Has support for the McCanns and Goncalo Amaral reached cult status?

[John]

Warnings have been posted previously in respect of thread disruption.  This morning a moderator had to spend hours removing and editing posts which were inappropriate for all sorts of reasons including argumentative goading and sniping.

From now on I am instructing all moderators to issue higher penalties for rule breaches.  Accumulating points will result in posts having to be pre-authorised or an automatic ban.  Don't say you haven't been warned!

John
Senior Editor

[G-Unit]

I have posted what they actually said ....

You did indeed and you interpreted it as;

And for these judges to hold that even serving police officers should not feel under any obligation to obey judicial secrecy surely demonstrates them incompetent, biased, or even corrupt?
Re: Former Portuguese detective Gonçalo Amaral wins appeal in damages trial.
« Reply #2393 on: May 15, 2016, 04:16:01 PM »

Which is clearly not what they said. I posted more or less what they said, simplified so as not to be misunderstood. The facts were no longer secret, so the judges were not 'incompetent, biased or even corrupt';

 it is hardly understandable that an employee, even more a retired one, would have to keep said duties of secrecy and reserve, thus being limited in the exercise of his right to an opinion, concerning the interpretation of facts that were already made public by the judiciary authority, and widely debated (in fact, largely by initiative of the intervenients themselves) in the national and international media.

[ferryman]

You did indeed and you interpreted it as;

And for these judges to hold that even serving police officers should not feel under any obligation to obey judicial secrecy surely demonstrates them incompetent, biased, or even corrupt?
Re: Former Portuguese detective Gonçalo Amaral wins appeal in damages trial.
« Reply #2393 on: May 15, 2016, 04:16:01 PM »

Which is clearly not what they said. I posted more or less what they said, simplified so as not to be misunderstood. The facts were no longer secret, so the judges were not 'incompetent, biased or even corrupt';

 it is hardly understandable that an employee, even more a retired one, would have to keep said duties of secrecy and reserve, thus being limited in the exercise of his right to an opinion, concerning the interpretation of facts that were already made public by the judiciary authority, and widely debated (in fact, largely by initiative of the intervenients themselves) in the national and international media.

it is hardly understandable that an employee ...

An employee would be a serving officer.

These judges see no reason why a serving officer should keep (sic) said duties of secrecy and reserve ...

These judges appear to have contempt for the laws of their own country that they are appointed to uphold ....

[ChloeR]

Cult to me means absolutely crazy devoted, so I find it hard to answer this thread 

I think there are more McCann supporters that are..utterly devoted..meaning they refuse point blank to criticize anything at all they come out with/do/have done

Where most 'Amaral' supporters seem to disagree with him on a fair few notes quite openly.

I don't really class myself as an 'Amaral' supporter, or any anything supporter really. I just disbelieve the abduction theory. I also dislike the way Amaral has been treat throughout this whole ordeal...the worst part for me was being unable to afford his own defense, as such I was very happy to see the fund appear and do its purpose. Its never really been about McCanns V Amaral to me, honestly, I couldn't really give a shit about either one. I just want to find out what happened to the child and (if necessary, as per my belief) lay her to rest properly.

[Mr Gray]

I think you are wrong to use the words utterly devoted....for me the evidence points to the mcCanns not being involved

[stephen25000]

There is no evidence as to anyone that would stand up in court.

Unless of course someone confesses to what really happened that night.

[Mr Gray]

There is no evidence as to anyone that would stand up in court.

Unless of course someone confesses to what really happened that night.

evidence can exclude people

[sadie]

You did indeed and you interpreted it as;

And for these judges to hold that even serving police officers should not feel under any obligation to obey judicial secrecy surely demonstrates them incompetent, biased, or even corrupt?
Re: Former Portuguese detective Gonçalo Amaral wins appeal in damages trial.
« Reply #2393 on: May 15, 2016, 04:16:01 PM »

Which is clearly not what they said. I posted more or less what they said, simplified so as not to be misunderstood. The facts were no longer secret, so the judges were not 'incompetent, biased or even corrupt';

 it is hardly understandable that an employee, even more a retired one, would have to keep said duties of secrecy and reserve, thus being limited in the exercise of his right to an opinion, concerning the interpretation of facts that were already made public by the judiciary authority, and widely debated (in fact, largely by initiative of the intervenients themselves) in the national and international media.

Thousands of people have to keep secrets about what happened in their jobs.   Lawyers, Teachers, Doctors, Counsellors, Police Officers, etc etc.  Why should Amaral be different?

[slartibartfast]

Thousands of people have to keep secrets about what happened in their jobs.   Lawyers, Teachers, Doctors, Counsellors, Police Officers, etc etc.  Why should Amaral be different?

You can't keep secrets that aren't secret.

[G-Unit]

You can't keep secrets that aren't secret.

Quite. When is a secret not a secret? When it's been splashed all over the media worldwide and when the official record is available for all to read.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Quite. When is a secret not a secret? When it's been splashed all over the media worldwide and when the official record is available for all to read.

Yes, even the bits they don't like they want those bits to be a secret.

So I don't know about 'cult status', but I have come across supporters who are borderline fanatical will not hear any kind of criticism, and will defend them on indefencable issues in my opinion. Even though they don't know what happened to little Maddie.

 Amaral doesn't have the same 'intense' following. People like me who support his right to publish his book on a freedom of expression remit, never bought or read his book, so was never affected or swayed by his thesis. Again a lot of fanatical supporters fail to grasp that freedom of expression is a liberty many millions of people are not going to give away so easily- not even for the McCANNS. But  that is what is it down to. and why he recieved support to fight his case.

[ferryman]

You did indeed and you interpreted it as;

And for these judges to hold that even serving police officers should not feel under any obligation to obey judicial secrecy surely demonstrates them incompetent, biased, or even corrupt?
Re: Former Portuguese detective Gonçalo Amaral wins appeal in damages trial.
« Reply #2393 on: May 15, 2016, 04:16:01 PM »

Which is clearly not what they said. I posted more or less what they said, simplified so as not to be misunderstood. The facts were no longer secret, so the judges were not 'incompetent, biased or even corrupt';

 it is hardly understandable that an employee, even more a retired one, would have to keep said duties of secrecy and reserve, thus being limited in the exercise of his right to an opinion, concerning the interpretation of facts that were already made public by the judiciary authority, and widely debated (in fact, largely by initiative of the intervenients themselves) in the national and international media.

Portuguese law (like it or not) states that serving PJ officers must observe judicial secrecy (or at least it did, the penal code constantly changes; but it did back then).

These judges (expressing a personal opinion) see no reason why Portuguese law should require that.

Tending to suggest that the judges have contempt for the laws they are appointed to uphold.

However, they have (presumably) interpreted the law correctly in saying the same requirement is not placed on officers who quit the force (before publishing details of an investigation in advance of the case being archived).

[mercury]

GA did not break the judicial secrecy laws and even if he did in the tiniest inconsequential technical way by passing his manuscript over to a lawyer or publisher,  this is nothing to do with the mccanns orignal writ so why all the fuss about JS

[stephen25000]

GA did not break the judicial secrecy laws and even if he did in the tiniest inconsequential technical way by passing his manuscript over to a lawyer or publisher,  this is nothing to do with the mccanns orignal writ so why all the fuss about JS

Yes, we know Mercury.

However, not everyone understands that, it seems.

[mercury]

Yes, we know Mercury.

However, not everyone understands that, it seems.

And to boot the complaint about breaking judicial secrecy made years ago by the mccanns pt lawyer was chucked out of court so seems doubly bizarre to focus on this now imo which makes me think...well, not sure tbh

 &%+((£