Video re photographs non-disclosure

[gringo]

I'm not sure how you can say Gringo has wiped the floor with Caroline when all he's done is play semantics and attempted to put different interpretation on others' words. All Caroline does is present the links to facts. She doesn't attempt to make liars of those who spoke original words. It's no less fanatical, perhaps to assume that every picture taken was a perfect representation of what it was depicting. It is Gringo who is making himself look pathetic and petty.

   Jon can obviously read and understand English and I assume that it is this that has led him to this conclusion, and he is correct that your post is pathetic. It is plain to see who is playing semantics, however poorly.
   

[gringo]

Whatever it was that caused Gringo to start this pettiness is clearly still a huge itch which continues to irritate and forces him to scratch it in a very public and unattractive way, demonstrating, by his continuing to move goalposts, that, by playing semantics, his ONLY interest lays in trying to force, what he believes to be his superior knowledge, on the person he's made his adversary -and who is more than knowledgeable and experienced enough at debate to know exactly what his game is, and to deal with it appropriately. To this end, despite the links to their words being provided, he of the overblown ego, insists that he -and so he'd have all of us believe, ONLY he, knows the 'real' meaning of words spoken by the various players, thus attempting to drown their right of voice with his own.

 It's looking more and more as if, the only meaning ANY of this has, for Gringo, is entirely personal. WHO of us now actually CARES how qualified -or NOT- was Bird? He took pictures -he drove vans, too- he wasn't required to be David Bailey, Patrick Litchfield, or Testino. SOME of his pictures were probably duff.  Perhaps, with hindsight even the duff ones could have been included. BUT THEY WEREN'T. Although, HAD they been, Gringo would have no excuse for this stultifying diatribe. Get over it Gringo. It happens to the best, whatever their qualifications. But you prefer to drag this on and on and............How long now? 3 days? Give it up. You're making yourself look pathetic, petty minded, and boring.

     Sounds more like a long cry than an honest critique.

[Jane]

   Jon can obviously read and understand English and I assume that it is this that has led him to this conclusion, and he is correct that your post is pathetic. It is plain to see who is playing semantics, however poorly.
 

But it isn't I who is attempting to deny speakers the right to own the meaning to their own statements.

[gringo]

But it isn't I who is attempting to deny speakers the right to own the meaning to their own statements.

    What do you even mean here? Spell it out for us. When have I denied a speaker
 the right to own the meaning to their own statement? Whatever you imagine that means.

[lookout]

Poor Jane does talk in riddles at times.

[Caroline]

Pathetic post ,
Gringo as wiped the floor with Caroline on this subject , and Caroline is 'the best ' the guilty side as to offer .
Its as if you have a vested interest in this case !
Saying EP , may have a resonable excuse for cutting photographic strips is fanatical from ' the guilter's '.

Would you like to explain how when he claims that Bird was a professional, specialist photographer and it was only his SECOND time in the role? Saying he is superior in this debate is like gringo making up Birds experience because that is what he has done. The COLP statement he is using to support his non argument doesn't even state that Bird himself as a specialist, it's talking about the role and with one previous stint as photographer, you have to be pretty desperate to make those claims.

[Caroline]

   Jon can obviously read and understand English and I assume that it is this that has led him to this conclusion, and he is correct that your post is pathetic. It is plain to see who is playing semantics, however poorly.
 

I'll tell you what is pathetic, you have been on here constantly ALL weekend trying to fire fight and all you have achieved is prize chump status!

[Caroline]

    What do you even mean here? Spell it out for us. When have I denied a speaker
 the right to own the meaning to their own statement? Whatever you imagine that means.

It's simple English gringo - can't you comprehend? You constantly twit other people's posts - accusing them of all kind of crap to suit your agenda. Of course a handful of of obsessive supporters will back you up. If they want to make themselves look as gormless as you, then they can crack on! Perhaps jon would like to explain how being a police photographer twice, makes him a specialist? 

[Caroline]

Gringo Caroline’s normal response is to get shouty she does it all the time.

The facts are in almost every case of a conviction being overturned there happens to be a case of non disclosure

There is not a single excuse for missing negatives in the Bamber case not one.

Any prisoner that spends a day in prison because evidence being withheld when they are innocent is a day to long

The people responsible for wrongly withholding photos/evidence etc should be bought to account

Ah, Jon is your little friend isn't he?? He usually pops up when you do. Tell you what makes me get shouty (just so you know for the future) - dealing with IDIOTS!

[Caroline]

Pathetic post ,
Gringo as wiped the floor with Caroline on this subject , and Caroline is 'the best ' the guilty side as to offer .
Its as if you have a vested interest in this case !
Saying EP , may have a resonable excuse for cutting photographic strips is fanatical from ' the guilter's '.

It's as if WE have a vested interest? Have you not seen how much gringo has vomited this weekend? I haven't even read most of it but he's still obsessed enough to keep going. Gringo's argument was DEAD in the water as soon as I posted that he had only been a photographer once previous to the WHF murders and he knows it. However, he has invested too much BS in his argument and committed himself to making Bird 'highly qualified' that he now can't back-down. Join him if you like, but if you argue from his stance, best get a chair cuz he doesn't have a leg to stand on

[gringo]

It's simple English gringo - can't you comprehend? You constantly twit other people's posts - accusing them of all kind of crap to suit your agenda. Of course a handful of of obsessive supporters will back you up. If they want to make themselves look as gormless as you, then they can crack on! Perhaps jon would like to explain how being a police photographer twice, makes him a specialist? 

   You still rattling on that Bird had only performed the role twice, without evidence.
    Do you know how many times Bird had photographed crime scenes before he was engaged on the lab treatment? Does CAL say?
    You haven't come close to establishing that Bird had only performed the role once before.
    CAL doesn't even make the claim that you are claiming. She qualifies it with terms that you just ignore or don't understand. You have demonstrated your own poor reading level throughout this thread and the comic value of your comment re comprehension skills, although lost on you is amusing. Unintentional irony?

[Caroline]

   You still rattling on that Bird had only performed the role twice, without evidence.
    Do you know how many times Bird had photographed crime scenes before he was engaged on the lab treatment? Does CAL say?
    You haven't come close to establishing that Bird had only performed the role once before.
    CAL doesn't even make the claim that you are claiming. She qualifies it with terms that you just ignore or don't understand. You have demonstrated your own poor reading level throughout this thread and the comic value of your comment re comprehension skills, although lost on you is amusing. Unintentional irony?

What is it you find difficult in the sentence ...... 'The Bamber case was only his SECOND as photographer' - It doesn't say it was his second time 'while on the course' - you're amazing, you just invest stuff. You talk about me (and others) not being able to comprehend and plain English is well beyond your capabilities. Either that OR fact that you twisting what she said just makes you dishonest.

[gringo]

What is it you find difficult in the sentence ...... 'The Bamber case was only his SECOND as photographer' - It doesn't say it was his second time 'while on the course' - you're amazing, you just invest stuff. You talk about me (and others) not being able to comprehend and plain English is well beyond your capabilities. Either that OR fact that you twisting what she said just makes you dishonest.

   "The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment."
    You posted this and you haven't even read that properly. You have managed to misquote yourself and accuse me of inventing stuff.
    So I invented the second part of the sentence is what you now claim.
    This is self evidently false isn't it?
    Hearsay is worthless anyway, misquoted hearsay demonstrates why this is so.
   
   
   

[Caroline]

   "The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment."
    You posted this and you haven't even read that properly. You have managed to misquote yourself and accuse me of inventing stuff.
    So I invented the second part of the sentence is what you now claim.
    This is self evidently false isn't it?
    Hearsay is worthless anyway, misquoted hearsay demonstrates why this is so.
   
   
   

So you think he was a professional photographer, with masses of experience under his belt, he did a course and he counted how many times he he had acted as photographer since he started the course? How would that be relevant? It's pretty clear what the words mean - he was on a course and ths was the second time he had been the photographer. A few days ago you tried to suggest that he had been on the course since 1976 - if that were the case, how come he'd only been a photographer twice? You also claimed that COLP report said HE was a specialist and it doesn't.

[gringo]

So you think he was a professional photographer, with masses of experience under his belt, he did a course and he counted how many times he he had acted as photographer since he started the course? How would that be relevant? It's pretty clear what the words mean - he was on a course and ths was the second time he had been the photographer. A few days ago you tried to suggest that he had been on the course since 1976 - if that were the case, how come he'd only been a photographer twice? You also claimed that COLP report said HE was a specialist and it doesn't.

   You misquoted yourself. You claimed that I had invented the second part of the sentence. Do you accept that this is false and that you were wrong?
     The rest of your post is simply regurgitating what has already been debunked or making misleading claims about what I have said.
     I am careful with my words and I read and think before replying. This probably explains why the claims that I made at the start all still stand, whilst your claims have evolved to the point that rather than relying on COLP interviews and court transcripts, as you initially attempted to do, you are left with the hearsay of a murder porn writer who paraphrases in her own words, not Bird's, and you can't even quote that accurately.
   The sentence ends when you get to the full stop, not before.