Is rational discussion possible?

[Luminous Wanderer]

The problem with the Continental system is that it's far too slow, the juge d'instruction has dozens of cases to investigate at any one time and as there's no habeas corpus the temptation is just to slap somebody in jail and let them rot until release or trial. I wasn't particularly impressed with the McCann investigation, where Police were slow off the mark but quick to make the couple arguidos on flimsy if any real evidence of involvement.

The downside to the adversarial system is that when Police do get it wrong as in the Stephen Dowling case they will be dragged kicking and screaming before they admit to any mistake, the Establishment holding firm until those involved in the original investigation have long since retired.

In both systems more public money should be spent on the pursuit of justice to level out the playing field between those defendants who have access to the best legal representation and those who do not.

Thanks Steve.

[Luminous Wanderer]

You're posts are long but don't say much in you're attempt to remain impartial.

Supporters arguments are extremely weak & with the exception of Mike, sources are never supplied. However at least it is interesting seeing the latest reason why Bamber is innocent.

I think it's Your, not You're. 

And it's Supporters', not Supporters.

Not that I'm above making mistakes myself, but those are glaring.  I'm a bit of a snob when it comes to that sort of thing, especially when such mistakes are made by somebody who critiques my posts, flatly lies about evidence, and presumes to know what happened at White Horse Farm - even though (we must assume) you weren't there.

I repeat what I have said or inferred already: miscarriages of justice are the result of poor thinking skills.  In your case, you provide us with some telling clues: basic and consistent errors of diction in your posts; assumptions about matters beyond your knowledge; and repeated lies about the evidence - as well as arrogance and egotism.  It's a long list.

[Steve_uk]

I think it's Your, not You're. 

And it's Supporters', not Supporters.

Not that I'm above making mistakes myself, but those are glaring.  I'm a bit of a snob when it comes to that sort of thing, especially when such mistakes are made by somebody who critiques my posts, flatly lies about evidence, and presumes to know what happened at White Horse Farm - even though (we must assume) you weren't there.

I repeat what I have said or inferred already: miscarriages of justice are the result of poor thinking skills.  In your case, you provide us with some telling clues: basic and consistent errors of diction in your posts; assumptions about matters beyond your knowledge; and repeated lies about the evidence - as well as arrogance and egotism.  It's a long list.

It sounds a nice place I would like to visit one day, but on this forum it's the White House Farm murders.

[guest2181]

It sounds a nice place I would like to visit one day, but on this forum it's the White House Farm murders.

  If you are a member of the apostrophe police, make sure you're ( ) own ship's in order.

[Luminous Wanderer]

If you are a member of the apostrophe police, make sure you're ( ) own ship's in order.

It was me, not Steve.

We all make mistakes with English.

[lookout]

So you run with the hare and hunt with the hounds then,Luminous Wanderer ?

[Luminous Wanderer]

So you run with the hare and hunt with the hounds then,Luminous Wanderer ?

No.  I have little time for anybody who adopts a pro- or anti- Bamber position.  For reasons that I have explained, it's not appropriate for this case. 

However I would say that the pro-Bamber people are much easier to discuss and debate with. 

The anti-Bamber people are obnoxious and full of themselves and don't like questions being asked - cases in point are, regrettably, found on this Forum.

[Steve_uk]

No.  I have little time for anybody who adopts a pro- or anti- Bamber position.  For reasons that I have explained, it's not appropriate for this case. 

However I would say that the pro-Bamber people are much easier to discuss and debate with. 

The anti-Bamber people are obnoxious and full of themselves and don't like questions being asked - cases in point are, regrettably, found on this Forum.

For goodness sake we are not allowed an opinion now..

[lookout]

No.  I have little time for anybody who adopts a pro- or anti- Bamber position.  For reasons that I have explained, it's not appropriate for this case. 

However I would say that the pro-Bamber people are much easier to discuss and debate with. 

The anti-Bamber people are obnoxious and full of themselves and don't like questions being asked - cases in point are, regrettably, found on this Forum.

For starters I'm a staunch pro-Bamber,always have been and remain to be so. Because I remember these murders as though it were yesterday, and I immediately " sensed " that JB wasn't guilty, I've naturally been interested in what others had to say regarding it.
I can be quite forthright in opposing opinions,mainly because others can't see it the way I do,but hey-ho that's what debate is about.
To me,the case was over before it began.

[Luminous Wanderer]

My interest is in the legal safety of Bamber's conviction. I believe that is the only issue that can be discussed.  Unfortunately, it seems that 99% of people disagree and believe in treating this case as an article of faith.  For that reason, I don't believe the blue or the red forums achieve anything - though I think for the most part the problems are being caused by the anti-Bamber camp.

I speak here as a neutral - I have no interest in deciding Bamber's guilt or innocence - but in my view, anti-Bamber people are inhibiting proper discussion of this case.  They are bringing a close-minded agenda into the Forum.

I do find assertions of Bamber's innocence objectionable enough, but at least I can have a reasonably sensible discussion with most pro-Bamber people here.

I've had enough.  I'm asking the administrators to delete my account and posts here.

[lookout]

My interest is in the legal safety of Bamber's conviction. I believe that is the only issue that can be discussed.  Unfortunately, it seems that 99% of people disagree and believe in treating this case as an article of faith.  For that reason, I don't believe the blue or the red forums achieve anything - though I think for the most part the problems are being caused by the anti-Bamber camp.

I speak here as a neutral - I have no interest in deciding Bamber's guilt or innocence - but in my view, anti-Bamber people are inhibiting proper discussion of this case.  They are bringing a close-minded agenda into the Forum.

I do find assertions of Bamber's innocence objectionable enough, but at least I can have a reasonably sensible discussion with most pro-Bamber people here.

I've had enough.  I'm asking the administrators to delete my account and posts here.

What a weak attitude !

[Steve_uk]

My interest is in the legal safety of Bamber's conviction. I believe that is the only issue that can be discussed.  Unfortunately, it seems that 99% of people disagree and believe in treating this case as an article of faith.  For that reason, I don't believe the blue or the red forums achieve anything - though I think for the most part the problems are being caused by the anti-Bamber camp.

I speak here as a neutral - I have no interest in deciding Bamber's guilt or innocence - but in my view, anti-Bamber people are inhibiting proper discussion of this case.  They are bringing a close-minded agenda into the Forum.

I do find assertions of Bamber's innocence objectionable enough, but at least I can have a reasonably sensible discussion with most pro-Bamber people here.

I've had enough.  I'm asking the administrators to delete my account and posts here.

It's not entirely unexpected. You can't expect to set an agenda and expect everyone to run with it. There's no excuse for swearing or profanity either, except it marks you out as somebody not in control of your own thoughts or emotions.

[lookout]

There are some who enjoy being top dog and when it doesn't materialise they show their true colours. Their aim being to disrupt when things don't go their way.

[lookout]

The Campaigners have got it wrong about Kenneally's position as being Detective Inspector. He was a Detective Superintendent. Bit of a difference.

[Luminous Wanderer]

For goodness sake we are not allowed an opinion now..

Where have I said you're not allowed to have an opinion,. you f.ucking lying idiot?