Wandering Off Topic

[barrier]

Meanwhile the mighty MET who some hold in some esteem have in the not too recent past been described as institutionally racist,also having some of its officers as recently as the end of last year investigated for homophobia in regards  potentially "missed opportunities” to catch a prolific killer,I'm sure there are many more,I'm not saying any OG staff (if there are any left) are involved in this but they do belong to a force with this cloud over it.Then to top it all who is now the head of the MET,you couldn't make it up.

[misty]

Meanwhile the mighty MET who some hold in some esteem have in the not too recent past been described as institutionally racist,also having some of its officers as recently as the end of last year investigated for homophobia in regards  potentially "missed opportunities” to catch a prolific killer,I'm sure there are many more,I'm not saying any OG staff (if there are any left) are involved in this but they do belong to a force with this cloud over it.Then to top it all who is now the head of the MET,you couldn't make it up.

Is it your view that any police officer involved in a failed operation should never be allowed career progression?
Had CdM been the actual target, the force would have been applauded.

[ShiningInLuz]

A good start in "contradicting" anything or anyone is to contradict what they actually said, not what you think they said.

What I have said (and what I repeat, now) is that appeal-court ruling, upholding Amaral's "right" to lie, misrepresent and traduce, without let or hindrance, and with intent to personally profit from those lies, is fascist.  I said that for the excellent reason that it is.

My understanding of fascism is that one of the pillars is suppression of free speech.

Brietta's example appears to support that.

The McCanns attempted to suppress Amaral's right to free speech.  Does that make their action fascist?

The ruling no doubt will have to be posted ad infinitum.  The McCanns pushing abduction opened the door for others to promote alternatives.  And Amaral's alternative was found to be largely based on the interim report in the PJ Files.

You obviously don't like the outcome.  Fair enough as everyone is entitled to their opinion.

But to attempt to say the McCanns should be able to suppress free speech whilst saying a judgement preventing such suppression is fascist is an oxymoron.

The McCanns have not emerged from this looking intelligent, IMO. 

They had access to the PJ Files and could have countered with the archiving report, the conclusion that Gerry has an alibi re Smithman, the lack of reliance placed in the dogs, the actual DNA evidence etc.

They could have shredded Amaral's book in the Portuguese media at basically no cost.

I don't know what sort of Team McCann summit may have been held to determine that the course should be litigation rather than the media so I can't evaluate who proffered which view.  The end result is a disaster in my opinion.

The interesting thing is that the McCanns right to free speech within Portugal appears not to have been altered the appeal judgement or the SC judgement.

Where's a good PR man when you need one most?

[barrier]

Is it your view that any police officer involved in a failed operation should never be allowed career progression?
Had CdM been the actual target, the force would have been applauded.

CdM was the actual target he was followed to the underground so the rest  would depend on a point of view if its regarded that the shooting of an innocent man was a successful operation,or whether the shooting of the innocent man was a complete cock up with a promotion to the top job a reward some years later.One wonder's how the world views that,much the same as some view the Portuguese no doubt.

[G-Unit]

A good start in "contradicting" anything or anyone is to contradict what they actually said, not what you think they said.

What I have said (and what I repeat, now) is that appeal-court ruling, upholding Amaral's "right" to lie, misrepresent and traduce, without let or hindrance, and with intent to personally profit from those lies, is fascist.  I said that for the excellent reason that it is.

What both the first judge and the Appeal Court judges actually said was that Amaral's book reached the same conclusions as, at a certain point in time,  the investigation reached.

Where they differed was whether, due to his position as a retired policeman, he wasn't allowed to discuss the case.
The first judge said he wasn't, the Appeal judges said he was.

I fail to understand what feature of fascism this represents.

[slartibartfast]

Slartibartfast asked "Is that the report from an organisation founded by the McCann's lawyer?" in reference to Amnesty International.

The founding father of which was influenced by outrage at the injustice of two students being jailed for toasting freedom.

That is a matter of historical record.

It is worthy of note that the incident took place under the fascist regime of Salazar and has nothing to do with the present day democratic republic which is Portugal.

Amazing that members here have totally misinterpreted an historical event in Portuguese history and its relation to the founding of Amnesty International.

Dictatorship and Revolution in Portugal – History of a Dream

Lisbon, December 1960. In a bar two students clink their glasses to freedom – “A Liberdade!” They are spied on, denounced and finally sentenced to seven years in prison.

Under the Portuguese military dictatorship the word ‘freedom’ is prohibited.

It was reading about this incident in the London Times which moved the lawyer, Peter Benenson, to found Amnesty International.

It would still be thirteen years to the end of the dictatorship in Portugal.

On April 25, 1974 left-leaning troops move into Lisbon and within hours take over all key strategic places in the country.

The head of state and secret service give up after a short resistance. Forty-eight years of dictatorship are over. The dream of socialism awakens.

http://terranovavoice.tamera.org/2014/04/forty-years-after-the-carnation-revolution/1722

You miss the point, the report sent to AI about Amaral came from an organisation setup by Correia

[Brietta]

My understanding of fascism is that one of the pillars is suppression of free speech.

Brietta's example appears to support that.

The McCanns attempted to suppress Amaral's right to free speech.  Does that make their action fascist?

The ruling no doubt will have to be posted ad infinitum.  The McCanns pushing abduction opened the door for others to promote alternatives.  And Amaral's alternative was found to be largely based on the interim report in the PJ Files.

You obviously don't like the outcome.  Fair enough as everyone is entitled to their opinion.

But to attempt to say the McCanns should be able to suppress free speech whilst saying a judgement preventing such suppression is fascist is an oxymoron.

The McCanns have not emerged from this looking intelligent, IMO. 

They had access to the PJ Files and could have countered with the archiving report, the conclusion that Gerry has an alibi re Smithman, the lack of reliance placed in the dogs, the actual DNA evidence etc.

They could have shredded Amaral's book in the Portuguese media at basically no cost.

I don't know what sort of Team McCann summit may have been held to determine that the course should be litigation rather than the media so I can't evaluate who proffered which view.  The end result is a disaster in my opinion.

The interesting thing is that the McCanns right to free speech within Portugal appears not to have been altered the appeal judgement or the SC judgement.

Where's a good PR man when you need one most?

Enshrined within the same article of International Law which protects Amaral's right to freedom of speech the McCann's right not to be defamed is also protected.

In other words ... with rights, comes responsibilities.

Amaral abused the right to the freedom of speech by doing very much as you are when denigrating the McCann's right to protect their good name.

Quote

• "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.
  This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
  This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
• The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

http://fra.europa.eu/en/charterpedia/article/11-freedom-expression-and-information
 

[stephen25000]

Enshrined within the same article of International Law which protects Amaral's right to freedom of speech the McCann's right not to be defamed is also protected.

In other words ... with rights, comes responsibilities.

Amaral abused the right to the freedom of speech by doing very much as you are when denigrating the McCann's right to protect their good name.

Quote

• "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.
  This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
  This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
• The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

http://fra.europa.eu/en/charterpedia/article/11-freedom-expression-and-information

...And what Brietta of the rights of the Mccann's children, and those of the others in their group, who were left to their own devices and vulnerable ???

[ShiningInLuz]

Enshrined within the same article of International Law which protects Amaral's right to freedom of speech the McCann's right not to be defamed is also protected.

In other words ... with rights, comes responsibilities.

Amaral abused the right to the freedom of speech by doing very much as you are when denigrating the McCann's right to protect their good name.

Quote

• "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.
  This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
  This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
• The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

http://fra.europa.eu/en/charterpedia/article/11-freedom-expression-and-information

I haven't denigrated anyone.

I have given my opinion that this choice was a poor choice, and made it clear such is my opinion, with reasoning why I arrived at that opinion.

This is my right under freedom of speech on the forum.

[Brietta]

You miss the point, the report sent to AA about Amaral came from an organisation setup by Correia

Davel posted
Amnesty International
Several pj officers including amaral featured
No uk officer
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7060.msg387038#msg387038

To which you responded
Is that the report from an organisation founded by the McCann's lawyer?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7060.msg387040#msg387040

I have missed no point.  The evidence seems to indicate that you have.

[Brietta]

I haven't denigrated anyone.

I have given my opinion that this choice was a poor choice, and made it clear such is my opinion, with reasoning why I arrived at that opinion.

This is my right under freedom of speech on the forum.

Just as it is my right to form an opinion as to the wording and tone of what you deign to post. 

[Mr Gray]

My understanding of fascism is that one of the pillars is suppression of free speech.

Brietta's example appears to support that.

The McCanns attempted to suppress Amaral's right to free speech.  Does that make their action fascist?

The ruling no doubt will have to be posted ad infinitum.  The McCanns pushing abduction opened the door for others to promote alternatives.  And Amaral's alternative was found to be largely based on the interim report in the PJ Files.

You obviously don't like the outcome.  Fair enough as everyone is entitled to their opinion.

But to attempt to say the McCanns should be able to suppress free speech whilst saying a judgement preventing such suppression is fascist is an oxymoron.

The McCanns have not emerged from this looking intelligent, IMO. 

They had access to the PJ Files and could have countered with the archiving report, the conclusion that Gerry has an alibi re Smithman, the lack of reliance placed in the dogs, the actual DNA evidence etc.

They could have shredded Amaral's book in the Portuguese media at basically no cost.

I don't know what sort of Team McCann summit may have been held to determine that the course should be litigation rather than the media so I can't evaluate who proffered which view.  The end result is a disaster in my opinion.

The interesting thing is that the McCanns right to free speech within Portugal appears not to have been altered the appeal judgement or the SC judgement.

Where's a good PR man when you need one most?

the mccanns are NOT trying to supress free speech....that is absolute rubbish. They are seeking to prevent themselves being the victims of defamation

[stephen25000]

the mccanns are NOT trying to supress free speech....that is absolute rubbish. They are seeking to prevent themselves being the victims of defamation

They seem to spend more time in litigation than actually 'searching' for their daughter.

All they have achieved is a wider audience for Amaral and a growing dislike of them.

[Mr Gray]

My understanding of fascism is that one of the pillars is suppression of free speech.

Brietta's example appears to support that.

The McCanns attempted to suppress Amaral's right to free speech.  Does that make their action fascist?

The ruling no doubt will have to be posted ad infinitum.  The McCanns pushing abduction opened the door for others to promote alternatives.  And Amaral's alternative was found to be largely based on the interim report in the PJ Files.

You obviously don't like the outcome.  Fair enough as everyone is entitled to their opinion.

But to attempt to say the McCanns should be able to suppress free speech whilst saying a judgement preventing such suppression is fascist is an oxymoron.

The McCanns have not emerged from this looking intelligent, IMO. 

They had access to the PJ Files and could have countered with the archiving report, the conclusion that Gerry has an alibi re Smithman, the lack of reliance placed in the dogs, the actual DNA evidence etc.

They could have shredded Amaral's book in the Portuguese media at basically no cost.

I don't know what sort of Team McCann summit may have been held to determine that the course should be litigation rather than the media so I can't evaluate who proffered which view.  The end result is a disaster in my opinion.

The interesting thing is that the McCanns right to free speech within Portugal appears not to have been altered the appeal judgement or the SC judgement.

Where's a good PR man when you need one most?

this post does make you look intelligent.....now lets see how much you respect free speech

[Alfie]

this post does make you look intelligent.....now lets see how much you respect free speech

Does it?