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

[Vertigo Swirl]

Bless your little British hearts. You're trying to understand legal concepts from another country with a different language. Perhaps you never will. Maybe you should stop trying and accept that seven ECHR judges from different countries did understand.

I understand perfectly thanks, I’m  just challenging the notion that there is such a thing as a false fact.  I don’t think that’s worthy of your sarky comment frankly.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Some of us are quite capable of understanding these things.

The judges can only rule on the evidence presented...the McCann  may well have been let down by their legal team....who  it appears have no proven expertise in human rights.
Whichever way to try to spin it the case was decided on so called facts which were lies

This was the exact same strategy you used on the Dog Evidence thread, you suggested that the defence lawyers never challenged the presentation of the dog alerts as evidence despite having no evidence of this occurring.
Is it just lawyers being inept in cases that affect your entrenched opinions that you call out or the is whole legal profession inept.
I have to say, it is very evident that on this forum there are 2 opposing teams and in this case your team lost and the funny thing is you still can’t understand why.

[G-Unit]

This was the exact same strategy you used on the Dog Evidence thread, you suggested that the defence lawyers never challenged the presentation of the dog alerts as evidence despite having no evidence of this occurring.
Is it just lawyers being inept in cases that affect your entrenched opinions that you call out or the is whole legal profession inept.
I have to say, it is very evident that on this forum there are 2 opposing teams and in this case your team lost and the funny thing is you still can’t understand why.

Either they don't understand or they just don't want to. It must be upsetting to accept that your long held opinions are mistaken.

[Eleanor]

Either they don't understand or they just don't want to. It must be upsetting to accept that your long held opinions are mistaken.

Has it occurred to any of you that this really isn't all that important?

[Wonderfulspam]

Has it occurred to any of you that this really isn't all that important?

It has to me, & the McCanns.
We should be focusing our attention on finding Madeleine.
None of this is helping the search at all.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Either they don't understand or they just don't want to. It must be upsetting to accept that your long held opinions are mistaken.

If you are lumping me in with your “they”, I understand perfectly thanks and if you check my posts on the subject you will find that I had no firm views on whether or not the ECHR would find in the McCanns favour.

[Mr Gray]

This was the exact same strategy you used on the Dog Evidence thread, you suggested that the defence lawyers never challenged the presentation of the dog alerts as evidence despite having no evidence of this occurring.
Is it just lawyers being inept in cases that affect your entrenched opinions that you call out or the is whole legal profession inept.
I have to say, it is very evident that on this forum there are 2 opposing teams and in this case your team lost and the funny thing is you still can’t understand why.

I understand precisely why... And I'm not in any team... Dont be so daft

[Mr Gray]

Either they don't understand or they just don't want to. It must be upsetting to accept that your long held opinions are mistaken.

My long held opinions are not mistaken... Yours certainly are

[Eleanor]

Just exactly what difference is it going to make?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Has it occurred to any of you that this really isn't all that important?

Don’t be silly, it’s vitally important for point scoring and gloating opportunities on this forum.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

I understand precisely why... And I'm not in any team... Dont be so daft

If you understand why did you post this?

The judges can only rule on the evidence presented...the McCann  may well have been let down by their legal team....who  it appears have no proven expertise in human rights.
Whichever way to try to spin it the case was decided on so called facts which were lies


Why do you think the McCanns legal team had no expertise in human rights?

[Mr Gray]

If you understand why did you post this?

The judges can only rule on the evidence presented...the McCann  may well have been let down by their legal team....who  it appears have no proven expertise in human rights.
Whichever way to try to spin it the case was decided on so called facts which were lies


Why do you think the McCanns legal team had no expertise in human rights?

Because I've looked at their website

[Mr Gray]

If you understand why did you post this?

The judges can only rule on the evidence presented...the McCann  may well have been let down by their legal team....who  it appears have no proven expertise in human rights.
Whichever way to try to spin it the case was decided on so called facts which were lies


Why do you think the McCanns legal team had no expertise in human rights?

Could you at least try and answer the fact that the facts the ECHR judges relied upon were lies

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Because I've looked at their website

Whos website? The ECHR? How does that inform you that the McCanns lawyers had no expertise in Human rights?

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Could you at least try and answer the fact that the facts the ECHR judges relied upon were lies

Which lies are you referring to?