COMPLAINTS ABOUT MIKE

[Buddy]

                          COMPLAINTS ABOUT MIKE
This last couple of days has seen Mike Goading  some members because they do not agree with him,
Personally I thought the attacks on Hartley were deplorable. The mods should have intervened somewhere.
I never posted on this thread, because I disagreed with all parties.
Mike posts topics which cannot be replied to until he is good and ready, so we all have to endure the sermon according St Mike until permission is given.
I fully understand that this site belongs to Mike, and he can do as he wishes, but it seems like the kid that owns the football. [I make the rules].
Laughably we welcome new members whether pro or anti, but woe  betide the anti. We chase them away and call them trolls for veering to the guilty side. [they are not all Mindless morons].
If this forum is to survive then we need some debate. Slapping ourselves on the back is not an option.

[grahameb]

Cliff. You obviously haven't been here. If you had then you will see that I have defended the so called antis from so called attacks. As admin we receive complaints via email when members click on the report post facility. Although we may not mention everything that goes on we nevertheless take things seriously. I haven't seen Mike goading people. But you will see that I dealt with the complaints from Vidvic and Andrea and they are on the forum for all to see.
Neil has also dealt with things fairly as far as I know? Perhaps you could point out where Mike has been goading people? I think I've tried to explain about Mike posting new threads and keeping them closed. I should probably think that the most logical reason for that is because he hasn't finished posting the whole story. I know what it's like when you post something and someone picks you up on it before you've put the whole argument. But I can assure you that both Neil and myself do endeavour to be fair and if folk here are truthful they will testify of this. Ask Andrea, ask Tyler and ask Vidvic.

[Buddy]

Cliff. You obviously haven't been here. If you had then you will see that I have defended the so called antis from so called attacks. As admin we receive complaints via email when members click on the report post facility. Although we may not mention everything that goes on we nevertheless take things seriously. I haven't seen Mike goading people. But you will see that I dealt with the complaints from Vidvic and Andrea and they are on the forum for all to see.
Neil has also dealt with things fairly as far as I know? Perhaps you could point out where Mike has been goading people? I think I've tried to explain about Mike posting new threads and keeping them closed. I should probably think that the most logical reason for that is because he hasn't finished posting the whole story. I know what it's like when you post something and someone picks you up on it before you've put the whole argument. But I can assure you that both Neil and myself do endeavour to be fair and if folk here are truthful they will testify of this. Ask Andrea, ask Tyler and ask Vidvic.

Grahame I have a lot of respect for you and Neil, But if idiot, and numpty is OK then fine.

[grahameb]

Grahame I have a lot of respect for you and Neil, But if idiot, and numpty is OK then fine.

Hartley called himself that Cliff. No one else did. It was his suggestion. We were just joking about it. But as far as I know it came from him? Unless I've missed something of course?

[grahameb]

Hartley called himself that Cliff. No one else did. It was his suggestion. We were just joking about it. But as far as I know it came from him? Unless I've missed something of course?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2056.15.html

[Aunt Agatha]

I must agree fully with Buddy.

Some of the language used by pro Bamber members....and completely overlooked by admin....is quite deplorable.

As a complete outsider, tho pro Bamber supporter, this forum is biased.  I have seen Neil defend the unacceptable....along with yourself Grahame....completely ignoring the pro Bamber choice of words....and has focused only what the anti Bamber's have posted.

Alot or the majority of anti Bambers posts (that are not acceptable) are usually in relation to what has previously been posted and in defence.

One cannot get on their high horse when something negative is said about Jeremy.....many are of the belief that there has been a MOJ, however, he is at present, in prison, found to be guilty and is mixed with child killers and alike.  This is the reality of it.  Did he take drugs...yes! Did he try coke....yes!

All this 'personal' stuff has got to stop!! 

Imagine if we did get a celeb to front us...or we at least got their attention and they wanted to read the forum first before they made a decision to support us.....Imagine what they would think if they read the insult, personal attacks etc.  I don't think they'd stay around long......

Emotions must be kept under control.....or we come across in a very bad light.

[mertol22]

I see in mikes postings just one following message, he wants Jeremy out, that will not be our decision, as in my avatar pic in all good cause a alternative account of events are needed for what happened that night, without so Jeremy will remain where he is, debate is fine but we also need to face reality and at the moment its crystal clear.

[Buddy]

Hartley called himself that Cliff. No one else did. It was his suggestion. We were just joking about it. But as far as I know it came from him? Unless I've missed something of course?

It was on another thread Grahame, not the one you highlighted, but thankks

[Aunt Agatha]

My previous post was not towards Neil or Grahame personally, i understand they are both protective of friends etc....but as admin one does have to be unbiased at all times....that was my point.

Apologees if it came across as anything else.

[ngb1066]

I agree with Cliff that we need debate here and that means welcoming those who post sensibly from an "anti" perspective.  I take issue though on the suggestion that antis have been treated as trolls and chased away.  There have been serious attacks by trolls and we know where many of those have come from.  Cliff, you were involved in dealing with some of them and you dealt with them effectively.  Those people have nothing to contribute.  We do need to encourage debate and I accept that this means we have to be careful not to allow people to be attacked personally.

As far as Hartley is concerned he has certainly come in for some stick here but he is very able to look after himself and in fairness he has quite often goaded Mike (who can also look after himself).  I believe the moderators should only intervene when it is absolutely necessary.

       

[Buddy]

I see in mikes postings just one following message, he wants Jeremy out, that will not be our decision, as in my avatar pic in all good cause a alternative account of events are needed for what happened that night, without so Jeremy will remain where he is, debate is fine but we also need to face reality and at the moment its crystal clear.

Talk about state the obvious.
Mertol you simply cannot defend the remarks that Mike has made! It is inexcusable, and warrants an apology IMO

[grahameb]

I must agree fully with Buddy.

Some of the language used by pro Bamber members....and completely overlooked by admin....is quite deplorable.

As a complete outsider, tho pro Bamber supporter, this forum is biased.  I have seen Neil defend the unacceptable....along with yourself Grahame....completely ignoring the pro Bamber choice of words....and has focused only what the anti Bamber's have posted.

Alot or the majority of anti Bambers posts (that are not acceptable) are usually in relation to what has previously been posted and in defence.

One cannot get on their high horse when something negative is said about Jeremy.....many are of the belief that there has been a MOJ, however, he is at present, in prison, found to be guilty and is mixed with child killers and alike.  This is the reality of it.  Did he take drugs...yes! Did he try coke....yes!

All this 'personal' stuff has got to stop!! 

Imagine if we did get a celeb to front us...or we at least got their attention and they wanted to read the forum first before they made a decision to support us.....Imagine what they would think if they read the insult, personal attacks etc.  I don't think they'd stay around long......

Emotions must be kept under control.....or we come across in a very bad light.

Well you seem to have deliberately chosen to completely ignore the times that I have referred to when I defended Andrea and also Vidvic against attacks? I also rebuked both smiffy and also Jackie for attacking others. But of course to refer to those is one sided is it?
Perhaps you should have come here a few months ago when we were being attacked left right and centre by internet trolls using various usernames and attacking the pro members? I didn't hear much criticism or complaints from the so called anti bambers the, Instead we were criticised again for being one sided.
What is it with you people? We do our best to keep this forum straight and we get shit on from, a great height for not doing enough. Well I take your criticisms on board. But must add that you are the biased one. For we endeavour to do our job fairly. But I will tell you one thing for free. This thread has probably done more damage to Jeremy's cause thank any amount of name calling.
Just one more thing. Yes this IS a biased forum. It is an unashamedly PRO BAMBER FORUM.  Those of opposite views are allowed to post. But it is Mikes forum who has probably done more for Jeremy than all of us put together. So stick that in your hashpipe and smoke it. You think you can do better? BE MY GUEST. Cos I'm really pissed off now.

[grahameb]

It was on another thread Grahame, not the one you highlighted, but thankks

Then show it to me Cliff and I'll deal with it. We aren't omniscient.

[ngb1066]

I must agree fully with Buddy.

Some of the language used by pro Bamber members....and completely overlooked by admin....is quite deplorable.

As a complete outsider, tho pro Bamber supporter, this forum is biased.  I have seen Neil defend the unacceptable....along with yourself Grahame....completely ignoring the pro Bamber choice of words....and has focused only what the anti Bamber's have posted.

Alot or the majority of anti Bambers posts (that are not acceptable) are usually in relation to what has previously been posted and in defence.

One cannot get on their high horse when something negative is said about Jeremy.....many are of the belief that there has been a MOJ, however, he is at present, in prison, found to be guilty and is mixed with child killers and alike.  This is the reality of it.  Did he take drugs...yes! Did he try coke....yes!

All this 'personal' stuff has got to stop!! 

Imagine if we did get a celeb to front us...or we at least got their attention and they wanted to read the forum first before they made a decision to support us.....Imagine what they would think if they read the insult, personal attacks etc.  I don't think they'd stay around long......

Emotions must be kept under control.....or we come across in a very bad light.

Humphrey -  I respect your views on this and I agree with some of your comments. I am however concerned that you think I have defended the indefensible.  I am not being touchy about this but could you give me examples of this so that I can respond?

[Buddy]

I agree with Cliff that we need debate here and that means welcoming those who post sensibly from an "anti" perspective.  I take issue though on the suggestion that antis have been treated as trolls and chased away.  There have been serious attacks by trolls and we know where many of those have come from.  Cliff, you were involved in dealing with some of them and you dealt with them effectively.  Those people have nothing to contribute.  We do need to encourage debate and I accept that this means we have to be careful not to allow people to be attacked personally.

As far as Hartley is concerned he has certainly come in for some stick here but he is very able to look after himself and in fairness he has quite often goaded Mike (who can also look after himself).  I believe the moderators should only intervene when it is absolutely necessary.

     
[/quote
Neil with all due respect to you and Grahame Hartley should not need  to look after himself, rather he should be looked after.
I still think we frighten away some people who could contribute massively, and stimulate debate, but that is only my humble opinion.