Madeleine McCann's parents win €500k in damages against former police chief.

[Lyall]

they didn't have to...but according to oxford...the Portuguese justice system is guilty of a tort for not affording them the presumption of innocence

In 2008 if they had returned to Portugal (even if the other invited people hadn't) the line about not demonstrating innocence wouldn't and couldn't have been included. But they didn't go back.

[OxfordBloo]

they didn't have to...but according to oxford...the Portuguese justice system is guilty of a tort for not affording them the presumption of innocence

That is incorrect.

[sadie]

By Amaral.  Which is what The Judge said.

And they should have been afforded the presumption of innocence by you sceptics [ant1s] too.

[Mr Gray]

That is incorrect.

so amaral is...but the Portuguese justice system isn't....why is that

[sadie]

Welcome OxfordBloo ..... oarsman ?

Good to have you on board

[Mr Gray]

That is incorrect.

you did post this...

Additionally it is unlawful for such a person (legally involved, not just as a citizen) to suggest that someone not convicted of a crime is other than totally innocent- this is seen as part of the Guarantee of the presumption of innocence.

[Lyall]

so amaral is...but the Portuguese justice system isn't....why is that

They were arguido.

[Mr Gray]

They were arguido.

that's the whole point...as arguida they are entitled to the presumption of innocence..according to the judge

[Mr Gray]

So the supreme court did NOT rule on libel as claimed by oxford...it simply ruled that the ban on the book was unconstitutional...and it was...imo of course

[Lyall]

that's the whole point...as arguida they are entitled to the presumption of innocence..according to the judge

When they asked the others to take part those were requests.

With arguido it's different.

[Mr Gray]

When they asked the others to take part those were requests.

With arguido it's different.

the mccanns should not have been asked to demonstrate their innocence...according to the judge...it's a bit complicated dear so don't worry if you don't understand it

[OxfordBloo]

you did post this...

Additionally it is unlawful for such a person (legally involved, not just as a citizen) to suggest that someone not convicted of a crime is other than totally innocent- this is seen as part of the Guarantee of the presumption of innocence.

That is correct. What you posted was not.

[OxfordBloo]

So the supreme court did NOT rule on libel as claimed by oxford...it simply ruled that the ban on the book was unconstitutional...and it was...imo of course

Please quote the judgement.

[Lyall]

the mccanns should not have been asked to demonstrate their innocence...according to the judge...it's a bit complicated dear so don't worry if you don't understand it

I understand you're barking up the wrong tree. The one thing has nothing to do with other.

The line meant: they did not return to Portugal when asked. An undeniable fact.

[Mr Gray]

I understand you're barking up the wrong tree. The one thing has nothing to do with other.

it's a bit complicated dear so don't worry if you don't understand it