Is Colin Caffell In Any Way Resposnible For Bamber?

[killingeve]

This post is another example of the strange (and, in view of your claim to be formally educated, ironic) semantic incompetence that you seem to suffer from.  You never seem to be able to use the correct word to get across whatever point you are trying to make. 

Colin is not a private person.  He is a voluntarily public figure who reveals his thoughts and feelings to the whole world and even wrote a book, published twice, revealing his inner-most thoughts to us.  There is no contradiction in pointing that out. 

Notice also, as usual, the unwillingness to actually address a major point of the post, which is that Steve uses the names and suffering of others as a cudgel on this Forum.

What Colin 'deserves' or wants is for Colin.  You are not his representative, Steve.  I only say that any discussion about Colin should be conducted in a proper manner, which I agree has not always been the case on here.   

This is supposed to be a Forum for discussion among adults.  A better tone needs to be set and people like Steve should be told to stick to debating the relevant points instead of attacking people for their views.

I think you should leave it at that for good.  Your posts do not leave a favourable impression of you as an individual.

It did not escape my notice that you recently started your nonsense again, this time with a returning poster on here, and even NGB1066 saw fit to intervene and challenge you.  As usual, there was no apology for your disgraceful behaviour.

I, for one, have had quite enough of you.

And I for one have had quite enough of you.

If you have something to say to Steve then why not send him a pm and copy to NGB1066.  Why do you come on early morning just to take issue with Steve over Colin neither of which are really case related especially some 36 years on. 

You fail to see how hypocritical your posts are.  You talk about lowering the tone of the forum and yet see fit to make a comment about the moderator sucking ****.  Then you take issue with Steve over supporting Colin from the online abuse he suffers from the likes of JackieD and Lookout and yet fall short of naming these individuals instead relying on "several fall short". 

Do me a favour pal either join in the debate with some case related posts that are brief to the point and in plain English or do one.  Cheers. 

[guest29835]

And I for one have had quite enough of you.

If you have something to say to Steve then why not send him a pm and copy to NGB1066.  Why do you come on early morning just to take issue with Steve over Colin neither of which are really case related especially some 36 years on. 

You fail to see how hypocritical your posts are.  You talk about lowering the tone of the forum and yet see fit to make a comment about the moderator sucking ****.  Then you take issue with Steve over supporting Colin from the online abuse he suffers from the likes of JackieD and Lookout and yet fall short of naming these individuals instead relying on "several fall short". 

Do me a favour pal either join in the debate with some case related posts that are brief to the point and in plain English or do one.  Cheers.

Don't tell me how or what to post.  Don't do that ever again. 

I will post as I see fit.

My posts are not hypocritical.  I am referring to how Colin is discussed.  I believed that since he is a victim, he should be discussed properly.  I have already explained to you that the incident you refer to was about something completely different in which I was under attack by other members of the Forum.

In the case of Steve, he is the one who has something to say to me.  He keeps saying it over and over again.  He is being wrong and unfair in doing so.  Mine is a response to him.  Why are you getting involved?  Why are you sticking your nose in?

I have not suggested that Steve supports the "abuse" Colin suffers.  I stated the exact opposite.  If you wish to criticise, please either read and make the effort to comprehend what I say or don't bother.

Don't post in this manner about me again.  Ever.  Just don't.

Don't call me your 'pal'.  I am not your pal.  Don't condescend to me, or far from being your 'pal', I may become your worst enemy.  I could be the worst nightmare you have ever encountered, if you push me hard enough. 

[guest29835]

"Cambridgecutie" [what a stupid name],

I have posted thousands of times on here, with lots of new ideas about the case.  I am proud of many of my posts and I take it very very personally when somebody makes the sort of impertinent remarks you have. 

Who do you think you are?

The only times I have had to depart from the topic in hand is to deal with people attacking me.  Now it's you.

Quite apart from that, the post above that you criticise was actually making a point about the case, in response to Steve, so I can't see what you are talking about.

Don't tell me how to post on here. 

[JackieD]

Don't tell me how or what to post.  Don't do that ever again. 

I will post as I see fit.

My posts are not hypocritical.  I am referring to how Colin is discussed.  I believed that since he is a victim, he should be discussed properly.  I have already explained to you that the incident you refer to was about something completely different in which I was under attack by other members of the Forum.

In the case of Steve, he is the one who has something to say to me.  He keeps saying it over and over again.  He is being wrong and unfair in doing so.  Mine is a response to him.  Why are you getting involved?  Why are you sticking your nose in?

I have not suggested that Steve supports the "abuse" Colin suffers.  I stated the exact opposite.  If you wish to criticise, please either read and make the effort to comprehend what I say or don't bother.

Don't post in this manner about me again.  Ever.  Just don't.

Don't call me your 'pal'.  I am not your pal.  Don't condescend to me, or far from being your 'pal', I may become your worst enemy.  I could be the worst nightmare you have ever encountered, if you push me hard enough.

Adorable 😊

[guest29835]

Adorable 😊

Well cry babies are adorable, in a way.  What sort of response do some of these people expect from me?  I sometimes wonder if they'd speak to me like that in person.  They must have teeth missing, if what passes for comment here is any indication of how they carry on in real life.

Oh wait, we're not talking about the case.  Better get back to that and stop being such a cry baby...

[Steve_uk]

And I for one have had quite enough of you.

If you have something to say to Steve then why not send him a pm and copy to NGB1066.  Why do you come on early morning just to take issue with Steve over Colin neither of which are really case related especially some 36 years on. 

You fail to see how hypocritical your posts are.  You talk about lowering the tone of the forum and yet see fit to make a comment about the moderator sucking ****.  Then you take issue with Steve over supporting Colin from the online abuse he suffers from the likes of JackieD and Lookout and yet fall short of naming these individuals instead relying on "several fall short". 

Do me a favour pal either join in the debate with some case related posts that are brief to the point and in plain English or do one.  Cheers.

Hear! Hear!

[Steve_uk]

"Cambridgecutie" [what a stupid name],

I have posted thousands of times on here, with lots of new ideas about the case.  I am proud of many of my posts and I take it very very personally when somebody makes the sort of impertinent remarks you have. 

Who do you think you are?

The only times I have had to depart from the topic in hand is to deal with people attacking me.  Now it's you.

Quite apart from that, the post above that you criticise was actually making a point about the case, in response to Steve, so I can't see what you are talking about.

Don't tell me how to post on here.

I would attack the Archbishop of Canterbury if he depicted Jeremy Bamber as a "non-predator".

[JackieD]

Well cry babies are adorable, in a way.  What sort of response do some of these people expect from me?  I sometimes wonder if they'd speak to me like that in person.  They must have teeth missing, if what passes for comment here is any indication of how they carry on in real life.

Oh wait, we're not talking about the case.  Better get back to that and stop being such a cry baby...

Of course they wouldn’t. Trolls hiding behind user names

[JackieD]

Hear! Hear!

Oh right now Julie Mugfords fan club has piped up

[Steve_uk]

There's a sister thread here for new members or anyone interested: https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7101.0.html

[guest29835]

I would attack the Archbishop of Canterbury if he depicted Jeremy Bamber as a "non-predator".

Except the Archbishop of Canterbury is a public figure who can expect to be attacked and you are not sharing an internet forum with the Archbishop of Canterbury.  And I think the Archbishop of Canterbury would expect debate and argument, not just your constant, tedious, loutish insults and repetitious nagging.

For anyone interested, below is a link to the thread about that very topic, which I started at Steve's insistence.  Thanks Steve.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10763.0.html

[guest29835]

Hear! Hear!

I will not be sending a slimy abusive weirdo like you any PMs, thus CambridgeNumpty's suggestion is null.

Nevertheless, something good has come out of all this as it seems you have found a new friend.  I think you and CambridgeNumpty have much in common.

[Steve_uk]

Except the Archbishop of Canterbury is a public figure who can expect to be attacked and you are not sharing an internet forum with the Archbishop of Canterbury.  And I think the Archbishop of Canterbury would expect debate and argument, not just your constant, tedious, loutish insults and repetitious nagging.

For anyone interested, below is a link to the thread about that very topic, which I started at Steve's insistence.  Thanks Steve.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10763.0.html

I mean look:

I will try to keep it simple and say that a predator in the non-sexual criminal sense is someone who commits whatever crime for gain.  The gain could be non-monetary, such as the criminal attempting to change his general situation in life or end certain relationships, but I would assume we are mostly concerned here with monetary and financial gain in the broadest sense.

The "Jeremy Bamber is not a predator" quote from you will go down in the annals of the history of this site as the most cruel, callous sentence which could ever have been uttered for those of the guilty persuasion. I won't repeat my description of what happened to the two boys out of respect for the moderator, but regular members know exactly to what I'm alluding.

[lookout]

I would attack the Archbishop of Canterbury if he depicted Jeremy Bamber as a "non-predator".

The above was attacked for his despicable remark about climate change ! I'd have attacked him too.

[Steve_uk]

I will not be sending a slimy abusive weirdo like you any PMs, thus CambridgeNumpty's suggestion is null.

Nevertheless, something good has come out of all this as it seems you have found a new friend.  I think you and CambridgeNumpty have much in common.

..and you are the one who is engendering animosity once again on the Forum two minutes after your re-entrance.