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

[lookout]

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!

Why should it bother you anyway whether it was confidential or not,it didn't get JB very far did it ?

[Caroline]

Why should it bother you anyway whether it was confidential or not,it didn't get JB very far did it ?

It bthers me because it's hypocritical - I guess it doesn't bother you for the same reason!

[lookout]

It bthers me because it's hypocritical - I guess it doesn't bother you for the same reason!

You wouldn't understand-----I'm way ahead of you.

[Caroline]

You wouldn't understand-----I'm way ahead of you.

In your dreams! 

[nugnug]

  Not only did EP make these enquiries for Ann Eaton but they also telephoned the CCRC to confirm the members names.
     What legitimate reason does Ann Eaton have to require this information?

well none at all really.

[nugnug]

    This is a very odd request made by Ann Eaton to the EP and hints at something sinister.
    What purpose is served by Ann Eaton knowing who the CCRC members were? What does she intend to do with this information?
     Why are EP indulging this request and making enquiries on her behalf resulting in them giving Ann Eaton the requested information?
   

well to try and influence there decisn obviosly.

[Caroline]

well to try and influence there decisn obviosly.

They had already made the decision.

[nugnug]

oh well its a bit of a mystory why they contacted them.

unless they were under impression that the ccrc could retract the decisisn

[Caroline]

oh well its a bit of a mystory why they contacted them.

unless they were under impression that the ccrc could retract the decisisn

I think it was more to make a complaint - but who knows. Point is, if it's confidential information, the CT shouldn't be posting it on Twitter.

[lookout]

Up to now,the CT have never received any writs for what they've posted. 

[Jane]

Up to now,the CT have never received any writs for what they've posted.

Chances are, after some of their disgraceful stunts, no one takes them seriously.

[lookout]

Chances are, after some of their disgraceful stunts, no one takes them seriously.

Oh I wouldn't say that.
 Another side to this case has to be shown to be dodgy and the " Liars Lobby " was within the rights of it's publishers to to so and lots of people have taken it seriously,but at the same time,has anyone complained about those " disgraceful stunts " ? NO.

[Jane]

Oh I wouldn't say that.
 Another side to this case has to be shown to be dodgy and the " Liars Lobby " was within the rights of it's publishers to to so and lots of people have taken it seriously,but at the same time,has anyone complained about those " disgraceful stunts " ? NO.

"Lots of people" I imagine, are the few who know about the CT. Those who find the stunts distasteful will probably just ignore it. Being "within the rights of it's publishers to do so" doesn't make it morally right, only within the law and "lots of people have taken it seriously" doesn't create truth out of lies.

[lookout]

"Lots of people" I imagine, are the few who know about the CT. Those who find the stunts distasteful will probably just ignore it. Being "within the rights of it's publishers to do so" doesn't make it morally right, only within the law and "lots of people have taken it seriously" doesn't create truth out of lies.

If we're talking morals,where were the morals of those who lied in court ? Or don't you believe that anyone did lie ?
The whole point of your " distasteful stunt " has made people aware that lies were told and regardless of what your thoughts are,it is hoped that the truth WILL come from the lies. 

[nugnug]

Chances are, after some of their disgraceful stunts, no one takes them seriously.

so in that case why keep mentioning them.