Why is it not fair to point out people have no valid basis for their claims?

[Neil]

He even said that some of his book was being used in Bamber's forthcoming application for appeal. So as far as I am concerned (and it WASN'T wishful thinking on my part) he has been deceiving the forum all along. If he said that he believed Bamber to be guilty I wouldn't have got the impression as some others have that he believed Bamber to be innocent. Anyway I think at the end he revealed his truth beliefs and I for one feel that I have been deceived, not only by him but by others on the forum who now defend him by saying that he never said that he thought Bamber to be innocent. I feel hurt and grieved to have been led up the garden path like this. I am exceedingly angry about the way people are defending the man now.

I concede that MD may well have initially identified himself as a Jeremy supporter.  Unfortunately, we can't now go back and look at his posts!  I can't understand why you would feel hurt by his change of mind, or deception, if that's what you believe. 

Why are you exceedingly angry about people defending him?

[susan]

Hello Patti  yes he told me it was more to do with the police investigation and never actually said he thought Jeremy was innocent I wrongly assumed then I was shocked when he posted the alleged MOJ thought may be he was just cross at the time

[ngb1066]

I imagine he responded that way because he didn't want to tell her anything and telling her to 'email' him would be to stop her pestering him via PM. I don't think it sounds strange at all. She deliberately tried to suggest he contacted her first and then tried to suggest that an admin/mod (namely me) had hacked her account. This was of course all BS because she contacted MD first and gave him specific information that ONLY she could know. This whole thing was about what Jackie tried to do but people are sweeping that under the carpet in order to have a dig at MD - simply because he MAY now think Jeremy is guilty. I really don't understand people here. What she did was completely wrong and underhanded but she gets away with it - time and again.

I do not agree that Jackie got away with anything.  She received considerable flak here for starting the thread here and posting as she did.  I am not in any way condoning that and I am very critical of it.  However, MD then posted his account of what had happened and to say it was disingenuous is perhaps a polite way of describing it.  It was only when I looked into the matter myself that I was able to post a factual account of what had happened so that members here could draw there only conclusions.  Having done that and allowed members to have their say I removed the thread.  Paul Harrison responded with insults and threats which were of a totally unacceptable nature.  He received a ban for that.  He then issued further threats and took certain steps which for the time being I will refrain from mentioning.  However any respect I had for this individual has completely disappeared and I would hope that those with knowledge of the facts would understand that.

 

[Mr. Gee]

I imagine he responded that way because he didn't want to tell her anything and telling her to 'email' him would be to stop her pestering him via PM. I don't think it sounds strange at all. She deliberately tried to suggest he contacted her first and then tried to suggest that an admin/mod (namely me) had hacked her account. This was of course all BS because she contacted MD first and gave him specific information that ONLY she could know. This whole thing was about what Jackie tried to do but people are sweeping that under the carpet in order to have a dig at MD - simply because he MAY now think Jeremy is guilty. I really don't understand people here. What she did was completely wrong and underhanded but she gets away with it - time and again.

But Caroline you were an admin at the time so why didn't you do something about her is you felt so strongly?

[ngb1066]

But Caroline you were an admin at the time so why didn't you do something about her is you felt so strongly?

Caroline was not an admin at the time.

[Caroline]

I do not agree that Jackie got away with anything.  She received considerable flak here for starting the thread here and posting as she did.  I am not in any way condoning that and I am very critical of it.  However, MD then posted his account of what had happened and to say it was disingenuous is perhaps a polite way of describing it.  It was only when I looked into the matter myself that I was able to post a factual account of what had happened so that members here could draw there only conclusions.  Having done that and allowed members to have their say I removed the thread.  Paul Harrison responded with insults and threats which were of a totally unacceptable nature.  He received a ban for that.  He then issued further threats and took certain steps which for the time being I will refrain from mentioning.  However any respect I had for this individual has completely disappeared and I would hope that those with knowledge of the facts would understand that.

I appreciate that you and he have issues which went on behind the scenes and that isn't really the business of anyone here. As far as I'm concerned she didn't get enough flack and now she is twisting the story and saying it was MD who lied and not her which isn't true. Jackie talks about abuse but is one of the worst offenders. She acts as though she should be the last person who should be considered in respect to recent events and yet she can't explain what she meant by this comment "I can't wait for tomorrow I'm sure you will get an answer" - I feel like I'm sitting in the story of the Emperors New Clothes.

[Caroline]

But Caroline you were an admin at the time so why didn't you do something about her is you felt so strongly?

No I wasn't, it happened on the day I stood down but if I had been ........

[ngb1066]

I appreciate that you and he have issues which went on behind the scenes and that isn't really the business of anyone here.

The issues were forum issues, the demands and threats issued by MD were to me as a forum administrator.

 

[Jane]

I appreciate that you and he have issues which went on behind the scenes and that isn't really the business of anyone here. As far as I'm concerned she didn't get enough flack and now she is twisting the story and saying it was MD who lied and not her which isn't true. Jackie talks about abuse but is one of the worst offenders. She acts as though she should be the last person who should be considered in respect to recent events and yet she can't explain what she meant by this comment "I can't wait for tomorrow I'm sure you will get an answer" - I feel like I'm sitting in the story of the Emperors New Clothes.

Awww Caroline. I'm sure there are some who can see the Emperor's credentials

[Mr. Gee]

I concede that MD may well have initially identified himself as a Jeremy supporter.  Unfortunately, we can't now go back and look at his posts!  I can't understand why you would feel hurt by his change of mind, or deception, if that's what you believe. 

Why are you exceedingly angry about people defending him?

Because those who are defending him are mainly guilters and now think he himself is a guilter. But I definitely was led to believe that he was a Bamber supporter so I can't understand why you are puzzled as to why I now feel deceived? The simple answer to that is if the person is deceptive now what will his book be like? Certainly not a good advertisement for his book is it?
I'm not stupid Neil, I wouldn't have imagined the fact that he made people here think that he was a supporter and then towards the end reveals himself as one who thinks Jeremy is guilty. That to my mind is deception. That alone should make people distrust him on anything else he may write. Unlike you I cannot understand why people on here tolerate such things when they critisise the same kind of deception they accuse other forum members of. It appears to me to be a bit hypocritical on their part?

[Caroline]

The issues were forum issues, the demands and threats issued by MD were to me as a forum administrator.

Fair enough but you banned him, Jackie accused admins/Mods (me) of hacking her account when she knew that wasn't true but she is still here.

[Neil]

I do not agree that Jackie got away with anything.  She received considerable flak here for starting the thread here and posting as she did.  I am not in any way condoning that and I am very critical of it.  However, MD then posted his account of what had happened and to say it was disingenuous is perhaps a polite way of describing it.  It was only when I looked into the matter myself that I was able to post a factual account of what had happened so that members here could draw there only conclusions.  Having done that and allowed members to have their say I removed the thread.  Paul Harrison responded with insults and threats which were of a totally unacceptable nature.  He received a ban for that.  He then issued further threats and took certain steps which for the time being I will refrain from mentioning.  However any respect I had for this individual has completely disappeared and I would hope that those with knowledge of the facts would understand that.

Ultimately, we all suffered because we lost a notable member. 

[Caroline]

Because those who are defending him are mainly guilters and now think he himself is a guilter. But I definitely was led to believe that he was a Bamber supporter so I can't understand why you are puzzled as to why I now feel deceived? The simple answer to that is if the person is deceptive now what will his book be like? Certainly not a good advertisement for his book is it?
I'm not stupid Neil, I wouldn't have imagined the fact that he made people here think that he was a supporter and then towards the end reveals himself as one who thinks Jeremy is guilty. That to my mind is deception. That alone should make people distrust him on anything else he may write. Unlike you I cannot understand why people on here tolerate such things when they critisise the same kind of deception they accuse other forum members of. It appears to me to be a bit hypocritical on their part?

Perhaps he changed his mind.

[Mr. Gee]

Caroline was not an admin at the time.

Ok my apologies to you Caroline. I forgot, I was not on the forum then.

[Mr. Gee]

I appreciate that you and he have issues which went on behind the scenes and that isn't really the business of anyone here. As far as I'm concerned she didn't get enough flack and now she is twisting the story and saying it was MD who lied and not her which isn't true. Jackie talks about abuse but is one of the worst offenders. She acts as though she should be the last person who should be considered in respect to recent events and yet she can't explain what she meant by this comment "I can't wait for tomorrow I'm sure you will get an answer" - I feel like I'm sitting in the story of the Emperors New Clothes.

But he did lie Caroline. He posted saying he did "not know who this woman is". But he did if it is claimed that Jackie contacted him afore hand offering him her support. So if she lied, then so did he in return. I must add of course that I don't know why Jackie is denying it?