JB petition now has almost ten thousand signatures.

[David1819]

Which would be nothing compared to the number backsides you've had your tongue in to try to gain ascendancy.

Would you care to name those in this alleged number of people?

[Jane]

Would you care to name those in this alleged number of people?

Would you?

[David1819]

Would you?

You are the one making this claim against me. I have no idea who you are talking about, hence why I am asking you.

[Jane]

You are the one making this claim against me. I have no idea who you are talking about, hence why I am asking you.

It seems you have no ideas about any of what's been claimed about you, but appear to feel justified in making unsubstantiated claims about others. You're in no position to take a high moral stand.

[Caroline]

You are the one making this claim against me. I have no idea who you are talking about, hence why I am asking you.

Anyone you believe carries a little influence and people who you back peddle with when you realise they too, might be turning against you.

By the way, I have asked you to provide evidence of me both believing and endorsing PH's book?

[David1819]

It seems you have no ideas about any of what's been claimed about you, but appear to feel justified in making unsubstantiated claims about others. You're in no position to take a high moral stand.

Why don't you answer the question? If you don't produce any names or any rationale for what you have said about me. An adverse inference can be drawn that it is you making the unsubstantiated claim here.

[lookout]

Common sense tells you that only one emergency call being received shows only it was only Jeremy that contacted the police.

I have studied the legalities of the case. So has NGB, MTQC and Scott Lomax. They all think the idea is  absurd, and so do I.

I have been told by one of the names above. That once Jeremy had swallowed this misconception of Nevills 999 call. JB then became completely "obsessed" with it and wasted years going through everything in the case files hoping to find proof of it. Yet nothing was ever found. What does that tell you?

[lookout]

Jeremy's call wasn't an emergency call. It's Nevill's that was.

[lookout]

Ooops, wouldn't you know----another new laptop on the go 

[Jane]

Why don't you answer the question? If you don't produce any names or any rationale for what you have said about me. An adverse inference can be drawn that it is you making the unsubstantiated claim here.

Why have you refused to answer those questions put to you regarding your own devious behaviours? Names and rationale have been produced, ergo, it can only be assumed that what you've about them claimed is unsubstantiated.

[lookout]

Common sense tells you that only one emergency call being received shows only it was only Jeremy that contacted the police.

I have studied the legalities of the case. So has NGB, MTQC and Scott Lomax. They all think the idea is  absurd, and so do I.

I have been told by one of the names above. That once Jeremy had swallowed this misconception of Nevills 999 call. JB then became completely "obsessed" with it and wasted years going through everything in the case files hoping to find proof of it. Yet nothing was ever found. What does that tell you?

It tells me that any relevant paperwork which was discovered in the aftermath is well and truly destroyed along with other much needed evidence at the time, 1996, was it ? Though for some reason there still exists to be proof of phone-calls for it to count as NEW evidence----forthcoming.

[David1819]

Why have you refused to answer those questions put to you regarding your own devious behaviours? Names and rationale have been produced, ergo, it can only be assumed that what you've about them claimed is unsubstantiated.

Its not me refusing to answer questions. You claimed that I licked peoples backsides to "gain ascendancy". Making such a claim against someone without any names and rationale for saying it, is in itself devious behaviour from you.

Names and rationale have not been produced. I only asked an hour ago. Yet still not answer from you.

[Jane]

Its not me refusing to answer questions. You claimed that I licked peoples backsides to "gain ascendancy". Making such a claim against someone without any names and rationale for saying it, is in itself devious behaviour from you.

Names and rationale have not been produced. I only asked an hour ago. Yet still not answer from you.

Devious. Use of underhand tactics to attain goals. Says more of you than me. You have repeatedly been asked questions you're still refusing to answer.

[David1819]

Devious. Use of underhand tactics to attain goals. Says more of you than me. You have repeatedly been asked questions you're still refusing to answer.

When will you produce the list of names of the people backsides I allegedly licked to "gain ascendancy"? If you are still writing all the names out and not yet finished, then I must have got a very sore tongue in doing all this. 

[Caroline]

Its not me refusing to answer questions. You claimed that I licked peoples backsides to "gain ascendancy". Making such a claim against someone without any names and rationale for saying it, is in itself devious behaviour from you.

Names and rationale have not been produced. I only asked an hour ago. Yet still not answer from you.

Yes, it is - you're pretending not to see posts but everyone know you have .......

Answer the question you were asked instead on trying to twist, by providing evidence of me both believing and endorsing PH's book?