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

[Holly Goodhead]

The ECHR is the adjudicator

The plaintiff is the McCanns? and the defendant is Amaral or State of Portugal?

[jassi]

The plaintiff is the McCanns? and the defendant is Amaral or State of Portugal?

The defendant is Portugal

TheECHR does not hear cases between individuals.

[Holly Goodhead]

The defendant is Portugal

TheECHR does not hear cases between individuals.

So who is the plaintiff? 

[jassi]

So who is the plaintiff?

McCann v Portugal.. The ECHR only hears cases brought against sovereign States.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

Are you saying that the UK libel laws allow you to claim anything you like about another person?  Like could I write a newspaper article claiming a certain eldely popstar whose first name rhymes with spliff is a paedo, because the contrary can’t be proven?

[Holly Goodhead]

McCann v Portugal.. The ECHR only hears cases brought against sovereign States.

Thanks.  Yes that would explain then why the EHCR presided over Bamber's full life tariff in that it was Bamber v UK. 

When is it due to be heard?

[Mr Gray]

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?

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

Let's deal with one at a time.. Libel... If anyone says the McCanns have lied to the police and are involved in the disappearance... That person has to prove they are right... If they cannot they are guilty of libel..

[jassi]

Are you saying that the UK libel laws allow you to claim anything you like about another person?  Like could I write a newspaper article claiming a certain eldely popstar whose first name rhymes with spliff is a paedo, because the contrary can’t be proven?

Probably not as the editor is unlikely to allow publication.

However you could publish on Facebook or whatever . If the subject of your article feels strongly enough about it (s)he might take legal procedure against you, otherwise nothing will happen.

[jassi]

Thanks.  Yes that would explain then why the EHCR presided over Bamber's full life tariff in that it was Bamber v UK. 

When is it due to be heard?

Sometime in the next 5 to 10 years.

[Holly Goodhead]

Are you saying that the UK libel laws allow you to claim anything you like about another person?  Like could I write a newspaper article claiming a certain eldely popstar whose first name rhymes with spliff is a paedo, because the contrary can’t be proven?

Perhaps best if we just stick with the case in hand. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

Perhaps best if we just stick with the case in hand.

The principle is exactly the same, so please answer the question.

[Holly Goodhead]

Sometime in the next 5 to 10 years.

5 to 10 years    Do they have a backlog?

[G-Unit]

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

No, the ECHR is being asked to decide if Portugal breached the McCann's human rights.

[jassi]

5 to 10 years    Do they have a backlog?

Yes.

In fact the case is only at an initial stage of having been accepted, but no decision has been made as to whether the case will  proceed to a judicial hearing.

A decision to reject or  advance the case could be announced at any moment.

[Holly Goodhead]

Let's deal with one at a time.. Libel... If anyone says the McCanns have lied to the police and are involved in the disappearance... That person has to prove they are right... If they cannot they are guilty of libel..

No they don't since no one knows what's factually right and what isn't. 

How do you think so many have produced damning material about the McCanns and got away with it including Amaral?  Amaral and his publishers no doubt took legal advice before they published as did the McCanns when they started litigation.