Saturday, 29 September 2018

“Sky News says nooooo”


One of my preferred sketches of “Little Britain” is the one where a bank client gets some information about a new offer, that included a overdraft of 10 thousand pounds and free travel insurance. “Sounds great”, says the client to the bank clerk, accepting the offer. The bank clerk types in the keyboard, two or three times, looks at the screen and than, with a blank expression in the face, tells the client: “Computer says noooo...”
The same happened with me, in my attempt to get two video-clips of two newscasts from Sky News.
On May 28th I sent a email to the “Sky News Library Sales”, asking them authorization to reproduce two videos that are not available in Internet (and also to get copies of the video-clips) of two newscasts from Andrew Wilson and Martin Brunt, on September 11th and 12th, 2007.
I had a quick answer, next day, from Mr. Matt Reynolds, explaining me that the right to reproduce those videos, for one year, in my blog, would cost me 750 pounds. I send them a detailed indication about the hour and day of the newscasts I was searching for, on June 1st.
In the first newscast, Andrew Wilson said, on September 11th 2007, in front of the Portimão Court building: “Today, the Spanish police sent the files of the investigation of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann to the magistrate in charge of the case.”
The second newscast was broadcast at 4:00 am of September 12th, 2007, and it was the public confession of Mr. Martin Brunt that his “breaking story” about “Portuguese police” having already the results of the analysis made by Forensic Science Service that showed “three 100% matches of Madeleine McCann DNA”, one of them in a sample taken from the boot of the Renault Scenic, “was burnt out…”
On September 8th, Sky News they sent me the logs of those two clips, to confirm if it was what I wanted. I said no, they were completely wrong, that content did not matched with what I watched on Sky News.
On that same day, Mr. Bill (?), from Sky News and Sport Library Sales, sent me this message:
Yes, I’m sure that your recollection of what you viewed on Sky News is correct but unfortunately we do not have a recording of those moments that you are looking for as at that time we did not keep all 24 hours of our output every day. All we have from those days is what is in the logs we sent unfortunately.”
So, “Little Britain” at its best: “Sky News says nooooo...”

A very, very interesting reading, from a blog of Ben Salmon

Gerry’s records I: Gonçalo Amaral proven right?
"I’m undecided on whether to make this a series, or just a one off blog. As many will be aware I have itemised the entirety of Gerald McCann’s Portuguese call records, as provided by Vodafone in December 2007, to the best extent of my abilities/resources. In the process of doing so I have come across many names, some known, some unknown and some whose relevance I have yet to quantify. The following calls I will present are very much names we know; and perhaps more importantly, are calls which the PJ did not know about at the time (...)"


Tuesday, 25 September 2018

Another probably emotionally unbalanced McCann supporter banging her head against a wall?


The McCann Portuguese lawyers, according to Clarence Mitchell, lodged an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights, claiming that both the ruling of Portuguese Supreme Court that overthrew the initial decision to ban the book of GA [and froze hiss assets and ordered him to pay 430 thousand pounds of compensation to Madeleine's parents] and the ruling [of the same Supreme Court] that rejected an appeal of the McCann, against that sentence, were a violation of their fundamental Human Rights.

I don't believe that Mr. Carlos Abreu and Rogério Alves are working on this case. They have a brain, they are brilliant lawyers and they are stable persons, from a emotional and psychological point of view. So, who remains as a possible lawyer, in this Case? Mrs. Isabel Duarte, who showed, in the past, with some strange attitudes of persecution of GA, out of courts and far beyond her lawyer duties, that she needed some help and advise from experts. In 2010, for example, on her final allegations of an appeal about an injunction related with the McCann case and GA book, she called defense lawyers “'vultures and vampires”...

It's curious that, the two rulings of Portuguese Supreme Court, acquitting GA and refusing to accept an appeal against that sentence [thanks to Pamalan blog], both quote the European Convention on Human Rights and jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights, in similar cases, related with the right to freedom of expression being considered, by someone, to be defamatory or reason for causing damages and asking for a compensation. Some specific information on ECHR about this subject:

1 - Art. 10 on ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) – Freedom of expression


    Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.”


It's also curious that jurisprudence established in previous rulings of ECHR, about the confrontation between Freedom of Expression and other rights, goes completely against the McCann:

Handyside v United Kingdom (5493/72) was a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights in 1976. Its conclusion contains the famous phrase that 'Freedom of expression...is applicable not only to 'information' or 'ideas' that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population" (Para. 49 of the judgment).”

Spycatcher: The Candid Autobiography of a Senior Intelligence Officer (1987) is a book written by Peter Wright, former MI5 officer and Assistant Director, and co-author Paul Greengrass. It was published first in Australia. Its allegations proved scandalous on publication, but more so because the British Government attempted to ban it, ensuring its profit and notoriety.[1]

The UK government attempted to halt the book's Australian publication. Malcolm Turnbull, later Prime Minister of Australia, represented the publisher that defeated the British government's suppression orders against Spycatcher in Australia in September 1987, and again on appeal in June 1988. The legal costs to the British Government was estimated at £250,000.[4]

Eventually, in 1988, the book was cleared for legitimate sale when the Law Lords acknowledged that overseas publication meant it contained no secrets.[3] However, Wright was barred from receiving royalties from the sale of the book in the United Kingdom. In November 1991, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the British government had breached the European Convention of Human Rights in gagging its own newspapers.[8][9]

The book has sold more than two million copies.[3] In 1995, Wright died a millionaire from proceeds of his book.[10]

So, it looks like the McCann and Mrs. Isabel Duarte are shooting not their own feet, but their heads, close range, using a double barrel shotgun, with the barrels cut short...

Monday, 24 September 2018

A group of what seems to be mentally handicapped people trying to act as British journalists


Quotes from stories published, in the last few days, byDaily Mail”, “The Sun”, “The Irish Mirror”, “Daily Star” and “Daily Express”, signed by Charlotte Dean, Nick Pisa, Charlie Moore, James Murray, Jerry Lawton and Alan Selby – the group of people that seems to be mentally handicapped, trying to act as journalists, as I mention in the tittle of this post:

(...) Public fund to find Madeleine McCann could be WIPED OUT if Kate and Gerry are forced to pay £750,000 to detective who claimed they covered up her death in upcoming court case (…) Parents Kate and Gerry are fighting to avoid paying £750,000 to the ex-detective who shamefully claimed they were responsible for her death (..) Figures show that there is £728,508 left in the pot used to fund the search for Madeleine, which is mostly made up of public donations (…) That could all go if the decision to award Amaral £430,000 is upheld - with the McCann paying costs on top (…) The McCann won a libel case against Amaral in 2015 and he was ordered to pay them 250,000 euros (£209,000) each in damages. But this was overturned on appeal and that decision upheld in another court this April, meaning Amaral is now able to sue the McCann for damages potentially totaling tens of thousands of pounds (…) They were initially awarded £430,000 in libel damages. 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 (…) If Madeleine’s parents lose this challenge they face a double legal whammy as Mr Amaral has signaled his intention to sue them for damages to his reputation, potentially putting at risk some of the £746,152 in the McCann’s Maddie Fund (…) The couple have now gone to the European Court of Human Rights to try to get the ruling [of Portuguese Supreme Court] overturned (…) If they lose the case the pair will be forced to pay Gonçalo Amaral £750,000, after he made a bid to sue them for compensation (…) So far no money has been paid by either party and now they will square up to each other at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (…) The legal battle between Kate and Gerry McCann and former Portuguese police chief Gonçalo Amaral may end with a face-to-face confrontation at the European Court of Human Rights (…) They now wait for the date of their Strasbourg showdown with Amaral to be confirmed (…)”

Why do I admit the possibility that Charlotte Dean, Nick Pisa, Charlie Moore, James Murray, Jerry Lawton and Alan Selby can be mentally handicapped people trying to act as journalists:

1 – According to them, the Fund for the search of Madeleine McCann could be wiped out if or because:
a) The McCann “are forced to pay £750,000”, to Gonçalo Amaral, just like that, with no specific reason mentioned;
b) “If the decision to award Amaral £430,000 is upheld” (What decision? From what court?);
c) Because “Amaral is now able to sue the McCann for damages”;
d) “If they [the McCann] lose the case” lodged with the European Court of Human Rights;
e) “As Mr Amaral has signaled his intention to sue them [the McCann] for damages”;
f) Because Amaral “made a bid to sue them for compensation”;

So, there is already a “decision to award Amaral £430,000”, decision that could be upheld by the European Court of Human Rights, but there is no mention about what court passed that sentence, when and in what country it happened. It seems also that there is no court decision at all, because Amaral only is “now able to sue the McCann for damages”, has only “signaled his intention to sue them” and only “made a bid to sue them for compensation” - no reference at all about Amaral having already sued the McCann for damages. So, Amaral has not filed any case against the McCann, according these newspapers? The McCann will have to pay damages to Mr. Amaral only if “they lose the case (…) lodged with the European Court of Human Rights”?

That group of people that seems to be mentally handicapped, trying to act as journalists, also wrote about what is coming, in a near future:

a) Amaral and the McCann “will square up to each other at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg “;
b) (…) The legal battle between Kate and Gerry McCann and (...) Gonçalo Amaral may end with a face-to-face confrontation at the European Court of Human Rights”;
c) They [the McCann] now wait for the date of their Strasbourg showdown with Amaral to be confirmed (…)”;

It's difficult to be more ignorant about the European Court of Human Rights. Probably, because that group of what seems to be mentally handicapped people, trying to act as journalists, doesn't know what is a computer and don't even imagine what is Google.

The European Court of Human Rights is a supranational or international court established by the European Convention on Human Rights. The court hears applications alleging that a contracting State has breached one or more of the human rights provisions concerning civil and political rights set out in the Convention and its protocols. An application can be lodged by an individual, a group of individuals, or one or more of the other contracting states. The Convention was adopted within the context of the Council of Europe, and all of its 47 member states are contracting parties to the Convention.” (Wikipédia)

This means that:

a) Any person who feels his or her rights have been violated under the European Convention on Human Rights, by a State member, can take a case to the Court ;
b) Any individual can lodge a complain, but only against a State Member, never against another individual, group of individuals, institution, corporation or company;
c) A State member can lodge a case against another State member;
c) A case will not be considered admissible where an applicant has not suffered a "significant disadvantage”;
d) A case may be inadmissible when “there is a lapse of six months from the last internal decision [taken by institutions of a State Member] complained of”;
e) The European Court of Human Rights has no power to overthrow any decision of a domestic court from a State member, only to issue sentences to order that State to pay compensation for the damage the plaintiff/plaintiffs may have sustained, due to a decision - or lack of it - from a court or from the Judicial system of a State member, and also pay for legal expenses incurred in domestic courts and with the European Court of Human Rights, in bringing the case;
f) Even after the case is addmited, by a rapporteur judge, a Chamber of the Court can still rule that the application is inadmissible;

Now, a final question: why do British newspapers hire what seems to be mentally handicapped people, pretending and/or accepting they can work as journalists?

Friday, 21 September 2018

Gonçalo Amaral: “Daily Mail” story is “completely false”





"The news published by the Daily Mail and other British newspapers about an alleged lawsuit I have brought against the McCann is completely false. I did not file any lawsuit or demand any compensation from the McCann", Gonçalo Amaral told us, today, after questioned about a story published by that tabloid, saying that the McCann may have to pay him 750,000 pounds for compensation because of a complaint filed by him, wiping out the Fund for the search of Maddie.

"The case reported by the 'Daily Mail' concerns a complaint filled by the McCann themselves with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg against the Portuguese State. If that court decides any compensation must be paid, it can only be payed to them, by the Portuguese State, for failures of the Portuguese Justice system. If they lose the case, they will never, under any circumstances, have to pay any compensation to anyone”, said the former investigator of Polícia Judiciária.

Gonçalo Amaral also told us that "in the next few days" he will file a formal complaint against the Daily Mail and other British newspapers, which printed the same story, with the Independent Press Standards Organization (IPSO), a self-regulatory entity of the British Press.

"The McCann Fund never paid me anything, just paid - and a lot – to private lawyers and detectives to investigate me and file complaints against me, which is a utilization of that Fund that I don't see is compatible with its legally defined purpose - the search for Madeleine McCann", said Gonçalo Amaral.