Author Topic: Bamber v Criminal Cases Review Commission  (Read 13153 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6671
Re: Bamber v Criminal Cases Review Commission
« Reply #75 on: January 05, 2013, 04:22:PM »
What has that got to do with Simon McKay? I can tell you that for a fact that many on this forum have received just that. Indeed the so called red forum was actually set up for hate attacks on his supporters. So was the facebook page entitled Jeremy Bamber guilty as charged. Also many on here who post against him do so in a mocking way and in a hate charged way. Oh my friend there is plenty of hate mail directed against those who post in favour of JB mark my words.

You are quite right Lugg. 


Offline andrea

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1385
Re: Bamber v Criminal Cases Review Commission
« Reply #76 on: January 05, 2013, 04:49:PM »
Well it appears that they aren't 5the only hard hearted people around doesn 't it? I hope you don't abandon your children if they do anything wrong. Be guided by your own heart BG. Would you give up your children if they committed a murder? Same question goes to Andrea.

No, i wouldnt give up on my children. But bamber had been adopted as a small baby. His natural parents didnt know him growing up or as an adult, he was nevill and junes son.
On Ilkley Moor Baht'at.

Lugg

  • Guest
Re: Bamber v Criminal Cases Review Commission
« Reply #77 on: January 05, 2013, 05:03:PM »
No, i wouldnt give up on my children. But bamber had been adopted as a small baby. His natural parents didnt know him growing up or as an adult, he was nevill and junes son.
And a "cuckoo in the Bamber/ Boutflour nest no doubt? Also most adoptees do not know who their real parents are. My wife had to do a search through an agency to find hers. Bamber's real parents were known by him and they knew who he was.

Offline andrea

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1385
Re: Bamber v Criminal Cases Review Commission
« Reply #78 on: January 05, 2013, 05:07:PM »
Of course they were aware of each others existence, but they didnt know him personally, his natural parents have nothing to reproach themselves with IMO.

They gave him up for adopton to a good family and that was that, everybody moved on.
On Ilkley Moor Baht'at.

Lugg

  • Guest
Re: Bamber v Criminal Cases Review Commission
« Reply #79 on: January 05, 2013, 05:12:PM »
Of course they were aware of each others existence, but they didnt know him personally, his natural parents have nothing to reproach themselves with IMO.

They gave him up for adopton to a good family and that was that, everybody moved on.
I wonder if your view is supported by most mothers forced to give up their children for adoption?

Offline andrea

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1385
Re: Bamber v Criminal Cases Review Commission
« Reply #80 on: January 05, 2013, 05:14:PM »
If youre FORCED to give up a child for adoption, then thats different.

Bambers natural parents were not forced to give him up, they decided to give him up for adoption for their own reasons.
On Ilkley Moor Baht'at.

Lugg

  • Guest
Re: Bamber v Criminal Cases Review Commission
« Reply #81 on: January 05, 2013, 05:35:PM »
If youre FORCED to give up a child for adoption, then thats different.

Bambers natural parents were not forced to give him up, they decided to give him up for adoption for their own reasons.
Now that's what I call splitting hairs. Show me one woman who gives up their children without regrets. How do you know they weren't forced to give him up? My wife's mother wasn't forced to give her up either. But the order of the day warranted it. To be born out of wedlock was not the done think in those days. Many things went on among the rich in those days and babies were passed around like commodities. As my wife's mother also found out about herself in old age, for they were also passed around within families in order to save face. Believe me I know what I'm talking about on this subject.

Offline andrea

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1385
Re: Bamber v Criminal Cases Review Commission
« Reply #82 on: January 05, 2013, 05:37:PM »
Now that's what I call splitting hairs. Show me one woman who gives up their children without regrets. How do you know they weren't forced to give him up? My wife's mother wasn't forced to give her up either. But the order of the day warranted it. To be born out of wedlock was not the done think in those days. Many things went on among the rich in those days and babies were passed around like commodities. As my wife's mother also found out about herself in old age, for they were also passed around within families in order to save face. Believe me I know what I'm talking about on this subject.

Im not splitting hairs, Grahame.
Bambers parents were not forced to give Bamber up, it is his natural parents we are talking about, isnt it?
On Ilkley Moor Baht'at.

Lugg

  • Guest
Re: Bamber v Criminal Cases Review Commission
« Reply #83 on: January 05, 2013, 05:45:PM »
Im not splitting hairs, Grahame.
Bambers parents were not forced to give Bamber up, it is his natural parents we are talking about, isnt it?
Well I am talking about mothers having for one reason or other to give up their children. Not sure what you are talking about? I put it to you Andrea that no woman would give up their natural child except if they were made to for whatever reason that is. And most if not all regret doing so.

Offline andrea

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1385
Re: Bamber v Criminal Cases Review Commission
« Reply #84 on: January 05, 2013, 05:46:PM »
Well I am talking about mothers having for one reason or other to give up their children. Not sure what you are talking about? I put it to you Andrea that no woman would give up their natural child except if they were made to for whatever reason that is. And most if not all regret doing so.

As far as i was aware we were discussing Bambers natural parents. I was anyway.
On Ilkley Moor Baht'at.

Lugg

  • Guest
Re: Bamber v Criminal Cases Review Commission
« Reply #85 on: January 05, 2013, 05:55:PM »
As far as i was aware we were discussing Bambers natural parents. I was anyway.
Exactly and I suggest to you that Bamber's natural mother is just like any other woman in regard to her child. I further suggest to you that she had the same regrets as any other woman. I wonder what happened to her to make her feel the need to give up her child?

Offline andrea

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1385
Re: Bamber v Criminal Cases Review Commission
« Reply #86 on: January 05, 2013, 05:56:PM »
Exactly and I suggest to you that Bamber's natural mother is just like any other woman in regard to her child. I further suggest to you that she had the same regrets as any other woman. I wonder what happened to her to make her feel the need to give up her child?


I havent a clue, maybe reasons they want to keep private.
On Ilkley Moor Baht'at.

Lugg

  • Guest
Re: Bamber v Criminal Cases Review Commission
« Reply #87 on: January 05, 2013, 05:57:PM »

I havent a clue, maybe reasons they want to keep private.
::) Give up Lugg while you're still sane.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2013, 05:59:PM by Lugg »

Offline andrea

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1385
Re: Bamber v Criminal Cases Review Commission
« Reply #88 on: January 05, 2013, 06:00:PM »
::) Give up Lugg while you're still sane.

Whatever.
On Ilkley Moor Baht'at.

Offline Jo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 395
Re: Bamber v Criminal Cases Review Commission
« Reply #89 on: January 05, 2013, 06:09:PM »
Bamber was born to a vicar's daughter who had had an affair with a married army sergeant, a comptroller at Buckingham Palace. She gave the baby up for adoption in 1961, the year of his birth, through the Church of England Children's Society. It was only after Bamber's conviction, when his adoption records were published, that his biological parents were told by reporters that Bamber was their son. They were by then married to each other, and both were working at Buckingham Palace.
That was from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bamber

I think there's probably a lot of reasons why a mother would give up their child, especially up to probably recently. Things have changed and there are probably better 'services' and link ups running between services to keep families together.
Way back it was a stigma to have a child out of wedlock to start with and there may be other circumstances like the parent being ill, have an addiction problem, the victim of rape or have a child with a disability that the parent cannot cope with due to circumstaces (having other children or having their own disability etc).
I wouldn't slate anyone for making this decision because it's so difficult. There was a programme on recently,'Protecting our children', that was an eye opener.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7A-2xD3ILrs (there were 3 episodes in total, it looks like they're further broken down to 4 parts per episode).