The Threat.

[Jane]

Whatever you want to April as no doubt you will?

Because it's all I can do, Grahame. I can only judge from my own experience. You seem to think he should be judged through the eyes of others.

[Mr. Gee]

Because it's all I can do, Grahame. I can only judge from my own experience. You seem to think he should be judged through the eyes of others.

No April, I think he should tell the truth.

[Neil]

You just don't know when to stop do you? I haven't seen the bloody letter and unlike 'everyone else' I have no wish to see it. I'm sick to death of hearing about you! If you hadn't tried to discredit PH on this forum you wouldn't have been in danger of losing your job and you couldn't have been mentioned in relation to the article because there would have been nothing to mention YOU are your own worst enemy and you do Bamber no favours whatsoever!!

Are you saying, that if Jackie had not had a pop at MD on the open forum, he would not have disclosed the content of their private exchanges, to the newspaper?

[Mr. Gee]

Are you saying, that if Jackie had not had a pop at MD on the open forum, he would not have disclosed the content of their private exchanges, to the newspaper?

At best it was a betrayal of trust. I personally think that the article was a revenge attack on Neil and her for his ban from the forum?
And it obviously has had the predicted effect he wanted it to.

[JackiePreece]

I just want to make something absolutely crystal clear

My boss told me the author had said I had sent him sensitive information

I did not and he obviously could NOT provide this

I believe the newspaper acted badly by printing information that was not true

The source was the author who fed this to the newspaper

I believe they both should be held responsible

[Mr. Gee]

I just want to make something absolutely crystal clear

My boss told me the author had said I had sent him sensitive information

I did not and he obviously could NOT provide this

I believe the newspaper acted badly by printing information that was not true

The source was the author who fed this to the newspaper

I believe they both should be held responsible

Have you contacted the newspaper Jackie?

[Neil]

At best it was a betrayal of trust. I personally think that the article was a revenge attack on Neil and her for his ban from the forum?
And it obviously has had the predicted effect he wanted it to.

Maybe he thought, that since the Pm's had been disclosed on the open forum, it was not betraying a trust to repeat them to the newspaper. 

I wonder if, following the receipt of the letter, he would have revealed the content of the Pm's, even if they hadn't appeared on the forum.  Caroline seems to be suggesting that he wouldn't have mentioned them.  Caroline, is this a guess, or do you know for sure?

[Mr. Gee]

Maybe he thought, that since the Pm's had been disclosed on the open forum, it was not betraying a trust to repeat them to the newspaper. 

I wonder if, following the receipt of the letter, he would have revealed the content of the Pm's, even if they hadn't appeared on the forum.  Caroline seems to be suggesting that he wouldn't have mentioned them.  Caroline, is this a guess, or do you know for sure?

If he hadn't mentioned the pm's he wouldn't have had a story to tell. Who is going to read about a death thread without him implying who he thought did it, and why did he bring ngb into it? I just think he was getting his own back myself?

[Jan]

Because it's all I can do, Grahame. I can only judge from my own experience. You seem to think he should be judged through the eyes of others.

Out of interest are you surprised at his treatment of Ngb ?

And do you think it is right that without proof he can implicate a person (JB) of a very serious criminal act , who has no right to reply, in a newspaper headline?

[guest154]

Someone made a good point a couple of pages back, about the original topic where Jackie claimed MD had contacted her first - where the PM's were first posted.


Mr Gee - did you actually even see that topic? I don't think you were here at the time.

Patti, did you see it? 

[Jane]

Out of interest are you surprised at his treatment of Ngb ?

And do you think it is right that without proof he can implicate a person (JB) of a very serious criminal act , who has no right to reply, in a newspaper headline?

Jan, all I can find, regarding Neil is ".........the letter names barrister Neil Bellis as one of his "protectors"........" so without knowing the context, I really don't feel justified in making ANY comment.

I can only believe that he felt really unnerved by what the letter said because it must be fairly obvious that someone who may feel himself close to release from a lengthy prison term, is hardly going to jeopardise that by issuing impotent threats.

Just a thought, though. It's only the letter's author who SAY'S the threats come from Jeremy. Words put in his mouth?

[Patti]

Someone made a good point a couple of pages back, about the original topic where Jackie claimed MD had contacted her first - where the PM's were first posted.


Mr Gee - did you actually even see that topic? I don't think you were here at the time.

Patti, did you see it? 

No Mat could you direct me to it please. 

[Neil]

Someone made a good point a couple of pages back, about the original topic where Jackie claimed MD had contacted her first - where the PM's were first posted.


Mr Gee - did you actually even see that topic? I don't think you were here at the time.

Patti, did you see it? 

I read it.  Caroline suggested that had this spat not occurred, Jackies name would not have been mentioned in the newspaper article.  I wonder how she can be so sure.

[guest154]

No Mat could you direct me to it please. 

It was deleted. It's just you seem to try and school people on what the accusations were - but you didn't actually see it? I saw it. I know what Jackie claimed in that topic. Not what it has been changed to over time but what actually happened and what is now being said happened are two things. 

I read it.  Caroline suggested that had this spat not occurred, Jackies name would not have been mentioned in the newspaper article.  I wonder how she can be so sure.

That's a question for Caroline, I guess. But I'd say that if Jackie hadn't of posted lies about MD on teh board, he wouldn't of had anything about her to add to the newpapers article, so the section about her couldn't have existed - it only existed because she'd tried to discredit him with the topic and would have gotten away with it if NGB hadn't of posted the actual conversation.

[Jan]

Jan, all I can find, regarding Neil is ".........the letter names barrister Neil Bellis as one of his "protectors"........" so without knowing the context, I really don't feel justified in making ANY comment.

I can only believe that he felt really unnerved by what the letter said because it must be fairly obvious that someone who may feel himself close to release from a lengthy prison term, is hardly going to jeopardise that by issuing impotent threats.

I meant really as that as  well as the article the times  when NGB  made it quite clear why MD/PH was banned , because of the threats he had made. He did make that point clear on the forum as far as I was aware and that was before the article.