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

[Mr Gray]

No, I was trying to clarify what you said - ie it can be checked - by asking if it had been checked

Not querying the validity at all.

Im surprised posters are not alraedy aware of it...its been around several years and posted here many times. its also mentioned in the SC judgement

[jassi]

Then one must be grateful that others have such powers of recall 

[Holly Goodhead]

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.

I recall looking into this some time ago and the rules seem quite clear?

https://www.adlexsolicitors.co.uk/what-we-do/content-removal/websites/

As far as I can see posters who believe the McCanns are responsible for MM's disappearance are at liberty to express those opinions via posts so long as they make clear it is just their opinion.

The JBF has a thread dedicated to MM where a member of admin makes all sorts of unfounded claims.  Another member of admin, who afaik has never contributed to the thread, is a non-practicing criminal barrister.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,386.msg5378.html#msg5378

[Holly Goodhead]

any posts on small forums with limited readership would probably not be deemed to substantially harm someones reputation. Its part of libel law

There's a mountain of anti McCann material on the web which the McCanns have no way of controlling even if they wanted to. 

[Mr Gray]

There's a mountain of anti McCann material on the web which the McCanns have no way of controlling even if they wanted to.

Im well aware of that. The point is if they could have shown that what amaral was saying was untrue...it may have helped. Unfortuntely the SC in portugal supported amaral in his right to make false claims...thats why the ECHR are now involved.

[Mr Gray]

I recall looking into this some time ago and the rules seem quite clear?

https://www.adlexsolicitors.co.uk/what-we-do/content-removal/websites/

As far as I can see posters who believe the McCanns are responsible for MM's disappearance are at liberty to express those opinions via posts so long as they make clear it is just their opinion.

The JBF has a thread dedicated to MM where a member of admin makes all sorts of unfounded claims.  Another member of admin, who afaik has never contributed to the thread, is a non-practicing criminal barrister.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,386.msg5378.html#msg5378

its not clear what is allowed to be posted...am I allowed to say that imo....grime subconciosly  cued his dogs.

Am i allowed to say that imo....Grime has overplayed the dogs abilities

[Holly Goodhead]

Im well aware of that. The point is if they could have shown that what amaral was saying was untrue...it may have helped. Unfortuntely the SC in portugal supported amaral in his right to make false claims...thats why the ECHR are now involved.

I read the SC? gave more weight to Amaral's right to express himself than the McCann's honour? 

[Mr Gray]

I read the SC? gave more weight to Amaral's right to express himself than the McCann's honour?

Thts right ...the SC had to balance the mccanns rights under article 8 against amarals right under article 10....they decided to favour amaral. There is  a whole list of cases on the ECHR website involving the conflict between 8 and 10.
Ive read them and posted them here. Based on that I would say the SC got it clearly wrong....even denying the mccanns the right to the presumption of innocence. The SC said it didnt apply in a civil case...the ECHR says it does

[Holly Goodhead]

its not clear what is allowed to be posted...am I allowed to say that imo....grime subconciosly  cued his dogs.

Am i allowed to say that imo....Grime has overplayed the dogs abilities

I don't see why not especially given the reliability of the dogs has been highlighted in a report produced by the National Police Improvement Agency:

http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/Operation-Paris.pdf

Page 25

Forensic scientists have also demonstrated how inanimate items can act as an odour transporting media:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037907380700134X#!

I'm not sure Grime did subconsciously cue his dogs as it seems to me based on the above its just as likely the dogs alerted to some benign odour transported from elsewhere. 

Afaik the PJ looked into whether or not anyone died in 5A prior to the McCanns arrival but how could they possibly exclude benign odour trasference?

[Eleanor]

its not clear what is allowed to be posted...am I allowed to say that imo....grime subconciosly  cued his dogs.

Am i allowed to say that imo....Grime has overplayed the dogs abilities

You should be able to, but I wouldn't dare.

[jassi]

Im well aware of that. The point is if they could have shown that what amaral was saying was untrue...it may have helped. Unfortuntely the SC in portugal supported amaral in his right to make false claims...thats why the ECHR are now involved.

No undue bias there, I'm pleased to see .

[Holly Goodhead]

Thts right ...the SC had to balance the mccanns rights under article 8 against amarals right under article 10....they decided to favour amaral. There is  a whole list of cases on the ECHR website involving the conflict between 8 and 10.
Ive read them and posted them here. Based on that I would say the SC got it clearly wrong....even denying the mccanns the right to the presumption of innocence. The SC said it didnt apply in a civil case...the ECHR says it does

Well it will be interesting to hear the ECHR's final say on the matter but I understand from others here this could take years.

[jassi]

Well it will be interesting to hear the ECHR's final say on the matter but I understand from others here this could take years.

It could, if the Court decides to hear the case.
A reject decision could be much swifter.

[Eleanor]

You should read what Amnesty International have had to say about Portugal.

[jassi]

You should read what Amnesty International have had to say about Portugal.

Why ?

I don't live there, or come under their jurisdiction in any way.