Tell me you are conspiract theorist without telling me you are a consp. theorist

[Cambridgecutie]

So you claim. But the criticisms match.  Yesterday you claimed it's not the CCRC's job to investigate. Which is in direct contradiction to their own explanation of what they do.

Stop taking everything literally!  The CCRC will investigate if material is submitted that reaches the CPS criteria for an appeal but its not going to investigate the Aga burns, a 999 call etc, etc.   

[Cambridgecutie]

You were here and then on the red forum when the worst of this happened.  You know very well that much of it was way beyond banter and some of it was criminal.  You have mentioned Bridget - she was an active guilter on the red forum and was utterly disgusted by posts.  She called them out on it and left.  What you have received from David is nothing compared to the material I know you saw repeatedly.  In any event, David's posts were dealt with by the mods.

Myster had two identities on the red forum.  At one time there were a host of duplicate identities.  As a mod there I suspect you have some knowledge of this.

Bridget was a member on the Red forum before I joined this forum.  Afaik I wasn't posting anywhere when the worst happened. I read this forum for some months before I actually joined.  As I said, when I was a mod, 2014+, I only recall reading and removing about 3 posts from puglove about your current location and a family member.  She was pm'd accordingly and afaik it did not happen again.  If I read anything that breached forum rules it was dealt with at the time.  I don't know anything about any criminal activity.  I rarely pm'd or communicated with anyone including Admin/mods other than Myster and that was fairly limited.

Many members here have at one time posted there: Bridget, Hartley, Anglolawyer, David, Zoso, Adam, Jane, Scipio, Hardy Boy, Mat, Alias/Abs, Shona/Puglove, John, Jackie.  Probably easier to say who hasn't posted there that has posted here!

[Roch]

Stop taking everything literally!  The CCRC will investigate if material is submitted that reaches the CPS criteria for an appeal but its not going to investigate the Aga burns, a 999 call etc, etc.

Why can't you just admit when you are wrong? Carrying out desk top reviews is not sufficient investigation in an alleged MOJ. When I see you have fully taken on board criticisms of the CCRC and that you are able to post accordingly, I will be more inclined to take your opinions in this sphere more seriously. I've never been a strong advocate for the alleged 999 call or the alleged Aga marks. Sometimes you forgot who you are responding to.

[BarefootDanC]

Why can't you just admit when you are wrong? Carrying out desk top reviews is not sufficient investigation in an alleged MOJ. When I see you have fully taken on board criticisms of the CCRC and that you are able to post accordingly, I will be more inclined to take your opinions in this sphere more seriously. I've never been a strong advocate for the alleged 999 call or the alleged Aga marks. Sometimes you forgot who you are responding to.

To what lengths exactly should the CCRC go in investigating this case?

For example, should they fly a private detective out to Canada to ask Julie Mugford whether or not she signed the newspaper deal prior to the end of the trial?

Should the CCRC investigate whether or not local calls were itemised in 1985? (Some Bamber supporters claim the police asked BT to destroy records of call logs)

What should the CCRC do about the submission that there was a training exercise, which led to Sheila being shot a second time?

[Cambridgecutie]

Why can't you just admit when you are wrong? Carrying out desk top reviews is not sufficient investigation in an alleged MOJ. When I see you have fully taken on board criticisms of the CCRC and that you are able to post accordingly, I will be more inclined to take your opinions in this sphere more seriously. I've never been a strong advocate for the alleged 999 call or the alleged Aga marks. Sometimes you forgot who you are responding to.

The CCRC do not just carry out desk top reviews if they're presented with material that meets the criteria as evidenced by the work it undertook in connection with the DNA (2001) and scratch marks (2011/2/?). 

[Cambridgecutie]

To what lengths exactly should the CCRC go in investigating this case?

For example, should they fly a private detective out to Canada to ask Julie Mugford whether or not she signed the newspaper deal prior to the end of the trial?

Should the CCRC investigate whether or not local calls were itemised in 1985? (Some Bamber supporters claim the police asked BT to destroy records of call logs)

What should the CCRC do about the submission that there was a training exercise, which led to Sheila being shot a second time?

A root and branch investigation from 1985 to 2025 based on Roch's hunch 

[Cambridgecutie]

Why can't you just admit when you are wrong? Carrying out desk top reviews is not sufficient investigation in an alleged MOJ. When I see you have fully taken on board criticisms of the CCRC and that you are able to post accordingly, I will be more inclined to take your opinions in this sphere more seriously. I've never been a strong advocate for the alleged 999 call or the alleged Aga marks. Sometimes you forgot who you are responding to.

What material do you believe has been submitted that merits a referral to CoA?

[Jane]

You are completely whitewashing what happened.  You were aware of the filth and you chose to look the other way.  I called you out on it at the time.  I can assure you that the reports to the police were real and some action was taken.  You can scoff all you like but I have inside knowledge of this.  I am obviously pleased for you that you found congenial the vile Puglove (or Pugugly as I recall you calling her privately before you joined that forum).  However, she was at serious risk of prosecution.

I have no sense of humour on this and only call it out now because there are members here who did not experience the horror of what went on and I do not want them to be lulled into believing there was only a bit of harmless banter  Around six members here were subjected to the most vile abuse.  Some here rallied to defend them, risking attacks themselves.  Others chose to look the other way, preferring to keep in the good books of the abusers.  You remember the filthy attacks on Grahame's daughter don't you Jane?  Did you call them out on it?

 

You're correct, Neil. I did, indeed, refer to her as "Pug ugly"! I suspect, as I'd have had no other frame of reference, such to have been guided by what was claimed about her here. I can't recall when it was that I made my first, somewhat hesitant, journey over to red, but I'd been a member here for years before I dared! it was nowhere near to being as bad as I'd been led to believe. I most certainly didn't experience, from anyone there, the sort of threats and abuse, I've received, on occasion, from one or two, here. I'm sure "reports to police" occurred. However, whether, as a result, they found a situation which could warrant prosecution, may be questionable, as it may have been the case had I reported, to them, the threats made to me? I could not have been unaware of the acrimony between the two forums. For a time, it was constant.

I do recall the attacks against Grahame's daughter, who, if I recall, was very poorly at the time. You ask "Did you call them out on it?" Well, NO, I didn't because I don't recall that it was ever mentioned on Red, at least, not in my time there. Nor do I recall them being "called out" by anyone here, although Grahame was supported. I do recall, though, that Grahame wasn't very popular, something that he, himself, may have been responsible for? I also recall the obnoxious slurs he made against Dr Craig, as I expect, do you? For the last year of his life, I was in contact with Vic who was, if you recall, a close friend of Grahame. I have no way of knowing how much truth was behind some of what Vic told me. I had no sense of him 'telling tales', but he described someone with a very short fuse who had an unhappy knack of ruffling feathers. I guess, like the rest of us, he called it as he experienced it.

[David1819]

You were here and then on the red forum when the worst of this happened.  You know very well that much of it was way beyond banter and some of it was criminal.  You have mentioned Bridget - she was an active guilter on the red forum and was utterly disgusted by posts.  She called them out on it and left.  What you have received from David is nothing compared to the material I know you saw repeatedly.  In any event, David's posts were dealt with by the mods.

Myster had two identities on the red forum.  At one time there were a host of duplicate identities.  As a mod there I suspect you have some knowledge of this.

I don't see anything wrong with calling someone out for engaging in debates that require cognitive effort and examination of information, all while being intoxicated (by their own admissions).

It wastes other peoples time and conveys a complete lack of respect for other members and the subject.

There's a time and a place for drinks. A true crime discussion forum is not one of them.

[Jane]

To what lengths exactly should the CCRC go in investigating this case?

For example, should they fly a private detective out to Canada to ask Julie Mugford whether or not she signed the newspaper deal prior to the end of the trial?

Should the CCRC investigate whether or not local calls were itemised in 1985? (Some Bamber supporters claim the police asked BT to destroy records of call logs)

What should the CCRC do about the submission that there was a training exercise, which led to Sheila being shot a second time?

This newspaper deal keeps coming up. She went to a solicitor to get the press off her back. I doubt that, at 20, she'd have gone in, actively seeking a deal with the scudiest publication in England. Any deal would have been arranged by the solicitor. Are we supposed to believe that said solicitor allowed her to sign a binding document before the trial's conclusion? Are we supposed to believe that, without counselling her about the potential pitfalls of doing such which could lead to prosecution -wasn't she trying to get herself out of trouble, not jumping, headlong, into more?- he just let her go ahead and jump? I find such very difficult to believe.

[Cambridgecutie]

I don't see anything wrong with calling someone out for engaging in debates that require cognitive effort and examination of information, all while being intoxicated (by their own admissions).

It wastes other peoples time and conveys a complete lack of respect for other members and the subject.

There's a time and a place for drinks. A true crime discussion forum is not one of them.

Sanctimony at its best 

I haven't been intoxicated when posting here to the point that I've lost the plot because I haven't been that intoxicated for decades.  It is what young people did then David.  What's your excuse?  You need an excuse for your so-called 'forensic evidence breakthrough' and your theory that blood in the silencer originated from SC's menstrual stained knickers. 

[ngb1066]

You're correct, Neil. I did, indeed, refer to her as "Pug ugly"! I suspect, as I'd have had no other frame of reference, such to have been guided by what was claimed about her here. I can't recall when it was that I made my first, somewhat hesitant, journey over to red, but I'd been a member here for years before I dared! it was nowhere near to being as bad as I'd been led to believe. I most certainly didn't experience, from anyone there, the sort of threats and abuse, I've received, on occasion, from one or two, here. I'm sure "reports to police" occurred. However, whether, as a result, they found a situation which could warrant prosecution, may be questionable, as it may have been the case had I reported, to them, the threats made to me? I could not have been unaware of the acrimony between the two forums. For a time, it was constant.

I do recall the attacks against Grahame's daughter, who, if I recall, was very poorly at the time. You ask "Did you call them out on it?" Well, NO, I didn't because I don't recall that it was ever mentioned on Red, at least, not in my time there. Nor do I recall them being "called out" by anyone here, although Grahame was supported. I do recall, though, that Grahame wasn't very popular, something that he, himself, may have been responsible for? I also recall the obnoxious slurs he made against Dr Craig, as I expect, do you? For the last year of his life, I was in contact with Vic who was, if you recall, a close friend of Grahame. I have no way of knowing how much truth was behind some of what Vic told me. I had no sense of him 'telling tales', but he described someone with a very short fuse who had an unhappy knack of ruffling feathers. I guess, like the rest of us, he called it as he experienced it.

This is absolutely unbelievable.  You have a very selective memory.  You were posting on red at the time of the worst behaviour.  You were engaging in banter with those responsible for it.  Just one example was the sick attack on Grahame's seriously ill daughter, mocking him by saying she was not really ill but was in fact a crack head prostitute. It was absolutely outrageous and devastating for Grahame.  She has sadly since died.  It was vile, you saw it but said nothing.  It was like the playground with the school bully who attracts others who are basically decent but join in to be accepted and to avoid being picked on themselves.  A minority of two there called it out (Bridget and Joanne).  Blaming Grahame for bringing it upon himself is outrageous and you ought to be ashamed of yourself by suggesting it.  You saw the worst of the abuse from the core gang there.  I can assure you that the police were involved and certain people got very worried.  Trying to suggest it was equivalent on both sides is rubbish.

I rather hope some long standing members here might back me up on this.

 

[ngb1066]

This newspaper deal keeps coming up. She went to a solicitor to get the press off her back. I doubt that, at 20, she'd have gone in, actively seeking a deal with the scudiest publication in England. Any deal would have been arranged by the solicitor. Are we supposed to believe that said solicitor allowed her to sign a binding document before the trial's conclusion? Are we supposed to believe that, without counselling her about the potential pitfalls of doing such which could lead to prosecution -wasn't she trying to get herself out of trouble, not jumping, headlong, into more?- he just let her go ahead and jump? I find such very difficult to believe.

Well it happens to be true, save for one detail.  There was a concluded contract (in advance of the trial) but it was not signed by Mugford.  It was negotiated by her solicitor.  I have posted about it in detail in the past so will not repeat it here.  If anyone is interested they can use the search facility and find the relevant threads.

 

[Cambridgecutie]

This is absolutely unbelievable.  You have a very selective memory.  You were posting on red at the time of the worst behaviour.  You were engaging in banter with those responsible for it.  Just one example was the sick attack on Grahame's seriously ill daughter, mocking by saying she was not really ill but was in fact a crack head prostitute. It was absolutely outrageous and devastating for Grahame.  She has sadly since died.  It was vile, you saw it but said nothing.  It was like the playground with the school bully who attracts others who are basically decent but join in to be accepted and to avoid being picked on themselves.  A minority of two there called it out (Bridget and Joanne).  Blaming Grahame from bringing it upon himself is outrageous and you ought to be ashamed of yourself by suggesting it.  You saw the worst of the abuse from the core gang there.  I can assure you that the police were involved and certain people got very worried.  Trying to suggest it was equivalent on both sides is rubbish.

I rather hope some long standing members here might back me up on this.

With respect ngb1066 I think your timings are a little out.  The posts re Grahame's daughter and the worst of it took place long before Jane or I joined Red. 

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2509.msg77636.html#msg77636

I made a few posts on Red around April 2013 and then started posting there regularly around Oct 2013.  Jane joined some months after this.  By which time a truce had been made by both forums and a lot of material removed.

[Jane]

This is absolutely unbelievable.  You have a very selective memory.  You were posting on red at the time of the worst behaviour.  You were engaging in banter with those responsible for it.  Just one example was the sick attack on Grahame's seriously ill daughter, mocking him by saying she was not really ill but was in fact a crack head prostitute. It was absolutely outrageous and devastating for Grahame.  She has sadly since died.  It was vile, you saw it but said nothing.  It was like the playground with the school bully who attracts others who are basically decent but join in to be accepted and to avoid being picked on themselves.  A minority of two there called it out (Bridget and Joanne).  Blaming Grahame for bringing it upon himself is outrageous and you ought to be ashamed of yourself by suggesting it.  You saw the worst of the abuse from the core gang there.  I can assure you that the police were involved and certain people got very worried.  Trying to suggest it was equivalent on both sides is rubbish.

I rather hope some long standing members here might back me up on this.

There seems to be a shift of emphasis here. If memory serves me correctly -and you appear to have doubts on that point- Grahame's frequent name changes once gave rise to comment here. I don't know if he left of his own volition, or if he was banned, but there were times when what he said warranted such. It was disgraceful what was said about his daughter, also an entirely different issue, and of course it would have been devastating for him, but I have no recall of either condoning, or being part of the conversation, although you claim I was aware of it and "did nothing" -actually, despite you're assertion that I was, I don't even recall that I was posting on Red at the time- thankfully, you go on to acknowledge that only two did. I've been a poster here for around 15 years. I very much doubt that more than 3 were spent on Red, during which time I composed a Christmas poem, so it surprises me that my movement between forums has been so closely monitored and scrutinized.