Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.

[stephen25000]

Who went against the McCann line? ... not anyone that I have seen.  What I have noticed are high court judges who have played fast and loose with the principals of decency and the law of the land while traducing the human rights of individuals which are enshrined in law internationally and within their own borders.

That is your opinion, not mine.

I'm still waiting for the day when you criticize the McCann's actions.

Something tells me that will never happen.

[carlymichelle]

The McCann's are responsible for what they failed to do.

You, like other supporters like to shift the blame onto others.

Well, time to get over the Supreme Court decision.

So Benice, what have you done to help the Mccann's and have you searched for Madeleine  ?

they will never admit that the verdict devastated them will they?? all the years of n threats  and predicitions  and it  didnt  happen

[stephen25000]

they will never admit that the verdict devastated them will they??

No, but you can read between the lines.

[Brietta]

It would be interesting to see your assertions supported by reference to citations.

Nothing I have posted requires a cite.  I have an opinion.  Which I believe is covered by freedom of speech.  If you are unable to argue your point ... please do not resort to goading such as demanding unnecessary cites.

[Eleanor]

I shall be removing Goading Posts in full, henceforth.

[G-Unit]

Nothing I have posted requires a cite.  I have an opinion.  Which I believe is covered by freedom of speech.  If you are unable to argue your point ... please do not resort to goading such as demanding unnecessary cites.

I strongly deny goading. You said;

 What I have noticed are high court judges who have played fast and loose with the principals of decency and the law of the land while traducing the human rights of individuals which are enshrined in law internationally and within their own borders.

How have the judges 'played fast and loose with the law of the land'? Which law?
How have they 'traduced the human rights' of anyone? Which human rights?

I think that calls for clarification. If you can't be more specific your opinion is baseless.

[carlymichelle]

I strongly deny goading. You said;

 What I have noticed are high court judges who have played fast and loose with the principals of decency and the law of the land while traducing the human rights of individuals which are enshrined in law internationally and within their own borders.

How have the judges 'played fast and loose with the law of the land'? Which law?
How have they 'traduced the human rights' of anyone? Which human rights?

I think that calls for clarification. If you can't be more specific your opinion is baseless.

well said  g unit  just because   you  dont like what someone says doesnt mean the person is goading  the only human  rights  that were violated were maddies she had a  right to be cared for   by her parents and she  wasnt well its  all came  back to haunt them now hasent  it

[stephen25000]

''It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case''

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/09/madeleine-mccanns-parents-have-not-ruled-innocent-judge-says/

[Benice]

The McCann's are responsible for what they failed to do.

You, like other supporters like to shift the blame onto others.

Well, time to get over the Supreme Court decision.

So Benice, what have you done to help the Mccann's and have you searched for Madeleine  ?

The usual  'moving the goalposts'  tactics are duly noted as none of the above has anything to do with my post pointing out the supreme irony of your comments to Ferryman. i.e.

You said
What is disgraceful is your continued besmirching of anyone who goes against the McCann line.
End quote

Why would I bother to answer your questions when you have a 100 per cent record of never accepting my answers?     It would be a total waste of time.

[stephen25000]

The usual  'moving the goalposts'  tactics are duly noted as none of the above has anything to do with my post pointing out the supreme irony of your comments to Ferryman. i.e.

You said
What is disgraceful is your continued besmirching of anyone who goes against the McCann line.
End quote

Why would I bother to answer your questions when you have a 100 per cent record of never accepting my answers?     It would be a total waste of time.

As you don't except my answers, that ranks of hypocrisy.

[Eleanor]

I don't agree with the supreme Court decision, but at least I understand it.

What I don't understand is for why the Supreme Court Judges felt the need to comment on the guilt or innocence of The McCanns and the fate of Madeleine as this was not their remit.

This is the real issue for The Court of Human Rights, should it go that far.

[G-Unit]

I don't agree with the supreme Court decision, but at least I understand it.

What I don't understand is for why the Supreme Court Judges felt the need to comment on the guilt or innocence of The McCanns and the fate of Madeleine as this was not their remit.

This is the real issue for The Court of Human Rights, should it go that far.

I think they were mostly responding to points raised by the McCann's lawyer. It was she who argued that the McCanns were cleared by the archiving dispatch. They replied because she was wrong.

[Brietta]

I don't agree with the supreme Court decision, but at least I understand it.

What I don't understand is for why the Supreme Court Judges felt the need to comment on the guilt or innocence of The McCanns and the fate of Madeleine as this was not their remit.

This is the real issue for The Court of Human Rights, should it go that far.

I was of the opinion that perhaps the McCanns might  have written off losing the libel case for exactly what it was worth (in my opinion an aberration) and to continue with their work and their family as best they can.
Bearing in mind that the next huge milestone in their lives will be Madeleine ten years missing followed by police decisions on whether or not they have reason to request more funding to be made available to continue her case.

It is now my firm opinion that they have been left with no choice but the European Court ... this time not on Madeleine's behalf ... but on their own.

[Eleanor]

I think they were mostly responding to points raised by the McCann's lawyer. It was she who argued that the McCanns were cleared by the archiving dispatch. They replied because she was wrong.

These points were discarded as it was not the remit of The Court to rule on this.

I think that The Supreme Court have just handed The McCanns their backsides on a platter.

[G-Unit]

It is my firm opinion that the McCanns will suffer another humiliating defeat if they appeal this decision to the ECHR.