Reasons why Bamber cycled to & from WHF.

[gringo]

As usual, you only look at half the situation.  I repeat, again, what I've said about you before.  Trying to discuss this case with you is like discussing the merits of a house with an estate agent who is on commission, with the seller listening.

Your problem is that you only consider the side of the story that suits you.

In this instance, you forget who started the accusations of dishonesty.  If you look up the thread, you will see it started with Jane telling me that my username implies that I am a Queen's Counsel, which is crazy nonsense as Jane herself must know.

So, Jane started it. 

The difference is that Jane's accusation of me was false - demonstrably so - whereas my accusation of Jane evidently has a solid basis to it.

    If Jane inferred from your username that you were a QC then she isn't lying. You may believe that her inference is misguided. You may also believe that her inference is stupid and it is fair to say so, but it is an over reaction on your part to keep calling Jane a liar over a misunderstanding.
    I do not get on at all with Jane and have had crossed words with her myself but you are unjustified in calling her a liar because she believes that your username implies that you are a QC.

[Jane]

    If Jane inferred from your username that you were a QC then she isn't lying. You may believe that her inference is misguided. You may also believe that her inference is stupid and it is fair to say so, but it is an over reaction on your part to keep calling Jane a liar over a misunderstanding.
    I do not get on at all with Jane and have had crossed words with her myself but you are unjustified in calling her a liar because she believes that your username implies that you are a QC.
[/quote


Gringo, Thank-you for that. Your comments are both balanced and fair.

[guest7363]

Gringo Jane is a troll who forum hops and uses false names. Fact

Home comes she is questioning QC when she is using a false name
I can dig up plenty of posts that make it clear about QC’s position in his own words
As usual Jane is trying to start a fight because she does not like the pro guilty people challenged

Jane has used two names, both that may or may not  appear  on her birth certificate, you have used two names, what’s the difference?

[guest29835]

    If Jane inferred from your username that you were a QC then she isn't lying. You may believe that her inference is misguided. You may also believe that her inference is stupid and it is fair to say so, but it is an over reaction on your part to keep calling Jane a liar over a misunderstanding.
    I do not get on at all with Jane and have had crossed words with her myself but you are unjustified in calling her a liar because she believes that your username implies that you are a QC.

Sorry but you've not got your facts right, Gringo. 

Again, you're not reading all the relevant posts because you've missed two points:

1. First, before calling her a liar, I corrected her and explained why I use the initials QC, which is to do with me personally.

She ignored this and repeated the slur.

2. Second, you've also missed that I called her a liar because she lied about knowing somebody connected with the case, or if she does know that person, she lied about what she knows.  She did this to blacken Jeremy Bamber.  Now, I remain neutral in the case, but I take the view that blackening him only contributes to a faulty understanding of the case.

[guest29835]

Gringo, Thank-you for that. Your comments are both balanced and fair.

No, they're not.  He's got his facts wrong, as I've just explained.

[guest29835]

Jane has used two names, both that appear on her birth certificate, you have used two names, what’s the difference?

And I use the initials QC, because they mean something to me.  On what basis can it be inferred that I am representing myself as a Queen's Counsel, especially when I've already made it clear I have no qualifications to my name and I'm not a lawyer??

You'd have to be stupid to the point of retardation to infer such a professional title from somebody's pseudonymous username in those circumstances.

I then correct her, and give her an explanation, and she ignores me and repeats the false allegation.

What am I supposed to call her, other than a liar?  Go on, tell me.

[Jane]

Jane has used two names, both that appear on her birth certificate, you have used two names, what’s the difference?

RJ, I gather, from your post, that my names have been called into question!!!! My GIVEN names as opposed to user names. Why in God's name is it of interest what anyone here calls themselves? I imagine half of those here, from NGB to Jackie that was once Preece, then P, now D, to the Old Pretender, and yourself, have user names, as would I, had I thought of something interesting and catchy. I believe at one time there was a poster who had four or more different user names. So what? I fail to see a problem.

[guest29835]

RJ, I gather, from your post, that my names have been called into question!!!! My GIVEN names as opposed to user names. Why in God's name is it of interest what anyone here calls themselves? I imagine half of those here, from NGB to Jackie that was once Preece, then P, now D, to the Old Pretender, and yourself, have user names, as would I, had I thought of something interesting and catchy. I believe at one time there was a poster who had four or more different user names. So what? I fail to see a problem.

So do I.  So why are you making an issue of it, starting arguments and telling lies?

[guest7363]

And I use the initials QC, because they mean something to me.  On what basis can it be inferred that I am representing myself as a Queen's Counsel, especially when I've already made it clear I have no qualifications to my name and I'm not a lawyer??

You'd have to be stupid to the point of retardation to infer such a professional title from somebody's pseudonymous username in those circumstances.

I then correct her, and give her an explanation, and she ignores me and repeats the false allegation.

What am I supposed to call her, other than a liar?  Go on, tell me.

My post was to Jackie!

[Caroline]

RJ, I gather, from your post, that my names have been called into question!!!! My GIVEN names as opposed to user names. Why in God's name is it of interest what anyone here calls themselves? I imagine half of those here, from NGB to Jackie that was once Preece, then P, now D, to the Old Pretender, and yourself, have user names, as would I, had I thought of something interesting and catchy. I believe at one time there was a poster who had four or more different user names. So what? I fail to see a problem.

It's no one's business what name you use. To be honest, I wouldn't advise anyone to use their real name on a forum - it allows people to try and invade into your personal life. I'd never think of doing that but others would and have.

[guest29835]

My post was to Jackie!

I know it was, and the point stands. 

[guest7363]

I know it was, and the point stands.

Well keep your nose out then dumbo

[lookout]

Well keep your nose out then dumbo

Don't you mean Pinocchio, or couldn't you spell it ?

[guest7363]

Don't you mean Pinocchio, or couldn't you spell it ?

😂😂😂😂. Brilliant 👍

[Caroline]

Don't you mean Pinocchio, or couldn't you spell it ?

Ha, ha! I think Dumbo is a candidate for 'pin back you 'lug' oles'