Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

by Dr What 26.01.13 10:30

Ed

I wonder when they will be finished?

by Guest 26.01.13 10:32

Just a reminder ed of what you posted re the bet....

Me wrote:
ed1976 wrote:
Me wrote:
ed1976 wrote:I do not know how the law works in portugal but certainly in the UK the court will encourage both parties to reach a settlement without going to court. Amaral has a new lawyer. If the new lawyer has advised Amaral to reach a settlement then the McCannns may have no choice other than agree to try. They would of course be given the option to continue the action if a settlement isn't reached.

Ok, money where your mouth is time. Do you want to put a wager on as to who has conceded here.

Say £250 to charity from whomever is wrong. I'm going with the Mccann's caving, you're going with Amaral.

You taking the bet?

Yes.

Ok, we have a bet. Winner nominates the charity (note must be a real charity and not a limited liability company purporting to be a charity or fund).

Candy, as a mod here please make a note of this little bet, and we will resureect this post when the truth comes out.

Ooops!!! Cough up like a good chap/chapess[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Me 26.01.13 10:37

Thanks Candy, i was just looking for that!

I'd like the money to go to Cancer Research please Ed.

by Eddie 26.01.13 10:42

Are you thick?

Tony is not stating that as his fact, that is what Carter Ruck stated in the avadavit they served upon him.

As the McCann's lawyers they are going to spin it that way. They are not going to say "to allow our client to crumble and give the defendent everything he wants".

Can you confirm that now it is stated by Carter Ruck that the trial "HAS BEEN POSTPONED AT THE REQUEST OF THE CLAIMANTS' LAWYER" that you now accept you have lost our bet as to who requested the postponement and that as such you will be donating £250 to charity as you agreed?

**EDIT** Tony, would it be possible, and i can understand if you didn't want to, to scan and upload the letter from Carter Ruck which states the above so we can end this debate once and for all about who has caved in and asked for a postponement

Above is your first post where you state the terms of the bet , highlighted in red.

First this was not the terms of the bet, you have lied. The term of the bet was who was"caving", a massive difference. this is your problem, you have no attention to detail.At present no one is caving, we dont know the terms of any settlement or whether the libel case will be reinstated. You are the thick one.

by listener 26.01.13 10:52

As an independent observer, Ed - pay up !

by Eddie 26.01.13 10:53

listener wrote:As an independent observer, Ed - pay up !

you are not independent

by Guest 26.01.13 10:57

Perhaps we can have a separate topic - with bets taken - as to the likelihood of any charity benefitting from the original bet.

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

by listener 26.01.13 10:58

ed1976 wrote:
listener wrote:As an independent observer, Ed - pay up !

you are not independent

Maybe not yet - but I pay my dues [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Smokeandmirrors 26.01.13 10:59

Jean wrote:Perhaps we can have a separate topic - with bets taken - as to the likelihood of any charity benefitting from the original bet.

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

Excellent idea Jean. Perhaps it could be titled "One Trick Pony". Or Pony and Trap for the Cockney minded. big grin

by Eddie 26.01.13 11:09

candyfloss wrote:Just a reminder ed of what you posted re the bet....

Me wrote:
ed1976 wrote:
Me wrote:
ed1976 wrote:I do not know how the law works in portugal but certainly in the UK the court will encourage both parties to reach a settlement without going to court. Amaral has a new lawyer. If the new lawyer has advised Amaral to reach a settlement then the McCannns may have no choice other than agree to try. They would of course be given the option to continue the action if a settlement isn't reached.

Ok, money where your mouth is time. Do you want to put a wager on as to who has conceded here.

Say £250 to charity from whomever is wrong. I'm going with the Mccann's caving, you're going with Amaral.

You taking the bet?

Yes.

Ok, we have a bet. Winner nominates the charity (note must be a real charity and not a limited liability company purporting to be a charity or fund).

Candy, as a mod here please make a note of this little bet, and we will resureect this post when the truth comes out.

Ooops!!! Cough up like a good chap/chapess[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Just areminder of the original bet

by Inspectorfrost 26.01.13 11:10

First this was not the terms of the bet, you have lied. The term of the bet was who was"caving", a massive difference. this is your problem, you have no attention to detail.At present no one is caving, we dont know the terms of any settlement or whether the libel case will be reinstated. You are the thick one

*******

Ed, the bet was not about the specifics of any settlement or whether a libel trial will go ahead. It arose out of the discussion on WHO requested the trial to be suspended so that negotiations could take place. Me bet it was the Mccanns, he was right, therefore you lost. No amount of backtracking and twisting can change that. Its all there in black and white.

End of.
titter

by bobbin 26.01.13 11:12

listener wrote:
ed1976 wrote:
listener wrote:As an independent observer, Ed - pay up !

you are not independent

Maybe not yet - but I pay my dues [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

You show yourself as dishonourable Ed. When you take a bet you have to pay up if you lose.
You have lost, not just the bet, but now your credibility.
You say you have three small children. You are very lucky. You say you work, so, as it's Saturday, its a good time to be playing with them, and looking after their interests and development.
Time to get back to looking after them properly, as opposed to the McCanns who clearly admitted to not doing that when they neglected their three little children night after night, leaving them in an unlocked apartment in a foreign country.

by Montclair 26.01.13 11:15

ed1976 wrote:
Dr What wrote:Ed

What you are suggesting then is that the Mcs and legal team had no intention of ever going to court, because they must have known the appeals and the delays that would arise.

I am giving you my opinion, isn't that what we are all doing.

By going to court the McCanns

Had the book banned ...albeit temporarily

Had Amarals assets frozen...still inplace

Stopped Amaral from repeating his claims

So the libel wriy has been to a large extent a success. They haven't achieved all their aims but they haven't finished yet.

According to the ruling of 19 October 2010 by the Tribunal de Relação de Lisboa and confirmed by the Portuguese Supreme Court, Gonçalo Amaral recovered his right to freedom of speech and can speak about the case all he wants. BTW, those claims were the conclusions of the investigation and not just GA's personal claims. You do remember that ruling which was incredibly scathing in regards to the previous rulings?

Furthermore, GA's assets were only frozen until the outcome of the libel trial, nothing special there, although the McCanns intention was to strangle him financially in order to force him to settle out of court. Ironic, isn't it that it is now the couple who want to settle out of court. They are in no position to make demands on GA. They can only now make their proposals and he is in no way obliged to accept them. If he says no, after 6 months the case goes to trial. He loses nothing by refusing their offers.

by Eddie 26.01.13 11:18

Inspectorfrost wrote:First this was not the terms of the bet, you have lied. The term of the bet was who was"caving", a massive difference. this is your problem, you have no attention to detail.At present no one is caving, we dont know the terms of any settlement or whether the libel case will be reinstated. You are the thick one

*******

Ed, the bet was not about the specifics of any settlement or whether a libel trial will go ahead. It arose out of the discussion on WHO requested the trial to be suspended so that negotiations could take place. Me bet it was the Mccanns, he was right, therefore you lost. No amount of backtracking and twisting can change that. Its all there in black and white.

End of.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The whole problem with your arguments and many posters on here is that it is about specifics.

Me was very specific in his post and the word he used was caving. you want to make things up as you go along.

by Inspectorfrost 26.01.13 11:36

Just so laughable and extremely predictable. It would be good if you werent such a sore loser.
never mind

by roy rovers 26.01.13 12:39

Ed1976 it's naughty to come on the computer and pretend that you are your mummy.

by Me 26.01.13 13:22

ed1976 wrote:
The whole problem with your arguments and many posters on here is that it is about specifics.

Me was very specific in his post and the word he used was caving. you want to make things up as you go along.

I was very specific. The bet was about who had caved in by asking for the postponement.

The McCann's have caved in (so very kindly confirmed for us by Carter Ruck) and asked for the postponement, so under the terms of our bet you have lost.

Now you can use as many weasel words and semantics as you want but the fact is you have welched on the bet.

Which to be honest i fully expected.

by Guest 26.01.13 13:22

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
@ roy rogers

by Me 26.01.13 13:51

ed1976 wrote:The whole problem with your arguments and many posters on here is that it is about specifics.

Me was very specific in his post and the word he used was caving. you want to make things up as you go along.

And yet ironically you fail to practice what you preach.

The specifics were about who caved in caving in asking for a postponement.

You are now seeking to justify your position based on the vagueness of the word "caving in".

So i'd argue it is you who appears to have the problem with specifics.

by monkey mind 26.01.13 13:57

To fully appreciate the aptness of the lyrics one should crank up the volume.

big grin

All together now........

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

by Eddie 26.01.13 14:13

Me wrote:
ed1976 wrote:
The whole problem with your arguments and many posters on here is that it is about specifics.

Me was very specific in his post and the word he used was caving. you want to make things up as you go along.

I was very specific. The bet was about who had caved in by asking for the postponement.

The McCann's have caved in (so very kindly confirmed for us by Carter Ruck) and asked for the postponement, so under the terms of our bet you have lost.

Now you can use as many weasel words and semantics as you want but the fact is you have welched on the bet.

Which to be honest i fully expected.

havent got much time at the moment

A bet is like a contract. The word used was caving

To me that me to collapse completely

what does it mean to you

There is no sign that the MCS have caved in

by Guest 26.01.13 14:38

OK that's it. I am reposting the exchange between you and 'Me'. Notice in the first sentence Me says who has conceded. He then goes on to use a slang term, which you are using as an excuse, however the post definitely says who has conceded. Now we now it is fact from CR that the McCanns have approached Mr Amaral, and not the other way around.

PLEASE leave it now, everyone here and reading can see who is in the right, and it is not you ed1976.

You have lost your bet, so pay up or shut up!!! I don't want any more posts arguing the same point over and over. Any further posts will be deleted. You cannot say you have not been allowed to be heard.

Me wrote:
ed1976 wrote:
Me wrote:
ed1976 wrote:I do not know how the law works in portugal but certainly in the UK the court will encourage both parties to reach a settlement without going to court. Amaral has a new lawyer. If the new lawyer has advised Amaral to reach a settlement then the McCannns may have no choice other than agree to try. They would of course be given the option to continue the action if a settlement isn't reached.

Ok, money where your mouth is time. Do you want to put a wager on as to who has conceded here.

Say £250 to charity from whomever is wrong. I'm going with the Mccann's caving, you're going with Amaral.

You taking the bet?

Yes.

Ok, we have a bet. Winner nominates the charity (note must be a real charity and not a limited liability company purporting to be a charity or fund).

Candy, as a mod here please make a note of this little bet, and we will resureect this post when the truth comes out.

by rainbow-fairy 26.01.13 14:39

Another thread de-railed.
Mods, please, this is beyond tedious now.
Still, when I saw the thread was 8 pages long I should have guessed shouldn't I?

All the obfuscation, twisting and wriggling like a maggot on a hook won't change facts.

Ed, the McCanns were utterly determined to ruin Amaral IN COURt. So determined in fact it has been one of their main focuses for 4 years (whatever happened to "Nothing is more important to us than finding our little girl" I wonder?) The very day before said court date they withdraw. That IS 'caving in', whichever way you twist it or spin it. Have you heard of a thesaurus Ed? Maybe you should give one a try. They provide, as such is the beauty of the English language, alternative words so you don't need to become echolalic. If you really don't understand that withdrawing from your set course at the eleventh hour IS indeed, caving in, then I suggest maybe KS1 English might prove a challenge for you.

You lost your bet and as another poster said, your credibility - but I can't agree with that as IMO from the moment you dodged posts and twisted others comments (mine and aiyoyo's spring instantly to mind) - you had none to lose anyway!

by Guest 26.01.13 14:42

rainbow-fairy wrote:Another thread de-railed.
Mods, please, this is beyond tedious now.
Still, when I saw the thread was 8 pages long I should have guessed shouldn't I?

All the obfuscation, twisting and wriggling like a maggot on a hook won't change facts.

Ed, the McCanns were utterly determined to ruin Amaral IN COURt. So determined in fact it has been one of their main focuses for 4 years (whatever happened to "Nothing is more important to us than finding our little girl" I wonder?) The very day before said court date they withdraw. That IS 'caving in', whichever way you twist it or spin it. Have you heard of a thesaurus Ed? Maybe you should give one a try. They provide, as such is the beauty of the English language, alternative words so you don't need to become echolalic. If you really don't understand that withdrawing from your set course at the eleventh hour IS indeed, caving in, then I suggest maybe KS1 English might prove a challenge for you.

You lost your bet and as another poster said, your credibility - but I can't agree with that as IMO from the moment you dodged posts and twisted others comments (mine and aiyoyo's spring instantly to mind) - you had none to lose anyway!

ed1976 has been warned in my last post before yours rainbow-fairy. Sometimes it is good to let them have their say, guests looking in will see exactly the tactics being used, and how they try and wriggle out of things before them. They are damaging their own credibility.....keep at it I say[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by rainbow-fairy 26.01.13 14:54

Apologies Candy I must've been typing and missed your post :)

Not telling you how to do your job (which must drive you insane) just airing frustrations...

by Guest 26.01.13 14:55

monkey mind wrote:To fully appreciate the aptness of the lyrics one should crank up the volume.

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

All together now........

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

I think we've heard enough from the horse's mouth now - time for Mr Ed to be put out to pasture!

by aiyoyo 26.01.13 15:01

ed1976 wrote:
candyfloss wrote:ed1976, I am getting rather annoyed now, so if I were you I would give it a rest. You are talking nonsense. If the McCanns wanted to impose anything then all they had to do is go ahead with the trial, win, go past go, collect 1.2million, and impose anything they wanted as winners.........doh!!

Quote from letter by TB on first page of this thread.

“…I understand that the trial, which had been due to take place in January 2013, has been postponed at the request of the Claimants’ lawyer, to allow the parties to explore whether a settlement may be reached which gives the Claimants sufficient vindication and protection in the future”.

Which part of the sentence in red do you not understand? The McCanns will be asking for conditions from Amaral as part of the settlement.

Well, ednumbered, let's put it this way -
they may wish to try (have no doubt about that) but will be told to go fly kite (so to speak).

They are in no position to ask for anything let alone vindication because you conveniently forget they are the aggressors not victims.

by Guest 26.01.13 15:02

Summary so far.........

ed1976 believes in Father Christmas, tooth fairy and the world is flat, and will not be swayed.........oh and the phrase 'caved in' does not mean conceded.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by marxman 26.01.13 15:14

candyfloss wrote:Summary so far.........

ed1976 believes in Father Christmas, tooth fairy and the world is flat, and will not be swayed.........oh and the phrase 'caved in' does not mean conceded.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Maybe to a caveman 'caved in' just means living in a cave?

by rainbow-fairy 26.01.13 15:58

candyfloss wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:Another thread de-railed.
Mods, please, this is beyond tedious now.
Still, when I saw the thread was 8 pages long I should have guessed shouldn't I?

All the obfuscation, twisting and wriggling like a maggot on a hook won't change facts.

Ed, the McCanns were utterly determined to ruin Amaral IN COURt. So determined in fact it has been one of their main focuses for 4 years (whatever happened to "Nothing is more important to us than finding our little girl" I wonder?) The very day before said court date they withdraw. That IS 'caving in', whichever way you twist it or spin it. Have you heard of a thesaurus Ed? Maybe you should give one a try. They provide, as such is the beauty of the English language, alternative words so you don't need to become echolalic. If you really don't understand that withdrawing from your set course at the eleventh hour IS indeed, caving in, then I suggest maybe KS1 English might prove a challenge for you.

You lost your bet and as another poster said, your credibility - but I can't agree with that as IMO from the moment you dodged posts and twisted others comments (mine and aiyoyo's spring instantly to mind) - you had none to lose anyway!

ed1976 has been warned in my last post before yours rainbow-fairy. Sometimes it is good to let them have their say, guests looking in will see exactly the tactics being used, and how they try and wriggle out of things before them. They are damaging their own credibility.....keep at it I say[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I appreciate and understand your reasoning. My concern is the amount of times you yourself has personally warned ed1976, to no avail. Its like they are giving you the metaphorical middle finger and I don't like to see it. I'm sure guests contemplating joining us don't either (unless they have the same agenda of course). 'Ange' put it very well on the other thread too.

I don't believe ed needs anymore rope to hang him/herself, job was done on about post 5!
Just my opinion though, fwiw..... :)