Quotes
from stories published, in the last few days, by
“Daily
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?