Is this how it's going to work then?

[Bridget]

So are we now just banning people who disagree?

There can't be a single 'anti' who hasn't thought along the lines of what Jim said to Mike, and to be honest I can't see how any pro Bamber wouldn't be frustrated at someone who claims to have evidence which would potentially release Bamber tomorrow, and yet withholds it. But once again Mike throws his toys out of the pram, calls Jim all the names under the sun and then bans him.

Way to go Mike, if you can't persuade 'em, silence 'em right?

[Jane]

So are we now just banning people who disagree?

There can't be a single 'anti' who hasn't thought along the lines of what Jim said to Mike, and to be honest I can't see how any pro Bamber wouldn't be frustrated at someone who claims to have evidence which would potentially release Bamber tomorrow, and yet withholds it. But once again Mike throws his toys out of the pram, calls Jim all the names under the sun and then bans him.

Way to go Mike, if you can't persuade 'em, silence 'em right?

Hiya Bridget. Hope all is well in your neck of the woods. Mike's forum. Mike's rules. None of us are forced to believe ALL anyone says. We have a choice. Perhaps it's more important that we support what we hope he will help to achieve eventually.

[Bridget]

Hiya Bridget. Hope all is well in your neck of the woods. Mike's forum. Mike's rules. None of us are forced to believe ALL anyone says. We have a choice. Perhaps it's more important that we support what we hope he will help to achieve eventually.

No, and apparently we're not allowed to say so either. What do you think he'll achieve?

[Jane]

No, and apparently we're not allowed to say so either. What do you think he'll achieve?

Bridget, I'm sure that ultimately he hopes that at the very least there will be enough new evidence for a retrial which will eventually lead to release and I think he will want to feel that he has played a part in it.

[ngb1066]

So are we now just banning people who disagree?

There can't be a single 'anti' who hasn't thought along the lines of what Jim said to Mike, and to be honest I can't see how any pro Bamber wouldn't be frustrated at someone who claims to have evidence which would potentially release Bamber tomorrow, and yet withholds it. But once again Mike throws his toys out of the pram, calls Jim all the names under the sun and then bans him.

Way to go Mike, if you can't persuade 'em, silence 'em right?

Mike has not banned Jim.

[Bridget]

Mike has not banned Jim.

Who did then?

[Lugg]

Who did then?

Unless he's left of his own accord?

[Bridget]

Unless he's left of his own accord?

Nope.

[Patti]

Nope.

I have no idea what has happened to Jim's account. All I know is that he is not in the members list and NGB has said Mike has not banned him....

[Lugg]

Nope.

I can't find his account and his posts from that particular thread are missing? Very odd.

[vidvic]

He dared to call mike out so he got banned? It really is becoming a bit North Korea round here!

[Alias]

I hate this, makes me so mad!

[Bridget]

I have no idea what has happened to Jim's account. All I know is that he is not in the members list and NGB has said Mike has not banned him....

Well he's deleted Jim's account then, which is pretty much the same thing to me. I was in 'who's online' when it happened and Mike was in Jim's profile. Oh and this was just after Mike declared he was banning him.

[guest154]

Deleted account/ banned. Seems like the same thing to me to be honest.

[Patti]

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!