The ITV Drama

[Caroline]

Where is that stated?

I was wondering that myself.

[Caroline]

The drama is full of misrepresentations . And that’s putting it mildly .

Because it's a drama and not a documentary. It states clearly at the beginning that some scenes have been changed. There is no way that a six week show could fit everything in and wasn't made with the likes of you and I in mind. All the main things are there and forum wise, it has brought a lot of new members who will be able to read more inaccurate claims here.

[Jane]

I was wondering that myself.

Lookout has made that claim before, I'm sure. I don't think she said from where she learned it.

[Roch]

Because it's a drama and not a documentary. It states clearly at the beginning that some scenes have been changed. There is no way that a six week show could fit everything in and wasn't made with the likes of you and I in mind. All the main things are there an forum wise, it has brought a lot of new members who will be able to read more inaccurate claims here.

It's a very sly act.  It was made to win over public opinion regarding Bamber's guilt.  It's doing this by omitting facts that would support his conviction being a sham.   That is clever but sly nonetheless.

It's actually quite frightening with regards to upholding the truth in our country.  People are being manipulated 'en masse', regardless of there being disclaimers in the credits etc. 

I hear Mrs Perkins or whoever at the local shops talking about it and proclaiming evil Bamber  guilty or whatever.  People should be given facts - not brainwashing. 

[Jane]

It's a very sly act.  It was made to win over public opinion regarding Bamber's guilt.  It's doing this by omitting facts that would support his conviction being a sham.   That is clever but sly nonetheless.

It's actually quite frightening with regards to upholding the truth in our country.  People are being manipulated 'en masse', regardless of there being disclaimers in the credits etc. 

I hear Mrs Perkins or whoever at the local shops talking about it and proclaiming evil Bamber  guilty or whatever.  People should be given facts - not brainwashing.

Why sly, Roch? I'd feel more inclined to agree if we were in the pre-trial period. Certainly the series will bring the case to new people, but do you REALLY believe every one of them is a potential supporter? I'm guessing that if a poll was taken the ratio of the result would be roughly that which the jury bought back. There'll always be some who'll refuse to bring in a guilty verdict.

[Caroline]

It's a very sly act.  It was made to win over public opinion regarding Bamber's guilt.  It's doing this by omitting facts that would support his conviction being a sham.   That is clever but sly nonetheless.

It's actually quite frightening with regards to upholding the truth in our country.  People are being manipulated 'en masse', regardless of there being disclaimers in the credits etc. 

I hear Mrs Perkins or whoever at the local shops talking about it and proclaiming evil Bamber  guilty or whatever.  People should be given facts - not brainwashing.

No, it was made for entertainment purposes Roch and I'm with M's Perkins because Bamber being innocent, isn't a fact. A drama based on your version of events would annoy those of us who think he's guilty. I've stopped reading Twitter because the stuff being promoted is just laughable and the CT have been doing that for years.

[Roch]

Why sly, Roch? I'd feel more inclined to agree if we were in the pre-trial period. Certainly the series will bring the case to new people, but do you REALLY believe every one of them is a potential supporter? I'm guessing that if a poll was taken the ratio of the result would be roughly that which the jury bought back. There'll always be some who'll refuse to bring in a guilty verdict.

It's sly because they know exactly what they're doing. 

(1) Allow a program to be commissioned. 

(2) Shut out the defence entirely. 

(3) Use the airing of the program by allowing McKinstry, CAL, The Sun etc. etc. etc. to piggyback on the production. 

Public opinion is key in this case.  The more dissenting voices, the worse for the authorities.  The less dissenting voices, the better for the authorities.  And as for the split, I would have said at best 60/40 in favour of guilt among the population who had any inkling of the case (prior to the drama).

[Roch]

No, it was made for entertainment purposes Roch and I'm with M's Perkins because Bamber being innocent, isn't a fact. A drama based on your version of events would annoy those of us who think he's guilty. I've stopped reading Twitter because the stuff being promoted is just laughable and the CT have been doing that for years.

For any drama from a guilter author to omit blatant police corruption in the second investigation, and blatant misleading of the jury as a result, is plain wrong.  It is not giving people the truth.

My point is, this is a deliberate act.  It hasn't happened purely by accident.  It's been allowed, encouraged and piggy-backed because its a fantastic opportunity to win public opinion.

[Jane]

It's sly because they know exactly what they're doing. 

(1) Allow a program to be commissioned. 

(2) Shut out the defence entirely. 

(3) Use the airing of the program by allowing McKinstry, CAL, The Sun etc. etc. etc. to piggyback on the production. 

Public opinion is key in this case.  The more dissenting voices, the worse for the authorities.  The less dissenting voices, the better for the authorities.  And as for the split, I would have said at best 60/40 in favour of guilt among the population who had any inkling of the case (prior to the drama).

Roch, you speak as if the production team has deliberately designed this series to be a personal slight against Jeremy's supporters. I don't believe public opinion has anything to do with it. What do you imagine the public can be incited to do, storm the prison gates? What if they do? He'll still have been convicted and found guilty.

[Roch]

Roch, you speak as if the production team has deliberately designed this series to be a personal slight against Jeremy's supporters. I don't believe public opinion has anything to do with it. What do you imagine the public can be incited to do, storm the prison gates?

Jane, as much as the authorities are not going to be amenable to a defenced-base program pointing towards police corruption in the case of a convicted multiple murderer, with two failed appeals, they are going to be amenable to a program from an author who is regarded as 'safe' because she believes in guilt. 

Public opinion makes things either awkward or easy for the authorities.  It can snowball.  You don't want to be an official or a representative of Essex constabulary with microphone shoved in your face every other day from somebody asking awkward questions about a particular case. 

[Caroline]

For any drama from a guilter author to omit blatant police corruption in the second investigation, and blatant misleading of the jury as a result, is plain wrong.  It is not giving people the truth.

My point is, this is a deliberate act.  It hasn't happened purely by accident.  It's been allowed, encouraged and piggy-backed because its a fantastic opportunity to win public opinion.

I don’t agree one little bit - you’re just widening the notion of a conspiracy. The makers wanted to make a drama based on the events that put Bamber away and that’s what they did. They don’t have any responsibility to those who think Bamber is innocent. There is always the option not to watch if you don’t like what you see. Commission someone to write a script that supports your own thoughts. This one isn’t about that.

[Roch]

I don’t agree one little bit - you’re just widening the notion of a conspiracy. The makers wanted to make a drama based on the events that put Bamber away and that’s what they did. They don’t have any responsibility to those who think Bamber is innocent. There is always the option not to watch if you don’t like what you see. Commission someone to write a script that supports your own thoughts. This one isn’t about that.

Sorry Caroline but in today's climate, I think this is naïve.   

I'll give you your dues, they allowed the McKay docu, which was probably facilitated by way of MWT being sympathetic to the defence.  But it was interfered with.  So part of the time that would have been taken up by more arguments in favour of Jeremy's defence was stolen by those arguing for guilt. 

Where is this portion for the other side in the drama? 

Imagine Boyce, Terezon and whoever trying to get a program commissioned today?  Wouldn't happen.  Yet a so called drama masquerading as a genuine account of events is shown over several weeks with tonnes of publicity both before and during?

[Jane]

Jane, as much as the authorities are not going to be amenable to a defenced-base program pointing towards police corruption in the case of a convicted multiple murderer, with two failed appeals, they are going to be amenable to a program from an author who is regarded as 'safe' because she believes in guilt. 

Public opinion makes things either awkward or easy for the authorities.  It can snowball.  You don't want to be an official or a representative of Essex constabulary with microphone shoved in your face every other day from somebody asking awkward questions about a particular case.

D'you know, this really, REALLY sounds as if you're resorting to blackmail here. HOPING to incite the public to make things awkward for the authorities. HOPING it can snowball. HOPING that officials and representatives of Essex constabulary will get microphones shoved in their faces. Have you not realized that many of those now serving EP weren't even born at the time of WHF! What right have the public to harass them? It's probably not so, but it's beginning to sound as if you're using the Bamber case to incite unrest.

[Roch]

D'you know, this really, REALLY sounds as if you're resorting to blackmail here. HOPING to incite the public to make things awkward for the authorities. HOPING it can snowball. HOPING that officials and representatives of Essex constabulary will get microphones shoved in their faces. Have you not realized that many of those now serving EP weren't even born at the time of WHF! What right have the public to harass them? It's probably not so, but it's beginning to sound as if you're using the Bamber case to incite unrest.

I hardly think repeated, pertinent and awkward questions are an incitement to civil unrest Jane. 

My point is, the effect of the drama is to efectively pre-empt that from happening.

Think about it, when Jeremy's legal challenge gets rejected, a whole new army of guilters (by way of the drama) will say 'well he must be guilty then, otherwise the authorities wouldn't have rejected his legal challenge'.  Like I say, I think it's clever.

[Jane]

I hardly think repeated, pertinent and awkward questions are an incitement to civil unrest Jane. 

My point is, the effect of the drama is to efectively pre-empt that from happening.

Think about it, when Jeremy's legal challenge gets rejected, a whole new army of guilters (by way of the drama) will say 'well he must be guilty then, otherwise the authorities wouldn't have rejected his legal challenge'.  Like I say, I think it's clever.

You will undoubtedly know it may be relied upon that "from little acorns great oaks will grow"?

Not for a moment do I believe that a drama would have been commissioned specifically to "effectively pre-empt", and thus prevent, civil unrest.

Should "a whole new army of guilters.............." pronounce their belief in his guilt, who will there be, other than a few supporters, to say they're wrong?