McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Out of the woods wrote:Yes, casual readers of the forum may decide to join because they read something that makes them feel they can contribute to the discussion by offering an alternative point of view. Just as I did. As Aquila said, the only people who truly understand Portuguese law are Portuguese lawyers, but there appear to be several posters explaining why the judge got it wrong

plebgate wrote:

Out of the woods wrote:Yes, casual readers of the forum may decide to join because they read something that makes them feel they can contribute to the discussion by offering an alternative point of view. Just as I did. As Aquila said, the only people who truly understand Portuguese law are Portuguese lawyers, but there appear to be several posters explaining why the judge got it wrong

Red highlighting - the difference being that onehand stated that they did not know Pt. law thoroughly and posted the possibility on what grounds an appeal could be made and I believe this is the view of a couple of other posters too although they did not afaik state it for sure.

Whereas Oxfordbloo seemed to be stating that he was being advised by somebody who knew Pt. law and that what he was posting was fact therefore could be interpreted by posters (and some did) that an appeal was pointless which, as has been said, clearly isn't as Rocky would not have announced that he was going to appeal.

Joss wrote:

plebgate wrote:

Out of the woods wrote:Yes, casual readers of the forum may decide to join because they read something that makes them feel they can contribute to the discussion by offering an alternative point of view. Just as I did. As Aquila said, the only people who truly understand Portuguese law are Portuguese lawyers, but there appear to be several posters explaining why the judge got it wrong

Red highlighting - the difference being that onehand stated that they did not know Pt. law thoroughly and posted the possibility on what grounds an appeal could be made and I believe this is the view of a couple of other posters too although they did not afaik state it for sure.

Whereas Oxfordbloo seemed to be stating that he was being advised by somebody who knew Pt. law and that what he was posting was fact therefore could be interpreted by posters (and some did) that an appeal was pointless which, as has been said, clearly isn't as Rocky would not have announced that he was going to appeal.

If you read back on the thread i don't think OxfordBloo stated that it was pointless for GA to appeal, but that he should only make his appeal about the damages amount that was determined by the judge that should be paid to the McC's. But that anything else to be appealed was probably pointless. Thats what i understood anyway.

plebgate wrote:

Joss wrote:

plebgate wrote:

Out of the woods wrote:Yes, casual readers of the forum may decide to join because they read something that makes them feel they can contribute to the discussion by offering an alternative point of view. Just as I did. As Aquila said, the only people who truly understand Portuguese law are Portuguese lawyers, but there appear to be several posters explaining why the judge got it wrong

Red highlighting - the difference being that onehand stated that they did not know Pt. law thoroughly and posted the possibility on what grounds an appeal could be made and I believe this is the view of a couple of other posters too although they did not afaik state it for sure.

Whereas Oxfordbloo seemed to be stating that he was being advised by somebody who knew Pt. law and that what he was posting was fact therefore could be interpreted by posters (and some did) that an appeal was pointless which, as has been said, clearly isn't as Rocky would not have announced that he was going to appeal.

If you read back on the thread i don't think OxfordBloo stated that it was pointless for GA to appeal, but that he should only make his appeal about the damages amount that was determined by the judge that should be paid to the McC's. But that anything else to be appealed was probably pointless. Thats what i understood anyway.

I agree Joss, I don't think he said it outright - that is why I said it could be interpreted by posters as he was apparently  being advised by someone who knew Pt. law but would not say who.

GGEG did post that it was probably Debunker - say no more afaiac.