The Last Christmas

[guest29835]

Maybe me you and Tatchell should take them for a business lunch?

You may have misunderstood what I meant by 'nicely'.  I just assumed the rumours about you and knuckledusters are true.

On a more serious note, it is a pity that I should have to ignore/block other members.  I am against it on principle because you could end up with us splitting into essentially two fora, each side an echo chamber, but quite honestly I think I have learned what I can from engaging with these people (whoever they are) and I don't have time to play silly buggers.

I must say that both Adam and Cambridgecutie do have their qualities and both can post sensibly when the mood takes them, but I have to draw the line. 

I don't want to get into a Who's Who, but it would not surprise me if Cambridgecutie is Holly Goodhead.  Holly is head and shoulders above the rest of the Red Forum.  I don't agree with all of her theories, but some of what she says coincides with my reading of the evidence, which is reassuring.  Cambridgecutie has shown a similar level of understanding of certain things, while at the same time also having similar blind spots to those of Holly.  At the same time, Holly does have certain negative posting traits (as we all do), and for one reason or another, this seems to have blossomed into Cambridgecutie (if they are one and the same). 

Or rather, as George Galloway said of Christopher Hitchens back in 2005:

"What we have witnessed is something unique in natural history.  The first metamorphosis of a butterfly back into a slug."

Galloway also mentioned a trail of slime.

What a shame!  But I have little choice.

[Adam]

You may have misunderstood what I meant by 'nicely'.  I just assumed the rumours about you and knuckledusters are true.

On a more serious note, it is a pity that I should have to ignore/block other members.  I am against it on principle because you could end up with us splitting into essentially two fora, each side an echo chamber, but quite honestly I think I have learned what I can from engaging with these people (whoever they are) and I don't have time to play silly buggers.

I must say that both Adam and Cambridgecutie do have their qualities and both can post sensibly when the mood takes them, but I have to draw the line. 

I don't want to get into a Who's Who, but it would not surprise me if Cambridgecutie is Holly Goodhead.  Holly is head and shoulders above the rest of the Red Forum.  I don't agree with all of her theories, but some of what she says coincides with my reading of the evidence, which is reassuring.  Cambridgecutie has shown a similar level of understanding of certain things, while at the same time also having similar blind spots to those of Holly.  At the same time, Holly does have certain negative posting traits (as we all do), and for one reason or another, this seems to have blossomed into Cambridgecutie (if they are one and the same). 

Or rather, as George Galloway said of Christopher Hitchens back in 2005:

"What we have witnessed is something unique in natural history.  The first metamorphosis of a butterfly back into a slug."

Galloway also mentioned a trail of slime.

What a shame!  But I have little choice.

Ditto you. Unless you are posting about windsurfing, moral support or thanking me.

[killingeve]

You may have misunderstood what I meant by 'nicely'.  I just assumed the rumours about you and knuckledusters are true.

On a more serious note, it is a pity that I should have to ignore/block other members.  I am against it on principle because you could end up with us splitting into essentially two fora, each side an echo chamber, but quite honestly I think I have learned what I can from engaging with these people (whoever they are) and I don't have time to play silly buggers.

I must say that both Adam and Cambridgecutie do have their qualities and both can post sensibly when the mood takes them, but I have to draw the line. 

I don't want to get into a Who's Who, but it would not surprise me if Cambridgecutie is Holly Goodhead.  Holly is head and shoulders above the rest of the Red Forum.  I don't agree with all of her theories, but some of what she says coincides with my reading of the evidence, which is reassuring.  Cambridgecutie has shown a similar level of understanding of certain things, while at the same time also having similar blind spots to those of Holly.  At the same time, Holly does have certain negative posting traits (as we all do), and for one reason or another, this seems to have blossomed into Cambridgecutie (if they are one and the same). 

Or rather, as George Galloway said of Christopher Hitchens back in 2005:

"What we have witnessed is something unique in natural history.  The first metamorphosis of a butterfly back into a slug."

Galloway also mentioned a trail of slime.

What a shame!  But I have little choice.

If you want to go down the road of who's who I'm pretty certain you're not QC Cheavalier!  There are so few people interested in the Bamber case I wouldn't mind taking a punt on your authentic id, but unlike you I don't bring it onto the forum.  And if I'm right the media has had you down far worse than your George Galloway quote! 

You have zero room to talk about posting sensibly after your angry outburst when you told the moderator to go suck ****.   

[Steve_uk]

What I am telling you is based on what I have been told and shown, and represents my interpretation of such.  The person I refer to is not within the CCRC, and for all I and he/she knows, Jeremy's application could be rejected today, or next week or next month.  That's the best I can do. 

There are certain details I cannot provide now as it would compromise my source, but I may elaborate in the coming months, depending on what happens.

What I will say is that there are supporters of Jeremy's, including some who have seen what I have seen, who are going round saying he will definitely be released next year and they express wonderment that the CCRC has not already referred his case to the Court of Appeal, such is the strength of the evidence - as they see it.  I think those supporters are foolish.  As I stated at the outset of this thread, I expect that this will not be Jeremy's last Christmas in prison.  (Of course, I could be the one who is wrong).

Conversely, I think those on the guilt side who dismiss the possibility of a referral may come out looking foolish.  There are signs I have seen and heard that there are people within the CCRC who are keen to make a second referral to the Court of Appeal in this case, but that does not mean a referral will happen.  Furthermore, it's worth re-emphasising that even if a referral happens, that does not mean the convictions will be overturned.  The sneers of the guilt camp may be vindicated, if not at this stage, then ultimately.

Unfortunately, this is one of those cases where, in all respects and on most points, I cannot help but sound like a Liberal Democrat trying to explain what he thinks.  It's just the way it is.

This is typical of the pompous statements of some, effectively disparaging and sidelining this site.

[Steve_uk]

If you want to go down the road of who's who I'm pretty certain you're not QC Cheavalier!  There are so few people interested in the Bamber case I wouldn't mind taking a punt on your authentic id, but unlike you I don't bring it onto the forum.  And if I'm right the media has had you down far worse than your George Galloway quote! 

You have zero room to talk about posting sensibly after your angry outburst when you told the moderator to go suck ****.

How right CC.

[Adam]

This is typical of the pompous statements of some, effectively disparaging and sidelining this site.

I don't how QC releasing details will 'compromise his source'.

How the heck will we be able to work out who the source is?

[Roch]

You have zero room to talk about posting sensibly after your angry outburst when you told the moderator to go suck ****.

He got time in the cooler for that one. You can't keep bringing up the same single event as a stick to beat him with, imo.

[guest29835]

This is typical of the pompous statements of some, effectively disparaging and sidelining this site.

Blocked as well. Don't have time for it, sorry.

[Steve_uk]

He got time in the cooler for that one. You can't keep bringing up the same single event as a stick to beat him with, imo.

I'm afraid we can and we will.

[Steve_uk]

Blocked as well. Don't have time for it, sorry.

This might be for the best. If you can't stand the heat of Kransekake then get out of the kitchen.

[Roch]

I'm afraid we can and we will.

For what purpose?

[Steve_uk]

For what purpose?

To remind members and passing traffic that he is no independent arbiter of the Forum's rules. We never had a problem of lewdness before his arrival and I don't see why we should endure it now.

[JackieD]

He got time in the cooler for that one. You can't keep bringing up the same single event as a stick to beat him with, imo.

Roch CC has had so many alias Egan Naughty Nun Holly Goodhead and been banned and thrown the most horrendous insults from over on the Red about Lookout so it actually her taking the piss when she has been banned herself. I can’t be bothered dealing with a drunk with issues coming on here to cause disputes

[Roch]

Well Jackie, many of us have had our moments over the years.

[Roch]

So are you questioning QC?  It is quite a statement he has made. As far as I can see he hasn’t misled us so far.  Ever hopeful that this case makes history and mistakes like this never happen again

I was just thinking that it would be brave of the CCRC to refer. Not that that is a good thing. If anything it's a bad thing. Bravery shouldn't come in to it. There should be no pressure whatsoever for them not to refer.