McCann appeal to European court of Human rights - THE SUN

by Sceptic 09.09.17 4:25

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
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 Guest 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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

big grin

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:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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.

by sallypelt 10.09.17 9:53

Does anyone know what, exactly, the McCanns are appealing against to the ECHR? According to the Daily Mail ( I know, I know, not a reliable source, but it's the best I have at the moment) it states:

"Madeleine McCann's parents are appealing to the European Court of Human Rights in attempt to silence the Portuguese ex-police chief who claimed their daughter is dead and they are responsible".

If the above is anything to go onthe McCanns haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of a successful appeal.

The Daily Mail continues:

....."Amaral is now able to sue the McCanns for damages potentially totalling tens of thousands of pounds...To prevent this, Kate and Gerry, both 49, have lodged an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights. They now wait for the date of their Strasbourg showdown with Amaral to be confirmed"..

So, anyone who has followed this saga from the beginning will be under no illusion WHY they are clutching at straws, and having a final throw of the dice. I will have to look further into this, but from memory, I believe that there is no cost to make an appeal to the ECHR, but I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.

by sallypelt 10.09.17 14:59

Fees for applicants to the European Court of Human Rights?

[size=40]FEES: A BARRIER TO JUSTICE[/size]
IMPOSING A FEE ON APPLICANTS TO THE EUROPEAN COURT
OF HUMAN RIGHTS
MAY DENY VICTIMS OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS ACCESS
TO JUSTICE
The 47 governments of the Council of Europe are con
sidering a proposal which would impose
an additional barrier for victims of human rights v
iolations to have access to justice.
The proposal under consideration is to impose fees
on individuals who file a case with the
European Court of Human Rights. The Court is a last
resort for individuals seeking redress for
alleged violations of their rights under the Europe
an Convention on Human Rights.
If a fee is imposed, some people who have been unab
le to gain justice in their own countries
will be denied redress simply because they cannot p
ay. Lack of funds should never be an
obstacle to an individual’s access to a remedy for
an alleged human rights violation
Even if provisions were put in place to permit the
fees to be waived, any such scheme would
clearly risk deterring, or even preventing, individ
uals with well founded claims from reaching
the Court.
These are the reasons why some governments and hund
reds of non-governmental organizations
throughout Europe, including Amnesty International,
the AIRE Centre, the European Human
Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC), Human Rights Watch,
the International Commission of
Jurists, Interights, Justice and REDRESS are callin
g for the proposal to be rejected outright by
the main decision making body of the Council of Eur
ope, the Committee of Ministers.
1
The proposal to impose fees, if implemented, would
be unprecedented for an international or
regional human rights mechanism of redress. Ensurin
g access to justice for those who are
seeking redress for the human rights violations mus
t be the Council of Europe's paramount
concern.
The proposal was presented as an effort to address
the high number of cases received by the
Court which do not meet the established admissibili
ty criteria. It is questionable whether the
introduction of fees would alleviate, and not exace
rbate, the administrative burdens on the
court. The imposition of fees also risks reducing t
he number of meritorious cases as well, and
1
For information about NGO opposition to this proposa
l, see inter alia Joint statement of Amnesty
International, The AIRE Centre, EHRAC, Human Rights Wa
tch, the International Commission of Jurists,
Interights, Justice, Liberty and Redress which was sig
ned by 156 other NGOs across the Council of
Europe Region: Human Rights in Europe: Decision Time o
n the European Court of Human Rights, AI
Index: IOR61/009/2009, available at
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
, and
the contribution of the Conference of International
Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs) of the
Council of Europe to the Interlaken Conference on t
he future of the European Court of Human Rights
available at
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
_Interlaken_en.asp
(there are
more than 350 INGOs who participate in the INGO Conferen
ce).

by MayMuse 10.09.17 19:04

I could be wrong but if this is true I believe they are appealing against the SC RULING....about not being wholly innocent in their daughters disappearance.... the wording of the article is clear in pointedly bringing in G.A so that the public will think it is all about Amaral... I do not believe it is... Amaral was vindicated on his "free speech".... it was not Amaral who deemed them not innocent it was the original PJ report chief ( unable to recall his name) ....Amaral is the fall guy for the McCanns that is all.... it hasn't worked... so are they taking on Portugal?

Fail to see any good diagnosis coming from it....

Just my two penneth for what it's worth, and like I've said I could be on the wrong track...however considering Leveson and all that's going on with the internet free speech, libels, shutdowns or trying to etc etc...and of course Brexit....more to this than meets the eye...

How far does the string go on puppets?

by **Jill Havern** 10.09.17 19:33

Tony Blair was the first to give the McCanns protection and his wife is a Human Rights lawyer.

Just saying...

by willowthewisp 10.09.17 21:56

How can a"Civil Case"Empower a Statute Law of the Portugal People within the ECHR,European Rights over Rule their Judges,Supreme Court Ruling?
So the McCanns are challenging the States Constitution,which Empowers the Functioning of the State of Portugal on Legal Preferences,via the ECHR within Europe,have I got this wrong?