Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.  (Read 299592 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline jassi

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1290 on: February 08, 2017, 09:12:12 PM »
P
Who has done the translations that we are reading on the internet  and have these translations been verified as being correct.

How would you do that ?
I think the way it works is that if you disagree with a portion of translation you provide an alternative and prove it is better than the original.
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

Offline Erngath

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1291 on: February 08, 2017, 09:15:34 PM »
How would you do that ?
I think the way it works is that if you disagree with a portion of translation you provide an alternative and prove it is better than the original.
So much ado about translations that no one can be sure are correct. &%+((£
Deal with the failings of others as gently as with your own.

Offline jassi

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1292 on: February 08, 2017, 09:19:06 PM »
That's the way it is. If you can't demonstrate a fault, then the original translation  stands.

I believe the forum has some Portuguese readers who can check the text
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

Offline G-Unit

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1293 on: February 08, 2017, 09:31:19 PM »
Good question. I doubt there will be a formally accredited version. Who would want to pay for one.

The McCanns might but they won't share it.

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

Offline G-Unit

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1294 on: February 08, 2017, 09:36:15 PM »
Do you know something?  I'm really not interested in the impression you're getting.  We've discussed the issue of the detrimental effect we believe the book had on the search for Madeleine at length before.  We are currently discussing the disregard for the presumption of innocence as demonstrated by the Supreme Court. You seem to have a problem with this, one can't imagine why.

Alleged. I have read what they said and I remain unconvinced that they demonstrated a disregard for the presumption of innocence.
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

Offline jassi

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1295 on: February 08, 2017, 09:38:52 PM »
The McCanns might but they won't share it.

Likely not accredited either.
 Probably done by wee what's his name who set up the website and ran the text through Google Translate .
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

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1296 on: February 08, 2017, 09:45:42 PM »
Alleged. I have read what they said and I remain unconvinced that they demonstrated a disregard for the presumption of innocence.
quite a few people on this forum seem to agree with the Supreme Court, claiming the McCanns cannot be considered either guilty or innocent.  What do you think?

Offline faithlilly

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1297 on: February 08, 2017, 09:47:30 PM »
Do you know something?  I'm really not interested in the impression you're getting.  We've discussed the issue of the detrimental effect we believe the book had on the search for Madeleine at length before.  We are currently discussing the disregard for the presumption of innocence as demonstrated by the Supreme Court.  You seem to have a problem with this, one can't imagine why.

If you're not interested in my opinion, don't read my posts. Simple.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1298 on: February 08, 2017, 09:49:49 PM »
If you're not interested in my opinion, don't read my posts. Simple.
OK.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1299 on: February 08, 2017, 10:13:34 PM »
quite a few people on this forum seem to agree with the Supreme Court, claiming the McCanns cannot be considered either guilty or innocent.  What do you think?

I have seen no opinion on the status of the McCanns by the SC judges. They said the archiving dispatch did not clear them, despite their claim that it did. Therefore arguments using that 'fact' as their basis were not valid.

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

Offline Erngath

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1300 on: February 08, 2017, 10:14:15 PM »

Do you ever get upset  about people you do not know?
Reading a sad story or film?
Reading about a sad piece of news or watching something sad on the television.
Do you ever feel like something is unfair and you get upset about it.
For me this is the case with Madeleine.
And i am normal.

« Last Edit: February 08, 2017, 11:28:39 PM by Eleanor »
Deal with the failings of others as gently as with your own.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1301 on: February 08, 2017, 10:25:05 PM »
quite a few people on this forum seem to agree with the Supreme Court, claiming the McCanns cannot be considered either guilty or innocent.  What do you think?
How can we for we don't know what happened.
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.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1302 on: February 08, 2017, 10:35:56 PM »
In the 'Sun'.

'Mccann's not in the Clear'.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1303 on: February 08, 2017, 10:39:07 PM »
Do you ever get upset  about people you do not know?
Reading a sad story or film?
Reading about a sad piece of news or watching something sad on the television.
Do you ever feel like something is unfair and you get upset about it.
For me this is the case with Madeleine.
And i am normal.

I also feel upset on Madeleine's behalf. It doesn't follow that I have to be upset on her parent's behalf though.
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

Offline Erngath

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1304 on: February 08, 2017, 10:43:59 PM »
I also feel upset on Madeleine's behalf. It doesn't follow that I have to be upset on her parent's behalf though.

No you don't.

I do though and I don't appreciate being told I am abnormal.
Deal with the failings of others as gently as with your own.