Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.  (Read 270245 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #60 on: January 31, 2017, 06:32:40 PM »
I already have.  You know how much he has lost because of the Restraint Order.
Where did you do that?  How much did he lose because of the Restraint Order? 

Offline xtina

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #61 on: January 31, 2017, 06:32:59 PM »
I don't think he does no more than us
He certainly didn't understand the forensic evidence


i know he certainly wished............. he had never sent them to Birmingham ffs
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.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #62 on: January 31, 2017, 06:34:54 PM »
That's the principle that applies in several other countries.
We can't say what he wrote is the truth as they were merely his opinions not facts.  When he says something is his opinion, how will we be able to show he is lying? 
Others can agree with Amaral but you can never say it is a fact, for to claim it is a fact you would need strong evidence.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2017, 06:37:27 PM by Robittybob1 »
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.

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #63 on: January 31, 2017, 06:35:37 PM »
Now that he's rolling in the green stuff, I trust Amaral will pay back all those donors that gave so generously to his fund, or at least donate that money to a suitable charity, like Alcoholics Anonymous or something.

Offline Angelo222

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #64 on: January 31, 2017, 06:41:26 PM »
I don't think he does no more than us
He certainly didn't understand the forensic evidence

Are you trying to wind everyone up tonight so as to take away the pain of today's landslide victory for Amaral?

As police coordinator Amaral knew everything there was to know about the case, I can't wait to read his new book about events which followed the disappearance.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #65 on: January 31, 2017, 06:43:19 PM »
Are you trying to wind everyone up tonight so as to take away the pain of today's landslide victory for Amaral?

As police coordinator Amaral knew everything there was to know about the case, I can't wait to read his new book about events which followed the disappearance.
As someone who firmly believes Madeleine left the apartment on her own and was abducted later, your enthusiasm for Amaral's knowledge and understanding of the forensics is somewhat baffling... &%+((£

Offline Angelo222

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #66 on: January 31, 2017, 06:44:07 PM »
It has certainly confused the standard of what is fair to be published in print and then to be be allowed to get away with it. 
Totally damaging statements were published under the heading of opinion, and freedom of expression.  When does something become libel now?
I suppose it has to be now shown that the person making the claims is lying.

You forget that Amaral's thesis has not been disproven so nil ponts for libel.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #67 on: January 31, 2017, 06:45:05 PM »
Are you trying to wind everyone up tonight so as to take away the pain of today's landslide victory for Amaral?

As police coordinator Amaral knew everything there was to know about the case, I can't wait to read his new book about events which followed the disappearance.
Maybe Kate and Goncalo can jointly author the next book.  I definitely read it then.
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.

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #68 on: January 31, 2017, 06:45:20 PM »
This is probably a dumb question but does Amaral still believe the McCanns dunnit, or has he come to his senses by now?

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #69 on: January 31, 2017, 06:48:40 PM »
You forget that Amaral's thesis has not been disproven so nil ponts for libel.
So anyone in Portugal could write a most outrageous book of lies about Amaral and if they couldn't be disproved by Amaral then that wouldn't be libel, is that the gist of it?

Offline Angelo222

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #70 on: January 31, 2017, 06:49:05 PM »
This is probably a dumb question but does Amaral still believe the McCanns dunnit, or has he come to his senses by now?

dun what?
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline xtina

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #71 on: January 31, 2017, 06:49:42 PM »
This is probably a dumb question but does Amaral still believe the McCanns dunnit, or has he come to his senses by now?


lets see if he donates to there fund
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.

Offline Angelo222

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #72 on: January 31, 2017, 06:50:35 PM »
So anyone in Portugal could write a most outrageous book of lies about Amaral and if they couldn't be disproved by Amaral then that wouldn't be libel, is that the gist of it?

Isn't that what the British press do anyway?
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Angelo222

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #73 on: January 31, 2017, 06:51:33 PM »

lets see if he donates to there fund

Its going to be costly.  They put Amaral on the street and destroyed his ability to earn.  Its just warming up imo.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #74 on: January 31, 2017, 06:51:46 PM »
You forget that Amaral's thesis has not been disproven so nil ponts for libel.
No I'm looking at it as to whether it is opinion or not.  A lie would only occur if you said it was your opinion, but in fact that was not really your opinion at all.

If I said "Gordon Brown kidnapped Madeleine McCann (that's my opinion)", but in fact I know Gordon Brown had a good alibi, I must be lying about my opinion.  Then it becomes libel. I court would find that I must be lying.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2017, 06:57:10 PM by Robittybob1 »
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.