'Priti Patel - A true friend of Israel'

[Steve_uk]

She's an elected politician though - elected by her constituency.

Yes and the right of recall pledge mooted a few years ago was conveniently ditched.

[Caroline]

Still there as a back-bencher though,so nose remains in the trough ! I prefer these people to be out on their ears----------------------with nothing ! Like the ordinary man in the street would be.

Not happy until it's sack cloth and ashes outside the food bank with her Aldi big shopper eh Lookout? 

[JackieD]

Smearing her because she previously made comments about Bamber is crazy. 

She deserved to get the boot for her odd behaviour (for clarification I AM talking about Patel) 

How apt that you should pop up just now.

Patel was a liar, she was asked to come clean and she didn't

She turned out to be an embarrassment to May.

Just desserts for trying to stop publicity about the Bamber case

[guest154]

How apt that you should pop up just now.

Patel was a liar, she was asked to come clean and she didn't

She turned out to be an embarrassment to May.

Just desserts for trying to stop publicity about the Bamber case

Pop up just now? I've been here weeks. Saying its "Just desserts" for the Bamber case is odd. This has nothing to do with the Bamber case and taking joy in someones downfall just because that person once, on your opinion, dared slight Bamber... weird.

[Roch]

Pop up just now? I've been here weeks. Saying its "Just desserts" for the Bamber case is odd. This has nothing to do with the Bamber case and taking joy in someones downfall just because that person once, on your opinion, dared slight Bamber... weird.

Some people take the opinion that she sided with a bunch of people who helped 'frame' a relative.  You yourself made an odd remark about the silencer recently - and then failed to respond when asked for clarification.

[guest154]

Some people take the opinion that she sided with a bunch of people who helped 'frame' a relative.  You yourself made an odd remark about the silencer recently - and then failed to respond when asked for clarification.

Which has nothing to do with this story.

And Roch. YOU are accusing ME or failing to respond when asked for clarification.  There's no way you typed that with a straight face after the things you've been posting lately.
Any post I've missed is because I was away for three nights over bonfire night -but since you put is so kindly I'll go back and check.

[Roch]

Which has nothing to do with this story.

And Roch. YOU are accusing ME or failing to respond when asked for clarification.  There's no way you typed that with a straight face after the things you've been posting lately.
Any post I've missed is because I was away for three nights over bonfire night -but since you put is so kindly I'll go back and check.

I try to clarify as far as circumstances will allow. 

[guest154]

I've always said that he knows they've got the silencer evidence wrong which is why he tries to get his teams to concentrate on it.

I take it this is the post. If you thought, like I do, that Bamber is guilty, you'd understand the post I guess. I've always been curious as to Bambers actions with the silencer because over time he's dropped things when they haven't stuck, such as changing pronouns around with the alleged call from his dad "sheila, she." But the silencer has pretty much stayed at the forefront of his arguements.
Not with the CT or even many supporters but with his legal team and in Bambers own letters, the silencer is something often talked about alot.

He obviously knows the full story with it. We're left to piece it together after the fact.

[Caroline]

I take it this is the post. If you thought, like I do, that Bamber is guilty, you'd understand the post I guess. I've always been curious as to Bambers actions with the silencer because over time he's dropped things when they haven't stuck, such as changing pronouns around with the alleged call from his dad "sheila, she." But the silencer has pretty much stayed at the forefront of his arguements.
Not with the CT or even many supporters but with his legal team and in Bambers own letters, the silencer is something often talked about alot.

He obviously knows the full story with it. We're left to piece it together after the fact.

Pretty much my thoughts too.

I find this thread quite amusing, people aren't so much bothered about PP's recent political guff and it wouldn't have even made it onto the forum if she hadn't once condemned Bamber. Tut, tut!

[Roch]

Anyone described by the Israeli administration as a 'true friend' is likely to be viewed as potentially suspect in some way or form.  I started this thread so that was what I was implying.  When Baroness Warsi resigned, she said George Osborne was a 'great friend of Israel'.  It was never mentioned again in the news. 

Mat has claimed to come from a background linked to CCRC and claimed t o be knowledgeable about the case from that kind of perspective.  Unless, I have misunderstood, Mat also implied recently, that the silencer evidence is dodgy (something that Caroline has openly expressed).  I wonder if Mat has passed on his own concerns to the CCRC, regarding the validity of the silencer?  Unless of course, Mat is implying that it's an acceptable situation, to have Bamber incarcerated on the basis of dodgy silencer evidence?  That hardly says much for the CCRC though does it?

Getting back to Patel - if like Caroline and Mat, you believe the silencer evidence is dodgy, then surely it must be reaslised that what Patel did, was to intervene on the part of the people who came up with that very evidence.

[guest154]

Anyone described by the Israeli administration as a 'true friend' is likely to be viewed as potentially suspect in some way or form.  I started this thread so that was what I was implying.  When Baroness Warsi resigned, she said George Osborne was a 'great friend of Israel'.  It was never mentioned again in the news. 

Mat has claimed to come from a background linked to CCRC and claimed t o be knowledgeable about the case from that kind of perspective.  Unless, I have misunderstood, Mat also implied recently, that the silencer evidence is dodgy (something that Caroline has openly expressed).  I wonder if Mat has passed on his own concerns to the CCRC, regarding the validity of the silencer?  Unless of course, Mat is implying that it's an acceptable situation, to have Bamber incarcerated on the basis of dodgy silencer evidence?  That hardly says much for the CCRC though does it?

Getting back to Patel - if like Caroline and Mat, you believe the silencer evidence is dodgy, then surely it must be reaslised that what Patel did, was to intervene on the part of the people who came up with that very evidence.

I said that Bamber knows the full story, we don't. You've turned that into a full story of me thinking the evidence is dodgy. That's not what I said. You need to stop twisting things. Your post is dishonest.
The silencer evidence with the blood is way above  my personal understanding and Bamber fixates on it.

In fact, I don't know who has been feeding you such rubbish behind the scenes - but your posts have been outlandish lately. Phantom marks on Sheila and now on June is the point I should have stopped conversing with you.

You've become a puppet for someone and whoever is feeding you these little bits BECAUSE I DONT THINK YOU'RE MAKING THEM UP, i do think you've genuinely been told things,  knows that you will repeat them because you've been dropping so many comments left right and centre. But still a puppet? Shame on you Roch.

[Roch]

I said that Bamber knows the full story, we don't. You've turned that into a full story of me thinking the evidence is dodgy. That's not what I said. You need to stop twisting things. Your post is dishonest.
The silencer evidence with the blood is way above  my personal understanding and Bamber fixates on it.

In fact, I don't know who has been feeding you such rubbish behind the scenes - but your posts have been outlandish lately. Phantom marks on Sheila and now on June is the point I should have stopped conversing with you.

You've become a puppet for someone and whoever is feeinf you these little bits BECAUSE I DONT THINK YOU'RE MAKING THEM UP, i do think you've genuinely been told things, knowss that you will repeat them. But still a puppet? Shame on your Roch.

Of course I'm not making them up.  If you bother to trawl back through my posts, you will see I have provided detailed descriptions of the various wounds in question.  I've also started threads accordingly.  Puppets don't come in to it - it's all about crime scene images.  And as I have tried to point out to my fellow members - case debate and discoveries have outgrown the poor definition images we are saddled with on the forum.  That is simply a fact.

[guest154]

Of course I'm not making them up.  If you bother to trawl back through my posts, you will see I have provided detailed descriptions of the various wounds in question.  I've also started threads accordingly.  Puppets don't come in to it - it's all about crime scene images.  And as I have tried to point out to my fellow members - case debate and discoveries have outgrown the poor definition images we are saddled with on the forum.  That is simply a fact.

Okay, Roch, but you haven't seen them.... and it's quite sad to see so many, including myself, scoff at you for putting your neck on the line in the way you have lately.

Out of the little genuine bit of respect I have left for you. I'm going to put you on ignore.

[Roch]

Okay, Roch, but you haven't seen them.... and it's quite sad to see so many, including myself, scoff at you for putting your neck on the line in the way you have lately.

Out of the little genuine bit of respect I have left for you. I'm going to put you on ignore.

You don't know what I've seen or what I haven't seen.  If you put me on ignore that's fine.  I will just consider that as you running away from the debate.

[Roch]

Not happy until it's sack cloth and ashes outside the food bank with her Aldi big shopper eh Lookout?