Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on July 02, 2011, 05:24:PM
-
Reason why the "Silicost Impression" taken from under mantelpiece, was taken?
Cast of impression was taken on 1st October 1985, by Scientists, Mr Elliot, who was told by DI Cook (SOC) in the presence of DS Davidson, that the marks under the mantelpiece had been made by a guns barrel coming into contact with it, not a silencer...
These same marks were photographed by PC Bird (SOC) on the underside of the mantelpiece on 12th September 1985...
A paint sample, RC/1 was taken at the scene from the mantelpiece by DI Cook, on 8th August 1985, because it was thought that paint which had been found on a guns barrel (not a silencer) came from the mantelpiece and that the gun in question, which was a gun that the police found downstairs at the scene, had received a hard knock and become damaged?
8th August 1985 - gun with paint on end of barrel found downstairs, caused police to take a paint sample with a view to matching it to the mantelpiece...
12th September 1985 - PC Bird (SOC) takes photographs of "damaged aga" at scene...
1st October 1985 - Scientist, Mr Elliot, told to take casts of marks found on underside of mantelpiece, and that those marks had been made by a guns barrel (not a silencer) which had come into contact with it...
EVIDENCE, was thus, modified to include suggestion that silencer was fitted to guns barrel at the time of a purported struggle between Ralph Bamber and his killer, and alterations to exhibits references, and the times these were taken had also to be altered to accommodate this new approach...
-
I have identified the relevant parts of DS Davidson interviews at the hands of COLP in 1991, which deals with these matters which point to the fact that the paint sample was originally associated to the barrel of a gun that was found downstairs at the scene, not to a silencer...
This is an important discovery, which should go a long way towards exposing how the silencer, blood and paint was falsely introduced to bolster up the prosecutions case, with a view to convicting Jeremy Bamber for murders that he could not and did not commit...
I intend to post the relevant extracts, here...
-
Extracted details from interview of DS Neil Davidson, by COLP, on 16th October 1991, at Snow Hill Police station, Exhibit AH/2, consisting of 69 pages - pages, 48, 49, 50, 51 and 52, attached for reference:-
Establishing that paint found on guns barrel, and that this was the reason why paint sample, RC/1, was taken by DI Cook on 8th August 1985, at the scene...
-
Cook denies taking a paint sample, RC/1 at scene on 8th August 1985 (to COLP)
DI Cook (SOC) denies taking a paint sample, other than one he claims he took from the scene on 14th August 1985, marked, RWC/1. He tells a lie, and is responsible for falsifying this evidence because that was the sample (RWC/1) which was subsequently used to link the silencer to the scratch marks on the underside of the mantelpiece...
Cook has shot him self in the foot because I now know the big secret that he has tried to conceal for over 26 years...
I believe I know the identity of the gun which had what was believed to be paint on the end of its barrel?
I know the big secret....
I know the identity of the gun that was found "DOWNSTAIRS", downstairs at the scene, a gun that DS Davidson (SOC) told COLP, had taken a hard knock against something, but such a weapon has not been officially identified in the SC/786/85 file, but was obviously identified in the original file (SC/688/85)...
-
I will reveal the identity of this gun, very soon after I have gathered together the supporting evidence that I will post on here for all to see. I know what the police did and why they did what they did, and when they did it...
Mr Sutherests findings are correct, some marks were made later on the underside of the mantelpiece, and I now know why, and who by?
-
It becomes clear at this stage, and by reference to the notes contained in this interview, that COLP were fully aware of a second silencer in this case, hence the way they were questioning DS Davidson - it all makes sense now...
-
The only weapon which was damaged at the scene was the Bamber owned, Anshulz, .22 semi-automatic rifle, which had a reddish substance on the fore-site near the end of its barrel. Part of the wooden rifle stock was found in the kitchen on the floor, and somebody removed it from the floor whilst crime scene pictures were taken after the incident was stage managed and a false case was made out that Sheila had been shot twice in the bedroom. The gun that received a hard knock and which was damaged, and which also had what was believed to be paint on the end of its barrel, was the Bamber rifle, and the police originally found it downstairs at the scene, not upstairs on top of Sheila's body...
I know what they did...
They sent the paint sample (RC/1) which was taken from the scene on 8th August 1985, by Ronald Cook, to the lab' along with the Bamber rifle on 20th September 1985, and that paint sample was used to see if the reddish substance on the end of the guns barrel was matching paint from the kitchen aga?
-
The examination of the reddish substance on the end of the Bamber rifles barrel and details pertaining to it, were and have been suppressed and covered up, to facilitate the silencer evidence that was introduced after 1st October 1985...
This must be the case, because on 1st October 1985, DI Cook, and DS Davidson, were both present at the scene, when Cook got Mr Elliot to talk to cast of the marks found under the mantelpiece, and at that stage Cook told Elliot that he believed that those marks had been made when the barrel of the gun came into contact during a struggle between Ralph and Jeremy in the kitchen - by this stage, the silencer aspect must not have been introduced, hence Cooks reference to Elliot that the barrel of the gun (not the silencer) had made the marks...
-
PC Bird (SOC) went and took pictures of marks on the underside of the mantelpiece, on (12th September 1985) the day after Ann Eaton handed in the silencer (11th September 1985). It is also now known that other pictures were taken, on other dates, and that if all of these were available to be examined, it might be possible to determine with a degree of accuracy exactly at which point the marks had been made, and who could have made them?
(1) - 7th August 1985?
(2) - 12th September 1985?
(3) - 1st October 1985?
-
Bamber rifle found Downstairs not upstairs
If Bamber rifle was found downstairs by the police, then obviously the game is up for Essex police, since they would have to be responsible for stage managing Sheila's body in the bedroom trying to make it look like she had taken her own life by use of it there, when all along that gun which they photographed on top of her body with her right hand resting upon it and its barrel pointing in the general direction of the two wounds upon her neck and throat, must have been placed there, by the police...
DS Davidson was a scenes of crime officer who was responsible for exhibits found at the scene, and he told COLP in 1991, that a gun which had received a hard knock and which had paint on the end of its barrel was found downstairs, but there is no official confirmation of the identity of this gun, and the reason for this now seems clear since the only gun it could have been was the Bamber rifle - they moved it upstairs into the bedroom and placed it on Sheila's body...
-
Only one Paint sample was taken according to DS Davidson (SOC) exhibits officer, page 56 of interview with COLP, 1991...
Only one paint sample taken from kitchen and that was on 8th August 1985 (RC/1) and RON Cook took it and handed it to Davidson at the scene that same date - but Cook denied doing this to COLP when he was interviewed, instead claiming that he took a paint sample from scene on 14th August 1985 - but he lied...
-
Paint sample, RC/1 was used to examine the end of the Bamber rifles barrel to see if the reddish substance on its fore-site was paint from the aga, and Cook took a different paint sample (RWC/1) on some other occasion which was used to match the red paint that was ingrained into the silencers knurled end cap, after it was decided to introduce the silencer as being fitted to the gun at the time of the shootings...
Cook squeezed an entry into the notes of his pocketbook dated 14th August 1985 as part of the silencer conspiracy - which also included for the story that the relatives found a silencer one month sooner than they actually did, and that Peter Eaton supposedly handed this over to DS Jones on evening of 12th August 1985 - when he could not have done because relatives did not find silencer until a month later...
-
By 1st October 1985, police believed guns barrel had made marks on underside of kitchen mantelpiece
And so says DS Neil Davidson, exhibits officer in the case - this is what he told COLP in his interview in 1991, as per pages, 60, 61, 62 and 63:-
-
So, if by 1st October 1985, police were still working on the theory that the end of the guns barrel had made marks on the underside of the kitchen mantelpiece, what was it that made them change their minds and focus upon the silencer being fitted to the gun, and that it made the marks there, and that it must have been fitted to the end of the guns barrel at the time Sheila was shot and killed because how otherwise did her blood get into the silencer?
If police found Bamber rifle downstairs, did it have a silencer attached at that TIME?
If it didn't, then obviously silencer could not have been on gun at time Sheila was shot by the fatal bullet upstairs in the bedroom, because presumably Sheila was found downstairs in the kitchen presumed to be dead, having committed suicide, and she somehow ends upstairs in the bedroom shot by a bullet from the Bamber rifle - now at what stage was the silencer put onto, or taken off the gun, prior to PC Bird taking his pictures which show the gun on her body and the end of its barrel pointing in the general direction of the two wounds upon her throat?
-
How does all this equate with the sighting of the rifle at the bedroom window by WPC Julia Jeapes, who saw the gun there at about 7:15am?
If the gun she saw there was the Bamber rifle, does this mean that somebody who was very much still alive inside the house, took possession of it and went downstairs carrying it, and was this the reason why DS Davidson told COLP that a gun that had received a hard knock was found downstairs which had what appeared to be paint on the end of its barrel?
-
Post the original statements and we can all sing from the same hymn sheet.
-
How does all this equate with the sighting of the rifle at the bedroom window by WPC Julia Jeapes, who saw the gun there at about 7:15am?
If the gun she saw there was the Bamber rifle, does this mean that somebody who was very much still alive inside the house, took possession of it and went downstairs carrying it, and was this the reason why DS Davidson told COLP that a gun that had received a hard knock was found downstairs which had what appeared to be paint on the end of its barrel?
Well done, Mike! Excellent work. + 5 bursts of applause for this once I can get in to applaud you again.
-
We now know the importance of that gun which had received a hard knock and which had paint on the end of its barrel which was found downstairs at the scene - it was this gun which caused DI Cook top take a paint sample at the scene (RC/1) which was sent along to the Lab' on the same date (20th September 1985) as the Bamber rifle, with a view to checking to see if the reddish substance found on the rifles fore-site was red paint from the aga in the kitchen?
So, 20th September 1985, is a red letter date, where police thought paint from kitchen aga was on the arrel of the Bamber rifle...
Then...
We have 1st October 1985, the day that Cook and Davidson, went to WHF with Mr Elliot, and Cook told Elliot to take a cast of the marks on the underside of the aga, and that police at that time believed these marks had been made by the barrel of the gun, not the silencer...
-
Why would Cook be telling Elliot at the scene on 1st October 1985, that marks on the underside of the kitchen mantelpiece were made by a guns barrel, and not the silencer - if as we have since had it drummed into us, that the relatives found the silencer from as long ago as 10th August 1985, and that it had been handed over to the police by the evening of 12th August 1985, and it had provisionally been to the lab' on 13th August 1985, and it had been fingerprinted by oblique light test on 15th August 1985, and it had been fingerprinted by superglue treatment by 23rd August 1985, and it had been dismantled and rebuilt by Cook on 29th August 1985, and it had been sent back to the Lab' on 30th August 1985, and the ballistic expert had dismantled it again and found the crucial flake of blood inside it, which was analyzed at the lab' between 12th and 19th September 1985, and had been linked to Sheila?
Why would Cook be telling Elliot that a guns barrel had made the marks on the underside of the aga, if all we have been told about the silencer, was / is true?
DS Davidson, was the senior exhibits officer in the case, and he had no record at all of a silencer being found...
COLP asked him during interview, if he knew about the second silencer?
So, there were two silencers which COLP knew about...
Liars should have a good memory, and not leave themselves open to be caught out - Ds Davidson said he had no involvement with the silencer, but on 13th September 1985, both he and DS Eastwood took possession of the silencer which Ann Eaton handed into the police on 11th September 1985, to fingerprint it...
They fingerprinted it, whilst the other silencer was still at the Lab' at Huntingdon...
-
Davidson must have known about a second silencer existing...otherwise when asked in the COLP investigation he would have answered with the question "what second silencer?"
I noticed one of his answers was given with a present tense "is" when it should have been a past tense "was" ....this very strongly in the instance involved indicate he was being deceptive .
-
We have to assume that a decision was taken say on or after 1st October 1985, to introduce the silencer as being fitted to the barrel of the Bamber rifle, with a view to suggesting it made the marks on the underside of the kitchen mantelpiece, and also that because Sheila's blood was found inside it, that it was fitted to the barrel of the gun at the time Sheila was shot and killed in the main bedroom...
Paint on the barrel of the gun, and paint on the end of the silencer became a big / major problem for Essex police and so they had to get rid of the paint on the gun evidence, which is what they did...
-
Davidson must have known about a second silencer existing...otherwise when asked in the COLP investigation he would have answered with the question "what second silencer?"
I noticed one of his answers was given with a present tense "is" when it should have been a past tense "was" ....this very strongly in the instance involved indicate he was being deceptive .
This is very clever of you smiffy. I have used Statement Analysis though and it suggests you are a massive cock. So I'm struggling to reconcile the situation. Perhaps you can help?
jailman, please refrain from personal insults.
-
Davidson must have known about a second silencer existing...otherwise when asked in the COLP investigation he would have answered with the question "what second silencer?"
I noticed one of his answers was given with a present tense "is" when it should have been a past tense "was" ....this very strongly in the instance involved indicate he was being deceptive .
This is very clever of you smiffy. I have used Statement Analysis though and it suggests you are a massive cock. So I'm struggling to reconcile the situation. Perhaps you can help?
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Really? A smite, just for laughing? Thanks. I'll treasure it always!!
-
Davidson must have known about a second silencer existing...otherwise when asked in the COLP investigation he would have answered with the question "what second silencer?"
I noticed one of his answers was given with a present tense "is" when it should have been a past tense "was" ....this very strongly in the instance involved indicate he was being deceptive .
This is very clever of you smiffy. I have used Statement Analysis though and it suggests you are a massive cock. So I'm struggling to reconcile the situation. Perhaps you can help?
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D +1 Shona
-
I know!! Massive cock!! I wish that there was a smiley that showed a still-sexy woman bent double, hooting with laughter!! When I called smiffy a dick, paul stole it as soon as I could type it. I miss the old days, when intelligent adults could moderate themselves.
xx.
-
I suppose that post will vanish, too. Because I quoted "massive cock". I could have been discussing chickens.
-
Can I just say one more thing? It was never going to work, elevating certain members to mod status. Surely a mod should be impartial? And, apart from the strange sunglasses nonsense and the intellectual treat that was bigwullie, I don't think that any post should be removed. We are all big enough and lovely enough to discuss points. And not to be patronised?
-
I know!! Massive cock!! I wish that there was a smiley that showed a still-sexy woman bent double, hooting with laughter!! When I called smiffy a dick, paul stole it as soon as I could type it. I miss the old days, when intelligent adults could moderate themselves.
xx.
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRunqlMho1FCQil5PBKidR-XQqJIcaBCBLycky2QGTuVKiePNUoXw)
-
Can I just say one more thing? It was never going to work, elevating certain members to mod status. Surely a mod should be impartial? And, apart from the strange sunglasses nonsense and the intellectual treat that was bigwullie, I don't think that any post should be removed. We are all big enough and lovely enough to discuss points. And not to be patronised?
Apparently not?
The vanishing post syndrome strikes again.
-
Oh, for Christ's sake, really? You or me? Let's just do a Father Jack, and say "that would be an ecumenical matter!"
-
bullying name calling behaviour from some people ...in the anti jb camp again.
no surprise...every bully is a liar.
the usual culprits trying to disrupt the thread again...one it seems using yet another false name to launch an attack.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davidson's claims about a rifle in the kitchen seem odd...in that he did not enter the scene until later on..ie post photographs...
does this mean someone had taken the rifle from sheila'a body in the photographs and placed it back in the kitchen where it was originally found by police upon entry?
-
Oh, for Christ's sake, really? You or me? Let's just do a Father Jack, and say "that would be an ecumenical matter!"
for someone who claims to be a buddhist vegan ..it seems odd that you bring christ into your non-amusing posts shonapugs.
-
Sorry I didn't get straight back to you, smiffy, I was having a bacon sandwich.
-
it was i who removed the post from jailman, hes a newbie and that was his first post...what does that tell us ? he was blatantly rude by calling the other poster a c@@k. newbies should read the disclaimer before posting, that way their posts wouldnt get removed. I explianed to ngb yesterday that i dont want to remove posts, and that post was the first time that i have.
but as is clearly stated in the disclaimer, if you start being rude towards other posters the post will be removed. simple :)
dont blame the mods balme the posters.
-
Mike,well done for all the hard work that you are doing!
It has been said that the logs and EP paperwork tell their own story and it seems that slowly and surely,you are fitting all the pieces of the puzzle together.
I think that it is now obvious why Cook emigrated! Can imagine though that he is spending each day looking over his shoulder!
I remember that you once posted an interview with a certain member of EP.He was very distressed during interview and claimed "I didnt find it".He also said that his knowledge of something had caused problems in his marriage.I can no longer find this statement and think it may be relevant to what you have discovered.Please could you reveal again as to who is the person I am thinking of.Thanks in advance :)
-
Mike,well done for all the hard work that you are doing!
It has been said that the logs and EP paperwork tell their own story and it seems that slowly and surely,you are fitting all the pieces of the puzzle together.
I think that it is now obvious why Cook emigrated! Can imagine though that he is spending each day looking over his shoulder!
I remember that you once posted an interview with a certain member of EP.He was very distressed during interview and claimed "I didnt find it".He also said that his knowledge of something had caused problems in his marriage.I can no longer find this statement and think it may be relevant to what you have discovered.Please could you reveal again as to who is the person I am thinking of.Thanks in advance :)
Hi Tyler, thanks for reminding me of that interview. You're right, it could be relevant to the information Mike's discovered. I'd like to read the report again too if Mike has time to find it.
-
Here's what you're looking for:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,545.msg10084/topicseen.html#msg10084
-
Keira,it was Hammersley.The thread is still on the forum x
-
Saraan,sorry,nearly stole your thunder! Thank you for posting link +1 :)
-
I am considering posting the full interview of DC Hammersley to COLP in 1991, to facilitate debate...
-
it was i who removed the post from jailman, hes a newbie and that was his first post...what does that tell us ? he was blatantly rude by calling the other poster a c@@k. newbies should read the disclaimer before posting, that way their posts wouldnt get removed. I explianed to ngb yesterday that i dont want to remove posts, and that post was the first time that i have.
but as is clearly stated in the disclaimer, if you start being rude towards other posters the post will be removed. simple :)
dont blame the mods balme the posters.
Might I suggest a fairer approach would be to determine whether there was any truth to the post before removing it? That way we could avoid any accusations of undue censorship.
In the case of the claims made in my earlier post, we could perhaps set up a poll to determine whether smiffy is indeed a massive cock. I suggest a 7 day voting period should be sufficient to settle the matter. The poll thread could also serve as a discussion forum, to give the issue a much-needed airing.
Alternatively we could make a judgment based on the number of applauds and smites smiffy has against his account, since this would already seem to give some insight into the esteem in which he is held amongst his peers, and is thus a reasonably accurate indicator of the magnitude of his phallic nature.
I welcome all comments on this suggestion and hope we can move forward in a constructive fashion.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
::)
-
it was i who removed the post from jailman, hes a newbie and that was his first post...what does that tell us ? he was blatantly rude by calling the other poster a c@@k. newbies should read the disclaimer before posting, that way their posts wouldnt get removed. I explianed to ngb yesterday that i dont want to remove posts, and that post was the first time that i have.
but as is clearly stated in the disclaimer, if you start being rude towards other posters the post will be removed. simple :)
dont blame the mods balme the posters.
Might I suggest a fairer approach would be to determine whether there was any truth to the post before removing it? That way we could avoid any accusations of undue censorship.
In the case of the claims made in my earlier post, we could perhaps set up a poll to determine whether smiffy is indeed a massive cock. I suggest a 7 day voting period should be sufficient to settle the matter. The poll thread could also serve as a discussion forum, to give the issue a much-needed airing.
Alternatively we could make a judgment based on the number of applauds and smites smiffy has against his account, since this would already seem to give some insight into the esteem in which he is held amongst his peers, and is thus a reasonably accurate indicator of the magnitude of his phallic nature.
I welcome all comments on this suggestion and hope we can move forward in a constructive fashion.
A belated welcome to the forum Jailman. I think the sugestion of a smiffy phallic poll is sound. I do also understand that the removal of your post without establishing whether your claim had credence was harsh.
-
it was i who removed the post from jailman, hes a newbie and that was his first post...what does that tell us ? he was blatantly rude by calling the other poster a c@@k. newbies should read the disclaimer before posting, that way their posts wouldnt get removed. I explianed to ngb yesterday that i dont want to remove posts, and that post was the first time that i have.
but as is clearly stated in the disclaimer, if you start being rude towards other posters the post will be removed. simple :)
dont blame the mods balme the posters.
Might I suggest a fairer approach would be to determine whether there was any truth to the post before removing it? That way we could avoid any accusations of undue censorship.
In the case of the claims made in my earlier post, we could perhaps set up a poll to determine whether smiffy is indeed a massive cock. I suggest a 7 day voting period should be sufficient to settle the matter. The poll thread could also serve as a discussion forum, to give the issue a much-needed airing.
Alternatively we could make a judgment based on the number of applauds and smites smiffy has against his account, since this would already seem to give some insight into the esteem in which he is held amongst his peers, and is thus a reasonably accurate indicator of the magnitude of his phallic nature.
I welcome all comments on this suggestion and hope we can move forward in a constructive fashion.
I was going to remove your post, but decided to leave it so people can see what an idiot you are.
This forum welcomes serious posters from both sides, but are intolerant of stupid remarks like yours.
What part of sensible posting do you not understand.
If you persist I will remove your postings and recommend you are barred.
-
it was i who removed the post from jailman, hes a newbie and that was his first post...what does that tell us ? he was blatantly rude by calling the other poster a c@@k. newbies should read the disclaimer before posting, that way their posts wouldnt get removed. I explianed to ngb yesterday that i dont want to remove posts, and that post was the first time that i have.
but as is clearly stated in the disclaimer, if you start being rude towards other posters the post will be removed. simple :)
dont blame the mods balme the posters.
Might I suggest a fairer approach would be to determine whether there was any truth to the post before removing it? That way we could avoid any accusations of undue censorship.
In the case of the claims made in my earlier post, we could perhaps set up a poll to determine whether smiffy is indeed a massive cock. I suggest a 7 day voting period should be sufficient to settle the matter. The poll thread could also serve as a discussion forum, to give the issue a much-needed airing.
Alternatively we could make a judgment based on the number of applauds and smites smiffy has against his account, since this would already seem to give some insight into the esteem in which he is held amongst his peers, and is thus a reasonably accurate indicator of the magnitude of his phallic nature.
I welcome all comments on this suggestion and hope we can move forward in a constructive fashion.
A belated welcome to the forum Jailman. I think the sugestion of a smiffy phallic poll is sound. I do also understand that the removal of your post without establishing whether your claim had credence was harsh.
Stop trying to demean this forum. Sensible posters are welcome, but people like you should direct traffic on the M1
-
it was i who removed the post from jailman, hes a newbie and that was his first post...what does that tell us ? he was blatantly rude by calling the other poster a c@@k. newbies should read the disclaimer before posting, that way their posts wouldnt get removed. I explianed to ngb yesterday that i dont want to remove posts, and that post was the first time that i have.
but as is clearly stated in the disclaimer, if you start being rude towards other posters the post will be removed. simple :)
dont blame the mods balme the posters.
Might I suggest a fairer approach would be to determine whether there was any truth to the post before removing it? That way we could avoid any accusations of undue censorship.
In the case of the claims made in my earlier post, we could perhaps set up a poll to determine whether smiffy is indeed a massive cock. I suggest a 7 day voting period should be sufficient to settle the matter. The poll thread could also serve as a discussion forum, to give the issue a much-needed airing.
Alternatively we could make a judgment based on the number of applauds and smites smiffy has against his account, since this would already seem to give some insight into the esteem in which he is held amongst his peers, and is thus a reasonably accurate indicator of the magnitude of his phallic nature.
I welcome all comments on this suggestion and hope we can move forward in a constructive fashion.
Mr newbie jailman. Please control your obvious disruptive behaviour or I will control you. Please go and read the rules of the forum before you post again.
-
it was i who removed the post from jailman, hes a newbie and that was his first post...what does that tell us ? he was blatantly rude by calling the other poster a c@@k. newbies should read the disclaimer before posting, that way their posts wouldnt get removed. I explianed to ngb yesterday that i dont want to remove posts, and that post was the first time that i have.
but as is clearly stated in the disclaimer, if you start being rude towards other posters the post will be removed. simple :)
dont blame the mods balme the posters.
Might I suggest a fairer approach would be to determine whether there was any truth to the post before removing it? That way we could avoid any accusations of undue censorship.
In the case of the claims made in my earlier post, we could perhaps set up a poll to determine whether smiffy is indeed a massive cock. I suggest a 7 day voting period should be sufficient to settle the matter. The poll thread could also serve as a discussion forum, to give the issue a much-needed airing.
Alternatively we could make a judgment based on the number of applauds and smites smiffy has against his account, since this would already seem to give some insight into the esteem in which he is held amongst his peers, and is thus a reasonably accurate indicator of the magnitude of his phallic nature.
I welcome all comments on this suggestion and hope we can move forward in a constructive fashion.
A belated welcome to the forum Jailman. I think the sugestion of a smiffy phallic poll is sound. I do also understand that the removal of your post without establishing whether your claim had credence was harsh.
Wrong. Perhaps you also need to read the rules before you post? There is no excuse whatsoever for childish name calling by those claiming to be adults.
-
Moderators that are on some sort of obvious biased personal crusade against certain posters and are leaving posts up that should be deleted to make an example of someone is wrong. The fact that moderators are branding people as idiots and making aggressive suggestions like 'direct traffic on the M1' is foolish. For your information pal, i lost a close family member in a road accident on the M1 so that is pretty close to the bone. However, i will take your comment with good humour, maybe you should approach your moderators position in the same way. As for demeaning this forum, well it has been doing a pretty good job of that recently without any help from me.
-
Moderators that are on some sort of obvious biased personal crusade against certain posters and are leaving posts up that should be deleted to make an example of someone is wrong. The fact that moderators are branding people as idiots and making aggressive suggestions like 'direct traffic on the M1' is foolish. For your information pal, i lost a close family member in a road accident on the M1 so that is pretty close to the bone. However, i will take your comment with good humour, maybe you should approach your moderators position in the same way. As for demeaning this forum, well it has been doing a pretty good job of that recently without any help from me.
You are a newbie on this forum so I suggest that you do quite a bit of reading before you start posting. Also ask yourself if you are here for serious discussion or to play the fool. The choise is yours. If you continue in this biased tom foolery then I'll just delete you. Please don't be an idiot I'm not being biased except to those who are intent on acting foolishly.
-
Mike said "bollocks" - fair enough, it's his forum. But can you imagine how much trouble one of us would be in if we posted something like Cliff's comment?
-
Please return to the context of the thread.
-
Here's what you're looking for:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,545.msg10084/topicseen.html#msg10084
Thanks, sarann!
-
Keira,it was Hammersley.The thread is still on the forum x
Thanks, Tyler!
-
This forum welcomes serious posters from both sides
That was not my experience.
Jailman deserves a jolly good (private) telling off for suggesting that smiffy is a massive cock, however I applaud him for his perfect grammar. He should choose a more worthy opponent.
-
it was i who removed the post from jailman, hes a newbie and that was his first post...what does that tell us ? he was blatantly rude by calling the other poster a c@@k. newbies should read the disclaimer before posting, that way their posts wouldnt get removed. I explianed to ngb yesterday that i dont want to remove posts, and that post was the first time that i have.
but as is clearly stated in the disclaimer, if you start being rude towards other posters the post will be removed. simple :)
dont blame the mods balme the posters.
Might I suggest a fairer approach would be to determine whether there was any truth to the post before removing it? That way we could avoid any accusations of undue censorship.
In the case of the claims made in my earlier post, we could perhaps set up a poll to determine whether smiffy is indeed a massive cock. I suggest a 7 day voting period should be sufficient to settle the matter. The poll thread could also serve as a discussion forum, to give the issue a much-needed airing.
Alternatively we could make a judgment based on the number of applauds and smites smiffy has against his account, since this would already seem to give some insight into the esteem in which he is held amongst his peers, and is thus a reasonably accurate indicator of the magnitude of his phallic nature.
I welcome all comments on this suggestion and hope we can move forward in a constructive fashion.
I was going to remove your post, but decided to leave it so people can see what an idiot you are.
This forum welcomes serious posters from both sides, but are intolerant of stupid remarks like yours.
What part of sensible posting do you not understand.
If you persist I will remove your postings and recommend you are barred.
Well said, Cliff, jailman's post is unacceptable.
-
it was i who removed the post from jailman, hes a newbie and that was his first post...what does that tell us ? he was blatantly rude by calling the other poster a c@@k. newbies should read the disclaimer before posting, that way their posts wouldnt get removed. I explianed to ngb yesterday that i dont want to remove posts, and that post was the first time that i have.
but as is clearly stated in the disclaimer, if you start being rude towards other posters the post will be removed. simple :)
dont blame the mods balme the posters.
Might I suggest a fairer approach would be to determine whether there was any truth to the post before removing it? That way we could avoid any accusations of undue censorship.
In the case of the claims made in my earlier post, we could perhaps set up a poll to determine whether smiffy is indeed a massive cock. I suggest a 7 day voting period should be sufficient to settle the matter. The poll thread could also serve as a discussion forum, to give the issue a much-needed airing.
Alternatively we could make a judgment based on the number of applauds and smites smiffy has against his account, since this would already seem to give some insight into the esteem in which he is held amongst his peers, and is thus a reasonably accurate indicator of the magnitude of his phallic nature.
I welcome all comments on this suggestion and hope we can move forward in a constructive fashion.
A belated welcome to the forum Jailman. I think the sugestion of a smiffy phallic poll is sound. I do also understand that the removal of your post without establishing whether your claim had credence was harsh.
Stop trying to demean this forum. Sensible posters are welcome, but people like you should direct traffic on the M1
I totally agree with your comments, Cliff.
-
Moderators that are on some sort of obvious biased personal crusade against certain posters and are leaving posts up that should be deleted to make an example of someone is wrong. The fact that moderators are branding people as idiots and making aggressive suggestions like 'direct traffic on the M1' is foolish. For your information pal, i lost a close family member in a road accident on the M1 so that is pretty close to the bone. However, i will take your comment with good humour, maybe you should approach your moderators position in the same way. As for demeaning this forum, well it has been doing a pretty good job of that recently without any help from me.
As you are well aware the M1 jibe is a figure of speech, but this does not detract from the fact that you are trying to disrupt the forum. Why do you not post sensible post that can be debated instead of stupid comments.
Your comment regarding the forum being good at demeaning itself is totally untrue. The only reason it will go downhill is if we allow idiots to remain.
-
No i am not a newbie Grahame, i have been here since January as you well know. Can you confirm that it is ok for your moderators to brand people idiots and make suggestions like 'people like you should direct traffic on the M1'. I ask this for any future debate where i might like to use the same language.
-
it was i who removed the post from jailman, hes a newbie and that was his first post...what does that tell us ? he was blatantly rude by calling the other poster a c@@k. newbies should read the disclaimer before posting, that way their posts wouldnt get removed. I explianed to ngb yesterday that i dont want to remove posts, and that post was the first time that i have.
but as is clearly stated in the disclaimer, if you start being rude towards other posters the post will be removed. simple :)
dont blame the mods balme the posters.
Might I suggest a fairer approach would be to determine whether there was any truth to the post before removing it? That way we could avoid any accusations of undue censorship.
In the case of the claims made in my earlier post, we could perhaps set up a poll to determine whether smiffy is indeed a massive cock. I suggest a 7 day voting period should be sufficient to settle the matter. The poll thread could also serve as a discussion forum, to give the issue a much-needed airing.
Alternatively we could make a judgment based on the number of applauds and smites smiffy has against his account, since this would already seem to give some insight into the esteem in which he is held amongst his peers, and is thus a reasonably accurate indicator of the magnitude of his phallic nature.
I welcome all comments on this suggestion and hope we can move forward in a constructive fashion.
Mr newbie jailman. Please control your obvious disruptive behaviour or I will control you. Please go and read the rules of the forum before you post again.
I toally agree with you, Grahame, I hope jailman heeds your warning. Most of us here treat each other with respect, new members must do the same.
-
Mike said "bollocks" - fair enough, it's his forum. But can you imagine how much trouble one of us would be in if we posted something like Cliff's comment?
What comment was that Pugs.
-
Cliff, the M1 one. It's so not like you. :'(
-
There are certain elements on the forum who are intent on disruption. It is my job to try and stamp it out. I'm not biased as some have suggested. But I don't have to justify myself to anyone. I will get rid of these disruptive elements if they do not calm down and begin to take part like real adults. Now if anyone has any gripes about way things are run can I suggest that instead of interupting the present thread to take it to the "off topic" thread that Shona has created? Thank you for your co operation.
-
There are certain elements on the forum who are intent on disruption. It is my job to try and stamp it out. I'm not biased as some have suggested. But I don't have to justify myself to anyone. I will get rid of these disruptive elements if they do not calm down and begin to take part like real adults. Now if anyone has any gripes about way things are run can I suggest that instead of interupting the present thread to take it to the "off topic" thread that Shona has created? Thank you for your co operation.
"But I don't have to justify myself to anyone"
I find this a very worrying comment Grahame. I would have thought the role of the moderator is more of a servant of the forum members rather than as some kind of autocratic ruler.
-
There are certain elements on the forum who are intent on disruption. It is my job to try and stamp it out. I'm not biased as some have suggested. But I don't have to justify myself to anyone. I will get rid of these disruptive elements if they do not calm down and begin to take part like real adults. Now if anyone has any gripes about way things are run can I suggest that instead of interupting the present thread to take it to the "off topic" thread that Shona has created? Thank you for your co operation.
"But I don't have to justify myself to anyone"
I find this a very worrying comment Grahame. I would have thought the role of the moderator is more of a servant of the forum members rather than as some kind of autocratic ruler.
Servant yes to all. Slave? no. take it or leave it. I'm old enough now not to let "power" go to my head. But I will control disruptive elements and they must see that I am serious about this. No one likes moderators. But I'm here to do a job and I will do it. It really doesn't affect me if people are "worried" about it.
-
Cliff, the M1 one. It's so not like you. :'(
Okay Pugs maybe it was OTT, but I meant no disrespect, as I said it was a figure of speech.
Any hurt I caused I apologise for, but I was trying [maybe badly] to make the point that the previous remarks were crude.
I am acutely aware that a lot of members are female, and whilst I am aware that you are not shrinking violets I feel you should not be exposed to lewd comments. It is the way I have been brought up to respect women.
Did you think that jailmans comment was suitable to a mixed audience. Personally I did not.
Regards.
-
This forum welcomes serious posters from both sides
That was not my experience.
Jailman deserves a jolly good (private) telling off for suggesting that smiffy is a massive cock, however I applaud him for his perfect grammar. He should choose a more worthy opponent.
I've spotted some glaring errors in my video grammar... (bare for bear etc.)
-
There are certain elements on the forum who are intent on disruption. It is my job to try and stamp it out. I'm not biased as some have suggested. But I don't have to justify myself to anyone. I will get rid of these disruptive elements if they do not calm down and begin to take part like real adults. Now if anyone has any gripes about way things are run can I suggest that instead of interupting the present thread to take it to the "off topic" thread that Shona has created? Thank you for your co operation.
"But I don't have to justify myself to anyone"
I find this a very worrying comment Grahame. I would have thought the role of the moderator is more of a servant of the forum members rather than as some kind of autocratic ruler.
Servant yes to all. Slave? no. take it or leave it. I'm old enough now not to let "power" go to my head. But I will control disruptive elements and they must see that I am serious about this. No one likes moderators. But I'm here to do a job and I will do it. It really doesn't affect me if people are "worried" about it.
"No one likes moderators" - surely if the moderators are doing a good job on behalf of the large majority of forum members then there is no reason why they should be disliked?
"It really doesn't affect me if people are "worried" about it.". I guess that's that then ::)
-
A quick message for Rochy you video is on Twitter and I have been inundated with messages about how good it is and I sent Ken Clarke a copy.
Jeremy is in really good spirits we have spoken on the phone loads over the weekend and I made him laugh so much on Friday he couldn't speak for about 5 minutes. Forensics are doing brilliant work
-
A quick message for Rochy you video is on Twitter and I have been inundated with messages about how good it is and I sent Ken Clarke a copy.
Jeremy is in really good spirits we have spoken on the phone loads over the weekend and I made him laugh so much on Friday he couldn't speak for about 5 minutes. Forensics are doing brilliant work
Is there anything you can safely reveal Jackie.
-
A quick message for Rochy you video is on Twitter and I have been inundated with messages about how good it is and I sent Ken Clarke a copy.
Jeremy is in really good spirits we have spoken on the phone loads over the weekend and I made him laugh so much on Friday he couldn't speak for about 5 minutes. Forensics are doing brilliant work
Thanks jackie... I'm glad it's getting a good airing. It is aimed at obtaining interest. Maybe the next one I make I will try and be more specific and put references in to keep the other side happy on here. ;)
Glad forensics is going well to...
-
Are you putting it on here, Rochy? Or is there another way to view it?
-
Ooops - just found it. Sorry, Rochy. Here goes.............
-
Wow!! Rochy, that is seriously good. You are a very modest guy. Well done!!
-
This forum welcomes serious posters from both sides
That was not my experience.
Jailman deserves a jolly good (private) telling off for suggesting that smiffy is a massive cock, however I applaud him for his perfect grammar. He should choose a more worthy opponent.
I've spotted some glaring errors in my video grammar... (bare for bear etc.)
If there were errors I didn't notice them, which is a compliment to you, because clearly I was more interested in the content than the delivery.
-
Hi Cliff,
I think it's up to individuals to write to Jeremy to find out how the case is going I would never ever repeat anything we talk about on the phone Jeremy trusts me and that's what is important at the moment. I am still furious at the behaviour that is accepted on this forum it's been worse not better. The way John/ Jerry posted messages about Ngb s qualifications etc and since then Gerald has done exactly the same. If you remember Ngb put up a thousand pound bet with John to prove who he is but he wouldn't do it. Then we have Chochos favourite new poster Gerald doing the same let's hope Ngb puts up the same bet to Gerald let's see who he really is. At the end of the day the forum and the moderators is a piece of fun it's not helping get Jeremy out of prison because most people on here seem to believe it's ok to be rude and nasty to someone that has gone out of there way to help Jeremy. In case anyone does not know check out how much it would cost to employ a barrister an hour.I will do anything I can to help Jeremy and it's not a game as Ngb said Vidvic, jerry, Gerald, John have ganged up on me like a pack of wolves so excuse me for not sharing anything I am told