Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.

[Brietta]

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

You mean is it wrong to mention that Amaral is a convicted criminal?  I don't think so.

Is Portugal covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974?

The fact is that whether or not this forum can be thought of as 'media organisation' when making reference to Amaral's conviction for perjury / falsifying documents, inclusion of the word "spent" would be admissible.

Quote
It is not a criminal offence to mention a ‘spent’ conviction so the 1974 Act does not impose a criminal penalty on either individual journalists or media organisations.
 http://www.inbrief.co.uk/media-law/reporting-on-spent-convictions/

It is instructive to witness those supporters of freedom of expression wriggling on the hook of cover up and censorship though.

[Brietta]

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 ?

Please be kind enough to provide proof of your unsubstantiated claims ... or desist.

[stephen25000]

Please be kind enough to provide proof of your unsubstantiated claims ... or desist.

In what way am I incorrect ?

Please be so good as to provide your rationale.

[Alfie]

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) ?

Exactly, no investigation with little prospect of one at the time, but a real danger that in the country where she went missing everyone would be brainwashed into believing Amaral's thesis was the truth and that Madeleine was dead and no longer findable.  Were they wrong to stand up against him and his book in an effort to try and stop him from his campaign against them and their daughter?  Let's not forget, doubter logic dictates if they don't sue, it must be true, so had they not fought him in the courts you would have seen this as further evidence of their guilt, would you not?

[Eleanor]

Okay.  Enough of the sniping.  Thank You.

[Robittybob1]

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

If they are in England and the Court in Portugal has found against them, can they just ignore the court order?

[Alfie]

If they are in England and the Court in Portugal has found against them, can they just ignore the court order?

I would if I were them. 

[jassi]

If they are in England and the Court in Portugal has found against them, can they just ignore the court order?

Not if they are wise. Think of the headlines that would generate.

[Robittybob1]

Not if they are wise. Think of the headlines that would generate.

More publicity for Madeleine the better.

[carlymichelle]

If they are in England and the Court in Portugal has found against them, can they just ignore the court order?

  uh no

[jassi]

More publicity for Madeleine the better.

Would hardly be publicity for Madeleine, unless you believe that all publicity is good.
They might also be banned from Portugal, which would put a stop to Kate's alleged little pilgrimages.

[Robittybob1]

uh no

What would happen?

[Mr Gray]

If they are in England and the Court in Portugal has found against them, can they just ignore the court order?

It will be interesting to see what happens
I don't think the McCanns have a lot of money
They may be able to declare bankruptcy and he won't get a penny off them

[Brietta]

Not if they are wise. Think of the headlines that would generate.

It might be interesting though, if the process had to go through the English courts.

[jassi]

What would happen?

Not sure.
European arrest warrant? Maybe they could flee and share a room in the Ecuador embassy along with Assange