Brett Collins's published interview with The Sun:

[gringo]

You need to provide a source he has.

Rather than saying just because there is no evidence he has, doesn't mean he hasn't.

If you have not got the capacity to post sources, you need to get someone to teach you.

   It is common knowledge that Bamber has denied the story.
    Gruner's claim that JB didn't deny it is duplicitous. His actual reply to Gruner was "that's interesting. I haven't seen today's papers." It has not been specified what Gruner's question was but it can be reasonably inferred from the reply.
    What can be inferred from the response is that Gruner self evidently did not ask JB if he had attempted to sell pics to Fielder or the Sun. All of which makes the allegation of non denial even more bizarre.
    I would imagine that anyone would fail to deny a question that they weren't asked.

[Adam]

   It is common knowledge that Bamber has denied the story.
    Gruner's claim that JB didn't deny it is duplicitous. His actual reply to Gruner was "that's interesting. I haven't seen today's papers." It has not been specified what Gruner's question was but it can be reasonably inferred from the reply.
    What can be inferred from the response is that Gruner self evidently did not ask JB if he had attempted to sell pics to Fielder or the Sun. All of which makes the allegation of non denial even more bizarre.
    I would imagine that anyone would fail to deny a question that they weren't asked.

Have you got a source ? I don't believe Nugs has the capacity to post sources. Or he can't be bothered to look.

There is nothing on the Official site.

[lookout]

The main thing here is did RWB know anything of all this ? Had he entered this" sleazy report" on any of his statements or conversations with his friends at the Met ?
I ask because whatever RWB said or did his story was believed and carried more clout that the officers of EP. This man had more influence over the case than anyone and if JB had had anything to do with pornography RWB would have demanded extra criminal charges for such. As I've said,if the situation was that bad that JB was called a " sexual predator ",then is this fact entered in RWB's notes/statements ?
If not,you can guarantee that Fielder was lying. To be sure,RWB would have been the first to know,after having had JB tracked for his homosexuality in order to get something on JB.

[Caroline]

  It is common knowledge that Bamber has denied the story.
    Gruner's claim that JB didn't deny it is duplicitous. His actual reply to Gruner was "that's interesting. I haven't seen today's papers." It has not been specified what Gruner's question was but it can be reasonably inferred from the reply.
    What can be inferred from the response is that Gruner self evidently did not ask JB if he had attempted to sell pics to Fielder or the Sun. All of which makes the allegation of non denial even more bizarre.
    I would imagine that anyone would fail to deny a question that they weren't asked.

When did he deny it and who to?

[Adam]

No source from Gringo or Nugs. Although Nugs never provides sources.

[Caroline]

No source from Gringo or Nugs. Although Nugs never provides sources.

He didn't comment on the fact that I posted about asking Bamber this question back in 2015 either. There is no record of him denying he met Fielder, in fact quite the opposite - although he did try and turn the tables saying Fielder asked for pictures (like he would know they existed  ). This just makes him look more guilty because he used the same words to Fielder in describing them as he did to Colin "You can see everything down to the last detail". Supporters know that such behaviour worrying so have to deny it happened. Unfortunately, denial is futile.

[Adam]

Not sure what Nugs is trying to say again.

He agrees there was a meeting.

He agrees Bamber would want to give his side of the story.

He agrees the photo's exist.

He agrees The Sun published a front page article & risked libel charges.

He agrees Fielder was willing to testify & risk perjury charges if lying.

He agrees Bamber is a hardcore & long term liar.

He agrees Fielder would only know about the photos if Bamber told him.

He agrees journalists carry tape recorders.

He agrees Bamber or Brett could have brought a tape recorder, but didn't.

He agrees Bamber has never discussed this issue.

                                       ------------------

After agreeing with all that, he disagrees that Brett contacted Fielder. Although I have provided  sources.

He disagrees Bamber wanted a substantial payment. Although I have provided sources.

                                      -----------------

He has provided no sources & not answered questions.

His reason for not believing two things is Fielder apparently lied in the past about something unrelated. Although as mentioned Bamber is a multiple liar.

His reason why Fielder & The Sun risked libel & perjury charges is they wanted to assist the police. Although he doesn't say how the police would be assisted by this.

[nugnug]

He didn't comment on the fact that I posted about asking Bamber this question back in 2015 either. There is no record of him denying he met Fielder, in fact quite the opposite - although he did try and turn the tables saying Fielder asked for pictures (like he would know they existed  ). This just makes him look more guilty because he used the same words to Fielder in describing them as he did to Colin "You can see everything down to the last detail". Supporters know that such behaviour worrying so have to deny it happened. Unfortunately, denial is futile.

defending news international is futile and only idiot would try.

[lookout]

Why not contact the now editor of the newspaper,or look into their archives for this " Sensational Story "?
Those who are genuinely interested in the case do their own searching/investigating like Holly on red has done.

[Caroline]

defending news international is futile and only idiot would try.

Ignoring facts that are screaming in your face is even more idiotic.

[Caroline]

Why not contact the now editor of the newspaper,or look into their archives for this " Sensational Story "?
Those who are genuinely interested in the case do their own searching/investigating like Holly on red has done.

Since when was Holly your bestie? 

[lookout]

Since when was Holly your bestie? 

Did I say she was my bestie ?? NO,and what's more she ISN'T !! And NEVER will be,thank Heaven.

[nugnug]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6754.msg310061.html#msg310061

[lookout]

He contacted The Sun

The newspaper contacted him by phone-----------no photographs involved------no selling.

[Caroline]

CAL also wrote about Sheila's drug debt,etc----------that's not true either. As did Claire Powell.

No she didn't, she wrote about the newspaper story nt that Sheila had a REAL drug debt!