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: Robittybob1 on March 10, 2017, 11:11:14 AM
-
What does it mean?
"But, at least in our view, that same status cannot but mark the limits of the defendant's freedom of expression when compared to the one detained by others. Having been in charge of that investigation as a member of the Judicial Police, the defendant Goncalo Amaral, although retired on 1st July 2008, did not enjoy, on the following July 24, in respect of the results of the criminal investigation released on the 21st of the same month and year, a large and full freedom of expression. This freedom was conditioned by the functions he had, functions that imposed him special duties that traverse the status of retirement, including the duty of reserve."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.msg239353#msg239353 page 44.
"According to the Court, the presumption of innocence “will be violated if a statement of a public official concerning a person charged with a criminal offence reflects an opinion that he is guilty before he has been proved so according to law. It suffices, even in the absence of any formal finding, that there is some reasoning to suggest that the official regards the accused as guilty”, Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, § 41, 10 October 2000." Council of Europe
Human Rights and Rule of Law https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?p=&id=2119409&Site=COE&direct=true
That seems to be damming to Amaral. It appears McCanns presumption of innocence was violated.
49
-
Extract from page 42
"Alongside this general duty of confidentiality, the organic law requires from the civil servants working in the Judicial Police a duty of reserve, prescribing that (...) they cannot make public disclosures related to lawsuits or matter of reserved nature other than what is planned in this law about public information and preventive actions concerning the population and also the provisions of the criminal procedure law [paragraph 2 of article 12].
Even so the admissible statements (…) are subjects to prior authorisation provided by the national director or the national deputy directors, at risk of disciplinary proceedings, maintaining the eventual criminal liability [paragraph 3 of article 12].
The duty of reserve is a functional requirement common to magistrates and organs of criminal police. As an example, in the case of the magistrates of the Public Ministry, the ordinary law postulates that this duty will remain after retirement, establishing the paragraph 7 of article 148 of the Statute that retired judges must respect the reserve required by their condition.
It is a duty that is essential to the preservation of public confidence in the institutions of the administration of justice. The duty of reserve protects the purposes of the criminal action, but also the physical and moral integrity, the freedom and the dignity of those concerned by that action."
-
What does it mean?
"But, at least in our view, that same status cannot but mark the limits of the defendant's freedom of expression when compared to the one detained by others. Having been in charge of that investigation as a member of the Judicial Police, the defendant Goncalo Amaral, although retired on 1st July 2008, did not enjoy, on the following July 24, in respect of the results of the criminal investigation released on the 21st of the same month and year, a large and full freedom of expression. This freedom was conditioned by the functions he had, functions that imposed him special duties that traverse the status of retirement, including the duty of reserve."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.msg239353#msg239353 page 44.
"According to the Court, the presumption of innocence “will be violated if a statement of a public official concerning a person charged with a criminal offence reflects an opinion that he is guilty before he has been proved so according to law. It suffices, even in the absence of any formal finding, that there is some reasoning to suggest that the official regards the accused as guilty”, Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, § 41, 10 October 2000." Council of Europe
Human Rights and Rule of Law https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?p=&id=2119409&Site=COE&direct=true
That seems to be damming to Amaral. It appears McCanns presumption of innocence was violated.
Dunno!
But:
"According to the Court, the presumption of innocence “will be violated if a statement of a public official concerning a person charged with a criminal offence reflects an opinion that he is guilty before he has been proved so according to law.
The McCanns were never charged.
-
At first glance and in simple terms the duty of reserve prevents former public servants from putting into the public domain any information which the Ministry hasn't previously ever published. Since the Court latterly agreed that Amaral's book was based on the Archive then it cannot be argued that he was in breach of the duty of reserve.
-
......
The McCanns were never charged.
Read on a bit, you'll see it was not required that they were charged .... "It suffices, even in the absence of any formal finding, that there is some reasoning to suggest that the official regards the accused as guilty."
I think you will see that this second bit covers the McCann - Amaral (the official) clearly regarded the accused (the former Arguidos, the McCanns) as guilty.
-
Read on a bit, you'll see it was required that thy were charged .... "It suffices, even in the absence of any formal finding, that there is some reasoning to suggest that the official regards the accused as guilty."
I think you will see that this second bit covers the McCann - Amaral clearly regarded the accused (the McCanns) as guilty.
I think most people have worked that out by now Rob. Question is though, what of?
-
At first glance and in simple terms the duty of reserve prevents former public servants from putting into the public domain any information which the Ministry hasn't previously never published. Since the Court latterly agreed that Amaral's book was based on the Archive then it cannot be argued that he was in breach of the duty of reserve.
The coordination between the release of the book, the archiving of the case and the release of the files seems too coincidental to me. I would not be surprised if there was not a type of conspiracy being acted out behind the scenes to get all of this happening, and the whole thing viewed as payback to the McCanns for embarrassing the Portuguese Police with all their publicity.
I expect this post will be deleted but I have been longing to state my thesis in this time of freedom of expression.
-
I think most people have worked that out by now Rob. Question is though, what of?
I don't think it matters. The officials are not to publicly insinuate anyone is guilty of a crime that they haven't yet been found guilty of by a Court of Law.
They can be investigated, charged, arrested and locked up, but all the time the presumption of innocence and the duty of reserve must remain.
It would not even be important if they were found ultimately guilty of the crime, the presumption of innocence and the duty of reserve must remain in place till the guilty verdict is reached.
-
The coordination between the release of the book, the archiving of the case and the release of the files seems too coincidental to me. I would not be surprised if there was not a type of conspiracy being acted out behind the scenes to get all of this happening, and the whole thing viewed as payback to the McCanns for embarrassing the Portuguese Police with all their publicity.
I expect this post will be deleted but I have been longing to state my thesis in this time of freedom of expression.
1. That is obvious in my estimation. But not for any ulterior motive other than to keep within the rules. I expect the original judgement threw them a bit of a wobbler though.
2. That is highly unlikely in my estimation
-
1. That is obvious in my estimation. But not for any ulterior motive other than to keep within the rules. I expect the original judgement threw them a bit of a wobbler though.
2. That is highly unlikely in my estimation
I like your use of colour coding.
How often are the police files released in the Portugal. Here in NZ it never happens officially. I got hold of the police files of a case but it was a bit like Wikileaks where people went through illegal means to release them to friends first and then to researchers. But it definitely wasn't released to the public.
Why do you say "the original judgement threw them a bit of a wobbler"?
-
Page 13
SC Judgement.
"Under the Disciplinary Regulation of the Judicial Police, the duty of confidentiality is one of the general duties of the members of the Judicial Police [cf. art. 5°- of the Regulation approved by Decree-Law No. 196/94, of July 21].
Alongside this general duty of confidentiality, the Organic Law of the Judicial Police requires from the civil servants working in the Judicial Police a duty of reserve, prescribing that (...) "they cannot make public disclosures related to lawsuits or matter of reserved nature other than what is provided for in this law on public information and preventive actions among the population, and also in the provisions of the criminal procedure law" [art.12°-2]. Even so the statements, when admissible, (…) "are subjects to prior authorisation provided by the national director or the national deputy directors, at risk of disciplinary proceedings, maintaining the eventual criminal liability" [art. 12°-3].
The duty of reserve is a functional requirement common to magistrates and organs of criminal police. As an example, in the case of the magistrates of the Public Ministry, the ordinary law postulates that this duty will remain after retirement, establishing the article 148°-7 of the Statute that "retired judges must respect the reserve required by their condition." (9)"
It is a duty that is essential to the preservation of public confidence in the institutions of the administration of justice. The duty of reserve protects the purposes of the criminal action, but also the physical and moral integrity, the freedom and the dignity of those concerned by that action.
The criminal investigation officers, retired for a motive unlike disciplinary sanction, retain special rights, being holders of an identification card for recognition of their quality and the rights they enjoy [article 149°-1,2 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Police and Ordinance No. 96/2002 of 31 January].
The statute of the retirement [approved by Decree-Law 498/72 of December 9] establishes, from its original wording in the respective article 74°-11, that the retired, apart from his right to a retirement pension, remains bound to the civil service, keeping the titles and the category of the position he held and the rights and duties that do not depend on being in activity.
According to the note of the Attorney General Department's advisory Council on February 16, 2006 (Esteves Remedio, in www.ministeriopublico.pt).
-
Page 15 http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm
Having been in charge of that investigation as a member of the Judicial Police, the defendant Gonçalo Amaral, although retired on July 1 2008, did not enjoy, on the following July 24, in respect of the outcome of the criminal investigation released on the 21st of the same month and year, a large and full freedom of expression.
This freedom was conditioned by the functions he had, functions that imposed him special duties that traverse the status of retirement, including the duty of reserve.
In this concrete situation, despite the personal reasons that the defendant invokes in the introductory note of the book, the freedom of expression should cede through the imperative of that reserve.
It was not what happened and the truth is that, on July 24 2008, scant three days after the release of the dispatch shelving the investigation for lack of proof, the book was launched, sold with the newspaper’s edition, and the interview was published.
The time-line displays well the intention to call for the contradictory, in the public domain, the shelving of the investigation, comparing it with the thesis of the previous line of investigation, told as the true one by a person who had been responsible for the same investigation.
In this form of resolving the conflict between the rights is revealed the illegality of the conduct of the defendant Gonçalo Amaral in respect of the effects of article 484° of the CC.
In disagreement with this judgement, the defendants 1°, 2° and 3° (10) lodged an appeal against it.
The Lisbon Appeal Court granted those requests and revoked the appealed decision, judging the lawsuit unfounded concerning the appellants and acquitting them of all the requests. Their allegations were expressed in the following way :
In terms of personality rights, article 26°-1 of the CRP states that the rights to a person’s good name and reputation are recognised, as well as protection of the intimacy of private and family life..
The same fundamental law protects with equal dignity freedom of expression, stating in article 37°-1 that everyone has the right to freely express and disclose their thought...
-
Page 13
SC Judgement.
"Under the Disciplinary Regulation of the Judicial Police, the duty of confidentiality is one of the general duties of the members of the Judicial Police [cf. art. 5°- of the Regulation approved by Decree-Law No. 196/94, of July 21].
Alongside this general duty of confidentiality, the Organic Law of the Judicial Police requires from the civil servants working in the Judicial Police a duty of reserve, prescribing that (...) "they cannot make public disclosures related to lawsuits or matter of reserved nature other than what is provided for in this law on public information and preventive actions among the population, and also in the provisions of the criminal procedure law" [art.12°-2]. Even so the statements, when admissible, (…) "are subjects to prior authorisation provided by the national director or the national deputy directors, at risk of disciplinary proceedings, maintaining the eventual criminal liability" [art. 12°-3].
The duty of reserve is a functional requirement common to magistrates and organs of criminal police. As an example, in the case of the magistrates of the Public Ministry, the ordinary law postulates that this duty will remain after retirement, establishing the article 148°-7 of the Statute that "retired judges must respect the reserve required by their condition." (9)"
It is a duty that is essential to the preservation of public confidence in the institutions of the administration of justice. The duty of reserve protects the purposes of the criminal action, but also the physical and moral integrity, the freedom and the dignity of those concerned by that action.
The criminal investigation officers, retired for a motive unlike disciplinary sanction, retain special rights, being holders of an identification card for recognition of their quality and the rights they enjoy [article 149°-1,2 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Police and Ordinance No. 96/2002 of 31 January].
The statute of the retirement [approved by Decree-Law 498/72 of December 9] establishes, from its original wording in the respective article 74°-11, that the retired, apart from his right to a retirement pension, remains bound to the civil service, keeping the titles and the category of the position he held and the rights and duties that do not depend on being in activity.
According to the note of the Attorney General Department's advisory Council on February 16, 2006 (Esteves Remedio, in www.ministeriopublico.pt).
It seems the initial judgement recognised this but the SC ruled that amaral was above the law and could do anything he liked..... it's how some states view their police officers
-
"Indeed, irrespective of the reasons given by the appellant for publication, it is hardly understandable that a civil servant, even more a retired one, should carry on his silence and reserve duties, thus limiting the exercise of his right to opinion as to the interpretation of facts already made public by the judicial authority and widely discussed (actually largely at the instigation of the protagonists themselves) in national and international media."
Page 18.
-
This is an important section:
"2.4. It can be verified that the divergence found in the decisions of the instances consists essentially in the following :
- the first instance found that the defendant Gonçalo Amaral, for having been responsible for the criminal investigation as a member of the PJ, although, meanwhile, he retired, couldn't enjoy full and complete freedom of expression, since the functions he was in charge of imposed on him, in particular, the reserve duty, wherefore that freedom having to yield to this duty, his conduct was unlawful in virtue of the art. 484°of the CC.
- the second instance took the view that this argumentation could not be upheld, inasmuch "it would be hardly understandable that a civil servant, even more a retired one, should carry on his silence and reserve duties, thus limiting the exercise of his right to opinion as to the interpretation of facts already made public by the judicial authority and widely discussed, actually largely at the instigation of the protagonists themselves, in national and international media", imposing himself to consider the publication of the book in question as revealing the legitimate exercise of right to opinion."
Page 47
Page 48
this is rather interesting - why?
"The appellants, in the conclusion of their claim for review, despite alluding to their claim to have the sentence of the first instance reinstated, did not make any express reference to the question of the alleged reserve duty of the defendant Gonçalo Amaral, to which, according the same judgement, freedom of speech should give in, which constitutes the cornerstone of the entire construction leading to the conclusion that the conduct of that defendant was illicit, by virtue of art.44° of the CC."
Art 44 of CC is to do with business so I don't see how it relates to the case!
" Article 44
(Enrichment without cause)
Unjust enrichment is governed by the law on the basis of which the transfer of the book value to the enriched was verified."
It may just be a typo for 484 "
Article 484
(Offense of credit or good name)
Anyone who asserts or divulges a fact capable of prejudicing the credit or good name of any person, whether natural or legal, shall be liable for the damages caused."
Which is highly relevant to the case.
-
At first glance and in simple terms the duty of reserve prevents former public servants from putting into the public domain any information which the Ministry hasn't previously ever published. Since the Court latterly agreed that Amaral's book was based on the Archive then it cannot be argued that he was in breach of the duty of reserve.
What do you mean by 'Archive' please John?
-
At first glance and in simple terms the duty of reserve prevents former public servants from putting into the public domain any information which the Ministry hasn't previously ever published. Since the Court latterly agreed that Amaral's book was based on the Archive then it cannot be argued that he was in breach of the duty of reserve.
If we were to follow the released files do we actually see the evidence that Amaral claims?
-
There are so many points and this is an important one too! Page 68
"Accordingly, this principle can not be construed as a restriction on public discussion of potentially criminal facts, despite that public bodies should, in their communications, resort to the necessary reserve to avoid creating the conviction that the arguido is in fact guilty (Cf. Konstas vs Greece of 28/11/ 11 (n° 053466/071)."
Doesn't Amaral claim the McCanns are guilty?
-
There are so many points and this is an important one too! Page 68
"Accordingly, this principle can not be construed as a restriction on public discussion of potentially criminal facts, despite that public bodies should, in their communications, resort to the necessary reserve to avoid creating the conviction that the arguido is in fact guilty (Cf. Konstas vs Greece of 28/11/ 11 (n° 053466/071)."
Doesn't Amaral claim the McCanns are guilty?
He wasn't a 'public body' and they were not 'arguidos'.
-
He wasn't a 'public body' and they were not 'arguidos'.
He represented the public body, the PJ, and the McCanns were not arguidos so that just makes it more imperative that they are not made to look guilty.
that would extend to a statement "... resort to the necessary reserve to avoid creating the conviction that the [former] arguido is in fact guilty".
If it must not happen to an arguido it definitely should not happen to a former arguido.
-
"Indeed, irrespective of the reasons given by the appellant for publication, it is hardly understandable that a civil servant, even more a retired one, should carry on his silence and reserve duties, thus limiting the exercise of his right to opinion as to the interpretation of facts already made public by the judicial authority and widely discussed (actually largely at the instigation of the protagonists themselves) in national and international media."
Page 18.
You missed bolding the "it is hardly understandable..."
-
You missed bolding the "it is hardly understandable..."
It is always a bit hit and miss choosing the words to highlight.
-
He represented the public body, the PJ, and the McCanns were not arguidos so that just makes it more imperative that they are not made to look guilty.
that would extend to a statement "... resort to the necessary reserve to avoid creating the conviction that the [former] arguido is in fact guilty".
If it must not happen to an arguido it definitely should not happen to a former arguido.
He was not a member of the PJ when his book was published.
-
The coordination between the release of the book, the archiving of the case and the release of the files seems too coincidental to me. I would not be surprised if there was not a type of conspiracy being acted out behind the scenes to get all of this happening, and the whole thing viewed as payback to the McCanns for embarrassing the Portuguese Police with all their publicity.
I expect this post will be deleted but I have been longing to state my thesis in this time of freedom of expression.
Anything is possible I suppose. Amaral knew the rules in respect of a duty of reserve and the consequences of breaching them. I don't think even he would be so foolish as to tread on thin ice where Portuguese Law is concerned.
-
It does seem rather rum that on the timing of a book's release rests the answer to the question whether you can tell a pack of lies that lower reputation and get away with it (as Amaral appears to have done, that is, get away with it!) or whether you can't.
-
It does seem rather rum that on the timing of a book's release rests the answer to the question whether you can tell a pack of lies that lower reputation and get away with it (as Amaral appears to have done, that is, get away with it!) or whether you can't.
Even if they were a pack of lies, as yet undetermined, he wasn't the only one practising the art.
-
It does seem rather rum that on the timing of a book's release rests the answer to the question whether you can tell a pack of lies that lower reputation and get away with it (as Amaral appears to have done, that is, get away with it!) or whether you can't.
Your highly admired first instance judge didn't feel able to say that Amaral's book was full of lies which lowered the McCann's reputations. Probably because she decided it wasn't and it didn't, don't you think?
-
Your highly admired first instance judge didn't feel able to say that Amaral's book was full of lies which lowered the McCann's reputations. Probably because she decided it wasn't and it didn't, don't you think?
What judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro did say was, " The fact they are innocent ... " which appears to be at variance with the final ruling of the appeal court judges and possibly why she got it right and they appear to have overstepped the mark and getting it wrong.
-
What judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro did say was, " The fact they are innocent ... " which appears to be at variance with the final ruling of the appeal court judges and possibly why she got it right and they appear to have overstepped the mark and getting it wrong.
Or more likely the other way round.
-
What judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro did say was, " The fact they are innocent ... " which appears to be at variance with the final ruling of the appeal court judges and possibly why she got it right and they appear to have overstepped the mark and getting it wrong.
Do you have the page number for that quote please?
May I remind you that the higher judges gave no opinion on the innocence or guilt of the McCanns? They denied their claim that they were cleared by the arhiving dispatch, that's all.
-
Your highly admired first instance judge didn't feel able to say that Amaral's book was full of lies which lowered the McCann's reputations. Probably because she decided it wasn't and it didn't, don't you think?
That is the part I find baffling. The First Instance Judge rejected 60 percent of the claim then made an arcane, seeming incorrect judgement [ two plays one], on the other 40 percent.
-
What judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro did say was, " The fact they are innocent ... " which appears to be at variance with the final ruling of the appeal court judges and possibly why she got it right and they appear to have overstepped the mark and getting it wrong.
It depends on the interpretation. A suspect is entitled to the presumption of innocence and that is what the honourable Maria Emilia de Memo e Castro was alluding to, nothing more. This could be the very reason why the Supreme Court decided to make the statement they did concerning this in their judgement.
-
It depends on the interpretation. A suspect is entitled to the presumption of innocence and that is what the honourable Maria Emilia de Memo e Castro was alluding to, nothing more.
The fact that it is the final judgement that takes precedence should also be considered.
-
He was not a member of the PJ when his book was published.
Why because he was retired, resigned or whatever. That is not how the courts saw it. Even though he had resigned he was still under their influence. I forget the words they used, but it is in the first instance judgement I believe.
-
Anything is possible I suppose. Amaral knew the rules in respect of a duty of reserve and the consequences of breaching them. I don't think even he would be so foolish as to tread on thin ice where Portuguese Law is concerned.
Walking on ice safely (just the thought of it scares me) depends on the thickness.
-
Even if they were a pack of lies, as yet undetermined, he wasn't the only one practising the art.
Shouldn't the SC have assessed whether GA was telling a pack of lies before they backed him?
-
Shouldn't the SC have assessed whether GA was telling a pack of lies before they backed him?
Please be aware that accusing someone of telling a pack of lies without proof is libel. Do not do it again.
-
Your highly admired first instance judge didn't feel able to say that Amaral's book was full of lies which lowered the McCann's reputations. Probably because she decided it wasn't and it didn't, don't you think?
She does appeared to be sucked in to Amaral's version of the truth. The fact that in her report the list of his truths appears 6 times seems to more than confirm that.
-
Please be aware that accusing someone of telling a pack of lies without proof is libel. Do not do it again.
"Shouldn't the SC have assessed whether GA was telling a pack of lies before they backed him?" That is a question not a statement.
-
That is the part I find baffling. The First Instance Judge rejected 60 percent of the claim then made an arcane, seeming incorrect judgement [ two plays one], on the other 40 percent.
That is fair. She only took away what she had considered they had illegally gained.
-
Yes, they should, particularly as he was imo.
And do you have the proof he was, so it isn't libel?
Why because he was retired, resigned or whatever. That is not how the courts saw it. Even though he had resigned he was still under their influence. I forget the words they used, but it is in the first instance judgement I believe.
For completeness sake:
"Page 43
The criminal investigation officers, retired for various reasons of disciplinary penalty application, retain special rights, being holders of an identification card for recognition of their quality and the rights they enjoy [paragraphs 1 and and 2 of article 149 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Police and Ordinance No. 96/2002 of 31 January].
The statute of the retirement [approved by Decree-Law 498/72 of 9 December] establishes, from its original wording in the respective artº 74, paragraph 1, that the retired, apart from his right to a retirement pension, remains bound to the civil service, keeping the titles and the category of the position he held and the rights and duties that do not depend on being in activity." http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
-
Shouldn't the SC have assessed whether GA was telling a pack of lies before they backed him?
As the first instance Judge pointed out, it is not her job to determine the investigation.
-
And do you have the proof he was, so it isn't libel?
For completeness sake:
"Page 43
The criminal investigation officers, retired for various reasons of disciplinary penalty application, retain special rights, being holders of an identification card for recognition of their quality and the rights they enjoy [paragraphs 1 and and 2 of article 149 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Police and Ordinance No. 96/2002 of 31 January].
The statute of the retirement [approved by Decree-Law 498/72 of 9 December] establishes, from its original wording in the respective artº 74, paragraph 1, that the retired, apart from his right to a retirement pension, remains bound to the civil service, keeping the titles and the category of the position he held and the rights and duties that do not depend on being in activity." http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
Have added an edit to my post above, Rob.
-
Yes, they should, particularly as he was imo.
From The book of many lies (Chapter 16)
The clos-est to that is an exhibit given the name for the enquiry jar/6, identified by a worker on the ground at haut de la garenne as, potentially, a fragment of human skull and reacted to by Eddie.
Formally examined at a laboratory in Oxford and determined to be a piece of coconut.
No bodies under any flagstone; nor any such claim made by Grime (or anyone else, apart from Amaral).
At least by English libel law, the libel there lies in insinuation by association: you associate a dog involved in the enquiry with 'discovering bodies' at a place where paedophiles are supposed to have murdered children in their care, and the taint of association transfers over to those (accused) at the centre of a completely different investigation.
He was misinformed ferryman just as he was by the FSS initially as to the significance of the dna results.
-
He was misinformed ferryman just as he was by the FSS initially.
there is no evidence amaral was misinformed by the FSS....theres evidence he did not understand the dna report
-
He was misinformed ferryman just as he was by the FSS initially as to the significance of the dna results.
Misinformed how?
-
there is no evidence amaral was misinformed by the FSS....theres evidence he did not understand the dna report
Agreed.
He misunderstood, I think, would be a better way of wording it.
-
Your highly admired first instance judge didn't feel able to say that Amaral's book was full of lies which lowered the McCann's reputations. Probably because she decided it wasn't and it didn't, don't you think?
Absolutely!
The first-instance judge ordered Amaral to pay the McCanns half a million euros because she thought Amaral's book to be the epitome of unvarnished truth.
-
Absolutely!
The first-instance judge ordered Amaral to pay the McCanns half a million euros because she thought Amaral's book to be the epitome of unvarnished truth.
The first instance judge found in the McCann's favour because she decided that Amaral had a duty of reserve which he breached. Her opinion was rejected by the judges of the Appeal Court. It's really as simple as that.
-
The first instance judge found in the McCann's favour because she decided that Amaral had a duty of reserve which he breached. Her opinion was rejected by the judges of the Appeal Court. It's really as simple as that.
And the Supreme Court upheld that decision.
-
As the first instance Judge pointed out, it is not her job to determine the investigation.
I wasn't expecting that but just confirmation of the points he raised. And to check if the information was in the public file, to check he wasn't breaking his duty of reserve.
And the Supreme Court upheld that decision.
If only it was as simple as that.
-
He was misinformed ferryman just as he was by the FSS initially as to the significance of the dna results.
And the documented proof of that is in the file is it?
-
That is fair. She only took away what she had considered they had illegally gained.
Indeed. But I think you misunderstood my post.
-
Indeed. But I think you misunderstood my post.
Would you care to have another go at it then. I think I did get it generally, but there were references in it I didn't understand.
-
there is no evidence amaral was misinformed by the FSS....theres evidence he did not understand the dna report
Correct.
-
there is no evidence amaral was misinformed by the FSS....theres evidence he did not understand the dna report
But I see they say it is how he "interpreted the facts" that count. In other words even if the facts don't fit but he interprets them in his way to favour his theory we can do nothing about it.
What I am noticing is that the first instance case was won on the idea of breaking the duty of reserve, which doesn't seem to be the thrust of the McCann's case but a concept the Judge picked up and ran with herself. Had she not hijacked the trial and just looked at the strength of the McCann case, maybe the issue would have ended there.
On appeal the finding was overturned because the appeal judges said Amaral didn't have this duty of reserve, and the SC confirmed that, yet all along it wasn't an argument proposed by the McCanns.
Their argument was about damages caused by Amaral's claims. So his claims of fact get blurred by being called a theory and nothing can be done about that.
Was it a theory or was he proposing his case as a fact?
-
But I see they say it is how he "interpreted the facts" that count. In other words even if the facts don't fit but he interprets them in his way to favour his theory we can do nothing about it.
What I am noticing is that the first instance case was won on the idea of breaking the duty of reserve, which doesn't seem to be the thrust of the McCann's case but a concept the Judge picked up and ran with herself. Had she not hijacked the trial and just looked at the strength of the McCann case, maybe the issue would have ended there.
On appeal the finding was overturned because the appeal judges said Amaral didn't have this duty of reserve, and the SC confirmed that, yet all along it wasn't an argument proposed by the McCanns.
Their argument was about damages caused by Amaral's claims. So his claims of fact get blurred by being called a theory and nothing can be done about that.
Was it a theory or was he proposing his case as a fact?
It was very much driven by the McCanns;
Madeleine McCann's parents to report Portuguese cop for breach of secrecy
By Antonella Lazzeri of The Sun
January 16, 2010 8:55am
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/madeleine-mccanns-parents-to-report-portuguese-cop-for-breach-of-secrecy/news-story/07405dcf5c9a82adea2a910119c60f91?sv=bb223ac845a7fd2514409417b33ef35d
-
It was very much driven by the McCanns;
Madeleine McCann's parents to report Portuguese cop for breach of secrecy
By Antonella Lazzeri of The Sun
January 16, 2010 8:55am
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/madeleine-mccanns-parents-to-report-portuguese-cop-for-breach-of-secrecy/news-story/07405dcf5c9a82adea2a910119c60f91?sv=bb223ac845a7fd2514409417b33ef35d
OK but was it raised by the McCanns in the trial?
-
OK but was it raised by the McCanns in the trial?
Yes
-
Would you care to have another go at it then. I think I did get it generally, but there were references in it I didn't understand.
I am baffled why the judge of the First Instance Court is held in such high esteem by some supporters based on her arcane decision that Amaral should not profit, when she[Judge Emilia] booted out more than 60% of the claim at first pass. Then the bit she upheld she ultimately lost 2:1 on aggregate to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.
Unless the suporters were blind or innumerate they could not have failed to notice the game was lost at First Instance 2:1 on valuation.The supporters angle now being like that of soccer supporters whose team lost due to, in their eyes, a dodgy decision by the referee not to call an offside.
One could be forgiven for believing that some supporters will be disatisfied until a reckoning has been achieved for a multitude of slights effected by one particular gentleman but only as perceived by the supporters.
-
I am baffled why the judge of the First Instance Court is held in such high esteem by some supporters based on her arcane decision that Amaral should not profit, when she[Judge Emilia] booted out more than 60% of the claim at first pass. Then the bit she upheld she ultimately lost 2:1 on aggregate to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.
Unless the suporters were blind or innumerate they could not have failed to notice the game was lost at First Instance 2:1 on valuation.The supporters angle now being like that of soccer supporters whose team lost due to, in their eyes, a dodgy decision by the referee not to call an offside.
One could be forgiven for believing that some supporters will be disatisfied until a reckoning has been achieved for a multitude of slights effected by one particular gentleman but only as perceived by the supporters.
The problem is that most of the supporter's arguments have nothing to do with the grounds on which the first instance judge made her decision. If their arguments are relevant they need to consider why she didn't use them in her judgement.
-
I am baffled as to why anyone would think that had Amaral's appeal against the first judgement been thrown out that this would have been a failure for the McCanns, to have walked away with the largest damages settlement in Portuguese history.
-
I am baffled as to why anyone would think that had Amaral's appeal against the first judgement been thrown out that this would have been a failure for the McCanns, to have walked away with the largest damages settlement in Portuguese history.
The first instance judgement was very shaky, but Amaral's ability to appeal had been damaged by the injunction freezing his assets. Had people not donated to allow him to appeal it would indeed have been a resounding victory. The appeal demonstrated just how much of a miscarriage of justice that would have been.
-
It was very much driven by the McCanns;
Madeleine McCann's parents to report Portuguese cop for breach of secrecy
By Antonella Lazzeri of The Sun
January 16, 2010 8:55am
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/madeleine-mccanns-parents-to-report-portuguese-cop-for-breach-of-secrecy/news-story/07405dcf5c9a82adea2a910119c60f91?sv=bb223ac845a7fd2514409417b33ef35d
I think we are entitled to a view that it was not a coincidence in timing that, upon Amaral being informed by the Portuguese forensic laboratory that they had been given nothing to test to enable them to establish Madeleine's DNA, the lie promptly broke: Gerry not Madeleine's father.
-
I am baffled as to why anyone would think that had Amaral's appeal against the first judgement been thrown out that this would have been a failure for the McCanns, to have walked away with the largest damages settlement in Portuguese history.
That is because you do not understand what the payment was about and seemingly the value of the writ. Try reading and comprehending the first instance judgement properly. Even OxfordBlue called that one correctly.
-
The first instance judgement was very shaky, but Amaral's ability to appeal had been damaged by the injunction freezing his assets. Had people not donated to allow him to appeal it would indeed have been a resounding victory. The appeal demonstrated just how much of a miscarriage of justice that would have been.
Well thanks for admitting that at least.
-
Well thanks for admitting that at least.
It would have been resounding but wrong.
-
It would have been resounding but wrong.
A resounding victory, yes. Wrong, not in my opinion.
-
That is because you do not understand what the payment was about and seemingly the value of the writ. Try reading and comprehending the first instance judgement properly. Even OxfordBlue called that one correctly.
No, it demonstrated how myopic (at most charitable) Portuguese appeal-court judges are.
With a joint-investigation (possibly) on the brink of solving the case, Amaral might yet be made to look a tad daft accusing the McCanns of disposing of her body and simulating an 'abduction'.
Oh, and launching a fraudulent "fund" in their (dead) daughter's name.
-
A resounding victory, yes. Wrong, not in my opinion.
Your opinion is irrelevant.
-
Your opinion is irrelevant.
so is everyones on this forum
-
Your opinion is irrelevant.
As is yours.
-
As is yours.
Unsupported opinions aren't worthy of attention, whoever they belong to. Opinions based on known facts are much more interesting because there has been an effort to explain why the opinion was formed.
-
Unsupported opinions aren't worthy of attention, whoever they belong to. Opinions based on known facts are much more interesting because there has been an effort to explain why the opinion was formed.
But only in your opinion.
-
Unsupported opinions aren't worthy of attention, whoever they belong to. Opinions based on known facts are much more interesting because there has been an effort to explain why the opinion was formed.
Didn't the opinion of the Court judges come into their decisions? There are continual references to the McCanns own interviews, now I think it is right that the parents are interviewed so why should that have an effect on Amaral's duty of reserve. I can't see how they can logically link the two together.
-
Unsupported opinions aren't worthy of attention, whoever they belong to. Opinions based on known facts are much more interesting because there has been an effort to explain why the opinion was formed.
not really.....opinions even on known facts are totally subjective and therefore of no value
-
not really.....opinions even on known facts are totally subjective and therefore of no value
There is more to life than just facts surely. Shared opinions become something like a movement.
-
Didn't the opinion of the Court judges come into their decisions? There are continual references to the McCanns own interviews, now I think it is right that the parents are interviewed so why should that have an effect on Amaral's duty of reserve. I can't see how they can logically link the two together.
This from the first appeal judgement:
"And because from the proved matter results that – apart from it being about facts that have been profusely published in the inquiry and even publicised through an initiative of the Republic’s Prosecutor General’s Office – it was the subjects of the appeal themselves [Kate and Gerry McCann] who, benefiting from an easy access, multiplied themselves in interviews and interventions in national and international media, one must conclude that it was them who, voluntarily, limited their rights to reservation and to the intimacy of private life."
Isn't that conclusion an unsupported opinion? That is totally disgusting if I'm allowed an opinion.
-
This from the first appeal judgement:
"And because from the proved matter results that – apart from it being about facts that have been profusely published in the inquiry and even publicised through an initiative of the Republic’s Prosecutor General’s Office – it was the subjects of the appeal themselves [Kate and Gerry McCann] who, benefiting from an easy access, multiplied themselves in interviews and interventions in national and international media, one must conclude that it was them who, voluntarily, limited their rights to reservation and to the intimacy of private life."
Isn't that conclusion an unsupported opinion? That is totally disgusting if I'm allowed an opinion.
Is it not true?
-
There is more to life than just facts surely. Shared opinions become something like a movement.
like the flat earth movement
-
Your opinion is irrelevant.
Not to me it isn't.
-
What happened to "all opinions are equally valid" anyway? I thought that was a forum maxim.
-
Is it not true?
The McCanns publicised the plight of their daughter because they were persuaded, on the advice of agencies with vast experience in dealing with aftermath of child-abduction, that this was the most likely and effective route of achieving the desired result of being reunited with their daughter, although it was always acknowledged that there might be certain risks to such a strategy.
-
Didn't the opinion of the Court judges come into their decisions? There are continual references to the McCanns own interviews, now I think it is right that the parents are interviewed so why should that have an effect on Amaral's duty of reserve. I can't see how they can logically link the two together.
The McCanns claimed that Amaral breached their right to a good name and reputation and to the protection of the intimacy of private and family life.
The Appeal judges pointed out that they voluntarily sacrificed their privacy by giving interviews;
And because from the proved matter results that – apart from it being about facts that have been profusely published in the inquiry and even publicised through an initiative of the Republic’s Prosecutor General’s Office – it was the subjects of the appeal themselves [Kate and Gerry McCann] who, benefiting from an easy access, multiplied themselves in interviews and interventions in national and international media, one must conclude that it was them who, voluntarily, limited their rights to reservation and to the intimacy of private life.
By proceeding in this manner, they opened the way for anyone to equally express an opinion about the case, contradicting their thesis – without losing their right to exercise a legitimate, and constitutionally consecrated, right to an opinion and a freedom of expression of thought.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7153.0
-
not really.....opinions even on known facts are totally subjective and therefore of no value
They are also open to debate and can be countered by reference to other known facts. An opinion offered without any reference to the facts it's based on can't be debated, so it's irrelevant on a debating forum.
-
So, if you ever give an interview in national or international media you automatically forfeit your right to a private life, is that what the judgement is suggesting?
-
So, if you ever give an interview in national or international media you automatically forfeit your right to a private life, is that what the judgement is suggesting?
It would depend who instigated it and what you said.
-
So, if you ever give an interview in national or international media you automatically forfeit your right to a private life, is that what the judgement is suggesting?
One interview????????
-
They are also open to debate and can be countered by reference to other known facts. An opinion offered without any reference to the facts it's based on can't be debated, so it's irrelevant on a debating forum.
debate is a total waste of time.You think the statements are accurate....I think they are not and we have no way of checking.....same goes for many other points raised on here
-
One interview????????
How many interviews do you have to give before you forfeit the right to a private life then?
-
It would depend who instigated it and what you said.
OK. Well how about I instigated it, and it was to publicise the fact that my daughter had disappeared, would I forfeit the right to a private life then?
-
It would depend who instigated it and what you said.
Well did you ever see something that was untoward?
-
How many interviews do you have to give before you forfeit the right to a private life then?
I don't know about Portugal, but US libel law is different for 'public figures'. Interestingly, the Supreme Court judges referred to the McCanns as public figures;
In United States law, public figure is a term applied in the context of defamation actions (libel and slander) as well as invasion of privacy. A public figure (such as a politician, celebrity, or business leader) cannot base a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth).[1] The burden of proof in defamation actions is higher in the case of a public figure......A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure
-
OK. Well how about I instigated it, and it was to publicise the fact that my daughter had disappeared, would I forfeit the right to a private life then?
Yes; if you, like Kate, don't admit to a crime you didn't do, when given the generous option of taking a minimal sentence.
-
I don't know about Portugal, but US libel law is different for 'public figures'. Interestingly, the Supreme Court judges referred to the McCanns as public figures;
In United States law, public figure is a term applied in the context of defamation actions (libel and slander) as well as invasion of privacy. A public figure (such as a politician, celebrity, or business leader) cannot base a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth).[1] The burden of proof in defamation actions is higher in the case of a public figure......A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure
Do you think Amaral has forfeited his right to a private life too? What about Murat? He has given interviews.
-
Do you think Amaral has forfeited his right to a private life too? What about Murat? He has given interviews.
IMO absolutely in the case of Amaral.
-
Do you think Amaral has forfeited his right to a private life too? What about Murat? He has given interviews.
If they sued someone in the Portuguese Courts we might find out.
-
If they sued someone in the Portuguese Courts we might find out.
In the interview with Amaral he mentions aspects of Kate's Diary and as far as I know that was never made public so there appear to be information being divulged that conflicts with his Duty of Reserve.
FULL ENGLISH TRANSLATION - Maddie McCann The Mystery Gonçalo Amaral - CMTV April 23rd 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FKsKD78Qsc&t=18s
Has Kate's diary been published for all to read?
-
If they sued someone in the Portuguese Courts we might find out.
Well, let's say the Portuguese courts decided that both Murat and Amaral had a right to a private life would that seem just to you?
-
Well, let's say the Portuguese courts decided that both Murat and Amaral had a right to a private life would that seem just to you?
I don't have any thoughts either way. I can understand why the judges would say the McCanns sacrificed their own privacy, however. Numerous photo calls and interviews, documentaries filmed in their home, inviting the press to accompany them on their European 'tour', allowing Gerry to be filmed at work.......
-
Well, let's say the Portuguese courts decided that both Murat and Amaral had a right to a private life would that seem just to you?
Can we say what we like about Amaral, Murat and the McCanns because they have lost their rights to privacy?
-
I don't have any thoughts either way. I can understand why the judges would say the McCanns sacrificed their own privacy, however. Numerous photo calls and interviews, documentaries filmed in their home, inviting the press to accompany them on their European 'tour', allowing Gerry to be filmed at work.......
The Queen has also done all of the above and other members of the Royal Family, that will be why they no longer have the right to any privacy.
-
Can we say what we like about Amaral, Murat and the McCanns because they have lost their rights to privacy?
In the precedent set by the Portuguese courts in the McCann case it would seem so, yes, but only in Portugal. As far as providing details of their private life, Amaral's wife even went so far as to confirm that her ex is (was) a red hot lover. TMI!!!!
-
Can we say what we like about Amaral, Murat and the McCanns because they have lost their rights to privacy?
I've no idea. All I know is that in Portugal you will find it difficult to claim someone breached your right to privacy if you yourself voluntarily sacrificed your privacy.
-
In the precedent set by the Portuguese courts in the McCann case it would seem so, yes, but only in Portugal. As far as providing details of their private life, Amaral's wife even went so far as to confirm that her ex is (was) a red hot lover. TMI!!!!
Oh this would only apply in Portugal. You'd think because they quote European Law it would also apply throughout the EU and that includes UK doesn't it?
-
Oh this would only apply in Portugal. You'd think because they quote European Law it would also apply throughout the EU and that includes UK doesn't it?
Nah, Portugal makes it up as it goes along - IMO.
-
I've no idea. All I know is that in Portugal you will find it difficult to claim someone breached your right to privacy if you yourself voluntarily sacrificed your privacy.
Precisely the point, and that is what the McCann's did.
There is that infamous Sun headline.
-
I've no idea. All I know is that in Portugal you will find it difficult to claim someone breached your right to privacy if you yourself voluntarily sacrificed your privacy.
How does one voluntarily sacrifice one's privacy if one is a Portuguese politician or a public figure.
Does the same apply to any private person who is drawn into the public eye?
-
Nah, Portugal makes it up as it goes along - IMO.
You could be right there.
-
In the precedent set by the Portuguese courts in the McCann case it would seem so, yes, but only in Portugal. As far as providing details of their private life, Amaral's wife even went so far as to confirm that her ex is (was) a red hot lover. TMI!!!!
Indeed.
-
How does one voluntarily sacrifice one's privacy if one is a Portuguese politician or a public figure.
Does the same apply to any private person who is drawn into the public eye?
Perhaps they take the same view as the US? I posted this earlier;
I don't know about Portugal, but US libel law is different for 'public figures'. Interestingly, the Supreme Court judges referred to the McCanns as public figures;
In United States law, public figure is a term applied in the context of defamation actions (libel and slander) as well as invasion of privacy. A public figure (such as a politician, celebrity, or business leader) cannot base a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth).[1] The burden of proof in defamation actions is higher in the case of a public figure......A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure
Modify message
-
One thing is certain.
If Operation Grange, a joint Portuguese/Scotland Yard investigation, pursuing leads not remotely connected with the McCanns nor any of their friends, cracks the case and brings perpetrator(s) of crime(s) against Madeleine to book, these Supreme Court judges will be made to look slightly daft.
If they don't already.
-
One thing is certain.
If Operation Grange, a joint Portuguese/Scotland Yard investigation, pursuing leads not remotely connected with the McCanns nor any of their friends, cracks the case and brings perpetrator(s) of crime(s) against Madeleine to book, these Supreme Court judges will be made to look slightly daft.
If they don't already.
Don't they make it clear they are not examining the truth of the case, but just Amaral's right to publish something a normal active police officer would not be allowed to due to the duty of reserve.
-
One thing is certain.
If Operation Grange, a joint Portuguese/Scotland Yard investigation, pursuing leads not remotely connected with the McCanns nor any of their friends, cracks the case and brings perpetrator(s) of crime(s) against Madeleine to book, these Supreme Court judges will be made to look slightly daft.
If they don't already.
Incorrect! There is no joint investigation.
-
Incorrect! There is no joint investigation.
I've no clue why you waste your time and everyone else's denying facts.
-
I've no clue why you waste your time and everyone else's denying facts.
Please provide cite for a joint investigation. N.B. It doesn't mean they are in communication.
-
One thing is certain.
If Operation Grange, a joint Portuguese/Scotland Yard investigation, pursuing leads not remotely connected with the McCanns nor any of their friends, cracks the case and brings perpetrator(s) of crime(s) against Madeleine to book, these Supreme Court judges will be made to look slightly daft.
If they don't already.
Crack what.
-
Please provide cite for a joint investigation. N.B. It doesn't mean they are in communication.
At one time you used to be able to bring up the remit of operation grange which makes plain exactly who is involved in the investigation and that Portuguese agencies of law enforcement have primacy in a joint investigation.
Now you can't.
That isn't because the remit has changed.
It is because those who know how to manipulate google caches have done so.
I have, in the past, produced it often enough on this board.
Scroll down to the 6th post in this link
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2784.msg128109#msg128109
What all the links in the post by Redblossom now bring up is this.
https://beta.met.police.uk/
-
I've no clue why you waste your time and everyone else's denying facts.
Because you waste your time and everyone else's inventing facts?
-
At one time you used to be able to bring up the remit of operation grange which makes plain exactly who is involved in the investigation and that Portuguese agencies of law enforcement have primacy in a joint investigation.
Now you can't.
That isn't because the remit has changed.
It is because those who know how to manipulate google caches have done so.
I have, in the past, produced it often enough on this board.
Scroll down to the 6th post in this link
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2784.msg128109#msg128109
What all the links in the post by Redblossom now bring up is this.
https://beta.met.police.uk/
You mean...
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wVVwge-VNPQ/TwXAhx0jioI/AAAAAAAAAQ8/YLUjKc6C[Name removed]w/s1600/Op+Grange.jpg)
-
Crack what.
Crack the case of course, solve it.
-
You mean...
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wVVwge-VNPQ/TwXAhx0jioI/AAAAAAAAAQ8/YLUjKc6C[Name removed]w/s1600/Op+Grange.jpg)
That is indeed the one.
-
That is indeed the one.
Maybe you could point out "joint"?
-
Maybe going to the tree will be better than picking up windfalls?:
https://www.europol.europa.eu/activities-services/services-support/joint-investigation-teams
-
Maybe you could point out "joint"?
Joint is implicit in a collective enterprise.
Nicola Wall has been taciturn, unlike Andy Redwood, who, during his tenure in charge, made several references to liaison between British and Portuguese police in progressing the joint enquiry.
-
Maybe going to the tree will be better than picking up windfalls?:
https://www.europol.europa.eu/activities-services/services-support/joint-investigation-teams
Good tree just didn't have any fruit on it.
-
Good tree just didn't have any fruit on it.
Each JIT is set up to investigate a specific case. Once the investigation has concluded, the JIT is shut down: there are no permanent or ongoing JITs. The terms in accordance with which a JIT is to operate vary to a degree with each case, but they are based on a model agreement appended to) Council Resolution (2010/C 70/01), which encourages the competent authorities in Member States to use it “to agree upon the modalities for the joint investigation team.”
So FM will be able to refer to the terms the JIT is to operate by in this case.
-
Crack the case of course, solve it.
Of course Rob. &%&£(+
-
Of course Rob. &%&£(+
It sounds like they are finally onto the right person, the one hanging the apartment. I know Jez was there but was there anyone else?
-
It sounds like they are finally onto the right person, the one hanging the apartment. I know Jez was there but was there anyone else?
You really aren't reading what has been reported, have you.
The Portuguese, by the way, have nothing to say on this matter.
-
You really aren't reading what has been reported, have you.
The Portuguese, by the way, have nothing to say on this matter.
How did this topic get into the thread about duty of reserve?
-
Joint is implicit in a collective enterprise.
Nicola Wall has been taciturn, unlike Andy Redwood, who, during his tenure in charge, made several references to liaison between British and Portuguese police in progressing the joint enquiry.
Implicit? Reading between the lines again?
Mrs McCann said she was particularly frustrated that police in Portugal had so far ruled out a joint inquiry with their British counterparts.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/85may14/BBC_01_05_2014.htm
-
Implicit? Reading between the lines again?
Mrs McCann said she was particularly frustrated that police in Portugal had so far ruled out a joint inquiry with their British counterparts.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/85may14/BBC_01_05_2014.htm
It would become too obvious how long they took for their lunches.
-
It would become too obvious how long they took for their lunches.
Really.
So how long do British coppers take over their lunches or tea-breaks ?
-
Really.
So how long do British coppers take over their lunches or tea-breaks ?
I'd imagine they are like NZ workers and eat their lunch at the keyboard. They would sneak out to make a cup of tea when a file is downloading or printing.
-
I'd imagine they are like NZ workers and eat their lunch at the keyboard. They would sneak out to make a cup of tea when a file is downloading or printing.
You need to get out a bit.
-
You need to get out a bit.
They do get out after 2 -3 hours of free time donated to their employer at the end of day. We just do not like getting behind.