Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: guest29835 on December 08, 2021, 01:10:AM
-
Looking at it objectively (putting aside personal views/allegiances concerning the case itself), how would people here assess the effectiveness of the Walker/Hartley-led campaign? What are the good points and bad points? I offer some thoughts below. I am mindful that it is easy to be an armchair critic of people who put their heads above the parapet, so nothing I say here should be taken as any sort of harsh criticism.
For me, the good points are:
1. A legal team has been found and a new CCRC application has been submitted.
2. They claim that the new legal team has built a viable case for appeal. We will have to see what the CCRC make of it, but on the face of it they have some interesting points.
3. They have established an effective social media presence and a following.
4. They are building a team of activists, and also Adam is on board offering moral support to sceptics like me (just joking).
5. As far as I can tell, they are reasonably sensitive and dignified in the way they present the case. To my knowledge, there have been no complaints from the family or tabloid newspapers.
6. They do have good judgement about the media. They avoided involvement in the Sky Crime documentary.
7. They are in constant touch with Jeremy. I understand they speak to him daily.
8. A lot of work is being put into the podcasts and the 'string and tin can' approach does have its appeal. When a podcast is good, it is really good.
Some bad points:
9. They appear not to have Mark Williams-Thomas on board.
10. They have not been able to break into the mainstream, despite a prominent and popular TV dramatisation of the case on ITV and the recent Sky Crime documentary. The best in-road they have been able to make is a weekly slot on a local radio station, plus support from alt-media types including Matthew Steeples and Shaun Attwood on YouTube. The pro-guilt side still dominate the 'air war'.
11. They have nobody high-profile and well-connected in support of them, such as a major celebrity or sporting figure or Member of Parliament. Peter Tatchell is not well-connected in that sense and he does not even state Jeremy is innocent.
12. They come across as guileless when it comes to campaigning. In the video of the demonstration at Essex Police HQ, they appear to just stand there like statues. I still think the day was a success and the speeches were good, but at the same time just standing there doesn't really amount to much and I couldn't understand what Peter Tatchell was doing when he insisted that a fairly junior officer act as his postman. They could have added a bit of drama to it, maybe produced a video of one of them 'pursuing' a senior officer, maybe the Chief Constable, outside the HQ or at another public meeting, asking him to accept the letter and offer a comment for the camera.
13. They have not taken the case forward forensically, which I think is really what is needed. Instead, they are relying mostly on appeal points from the Lomax era. I don't believe the appeal points put across by the campaign in social media reflect any deep or original research of the case.
14. The podcasts are of mixed quality. The use of an automated computer voice is baffling to me.
15. The second season of podcasts seems to include other alleged miscarriages of justice, which is strange, but to be fair, it may be down to a wish to develop links and good will with other campaigners.
-
Looking at it objectively (putting aside personal views/allegiances concerning the case itself), how would people here assess the effectiveness of the Walker/Hartley-led campaign? What are the good points and bad points? I offer some thoughts below. I am mindful that it is easy to be an armchair critic of people who put their heads above the parapet, so nothing I say here should be taken as any sort of harsh criticism.
For me, the good points are:
1. A legal team has been found and a new CCRC application has been submitted.
Meaningless unless it is referred to appeal court.
2. They claim that the new legal team have built a viable case for appeal. We will have to see what the CCRC make of it, but on the face of it they have some interesting points.
Meaningless unless referred to the appeal court.
3. They have established an effective social media presence and a following.
By what measurement is the social media presence effective?
4. They are building a team of activists, and also Adam is on board offering moral support to sceptics like me (just joking).
Who? If such a team exists in what way are they effective and by what measurement?
5. As far as I can tell, they are reasonably sensitive and dignified in the way they present the case. To my knowledge, there have been no complaints from the family or tabloid newspapers.
You are obviously overlooking the ridiculous campaigns involving a 'bake-off' and 'graveside reading'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-33521825
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3472521/Mass-murder-Jeremy-Bamber-sends-supporter-read-bizarre-rant-grave-parents-killed-blaming-sister-murdered-mass-killing.html
6. They do have good judgement about the media. They avoided involvement in the Sky Crime documentary.
Wrong as usual. See above. They declined to get involved with the Sky Crime doc to avoid having their theories debunked.
7. They are in constant touch with Jeremy. I understand they speak to him daily.
Which would suggest an unhealthy closeness.
8. A lot of work is being put into the podcasts and the 'string and tin can' approach does have its appeal. When a podcast is good, it is really good.
I listened to the Barbara D'Ath one which was totally irrelevant. A woman who claims to have holidayed on the caravan site and thought Jeremy was nice! What about all the tens of thousands of others?
Some bad points:
9. They appear not to have Mark Williams-Thomas on board.
In what way do you think he could assist Bamber at this stage?
10. They have not been able to break into the mainstream, despite a prominent and popular TV dramatisation of the case on ITV and the recent Sky Crime documentary. The best in-road they have been able to make is a weekly slot on a local radio station, plus support from alt-media types including Matthew Steeples and Shaun Attwood on YouTube. The pro-guilt side still dominate the 'air war'.
Who is going to support a family annihalator without compelling evidence of a wrongful conviction?
11. They have nobody high-profile and well-connected in support of them, such as a major celebrity or sporting figure or Member of Parliament. Peter Tatchell is not well-connected in that sense and he does not even state Jeremy is innocent.
Who is going to support a family annihalator without compelling evidence of a wrongful conviction?
12. They come across as guileless when it comes to campaigning. In the video of the demonstration at Essex Police HQ, they appear to just stand there like statues. I still think the day was a success and the speeches were good, but at the same time just standing there doesn't really amount to much and I couldn't understand what Peter Tatchell was doing when he insisted that a fairly junior officer act as his postman. They could have added a bit of drama to it, maybe produced a video of one of them 'pursuing' a senior officer, maybe the Chief Constable, outside the HQ or at another public meeting, asking him to accept the letter and offer a comment for the camera.
More than enough drama with the bake-off and graveside reading. Did even the most junior reporter turn up from the local rag?
13. They have not taken the case forward forensically, which I think is really what is needed. Instead, they are relying mostly on appeal points from the Lomax era. I don't believe the appeal points put across by the campaign in social media reflect any deep or original research of the case.
A constant rehash of theories debunked years ago.
14. The podcasts are of mixed quality. The use of an automated computer voice is baffling to me.
I must have been unlucky then because the few I've listened to are either totally irrelevant or utterly useless.
15. The second season of podcasts seems to include other alleged miscarriages of justice, which is strange, but to be fair, it may be down to a wish to develop links and good will with other campaigners.
As above.
-
You are obviously overlooking the ridiculous campaigns involving a 'bake-off' and 'graveside reading'
No, I am obviously not overlooking that. As stated in the opening post, I am talking about the Walker/Hartley campaign, which is after Trudi and Pat Benjamin.
-
Because Peter Tatchell is accustomed to public speaking he is the right man to engage with whatever his personal views on the case are as it would be no use if he was biased toward guilt or innocence.
He's got a good speaking voice and can put things in a more " professional " way than either Yvonne or Philip who haven't had the experience that PT's had.
I don't blame them for declining any documentary. Anyone with a brain would avoid them like the plague !
I think the present team have done well and are more in-tune with the case since Trudi seemed to have been losing interest in many ways.
-
Your right QC MWT was the right person to promote this case but the campaign team severely criticised him.
He has so many contacts also in America which would have been great regarding gun issues.
He was quite desperate to make a series
He was severely criticised for being too impartial in his documentary
-
Your right QC was the right person to promote this case but the campaign team severely criticised him.
He has so many contacts also in America which would have been great regarding gun issues.
He was quite desperate to make a series
He was severely criticised for being too impartial in his documentary
Yes, if you mean Mark Williams-Thomas, I would have grabbed him with both hands and put him in front of a camera. I thought the ITV documentary was excellent, but the 1980s Granada documentaries on the Birmingham Six are the model. They came from the angle of assuming innocence or reasonable doubt and arguing from there, and a high-quality documentary along those lines is needed, with good narration and new forensic evidence.
If the concern is about egos, Jeremy could keep control of the Campaign Team separate, with MWT free to make a documentary or series and obtain expert evidence.
Have the CT spoken with Joe Karam, do you know? I would seek him out for advice and read his books. He was successful, and it's wise to study and consider what successful people in the same field have done.
-
Yes, if you mean Mark Williams-Thomas, I would have grabbed him with both hands and put him in front of a camera. I thought the ITV documentary was excellent, but the 1980s Granada documentaries on the Birmingham Six are the model. They came from the angle of assuming innocence or reasonable doubt and arguing from there, and a high-quality documentary along those lines is needed, with good narration and new forensic evidence.
If the concern is about egos, Jeremy could keep control of the Campaign Team separate, with MWT free to make a documentary or series and obtain expert evidence.
Have the CT spoken with Joe Karam, do you know? I would seek him out for advice and read his books. He was successful, and it's wise to study and consider what successful people in the same field have done.
Quite right to. There has only been about 9 documentaries already.
-
No, I am obviously not overlooking that. As stated in the opening post, I am talking about the Walker/Hartley campaign, which is after Trudi and Pat Benjamin.
Oh but you are! I can assure you 100% at least one current member at the heart of the support group fully endorsed the 'graveside reading'.
-
Yes, if you mean Mark Williams-Thomas, I would have grabbed him with both hands and put him in front of a camera. I thought the ITV documentary was excellent, but the 1980s Granada documentaries on the Birmingham Six are the model. They came from the angle of assuming innocence or reasonable doubt and arguing from there, and a high-quality documentary along those lines is needed, with good narration and new forensic evidence.
If the concern is about egos, Jeremy could keep control of the Campaign Team separate, with MWT free to make a documentary or series and obtain expert evidence.
Have the CT spoken with Joe Karam, do you know? I would seek him out for advice and read his books. He was successful, and it's wise to study and consider what successful people in the same field have done.
What did you think was "excellent" about the ITV documentary aired nearly 10 years ago and how has it advanced Bamber's case?
If doc makers want to angle on innocence or reasonable doubt they need something to work with!
You talk about new forensic evidence as though it is readily available for purchase like a Christmas tree!
MWT might be free to make a doc but firstly he needs to convince prog makers its a viable proposition and then he needs the expert evidence! Even if funds are forthcoming where is the evidence coming from?
Why would Joe Karam want to get involved with another case?
I believe Bamber has at times been in the same jail as the Guildford Four and others. However despite some of the members taking up miscarriages of justice none have got involved with Bamber.
-
On the contrary, it was probably JB who didn't get involved with others who've shared the same jail !
The only one that he was involved with to my mind was the late Susan May as they helped one another with their cases of being blamed for something neither were apart of. JB was cut-up when the poor woman died.
-
On the contrary, it was probably JB who didn't get involved with others who've shared the same jail !
The only one that he was involved with to my mind was the late Susan May as they helped one another with their cases of being blamed for something neither were apart of. JB was cut-up when the poor woman died.
You're forgetting Michael O'Brien.
The likes of Paul Hall are well connected (quite good looking too imo). There's also Paddy Hill who runs some sort of miscarriage of justice organisation in Scotland.
I can see no reason Bamber would not want to get involved with some of these people. More likely they don't want to get involved with him!
-
There's also Eric Allison who has and still continues to help JB where he can. Influential.
-
What did you think was "excellent" about the ITV documentary aired nearly 10 years ago and how has it advanced Bamber's case?
If doc makers want to angle on innocence or reasonable doubt they need something to work with!
You talk about new forensic evidence as though it is readily available for purchase like a Christmas tree!
MWT might be free to make a doc but firstly he needs to convince prog makers its a viable proposition and then he needs the expert evidence! Even if funds are forthcoming where is the evidence coming from?
Why would Joe Karam want to get involved with another case?
I believe Bamber has at times been in the same jail as the Guildford Four and others. However despite some of the members taking up miscarriages of justice none have got involved with Bamber.
What is the purpose of this post? It's like being berated by a schoolmistress.
I didn't say new forensic evidence is easy to come by.
-
For me, the good points are:
1. A legal team has been found and a new CCRC application has been submitted.
2. They claim that the new legal team have built a viable case for appeal. We will have to see what the CCRC make of it, but on the face of it they have some interesting points.
These two are not good points as the CCRC application has little to no valid points and the lawyer who signed it off should have done his due diligence.
-
These two are not good points as the CCRC application has little to no valid points and the lawyer who signed it off should have done his due diligence.
What would you have submitted to the CCRC?
Or do you think there is currently not enough for a submission?
-
These two are not good points as the CCRC application has little to no valid points and the lawyer who signed it off should have done his due diligence.
David have you not listened to the latest podcast ? QC put it on an earlier post of his. It's worth a listen to give you an idea on how the silencer/ s came into being.
-
These two are not good points as the CCRC application has little to no valid points and the lawyer who signed it off should have done his due diligence.
David, we don't know that for sure. I honestly don't know the detail of what is in all of the points. I do know some of it, and a couple of the points claim to turn the case on its head pretty fundamentally, with supporting evidence; but, I have not seen this supporting evidence, I have only been provided with descriptions or summaries of it.
I have expressed a view privately as to what I believe are the prospects for this CCRC application, but I must admit that is based only on limited information and my general overall impression of things. I'm reluctant to express a view on the open forum because, as far as I am concerned, we can't predict the outcome of the application with any certainty.
As for the lawyers, I suppose they will submit what they are instructed to submit after giving their advice, and as long as the evidence underpinning submissions is authentic and they are not being asked to do anything unethical, they will adhere to their client's instructions.
-
David, we don't know that for sure. I honestly don't know the detail of what is in all of the points. I do know some of it, and a couple of the points claim to turn the case on its head pretty fundamentally, with supporting evidence; but, I have not seen this supporting evidence, I have only been provided with descriptions or summaries of it.
I have expressed a view privately as to what I believe are the prospects for this CCRC application, but I must admit that is based only on limited information and my general overall impression of things. I'm reluctant to express a view on the open forum because, as far as I am concerned, we can't predict the outcome of the application with any certainty.
As for the lawyers, I suppose they will submit what they are instructed to submit after giving their advice, and as long as the evidence underpinning submissions is authentic and they are not being asked to do anything unethical, they will adhere to their client's instructions.
Why not publically?
-
David have you not listened to the latest podcast ? QC put it on an earlier post of his. It's worth a listen to give you an idea on how the silencer/ s came into being.
I have already given my view on these podcasts, and wont be listening. I know very well how the silencer came into being and listening to the podcasts is not going to provide anything useful.
-
David have you not listened to the latest podcast ? QC put it on an earlier post of his. It's worth a listen to give you an idea on how the silencer/ s came into being.
Yes. Bamber used it & put it away.
The relatives then found it.
-
David, we don't know that for sure. I honestly don't know the detail of what is in all of the points. I do know some of it, and a couple of the points claim to turn the case on its head pretty fundamentally, with supporting evidence; but, I have not seen this supporting evidence, I have only been provided with descriptions or summaries of it.
I have expressed a view privately as to what I believe are the prospects for this CCRC application, but I must admit that is based only on limited information and my general overall impression of things. I'm reluctant to express a view on the open forum because, as far as I am concerned, we can't predict the outcome of the application with any certainty.
As for the lawyers, I suppose they will submit what they are instructed to submit after giving their advice, and as long as the evidence underpinning submissions is authentic and they are not being asked to do anything unethical, they will adhere to their client's instructions.
To give you an idea.
The supporting evidence for Nevills alleged 999 call is PC West writing the time of JBs call incorrectly.
The supporting evidence for Sheila's alleged ambulance call is the BT operator putting the WHF phone through to Maldon Police station.
I am sure the CCRC will make this clear in a rebuttal. Hence why the CT members apparently look so depressed as of late. :-\
-
To give you an idea.
The supporting evidence for Nevills alleged 999 call is PC West writing the time of JBs call incorrectly.
The supporting evidence for Sheila's alleged ambulance call is the BT operator putting the WHF phone through to Maldon Police station.
I am sure the CCRC will make this clear in a rebuttal. Hence why the CT members apparently look so depressed as of late. :-\
What would you have submitted to the CCRC?
Or do you think there is currently not enough for a submission?
-
To give you an idea.
The supporting evidence for Nevills alleged 999 call is PC West writing the time of JBs call incorrectly.
The supporting evidence for Sheila's alleged ambulance call is the BT operator putting the WHF phone through to Maldon Police station.
I am sure the CCRC will make this clear in a rebuttal. Hence why the CT members apparently look so depressed as of late. :-\
I will reserve judgement about it all until we know the outcome of the application. I have not seen enough to be able to form a definite view one way or the other that I would want to express on the open forum.
-
Why not publically?
It's down to my lack of self-confidence, Adam. It all started when you didn't recommend me to the CT and it's spiralled from there. I went into a sulk and I've been upset ever since.
(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article6732327.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Man-crying-with-hand-to-face.jpg)
-
Yes. Bamber used it & put it away.
The relatives then found it.
It was in a dusty box of which the dust had shown no signs of disturbance. In other words it was taken out to be tampered with by the relatives then to use in the conviction of JB when nothing else worked. A silencer was never used in the murders.
-
It was in a dusty box of which the dust had shown no signs of disturbance. In other words it was taken out to be tampered with by the relatives then to use in the conviction of JB when nothing else worked. A silencer was never used in the murders.
Really?
You said Sheila used a silencer. Then took it off mid massacre.
-
Yes. Bamber used it & put it away.
The relatives then found it.
That is what they want people to believe.
-
Really?
You said Sheila used a silencer. Then took it off mid massacre.
Are you sure I said that ?
-
Strange that the silencer was the focal part of the case yet initially neither DB nor AE even mentioned the silencer until--------after the blame had gone to Sheila for the murders. Work that one out Adam.
-
Are you sure I said that ?
You said Sheila took the silencer off mid massacre. Her blood then falling into it.
-
What would you have submitted to the CCRC?
Or do you think there is currently not enough for a submission?
Looks like David is not going to answer.
He must believe there is not enough new evidence for a successful referral
-
It's more the quality ( truth ) than the quantity which matters this time.
-
David promotes the diluted period blood theory. However there is no evidence this happened or is possible. So this cannot be submitted to the CCRC.
He also believes the COA evidence is 'bullshit'. But has no evidence there was an industrial frame. So this cannot be submitted to the CCRC.
-
It is a similar situation with JackieD's & Rob's theories.
A CCRC submission can't be submitted on the basis that Julie identified the twins or it was dark outside.
These are both correct statements but it just someone's opinion that this makes Bamber innocent.
The jury in 1986 were also aware of both.
-
I suspect the 7 points submitted to the CCRC was the best that Bamber's large team could get together over the last 9 years.
They are hopeing 7 points will result in one point being successful. Rather than relying on one piece as in 2012.
David still believes it will be dismissed. QC saying he has expressed his views privately.
Opinions on forums are either not supported by evidence, have already been put before a jury/appeals or is supported by evidence but is just an opinion.
-
David promotes the diluted period blood theory. However there is no evidence this happened or is possible. So this cannot be submitted to the CCRC.
He also believes the COA evidence is 'bullshit'. But has no evidence there was an industrial frame. So this cannot be submitted to the CCRC.
Thanks Adam. I agree that Jeremy needs to sort a prescription out for some stylish industrial-framed glasses for when his case comes up.
Another one for the CT.
-
Thanks Adam. I agree that Jeremy needs to sort a prescription out for some stylish industrial-framed glasses for when his case comes up.
Another one for the CT.
(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/steampunk-industrial-border-frame-background-composite-image-old-pipe-cog-parts-forming-ideal-vintage-theme-169488418.jpg)
-
What would you have submitted to the CCRC?
Or do you think there is currently not enough for a submission?
I would have submitted the research paper :Homicide or Suicide? Gunshot Wound Interpretation: A Bayesian Approach.
My forensic breakthrough.
The NOTW contract proving Julie lied about a pre-trial agreement.
And an argument for Ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
I would have submitted the research paper :Homicide or Suicide? Gunshot Wound Interpretation: A Bayesian Approach.
My forensic breakthrough.
The NOTW contract proving Julie lied about a pre-trial agreement.
And an argument for Ineffective assistance of counsel.
All of these will be dismissed.
-
I would have submitted the research paper :Homicide or Suicide? Gunshot Wound Interpretation: A Bayesian Approach.
My forensic breakthrough.
The NOTW contract proving Julie lied about a pre-trial agreement.
And an argument for Ineffective assistance of counsel.
This is not new evidence. It is your own alternative source. Which can be countered by another source.
-
I would have submitted the research paper :Homicide or Suicide? Gunshot Wound Interpretation: A Bayesian Approach.
My forensic breakthrough.
The NOTW contract proving Julie lied about a pre-trial agreement.
And an argument for Ineffective assistance of counsel.
This was dismissed by the CT in 2016.
-
I would have submitted the research paper :Homicide or Suicide? Gunshot Wound Interpretation: A Bayesian Approach.
My forensic breakthrough.
The NOTW contract proving Julie lied about a pre-trial agreement.
And an argument for Ineffective assistance of counsel.
No contract has been found by Bamber's lawyers.
-
I would have submitted the research paper :Homicide or Suicide? Gunshot Wound Interpretation: A Bayesian Approach.
My forensic breakthrough.
The NOTW contract proving Julie lied about a pre-trial agreement.
And an argument for Ineffective assistance of counsel.
This is not new evidence. Just an opinion 35 years later.
-
Flooding the boards again I notice Adam. We've heard it all before ::)
-
No contract has been found by Bamber's lawyers.
How do you know?
-
How do you know?
It is not part of the CCRC submission. As stated by the OS.
-
Flooding the boards again I notice Adam. We've heard it all before ::)
And you don't.
You haven't seen it before. It is the 4 things David would submit to the CCRC, 35 years later in 2021.
-
It is not part of the CCRC submission. As stated by the OS.
That's because they don't know about it.
-
That's because they don't know about it.
You sent it to Bamber & Andrew Hunter.
-
You sent it to Bamber & Andrew Hunter.
I'm talking about the NOTW contract
-
I'm talking about the NOTW contract
So you have the document but the CT don't.
Let's hope the CCRC submission is successful.
-
David, we don't know that for sure. I honestly don't know the detail of what is in all of the points. I do know some of it, and a couple of the points claim to turn the case on its head pretty fundamentally, with supporting evidence; but, I have not seen this supporting evidence, I have only been provided with descriptions or summaries of it.
I have expressed a view privately as to what I believe are the prospects for this CCRC application, but I must admit that is based only on limited information and my general overall impression of things. I'm reluctant to express a view on the open forum because, as far as I am concerned, we can't predict the outcome of the application with any certainty.
As for the lawyers, I suppose they will submit what they are instructed to submit after giving their advice, and as long as the evidence underpinning submissions is authentic and they are not being asked to do anything unethical, they will adhere to their client's instructions.
I think when you have a member of the support group saying Essex police "know" Bamber is innocent you know you're dealing with someone seriously deluded.
-
I think when you have a member of the support group saying Essex police "know" Bamber is innocent you know you're dealing with someone seriously deluded.
Hi Alcoholly 👋
-
Hi Alcoholly 👋
How is the medication going David?
-
David is so chuffed he believes he has outed someone else, years after outing Scipio. And grassed on them.
He wants to remind himself whenever the poster posts.
-
Hi Alcoholly 👋
Hi Attention Defecit Hyperactivity Disorderd individual.
-
David is so chuffed he believes he has outed someone else, years after outing Scipio. And grassed on them.
He wants to remind himself whenever the poster posts.
It was actually Roch who first worked it out. But nevermind.
-
Hi Attention Defecit Hyperactivity Disorderd individual.
Catty Holly strikes again!
-
Catty Holly strikes again!
You started it but then given your condition you might not have noticed!
-
You started it but then given your condition you might not have noticed!
Yes. David did start it.
-
God I can't stand " yes " men. >:(
-
I'm normally even-tempered until I come across someone who needs to follow someone else or they're lost because they can't stand on their own two feet. Grrrrrrr.
-
I'm normally even-tempered until I come across someone who needs to follow someone else or they're lost because they can't stand on their own two feet. Grrrrrrr.
No idea what/who you are referring to?
-
No idea what/who you are referring to?
Adam of course.
-
Adam of course.
Still no real idea what you're talking about.
I'm interested in debating the case not individuals.
I'm thinking of putting myself forward for the role of moderator to bring some much needed discipline to the place 8)
-
You started it but then given your condition you might not have noticed!
You must have a reason for using multiple names
A bit of honesty would go amiss
Do you still believe Jeremy is innocent and if not why not
-
Still no real idea what you're talking about.
I'm interested in debating the case not individuals.
I'm thinking of putting myself forward for the role of moderator to bring some much needed discipline to the place 8)
I imagine there are one or two here who would thoroughly enjoy being disciplined............and one or two who definitely should be.
-
I imagine there are one or two here who would thoroughly enjoy being disciplined............and one or two who definitely should be.
I have a feeling discipline for QC might involve the birch being administered. Whereas for me, I might just get a hundred lines "I must not ... ... ...".
-
You must have a reason for using multiple names
I don't believe I have ever used multiple names on any forum and certainly not simultaneously. You appear to have two accounts here?
A bit of honesty would go amiss
You said it!
Do you still believe Jeremy is innocent and if not why not
I am afraid that's an impoosible question for anyone to answer.
Lets stick to debating the case and see what transpires.
-
I am afraid that's an impoosible question for anyone to answer.
You have made over 15,000 posts on various forums proclaiming JBs innocence. "Not a doubt in my mind the conviction will be quashed!!" you said on numerous occasions. If its "impoosible" for anyone to answer for your behaviour at present. Does that not confirm you have lost it?
-
You have made over 15,000 posts on various forums proclaiming JBs innocence. "Not a doubt in my mind the conviction will be quashed!!" you said on numerous occasions. If its "impoosible" for anyone to answer for your behaviour at present. Does that not confirm you have lost it?
Have I? Did I?
You seem to be assuming I had it the first place!?
Why are you so concerned with what I and/or others think? Its getting tiresome. Just put me on ignore or respond to my case related posts otherwise I will make a case for a ban.
-
Have I? Did I?
You no longer have any plausible deniability about of your identity. You are making an idiot out of yourself.
Why are you so concerned with what I and/or others think? Its getting tiresome. Just put me on ignore or respond to my case related posts otherwise I will make a case for a ban.
Good luck with that. ::)
-
Lets stick to debating the case and see what transpires.
Well I am interested in any take you have on the case that doesn't necessarily adhere to the 'official' version. Even if it's a guilt argument. Nevertheless I can see David's point. We would rather you reverted to your normal innocent position, even if that is anti-campaign team or anti-defence strategy. We can live with that, from a supporter.
-
David is so chuffed he believes he has outed someone else, years after outing Scipio. And grassed on them.
He wants to remind himself whenever the poster posts.
The one time I praise David, it is then claimed Lookout (yes Lookout) & Roch spotted Holly & Scipio under other guises. Although I don't recall seeing these posts.
David sure hammered the points home & grassed to the moderator about Scipio.
-
I have a feeling discipline for QC might involve the birch being administered. Whereas for me, I might just get a hundred lines "I must not ... ... ...".
Oooooooooooo.....a bit of DISCIPLINE...!
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a4/3a/73/a43a73e29f38575d12100d19968d94e9.jpg)
-
The one time I praise David, it is then claimed Lookout (yes Lookout) & Roch spotted Holly & Scipio under other guises. Although I don't recall seeing these posts.
David sure hammered the points home & grassed to the moderator about Scipio.
As David has been very quick to vilify other posters. One has to wonder if this has been an attempt to cover his own personality disorder, about which I was unaware until CC revealed it. My grateful thanks to CC.
-
As David has been very quick to vilify other posters. One has to wonder if this has been an attempt to cover his own personality disorder, about which I was unaware until CC revealed it. My grateful thanks to CC.
I mentioned it recently after David kept calling another poster he met once, Alcoholly.
David is a guilter. You and Caroline are the reason he made a forum stance change.
-
I mentioned it recently after David kept calling another poster he met once, Alcoholly.
David is a guilter. You and Caroline are the reason he made a forum stance change.
Thanks for that, Adam. I've had him on ignore for a long time, but recently, from other posters' quotes, I've been able to piece together what his game is about. It's beginning to look like, in order to hide his own 'stuff', he's deliberately bought other posters' characters into question.
-
I mentioned it recently after David kept calling another poster he met once, Alcoholly.
David is a guilter. You and Caroline are the reason he made a forum stance change.
What a load of BS
-
What a load of BS
David the forum knows you attempted a secret stance changed so you could goad Caroline & Jane over their 'open' stance change. Quoting their 5 year old posts.
Caroline & Jane were no longer moderators.