Why would Ann Eaton need the names of CCRC members who agreed to 2002 Appeal?

[Caroline]

OK so does anyone know when this all happened.

I think what the ct are saying is that the information ep gave was supposed to be confidential and not for her. They are not saying  you can have it but it's confidential so don't show it to anyone else.

The names of the people would be the thing that was confidential and they have posted the names on Twitter. What else about it could be confidential if it's not the names? If it's not for AE to know their names (and she was involved in the case) how can it NOT be confidential from the rest of the world?

[Jane]

Now you'll be able to be a Twitter regular seeing that you " haven't signed in " ! As if you already didn't know that you didn't have to.

I don't know who that was aimed at but I haven't a clue what Twitter is. A place where twits witter, perhaps?

[lookout]

OK so does anyone know when this all happened.

I think what the ct are saying is that the information ep gave was supposed to be confidential and not for her. They are not saying  you can have it but it's confidential so don't show it to anyone else.

JB's 2002 appeal.

[Caroline]

Now you'll be able to be a Twitter regular seeing that you " haven't signed in " ! As if you already didn't know that you didn't have to.

I won't be reading that drivel - I'll leave that for you to drool over. If you're a member perhaps you can let them know that the confidential information they rattling on about is now on their page for not only AE but for the world!

[notsure]

The names of the people would be the thing that was confidential and they have posted the names on Twitter. What else about it could be confidential if it's not the names? If it's not for AE to know their names (and she was involved in the case) how can it NOT be confidential from the rest of the world?

Well by them giving her the names they were the ones that were putting it out in the public domain so they are the ones that aregiving confidential information out. The ct are just e pposing it. Not sure why you would not see it this way

[Jane]

JB's 2002 appeal.

Not exactly news, is it?

[Jane]

Well by them giving her the names they were the ones that were putting it out in the public domain so they are the ones that aregiving confidential information out. The ct are just e pposing it. Not sure why you would not see it this way

Given that it's 15 years old, I doubt that anyone's concerned about it.

[Caroline]

Well by them giving her the names they were the ones that were putting it out in the public domain so they are the ones that aregiving confidential information out. The ct are just e pposing it. Not sure why you would not see it this way

I can't understand how you're defending them? AE was a victim in the case so if anyone would be party to such info, she would. AE knowing isn't the public domain as she isn't telling the rest of the world - the CT are. They have given out these people's names on Twitter so they can hardly bleat on about confidentiality!

[Caroline]

Given that it's 15 years old, I doubt that anyone's concerned about it.

The people on that document might be if they knew it was being posted on Twitter.

[Jane]

The people on that document might be if they knew it was being posted on Twitter.

Yes, I'd rather overlooked that they were more than typed letters on a page

[Caroline]

"Don't tell em Pike" 

[notsure]

I can't understand how you're defending them? AE was a victim in the case so if anyone would be party to such info, she would. AE knowing isn't the public domain as she isn't telling the rest of the world - the CT are. They have given out these people's names on Twitter so they can hardly bleat on about confidentiality!

I
well if by saying I agree with this sort of thing being exposed so we know what is going/went on then I suppose I am defending them. I want to see all the information Caroline, don't you.  This debate should really be about wet her or not ep should hAve helped AE and given her that info not about them exposing it ?

[lookout]

Given that it's 15 years old, I doubt that anyone's concerned about it.

No harm in jogging folks memories is there ?  Blimey,the case itself is over 30 years old,so why not ?
Unless you don't like things like that brought up ?

[Caroline]

I
well if by saying I agree with this sort of thing being exposed so we know what is going/went on then I suppose I am defending them. I want to see all the information Caroline, don't you.  This debate should really be about wet her or not ep should hAve helped AE and given her that info not about them exposing it ?

Why should it? Given you don't even know if they did anything wrong. The CT could have posted the document and blanked out the names. I did that when I realised the names were written on it. It's not OK to say EP gave confidential information to one person, then post the same confidential information for the world to see. Would you be so quick to agree with them if your name were on it?

[Caroline]

No harm in jogging folks memories is there ?  Blimey,the case itself is over 30 years old,so why not ?
Unless you don't like things like that brought up ?

That document is from 2002 - it's not 30 years old and joggling memories about what? Who was on the CCRC committee that allowed Bambers appeal? How can that be jogging memories when it was supposed to be confidential - apparently!