as the matter is legally determined. It is not known who if anyone was defamed so the money should not have been paid over to the complainants.
and more
-
You are wrong, the judge can make any order he wishes and that includes freezing any settlement where the facts of the case are still legally undetermined. He could have made a provisional order pending the outcome of the police investigation.
no...the mccanns could ahve gone to court...as yo jhave admitted the ppers could not have proved their case and damageswould ahve been awarded.....you are transferring the burden of proof...you do not understand uk libel law
-
The point I am making is crystal clear. No libel money should have been paid out to the McCanns until Maddie's fate is known. I believe the court made a wrong call in this case. I also believe the newspapers were too quick to settle and should have taken the cases to trial.
-
no...the mccanns could ahve gone to court...as yo jhave admitted the ppers could not have proved their case and damageswould ahve been awarded.....you are transferring the burden of proof...you do not understand uk libel law
I think you are confused. (^&&
-
The point I am making is crystal clear. No libel money should have been paid out to the McCanns until Maddie's fate is known. I believe the court made a wrong call in this case.
you are totally wrong...the courts had to comply with uk libel law....an allegation was amde...it could not be proven...case settled...you dont understand uk libel law
-
I think you are confused. (^&&
I think you simply dont understand the law
-
you are totally wrong...the courts had to comply with uk libel law....an allegation was amde...it could not be proven...case settled...you dont understand uk libel law
And if the allegations turn out to be true?
-
And if the allegations turn out to be true?
then the newspapers can go back to court and reclaim ther money...but until then they have to pay it
-
have you followed the argument...angelo suggested that a judge could over rule the out of court settlement and withold the settlement...a ridiculous idea...if that wa sthe case...the mccanns do not have to accept the settlement and can go to court
Which would leave them exposed financially.
The gamble is then will the court award more than they turned down.
If the court does not offer a sum in excess of that turned down a whole new set of rules come into play vis a vis CFA.
-
Which would leave them exposed financially.
The gamble is then will the court award more than they turned down.
If the court does not offer a sum in excess of that turned down a whole new set of rules come into play vis a vis CFA.
I understand that but....the suggestion that a judge in this type of situaion would bock payment of a settlement is ridiculous...would you not agree..the mccanns would not be disputing the amount...they would be disputing that nothing was being paid
-
then the newspapers can go back to court and reclaim ther money...but until then they have to pay it
Bit late when its all spent?
-
Bit late when its all spent?
that's the law ..as Angelo needs to realise
-
that's the law ..as Angelo needs to realise
I think it's you who need to realise that the court has the ultimate say in any out of court settlement and that that settlement is subject to the courts approval. The court can make any order it sees fit to make which includes freezing the settlement until such time as the allegations are determined. In the McCann case the fate of the child is still unknown, the allegations made by the newspapers are also unproven as is the involvement if any of the parents. In those circumstances imo, a provisional settlement should have been agreed but frozen pending the outcome of the two police Investigations.
IMO it was crazy to settle a libel claim when the facts were unknown. IMFO English law has been an ass on this occasion while the Portuguese got it absolutely right.
-
It appears that the reason the McCann couple won an out of court settlement was not due to lies being printed, but that at the time the sources could not be confirmed due to the Portuguese secrecy laws. A fact I’m sure the top lawyers working for the McCann couple would have been very much aware of and able to use in their favour...at the time. No doubt they felt safe in the knowledge that due to the secrecy laws the police files would not see the light of day. It seems they hadn't banked on the fact that the shelving of the case would allow those files to be released and eventually end up in the public domain for anyone to read.
Shouldn't the media be looking for their money back on that basis?
-
It appears that the reason the McCann couple won an out of court settlement was not due to lies being printed, but that at the time the sources could not be confirmed due to the Portuguese secrecy laws. A fact I’m sure the top lawyers working for the McCann couple would have been very much aware of and able to use in their favour...at the time. No doubt they felt safe in the knowledge that due to the secrecy laws the police files would not see the light of day. It seems they hadn't banked on the fact that the shelving of the case would allow those files to be released and eventually end up in the public domain for anyone to read.
Shouldn't the media be looking for their money back on that basis?
You seem to think the court should have witheld payment because the McCann's might not be innocent.... Then you don't understand UK libel law
-
I think its always worth remembering the case of J Archer.
1987.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1987/jul/25/archer.politics
Mr Jeffrey Archer was yesterday awarded record libel damages of £500,000 and more still in costs from the Star newspaper for accusing him of paying a prostitute for sex.
With costs of the three-week High Court trial estimated at £700,000, the Star 's front-page story published last November will cost its owners, Express Newspapers more than £1 million.
In 2001.
The end: Archer goes to jail
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1334653/The-end-Archer-goes-to-jail.html
Low and behold in 2002 this happened.
Archer pays back libel award in £1.5m settlement with Star
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/oct/02/dailystar.pressandpublishing
Now I'm not equating Archer with the Mccanns just showing that sometimes all is not what it seems.
-
I think its always worth remembering the case of J Archer.
1987.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1987/jul/25/archer.politics
In 2001.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1334653/The-end-Archer-goes-to-jail.html
Low and behold in 2002 this happened.https://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/oct/02/dailystar.pressandpublishing
Now I'm not equating Archer with the Mccanns just showing that sometimes all is not what it seems.
OK Archer and his friend lied to the court. Did the McCanns lie?
-
OK Archer and his friend lied to the court. Did the McCanns lie?
In the McCann case it never went to court.
-
In the McCann case it never went to court.
So you are saying they settled out of court. Therefore what reason could they claim their money back (now that we have established the Archer case wasn't a good example)?
-
So you are saying they settled out of court. Therefore what reason could they claim their money back (now that we have established the Archer case wasn't a good example)?
Its an example of what could happen,whether it could happen in an out of court case is another matter,but were court papers served? in the Mccann case?
-
Its an example of what could happen,whether it could happen in an out of court case is another matter,but were court papers served? in the Mccann case?
The papers didn't have the benefit of the files when they decided to settle out of court but they certainly have them now. I would imagine they are awaiting their opportunity to pounce.
-
The papers didn't have the benefit of the files when they decided to settle out of court but they certainly have them now. I would imagine they are awaiting their opportunity to pounce.
What difference do the files make... Do you not understand the papers have to be able to prove their accusations are true... They cant
-
I understand that but....the suggestion that a judge in this type of situaion would bock payment of a settlement is ridiculous...would you not agree..the mccanns would not be disputing the amount...they would be disputing that nothing was being paid
I don't know what the full powers of the judge are in an instance like this.
A settlement is essentially a legally enforceable contract between the plaintiff and defendant so the court will have some powers over it........it would seem odd they could stop the payment.
-
What difference do the files make... Do you not understand the papers have to be able to prove their accusations are true... They cant
Not quite true. They have to be able to demonstrate that opinions they publish have a basis in fact and that they are not being malicious.
-
Not quite true. They have to be able to demonstrate that opinions they publish have a basis in fact and that they are not being malicious.
And t hey cannot show the allegations have a basis in fact
What are these facts
-
And t hey cannot show the allegations have a basis in fact
In your opinion.
-
In your opinion.
There are no facts which support criminal involvement of the parents... If you believe there are then list them
-
There are no facts which support cr iminal involvement of the parents
The papers would not need to show that.
-
The papers would not need to show that.
They would... They would need to show on what facts their opinions were based
-
They would... They would need to show on what facts their opinions were based
That is where the files come in. I think it's called reasonable suspicion?
-
That is where the files come in. I think it's called reasonable suspicion?
Honest opinion.
-
That is where the files come in. I think it's called reasonable suspicion?
As bona fide journalists they were entitled to request and receive their own copy of the DVD containing a copy of the files which was distributed to interested parties.
I have no doubt they did that.
I have no doubt they had them translated.
I have no doubt they read them.
It is therefore interesting to note that not one of the publications sued nor those not sued have reiterated a syllable of the calumnies for which they had to pay libel damages.
In my opinion what they read in the files confirmed that they were wrong and had indeed libelled the McCanns and their friends and have been well careful not to repeat their error.
-
As bona fide journalists they were entitled to request and receive their own copy of the DVD containing a copy of the files which was distributed to interested parties.
I have no doubt they did that.
I have no doubt they had them translated.
I have no doubt they read them.
It is therefore interesting to note that not one of the publications sued nor those not sued have reiterated a syllable of the calumnies for which they had to pay libel damages.
In my opinion what they read in the files confirmed that they were wrong and had indeed libelled the McCanns and their friends and have been well careful not to repeat their error.
I find that very difficult to believe without knowing the truth behind Madeleine's disappearance. Parental involvement or non involvement has still not been established so the question of libel is still wide open IMHO.
-
I find that very difficult to believe without knowing the truth behind Madeleine's disappearance. Parental involvement or non involvement has still not been established so the question of libel is still wide open IMHO.
I really don't think so John.
I think the clincher on that is the section in the files on the forensic results. I'm sure once they had checked that out, it was realised there was nothing to support the headlines ...for example, there never was any 100 per cent match with Madeleine's DNA.
-
Do read the post again Dave. I merely pointed out that Madeleine's fate is as yet unresolved. The Portuguese Supreme Court went to great pains to clarify that particular point.
We don't need the SC to tell us Madeleines fate is unresolved... But to accuse her parents of complicity is libellous in the UK and the ECHR may well decide it islibellous in Portugal too
-
We don't need the SC to tell us Madeleines fate is unresolved... But to accuse her parents of complicity is libellous in the UK and the ECHR may well decide it islibellous in Portugal too
Undecided as yet.
-
Undecided as yet.
undecide but no evdence against the parents so any accustaion is libellous in the uk...and maybe in portugal too...
-
undecide but no evdence against the parents so any accustaion is libellous in the uk...and maybe in portugal too...
Oh there's lots of evidence, how it is interpreted is another issue. The case is very much undetermined and will remain so until such time as it is known categorically what happened to Madeleine McCann. I believe there is sufficient material within the files to justify fair comment.
-
We don't need the SC to tell us Madeleines fate is unresolved... But to accuse her parents of complicity is libellous in the UK and the ECHR may well decide it islibellous in Portugal too
Which of course will have no impact on settlements agreed in the UK in 2008.
-
undecide but no evdence against the parents so any accustaion is libellous in the uk...and maybe in portugal too...
They were both official suspects in their daughter's mysterious disappearance at one stage based on the evidence and according to the SC have not been cleared. Next?
-
We don't need the SC to tell us Madeleines fate is unresolved... But to accuse her parents of complicity is libellous in the UK and the ECHR may well decide it islibellous in Portugal too
The State of Portugal hasn't accused them of any crime so the ECHR has no relevance in that respect. The application to the ECHR concerns their human rights and nothing more.
-
They were both official suspects in their daughter's mysterious disappearance at one stage based on the evidence and according to the SC have not been cleared. Next?
The evidence thought sufficient to declare them arguidos just did not stand up to scrutiny and was not sufficient to allow charges to be laid against them.
When Joanna Yeate's body was discovered her landlord Christopher Jefferies was arrested ... turns out he wasn't guilty of anything though. There was no evidence against him so the police had to continue their investigation into Joanna's murder.
-
The evidence thought sufficient to declare them arguidos just did not stand up to scrutiny and was not sufficient to allow charges to be laid against them.
When Joanna Yeate's body was discovered her landlord Christopher Jefferies was arrested ... turns out he wasn't guilty of anything though. There was no evidence against him so the police had to continue their investigation into Joanna's murder.
In the Joanna Yeates case it was the murderer who initially pointed the finger at Mr Jefferies so as to deflect attention from himself.
-
In the Joanna Yeates case it was the murderer who initially pointed the finger at Mr Jefferies so as to deflect attention from himself.
I know.
The fact remains that there was no supporting evidence to justify Christopher Jefferie's arrest for which he received a police apology; just as there was no supporting evidence to justify making the McCanns arguidos.
-
In the Joanna Yeates case it was the murderer who initially pointed the finger at Mr Jefferies so as to deflect attention from himself.
Christopher Jefferies' libel claim against the press was also settled out of court.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14339807
snipped
"Mr Grieve said that had Mr Jefferies been charged, the articles could have prevented him having a fair trial."
-
Christopher Jefferies' libel claim against the press was also settled out of court.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14339807
snipped
"Mr Grieve said that had Mr Jefferies been charged, the articles could have prevented him having a fair trial."
Libel laws in England and Wales- Exist to protect the reputation of individuals and corporations from unjustified attack
- Covers written publications, pictures and broadcast material
- Generally speaking, applies to statements that expose someone to hatred, cause them to be shunned, lower them in others' estimations or disparage their work
- Claimant must prove the statement is libellous, refers to him and has been published/broadcast to others
- Defences to libel action include proving the statements are substantially true or are "fair comment" - meaning they are honest opinion based on true facts
- Accurate reports of many court hearings and Parliamentary proceedings are protected from libel action
- Many cases are settled out of court because of the difficulty and expense of proving and defending claims
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14339807
-
I know.
The fact remains that there was no supporting evidence to justify Christopher Jefferie's arrest for which he received a police apology; just as there was no supporting evidence to justify making the McCanns arguidos.
That's untrue and extremely disrespectful of the Portuguese investigation if I might say so. The police were correct to make the parents official suspects given the story changes and the conflicting versions of events which even today remain unexplained. The results from the CSI and EVRD's only served to add to this as they were suggestive of cadaver contamination so your claim that there was no supporting evidence is rubbish. The AG also made clear in his final report that the McCanns lost the opportunity to demonstrate their non involvement by the tapas groups refusal to cooperate with the investigation so if you need to blame anyone, blame them.
-
The State of Portugal hasn't accused them of any crime so the ECHR has no relevance in that respect. The application to the ECHR concerns their human rights and nothing more.
The state of Portugal has deemed that amarals right to free speech overrides the mccanns right to a be accused of being criminals.... Article 8
You may not like, it but amaral and his, book will feature highly in thevECHR case... Imo
-
That's untrue and extremely disrespectful of the Portuguese investigation if I might say so. The police were correct to make the parents official suspects given the story changes and the conflicting versions of events which even today remain unexplained. The results from the CSI and EVRD's only served to add to this as they were suggestive of cadaver contamination so your claim that there was no supporting evidence is rubbish. The AG also made clear in his final report that the McCanns lost the opportunity to demonstrate their non involvement by the tapas groups refusal to cooperate with the investigation so if you need to blame anyone, blame them.
The AG stated that none of the evidence used to make the mccanns, arguidosvwas confirmed
-
Which of course will have no impact on settlements agreed in the UK in 2008.
But could of course silence amaral in the future
-
The AG stated that none of the evidence used to make the mccanns, arguidosvwas confirmed
It doesn't need to be. They were suspects and remain so imo, the Supreme Court has made it very clear that the lifting of the arguida status did not imply they were cleared contrary to the McCann's claims.
-
It doesn't need to be. They were suspects and remain so imo, the Supreme Court has made it very clear that the lifting of the arguida status did not imply they were cleared contrary to the McCann's claims.
None of that affects libel action in the uk which is the title of this thread
-
That is where the files come in. I think it's called reasonable suspicion?
There is no such term as reasonable suspicion applying to UK libel law
-
Oh there's lots of evidence, how it is interpreted is another issue. The case is very much undetermined and will remain so until such time as it is known categorically what happened to Madeleine McCann. I believe there is sufficient material within the files to justify fair comment.
If you feel fair comment is justified... Why are those comments not allowed on the forum
-
If you feel fair comment is justified... Why are those comments not allowed on the forum
Comments are allowed as long as they are properly worded.
-
There is no such term as reasonable suspicion applying to UK libel law
As listed on the previous page "Defences to libel action include proving the statements are substantially true or are "fair comment" - meaning they are honest opinion based on true facts".
Honest opinion based on facts would come close to "reasonable suspicion".
-
If you feel fair comment is justified... Why are those comments not allowed on the forum
Fair comment is permitted, defamatory comment is expunged.
-
It doesn't need to be. They were suspects and remain so imo, the Supreme Court has made it very clear that the lifting of the arguida status did not imply they were cleared contrary to the McCann's claims.
Angelo has said the mccanns are still suspects.....that is defamatory....he has supplied no evidence to support it...in fact all the evidence shows they are not suspects
-
Angelo has said the mccanns are still suspects.....that is defamatory....he has supplied no evidence to support it...in fact all the evidence shows they are not suspects
Excuse me but I was repeating what the Portuguese Supreme Court has stated.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/09/madeleine-mccanns-parents-have-not-ruled-innocent-judge-says/
-
Excuse me but I was repeating what the Portuguese Supreme Court has stated.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/09/madeleine-mccanns-parents-have-not-ruled-innocent-judge-says/
which is basically meaningless....no court rules anyone innocent...its not in their power...The SC did not say they are still suspects
-
I would say that the parents right to be considered innocent is important in the continued fight for justice for madeleine
They are not mutually exclusive.
-
They are not mutually exclusive.
justice for madeleine depends on finding out exactly what happened to her and who is responsible...claiming the mccanns are by misrepresenting the evidence is counter productive
-
?
If amaral claims...by misrepresenting the evidence...that maddie died in teh aprtment and her death was covered up by her parents...how does that help in acheiving justice for madde
-
Can we get back to the thread theme please.
The papers had to settle the claim because they had no defence
-
In my opinion the McCanns should never have had to take court action against the media in the first instance.
There is no excuse for the media feeding frenzy in what I consider to be the propaganda war fuelled by leaks to the press by printing headlines and articles to which the McCanns and their friends were unable to respond without falling foul of Portuguese secrecy laws.
As these are mirrored by our own contempt of court laws there is little or no justification for that.
Therefore in my opinion they got off very lightly indeed by being allowed to settle out of court ... which is very likely the advice given to them by their very expensive lawyers,
-
In my opinion the McCanns should never have had to take court action against the media in the first instance.
There is no excuse for the media feeding frenzy in what I consider to be the propaganda war fuelled by leaks to the press by printing headlines and articles to which the McCanns and their friends were unable to respond without falling foul of Portuguese secrecy laws.
As these are mirrored by our own contempt of court laws there is little or no justification for that.
Therefore in my opinion they got off very lightly indeed by being allowed to settle out of court ... which is very likely the advice given to them by their very expensive lawyers,
That is rather a unique view.
-
Yes, much better if the media had ignored the McCanns altogether and just reported news updates about the case as and when they happened. IMO
-
Yes, much better if the media had ignored the McCanns altogether and just reported news updates about the case as and when they happened. IMO
But what about Lord Bell's boast of being paid 500,000 pounds to keep the McCanns in the headlines. Was that the McCanns doing?
-
But what about Lord Bell's boast of being paid 500,000 pounds to keep the McCanns in the headlines. Was that the McCanns doing?
Done on behalf of the McCanns, though not necessarily directly by them.
-
Yes, much better if the media had ignored the McCanns altogether and just reported news updates about the case as and when they happened. IMO
I agree.
Investigative journalism is all but dead in this country! whitewash can be bought. The McCanns used the newspapers as their pet mouthpieces to do their bidding of portraying 'loving caring family-victims of mad child stealing monster'
We never heard the whole story until the files were released. So the newspapers should have held back, also to ensure the McCanns got a fair trial if they were going to be charged with anything in this country.
They involved very powerful people to promote themselves with the ' do you know who we are' syndrome. (We are un touchable) now known as the Jimmy Seville syndrome. (people suspect something, but do and say, nothing) these include The pope. the UK Government, Oprah (who is a powerful voice in the USA), and even the Royal Family got approached via website...not to mention football players and a football team and celebrities galore.
Amaral saw things differently and wrote about them... oh dear.. then they lost that case, oh dear again...
-
I agree.
Investigative journalism is all but dead in this country! whitewash can be bought. The McCanns used the newspapers as their pet mouthpieces to do their bidding of portraying 'loving caring family-victims of mad child stealing monster'
We never heard the whole story until the files were released. So the newspapers should have held back, also to ensure the McCanns got a fair trial if they were going to be charged with anything in this country.
They involved very powerful people to promote themselves with the ' do you know who we are' syndrome. (We are un touchable) now known as the Jimmy Seville syndrome. (people suspect something, but do and say, nothing) these include The pope. the UK Government, Oprah (who is a powerful voice in the USA), and even the Royal Family got approached via website...not to mention football players and a football team and celebrities galore.
Amaral saw things differently and wrote about them... oh dear.. then they lost that case, oh dear again...
The McCanns
Leveson devotes almost 12 pages to the McCann family. Some of the reporting of the disappearance of three-year-old Madeleine McCann from Praia da Luz in Portugal in May 2007 was, Leveson says, "outrageous". A number of newspapers were "guilty of gross libels", with the Daily Star singled out for its headline claiming the McCanns sold their child: "Maddie sold by hard up McCanns".
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/nov/29/leveson-report-key-points
-
IMO the McCanns did align themselves to the 'elite' for the purpose of deluding themselves as 'untouchables' (the- do you know who I am-syndrome) Only in my opinion.
Mingling with those I have mentioned heads of states etc, Someone with access to these people ensured they would they find time to attend to these working class ordinary doctors who went out for a drink and left their babies alone?
The picture of Gerry as a statesman posing with the white house USA behind him is hilarious...
-
That is rather a unique view.
I don't think so ... why would you think otherwise?
-
You have to remember, he was describing the investigation.
Again... Nowhere in the investigation does it state there is proof maddie died in the apartment... As amaral has claimed
-
But could of course silence amaral in the future
Maybe so but nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread.
Lest ye forget; a settlement out of court does not reflect guilt of either party.
Libel in the UK press was never tested, the plaintiffs and defendants preferring to enter into a different sort of contract as it were. What would be interesting to know is whether the settlement were reached pre or post actual court proceedings.
I doubt we know that for sure, carefully choreographed and posed for photos on the steps of the court in The Strand notwithstanding.
-
Again... Nowhere in the investigation does it state there is proof maddie died in the apartment... As amaral has claimed
Again, where you there?
-
Maybe so but nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread.
Lest ye forget; a settlement out of court does not reflect guilt of either party.
Libel in the UK press was never tested, the plaintiffs and defendants preferring to enter into a different sort of contract as it were. What would be interesting to know is whether the settlement were reached pre or post actual court proceedings.
I doubt we know that for sure, carefully choreographed and posed for photos on the steps of the court in The Strand notwithstanding.
so did the newsaper have a defence for libel..angelo who started the thread suggested they had resonable suspicion...which is not a defence...without a defence they had to settle
-
I know.
The fact remains that there was no supporting evidence to justify Christopher Jefferie's arrest for which he received a police apology; just as there was no supporting evidence to justify making the McCanns arguidos.
But what about Angelo's "In the Joanna Yeates case it was the murderer who initially pointed the finger at Mr Jefferies so as to deflect attention from himself." Could that have happened in the McCann case? i.e the person responsible pointing the finger back at the McCanns?
-
so did the newsaper have a defence for libel..angelo who started the thread suggested they had resonable suspicion...which is not a defence...without a defence they had to settle
That is totally irrelevant now. As neither side wished to put it to the test in front of a judge, preferring instead to settle under certain conditions,we can only speculate whether there was any viable defence.
-
Again, where you there?
If he was we could ask "Did Davel have a hand in it?" Reasonable suspicion and all.
-
That is totally irrelevant now. As neither side wished to put it to the test in front of a judge, preferring instead to settle under certain conditions,we can only speculate whether there was a viable defence.
As regards your claim of the mccanns not wanting to go to court... Opinion not fact... Or speculation
-
As regards your claim of the mccanns not wanting to go to court... Opinion not fact... Or speculation
If either side had wanted to go to court they could have. They didn’t go to court therefore they didn’t want to. Simple really.
-
If either side had wanted to go to court they could have. They didn’t go to court therefore they didn’t want to. Simple really.
It isn't that simple as anyone with knowledge of the court system would know.... If the mccanns go to court and are, awarded less than the out if court settlement offer then they would be responsible for the other sides considerable costs... That is why care us needed in rejecting an out of court settlenent
-
It isn't that simple as anyone with knowledge of the court system would know.... If the mccanns go to court and are, awarded less than the out if court settlement offer then they would be responsible for the other sides considerable costs... That is why care us needed in rejecting an out of court settlenent
Still seems to be included in the "want to" category.
-
Still seems to be included in the "want to" category.
The mccanns were represented by CR pro bono... So it would be their decision... The point is Alice states it as fact... It isn't it's opinion
-
The mccanns were represented by CR pro bono... So it would be their decision... The point is Alice states it as fact... It isn't it's opinion
Do you gave a cite for it being pro bono rather than a CFA?
-
Do you gave a cite for it being pro bono rather than a CFA?
not off hand but the principle is the same....if the court awarded one penny less...then the mccanns would now be liable for both their own and the oppos charges....and as I understand courts prefer litigants to make a deal
-
not off hand but the principle is the same....if the court awarded one penny less...then the mccanns would now be liable for both their own and the oppos charges....and as I understand courts prefer litigants to make a deal
How could the McCanns be responsible for their own costs if CR worked for nothing?
-
CR admitted that they went into this knowing full well that the media would have to settle. They knew that their costs would be paid as part of that settlement so it was a no-brainer as to whether they got involved.
-
I've lost the point of this debate - sorry.
-
I've lost the point of this debate - sorry.
The point was whether the media should have put up a defence to their claims or simply rolled over. Always remembering of course that the files weren't available to them in 2008.
-
The point was whether the media should have put up a defence to their claims or simply rolled over. Always remembering of course that the files weren't available to them in 2008.
Their claims were indefensible weren't they?
-
The point was whether the media should have put up a defence to their claims or simply rolled over. Always remembering of course that the files weren't available to them in 2008.
There was no defence...do you not realise that...what defence do you think was possible...the files are totally irrelevant
They had no choice but to roll over
-
There was no defence...do you not realise that...what defence do you think was possible...the files are totally irrelevant
They had no choice but to roll over
Do you have a cite that release of the files would be "totally irrelevant" also we still haven't had your one regarding CR working for the McCanns on a PB basis despite at least a dozen requests from myself and others.
-
Do you have a cite that release of the files would be "totally irrelevant" also we still haven't had your one regarding CR working for the McCanns on a PB basis despite at least a dozen requests from myself and others.
its basic common sense......angelo made the claim as though it was significance...could he or you show how they could be importance as a defence for libel...they couldnt
-
its basic common sense......angelo made the claim as though it was significance...could he or you show how they could be importance as a defence for libel...they couldnt
Quite a challenge!
-
Looking at the bill the BBC have ended up with following the Cliff Richard affair it becomes clear why Express Newspapers settled with the McCanns without going to trial.
-
Looking at the bill the BBC have ended up with following the Cliff Richard affair it becomes clear why Express Newspapers settled with the McCanns without going to trial.
Wonder if the Beeb will go the way of echr.
-
Looking at the bill the BBC have ended up with following the Cliff Richard affair it becomes clear why Express Newspapers settled with the McCanns without going to trial.
Absolutely ^*&&
Cliff is totally innocent as are Kate and Gerry.
Therefore based on the material evidence Kate and Gerry would have been able to place before the court of the libels against them ... the newspapers got off very lightly indeed.
By the way ... it is the licence payers who are paying the BBC bill.
-
Absolutely ^*&&
Cliff is totally innocent as are Kate and Gerry.
Therefore based on the material evidence Kate and Gerry would have been able to place before the court of the libels against them ... the newspapers got off very lightly indeed.
By the way ... it is the licence payers who are paying the BBC bill.
Applying the same argument to the BBC's income as some like to apply to Madeleine's Fund, the BBC has other sources of income in addition to the licence fees.
-
Applying the same argument to the BBC's income as some like to apply to Madeleine's Fund, the BBC has other sources of income in addition to the licence fees.
As an annual licence payer my legitimate interest in the BBC squandering money starts and ends there. As a non contributor to Madeleine's Fund I have absolutely no legitimate interest secure in the knowledge that the annual pro bono?? O'Dowd scrutiny will keep everything legal and above board ... not to mention Companies House or whoever.
As I see it ... your post hits the nail right on the head. This thread being not so much whether the libellous press were right or wrong to pay for the lies they used to coin it in ... but more to do with utter resentment that the innocent parties involved were able to gain redress for the telling and repetition of those lies.
-
Long live the Beeb.
-
A short reminder to all posters to remain on topic and to respect other members point of view which might not necessarily coincide with your own. Please keep comments relevant and amicable. TY
-
Applying the same argument to the BBC's income as some like to apply to Madeleine's Fund, the BBC has other sources of income in addition to the licence fees.
Selling rights and money from EU hence why they are not too keen on Brexit.
The McCanns have not been to court to be assessed if they are 'totally innocent'. Their daughter disappeared while in their care, so they are not absolved of blame by any stretch of the imagination.
The investigations have not been concluded so we don't know any outcome.
CR intimated that they had a longer discussion than usual with the McCanns case due to 'circumstances' They would have to look at the possibility of losing, hence why a retainer was requested for work undertaken and some pre negotiation- billable by the hour! The fact is they knew stupid headlines would be easy to crush and grab a few dollars.
-
Selling rights and money from EU hence why they are not too keen on Brexit.
The McCanns have not been to court to be assessed if they are 'totally innocent'. Their daughter disappeared while in their care, so they are not absolved of blame by any stretch of the imagination.
The investigations have not been concluded so we don't know any outcome.
CR intimated that they had a longer discussion than usual with the McCanns case due to 'circumstances' They would have to look at the possibility of losing, hence why a retainer was requested for work undertaken and some pre negotiation- billable by the hour! The fact is they knew stupid headlines would be easy to crush and grab a few dollars.
What a miassive fail by you..no court decided if anyone is totally innocent
-
What a miassive fail by you..no court decided if anyone is totally innocent
The criteria in NZ for a jury trial for a guilty verdict is "beyond reasonable doubt" definitely not "not totally innocent".
-
The criteria in NZ for a jury trial for a guilty verdict is "beyond reasonable doubt" definitely not "not totally innocent".
Not in the uk
-
Not in the uk
What is it in the UK then, for I'd be surprised if it was different, as we tend to mirror UK law.
-
What is it in the UK then, for I'd be surprised if it was different, as we tend to mirror UK law.
http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/research/beyond_reasonable_doubt/ (http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/research/beyond_reasonable_doubt/)
-
The criteria in NZ for a jury trial for a guilty verdict is "beyond reasonable doubt" definitely not "not totally innocent".
We have a way to convict the innocent, Stefan Kiszko,the Birmingham 6,the Guildford 4,to name but a few.
-
We have a way to convict the innocent, Stefan Kiszko,the Birmingham 6,the Guildford 4,to name but a few.
Without a doubt juries can make mistakes. I'm working on a case in NZ where I believe a person was convicted of a crime he did not do.
-
We have a way to convict the innocent, Stefan Kiszko,the Birmingham 6,the Guildford 4,to name but a few.
You think there are only miscarriages of justice in the UK...that's quite a naieve view
-
You think there are only miscarriages of justice in the UK...that's quite a naieve view
No I'm showing that any one who holds british justice up as a pagan of virtue is sadly mistaken.
-
No I'm showing that any one who holds british justice up as a pagan of virtue is sadly mistaken.
In your opinion.....quoting a few cases proves nothing..
Are you aware that according to Montclair ..there are no miscarriages of justice in Portugal....sounds rather strange to me
-
In your opinion.....quoting a few cases proves nothing..
Then there is the likes of that cigar smoking weirdo and that fat lazy good for nothing mp who didn't get charged,it works both ways.
-
Then there is the likes of that cigar smoking weirdo and that fat lazy good for nothing mp who didn't get charged,it works both ways.
You simply have little knowledge of other countries so have nothing to compare...casa pia in Portugal for instance...have you heard of that
-
You simply have little knowledge of other countries so have nothing to compare...casa pia in Portugal for instance...have you heard of that
Elm guest house,Kincora………………...
-
Elm guest house,Kincora………………...
now you are struggling......Elm...discredited....Kincora in ireland
-
What is it in the UK then, for I'd be surprised if it was different, as we tend to mirror UK law.
its not guilty beyond reasonable doubt...therefore may be guilty
-
No I'm showing that any one who holds british justice up as a pagan of virtue is sadly mistaken.
Before the thread is taken off topic...with all the talk of rules...this is your opinion only and should have a caveat...you have shown nothing...imo
-
its not guilty beyond reasonable doubt...therefore may be guilty
I'm confused. No doubt about that!
-
No I'm showing that any one who holds british justice up as a pagan of virtue is sadly mistaken.
What is the word you are looking for? It certainly isn't "pagan".
-
What is the word you are looking for? It certainly isn't "pagan".
I wondered when some one would pick that up,full marks Rob.
-
its not guilty beyond reasonable doubt...therefore may be guilty
Guilty and not guilty are outcomes in a court of law. it does not mean that person/s were guilty or innocent just that an argument was presented and one had a better argument. It is not unknown that innocent people are set up and are found guilty- or guilty people walk free. It has been happening for so many centuries! It would be more accurate if you used the words guilty /innocent in a court of law. because you do know know for sure who is guilty of what or innocent of what. IMO ^*&&
-
I wondered when some one would pick that up,full marks Rob.
I think most of us picked up on it ... and we ALL make typos ... the remedy is when you notice one of your own go to 'modify' and make the appropriate change.
8(0(*
-
Guilty and not guilty are outcomes in a court of law. it does not mean that person/s were guilty or innocent just that an argument was presented and one had a better argument. It is not unknown that innocent people are set up and are found guilty- or guilty people walk free. It has been happening for so many centuries! It would be more accurate if you used the words guilty /innocent in a court of law. because you do know know for sure who is guilty of what or innocent of what. IMO ^*&&
no...its gulty or not guilty...beyond reasonable doubt.....innocence is not established...you are quite wrong
-
I wondered when some one would pick that up,full marks Rob.
What was the word? I realise you made a mistake but what was the word?
-
I think most of us picked up on it ... and we ALL make typos ... the remedy is when you notice one of your own go to 'modify' and make the appropriate change.
8(0(*
I correct my mistakes but in this case I want to know what was the idea being expressed.
-
no...its gulty or not guilty...beyond reasonable doubt.....innocence is not established...you are quite wrong
And if you take it a step further, Scotland is one of only a few places in the world where a simple majority such as 8:7, 9:6, 10:5 etc can see you convicted which must be one of the most ridiculous scenarios ever. Just imagine if you found yourself in that situation where 8 jurors thought you not guilty while 9 decided otherwise. Is that really justice?
-
What is the word you are looking for? It certainly isn't "pagan".
The word is paragon.
-
The word is paragon.
Thanks John. A word I've never used in a sentence.
"A paragon of virtue"
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/paragon
"We link paragon with other words that follow it, such as "paragon of virtue" or "paragon of patience." A paragon means someone or something that is the very best. The English noun paragon comes from the Italian word paragone, which is a touchstone, a black stone that is used to tell the quality of gold."
-
Thanks John. A word I've never used in a sentence.
"A paragon of virtue"
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/paragon
"We link paragon with other words that follow it, such as "paragon of virtue" or "paragon of patience." A paragon means someone or something that is the very best. The English noun paragon comes from the Italian word paragone, which is a touchstone, a black stone that is used to tell the quality of gold."
Black with a gold streak could be an archetypal combination of colour. (https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1lDpDddrJ8K[Name removed]Sspaq6xuKpXad/modabelle-Gradient-Mermaid-Black-Gold-Sequin-Prom-Dresses-Black-Girls-Elegant-Vestidos-De-Gala-African-Evening.jpg_640x640.jpg)
Fabric seems to look like gold rubbed on a black touchstone.
-
no...its gulty or not guilty...beyond reasonable doubt.....innocence is not established...you are quite wrong
I am not wrong at all. You and supporters have been claiming the McCanns are innocent, but fail to explain what it is they are innocent of? as no crime has been established this is a big presumption of you all.
Innocence is 'assumed' when a not guilty verdict is announced. However, your claimed 'understanding' of global legal knowledge lets you down a wee bit as in Scotland we have a verdict of 'not proven'. ^*&&
-
I am not wrong at all. You and supporters have been claiming the McCanns are innocent, but fail to explain what it is they are innocent of? as no crime has been established this is a big presumption of you all.
Innocence is 'assumed' when a not guilty verdict is announced. However, your claimed 'understanding' of global legal knowledge lets you down a wee bit as in Scotland we have a verdict of 'not proven'. ^*&&
The McCanns are innocent of ANY criminal wrong doing, in the eyes of the law.
-
Moral Guilt
Detractors of the work of our British Police in bringing criminals to justice generally ignore the important distinction between moral proof and legal evidence of guilt. In not a few cases that are popularly classed with 'unsolved mysteries of crime,' the offender is known, but evidence is wanting. If, for example, in- a recent murder case of special notoriety and interest,* certain human remains had not been found in a cellar, a great crime would have been catalogued among `Police failures'; and yet, even without the evidence which sent the murderer to the gallows, the moral proof of his guilt would have been full and clear.
Robert Anderson
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Anderson_(Scotland_Yard_official)
-
Moral Guilt
Detractors of the work of our British Police in bringing criminals to justice generally ignore the important distinction between moral proof and legal evidence of guilt. In not a few cases that are popularly classed with 'unsolved mysteries of crime,' the offender is known, but evidence is wanting. If, for example, in- a recent murder case of special notoriety and interest,* certain human remains had not been found in a cellar, a great crime would have been catalogued among `Police failures'; and yet, even without the evidence which sent the murderer to the gallows, the moral proof of his guilt would have been full and clear.
Robert Anderson
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Anderson_(Scotland_Yard_official)
@)(++(*. you and your “moral guilt”. Don’t you think we’re sick of the sight of this ancient quote at the end of every one of your posts already?
-
Moral Guilt
Detractors of the work of our British Police in bringing criminals to justice generally ignore the important distinction between moral proof and legal evidence of guilt. In not a few cases that are popularly classed with 'unsolved mysteries of crime,' the offender is known, but evidence is wanting. If, for example, in- a recent murder case of special notoriety and interest,* certain human remains had not been found in a cellar, a great crime would have been catalogued among `Police failures'; and yet, even without the evidence which sent the murderer to the gallows, the moral proof of his guilt would have been full and clear.
Robert Anderson
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Anderson_(Scotland_Yard_official)
What utter tripe......the type of policing that saw Colin Stagg falsely accused
-
What utter tripe......the type of policing that saw Colin Stagg falsely accused
Did you read who Anderson was ?
-
Did you read who Anderson was ?
why is that improtant ...the idea you are promoting is the sort of policing that saw Colin Staggs arrest
-
What utter tripe......the type of policing that saw Colin Stagg falsely accused
The Robert Anderson a deeply religious man who wrote the "tripe" was "morally certain" of the identity of Jack The Ripper, his suspect just one of many that have been linked to the murders, and based on virtually no evidence at all. Perhaps he and Amaral have something in common and perhaps that's why Faithlilly values his writings so dearly.
-
why is that improtant ...the idea you are promoting is the sort of policing that saw Colin Staggs arrest
I’m not promoting any idea. I’m simply posting the opinion of the most senior SY officer.
-
The Robert Anderson a deeply religious man who wrote the "tripe" was "morally certain" of the identity of Jack The Ripper, his suspect just one of many that have been linked to the murders, and based on virtually no evidence at all. Perhaps he and Amaral have something in common and perhaps that's why Faithlilly values his writings so dearly.
another one of his quotes..
In the first decade of the twentieth century it has become apparent that the days of Darwinism are numbered."
-
another one of his quotes..
In the first decade of the twentieth century it has become apparent that the days of Darwinism are numbered."
@)(++(* Ah, I bet Tony Bennett is a fan too then!
-
another one of his quotes..
In the first decade of the twentieth century it has become apparent that the days of Darwinism are numbered."
I’m not sure how much knowledge Anderson had of other subjects but he had ample experience in policing.
-
I’m not sure how much knowledge Anderson had of other subjects but he had ample experience in policing.
So you have no doubt whatsoever that Anderson was right about the identity of Jack the Ripper?
-
The McCanns are innocent of ANY criminal wrong doing, in the eyes of the law.
Who or what do you mean by law? Portuguese or English? Police or courts?
-
Who or what do you mean by law? Portuguese or English? Police or courts?
Both. Any. I wasn’t aware the police operated by different laws to the courts. Either the McCanns are innocent in the eyes of the law or they’re not. There can be no grey area so which is it?
-
Both. Any. I wasn’t aware the police operated by different laws to the courts. Either the McCanns are innocent in the eyes of the law or they’re not. There can be no grey area so which is it?
Surely that is the purpose of defending one's actions in court. To sort out the grey areas.
-
Surely that is the purpose of defending one's actions in court. To sort out the grey areas.
Are the McCanns has innocent or not in the eyes of the law then?
-
Both. Any. I wasn’t aware the police operated by different laws to the courts. Either the McCanns are innocent in the eyes of the law or they’re not. There can be no grey area so which is it?
No such condition exists.
Would you care to explain precisely what you mean?
-
No such condition exists.
Would you care to explain precisely what you mean?
Not until you explain what you mean by “no such condition exists”.
-
Not until you explain what you mean by “no such condition exists”.
Sorry old stick, I'm not playing 8(>((
-
Sorry old stick, I'm not playing 8(>((
Don’t throw the ball at me in the first place then, old schtick.
-
Both. Any. I wasn’t aware the police operated by different laws to the courts. Either the McCanns are innocent in the eyes of the law or they’re not. There can be no grey area so which is it?
'Innocent' isn't a legal term except when used in relation to the presumption of innocence.
-
'Innocent' isn't a legal term except when used in relation to the presumption of innocence.
Which only applies in the context of a court case...
-
Which only applies in the context of a court case...
I think it applies outside court......protection of reputation
-
I think it applies outside court......protection of reputation
We're discussing whether someone can be described as 'innocent on the eyes of the law'. We're not discussing the 'presumption of innocence' except in so far as it's the only legal term which mentions innocence..
-
Surely that is the purpose of defending one's actions in court. To sort out the grey areas.
The McCanns have avoided going to civil trial in the UK as no doubt they would be asked some difficult questions. I bet they were relieved when the newspapers who libelled them rolled over.
-
The McCanns have avoided going to civil trial in the UK as no doubt they would be asked some difficult questions. I bet they were relieved when the newspapers who libelled them rolled over.
The McCann's have avoided nothing...they took Bennett to court...if the papers settle they don't have a choice but not to go to court
-
The McCanns have avoided going to civil trial in the UK as no doubt they would be asked some difficult questions. I bet they were relieved when the newspapers who libelled them rolled over.
Roy Greenslade, professor of journalism at City University London, said the apology was unprecedented and that it was significant that the newspapers had settled out of court.
"It shows just how culpable they were that they didn't even try to fight the action in court," he told BBC radio.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1582175/Papers-apologise-to-Madeleine-McCann-parents.html
-
Roy Greenslade, professor of journalism at City University London, said the apology was unprecedented and that it was significant that the newspapers had settled out of court.
"It shows just how culpable they were that they didn't even try to fight the action in court," he told BBC radio.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1582175/Papers-apologise-to-Madeleine-McCann-parents.html
I think Roy Greenslade is correct. Some of the newspaper articles were horrendous and those publications certainly deserved to be called to account. This whoever has no bearing on the wider question of the McCanns guilt or innocence.
-
I think Roy Greenslade is correct. Some of the newspaper articles were horrendous and those publications certainly deserved to be called to account. This whoever has no bearing on the wider question of the McCanns guilt or innocence.
Not forgetting those other beneficiaries of enforced press largess who according to your post must also be deprived of the right to presumption of innocence ... Murat ~ Murat's wife ~ Murat's business associate.
-
I think Roy Greenslade is correct. Some of the newspaper articles were horrendous and those publications certainly deserved to be called to account. This whoever has no bearing on the wider question of the McCanns guilt or innocence.
Guilty of what?
-
Guilty of what?
Possible guilt of being involved in Madeleine's disappearance, I imagine.
-
Not forgetting those other beneficiaries of enforced press largess who according to your post must also be deprived of the right to presumption of innocence ... Murat ~ Murat's wife ~ Murat's business associate.
This is another bad example of trying to make a comparison. The McCanns- whom we are discussing, not Murat, were suspected by police with regards to their statements and behaviour and some [although not enough ] evidence to charge with a crime.
The police did not suspect Murat. Someone pointed the finger at him,and he was investigated. He has not been charged or been to court to have his guilt or innocence tested.
-
Both. Any. I wasn’t aware the police operated by different laws to the courts. Either the McCanns are innocent in the eyes of the law or they’re not. There can be no grey area so which is it?
The Portuguese Supreme Court appears to hold a particularly strong view on that particular point. They went out of their way to reject the McCann's claim that they had been cleared of any involvement in Maddie's disappearance.
-
This is another bad example of trying to make a comparison. The McCanns- whom we are discussing, not Murat, were suspected by police with regards to their statements and behaviour and some [although not enough ] evidence to charge with a crime.
The police did not suspect Murat. Someone pointed the finger at him,and he was investigated. He has not been charged or been to court to have his guilt or innocence tested.
As I said ... "Presumption of Innocence" ... that good old universal Human Right enjoyed by all but denied exclusively to the McCanns by a small rump who don't like them.
I recommend you reread your post on the subject ... it did give me a bit of a laugh, might cheer you up too ^*&& ^*&&
-
As I said ... "Presumption of Innocence" ... that good old universal Human Right enjoyed by all but denied exclusively to the McCanns by a small rump who don't like them.
I recommend you reread your post on the subject ... it did give me a bit of a laugh, might cheer you up too ^*&& ^*&&
Well, can you be more specific if what 'crime' they to be 'presumed innocent' of.
and can you cite the small rump denying their right to this "Presumption of Innocence"?
No , didn't think so. Gives me reason to sneer that you can't- I must say. ^*&&
-
Well, can you be more specific if what 'crime' they to be 'presumed innocent' of.
and can you cite the small rump denying their right to this "Presumption of Innocence"?
No , didn't think so. Gives me reason to sneer that you can't- I must say. ^*&&
The presumption of innocence is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty.
It was traditionally expressed by the Latin maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”).
... it is an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
-
Possible guilt of being involved in Madeleine's disappearance, I imagine.
Exactly - the crime needs to be specified.
-
The presumption of innocence is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty.
It was traditionally expressed by the Latin maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”).
... it is an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
I do know what it means.
*&(+(+
IT Means they have NOT been declared innocent by anyone, .. just presumed. As much as you and other supporters constantly claim they 'are innocent' And With you being pedant about words and grammar, it may be useful for you to use that terminology when mentioning the McCanns and mentioning innocence. Then we will be convinced you are really very clever knowing the difference!.
^*&&
-
Exactly - the crime needs to be specified.
...And the crime/s have not been established/published as yet.
-
I do know what it means.
*&(+(+
IT Means they have NOT been declared innocent by anyone, .. just presumed. As much as you and other supporters constantly claim they 'are innocent' And With you being pedant about words and grammar, it may be useful for you to use that terminology when mentioning the McCanns and mentioning innocence. Then we will be convinced you are really very clever knowing the difference!.
^*&&
If you do know what it means I'm afraid your post demonstrates that you do not understand it.
-
...And the crime/s have not been established/published as yet.
Nobody except possibly some unknown third party know what happened to Maddie but we do know what happy afterwards.
-
If you do know what it means I'm afraid your post demonstrates that you do not understand it.
Oh I think we both know that not to be true. It cannot be difficult to add the McCanns are presumed innocent as opposed to the McCanns are innocent, when you ,leading by example, are insisting on pushing that agenda of yours.
Now we can both see the difference very clearly.
I never read supporters discussing MBM's human rights regarding her parents behaviour. Interesting.
-
Oh I think we both know that not to be true. It cannot be difficult to add the McCanns are presumed innocent as opposed to the McCanns are innocent, when you ,leading by example, are insisting on pushing that agenda of yours.
Now we can both see the difference very clearly.
I never read supporters discussing MBM's human rights regarding her parents behaviour. Interesting.
I don't think the McCann's have signed up to the European convention on Human rights...it's just countried
-
I don't think the McCann's have signed up to the European convention on Human rights...it's just countried
ah well that's ok. I haven't signed up for them rights ether So I don't need to bother presuming innocent Tapas 9.
The point being made was much is being played about human rights. MBM also had them. Her parents failed in their duty to protect her to enjoy a human right to a 'family life'.
-
We're discussing whether someone can be described as 'innocent on the eyes of the law'. We're not discussing the 'presumption of innocence' except in so far as it's the only legal term which mentions innocence..
The fact that they are not being investigated, are not suspects, have never been charged with any offence, nor indeed found guilty of one means that they can legitimately be considered innocent. If not, then what? Not innocent?
-
I think Roy Greenslade is correct. Some of the newspaper articles were horrendous and those publications certainly deserved to be called to account. This whoever has no bearing on the wider question of the McCanns guilt or innocence.
I’d still be interested to know which of those newspaper articles you found “horrendous”.
-
...And the crime/s have not been established/published as yet.
The crime of being involved in the disappearance of a child, presumed abducted /murdered / disposed of.
-
The fact that they are not being investigated, are not suspects, have never been charged with any offence, nor indeed found guilty of one means that they can legitimately be considered innocent. If not, then what? Not innocent?
The fact that they are not being investigated,
What fact is this?
are not suspects,
what as of todays date you know this for sure? How would you know this?
have never been charged with any offence,
Due to Portuguese feeling sorry for them in the beginning-they didn't press negligence charges
and not Enough evidence to charge then with another crime they are suspected of.
nor indeed found guilty of one means that they can legitimately be considered innocent. But on that basis they have not been found not guilty either.
If not, then what? Not innocent?
In a legal term it would be presumed innocent. not declared innocent. We have discussed this already.
-
The fact that they are not being investigated, are not suspects, have never been charged with any offence, nor indeed found guilty of one means that they can legitimately be considered innocent. If not, then what? Not innocent?
You can say they are innocent if you wish. Saying they're innocent 'in the eyes of the law' is a misnomer.
-
You can say they are innocent if you wish. Saying they're innocent 'in the eyes of the law' is a misnomer.
You’d have no qualms if I were to describe then as suspects though would you?
-
The fact that they are not being investigated, are not suspects, have never been charged with any offence, nor indeed found guilty of one means that they can legitimately be considered innocent. If not, then what? Not innocent?
The truth is that nobody outside of the enquiry know who is being investigated. The parents were both official suspects at one time and according to the highest court in Portugal they have not been cleared. If anything I would say there is still reasonable doubt.
-
You’d have no qualms if I were to describe then as suspects though would you?
Whatever makes you think that?
-
Whatever makes you think that?
Your posting history mainly.
-
The presumption of innocence is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty.
It was traditionally expressed by the Latin maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”).
... it is an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
NB “Charged”
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.".
The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". This convention has been adopted by treaty and is binding on all Council of Europe members. Currently (and in any foreseeable expansion of the EU) every country member of the European Union is also member to the Council of Europe, so this stands for EU members as a matter of course. Nevertheless, this assertion is iterated verbatim in Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
-
The truth is that nobody outside of the enquiry know who is being investigated. The parents were both official suspects at one time and according to the highest court in Portugal they have not been cleared. If anything I would say there is still reasonable doubt.
You can say and think what you like but...it's clear they are not being investigated.....no evidence against them....not suspects....the SC statement is basically meaningless..
I think the chances of them being involved is ridiculously infinitesimally tiny
-
You can say and think what you like but...it's clear they are not being investigated.....no evidence against them....not suspects....the SC statement is basically meaningless..
I am assuming all of the above is your opinion as you don't provide a cite.
-
NB “Charged”
So does that mean you’re less innocent if you haven’t been charged?
-
NB “Charged”
AFAIK...there is a directive which extends the presumption of innocence to suspects
-
NB “Charged”
NB ... I do not have the faintest idea what you are on about ^*&&
-
AFAIK...there is a directive which extends the presumption of innocence to suspects
I just quoted them, so if you can find it, be my guest.
-
NB ... I do not have the faintest idea what you are on about ^*&&
You forget to specify that it only applies to people charged with a crime.
-
Oh I think we both know that not to be true. It cannot be difficult to add the McCanns are presumed innocent as opposed to the McCanns are innocent, when you ,leading by example, are insisting on pushing that agenda of yours.
Now we can both see the difference very clearly.
I never read supporters discussing MBM's human rights regarding her parents behaviour. Interesting.
Now you come to mention it ... weren't Madeleine's human rights breached when she was considered dead by the police without a shred of evidence to support it ... and had her case archived to ensure she wasn't looked for?
-
Now you come to mention it ... weren't Madeleine's human rights breached when she was considered dead by the police without a shred of evidence to support it ... and had her case archived to ensure she wasn't looked for?
It depends if you believe the dogs Brietta.
-
Now you come to mention it ... weren't Madeleine's human rights breached when she was considered dead by the police without a shred of evidence to support it ... and had her case archived to ensure she wasn't looked for?
Which article was breached?
-
Which article was breached?
I understand it might be argued...the right to life
-
I just quoted them, so if you can find it, be my guest.
I've already found it...
http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-new-directive-on-presumption-of.html?m=1
Article 2 confirms that the Directive will apply at “all stages from the moment when a person is suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence, or an alleged criminal offence, until the final determination of the question whether the person has committed the offence concerned and that decision has become definitive
-
You forget to specify that it only applies to people charged with a crime.
So of the four arguidos ... only Amaral enjoys the presumption of innocence? How on earth does that work since he was judged as being guilty?
-
I understand it might be argued...the right to life
Hmmm
1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
-
So of the four arguidos ... only Amaral enjoys the presumption of innocence? How on earth does that work since he was judged as being guilty?
What’s that got to do with the thread?
-
It depends if you believe the dogs Brietta.
I prefer conclusions to be evidence based.
-
What’s that got to do with the thread?
As much if not more than anything you have posted tonight.
-
It depends if you believe the dogs Brietta.
The dog alerts are not evidence....as SY believe Maddie may still be alive then SY don't believe them either
The dogs have been discussed extensively and imo...based on what grime and Harrison said ...have no value or reliability as evidence
-
The dog alerts are not evidence....as SY believe Maddie may still be alive then SY don't believe them either
The dogs have been discussed extensively and imo...based on what grime and Harrison said ...have no value or reliability as evidence
They need an alternative explanation at least.
-
They need an alternative explanation at least.
There are alternatives that have been discussed....sunny raised the alerts but they are seriously off topic
-
I've already found it...
http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-new-directive-on-presumption-of.html?m=1
Article 2 confirms that the Directive will apply at “all stages from the moment when a person is suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence, or an alleged criminal offence, until the final determination of the question whether the person has committed the offence concerned and that decision has become definitive
Link article effectively dates to 2016, so what is the relevance to 2007?
-
As much if not more than anything you have posted tonight.
No, GA had nothing to do with the McCanns case against the British Press.
-
So does that mean you’re less innocent if you haven’t been charged?
The presumption of innocence is a legal protection for people officially suspected of, arrested or tried for committing a crime. Those not suspected etc. have no need of that protection.
-
The presumption of innocence is a legal protection for people officially suspected of, arrested or tried for committing a crime. Those not suspected etc. have no need of that protection.
So when the McCanns were arguidos they were presumed innocent. Now they’re not we can presume whatever we like, is that it?
-
So when the McCanns were arguidos they were presumed innocent. Now they’re not we can presume whatever we like, is that it?
according to teh SC they had no right to the presumption of innocence...a bizarre judgeemnt..
Arguição de Nulidade do Acórdão
Below is a copy of the McCann's request for annulment of the Supreme Court´s decision, filed by the couple´s lawyer on the 16th of February, 2017. We understand that the filing of this appeal has a suspensive effect on the Supreme Court´s ruling.
The request alleges that the Supreme Court´s decision "lacks a foundation (...) in stating that one cannot invoke the principle of presumption of innocence in order to restrict the right to freedom of expression, because it is based on the erroneous presumption that the archiving of the criminal investigation 'was determined because it was not possible for the Public Ministry to obtain enough indications of the practice of crimes by the appellants'".
In case you are struggling with the legalese (we do), here is what we understand to be the reasoning behind the request:
1. The McCanns have invoked the principle of presumption of innocence to justify the restrictions they want imposed on dr. Amaral's freedom of expression;
2. The Supreme Court stated, in its ruling, that the above is no argument because the McCanns were not considered innocent by the investigation and the case was archived because not enough evidence was found to charge them.
3. The McCanns, because they believe the above argument is false, request for the Supreme Court's decision to be nullified.
the Sc did not say they were not entitled to the presumption of innocence because thy had not been charged....but because they had not been cleared..........no wonder there is a case going to the ECHR
-
So of the four arguidos ... only Amaral enjoys the presumption of innocence? How on earth does that work since he was judged as being guilty?
At the moment none of the former arguidos enjoy the protection of the presumption of innocence because none of them are involved with the law as suspects or defendants.
-
At the moment none of the former arguidos enjoy the protection of the presumption of innocence because none of them are involved with the law as suspects or defendants.
Are they protected in law from false allegations of guilt?
-
At the moment none of the former arguidos enjoy the protection of the presumption of innocence because none of them are involved with the law as suspects or defendants.
Article 2 confirms that the Directive will apply at “all stages from the moment when a person is suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence, or an alleged criminal offence, until the final determination of the question whether the person has committed the offence concerned and that decision has become definitive
so has it been determined that the mccanns have NOT committed the offence..from that statement the mccanns are either innocent or entitled to the presumption of innocence
-
So when the McCanns were arguidos they were presumed innocent. Now they’re not we can presume whatever we like, is that it?
When they were arguidos they were entitled to the protection of the presumption of innocence by the legal system in Portugal. I don't think they were entitled to be presumed innocent by anyone else. They have always enjoyed the right to sue anyone who slanders or defames them, just as we all do.
-
When they were arguidos they were entitled to the protection of the presumption of innocence by the legal system in Portugal. I don't think they were entitled to be presumed innocent by anyone else. They have always enjoyed the right to sue anyone who slanders or defames them, just as we all do.
They will be busy then.
-
When they were arguidos they were entitled to the protection of the presumption of innocence by the legal system in Portugal. I don't think they were entitled to be presumed innocent by anyone else. They have always enjoyed the right to sue anyone who slanders or defames them, just as we all do.
I think you are wrong...see above cites
Duarte thought they were too...above cite
The SC thought they were not.... because they hadn't been cleared
-
The SC thought they were not.... because they hadn't been cleared
Which is the reason that many people across the globe actually doubt what the McCanns say IMO.
-
Which is the reason that many people across the globe actually doubt what the McCanns say IMO.
Cite for many people across the globe doubt the mccanns
It's a ridiculous statement...cleared of what...they have never been charged...so how can they be cleared
-
Do you really want a cite for that Davel. Just look up Madeleine McCann and forum in google and you will find many people who say that they have questions to answer.
Here is the first page https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=madeleine+mccann+forum&rlz=1C1GGGE_en-gbGB592US612&oq=madeleine+mccann+forum&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3j0l2.5250j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
-
Do you really want a cite for that Davel. Just look up Madeleine McCann and forum in google and you will find many people who say that they have questions to answer.
Here is the first page https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=madeleine+mccann+forum&rlz=1C1GGGE_en-gbGB592US612&oq=madeleine+mccann+forum&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3j0l2.5250j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Most forums have very few posters...this forum has probably less than ten active posters....then you said...across the globe...how many countries ...across the globe
Might be best just to admit you are wrong
-
I think you are wrong...see above cites
Duarte thought they were too...above cite
The SC thought they were not.... because they hadn't been cleared
Which cites?
Duarte's arguments were rejected by the Portuguese Appeal Court and by the Supreme Court. (twice)
-
Most forums have very few posters...this forum has probably less than ten active posters....then you said...across the globe...how many countries ...across the globe
Might be best just to admit you are wrong
Well, the McCanns thought the Portuguese nation doubted them. That's 10 million people if correct.
-
Which cites?
Duarte's arguments were rejected by the Portuguese Appeal Court and by the Supreme Court. (twice)
Hardly matters to those who reject the SC judgement.
-
Most forums have very few posters...this forum has probably less than ten active posters....then you said...across the globe...how many countries ...across the globe
Might be best just to admit you are wrong
10 active posters on here you say but how many actively read what is said but don't post? I am also thinking those who post on other forums particularly US ones where the majority of members are American. Also look at newspaper articles and see how many red ticks some pro mccann posts get. All these people may not actively join a mccann forum but they still have an opinion on the case as you will agree.
-
Hardly matters to those who reject the SC judgement.
Nor does it matter that they reject the findings of the SC as their opinion cannot change anything.
-
Well, the McCanns thought the Portuguese nation doubted them. That's 10 million people if correct.
That's not a cross the globe
-
Hardly matters to those who reject the SC judgement.
They may well reject it,but it can't be overturned.
-
Hardly matters to those who reject the SC judgement.
Based on their in-depth knowledge of Portuguese law? Or on their pro-McCann convictions? I find it difficult to accept that a Portuguese lawyer understood Portuguese law better than three Supreme Court Judges. She argued, for example, that the archiving dispatch was to all intents and purposes a judgement, which 'cleared' the couple. Even the judge of the first instance knew that it wasn't;
The Judge states that the Final Report is evidence in itself and obviously not a judgement. (I assume they mean the Archiving dispatch which Duarte named the AG final report)
The Judge asks whether the witness is aware the investigation wasn't conclusive?.......The Judge observes that if nothing happened since then, this shows that there's still no conclusion.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2335.0
-
Based on their in-depth knowledge of Portuguese law? Or on their pro-McCann convictions? I find it difficult to accept that a Portuguese lawyer understood Portuguese law better than three Supreme Court Judges. She argued, for example, that the archiving dispatch was to all intents and purposes a judgement, which 'cleared' the couple. Even the judge of the first instance knew that it wasn't;
The Judge states that the Final Report is evidence in itself and obviously not a judgement. (I assume they mean the Archiving dispatch which Duarte named the AG final report)
The Judge asks whether the witness is aware the investigation wasn't conclusive?.......The Judge observes that if nothing happened since then, this shows that there's still no conclusion.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2335.0
The SC has had two rulings against it in the last 6 months or so it is not always correct... Duarte argued the McCann's were entitled to the presumption of innocence...the SC said no...because they hadn't been cleared..
That was the reason the SC gave...which I find bizarre
-
The SC has had two rulings against it in the last 6 months or so it is not always correct... Duarte argued the McCann's were entitled to the presumption of innocence...the SC said no...because they hadn't been cleared..
That was the reason the SC gave...which I find bizarre
We all know that the justice system in Portugal bears little resemblance to that which we are used to in the UK. It will be interesting to see how this all pans out.
-
If Duarte had told the McCanns that the AG statement had to show they were innocent before they proceeded to sue Goncalo Amaral then it would have saved them an awful lot of money (sorry fund money)
-
The SC has had two rulings against it in the last 6 months or so it is not always correct... Duarte argued the McCann's were entitled to the presumption of innocence...the SC said no...because they hadn't been cleared..
That was the reason the SC gave...which I find bizarre
I think you've got the argument back-to-front. The only reason the judges mentioned the matter of the McCanns being 'cleared' was in answer to Duarte's claim that they were;
already cleared before through the filing dispatch of a criminal investigation
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.0
It seems she wasn't listening two years earlier when the first Judge mentioned that the report wasn't a judgement and was inconclusive.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9827.msg476310#msg476310
-
If Duarte had told the McCanns that the AG statement had to show they were innocent before they proceeded to sue Goncalo Amaral then it would have saved them an awful lot of money (sorry fund money)
Unfortunately the prosecutors made a mistake in the report which led people to reach a wrong conclusion.
-
Unfortunately the prosecutors made a mistake in the report which led people to reach a wrong conclusion.
I'm confused. Can you explain please
-
I'm confused. Can you explain please
The prosecutors quoted Article 277/1 when they wrote the report. The SC judges said it should have been 277/2. There's a large thread which explores and explains this (as well as other things) which you might like to plough through at some stage.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.0
-
I think you've got the argument back-to-front. The only reason the judges mentioned the matter of the McCanns being 'cleared' was in answer to Duarte's claim that they were;
already cleared before through the filing dispatch of a criminal investigation
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.0
It seems she wasn't listening two years earlier when the first Judge mentioned that the report wasn't a judgement and was inconclusive.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9827.msg476310#msg476310
From my cite Duarte claimed they were entitled to the presumption of innocence....do you have a link where Duarte claimed they were cleared by the archiving despatch
-
From my cite Duarte claimed they were entitled to the presumption of innocence....do you have a link where Duarte claimed they were cleared by the archiving despatch
Could you give me a link to where you posted the cite that Duarte claimed they were entitled to the presumption of innocence I can't see it and have read back several pages of your posts.
-
Could you give me a link to where you posted the cite that Duarte claimed they were entitled to the presumption of innocence I can't see it and have read back several pages of your posts.
Well read back again....it's there today..post235
-
From my cite Duarte claimed they were entitled to the presumption of innocence....do you have a link where Duarte claimed they were cleared by the archiving despatch
My cite was in the post you replied to, but Duarte's claim is also mentioned in your earlier cite (post 235)
Your cite says Duarte invoked the presumption of innocence to restrict Amaral's right to freedom of expression.
She argues that they are entitled to be presumed innocent because they were cleared by the archiving dispatch.
The Supreme Court said they weren't. so her argument wasn't valid.
-
Well read back again....it's there today..post235
I have seen what you call a link and it is simply this statement from the media
1. The McCanns have invoked the principle of presumption of innocence to justify the restrictions they want imposed on dr. Amaral's freedom of expression;
That is in relation to their appeal with the ECHR not the original case as far as I can see. Also no mention of Duarte either.
Your original post From my cite Duarte claimed they were entitled to the presumption of innocence....do you have a link where Duarte claimed they were cleared by the archiving despatch
Where does Duarte say anything on there.
-
I have seen what you call a link and it is simply this statement from the media
1. The McCanns have invoked the principle of presumption of innocence to justify the restrictions they want imposed on dr. Amaral's freedom of expression;
That is in relation to their appeal with the ECHR not the original case as far as I can see. Also no mention of Duarte either.
Your original post From my cite Duarte claimed they were entitled to the presumption of innocence....do you have a link where Duarte claimed they were cleared by the archiving despatch
Where does Duarte say anything on there.
you are totally wrong...it is not a media statemnt..and its nothing to do with the application to the ECHR...it relates to teh SC ruling..
Its about time gunit provided the cite i have asked for then we can discuss it in more detail
-
I think you've got the argument back-to-front. The only reason the judges mentioned the matter of the McCanns being 'cleared' was in answer to Duarte's claim that they were;
already cleared before through the filing dispatch of a criminal investigation
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.0
It seems she wasn't listening two years earlier when the first Judge mentioned that the report wasn't a judgement and was inconclusive.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9827.msg476310#msg476310
again...do you have a cite where duarte claims the ruling cleared the mccanns...without a cite you have no right to claim it..
It is totally immaterial that the archiving breport is not a judgeemnt...duarte claimed...cite provided....that the mccanns were entitled to the presumption of innocence...the SC said they were not as they had not been cleared
-
I think you've got the argument back-to-front. The only reason the judges mentioned the matter of the McCanns being 'cleared' was in answer to Duarte's claim that they were;
already cleared before through the filing dispatch of a criminal investigation
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.0
It seems she wasn't listening two years earlier when the first Judge mentioned that the report wasn't a judgement and was inconclusive.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9827.msg476310#msg476310
perhaps its you who has it back to front...
cite required for this claim by Duarte...my cite shows she merely invoked the presumpion of innocence...you have yet to supply a cite
-
Quote
2. The Supreme Court stated, in its ruling, that the above is no argument because the McCanns were not considered innocent by the investigation and the case was archived because not enough evidence was found to charge them.
so the SC said the Mccanns had no right to the presumption of innocence because the investigation didnt consider them innocent
-
Quote
2. The Supreme Court stated, in its ruling, that the above is no argument because the McCanns were not considered innocent by the investigation and the case was archived because not enough evidence was found to charge them.
so the SC said the Mccanns had no right to the presumption of innocence because the investigation didnt consider them innocent
But if the investigation didn't consider the McCanns innocent then they haven't been "cleared" or are indisputably innocent either. Therefore the McCanns lawyer should never have used their self proclaimed "innocence" as a tool in a law suit. She should have known Portuguese law better than that it would seem.
-
But if the investigation didn't consider the McCanns innocent then they haven't been "cleared" or are indisputably innocent either. Therefore the McCanns lawyer should never have used their self proclaimed "innocence" as a tool in a law suit. She should have known Portuguese law better than that it would seem.
When desperate, lawyers will try any ploy.
-
again...do you have a cite where duarte claims the ruling cleared the mccanns...without a cite you have no right to claim it..
It is totally immaterial that the archiving breport is not a judgeemnt...duarte claimed...cite provided....that the mccanns were entitled to the presumption of innocence...the SC said they were not as they had not been cleared
Are you actually reading posts before you reply to them? The cite was in the post you replied to, taken from the transcript of her submission to the SC. She said the McCanns were;
already cleared before through the filing dispatch of a criminal investigation
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.0
The judges reply was that Duarte's argument was invalid because it was based on a misunderstanding of the archiving dispatch;
Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.15
-
But if the investigation didn't consider the McCanns innocent then they haven't been "cleared" or are indisputably innocent either. Therefore the McCanns lawyer should never have used their self proclaimed "innocence" as a tool in a law suit. She should have known Portuguese law better than that it would seem.
THe mccanns were entitled to the presumption of innocence...The SC saidthey were not....the SC are therefore wrong
-
Are you actually reading posts before you reply to them? The cite was in the post you replied to, taken from the transcript of her submission to the SC. She said the McCanns were;
already cleared before through the filing dispatch of a criminal investigation
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.0
The judges reply was that Duarte's argument was invalid because it was based on a misunderstanding of the archiving dispatch;
Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.15
That is not quote from Duarte...its a quote from the SC...so you have no direct quote as to what Duarte said...
according to my cite...which is from a reputable source...Duarte invoked the presumption of innocence but was refused on the basis that the investiagtion did not consider them innocent...which is obviously not valid reason to deny them
-
Testing.
OK now I have a post
It would appear that the SC had "serious concerns" about the abduction thesis put forward by the McCanns as well as their claim of innocence.
This is according to an article about the SC ruling BY TRACEY KANDOHLA
One way to get a post in.
-
But if the investigation didn't consider the McCanns innocent then they haven't been "cleared" or are indisputably innocent either. Therefore the McCanns lawyer should never have used their self proclaimed "innocence" as a tool in a law suit. She should have known Portuguese law better than that it would seem.
If you read the whole Legal Summary there are clearly still unanswered questions. When the case was archived 'insufficient evidence' was the reason reported in the Portuguese media, although a lot of the UK media reported 'McCanns cleared'.
-
If you read the whole Legal Summary there are clearly still unanswered questions. When the case was archived 'insufficient evidence' was the reason reported in the Portuguese media, although a lot of the UK media reported 'McCanns cleared'.
Duarte requested presumption of innocence...the SC denied them this
-
Duarte requested presumption of innocence...the SC denied them this
you only get that privilege when you’re a suspect, once you stop being a suspect the courts can presume whatever they like about you, it would seem.
-
you only get that privilege when you’re a suspect, once you stop being a suspect the courts can presume whatever they like about you, it would seem.
I dont think that is true...
In the Allen vs UK case, the ECHR emphasised the importance of the presumption after the acquittal or dismissal of the criminal investigation, explaining that this principle prevents suspects or defendants in such cases are treated as if they were in fact responsible for the criminal offences of which they were accused and stressing that without this second level of protection – the level of full respect for acquittal or archiving – the presumption of innocence would remain illusory or merely ideal.
-
That is not quote from Duarte...its a quote from the SC...so you have no direct quote as to what Duarte said...
according to my cite...which is from a reputable source...Duarte invoked the presumption of innocence but was refused on the basis that the investiagtion did not consider them innocent...which is obviously not valid reason to deny them
It was Duarte's argument to the Supreme Court. Remember that the request to overturn the SC ruling, which you quoted, was written by Dr Ricardo Correia Afonso, not by Isabel Duarte.
-
You're getting yourself wound up about nothing.
To which I replied.
To which Engarth replied.
You then jumped in with
To which I replied
Clearly I never mentioned the judgement you did,so bearing that in mind can you provide a cite where the McCanns were libeled in Portugal under Portuguese law?
It shouldn't matter under which law you are working. Libel is libel in anyone's language.
I seem to remember it wasn't so much as to restrict libel but to stop GA publishing his book, they considered that would have been a case of restricting GA's right of free speech. Then it become a battle between the two rights, which had priority in this case, the McCann's right to a good name or GA's right to free speech.
-
It was Duarte's argument to the Supreme Court. Remember that the request to overturn the SC ruling, which you quoted, was written by Dr Ricardo Correia Afonso, not by Isabel Duarte.
so where is Duarte;s argument...in the request to overturn the SC judgement ....the argument was that the McCanns should benefit from the presumption of innocence.....its there in the original portugues.....the Sc said no
-
It shouldn't matter under which law you are working. Libel is libel in anyone's language.
I seem to remember it wasn't so much as to restrict libel but to stop GA publishing his book, they considered that would have been a case of restricting GA's right of free speech. Then it become a battle between the two rights, which had priority in this case, the McCann's right to a good name or GA's right to free speech.
Not so, different countries have different interpretations
-
Not so, different countries have different interpretations
Cite please.
-
Cite please.
No , you'll have to google if you don't believe me
-
No , you'll have to google if you don't believe me
Have you proven your claim via a similar Google search or are you just guessing?
libel
noun
1.
LAW
a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation
-
Have you proven your claim via a similar Google search or are you just guessing?
libel
noun
1.
LAW
a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation
Yes but it is how different countries determine what is meant by that
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7939997/Celebrities-use-British-laws-regarded-as-toughest-in-the-world.html
-
What did you mean by “under Portuguese law they didn’t”?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9827.msg476364#msg476364
It really should have been “under Portuguese law he didn’t”. He (GA) ended up being allowed to because of his right to free speech exceeded the McCann's right to a good name.
-
Have you proven your claim via a similar Google search or are you just guessing?
libel
noun
1.
LAW
a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation
Some LBTR
http://kellywarnerlaw.com/germany-defamation-laws/
https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/on-libel-and-the-law-u-s-and-u-k-go-separate-ways?t=1533062602410
http://kellywarnerlaw.com/france-defamation-laws/
http://kellywarnerlaw.com/uk-defamation-laws/
Plenty more where that came from.
-
so where is Duarte;s argument...in the request to overturn the SC judgement ....the argument was that the McCanns should benefit from the presumption of innocence.....its there in the original portugues.....the Sc said no
Why do you, over and over and over, miss out the important bit?
The argument was that the McCanns were entitled to the presumption of innocence BECAUSE THEY HAD BEEN CLEARED BY THE ARCHIVING DISPATCH.
In other words; because they were cleared they were entitled to be presumed innocent. But! If they weren't cleared the argument falls down.
-
Yes but it is how different countries determine what is meant by that
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7939997/Celebrities-use-British-laws-regarded-as-toughest-in-the-world.html
Once again it is the balance between free speech and private life.
From the link:
"However, lawyers said the US courts would never have granted such an order. Critics claim that the rich and famous are using the injunctions frequently to curb freedom of speech."
Still whatever is said has to be the truth.
-
Once again it is the balance between free speech and private life.
From the link:
"However, lawyers said the US courts would never have granted such an order. Critics claim that the rich and famous are using the injunctions frequently to curb freedom of speech."
Still whatever is said has to be the truth.
Or at least believed to be the truth at the time - see Jeffrey Archer.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1334653/The-end-Archer-goes-to-jail.html
-
Why do you, over and over and over, miss out the important bit?
The argument was that the McCanns were entitled to the presumption of innocence BECAUSE THEY HAD BEEN CLEARED BY THE ARCHIVING DISPATCH.
In other words; because they were cleared they were entitled to be presumed innocent. But! If they weren't cleared the argument falls down.
Do you have a cite for that precise statement....I think you may have it back to front..
The McCann's don't need to be cleared to be entitled to the presumption of innocence...I will have a look at the original Portuguese..it was the SC who said they weren't entitled to the POI because they had not been cleared..
-
Why do you, over and over and over, miss out the important bit?
The argument was that the McCanns were entitled to the presumption of innocence BECAUSE THEY HAD BEEN CLEARED BY THE ARCHIVING DISPATCH.
In other words; because they were cleared they were entitled to be presumed innocent. But! If they weren't cleared the argument falls down.
So because they weren’t charged, tried in court and cleared they cannot be presumed to be innocent? What a crock. So anyone who has ever had the misfortune to be a police suspect but never gets charged can never be considered innocent of the crime they were originally suspected of.
-
So because they weren’t charged, tried in court and cleared they cannot be presumed to be innocent? What a crock. So anyone who has ever had the misfortune to be a police suspect but never gets charged can never be considered innocent of the crime they were originally suspected of.
Obviously not the case if someone else is convicted.
-
So because they weren’t charged, tried in court and cleared they cannot be presumed to be innocent? What a crock. So anyone who has ever had the misfortune to be a police suspect but never gets charged can never be considered innocent of the crime they were originally suspected of.
it is wrong....Ive provided a cite tonight from the SC judgement that shows its wrong
In the Allen vs UK case, the ECHR emphasised the importance of the presumption after the acquittal or dismissal of the criminal investigation, explaining that this principle prevents suspects or defendants in such cases are treated as if they were in fact responsible for the criminal offences of which they were accused and stressing that without this second level of protection – the level of full respect for acquittal or archiving – the presumption of innocence would remain illusory or merely ideal.
-
i think gunit is aso wrong re the claim to innocence and what the mccanns claimed they were entitled to was the presumption of innocence...which of course they are
-
Why do you, over and over and over, miss out the important bit?
The argument was that the McCanns were entitled to the presumption of innocence BECAUSE THEY HAD BEEN CLEARED BY THE ARCHIVING DISPATCH.
In other words; because they were cleared they were entitled to be presumed innocent. But! If they weren't cleared the argument falls down.
your claim makes no sense at all...a suspect does NOT need to be cleared to be entitled to the POI
-
i think gunit is aso wrong re the claim to innocence and what the mccanns claimed they were entitled to was the presumption of innocence...which of course they are
In my opinion you're doomed to disappointment. In a criminal case the prosecution has to prove guilt. In a defamation case the claimant has to prove the guilt of the defendant(s). The McCanns failed. The various transcripts show why they failed. In my opinion you are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what was said and why. I wonder if you'll criticise the ECHR judges too if they reject a claim by the McCanns? Or will you finally accept that you got it wrong?
-
your claim makes no sense at all...a suspect does NOT need to be cleared to be entitled to the POI
I didn't say it, Duarte did.
-
In my opinion you're doomed to disappointment. In a criminal case the prosecution has to prove guilt. In a defamation case the claimant has to prove the guilt of the defendant(s). The McCanns failed. The various transcripts show why they failed. In my opinion you are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what was said and why. I wonder if you'll criticise the ECHR judges too if they reject a claim by the McCanns? Or will you finally accept that you got it wrong?
I think you are the one who has it totally wrong...certainly as regards the ECHr and defamation the mccanns do not have to prove anything....FRom what i have posted the mccanns merely requested the presumption of innocence and the SC denied it on the grounds that they had not been cleared...you have no cite whatsoever of what duarte claimed.....equally will you accept the ECHR judges if they rule against portugal...
I am not misrepresenting anything...everything I have posted has come from the amaral support website
-
So, if the McCanns had still been suspects they would have been entitled to the presumption of innocence and therefore won the case against Amaral, is this correct?
-
So, if the McCanns had still been suspects they would have been entitled to the presumption of innocence and therefore won the case against Amaral, is this correct?
according to the sceptics thinkng...yes..imo
-
so where is Duarte;s argument...in the request to overturn the SC judgement ....the argument was that the McCanns should benefit from the presumption of innocence.....its there in the original portugues.....the Sc said no
So you were wrong then Davel, again.
-
So you were wrong then Davel, again.
in what way do you think im wrong..strange...are you following the debate
-
in what way do you think im wrong..strange...are you following the debate
Actually yes I am Davel. I do wonder whether you are though. You made a claim in the name of Isabel Duarte regarding the McCanns case yet I have not seen your cite with her name on. I have seen a cite but without Duarte's quote it is irrelevant. All IMO of course.
-
it is wrong....Ive provided a cite tonight from the SC judgement that shows its wrong
In the Allen vs UK case, the ECHR emphasised the importance of the presumption after the acquittal or dismissal of the criminal investigation, explaining that this principle prevents suspects or defendants in such cases are treated as if they were in fact responsible for the criminal offences of which they were accused and stressing that without this second level of protection – the level of full respect for acquittal or archiving – the presumption of innocence would remain illusory or merely ideal.
It says acquittal or dismissal, not archive.
-
It says acquittal or dismissal, not archive.
so the mccanns have neither been acquitted or the investigation dismissed..read it again..it mentions archiving
-
Please keep on topic. Innocence or presumption of innocence is fine, but we are discussing UK Papers not other cases.
-
Please keep on topic. Innocence or presumption of innocence is fine, but we are discussing UK Papers not other cases.
on topic...the papers had to settle out of court because their claims were indefensible....thats a fact and the thraed can now be closed
-
on topic...the papers had to settle out of court because their claims were indefensible....thats a fact and the thraed can now be closed
It worked in the UK but not in Portugal - why?
-
It worked in the UK but not in Portugal - why?
The 'facts' printed by the UK newspapers were not correct, they were rumours. Amaral's book used the facts from the investigation and reached the same conclusion as the investigation had reached when Amaral was taken off the case.
-
The 'facts' printed by the UK newspapers were not correct, they were rumours. Amaral's book used the facts from the investigation and reached the same conclusion as the investigation had reached when Amaral was taken off the case.
That isn't true...amaral was told by grime that the dog alerts had to be confirmed to have any value as evidence...amaral ignored this and used them to support his ideas....the investigation had not come to a conclusion...death in the apartment was a possibility...amaral presented it as a fact
The SC misunderstood the ECHR re defamation... hopefully it will be corrected...all my opinion
-
I think you are the one who has it totally wrong...certainly as regards the ECHr and defamation the mccanns do not have to prove anything....FRom what i have posted the mccanns merely requested the presumption of innocence and the SC denied it on the grounds that they had not been cleared...you have no cite whatsoever of what duarte claimed.....equally will you accept the ECHR judges if they rule against portugal...
I am not misrepresenting anything...everything I have posted has come from the amaral support website
I have provided cites supporting my position. Obviously we disagree and will continue to do so. Once again time will tell who is right and who is wrong, as it has in the past.
-
I have provided cites supporting my position. Obviously we disagree and will continue to do so. Once again time will tell who is right and who is wrong, as it has in the past.
And I have provided cites...what you haven't provided is a direct cite from Duarte
-
Why do you, over and over and over, miss out the important bit?
The argument was that the McCanns were entitled to the presumption of innocence BECAUSE THEY HAD BEEN CLEARED BY THE ARCHIVING DISPATCH.
In other words; because they were cleared they were entitled to be presumed innocent. But! If they weren't cleared the argument falls down.
this post of yours is obviously incorrect...the MCanns do NOT need the archiving despatch to entitle them to the presumption of innocence...think about it...that is patently wrong
-
That isn't true...amaral was told by grime that the dog alerts had to be confirmed to have any value as evidence...amaral ignored this and used them to support his ideas....the investigation had not come to a conclusion...death in the apartment was a possibility...amaral presented it as a fact
The SC misunderstood the ECHR re defamation... hopefully it will be corrected...all my opinion
It's what the Portuguese Courts said. Obviously you don't agree.
(Items 27 & 28) It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0
-
It's what the Portuguese Courts said. Obviously you don't agree.
(Items 27 & 28) It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0
the statement said its mostly facts that took place...so they admit amaral added things that were not in the investigation...thats not my opinion thats fact
-
this post of yours is obviously incorrect...the MCanns do NOT need the archiving despatch to entitle them to the presumption of innocence...think about it...that is patently wrong
The archiving dispatch said they never lost the presumption of innocence, however the investigation never cleared them. Two separate points.
-
the statement said its mostly facts that took place...so they admit amaral added things taht were not in the investigation...thats not my opinion tahts fact
Duly noted by the judge of the first instance;
The Judge does note that some of the facts in the book are not complete, and some facts that are in the book are not in the case files, including Jane Tanner's alleged "informal" recognition of Robert Murat.
-
The archiving dispatch said they never lost the presumption of innocence, however the investigation never cleared them. Two separate points.
the SC said...
1. The McCanns have invoked the principle of presumption of innocence to justify the restrictions they want imposed on dr. Amaral's freedom of expression;
2. The Supreme Court stated, in its ruling, that the above is no argument because the McCanns were not considered innocent by the investigation and the case was archived because not enough evidence was found to charge them.
Thats why i think the SC are wrong......http://pjga.blogspot.com/?m=0
So the SC denied them the POI because they had not been cleared...barmy...imo
-
the SC said...
1. The McCanns have invoked the principle of presumption of innocence to justify the restrictions they want imposed on dr. Amaral's freedom of expression;
2. The Supreme Court stated, in its ruling, that the above is no argument because the McCanns were not considered innocent by the investigation and the case was archived because not enough evidence was found to charge them.
Thats why i think the SC are wrong......http://pjga.blogspot.com/?m=0
So the SC denied them the POI because they had not been cleared...barmy...imo
The SC said that from the start of the case they had enjoyed presumption of innocence but that in the end presumption of innocence was not relevant as the McCanns were not on trial.
We consider, therefore, that the invocation of breach of the principle of presumption of innocence should not be upheld. That principle does not fall under the decision about the question that has to be resolved.
-
The SC said that from the start of the case they had enjoyed presumption of innocence but that in the end presumption of innocence was not relevant as the McCanns were not on trial.
do you have a cite for that...that isnt what the final response from the SC was....and contradicts the SC judgeemnt which I have already posted
In the Allen vs UK case, the ECHR emphasised the importance of the presumption after the acquittal or dismissal of the criminal investigation, explaining that this principle prevents suspects or defendants in such cases are treated as if they were in fact responsible for the criminal offences of which they were accused and stressing that without this second level of protection – the level of full respect for acquittal or archiving – the presumption of innocence would remain illusory or merely ideal.
-
do you have a cite for that...that isnt what the final response from the SC was....and contradicts the SC judgeemnt which I have already posted
In the Allen vs UK case, the ECHR emphasised the importance of the presumption after the acquittal or dismissal of the criminal investigation, explaining that this principle prevents suspects or defendants in such cases are treated as if they were in fact responsible for the criminal offences of which they were accused and stressing that without this second level of protection – the level of full respect for acquittal or archiving – the presumption of innocence would remain illusory or merely ideal.
I'm glad you have understood the situation.
-
I'm glad you have understood the situation.
As it stands no one understands the situation,the McCanns have applied to the ECHR what is not known is what for,if that application has been accepted,opinion is all that is given.
-
As it stands no one understands the situation,the McCanns have applied to the ECHR what is not known is what for,if that application has been accepted,opinion is all that is given.
I would say clearly some understand it more than others
-
I would say clearly some understand it more than others
Some pretend to,world of difference.
-
I would say clearly some understand it more than others
Time will tell. Meanwhile, at this moment, no-one has been found guilty of defaming the McCanns in a court of law.
-
Time will tell. Meanwhile, at this moment, no-one has been found guilty of defaming the McCanns in a court of law.
But some have admitted it...libel actions are quite often settled out of court
-
But some have admitted it...libel actions are quite often settled out of court
People settle to save money in case they lose. An offer to settle is unlikely to be accepted unless an admission of guilt is included.
-
People settle to save money in case they lose. An offer to settle is unlikely to be accepted unless an admission of guilt is included.
Like a retraction and an apology as well as damages.
-
People settle to save money in case they lose. An offer to settle is unlikely to be accepted unless an admission of guilt is included.
They do not have to settle if they have a defence
-
They do not have to settle if they have a defence
Litigation is a gamble, as the McCanns now probably realise. They gambled against the newspapers because they had measures in place which meant their personal finances were safe. That wasn't possible in Portugal as I understand it, so they gambled in Portugal without safeguards and lost. It remains to be seen whether they lost personally or whether they gambled with money which didn't belong to them.
-
Litigation is a gamble, as the McCanns now probably realise. They gambled against the newspapers because they had measures in place which meant their personal finances were safe. That wasn't possible in Portugal as I understand it, so they gambled in Portugal without safeguards and lost. It remains to be seen whether they lost personally or whether they gambled with money which didn't belong to them.
Is that libellous?
-
Is that libellous?
Why should it be? - they have wealthy backers.
-
Is that libellous?
OK then. The McCanns instructed lawyers to sue Amaral. They did so in their own and their children's names. It was a gamble because that's the nature of litigation. The evidence (Fund accounts) suggests that at least some the expenses connected to the action were paid by the Fund. The money in the Fund doesn't belong to the McCanns.
-
do you have a cite for that...that isnt what the final response from the SC was....and contradicts the SC judgeemnt which I have already posted
In the Allen vs UK case, the ECHR emphasised the importance of the presumption after the acquittal or dismissal of the criminal investigation, explaining that this principle prevents suspects or defendants in such cases are treated as if they were in fact responsible for the criminal offences of which they were accused and stressing that without this second level of protection – the level of full respect for acquittal or archiving – the presumption of innocence would remain illusory or merely ideal.
It’s in the SC verdict, same place you got yours from.
-
People settle to save money in case they lose. An offer to settle is unlikely to be accepted unless an admission of guilt is included.
Sometimes payments are made without prejudice.
-
The archiving dispatch said they never lost the presumption of innocence, however the investigation never cleared them. Two separate points.
Of more importance is that the Amaral investigation never charged them.
-
Of more importance is that the Amaral investigation never charged them.
Off topic deflection.
-
Of more importance is that the Amaral investigation never charged them.
Yes... evidence of innocence
-
Yes... evidence of innocence
A cite for that Davel or could I just say evidence of not enough evidence to charge them.
-
Off topic deflection.
LOL ... how can posting that no charges were brought against Kate and Gerry be "off topic deflection" unless your post to which I replied is also "off topic deflection"?
However in my opinion my post explains precisely exactly why the media were compelled to settle defamation actions out of court ... all the evidence categorically confirmed that the McCanns had been maligned by wrongful reporting ... and in the circumstances had they gone to court the papers would have been taken to the cleaners.
The papers were guilty of libel ... they admitted it ... they apologised for it ... and paid what was considered to be substantial damages for it at the time.
Very much on topic and very much a statement of fact ^*&&
-
A cite for that Davel or could I just say evidence of not enough evidence to charge them.
... and could I just say ... your post is bordering on libel. There was no evidence.
-
Litigation is a gamble, as the McCanns now probably realise. They gambled against the newspapers because they had measures in place which meant their personal finances were safe. That wasn't possible in Portugal as I understand it, so they gambled in Portugal without safeguards and lost. It remains to be seen whether they lost personally or whether they gambled with money which didn't belong to them.
You have highlighted an interesting point. The libel trial against Gonçalo Amaral, the publisher Guerra & Paz, Editores SA, the audiovisual production company Valentim de Carvalho-Filmes e Audiovisuais SA and the TV Channel TVI-Televisão Independente was undertaken in the names of Kate, Gerald, Madeleine, Sean and Amelie McCann. The Madeleine Fund took no part in the litigation yet paid part if not all of the Duarte legal fees and court costs. Such payments would have to have been authorised by the directors of the Fund.
-
... and could I just say ... your post is bordering on libel. There was no evidence.
That's just not true Brietta. The investigation found many areas where stories were confused or even retracted. The Grime dog reactions to some of Kate McCann's clothing alone has still not been properly explained as has her refusal to answer the simplest of questions whilst an arguida. To say there is no evidence is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts imo.
-
You have highlighted an interesting point. The libel trial against Gonçalo Amaral, the publisher Guerra & Paz, Editores SA, the audiovisual production company Valentim de Carvalho-Filmes e Audiovisuais SA and the TV Channel TVI-Televisão Independente was undertaken in the names of Kate, Gerald, Madeleine, Sean and Amelie McCann. The Madeleine Fund took no part in the litigation yet paid part if not all of the Duarte legal fees and court costs. Such payments would have to have been authorised by the directors of the Fund.
As the directors mostly are the McCann/Kennedy family, or family friends, who is going to say nay to them?
-
As the directors mostly are the McCann/Kennedy family, or family friends, who is going to say nay to them?
Is paying costs personally accused by the parents a reasonable use of Fund money? I don't recall any mention of this in the articles of association.
-
Is paying costs personally accused by the parents a reasonable use of Fund money? I don't recall any mention of this in the articles of association.
I wasn't for one moment suggesting that it was, merely that there is no one to stop them doing so.
-
That's just not true Brietta. The investigation found many areas where stories were confused or even retracted. The Grime dog reactions to some of Kate McCann's clothing alone has still not been properly explained as has her refusal to answer the simplest of questions whilst an arguida. To say there is no evidence is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts imo.
Everything you refer to has been explained...more than once... imo....and hence the McCann's are not suspects
-
You have highlighted an interesting point. The libel trial against Gonçalo Amaral, the publisher Guerra & Paz, Editores SA, the audiovisual production company Valentim de Carvalho-Filmes e Audiovisuais SA and the TV Channel TVI-Televisão Independente was undertaken in the names of Kate, Gerald, Madeleine, Sean and Amelie McCann. The Madeleine Fund took no part in the litigation yet paid part if not all of the Duarte legal fees and court costs. Such payments would have to have been authorised by the directors of the Fund.
A far more interesting point is that as the twins and Maddie were named as bringing the action with their parents...are the children responsible for their share of the costs
-
A far more interesting point is that as the twins and Maddie were named as bringing the action with their parents...are the children responsible for their share of the costs
Clearly not Davel but their parents being the instigators of the action should pay 100% of their costs as they lost and IMO it shouldn't be down to a so called fund to pay their litigation costs. The fund was supposed to be for searching not suing others and as far as I am aware their official website has never referred to funds that were donated by others being spent in the litigation courts. IMO this includes royalties from Kate's book as "every penny" was to be spent on searching.
-
Is it true that money was donated by the general public for actual searching? Why would the general public donate a million pounds in the first few weeks of a police investigation, did the general public think back then that no one was looking for Madeleine?
-
Is paying costs personally accused by the parents a reasonable use of Fund money? I don't recall any mention of this in the articles of association.
At the beginning it was justified in the accounts by saying that the book harmed the search for Madeleine. The claimants were unable to prove that assertion, however,
11. Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, the Polícia Judiciária stopped collecting information and investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?
Not proved.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0
So any funding of the action after April 2015 must have a different justification. After all, Operation Grange had taken up 'the search' by then, as had the PJ again.
-
That's just not true Brietta. The investigation found many areas where stories were confused or even retracted. The Grime dog reactions to some of Kate McCann's clothing alone has still not been properly explained as has her refusal to answer the simplest of questions whilst an arguida. To say there is no evidence is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts imo.
Nothing you have referred to is evidence of guilt, Angelo, if it had been I have absolutely no doubt that the first investigation would have leapt on it and used it against them.
As far as I am concerned Kate took exactly the right course of action in following her lawyer's advice at her arguida interview; in contrast to Gerry who answered them all ... and still was not incriminated.
The 'evidence' to which you refer appeared in print in the publications which had to apologise for it. It was libellous for the simple reason it was false. Therefore any statement using it as a basis for insinuation is libel, ask Sally Bercow.
If *Innocent face* was admitted to be defamatory ... just think for a moment the nature of the defamation endured by Kate and Gerry.
It should not be forgotten that the Portuguese police and judiciary thoroughly checked out the circumstances of the making of the arguidos and singularly did not follow the route they took preferring instead to follow the evidence.
-
A far more interesting point is that as the twins and Maddie were named as bringing the action with their parents...are the children responsible for their share of the costs
Of course not. Children can't decide to sue someone. In Madeleine's case she was a ward of court so the parents had to get the court's permission to include her.
The children weren't involved in the Appeal and Supreme Court proceedings either.
-
Is it true that money was donated by the general public for actual searching? Why would the general public donate a million pounds in the first few weeks of a police investigation, did the general public think back then that no one was looking for Madeleine?
Can you point out where on findmadeleine it says your money will be spent suing an ex policeman. Doesn't it say help with the "search". They won't find her in a law court.
-
Can you point out where on findmadeleine it says your money will be spent suing an ex policeman. Doesn't it say help with the "search". They won't find her in a law court.
That wasn’t the question I asked. What motivated people to send money in the first few weeks, when the majority of money was donated?
-
That wasn’t the question I asked. What motivated people to send money in the first few weeks, when the majority of money was donated?
But they weren't suing in the first few weeks, however they were suing when Kate brought out her book and having read it I didn't see any reference to using fund money to sue Amaral. I could be wrong so please point out the relevant passage in madeleine if there is one.
-
But they weren't suing in the first few weeks, however they were suing when Kate brought out her book and having read it I didn't see any reference to using fund money to sue Amaral. I could be wrong so please point out the relevant passage in madeleine if there is one.
Again, you are having a different discussion with me than the one I initiated.
-
Apologies Vertigo Swirl I see you mentioned the first few weeks. I was not actually thinking of that period but I am sorry for misreading your post. *%^^&
-
Apologies Vertigo Swirl I see you mentioned the first few weeks. I was not actually thinking of that period but I am sorry for misreading your post. *%^^&
No worries.
-
The archiving dispatch said they never lost the presumption of innocence, however the investigation never cleared them. Two separate points.
I can accept that or at least a close variation. "The archiving dispatch said they never lost the presumption of innocence, however the investigation never mentioned it cleared them. Two separate points."
-
Everything you refer to has been explained...more than once... imo....and hence the McCann's are not suspects
They were suspects, and if they are not suspects now there was a point where they transitioned from suspects to non suspects.
-
They were suspects, and if they are not suspects now there was a point where they transitioned from suspects to non suspects.
Yes you are right Robittybob1 and of course that situation could change again, and again. I wonder when that point was though.
-
But as the money was donated for actually searching for Maddie surely a better use of the funds would be to do some...searching. Makes more sense to me than spending £100,000s on suing an ex copper.
In the beginning it potentially brought in a million Euro didn't it? So the return potential for the fund was great. If the fund was to receive the reward I don't see why it should not pay the costs as well
-
In the beginning it potentially brought in a million Euro didn't it? So the return potential for the fund was great. If the fund was to receive the reward I don't see why it should not pay the costs as well
Brian Kennedy (uncle) said the fund was mainly for "legal expenditure" but I personally don't like the thought of the McCanns of using the donations of others to sue those who doubt them, however high profile the doubter was. I can see why they did it though. If I had donated to a fund to search for someone I would be unhappy if that money was used for any other reason.
-
Yes you are right Robittybob1 and of course that situation could change again, and again. I wonder when that point was though.
Me too. I have not seen the reason the PJ changed from treated the McCanns as "suspects" to "not suspects".
-
In the beginning it potentially brought in a million Euro didn't it? So the return potential for the fund was great. If the fund was to receive the reward I don't see why it should not pay the costs as well
There's such a thing as director's responsibilities. One of them is to make decisions which safeguard the company's assets. Whether gambling with those assets is acceptable I don't know.
-
There's such a thing as director's responsibilities. One of them is to make decisions which safeguard the company's assets. Whether gambling with those assets is acceptable I don't know.
Any decision to search or to hire a PI would also be a gamble. There was no guarantee that they will look in the right place or that the PI will find something new.
-
But they weren't suing in the first few weeks, however they were suing when Kate brought out her book and having read it I didn't see any reference to using fund money to sue Amaral. I could be wrong so please point out the relevant passage in madeleine if there is one.
Actually, the book was written to boost Madeleine's Fund and enable the search for her to continue ... I don't think you can ignore that.
-
Me too. I have not seen the reason the PJ changed from treated the McCanns as "suspects" to "not suspects".
The McCann's were made suspects when the dogs alerted...the pj thought they had proof that Maddie had died in the apartment..it's all in the archiving report...
The PJ then realised they had no evidence....
The present situation according to De carmo is that the McCann's are not suspects and there's no evidence against them... obviously if evidence was found that would change
-
Actually, the book was written to boost Madeleine's Fund and enable the search for her to continue ... I don't think you can ignore that.
Very true Brietta so why use it to sue Amaral rather than actually look for their beloved daughter. I admire them for writing the book even if I don't believe every thing in it. I certainly don't approve of using donated funds to sue someone though. I would not have done that myself.
-
The McCann's were made suspects when the dogs alerted...the pj thought they had proof that Maddie had died in the apartment..it's all in the archiving report...
The PJ then realised they had no evidence....
The present situation according to Dr Carmichael is that the McCann's are not suspects and there's no evidence against them... obviously if evidence was found that would change
Dr Carmichael?
-
Dr Carmichael?
have you heard of predictive text''''perhaps I need to turn it off
-
Very true Brietta so why use it to sue Amaral rather than actually look for their beloved daughter. I admire them for writing the book even if I don't believe every thing in it. I certainly don't approve of using donated funds to sue someone though. I would not have done that myself.
In a democracy there is no place for police to choose to ignore evidence while setting themselves up as prosecutor ~ judge ~ and jury.
That sort of behaviour is reserved for police states.
Snip
Gonçalo Amaral told DN that such information "does not have any credibility for the Portuguese Police", being "completely put aside".
He added that his English colleagues "have been investigating tips and information created and worked out by the McCanns, forgetting that the couple is suspected of the death of their daughter Madeleine."
https://expresso.sapo.pt/dossies/dossiest_actualidade/dos_madeleine_mccan/dirigente-sindical-da-pj-concorda-com-saida-de-goncalo-amaral=f131683#gs.f7RpRnk
Nor is there any place for a former police officer whose theory has been disproved by more competent colleagues to write a book which defames the parents of the child he has declared is dead without a shred of evidence to support his claim.
-
Any decision to search or to hire a PI would also be a gamble. There was no guarantee that they will look in the right place or that the PI will find something new.
Yes, they don't have a great track record in their decisions, do they? Bad luck or bad judgement I wonder?
-
The McCann's were made suspects when the dogs alerted...the pj thought they had proof that Maddie had died in the apartment..it's all in the archiving report...
The PJ then realised they had no evidence....
The present situation according to De carmo is that the McCann's are not suspects and there's no evidence against them... obviously if evidence was found that would change
I think the McCanns were suspected before the dogs set paw in Portugal. They were made arguidos after informing the PJ they were away home. In my opinion it was a case of have a go or do nothing and watch them disappear.
-
Members are reminded that cites must be provided in accordance with the forum rules. On several occasions recently cites have been requested but never provided. Asking for a cite is not goading but compliance.
From this moment onward, posts making significant claims which are not backed up by a cite will be removed.
Moderators and Editors take note!
-
Members are reminded that cites must be provided in accordance with the forum rules. On several occasions recently cites have been requested but never provided. Asking for a cite is not goading but compliance.
From this moment onward, posts making significant claims which are not backed up by a cite will be removed.
Moderators and Editors take note!
excellent john...I hope the rule is rigourously enforced.
-
I think the McCanns were suspected before the dogs set paw in Portugal. They were made arguidos after informing the PJ they were away home. In my opinion it was a case of have a go or do nothing and watch them disappear.
How could they possibly disappear? I don't think you have quite thought that post through.
-
How could they possibly disappear? I don't think you have quite thought that post through.
They disappeared from Portugal for quite a while.
-
I think the McCanns were suspected before the dogs set paw in Portugal. They were made arguidos after informing the PJ they were away home. In my opinion it was a case of have a go or do nothing and watch them disappear.
If you read the archiving report it lists the indications which were used to make the mccanns arguidos.....parents of a missing child are always suspects initially
-
If you read the archiving report it lists the indications which were used to make the mccanns arguidos.....parents of a missing child are always suspects initially
Suspects and arguidos are different ideas. Had they been arguidos from the beginning the relationship with the PJ could have been more strained IMO. They were kept under surveillance without being declared arguidos up until September.
-
Suspects and arguidos are different ideas. Had they been arguidos from the beginning the relationship with the PJ could have been more strained IMO. They were kept under surveillance without being declared arguidos up until September.
perhaps i should ahve used the word official suspects...the alerts certainly changed the attitude of the PJ to the mccanns...i think its no doubt they were a turning point
-
Members are reminded that cites must be provided in accordance with the forum rules. On several occasions recently cites have been requested but never provided. Asking for a cite is not goading but compliance.
From this moment onward, posts making significant claims which are not backed up by a cite will be removed.
Moderators and Editors take note!
John, can I make this my signature please?
-
have you heard of predictive text''''perhaps I need to turn it off
No problem, thought I had missed something.
-
excellent john...I hope the rule is rigourously enforced.
So do I Davel, so do I.
-
excellent john...I hope the rule is rigourously enforced.
I won't be in a hurry to enforce it for it seems a time consuming process to find out if a cite was answered at all.
I have let John know of the difficulty.
-
I won't be in a hurry to enforce it for it seems a time consuming process to find out if a cite was answered at all.
I have let John know of the difficulty.
Perhaps there would be less difficulty if the forum was treated less than a point scoring war zone and more of a discussion forum where actual discussion was allowed to take place.
-
Perhaps there would be less difficulty if the forum was treated less than a point scoring war zone and more of a discussion forum where actual discussion was allowed to take place.
How useful is discussion if people post opinions but claim they are facts? The only way to check if a fact is a fact is by a cite being provided. The rules which distinguish opinion from fact were introduced because heated arguments were taking place over unsubstantiated 'facts', as I recall.
I don't think the media were wrong to settle out of court because they were guilty of repeating rumours about what evidence the PJ had. Unlike Amaral who repeated what the PJ actually had, as the Portuguese courts noted.
-
How useful is discussion if people post opinions but claim they are facts? The only way to check if a fact is a fact is by a cite being provided. The rules which distinguish opinion from fact were introduced because heated arguments were taking place over unsubstantiated 'facts', as I recall.
I don't think the media were wrong to settle out of court because they were guilty of repeating rumours about what evidence the PJ had. Unlike Amaral who repeated what the PJ actually had, as the Portuguese courts noted.
The courts said most of what amaral said was in the files.... he added to them with things that were not true...he also misrepresented some of the evidence
-
The courts said most of what amaral said was in the files.... he added to them with things that were not true...he also misrepresented some of the evidence
In your opinion.
-
How useful is discussion if people post opinions but claim they are facts? The only way to check if a fact is a fact is by a cite being provided. The rules which distinguish opinion from fact were introduced because heated arguments were taking place over unsubstantiated 'facts', as I recall.
I don't think the media were wrong to settle out of court because they were guilty of repeating rumours about what evidence the PJ had. Unlike Amaral who repeated what the PJ actually had, as the Portuguese courts noted.
There was a moment in time when Amaral was in charge of an investigation which in my opinion followed entirely the wrong tack.
That situation was rectified when he was sacked and replaced by a competent investigation led by Paulo Rebelo which followed and investigated the evidence which had been misunderstood and which was misinterpreted by the investigation despite having Portuguese experts on hand well capable of interpreting and explaining complex scientific data to them.
Rebelo did that. He carried out due diligence and followed and analysed the evidence.
Snip
The comments came a day after a four-strong team of Portuguese police and forensic experts met with their British counterparts in Leicestershire to hold a “summit” on the case.
The Portuguese team spent Thursday afternoon with five experts from Birmingham’s Forensic Science Service (FSS) considering DNA results from tests the organisation has been conducting on behalf of the authorities in Portugal over the last four months.
The tests are said to have been carried out on microscopic blood samples, bodily fluids and hair found in the McCanns’ holiday apartment and the vehicle they hired 25 days after the four-year-old disappeared.
Sources close to the investigation said the results had proved “inconclusive” and were not alone strong enough to support a prosecution against Madeleine’s parents.
But following “crisis talks” over the future of the investigation at the regional headquarters of the Policia Judiciaria in Faro, detectives were finally granted permission to pursue their inquiries in Britain, according to a report on SIC, the Portuguese news broadcaster.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1571058/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-may-face-more-questions.html
Goncalo Amaral coordinated an investigation which reached opinions and conclusions which were superseded and dismissed by properly conducted investigation which resulted in the McCanns and Murat being released from their arguido status with what should have been without a stain on their characters.
Patently that did not happen.
The misconceptions of the original investigation were leaked to the Portuguese press and were picked up and repeated by the British press as well as worldwide.
But that was not the whole story ... the reasons behind making the McCanns arguidos could not be sustained once the forensics came in and were understood and the owner of the English dogs actual statement was released and understood.
The press printed defamation and libel and paid the price as a result not least to their integrity.
Don't you think it is about time that you and others consign the failed first investigation with it's interim report to the dustbin of history where it belongs.
In my opinion it signifies little more than failure and a stumbling investigation which had lost its way leaving Rebelo to pick up the pieces until ... sadly for Madeleine ... he was in my opinion overtaken by the legal strictures of time which led to her case being archived.
-
If Rebelo's investigation was so positive for the McCanns why did their friends refuse to take part in a reconstruction in May 2008 which would surely have enabled narrowing down the window of opportunity for any abductor.
-
How useful is discussion if people post opinions but claim they are facts? The only way to check if a fact is a fact is by a cite being provided. The rules which distinguish opinion from fact were introduced because heated arguments were taking place over unsubstantiated 'facts', as I recall.
I don't think the media were wrong to settle out of court because they were guilty of repeating rumours about what evidence the PJ had. Unlike Amaral who repeated what the PJ actually had, as the Portuguese courts noted.
But the PJ still only had opinion and and not hard cold facts.
-
If Rebelo's investigation was so positive for the McCanns why did their friends refuse to take part in a reconstruction in May 2008 which would surely have enabled narrowing down the window of opportunity for any abductor.
How could it have proved anything or narrowed anything?
-
There was a moment in time when Amaral was in charge of an investigation which in my opinion followed entirely the wrong tack.
That situation was rectified when he was sacked and replaced by a competent investigation led by Paulo Rebelo which followed and investigated the evidence which had been misunderstood and which was misinterpreted by the investigation despite having Portuguese experts on hand well capable of interpreting and explaining complex scientific data to them.
Rebelo did that. He carried out due diligence and followed and analysed the evidence.
Snip
The comments came a day after a four-strong team of Portuguese police and forensic experts met with their British counterparts in Leicestershire to hold a “summit” on the case.
The Portuguese team spent Thursday afternoon with five experts from Birmingham’s Forensic Science Service (FSS) considering DNA results from tests the organisation has been conducting on behalf of the authorities in Portugal over the last four months.
The tests are said to have been carried out on microscopic blood samples, bodily fluids and hair found in the McCanns’ holiday apartment and the vehicle they hired 25 days after the four-year-old disappeared.
Sources close to the investigation said the results had proved “inconclusive” and were not alone strong enough to support a prosecution against Madeleine’s parents.
But following “crisis talks” over the future of the investigation at the regional headquarters of the Policia Judiciaria in Faro, detectives were finally granted permission to pursue their inquiries in Britain, according to a report on SIC, the Portuguese news broadcaster.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1571058/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-may-face-more-questions.html
Goncalo Amaral coordinated an investigation which reached opinions and conclusions which were superseded and dismissed by properly conducted investigation which resulted in the McCanns and Murat being released from their arguido status with what should have been without a stain on their characters.
Patently that did not happen.
The misconceptions of the original investigation were leaked to the Portuguese press and were picked up and repeated by the British press as well as worldwide.
But that was not the whole story ... the reasons behind making the McCanns arguidos could not be sustained once the forensics came in and were understood and the owner of the English dogs actual statement was released and understood.
The press printed defamation and libel and paid the price as a result not least to their integrity.
Don't you think it is about time that you and others consign the failed first investigation with it's interim report to the dustbin of history where it belongs.
In my opinion it signifies little more than failure and a stumbling investigation which had lost its way leaving Rebelo to pick up the pieces until ... sadly for Madeleine ... he was in my opinion overtaken by the legal strictures of time which led to her case being archived.
I wonder why you chose to ignore my first paragraph?
-
How could it have proved anything or narrowed anything?
If they could pin down the times that people walked backwards and forwards in front of 5a they may be able to see windows when an abductor may have been able to go in and snatch Maddie.
-
I wonder why you chose to ignore my first paragraph?
Please desist from this nonsense.
As signified by "Snip" the extract I posted what was relative to my post.
As signified by https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1571058/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-may-face-more-questions.html the whole article is available here.
In my opinion you are deflecting from the content of the post ... particularly as you have studiously avoided any reference to it relying instead on nit-picking.
Are you here to take part in discussion ... or are you here to obstruct opinions with which you disagree?
-
Please desist from this nonsense.
As signified by "Snip" the extract I posted what was relative to my post.
As signified by https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1571058/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-may-face-more-questions.html the whole article is available here.
In my opinion you are deflecting from the content of the post ... particularly as you have studiously avoided any reference to it relying instead on nit-picking.
Are you here to take part in discussion ... or are you here to obstruct opinions with which you disagree?
Sorry, I didn't understand why you launched an attack on Amaral. I simply pointed out that he won the libel action taken out against him by the McCanns. In my opinion the UK newspapers probably would have lost if they had chosen to go to court because they didn't stick to the facts like he did.
I'm quite happy to discuss opinions posted as opinions or facts with cites. I have no interest in arguing whether an opinion is or is not a fact.
-
If they could pin down the times that people walked backwards and forwards in front of 5a they may be able to see windows when an abductor may have been able to go in and snatch Maddie.
You could do that on paper.
-
Sorry, I didn't understand why you launched an attack on Amaral. I simply pointed out that he won the libel action taken out against him by the McCanns. In my opinion the UK newspapers probably would have lost if they had chosen to go to court because they didn't stick to the facts like he did.
I'm quite happy to discuss opinions posted as opinions or facts with cites. I have no interest in arguing whether an opinion is or is not a fact.
He didn't stick to the facts...Eddie did not find a cadaver under a slab of concrete in Jersey and did not help solve 200 cases...
-
You could do that on paper.
Indeed you could, but if you have the people present then any disputes between witnesses can be more easily resolved.
-
Indeed you could, but if you have the people present then any disputes between witnesses can be more easily resolved.
Ot would have been fascinating watching JW wandering about wherever with his pushchair from 8.15 to whenever. Would he and Gerry McCann have ever met, I wonder?
Perhaps each person would have played their parts alone. So JW could have retraced his movements that evening and the PJ could have observed how long it took him to arrive at 5A?
Another useful exercise would have been timing exactly how long it took each person to do what they said they did.
-
Ot would have been fascinating watching JW wandering about wherever with his pushchair from 8.15 to whenever. Would he and Gerry McCann have ever met, I wonder?
Perhaps each person would have played their parts alone. So JW could have retraced his movements that evening and the PJ could have observed how long it took him to arrive at 5A?
Another useful exercise would have been timing exactly how long it took each person to do what they said they did.
Which was the purpose of a reconstruction. It would not only jog the memories of the participants it would also have shown whether what was claimed to have happened actually did. Both of these in conjunction with narrowing any time of opportunity for an abductor. There fore I think that the McCanns friends failure to agree to a recon was a major blow in finding Madeleine (a so called massive stone left unturned) IMO
-
Which was the purpose of a reconstruction. It would not only jog the memories of the participants it would also have shown whether what was claimed to have happened actually did. Both of these in conjunction with narrowing any time of opportunity for an abductor. There fore I think that the McCanns friends failure to agree to a recon was a major blow in finding Madeleine (a so called massive stone left unturned) IMO
And others... including me...disagree
-
And others... including me...disagree
In what way do you disagree Davel.
-
In what way do you disagree Davel.
I don't think it would have been any use whatsoever
-
Sorry, I didn't understand why you launched an attack on Amaral. I simply pointed out that he won the libel action taken out against him by the McCanns. In my opinion the UK newspapers probably would have lost if they had chosen to go to court because they didn't stick to the facts like he did.
I'm quite happy to discuss opinions posted as opinions or facts with cites. I have no interest in arguing whether an opinion is or is not a fact.
Let's start here then shall we ... I think the post you have ignored meets your stated criteria as opinion is backed with cited fact.
There was a moment in time when Amaral was in charge of an investigation which in my opinion followed entirely the wrong tack.
That situation was rectified when he was sacked and replaced by a competent investigation led by Paulo Rebelo which followed and investigated the evidence which had been misunderstood and which was misinterpreted by the investigation despite having Portuguese experts on hand well capable of interpreting and explaining complex scientific data to them.
Rebelo did that. He carried out due diligence and followed and analysed the evidence.
Snip
The comments came a day after a four-strong team of Portuguese police and forensic experts met with their British counterparts in Leicestershire to hold a “summit” on the case.
The Portuguese team spent Thursday afternoon with five experts from Birmingham’s Forensic Science Service (FSS) considering DNA results from tests the organisation has been conducting on behalf of the authorities in Portugal over the last four months.
The tests are said to have been carried out on microscopic blood samples, bodily fluids and hair found in the McCanns’ holiday apartment and the vehicle they hired 25 days after the four-year-old disappeared.
Sources close to the investigation said the results had proved “inconclusive” and were not alone strong enough to support a prosecution against Madeleine’s parents.
But following “crisis talks” over the future of the investigation at the regional headquarters of the Policia Judiciaria in Faro, detectives were finally granted permission to pursue their inquiries in Britain, according to a report on SIC, the Portuguese news broadcaster.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1571058/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-may-face-more-questions.html
Goncalo Amaral coordinated an investigation which reached opinions and conclusions which were superseded and dismissed by properly conducted investigation which resulted in the McCanns and Murat being released from their arguido status with what should have been without a stain on their characters.
Patently that did not happen.
The misconceptions of the original investigation were leaked to the Portuguese press and were picked up and repeated by the British press as well as worldwide.
But that was not the whole story ... the reasons behind making the McCanns arguidos could not be sustained once the forensics came in and were understood and the owner of the English dogs actual statement was released and understood.
The press printed defamation and libel and paid the price as a result not least to their integrity.
Don't you think it is about time that you and others consign the failed first investigation with it's interim report to the dustbin of history where it belongs.
In my opinion it signifies little more than failure and a stumbling investigation which had lost its way leaving Rebelo to pick up the pieces until ... sadly for Madeleine ... he was in my opinion overtaken by the legal strictures of time which led to her case being archived.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9827.msg476872#msg476872
-
Which was the purpose of a reconstruction. It would not only jog the memories of the participants it would also have shown whether what was claimed to have happened actually did. Both of these in conjunction with narrowing any time of opportunity for an abductor. There fore I think that the McCanns friends failure to agree to a recon was a major blow in finding Madeleine (a so called massive stone left unturned) IMO
In my opinion I don't think any of us appreciate exactly what the role of the reconstitution actually is as far as the Portuguese police are concerned.
Crime watch it is not.
In my opinion several major blows to finding Madeleine had already been delivered long before the reconstitution was proposed ... the principal one being the promotion of the belief that Madeleine was dead.
-
The truth is the McCanns failed to prove their case against Amaral as they were required to do.
Have you read the SC judgement...or the appeal after the SC judgement.. .that isn't what it says
-
In my opinion I don't think any of us appreciate exactly what the role of the reconstitution actually is as far as the Portuguese police are concerned.
Crime watch it is not.
In my opinion several major blows to finding Madeleine had already been delivered long before the reconstitution was proposed ... the principal one being the promotion of the belief that Madeleine was dead.
It was only to be expected that the investigation stopped following the abduction from the bedroom theory since forensics ruled out any intruder having entered via a window. Next stop was either woke and wandered or staging which required parental involvement. Both these scenarios have deadly outcomes for the child so little wonder.
-
Have you read the SC judgement...or the appeal after the SC judgement.. .that isn't what it says
In Portugal it is the complainants who have to prove their case for libel. They failed...end off!!
-
In Portugal it is the complainants who have to prove their case for libel. They failed...end off!!
So you haven't read any of the judgements that explain it...
And it's certainly not the way ECHR law works which Portugal is subject to
-
In my opinion I don't think any of us appreciate exactly what the role of the reconstitution actually is as far as the Portuguese police are concerned.
Crime watch it is not.
In my opinion several major blows to finding Madeleine had already been delivered long before the reconstitution was proposed ... the principal one being the promotion of the belief that Madeleine was dead.
Most European countries use the reconstitution because they have similar legal systems. The UK is the odd one out.
-
So you haven't read any of the judgements that explain it...
And it's certainly not the way ECHR law works which Portugal is subject to
I believe you are going to be very disappointed Davel. When the ECHR finally makes a decision either way I don't believe it will be favourable towards the McCanns. Even if it was the SC was clear that they hadn't been shown to be innocent. Their reasoning was fact based and achieved by reading the final statement by the AG who also said the McCanns lost the chance to prove their innocence.
-
I believe you are going to be very disappointed Davel. When the ECHR finally makes a decision either way I don't believe it will be favourable towards the McCanns. Even if it was the SC was clear that they hadn't been shown to be innocent. Their reasoning was fact based and achieved by reading the final statement by the AG who also said the McCanns lost the chance to prove their innocence.
Fortunately and hopefully their innocence will be decided by the current investigation.
No one and I repeat no one should be described as having " lost the chance to prove their innocence".
I find that a truly repellent concept.
-
I believe you are going to be very disappointed Davel. When the ECHR finally makes a decision either way I don't believe it will be favourable towards the McCanns. Even if it was the SC was clear that they hadn't been shown to be innocent. Their reasoning was fact based and achieved by reading the final statement by the AG who also said the McCanns lost the chance to prove their innocence.
The very fact that the mccanns we're expected to prove their innocence is in breach of the ECHR... And a massive own goal for the SC... They are entitled to be presumed innocent... I've looked at quite a few rulings by the ECHR.... I doubt you are familiar with any
-
I believe you are going to be very disappointed Davel. When the ECHR finally makes a decision either way I don't believe it will be favourable towards the McCanns. Even if it was the SC was clear that they hadn't been shown to be innocent. Their reasoning was fact based and achieved by reading the final statement by the AG who also said the McCanns lost the chance to prove their innocence.
Whatever the AG said is a matter of opinion (the AG expressed an opinion). What Tavares says in his report was also opinion. The Portuguese case against the McCanns was mostly opinion, and that is why now 10 years later Pedro do Carmo admitted they don't have any evidence against the McCanns. Opinions are not evidence, hunches are not evidence.
-
Whatever the AG said is a matter of opinion (the AG expressed an opinion). What Tavares says in his report was also opinion. The Portuguese case against the McCanns was mostly opinion, and that is why now 10 years later Pedro do Carmo admitted they don't have any evidence against the McCanns. Opinions are not evidence, hunches are not evidence.
From what I have read on the EcHR... Any accusations made need to be supported by evidence... Amarals claims are not
-
Whatever the AG said is a matter of opinion (the AG expressed an opinion). What Tavares says in his report was also opinion. The Portuguese case against the McCanns was mostly opinion, and that is why now 10 years later Pedro do Carmo admitted they don't have any evidence against the McCanns. Opinions are not evidence, hunches are not evidence.
You are right Robittybob1 but we are talking about senior judges used to difficult cases in law and senior policemen. Both would have more of an idea of the facts and the case law than any of us IMO.
-
You are right Robittybob1 but we are talking about senior judges used to difficult cases in law and senior policemen. Both would have more of an idea of the facts and the case law than any of us IMO.
I agree, but when you look at the case against the McCanns it seems to be all opinion, opinions expressed in a way that with time they seem to become like fact. The fact was the opinions were made public when the file was released, but they are still opinions even if they are translated into English or if they are repeated in Amaral's book or mentioned by the SC judges.
-
You are right Robittybob1 but we are talking about senior judges used to difficult cases in law and senior policemen. Both would have more of an idea of the facts and the case law than any of us IMO.
senior judges who have lost two cases at the ECHR in the last three or for months...misty has provided the cites and they are on the ECHR website........senior judges who get things wrong sometimes..Ive looked at cases on the ECHR website...ive posted them here...where the ECHR have ruled against frweedom of speech when it has not been based on sound evidence
-
senior judges who have lost two cases at the ECHR in the last three or for months...misty has provided the cites and they are on the ECHR website........senior judges who get things wrong sometimes..Ive looked at cases on the ECHR website...ive posted them here...where the ECHR have ruled against frweedom of speech when it has not been based on sound evidence
Let's hope the McCanns are also successful with their case to the ECHR.
-
Let's hope the McCanns are also successful with their case to the ECHR.
judging by past cases they absolutely will be ...imo...its pointless saying teh SC were senior judges,...senior judges get things wrong
The Supreme Court dismissed Mr Fernandes Pedroso’s appeal on points of law
In today’s Chamber judgment1
in the case of Fernandes Pedroso v. Portugal (application
no. 59133/11) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
a violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security of person / procedural safeguards
on review of the lawfulness of detention / right to compensation) of the European Convention on
Human Rights.
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press#{%22itemid%22:[%22003-6112470-7888149%22]}
thats june this year
-
Let's hope the McCanns are also successful with their case to the ECHR.
Why ? Will it improve the situation Madeleine finds herself in ?
-
Why ? Will it improve the situation Madeleine finds herself in ?
no but some of us believe in justice
-
Why ? Will it improve the situation Madeleine finds herself in ?
Yes because they ought to be striving for continual improvement. The way cases of missing children are handled. from the beginning.
-
Yes because they ought to be striving for continual improvement. The way cases of missing children are handled. from the beginning.
The problem is Robittybob1 that the Metropolitan Police havent learned much as the Tia Sharp case was a shambles.
-
Yes because they ought to be striving for continual improvement. The way cases of missing children are handled. from the beginning.
How will the ECHR result make any difference to that ? They are not making a judgement on how the case was conducted.
-
How will the ECHR result make any difference to that ? They are not making a judgement on how the case was conducted.
But it will jolt the Portuguese into looking at themselves, if they lose. Well I hope so, for the alternative is for them to turn around and complain that the ECHR is always picking on them, claiming there a conspiracy against a sovereign Portugal!
-
The problem is Robittybob1 that the Metropolitan Police havent learned much as the Tia Sharp case was a shambles.
I'm not familiar with the case so I can't comment.
-
The problem is Robittybob1 that the Metropolitan Police havent learned much as the Tia Sharp case was a shambles.
thatsounds like opinion...not fact...do you have a cite
-
thatsounds like opinion...not fact...do you have a cite
I took it as opinion.
-
The very fact that the mccanns we're expected to prove their innocence is in breach of the ECHR... And a massive own goal for the SC... They are entitled to be presumed innocent... I've looked at quite a few rulings by the ECHR.... I doubt you are familiar with any
In 2011 Portugal's record at the ECHR was on a par with that of France. Italy was appealed against more times than either of them and Greece twice as many times. Spain was complained about less than the UK. Perhaps the group should have gone to Spain.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jan/27/european-court-human-rights-judgments
-
In 2011 Portugal's record at the ECHR was on a par with that of France. Italy was appealed against more times than either of them and Greece twice as many times. Spain was complained about less than the UK. Perhaps the group should have gone to Spain.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jan/27/european-court-human-rights-judgments
every case is an individual case
-
every case is an individual case
True, and 97% are rejected.
-
True, and 97% are rejected.
Do you have a cite for this
-
Do you have a cite for this
Maybe you should read the cite provided.
-
Maybe you should read the cite provided.
Gunit has not provided back cite
-
Gunit has not provided back cite
See #436
-
Maybe you should read the cite provided.
Simple courtesy would have solved the problem...
Current figures do not tally with that which is going back 50 years...I can't provide a cite at the moment
-
See #436
I don't see why gunit could not have replied
-
True, and 97% are rejected.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/jan/25/european-court-of-human-rights
How many applications are there to the court? And how many are upheld?
The ECtHR annual report (pdf) for 2011 lists for the UK:
The number of applications: 2,766
The number declared inadmissible or struck out: 1,175
Applications referred to government: 68
Applications declared inadmissible: 27
Judgements overall: 21
Judgements resolved by unilateral withdrawal or friendly settlement: 3
Judgement finding at least one violation: 14
Judgements finding no violation: 7
your figures are way out of date...these figures show about 40%
-
I don't see why gunit could not have replied
Sorry, I was busy with other things; breakfast being one of them.
-
True, and 97% are rejected.
your stateemnt is false....you are quoting the present...97 does not represent the current rate of refusal
-
your stateemnt is false....you are quoting the present...97 does not represent the current rate of refusal
The statement is true, based on the cite.
-
I think you misunderstand Inadmissable or Struck Out Davel. I think those didn't even get to the ECHR.
From your Cite IMO there were only 21 judgments given by the ECHR from 2,766 applications and of those only 14 found a violation so upheld the complainant.
14 out of 2766 is not 40%
-
2017 figures.
Of 85,951 applications decided it found 908 violations.
About 1% success rate.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Facts_Figures_2017_ENG.pdf (https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Facts_Figures_2017_ENG.pdf)
-
we all know it is not easy to mount a succesful ECHR case........but from what I have read the Mccanns have a very strong case...a very strong case
-
Perhaps you could go back and amend your original incorrect post Davel, where you made a claim of 40%
-
your stateemnt is false....you are quoting the present...97 does not represent the current rate of refusal
Davel could you please change your statement of 40% as it is you who are incorrect. You are quick to ask others to change their posts so please do the same yourself.
-
we all know it is not easy to mount a succesful ECHR case........but from what I have read the Mccanns have a very strong case...a very strong case
Yes, it's probably a foregone conclusion lol. Some people thought it was a foregone conclusion that the would defeat Amaral when they sued him. Time will tell.
-
Yes, it's probably a foregone conclusion lol. Some people thought it was a foregone conclusion that the would defeat Amaral when they sued him. Time will tell.
From amaral demeanor ithink he felt he could lose...if I remember he talked about going to the ECHR if he lost
-
But Davel, Amaral didn't lose did he, the McCanns lost so IMO his demeanor at that time is irrelevant. I wonder what the McCanns demeanor is like at present.
-
Davel could you please change your statement of 40% as it is you who are incorrect. You are quick to ask others to change their posts so please do the same yourself.
Has anyone else checked the figures?
-
Davel's claim was because he misread the information he provided in his cite IMO. Others have provided cites and it never looks anywhere near a 40% success rate Robittybob1
-
Has anyone else checked the figures?
Why? do you think they are incorrect?
LBTR[it pays not to have the attention span of a stick insect when reading this and all the associated links ?{)(**]
https://fullfact.org/news/does-uk-lose-three-out-four-european-human-rights-cases/
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_ECHR_lawyers_ENG.pdf
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_analysis_2017_ENG.pdf
-
In the UK the person making the allegation has to prove it whereas in Portugal the person allegedly maligned has to prove that they were defamed. Thus why the McCanns lost the libel action against Amaral.
The McCanns have never had to defend any defamation allegation since every newspaper rolled over and paid up. In essence the newspapers would have to have proved their stories were true but to do that they needed to prove the parents guilty. That was an impossible ask.
How did that apply in the recent award to Murat?
-
Why? do you think they are incorrect?
LBTR[it pays not to have the attention span of a stick insect when reading this and all the associated links ?{)(**]
https://fullfact.org/news/does-uk-lose-three-out-four-european-human-rights-cases/
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_ECHR_lawyers_ENG.pdf
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_analysis_2017_ENG.pdf
I don't trust my arithmetic. Has Davel accepted he made an error?
-
I don't trust my arithmetic. Has Davel accepted he made an error?
Does that make a difference then?
-
I don't trust my arithmetic. Has Davel accepted he made an error?
Does that make a difference then?
-
Does that make a difference then?
I'm not bothering looking at the maths unless enough were to claim Davel was wrong
-
I'm not bothering looking at the maths unless enough were to claim Davel was wrong
Rob, the maths says Davel got it wrong. I know in the past some organisations have had votes of the value of pi, whatever they voted for did not effect the actual value.
-
Rob, the maths says Davel got it wrong. I know in the past some organisations have had votes of the value of pi, whatever they voted for did not effect the actual value.
Fair enough I may be obliged to have a look at it myself then.
-
Fair enough I may be obliged to have a look at it myself then.
I provided a cite that current finding of violations was running around the 1% of total case mark.
-
I'm not bothering looking at the maths unless enough were to claim Davel was wrong
If you can't be arsed to read the cites given that puts the kibosh on the cites idea then.
As you were back on yer 'eads.
-
The cite that Davel gave himself was pretty explicit (although he misunderstood it himself). In over 2600 cases attempted to be admitted to the ECHR in 2011 from the UK only 14 were successful. That is not 40% in anyone,s book but I don't see him backing down anytime soon.
-
The cite that Davel gave himself was pretty explicit (although he misunderstood it himself). In over 2600 cases attempted to be admitted to the ECHR in 2011 from the UK only 14 were successful. That is not 40% in anyone,s book but I don't see him backing down anytime soon.
I'm not too bothered with the mathematics of the thing as it will all come out in the wash as to whether or not the McCann case is heard in Europe ... and I have every confidence it meets the criteria for so doing.
But a thought occurs regarding the country of origin (as you say the UK). Isn't the McCann case Portuguese? and as we have seen on the forum of late, the ECHR is currently cutting a swathe through Portuguese judgements.
-
I'm not too bothered with the mathematics of the thing as it will all come out in the wash as to whether or not the McCann case is heard in Europe ... and I have every confidence it meets the criteria for so doing.
But a thought occurs regarding the country of origin (as you say the UK). Isn't the McCann case Portuguese? and as we have seen on the forum of late, the ECHR is currently cutting a swathe through Portuguese judgements.
"the ECHR is currently cutting a swathe through Portuguese judgements." Is it? News to me. *%87
-
I'm not too bothered with the mathematics of the thing as it will all come out in the wash as to whether or not the McCann case is heard in Europe ... and I have every confidence it meets the criteria for so doing.
But a thought occurs regarding the country of origin (as you say the UK). Isn't the McCann case Portuguese? and as we have seen on the forum of late, the ECHR is currently cutting a swathe through Portuguese judgements.
Do you have a cite for ‘cutting a swathe through Portuguese judgements’ ?
-
"the ECHR is currently cutting a swathe through Portuguese judgements." Is it? News to me. *%87
News to me too ... until I read recent ECHR judgements cited on the forum. Sometimes the forum is very informative re current affairs. Particularly that posted by Misty regarding the discontent in Portugal amongst Portuguese citizens regarding human rights as epitomised by recent judgements of the courts.
-
Do you have a cite for ‘cutting a swathe through Portuguese judgements’ ?
The descriptive words are my very own so unless you wish me to cite myself ... no I do not have one. But if you care to keep apace with the ongoing discussion you will note the cites provided by others of recent ECHR judgements relating to the Portuguese State which have helped to form my opinion.
-
News to me too ... until I read recent ECHR judgements cited on the forum. Sometimes the forum is very informative re current affairs. Particularly that posted by Misty regarding the discontent in Portugal amongst Portuguese citizens regarding human rights as epitomised by recent judgements of the courts.
Have you read the Guardian recently ? How many vulnerable, disabled people have had their human rights disregarded in the quest by our government to follow a callous ideology.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-accused-of-kicking-un-concerns-about-its-austerity-policy-into-the-long-grass-a7569761.html
Before you start kicking Portugal’s record on human rights you should be looking somewhat nearer to home.
-
"the ECHR is currently cutting a swathe through Portuguese judgements." Is it? News to me. *%87
then you obviously have not kept up to date with current ECHR rulings
-
2017 applications made to the ECHR
152 against Portugal.
130 against the UK
141 against Switzerland
321 against Belgium
20 against Denmark
14 against Finland
359 against France.
7,747 against Russia.
Portugal. like the UK, seems to be in the middle to low range.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_analysis_2017_ENG.pdf
-
2017 applications made to the ECHR
152 against Portugal.
130 against the UK
141 against Switzerland
321 against Belgium
20 against Denmark
14 against Finland
359 against France.
7,747 against Russia.
Portugal. like the UK, seems to be in the middle to low range.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_analysis_2017_ENG.pdf
I believe that at one time the UK was a front runner in these stakes ... but in this instance the focus is on the McCann action which I get the impression that some hope not to even reach first base.
I think it will though ... and I think it will be a home run.
-
then you obviously have not kept up to date with current ECHR rulings
As neither you nor Brietta are willing to provide evidence to support this claim, I am filing it in my waste basket.
&^^&*
-
As neither you nor Brietta are willing to provide evidence to support this claim, I am filing it in my waste basket.
&^^&*
the evidence has already been provided...most of what you post goes straight into my waste basket so fair enough
-
Posters are reminded of the forum rules and in particular should keep comments, RELATIVE, AMIABLE and CONSTRUCTIVE. You could call it the RAC of the forum world.
Please do not engage in sniping, goading or name calling as such conduct will attract penalties.
Have a great weekend everyone!!
-
the evidence has already been provided...most of what you post goes straight into my waste basket so fair enough
Oh dear - the old "evidence has already been provided" strategy. %56&
-
Probably as off topic as all the posts earlier but I have some figures for Portugal as apparently Davel's UK weren't suitable.
The Court dealt with 222 applications concerning Portugal in 2017, of which 209 were declared
inadmissible or struck out. It delivered 13 judgments (concerning 13 applications), 10 of which
found at least one violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.
SO 2017 we have 10 out of 222 applications in Portugal which I get to just under 5% success rate for applicants.
Here is the cite https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/CP_Portugal_ENG.pdf
-
Probably as off topic as all the posts earlier but I have some figures for Portugal as apparently Davel's UK weren't suitable.
The Court dealt with 222 applications concerning Portugal in 2017, of which 209 were declared
inadmissible or struck out. It delivered 13 judgments (concerning 13 applications), 10 of which
found at least one violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.
SO 2017 we have 10 out of 222 applications in Portugal which I get to just under 5% success rate for applicants.
Here is the cite https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/CP_Portugal_ENG.pdf
Many thanks for your time and effort. *&(+(+
-
Can we stay on topic please.
-
Can we stay on topic please.
What was the topic?
-
What was the topic?
It’s the words at the top of each post.
-
It’s the words at the top of each post.
When I look at those words I being to wonder if "Were the media wrong to settle defamation actions out of court?" should have been written more correctly as "Was the media wrong to settle defamation actions out of court?" Is "the media" singular or plural?
-
Were the media wrong to settle defamation actions out of court?
No! That's the customary way to play the game.
-
Were the media wrong to settle defamation actions out of court?
No! That's the customary way to play the game.
What game?
-
When I look at those words I being to wonder if "Were the media wrong to settle defamation actions out of court?" should have been written more correctly as "Was the media wrong to settle defamation actions out of court?" Is "the media" singular or plural?
Which would you say is correct?
The media were wrong to settle out of court
or
The media was wrong to settle out of court
-
Which would you say is correct?
The media were wrong to settle out of court
or
The media was wrong to settle out of court
I think 'media' is plural so should be treated as such ... but "The media was wrong" sounds good to me too ... so anybody's guess.
-
What game?
The game that is the subject of this thread.
Libel and out of court settlements.
-
Were the media wrong to settle defamation actions out of court?
No! That's the customary way to play the game.
agreed ....there really is no question about out it...
-
I think 'media' is plural so should be treated as such ... but "The media was wrong" sounds good to me too ... so anybody's guess.
Or is it a singular noun for which no plural exists?
As in "news" or "measles"
Or just between you and I, "manners"
8(0(*
-
Or is it a singular noun for which no plural exists?
As in "news" or "measles"
Or just between you and I, "manners"
8(0(*
oh dear alice......medium singular ... media plural...is it second declension neuter...like bellum
-
oh dear alice......medium singular ... media plural...is it fourth declension neutral...like bellum
I do rather like the idea of "mainstream medium". Now all put a finger on this upturned glass and watch out for ectoplasm..... *%87
-
I do rather like the idea of "mainstream medium". Now all put a finger on this upturned glass and watch out for ectoplasm..... *%87
I think ive caught you out with my superior knowledge of latin...
-
The game that is the subject of this thread.
Libel and out of court settlements.
Fair enough that is a game alright.
-
I think ive caught you out with my superior knowledge of latin...
Well brains which is it were or was?
-
Well brains which is it were or was?
its quite simple...was is singular...were is plural....media is second declension pleural
-
its quite simple...was is singular...were is plural....
As Angelo said "Which would you say is correct?
The media were wrong to settle out of court
or
The media was wrong to settle out of court"
What is you plain and simple answer Davel?
-
As Angelo said "Which would you say is correct?
The media were wrong to settle out of court
or
The media was wrong to settle out of court"
What is you plain and simple answer Davel?
ive given a plain and simple factual explanation....if posters dont understand.......as i understand medium is second declension neuter..like bellum...alice may be the only person apart from me who understands this
-
ive given a plain and simple factual explanation....if posters dont understand.......as i understand medium is second declension neuter..like bellum...alice may be the only person apart from me who understands this
If a person comes to you and asks should I get this tooth pulled what do you say? You are the hardest person I know to get a plain and simple answer out of. You can answer in Latin if you must, I'll put it into Google Translate.
-
If a person comes to you and asks should I get this tooth pulled what do you say? You are the hardest person I know to get a plain and simple answer out of. You can answer in Latin if you must, I'll put it into Google Translate.
To simplify - a singular noun in Latin ending in -um changes to -a when plural. Think forum & fora.
-
To simplify - a singular noun in Latin ending in -um changes to -a when plural. Think forum & fora.
OK so it really is medium and media when it comes to sources of information. "Did you hear the news?" "What medium?" "No it was in the media"
-
To simplify - a singular noun in Latin ending in -um changes to -a when plural. Think forum & fora.
So media is a plural noun "The word media comes from the Latin plural of medium. The traditional view is that it should therefore be treated as a plural noun in all its senses in English and be used with a plural rather than a singular verb: the media have not followed the reports (rather than 'has')." https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/media
So I have to accept the title is correct "the media were ..." rather than the "the media was ....".
-
I have just seen Gerry McCann give a reason to Lord Leveson's enquiry as to why the Express settled out of court early in 2008 (whilst they were suspects/arguidos) and it is rather interesting IMO
After a short delay to allow the newspapers to take leading counsel’s advice Express
Newspapers, in their first formal response to Carter-Ruck, admitted they were guilty
of wrongly publishing a number of articles which suggested we were the prime
suspects in the disappearance of Madeleine and that there was sufficient evidence to
charge us.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122164630/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Gerald-Patrick-McCann.pdf
Were the McCanns prime suspects at that time? With what I have read, I was under the impression that they were. Although obviously there wasn't enough evidence to charge them so perhaps that is the pertinent phrase from Gerry's statement.
-
I have just seen Gerry McCann give a reason to Lord Leveson's enquiry as to why the Express settled out of court early in 2008 (whilst they were suspects/arguidos) and it is rather interesting IMO
After a short delay to allow the newspapers to take leading counsel’s advice Express
Newspapers, in their first formal response to Carter-Ruck, admitted they were guilty
of wrongly publishing a number of articles which suggested we were the prime
suspects in the disappearance of Madeleine and that there was sufficient evidence to
charge us.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122164630/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Gerald-Patrick-McCann.pdf
Were the McCanns prime suspects at that time? With what I have read, I was under the impression that they were. Although obviously there wasn't enough evidence to charge them so perhaps that is the pertinent phrase from Gerry's statement.
The devil is usually in the detail. Paper states a number of facts about something, one is incorrect, someone sues based on the incorrect fact and succeeds. It is assumed by the man on the street that all the facts are incorrect.
-
The devil is usually in the detail. Paper states a number of facts about something, one is incorrect, someone sues based on the incorrect fact and succeeds. It is assumed by the man on the street that all the facts are incorrect.
The devil is in the detail of most things pertaining to the law and libel which in my opinion behoves internet posters to have a care when second guessing due process in Portugal.
There may not have been sufficient evidence to charge 'prime suspects' but in my opinion there was a surfeit of evidence to prove libel ... do not forget the very real offence of libel by innuendo, I doubt Sally Bercow ever will again.
-
The devil is in the detail of most things pertaining to the law and libel which in my opinion behoves internet posters to have a care when second guessing due process in Portugal.
There may not have been sufficient evidence to charge 'prime suspects' but in my opinion there was a surfeit of evidence to prove libel ... do not forget the very real offence of libel by innuendo, I doubt Sally Bercow ever will again.
I ain’t your Grandma and I know how to suck eggs.
-
I ain’t your Grandma and I know how to suck eggs.
It comes as no surprise that you are not Brietta's Grandma but it is a surprise that you know how to suck eggs.
Something I have never tried.
-
How to suck eggs taught by grandmother. https://youtu.be/WiuW_XGU-jY
I think she blew the egg rather than sucked it.