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

[susan]

Hi Caroline I agree Mason Doyle changed his mind and never set out to deceive anyone. Mr. Gee why are you so angry.

[Mr. Gee]

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

Yes ngb has corrected me on that matter. I am sorry for my mistake.

[Neil]

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?

Thanks for that Grahame.  I just wondered why you felt so angry about it.  I would understand it if you had formed a private relationship with him.  I suspect that he would be a very interesting poster, if he were able to share his views with us. 

[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?

As is not recognising what Jackie did to be also deceptive - it has nothing to do with whether you believe JB innocent or guilty (personally I think the innocent/guiltiers lables are BS) it's about right and wrong and if it's WRONG it's wrong no matter what 'side' you support. MD was under no obligation to tell anyone anything and he is certainly free to change his mind. Jackie on the other hand set out to try and discredit someone and to try and snare an admin just for the hell of it.

[Mr. Gee]

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.

That of course is wrong. But when I was admin I could have if I wanted read all the emails and pm's of members. Needless to say I did not as that would have been unethical and I doubt that you would either.

[Jane]

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?

Grahame, I can HEAR your frustration. Clearly you feel duped but it is DONE. OK, he may have been duplicitous. You can register your disapproval by shunning his book, should it ever be released, as can anyone else who feels as strongly as you. Personally, I don't have the involvement with him to see him as anything other than someone who used to his advantage something he thought would help him with his work as an author. I worry FAR more about the trustworthiness, or otherwise, of some closer to home.

[ngb1066]

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.

I have already explained the basis for my decision to ban MD but not Jackie.  You can disagree with that decision, fair enough.  However in my view MD's conduct was far more serious than Jackie's.  Jackie could have been banned, MD had to be banned.  To be accurate Jackie fell short of making the direct accusation, although I accept that the hint was there.  The strong reaction of members, including me, to any suggestion of you or any other admin or mod hacking an account dealt with that issue firmly.

 

[Jane]

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?

But does receiving a pm or email entitle one to say they "know" someone?

[ngb1066]

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

We lost that member because of his conduct, not that of anyone else.  He indicated his contempt for the forum.

[Caroline]

That of course is wrong. But when I was admin I could have if I wanted read all the emails and pm's of members. Needless to say I did not as that would have been unethical and I doubt that you would either.

You can't read PM's unless you have their password and NGB will confirm this! However, Jackie sent MD information ONLY SHE would know.

[Mr. Gee]

As is not recognising what Jackie did to be also deceptive - it has nothing to do with whether you believe JB innocent or guilty (personally I think the innocent/guiltiers lables are BS) it's about right and wrong and if it's WRONG it's wrong no matter what 'side' you support. MD was under no obligation to tell anyone anything and he is certainly free to change his mind. Jackie on the other hand set out to try and discredit someone and to try and snare an admin just for the hell of it.

I don't believe he changed his mind Caroline? He said to me that he didn't know when his book was coming out because he was helping Bambers legal team in the forthcoming appeal application. Now honestly does that sound as if he believed Bamber to be guilty? I just think his purpose in joining the forum was to plug his book personally? And in so doing he misled some of Bamber's supporters into thinking he himself was a supporter. The first I heard of it was from Tyler, although she only hinted at it and didn't mention his name, but when he published in his post the word "alleged moj" or similar words in regard to Bamber I guessed what she was talking about.

[Caroline]

I have already explained the basis for my decision to ban MD but not Jackie.  You can disagree with that decision, fair enough.  However in my view MD's conduct was far more serious than Jackie's.  Jackie could have been banned, MD had to be banned.  To be accurate Jackie fell short of making the direct accusation, although I accept that the hint was there.  The strong reaction of members, including me, to any suggestion of you or any other admin or mod hacking an account dealt with that issue firmly.

It was stronger than a hint and whether anyone believed it or not, it shows how underhanded she is and it's why I think she is at the heart of recent events and her earlier post indicates such. What will she do next?

[Caroline]

I don't believe he changed his mind Caroline? He said to me that he didn't know when his book was coming out because he was helping Bambers legal team in the forthcoming appeal application. Now honestly does that sound as if he believed Bamber to be guilty? I just think his purpose in joining the forum was to plug his book personally? And in so doing he misled some of Bamber's supporters into thinking he himself was a supporter. The first I heard of it was from Tyler, although she only hinted at it and didn't mention his name, but when he published in his post the word "alleged moj" or similar words in regard to Bamber I guessed what she was talking about.

Well, that's up to your Grahame but he did change his mind.

[Jane]

We lost that member because of his conduct, not that of anyone else.  He indicated his contempt for the forum.

Which none of us saw. Conversely, Jackie seem to indicate her contempt, on forum, on a regular basis, for anyone who opposes her views, as well as refusing to acknowledge the extent of her involvement in the MD email debacle.

[guest154]

I won't comment  on the MD/NGB issue because  I haven't seen what was said. BUT - I see where NGB could be coming from in relation to MD's attitude as I am one of the many members he threatened with legal action and his attitude was anything but proffesional - he seems to have a short spark and rather than discuss he quickly began to throw threats and ultimatums - it seems he treated NGB the same way.

As for Jackie and MD. It seems black and white to me but there appears to be an attempt to make it a grey area. I am sure MD recieves a lot of emails and PM's regarding his work - why would he remember Jackie? He was perplexed and responded to her accusation in a defensive way. But she did lie. She was seen to be lying and then she tried to cover her ass by blaming an admin. If NGB chooses not to ban her, that's fine and needs to be respected BUT history can't be re-written and the lack of a ban can't be used as lack of wrong doing. If MD has contempt for this forum, then so does Jackie.

The post to Caroline about  "can't wait for tommorow" Is being CLEARLY ignored. Members need to ask themselves why.