From todays Sky News article:
"They also confirmed they would be appealing against the latest judgement against them in an eight-year libel battle with former detective Goncalo Amaral."
http://news.sky.com/story/kate-mccann-says-she-still-buys-presents-for-missing-daughter-madeleine-10857258
The Portuguese Supreme Court has made its decision and repelled any possibility of appeal so what is this about?
From todays Sky News article:
"They also confirmed they would be appealing against the latest judgement against them in an eight-year libel battle with former detective Goncalo Amaral."
http://news.sky.com/story/kate-mccann-says-she-still-buys-presents-for-missing-daughter-madeleine-10857258
The Portuguese Supreme Court has made its decision and repelled any possibility of appeal so what is this about?
Is this yet more Brunt crap?
I think they are taking a risk here if they go ahead. Losing at the ECHR will remove any justification for criticising Portugal, it's laws and it's Judiciary once and for all.
I think they are taking a risk here if they go ahead. Losing at the ECHR will remove any justification for criticising Portugal, it's laws and it's Judiciary once and for all.
As we know, the success rate of cases brought to the E.C.H.R. , by UK residents is abysmal.
Then there is the long waiting list.
MEANWHILE, THEY STILL HAVE TO PAY WHAT THEY OWE.
As we know, if they go to the E.C.H.R., they are effectively taking the whole of Portugal to court.Unusual things can happen.
Probability of success, given that they have already been through the Portuguese Justice System, ZERO.
...and if they dare try to say their human rights have been abused, they will be laughed out of court.
Unusual things can happen.
As we know, if they go to the E.C.H.R., they are effectively taking the whole of Portugal to court.
Probability of success, given that they have already been through the Portuguese Justice System, ZERO.
...and if they dare try to say their human rights have been abused, they will be laughed out of court.
theres been a fairly recent case posted which had been all through the portuguese courts and portugal lost in the ECHR...that is a fact...all your posts are opinion
May well be the McCanns will also win...taht is my opinion
theres been a fairly recent case posted which had been all through the portuguese courts and portugal lost in the ECHR...that is a fact...all your posts are opinionDid that win/loss alter anything in Portugal,save maybe presenting a winning hand for Mr Amaral.
May well be the McCanns will also win...taht is my opinion
Did that win/loss alter anything in Portugal,save maybe presenting a winning hand for Mr Amaral.
Did that win/loss alter anything in Portugal,save maybe presenting a winning hand for Mr Amaral.
Yes, it was a victory for freedom of speech.This is what I was alluding to.
Yes, it was a victory for freedom of speech.
you are not biased at all are you??
Yes, it was a victory for freedom of speech.a victory for freedom to libel
Yes, it was a victory for freedom of speech.
It wasn't their human rights that were abused.Their right to a good name.
sure was 8(0(*
Their right to a good name.
Hasn't quite unleashed the Tsunami of positive press articles for Amaral and the "turning of the tide" against the McCanns as many sceptics predicted.
Has it?
Try again Rob.
They sullied their names all by themselves by not taking care of their children, and Portuguese and UK tax payers, have bourn the brunt since then.
exactly no one forced them to leave their children did they they were and are adults they need to face up to their lack of responisbilit and they neve rhave either have their supporters the mcanns could have said dont do what we did but they never did
In the UK press ??
They have shown virtually unadulterated backing for them , for the last 8 years
Not quite.
There has been some negative bits and pieces but yes the press has backed them especially in the last few days. 8((()*/
I said virtually unadulterated.
Yet, all the silly stories, run and run.
None of that will concern the ECHRLeap of faith to think it will get that far.
I said virtually unadulterated.
Yet, all the silly stories, run and run.
our australian media has told some harsh truths about the mcanns the last few weeks i was very pleased 8)-)))
Don't let it bother you. You don't have to read them.
No, no, it'll be good fun to laugh at all the tripe put forward in an orgasm of adulation.
our australian media has told some harsh truths about the mcanns the last few weeks i was very pleased 8)-)))Yes we saw the programme
If the ECHR rule taht portugal abused tge Mccanns human rights ...particularly their right to te presumption of innocence....then that will be a massive victory for teh mccanns and a massive embarrassment to portugal
That is true but what about Maddie's human rights. Did she have the right to be properly protected as are all small children?
a victory for freedom to libel
Try again Rob.If that was all that Amaral said then there would be no complaint.
They sullied their names all by themselves by not taking care of their children, and Portuguese and UK tax payers, have bourn the brunt since then.
They are appealing to the ECHR against the judgement. The ECHR cannot reverse the judgeemnt but can award compensation and also criticise the judgement and suggest changes to the judicial system
That is true but what about Maddie's human rights. Did she have the right to be properly protected as are all small children?
I am assuming you are not talking about the same case.
That is not permissible under ECHR rules. The judgement of the highest court of a member of the Council of Europe remains.
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/50Questions_ENG.pdf
theres been a fairly recent case posted which had been all through the portuguese courts and portugal lost in the ECHR...that is a fact...all your posts are opinion
May well be the McCanns will also win...taht is my opinion
the trial will not be about maddie ...you are diverting
The whole sorry business stopped being about Madeleine on 27th April 2015. Since then it has all been about her parents.
Indeed, it is all about the parents.
The whole sorry business stopped being about Madeleine on 27th April 2015. Since then it has all been about her parents.In your opinion
From todays Sky News article:
"They also confirmed they would be appealing against the latest judgement against them in an eight-year libel battle with former detective Goncalo Amaral."
http://news.sky.com/story/kate-mccann-says-she-still-buys-presents-for-missing-daughter-madeleine-10857258
The Portuguese Supreme Court has made its decision and repelled any possibility of appeal so what is this about?
Is this yet more Brunt crap?
From todays Sky News article:
"They also confirmed they would be appealing against the latest judgement against them in an eight-year libel battle with former detective Goncalo Amaral."
http://news.sky.com/story/kate-mccann-says-she-still-buys-presents-for-missing-daughter-madeleine-10857258
The Portuguese Supreme Court has made its decision and repelled any possibility of appeal so what is this about?
Is this yet more Brunt crap?
When stupid (and sometimes corrupt) human beings foul up in a way that thwarts justice, why should there not be further avenues of appeal?
When stupid (and sometimes corrupt) human beings foul up in a way that thwarts justice, why should there not be further avenues of appeal?
I suppose that when the ECHR rules against them, (if it doesn't throw the case out first), they will be unjust and corrupt as well
If it gets that far and the European Court, also, were to be that stupid, absolutely ....
Justice was done and the law obeyed.
Time to get over it.
the papers are not speaking in precise legal terms..the mccanns will be arguing that the judgeemnt has deprived them of their human rights
I was not talking about what the papers may or not have said.
I was responding to your post which said:
"They are appealing to the ECHR against the judgement".
That's right
I am repeating what the papers said
The ECHR can rule that the verdict by the SC is a miscarriage of justice
They cannot force the court to change their decision but they can rule it was wrong
That will certainly disappoint some posters
The ECHR may well rule taht justice wasnt done....and of course you will then have to accept their decision
I am...a victory for defamation
They can't rule on that either. They can only rule on the rights defined by the European Convention of Human Rights.
The following rights, in particular, are protected:
the right to life;
the right to a fair hearing in civil and criminal matters;
the right to respect for private and family life;
freedom of expression;
freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
the right to an effective remedy;
the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions; and
the right to vote and to stand for election.
they can rule on the presumption of innocence....and I understand that claims for "libel" are grought under the right to a family and private life...they can therefore rule that the judgement in portugal violated their rights and was therefore unjust
right to a fair hearing is there too
As already pointed out, it all comes down to semantics. Regardless of what the ECHR might decide wrt human rights the Portuguese Supreme Court decision was final. The ECHR cannot tell a country what laws they can and cannot invoke.
As already pointed out, it all comes down to semantics. Regardless of what the ECHR might decide wrt human rights the Portuguese Supreme Court decision was final. The ECHR cannot tell a country what laws they can and cannot invoke.
They can but as already pointed out a while back, if the McCanns raise an action against Portugal in the ECHR they will be effectively cutting off the legs of the investigation in Portugal.
they can rule that the judgement was unjust and order the country to pay compensation.
On what basis would they do that?
The McCanns were not denied the right to fair trial which is about all the ECHR would be interested in.
There are two hurdles to jump before it will even be heard.
they were denied the presumption of innocence........they may well have been denied the right to a free trial....we will see.....its very premature of posters here saying they have zero chances of success...they mat well ahve a very good case. amaral has clearly libelled them and that will almost certainly another compalint
In your opinion
And in my opinion you and others who share this view are speaking absolute rubbish
And again showing your bias
On what basis would they do that?
The McCanns were not denied the right to fair trial which is about all the ECHR would be interested in.
There are two hurdles to jump before it will even be heard.
Not according to the Portuguese Supreme Court.
This time it is not up to the portuguese courts...article 8 deals with the right to reputation as an aspect to the right to a private life. Amarals claims are clearly defamatory....so the ECHR would make the decision as to who's right...amaral or the mccanns is more important
Wrong, the SC is the highest authority.
This time it is not up to the portuguese courts...article 8 deals with the right to reputation as an aspect to the right to a private life. Amarals claims are clearly defamatory....so the ECHR would make the decision as to who's right...amaral or the mccanns is more important
Wrong, the SC is the highest authority.
Nowt to do with Amaral any more.
nothing to do with amaral at all
they were denied the presumption of innocence........they may well have been denied the right to a free trial....we will see.....its very premature of posters here saying they have zero chances of success...they mat well ahve a very good case. amaral has clearly libelled them and that will almost certainly another compalint
they can rule on the presumption of innocence....and I understand that claims for "libel" are grought under the right to a family and private life...they can therefore rule that the judgement in portugal violated their rights and was therefore unjust
right to a fair hearing is there too
If you understood the presumption of innocence you would understand that it has no bearing on a civil trial. It is relevant only in criminal matters. The McCanns were never denied the resumption of innocence. It's a fair trial, not a free one and they weren't denied that either. (although it certainly wasn't free)I think your interpretation of that may be wrong and i see no point arguing about it...we will see....there is then the question of defamation and from what i have read re article 8 the mccanns have a real case and a real chance of success
They are brought under Articles 6 & 10.
The McCanns brought the case in Portugal. They were afforded all the opportunities for a fair trial under Portuguese law and to its full extent. Where is the argument apart from the fact it didn't go they way they wanted it to?
They are brought under Articles 6 & 10.
The McCanns brought the case in Portugal. They were afforded all the opportunities for a fair trial under Portuguese law and to its full extent. Where is the argument apart from the fact it didn't go they way they wanted it to?
What some seem to miss is that the book wasn't about the disappearance but about the investigation.
the book accused the mccanns of being guilty of criminal offences
The book said that the investigation came to the conclusion that that was the most likely scenario based on the information they had.
Nowt to do with Amaral any more.
It is always to do with Sr Amaral, the dogs and the trolls, according to some..... 8(0(*
Maybe we should put that idea to Julia Donaldson and Axel Scheffler ?
Going to the E.C.H.R., means effectively taking the State of Portugal to court.
Perhaps the McCann's because of their egos will be stupid enough to try.
they will have to deal with the repucussions
Good luck with the ECHR:
http://app.echr.coe.int/CheckList/?cookieCheck=true
Good luck with the ECHR:
http://app.echr.coe.int/CheckList/?cookieCheck=true
it is nothing to do with amaral now...its an action against the SC for its failure to deliver justice
Good luck with the ECHR:
http://app.echr.coe.int/CheckList/?cookieCheck=true
Any action will be against the Portuguese Republic.
What is self evident, is that the McCanns have no chance trying to go to the ECHR.
It would be yet another miserable failure.
What is self evident, is that the McCanns have no chance trying to go to the ECHR.
It would be yet another miserable failure.
And how we can chortle and slap our thighs in glee @)(++(*
I observe that discussion often drifts off-topic - even the odd mod is guilty at times, but I always rely on the real mods, rather than pretendy ones to bring me back on course.
Can we get back to the topic then?
of course and i still think the mccans going to the euro human rights court is a waste of time dont you??
those of us who have some knowledge of the court understand that the mccanns have a good case...a very good case
Saying you have knowledge of the court, is merely an opinion.
Citations are required to prove the point.
Saying you have knowledge of the court, is merely an opinion.
Citations are required to prove the point.
Lets see if an application is actually made to the Court. At the moment it's all talk. I presume there will be a deadline.
right and saying the mcanns will win etc when it is 99% unlikley isnt a cite is it??
How can one give a cite for the knowledge one has?
How can one give a cite for the knowledge one has?
Saying you have knowledge of the court, is merely an opinion.https:///
Citations are required to prove the point.
Without a cite it is just an appeal to authority fallacy.
The Mccanns have had every opportunity to prove their case in Portugal..
They failed.
If they do not pay what is due, they will be going through the courts themselves.
So why haven't they paid what they owe.
As they have been through the legal system over several years, they have had every opportunity to prove their case, which they couldn't.
To imply they have had their human rights abused is a ludicrous assertion, and one which will not stand up in the ECHR.
IMO, it is an act of gross stupidity to do so.
The idea of taking the Portuguese nation to court , and that is what it amounts to, is beyond derision.
The Mccanns have had every opportunity to prove their case in Portugal..
They failed.
If they do not pay what is due, they will be going through the courts themselves.
So why haven't they paid what they owe.
As they have been through the legal system over several years, they have had every opportunity to prove their case, which they couldn't.
To imply they have had their human rights abused is a ludicrous assertion, and one which will not stand up in the ECHR.
IMO, it is an act of gross stupidity to do so.
The idea of taking the Portuguese nation to court , and that is what it amounts to, is beyond derision.
Arguing the toss over something that hasn't yet happened ( an application) seems pretty pointless.
Better to wait until the case has been accepted by the court before getting all excited over previous cases that may or may not be relevant.
https:///
ive looked at several....you obviously ahve looked at none
it will be decided under article 8....have alook at this...https://strasbourgobservers.com/2010/11/01/the-right-to-reputation-under-the-european-convention-on-human-rights/
Or
https://inforrm.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/is-there-a-right-to-reputation-part-1-heather-rogers-qc/ (https://inforrm.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/is-there-a-right-to-reputation-part-1-heather-rogers-qc/)
Indeed Jassi.
Getting the case accepted is a rather major hurdle to overcome.
Unless the interview was out of kilter, the McCanns have not lodged anything with the ECHR.
Or
https://inforrm.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/is-there-a-right-to-reputation-part-1-heather-rogers-qc/ (https://inforrm.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/is-there-a-right-to-reputation-part-1-heather-rogers-qc/)
this is 2014
It is now clearly established in the case law of the Court of Human Rights that Article 8 protects the “right to reputation” as an aspect of private life. This is a relatively new idea, first appearing the case law as recently as 2004 (see Chauvy v France [70]).
The development was a controversial one because “reputation” was deliberately left out of Article 8 when the Convention was drafted (see our posts by Heather Rogers QC “Is there a right to reputation?“, Part 1 and Part 2). Nevertheless, the case law in both Strasbourg and the domestic courts is clear and consistent and is not likely to be reversed.
it obviously supersedes and mentions your cite
https://inforrm.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/privacy-and-defamation-strasbourg-blurs-the-boundaries-hugh-tomlinson-qc/
I just followed the links to further readings in your cite.
On what grounds will the Mccanns go to the ECHR. and take the State of Portugal to court ?The way I look at it was Portugal made sure they lost.
They were allowed to take up their case in Portugal, and they lost.
On what grounds will the Mccanns go to the ECHR. and take the State of Portugal to court ?
They were allowed to take up their case in Portugal, and they lost.
article 8...defamation...have you not read the posts this evening
I - Freedom of expression and honor constitute two fundamental rights, which, given their relevance, deserved constitutional consecration.
II - These are rights belonging to the category of rights, freedoms and personal guarantees, so that its specific regime, namely that provided for in Article 18 (2) of the CRP, is applicable to them.
III - Paragraph 2 thus gave expression to the principle of proportionality, also called the prohibition of excess principle.
IV - In the light of the Constitution, freedom of expression and honor have the same legal value, making any principle of abstract hierarchy impractical.
V - The principle of practical agreement or harmonization must therefore be resorted to.
VI - However, since it is impossible to reach a harmonization solution, in order to obain a fair solution for the conflict of rights, weighting of goods will have to be made, according to balancing methodology adapted to the specificity of the case.
VII - Reason why the resolution of the conflict will have to assume a concrete nature, exhausting itself in each case that resolves.
VIII - The concrete resolution of the conflict between freedom of expression and the honor of public figures, in the European legal context where we are inserted, takes place under the influence of the European jurisprudential paradigm of human rights.
IX - The ECHR, in interpreting and applying the European Convention on Human Rights, has defended and developed a doctrine of enhanced protection of freedom of expression, in particular where the target of imputed facts and of formulation of dishonorouble value judgments is a public figure and there is an issue of political or public interest in general.
X - In the light of a case-law approach stabilised by the ECHR, as it happens in cases like the present case, Portuguese courts can not but be influenced by the European paradigm of human rights.
XI - Weighing the interests involved and following a balancing methodology adapted to the specific nature of the case, it must be concluded that it is freedom of expression which in the present case requires greater protection.
XII - Since the exercise of freedom of expression in the present case is within the limits that must be considered admissible in a democratic today society, open and plural, taking into account the above-mentioned criteria of weighting and the principle of proportionality, which precludes the unlawfulness of the damage to the appellants' honor.
XIII - The principle of the presumption of innocence and the duty to reserve are irrelevant for the decision on the question that has to be solved.
Summary of Judgement
so it seems the mccanns will have a strong case to take portugal to the ECHR
this is 2014
It is now clearly established in the case law of the Court of Human Rights that Article 8 protects the “right to reputation” as an aspect of private life. This is a relatively new idea, first appearing the case law as recently as 2004 (see Chauvy v France [70]).
The development was a controversial one because “reputation” was deliberately left out of Article 8 when the Convention was drafted (see our posts by Heather Rogers QC “Is there a right to reputation?“, Part 1 and Part 2). Nevertheless, the case law in both Strasbourg and the domestic courts is clear and consistent and is not likely to be reversed.
it obviously supersedes and mentions your cite
https://inforrm.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/privacy-and-defamation-strasbourg-blurs-the-boundaries-hugh-tomlinson-qc/
you are posting the opinion of the SC...the mccanns want the opinion of the ECHR
That's definitive then.
Kate and Gerry McCann are entitled to take their case ... whatever their lawyers advise it should be, to the ECHR.
May good luck go with them should they decide to proceed.
The ECHR will be interested in how the SC came to their judgement and to ensure they considered how it fitted in with the ECHR. From the judgement they did.
The ECHR will be interested in how the SC came to their judgement and to ensure they considered how it fitted in with the ECHR. From the judgement they did.
The ECHR will be interested in how the SC came to their judgement and to ensure they considered how it fitted in with the ECHR. From the judgement they did.
The ECHR will in the first instance be interested in whether the application is admissible to heard by the committee which decides whether it will be admissible to be heard by the court. So there are two hurdles to clear, neither of which has an appeals procedure so out is out. The typical time scale is 5 years to committee and a further 5 years to be heard by the court. The application has to be in by July 31st 2017.
The SC overlooked the breach of duty of reserve, presumption of innocence & the filing category of the original archiving report to reach their decision. Neither impartial nor just, IMO - but then I'm not a lawyer, judge or even Portuguese.
That was point XIII
That was point XIII
the ruling in portugal has absolutely no bearing on the ECHR
on what do you base thatOn the interview, where Gerry McCann said they had not lodged an appeal to the ECHR.
McCanns vow to fight Gonçalo Amaral in the European Courts?
by Joana Morais
published 30 April 2017
"It seems increasingly clear that McCann case is no longer about what happened to a little girl, but an attempt — some say cover-up — to absolve "upstanding Brits" of any responsibility, conveniently blaming Portugal, the poor man of Europe, for a botched investigation and overall ineptness." - Chris Freind, 2013
McCanns exclusive interview to the BBC | Photo: Joe Giddens/PA
On what is said to be an exclusive interview to be broadcast today by the BBC (for an undisclosed amount), the McCanns vow to take Gonçalo Amaral to the European Court of Human Rights, because “the last judgement is terrible”. True to their character, their blatant disregard for freedom of expression, constitutional rights and vindictiveness levelled at the former inspector of the Judiciary Police knows no bounds.
No one can forget that Kate McCann once had this to say about the former inspector: "He [Gonçalo Amaral] deserves to be miserable and feel fear." No one can also forget that the money that was donated to fund the search for Madeleine has been used to pay for a relentless PR campaign against the former inspector, but also against the Judiciary Police, against the Portuguese institutions and authorities since 2007. That same money donated by the caring and concerned public world-wide to the search fund turned into a legal fund used to attempt to silence the former inspector, numerous newspapers in Portugal and abroad, TV channels and anyone who would dare to present, factually, a thesis that didn't meet the McCann's criteria - a criteria that is based on the image the couple wishes to project to the world. The fund was also used to at least once pay for the McCann's mortgage and in detectives that were far more experienced in dealing with corporate spying, in mediocre rent-a-cops, some of which attempted to exert pressure in the PJ officers working in the case and it is alleged that some have even created fake leads and unexistent connections to dead little girls, victims without a name, only to sustain the abduction thesis, wasting police time and resources.
Unlike what the couple alleges in this BBC exclusive and has done in numerous other interviews along the years, the investigation in Portugal was archived, mainly, due to the lack of cooperation of the British authorities (ex. refusing to send financial information) and the McCanns' friends unwillingness to cooperate with the Portuguese police, when for example, the crucial step of doing a reconstruction, in situ, with the whole group was refused because "it wouldn't have media benefits" i.e. it wouldn't be televised. And also because even before the McCanns were constituted as arguidos by the Portuguese prosecutors there was an enormous pressure, both political and economic, on the Portuguese authorities to investigate this case solely as an abduction, sabotaging all the other hypotheses the PJ attempted to explore. The English tabloid media distortion that was echoed in the world-media, was then and is now, essentially a calculated PR game to stir nationalistic emotions, to create a xenophobic rivalry intended to belittle the Portuguese authorities and whitewash the couple, this also played a role in the investigation archival.
The fact that the PJ has lost the public opinion battle is largely the fault of their successive national directors, Justice and Public ministers, who since 2007 allowed unscrupulous PR men and hacks to exert an enormous pressure on the PJ officers, their men to be crucified in the media and did not prevent the re-writing of the facts and events of investigation. Releasing the case files after the investigation was an unusual excellent step but was insufficient PR wise.
In essence, since the investigation was archived in Portugal the McCanns could have asked their friends, the group nicknamed Tapas seven, to come forward and take part of a police reconstruction, very needed to clarify the many contradictions in the whole group statements, that would also pressure the Portuguese prosecutors to reopen the investigation since the reconstruction could not take place with the investigation archived. That step and plenty other alternatives to pressure for the reopening were never used by the couple nor by their friends. Which begs the question, where are the friends of the McCann couple now, who left Praia da Luz soon after Maddie's disappearance and whose contradictory and polemic statements were never confronted, who never helped in that crucial step that could have helped find or at least establish the truth of what happened to the little girl?
Instead what we were offered a few years later was a farcical reconstruction, a Met police/BBC co-production, in no way different from other misleading re-enactments, that used actors, including a porn actor, filmed in a coastal village in Spain - a crimewatch that was forbidden to be broadcast in Portugal. More could be said about a police force that seemed to be working in tandem with the media, for the media, that wasted £11 million of the British tax payer's money in nice photoshoots in the Algarve and decided from the start to exempt the McCanns and their group of friends from any suspicion. That onion it seems, was never meant to be peeled. What to say about the fact that the British ex-pat community in Praia da Luz, have never heard about the sexual predator that only targeted white English girls (see Paul Luckman's interview, the editor of The Portugal News to BBC radio), oddly a Met press release that is no longer available online, nor about the recent far-fetched and unverified tabloid story of nannies using rape-whistles in that idyllic fishing village of Luz.
Continuing with the sound-bites published today, it is also untrue the couple has "been formally cleared by the Portuguese". The McCanns have been alleging that they have been exonerated in multiple interviews for years, via their PR people, or unnamed sources. There's no doubt they have tried to use the legal action against Gonçalo Amaral to have some sort of official document declaring that they were innocent, or rather not guilty, of any wrongdoings without ever being tried in a proper court. Both Lisbon Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Justice judges understood the tactical manoeuvre they were attempting and refuted their substantiations. The judges reasonings were made in accordance with the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) and its related case law, and are very clear. It's doubtful they'll even meet the requirements to make an application. It should also be noted that the ECtHR cannot deal with complaints against individuals, so if the McCanns are going to sue anyone that will have to be the Portuguese state.
As to the trolls and fake news, maybe the McCann couple, their family, their unnamed sources, their PR people and also the media that had a role in it should apportion blame for igniting the online vigilantes who have effectively caused the death of an innocent woman and for allowing, since they have never addressed this fact publicly, their followers to stalk, harass, threat anyone who dares to oppose the McCanns' version of events.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/mccanns-vow-to-fight-goncalo-amaral-in.html
A prime example of attack being the best form of defence.
read this..
Notwithstanding the recognition of “reputation” as an Article 8 right, the case law has, until recently, maintained a clear distinction between defamation and privacy. This is on the basis that different aspects of Article 8 are engaged in the two kinds of case. The right to reputation concerns the protection of a public reputation against unjustified damage. If reputation is damaged by a publication then the issue has traditionally been understood to be whether that damage can be justified: either because the reputation was undeserved (because the allegation was true) or because the damage was justified (because, for example, it was a responsible statement on a matter of public interest). On this view, questions as to how the information was obtained or the extent to which the claimant had put similar information into the public domain in the past are simply irrelevant.
Pfft Alice, the McCanns won't have to wait that long, it is an open and shut case they win again.. 8)-))). Seriously,it is coming across that their reputation means more to them than finding their daughter.
There is a very strong argument that they brought all this down upon themselves by their own actions. If that is the view taken by the ECHR then a right to repution falls at the first hurdle.
The SC overlooked the breach of duty of reserve, presumption of innocence & the filing category of the original archiving report to reach their decision. Neither impartial nor just, IMO - but then I'm not a lawyer, judge or even Portuguese.
Interesting John that you have used a quote from me as the basis for your post
At least I have supplied some real facts to the argument
Interesting John that you have used a quote from me as the basis for your post
At least I have supplied some real facts to the argument
I found your Article 8 quote quite informative davel and that is why I responded to it.
Reputation is not a God-given right whether someone is a train driver, a car mechanic, a doctor of medicine or unemployed. Reputation has to be earned through practising qualities such as good character, good deeds and kindness to others.
I wouldn't consider someone who is hateful, spiteful and uncharitable towards others to have much of a reputation.
On the interview, where Gerry McCann said they had not lodged an appeal to the ECHR.
Madeleine milestone: Amaral agrees “some things we did weren’t right”
As mainstream media in the UK continues to churn out thinly-disguised ‘rehash stories’ on the world’s most famous missing person, here in Portugal the media circus has been much more demure as we approach the date on which exactly 10 years ago three-year-old Madeleine McCann simply vanished.
No wild exclusives pointing to new “prime suspects” or landmark television events, rather a backward view at a case that may have been set up from the very beginning to remain an eternal mystery.
Keeping an incredibly low profile since his double victory at the Supreme Court in the tortuous legal battle with Kate and Gerry McCann, former PJ coordinator Gonçalo Amaral has finally given interviews to journalists working for the Cofina group, which publishes Sábado weekly magazine, and ‘people’s daily’ Correio da Manha.
And, for reasons that have nothing to do with the insults regularly thrown at him by British tabloids, the quiet-spoken, reserved 57-year-old agrees there were some things that from the outset Portuguese police did not do right.
“I should not have allowed us to be put under pressure”, he told CM’s Sunday Magazine, adding that when the McCann family finally left Praia da Luz in September 2007, the British police that had come over to assist the Portuguese investigation also left - leaving the “sensation that they were only here to protect the couple”.
Amaral said that another mistake came in the way “the group of Brits” now known as the Tapas 7 was included in on meetings with the PJ, “to know what was going on”.
“I went to one of the first meetings and decided that I would never do that again”, he explained. “In normal conditions, in an investigation like this one, they would have been straight away considered suspects”. Instead, the way the group was brought into developments “prejudiced the investigation”, he said.
“There is an issue that the Portuguese police have to start adopting in these (kind of) cases”, Amaral added.
“Instead of leading a question and answer interrogation in which the person (being questioned) is relaxed, waiting for the question to answer, it would be better if they adopted the way of the FBI: “Here is a pen and paper, and you are going to write down, in your own time and words, everything that you did, where you went, who you were with, etc., from the moment you got up to the moment the day ended”.
The current form of interrogation used by Portuguese police “could lead people, and indicate where we (the police) want to go”, he explained.
Over various pages in both Sábado and CM, Amaral was given time to revisit his ‘politically incorrect’ theories, reasons for coming to them and suggest other lesser known ‘mistakes’ - like the failure to check CCTV cameras on the road in which an Irish family said they saw a man carrying a child in pyjamas down towards the sea.
By the time investigators realised the sighting might be crucial, the CCTV images had been recorded over.
The “Smith sighting” as it has become known could be one of the most crucial moments in the evening of May 3 before Madeleine was reported missing - yet the family never returned to Portugal to make formal statements because, in October 2007 “Amaral was removed from the case after talking to Diário de Notícias”, explains Sábado.
And here, Amaral says came another major mistake.
“I should never have retired from the PJ”, he told interviewers, stressing that instead he should have “written and published the book” (Maddie: The Truth of the Lie, which led to years of “brutal” litigation with Madeleine’s parents) as a member of the PJ Judicial Police.
“We were just too honest”, Amaral concluded. “And we paid for it as a result.
“For example, we sent forensic material to a British laboratory, when the testing could have been done at a Portuguese laboratory, so that we would not be accused of manipulation in the final result.
“We were naive and too diplomatic”, he said - adding that in his opinion, the ‘abduction theory’ adopted within days of Madeleine’s disappearance is a “lack of respect” to what should have been an “objective investigation”.
“If the investigation ever reaches its end and if it can be proved that the parents had nothing to do with it, then fine”, Amaral stressed - much as he has always maintained. It is simply the fact that no other hypothesis other than abduction has appeared to be allowed consideration (click here).
But while Amaral ‘returned to Praia da Luz’ to give his view of the 10 long years since Madeleine vanished, the missing girl’s parents gave an interview to the BBC in which they insisted they will be appealing the Supreme Court decision that should have handed the former police investigator back his assets, after eight years in which they were ‘frozen’.
Gerry McCann explained that what he called “the last judgement” - the ruling that upheld Amaral’s right to freedom of expression, and refused to accept the McCann’s insistence that they had been considered innocent in their daughter’s disappearance - is, in his opinion, “terrible”.
“We will be appealing”, he told the national news service.
The Daily Express suggests the couple plan to appeal “all the way to the European Court of Human Rights”, though there is still no certainty that this can be done - particularly as Supreme Court judges Roque Nogueira, Alexandre Reis and Pedro Lima Gonçalves released their 75-page ruling making references to tenets set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In other words, Amaral’s ‘win’ relied heavily on three judges’ interpretation of laws that the ECHR has been set up to protect.
natasha.donn@algarveresident.com
Photo by Bruno Colaço for Sábado which carried a six-page spread on "The Inpsector's return to the scene of the crime", while CM's title for the anniversary edition was "The dead end where Maddie McCann is hidden"
http://portugalresident.com/madeleine-milestone-amaral-agrees-%E2%80%9Csome-things-we-did-weren%E2%80%99t-right%E2%80%9D
Gerry has a very good repurtaion at leicester hospital and has helped many poeple ....again I would say they have a very very strong case. The fact that they are pilloried with such descriptions by a few on the net will actually go in their favour
Mrs Murat added: “What happened that night to Madeleine was most awful and now ten years on we need answers.”
Mrs Murat said: “Those poor parents need to know what happened.”
Gerry has a very good repurtaion at leicester hospital and has helped many poeple ....again I would say they have a very very strong case. The fact that they are pilloried with such descriptions by a few on the net will actually go in their favour
I can assure you that Gerry is not the most popular doctor in that hospital. It is well advised that Gerry is part of a medical team who depend on each other for input ie porters, cleaners and nurses,IT staff do great jobs and help people -dodctors could not do their job without them!
But if Gerry and hs fan club want to add that then the ECHR will ask if he is so popular how has his reputaion been affected? and maybe they may ask ( though I bloody doubt it), how much did your reputation management cost...
I can assure you he is very popularCite, as I would like to be so assured.
Cite, as I would like to be so assured.
Gerry has a very good repurtaion at leicester hospital and has helped many poeple ....again I would say they have a very very strong case. The fact that they are pilloried with such descriptions by a few on the net will actually go in their favour
Dr Ian Paterson had a good reputation too but then that all changed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/28/ian-paterson-charmed-patients-scrimping-treatments-funding-luxury/
Gerry said quite clearly they would challenge the judgement.....the appeal may still be in the preperation stage
gerry still has a good...very good reputation. His acheivemnets for his age are quite incredible...how long before he gets an MBE for services to medicine
Meanwhile his eldest daughter is lost.
Wishful thinking. That ship has sailed.That is a great saying John. Do you know that feeling seeing your hope sailing off into the distance?
Meanwhile his eldest daughter is lost.
It might take a while for it to sink in but there is no higher authority in Portugal than the Supreme Court unless you are thinking devine intervention?
which is extremely sad
no higher authority in portugal.....but the ECHR has the poswer to admonish portugal and award compensation
What is really sad is that Madeleine paid the price.
That is a great saying John. Do you know that feeling seeing your hope sailing off into the distance?
None of which has any relevance to Mr Amaral. He has won.
Hope is the only universal liar who never loses his reputation for veracity.
Robert G. Ingersoll
my son was a medical student there ...and still has contacts there...ive posted this beforeThis is not a cite.
This is not a cite.
It is a statement attributed to a person who, AFAIK, does not post on this forum.
Then reported by an ardent supporter.
So I still awaiting an independent source that can be verified.