Dr. Ian Donaldson Craig 12-11-86

[-Harters-]

I hadn't suggested any of those things.  What I had communicated is that from my time on the forum, I have noticed that some posters who support the guilty view, in my opinion, display an aversion to the concept of police corruption or are not prepared to accommodate corruption having taken place in this particular case because it would by default effect their stance. 

But if we are going to go down the route you want (which I am trying my best to avoid), I would say that another way to avoid conflcit would be to ditch a supercilious tone, to anyone who holds a different view to you.

Just saying 

That's just not true, do you have an aversion to there not being any police corruption?

[-Harters-]

But if we are going to go down the route you want (which I am trying my best to avoid), I would say that another way to avoid conflcit would be to ditch a supercilious tone, to anyone who holds a different view to you.

You have got to be kidding me right? 

Show me an example please.

[Roch]

So you've decided that corruption exists in this case and there's no room for any other position?

I don't want to take part in a conflict either, but I can't take you at all seriously with comments like the above, particularly when you constantly accuse anybody with a differing view as being single minded and not willing to entertain alternatives.

I don't accept the accusation.  I doubt many forum members would agree with your accusation.  Yes there is room for the position that no corruption has taken place.  But I'm not duty bound to take that particular alternative position seriously, and I wont.

[Patti]

Corruption exists in the police force even today.  Coppers on the take and, coppers falsifying evidence to make the crime fit.

What is apparent in the Bamber case is this. The Essex police have done themselves no favours an left themselves open for scrutiny. This was their first major crime and they cocked it up from the beginning. Whether they thought it was a murder/suicide or not, they failed to make WHF a crime scene. The Essex police are guilty of contaminating the scene and causing cross contamination with forensic evidence. Now that is a fact, read what they did with Sheila's hand swabs, read what they did with the PV'S it was one cock up after another, read about the requests for evidence from Bamber's and his defence team, read about the destruction of vital evidence that might acquit him, read about the appeal after appeal and yet they still destroyed vital evidence and withhold vital information...Sorry, but this where human rights and fairness breaks down.....

[Roch]

You have got to be kidding me right? 

Show me an example please.

You've got serious form for it.  Show me where I have dressed up implying that somebody is thick, please.  Better still, let's end the issue now before it takes over.

[-Harters-]

You've got serious form for it.  Show me where I have dressed up implying that somebody is thick, please.  Better still, let's end the issue now before it takes over.

Again Rochy, your goading and making personal attacks, the only thing I've got form for is that I stand up for myself.

Anyway.

You said that police corruption occurred in this case, anyone who can't see that wouldn't be able to see police corruption anywhere.

I viewed that as arrogant and insulting the intelligence of people who have a different view, like myself for example.

But yes, let's end this here, if you want to carry it on then do so via PM and copy another mod in please.

[Nickos]

Welldone Gentlemen!!

[susan]

Nickos  hope you are back for the party if it goes ahead

[Jane]

Nickos  hope you are back for the party if it goes ahead

Are there question marks, Susan??? Parties are such a pleasant way to reconcile, don't you think? Rather like the lovely soldiers during WW1. Both sides put their weapons down and shared Christmas.

[Roch]

Again Rochy, your goading and making personal attacks, the only thing I've got form for is that I stand up for myself.

Anyway.

In one breath you said that police corruption occurred in this case, anyone who can't see that wouldn't be able to see police corruption anywhere.

I viewed that as arrogant and insulting the intelligence of people who have a different view, like myself for example.

But yes, let's end this here, if you want to carry it on then do so via PM and copy another mod in please.

I was merely expressing my opinion that a refusal to accept the presence of corruptive practices in the Bamber case, could be linked to a personal viewpoint which is ill at ease with the notion of police corruption. Or linked to a very personal stance on the case.   I added that in my opinion, the idea that corruption could be 'evidenced' in a similar format to other evidence was absurd, since it implied that a corruptive record was kept in order to facilitate such references.  For example PC Blogg signs a witness statement that there were two silencers merged in to one, etc.

If I've ended up inadvertantly suggesting other members are thick then I do apologise.  I have never thought other forum members were that.  I have no desire to continue anything by pm but will of course cooperate if another member wishes to do so, with another mod included.

[Patti]

Nickos  hope you are back for the party if it goes ahead

Hi Susan and April....I hope so, I am ready for a good time after the dreadful week I have had...

[-Harters-]

I was merely expressing my opinion that a refusal to accept the presence of corruptive practices in the Bamber case, could be linked to a personal viewpoint which is ill at ease with the notion of police corruption. Or linked to a very personal stance on the case.   I added that in my opinion, the idea that corruption could be 'evidenced' in a similar format to other evidence was absurd, since it implied that a corruptive record was kept in order to facilitate such references.  For example PC Blogg signs a witness statement that there were two silencers merged in to one, etc.

If I've ended up inadvertantly suggesting other members are thick then I do apologise.  I have never thought other forum members were that.  I have no desire to continue anything by pm but will of course cooperate if another member wishes to do so, with another mod included.

I've made my position clear.

[Jane]

Hi Susan and April....I hope so, I am ready for a good time after the dreadful week I have had...

Patti, how horrid for you. I think you should make the first one a very large one

[Bridget]

I was merely expressing my opinion that a refusal to accept the presence of corruptive practices in the Bamber case, could be linked to a personal viewpoint which is ill at ease with the notion of police corruption. Or linked to a very personal stance on the case.   I added that in my opinion, the idea that corruption could be 'evidenced' in a similar format to other evidence was absurd, since it implied that a corruptive record was kept in order to facilitate such references.  For example PC Blogg signs a witness statement that there were two silencers merged in to one, etc.

If I've ended up inadvertantly suggesting other members are thick then I do apologise.  I have never thought other forum members were that.  I have no desire to continue anything by pm but will of course cooperate if another member wishes to do so, with another mod included.

It's your endless attempts to try to tell us why we think what we think that irritates Roch..

[susan]

Hi Roch

following the posts between you and Mr.Jam which did become a little heated on both sides but I never once saw any inference made by you that you thought any of the forum members were thick so no apology is needed.