Duty of Reserve.

[Mr Gray]

Unsupported opinions aren't worthy of attention, whoever they belong to. Opinions based on known facts are much more interesting because there has been an effort to explain why the opinion was formed.

not really.....opinions even on known facts are totally subjective and therefore of no value

[Robittybob1]

not really.....opinions even on known facts are totally subjective and therefore of no value

There is more to life than just facts surely.  Shared opinions become something like a movement. 

[Robittybob1]

Didn't the opinion of the Court judges come into their decisions?  There are continual references to the McCanns own interviews, now I think it is right that the parents are interviewed so why should that have an effect on Amaral's duty of reserve.  I can't see how they can logically link the two together.

This from the first appeal judgement:
"And because from the proved matter results that – apart from it being about facts that have been profusely published in the inquiry and even publicised through an initiative of the Republic’s Prosecutor General’s Office – it was the subjects of the appeal themselves [Kate and Gerry McCann] who, benefiting from an easy access, multiplied themselves in interviews and interventions in national and international media, one must conclude that it was them who, voluntarily, limited their rights to reservation and to the intimacy of private life."

Isn't that conclusion an unsupported opinion?   That is totally disgusting if I'm allowed an opinion.

[John]

This from the first appeal judgement:
"And because from the proved matter results that – apart from it being about facts that have been profusely published in the inquiry and even publicised through an initiative of the Republic’s Prosecutor General’s Office – it was the subjects of the appeal themselves [Kate and Gerry McCann] who, benefiting from an easy access, multiplied themselves in interviews and interventions in national and international media, one must conclude that it was them who, voluntarily, limited their rights to reservation and to the intimacy of private life."

Isn't that conclusion an unsupported opinion?   That is totally disgusting if I'm allowed an opinion.

Is it not true?

[Mr Gray]

There is more to life than just facts surely.  Shared opinions become something like a movement.

like the flat earth movement

[Alfie]

Your opinion is irrelevant.

Not to me it isn't.

[Alfie]

What happened to "all opinions are equally valid" anyway?  I thought that was a forum maxim. 

[ferryman]

Is it not true?

The McCanns publicised the plight of their daughter because they were persuaded, on the advice of agencies with vast experience in dealing with aftermath of child-abduction, that this was the most likely and effective route of achieving the desired result of being reunited with their daughter, although it was always acknowledged that there might be certain risks to such a strategy. 

[G-Unit]

Didn't the opinion of the Court judges come into their decisions?  There are continual references to the McCanns own interviews, now I think it is right that the parents are interviewed so why should that have an effect on Amaral's duty of reserve.  I can't see how they can logically link the two together.

The McCanns claimed that Amaral breached their right to a good name and reputation and to the protection of the intimacy of private and family life.

The Appeal judges pointed out that they voluntarily sacrificed their privacy by giving interviews;

And because from the proved matter results that – apart from it being about facts that have been profusely published in the inquiry and even publicised through an initiative of the Republic’s Prosecutor General’s Office – it was the subjects of the appeal themselves [Kate and Gerry McCann] who, benefiting from an easy access, multiplied themselves in interviews and interventions in national and international media, one must conclude that it was them who, voluntarily, limited their rights to reservation and to the intimacy of private life.

By proceeding in this manner, they opened the way for anyone to equally express an opinion about the case, contradicting their thesis – without losing their right to exercise a legitimate, and constitutionally consecrated, right to an opinion and a freedom of expression of thought.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7153.0

[G-Unit]

not really.....opinions even on known facts are totally subjective and therefore of no value

They are also open to debate and can be countered by reference to other known facts. An opinion offered without any reference to the facts it's based on can't be debated, so it's irrelevant on a debating forum.

[Alfie]

So, if you ever give an interview in national or international media you automatically forfeit your right to a private life, is that what the judgement is suggesting?

[slartibartfast]

So, if you ever give an interview in national or international media you automatically forfeit your right to a private life, is that what the judgement is suggesting?

It would depend who instigated it and what you said.

[G-Unit]

So, if you ever give an interview in national or international media you automatically forfeit your right to a private life, is that what the judgement is suggesting?

One interview????????

[Mr Gray]

They are also open to debate and can be countered by reference to other known facts. An opinion offered without any reference to the facts it's based on can't be debated, so it's irrelevant on a debating forum.

debate is a total waste of time.You think the statements are accurate....I think they are not and we have no way of checking.....same goes for many other points raised on here

[Alfie]

One interview????????

How many interviews do you have to give before you forfeit the right to a private life then?