I lost most of my respect for you some time ago when you stated that Jeremy Bamber wasn't a predator. I suppose we have to take the rough with the smooth with you as at least you admit you have no formal education. Ngb1066 has no such excuse and made a fool of himself on the George Blake thread, sad to say.
Certainly you prove that a formal education is no indicator of intelligence. Like most teachers, you talk utter drivel about subjects you clearly know next-to-nothing about.
The point, which I also made to another user on here, is that there is no place in law for the attitude of 'The lady is not for turning'. We must always be open-minded about facts, evidence and argument.
That means if the facts show Jeremy is guilty, then he is guilty.
If I am dogmatic, it is about due process of law. I will defend that to the last - even for somebody like you.
In my view, he wasn't a predator. But from the 'discussions' (if it can be called that) we had about it, it was immediately clear you had not the first understanding of what I was talking about. You are, generally-speaking, less concerned with understanding my point-of-view - be it right or wrong - and more concerned with showboating as a self-appointed moral crusader and advocate for people you have never met. This makes 'debate' impossible. Arguing from outrage and/or incredulity is not real argument. I'm only surprised you haven't changed your avatar to a shaming bell.
