Nobody is singling you out for any malicious purpose. It's you who is making yourself a target with what you write and denying any member a reasonable right of reply lest we provoke a temper tantrum within, and contrary to your assertion that there is no such thing as free speech I'm writing things now which will be left by the moderators because it's a genuine point of view, even though it may be different from yours.
This is rubbish. I welcome constructive criticism. The problem is that you, Adam, Real Justice and others want to come on here and abuse people and hide behind the concepts of 'fair comment' and 'free speech' while doing so.
I think you'll find that the Forum Rules do not, in either letter or spirit, allow the style of posting that you consider to be 'free speech' and 'criticism'.
You know very well what my objection is but you, Real Justice and Adam continue with your abuse, which is why I treat you with absolute and total contempt.
That is the only way to respond to bullies.
You say you are 96% certain on a bad day (on a good day may I presume that that figure reaches as high as 100% or am I going to be wilfully attacked for this?) that Jeremy Bamber is guilty of five murders, yet you loathe childkillers, and Jeremy Bamber is not a predator?
How on earth can you subjoin those statements and expect people to accept them without question? How do you think they make Colin feel? He's a private person and probably will never register with this forum, so yes I am going to speak for him. It's the same with Julie. I'm putting forward their point of view. It's not a personal attack on you (or didn't start out that way), however hypersensitive you have become.
Here we have an example of your low intellect and ignorance. I have explained all this, over and over and over and over at length. You misrepresent me out of plain mischief, conflating two completely different issues: our general attitude to people who commit grave wrongs, on the one hand, and the standard of proof, on the other.
Why do you misrepresent me like this and seek to cause trouble? You do it because you are a bully and a troublemaker, plain and simple.
I deplore murderers, especially when the act is premeditated. People who murder children are abhorrent to me. But there is a requirement to prove the case in law, and unless the case is proved, then the accused must be acquitted and released.
In all criminal cases, the standard of proof is that a jury (or other trier of fact) must be sure. Sure is a synonym for 'beyond reasonable doubt'. There will always be a small element of doubt, in virtually every case, even when somebody is caught red-handed, but to convict the doubt must be minor or residual, or concern peripheral matters.
I use percentages to help understand this and I am not the only person who explains it this way. To me, 'beyond reasonable doubt' means you are 99% sure. You can never be 100% sure, for the reason given above: there will always be some doubt, even if only because we can't see inside somebody's mind. Anybody who says they are 100% sure is just arguing beyond reason.
My belief is that Jeremy is most probably guilty, which you could say is a certainty in excess of 90%, and is based on suspicion and intuition and some of the evidence, most of the points having been covered by myself in one or two threads I started.
But I am not 99% certain. The small amount of doubt is not minor doubt, it concerns quite important things, and as these discussions have gone on, I have to say, I am left unimpressed by the prosecution case and I am certainly not impressed by the guilt camp I encounter online.
You say Jeremy may have shot Sheila in bed, then stripped the bedclothes and started the laundry in an effort to clean up. Once again you are affronted because somebody challenges you on this ludicrous proposition.
I don't recall saying that Jeremy would have had to do the laundry. Couldn't he have just left the blooded sheets (if any) with other blooded sheets? I seem to recall reading that the police then burned all that evidence later that day or the day after.
It is not a ludicrous proposition.
You have made anti-semitic remarks on this site, followed by your own historical perspective of the Second World War (or did you thumb through some David Irving book?) that Adolf Hitler should have been granted a free ride in the East. Once again you have no concept of the offence you have caused not just the Jewish community but the ordinary citizen at large because often you don't follow through your arguments to their logical conclusion.
I have not made anti-Semitic remarks.
You are lying, as you have done previously. The form your lies take is to twist what I say into something shameful or offensive so that you can then attack me. You do this because you know you cannot defeat me in an argument. You're not clever enough.
I know the discussion you are referring to and I am confident I said nothing at all that was anti-Semitic.
You are a liar.
I wouldn't mind your posts if you didn't negatively comment on so many others',
My God, you are complete and total hypocrite! This very post of yours is an attack on me. Your hypocrisy is almost psychopathic. You seem to have no self-awareness at all.
Steve, the very reason for the trouble between us is because of your habit of commenting negatively on people's posts and being personal. You started all this.
not forgetting of course the number of regulars who have been put off posting altogether due to your new imposed rules of correct orthography at all times (another rule you Sir have broken on occasion).
You, again, lie. I have imposed no such rule.
Let me repeat: the only person here who has criticised spelling is YOU.
You are a bare-faced liar.
Please also post a list of the people I have offended. I am virtually certain it will be a list of people who attacked me first.
Some of your posts and some of your reasoning I have enjoyed, but it's getting to the stage now where the impact of you as a member of this site may reach a tipping point where the negativity does outweigh the undoubted postive contribution you have at times have made.
Again, can I remind you of the following:
(i). this is not your forum;
(ii). you have no authority over me or anybody else here, or (probably) anybody anywhere.
You are just a nobody.
Furthermore, can I remind you that it was your own behaviour that kicked-off the conflagration between us. You are the one who started all this. I'm simply responding to your behaviour, Steve.
Likewise, I am sarcastic to Adam because Adam is sarcastic to me and other people he disagrees with. I am simply responding to Adam's behaviour by dishing out to him what he dishes out to others.
It's called culture.
If the culture is toxic, then that is how people will behave.
I think your real problem is that you have been getting away with toxic behaviour for years and you've become comfortable and you're not used to being called-out on it and challenged, and if we're honest, I think the moderators have been indulgent with you.
They are not coming to your rescue any more, and since you're only getting what you've been dishing out to others, you have no basis for complaint.
