The very best of luck to Jeremy

[simong]

I have had several chats on here about Itemised Billing. The first one i had was about March 2011. I will see if i can find it.

[Patti]

1983 Itemised billing was introduced on a trial basis on trunk and international calls in part of Bristol and Bath.


Very interesting Simong. I will put that in my favourites. Thank you.

[simong]

Here is the thread where it was discussed.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2335.0.html

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,549.0.html

[simong]

1983 Itemised billing was introduced on a trial basis on trunk and international calls in part of Bristol and Bath.


Very interesting Simong. I will put that in my favourites. Thank you.

Glad to help.  1983 was when long distance and Iternational itemised billing began.

Local itemised billing began here, 1987Itemised billing was introduced on a trial basis in the City of London in January for six months. An £87million programme to provide itemised telephone bills for all customers was announced in December.

[G]

Glad to help.  1983 was when long distance and Iternational itemised billing began.

Local itemised billing began here, 1987Itemised billing was introduced on a trial basis in the City of London in January for six months. An £87million programme to provide itemised telephone bills for all customers was announced in December.

So can we deduce from that that an itemised bill was not available for WHF in 1885?

[guest154]

Unless they had a business line?

[simong]

So can we deduce from that that an itemised bill was not available for WHF in 1885?

Not a local one, no. I do believe though that Mike has posted an itemised business telephone bill for WHF from October 1985. I think he has also posted an itemised bill from Jeremy's house in Goldhanger in which the police were looking at international calls Jeremy made to Brett.

[simong]

So can we deduce from that that an itemised bill was not available for WHF in 1885?

Did you mean 1885? If so, your humour slaughtered my last post and i am laughing at myself in a cringing sort of way. 

[Patti]

Glad to help.  1983 was when long distance and Iternational itemised billing began.

Local itemised billing began here, 1987Itemised billing was introduced on a trial basis in the City of London in January for six months. An £87million programme to provide itemised telephone bills for all customers was announced in December.

Yes you are right Simong....it was 1987...

[G]

Did you mean 1885? If so, your humour slaughtered my last post and i am laughing at myself in a cringing sort of way. 

Haha. No I have a time machine and am thinking of going back in time to try and solve the Whitechaple murders. Lol

[ngb1066]

That doesn't seem to be a typing error, just slightly garbled English.

I originally typed "if Jeremy" rather than "if Simon".  I realised the error then amended it by typing "if Simon" but obviously forgot to delete "if Jeremy".  I have amended it again.  Apologies for the garbled English but there was a lot of forum traffic and I was having to moderate posts.

[G]

I originally typed "if Jeremy" rather than "if Simon".  I realised the error then amended it by typing "if Simon" but obviously forgot to delete "if Jeremy".  I have amended it again.  Apologies for the garbled English but there was a lot of forum traffic and I was having to moderate posts.

Alas! you seem to have suffered the wrath of Reader? Reader reminds be of my diabetic nurse. She's always telling me off.

[JackiePreece]

G I totally agree the CCRC have made it clear they don't mind hiding what they like under PII i.e. Horseplay and details of the signing of the NOTW deal

Most of the legal world know their failings so it's about time the general public know all about this case and the dealings of the CCRC

How dare they play god with people's lives, you could make a documentary about them

There cannot be one person in that whole building that doesn't know something is seriously wrong in this case.

I want to get to the bottom of who is the person, the actual name of the person who decides to tuck away important evidence in this case

I expect they were sitting smugly in their offices last week thinking they had managed to cover stuff up again

[G]

G I totally agree the CCRC have made it clear they don't mind hiding what they like under PII i.e. Horseplay and details of the signing of the NOTW deal

Most of the legal world know their failings so it's about time the general public know all about this case and the dealings of the CCRC

How dare they play god with people's lives, you could make a documentary about them

There cannot be one person in that whole building that doesn't know something is seriously wrong in this case.

I want to get to the bottom of who is the person, the actual name of the person who decides to tuck away important evidence in this case

I expect they were sitting smugly in their offices last week thinking they had managed to cover stuff up again

Jackie. What I would like to see is a complete expose of the CCRC, its members and its workings. These should be made transparent in this democratic society of ours.

[JackiePreece]

g IT WOULD BE GREAT TO SEE A PROGRAMME ON THE ccrc AT THE SAME TIME jEREMYS CASE IS BEING WORKED ON NOW.

nEIL IS THERE A TIME FRAME ON THESE JUDICIAL REVIEWS IS IT MONTHS OR MORE THAN A YEAR OR IS IT IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY