Did JM ever really love Jeremy Bamber?

[paulg]

Jackie, is it true that Jeremy is godfather to your children?

I know this one. No he is not and what has this to to with the current thread? Me thinks that your words are calculated to provoke Jackie. Warning. Your supposed facts are indeed ERROR.

A global moderator decides this post is "calculated to provoke", yet many posters are asked if they are relatives, or police that are involved in the case, i take it the same questions will be dealt with accordingly.
Paul, I stand by my words. This is not a point scoring exercise. If you look at the statement that Jerry made you will see that it had nothing to do with the thread. May I remind you that you have the responsible post of moderator. That means that you should uphold the rules of the forum and also to remind others of those rules. If I see anything or if anything is brought to my attention that anything that provokes other members needlessly then I will judge all things uprightly and accordingly and I trust that you also will not take sides but will see to the smooth running of the forum?

[Jerry]

Hartley

I think you are being unfair on yourself.............. certainly not an idiot in my opinion........... but then again who am I to comment if you want to libel yourself.

By the way I was sorry to read of your loss re the 7/7 tragedy.

Hartley, I would add my own sympathies to that offered by curiousessex, I saw your post and had intended to say something on Thursday evening but must have been distracted by the volume of posts.

It is an awful thing to loose a parent at the best of times but to do so following a terrorist incident is all the more devastating.  Best wishes to you and yours Hartley.

[Jerry]

Jackie, is it true that Jeremy is godfather to your children?

I know this one. No he is not and what has this to to with the current thread? Me thinks that your words are calculated to provoke Jackie. Warning. Your supposed facts are indeed ERROR.

You can take it any way you like but at the end of the day it was a valid question which she chose to answer in silence.  I can only infer that such silence is tantamount to acknowledging that it is indeed correct.  Is she embarrassed by the revelation I wonder?

[Gerald]

Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:

1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone).   It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.

and this:

Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue.  When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action.  Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.

That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.

Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.

One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.

So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.

This really is school boy law.

Do you think JM could earn more than the 25k she got paid of the NOW , if she sued ?

I have no idea.

Very true!

I second that!

You see Keira, this is goading, it took place before any so called lying comment by Gerald. What makes it worse, is you chose to "second the comment" rather than act.

Since then, you've read back through the thread, decided that Gerald is guilty, this forum can not be moderated.

It's ok Paulg, I'm sure anyone reading this thread can see what happened. NGB stamped his feet and demanded his ego be massaged by "other moderators" and up popped Cliff and Chochokeira, all too happy to sacrifice any facade of independant thought in order to keep their prize poster.

They're probably right to do so. From his posts NGB appears to be generally intelligent, eloquent and well read. No doubt he makes more of a contribution to this board than I ever would. But you will never persuade me that he is any kind of lawyer, let alone a barrister. If he was, do you really think he would throw his toys out of the pram over the opinion of an anonymous poster who registered just yesterday on an internet forum?

[smiffy]

I can see you were in the wrong Gerald.

yes...you posts are so similar to a known dodgy poster...as are jerry's.
does not mean you are that disruptive poster popping back onto the forum under other names to continue his mischeif...but purely an observation.

[ngb1066]

Gerald/NGB

I'm just going to dip my lickle toe into the conversation, and ask you to both play nicely.

Now the little digs are well written, and subtle, and remind me of 2 aristocrats slapping each other round the face with gloves, just before a duel. So, as i said above, guns away, and lets play nicely.

PaulG  - I try to be courteous in my posts but "Gerald" has gone beyond what is acceptable in an argument in accusing me of lying.  I take exception to that and I do not think it is fair to place my posts in the same category as his.

Okeedokee, i read his reply "clearly you haven't" more as a non belief in your knowledge of the subject, rather than i think you're lying. Call it one of the subtle digs i mentioned earlier, and i don't have to insult your intelligence by pointing out your own retorts...but the "very true" is on a par, subtle.

Now, all i ask, is that you both use your knowledge to make informed arguments, without the subtle digs, i thank you.

Please reread the post where the words "clearly you haven't" appear.  It is a clear reference to my statement that I had experience in the law of defamation and had advised publishers on the subject. You are glossing over it by suggesting an alternative interpretation which simply does not wash.  This was a clear allegation that I had lied.

I am afraid that I do not accept your admonition to me as as forum moderator and would expect moderators to intervene when an unsupported accusation of lying is levelled by one forum member against another.  Frankly if you do not like my response then tough, I am obviously wasting my time posting here.  You can ban me if you like.  I have got plenty of other things to do with my time. I hope other moderators will intervene here and see that the right approach is now made to this.

I will await posts from other moderators before posting further.

   

Tbh no i don't like your post, i believe what i have highlighted to you can be interpreted two ways. Someone questioned your knowledge, you used a cheap shot with "very true", and when asked to fall into line, you're now behaving like a spoilt child...and this is said with mod hat off.

And just to add, and not directed at you NGB, but it doesn't worry me if i'm a moderator here or not, i call things as i see them, please feel free Mike to remove my moderator title.

I do not think is is appropriate for you to say that I am "behaving like a spoilt child." I wish Mike would remove you, as you are not doing your job as moderator properly.  It is not my decision, and frankly I have got better things to do with my time than getting involved in rubbish like this. 

[ngb1066]

Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:

1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone).   It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.

and this:

Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue.  When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action.  Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.

That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.

Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.

One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.

So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.

This really is school boy law.

Do you think JM could earn more than the 25k she got paid of the NOW , if she sued ?

I have no idea.

Very true!

I second that!

You see Keira, this is goading, it took place before any so called lying comment by Gerald. What makes it worse, is you chose to "second the comment" rather than act.

Since then, you've read back through the thread, decided that Gerald is guilty, this forum can not be moderated.

It's ok Paulg, I'm sure anyone reading this thread can see what happened. NGB stamped his feet and demanded his ego be massaged by "other moderators" and up popped Cliff and Chochokeira, all too happy to sacrifice any facade of independant thought in order to keep their prize poster.

They're probably right to do so. From his posts NGB appears to be generally intelligent, eloquent and well read. No doubt he makes more of a contribution to this board than I ever would. But you will never persuade me that he is any kind of lawyer, let alone a barrister. If he was, do you really think he would throw his toys out of the pram over the opinion of an anonymous poster who registered just yesterday on an internet forum?

Another allegation that I am a liar.  If forum moderation has any meaning, action should follow.  However, this is not my responsibilty because I am not a moderator.  Mike Tesko in an effort to ensure fairness and balance picked a set of moderators from both sides of this debate.  Most have acted fairly and effectively.  Paulg has not.  No doubt he will support "Gerald" on this post as well.

[jon]

Gerald/NGB

I'm just going to dip my lickle toe into the conversation, and ask you to both play nicely.

Now the little digs are well written, and subtle, and remind me of 2 aristocrats slapping each other round the face with gloves, just before a duel. So, as i said above, guns away, and lets play nicely.

PaulG  - I try to be courteous in my posts but "Gerald" has gone beyond what is acceptable in an argument in accusing me of lying.  I take exception to that and I do not think it is fair to place my posts in the same category as his.

Okeedokee, i read his reply "clearly you haven't" more as a non belief in your knowledge of the subject, rather than i think you're lying. Call it one of the subtle digs i mentioned earlier, and i don't have to insult your intelligence by pointing out your own retorts...but the "very true" is on a par, subtle.

Now, all i ask, is that you both use your knowledge to make informed arguments, without the subtle digs, i thank you.

Please reread the post where the words "clearly you haven't" appear.  It is a clear reference to my statement that I had experience in the law of defamation and had advised publishers on the subject. You are glossing over it by suggesting an alternative interpretation which simply does not wash.  This was a clear allegation that I had lied.

I am afraid that I do not accept your admonition to me as as forum moderator and would expect moderators to intervene when an unsupported accusation of lying is levelled by one forum member against another.  Frankly if you do not like my response then tough, I am obviously wasting my time posting here.  You can ban me if you like.  I have got plenty of other things to do with my time. I hope other moderators will intervene here and see that the right approach is now made to this.

I will await posts from other moderators before posting further.

   

Tbh no i don't like your post, i believe what i have highlighted to you can be interpreted two ways. Someone questioned your knowledge, you used a cheap shot with "very true", and when asked to fall into line, you're now behaving like a spoilt child...and this is said with mod hat off.

And just to add, and not directed at you NGB, but it doesn't worry me if i'm a moderator here or not, i call things as i see them, please feel free Mike to remove my moderator title.

I do not think is is appropriate for you to say that I am "behaving like a spoilt child." I wish Mike would remove you, as you are not doing your job as moderator properly.  It is not my decision, and frankly I have got better things to do with my time than getting involved in rubbish like this.

I agree , if you have got anything to say as a Mod , PM whoever like Hartley say's , if not stay out of the argument !!

[Gerald]

I'm glad you're back NGB, perhaps you could explain the Hon. Mr Justice Bell's decision in the McDonalds libel case, and especially his comments at paragraphs 59, 60 and 61, where he says:

59. Where a Plaintiff establishes the publication of words which are defamatory, he has established his claim subject to the Defendant proving that he has a defence to the claim. The Plaintiff does not have to prove that the defamatory words are false. The law presumes that the defamatory words are false until the contrary is shown.


60. However, it is a complete defence to an action for libel to show that defamatory statements of alleged fact are true in substance and in fact. This is the defence of "justification" and it was the primary defence of Ms Steel and Mr Morris in this case. They contended that the substance of what is said in the factsheet is true.


61. The burden of proving that the substance of the words is true lies on the Defendant even though the Plaintiff may have set out to prove that the words are in fact false, as McDonald's have done in many instances in this case. Again the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.

Here is a link:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1997/366.html

No, I don't believe you are a lawyer - because:

a) A lawyer would not make assertions as if they were fact regarding areas of law they clearly know little about.

b) A lawyer would understand that once beaten on a point it is better to concede defeat gracefully.

c) A lawyer would be more than able to fight his own battles, and would not expect others to fight them for him.

[Gerald]

I can see you were in the wrong Gerald.

yes...you posts are so similar to a known dodgy poster...as are jerry's.
does not mean you are that disruptive poster popping back onto the forum under other names to continue his mischeif...but purely an observation.

That's ok, we all do that. I will admit that at one point I thought you were Jackie Preece's evil twin.

[smiffy]

I can see you were in the wrong Gerald.

yes...you posts are so similar to a known dodgy poster...as are jerry's.
does not mean you are that disruptive poster popping back onto the forum under other names to continue his mischeif...but purely an observation.

That's ok, we all do that. I will admit that at one point I thought you were Jackie Preece's evil twin.

thats rather nasty and uncalled for Gerald..

jackie seems a nice decent poster to me  and going by your post I very much doubt the same could be said about you.

[Gerald]

Read my post again. I haven't offered an opinion about Jackie.

[smiffy]

I'm glad you're back NGB, perhaps you could explain the Hon. Mr Justice Bell's decision in the McDonalds libel case, and especially his comments at paragraphs 59, 60 and 61, where he says:

59. Where a Plaintiff establishes the publication of words which are defamatory, he has established his claim subject to the Defendant proving that he has a defence to the claim. The Plaintiff does not have to prove that the defamatory words are false. The law presumes that the defamatory words are false until the contrary is shown.


60. However, it is a complete defence to an action for libel to show that defamatory statements of alleged fact are true in substance and in fact. This is the defence of "justification" and it was the primary defence of Ms Steel and Mr Morris in this case. They contended that the substance of what is said in the factsheet is true.


61. The burden of proving that the substance of the words is true lies on the Defendant even though the Plaintiff may have set out to prove that the words are in fact false, as McDonald's have done in many instances in this case. Again the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.

Here is a link:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1997/366.html

No, I don't believe you are a lawyer - because:

a) A lawyer would not make assertions as if they were fact regarding areas of law they clearly know little about.

b) A lawyer would understand that once beaten on a point it is better to concede defeat gracefully.

c) A lawyer would be more than able to fight his own battles, and would not expect others to fight them for him.

oh dear  your misguided opinions gerald.
 
seems like you object to others giving their views hence you posted your point (c) which has no real relevance.  you assume ngb is expecting others to tackle you " gerald".....on this issue....
you cannot possibly know how ngb thinks ...so you come across as an idiot for making such an assumption and also in your attempt to belittle ngb you are being abusive.

point (b)   ...you in fact lost the argument gerald and in pathetically claiming you had beaten ngb on the issue you are deluding yourself and then again you presume you imply  how lawyers should act in your opinion which is no more than wishful thinking on your part.

point (a).... ngb knows what he is on about  which is something you are unable to fully grasp gerald and again you have no basis to belittle ngb as you cannot possibly know how much he knows about the areas of law involved...so your claim is abusive on that issue.


digging an ever deeper hole for yourself here gerald.

[ngb1066]

I'm glad you're back NGB, perhaps you could explain the Hon. Mr Justice Bell's decision in the McDonalds libel case, and especially his comments at paragraphs 59, 60 and 61, where he says:

59. Where a Plaintiff establishes the publication of words which are defamatory, he has established his claim subject to the Defendant proving that he has a defence to the claim. The Plaintiff does not have to prove that the defamatory words are false. The law presumes that the defamatory words are false until the contrary is shown.


60. However, it is a complete defence to an action for libel to show that defamatory statements of alleged fact are true in substance and in fact. This is the defence of "justification" and it was the primary defence of Ms Steel and Mr Morris in this case. They contended that the substance of what is said in the factsheet is true.


61. The burden of proving that the substance of the words is true lies on the Defendant even though the Plaintiff may have set out to prove that the words are in fact false, as McDonald's have done in many instances in this case. Again the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.

Here is a link:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1997/366.html

No, I don't believe you are a lawyer - because:

a) A lawyer would not make assertions as if they were fact regarding areas of law they clearly know little about.

b) A lawyer would understand that once beaten on a point it is better to concede defeat gracefully.

c) A lawyer would be more than able to fight his own battles, and would not expect others to fight them for him.

A repeat of your claim that I am a liar.  You are really taunting the moderators now as they will have to decide what to do about this. I will await a response to your latest post from one of them.  I have no intention of debating points with you because i) I cannot be bothered to argue with offensive characters like you and ii) you would not accept any point I make because you are either too stupid/arrogant or you are following your own agenda. 

 

[Gerald]

I'm glad you're back NGB, perhaps you could explain the Hon. Mr Justice Bell's decision in the McDonalds libel case, and especially his comments at paragraphs 59, 60 and 61, where he says:

59. Where a Plaintiff establishes the publication of words which are defamatory, he has established his claim subject to the Defendant proving that he has a defence to the claim. The Plaintiff does not have to prove that the defamatory words are false. The law presumes that the defamatory words are false until the contrary is shown.


60. However, it is a complete defence to an action for libel to show that defamatory statements of alleged fact are true in substance and in fact. This is the defence of "justification" and it was the primary defence of Ms Steel and Mr Morris in this case. They contended that the substance of what is said in the factsheet is true.


61. The burden of proving that the substance of the words is true lies on the Defendant even though the Plaintiff may have set out to prove that the words are in fact false, as McDonald's have done in many instances in this case. Again the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.

Here is a link:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1997/366.html

No, I don't believe you are a lawyer - because:

a) A lawyer would not make assertions as if they were fact regarding areas of law they clearly know little about.

b) A lawyer would understand that once beaten on a point it is better to concede defeat gracefully.

c) A lawyer would be more than able to fight his own battles, and would not expect others to fight them for him.

oh dear  your misguided opinions gerald.
 
seems like you object to others giving their views hence you posted your point (c) which has no real relevance.  you assume ngb is expecting others to tackle you " gerald".....on this issue....
you cannot possibly know how ngb thinks ...so you come across as an idiot for making such an assumption and also in your attempt to belittle ngb you are being abusive.

point (b)   ...you in fact lost the argument gerald and in pathetically claiming you had beaten ngb on the issue you are deluding yourself and then again you presume you imply  how lawyers should act in your opinion which is no more than wishful thinking on your part.

point (a).... ngb knows what he is on about  which is something you are unable to fully grasp gerald and again you have no basis to belittle ngb as you cannot possibly know how much he knows about the areas of law involved...so your claim is abusive on that issue.


digging an ever deeper hole for yourself here gerald.

It is NGB who is whining at the moderators is it not?

As to the rest of your post, I can only assume you haven't read the thread.