..and you are the one who is engendering animosity once again on the Forum two minutes after your re-entrance.
There was animosity on this very thread before I posted, so - as usual - what you say is not true.
I must also remind everyone of how NGB1066 had to intervene on another thread when you started up your stupid nonsense again, this time bullying Aunt Agatha. You can't resist it because it's in your nature.
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.
My comment about decorum when discussing Colin wasn't so much to spare his feelings - I'm not his advocate and don't claim to be and he is a grown-up - it is more for the general dignity of the Forum, as discussions specifically about victims of crime should be conducted in a proper manner. In that regard, you and I are in agreement. I also don't think we need to spell out what 'proper' means: there should be a common cultural understanding of what it means. But that does not mean we should, or can, avoid topics and ideas that may offend or upset Colin. We can't gag ourselves in that way because down that road is no discussion at all.
Furthermore, when I discuss Jeremy, I am discussing Jeremy, not Colin. It's a different thing entirely. I can suggest the possibility that Jeremy was not a predatory killer, and whether that offends Colin or not, it is a legitimate topic of discussion and it clearly doesn't touch on the topic of Colin anyway.
In circa 1992, H.M. Prison Service decided to re-categorise Jeremy because the crimes of which he was convicted were not considered predatory by experts who examined him and the facts and circumstances. The decision was overturned, but I mention it to show that there is some official basis for the belief that he is not a predatory criminal. Besides which, I only float the idea as this is supposed to be a discussion forum, not a Steve Struggle Session.
Someone of a "guilty persuasion" - I assume you mean somebody who thinks Jeremy is guilty - could only feel the way you describe if they themselves have some sort of connection to the case. What is your connection to the case, please? I have now asked you numerous times and it is becoming rather obvious that you are hiding something. Could you please at least tell us generally how you were involved? If you weren't involved and you are just vicariously adopting offence for other people, then there is really nothing more to say and, in my view, the moderator should be having words with you and reminding you that you can't cause disruption on the Forum like this by criticising people for floating theories. That's what a discussion forum is for. This is not the Steve Discussion Forum. By all means, you can make suggestions and comments - and I agree with you in the generality about the properness of how we discuss Colin - but you can't dictate to us.
I think it was the moderator, NGB1066, who called you weird. I'm not at all sure a moderator should be speaking to members like that, but at the same time, I can't say he was wrong in his assessment. You are a very curious person.
Now that I've said all that, I'm off to have a cry. I am, after all, a cry baby.
