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

[Mr Gray]

But ultimately it is the ECHR who gets to decide.  Lol will Brexit affect the outcome?

No brexit won't affect it... Why should it

[Mr Gray]

If anyone here believes the McCanns are not involved, as I do, they're better off posting up their arguments than attempting to silence their critics by over moderation.

You seem to think you are in a position to tell the McCanns what they should do.... What their supporters should do.... And you've already told SY where they've gone wrong.

I see no point in trying to persuade anyone here that the McCanns are almost certainly innocent....its of no interest to me what posters here think

[Holly Goodhead]

You seem to think you are in a position to tell the McCanns what they should do.... What their supporters should do.... And you've already told SY where they've gone wrong.

I see no point in trying to persuade anyone here that the McCanns are almost certainly innocent....its of no interest to me what posters here think

I'm entitled to my opinion am I not?  I'm certainly not alone in thinking the McCanns are best off avoiding litigation; Ian Horrocks said the same in his report.  How do you know what I said in my email to SY?

[Holly Goodhead]

No brexit won't affect it... Why should it

Are you asking me or telling me?

The plaintiffs are currently residents of a country which is part of the EU.  In a few weeks time that might no longer be the case. 

[Mr Gray]

Are you asking me or telling me?

The plaintiffs are currently residents of a country which is part of the EU.  In a few weeks time that might no longer be the case.

I'm telling you... The action is against Portugal who are not involved in brexit... Doesn't matter where the McCanns are from

[jassi]

Are you asking me or telling me?

The plaintiffs are currently residents of a country which is part of the EU.  In a few weeks time that might no longer be the case.

It doesn't matter where the plaintiffs come from, though if they have any sense, the McCanns will have obtained Irish citizenship to avoid the worse of Brexit.

The case is being brought against a signature of the ECHR and that's all that matters

[G-Unit]

But it works both ways.  I believe Bamber is a miscarriage of justice despite the fact he was found guilty in a court of law over 3 decades ago and his case has been to the appeal courts twice.  In the eyes of the law and most Bamber is guilty but I have freedom of speech to voice my opinions to the contrary. 

Even if MM is found alive tomorrow it will not stop the McCann critics making all sorts of spurious claims. 

Imo the McCanns are absolute fools to get involved in litigation and the lawyers will not encourage them otherwise since this is how they make their living.  They want the pounds rolling in and the kudos of winning a high profile case.

In my opinion their lawyer Duarte was keen to make a splash, but her case was badly prepared and therefore weak imo.  Claiming that someone was depressed without medical evidence was never going to work, for example. Especially when the alleged sufferer denied being depressed on the witness stand. I don't suppose she gained any Brownie points for telling the Supreme Court judges they didn't understand the legal significance of the archiving report either.

[Robittybob1]

Don't you think I haven't done that.   Look I'll have another look at it.  It could be a problem of a definition in one country not being applicable in another.
Is the forum under UK law or USA law?
I pointed out once before the rules of the forum mention USA law only. 

[Mr Gray]

Don't you think I haven't done that.   Look I'll have another look at it.  It could be a problem of a definition in one country not being applicable in another.
Is the forum under UK law or USA law?
I pointed out once before the rules of the forum mention USA law only.

john is governed by UK law

[Mr Gray]

Don't you think I haven't done that.   Look I'll have another look at it.  It could be a problem of a definition in one country not being applicable in another.
Is the forum under UK law or USA law?
I pointed out once before the rules of the forum mention USA law only.

the mods are supposed to enforce the rules...but when the mods dont understand what is and isnt libel then they cant enforce the rules

[Robittybob1]

john is governed by UK law

Then the forum rules need changing.

[Eleanor]

the mods are supposed to enforce the rules...but when the mods dont understand what is and isnt libel then they cant enforce the rules

John has the last word.  He countermands Mod's decisions if he disagrees.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Maybe Holly has spent too much time discussing Bamber who can’t be libelled as he was found guilty of murder.

[Robittybob1]

the mods are supposed to enforce the rules...but when the mods dont understand what is and isnt libel then they cant enforce the rules

I feel that is libellous.

[slartibartfast]

 
I think editors and journalists are a bit more savvy than you give them credit for.  It was perfectly acceptable for papers to report on the McCanns when they were made aguidos and to explain the reasons why. 

There's not a one size fits all.  It would depend on the case against the individual(s) and what approach editors and journalists take.

The Daily Mail was very vocal in naming and shaming those involved in the murder of Stephen Lawrence long before any trial took place.

Same as it is perfectly acceptable to describe what the police investigation thought at the beginning of the case and the reason why.