Industrial Frame Department

[Jane]

Totally agree

Would you like to elucidate on that, Jackie

[JackieD]

Would you like to elucidate on that, Jackie

Before I reply to you I’m waiting for your reply to David

[Jane]

Before I reply to you I’m waiting for your reply to David

I have no idea what David is asking. I have him on ignore.

Just in case you need help in spelling. it, ELUCIDATE means to explain or make clear

[Steve_uk]

Not that I necessarily believe there was an 'industrial frame', but if Jeremy is innocent then evidence has been concealed.  People who are sceptical about the concept of an extensive and co-ordinated but hidden conspiracy should consider the Post Office Horizon scandal, which has been topical recently in the news:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal

You would have been better served by creating a separate thread rather than trying to link innocent sub-postmasters to a convicted mass murderer.

[Roch]

I have no idea what David is asking. I have him on ignore.

Just in case you need help in spelling. it, ELUCIDATE means to explain or make clear

Although you may find them irritating, I think David's questions to you are fair. If you 'about face' as you did (and are fully entitled to do), that switch does create some puzzling areas with regards to your original stance. I think you should be willing to explore these. Obviously, you cannot be forced to do so.

[Adam]

I have suggested the creation of 'The Industrial Frame' department in this case.

The police, experts, Julie, the relatives, people who knew Bamber, the justice system.

There is so much forensic & circumstantial evidence, the only other option is Bamber is guilty.

[Jane]

Although you may find them irritating, I think David's questions to you are fair. If you 'about face' as you did (and are fully entitled to do), that switch does create some puzzling areas with regards to your original stance. I think you should be willing to explore these. Obviously, you cannot be forced to do so.

this forum.


Thank-you Roch, but when I feel the need to speak with a counsellor, it will be a professional, NOT this forum.

As for the reasons for my change of stance -and thank-you for your approval- but having explained, ad nauseum, there really is no point in my 'exploring' it any further when there are morons and axxxxxxxs who refuse to accept it. Frankly, I don't actually care that the "switch does create some puzzling areas with regards to your original stance" because it's no one else's business. At least I didn't come onto this site pretending, like some, to hold one stance whilst believing the other.

David's questions to me, whatever they are, won't be fair -and you're VERY naive to believe them to be so- they will be calculated to goad, which is why I have him on ignore.

[JackieD]

I have no idea what David is asking. I have him on ignore.

Just in case you need help in spelling. it, ELUCIDATE means to explain or make clear

That’s ok I will help you out and post David’s questions so we can get this sorted tonight

[guest29835]

You would have been better served by creating a separate thread rather than trying to link innocent sub-postmasters to a convicted mass murderer.

I have done no such thing, you lying scumbag.

[Adam]

Although you may find them irritating, I think David's questions to you are fair. If you 'about face' as you did (and are fully entitled to do), that switch does create some puzzling areas with regards to your original stance. I think you should be willing to explore these. Obviously, you cannot be forced to do so.

David did also change stance from hardcore guilter. So he could goad Caroline & Jane.

He attempted a quiet stance change as well as he had no evidence reason.

He eventually came up with two minor evidence reasons which to him negates everything else!

[guest7363]

David did also change stance from hardcore guilter. So he could goad Caroline & Jane.

He attempted a quiet stance change as well as he had no evidence reason.

He eventually came up with two minor evidence reasons which to him negates everything else!

I think there’s  only you and Lookout without a stance change, I suspected innocence at first, Roch was Innocent, Guilty and now innocent, so he’s had the most changes out of everyone on here. QC 96% guilty

[Jane]

That’s ok I will help you out and post David’s questions so we can get this sorted tonight

Help from you? I'd sooner take poison which is what accepting 'help' from you would amount to. You seem to have found a kindred spirit in David. I guess two people goading is more fun than one, isn't it.

[Steve_uk]

I have done no such thing, you lying scumbag.

You have by the very nature of the thread title. Once again you don't think through the implications of what you write.

[Adam]

I think there’s another only you and Lookout without a stance change, I suspected innocence at first, Roch was Innocent, Guilty and now innocent, so he’s had the most changes out of everyone on here. QC 96% guilty

Went into the case with an open mind. As knew nothing about it.

All I could do was read what's online, watch Youtube videos & read the best reviewed book - Wilkes.

For me Julie, the relatives, the police & experts all lying simultaneously (for weak reasons) was very weak.

[Jane]

I think there’s another only you and Lookout without a stance change, I suspected innocence at first, Roch was Innocent, Guilty and now innocent, so he’s had the most changes out of everyone on here. QC 96% guilty

REALLY RJ??!!!! You're actually saying that Roch has changed stance Then WTF is he questioning me for. QC? Well he doesn't seem to be certain which way he's going to swing. I can only think he's keeping his options open so that whatever the outcome of the next whatever!!! he can claim to have been right?