Jeremy Bamber, The Actor

[Steve_uk]

Where's the evidence for your claims above ie 

- Lacklustre performance?
- Who/what are the certain influences you refer to?
- In what way was Gresham's a massive opportunity but also a difficult environment?
- Who from Gresham's has launched into a full-frontal assault on him?
- On what basis did Mr and Mrs Bamber and his teachers fail him?

Have you noticed Cambridge that's he's very good at bombastically presenting a thread but quite incapable of a summary thereof? You have posted many times on the 2002 appeal amongst other subjects and are prepared to engage in dialogue which results therefrom. Adam often makes lists in his posts and is prepared to explain to members his thoughts when necessary. Yet Mr. Q C Chevalier it seems is quite incapacitated in this regard. He posts and members have to like it or lump it.

[guest29835]

Don't be stupid. I have taught English language and literature (amongst other subjects) for thirty years plus. Don't insult me that I can't read your scatterbrain thread, which I am now asking for a third time for you to summarize the salient points.

You say you have taught English language and literature, then you should appreciate the concept of wandering or discursive writing.  I don't wish to summarise it.  You remain free to read it or not read it.

I'm not clear what is this compelling need you have for me to summarise my piece?  I can say my piece however I like.  I'm not clear why you feel the need, or think there is a need, to attack me for choosing to say my piece in my way. 

Please do things in your way and I'll do things in my way, and provided we don't step on the rights of others, there should be no issue.  At the moment, you are trampling all over the rules of this Forum and anybody looking in must think this is an house of nutters.

[Steve_uk]

You say you have taught English language and literature, then you should appreciate the concept of wandering or discursive writing.  I don't wish to summarise it.  You remain free to read it or not read it.

I'm not clear what is this compelling need you have for me to summarise my piece?  I can say my piece however I like.  I'm not clear why you feel the need, or think there is a need, to attack me for choosing to say my piece in my way. 

Please do things in your way and I'll do things in my way, and provided we don't step on the rights of others, there should be no issue.  At the moment, you are trampling all over the rules of this Forum and anybody looking in must think this is an house of nutters.

But you can't justify what you write. This is what I object to. How do you think Colin Caffell feels when he looks in to see a still of or references to David Gwillim, Laurence Olivier, Mark Rylance or whomever you wish to associate with a convicted mass murderer? You are once again legitimizing a convicted mass murderer by the back door, and I will call this practice of yours out wherever it occurs.

[guest29835]

But you can't justify what you write. This is what I object to. How do you think Colin Caffell feels when he looks in to see a still of or references to David Gwillim, Laurence Olivier, Mark Rylance or whomever you wish to assiciate with a convicted mass murderer? You are once again legitimizing a convicted mass murderer by the back door, and I will call this practice of yours out wherever it occurs.

I am not under your authority.  I am not required to justify to you my own existence on the Earth in This Year of Our Lord or justify to you what I write.  You are not God.

I notice, by the way, that there are pro-innocent posters on here who say very harsh, inflammatory things about Colin, and I have hinted now several times that it displeases me that this is allowed to carry on, but you ne'er have a word to say to them.  You run away and hide.  One of these people is somebody you seem to get along with famously and I think that partly explains it.  This isn't really about Colin Caffell at all.  You don't care a jot about him.  This is all about you and your personal issues and likes and dislikes.

[Steve_uk]

I am not under your authority.  I am not required to justify to you my own existence on the Earth in This Year of Our Lord or justify to you what I write.  You are not God.

I notice, by the way, that there are pro-innocent posters on here who say very harsh, inflammatory things about Colin, and I have hinted now several times that it displeases me that this is allowed to carry on, but you ne'er have a word to say to them.  You run away and hide.  One of these people is somebody you seem to get along with famously and I think that partly explains it.  This isn't really about Colin Caffell at all.  You don't care a jot about him.  This is all about you and your personal issues and likes and dislikes.

I doubt you've ever cared about anyone in life, apart from possibly your mother, whose death hit you hard. It's why through your thoughtless and selfish actions you landed in jail in the first place and why you feel such an empathy for convicted mass murderer Jeremy Bamber. Good on you that you now have a family of your own (and let's hope you can support them financially). I'm sure you wish a better outcome for your offspring than you had yourself.

[killingeve]

You say you have taught English language and literature, then you should appreciate the concept of wandering or discursive writing.  I don't wish to summarise it.  You remain free to read it or not read it.

I'm not clear what is this compelling need you have for me to summarise my piece?  I can say my piece however I like.  I'm not clear why you feel the need, or think there is a need, to attack me for choosing to say my piece in my way.

Please do things in your way and I'll do things in my way, and provided we don't step on the rights of others, there should be no issue.  At the moment, you are trampling all over the rules of this Forum and anybody looking in must think this is an house of nutters.

And yet you were recently running to the moderator complaining about Adam's style of posting.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1838.msg504580.html#msg504580

Assuming you were able to meet any entry requirements to Gresham's I doubt you would last the day. 

[Roch]

I doubt you've ever cared about anyone in life, apart from possibly your mother, whose death hit you hard. It's why through your thoughtless and selfish actions you landed in jail in the first place. Good on you that you now have a family of your own (and let's hope you can support them financially). I'm sure you wish a better outcome for your offspring than you had yourself.

Bit below the belt that Steve.

[Roch]

And yet you were recently running to the moderator complaining about Adam's style of posting.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1838.msg504580.html#msg504580

Which the moderator agrees, is akin to a form of spamming at times.

[Steve_uk]

Bit below the belt that Steve.

I respond in kind.

#4

These things are not simple.  In that vein, no doubt those I criticise would have something to say in their own defence, but I would prefer to hear it from them, not from a screeching, sanctimonious nonentity like you.

[Steve_uk]

Which the moderator agrees, is akin to a form of spamming at times.

The point is that we all have different posting styles. But whatever style we have we should respond to members' queries and be prepared to justify, not go off in a sulk.

[guest29835]

Bit below the belt that Steve.

I am sick of him.  He claims to be a teacher.  He should therefore be encouraging people in their efforts, maybe offering constructive criticism, but not constantly doing people down.

But can I just say that to deal with this cowardly bully, people have to be united in going to the moderator and saying, 'Enough!'  Not that I am suggesting you have said this in so many words, but it's not good enough to just say you want to keep the post count of the Forum up or keep the Forum busy and therefore we should put up with him.  When you say that, you are effectively suggesting that I should put up with this treatment, which I have had since the start, so that the Forum stays busy.  It's not even true anyway.  When I joined the Forum was slow.  At the moment, the post count of the Forum is being sustained by these stupid and unnecessary arguments and potentially good posters must be put off by it.

[killingeve]

Bit below the belt that Steve.

QC has stated he was brought up by chavs.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=post;quote=505597;topic=10929.15

[guest29835]

The point is that we all have different posting styles. But whatever style we have we should respond to members' queries and be prepared to justify, not go off in a sulk.

Who's sulking?  Not me.  You admit you have not read the piece at the start of this thread.  That means virtually everything that has happened on this thread just revolves around you selfishly attacking me and having a tantrum. 

Is it because you want to ruin the thread?  I really do think Mike and NGB1066 need to carefully reflect on all this.  They need to look at this thread and your behaviour here and consider things.

[killingeve]

Who's sulking?  Not me.  You admit you have not read the piece at the start of this thread.  That means virtually everything that has happened on this thread just revolves around you selfishly attacking me and having a tantrum. 

Is it because you want to ruin the thread?  I really do think Mike and NGB1066 need to carefully reflect on all this.  They need to look at this thread and your behaviour here and consider things.

I have replied to many of your posts, including on this thread, only to be met with a deafening silence!

You might fare better if you keep posts brief, case related, to the point and use plain English. 

What makes you think Mike/NGB1066 have the time or inclination to read your long wordy posts?

Why can't you just integrate and talk about the main issues instead of flouncing around? 

[killingeve]

The point is that we all have different posting styles. But whatever style we have we should respond to members' queries and be prepared to justify, not go off in a sulk.

I agree Steve.