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?

No comments: