New JB forum

[Roch]

I never had a problem with QC and he didn't seem to have a problem with me. 

Seems to have been a marmite poster. Some of his input on the Bamber case blew the guilters away. They couldn't live with him. Having said that, like everyone he had his flaws. No doubt several members can testify on that score.

[Adam]

Supporters would like him as he was posting to support his 'guilty but reasonable doubt in 2022' stance. Which is better than 'guilty'.

He didn't make any points I had not thought of. Or any good points in my view.  But often would sneek in points I didn't know. For which he rarely provided a source when requested.

He was starting to wear me down with his constant long posts & snide comments. Obviously a hell of a quick typist.

[Adam]

It is the usual tactic for supporters to magnify straight forward issues with the case.
Make them seem more sinister & complicated than they they are.

One way to do this is with very long posts. Although that was also his natural way of posting. Heck he might have even believed half of what he posted.

[Steve_uk]

Seems to have been a marmite poster. Some of his input on the Bamber case blew the guilters away. They couldn't live with him. Having said that, like everyone he had his flaws. No doubt several members can testify on that score.

His agenda was to rehabilitate Bamber by the back door. Of course we were having none of it. Most of us tried not to get personal, but when the legal threats came via inbox a line was crossed.

[Adam]

Believe my last debate with him was regarding Bamber's journey back to WHF.

He claimed it would take him 45 minutes. I posted Wilkinson's WS which should have closed the matter.

However rather than take defeat like a man, he started creating diversion threads - 'Adam hasn't got a timeline', 'Adam's knowledge of the case', 'Guilters are in trouble'.

He was out of control and that was after his first permanant ban!