The saga of the McCanns' appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

Its probably the human rights lawyer who would be the expense,way beyond the likes of their lawyers who failed three times to come up with the goods in Portugal.

Not that I dealt with anything so potentially serious but I'm reminded of how many years ago I worked for the Inland Revenue and it was my job to check out the validity of applications for rate reductions.

This was back in the days when all properties - business and residential - had ratable values on which the payable amount was based.

There were many claims from confused old dears (I wasn't one then) who just said that they couldn't afford to pay. These were invalid as the grounds for rate reductions were if a property was over-valued in comparison to other similar ones.

Rate rebates on the grounds of low income were a separate entity, dealt with by local councils. I had to return the invalid claims and, for some unknown reason, I wasn't allowed to say why or tell the old dears who they needed to contact instead, which led to dreadfully distressing letters, saying that nobody cared and they might as well be dead.

It was really bizarre; I should have stood up and insisted that they be told the reason.

Could it be a big clue that that parts of that article and those quotes from a "pal" are wrong/BS, Candyfloss?

I found this from the Laidbare blog a useful read

http://laidbareblog.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/what-next-for-mccanns.html

TheTruthWillOut wrote:Could it be a big clue that that parts of that article and those quotes from a "pal" are wrong/BS, Candyfloss?

Could be but I doubt that that bit is wrong. I think it is correct that it is free to apply but as Heisenberg pointed out it would of course be the lawyers that would be charging large fees and that would be expensive.

Makes it even more ridiculous if an expensive ECHR specific lawyer would be needed if by some miracle the application is granted. If no/not enough money is left in the coffers to pay for a granted case it makes it even more arrogant. If no such lawyer is needed I'm sure they still have a phalanx of lawyers on retainer(s) to take the case on?

As far as I understand it, the Mccanns are complaining about the Supreme Court saying that they have not been proved innocent.  They see this as a breach of their human rights. Their complaint cannot have any effect on the judgement itself or overturn any decisions of the court.

If the ECHR Accepts their case and finds in their favour, the court may award compensation (money raises its ugly head again) but will not overturn the original court's decision.

The ECHR applications are public but they can request anonymity when submitting their case.

If it's not money, I wonder if it's pr.

If the McCanns are expecting to be arrested, they could claim, via Clarence, that they went to the ECHR because they are innocent and that they are being victimised by the PJ because of the Supreme Court statement.

Just speculating

...and most likely wrong

...again

Scrants wrote:As far as I understand it, the Mccanns are complaining about the Supreme Court saying that they have not been proved innocent.  They see this as a breach of their human rights. Their complaint cannot have any effect on the judgement itself or overturn any decisions of the court.

Being as generous as I can, I'd say they have a point. Their current legal standing is fairly unique, as far as I know.

Another 'exclusive' from Tracey K.....

The expression "money for old rope" must have been created with the likes of Tracey K in mind.

To think that she gets paid for writing nonsense like this.......

No, GA is not spreading malicious lies, it's his professional opinion and that of his former police colleagues, based on the evidence of what was there.

Thanks to the tweeter JB Littlemore......



The more one reads the Court statement the more (& more!) fascinating its tone becomes ... what chance with ECHR?

Freedom wrote:The expression "money for old rope" must have been created with the likes of Tracey K in mind.

To think that she gets paid for writing nonsense like this.......

No, GA is not spreading malicious lies, it's his professional opinion and that of his former police colleagues, based on the evidence of what was there.

Agreed. Just shows what the MSM are up to though.....

I've said it before and I will say it again - I worked for a Murdoch organisation ages ago...ghastly place and there would literally be journalists sitting there tapping on their keyboards chanting: "Crap, crap, crap, crap....". They knew that most of what they wrote was rubbish and they didn't care. They thought it was funny.

And I guess if the sheeple general population believe what is written then more fool them. But does anyone believe what the McCanns and their friends have said? Apart from a few friends and family and a few press shrills?

As far as my understanding of the ECHR goes, the McCanns cannot sue an individual, nor can they have any previous decisions reversed or revised. So they are not suing GA, they are taking on the Portuguese justice system. Would any PT firm touch this with a barge pole?

unreorganised wrote:

Scrants wrote:As far as I understand it, the Mccanns are complaining about the Supreme Court saying that they have not been proved innocent.  They see this as a breach of their human rights. Their complaint cannot have any effect on the judgement itself or overturn any decisions of the court.

Being as generous as I can, I'd say they have a point. Their current legal standing is fairly unique, as far as I know.

I don`t think you do have to prove innocence (in the UK anyway). There`s no legal proceedings to go through that will prove you are innocent.  In the UK you are technically innocent until proven guilty.  I don`t know about Portugal.

If they take it to the ECHR you are innocent of a criminal charge until proved guilty but they`ve never been charged.

chirpyinsect wrote:As far as my understanding of the ECHR goes, the McCanns cannot sue an individual, nor can they have any previous decisions reversed or revised. So they are not suing GA, they are taking on the Portuguese justice system. Would any PT firm touch this with a barge pole?

Technically they don't need to use a Portuguese lawyer, they could use British lawyers who were licensed to practice in the European Court.

Yes I understand that Froggy. My point is I can't see a PT firm taking it on. Sure fire way to commit professional suicide.

They could always use Mrs Blair - she's a Human Rights lawyer.

Could the McCanns go back to the Portuguese courts to try and gag Mr Amaral until the appeal to the ECHR has been decided?

I'm struggling to see the reason for this appeal as it wasn't so long ago that they had admitted defeat and said that they wouldn't go to the ECHR.

Poe wrote:Could the McCanns go back to the Portuguese courts to try and gag Mr Amaral until the appeal to the ECHR has been decided?

I'm struggling to see the reason for this appeal as it wasn't so long ago that they had admitted defeat and said that they wouldn't go to the ECHR.

No, they have tried to gag him through the PT courts and failed - the final failure being the highest court in the country.  There is no way they can rake it up again in Portugal, it is all done and dusted. Imo.

Poe wrote:Could the McCanns go back to the Portuguese courts to try and gag Mr Amaral until the appeal to the ECHR has been decided?

I'm struggling to see the reason for this appeal as it wasn't so long ago that they had admitted defeat and said that they wouldn't go to the ECHR.

IMO this is a means of getting rid of their money - presumably to make any possible future action by GA pointless. I would assume they've already passed ownership of their property to 'safe hands' and I can't imagine they've not already paid their Portuguese legal team.

Overall, I feel this action is favourable to our view - they're clearing out their ill-gotten gains prior to something else happening.

Nothing coming up any time soon.

http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=hearings/calendar&c=#n1353927184398_pointer

No surprise there, Mr H.

As has been said already, it could be 4 years before the case is even looked at.