The Threat.

[Patti]

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?

April it is not very often I disagree with you, but on this occasion I do. Jackie has not placed herself in any position at all PH has done that with the article its self.

I can agree that Jackie made first contact, but I can also go with the fact that she may have forgotten that she had made initial contact.  It appears that there were some confusion and even PH himself quoted that he had not made contact with her when he clearly did. Maybe both of them had forgotten.  But, this is not the issue. The issue is the newspaper article where he mentions a woman from this forum  told him:

"She offered to give him access to a database of over 100,000 email addresses, including potentially sensitive contacts within the Home Office and other government departments."

When in effect she actually told this:

"I have available to me a huge database of over 100,000 email address and I could probably give you loads of free advertising and marketing"

You see how this has been twisted....

Jackie has not placed herself in an awkward position PH has....

Sorry April, but this is how I see it....sat on the fence looking in, trying my hardest to see both sides...

[Patti]

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.

Not on the PM's that I have seen Caroline...Was this on the 19th?

[Caroline]

April it is not very often I disagree with you, but on this occasion I do. Jackie has not placed herself in any position at all PH has done that with the article its self.

I can agree that Jackie made first contact, but I can also go with the fact that she may have forgotten that she had made initial contact.  It appears that there were some confusion and even PH himself quoted that he had not made contact with her when he clearly did. Maybe both of them had forgotten.  But, this is not the issue. The issue is the newspaper article where he mentions a woman from this forum  told him:

"She offered to give him access to a database of over 100,000 email addresses, including potentially sensitive contacts within the Home Office and other government departments."

When in effect she actually told this:

"I have available to me a huge database of over 100,000 email address and I could probably give you loads of free advertising and marketing"

You see how this has been twisted....

Jackie has not placed herself in an awkward position PH has....

Sorry April, but this is how I see it....sat on the fence looking in, trying my hardest to see both sides...

Why mention the data base at all? Her boss claims she doesn't even have any access to such info. She offered her login details  so it's not surprising that PH wasn't clear on what was being offered.

[Caroline]

Not on the PM's that I have seen Caroline...Was this on the 19th?

It was posted by NGB when he looked into Jackie's claim about PH contacting her first.

[JackiePreece]

Our database does NOT contain email addresses

But we run email campaigns for companies if they want to promote a book for instance

For a lot of money someone can have advertising sent by email to all of out contacts

The customer never sees the list of emails and I do not either
I just arrange dates and times when a solus email campaign happens

I have never seen sensitive information
For obvious reasons

[Jane]

April it is not very often I disagree with you, but on this occasion I do. Jackie has not placed herself in any position at all PH has done that with the article its self.

I can agree that Jackie made first contact, but I can also go with the fact that she may have forgotten that she had made initial contact.  It appears that there were some confusion and even PH himself quoted that he had not made contact with her when he clearly did. Maybe both of them had forgotten.  But, this is not the issue. The issue is the newspaper article where he mentions a woman from this forum  told him:

"She offered to give him access to a database of over 100,000 email addresses, including potentially sensitive contacts within the Home Office and other government departments."

When in effect she actually told this:

"I have available to me a huge database of over 100,000 email address and I could probably give you loads of free advertising and marketing"

You see how this has been twisted....

Jackie has not placed herself in an awkward position PH has....

Sorry April, but this is how I see it....sat on the fence looking in, trying my hardest to see both sides...

Patti, I can only base my opinion on what I observed from the correspondence -I would apply the same principle to ANY correspondence- and what we were told way other than the correspondence stated. I can can see that you're being very diplomatic, but fences are known to have splinters. Do take care that something vital doesn't get pierced

[Patti]

It was posted by NGB when he looked into Jackie's claim about PH contacting her first.

It does not say that Caroline....I have looked. I would not lie to you. She gives NGB her login details not PH...

BTW Jackie never mentioned a data base PH did. 

[Patti]

Patti, I can only base my opinion on what I observed from the correspondence -I would apply the same principle to ANY correspondence- and what we were told way other than the correspondence stated. I can can see that you're being very diplomatic, but fences are known to have splinters. Do take care that something vital doesn't get pierced

I'm not sure how to take that April....

Would you apply the same observation if you were one of those that supported JB being innocent? Honest answer please April?

[Jane]

I'm not sure how to take that April....

Would you apply the same observation if you were one of those that supported JB being innocent? Honest answer please April?

Patti, I actually have no need to know the names of those responsible for correspondence. By reading what one person says to another it's easy enough to deduce what's going on. This negates any need to be a supporter of OR detractor of either party.

On a personal level of whether I'd apply the same observation if I was a Jeremy supporter the most honest answer I can give is I HOPE I would. I THINK I may be more detached from the case, than some. I've never, I suppose because I didn't build a relationship with PH, regarded him as being "one of us," but rather as someone who'd sit on the sidelines and gather information and I suppose for this reason, I don't have the same feeling, as do some, of being personally let down and betrayed, but it's hypothetical anyway, because NONE of us knows what the book contains. If it screams from the roof tops that Jeremy is innocent, it's only HIS opinion, and I don't see Jeremy being released because of it.

I'm sorry you didn't know how to take my comment about splinters. I've sat on enough fences to know what they feel like

[Patti]

Patti, I actually have no need to know the names of those responsible for correspondence. By reading what one person says to another it's easy enough to deduce what's going on. This negates any need to be a supporter of OR detractor of either party.

On a personal level of whether I'd apply the same observation if I was a Jeremy supporter the most honest answer I can give is I HOPE I would. I THINK I may be more detached from the case, than some. I've never, I suppose because I didn't build a relationship with PH, regarded him as being "one of us," but rather as someone who'd sit on the sidelines and gather information and I suppose for this reason, I don't have the same feeling, as do some, of being personally let down and betrayed, but it's hypothetical anyway, because NONE of us knows what the book contains. If it screams from the roof tops that Jeremy is innocent, it's only HIS opinion, and I don't see Jeremy being released because of it.

I'm sorry you didn't know how to take my comment about splinters. I've sat on enough fences to know what they feel like

Thank you for your honesty April. 

I never felt let down by PH personally. I liked the guy and still do, but I don't appreciate that he should mention a female in that article and in my opinion it planted a seed in the mind of the readers that would be of the opinion that she was involved in the plot of sending a death threat.

I'm not sure if anyone is aware of this, but I do believe that Jackie and Jeremy do talk and have not done so for a few years. Maybe Jackie could confirm this. 

[Caroline]

It does not say that Caroline....I have looked. I would not lie to you. She gives NGB her login details not PH...

BTW Jackie never mentioned a data base PH did.

I have a SEEN the PM in question, it was posted here by NGB - you obviously weren't here at the time. Jackie KNOWS she gave PH her login details - ask her.

[Jan]

I have a SEEN the PM in question, it was posted here by NGB - you obviously weren't here at the time. Jackie KNOWS she gave PH her login details - ask her.

To be clear you are saying Jackie gave her "work" log in details to PH.

Not her log in details for this forum?

[Caroline]

To be clear you are saying Jackie gave her "work" log in details to PH.

Not her log in details for this forum?

Yes.

[Jan]

Yes.

I did see the posts floating around and did not see that - I only saw her offer her log in details from here so her pms could be checked

So I would not like to comment on that , especially as that is a very serious allegation , and from an employers point of view could result in dismissal.

[Caroline]

I did see the posts floating around and did not see that - I only saw her offer her log in details from here so her pms could be checked

So I would not like to comment on that , especially as that is a very serious allegation , and from an employers point of view could result in dismissal.

Hence the reason why her boss said her job was on the line. But it's not an allegation, the PM was posted and it will be still here somewhere. Both Jackie and NGB can confirm that she did give PH her work login details and others will have seen it too.