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

[Mr. Gee]

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.

No matter what you do in order to be fair Neil will always be questioned. I remember exactly the same thing happened to me when I was administrator and if Caroline is honest, and I am confident that she is, exactly the same criticism was levelled at her as well. Me? I got fed up with all the fickleness and just chucked it in. Never again will I be either moderator or admin. I can see from what you have posted in the past against Jackie that you do not tolerate any nonsense from her.

[Mr. Gee]

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

In order to do that he would have had to change his whole book Caroline.

[ngb1066]

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.

So that makes it OK?  Are you doubting that it happened?

Jackie has been banned several times here and has had many posts censored.  It is up to the admin/mod team to make decisions at the time using their own judgement as each situation arises.  I do not believe it would be right to impose some retrospective sanction now based upon pressure from some members who disagree with my decision.  If issues arise in the future we will take the action that we feel is appropriate.  We can do no more than that.

 

 

[Mr. Gee]

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

Susan if you do not know by now then you never will. I have explained why quite clearly I don't like deception. I believe that the reason that he wasn't that clear what his position was in the beginning was because he already thought him to be guilty. I cannot see why certain people can't even recognise when they have been deceived?

[susan]

Mr Gee maybe he has changed the whole book and that is why it has not yet been published just a thought.

[Alias]

Will take the opportunity to say that I have added a few new photos of Jeremy´s birth parents in the photo thread. I have some more, will add them later. Also added two "new" photos of the WHF.

P.S. and one new picture of Julie Mugford from 2001. Took it from a video Gee posted.

[Jane]

So that makes it OK?  Are you doubting that it happened?

Jackie has been banned several times here and has had many posts censored.  It is up to the admin/mod team to make decisions at the time using their own judgement as each situation arises.  I do not believe it would be right to impose some retrospective sanction now based upon pressure from some members who disagree with my decision.  If issues arise in the future we will take the action that we feel is appropriate.  We can do no more than that.

 

Neil, I'm a highly articulate woman with an excellent vocabulary and if I may say so, a superlative command of the English language. WHY is it then, that I constantly get the feeling that you feel I'm attacking you when I'm doing NO SUCH THING.  On this occasion you appear to have taken exception  to my words "Which none of us saw" FULL STOP, Neil. Statement of fact. NO hidden agenda. NOR am I  doubting that it happened. HOWEVER, I would like to say that I feel there may be something here about the SUBjective as opposed to the OBjective. If MD threatened/attacked you personally, and I have NO reason to think that he didn't, you would understandably feel aggrieved and you were within your rights to take the action you did. Please understand that there are many of us here who feel that Jackie has treated us in the same way that you feel MD treated you and WE feel as aggrieved as you.

[Caroline]

Neil, I'm a highly articulate woman with an excellent vocabulary and if I may say so, a superlative command of the English language. WHY is it then, that I constantly get the feeling that you feel I'm attacking you when I'm doing NO SUCH THING.  On this occasion you appear to have taken exception  to my words "Which none of us saw" FULL STOP, Neil. Statement of fact. NO hidden agenda. NOR am I  doubting that it happened. HOWEVER, I would like to say that I feel there may be something here about the SUBjective as opposed to the OBjective. If MD threatened/attacked you personally, and I have NO reason to think that he didn't, you would understandably feel aggrieved and you were within your rights to take the action you did. Please understand that there are many of us here who feel that Jackie has treated us in the same way that you feel MD treated you and WE feel as aggrieved as you.

Exactly.

[Caroline]

In order to do that he would have had to change his whole book Caroline.

Well no he wouldn't the facts of the case are the facts of the case. I doubt he would have included any of the myths that circulate and even then, you can include them by asking them to be considered and not taken as fact.

[Caroline]

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.

I get that impression too - I haven't seen anyone actually comment on it yet - however, if a similar incident had occurred which involved Scipio, it would be a different story.

[Patti]

So that makes it OK?  Are you doubting that it happened?

Jackie has been banned several times here and has had many posts censored.  It is up to the admin/mod team to make decisions at the time using their own judgement as each situation arises.  I do not believe it would be right to impose some retrospective sanction now based upon pressure from some members who disagree with my decision.  If issues arise in the future we will take the action that we feel is appropriate.  We can do no more than that.

 

NGB I totally agree with what you have said.  I agree we should monitor issued should they arise in the future.

Action was taken at the end of the day the thread was removed and rightly so.

Here we have a classic example that one might have indicted or should I say asked if a Mod could have sent a PM using there account.  With respect it was not a nice thing to say. Equally we now have another member who thinks that a member on this forum has wrote to Jeremy to tell him that one of the members has changed her stance.  To me two members are accusing, more or less each other for something that they might not have done.

Mason Doyle went that extra mile and made threats. His ban was a worthy action in my opinion regardless of his stance on Jeremy Bamber. 



 

[Mr. Gee]

Neil, I'm a highly articulate woman with an excellent vocabulary and if I may say so, a superlative command of the English language. WHY is it then, that I constantly get the feeling that you feel I'm attacking you when I'm doing NO SUCH THING.  On this occasion you appear to have taken exception  to my words "Which none of us saw" FULL STOP, Neil. Statement of fact. NO hidden agenda. NOR am I  doubting that it happened. HOWEVER, I would like to say that I feel there may be something here about the SUBjective as opposed to the OBjective. If MD threatened/attacked you personally, and I have NO reason to think that he didn't, you would understandably feel aggrieved and you were within your rights to take the action you did. Please understand that there are many of us here who feel that Jackie has treated us in the same way that you feel MD treated you and WE feel as aggrieved as you.

Hi April, please don't take this the wrong way, but the words, "Which none of us saw" appear to have the ring of doubt about them and seem to be challenging ngb's honesty. Perhaps that is why he answered you the way he did? The words could be interpreted "Which none of us saw but only you saw " thus implying that because none of us saw we only have your word for it. Just saying.

[Patti]

Will take the opportunity to say that I have added a few new photos of Jeremy´s birth parents in the photo thread. I have some more, will add them later. Also added two "new" photos of the WHF.

P.S. and one new picture of Julie Mugford from 2001. Took it from a video Gee posted.

Thank you Alias....I shall have a granny! 

[ngb1066]

Will take the opportunity to say that I have added a few new photos of Jeremy´s birth parents in the photo thread. I have some more, will add them later. Also added two "new" photos of the WHF.

P.S. and one new picture of Julie Mugford from 2001. Took it from a video Gee posted.

Thank you Alias.

[Alias]

Neil, I'm a highly articulate woman with an excellent vocabulary and if I may say so, a superlative command of the English language. WHY is it then, that I constantly get the feeling that you feel I'm attacking you when I'm doing NO SUCH THING.  On this occasion you appear to have taken exception  to my words "Which none of us saw" FULL STOP, Neil. Statement of fact. NO hidden agenda. NOR am I  doubting that it happened. HOWEVER, I would like to say that I feel there may be something here about the SUBjective as opposed to the OBjective. If MD threatened/attacked you personally, and I have NO reason to think that he didn't, you would understandably feel aggrieved and you were within your rights to take the action you did. Please understand that there are many of us here who feel that Jackie has treated us in the same way that you feel MD treated you and WE feel as aggrieved as you.

So many people feel aggrieved by treatment by other posters. Scipio has been awful towards me from get go, hurling insults at me and others, making lies up about me. I didn´t see you or Caroline do anything about it - on the contrary, you buddied up with the man.
Things aren´t always fair.

P.S. and you thought Harters was "joking" when he was viciously attacking Patti. I didn´t think for one second he was joking!