McCanns claim they can still appeal Supreme Court decision.

[stephen25000]

How can one give a cite for the knowledge one has?

Cases, Erngath, cases, to prove your point.

[slartibartfast]

How can one give a cite for the knowledge one has?

Without a cite it is just an appeal to authority fallacy.

[Mr Gray]

Saying you have knowledge of the court, is merely an opinion.

Citations are required  to prove the point.

https:///

ive looked at several....you obviously ahve looked at none


it will be decided under article 8....have alook at this...https://strasbourgobservers.com/2010/11/01/the-right-to-reputation-under-the-european-convention-on-human-rights/

[Mr Gray]

Without a cite it is just an appeal to authority fallacy.

cite already given...at least I have done some research.

[stephen25000]

The Mccanns have had every opportunity to prove their case in Portugal..

They failed.

If they do not pay what is due, they will be going through the courts themselves.

So why haven't they paid what they owe.

As they have been through the legal system over several years, they have had every opportunity to prove their case, which they couldn't.

To imply they have had their human rights abused is a ludicrous assertion, and one which will not stand up in the ECHR.

IMO, it is an act of gross stupidity to do so.

The idea of taking the Portuguese nation to court , and that is what it amounts to,  is beyond derision.

[carlymichelle]

The Mccanns have had every opportunity to prove their case in Portugal..

They failed.

If they do not pay what is due, they will be going through the courts themselves.

So why haven't they paid what they owe.

As they have been through the legal system over several years, they have had every opportunity to prove their case, which they couldn't.

To imply they have had their human rights abused is a ludicrous assertion, and one which will not stand up in the ECHR.

IMO, it is an act of gross stupidity to do so.

The idea of taking the Portuguese nation to court , and that is what it amounts to,  is beyond derision.

thy might  have to declare  bankrupsy  maybe thats what they are so scared of??

[jassi]

Arguing the toss over something that hasn't yet happened ( an application) seems pretty pointless.
Better to wait until the case has been accepted by the court before getting all excited over previous cases that may or may not be relevant.

[Mr Gray]

The Mccanns have had every opportunity to prove their case in Portugal..

They failed.

If they do not pay what is due, they will be going through the courts themselves.

So why haven't they paid what they owe.

As they have been through the legal system over several years, they have had every opportunity to prove their case, which they couldn't.

To imply they have had their human rights abused is a ludicrous assertion, and one which will not stand up in the ECHR.

IMO, it is an act of gross stupidity to do so.

The idea of taking the Portuguese nation to court , and that is what it amounts to,  is beyond derision.

all your opinion...and to be quite honest it has no basis in fact
my opinion based on the case I provided a link to suggests the mccanns ahave avery good chance of success in the ECHR

[stephen25000]

Arguing the toss over something that hasn't yet happened ( an application) seems pretty pointless.
Better to wait until the case has been accepted by the court before getting all excited over previous cases that may or may not be relevant.

Indeed Jassi.

Getting the case accepted is a rather major hurdle to overcome.

[slartibartfast]

https:///

ive looked at several....you obviously ahve looked at none


it will be decided under article 8....have alook at this...https://strasbourgobservers.com/2010/11/01/the-right-to-reputation-under-the-european-convention-on-human-rights/

Or

https://inforrm.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/is-there-a-right-to-reputation-part-1-heather-rogers-qc/

[Mr Gray]

Or

https://inforrm.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/is-there-a-right-to-reputation-part-1-heather-rogers-qc/

your cite is 2010.....I undersatnd this is now out of date
The case i looked at which i cannot find now...but will tomorrow...puts this in perspective. article 8 when it was written deliberately avoided a right to reputation...  a case has now changed this and article 8 provides the right to reputation

[Mr Gray]

Indeed Jassi.

Getting the case accepted is a rather major hurdle to overcome.

it is not  major hurdle at all

[ShiningInLuz]

Unless the interview was out of kilter, the McCanns have not lodged anything with the ECHR.

[Mr Gray]

Unless the interview was out of kilter, the McCanns have not lodged anything with the ECHR.

on what do you base that

[Mr Gray]

Or

https://inforrm.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/is-there-a-right-to-reputation-part-1-heather-rogers-qc/

this is 2014
It is now clearly established in the case law of the Court of Human Rights that Article 8 protects the “right to reputation” as an aspect of private life. This is a relatively new idea, first appearing the case law as recently as 2004 (see Chauvy v France [70]).

The development was a controversial one because “reputation” was deliberately left out of Article 8 when the Convention was drafted (see our posts by Heather Rogers QC “Is there a right to reputation?“, Part 1 and Part 2). Nevertheless, the case law in both Strasbourg and the domestic courts is clear and consistent and is not likely to be reversed.


it obviously supersedes and mentions your cite
https://inforrm.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/privacy-and-defamation-strasbourg-blurs-the-boundaries-hugh-tomlinson-qc/