ECHR urge McCanns to reach friendly settlement with Gonçalo Amaral.

[Mr Gray]

No they weren't. Portugal was found to have 275 violations, but Italy had 1,857, Greece 935, France 759 and Austria 279. Please don't post your opinions as if they are facts.
https://echr.coe.int/Documents/Overview_19592020_ENG.pdf

Portugal had 359 judgements and only 19 had no violations. Thats sround  95 %  failure rate.. Thats poor compared to other countries... No opinion... Fact

You should understand france and italy have about 6 timrs the pop of Portugal... Germany 8.

Then Greece and Italy are on the front line for illegal immigrsnts.

All fact.. No opinion.. LOL

[Vertigo Swirl]

Amaral's thesis was that the McCanns hid Madeleine's body and simulated an abduction. In other words, he repeated and still agreed with the thesis of the PJ investigation up to September 2007. Although the investigation continued after September 2007, no evidence was found to disprove Amaral's thesis or to support the McCann's thesis.

And once again I ask you to explain how the Portuguese legal system protected the McCanns from public (unproven) allegations of criminal conduct by a private individual, the very thing that you claim is not permissable under law?

[G-Unit]

And once again I ask you to explain how the Portuguese legal system protected the McCanns from public (unproven) allegations of criminal conduct by a private individual, the very thing that you claim is not permissable under law?

The Portuguese legal system gave the McCanns the opportunity to sue, and they took it. They failed to convince the Portuguese courts, however. Not everyone sues successfully you know!

[G-Unit]

Portugal had 359 judgements and only 19 had no violations. Thats sround  95 %  failure rate.. Thats poor compared to other countries... No opinion... Fact

You should understand france and italy have about 6 timrs the pop of Portugal... Germany 8.

Then Greece and Italy are on the front line for illegal immigrsnts.

All fact.. No opinion.. LOL

Ah, caveats are being introduced now I see to try to justify your claim.

[Mr Gray]

The Portuguese legal system gave the McCanns the opportunity to sue, and they took it. They failed to convince the Portuguese courts, however. Not everyone sues successfully you know!

This part interests me




We consider that, in this case, in view of the verified matter of facts, the exercise of freedom of expression was contained within limits which must be considered admissible in a (post-) modern democratic society



Did the SC actually incorrectly believe Amaral's book was based on facts

[Mr Gray]

Ah, caveats are being introduced now I see to try to justify your claim.

I claimed portugal had a poor record.. My post shows thats fact not opinion.

[G-Unit]

I think sometimes it is informative to know exactly where the main uninformed influencers of the uninformed opinions of many are to be found hanging out on the internet and exactly how intolerant they actually are of the freedom of speech which they purport to champion.
Value the ethos of our forum please ~ because there are those abroad who will do all they possibly can to dismiss us with a wave of the hand and a dismissive "Away with you!"
                               _____________________________________________________________

Frankly I don't understand how the case ever reached a law court.  D .... LIBEL REDACTED ... en. V
hi V,
I’ve researched the facts behind the case and from what I can see the Mccanns have a very strong case. It Is basically a balance between item 10 and 8. That’s the right to free speech against the right to reputation. Posters might not like it but looking at previous cases the Mccanns will be successful. We then have the right to the presumption of innocence which the SC stated does not apply in a civil court. From past rulings by the ECHR it does. L
Meanwhile I continue to believe it to be an elaborate hoax - just like every other aspect of this protracted saga. V
It’s the right to free speech vs right to reputation...Article 10 vs 8.  It is against the state of Portugal because it is the state of Portugal via the Supreme Court that has allowed Amaral to libel them L
Is that a fact.  V
Do you understand what libel means?  L
Do you? PA
Yep....do you know how poor the record is of the Portuguese SC is at the ECHR? ... it’s pretty poor   L
Did you actually come to this site last year to fight "misinformation"?  BB
I came to give my point of view.   Is that a problem?  L

Before I ban you, just answer one more question: how did GA libel the McCanns? JH

If you can’t stand another person’s point of view and wish to ban me ... I’m not bothered ... go ahead.   What happened to the claim of not supporting censorship?
You either support free speech or you don’t ... if you ban me you don’t.   L

Answer the question.  JH

If you have decided to censor me ... it’s unfair to ask me to answer a question.   So...am I to be banned or not?  L

Answer the question. JH

I don't give in to threats. I'm quite happy to answer any question but not if you have already made the decision to ban me.  L

75 posts on various threads of your nonsense and drivel is more than enough.
Away with you.  JH

As you know forums are entitled to dismiss posters for any reason they wish, including this one. Who's this 'L' then? I assume it's someone you know by your use of the word 'us'?

[Mr Gray]

As you know forums are entitled to dismiss posters for any reason they wish, including this one. Who's this 'L' then? I assume it's someone you know by your use of the word 'us'?

Forum s can dismiss who they want but banning posters because they think the mccanns are innocent really does make the forum pathetic.

[Brietta]

As you know forums are entitled to dismiss posters for any reason they wish, including this one. Who's this 'L' then? I assume it's someone you know by your use of the word 'us'?

Forums are not democratic entities ... but the particular forum I have quoted from allegedly champions free speech.

Apparently that is applicable only if one chants the libels which are agreeable to the forum owner?

[G-Unit]

This part interests me




We consider that, in this case, in view of the verified matter of facts, the exercise of freedom of expression was contained within limits which must be considered admissible in a (post-) modern democratic society



Did the SC actually incorrectly believe Amaral's book was based on facts

No

[Vertigo Swirl]

The Portuguese legal system gave the McCanns the opportunity to sue, and they took it. They failed to convince the Portuguese courts, however. Not everyone sues successfully you know!

Then the Portuguese system clearly failed to protect them from unproven public accusations of criminal behaviour by a private individual as I said.  How you can dispute this is quite frankly beyond me.

[Mr Gray]

No

Is that a fact or your opinion.. It would also explain their comment
. Insufficient evidence wheras PD Carmo said no evidence

[Brietta]

Then the Portuguese system clearly failed to protect them from unproven public accusations of criminal behaviour by a private individual as I said.  How you can dispute this is frankly quite beyond me.

It comes from the same stable which pinned its colours to the mast that the ECHR would dismiss the McCann case out of hand and are still struggling with coming to grip with the fact that the ECHR will hear the case against Portugal and Amaral.

[Mr Gray]

No

I take it you dont know this as a fact

[G-Unit]

Then the Portuguese system clearly failed to protect them from unproven public accusations of criminal behaviour by a private individual as I said.  How you can dispute this is quite frankly beyond me.

Only in the opinion of those who think that repeating what was in the released files was unlawful.