Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.  (Read 253339 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Eleanor

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1635 on: February 15, 2017, 09:22:28 AM »
I don't think his debts are relevant. He won the case and his finances will be returned to wherever they were before the injunction. The courts may agree to an injunction, but the ones asking for it are still responsible for it.

The fact that his pension is better than yours is relevant how? Do you have an occupational pension? If not, you're not comparing like with like.

I am talking about the fact that he was no where near as poverty stricken as he made out.  I have always paid my taxes, and don't owe anything to anyone.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1636 on: February 15, 2017, 09:23:44 AM »
No, Stephen, you don't need to remind me.  Two payments on an ordinary, up to date mortgage.  Hardly on the same scale as Amaral, who didn't even pay his State Taxes, let alone boring things like mortgages.

I would like to know how he got away with it for so long, and what happened to the 59,000 Euros he stole from his brother.


Yet the McCann's who had 2 salaries, were in financial trouble extremely quickly.

Also, what about their other household expenses such as Council Tax. etc. ?

One would have thought with two salaries, they would have savings.


So what money did he 'steal' from his brother ?

Can a citation be provided for that from an independent source and not a Mccann supporter site ?

Offline jassi

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1637 on: February 15, 2017, 09:28:33 AM »
Does any of it really matter?

Amaral will get his money back.
McCanns will have to pay substantial costs.
Media is having a field day over it all

OG plods on with still no sign of Madeleine or how she disappeared and people still seem obsessed with Amaral.
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for the foreseeable future

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1638 on: February 15, 2017, 09:32:19 AM »
Does any of it really matter?

Amaral will get his money back.
McCanns will have to pay substantial costs.
Media is having a field day over it all

OG plods on with still no sign of Madeleine or how she disappeared and people still seem obsessed with Amaral.

Indeed they are Jassi, because he beat the Mccann's, and some can't deal with it.

Offline Eleanor

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1639 on: February 15, 2017, 09:34:01 AM »

Yet the McCann's who had 2 salaries, were in financial trouble extremely quickly.

Also, what about their other household expenses such as Council Tax. etc. ?

One would have thought with two salaries, they would have savings.


So what money did he 'steal' from his brother ?

Can a citation be provided for that from an independent source and not a Mccann supporter site ?

Amaral's Family had two salaries.

He sold a house to his brother, took the money, and then sold it to someone else.  He and Sofia were convicted of this in a Portuguese Court.  It is well documented.

There has never been any suggestion that The McCanns didn't pay their Council Tax.

As for savings, that is a personal thing.  I didn't have any savings for years and years, with a young family to support.  But I still didn't owe anyone anything.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1640 on: February 15, 2017, 09:51:16 AM »
Amaral's Family had two salaries.

He sold a house to his brother, took the money, and then sold it to someone else.  He and Sofia were convicted of this in a Portuguese Court.  It is well documented.

There has never been any suggestion that The McCanns didn't pay their Council Tax.

As for savings, that is a personal thing.  I didn't have any savings for years and years, with a young family to support.  But I still didn't owe anyone anything.

Some people are good with money, some aren't. Amaral resigned from his job, had money coming in, started a company then it was all halted by the McCann's freezing injunction. He may have failed or succeeded, nobody knows. We do know that his progress was halted for seven years by the action of the McCanns.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1641 on: February 15, 2017, 09:53:55 AM »
Some people are good with money, some aren't. Amaral resigned from his job, had money coming in, started a company then it was all halted by the McCann's freezing injunction. He may have failed or succeeded, nobody knows. We do know that his progress was halted for seven years by the action of the McCanns.
Did it take 7 years before that happened? 2008 - 2015?
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Eleanor

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1642 on: February 15, 2017, 10:04:48 AM »
Some people are good with money, some aren't. Amaral resigned from his job, had money coming in, started a company then it was all halted by the McCann's freezing injunction. He may have failed or succeeded, nobody knows. We do know that his progress was halted for seven years by the action of the McCanns.

I am good with money.  My idea of a spending spree is a 2 Euro Paper Weight, and I do have quite a lot of those.

However, I spend no time or money at all in Bars and Restaurants.

By the way, he started his company so he could get a VAT reduction on his Jaguar.

Personally, I think he is much better and more healthy looking than before all this started.  I even quite fancy him myself.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1643 on: February 15, 2017, 10:22:16 AM »
I am good with money.  My idea of a spending spree is a 2 Euro Paper Weight, and I do have quite a lot of those.

However, I spend no time or money at all in Bars and Restaurants.

By the way, he started his company so he could get a VAT reduction on his Jaguar.

Personally, I think he is much better and more healthy looking than before all this started.  I even quite fancy him myself.

Really? That 'vile little man' I think you described him as? Handsome is as handsome does my Mum used to say.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1644 on: February 15, 2017, 10:23:33 AM »
Amaral's Family had two salaries.

He sold a house to his brother, took the money, and then sold it to someone else.  He and Sofia were convicted of this in a Portuguese Court.  It is well documented.

There has never been any suggestion that The McCanns didn't pay their Council Tax.

As for savings, that is a personal thing.  I didn't have any savings for years and years, with a young family to support.  But I still didn't owe anyone anything.

Do you have the reference for that Eleanor, as I have tried several searches with zero results ?

Offline Eleanor

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1645 on: February 15, 2017, 10:32:03 AM »
Really? That 'vile little man' I think you described him as? Handsome is as handsome does my Mum used to say.

Have you got a Cite for me calling him a vile little man?  Although I suppose I might have done.  But that wouldn't stop him from being better looking now than he was.

Offline Eleanor

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1646 on: February 15, 2017, 10:34:02 AM »
Do you have the reference for that Eleanor, as I have tried several searches with zero results ?

It's up on this Forum somewhere, Stephen.

Offline misty

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1647 on: February 15, 2017, 01:39:05 PM »
Do you have the reference for that Eleanor, as I have tried several searches with zero results ?

Sofia worked for the Algarve Tourist Regional Board. Link to articles posted on here & another attempt by Amaral to get compensation for defamation (surprised he ever had time to do any work).
https://madeleinemccannthetruth.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/well-well-well-goncalo-amaral-and-threats-and-accusations/

Offline G-Unit

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1648 on: February 15, 2017, 02:08:38 PM »
People still banging on about Amaral. Why? Does it somehow  make you feel better?

They seem to think that he didn't deserve to win the damages trial because;

He wasn't, in their opinions, a fine upstanding citizen!

Of course the two things are totally unrelated.  @)(++(*
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1649 on: February 15, 2017, 04:21:27 PM »
They seem to think that he didn't deserve to win the damages trial because;

He wasn't, in their opinions, a fine upstanding citizen!

Of course the two things are totally unrelated.  @)(++(*
He has been made out it was an opinion but in fact it was effort to prove the McCanns were guilty.  Some might still say "that is an opinion" but it seems to have a character that is more like an accusation.  That is what is bugging me.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.