The Silenced Rifle Did Not Fit Inside The Gun Cupboard

[Robittybob1]

You are nitpicking.

Frustrated more likely.  I find spelling correctly an endless problem.   Not all words ending in e with the suffix "able" drop the "e" ending. 

Change plus able = changeable

[guest29835]

You didn't. You had a proxy acolyte who posted a link to a dodgy website.

I've quoted from two respected dictionaries.  You're just ignoring what I have told you and deliberately wasting my time because you're an idiot.

[guest29835]

Below is a scan of the relevant entry from the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, which clearly shows the alternative spelling.

(Note: if the image is unclear, just open it in your browser, then swivel it clockwise and it will show clearly).

[Steve_uk]

Okay I'll accept the alternative spelling. What a song and dance you performed to get to this stage.

[guest29835]

Okay I'll accept the alternative spelling. What a song and dance you performed to get to this stage.

LOL.  A song and dance indeed!  You brought it up in the first place, and I repeatedly told you.  I referred to two dictionaries, twice, and I also told you to google it, but you can't use google correctly because you're too dense.

[Steve_uk]

You're two peas in a pod really and I hold neither of you in high esteem: one of you thinks Warwick Hislop has something to contribute, whilst the other stated that Jeremy Bamber wasn't a predator and mooted the idea that Colin was responsible for Sheila developing schizophrenia.

[JackieD]

You're two peas in a pod really and I hold neither of you in high esteem: one of you thinks Warwick Hislop has something to contribute, whilst the other stated that Jeremy Bamber wasn't a predator and mooted the idea that Colin was responsible for Sheila developing schizophrenia.

Another dictionary lesson Steve

Dictionary
Search for a word
predator
/?pr?d?t?/
 Learn to pronounce
Filter definitions by topic
See definitions in:
All
Zoology
Commerce
noun
1.
an animal that naturally preys on others.
"wolves are major predators of small mammals"
2.
a person who ruthlessly exploits others.
"a sexual predator"


Warwick Hislop is an entirely impartial witness that worked alongside Jeremy and Neville so he is an important character witness

Get over it

You hold neither me or QC in high esteem but idolise Mugford
That says everything about you
Don’t like impartial witnesses do you

[Steve_uk]

Another dictionary lesson Steve

Dictionary
Search for a word
predator
/?pr?d?t?/
 Learn to pronounce
Filter definitions by topic
See definitions in:
All
Zoology
Commerce
noun
1.
an animal that naturally preys on others.
"wolves are major predators of small mammals"
2.
a person who ruthlessly exploits others.
"a sexual predator"


Warwick Hislop is an entirely impartial witness that worked alongside Jeremy and Neville so he is an important character witness

Get over it

You hold neither me or QC in high esteem but idolise Mugford
That says everything about you
Don’t like impartial witnesses do you

I know full well what your friend QC Chevalier meant when he said Jeremy Bamber wasn't a predator. He was distancing the latter from spattering two six-year-old boys' brains on the bedhead behind. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7852251/Pain-murdered-twins-father-milk-teeth-collected-DNA-evidence.html

[guest29835]

I know full well what your friend QC Chevalier meant when he said Jeremy Bamber wasn't a predator. He was distancing the latter from spattering two six-year-old boys' brains on the bedhead behind. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7852251/Pain-murdered-twins-father-milk-teeth-collected-DNA-evidence.html

YOU ARE A LIAR.  I am not distancing myself from two dead boys.  I have mentioned them repeatedly and even started a memorial thread about them, that you then ruined with your narcissistic, fake, psychopathic, mawkish moralising.

You are a moron and a liar, and you are thick and stupid.

I said that I do not believe Jeremy is a 'predator' because, if guilty, I do not believe he matches that definition in criminological terms, as I do not accept the inheritance motive or that he is a psychopath.  I think the psychological drive behind his actions was different.  But I think this goes over your head.  You can't even use a dictionary competently and struggle with google.

[guest29835]

Below is what I posted before Steve took the thread off course. 

Thatcher's policies may have had some merit, but even if that is the case, I think she did harm to the country by adopting this "Lady's not for turning" approach to one or two areas of government policy where she perhaps should have been a bit more careful, though I accept that in other areas of policy it may have been warranted.

The point is that, in my view, there is no room for the 'Thatcher' attitude in evidence-based discussions, and especially not in criminal trials.  We should be concerned for the truth.  I dislike arrogant people who decide on a conclusion and then stick to it obstinately and dogmatically.

I'm all for having principles, but I think Thatcher's approach to things - very ideological and based on rigid practical convictions about how things should be - was sometimes questionable.  Note I refer to her approach to things, I am not trying to make a political point or making any comment here on the merits or otherwise of her policies, an entirely different matter.

The principled position here is that justice should be done.  I think that if you go beyond that and start taking an immoveable approach to questions of factual guilt or innocence, then you end up with miscarriages of justice.  The whole basis of the criminal justice system, as I see it, is that it is supposed to embrace scepticism.  There is no place for Thatcher's attitude in a criminal trial.

[lookout]

So be it QC. That's the way I am----take it or leave it.

[guest29835]

So be it QC. That's the way I am----take it or leave it.

I wasn't necessarily directing it at you, it was a general remark.  I suppose, in your case, you make no pretence of objectivity anyway, and Jeremy does need his defenders; but, there are others who like to claim that they base their views only on evidence when they are clearly giving a tendentious account of things.

Imagine if you are accused of a crime but at trial evidence surfaces that casts fundamental doubt on the prosecution's case.  You may expect an ethical prosecutor to withdraw the charges, or if her instructions do not allow this, then at least urgently inform the court of this new evidence so that a view can be taken.  Imagine if, instead of taking this ethical action, the prosecutor were to say: "You turn if you want to.  The lady's not for turning!" and just carries on as if this new evidence doesn't exist.

Miscarriages of justice have happened because of prosecutors and police officers manipulating evidence in such a way as to maximise the chance of conviction.  They did this not because they were bad people or corrupt as such, but because they were genuinely convinced of the accused's guilt and wanted to get the right 'result'.

Another example of how rigid adherence to beliefs or principles can harm society is this Covid-19 scare.  The government's radical public health measures have no scientific basis whatever and are an affront to civil liberties, but the people who are making these decisions may well believe what they are doing is right, and the more right they think they are, the more they keep getting it wrong and digging themselves a deeper hole.

[lookout]

I wasn't necessarily directing it at you, it was a general remark.  I suppose, in your case, you make no pretence of objectivity anyway, and Jeremy does need his defenders; but, there are others who like to claim that they base their views only on evidence when they are clearly giving a tendentious account of things.

Imagine if you are accused of a crime but at trial evidence surfaces that casts fundamental doubt on the prosecution's case.  You may expect an ethical prosecutor to withdraw the charges, or if her instructions do not allow this, then at least urgently inform the court of this new evidence so that a view can be taken.  Imagine if, instead of taking this ethical action, the prosecutor were to say: "You turn if you want to.  The lady's not for turning!" and just carries on as if this new evidence doesn't exist.

Miscarriages of justice have happened because of prosecutors and police officers manipulating evidence in such a way as to maximise the chance of conviction.  They did this not because they were bad people or corrupt as such, but because they were genuinely convinced of the accused's guilt and wanted to get the right 'result'.

Another example of how rigid adherence to beliefs or principles can harm society is this Covid-19 scare.  The government's radical public health measures have no scientific basis whatever and are an affront to civil liberties, but the people who are making these decisions may well believe what they are doing is right, and the more right they think they are, the more they keep getting it wrong and digging themselves a deeper hole.

Hidden evidence----that the crime was committed by someone else.
Hidden evidence -------that Covid 19 escaped from a laboratory.

[Steve_uk]

I'll let members ponder on this: who is the most duplicitous..a man who starts a condolence thread on Nicholas and Daniel, yet who is 96% certain even on a bad day that Jeremy Bamber is guilty, but oh he's not a predator, or lookout, who has all along steadfastly believed in Bamber's innocence?

[guest29835]

I'll let members ponder on this: who is the most duplicitous..a man who starts a condolence thread on Nicholas and Daniel, yet who is 96% certain even on a bad day that Jeremy Bamber is guilty, but oh he's not a predator, or lookout, who has all along steadfastly believed in Bamber's innocence?

YOU ARE A LIAR.  You are a troublemaker, a troll, and utterly vile and dishonest.

Sorry, I don't saying it, but it is a cold stone fact: you are a liar.

You have lied in the post I quote now.  You have lied on this thread.  You have lied about me on other threads.  The way you lie, normally, is that you twist things.  You think, or hope, that people won't check up on what was actually said.

The reality is as follows:

(i). The criminal justice system requires that a criminal case is proved. That means it is not enough to believe that a certain person committed the crime.  We must sure.

(ii). Irrespective of that, one can have sympathy for the victims of crimes.

(iii). It is, furthermore, erroneous to assume that somebody who commits a crime like this is a predator without a proper basis for believing this.  There should be evidence.  It is at least debatable what Jeremy's motives were and you are no more informed in the matter than anybody else here.

Whatever one's views, these are three different issues and three different points, and to put it charitably, the fact that you seem unable to see this should lead us to question your intellectual capacity.  It is already clear that, despite being a teacher, you can't spell and don't know how to use google and you can't even competently use a dictionary.

Turning to Julie Mugford, if Jeremy is guilty, then it is highly probable on the evidence that Julie was his accomplice.  I know that this point has also been touched on by both Jackie and NG1066.  I can understand the position of Essex Police, who entered into a pact with her to secure the conviction of the primary offender.  This is common practice.  But I am less sympathetic to people, like you, who come on here to zealously defend her, as if she is whiter than white. 

Moderator - I will return to this Forum and reply to this vile, dishonest, lying idiot each and every time he mentions me or tells lies about me.