Madeleine McCann's parents lose libel case with the European Court of Human Rights

[Eleanor]

It all seems to be going rather well as far as I can see.

[Wonderfulspam]

It all seems to be going rather well as far as I can see.

Going well for Amaral, yes.

[kizzy]

seems not one poster is able to offer any counter argument....as expected

There is no argument.....the mccs lost

Even the mccs have give up.

Both decisions were unanimous S C and ECHR.

IMO your posts are coming close to trolling....Don't loose all your credibility with an argument that cannot be won.

[Vertigo Swirl]

My my my. Are you adding seven ECHR judges to the list of people who don't know as much as you do? The fool is plain to see, and it's not me.

Can you please explain why Davel’s post is wrong? 

[Mr Gray]

There is no argument.....the mccs lost

Even the mccs have give up.

Both decisions were unanimous S C and ECHR.

IMO your posts are coming close to trolling....Don't loose all your credibility with an argument that cannot be won.

Not really bothered what any sceptics here think...afaiac to be a sceptic means you dont understand the evidence.
I will continue to post as I wish....note gunit had no counter argument...because im absolutely right.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

then you are a fool...imo

facts,...in order for freedom of speech to override defamation is if it has a factual basis,...the ECHR look at the veracity of the claims....if you read the judgement they saw the claims made having a factual basis...when they were based merely on the opinion of the PJ...can you dispute any of this...

Therefore based on that if the Germans regard CB as guilty then that should also be looked at as fact

can you provide a counter argument...the answer is no...you cant

I can.
I am afraid your assessment of the judgement by the ECHR is just as wrong as your initial prediction that the McCann's would win their case.
Have you read the full judgement or just the abridged legal statement?
 
I think when you read something you miss the context totally, ie. when you say “factual basis” the actual wording is “sufficient factual basis”. The word sufficient adds a different context entirely.
 
Also you say
 
facts,...in order for freedom of speech to override defamation is if it has a factual basis
 
In the full statement from the judgement at point 82 it states
 
82. Finally, the Court recalls that, in order to assess the justification of a contested statement, it is necessary to distinguish between factual statements and value judgments. If the materiality of the facts can be proven, the latter do not lend themselves to a demonstration of their accuracy. The requirement that the truth of value judgments be established is impractical and infringes freedom of opinion itself, a fundamental element of the right guaranteed by Article 10. However, even where a statement amounts to a judgement of value, it must be based on a sufficient factual basis, otherwise it would be excessive (Do Carmo de Portugal e Castro Câmara v. Portugal, no. 53139/11, § 31, 4 October 2016, and Egill Einarsson v. Iceland,no 24703/15, § 40, November 7, 2017).
 
It distinguishes between factual statements and value judgments and places no requirement for the truth of value judgments but only that they have “sufficient factual basis”.
The bar is much lower in the case of value judgments and it certainly is not the state of veracity that you have previously claimed.


 
 
 
 
 
 

[Icanhandlethetruth]

the fool is you..

first because you cannot answer the points ive raised..

second because I havent criticised the judges.


Having read the judgement its clear the McCanns challenged the SC decision on the basis of being cleared by the archiving report...the judgement discussed this at length...they should have challenged the veracity of the claims which were accepted without question by the ECHR

Also you are wrong on this point. The lawyers for the McCanns used the status of being cleared by the archiving report in the claim for breach of Article 6.2 (Presumption of Innocence). This wasn’t even ruled on but was deemed inadmissible.

[Wonderfulspam]

I can.
I am afraid your assessment of the judgement by the ECHR is just as wrong as your initial prediction that the McCann's would win their case.
Have you read the full judgement or just the abridged legal statement?
 
I think when you read something you miss the context totally, ie. when you say “factual basis” the actual wording is “sufficient factual basis”. The word sufficient adds a different context entirely.
 
Also you say
 
facts,...in order for freedom of speech to override defamation is if it has a factual basis
 
In the full statement from the judgement at point 82 it states
 
82. Finally, the Court recalls that, in order to assess the justification of a contested statement, it is necessary to distinguish between factual statements and value judgments. If the materiality of the facts can be proven, the latter do not lend themselves to a demonstration of their accuracy. The requirement that the truth of value judgments be established is impractical and infringes freedom of opinion itself, a fundamental element of the right guaranteed by Article 10. However, even where a statement amounts to a judgement of value, it must be based on a sufficient factual basis, otherwise it would be excessive (Do Carmo de Portugal e Castro Câmara v. Portugal, no. 53139/11, § 31, 4 October 2016, and Egill Einarsson v. Iceland,no 24703/15, § 40, November 7, 2017).
 
It distinguishes between factual statements and value judgments and places no requirement for the truth of value judgments but only that they have “sufficient factual basis”.
The bar is much lower in the case of value judgments and it certainly is not the state of veracity that you have previously claimed.

Thanks. I tried to explain this in part last night. Davel has the bar set so that Amaral would had to prove Maddie was transported in the car, as oppose to having deduced, not unreasonably, based on the biological trace & cadaver alert, that she may have been transported in there. It's a fact his team concluded that, not that she definitely was.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Thanks. I tried to explain this in part last night. Davel has the bar set so that Amaral would had to prove Maddie was transported in the car, as oppose to having deduced, not unreasonably, based on the biological trace & cadaver alert, that she may have been transported in there. It's a fact his team concluded that, not that she definitely was.

Exactly, it was always Amaral's statement of an account concerning his personal experience of the case.
I always thought it was going to be hard to win for the McCanns as the Supreme Court consistently referred to ECHR cases in making their judgement.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Exactly, it was always Amaral's statement of an account concerning his personal experience of the case.
I always thought it was going to be hard to win for the McCanns as the Supreme Court consistently referred to ECHR cases in making their judgement.

So basically any ex-cop can write a book about a case against an individual explaining why he thinks they’re guilty based on his previous role in the case even if no charges are ever brought against the person he is accusing in his book, and there is nothing the person being accused can do about it? 

[G-Unit]

Not really bothered what any sceptics here think...afaiac to be a sceptic means you dont understand the evidence.
I will continue to post as I wish....note gunit had no counter argument...because im absolutely right.

Maybe G-Unit has no desire to try to help you to understand now. The case is over, I was right and you were wrong and there's no point in rehashing it all again.

[Mr Gray]

Maybe G-Unit has no desire to try to help you to understand now. The case is over, I was right and you were wrong and there's no point in rehashing it all again.

LOL... You obviously cant answer the question as I predicted

[Brietta]

So basically any ex-cop can write a book about a case against an individual explaining why he thinks they’re guilty based on his previous role in the case even if no charges are ever brought against the person he is accusing in his book, and there is nothing the person being accused can do about it?

That is how I read the result of the ECHR judgement.

Unfounded speculation v evidence will win every time.  Bit Alice in Wonderland that.

[jassi]

The ECHR made their decision.
McCann lost.
The end.

[Wonderfulspam]

The ECHR made their decision.
McCann lost.
The end.

Wait for the appeal.