Tom, Ben And Lorraine Making Light Of The White House Farm Murders

[Jane]

Ask you mate Caroline she posted the link and then you can apologise. I will post the link myself

I will be more than happy to hear Colin say the exact words, without ambiguity, naturally, that he and Sheila were definitely going/planning to get back together.

[Steve_uk]

A number of posts have been removed from this thread.  These were posts which added little or nothing to the debate but contained attacks on other members.  It is difficult to know where to draw the line but it is necessary to exercise judgement and make decisions in what appears to be the best interests of the forum and its members.  I ask all members for their cooperation in minimising future forum problems.

Yet you allow Mr. Q C Chevalier to include in one thread a picture of David Gwillim in body armour, references to the heroicism of Henry V and a possible association with Jeremy Bamber's latent acting ability, when the latter is a convicted mass murderer of five including twin six-year-old boys. You already allowed him to contravene Forum rules in the most egregious way, so in my eyes the horse has already bolted and this Forum you purport to superintend has no shred of credibility left.

[Steve_uk]

I believe Colin has, already, taken responsibility.  If you have not done so, I recommend you read his book - both editions, if you can.  The notion that he should take further blame or responsibility is, in my view, obscene.  In my own comments about him, I only suggest that he should be seen as responsible for what he did and did not do, and no more, and whatever consequences he may suffer for it have been suffered in the terrible loss of his sons, for which he deserves our unending sympathy and condolences.

I think it is OK to criticise Colin.  He won't like it, and may be offended and protest, and I don't blame him, but it is what it is and what happened, happened.  To comment on this case from the side-lines leads, inescapably, to the expression of judgement of the individuals caught up in it.  We all have shortcomings.

We don't need any advice emanating from you. If you have read the book (which I doubt) you have taken very few lessons from it.

[JackieD]

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/minimal-entry-intvw-colin-caffell-sheils-ex-husband-news-footage/1131154434

[ngb1066]

Yet you allow Mr. Q C Chevalier to include in one thread a picture of David Gwillim in body armour, references to the heroicism of Henry V and a possible association with Jeremy Bamber's latent acting ability, when the latter is a convicted mass murderer of five including twin six-year-old boys. You already allowed him to contravene Forum rules in the most egregious way, so in my eyes the horse has already bolted and this Forum you purport to superintend has no shred of credibility left.

Why on earth do you feel the need to make this post, which is totally unhelpful?  If those are your views why don't you leave the forum.

This is a thankless task at times.  I am tempted to impose all the bans which I am urged to implement on almost a daily basis.  We would have around three members left and we could talk to each other!

 

[Steve_uk]

Why on earth do you feel the need to make this post, which is totally unhelpful?  If those are your views why don't you leave the forum.

This is a thankless task at times.  I am tempted to impose all the bans which I am urged to implement on almost a daily basis.  We would have around three members left and we could talk to each other!

But you have started to prune posts which are not to your liking. How about redacting this thread so it's not glamorizing mass murder? https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10929.0.html

[ngb1066]

But you have started to prune posts which are not to your liking. How about redacting this thread so it's not glamorizing mass murder? https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10929.0.html

The opening post of the thread to which you refer was not in breach of forum rules, but clearly it was not to your liking.  You therefore piled in and gave the benefit of your opinion of the post and its author.  I have not censored posts on the thread.  I really think you should back off from your attacks. 

 

[Steve_uk]

The opening post of the thread to which you refer was not in breach of forum rules, but clearly it was not to your liking.  You therefore piled in and gave the benefit of your opinion of the post and its author.  I have not censored posts on the thread.  I really think you should back off from your attacks.

I really don't think you know what Mr. Q C Chevalier is doing. He's playing to the Jeremy-is-innocent gallery at every turn, associating him with public figures hoping that some of the kudos rubs off and therefore is minimizing and glamorizing the crimes of which he was convicted.

This is not the Mr Q C Chevalier Show but the Jeremy Bamber Case discussion. There should be no need to link the latter to David Gwillim, Laurence Olivier or other famous personages. The reality is the man was a complete failure at school, unpopular with his peers, snooty with work colleagues and associates, throwing everything his parents offered him whilst they were alive back in their faces, gambling on blaming five murders on a mentally-ill young woman who was incapable of using a rifle, let alone reloading twice.

If Mr Q C Chevalier continues to legitimize Jeremy Bamber in this way I will have no alternative but to quit the Forum and leave you to it.

[guest29835]

I really don't think you know what Mr. Q C Chevalier is doing. He's playing to the Jeremy-is-innocent gallery at every turn, associating him with public figures hoping that some of the kudos rubs off and therefore is minimizing and glamorizing the crimes of which he was convicted.

This is not the Mr Q C Chevalier Show but the Jeremy Bamber Case discussion. There should be no need to link the latter to David Gwillim, Laurence Olivier or other famous personages. The reality is the man was a complete failure at school, unpopular with his peers, snooty with work colleagues and associates, throwing everything his parents offered him whilst they were alive back in their faces, gambling on blaming five murders on a mentally-ill young woman who was incapable of using a rifle, let alone reloading twice.

If Mr Q C Chevalier continues to legitimize Jeremy Bamber in this way I will have no alternative but to quit the Forum and leave you to it.

I have advanced none of the arguments or positions you ascribe to me.

There is the freedom to criticise, including - at times - the freedom to challenge the poster, where this may be relevant - but there is also the necessary freedom for posters to explore avenues and ideas without being subjected to constant, nagging attacks of a personal nature that have little or no relevance to matters under discussion.

In the context of an internet forum, these attacks can be quite disruptive and off-putting, and serve as a distraction.  In the worst cases, as here, they harm the Forum itself and may deter free thought and discussion. 

By all means, criticise.  Criticise harshly, if your feelings are strong, but try to appreciate that, in any controversy, people in good faith may form different views to your own for perfectly valid reasons.  Attacking the person does you no credit.

[Jane]

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/minimal-entry-intvw-colin-caffell-sheils-ex-husband-news-footage/1131154434

Thank-you for that, Jackie. Indeed, he does speak of there being "a lot of hope of getting something together again" so you may be forgiven for believing that they WERE getting back together. Several things cause me to think that it wasn't going to happen, however, and I think all thoughts of such only occurred to him after she'd been killed.

 Two, I've already mentioned on another thread. The coldness of the journey to WHF and the lack of any psychical contact between them when Colin left -he never made mention of any loving, hopeful farewells- are decidedly NOT the actions of two people who'd been discussing  the possibility of a future together, AND, perhaps the main drawback to them reconciling was his current girlfriend who he was still with. Remove ALL those obstacles, and we're still left with her mental fragility/illness which was probably one of the reasons he couldn't live with her. It was still there.

You talk about his guilt. You attempt to load him with guilt which isn't his to carry. However, he must have had thoughts of "What if?" Well, there are many "If only's" here. He may well have believed that "if only" JB hadn't taken them from me, everything would have been fine.

[Steve_uk]

I have advanced none of the arguments or positions you ascribe to me.

There is the freedom to criticise, including - at times - the freedom to challenge the poster, where this may be relevant - but there is also the necessary freedom for posters to explore avenues and ideas without being subjected to constant, nagging attacks of a personal nature that have little or no relevance to matters under discussion.

In the context of an internet forum, these attacks can be quite disruptive and off-putting, and serve as a distraction.  In the worst cases, as here, they harm the Forum itself and may deter free thought and discussion. 

By all means, criticise.  Criticise harshly, if your feelings are strong, but try to appreciate that, in any controversy, people in good faith may form different views to your own for perfectly valid reasons.  Attacking the person does you no credit.

But your posts often have little or no relevance to the subject at hand. It's quite frankly obscene to speculate on Jeremy's latent acting ability and associate him either directly or indirectly with David Gwillam, Henry V and England's glory days.

[ngb1066]

I really don't think you know what Mr. Q C Chevalier is doing. He's playing to the Jeremy-is-innocent gallery at every turn, associating him with public figures hoping that some of the kudos rubs off and therefore is minimizing and glamorizing the crimes of which he was convicted.

This is not the Mr Q C Chevalier Show but the Jeremy Bamber Case discussion. There should be no need to link the latter to David Gwillim, Laurence Olivier or other famous personages. The reality is the man was a complete failure at school, unpopular with his peers, snooty with work colleagues and associates, throwing everything his parents offered him whilst they were alive back in their faces, gambling on blaming five murders on a mentally-ill young woman who was incapable of using a rifle, let alone reloading twice.

If Mr Q C Chevalier continues to legitimize Jeremy Bamber in this way I will have no alternative but to quit the Forum and leave you to it.

You really do have to come to terms with the fact that this is a discussion forum with members having widely differing views on the Bamber case.  There are those who are convinced that Jeremy Bamber is innocent, and others who feel that he did not have a fair trial and that at the very least this is a potential major miscarriage of justice.  Those members with those such obviously do not share your assessment of JB and your outrage when anyone says anything complimentary about him.  They do not see themselves as "supporting a child murderer" and attacking them for that, which you have repeatedly done here, is not appropriate.  QCC is free to "legitimise" JB if he sees fit to do so, and to express his views on any of the aspects of the case, including others involved in the tragic case. 

 

[guest29835]

You really do have to come to terms with the fact that this is a discussion forum with members having widely differing views on the Bamber case.  There are those who are convinced that Jeremy Bamber is innocent, and others who feel that he did not have a fair trial and that at the very least this is a potential major miscarriage of justice.  Those members with those such obviously do not share your assessment of JB and your outrage when anyone says anything complimentary about him.  They do not see themselves as "supporting a child murderer" and attacking them for that, which you have repeatedly done here, is not appropriate.  QCC is free to "legitimise" JB if he sees fit to do so, and to express his views on any of the aspects of the case, including others involved in the tragic case.

Just to make something absolutely clear: in no way am I attempting to legitimise murder or murderers, and nothing I have posted here could be reasonably construed as such, and in any event, that is certainly not my intention.  I realise that NGB1066 is not implying such, but let me state that anyway.

If Jeremy is guilty, then I abhor his crimes and condemn him utterly, and he stands rightly punished.  The reason I have not abundantly made that clear is that I assume that I am in the company of intelligent and reasonable adults and that certain obvious things don't have to be spelled out.  Murder is obviously wrong.  Mass murder is obviously quite a bit worse.  Murder of blameless, innocent children is unforgivable - obviously.

[Roch]

You really do have to come to terms with the fact that this is a discussion forum with members having widely differing views on the Bamber case.  There are those who are convinced that Jeremy Bamber is innocent, and others who feel that he did not have a fair trial and that at the very least this is a potential major miscarriage of justice.  Those members with those such obviously do not share your assessment of JB and your outrage when anyone says anything complimentary about him.  They do not see themselves as "supporting a child murderer" and attacking them for that, which you have repeatedly done here, is not appropriate.  QCC is free to "legitimise" JB if he sees fit to do so, and to express his views on any of the aspects of the case, including others involved in the tragic case.

Steve, I think you need to take this on board. The points are well made. You are at your best when you refer to testimony that portrays Jeremy Bamber in a bad light. Even a JB supporter has to take some of that in to account when considering how JB may have come to be where he is, or even whether he may have had some involvement. Likewise, figures like Colin are not sacrosanct within the context of a JB innocent scenario. JB himself is obviously an extremely wronged man, in an innocent scenario. It might not be a context that you are willing to consider - but you should.

[Steve_uk]

You really do have to come to terms with the fact that this is a discussion forum with members having widely differing views on the Bamber case.  There are those who are convinced that Jeremy Bamber is innocent, and others who feel that he did not have a fair trial and that at the very least this is a potential major miscarriage of justice.  Those members with those such obviously do not share your assessment of JB and your outrage when anyone says anything complimentary about him.  They do not see themselves as "supporting a child murderer" and attacking them for that, which you have repeatedly done here, is not appropriate.  QCC is free to "legitimise" JB if he sees fit to do so, and to express his views on any of the aspects of the case, including others involved in the tragic case.

Oh but Mr. Q C C hevalier believes Jeremy Bamber to be 96% guilty even on a bad day. I suggest to you that were I to post a picture of Peter Sutcliffe holding a hammer in a prison workshop, or Myra Hindley dancing the Loco-motion or deciding unilaterally that Dennis Nilsen might have played Prince Andrew in some television adaptation of the latter's life members might just have something to gripe about.