« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 54 55 [56] 57 58 ... 143   Go Down

Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.  (Read 270217 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline xtina

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #825 on: February 05, 2017, 01:55:53 PM »
Quote from: davel on February 05, 2017, 01:29:52 PM
it isnt over yet. The Mccanns went down the libel route and lost...there is a lot the general public do not know about amaral...criminal conviction...accusations by his wife of drunk driving with his daughter and lots more
ghe has trashed their reputation...I think his will now be trashed


well don't want to offend you .......but you only think......

we will have to wait and see ......who comes out on top .........

at the moment its ........GA

have a nice holiday by the way ...........
« Last Edit: February 05, 2017, 02:06:59 PM by Brietta »
Logged
Always listen to both sides of the story before you judge.

The first storyteller you will always find has modified the story, for there benefit BE WISE.

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #826 on: February 05, 2017, 02:31:21 PM »
Quote from: barrier on February 05, 2017, 01:26:41 PM
Headlines.
LOL.  Are you trying to claim that the Sun's use of the word 'Top' in the sub headline refers to his being a most excellent cop?  LOL.
Logged

Offline jassi

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #827 on: February 05, 2017, 02:39:06 PM »
Quite. They used the same term for Redwood & both he and Amara were mid-ranking officers. Nothing top about either of them.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2017, 02:46:08 PM by jassi »
Logged
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 #828 on: February 05, 2017, 02:49:23 PM »
But a source close to the exasperated couple said: 'I think the fight is finally over. They want to concentrate on finding Madeleine and don't think they have the time or energy to lodge yet another appeal.' '

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4192424/Madeleine-McCann-libel-trial-winner-publish-second-book.html#ixzz4XndYfiGU
Logged

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #829 on: February 05, 2017, 02:52:27 PM »
Quote from: jassi on February 05, 2017, 02:39:06 PM
Quite. They used the same term for Redwood & both he and Amara were mid-ranking officers. Nothing top about either of them.
Top as in leading the investigation, not a description of their brilliance or ranking in the league table of most excellent coppers.
Logged

Offline barrier

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #830 on: February 05, 2017, 02:57:58 PM »
Quote from: Alfie on February 05, 2017, 02:31:21 PM
LOL.  Are you trying to claim that the Sun's use of the word 'Top' in the sub headline refers to his being a most excellent cop?  LOL.

I'm not trying to claim anything,I just point out the written word.I'd suggest if there is an issue with the written word take it up with the author.
Logged
This is my own private domicile and I shall not be harassed, biatch:Jesse Pinkman Character.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #831 on: February 05, 2017, 02:58:13 PM »
Quote from: xtina on February 05, 2017, 01:55:53 PM

well don't want to offend you .......but you only think......

we will have to wait and see ......who comes out on top .........

at the moment its ........GA

have a nice holiday by the way ...........

That's right
I think
Whereas amaral claims he knows when he only thinks
So I'm honest and he isnt
Logged

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #832 on: February 05, 2017, 02:59:39 PM »
Quote from: barrier on February 05, 2017, 02:57:58 PM
I'm not trying to claim anything,I just point out the written word.I'd suggest if there is an issue with the written word take it up with the author.

It's you who is wrong
You claimed they referred to amaral as a top cop
They didnt
Logged

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #833 on: February 05, 2017, 03:04:21 PM »
Quote from: barrier on February 05, 2017, 02:57:58 PM
I'm not trying to claim anything,I just point out the written word.I'd suggest if there is an issue with the written word take it up with the author.
Why would I want to do that?  I don't have any issue with it, the only issue I have is with you trying to make something significant out of nothing.
Logged

Offline barrier

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #834 on: February 05, 2017, 03:07:01 PM »
Quote from: davel on February 05, 2017, 02:59:39 PM
It's you who is wrong
You claimed they referred to amaral as a top cop
They didnt

No matter how many times you deny it the headlines say different,its in black and white,take it up with the Sun editorial staff,if you don't agree with it.

Once more the Headlines of the quoted piece.
Quote
FRESH MISERY FOR MCCANNS Top cop who accused Madeleine McCann’s parents of covering up her death is planning to write ANOTHER book after winning libel appeal

Even the web address says top cop.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2788143/top-cop-who-accused-madeleine-mccanns-parents-of-covering-up-her-death-is-planning-to-write-another-book-after-winning-libel-appeal/
Logged
This is my own private domicile and I shall not be harassed, biatch:Jesse Pinkman Character.

Offline barrier

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #835 on: February 05, 2017, 03:08:24 PM »
Quote from: Alfie on February 05, 2017, 03:04:21 PM
Why would I want to do that?  I don't have any issue with it, the only issue I have is with you trying to make something significant out of nothing.

I'm merely quoting an editorial piece,I'd suggest it is others who are trying to make some significance out of it.
Logged
This is my own private domicile and I shall not be harassed, biatch:Jesse Pinkman Character.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #836 on: February 05, 2017, 03:08:28 PM »
Quote from: stephen25000 on February 05, 2017, 02:49:23 PM
But a source close to the exasperated couple said: 'I think the fight is finally over. They want to concentrate on finding Madeleine and don't think they have the time or energy to lodge yet another appeal.' '

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4192424/Madeleine-McCann-libel-trial-winner-publish-second-book.html#ixzz4XndYfiGU

Maybe they will
Maybe they won't
We will know a lot more in the next few weeks
This is far from over
The court case loss has opened a new chapter and it will be very interesting
Logged

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #837 on: February 05, 2017, 03:09:55 PM »
Quote from: barrier on February 05, 2017, 03:08:24 PM
I'm merely quoting an editorial piece,I'd suggest it is others who are trying to make some significance out of it.

Your original post was wrong
You said they referred to amaral as a top cop
They didn't
Go back and read it again
Logged

Offline Brietta

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #838 on: February 05, 2017, 03:18:56 PM »

                             Topic, please   8)-)))
Logged
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline Erngath

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #839 on: February 05, 2017, 03:19:23 PM »
Quote from: ferryman on February 05, 2017, 01:04:08 PM
Good to know that the Portuguese press, also, retains a proper perspective on the nonsense of this ruling, and of where the true injustice lies:

Where and when was this published?
Logged
Deal with the failings of others as gently as with your own.
Pages: 1 ... 54 55 [56] 57 58 ... 143   Go Up
« previous next »