The Official Jeremy Bamber and White House Farm Podcast Series - Season 2

[Jane]

The public think what the drama and MindHouse tell them to think.  Those with a vested interest in shoring up the conviction have more resources and more influence than those who are involved on the defence side.

In an alternative universe, if you populated the TV with documentaries based upon the actions of certain police officers and relatives, the public would think what those programmes told them to think. 

But we don't have that type of media anymore in this country. It got nipped in the bud. Our media is far more compliant in providing the official version of something than it is in questioning it.

We certainly do! The news on BBC is a totally different one from that on the ITV channels.

[Roch]

If the above was so then how do you explain all the anti-vaxxers?  Governments and scientists all around the world are telling their people to get vaccinated and yet many are resistant? 

People are far less deferential today than they were yesterday so to speak.

People are under the misapprehension that the appeal system is set up to right wrongs and expose scandals. So if they hear of a criminal being rejected, they assume it is because the criminal is just a 'wrong'un' who has tried their luck and has quite rightly failed in their misplaced endeavour. It's lazy thinking and assumption based. So in that respect, there are always going to be huge swathes of people who run with the official line or the excuses given by EP and clichés surrounding those excuses.

Regarding anti vaxxers - they are made out to be ignorant and stupid. There is no debate - simply a concerted attempt to make dissenters appear to be ill advised and ill educated.

I understand your point that they don't take the official line - however, this about being injected with something, so it brings it home to each person and makes it personal. The Bamber case is at a distance.

[killingeve]

People are under the misapprehension that the appeal system is set up to right wrongs and expose scandals. So if they hear of a criminal being rejected, they assume it is because the criminal is just a 'wrong'un' who has tried their luck and has quite rightly failed in their misplaced endeavour. It's lazy thinking and assumption based. So in that respect, there are always going to be huge swathes of people who run with the official line or the excuses given by EP and clichés surrounding those excuses.

Regarding anti vaxxers - they are made out to be ignorant and stupid. There is no debate - simply a concerted attempt to make dissenters appear to be ill advised and ill educated.

I understand your point that they don't take the official line - however, this about being injected with something, so it brings it home to each person and makes it personal. The Bamber case is at a distance.

So if its not too personal a question what sets you, and others who believe Bamber innocent, apart from those you've described above?

[Roch]

So if its not too personal a question what sets you, and others who believe Bamber innocent, apart from those you've described above?

Probably similar reasons as to why you also believe he is innocent. I came across one of your very first posts recently, when I did a Google search for something related to JB. It was a bit of a coincidence to say the least and I did chuckle to myself that it was your post that the link took me to. 

[killingeve]

Probably similar reasons as to why you also believe he is innocent. I came across one of your very first posts recently, when I did a Google search.

I can understand why you wish we were on the same team (a bit like the thrashing the Lionesses gave  Latvia last night ending in a 20-0 defeat) but I am afraid it is not so  So I will ask again what sets you apart from the majority who you describe as sheeples for following the official line?

[Jane]

Probably similar reasons as to why you also believe he is innocent. I came across one of your very first posts recently, when I did a Google search for something related to JB. It was a bit of a coincidence to say the least and I did chuckle to myself that it was your post that the link took me to.

Sheer bloody hypocrisy. If this was a poster who you suspected to have changed from guilty to innocent, you'd be heaping plaudits on them, left, right and centre. You wouldn't give a toss about who -in your opinion- they may once have called their self. Instead, you've started a witch hunt. Still, I hope you enjoyed chuckle.

[JackieD]

The public think what the drama and MindHouse tell them to think.  Those with a vested interest in shoring up the conviction have more resources and more influence than those who are involved on the defence side.

In an alternative universe, if you populated the TV with documentaries based upon the actions of certain police officers and relatives, the public would think what those programmes told them to think. 

But we don't have that type of media anymore in this country. It got nipped in the bud. Our media is far more compliant in providing the official version of something than it is in questioning it.

Its interesting that the latest podcast is about an American MOJ. I know there is lots of interest from documentary makers in America and I know Mark Williams Thomas has got really good contacts in America. The American documentary makers would have a field day with the gun and blood evidence.  I personally would like one made without all the omissions in the British documentaries. They done have anyone to answer too

[Roch]

Sheer bloody hypocrisy. If this was a poster who you suspected to have changed from guilty to innocent, you'd be heaping plaudits on them, left, right and centre. You wouldn't give a toss about who -in your opinion- they may once have called their self. Instead, you've started a witch hunt. Still, I hope you enjoyed chuckle.

Not quite sure I follow here. Are you saying CC has confirmed they have changed stance? If not, I regard CC's involvement here as pertaining to a game or strategy about which CC is keeping to herself.

I think your own problem is the nature of your own stance change. Because it was a sudden about-face seemingly linked to a change in stance by others, it tends to come back to haunt you. That's not my problem Jane. We all have our crosses to bear.

[Jane]

Not quite sure I follow here. Are you saying CC has confirmed they have changed stance? If not, I regard CC's involvement here as pertaining to a game or strategy about which CC is keeping to herself.

I think your own problem is the nature of your own stance change. Because it was a sudden about-face seemingly linked to a change in stance by others, it tends to come back to haunt you. That's not my problem Jane. We all have our crosses to bear.

If that's the view you wish to take, fine. Is what you cling to as being truth? No, it isn't and what you see as being "a sudden about-face" certainly wasn't, but apparently it's more amusing to claim YOU know why I did it, because you don't actually CARE why. It's also become apparent that you enjoy, and perpetuate haunting. Enjoy carrying your cross..................

...............Oh! Just for the record, I've had no correspondence with CC, nor they with me.

[lookout]

If the above was so then how do you explain all the anti-vaxxers?  Governments and scientists all around the world are telling their people to get vaccinated and yet many are resistant? 

People are far less deferential today than they were yesterday so to speak.

Because the Government seem to have their own rules and make them up as they go along !

[killingeve]

Not quite sure I follow here. Are you saying CC has confirmed they have changed stance? If not, I regard CC's involvement here as pertaining to a game or strategy about which CC is keeping to herself.

I think your own problem is the nature of your own stance change. Because it was a sudden about-face seemingly linked to a change in stance by others, it tends to come back to haunt you. That's not my problem Jane. We all have our crosses to bear.

I thought you were giving us all a break having a break until the New Year?

I wouldn't concern yourself with some numpty on a forum with far too much time on their hands.

As if you don't have any?  You want a child killer acquitted FGS! 

[lookout]

Malcolm Alexander is interviewed by Emma Morris of the Jeremy Bamber Innocence Campaign:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLKDyktRkUg

So----the police didn't like him ? Familiar territory, eh ? And he " looked " as though he'd committed the crime. Right.

[killingeve]

I thought you were giving us all a break having a break until the New Year?

I wouldn't concern yourself with some numpty on a forum with far too much time on their hands.

As if you don't have any?  You want a child killer acquitted FGS!

Jane I was referring to myself as the numpty not you!

[Roch]

If that's the view you wish to take, fine. Is what you cling to as being truth? No, it isn't and what you see as being "a sudden about-face" certainly wasn't, but apparently it's more amusing to claim YOU know why I did it, because you don't actually CARE why. It's also become apparent that you enjoy, and perpetuate haunting. Enjoy carrying your cross..................

...............Oh! Just for the record, I've had no correspondence with CC, nor they with me.

I don't recall having giving you a hard time about it. All I said was that some of David's questions to you are fair ones. It's a bit like a politician passionately arguing the case for something, then all of a sudden, passionately arguing the case for the opposite. People are going to scratch their heads and say ... 'hang on..' (cue fair question).

[Jane]

I don't recall having giving you a hard time about it. All I said was that some of David's questions to you are fair ones. It's a bit like a politician passionately arguing the case for something, then all of a sudden, passionately arguing the case for the opposite. People are going to scratch their heads and say ... 'hang on..' (cue fair question).

I didn't claim you to have given ME a hard time, but it looks, from where I'm sitting, that you're doing to CC -whatever your reasons/beliefs, WHAT you're doing is as close as make no difference- exactly what David did to me. There have, indeed, been politicians who have changed sides -Winston Churchill comes immediately to mind but there have been others more recent- it could be argued that they to give a better service to their constituents for having done so, because they have greater belief in their new cause.