McCann appeal to European court of Human rights - THE SUN

by Sceptic 09.09.17 4:25

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/4425917/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-goncarlo-amaral/amp/

by Guest 09.09.17 6:51

"Shameless"?

The Sun showing its true colours.

Whatever happened it is big and deep.

by sar 09.09.17 7:21

another fail on the cards

by lemonbutter 09.09.17 9:13

BlueBag wrote:"Shameless"?

The Sun showing its true colours.

Whatever happened it is big and deep.

And *essential* that *it* remains a secret ... so it seems.

by **Jill Havern** 09.09.17 9:40

The Supreme Court specifically applied all the judgments of the ECHR.
It is in the final three pages of the judgment

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm
McCann V Amaral: Supreme Court verdict 31 Jan 2017
www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk
This information belongs to the Ministerio Publico in Portimao, Portugal. It was released to the public on 4 August 2008 in accordance with Portuguese Law

by sallypelt 09.09.17 9:47

"Insiders said it could take almost four years before a decision on whether to proceed in the case is made"

So Dr Amaral will have to wait for his money, it seems. I can't see how this appeal to the ECHR can succeed.
Like everything done in this McCann saga, it's just another delaying tactic.

As for the SUN newspaper, it's obvious whose side it is batting for: "shameless ex-Police chief", and "Amaral", yet "Kate and Gerry" peppered right through the article. It would be laughable, if it wasn't so pathetic.

by Phoebe 09.09.17 10:21

Shouldn't this read Kate and Gerry are challenging Portugal via its Supreme Court? After all, it was this authority which returned the verdict that the McCanns had never been proven to have had no involvement? Their arrogance and desperation knows no bounds. Doubtless they are using this as a delaying tactic in order to withhold the monies they owe and to try to resurrect their claims of complete innocence in the interim before the appeal is heard. They, and Op. Grange must be praying for a lengthy wait before the ECHR even gets round to considering their appeal.

by MRNOODLES 09.09.17 10:41

It's just spite. Nothing more nothing less.

by Verdi 09.09.17 12:30

It's a load of cobblers - nothing more nothing less.

I see this as a precursor to soften the blow when the Home Office agrees to yet another stay of execution for Operation Grange later this month.

Let's face it, it's already been sanctioned. All that's needed now is the official rubber stamp!

by Nina 09.09.17 12:53

With acknowledgment to a friend............

Re the appeal to European court :
.1-This does not alter the Supreme Court decision
2- The McCanns still have to pay the Portuguese state for court costs and they have to pay the other parties ' legal fees ( I dare say that the bill must probably already be overdue and accumulating interest )
3- Will their appeal against the Portuguese state be accepted or ruled in their favour ? The answer is a simple NO. The decision of the Portuguese Supreme Court was all based on
ECHR legislation . No chance at all and very bad legal services from their lawyers .
4- they have to bring an action against the Portuguese state , not GA and Let it be stressed again , this will not interfere with the Supreme Court ruling at all .

The McCanns owe the Portuguese state for court costs and they owe the other parties for lawyers fees . It's time they paid their debts to the Portuguese tax payer .

by willowthewisp 09.09.17 13:25

Verdi wrote:It's a load of cobblers - nothing more nothing less.

I see this as a precursor to soften the blow when the Home Office agrees to yet another stay of execution for Operation Grange later this month.

Let's face it, it's already been sanctioned. All that's needed now is the official rubber stamp!

Hi Verdi,so this is the real reason why funding has to continue in the farce Investigation,Operation Grange,due to the Portugal supreme court findings of the McCann parents not innocent or involvement in Madeleine' disappearance!
so the state or Establishment,Government is in Limbo once again of either backing the funding to continue the McCann's initial request to David Cameron of a Review of their case,it doesn't state the UK Police have to find them Innocent,does it?
What is amazing is the Investigating Police force is making decisions of ruling out certain parties of being"Suspects"in the Madeleine McCann,Operation Grange,remit abduction?
Yet now we see in the press that Scotland Yard are to interview a 46 yr old Male held in Greece over Madeleine's disappearance?

by hogwash 09.09.17 13:45

by tnb 09.09.17 13:56

sallypelt wrote:"Insiders said it could take almost four years before a decision on whether to proceed in the case is made"

So Dr Amaral will have to wait for his money, it seems. I can't see how this appeal to the ECHR can succeed.
Like everything done in this McCann saga, it's just another delaying tactic.

As for the SUN newspaper, it's obvious whose side it is batting for: "shameless ex-Police chief", and "Amaral", yet "Kate and Gerry" peppered right through the article. It would be laughable, if it wasn't so pathetic.

What money is Dr Amaral waiting for?

by sallypelt 09.09.17 14:05

tnb wrote:
sallypelt wrote:"Insiders said it could take almost four years before a decision on whether to proceed in the case is made"

So Dr Amaral will have to wait for his money, it seems. I can't see how this appeal to the ECHR can succeed.
Like everything done in this McCann saga, it's just another delaying tactic.

As for the SUN newspaper, it's obvious whose side it is batting for: "shameless ex-Police chief", and "Amaral", yet "Kate and Gerry" peppered right through the article. It would be laughable, if it wasn't so pathetic.
What money is Dr Amaral waiting for?

The cost of his court case, paid for by the losers? Dr Amaral is yet to sue the McCann's personally, but it could happen, sooner than later!

by tnb 09.09.17 14:18

Please don't be mis-leading, the pro's will jump on it, as for now the McCann's owe no monies to Dr Amaral.
I have said it before and I will say it again Dr Amaral will not sue the McCann's but in the future he may well sue elements of the British MSM.

by sallypelt 09.09.17 14:24

tnb wrote:Please don't be mis-leading, the pro's will jump on it, as for now the McCann's owe no monies to Dr Amaral.
I have said it before and I will say it again Dr Amaral will not sue the McCann's but in the future he may well sue elements of the British MSM.

I think I cleared up the confusion with my last post, but I agreee, Amaral has NOT sued for compensation, and he may never sue, but the McCanns are liable for the court costs. And as for "misleading" I would be the last person to do such a thing

by tnb 09.09.17 14:34

"So Dr Amaral will have to wait for his money, it seems."
Not meaning to be obtuse but I recon that sentence is mis-leading.

by sallypelt 09.09.17 14:51

tnb wrote:"So Dr Amaral will have to wait for his money, it seems."
Not meaning to be obtuse but I recon that sentence is mis-lead

Oh dear! You are just trying to point-score. I have already said on TWO occasions that Dr Amaral has NOT sued for compensation. I am not going to repeat typing the same thing over and over, but I've taken a look at your previous posts, because I've never noticed you before, and I can see from those posts that you constantly pick up on what other posters post. For example, starting a sentence with a "but". Here are a few examples for you to read:

Today’s topic is whether it’s OK to begin a sentence with and, but, or or. The short answer is yes, and just about all modern grammar books and style guides agree! So who is it that keeps saying it’s wrong to do it?

Most likely, many people believe they should not start a sentence with a coordinating conjunction because their grammar teachers in grade school discouraged them from doing so. Yet such a rule is completely unjustifiable. When grammar teachers teach youngsters the essentials of sentence structure, they most likely explain that coordinating conjunctions are used to hold together elements within a sentence. Therefore, they may discourage students from starting sentences with coordinating conjunctions because they are trying not only to explain conjunctions but also to help their students learn to avoid sentence fragments like this one:

Those are just some for starters.

And it's pros, not pro's, when referring to more than one

Don't bother to put a cheque in the post for tuition. This one is on me!

Now, let's get back to debating Madeleine McCann and what could have happened to her, rather that put one's foot in one's mouth with grammatical howlers..........shall we?

by tnb 09.09.17 15:14

Grammatical errors are irrelevant here, you stated,"So Dr Amaral will have to wait for his money, it seems." That is the discussion here nothing more nothing less, so no need to get into previous posts regarding anything else. Whether grammaticly wrong or right I base my posts on facts.
Fact: Dr Amaral is waiting on no monies as you suggest.

by sallypelt 09.09.17 15:19

This IS my last post. I've already cleared up the confusion in my FIRST response to you. What don't you understand? I think it is clear to anyone reading this thread, that I have already made it clear that Dr Amaral is NOT owed money, personally, as he has NOT sued the McCanns. BUT, what the McCanns are liable for is Dr Amaral's court costs.

Now, that IS the end. I think I have made myself clear on a few occasions.

by tnb 09.09.17 15:37

sallypelt wrote:This IS my last post. I've already cleared up the confusion in my FIRST response to you. What don't you understand? I think it is clear to anyone reading this thread, that I have already made it clear that Dr Amaral is NOT owed money, personally, as he has NOT sued the McCanns. BUT, what the McCanns are liable for is Dr Amaral's court costs.

Now, that IS the end. I think I have made myself clear on a few occasions.

Well thanks at last for admitting your original post was fake news.
"So Dr Amaral will have to wait for his money, it seems."

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Members are respectfully asked to please keep on topic. Thank you.

Mod

by tnb 09.09.17 15:51

Off topic. Post deleted

Mod

by **Hobs** 10.09.17 4:51

"Insiders said it could take almost four years before a decision on whether to proceed in the case is made"

They said it would take months if not years for their appeal to the Portuguese Supreme Court to be heard giving them more time to avoid paying up and for them to play musical money.
They got one hell of a shock when their appeal was denied in a prompt manner and short period of time.

In the meantime they are still liable for all fees and costs payable to the courts and Dr. Amaral.
The ECHR does not involve itself in civil matters which this case is since it is against Dr Amaral, it deals only with matters relating to national and international law.
They originally threatened to appeal if they lost, they lost and then said they might appeal and then on being advised as to their options and likelihood of success announced they would not be appealing, citing the investigation in to Maddie's disappearance and needing to save money to continue the search when the Met closes its investigation (incriminating , since they are admitting Maddie will not be found)

I wonder what has prompted their change of mind?

by sar 10.09.17 5:34

Hobs wrote:"Insiders said it could take almost four years before a decision on whether to proceed in the case is made"

They said it would take months if not years for their appeal to the Portuguese Supreme Court to be heard giving them more time to avoid paying up and for them to play musical money.
They got one hell of a shock when their appeal was denied in a prompt manner and short period of time.

In the meantime they are still liable for all fees and costs payable to the courts and Dr. Amaral.
The ECHR does not involve itself in civil matters which this case is since it is against Dr Amaral, it deals only with matters relating to national and international law.
They originally threatened to appeal if they lost, they lost and then said they might appeal and then on being advised as to their options and likelihood of success announced they would not be appealing, citing the investigation in to Maddie's disappearance and needing to save money to continue the search when the Met closes its investigation (incriminating , since they are admitting Maddie will not be found)

I wonder what has prompted their change of mind?

....indeed Hobs, indeed +1

by plebgate 10.09.17 9:28

hogwash wrote:

Shattering too apparently.

I do wish the MSM in UK would imagine how Rocky A has been feeling all these years and report without all the unnecessary slurs on his character.