Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.

[stephen25000]

Winning in the first round of the FA cup does not give you the trophy.

Indeed Slarti.

..and after a second round replay, they were dumped out.

[Robittybob1]

Indeed Slarti.

..and after a second round replay, they were dumped out.

Whoever won needs to be drug tested.

[stephen25000]

Whoever won needs to be drug tested.

What ????

[Robittybob1]

What ????

That is what happens in sport, the winners get drug tested.

[carlymichelle]

omg sorry but this conversation is idiotic

[stephen25000]

That is what happens in sport, the winners get drug tested.

The sport was a metaphor.

Are yoiu suggesting the McCann's be tested ?

[stephen25000]

omg sorry but this conversation is idiotic

Yes Carly.

I am trying to work out why bob is doing it.

[G-Unit]

If there is anything to go to the ECHR about would be this presumption of innocence issue.

Which criminal offence were the McCanns charged with then?

ECHR Article 6:2

Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

UDHR Article 11

Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

[Robittybob1]

The sport was a metaphor.

Are yoiu suggesting the McCann's be tested ?

No I'm suggesting the SC judges get tested.  They won, the McCanns lost.

Which criminal offence were the McCanns charged with then?

ECHR Article 6:2

Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

UDHR Article 11

Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

So that presumption of innocence doesn't cover you if you are not charged! 

[Alfie]

Which criminal offence were the McCanns charged with then?

ECHR Article 6:2

Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

UDHR Article 11

Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

So you're only entitled to be presumed innocent if you have been charged, otherwise you're fair game for any old accusation?

[stephen25000]

No I'm suggesting the SC judges get tested.  They won, the McCanns lost.
So that presumption of innocence doesn't cover you if you are not charged!

What a pathetic and childish response.

You need to get a grip on reality bob, and study the judgement.

[Robittybob1]

What a pathetic and childish response.

You need to get a grip on reality bob, and study the judgement.

It was you who started using the sport analogy.  Take it or leave it. 

[Robittybob1]

What a pathetic and childish response.

You need to get a grip on reality bob, and study the judgement.

The judgement is so wrong it is a joke, a bad joke.
They say that Tavares made a statement, but that was all speculation and the evidence doesn't support any of it.  So when Amaral quotes Tavares its OK!  They are allowed to have working hypotheses but Amaral was retired so he should have kept out of it.

[stephen25000]

It was you who started using the sport analogy.  Take it or leave it.

Incorrect bob, Slarti made the first reference to sports.

Try paying attention.

[stephen25000]

The judgement is so wrong it is a joke, a bad joke.
They say that Tavares made a statement, but that was all speculation and the evidence doesn't support any of it.  So when Amaral quotes Tavares it OK!  They are allowed to have working hypotheses but Amaral was retired so he should have kept out of it.

No, the juidgement was based on law.

Get over it.

So what is 'we' going to do about it bob ?