Personal Abuse of members here on the Red Forum

[lookout]

I think only one of them is.  The angular mark on inside of her finger is probably from compression against a machined part (that has a corresponding angled edge). There is also smaller faint mark above it which is difficult to see. A secondary bruise?  Like the other marks, it appears on all images of her hand.

I would say that they were all " grip/pressure " marks,the same as if you were using scissors for cutting through a piece of carpet ( other than using the proper tools ) There is no doubt in my mind about such marks and I'm somewhat confused that nobody drew the same conclusions at such giveaway signs----------like handling the rifle.

[lookout]

Imagine my horror when I just happened to see,not one remark,but a full 6 page thread of abuse and bullying aimed at myself.
This had been made on September 29th 2012 !! to October 1st. 2017, 5 years of CYBERBULLYING !! If it wasn't enough that some idiot thought it clever to write a " poem ",EVERYONE joined in with some form of personal abuse.

I'm not letting this go and WILL report this !! I'm surprised at you John,a once upholder of the law,well we'll see where the law stands with this shall we ??

PS.My daughter works with the police !!

How much longer are you going to continue this CHARADE,Holly ? It's nonsensical and is also unacceptable ? RE : Online abuse and unfounded accusations. I would have thought that you'd have known better ? But alas how mistaken can one be ?? What's your problem ?

I don't see anything in that " adoption post  of 2013 " which contains libel of any description ? Explain !!
My personal opinion is permitted as as yours is,isn't it ?? 

I'm more than aware that if I'd posted anything which was deemed libellous,that NGB would have dealt with it particularly if another poster pm'd him to do so--------but to my knowledge that hasn't come about has it ?

I don't understand the " vulturous " attitude of all you posters on red, because I've done NOTHING to any of you to warrant this continuous slagging-off. Your the type who would shout the loudest if you were ganged up on-----------though the difference here on blue is that nobody here would behave in the way that you lot do. It's pointless,a waste of time and above all,CHILDISH and IMMATURE.
So you disagree with someone ? Does it give you carte blanche to abuse that person to the point of obsession and paranoia ? Because that's how I look at this situation------since 2012 !!

LOOK AT YOURSELVES------PATHETIC !!

Once and for all I'm having all my posts removed and will be leaving the forum so you'll have to find another vulnerable person to bully !!

[Roch]

Lookout - Don't let any of them grind you down.  There shouldn't be any sustained or heavy-handed targeting of any poster, either on their forum or ours.  Disagreements yes - targeting no.

[David1819]

Lookout - Don't let any of them grind you down.  There shouldn't be any sustained or heavy-handed targeting of any poster, either on their forum or ours.  Disagreements yes - targeting no.

Has lookout left? 

[Roch]

Has lookout left? 

I don't know -  maybe she's having some time-out.  Caroline and Jane also having time-out?  Not sure.

[Roch]

I see a member of both forums is boasting that somebody managed to get a fundraising event shut down.  Maybe the funds could have gone towards any forensic testing requested by CCRC.  Forensic testing that could clarify the circs of the deaths, including the two little boys. 

I'm not saying that's what the funding was for - but there is precedence for further tests being requested by CCRC - which the defence could then not afford to fund - effectively blocking off further understanding of events.

This is just my opinion but people who go out of their way to 'assist' and 'defend' the living relatives are actually showing utter contempt for the deceased relatives.  By supporting one group, you are not supporting the other group. 

If I remember, this same member was lecturing us recently about the credibility of DB's sworn testimony. 

[lookout]

I didn't know about any of this. What fund ? How awful-------but I'm not surprised by it at all as it would appear that someone is doing their best to block anything concerning the release of JB.
Nasty things happened concerning the McCann's too.

[Steve_uk]

I didn't know about any of this. What fund ? How awful-------but I'm not surprised by it at all as it would appear that someone is doing their best to block anything concerning the release of JB.
Nasty things happened concerning the McCann's too.

Apparently the crowdfunding has raised £12000. Nobody could object to denying the man justice. As far as Madeleine McCann is concerned I would have thought the parents could raise the money independently rather than rely yet again on the taxpayer. http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/local_news/15131766.Convicted_killer_____I_will_never_give_up_hope___/

[lookout]

Apparently the crowdfunding has raised £12000. Nobody could object to denying the man justice. As far as Madeleine McCann is concerned I would have thought the parents could raise the money independently rather than rely yet again on the taxpayer. http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/local_news/15131766.Convicted_killer_____I_will_never_give_up_hope___/

Wow,I wasn't aware of that either,but what was this latest fund-raiser about and how or where did it materialise,then was blocked and by whom ?
Not that I begrudge the McCann's from searching for their daughter but that case involving the Met does seem to detract from the JB case which appears to remain on the back burner when anything involving the Met,surfaces.
I must take a look on twitter for the up to date snippets.

[Roch]

I didn't know about any of this. What fund ? How awful-------but I'm not surprised by it at all as it would appear that someone is doing their best to block anything concerning the release of JB.

Yeah like I tried to express: in this case, you either support the living relatives or you respect the right of the deceased relatives to have the true facts of their deaths known.  But you can't do both.

[lookout]

Yeah like I tried to express: in this case, you either support the living relatives or you respect the right of the deceased relatives to have the true facts of their deaths known.  But you can't do both.

Yes,having read your post,I understand and agree.

[lookout]

I'm still not up to speed with this banning debacle and there doesn't appear to be anything in the press--------as you'd expect there to be given the circumstances of the funding ?

There's enough about the woman who'd phoned her relative in prison and got Jeremy instead ??
Also the " threat " to that author via the Scottish newspaper,so why is this different when it involves the same person ?

[Steve_uk]

I'm still not up to speed with this banning debacle and there doesn't appear to be anything in the press--------as you'd expect there to be given the circumstances of the funding ?

There's enough about the woman who'd phoned her relative in prison and got Jeremy instead ??
Also the " threat " to that author via the Scottish newspaper,so why is this different when it involves the same person ?

I think she received the call. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/terrified-woman-receives-phone-call-12094569

[lookout]

I think she received the call. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/terrified-woman-receives-phone-call-12094569

The thing is Steve that anything that goes against the grain re.JB  arouses my suspicion as to why these things are happening and by whom. It also smacks of sour grapes too that some sour-pussed individual can report such events and their aim in doing it. 
You wouldn't do it would you unless of course you were involved in blocking the man's freedom.?

[maggie]

The thing is Steve that anything that goes against the grain re.JB  arouses my suspicion as to why these things are happening and by whom. It also smacks of sour grapes too that some sour-pussed individual can report such events and their aim in doing it. 
You wouldn't do it would you unless of course you were involved in blocking the man's freedom.?

Just read this link. I don't see how Jeremy Bamber's name could come up on someone's phone unless the number was listed on that phone under his name. Guilty or innocent don't see how it could happen.  Why would the relative of another ureter in same prison have JBs name on her phone? There are a few obvious answers but none that would particularly frighten her.  Anyway, isn't JB in Wakefield now?  This must be an old story or has he been moved again?