Author Topic: Big mistake  (Read 47959 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nuala

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1542
  • I am not a number
Re: Big mistake
« Reply #105 on: March 09, 2012, 12:59:AM »
Whereas you only got a 2 week suspension?

On another site where Hartley helps out, anyone breaking the rules - and a ban on personal attacks is one of these - is allowed to return only at the discretion of the site manager (or owner?) and gets a life ban after a second offence.

Remind me, this is Hartley's....99th offence?

Offline Nuala

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1542
  • I am not a number
Re: Big mistake
« Reply #106 on: March 09, 2012, 01:02:AM »
Vortex is a top brilliant poster who used to always get the better of Hartley.  They were great scraps


I second that, Jackie! Vortex is brilliant. I second what Tyler has said too, we love you, Vortex, please post more often.

tyler

  • Guest
Re: Big mistake
« Reply #107 on: March 09, 2012, 01:08:AM »
Vortex is a top brilliant poster who used to always get the better of Hartley.  They were great scraps
Haha.Vortex definately knew what Hartley was all about!

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17252
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Big mistake
« Reply #108 on: March 09, 2012, 01:33:AM »
i cant understand all this one minute you all love Hartley the next minute you hate him when he left of his own accord you all asked him to come back.

tyler

  • Guest
Re: Big mistake
« Reply #109 on: March 09, 2012, 01:40:AM »
i cant understand all this one minute you all love Hartley the next minute you hate him when he left of his own accord you all asked him to come back.
I certainly did not!
Doesnt make any difference to me if he is here or not.
I hardly ever read his posts anyway.

Offline Nuala

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1542
  • I am not a number
Re: Big mistake
« Reply #110 on: March 09, 2012, 01:47:AM »
i cant understand all this one minute you all love Hartley the next minute you hate him when he left of his own accord you all asked him to come back.


Don't fret, Nug Nug, just make the most of a peaceful forum while it lasts. It's great to have a rest from all of that screeching and teeth gnashing.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17252
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Big mistake
« Reply #111 on: March 09, 2012, 02:03:AM »
On another site where Hartley helps out, anyone breaking the rules - and a ban on personal attacks is one of these - is allowed to return only at the discretion of the site manager (or owner?) and gets a life ban after a second offence.

Remind me, this is Hartley's....99th offence?

what sight is that.

Offline tonyb

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Time to disembark the magical mystery tour...
Re: Big mistake
« Reply #112 on: March 09, 2012, 07:44:AM »
.22 semi-automatic Bamber rifle/.22 air rifle/.22 bolt action Pargeters rifle?
Is it not true,or am I misunderstood thet the "other" silencer is from the Pargeter rifle? If not, where does the "2nd silencer" belong to,weapon wise?
Don't enjoy the cold weather.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Big mistake
« Reply #113 on: March 09, 2012, 07:57:AM »
Is it not true,or am I misunderstood thet the "other" silencer is from the Pargeter rifle? If not, where does the "2nd silencer" belong to,weapon wise?

First silencer (SBJ/1) was/is silencer to Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle which was normally kept in downstairs toilet. The second silencer (DRB/1) was is the silencer belonging to Bamber rifle which was normally kept in the gun cupboard...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Newbury1

  • Guest
Re: Big mistake
« Reply #114 on: March 09, 2012, 09:56:AM »

Hartley and Vic were not posting in anger, Bob, they were too systematic in their abuse and enjoying it too much for this to be brushed off as temper tantrums.

I twice closed down my account here because I felt I was virtually being made an unwilling accomplice of (1) Hartley's highly offensive abuse of Mike, Grahame and, at times, NGB - by being (2) forced to watch this. It was (3)impossible to avoid seeing it, Hartley was everywhere, sometimes posting 70 times a day.

By logging on here, I felt I was adding to the audience that Hartley craves, as so many abusive people do. I was angry that no action was taken regarding Hartley's - and, later, Vic's and Andrea's (4) highly offensive posts and countless breaches of forum rules.

(5) Those three bullies, Hartley - and to a lesser extent, Vic and Andrea - (6) turned this forum into a toxic place to be. How many members Left the forum and did not return because of this?

(7) I suspect that Hartley and co were intent on damaging and even destroying this forum; because they do not want the gross injustice of Jeremy Bamber's trial to be brought out into the open and they are intent on damaging Jeremy's chance of an Appeal.

Well, (8) they failed and (9) I hope they never return.

(1) Could you please post recent examples?

(2) Could you please explain how you were forced?

(3) Like the death photos of Sheila!

(4) Highly exaggerated imo!

(5) Again Highly exaggerated

(6) Just one opinion

(7) No proof at all

(8) You don't know that yet!

(9) The forum will imo be a more desolate place.


Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17586
Re: Big mistake
« Reply #115 on: March 09, 2012, 10:07:AM »
Vic and Hartley are to some extent experts on WHF and the relatives.  They have first hand experience of the relatives as friends, in the case of Vic this contact is going back many years. 

If Vic and Hartley sense blood on an issue with Mike, it is only natural that they will 'go in for the kill'.   

Mike needs to present his arguments and then box clever in the event that his arguments are aggressively tested.  If need be, Mike should concede on points where he has clearly taken the silver medal.  However, there is much in this case that is open to interpretation, leaving plenty room for gold medals to be dished out on either side.

Newbury1

  • Guest
Re: Big mistake
« Reply #116 on: March 09, 2012, 10:26:AM »
Vic and Hartley are to some extent experts on WHF and the relatives.  They have first hand experience of the relatives as friends, in the case of Vic this contact is going back many years. 

If Vic and Hartley sense blood on an issue with Mike, it is only natural that they will 'go in for the kill'.   

Mike needs to present his arguments and then box clever in the event that his arguments are aggressively tested.  If need be, Mike should concede on points where he has clearly taken the silver medal.  However, there is much in this case that is open to interpretation, leaving plenty room for gold medals to be dished out on either side.

Roch a fair and diplomatic answer as ever! - similar to the suggestion you made about referencing photos to avoid them being splashed on the threads (and which appears to have been ignored).

I think the herd mentality has jumped on Mikes recent banning and is kicking the banned because they cannot respond (a pretty cowardly way)!

This Forum will soon become the JBSS (Jeremy Bamber Sycophant Society).



Offline grahameb

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11830
Re: Big mistake
« Reply #117 on: March 09, 2012, 10:34:AM »
I have just had a phone call off Vic, he and harts have been banned from the forum. Vic would like to say that anyone who has his number is more than welcome to stay intouch.

Big mistake getting shut of vic and harts, both excellent posters, so the forum will now be one sided except for my self and nick, tut tut. I can hear the bell tolling already.
I have just seen this as I haven't been around. I'll have to study what is going on of course. But at first glance I don't think it was a good thing to have done. We need more members with opposite views (1) so as to get an all round view and (2) to stimulate debate. But as I said I haven't studied events that has brought the forum to this state of affairs?

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17586
Re: Big mistake
« Reply #118 on: March 09, 2012, 10:44:AM »
I can only speak for my self but my own opinion is that I'd like to see bans rescinded.  It's up to Mike.  I don't buy the argument that it's an attempt to stifle an opposition view.  This forum is awash with opposition views.  It was a heat of the moment thing.  It was a bit of goading and grandstanding that got of hand.  If you removed the goading it would have been a very interesting argument.


Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6671
Re: Big mistake
« Reply #119 on: March 09, 2012, 11:00:AM »
What's Shona got to do with it Jackie? She doesn't post on this forum.

I am dumbfounded with what I've just read re. Vic and Hartley being banned.
I can't see how Neil and Grahame could continue as admins if this is true  :(
Mike really seems to have jumped the shark  :-\

Bob - this is a difficult situation and more complex than it may seem.  In order to understand how Mike felt driven to ban three members it is necessary to have seen the posts which led to that.  To my knowledge Mike has only ever in the past banned one member and all at the time saw the need for that in view of what had been posted.  The problem now is that the posts leading up to the bans yesterday have been deleted (which I understand) so I will have to give a brief overview.

Before that I need to say that I am very sorry that this situation has arisen.  The forum will in my view be weakened by the loss of the three members.  I do hope it is possible for them to return, but that is Mike's decision.  Hartley and Vic were knowledgeable about the case and closely connected with the family, which enabled them to provides certain insights.  It was to this forum's credit that they both chose to be active here rather than frequenting Lamberton's forum.  They both had contempt for Lamberton and wanted nothing to do with him.  They recognised that this was the effective forum for genuine debate.  They presented the "guilty" position and challenged Mike vigorously.

Mike has never had any problem with being challenged on the points he makes.  He has not censored debate.  He argues vigorously but does not take things personally when people present opposing arguments.  Hartley had a tendency, which I have commented on before, to goad Mike.  He seemed to like getting a reaction from Mike, which he sometimes succeeded in doing.  Vic in the past presented arguments without goading.

Yesterday both Hartley and Vidvic were active on the forum.  It is no secret that they know each other well outside the forum.  They seemed to egg each other on in taunting Mike.  They went far beyond robust challenge, their posts descended to insults and mockery.  In the exchanges Mike was provoked into responding and using bad language.  It was clear that this is what Hartley and Vic wanted to do, presumably in order to show Mike in a bad light.  Putting it bluntly, they were taking the piss out of Mike.  This went far beyond anything they had ever posted before, and it was very unattractive.

When I saw the posts I was surprised and disappointed.  With anyone else I would have deleted posts but I have always taken the view that Mike is well able to take care of himself and that I should leave it to him to take action as he sees fit.  With hindsight I wish I had intervened yesterday.  I should have deleted the offending posts as soon as they appeared and sent a PM to Hartley and Vic.  I saw too late that Mike had finally had enough and banned them both and deleted the posts.  Andrea then unwisely posted attacking Mike.  I do not think she had seen the posts before they were deleted and it was clear that Mike was very angry.  He is the owner of the forum and the source of most of the huge amount of information on it.  He has provided a forum where all views are tolerated.  He deserves to be treated with respect and he was not yesterday.  I think I would have lost my temper in the same way.  Andrea found herself in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I have respect for Hartley, Vic and Andrea.  Hartley and Vic in particular have added value to the debate here through their knowledge of the case and their connections with the family.  I have got to know Vic and I like him.  He is a genuine and a decent bloke.  I do not agree with him about the case but I respect his views and he respects mine.  I do feel Vic let himself down yesterday and privately I suspect he would admit that.  I suspect that there was an element of pack mentality when Hartley and Vic were both active on the forum at the same time.

As I have said it is entirely up to Mike what he wants to do now.   It is his forum and he is entitled to be treated with respect and not goaded or insulted.  I hope Mike feels able to lift the bans.  In future I will intervene to stop a situation developing as it did yesterday.



   
« Last Edit: March 09, 2012, 11:11:AM by ngb1066 »