Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.  (Read 270387 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #510 on: February 03, 2017, 11:18:47 AM »
It's already in the UK.

Easily obtained.

Offline carlymichelle

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #511 on: February 03, 2017, 11:23:08 AM »
It's already in the UK.

Easily obtained.

its actully avalible worldwide    dont you feel like bagging your  head on here sometimes?? @)(++(*

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #512 on: February 03, 2017, 11:24:39 AM »
its actully avalible worldwide    dont you feel like bagging your  head on here sometimes?? @)(++(*


It does seem Carly, that some people haven't got the message and/or are in denial.

Offline Brietta

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #513 on: February 03, 2017, 11:27:45 AM »
Wandering off topic ... please desist.
"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 Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #514 on: February 03, 2017, 11:34:04 AM »

It does seem Carly, that some people haven't got the message and/or are in denial.

Not in denial but aware of the facts
I said it cannot be published in the uk
The book cannot be promoted or sold in the uk so amaral has to let people read it for free

Offline barrier

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #515 on: February 03, 2017, 12:05:22 PM »
Is opinion enough? Up until here, perhaps;

11. Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, the Polícia Judiciária stopped collecting information and investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?

       Not proved.

Not proved to the satisfaction of the Portuguese court but that decision has no relevance outside of Portugal
Next
Tthe Portuguese court is all that needed satisfying.
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 #516 on: February 03, 2017, 12:15:29 PM »
Tthe Portuguese court is all that needed satisfying.

Yes but that judgement has no relevance in the uk
You need to read back to understand why it's important

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #517 on: February 03, 2017, 12:27:28 PM »
Yes but that judgement has no relevance in the uk
You need to read back to understand why it's important

Rubbish.

It will when they have to pay all fees and monies due.

Offline barrier

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #518 on: February 03, 2017, 12:28:05 PM »
Yes but that judgement has no relevance in the uk
You need to read back to understand why it's important

Its very relevant to a couple of uk citizens.
This is my own private domicile and I shall not be harassed, biatch:Jesse Pinkman Character.

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #519 on: February 03, 2017, 12:28:38 PM »
Hmmm ... it seems you know as much about it as I do.

One question you may actually be able to answer though ... what exactly is the "The Brill Building"?

Let's take it from the top.
If there is a directors loan account it has to show on the balance sheet.
The balance sheet is the one item which MUST be available to the public through Companies House.
A PDF of all the balance sheets since inception of "The Fund" is available for down load on the appropriate Companies House web page.
There would seem to be no Directors Loans showing on the balance sheets.
I conclude there are none because to not show them is illegal.
In the alacrity of some to show the McCanns being masters of the uninverse the implication is "The Fund" have somehow hidden something.
Paradoxically I do not think "The Fund" is stupid enough to act illegally whereas seemingly some supporters do.

The Brill Building was/is place in New York where song writers sat, like battery hens, penning songs all day.
I sometimes think there is something similar at the back of this when more than one person starts to trot out the same expressions, words..................etc. Check out Amos 3.3.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2017, 12:42:34 PM by Alice Purjorick »
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline colombosstogey

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #520 on: February 03, 2017, 12:29:10 PM »
Let's get a few facts straight.

The Mccann's lost the other day, big time.

For several years, they asked for a review of the case, and access to the files.

The time the case was re-opened, occurred after Rebekah Brooks in the Sun asked David Cameron to do so. The Sun of course already had a deal with the Mccann's as regards serialization rights, which might be termed a conflict of interest.

Meanwhile, throughout almost 10 years, the case has had extensive publicity worldwide, and not a trace of Madeleine has emerged, let alone how she disappeared from the apartment.

So, I would like to know, exactly what kind of victory is that.

I havent been on for ages, as the saga just went on and on, but this is wonderful news I bet Amaral is beaming.

Since the day the child went missing i havent changed my mind, and I doubt Amaral has either. How anyone can think this is a VICTORY for the McCanns is beyond me.  I think its a victory a VICTORY FOR JUSTICE FOR AMARAL who had his life ruined by these people.   They should have left well alone, and perhaps then people would have stopped wanting to read his book.

I am so happy this is finally over and maybe now the McCanns will move on, as like you said there is no trace of the child, someone knows what happened to her, but we will never know i dont think anyway.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #521 on: February 03, 2017, 12:37:11 PM »
I havent been on for ages, as the saga just went on and on, but this is wonderful news I bet Amaral is beaming.

Since the day the child went missing i havent changed my mind, and I doubt Amaral has either. How anyone can think this is a VICTORY for the McCanns is beyond me.  I think its a victory a VICTORY FOR JUSTICE FOR AMARAL who had his life ruined by these people.   They should have left well alone, and perhaps then people would have stopped wanting to read his book.

I am so happy this is finally over and maybe now the McCanns will move on, as like you said there is no trace of the child, someone knows what happened to her, but we will never know i dont think anyway.

Excellent post.  8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #522 on: February 03, 2017, 12:41:44 PM »
Yes but that judgement has no relevance in the uk
You need to read back to understand why it's important

It doesn't need to have.
It needs only to have relevance in the country in which the police force having primacy is located.
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline carlymichelle

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #523 on: February 03, 2017, 12:58:40 PM »
It doesn't need to have.
It needs only to have relevance in the country in which the police force having primacy is located.

exactly  alice and in his own country  amaral can write whatever books he wants too now cant  he 8)--))

Offline G-Unit

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #524 on: February 03, 2017, 01:05:25 PM »
Directors act on their opinion all the time
Portuguese court decisions are not important
By uk standards amaral has clearly libelled the McCanns
But the Portuguese court say no
That's why amaral has not published his book in the uk

Effective directors form their opinions upon advice or research. That can be justified if questioned. If the Fund directors took advice or did research the McCanns could have done with using it in court. 

If the McCanns fail to pay what they owe to the Portuguese courts I expect we will learn what the official attitude to Portuguese court decisions is.

Duarte thought she understood the Portuguese legal system, but she got it wrong. Your opinion about UK libel laws could also be wrong.

Amaral has not published his book in the UK yet.


Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0