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

[G-Unit]

In the case of a stranger abduction the help of the public to supply informtion is paramount. if the portuguese public beleive maddie died in the apartmnet and her parents covered up the death then there will be little help.
The mcCanns went to court to stop amaral making the claim that maddie was dead and they were involved. There is no real evidence to support this but amaral has gone on TV and said he can prove it happened.

Unfortunately the Portuguese court have allowed him to make the untrue claim that he has proof maddie died in the  apartment

I recommend that people read the McCanns claims to the court and its findings for themselves.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0

The statement of facts says what the claimants were able to prove. They did not prove that Amaral influenced public opinion in Portugal

 The Judge states that it is not possible to determine what most people who have read or seen Mr Amaral's thesis actually think.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0

[Eleanor]

Why ?

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

Sorry.  I wasn't referring to you in particular..

[Mr Gray]

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's been 2 years... Realistically 3 years is the norm from what I have seen

[Robittybob1]

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

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

https://www.adlexsolicitors.co.uk/what-we-do/content-removal/internet-defamation/
From that article it states: "... or that is an honest opinion (which has some factual basis);..."  Saying: "grime subconsciously  cued his dogs ...."  Has no factual basis.  I defy you to show it.

Likewise saying: "imo....Grime has overplayed the dogs abilities" has no factual basis.

[jassi]

Sorry.  I wasn't referring to you in particular..

I know, but feel that the same would apply to most people who read on here.

I'm more concerned about the possibility of war breaking out in Iran or India, than I am about any Amnesty report.

[Eleanor]

From that article it states: "... or that is an honest opinion (which has some factual basis);..."  Saying: "grime subconsciously  cued his dogs ...."  Has no factual basis.  I defy you to show it.

Likewise saying: "imo....Grime has overplayed the dogs abilities" has no factual basis.

A lot of what is said on here has no factual basis.

[Holly Goodhead]

A lot of what is said on here has no factual basis.

A lot of what is said everywhere has no factual basis. 

[Robittybob1]

A lot of what is said on here has no factual basis.

Well according to that article it should do.    Even "honest opinion" ought to have some factual basis to it.
Quote " honest opinion (which has some factual basis)" OK we would then be debating whether the factual basis was sufficient enough.

A lot of what is said everywhere has no factual basis. 

If A lot of what is said everywhere has no factual basis should then the standard be raised?  I can imagine the response to a question of someone's opinion just won't be answered. 

[Robittybob1]

I have a feeling John is not interested in getting  a letter requesting removal of content.  A lot of effort is going into moderation of the forum, so I think it would be unlikely to ever happen.

[Mr Gray]

https://www.adlexsolicitors.co.uk/what-we-do/content-removal/internet-defamation/
From that article it states: "... or that is an honest opinion (which has some factual basis);..."  Saying: "grime subconsciously  cued his dogs ...."  Has no factual basis.  I defy you to show it.

Likewise saying: "imo....Grime has overplayed the dogs abilities" has no factual basis.

My post needs to be read in the context of the post it was a reply to. You provided a link to a Sunday Times article which contained an accusation of grime planting scent himself

[G-Unit]

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.

You hit the nail on the head there. It was entirely up to them to prove their claims to the court. If they failed it was their fault, not the fault of the judges.

[Eleanor]

You hit the nail on the head there. It was entirely up to them to prove their claims to the court. If they failed it was their fault, not the fault of the judges.

But only in Portugal.

[Mr Gray]

I recommend that people read the McCanns claims to the court and its findings for themselves.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0

The statement of facts says what the claimants were able to prove. They did not prove that Amaral influenced public opinion in Portugal

 The Judge states that it is not possible to determine what most people who have read or seen Mr Amaral's thesis actually think.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0

The appeal to the ECHR is limited and I can't see how it could include the points you are raising. The SC judgement was almost entire re the balance of articles 8 and 10 so it follows that will be the basis of the claim

[Mr Gray]

You hit the nail on the head there. It was entirely up to them to prove their claims to the court. If they failed it was their fault, not the fault of the judges.

I think you miss the point... From what I've read the SC erred in their application of the law. For one the McCanns were entitled to the presumption of innocence... The SC as you are aware said no

[jassi]

I see this as a pointless exercise, as no one knows what the decision of the ECHR will be.