Was Sheila Caffell set up by her brother Jeremy Bamber?

[clifford]

If you want to copy and paste something on here from elsewhere, past the text, highlight it, and then click the little quote icon. It's the 14th one along - just above the smileys. At least it is on my screen. 

Like this.

Thanks Kaldin, If I stay on this sight I may become expert.

[sandy]

Why exactly?   They are the words which I choose to use and are edited and adapted in most cases to fit with the relevant thread being discussed on this forum.

Because you are using the words of someone else and presenting them as your own. It's not difficult to use the quote button here to make it clear that you are quoting someone else.

Like this.

It's also polite to include a link to the document you are quoting so others can read it for themselves.

Wrong again Kaldin.  I am merely repeating points of law and established fact which has been the subject of a criminal trial and thereafter confirmed to be beyond reproach as a means to answer questions.  I do not require to link to any document unless asked to do so by the original poster or if referred to specifically in my reply.

I will only link to a document if it is prudent to do so. Politeness has nothing to do with it.

[Alex]

Why exactly?   They are the words which I choose to use and are edited and adapted in most cases to fit with the relevant thread being discussed on this forum.

Because you are using the words of someone else and presenting them as your own. It's not difficult to use the quote button here to make it clear that you are quoting someone else.

Like this.

It's also polite to include a link to the document you are quoting so others can read it for themselves.

Wrong again Kaldin.  I am merely repeating points of law and established fact which has been the subject of a criminal trial and thereafter confirmed to be beyond reproach as a means to answer questions.  I do not require to link to any document unless asked to do so by the original poster or if referred to specifically in my reply.

I will only link to a document if it is prudent to do so. Politeness has nothing to do with it.

Sandy, some of the things you have posted are familiar to me as well - I mean I have read them word for word or more or less elsewhere.  Like Kaldin says, they appear to be quotes from some document or other of which you are presumably (judging from  your responses) not the author.  Folks would just like to know your sources - the articles/documents you are quoting from.  It is normal to reference quotes.  I know that you may not like hearing this, but you haven't been very polite in your communications with people on this thread; perhaps that is not your intention, perhaps it is merely the result of your arrogance, but it is how you come across to me.  Maybe the point Kaldin was making was about fairness as much as politeness, about sharing information.  You don't have to do that, but if you don't, don't be surprised if people ask you where you got it from - particularly when you are quoting.  You can refuse to do source your quotes (although if you did that in an academic environment you'd be in trouble, especially nowadays), but people will soon tire of responding to you if you continue in the vein you are posting at present.

[FredPerry]

To be fair, it does seem long time posters take umbridge at newbies coming on to this forum, particularly if they think Bamber is guilty! Some of your regulars are down right abusive and rude but somehow that seems okay? Sandy has also been called a numpty and wanker didn't see anyone questioning that?

I can't comment on the tone of all posts but I think many others are in the same vein!

Just an observation!

[bob]

To be fair, it does seem long time posters take umbridge at newbies coming on to this forum, particularly if they think Bamber is guilty! Some of your regulars are down right abusive and rude but somehow that seems okay? Sandy has also been called a numpty and wanker didn't see anyone questioning that?

I can't comment on the tone of all posts but I think many others are in the same vein!

Just an observation!

I disagree a bit Fred - we were all newbies once. I think it depends on how you enter the forum. If you lurk around for a while, reading as much as you can and catching up on what's already been discussed before you start posting, then you are very likely to get a warm welcome - I know I did.

If you just wade in with posts that rake over old ground, are overly "confident" about your position/expertise or outright abusive, then you will find the old-timers are likely to close ranks, and I think that's very understandable. Also there has recently been a bit of a flood of new posters, and several of them seem to have come here purely to wind people up, so that hasn't helped the cause of the newbie at present, but hopefully those people will soon get bored and disappear.

(none of this is aimed at you by the way - just happens to be you that raised the point  )

[Roch]

Sandy vs Smiffy?  Neither take any prisoners and both are completely polarized.  It's hotting up for some fireworks on here      We need some new smiley's (like two punching each other)

[smiffy]

no worries from myself rochford.
sandy is very small fry to some I have encountered and sledgehammered and bulldozed into the ground on other forums when they have been at least 100 times more hostile than sandy boy has been on here.

Thing is..I REFUSE TO LIE AND MISLEAD..
I tend to find people that oppose me are very prone to using such tricks...and this leads to their downfall.

I get no amusement from dealing with these types...I prefer to be constructive ..but sometimes I feel they need to be dealt with....much rather add posts that progress the debate and respond to constructive and informative posts.

[clifford]

I don,t know how to start a new thread, so will just ask who made profit, and who lost.
pardon me for my ignorance.

[simong]

no worries from myself rochford.
sandy is very small fry to some I have encountered and sledgehammered and bulldozed into the ground on other forums when they have been at least 100 times more hostile than sandy boy has been on here.

Thing is..I REFUSE TO LIE AND MISLEAD..
I tend to find people that oppose me are very prone to using such tricks...and this leads to their downfall.

I get no amusement from dealing with these types...I prefer to be constructive ..but sometimes I feel they need to be dealt with....much rather add posts that progress the debate and respond to constructive and informative posts.

I thought you ignored the lossy posters? Watching the deterioration of your credibility has gone from being funny to now feeling sympathy for you.

[Roch]

no worries from myself rochford.
sandy is very small fry to some I have encountered and sledgehammered and bulldozed into the ground on other forums when they have been at least 100 times more hostile than sandy boy has been on here.

Thing is..I REFUSE TO LIE AND MISLEAD..
I tend to find people that oppose me are very prone to using such tricks...and this leads to their downfall.

I get no amusement from dealing with these types...I prefer to be constructive ..but sometimes I feel they need to be dealt with....much rather add posts that progress the debate and respond to constructive and informative posts.

 :D  It sounds like you're going to take her out of the equation.  You want to watch she hasn't already had the same idea about you 

[John]

I don,t know how to start a new thread, so will just ask who made profit, and who lost.
pardon me for my ignorance.

What heading do you want for a new thread cliff?

Alternatively just go here click on the 'new topic' tab and fill in the boxes.  simples!!

[John]

Seems we have more than one child murderer on this forum now.  Same old..same old eh smiffy???   


...or should that be paranoid schizophrenic??

[smiffy]

no john ...now that you have revealed to me who you exactly are.
as you well know...for you still have no clue to who I am??   ..up to your old tricks it seems.

BTW  folks ..."john" used to be member of the police in northern ireland.
"john" is also a convicted criminal who spent a few years in jail.

so be careful  ..the offences that John was jailed for were after he left the police.

[smiffy]

John Braes Lamberton is john on this forum

LOOK HIM UP.

as usual john lamberton ..though claiming to be a miscarriage of justice victim  himself..goes round attacking genuine cases of wrongful conviction and lies lies lies in order to wreck others cases.

I am not who he claims I am...and due to his sick nature ..which others are aware of ..you can see why I would not want him to know.

Having just browsed through John's posts his hostility and disruption is apparent and familiar.

[John]

John Braes Lamberton is john on this forum

LOOK HIM UP.

as usual john lamberton ..though claiming to be a miscarriage of justice victim  himself..goes round attacking genuine cases of wrongful conviction and lies lies lies in order to wreck others cases.

I am not who he claims I am...and due to his sick nature ..which others are aware of ..you can see why I would not want him to know.

Having just browsed through John's posts his hostility and disruption is apparent and familiar.

I notice your vocabulary hasn't improved yet. What's those favourite words?  lies abuser sick

I think we can associate them all to you Billy boy!!   

You are only on here 4 days and at it already...what an idiot!


And by the way everyone...don't be fooled by his dyslexic muppet nugnug who you will find he has now started to use to supplement his trolling.

He wasn't interested in this forum until I started to post but hey what's new??