Can we judge a person's character by their stance on the case?

[barrier]

My point is there's no real evidence against the McCanns... I think they had no choice but to go to the ECHR and I think it will be very interesting to see what happens

Don't waste your life waiting, 2 yrs on Thursday was the last major event,"Application requiring a decision".

[Mr Gray]

Don't waste your life waiting, 2 yrs on Thursday was the last major event,"Application requiring a decision".

I'm not wasting anything I'm busy all the time...

[Holly Goodhead]

I'm not sure you have looked at this case in much detail.I'm guided by the evidence and there's no real evidence against the McCanns and IMO lots of evidence to show they weren't involved. You perpetuate the myth that the McCanns silence their critics... That's far from the truth. They have used libel law to prevent false allegations of criminal behaviour... That's quite normal. Murat has done the same... Both here and in Portugal.. Do you think he's foolish too.
People are free to express their opinion within the law. My criticism of sceptics is that their beliefs are not based on real evidence as far as I can see

I look forward to you filling in my knowledge gaps.

You're guided by the evidence as you perceive it.  Others clearly perceive the evidence differently.  Perhaps unsurprising since there is no real evidence.

I don't perpetuate any myths.  The fact is the McCanns attempt to silence their critics via libel lawyers.  This ranges from the UK tabloids to Amaral and even an individual leaflet dropping in Rothley.  Traditional and social media is a two-way thing ie anyone who uses it as platform to advocate this, that or the other cannot expect everyone to share their views whether it be a missing child or Brexit. 

Murat is different in that he was just being a good citizen offering up a skill set ie translating.  The McCanns actively sought to use all forms of medium in their pursuit to find MM.  No reason why they shouldn't have done this but they were again naive if they expected everyone to share their views.  Jon Corner, friend of the McCanns, said to them very early on that he thought they might end up being the story and he was right.

[Mr Gray]

I look forward to you filling in my knowledge gaps.

You're guided by the evidence as you perceive it.  Others clearly perceive the evidence differently.  Perhaps unsurprising since there is no real evidence.

I don't perpetuate any myths.  The fact is the McCanns attempt to silence their critics via libel lawyers.  This ranges from the UK tabloids to Amaral and even an individual leaflet dropping in Rothley.  Traditional and social media is a two-way thing ie anyone who uses it as platform to advocate this, that or the other cannot expect everyone to share their views whether it be a missing child or Brexit. 

Murat is different in that he was just being a good citizen offering up a skill set ie translating.  The McCanns actively sought to use all forms of medium in their pursuit to find MM.  No reason why they shouldn't have done this but they were again naive if they expected everyone to share their views.  Jon Corner, friend of the McCanns, said to them very early on that he thought they might end up being the story and he was right.

Are you aware of the credibility of pat brown... What she claims and what she bases her claims on... Same goes for Craig Brown.

The McCanns cannot silence their critics.  They can only use the law to stop the tide of allegations re criminal behaviour being made against them. I wonder how awful the things that would be said against them if they hadn't done this. I think they were absolutely right... You don't....but it's their decision.

There is no real evidence against the McCanns and therefore I think it's totally unfair to pretend there is.

Social media is a two way thing but posters need to behave responsibly and obey the law.. Are you suggesting posters and newspapers should be above the law

[Mr Gray]

I look forward to you filling in my knowledge gaps.

You're guided by the evidence as you perceive it.  Others clearly perceive the evidence differently.  Perhaps unsurprising since there is no real evidence.

I don't perpetuate any myths.  The fact is the McCanns attempt to silence their critics via libel lawyers.  This ranges from the UK tabloids to Amaral and even an individual leaflet dropping in Rothley.  Traditional and social media is a two-way thing ie anyone who uses it as platform to advocate this, that or the other cannot expect everyone to share their views whether it be a missing child or Brexit. 

Murat is different in that he was just being a good citizen offering up a skill set ie translating.  The McCanns actively sought to use all forms of medium in their pursuit to find MM.  No reason why they shouldn't have done this but they were again naive if they expected everyone to share their views.  Jon Corner, friend of the McCanns, said to them very early on that he thought they might end up being the story and he was right.

Some believe the earth is 6000 years old... I'm entitled and reasonable to think they are daft

[Holly Goodhead]

Are you aware of the credibility of pat brown... What she claims and what she bases her claims on... Same goes for Craig Brown.

Pat Brown and Craig Murray and others in such capacities are entitled to their views much the same way as posters are here. 

The McCanns cannot silence their critics.  They can only use the law to stop the tide of allegations re criminal behaviour being made against them. I wonder how awful the things that would be said against them if they hadn't done this. I think they were absolutely right... You don't....but it's their decision.

And how might it be had they just taken the knocks and weathered the storm?  Or taken another course of action eg employ the services of a forensic scientist re the dogs and dna and KM wrote a sequel of sorts to her book?   

There is no real evidence against the McCanns and therefore I think it's totally unfair to pretend there is.

There doesn't have to be any "evidence" as you put it for the media, public and others to orchestrate a witch hunt.  It is unfair but that's life I'm afraid.  The McCanns are far luckier than many in that they have each other, and an army of supporters both lay and professional.  Consider those who spend years, and sometimes decades, behind bars as the victim of a miscarriage of justice.  Or those who come close to it eg Colin Stagg and Christopher Jefferies.   

Social media is a two way thing but posters need to behave responsibly and obey the law.. Are you suggesting posters and newspapers should be above the law

No one is above the law but everyone is entitled to voice their opinion its called freedom of speech.  Remind me where the McCanns are with Amaral?

[Mr Gray]

Pat Brown and Craig Murray and others in such capacities are entitled to their views much the same way as posters are here. 

And how might it be had they just taken the knocks and weathered the storm?  Or taken another course of action eg employ the services of a forensic scientist re the dogs and dna and KM wrote a sequel of sorts to her book?   

There doesn't have to be any "evidence" as you put it for the media, public and others to orchestrate a witch hunt.  It is unfair but that's life I'm afraid.  The McCanns are far luckier than many in that they have each other, and an army of supporters both lay and professional.  Consider those who spend years, and sometimes decades, behind bars as the victim of a miscarriage of justice.  Or those who come close to it eg Colin Stagg and Christopher Jefferies.   

No one is above the law but everyone is entitled to voice their opinion its called freedom of speech.  Remind me where the McCanns are with Amaral?

You are wrong about freedom of speech... That is a massive mistake by you... It is not absolute and has restrictions. As for Amaral from what I have read the SC erred in its application of ECHR  law and this may well be confirmed in a judgement. Ive supplied several cites
The McCcanns can only stop those who act outside the law and not simply those who criticise them

[Holly Goodhead]

You are wrong about freedom of speech... That is a massive mistake by you... It is not absolute and has restrictions. As for Amaral from what I have read the SC erred in its application of ECHR  law and this may well be confirmed in a judgement. Ive supplied several cites
The McCcanns can only stop those who act outside the law and not simply those who criticise them

Where have I said, or even suggested, freedom of speech comes without limitations? 

As it stands the McCanns have been unsuccessful in suing Amaral. 

[Mr Gray]

Where have I said, or even suggested, freedom of speech comes without limitations? 

As it stands the McCanns have been unsuccessful in suing Amaral.

You said everyone is entitled to voice their opinion... That is not true. The Amaral case is with the ECHR

[jassi]

Not really the Amaral case. It is McCann v The State of Portugal

[Holly Goodhead]

You said everyone is entitled to voice their opinion... That is not true. The Amaral case is with the ECHR

Anyone is entitled to voice their opinion insofar as saying they believe the McCanns were involved in MM's disappearance since it can't be proved to the contrary. 

I don't know why the UK media settled out of court?  Maybe they went ott.  Anyway settling out of court doesn't mean to say the courts would have upheld the McCann's claims.  Sometimes its just cheaper and/or too risky if they lost in terms of readership going elsewhere etc.

[Holly Goodhead]

Not really the Amaral case. It is McCann v The State of Portugal

But isn't this because the highest court in Portugal has already upheld Amaral's claims?  Therefore it becomes The State of Portugal v ECHR?

[Mr Gray]

Anyone is entitled to voice their opinion insofar as saying they believe the McCanns were involved in MM's disappearance since it can't be proved to the contrary. 

I don't know why the UK media settled out of court?  Maybe they went ott.  Anyway settling out of court doesn't mean to say the courts would have upheld the McCann's claims.  Sometimes its just cheaper and/or too risky if they lost in terms of readership going elsewhere etc.

That isn't true... You need to look at the law of libel.... In the UK the onus of proof is on the person making the claim..

If you state that opinion and can't prove it its libel



The case at the ECHR will decide whether Portugal allowed Amaral to breach the McCanns rights under article 8

[Holly Goodhead]

That isn't true... You need to look at the law of libel.... In the UK the onus of proof is on the person making the claim..

What isn't true?  How do you prove a negative when negative claims are assumed to be true so long as no evidence is presented to prove the claim false?

The case at the ECHR will decide whether Portugal allowed Amaral to breach the McCanns rights under article 8

Or the McCanns are in breach of Amarals rights.  Maybe further developments will have taken place by then.

[jassi]

But isn't this because the highest court in Portugal has already upheld Amaral's claims?  Therefore it becomes The State of Portugal v ECHR?

The ECHR is the adjudicator.
The issue is whether Portugal infringed the McCanns' human rights - as they claim, when making their legal decision.