Big mistake

[ngb1066]

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

He writes far worse on Lamberton's forum Jackie.  He is very brave in front of his mates there.  They think they are really clever and witty. 

I doubt if he will have the guts to answer you here.

[Newbury1]

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.

Maybe some on here simply want to see the forum unfairly balanced in favour of the JB innocent side!

When two opposing sides get together it is inevitable there will be conflict.

If however the forum wants a closed community of the same thinking then so be it - the forum has definitely taken a step that way with the recent banning! 

[Roch]

Maybe some on here simply want to see the forum unfairly balanced in favour of the JB innocent side!

When two opposing sides get together it is inevitable there will be conflict.

If however the forum wants a closed community of the same thinking then so be it - the forum has definitely taken a step that way with the recent banning!

Nick, I think it is because pro posters are sometimes split, with grey areas to boot.  If the relatives had any involvement in 'improving' the evidence against JB, then those linked to the relatives who come on here, risk being judged as having a 'vested interest' or 'ulterior motives'.  The flip side of the coin is that these people may genuinely believe that such unproven allegations are also simply not true.  There is therefore no actual 'vested interest' or ulterior motive' from their perspective. 

Regardless of who had involvement of 'improving' whatever, I think we need their views, experience and take on the case, back on the forum.  Others might disagree.

[JackiePreece]

Nick I disagree the forum has gone downhill

Lots of new people are joining and I am sure the banned people will be back

Everyone prefers it if there could be a better mix of anti s and pro s and I am sure some new members will be antis without going the personal insult route like DV8

I have had over a 100 new followers on twitter this week and I am sure some will find there way here

[curiousessex]

In my opinion healthy respectful debate is the best form of debate. The absence of opposing views that are argued in a well mannered and reasoned approach will detract from the forum.

From my observations I have seen manners and respect appearing to disappear from both sides on the divide / debating stand point.

Everyone deserves respect whether labelled a 'pro' or an 'anti'. I have to say I do not agree with such labelling but such appears to be understood within the forum.

A lack of opposing view in discussion / debate could be the thin end of the wedge in terms of only making the forum a self gratification and place of praise for those who fly the flag for Jeremy being innocent whilst he currently remains convicted in a Court of Law.

It is actually the case the more one debates within the open forum the stronger positions will be. Testing a well presented argument is the basis of our legal system. If arguments are not tested and the forum was left with just those who praise in Jeremy's innocence then it is not beyond the realms of possibility that having been in a position where the forum was helping Jeremy it may be the case such help will evaporate.

As such my opinion is the forum is already a weaker place without Hartley, Vidvic, Andrea and will be weakened further if a ban is also extended to DV8.

[JackiePreece]

Curious you do realise who dV8 is don't you!
And what he has been saying about me?

[curiousessex]

Curious you do realise who dV8 is don't you!
And what he has been saying about me?

Jackie

I am afraid I have no idea who DV8 is?

Has DV8 been saying things about you on the forum or elsewhere. If on the forum what threads should be read to catch up?

[Roch]

Everyone deserves respect whether labelled a 'pro' or an 'anti'. I have to say I do not agree with such labelling but such appears to be understood within the forum.

Curious, remember my scale of guilt?  Maybe we should each give ourselves a number, representative of the percentage mark we subscribe to?  This number could be placed under our username / avatar.

For example, I be 25.  You would be 70.  Mike would be 0.  Hartley would be 95. etc.

The only problem with this is that it would force 'pro' posters to admit doubt, by way of their avoidance of a 0 figure.   

[curiousessex]

Curious, remember my scale of guilt?  Maybe we should each give ourselves a number, representative of the percentage mark we subscribe to?  This number could be placed under our username / avatar.

For example, I be 25.  You would be 70.  Mike would be 0.  Hartley would be 95. etc.

The only problem with this is that it would force 'pro' posters to admit doubt, by way of their avoidance of a 0 figure.   

Roch

One could interpret that IF it is a problem for a 'pro' posters to admit doubt then is a 'pro' poster being truely honest within themselves?    This would be a little ironic given the legal system is supposed to be all about getting to the honest truth.

[JackiePreece]

Curious he is Tim/Ferdia Shepherds even Hartley recognised him.

He has been saying the most vile disgusting things about me as he did when he commented on my videos

He thought he would bring it over here

I dread to think what he must look like to make him have such a twisted mind

Definitely ugly inside and out and he just ran away when I challenged him like the spineless person he is

[Roch]

Roch

One could interpret that IF it is a problem for a 'pro' posters to admit doubt then is a 'pro' poster being truely honest within themselves?    This would be a little ironic given the legal system is supposed to be all about getting to the honest truth.

Good point.  Maybe they are honest with themselves but guarded with others.  Everyone should leave a little room for the opposition arguments.  We both do.

[Newbury1]

Nick, I think it is because pro posters are sometimes split, with grey areas to boot.  If the relatives had any involvement in 'improving' the evidence against JB, then those linked to the relatives who come on here, risk being judged as having a 'vested interest' or 'ulterior motives'.  The flip side of the coin is that these people may genuinely believe that such unproven allegations are also simply not true.  There is therefore no actual 'vested interest' or ulterior motive' from their perspective. 

Regardless of who had involvement of 'improving' whatever, I think we need their views, experience and take on the case, back on the forum.  Others might disagree.

I know exactly what you mean. I flagged some wiki sites for info only and got responses as I had written the negative JB stuff myself - emotions are certainly running high.

Do you think personal snipes (as opposed to case debate) come about just before some big news has or is about to happen? - as emotional tension builds!

[curiousessex]

Curious he is Tim/Ferdia Shepherds even Hartley recognised him.

He has been saying the most vile disgusting things about me as he did when he commented on my videos

He thought he would bring it over here

I dread to think what he must look like to make him have such a twisted mind

Definitely ugly inside and out and he just ran away when I challenged him like the spineless person he is

Jackie

Thank you for letting me know although I am still none the wiser.

I am afraid the name Tim/Ferdia Shepherds means nothing to me. Should I know Tim/Ferdia Shepherds?

[campion]

  I agree with Curiosessex's reasons regarding bannng people.   

[curiousessex]

  I agree with Curiosessex's reasons regarding bannng people.   

Thank you Campion