Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.  (Read 253453 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline carlymichelle

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #360 on: February 02, 2017, 09:08:56 AM »
Well I've seen some desperate attempts in my time to divert attention, but what do any of these have to do with this case ?

By the way, do you seriously believe that only one person might have broken Portugal's secrecy laws.

What about the sources close to the Mccann's ?   &%+((£

 @)(++(*  exactly this is  just desperate isnt it    it is   very poor and shallow really  dont you  think??

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #361 on: February 02, 2017, 09:10:19 AM »
@)(++(*  exactly this is  just desprate isnt  it

Yep.


It really doesn't appear that some people have woken up to what happened on Tuesday.

Offline Benice

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #362 on: February 02, 2017, 09:13:40 AM »
Well I've seen some desperate attempts in my time to divert attention, but do any of these have to do with this case ?

By the way, do you seriously believe that only one person might have broken Portugal's secrecy laws.

What about the sources close to the Mccann's ?   &%+((£

My post was in response Carly's statement that there was nothing to stop Amaral from sueing McCann supporters.

If you have a problem with that claim being discussed - then I suggest you take it up with Carly.

The notion that innocence prevails over guilt – when there is no evidence to the contrary – is what separates civilization from barbarism.    Unfortunately, there are remains of barbarism among us.    Until very recently, it headed the PJ in Portimão. I hope he was the last one.
                                               Henrique Monteiro, chief editor, Expresso, Portugal

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #363 on: February 02, 2017, 09:19:37 AM »
My post was in response Carly's statement that there was nothing to stop Amaral from sueing McCann supporters.

If you have a problem with that claim being discussed - then I suggest you take it up with Carly.

The defamation and libel from some McCann supporters directed towards Amaral have been documented.

As to what he and his lawyers do with it, we will have to wait to see.

Offline Benice

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #364 on: February 02, 2017, 09:20:55 AM »
@)(++(*  exactly this is  just desperate isnt it    it is   very poor and shallow really  dont you  think??

LOL - You made the claim that Amaral could sue McCann supporters - so it is not unreasonable to ask you to substantiate that very serious claim.

So I ask you again - on what grounds do you think Amaral can sue McCann supporters? 

Simply sneering at posters is not an acceptable answer.

The notion that innocence prevails over guilt – when there is no evidence to the contrary – is what separates civilization from barbarism.    Unfortunately, there are remains of barbarism among us.    Until very recently, it headed the PJ in Portimão. I hope he was the last one.
                                               Henrique Monteiro, chief editor, Expresso, Portugal

Offline carlymichelle

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #365 on: February 02, 2017, 09:21:49 AM »
The defamation and libel from some McCann supporters directed towards Amaral have been documented.

As to what he and his lawyers do with it, we will have to wait to see.
stuff like he  drove  around   portugal with his little girl  drunk etc which is hersay claims that he killed his own dog  etc   calling him names like  A   M  O R   A  L  etc    claming he  was a bungling  cop  etc loads of other  stuff  defaming him  with stuff like he  was a    fat cop who dared to have  dinner     the  night maddie vanished etc    petty stufff imo
« Last Edit: February 02, 2017, 09:25:53 AM by carlymichelle »

Offline Benice

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #366 on: February 02, 2017, 09:24:21 AM »
The defamation and libel from some McCann supporters directed towards Amaral have been documented.

As to what he and his lawyers do with it, we will have to wait to see.

What has any of that got to do with Carly's claim that there is nothing to stop Amaral suing McCann supporters -and my request for substantiation of that serious claim?

The notion that innocence prevails over guilt – when there is no evidence to the contrary – is what separates civilization from barbarism.    Unfortunately, there are remains of barbarism among us.    Until very recently, it headed the PJ in Portimão. I hope he was the last one.
                                               Henrique Monteiro, chief editor, Expresso, Portugal

Offline Angelo222

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #367 on: February 02, 2017, 09:25:56 AM »
Portugal is different
The police have far too much power
I have never seen someone looking like cipriano appear in court on the UK
The PJ knew they could get away with it and they did

You think British coppers are perfect little angels then?   
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline carlymichelle

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #368 on: February 02, 2017, 09:28:22 AM »
The defamation and libel from some McCann supporters directed towards Amaral have been documented.

As to what he and his lawyers do with it, we will have to wait to see.

if he choses  to   act    it is his choice isnt it he has also been accused by mcann supporters elsewhere  of being involved in maddies  vanishing  i saw it with my own eyes

Offline slartibartfast

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #369 on: February 02, 2017, 09:29:31 AM »
LOL - You made the claim that Amaral could sue McCann supporters - so it is not unreasonable to ask you to substantiate that very serious claim.

So I ask you again - on what grounds do you think Amaral can sue McCann supporters? 

Simply sneering at posters is not an acceptable answer.

I've already shown how in the UK maliciously publishing information about spent convictions is libel. The same may be true in Portugal.
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”.

Offline carlymichelle

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #370 on: February 02, 2017, 09:30:36 AM »
I've already shown how in the UK maliciously publishing information about spent convictions is libel. The same may be true in Portugal.

right so you get my point dont  you

Offline Angelo222

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #371 on: February 02, 2017, 09:30:54 AM »
The McCanns have been investigated
It's time for their critics to move on
10 years almost and they are still posting the same rubbish

Not so old bean.  The conspiracy to oust Amaral involving an unsavoury bunch of idiots from Barcelona and one stargazing nutter from Madeira will be the greatest can of worms ever opened in this fiasco.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline carlymichelle

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #372 on: February 02, 2017, 09:32:34 AM »
Not so old bean.  The conspiracy to oust Amaral involving an unsavoury bunch of idiots from Barcelona and one stargazing nutter from Madeira will be the greatest can of worms ever opened in this fiasco.

over the years i have read    mcann supporters online accusing   amaral of being involved in  what ever made  maddie vanish seriously

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #373 on: February 02, 2017, 09:32:57 AM »
if he choses  to   act    it is his choice isnt it he has also been accused by mcann supporters elsewhere  of being involved in maddies  vanishing  i saw it with my own eyes

As have I Carly, and far worse.

As I said , it is a matter of record.

Offline carlymichelle

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #374 on: February 02, 2017, 09:38:20 AM »
As have I Carly, and far worse.

As I said , it is a matter of record.

it isnt hard to trace a  ip if he  wanted too he could  sue those people