You were speculating on how a convicted mass murderer might have turned out had he been given acting lessons. I've already told you that fees at Gresham's are £12000 per annum. He had all the opportunities money could buy and made a complete mess of his life.
Stick to the Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion, or start a thread on another section of the site if you wish to discuss David Gwillam's acting prowess or the innocence of sub-postmasters.
Well, as I see it, we all have a choice, don't we. Either all those who have given offence could leave, or all those who claim offence has been given them could leave. 'Course, some of us do both. WE can eithr put up and shut up or make more use of the ignore button. Sadly, I fear such might mean we end up, as ngb said earlier, with only three people posting. Boring, eh?.............and rather silly.
Jackie at least I know where you and lookout stand and I expect most of what you're going to write. But how do you deal with someone who thinks Jeremy Bamber is 96% guilty on a bad day yet he's not a predator?
Steve and Jane seem to think they should decide what should be posted about the case to the Forum and that anybody whose views about the case offend them or differ from theirs should be attacked and insulted without recourse, and have their posts removed and potentially be banned. If I protest about being insulted, then I am 'sensitive' and a 'cry baby', or whatever. According to Jane, I need to "put up or shut up" or something like that. No mention is made that the Forum Rules forbid all this.
Steve seems a bit puzzled by anybody who takes a view about the case that doesn't fit into a neat pre-conceived box. He demands that I declare my allegiance to one flag or the other and start screeching about how Jeremy is innocent as the pure driven snow, or an irredeemable monster.
I must admit, I am not entirely clear what point Steve and Jane really are making in these posts, or what their posts have to do with what I actually said in the opening post to the thread, or indeed what they are trying to achieve here, but the above seems to be - more or less - the effect of what they are saying and doing, albeit they do make exceptions now and then. Steve reassures JackieD that at least he knows where she stands, and although Lookout has harsher things than I to say about Colin, she doesn't receive the same treatment. He just doesn't like me - and I should put up with being attacked, insulted and abused, according to Jane.
Steve did also say earlier that if his demands about how the Forum should be run are not agreed to, he will leave the Forum. Unfortunately, I for one cannot agree to Steve's demands. I will decide what I post and what my posts contain, not Steve and Jane, and I will not accept being insulted and attacked simply because I have different views to Steve.
I hope all that is clear.
Thank you.
