What is the lie in Amarals book. The truth of the lie.

[Venturi Swirl]

You got inside knowledge or just voicing an opinion ?

Yes, I have insider knowledge on the level of weariness you are experiencing, ob.

[Venturi Swirl]

Let’s have a vote on whether or not, in the eyes of the law the McCanns are presumed to be innocent.  Once that has been established we can then discuss why Amaral was allowed to publish his book on the basis that the McCanns “failed to prove their innocence”, according to the SC.

[Mr Gray]

Read what I said.

I've read it... If mines abusive then so is faiths... I don't find faiths post abusive... Why have you suddenly brought up a post that has, gone unnoticed for 10 hours... It seems odd to me and is disruptive... Let the discussion  flow

[jassi]

Let’s have a vote on whether or not, in the eyes of the law the McCanns are presumed to be innocent.  Once that has been established we can then discuss why Amaral was allowed to publish his book on the basis that the McCanns “failed to prove their innocence”, according to the SC.

Lets not. I'm too weary to be bothered 

[Brietta]

                           
                               Back to topic now please 

[Venturi Swirl]

Lets not. I'm too weary to be bothered 

Bless you. 

[slartibartfast]

Let’s have a vote on whether or not, in the eyes of the law the McCanns are presumed to be innocent.  Once that has been established we can then discuss why Amaral was allowed to publish his book on the basis that the McCanns “failed to prove their innocence”, according to the SC.

Only in a court of law.

[Venturi Swirl]

Only in a court of law.

Was the Supreme Court not a court of law?

[Miss Taken Identity]

Let’s have a vote on whether or not, in the eyes of the law the McCanns are presumed to be innocent.  Once that has been established we can then discuss why Amaral was allowed to publish his book on the basis that the McCanns “failed to prove their innocence”, according to the SC.

You claimed wrongly that the McCanns were innocent in the eyes of the law.  You were wrong to claim that- no one  is innocent when being investigated. They are PRESUMED to be innocent. IF they did go to court they would be declared either guilty or Innocent and in Scotland we have the not proven verdict.

Sr Amaral was not allowed to pubish his book on the basis the "McCanns “failed to prove their innocence”
 He was allowed to publish on the basis of his freedom of expression based on an investigation he was part of.
You do like to make things up to suit your agenda.

How can you go about proving your innocence? well you can start by telling the bloody trruth and not make up a phantom gang of peedos breaking in and stealing your daughter- without leaving a trace!

[Venturi Swirl]

You claimed wrongly that the McCanns were innocent in the eyes of the law.  You were wrong to claim that- no one  is innocent when being investigated. They are PRESUMED to be innocent. IF they did go to court they would be declared either guilty or Innocent and in Scotland we have the not proven verdict.

Sr Amaral was not allowed to pubish his book on the basis the "McCanns “failed to prove their innocence”
 He was allowed to publish on the basis of his freedom of expression based on an investigation he was part of.
You do like to make things up to suit your agenda.

How can you go about proving your innocence? well you can start by telling the bloody trruth and not make up a phantom gang of peedos breaking in and stealing your daughter- without leaving a trace!

So I am wrong to say that in the eyes of the law the McCanns are innocent, in which case what is their status legally speaking? 
You say they can prove their innocence by telling the truth,  who decides that? 

[G-Unit]

Let’s have a vote on whether or not, in the eyes of the law the McCanns are presumed to be innocent.  Once that has been established we can then discuss why Amaral was allowed to publish his book on the basis that the McCanns “failed to prove their innocence”, according to the SC.

Are you sure the SC said the McCanns "failed to prove their innocence" or is that just what you think they said?

[Venturi Swirl]

Are you sure the SC said the McCanns "failed to prove their innocence" or is that just what you think they said?

Someone said it, who did?  You said

“The McCanns sued because they believed that the archiving report declared them innocent. It didn't”.  Wasn’t that why the SC found in Amaral’s favour?

[G-Unit]

Someone said it, who did?  You said

“The McCanns sued because they believed that the archiving report declared them innocent. It didn't”.  Wasn’t that why the SC found in Amaral’s favour?

Your post differs in both form and meaning from mine, and was presented as if it was a direct quote. Misleading.
The SC found in Amaral's favour because they, like the Appeal Court, found the McCann's lawyer's arguments inadequate. One of her arguments was that they were 'cleared' by the archiving dispatch, but that is not something an archiving dispatch can do. 

[Venturi Swirl]

Your post differs in both form and meaning from mine, and was presented as if it was a direct quote. Misleading.
The SC found in Amaral's favour because they, like the Appeal Court, found the McCann's lawyer's arguments inadequate. One of her arguments was that they were 'cleared' by the archiving dispatch, but that is not something an archiving dispatch can do.

Sorry but I don’t understand your complaint.  I directly quoted you.  I return to my original point which you took issue with.  Clearly the McCanns were libelled by Amaral in his book, do you still dispute this? 

[Robittybob1]

I've read it... If mines abusive then so is faiths... I don't find faiths post abusive... Why have you suddenly brought up a post that has, gone unnoticed for 10 hours... It seems odd to me and is disruptive... Let the discussion  flow

I don't take that time factor into consideration.  If it is "new" to me it is liable for moderation.