Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.

[Mr Gray]

You may want to look at this for guidance...

You should try reading it
It refers to journalists

[G-Unit]

i read  something about how they could take it to the euro court?  that is unlikley right??

They can try the European Court of Human Rights but that won't change this judgement or involve Amaral at all.

[stephen25000]

Because it's a stupid question which has been discussed at length before

Meanwhile, they have lost the case as I expected and forecast.

[carlymichelle]

They can try the European Court of Human Rights but that won't change this judgement or involve Amaral at all.

  thats what i  thought

[G-Unit]

So if you were in their shoes (which obviously you never would be as you're a perfect parent) you would support any one involved in the investigation into your child's disappearance to write a book pointing the finger at you or your family would you?

Sorry, Alfie, I can't be bothered with your 'what if' questions today. The McCanns thought they could silence Amaral, they were wrong.

[Brietta]

Face facts folks - sometimes the bad guys win, as they clearly have done in this case.  Sad, but nothing to be done.  Time to move on for all concerned if possible, IMO.

My gut reaction would be to take it to the European Court ... but what really is the point? 

What has been forgotten in the elation of the victory of the right to freedom of expression over the right not to be defamed with what is in my opinion one of the most nefarious defamation claims possible is that now ... in Portugal ... it would seem that Madeleine McCann is considered officially dead.

Not only is that indecent haste to write off a life with no evidence of death, that is risible when one considers that the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard have not yet written her off as dead.

[carlymichelle]

Sorry, Alfie, I can't be bothered with your 'what if' questions today. The McCanns thought they could silence Amaral, they were wrong.

theres a old but  good  saying in times  like this be careful what you wish for

[Brietta]

Meanwhile, they have lost the case as I expected and forecast.

Evidence for the statement made in the first sentence please ... or remove it.

[Alfie]

Sorry, Alfie, I can't be bothered with your 'what if' questions today. The McCanns thought they could silence Amaral, they were wrong.

But were they wrong to even try?  Bearing in mind that they may very well be innocent of all the accusations in Amaral's book?  Of course you can't be bothered giving me a straight answer, it's quite obvious why.

[slartibartfast]

You should try reading it
It refers to journalists

As anything posted on the forum is classed as published the same rules apply.

[carlymichelle]

As anything posted on the forum is classed as published the same rules apply.

so basically  davel isnt allowed  to bring  up other stuff about  GA  that  doesnt  relate to maddie  on this forum is he??

[jassi]

He presented it as fact

Now is that a fact or an alternative fact?

[carlymichelle]

Now is that a fact or an alternative fact?

either  way the court  thinks  he is allowed to think what he  wants dont they?  and i agree with them

[stephen25000]

Evidence for the statement made in the first sentence please ... or remove it.

That is a ridiculous remark and it sounds quite vindictive.

If the money spent on chasing Amaral through the courts had been spent on searching for Madeleine, don't you agree that would have been the right thing to do ?

[faithlilly]

But were they wrong to even try?  Bearing in mind that they may very well be innocent of all the accusations in Amaral's book?  Of course you can't be bothered giving me a straight answer, it's quite obvious why.

Were their hurt feeling more important than funding the search for their daughter ( and remember that when they started this action their was no investigation) ?