ECHR urge McCanns to reach friendly settlement with Gonçalo Amaral.

[Vertigo Swirl]

According to Maria Emília de Melo e Castro the book expressed Amaral's opinion, his thesis, his hypothesis. Why should he not be allowed to express his opinion?

Because it damaged the reputation of the parents of a missing child.  Is it OK for me to publish a book about my hypothesis that certain named members of the Tory cabinet are involved in a paedophile ring if that is my opinion, even if I can't prove it?

[G-Unit]

Because it damaged the reputation of the parents of a missing child.  Is it OK for me to publish a book about my hypothesis that certain named members of the Tory cabinet are involved in a paedophile ring if that is my opinion, even if I can't prove it?

In my opinion their reputation was damaged before the book was published.

[Eleanor]

In my opinion their reputation was damaged before the book was published.

Your Opinion is of no importance, beyond the fact that it is Libellous.

[Mr Gray]

In my opinion their reputation was damaged before the book was published.

I would agree but that doesn’t make any difference to libel.
You do realise that the opinion cannot be expressed on the forum because it would be libellous... Or perhaps you don't understand that

[Vertigo Swirl]

In my opinion their reputation was damaged before the book was published.

Your opinion is not important.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Your Opinion is of no importance, beyond the fact that it is Libellous.

SNAP!

[G-Unit]

Your Opinion is of no importance, beyond the fact that it is Libellous.

Please explain why my opinion is libelous.

[Eleanor]

Please explain why my opinion is libelous.

Because you are suggesting things that you can't prove.

[Vertigo Swirl]

In my opinion their reputation was damaged before the book was published.

Are you saying that it's not libel to publish false statement that are damaging about someone if others have already done so and therefore the damage has already been caused so it doesn't matter what anyone else does, it's too late?

[Eleanor]

Are you saying that it's not libel to publish false statement that are damaging about someone if others have already done so and therefore the damage has already been caused so it doesn't matter what anyone else does, it's too late?

This of course is not true.  Repeated Libel is still Libel. As is Libellous Innuendo.

[G-Unit]

Because you are suggesting things that you can't prove.

Can you prove that Amaral's book damaged the McCann's reputation?

[G-Unit]

Are you saying that it's not libel to publish false statement that are damaging about someone if others have already done so and therefore the damage has already been caused so it doesn't matter what anyone else does, it's too late?

There were no false statements in the book. There was evidence taken from the investigation and an opinion about what that evidence meant.

[Eleanor]

Can you prove that Amaral's book damaged the McCann's reputation?

Are you saying that The McCann's reputations haven't been damaged?  Not with anyone?

[Eleanor]

There were no false statements in the book. There was evidence taken from the investigation and an opinion about what that evidence meant.

This is clearly not true.  Amaral stated some things as fact.

[Wonderfulspam]

Are you saying that The McCann's reputations haven't been damaged?  Not with anyone?

Not with their family, friends, local community or employers they haven't, & evidence that Amaral's book, specifically, (rather than, for example, the interim conclusion reached by the PJ that's publicly available on the internet) is the reason some anonymous trolls hate the McCann's & suspect them, I don't remember seeing that presented to the SC.