Re: McCanns and the ECHR

by lion77 on 16.05.20 19:52

@Jill Havern wrote:Answer the question.

I don't give in to threats. I'm quite happy to answer any question but not if you hav already made the decision to ban me

by **Jill Havern** on 16.05.20 19:58

75 posts on various threads of your nonsense and drivel is more than enough.

Away with you.

by BlueBag on 17.05.20 6:28

@lion77 wrote:
@Jill Havern wrote:Answer the question.
I don't give in to threats. I'm quite happy to answer any question but not if you hav already made the decision to ban me

You don't answer questions though.
You also ignore answers and plough on regardless.

by **PeterMac** on 17.05.20 10:47

This is becoming almost as bizarre at Pam G's stuff in the comments section of the Sun articles.
Most recently she tried to argue that the photo showing the blue tennis bag in the wardrobe was not included in the PJ's files, and that therefore it was not a 'real' photo, but must have been tampered with . . .
2 minutes with a decent search engine would have taken her to the photo in question and the expanded version immediately under it on the same page as the 48 questions which KM refused to answer.
But she also denies that happened, so she is at least consistent.
[10VOLUME_Xa_PAGE_2562, and 2563 since you ask]

This constant repetition of "LIBEL" which it never was, (and incidentally TB's case wasn't either, despite what the Tabloids urge people to believe) is surely evidence of a less than full understanding of what has been developing over the past decade.

by Portia on 04.06.20 12:22

Hello Jill,

Absent for some time now, but alerted by Dutch broadsheet de Telegraaf of some anonymous incarcerated German now being seen as the main suspect in the Mc Cann case today, June 4th 2020.

Can you tell me how the McCanns fared with their case before the ECHR? Did they go that route, and what came of it?

Thank you

by **Jill Havern** on 04.06.20 12:28

@Portia wrote:Hello Jill,

Absent for some time now, but alerted by Dutch broadsheet de Telegraaf of some anonymous incarcerated German now being seen as the main suspect in the Mc Cann case today, June 4th 2020.

Can you tell me how the McCanns fared with their case before the ECHR? Did they go that route, and what came of it?

Thank you

Hiya Portia, good to see you back.

No update on the ECHR case as yet.

by joyce1938 on 04.06.20 16:16

Have decided to come back ,been a bit more lazy ,but kept up with some things on the other side hope i shall learn more but ofcourse i have been on line using both parties .Have my poor husband in care home now ,very sad.joyce1938.

by Portia on 05.06.20 11:35

@Jill Havern wrote:
@Portia wrote:Hello Jill,

Absent for some time now, but alerted by Dutch broadsheet de Telegraaf of some anonymous incarcerated German now being seen as the main suspect in the Mc Cann case today, June 4th 2020.

Can you tell me how the McCanns fared with their case before the ECHR? Did they go that route, and what came of it?

Thank you
Hiya Portia, good to see you back.

No update on the ECHR case as yet.

Hello Jill,

Just checked the current ECHR public registers of pending cases, since 2016 under names for applicants Healy and McCann.
No mention of them.
Did they address the ECHR at all, I wonder.

by **Jill Havern** on 05.06.20 12:09

Did you check the case number Portia? 57195/17

by **PeterMac** on 05.06.20 15:30

2 minutes ago.

by Doug D on 05.06.20 16:53

No sign of this from UK on either the ECHR main or HUDOC sites.

I wonder if it's blocked to UK users?

by BlueBag on 05.06.20 17:36

@PeterMac wrote:2 minutes ago.

2017?

More proof of EU inefficiency.

That is ridiculous.... are they munching chips and mayo sandwiches?

by Ladyinred on 05.06.20 17:51

DougD posted upthread that 2022 is likely date of judgement.

isn't ECHR independent of EU?

by **Verdi** on 05.06.20 21:23

@Ladyinred wrote:DougD posted upthread that 2022 is likely date of judgement.

isn't ECHR independent of EU?

Yes, totally independent.

by **PeterMac** on 05.06.20 21:48

It may not get as far as judgment.

It FIRST has to get past the filter system to establish whether is it is an arguable case at all.
THEN to establish whether it is already covered by other EHCR judgments, as being so similar in legal terms as to be covered by them.
THEN it has to be established whether the points being argued are within the jurisdiction of the Court itself. In other words whether this is truly a reasonable analysis of the wording and the subsequent effects of the Portuguese Constitution, OR whether this is simply a couple of people who don't like and can't accept the decision that was made.
THEN they may look at the actual points of the argument

So far as the ECHR is concerned, the Factual legal matter was concluded in the Supreme Court of Portugal some little time ago.

All that remains is an overview of the Human Rights issues raised by the exact wording of the Portuguese Constitution,
and whether the McCann case should be sufficient to cause the Nation to amend it immediately.

As somebody said some time ago – Good luck there !

by **Verdi** on 05.06.20 22:08

Let's forget this ridiculous attempt by the McCanns to take Portugal to the ECHR. It will never happen, they haven't a leg to stand on

After today's Daily Mail abomination, it's past time Portugal took the UK to the ECHR.

How bloody dare they angry