The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Injunction maintained

Page 2 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by bellatrix on 18.02.10 13:04

@Autumn wrote:What happened today has nothing to do with justice. Those of you still supporting the McCanns should hang your heads in shame - you care nothing about what happened to Madeleine, only about protecting your idols.

Good Luck to Snr Amaral in his appeal.


Yes I am down on my knees worshipping at my McCann shrine (ROLLS EYES).

bellatrix

Posts : 207
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The 3 judges and 4 jurors who decided against Amaral

Post by Tony Bennett on 18.02.10 13:15

@jmbd wrote:Tony - fascinating.


I thought Amaral did have a jury at the trial when he was found guilty? Apparently non payment of the jury has held up the appeal.

(referring to what you said: If only juries were to decide issues in Amaral's various trials, not judges.)
You are right in part.

The original trial where Amaral was found guilty of filing a false report and given a suspended jail sentence of 18 months was heard by three judges and four jurors - total seven.

IIRC the verdict was unanimous.

If Amaral had been tried for this offence in a British Court he would have had the right to be tried in the Crown Court and the verdict on his guilt would have been decided by twelve jury men and women, of which 10 would have been sufficient to have found him guilty.

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by bunny on 18.02.10 13:16

Tony! I hope you aren't critising the Portuguese :megashock:

bunny

Posts : 335
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by Pascal on 18.02.10 13:17

@bunny wrote:
People get libelled every day of the week and can do sweet fanny adam about it

Pascal, very few people have a child missing though and a search going on for her.

Banning books is wrong....I understand your point here. However, you seem to believe that its okay to libel someone though? there is a very fine line and Amaral stepped over that line by miles.

Pascal, I do hope you don't think I have in anyway beenn snidey with you?

No Bunny you have never been snidey. Overall the exchanges on this forum have been polite and I have been grateful for that. I think you know which forum I refer to. I daren't look over on their today for fear of catching distemper from damp pants syndrome. <<< (that was snidey)

I'm sorry Bunny I can't get my head around the banning of a book in a country that so values it's free speech. I can't understand the McCanns actions at all. As I said, I didn't like them before, I care nothing for them now. I feel that now, more than ever that they have something to hide and I won't the only 'fencesitter' who thinks that way. The debates will continue, the wars will carry on and the nasty shenanigans of Majic and his ilk will rage.

Would you not agree that the McCanns have their own shortcomings in that they did not fully co-operate with the investigation? I understand the reasons for KM not answering the questions at the time but she and her husband clearly have much support. I can't see any Gene Hunt style police tactics taking place while the world is looking on, can you? so why not answer those questions now? The simple fact of the matter is that they want to run the whole Madeleine show for themselves; the fund raisings, the press calls, the Oprah show's and now they seek to control the written word. It beggars belief.

Pascal

Posts : 626
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by vaguely1 on 18.02.10 13:17

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@jmbd wrote:Tony - fascinating.


I thought Amaral did have a jury at the trial when he was found guilty? Apparently non payment of the jury has held up the appeal.

(referring to what you said: If only juries were to decide issues in Amaral's various trials, not judges.)
You are right in part.

The original trial where Amaral was found guilty of filing a false report and given a suspended jail sentence of 18 months was heard by three judges and four jurors - total seven.

IIRC the verdict was unanimous.

If Amaral had been tried for this offence in a British Court he would have had the right to be tried in the Crown Court and the verdict on his guilt would have been decided by twelve jury men and women, of which 10 would have been sufficient to have found him guilty.

And only 1 judge in UK? Following yesterday's news about jurors maybe more judges and less jurors is the way to go.

____________________
Does my IP look big in this?

vaguely1

Posts : 1992
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-01-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by jmbd on 18.02.10 13:19

Good job he wasn't tried in the international court of public opinion.

jmbd

Posts : 557
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by jmbd on 18.02.10 13:22

Anyway - we digress. Back to the decision - I haven't seen anything about whether costs were awarded.

jmbd

Posts : 557
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by vaguely1 on 18.02.10 13:26

Pascal, I can only thing of the book in terms of If I had a
missing child and knew I was innocent......would I be happy for a book
to be published by the policeman who I thought had failed my daughter?

Obviously if they're guilty it doesn't apply.

____________________
Does my IP look big in this?

vaguely1

Posts : 1992
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-01-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Freedom of speech has limits

Post by Tony Bennett on 18.02.10 13:26

@bunny wrote:Freedom of speech as Amaral claims...would that also cover copying other people's work?

No, if those whose work was being copied gave clear notice that their work was subject to copyright protection - a bit difficult, however, if you post in a username, don't identify yourself and give an address, and don't put an explicit copyright notice against your work

would that also cover incitement to mass murder?

No. The assorted hundreds of Muslims who demonstrated a couple of years ago on the streets of London with banners saying things like 'Annihilate those who insult the prophet' were extremely lucky to get away with not being charged with anything

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-K9seNDuq4


incitement to racial hatred?

No.

Would that same freedom of speech also cover the right of protestors at our soldiers home coming parade calling them child killers?

No - that would be a clear potential breach of the peace.

How far do you allow freedom of speech?

In Amaral's case, he should not be restrained from outlining the facts of the investigation. When we were advised by Kirwans about the contents of the now-banned '60 Reasons' book, two clear liners of advice were given:

1. Ask questions by all means, but don't point the finger, and

2. On any issue, put the McCanns' explanation forward [EXAMPLE: Dr Gerald McCann on the springer spaniels: "The evidence from the cadaver sniffer dogs is notoriously unreliaable"]


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by bunny on 18.02.10 13:26

@Pascal wrote:
@bunny wrote:
People get libelled every day of the week and can do sweet fanny adam about it

Pascal, very few people have a child missing though and a search going on for her.

Banning books is wrong....I understand your point here. However, you seem to believe that its okay to libel someone though? there is a very fine line and Amaral stepped over that line by miles.

Pascal, I do hope you don't think I have in anyway beenn snidey with you?

No Bunny you have never been snidey. Overall the exchanges on this forum have been polite and I have been grateful for that. I think you know which forum I refer to. I daren't look over on their today for fear of catching distemper from damp pants syndrome. <<< (that was snidey)

I'm sorry Bunny I can't get my head around the banning of a book in a country that so values it's free speech. I can't understand the McCanns actions at all. As I said, I didn't like them before, I care nothing for them now. I feel that now, more than ever that they have something to hide and I won't the only 'fencesitter' who thinks that way. The debates will continue, the wars will carry on and the nasty shenanigans of Majic and his ilk will rage.

Would you not agree that the McCanns have their own shortcomings in that they did not fully co-operate with the investigation? I understand the reasons for KM not answering the questions at the time but she and her husband clearly have much support. I can't see any Gene Hunt style police tactics taking place while the world is looking on, can you? so why not answer those questions now? The simple fact of the matter is that they want to run the whole Madeleine show for themselves; the fund raisings, the press calls, the Oprah show's and now they seek to control the written word. It beggars belief.

Pascal, the case is shelvedand there are no questions to answer. From my point of view......I'd have told the PJ nothing more if they had accused me. It was clear to see that the only thing they were investigating was the McCanns. Now if you look at it from their point of view...if you were being accused of killing your Daughter and you knew you hadnt, would you co operate? I know damn well I wouldnt. Also, if I paid for a lawyer and he told me not to respond I wouldnt. Dont forget Gerry answered those questions. Its clearly a personal choice.

I dont know the mccanns, it makes no difference to me who they are and what they do other than they have a right to "innocent until guilty". And that is THE most important thing to me. It makes it nothing more than gossip and the ramifications of that are all to clear.

bunny

Posts : 335
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by bunny on 18.02.10 13:30

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@bunny wrote:Freedom of speech as Amaral claims...would that also cover copying other people's work?

No, if those whose work was being copied gave clear notice that their work was subject to copyright protection - a bit difficult, however, if you post in a username, don't identify yourself and give an address, and don't put an explicit copyright notice against your work

would that also cover incitement to mass murder?

No. The assorted hundreds of Muslims who demonstrated a couple of years ago on the streets of London with banners saying things like 'Annihilate those who insult the prophet' were extremely lucky to get away with not being charged with anything
incitement to racial hatred?

No.

Would that same freedom of speech also cover the right of protestors at our soldiers home coming parade calling them child killers?

No - that would be a clear potential breach of the peace.

How far do you allow freedom of speech?

In Amaral's case, he should not be restrained from outlining the facts of the investigation. When we were advised by Kirwans about the contents of the now-banned '60 Reasons' book, two clear liners of advice were given:

1. Ask questions by all means, but don't point the finger, and

2. On any issue, put the McCanns' explanation forward [EXAMPLE: Dr Gerald McCann on the springer spaniels: "The evidence from the cadaver sniffer dogs is notoriously unreliaable"]


Right so you agree with me that there should not be a God given right to say what you want?

errr, I think the part that you say about having a clear copyright maybe not accurate. I thought there was a thing called "inferred copyright" which means you cannot just copy text because there is no disclaimer. Glad to be corrected if wrong on this point then.

bunny

Posts : 335
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Trial by jury - U.K. law is superior to Portuguese law

Post by Tony Bennett on 18.02.10 13:41

@bunny wrote:Tony! I hope you aren't critising the Portuguese :megashock:
bunny, aside from all our more-or-less polite debates, repartee and point-scoring over what really happened to Madeleine McCann, and given that man & woman are imperfect and we live in a world that is obviously imperfect, there is no better system ever designed by man or woman on this earth to protect us against the arbitrary power of the state than to have unpaid jurors decide whether or not you are a guilty of one or more of the serious crimes on the statute book.

Professional judges are paid by the state and thereby subject to various subtle and not-too-subtle pressures to give the 'right' verdict, which can be shown to have happened time and again in countries the world over and throughout history.

Younger judges always have their careers and promotions to think about. Jurors, thankfully, do not.

There may well come a time when you and I and other readers of this forum could very well be grateful for the continued existence of 12-person juries in this country - which is slowly but surely slipping into corrupt ways - as the arrest, detention and seizure of the property of Robert Green surely shows (see Robert Green thread).

Yes, in this respect, U.K. law is superior to Portuguese law, and indeed very few countries outside the 'Anglosphere' have a proper system of jury trial for more serious alleged criminal offences.

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by bunny on 18.02.10 13:46

I actually agree with you about the jury. I just found that you couldnt critisise anything about Portugal without being jumped on!

bunny

Posts : 335
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by vaguely1 on 18.02.10 13:47

But that shouldn't mean that trial by book prevails.

____________________
Does my IP look big in this?

vaguely1

Posts : 1992
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-01-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by bunny on 18.02.10 13:48

Absolutely Vaguely.

bunny

Posts : 335
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Copyright law

Post by Tony Bennett on 18.02.10 13:51

@bunny wrote:I think the part that you say about having a clear copyright maybe not accurate. I thought there was a thing called "inferred copyright" which means you cannot just copy text because there is no disclaimer. Glad to be corrected if wrong on this point then.
Well, I think the practical issue is whether you have drawn sufficient attention to your material requiring permission to be reproduced.

For example, I contributed about 2,000 posts on the old '3 Arguidos' forum. My recollection is that at the time that forum closed, over 1.25 million posts had been made. I cannot remember a single one of those - and they included many translations - saying "You may not reproduce this posting without the author's/authoress's permission".

Generally speaking those who have contributed to the debate on what really happened to Madeleine McCann have been happy to exchange their research, translations and ideas without issuing copyright warnings. For example, extracts from '60 Reasons' or even the full book have been reproduced all over the place without our raising a murmur about copyright, even though we do have a strong copyright statement on the inside front cover of '60 Reasons'.

The clearest way to protect your copyright rights on a forum such as this would be to have something like this as a signature to all your posts:

"COPYRIGHT: You do not have the poster's permission to reproduce any or all of this post. To obtain permission, please write to...or email...or 'phone..."

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by Pascal on 18.02.10 13:53

@bunny wrote:
@Pascal wrote:
@bunny wrote:
People get libelled every day of the week and can do sweet fanny adam about it

Pascal, very few people have a child missing though and a search going on for her.

Banning books is wrong....I understand your point here. However, you seem to believe that its okay to libel someone though? there is a very fine line and Amaral stepped over that line by miles.

Pascal, I do hope you don't think I have in anyway beenn snidey with you?

No Bunny you have never been snidey. Overall the exchanges on this forum have been polite and I have been grateful for that. I think you know which forum I refer to. I daren't look over on their today for fear of catching distemper from damp pants syndrome. <<< (that was snidey)

I'm sorry Bunny I can't get my head around the banning of a book in a country that so values it's free speech. I can't understand the McCanns actions at all. As I said, I didn't like them before, I care nothing for them now. I feel that now, more than ever that they have something to hide and I won't the only 'fencesitter' who thinks that way. The debates will continue, the wars will carry on and the nasty shenanigans of Majic and his ilk will rage.

Would you not agree that the McCanns have their own shortcomings in that they did not fully co-operate with the investigation? I understand the reasons for KM not answering the questions at the time but she and her husband clearly have much support. I can't see any Gene Hunt style police tactics taking place while the world is looking on, can you? so why not answer those questions now? The simple fact of the matter is that they want to run the whole Madeleine show for themselves; the fund raisings, the press calls, the Oprah show's and now they seek to control the written word. It beggars belief.

Pascal, the case is shelvedand there are no questions to answer. From my point of view......I'd have told the PJ nothing more if they had accused me. It was clear to see that the only thing they were investigating was the McCanns. Now if you look at it from their point of view...if you were being accused of killing your Daughter and you knew you hadnt, would you co operate? I know damn well I wouldnt. Also, if I paid for a lawyer and he told me not to respond I wouldnt. Dont forget Gerry answered those questions. Its clearly a personal choice.

I dont know the mccanns, it makes no difference to me who they are and what they do other than they have a right to "innocent until guilty". And that is THE most important thing to me. It makes it nothing more than gossip and the ramifications of that are all to clear.

The case was shelved and the parents did not cooperate fully with the investigation. that you would or wouldn't doesn't make one jot of difference. They didn't, despite having the worlds media and various PR representatives at their fingertips. Their child had gone missing under very strange circumstances. They should expect to come under some serious questioning FGS. I believe in innocence until proven guilty too - which is why every effort should have been made to cooperate with the official investigation.

What about the reconstruction? they chose not to do that. Why was that do you think? they 'chose' not to assist the investigation by doing the reconstruction. Doesn't make any sense to me, I'm afraid.

Pascal

Posts : 626
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by bunny on 18.02.10 14:01

Pascal, they wanted a reconstruction in the early days the Pj would not let it go ahead. The McCanns never said they wouldnt go to the reconstruction...in fact they had no choice. If the PJ had said they had to attend...then they had too.

As for the them "expecting to be questioned" I think they did expect to be..but go and have a look at those questions....some of them aren't even questions!

As an aside, they are absolutely within their rights not to answer questions. That is the law.

bunny

Posts : 335
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by Pascal on 18.02.10 14:26

What they 'wanted' should never have come into it. They were not in charge of the investigation. I honestly don't believe the investigating offices believed for one minute that there was an abduction OR that the parents had harmed her. Likely they thought she had wandered off.

I'd still go along with that myself 'cept for the dogs' 'intelligence'.

Again Bunny, today's news has jostled me a bit. If it had gone the other way, I would be feeling very differently toward the case and more sympathetic toward the McCanns.

Pascal

Posts : 626
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by Kololi on 18.02.10 14:44

Hi
I can't say that I am surprised at this outcome and the innocent until proven guilty principle remains intact because of it which is good but I do find it a bit alarming.

Where next? Us folks sharing opinions?

There is no proof of what happened to Madeleine McCann and by nature people will speculate, discuss and chat about what they think happened. If an ordinary person thinks that she died at the hands of her parent's will they be stopped from including that into a conversation in the future?

And as for respecting the law - You mean those laws made by a pompous bunch of bufoons who behave with less maturity than a gang of five year olds when sat discussing and deciding our future in our Houses of Parliament? Don't make me giggle - I have recently completed a diploma in English Law and I would say at least 65% of what we were taught was goobledeygook, non commonsensical and cared not an ounce for the victim of crime prefering instead to worry about the rights of the rats who committed it.

Take care

Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by Otium on 18.02.10 15:35

@bunny wrote:...if you were being accused of killing your Daughter and you knew you hadnt, would you co operate?

Hi bunny, I know your post was in reply to Pascal but I would like to answer your above question.

We are all different but I can honestly say, hand on heart, if I was ever in the same postition I would go out of my way, answer any question put to me and do everything in my power to try to convince them of my innocence in order for them to continue searching for my child.

Otium

Posts : 64
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by jmbd on 18.02.10 15:49

"And as for respecting the law - You mean those laws made by a pompous bunch of bufoons who behave with less maturity than a gang of five year olds when sat discussing and deciding our future in our Houses of Parliament? Don't make me giggle - I have recently completed a diploma in English Law and I would say at least 65% of what we were taught was goobledeygook, non commonsensical and cared not an ounce for the victim of crime prefering instead to worry about the rights of the rats who committed it."

I wish you a long and successful career in law.

jmbd

Posts : 557
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by Kololi on 18.02.10 16:25

Hi Jmbd
I didn't study it to have a career in law as I already have a professional career. I did it because I love learning and fancied something with a challenge but thank you for your good wishes anyway. :)

Take care

Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by jmbd on 18.02.10 17:00

Always good to hear comments from those with a passing interest.

I have a GCE in English - but don't make a mockery of the English language.

jmbd

Posts : 557
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by Kololi on 18.02.10 18:41

Though if you did find the English language to be, in your opinion, a load of twaddle, then you would have the right to say so and who would I be to argue?

Oh my! You aren't one of those fellas sat in the Houses of Commons who prefer to score verbal points over the guy sat on the opposite side rather than discuss ways to put the Great back into Great Britain????

You don't own a duck pond do you???

thinking

Take care

Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum