Big mistake

[Nuala]

Maybe; but I don't consider two to be a herd - more a pair!

Is this a weak response?

I wasn't on line when it kicked off!

From the look of it, you weren't online for much of it or when it ended either. You have said that you didn't see what happened yet, from the following post you are apportioning the responsibility to Mike for what happened:

"I was privy to the outbusts from Mike using a lot of expletives at one stage, and could see that Mike had lost it at that point, but missed the later posts."

As you didn't see what happened, that comment seems rather biased to me.

To put the verbal boot in after a banning is - imo - cowardly, as the banned have no right of reply.

I think there is more decorum in gloating inwardly 

Aren't you putting the boot into Mike with your comment above - when he isn't here to defend himself?

[lonny]

I still wonder, though, why you "pros" aren't more suspicious of his involvement - out of the blue a man with a speciality in "covert policing, intelligence and witness protection" who rarely defends, has shown an oddly altruistic interest in JB's case... if I was a paranoid JBer I'd be asking some questions...

Why?...am I missing something?

[ngb1066]

I know it is unwise to respond to posts on Lamberton's forum and I have not done so before, but I have to make an exception now.  Tim Invictus (DV8 on this forum) has copied what he believes to be my post posted at #120 above, which he claims is badly written.  I do not care what he thinks of my writing style but he should at least quote me accurately.  He has actually copied Mertol's post at #122, quoting me and disagreeing with me.  Unfortunately Mertol placed his comment within the quote and so what is now attributed to me over there is inaccurate and distorted. 



     

[bob]

Aren't you putting the boot into Mike with your comment above - when he isn't here to defend himself?

Blimey. Has Mike been banned too?!

[Nuala]

Blimey. Has Mike been banned too?!

He's away, Bob  :D

[Nuala]

I have not criticised comments I have not seen!

Repeat - I believe all parties poured petrol on this fire! - If I am making any apportionment it is they all contributed to it - and that is a fact!

However I can only comment on what I did see and that is all I have done.

- just like any eyewitness 

Do you tend to like the last word and dislike admitting when you're wrong, Nick? 



Why do I feel as though someone just walked over my grave?

[JackiePreece]

Ngb isn't it time we banned the pond life DV8 aka Ferdia shepherds/Tim

Hasn't he done enough to get banned

[Nuala]

I have not criticised comments I have not seen!

Repeat - I believe all parties poured petrol on this fire! - If I am making any apportionment it is they all contributed to it - and that is a fact!

However I can only comment on what I did see and that is all I have done.

- just like any eyewitness 

Anyway, Hartley and Vic have you to defend them, Nick.

[ngb1066]

Ngb isn't it time we banned the pond life DV8 aka Ferdia shepherds/Tim

Hasn't he done enough to get banned

Jackie - it is a fair question.  He is by far the most unpleasant poster on Lamberton's forum, worse even than Lamberton himself and that is saying something.  However if we look at his posts here he probably has not gone quite far enough to justify a ban.  He has not responded to my last challenge about his identity.  I expected him to make a final offensive post before being kicked out, as he has done in his previous incarnations here.  As everyone knows I am very reluctant to ban forum members.  However if there is a consensus that DV8 should be kicked out now I will happily oblige.  Any views?

[Newbury1]

Maybe; but I don't consider two to be a herd - more a pair!

Is this a weak response? -

I wasn't on line when it kicked off!

From the look of it, you weren't online for much of it or when it ended either. You have said that you didn't see what happened yet, from the following post you are apportioning the responsibility to Mike for what happened: - Yes and IMO Mike was partially responsible

"I was privy to the outbusts from Mike using a lot of expletives at one stage, and could see that Mike had lost it at that point, but missed the later posts."

As you didn't see what happened, that comment seems rather biased to me. - it was based on what I witnessed   

To put the verbal boot in after a banning is - imo - cowardly, as the banned have no right of reply.

I think there is more decorum in gloating inwardly 

Aren't you putting the boot into Mike with your comment above - when he isn't here to defend himself? - me "Putting the boot"  yeah right! and no, he has a right of reply!

[Newbury1]

Do you tend to like the last word and dislike admitting when you're wrong, Nick? 

Why do I feel as though someone just walked over my grave?

 :D I'm not wrong that's why, and funnily enough I do have the same thoughts about you and the last word.

Choc, maybe you need to buried deeper! 

However to prove I don't need to have the last word and that I am not as petty as, I will not respond to your further posts - if that's what you want?

[Newbury1]

Anyway, Hartley and Vic have you to defend them, Nick.

Choc, I am trying to promote and defend the statutes of a fair and evenly balanced forum -  free speech (without resort to abuse and foul language) and the right to have an occasional laugh!

Hail Caesar!!

I hope you have a good weekend!

[Roch]

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.



 

I hope Mike will lift all three the bans.  Mike can be pinned down on an aspect of the case without the use of goading.  I think the two lads banned know this and the situation probably just escalated. 

[JackiePreece]

Dv8 care to comment on the last post you made about me?

[JackiePreece]

Don't forget to blow out the candles on your little Bamber shrine before you hit the sack .... alone. Nite. 



There you go DV8 incase you forget

Do you get your kicks out of writing stuff like this

You coward