Jeremy Bamber Forum
DISCLAIMER AND FORUM RULES => Disclaimer and forum rules and guidelines => Topic started by: Patti on October 08, 2014, 07:41:PM
-
Can we please attack the post and not the person behind the post please. Thank you.
-
Can we please attack the post and not the person behind the post please. Thank you.
Good advice...
-
ok :)
-
A good reminder, Patti. I do feel bad for Susan who has had it from all corners when posting quotes on CC's book - you'd think that CC knew what he was talking about when it comes to Sheila.....Pretty sure he was married to her. ;D ;D
-
A good reminder, Patti. I do feel bad for Susan who has had it from all corners when posting quotes on CC's book - you'd think that CC knew what he was talking about when it comes to Sheila.....Pretty sure he was married to her. ;D ;D
I was not aware that Susan has been upset about anything Mat. There is a report button out there, I suggest people use it they are unhappy about anything that has been posted to them. This will at lease get our attention. Its impossible to read every post as you know.
I don't like bullying of any kind or name calling. Attack the post by all means but leave the personal bits out... ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I was not aware that Susan has been upset about anything Mat. There is a report button out there, I suggest people use it they are unhappy about anything that has been posted to them. This will at lease get our attention. Its impossible to read every post as you know.
Ah, you must of missed her post yesterday - I agree it is hard to read everything. I don't envy you at all being mod, I think you are brave - we all saw the abuse Caroline and April got. I am sure people have faith in you. :)
-
Mr & Mrs Bamber and the children of Sheila have living relatives who may read this forum. It can be hurtful to them when poster are referring to them. Please be more sensitive when you are discussing them.
Times are changing on the internet and rightly so. There is a major clamp down on undignified attacks, abuse and bullying. Any poster that says anything bad about the families concerned will find there posts censored or removed.
If you feel strongly that a poster has done this then please press the report button. If you wish to contact admin or mods please copy us all in so that we are all aware of the situation.
Thanks.
-
Mr & Mrs Bamber and the children of Sheila have living relatives who may read this forum. It can be hurtful to them when poster are referring to them. Please be more sensitive when you are discussing them.
Times are changing on the internet and rightly so. There is a major clamp down on undignified attacks, abuse and bullying. Any poster that says anything bad about the families concerned will find there posts censored or removed.
If you feel strongly that a poster has done this then please press the report button. If you wish to contact admin or mods please copy us all in so that we are all aware of the situation.
Thanks.
I take it that includes Jackie Preece making speculative comments on the state of Mrs Smerchanski's marriage? Pretty low behaviour imo.
-
I take it that includes Jackie Preece making speculative comments on the state of Mrs Smerchanski's marriage? Pretty low behaviour imo.
Where? I have not seen any suggestion of this.
-
Where? I have not seen any suggestion of this.
www.jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5962.msg265299.html#msg265299
-
Hello ngb in a post to me Jackie said Julie had now got her comeuppance and if I wanted to know what it was to ask my mate the author :) anyone else who asked she said "I'll pm you" she loves her little secrets :'(
-
www.jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5962.msg265299.html#msg265299
This is a very vague suggestion and I am led to believe it does not relate to Julie Mugford's marital status. It would be far better to post relevant factual information rather than drop hints on the forum. Hints can be misinterpreted.
-
I take it that includes Jackie Preece making speculative comments on the state of Mrs Smerchanski's marriage? Pretty low behaviour imo.
I take that is a joke John?
I have not mentioned Mugfords marriage
You need to go back to your own forum and revisit the vile disgusting posts YOU allowed about Grahames daughter when she was critically ill
While you are here do you want to post an open apology to Grahame
And you are defending Mugford I have seen it all now
-
This is a very vague suggestion and I am led to believe it does not relate to Julie Mugford's marital status. It would be far better to post relevant factual information rather than drop hints on the forum. Hints can be misinterpreted.
I'm sure you will agree that any attempt to malign a Crown witness even after 28 years is a serious matter? Does this extend to former senior police officers who were involved in the Bamber case and who now find themselves the subject of unwanted attention in their retirement?
-
I'm sure you will agree that any attempt to malign a Crown witness even after 28 years is a serious matter? Does this extend to former senior police officers who were involved in the Bamber case and who now find themselves the subject of unwanted attention in their retirement?
Of course you would include Taff Jones in that comment, who has been called many things since?
-
Of course you would include Taff Jones in that comment, who has been called many things since?
Difficult without a doubt as he has been dead for over 20 years.
-
I'm sure you will agree that any attempt to malign a Crown witness even after 28 years is a serious matter? Does this extend to former senior police officers who were involved in the Bamber case and who now find themselves the subject of unwanted attention in their retirement?
In what way? There is no difference between someone who has been a prosecution witness and any other person. If they are defamed they have the right to sue for slander, or in the case of something on the internet, for libel. If they have sufficient grounds they can obtain an injunction (now called a restraining order), damages and costs.
I very much doubt if Julie Mugford will sue anyone for libel, for various reasons.
-
In what way? There is no difference between someone who has been a prosecution witness and any other person. If they are defamed they have the right to sue for slander, or in the case of something on the internet, for libel. If they have sufficient grounds they can obtain an injunction (now called a restraining order), damages and costs.
I very much doubt if Julie Mugford will sue anyone for libel, for various reasons.
The main one possibly being the truth may come out? Nono I didn't say that. The divil made me do it. ;D
-
In what way? There is no difference between someone who has been a prosecution witness and any other person. If they are defamed they have the right to sue for slander, or in the case of something on the internet, for libel. If they have sufficient grounds they can obtain an injunction (now called a restraining order), damages and costs.
I very much doubt if Julie Mugford will sue anyone for libel, for various reasons.
Is that your professional opinion as a member of the English bar?
-
In what way? There is no difference between someone who has been a prosecution witness and any other person. If they are defamed they have the right to sue for slander, or in the case of something on the internet, for libel. If they have sufficient grounds they can obtain an injunction (now called a restraining order), damages and costs.
I very much doubt if Julie Mugford will sue anyone for libel, for various reasons.
So it is ok to malign Julie Mugford on here because she testified against Jeremy Bamber? Are you really saying that?
-
Is that your professional opinion as a member of the English bar?
It is my opinion. What point are you trying to make?
-
It is my opinion. What point are you trying to make?
The point is very simple. Jackie Preece is attempting to smear Julie Mugford by introducing recent personal events which have absolutely no relevance to or bearing on the WHF murders. Julie has worked extremely hard over the last 28 years and achieved a position of great responsibility within the Canadian education system. Cheap-shot attempts to slur her are shameless imo.
-
So it is ok to malign Julie Mugford on here because she testified against Jeremy Bamber? Are you really saying that?
Any discussion about the case is likely to involve criticism of people involved in the case. In the case of Julie Mugford even those who believe Jeremy Bamber to be guilty have strong criticisms of her conduct. She does not come out of this well at all and it is perfectly permissable to express opinions on this.
-
The point is very simple. Jackie Preece is attempting to smear Julie Mugford by introducing recent personal events which have absolutely no relevance to the WHF murders.
I have already said that if anyone including Jackie Preece has any relevant information it should be posted, rather than hints being dropped which are liable to misinterpretation. If anything is posted about people not connected with the case, such as Julie Mugford's husband and children, that will be removed.
-
The point is very simple. Jackie Preece is attempting to smear Julie Mugford by introducing recent personal events which have absolutely no relevance to or bearing on the WHF murders. Julie has worked extremely hard over the last 28 years and achieved a position of great responsibility within the Canadian education system. Cheap-shot attempts to slur her are shameless imo.
If the Canadian authorities had known of the matters which have come to light about her conduct she would not have been allowed into Canada and would certainly not have been able to achieve a responsible position with the education system. She was extremely lucky not to have been prosecuted for several serious criminal offences.
-
If the Canadian authorities had known of the matters which have come to light about her conduct she would not have been allowed into Canada and would certainly not have been able to achieve a responsible position with the education system. She was extremely lucky not to have been prosecuted for several serious criminal offences.
You cant honestly believe that for a moment? Don't you realise she would have been assisted in her emigration by the witness protection programme.
Remind me, what crimes was she was convicted of?
-
You cant honestly believe that for a moment? Don't you realise she would have been assisted in her emigration by the witness protection programme.
I certainly do believe it.
I have never heard anything about her entering a witness protection programme. What is your evidence for that? Who was she being protected from - Jeremy Bamber was serving a life sentence!
-
I certtainly do believe it.
I have never heard anything about her entering a witness protection programme. What is your evidence for that? Who was she being protected from - Jeremy Bamber was serving a life sentence!
Why did she require a very public police escort during the trial?
-
Remind me, what crimes was she was convicted of?
None, because she was given immunity from prosecution in return for giving evidence against Jeremy Bamber.
-
Why did she require a very public police escort during the trial?
They were keeping her very close to them. They wanted to make sure she stuck to her text.
-
They were keeping her very close to them. They wanted to make sure she stuck to her text.
The truth you mean?
-
None, because she was given immunity from prosecution in return for giving evidence against Jeremy Bamber.
Prosecution for what exactly?
-
You cant honestly believe that for a moment? Don't you realise she would have been assisted in her emigration by the witness protection programme.
I don't think she was on the protection programme John. She married a Canadian and did not go over to Canada immediately after the trial. It might have been a year later.
Can I also say, that I think Jackie and Grahame have a lot of substance in what they have said regarding bullying.
It is not very often you witness a poster over here slinging nasty comments to your members. Yet I fail to understand how you can allow any of your members to say the most vile and hurtful things about our members over here. It is happening on a daily basis and nothing is done to rectify their behaviour. Yet they fell it is right to complain about our members who go slightly over the top sometimes when they post...What they say cannot ever be compared to what we have seen recently and in the past on your forum.
I suggest get your own house in order before you have the right to complain about our house. When that is achieved then and then can we all move forward.
One of these days someone is going to get into serious trouble for the things that they are saying...they might not think it will happen to them, but believe me it will come if the vile is not stopped.
I don't want to cause unhappiness. I would like to think that a truce can be made, but it will only ever happen if the abuse stops, full stop.
John you have a lot of members on your forum who are there to debate in a genuine manner. It is good for the your forum. Why does that have to be spoiled by vile of the lowest standards.
-
Good grief! Is he still here? ???
-
Is that clear enough for you John????
On her own admission she tried to murder Jeremy and carried out numerous planned robberies in Oxford Street
I suppose she must have got this off her chest and told her prospective employers in case it came back to haunt her later on
That would be the right thing to do don't you think John
-
I don't think she was on the protection programme John. She married a Canadian and did not go over to Canada immediately after the trial. It might have been a year later.
Can I also say, that I think Jackie and Grahame have a lot of substance in what they have said regarding bullying.
It is not very often you witness a poster over here slinging nasty comments to your members. Yet I fail to understand how you can allow any of your members to say the most vile and hurtful things about our members over here. It is happening on a daily basis and nothing is done to rectify their behaviour. Yet they fell it is right to complain about our members who go slightly over the top sometimes when they post...What they say cannot ever be compared to what we have seen recently and in the past on your forum.
I suggest get your own house in order before you have the right to complain about our house. When that is achieved then and then can we all move forward.
One of these days someone is going to get into serious trouble for the things that they are saying...they might not think it will happen to them, but believe me it will come if the vile is not stopped.
I don't want to cause unhappiness. I would like to think that a truce can be made, but it will only ever happen if the abuse stops, full stop.
John you have a lot of members on your forum who are there to debate in a genuine manner. It is good for the your forum. Why does that have to be spoiled by vile of the lowest standards.
So it is alright for Jacke Preece to abuse Julie Smerchanski and boast about damaging her very successful career simply because she testified against a killer 28 years ago?
Is it alright for Grahame to make threats of violence against me? Maybe I should call with plod in Maldon?
-
Is that clear enough for you John????
On her own admission she tried to murder Jeremy and carried out numerous planned robberies in Oxford Street
I suppose she must have got this off her chest and told her prospective employers in case it came back to haunt her later on
That would be the right thing to do don't you think John
Planned robberies in Oxford St ? Source please.
She said in her WS she put a pillow over his head. Then took it off. Not sure that is attempted murder.
-
Planned robberies in Oxford St ? Source please.
She said in her WS she put a pillow over his head. Then took it off. Not sure that is attempted murder.
Don't appear xxxxxxx Adam. That's where she stole all the stuff from.
-
Is that clear enough for you John????
On her own admission she tried to murder Jeremy and carried out numerous planned robberies in Oxford Street
I suppose she must have got this off her chest and told her prospective employers in case it came back to haunt her later on
That would be the right thing to do don't you think John
So she stuck a pillow over his face... big WOW!! Not exactly the same as shooting two babies in the head somehow. Robberies? Didn't Jerry rob Osea Caravan Park and take Julie along for kicks?
Didn't the cheque book belong to Susan Battersby?
Maybe you refer to the cannabis exploits?
-
The truth you mean?
That depends upon your viewpoint on the case.
-
That depends upon your viewpoint on the case.
Not at all, the truth never changes regardless of ones viewpoint. You see the truth is that Jeremy Bamber is a cold blooded murderer and a double child killer at that. No amount of sanctimonious garbage about witnesses who testified against him will ever change that.
-
So it is alright for Jacke Preece to abuse Julie Smerchanski and boast about damaging her very successful career simply because she testified against a killer 28 years ago?
Is it alright for Grahame to make threats of violence against me?
John
JM has made a success of her life and that is important to her and her family now, not what happened 30 years ago. We talk about the case, so it is inevitable that her name is mentioned on a daily basis. The whole forum is guilty of saying things about JM but Jackie gets the blame. Why is that? JM's life and family should not be brought onto the forum, this I can slightly agree about. I doubt this forum can damage anyones career 30 years after the crime.
I have never seen or witnessed Grahame making threats of violence towards you or anyone John. What I have witnessed is constant abuse thrown at Grahame and his dear family members on your forum, not only once but on regular basis. This being most horrendous, vile and cruelest posts on the whole internet.
-
Don't appear stupid Adam. That's where she stole all the stuff from.
You mean she used the stolen cheque to buy items in Oxford Street ? Not exactly a planned robbery.
-
John if your interested in the truth the caravan robbery was more that likely Mugfords ideas like the Oxford street robberies
She was s very experienced con artist and their
She wanted Jeremy dead she said so
Your boyfriend loses interest in you so you attempt to kill him????
Wake up it's hardly normal
Did you enjoy seeing her pictures in the paper?
Maybe you've got a soft spot for her
-
Prosecution for what exactly?
Perverting or attempting to pervert the course of justice
Burglary
Obtainining a pecuiary advantage by deception/theft
Possession of drugs
Supplying drugs
Importation of drugs
Is that enough for you?
-
John
JM has made a success of her life and that is important to her and her family now, not what happened 30 years ago. We talk about the case, so it is inevitable that her name is mentioned on a daily basis. The whole forum is guilty of saying things about JM but Jackie gets the blame. Why is that? JM's life and family should not be brought onto the forum, this I can slightly agree about. I doubt this forum can damage anyones career 30 years after the crime.
I have never seen or witnessed Grahame making threats of violence towards you or anyone John. What I have witnessed is constant abuse thrown at Grahame and his dear family members on your forum, not only once but on regular basis. This being most horrendous, vile and cruelest posts on the whole internet.
Maybe it is because Preece has already partaken in campaigns to destroy her and boasted about it publicly on this very forum. Maybe I should post some of the old screenshots as a reminder?
That goes for Grahame too, just because you weren't around or didn't see them doesn't mean it didn't happen. Why don't you ask Grahame to deny it? :)
-
Maybe it is because Preece has already partaken in campaigns to destroy her and boasted about it publicly on this very forum. Maybe I should post some of the old screenshots as a reminder?
[/color]
Maybe that not good practice John...
-
That goes for Grahame too, just because you weren't around or didn't see them doesn't mean it didn't happen. Why don't you ask Grahame to deny it? :)
I do not remember seeing this either. Are you suggesting that there was a direct threat of physical violence against you?
-
John if your interested in the truth the caravan robbery was more that likely Mugfords ideas like the Oxford street robberies
She was s very experienced con artist and their
She wanted Jeremy dead she said so
Your boyfriend loses interest in you so you attempt to kill him????
Wake up it's hardly normal
Did you enjoy seeing her pictures in the paper?
Maybe you've got a soft spot for her
Wrong as usual, did you ever read lover boys statements? He said he did it so that he could buy nice things to furnish his cottage. Nothing to do with Julie unless of course he did it to impress her as he did with everyone else. The cheque book belonged to Battersby, who signed the cheques?
-
I do not remember seeing this either. Are you suggesting that there was a direct threat of physical violence against you?
Threatening to shoot someone usually counts as physical violence? :)
-
You are denying Mugfords a con artist
If Jeremy was guilty she fooled everyone
For a month
I haven't set out to destroy
Mugford
You blamed Simon McKay and tried to tarnish his reputation
The truth will come out it always does
-
Not at all, the truth never changes regardless of ones viewpoint. You see the truth is that Jeremy Bamber is a cold blooded murderer and a double child killer at that. No amount of sanctimonious garbage about witnesses who testified against him will ever change that.
I rather think that you are the sanctimonious one.
-
You are denying Mugfords a con artist
If Jeremy was guilty she fooled everyone
For a month
I haven't set out to destroy
Mugford
You blamed Simon McKay and tried to tarnish his reputation
The truth will come out it always does
Yes, he tried the same as you did by getting the Canadian press involved. Where is he now and his boast to get Bamber out?
-
Threatening to shoot someone usually counts as physical violence? :)
It certainly does. Are you suggesting that there was a genuine threat to shoot you? If so, did you report it to the police? They take such threats very seriously.
-
I always thought it was Jeremy who robbed the caravan site.
Jackie has kindly told us Julie pressurised him to do this. Poor Jeremy. Although Jeremy did not testify this.
Julie also apparently tried to murder Jeremy and robbed high street stores. Was a 20 year old student drug smuggler and dealer.
Guess Jeremy should not have gone out with her.
-
It certainly does. Are you suggesting that there was a genuine threat to shoot you? If so, did you report it to the police? They take such threats very seriously.
One never knows when dealing with potentially unstable individuals. Just look at Jeremy Bamber and what he did.
I notice Monsieur G isn't denying it? :) :) :)
Well must go now or as big Jim in Corrie would say >> CHEERIO NÕW!
-
One never knows when dealing with potentially unstable individuals. Just look at Jeremy Bamber and what he did.
I notice Monsieur G isn't denying it? :) :) :)
That does not answer my question.
-
I do not remember seeing this either. Are you suggesting that there was a direct threat of physical violence against you?
I'm afraid the threats were the other way round Neil. That was one of the reasons for Jackie and myself going to the police. Tim whatsisname said he was round my way on a certain day and that perhaps he might come and see me. He never turned up. I never threaten or am abusive to anyone except in order to defend myself or others. He started this thing and he's trying to justify his vile abuse against Bambers supporters who in his perverted mind sees as supporters of a child killer. Asfar as I am concerned he acts like a xxxx and takes things to extreme.
-
One never knows when dealing with potentially unstable individuals. Just look at Jeremy Bamber and what he did.
I notice Monsieur G isn't denying it? :) :) :)
Well must go now or as big Jim in Corrie would say >> CHEERIO NÕW!
Because it is a rediculous accusation. Are you prepare to stand up in court and accuse me of it? I can certainly give you the opportunity.
-
You're a liar Mr G. You said you were sending Gav round to shoot us!!!
Do you have a screenshot? I remember the Gav posts but I do not recall any suggestion that he was going to shoot you.
-
Do you have a screenshot? I remember the Gav posts but I do not recall any suggestion that he was going to shoot you.
Its a silly suggestion Neil. He is just using that in order to justify his vile torrential abuse against me and my family. But the police didn't do anything. I suppose if I was a celebrity they might have done?
-
Are you now denying you posted that you knew where Tim and I lived and that you were going to send your hitman Gav round? Careful now because the posts are still on public view on this forum.
ps Gav who is a crack shot!!
We won't even mention your despicable comment where you wished you had shot the Bamber family instead of Jeremy.
Where are these posts?
-
The live ones are here (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2401.0.html) and include your own contribution. :)
6 pages
...
Cheerio now!
ps no doubt you will want to archive them!
Yes, this was a very thread missed in the clear up following the forum truce. I have now removed it as no doubt you want because of the references to you. Grahame's extreme anger at what he had been subjected to was understandable. He did not however threaten to shoot anyone.
Some of the posts on your forum reposted on the thread indicate the type of abuse which was unrelenting. Nevertheless we now have the truce in place so there should be no repetition.
-
Who was Gav, NGB? That was before my time I think.
-
Yes, this was a very thread missed in the clear up following the forum truce. I have now removed it as no doubt you want because of the references to you. Grahame's extreme anger at what he had been subjected to was understandable. He did not however threaten to shoot anyone.
Some of the posts on your forum reposted on the thread indicate the type of abuse which was unrelenting. Nevertheless we now have the truce in place so there should be no repetition.
Fair enough, I saved the thread in any event.
As to Grahame, the question arises of course as to why he attracted such comments in the first place?
-
Who was Gav, NGB? That was before my time I think.
Grahame has explained that Gav was the name he used for a friend of his who used to be in the army or Royal Marines, I cannot rember which. I think he said he had been in the SBS, which would suggest Royal Marines rather than army.
-
Fair enough, I saved the thread in any event.
As to Grahame, the question arises of course as to why he attracted such comments in the first place?
Whatever your members objected to could never have justified the vile personal abuse directed at Grahame, his wife and daughter. However, we now have the truce in place so this should not happen again. I suggest we leave it at that, because further discussion of this will not achieve anything in my view.
-
Whatever your members objected to could never have justified the vile personal abuse directed at Grahame, his wife and daughter. However, we now have the truce in place so this should not happen again. I suggest we leave it at that, because further discussion of this will not achieve anything in my view.
Just to correct something Neil. The comment was made As to Grahame, the question arises of course as to why he attracted such comments in the first place?
The only thing that "attracted" vile comments against me my wife and my daughter was that I was defending Bamber supporters from internet abuse. I would never attack anyone unless they attack me first. What excuse can possibly justify such vile abusive comments about my family? My daughter was very ill with cancer and is still very ill, when comments were made that she was a whore and was suffering from a venereal desease and that my wife looked like an old goat. These together with pictures of my house with comments like "We know where he lives" and "I live just down the road to him" etc.
Now I ask anyone with even an ounce of common sense, are these words justified under any circumstance. This also may explain why I am so hostile about that euphemistically termed "red forum". Now piss off and leave me and my family in peace.
-
Just to correct something Neil. The comment was made The only thing that "attracted" vile comments against me my wife and my daughter was that I was defending Bamber supporters from internet abuse. I would never attack anyone unless they attack me first. What excuse can possibly justify such vile abusive comments about my family? My daughter was very ill with cancer and is still very ill, when comments were made that she was a whore and was suffering from a venereal desease and that my wife looked like an old goat. These together with pictures of my house with comments like "We know where he lives" and "I live just down the road to him" etc.
Now I ask anyone with even an ounce of common sense, are these words justified under any circumstance. This also may explain why I am so hostile about that euphemistically termed "red forum". Now piss off and leave me and my family in peace.
Awful and disgusting Grahame. This must have hurt you so much. Anyone who has a apeth of decency can imagine how this must have been for you and your lovely family. Its the most cruelest thing posted on the internet. Lets hope new laws quickly get in place and sort this type of behaviour out.
-
Conveniently you forget what you posted about Tim's wife and his Alsatians. Sauce for the goose eh?
I agree that post was wrong, but as you know it was made in anger following the abuse against Grahame's family.
All such posts have been removed from both forums, so I hope we can draw a line under this.
-
I agree that post was wrong, but as you know it was made in anger following the abuse against Grahame's family.
All such posts have been removed from both forums, so I hope we can draw a line under this.
Yes, one was as bad as the other but I agree lets move on.
-
This thread is now locked. Further discussion about posts which have been removed from both forums will achieve nothing. We have to ensure that nothing of that nature is posted again.
-
I did not intend to post anything further on this thread. However, in asnswer to Tim "Invictus" who has demanded an apology from me:
The post made by Grahame referring to your dogs was made after you had made derogatory references to his family. You had referred to his dangerously ill daughter, but specifically referred to Grahame's wife by name in an offensive way on 14th March 2012. It was following that post that Grahame responded in anger. You subsequently made the particularly obnoxious post about Grahame's daughter.
It follows that no retraction or apology is due. These posts have all been removed in accordance with what has been agreed. There should be no recurrence of this type of behaviour.
Note to John L: I will remove this post and lock the thread again if you remove the post by Tim Invictus, which in itself is offensive towards me and to this forum. I believe that would be within the spirit of the forum truce.
-
Tim there is no need to be this way. If only you could understand how bad it looks on yourself. There is no need for it is there?
Holly yes you can phone me, but you know I will be telling you off don't you. Why do you join in all of this? Is it really necessary? Is it that there is no real debate over there, so everyone gets bored? It appears to be "Oh lets slag off those on the blue, lets hurt them, lets abuse them, lets hit them where it hurts the most by calling people silly names.
I ask you and everyone that posts on there to stop it. If only you realised how silly and hurtful it all sounds.
I am sure that underneath all the vile exterior lies a decent person. We shall see.
-
Just to tie up loose ends here and in an attempt to end the animosity I publically and unreservedly apologise to Tim Invictus and John Lamberton for the abusive language that I used against them both.
-
Just to tie up loose ends here and in an attempt to end the enimosity I publically and unreservedly apologise to Tim Invictus and John Lamberton for the abusive language that I used against them both.
That takes guts. X
-
Mr. Gee well done for that post I am sure it will be greatly appreciated by John. and Tim a really kind gesture on your part.
-
Just to tie up loose ends here and in an attempt to end the animosity I publically and unreservedly apologise to Tim Invictus and John Lamberton for the abusive language that I used against them both.
Must say that is extremely magnanimous of you grahame, I must congratulate you on being so generous.
-
I agree Maggie
-
Grahame, well done you for a mature and generous response.
-
Mr G,I applaud you. That IS the mark of an honest gentleman. Well done.
-
Over the past few days there has been an increase of personal insults. Can I add by asking that we keep on track please so that no one feels intimidated. Please consider others before posting. Other than that enjoy!
-
Over the past few days there has been an increase of personal insults. Can I add by asking that we keep on track please so that no one feels intimidated. Please consider others before posting. Other than that enjoy!
I add my support to this appeal. Last night was probably the most difficult the forum has experienced for a long time. I do not want to debate the rights and wrongs of what happened as we need to put it behind us.
-
It appears that a gentle reminder is not good enough.
No swearing please and remember to be have some thought about the living families when we post.
We can all get hot headed sometimes, but we really need to keep our tempers away from the forum. IS THAT UNDERSTOOD? otherwise we will be compelled to take further action.
Nice to see an apology has been made as well. Thank you.
-
It appears that a gentle reminder is not good enough.
No swearing please and remember to be have some thought about the living families when we post.
We can all get hot headed sometimes, but we really need to keep our tempers away from the forum. IS THAT UNDERSTOOD? otherwise we will be compelled to take further action.
Nice to see an apology has been made as well. Thank you.
Yes, an apology then more goading - ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D