Evidence Sheila was docile/uncoordinated just before being shot:

[guest29835]

We do try not to call fellow-members "crazy" and "nutty".

Why not?  If people behave in a strange manner, and if it's disruptive, and if polite requests are ignored, isn't there a natural conclusion that one can come to?

It has nothing to do with his views.  I've encountered people on the innocent side who are quite crackers. 

This case attracts them.  You yourself came on this Forum on New Year Eve's just to insult me.  You spent October to December coming on the Forum and doing nothing but insulting me.  I had to issue you with a harassment notice.  You're barmy.

[Roch]

I think Steve is probably referring to the label, crazy (or barmy) as applied to a person, due to such terms having fell out of favour with regard to the mental health of any person. These days it is more accepted to apply such terms to an action rather than a person. Thus, Adam's multiple reply method might be deemed 'crazy' without implying that Adam himself is 'crazy'. This may have been what Gascoigne actually meant. Though, I am surmising here.

[Jane]

I think Steve is probably referring to the label, crazy (or barmy) as applied to a person, due such terms having fell out of favour with regard to the mental health of any person. These days it is more accepted to apply such terms to an action rather than a person. Thus, Adam's multiple reply method might be deemed 'crazy' without implying that Adam himself is 'crazy'. This may have been what Gascoigne actually meant. Though, I am surmising here.

Very charitable of you, Roch

[Roch]

Very charitable of you, Roch

Well I could be wrong. I'm sure that if I am, I will be informed 😏

[Steve_uk]

I think Steve is probably referring to the label, crazy (or barmy) as applied to a person, due to such terms having fell out of favour with regard to the mental health of any person. These days it is more accepted to apply such terms to an action rather than a person. Thus, Adam's multiple reply method might be deemed 'crazy' without implying that Adam himself is 'crazy'. This may have been what Gascoigne actually meant. Though, I am surmising here.

As far as #150 is concerned I think the Moderator/s should take action before this site degenerates into constant, mutual, vitriolic abuse. If the post is not removed there will be reprisals.

[Steve_uk]

Why not?  If people behave in a strange manner, and if it's disruptive, and if polite requests are ignored, isn't there a natural conclusion that one can come to?

It has nothing to do with his views.  I've encountered people on the innocent side who are quite crackers. 

This case attracts them.  You yourself came on this Forum on New Year Eve's just to insult me.  You spent October to December coming on the Forum and doing nothing but insulting me.  I had to issue you with a harassment notice.  You're barmy.

Don't flatter yourself. I have far better things to do with my time. Nobody insulted you since you re-emerged on this site with your new alter ego. The worst state psychologically is not to know that you've been damaged and this applies to you: you've been damaged in your personal life through your association with a mentally-ill individual and you were damaged during your stay in prison, though you tried desperately (and still do) not to acknowledge it.

[Roch]

Steve, I agree that Gascoigne should avoid using terms like 'barmy' directed at an actual member (as opposed to just being directed to their actions).  That being said, your response is way over the top here. It comes across like you are looking to get an explosive response from Gascoigne in turn, which will inevitably require moderation action of some form. Can you please de-escalate this feud? At the very least, please take it to the appropriate moderation thread and conduct it in as civil manner as possible.

[guest29835]

Steve, I agree that Gascoigne should avoid using terms like 'barmy' directed at an actual member (as opposed to just being directed to their actions).  That being said, your response is way over the top here. It comes across like you are looking to get an explosive response from Gascoigne in turn, which will inevitably require moderation action of some form. Can you please de-escalate this feud? At the very least, please take it to the appropriate moderation thread and conduct it in as civil manner as possible.

You are absolutely bang on here.  It's nice to see somebody who can actually moderate.  He is trying to provoke me.  He has done it constantly since I first joined this Forum.  You are correct to warn him.  And I am not his first victim. 

I do maintain that calling somebody 'nutty' or 'barmy' is acceptable in everyday conversation when - as here - the behaviour is extreme and warrants it.  It has nothing to do with somebody's mental health and is not offensive. 

However, as you correctly say, I did not call Adam 'crazy'.  I said his actions were crazy, which they plainly are.  Both Jane and Steve have twisted it to make it sounds like I said otherwise. 

Thanks.

[ngb1066]

It's nice to see somebody who can actually moderate. 

Please be careful.  There should be no more sly digs. 
 

[snow66!]

I thought it would be  good idea to make this easily accessible for all members.

Barry Parker.

Michael Horsnell.

June Bamber.

Carol Ann Lee.

Tora Tompkinson.

Multiple side effects of Haloperiodal .

Pamela Boutflour.

Roger Wilkes.

Jeremy Bamber WS.

Julie Mugford WS.

Sheila having no other injuries.

Bamber having no injuries. 

Sheila being shot in Bamber's chosen location.
[`Sheila' did not sleep in her own bed at all at any stage between supper time on the evening of the 6th and the raid team forcibly entering the farmhouse at 7.30am the following morning, 7th August 1985]

I have a bone to pick with you Adam.You have read BLOOD RELATIONS by Roger Wilkes,yet you have failed to include a piece of evidence from page 41----On the morning of 6 August,Sheila and the twins were seen walking one of the dogs in woods near White House Farm.Julie Foakes,the daughter of one of the farmhands,remembered Sheila skipping about with the children quite happily.-----You tried to hide this Adam.You are a naughty boy!

[Adam]

I have a bone to pick with you Adam.You have read BLOOD RELATIONS by Roger Wilkes,yet you have failed to include a piece of evidence from page 41----On the morning of 6 August,Sheila and the twins were seen walking one of the dogs in woods near White House Farm.Julie Foakes,the daughter of one of the farmhands,remembered Sheila skipping about with the children quite happily.-----You tried to hide this Adam.You are a naughty boy!

Well if you type in 'skipping' in search, 30 references come up. So no secret.

What do you think of Wilkes's book?

[snow66!]

Well if you type in 'skipping' in search, 30 references come up. So no secret.

What do you think of Wilkes's book?

I am only at page 62 Adam,i am not a fast reader.

[Rob_]

I have a bone to pick with you Adam.You have read BLOOD RELATIONS by Roger Wilkes,yet you have failed to include a piece of evidence from page 41----On the morning of 6 August,Sheila and the twins were seen walking one of the dogs in woods near White House Farm.Julie Foakes,the daughter of one of the farmhands,remembered Sheila skipping about with the children quite happily.-----You tried to hide this Adam.You are a naughty boy!

You seem surprised Snow?

[snow66!]

You seem surprised Snow?

Well,its no big deal Rob.The thing is no matter how Sheila was acting on that final day,her illness makes it more than possible that she could have carried out the shootings.She was definitely acting strange and withdrawn.

[Rob_]

Well,its no big deal Rob.The thing is no matter how Sheila was acting on that final day,her illness makes it more than possible that she could have carried out the shootings.She was definitely acting strange and withdrawn.

I agree Snow, but Adam would have us believe Sheila could not get off the sofa oh well.