The Threat.

[Mr. Gee]

I know he did not need to. My question is could he if he wanted, would he have a right to publish names and full exchanges?

Sometimes less is more.

[guest7363]

Justice I mentioned bingo....please don't worry about it. My sense of humor evolves when I'm in tight corner...lol 

Ha ha i thought you spotted me some while back before the local bingo hall  shut lol.  Now i could tell you a story about that bingo hall another time?

[Patti]

Ha ha i thought you spotted me some while back before the local bingo hall  shut lol.  Now i could tell you a story about that bingo hall another time?

Hahaha I never play bingo Justice...can never understand the upside down lady...lol 

[Jan]

I know he did not need to. My question is could he if he wanted, would he have a right to publish names and full exchanges?

My guess is if they had previously been aired in full on a public forum - then yes- as long as they were published in full and not "picked out" in isolation?

If they were only by pm , then I am not sure.

[Jane]

April are you saying that you believe Jackie might be guilty of writing the letter simply because she is not your friend?  Or am I guilty of not reading your post correctly? 

Patti, this thread seems to have created paranoia in everybody I think, that because of what passed between them and was subsequently aired on this forum, Jackie has placed herself in a very difficult position.

 It's quite plain, from the wording of the correspondence, that it was she who made the first approach to PH, NOT as she would have us believe, he approaching her out of the blue. WHY WOULD HE? Surely then, one would have to be totally naive if it didn't cross one's mind that if she was capable of one little "fib" she COULD be capable of a second. Had she kept her mouth shut and NOT mentioned the first incident -I can only think that the temptation to brag overcame common sense- we wouldn't have been able to link it to what subsequently happened.

As I said, Grahame is a loyal friend of Jackie. SOME of us have been subjected to a Jackie who is quite OTHER than the one Grahame knows, a Jackie who slams with blind fury and without proof into ANYONE who she believes has gone against Jeremy. Of COURSE we're going to see it differently. Do you REALLY believe I'd suggest her capable of writing such a letter because she's not my friend?

[Caroline]

Clearly PH lied to the newspaper here

Why would he lie Caroline?

It's here in black and white where he says what I offered him

He had/has no reason to lie - your PM mentioned a data base and you gave him your login details, perhaps he was confused by exactly what you were offering? Also the article uses the word 'potentially' so he isn't actually saying you were offering access, just that there may have been a potential. Your boss mentions that you had/have no access to any of the data bases so why tell him you did?

[Jane]

No April. Jackie maybe my friend, but I am more the friend of truth and justice and logic should at least should tell you that to insinuate that Jackie wrote this alleged letter is entirely wrong. How can I get through to you people that if it were you yourself who was being accused I would still go down the same logical route. A person in this country is always presumed innocent until proved guilty and that is what I am doing. Indeed if we were to take up mat's way of reasoning then no doubt we would be back in the days of the witch trials where people were found guilty by insinuation.
But April you have unknowingly or knowingly just accused me of prejudice and judged mat as being the sound reasoner.

Grahame, if it was my integrity being called into question, I'd be horrified. However, if I'd previously implicated myself, I'd have lost the right to take the moral high ground. Has it occurred to you that you've just accused me of what you say I MAY have accused you

[Jan]

April

I am slightly surprised - because this comment could be applied to people who give evidence in court trials



"totally naive if it didn't cross one's mind that if she was capable of one little "fib" she COULD be capable of a second"

 And I thought for example if someone was guilty of physical violence - it does not mean they are guilty of murder?

And just because someone had lied or committed a minor crime it does not mean they are capable of perjury?

I know that is painting a much bigger picture , but you do get where I am coming from?


BTW -I am absolutely not friends with anyone on here 

[Mr. Gee]

Patti, this thread seems to have created paranoia in everybody I think, that because of what passed between them and was subsequently aired on this forum, Jackie has placed herself in a very difficult position.

 It's quite plain, from the wording of the correspondence, that it was she who made the first approach to PH, NOT as she would have us believe, he approaching her out of the blue. WHY WOULD HE? Surely then, one would have to be totally naive if it didn't cross one's mind that if she was capable of one little "fib" she COULD be capable of a second. Had she kept her mouth shut and NOT mentioned the first incident -I can only think that the temptation to brag overcame common sense- we wouldn't have been able to link it to what subsequently happened.

As I said, Grahame is a loyal friend of Jackie. SOME of us have been subjected to a Jackie who is quite OTHER than the one Grahame knows, a Jackie who slams with blind fury and without proof into ANYONE who she believes has gone against Jeremy. Of COURSE we're going to see it differently. Do you REALLY believe I'd suggest her capable of writing such a letter because she's not my friend?

I am not Jackie. What I proposed is true. But whatever Jackie has said and done although I agree those who have not known the history behind her passionate posts against others it does appear that she may accuse some of insincerity.

But you must realise the abuse that she has herself received at the hands of some of those here who do in fact remember  was so great and unjust that I had to go to Chelmsford police not only with regard to these ignorant abusers but also concerning a woman police officer who unjustly decided to take sides with her opponents in another incident just because that police officer was "friends" with her opponents.

As I said before and again emphasise that even if the person was an opponent or enemy of miner I would still take the same course of action and defend that person against such unjust accusations as Jackie has received. It does not depend upon friendship but justice and fairness. Indeed I have had some spats with Jackie myself as has ngb. She has often gone against my advice and has probably drawn criticism and damage to herself. As did Keira when she was on the forum and consequently brought down people's wrath upon her.

But in spite of her "passionate" stand on this case I believe that logical deduction and judgment must be maintained and she should not be judged by others just because they are her enemies or don't like her. All I have seen in the early posts of this thread was just plain prejudicial accusation by some who don't like her anyway. There was nothing logical about their judgment of her at all. Indeed I was called "blinkered" and prejudiced because I stood up for justice against what could only be termed as a "lynch mob". Law was introduced to put an end to that kind of thing. In spite of what you may think of Jackie or me we must take that logical course of action where a person is counted innocent until proven guilty. Not to turn to unfounded accusaqtions and libellous remarks just because things "appear" to be so in our thinking.

Indeed that is one thing that makes me not rush over to the guilty side. Because of those who are so eager to prove Bamber guilty with such an evil passion that it turns them to abuse of those who do not agree with themselves, to the extent that they are counted fools by themselves. Almost by reflex I rewject such people simply because of this near evil glee in condemning someone they don't even know and probably were still running around in nappies at the time of the murders and cannot possibly know the mind of Bamber or Sheila. But this does not stop them deliberating loquaciously on this subject.

[Jane]

April

I am slightly surprised - because this comment could be applied to people who give evidence in court trials



"totally naive if it didn't cross one's mind that if she was capable of one little "fib" she COULD be capable of a second"

 And I thought for example if someone was guilty of physical violence - it does not mean they are guilty of murder?

And just because someone had lied or committed a minor crime it does not mean they are capable of perjury?

I know that is painting a much bigger picture , but you do get where I am coming from?


BTW -I am absolutely not friends with anyone on here 

Jan, thanks for the above. Something to get my teeth in :D

From an objective position, OF COURSE it can't be said that someone capable of physical violence is capable of murder. However, from a SUBJECTIVE position, ie as one of that person's victims of violence, HOW could we, in all honesty, speaking from our personal experience, say that X could never kill someone?

We can only bring to the table our own experiences, so whilst we say "Innocent until proved guilty" it's very difficult to leave them at the door. They have a tendency to become the voice that whispers "Yes, but....." and "What if..." in our ears.

[Mr. Gee]

Grahame, if it was my integrity being called into question, I'd be horrified. However, if I'd previously implicated myself, I'd have lost the right to take the moral high ground. Has it occurred to you that you've just accused me of what you say I MAY have accused you

No I have not accused you of anything April. All I am asking is that you think logically about these accusations. Perhaps you see a mirror there somewhere so you decided to thow it back in my face?

[JackiePreece]

He had/has no reason to lie - your PM mentioned a data base and you gave him your login details, perhaps he was confused by exactly what you were offering? Also the article uses the word 'potentially' so he isn't actually saying you were offering access, just that there may have been a potential. Your boss mentions that you had/have no access to any of the data bases so why tell him you did?

So PH was confused when he told my company I had sent him sensitive information which he couldn't provide?
Then he was further confused when he told the newspaper the same story

How much was he paid by the newspaper Caroline?
I take it you have asked him ?

[Patti]

He had/has no reason to lie - your PM mentioned a data base and you gave him your login details, perhaps he was confused by exactly what you were offering? Also the article uses the word 'potentially' so he isn't actually saying you were offering access, just that there may have been a potential. Your boss mentions that you had/have no access to any of the data bases so why tell him you did?

Caroline I have just looked back and it does not mention any login details..Where have you got that from?

Her boss claimed that the access to 100.000 emails are in the public domain yet he claims Jackie has no access to them??? The whole thing is confusing imo

[Caroline]

So PH was confused when he told my company I had sent him sensitive information which he couldn't provide?
Then he was further confused when he told the newspaper the same story

How much was he paid by the newspaper Caroline?
I take it you have asked him ?

I said 'perhaps' because from your PM it is confusing what you were offering! And your boss states you have no access to any of their data bases so why did you even mention it in the PM?

I have had no contact with PH over this, I suspect he has had enough of anything to do with the forum.

[Caroline]

Caroline I have just looked back and it does not mention any login details..Where have you got that from?

Her boss claimed that the access to 100.000 emails are in the public domain yet he claims Jackie has no access to them??? The whole thing is confusing imo

Jackie did indeed send PH a PM with her work login details and it was posted on this forum.

Her boss said that the addresses are in the public domain, not their data bases.