Is this how it's going to work then?

[maggie]

I'd like to add my take on this,  though it may be important to note that I did not witness the fall out from Jim's post.

I don't have a problem with Mike being repeatedly challenged regarding the three notorious claims... alleged 'itemised phone bill' / 'informant' / 'bed photo'.

What I do find frustrating is when members employ a really narrow approach.  When members limit themselves almost entirely to this kind of challenging , displaying a breathless amount of negativity and dismissiveness towards other numerous aspects that they simply don't bother to debate or challenge at all.

The other thing I find frustrating are the repeated and deliberate attempts to get Mike Tesko to explode in anger, so that said members or others will then inevitably point out how wrong this is etc. 

I'm not condoning Mike's excesses and am more than happy to see Mike challenged / moderated etc. Obviously I would like Mike to show more restraint.  But a lack of restraint on the part of Mike shouldn't be a green card for others to bear bait.

That's my twopenneth...

Hi Roch, very well said, I totally agree with your post, for some it seems the main aim is to antagonise Mike and disrupt the forum.

[Roch]

Hi Roch, very well said, I totally agree with your post, for some it seems the main aim is to antagonise Mike and disrupt the forum.

Do you agree though maggie, that Mike may have backed him self in to a corner on these three claims?

While I would dearly love to see an 'informant' of PS Golding's ilk emerge, the fact remains he has not done so.  Neither has any photograph.  As for the bills, I could never quite get the 'metered' argument but it seems highly unlikely that an itemised bill exists.

For me, what is important is what has been outlined regarding ballistics tampering and the likely truth sorrounding AP's gun.  There is absolutely no reason to tamper, destroy or conceal if Jeremy Bamber is guilty.  For me that says it all.

[Roch]

I would also add, that I cant work out whether such tampering, destruction and concealment points towards police weapon/s having been discharged at some point during the incident...

Or a desperate need to cover up other elements of a botched raid / crime scene preservation....

Or both?

[maggie]

Do you agree though maggie, that Mike may have backed him self in to a corner on these three claims?

While I would dearly love to see an 'informant' of PS Golding's ilk emerge, the fact remains he has not done so.  Neither has any photograph.  As for the bills, I could never quite get the 'metered' argument but it seems highly unlikely that an itemised bill exists.

For me, what is important is what has been outlined regarding ballistics tampering and the likely truth sorrounding AP's gun.  There is absolutely no reason to tamper, destroy or conceal if Jeremy Bamber is guilty.  For me that says it all.

Hi Roch, I do agree that in some areas Mike is indeed suspect  but as far as the ballistics tampering and APs gun he is on much firmer ground.  I agree that concealment points to guilt of the police and innocence of Jeremy.

[Jane]

Maggie/Roch hello to you both. Just back from lunch. I agree emphatically with what you have both said. Leaving aside that I have felt bitterly disappointed, even cheated regarding some of Mike's claims which I have naively willed to be true, I am actually truly saddened that by making such claims, he leaves himself vulnerable and exposed to all whose sole aim in life is to goad him to the point of explosion and cause disruption to  the forum.

[ngb1066]

I think we ought to wait and find out what has really happened....

I'm quite shocked Jim in no longer with us. 

Just a thought, if his account has been deleted, this might mean he can re-register...but would not be able to if he had a ban? Just a thought!

Jim's membership has been reinstated.

 

[Jane]

Jim's membership has been reinstated.

We must keep our fingers crossed that he likes the idea of reinstatement

[ngb1066]

Vic 

Puts me in a bit of a dilemma and I may get banned myself, but I agree with you.  I know you are a good sort deep down. I have nothing more to add.  Take care X

I hope you do not agree with everything in Vic's post Patti.  I like and respect Vic but his post is extremely insulting towards Mike and I am not prepared to associate myself with that.  Vic has also attacked the moderators/admins, which of course includes you as well as me. 

I have not liked seeing the goading of Mike by some members, which in my view is only done in order to provoke Mike into a reaction, in the hope of showing him in a bad light.  Mike does overreact at times, but he always calms down.  We should remember that Mike's health is not good and should take that into consideration when forming judgements about his actions here.

Vic has applied to delete his account.  I will not action that at present so that he is able to respond if he wishes.


 

[ngb1066]

Vic, thankyou for sharing your views and those kind words.

Vic is attacking you as well April.

[ngb1066]

I'd like to add my take on this,  though it may be important to note that I did not witness the fall out from Jim's post.

I don't have a problem with Mike being repeatedly challenged regarding the three notorious claims... alleged 'itemised phone bill' / 'informant' / 'bed photo'.

What I do find frustrating is when members employ a really narrow approach.  When members limit themselves almost entirely to this kind of challenging , displaying a breathless amount of negativity and dismissiveness towards other numerous aspects that they simply don't bother to debate or challenge at all.

The other thing I find frustrating are the repeated and deliberate attempts to get Mike Tesko to explode in anger, so that said members or others will then inevitably point out how wrong this is etc. 

I'm not condoning Mike's excesses and am more than happy to see Mike challenged / moderated etc. Obviously I would like Mike to show more restraint.  But a lack of restraint on the part of Mike shouldn't be a green card for others to bear bait.

That's my twopenneth...

Well said Roch.

[Jane]

Vic is attacking you as well April.

Neil, did you not see how I had condensed Vic's post in a way which enabled me to thank him for his views and his KIND words.

[ngb1066]

Neil, did you not see how I had condensed Vic's post in a way which enabled me to thank him for his views and his KIND words.

Yes, I understand now April.  You have a clever way with words.

[lookout]

I really have to admire both posts,Ngb and Roch who always manage to put things in perspective in a calm manner.
 It also goes without saying that I have a fondness and also respect for Mike who must " struggle " at times, that when he has an off day,I'd prefer to ignore anything said" out of turn " rather than make a meal of it. I've actually said this privately on a few occasions,as one has to learn to make allowances at times.
 He's done a sterling job and has worked tirelessly in his quest to see justice done.

[maggie]

I hope you do not agree with everything in Vic's post Patti.  I like and respect Vic but his post is extremely insulting towards Mike and I am not prepared to associate myself with that.  Vic has also attacked the moderators/admins, which of course includes you as well as me. 
I have not liked seeing the goading of Mike by some members, which in my view is only done in order to provoke Mike into a reaction, in the hope of showing him in a bad light.  Mike does overreact at times, but he always calms down.  We should remember that Mike's health is not good and should take that into consideration when forming judgements about his actions here.
Vic has applied to delete his account.  I will not action that at present so that he is able torespond if he wishes.

Very well put ngb, excellent post.

[lookout]

Brilliant posts,Maggie,I agree.