ECHR urge McCanns to reach friendly settlement with Gonçalo Amaral.

[Vertigo Swirl]

How do you know,  whats true and what isn't.

How do you?  You seem to think that regardless of what is true or not the parents deserved every accusation made by Amaral about them, can you please justify this?

[kizzy]

How do you?  You seem to think that regardless of what is true or not the parents deserved every accusation made by Amaral about them, can you please justify this?

Well for a start stop trying to drag me into your beliefs.

I believe the mcs were involved, so any accusation towards them does not have the effect with me as it does you.

As for justifying it... why should.. I... do that.

[jassi]

Well for a start stop trying to drag me into your beliefs.

I believe the mcs were involved, so any accusation towards them does not have the effect with me as it does you.

As for justifying it... why should.. I... do that.

 

[Vertigo Swirl]

Well for a start stop trying to drag me into your beliefs.

I believe the mcs were involved, so any accusation towards them does not have the effect with me as it does you.

As for justifying it... why should.. I... do that.

To explain why you think it is only just and fair that people you think are guilty of a crime should be accused publicly of being so, even if they are not actually guilty of the crimes they are being accused of.  Clearly however you cannot.  Nor will you be able to explain what you mean by "dragging me into your beliefs".  I have done no such thing.

[G-Unit]

To explain why you think it is only just and fair that people you think are guilty of a crime should be accused publicly of being so, even if they are not actually guilty of the crimes they are being accused of.  Clearly however you cannot.  Nor will you be able to explain what you mean by "dragging me into your beliefs".  I have done no such thing.

If people decide that a particular crime has been committed and use every media available to them to broadcast their opinion then surely those who disagree with them should be allowed the same freedom to express their opinions?

[Vertigo Swirl]

If people decide that a particular crime has been committed and use every media available to them to broadcast their opinion then surely those who disagree with them should be allowed the same freedom to express their opinions?

So is it your opinion that it is OK to publicly accuse named individuals who have no previous criminal record and are innocent in the eyes of the law of committing a crime, either in a book, or a TV documentary or interview?  Can you answer this question with a yes or no?  A non-answer will be taken as affirmation that this is indeed your view.   

[kizzy]

To explain why you think it is only just and fair that people you think are guilty of a crime should be accused publicly of being so, even if they are not actually guilty of the crimes they are being accused of.  Clearly however you cannot.  Nor will you be able to explain what you mean by "dragging me into your beliefs".  I have done no such thing.

you think are guilty of a crime should be accused publicly of being so, even if they are not actually guilty of the crimes they are being accused of.

I could say the same about CB ...but I wont.

Every coin has two sides ur on one I'm on the other.

One storys good till another one is told.

Until someone decides to look at this imo from the very beginning.

Its going to be like baking bread without the yeast...trying to solve it.

[Vertigo Swirl]

you think are guilty of a crime should be accused publicly of being so, even if they are not actually guilty of the crimes they are being accused of.

I could say the same about CB ...but I wont.

Every coin has two sides ur on one I'm on the other.

One storys good till another one is told.

Until someone decides to look at this imo from the very beginning.

Its going to be like baking bread without the yeast...trying to solve it.

That is IMO a load of waffle which singularly fails to address my question.  I realise it's a hard one, but an honest debater would face up to it and reply honestly. 

[Mr Gray]

If people decide that a particular crime has been committed and use every media available to them to broadcast their opinion then surely those who disagree with them should be allowed the same freedom to express their opinions?

Not if their opinions are libellous. I thought you would understand that

[kizzy]

That is IMO a load of waffle which singularly fails to address my question.  I realise it's a hard one, but an honest debater would face up to it and reply honestly.

Well, tuff VS ...Im not on here to debate something ...I ...believe in.

If I thought the mccs not involved I wouldn't be on here.

Not here to answer questions either I'll do a kmcc,

My reason is to give an opinion in what I believe.

Havent got a lot of time on my hands either.

[Brietta]

Well, tuff VS ...Im not on here to debate something ...I ...believe in.

If I thought the mccs not involved I wouldn't be on here.

Not here to answer questions either I'll do a kmcc,

My reason is to give an opinion in what I believe.

Havent got a lot of time on my hands either

You are treating the disappearance of a little girl and the resulting botched investigation as if it were a belief system.

Perhaps we wouldn't be having this conversation had Amaral spent more time looking for Madeleine and no time at all blackguarding her parents.

If I remember correctly one of your beliefs was that the ECHR would throw the McCann case out ... yet here we are😁

[kizzy]

You are treating the disappearance of a little girl and the resulting botched investigation as if it were a belief system.

Perhaps we wouldn't be having this conversation had Amaral spent more time looking for Madeleine and no time at all blackguarding her parents.

If I remember correctly one of your beliefs was that the ECHR would throw the McCann case out ... yet here we are😁

You dont know the outcome yet..your acting as if it is all cut and dried when it isn't. B


Relying on Articles 6 §§ 1 and 2, 8 and 10 § 2 of the Convention, the applicants asserted that the allegations made by GA in the book and the documentary in question had infringed their right to respect for their private life and their right to the presumption of innocence. They complain that the domestic courts failed to weigh the interests at stake in accordance with the criteria set out in the Court's case-law.

Why the hell should they have respect for there private life - when they created it in the first place. imo.

Did we need to know about kmc private life what she wrote in her book.

You don't know what would have happened if G.A. would have had more time.  Seems someone made sure didn't.

If, imo G.A hadnt been such a thorn in the mccs side in the first place ..

I doubt the book would have ever been as popular as it is.

The mcs themselves I believe promoted it ...when they were so desperate to have it banned imo

[Mr Gray]

You dont know the outcome yet..your acting as if it is all cut and dried when it isn't. B


Relying on Articles 6 §§ 1 and 2, 8 and 10 § 2 of the Convention, the applicants asserted that the allegations made by GA in the book and the documentary in question had infringed their right to respect for their private life and their right to the presumption of innocence. They complain that the domestic courts failed to weigh the interests at stake in accordance with the criteria set out in the Court's case-law.

Why the hell should they have respect for there private life - when they created it in the first place. imo.

Did we need to know about kmc private life what she wrote in her book.

You don't know what would have happened if G.A. would have had more time.  Seems someone made sure didn't.

If, imo G.A hadnt been such a thorn in the mccs side in the first place ..

I doubt the book would have ever been as popular as it is.

The mcs themselves I believe promoted it ...when they were so desperate to have it banned imo

The term private life in this situation refers to the right to reputation.... Not to be libelled

[Carana]

The judge of the first instance found in favour of the McCanns by suggesting that Amaral's freedom of expression was limited by the reserve imposed upon him by his status as a retired police officer. The Appeal and Supreme Courts rejected this argument.

Yes, I remember that. However, I haven't found why that aspect seemingly no longer counted.

[jassi]

Yes, I remember that. However, I haven't found why that aspect seemingly no longer counted.

Perhaps it was just an incorrect interpretation of the law by the first judge. Does the Appeal Court judgement not mention why they came to their decision ?