Wandering Off Topic

[misty]

You have a look. I have made it clear I am not interested in debating Ria Formosa cos I don't know the current rules and regs about a natural park.  Nor what they have to do about Madeleine.  Over to you.

Fair enough.
Please explain what rights to free speech the Portuguese state granted the McCanns through the Portuguese media.

[G-Unit]

Fair enough.
Please explain what rights to free speech the Portuguese state granted the McCanns through the Portuguese media.

Both the PJ and the McCanns were bound by Judicial Secrecy. Neither of them took much notice, it seems. Both used 'sources'.

The McCanns refused to let Portuguese station TVI show their documentary. It wanted to show it as a balancing exercise because it had shown Amaral's documentary. It seems they turned down the chance to put their case to the Portuguese people.
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/117391/McCann-TV-snub

[Robittybob1]

Both the PJ and the McCanns were bound by Judicial Secrecy. Neither of them took much notice, it seems. Both used 'sources'.

The McCanns refused to let Portuguese station TVI show their documentary. It wanted to show it as a balancing exercise because it had shown Amaral's documentary. It seems they turned down the chance to put their case to the Portuguese people.
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/117391/McCann-TV-snub

Win some lose some.

[Alice Purjorick]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/maddie-mccanns-parents-were-nearly-9967698
Spot this week's deliberate error:

"Kate McCann thought Matthews was also going through the same agony of losing a daughter and asked Madeleine fund trustees to send cash".

[Mr Gray]

What suppressed speech?  The McCanns were, and are, entitled to freedom of speech.  How fascist is that, not.

They can state abduction until the death of time.

They cannot suppress the right of others to freedom of speech.

They have a right not to be defamed which you don't seem to understand

[stephen25000]

They have a right not to be defamed which you don't seem to understand

Remind me dave of what the judgement in Portugal said.

[John]

They have a right not to be defamed which you don't seem to understand

Unless you know the full truth about the disappearance I suggest any claims of defamation are premature.

[Alfie]

Unless you know the full truth about the disappearance I suggest any claims of defamation are premature.

Are you suggesting that the McCanns cannot claim they have been defamed because an abuctor has yet to be charged and found guilty?

[Robittybob1]

Are you suggesting that the McCanns cannot claim they have been defamed because an abuctor has yet to be charged and found guilty?

That might be the case as long as it is done via a thesis.

I don't believe the same standard would be applied on the forum, i.e. it should be acceptable to propose a thesis about any person suggesting that they are involved in some way in a yet to be proved thesis.

[Mr Gray]

Unless you know the full truth about the disappearance I suggest any claims of defamation are premature.

they are not John.....the McCanns have been defamed but amaral has been allowed to get away with it.

[Mr Gray]

Which element of fascism?

We are moving to a property which has a rear garden (aka meadow) which is designated as both agricultural and environmental.  This means we can do sod all with it except farm it.  The previous owner had built various structures on it which violated these regulations.  The cãmara insisted these were ripped out before the house was sold to us.

We now have no pig pens.  We now have no 'orrible swimming pool.  Much else has gone due to the law.

Should I be calling the câmara fascist for enforcing the regulations?

I am not going to engage in a debate on properties built in Rio Formosa.  That is a designated natural park.  Go for the building regs on such on your own.

If you think this decision is fascist, you need to prove it.

why do we need to prove it...aren't we allowed freedom of speech

[ShiningInLuz]

They have a right not to be defamed which you don't seem to understand

I can understand the appeal court and SC decisions quite well enough.  Of course, if one repeatedly ignores those ...

[ShiningInLuz]

why do we need to prove it...aren't we allowed freedom of speech

Oh dear.  You mean you want to use emotive and connotative words without supporting the same?  I believe that is called propaganda.

[Robittybob1]

why do we need to prove it...aren't we allowed freedom of speech

Free speech only happens in places where that is welcome.  If you want free speech you set up your own forum site or write your own book but here we have to abide by the rules of the forum owners.

[G-Unit]

We know at least something approaching the full truth about Amaral's lies and we know they are lies by comparing what he has written (or said) with what is written in the files.

Making "claims" of defamation against Amaral, not so much claims as facts.

If you read the first judgement carefully you will find that the judge didn't see anything wrong with the book. On page 34 she says there's nothing new in the book. What it says was said by the investigation, it led to the McCanns being made arguidos and it has been said by others.

In order to penalise Amaral her judgement brings in his obligations as a retired policeman. Using some rather complicated mental gymnastics she decides that he has breached judicial secrecy and failed to allow the McCanns the presumption of innocence. Both of these requirements are imposed on a retired policeman, she argues, and they restrict his freedom of speech.

All the Appeal judges had to do then was show that being a retired policeman did not impose those obligations on Amaral, he enjoyed full unrestricted freedom of speech, and her judgement was shown to be wrong.