Did JM ever really love Jeremy Bamber?

[Jackiepreece]

Rochy how many weeks has Ngb been a victim of the type of goading that Paul has been doing tonight it really shows what type of man he is

One thing I am certain of he won't take the bet because he knows the answer

Over to Paul the big man to take up the challenge

How could anyone in their wildest dreams think Ngb would ever post on here again with Pauls behaviour


I might get Ngb to sue Paul now that would be fun

[Jackiepreece]

Oh dear Paul seems to have disappeared I wonder why

[bob]

Jackie - I've not been involved in this long-running NGB war/love-in, but isn't the key point that NGB seemed to be wrong on a key point of defamation law? Are you contesting that that is not the case?

(for what it's worth I always found NGB to be a decent chap in his forum dealings and will miss his contributions - not sure why you've said you have made sure he will never post again? Could he not hang around and argue his case, barrister-style?!)

[paulg]

You are now absolutely taking the piss now Paul you are not trying to insinuate Ngb is wrong

You are kidding yes

Paul thanks for bringing the forum to it's knees

A big clap for you though getting rid of a barrister and gun expert all in one day
What good work for the anti Bamber camp

It does not take a genius to see Gerald got everything off the Internet

I will put it to you Paul why don't you have a thousand pound bet with Ngb who has got the best credentials

Think before you make ridiculous statements about genuine people

Put up or shut up

He could o got it from the back of lolly stick for all i care, the fact is, he's right, and he's right on a law issue that has to be 110% correct for this forum.

I don't care if NGB once played in goal for the Old Bailey 11, the fact is, he's wrong, dangerously wrong.

[grahameb]

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.

Right, now i've taken my time to respond to you.

This debate was never about the guilty v's not guilty factions, IMO it was about law that affected every person that posts on this forum.

You've made statements of fact on this forum, regarding legal issues, that in the opinion of a new poster, where clearly not made by an English barrister/lawyer (i'll come back to the English bit). You've decided to hide behind the he's calling me a liar, or i think its John attacking me. Then you've hid behind Paulg is a biased mod, help me other mods, i want him removed.

What concerns me, is that you have not retracted these statements, yet they are false, i suggest that if you are in the legal profession, you do so when you are next online.

Now, back to the English bit. Maybe you googled your information, or maybe you're an attorney in the US, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're from the US, but do not post on English law unless you are qualified to do so.

This is a quote from a case on the internet, involving an English company.

"The impact of the First Amendment has resulted in a substantial divergence of approach between American and English defamation law. For example in innocent dissemination cases in English law the Defendant publisher has to establish his innocence whereas in American law the Plaintiff who has been libelled has to prove that the publisher was not innocent."

Now, i don't want an apology, but i certainly think you owe one to every person that posts on this forum.

Mike, as i said before, feel free to remove me as a moderator. But, i can assure you i am not biased, and in  this instance, i only had everyones interest on my mind, including yours.

I can assure you Paul 100% that ngb is an English barrister who is working with Jeremy Bamber at this present time. There are ways that I can prove this. But feel that I should not because it may adversely affect many aspects of his work with Jeremy. ngb prefers to remain anonymous and I respect his decision. Also he has proved himself many times with his posts on the forum. Therefore I courteously ask you to accept my word as an honest and true statement. Thank you. Also ngb has told me that he is loath to post in the forums now because of this continual harassment from certain members. I do hope that you will keep taking your responsibilities as a moderator seriously? Because although you say that you are not biased, it certainly looks as if you are from where I am standing?

[grahameb]

Jackie - I've not been involved in this long-running NGB war/love-in, but isn't the key point that NGB seemed to be wrong on a key point of defamation law? Are you contesting that that is not the case?

(for what it's worth I always found NGB to be a decent chap in his forum dealings and will miss his contributions - not sure why you've said you have made sure he will never post again? Could he not hang around and argue his case, barrister-style?!)

What some people do not realise is that different barristers specialise in various points of law. For instance. I know a Christian barrister in Cornwall who specialises in family law. All barristers and even judges have to refer to lawbooks if there is an article of law that they are unsure of. You will find this with every barrister, solicitor and judge. He was speaking from experience. You as a laymen of course may have an advantage over barristers and even judges in that all you need to do rather than study for years to be qualified as a barrister is to look it up on the internet, therefore making you an overnight qualified barrister. But I'm afraid that all us laymen have one big disadvantage. In that whilst we may look very knowledgeable to other with our cursory looks on the law pages and cut and paste methods and may for a time rejoice in trying to make the expert look foolish. Is that in reality we are just...."laymen" and therefore are all basically "ignorant" of the real issues at stake. So may I cordially ask that you please leave ngb alone and maybe we who care about others may once again enjoy his posts?

[hartley]

To be fair, he did state that he'd been involved in many defamation cases.

This is getting a tad boring though, he could claim to be the prime minister for all I care, as long as he is civil to others, which for the most part he has been as far as I can see.

[grahameb]

To be fair, he did state that he'd been involved in many defamation cases.

This is getting a tad boring though, he could claim to be the prime minister for all I care, as long as he is civil to others, which for the most part he has been as far as I can see.

It may be becoming a tad boring to you Hartley. But to the one who has this near libellous accusations levelled at him constantly they are becoming more and more distressing and I intend to put a stop to it one way or another.

[hartley]

To be fair, he did state that he'd been involved in many defamation cases.

This is getting a tad boring though, he could claim to be the prime minister for all I care, as long as he is civil to others, which for the most part he has been as far as I can see.

It may be becoming a tad boring to you Hartley. But to the one who has this near libellous accusations levelled at him constantly they are becoming more and more distressing and I intend to put a stop to it one way or another.

I think it's a tad boring to everyone.

Finish it then, lock the thread, have a word with the mods and the people involved, take it to PM's rather than on the public boards.

Issue warning or bans, temporary or permanent, delete posts, etc, etc.

It really shouldn't be this difficult.

[Roch]

I think we need a cooling off period.  I don't think drastic action is necessary.  People have called it how they genuinely see it.  It's just unfortunate that it was wrongly assumed / suspected that Gerald was another incarnation of John. 

[hartley]

It didn't get this much attention in the pre-mod days when Mike suggested that the relatives carried out the murders.

Now that's defamation!

[grahameb]

To be fair, he did state that he'd been involved in many defamation cases.

This is getting a tad boring though, he could claim to be the prime minister for all I care, as long as he is civil to others, which for the most part he has been as far as I can see.

It may be becoming a tad boring to you Hartley. But to the one who has this near libellous accusations levelled at him constantly they are becoming more and more distressing and I intend to put a stop to it one way or another.

I think it's a tad boring to everyone.

Finish it then, lock the thread, have a word with the mods and the people involved, take it to PM's rather than on the public boards.

Issue warning or bans, temporary or permanent, delete posts, etc, etc.

It really shouldn't be this difficult.

Hartley I am the kind of person that likes to think the best in people to be adult enough to control their own childish behaviour. There are 7 moderators in this forum. But it seems that I am the only one who has gut enough to admit there is a serious problem with a few posters which by some strange fluke always seem to be in the anti bamber camp who are also it seems to me to be backed up by the anti bamber moderators. I don't know about you, but to me there seems to be some kind of unequal judgement on the part of those particular moderator. The others it seems to me are afraid to take a stand against it? I'm sorry, but this has to be said publically whether folk like it or not.

[simong]

To be fair, he did state that he'd been involved in many defamation cases.

This is getting a tad boring though, he could claim to be the prime minister for all I care, as long as he is civil to others, which for the most part he has been as far as I can see.

It may be becoming a tad boring to you Hartley. But to the one who has this near libellous accusations levelled at him constantly they are becoming more and more distressing and I intend to put a stop to it one way or another.

I think it's a tad boring to everyone.

Finish it then, lock the thread, have a word with the mods and the people involved, take it to PM's rather than on the public boards.

Issue warning or bans, temporary or permanent, delete posts, etc, etc.

It really shouldn't be this difficult.

Hartley I am the kind of person that likes to think the best in people to be adult enough to control their own childish behaviour. There are 7 moderators in this forum. But it seems that I am the only one who has gut enough to admit there is a serious problem with a few posters which by some strange fluke always seem to be in the anti bamber camp who are also it seems to me to be backed up by the anti bamber moderators. I don't know about you, but to me there seems to be some kind of unequal judgement on the part of those particular moderator. The others it seems to me are afraid to take a stand against it? I'm sorry, but this has to be said publically whether folk like it or not.

Can i ask where has Gerald posted anything that says he is anti- Jeremy Bamber?

[Jackiepreece]

What absolute rubbish from Paul as he is 100% sure Ngb is wrong let's hope he is ready to put his
Money where his mouth is as he is a betting man

Rocky can you not see what is going on maybe I let the cat out of the bag about Ngb helping Jeremy and the anti JB people have made sure he is now gone

So far at least Paulg is saying  Ngb doesn't know what he is talking about and John day after day was vile to Ngb

I pray that I can pursuade Ngb to take legal action against Paulg

How long is this goading going to go on

As for Hartley he can butt out I want everyone to know what levels people will go to in their efforts to disadvantage JB

Don't forget it was Ngb who explained in detail how Sheila was physically possible to carry out the murders

Ngb believes 100% Jeremy is innocent

I don't want these posts removed I want Paul hung out to dry over this

[hartley]

To be fair, he did state that he'd been involved in many defamation cases.

This is getting a tad boring though, he could claim to be the prime minister for all I care, as long as he is civil to others, which for the most part he has been as far as I can see.

It may be becoming a tad boring to you Hartley. But to the one who has this near libellous accusations levelled at him constantly they are becoming more and more distressing and I intend to put a stop to it one way or another.

I think it's a tad boring to everyone.

Finish it then, lock the thread, have a word with the mods and the people involved, take it to PM's rather than on the public boards.

Issue warning or bans, temporary or permanent, delete posts, etc, etc.

It really shouldn't be this difficult.

Hartley I am the kind of person that likes to think the best in people to be adult enough to control their own childish behaviour. There are 7 moderators in this forum. But it seems that I am the only one who has gut enough to admit there is a serious problem with a few posters which by some strange fluke always seem to be in the anti bamber camp who are also it seems to me to be backed up by the anti bamber moderators. I don't know about you, but to me there seems to be some kind of unequal judgement on the part of those particular moderator. The others it seems to me are afraid to take a stand against it? I'm sorry, but this has to be said publically whether folk like it or not.

I don't know, it's not my place to judge.

But I think your suggestion regarding the strange fluke that it is the anti-Bamber crowd is misguided.

Smiffy, Scrapper, Law1, and many others over the months have been just as disruptive, it's just that their targets are different. They are also backed up by the pro-Bamber mods such as Choc and Cliff.