Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: andrea on March 08, 2012, 04:53:PM
-
I have just had a phone call off Vic, he and harts have been banned from the forum. Vic would like to say that anyone who has his number is more than welcome to stay intouch.
Big mistake getting shut of vic and harts, both excellent posters, so the forum will now be one sided except for my self and nick, tut tut. I can hear the bell tolling already.
-
I have just had a phone call off Vic, he and harts have been banned from the forum. Vic would like to say that anyone who has his number is more than welcome to stay intouch.
Big mistake getting shut of vic and harts, both excellent posters, so the forum will now be one sided except for my self and nick, tut tut. I can hear the bell tolling already.
How the fuck would you like to be on the receiving end of all the abuse I have been getting from them bastards - the big mistake was that they attacked me on my own forum, if anyone is not happy then leave..
-
Stop telling lies and making up stories then..... Muppet.
Bamber is guilty, end of.
-
Stop telling lies and making up stories then..... Muppet.
Bamber is guilty, end of.
Bye, Muppet brain, find something else more useful to do with your time...
-
For anyone who is in any doubt about Bambers innocence or not, based purely upon whether a silencer was fitted to the guns barrel, I take this opportunity to remind everyone that when the rifles barrel was photographed in various locations atop Sheila's body, the thread on the end of the guns barrel was exposed and that this new evidence obtained in Arizona confirms that the entry wounds were made without a silencer being fitted to the end of the barrel - therefore, this new evidence that a silencer was not used to shoot Sheila is backed up by the crime scene photographs taken by the police of the rifle atop Sheila's body and against her neck in different positions minus a silencer...
-
Andrea instead of taking pot shots at Mike why don't you sort out your friend Shona who seems to think it's clever to abuse anyone she feels like. She is a disgrace
In your opinion Jeremy is guilty not that it counts for much
-
I am not taking sides and certainly do not agree with members making personal attacks against others on the forum, however, I did think their posts were of value to the forum. I did not agree with most of what they said but it was nice to hear their views on why they thought JB was guilty. I also learned a little more about the family because of what they had to say.
I must say Mike that the information on this site is excellent and as a newbie I have and am still learning a lot, but just because members have differing opinions to you that does not mean that they should be banned. If you want this forum to just have members who agree with what you are saying all of the time then you will not have a forum. I think you are trying to control what members say and this should not be able to happen. Your language to other people is not acceptable and if Andrea had said that to you then she would have been banned but as the owner of the forum you will not. Very very unfair.
I am not happy but will not leave so there if you want to ban me you can. I will, however, offer my full sincere apologies if personal attacks have been made and led you to your decision.
-
I am not taking sides and certainly do not agree with members making personal attacks against others on the forum, however, I did think their posts were of value to the forum. I did not agree with most of what they said but it was nice to hear their views on why they thought JB was guilty. I also learned a little more about the family because of what they had to say.
I must say Mike that the information on this site is excellent and as a newbie I have and am still learning a lot, but just because members have differing opinions to you that does not mean that they should be banned. If you want this forum to just have members who agree with what you are saying all of the time then you will not have a forum. I think you are trying to control what members say and this should not be able to happen. Your language to other people is not acceptable and if Andrea had said that to you then she would have been banned but as the owner of the forum you will not. Very very unfair.
I am not happy but will not leave so there if you want to ban me you can. I will, however, offer my full sincere apologies if personal attacks have been made and led you to your decision.
Well, thanks for your point of view, but for my part I am not taking any more crap from anybody, if you could see the abuse I am getting from everywhere you might understand why I took the decision I did. The other thing is these people have been deliberately trying to goad and wind me up to try and get the sort of reactions that I responded with to try and get the forum shut down, because they don't like the information and evidence that is being posted or talked about. The only way to prevent this from succeeding is to ban individuals who take the approach they took. I am not normally keen to ban anyone but they have gone too far, and in any event they can always set up their own forum and talk amongst their selves, say what they want to each other, call me all the names under the sun, but at least they will be doing it on their own forum, so I wish them luck in that particular quest...
Of course anyone can choose to leave this forum at any stage, I have no control over that unless anyone gets abusive then of course i will ban them immediately because I am not putting up with it any more, and I am fed up of being drawn into using the kind of language these individuals have been drawing from me. Let them wind each other up, in their own little space, and leave me to have my say here on my own forum...
-
Gillian I think we have all lost our temper on the forum and I expect they will come back
I dont appreciate Andreas comment Jeremy Bamber is guilty end of!!!!
Great debate
-
Police took these pictures of the rifles barrel on Sheila's body at a time when there was no silencer, and no end cap on the thread on the end of the guns barrel, and this is consistent with the findings obtained during tests carried out in Arizona:-
-
The wounds on Sheila's neck were made by the end of the rifles barrel, minus its end cap or the silencer, so there can be little if any doubt about whether or not there was a silencer fitted at the time Sheila was shot on either, or both occasions?
-
The wounds on Sheila's neck were made by the end of the rifles barrel, minus its end cap or the silencer, so there can be little if any doubt about whether or not there was a silencer fitted at the time Sheila was shot on either, or both occasions?
Since a silencer was not fitted to the end of the guns barrel at the time Sheila was shot twice, how could her blood have got into the silencer and be used as if it somehow or in someway proves that Sheila did not kill herself?
-
Thats really weird.......the Boss saying they should get their own forum?I was thinking just that the other day.On their own they are great,but when both on the forum together,they tend to get a little braver and are prone to gang up a little on other members?
It was interesting to read Gillians post regarding vic and hartleys "insights" into the relatives,as how they portray them and how they are portrayed in their own statements and in books etc,just simply do not tally?
Anyway,Im sure they will be back at some point?
-
Since a silencer was not fitted to the end of the guns barrel at the time Sheila was shot twice, how could her blood have got into the silencer and be used as if it somehow or in someway proves that Sheila did not kill herself?
It was the silencer evidence and the blood found inside it, and the testimony of prosecution experts who testified to the effect that this blood could only have got into the silencer by a process of a little known phenomena known as back-spatter, at the time Sheila died in the bedroom, yet because evidence is now available to show that a silencer was not fitted to the guns barrel at the time either of the two shots had been inflicted where does that leave the prosecutions case, since now that it can be shown by expert opinion that a silencer was not fitted to the gun, to be pondered is exactly how the blood which was supposedly unique and exclusive to Sheila managed to get into a silencer which was not used in the shootings?
-
Mike, wish you'd stop putting those pics of Sheila in to the threads - I often read the posts late at night so keep seeing Sheila's face when I go to sleep!!!!! :'(
-
It was the silencer evidence and the blood found inside it, and the testimony of prosecution experts who testified to the effect that this blood could only have got into the silencer by a process of a little known phenomena known as back-spatter, at the time Sheila died in the bedroom, yet because evidence is now available to show that a silencer was not fitted to the guns barrel at the time either of the two shots had been inflicted where does that leave the prosecutions case, since now that it can be shown by expert opinion that a silencer was not fitted to the gun, to be pondered is exactly how the blood which was supposedly unique and exclusive to Sheila managed to get into a silencer which was not used in the shootings?
Why did the relatives make such a meal about claiming they saw blood on the end of the silencer, and paint?
-
;D yeah yeah I know.... don't read the posts late at night..... ::)
-
It was the silencer evidence and the blood found inside it, and the testimony of prosecution experts who testified to the effect that this blood could only have got into the silencer by a process of a little known phenomena known as back-spatter, at the time Sheila died in the bedroom, yet because evidence is now available to show that a silencer was not fitted to the guns barrel at the time either of the two shots had been inflicted where does that leave the prosecutions case, since now that it can be shown by expert opinion that a silencer was not fitted to the gun, to be pondered is exactly how the blood which was supposedly unique and exclusive to Sheila managed to get into a silencer which was not used in the shootings?
Alot of experts do not even agree with the phenomena of "backspatter".
For that evidence to be plausable,I would have expected the twins and Ralphs blood to have been present too?
-
;D yeah yeah I know.... don't read the posts late at night..... ::)
Jf71 they give me nightmares too!!!
-
Alot of experts do not even agree with the phenomena of "backspatter".
For that evidence to be plausable,I would have expected the twins and Ralphs blood to have been present too?
My understanding was that at the time of the trial in October 1986, it wasn't so much of a case that experts from both camps disagreed about the possibility of backspatter having occurred to explain the presence of blood inside the silencer, in as much as who's blood it was?
The only difference of opinion the way I see it, was who's blood got into the silencer by that phenomena, not that the silencer could not have been used?
-
Mike, wish you'd stop putting those pics of Sheila in to the threads - I often read the posts late at night so keep seeing Sheila's face when I go to sleep!!!!! :'(
Well, sometimes it is necessary to post a picture to make a better point in a post...
-
Now that tests have been carried out in Arizona and it has been established a silencer was not used when Sheila was shot, then of course the blood inside the silencer could not have been unique and exclusive to Sheila?
It had to be blood from one or other of the other four victims, which is precisely that which was argued by Jeremy's legal team at the time of the original trial?
-
Why did the relatives make such a meal about claiming they saw blood on the end of the silencer, and paint?
The relatives made alot of noise to the police regarding the silencer before it was "allegedly" found by DB.I guess this stemmed from the fact that AP remembered that the silencer was fitted to the rifle when he visited whf on the penultimate weekend of the murders?So,therefore assuming that it was still fitted to the rifle on the night of the murders?The introduction of the silencer was "just what the doctor ordered",when no other evidence could be found,by the relatives,to put JB in the frame.
-
I a little confused?
If the blood was not "planted" in the silencer,then are the defence saying that Sheila used the rifle with silencer attached,on her victims,and then removed it when she came to commit suicide.
But didnt the tests in Arizona show that the rifle,minus the silencer,were responsible for the burns on Ralphs back?
-
Now that tests have been carried out in Arizona and it has been established a silencer was not used when Sheila was shot, then of course the blood inside the silencer could not have been unique and exclusive to Sheila?
It had to be blood from one or other of the other four victims, which is precisely that which was argued by Jeremy's legal team at the time of the original trial?
Mike,it is surely more important the Arizona tests prove that the silencer was not fitted when RB was shot and beaten.therefore IMO there would of been no need for SC to remove and replace the silencer in the gun cupboard before taking her own life?
-
Is the suggestion that the burn marks were caused by a rifle with the end piece attached and the diameter is smaller than marks made by a moderator attachment ?
-
Is the suggestion that the burn marks were caused by a rifle with the end piece attached and the diameter is smaller than marks made by a moderator attachment ?
As I understand,no silencer,no end cap.
-
Is there any mention of the allen key (that was needed to remove the silencer) being found near any of the bodies?
-
The relatives made alot of noise to the police regarding the silencer before it was "allegedly" found by DB.I guess this stemmed from the fact that AP remembered that the silencer was fitted to the rifle when he visited whf on the penultimate weekend of the murders?So,therefore assuming that it was still fitted to the rifle on the night of the murders?The introduction of the silencer was "just what the doctor ordered",when no other evidence could be found,by the relatives,to put JB in the frame.
I like this suggestion about why the relatives pinned all their hopes on the silencer being fitted to the guns barrel because of Anthony Pargeters sighting of the Bamber rifle, silencer, and telescopic site in the gun cupboard, on the penultimate week-end before the shootings. I can see that the relatives must have been talking amongst themselves as you can expect and it must have come out about the silencer being fitted to the guns barrel when last seen by Anthony Pargeter, as described?
Hence...
Once keys to whf were handed over to Ann Eaton on the evening of 9th August 1985, the relatives started to nosey around at the scene, and this resulted in the find of the Bamber silencer in the gun cupboard, which in turn caused Robert Boutflour to report it to the police on 12th August 1985, which caused DS 'Stan' Jones to say "What Silencer", since he was not aware that there were two silencers, kept at whf, he only thought there was one silencer (the one he took possession of from the scene on 7th August 1985) and that the silencer he took possession of (SBJ/1) was the Bamber one, but it now turns out to be the Pargeter one?
The one found in the gun cupboard by the relatives on 10th August 1985, was actually the Bamber silencer (DRB/1)...
-
Is there any mention of the allen key (that was needed to remove the silencer) being found near any of the bodies?
I think we have been told that the silencer was simply able to "unscrew" from the rifle?
However,I could be wrong?
-
Mike ,when are you going to show us how bountflower got hold of the end cap?
-
In any event:-
neither of these two silencers, (a) the one found by DS 'Stan' Jones at the scene on 7th August 1985 (SBJ/1), nor (b) the one found by the relatives in the gun cupboard on 10th August 1985 (DRB/1) was fitted to the barrel of the rifle at the time Sheila was shot and killed in the bedroom...
-
Mike ,when are you going to show us how blountflower got hold of the end cap?
I will post one of the documentary references to it later tonight...
-
I will post one of the documentary references to it later tonight...
Thank you. I find this quite intriguing
-
I think we have been told that the silencer was simply able to "unscrew" from the rifle?
However,I could be wrong?
thanks Tyler x
-
In any event:-
neither of these two silencers, (a) the one found by DS 'Stan' Jones at the scene on 7th August 1985 (SBJ/1), nor (b) the one found by the relatives in the gun cupboard on 10th August 1985 (DRB/1) was fitted to the barrel of the rifle at the time Sheila was shot and killed in the bedroom...
At the time the Bamber silencer was handed over to DS 'Stan' Jones on the evening of 12th August 1985 by Peter Eaton, the relatives had no idea that the police already had one of the silencers, until Pargeter broke the news to them that his own silencer was kept at whf and as yet he didn't know what had happened to it?
-
At the time the Bamber silencer was handed over to DS 'Stan' Jones on the evening of 12th August 1985 by Peter Eaton, the relatives had no idea that the police already had one of the silencers, until Pargeter broke the news to them that his own silencer was kept at whf and as yet he didn't know what had happened to it?
Pargeter got his (SBJ/1) silencer back at the beginning of October 1985, after the Bamber silencer (DRB/1) was put into the fray and the blood and paint allocated to it?
-
The funny thing about those burn marks on the back of Ralph's neck, is that they were made by the exposed thread barrel end, minus its end cap, or a silencer...
-
According to the evidence formed as part of the prosecutions case, Sheila had died last...
yet...
if true, how was/is it that the burn marks on the back of Ralph's neck were made by the barrel of the rifle minus its end cap or a silencer, and in order for the blood found inside the silencer to be unique and exclusive to Sheila somebody would have had to screw the silencer back onto the barrel of the rifle in time to shoot Sheila and kill her and then take the silencer off and do all the impossible things the prosecution said Sheila would have had to have done, if she had killed herself?
But...
Wounds made to Sheila's neck were made by the rifles barrel minus its end cap or a silencer...
-
Well done for banning that horrible wretch Hartley, Mike. Many of his posts were abusive and offensive. He broke more forum rules than I've had hot dinners. Such was Hartley's arrogance that he thought that he was untouchable and could do just as he liked here. Good riddance, Hartley! Vic used to be more reasonable, but he had begun taking his cues from Hartley's abuse. Hartley and Vic, you have only yourselves to blame.
I didn't particularly like having to ban either, but they went out to wind me up and got me bad mouthing back at them which for my part was out of order, but I am simply not going to put up with anyone goading anyone on my site, especially as there is currently a campaign to try and get this forum shut down...
-
how can they get this forum shut down i dont see how they can.
-
how can they get this forum shut down i dont see how they can.
They are trying to get it shut down because of the photographs being shown, by claiming they are being posted disrespectfully, but that is definitely not the case, the photographs have been posted and will continue to be posted to make specific points about irregularities in the prosecution case...
I know that the photographs are upsetting, I don't need anyone to tell me that, of course they are...
But sometimes you have to to look at things which are upsetting to get to the truth, and this is one of those occasions...
-
yes but i dont see any legal way they can get it shut down unless they own the copyright on those photos.
disrespectful or not there is no crime in British law of being disrespectful.
-
yes but i dont see any legal way they can get it shut down unless they own the copyright on those photos.
disrespectful or not there is no crime in British law of being disrespectful.
Well. Essex police are not telling the truth about how many photographs were taken, and they have got rid of some of the negatives, they have falsified accounts about how many albums existed and deliberately sought to mislead Bambers legal team before the trial, at the last appeal and even now up to the present moment in time...
None of the images have been posted with a view to the posting of them being disrespectful, they have been posted with a view to making a specific point...
-
Andrea instead of taking pot shots at Mike why don't you sort out your friend Shona who seems to think it's clever to abuse anyone she feels like. She is a disgrace
In your opinion Jeremy is guilty not that it counts for much
What's Shona got to do with it Jackie? She doesn't post on this forum.
I am dumbfounded with what I've just read re. Vic and Hartley being banned.
I can't see how Neil and Grahame could continue as admins if this is true :(
Mike really seems to have jumped the shark :-\
-
Well, thanks for your point of view, but for my part I am not taking any more crap from anybody, if you could see the abuse I am getting from everywhere you might understand why I took the decision I did. The other thing is these people have been deliberately trying to goad and wind me up to try and get the sort of reactions that I responded with to try and get the forum shut down, because they don't like the information and evidence that is being posted or talked about.
Could you post evidence of this Mike?
-
Anyway,Im sure they will be back at some point?
How so, if they're banned?
-
The burn marks on the back of Ralph's neck, and the two entry wounds on Sheila's neck and the photographs of the guns barrel in different positions against Shela's neck, minus its end cap or a silencer, plus the fact that Sheila died after Ralph, all point to the fact that Sheila's blood could not have got into the silencer by a process of backspatter at the time she was killed, for all the reasons touched upon or given, aforementioned...
-
On their own they are great,but when both on the forum together,they tend to get a little braver and are prone to gang up a little on other members?
They are two of less than 5 regular dissenters - how can they gang up given the overwhelming numbers of pro-Bamber posters?
-
Well done for banning that horrible wretch Hartley, Mike. Many of his posts were abusive and offensive. He broke more forum rules than I've had hot dinners. Such was Hartley's arrogance that he thought that he was untouchable and could do just as he liked here. Good riddance, Hartley! Vic used to be more reasonable, but he had begun taking his cues from Hartley's abuse. Hartley and Vic, you have only yourselves to blame.
The pair of them turned very sour and together ganged on mike and tried to get him to snap, i still have no proof they know the relatives and i dont really care now or then, both chose to join the forum neither were asked or ordered, the photos of Sheila are upsetting however they are posted on the forum in good faith and are important to the debates we are having, both went much too far and neither are worthy of a return so i guess its back to debating if there were any reason for their rudeness it could well be the positive current position of events in favour of jeremy.
-
Well, sometimes it is necessary to post a picture to make a better point in a post...
Mike... Might a possible solution be to number every pic that you have of Sheila? Then, when proposing an argument which makes reference to particular photo, you could reference the number. You could even provide a link by using the number (in the same manner that 'Reader' posts their links).
If you choose to do the above, it would give posters the option of clicking on the link. The chances are, posters will probably click on the links in question, if the arguments being presented are inviting opinions from posters in relation to comparisons. But at least it will have been their own choice to do so.
The current method you are using is leaving you prone to criticism due to 'overkill' etc. I realise that's a poor turn of phrase given the subject of my post but it is also an apt turn of phrase.
By giving posters a choice to click upon the link for a particular crime scene pic, it may actually encourage scrutiny and examination among some posters, who might normally take umbrage at not having a choice.
-
Mike, wish you'd stop putting those pics of Sheila in to the threads - I often read the posts late at night so keep seeing Sheila's face when I go to sleep!!!!! :'(
I agree, and have raised this issue before. Mike seems obsessed with posting unecessary pictures of the victims when they are not relevant to his point :(
-
Well done for banning that horrible wretch Hartley, Mike. Many of his posts were abusive and offensive. He broke more forum rules than I've had hot dinners. Such was Hartley's arrogance that he thought that he was untouchable and could do just as he liked here. Good riddance, Hartley! Vic used to be more reasonable, but he had begun taking his cues from Hartley's abuse. Hartley and Vic, you have only yourselves to blame.
Oh dear :(
-
I agree, and have raised this issue before. Mike seems obsessed with posting unecessary pictures of the victims when they are not relevant to his point :(
From my point of view they are always relevant, I can't speak for you or the others who see the pictures but misunderstand the point I was trying to make, as evident by your comments...
-
Mike... Might a possible solution be to number every pic that you have of Sheila? Then, when proposing an argument which makes reference to particular photo, you could reference the number. You could even provide a link by using the number (in the same manner that 'Reader' posts their links).
If you choose to do the above, it would give posters the option of clicking on the link. The chances are, posters will probably click on the links in question, if the arguments being presented are inviting opinions from posters in relation to comparisons. But at least it will have been their own choice to do so.
The current method you are using is leaving you prone to criticism due to 'overkill' etc. I realise that's a poor turn of phrase given the subject of my post but it is also an apt turn of phrase.
By giving posters a choice to click upon the link for a particular crime scene pic, it may actually encourage scrutiny and examination among some posters, who might normally take umbrage at not having a choice.
Sounds like a good idea, but what will the opposition then come up with?
They don't like anything that puts their case in a poor light...
-
Without the silencer, blood and paint evidence linked to it, the prosecutions case is zilch...
-
BIG MISTAKE - too right it was, they merged the evidence from two different identical looking silencers into the same one, and tried to hide and conceal the documentary evidence which shows and confirms that two different silencers were sent to the lab' on two separate occasions, one on 30th August 1985 (blood) and the other on 20th September 1985 (paint). They went to all these lengths only to find some 26 years later that evidence had been obtained to prove a silencer was not fitted to the guns barrel at the time Sheila was shot and killed in the bedroom...
-
What's happened to Andrea's account? Has she been banned too?
She's not appearing on the list of registered users and her profile can't receive PMs :(
-
A lot of different people (all prosecution witnesses) went to a lot of trouble to get the silencer, blood and paint evidence into the prosecutions case, so that the police could prosecute Jeremy for the murders. It was this combination of evidence that helped to secure these convictions for these murders after the case of trying to pin the murders on a hitman who had been paid by Bamber to wipe out his family fell into the gutter...
Seems like, once hitman theory was out of the window, the silencer, blood and paint evidence was introduced as the way forward to get their man...
-
Sounds like a good idea, but what will the opposition then come up with?
They don't like anything that puts their case in a poor light...
Mike,
There was some bear baiting going on.. but you walked right in to the trap. A grizzled campaigner shouldn't be that easy to snare. You could have boxed clever instead.
-
Police have to yet come up with any explanation for why the guns barrel (minus the end cap and or silencer) was photographed in different positions atop Sheila's body and against her neck...
All that the police have said is that they did not touch or move anything (except for the movement of Sheila's right hand to allow PC Bird to take pictures of the mark on the front lower part of her nightdress) until after PC Bird had finished taking all of his pictures, yet the gun jumps about all over the body all by itself - amazing...
-
Mike,
There was some bear baiting going on.. but you walked right in to the trap. A grizzled campaigner shouldn't be that easy to snare. You could have boxed clever instead.
its a learning process...
-
Police have to yet come up with any explanation for why the guns barrel (minus the end cap and or silencer) was photographed in different positions atop Sheila's body and against her neck...
All that the police have said is that they did not touch or move anything (except for the movement of Sheila's right hand to allow PC Bird to take pictures of the mark on the front lower part of her nightdress) until after PC Bird had finished taking all of his pictures, yet the gun jumps about all over the body all by itself - amazing...
I'm suprised they have not tried to blame Jeremy for the erratic way the gun jumps around all over the place in these police photogroahs?
What was it the CCRC said about statements being more reliable that pictures?
It beats me where they get these explanations from, it looks like they can make anything up and say it as though its true?
-
It beats me where they get these explanations from, it looks like they can make anything up and say it as though its true?
Surely the irony is not lost on you Mike?
-
Police have to yet come up with any explanation for why the guns barrel (minus the end cap and or silencer) was photographed in different positions atop Sheila's body and against her neck...
All that the police have said is that they did not touch or move anything (except for the movement of Sheila's right hand to allow PC Bird to take pictures of the mark on the front lower part of her nightdress) until after PC Bird had finished taking all of his pictures, yet the gun jumps about all over the body all by itself - amazing...
What i can do mike is tone down my view of the police but im having a hard time accepting that they touched nothing be taking pictures , the video picture of Sheila says different.
-
What's happened to Andrea's account? Has she been banned too?
She's not appearing on the list of registered users and her profile can't receive PMs :(
Just received an email from Andrea that she's also been banned,
Guess that's it then - the end of an era.
Good luck to those of you who feel happiest when your world view is not challenged.
Personally I feel I learn more when it is :(
-
I'm suprised they have not tried to blame Jeremy for the erratic way the gun jumps around all over the place in these police photogroahs?
What was it the CCRC said about statements being more reliable that pictures?
It beats me where they get these explanations from, it looks like they can make anything up and say it as though its true?
It looks that way to me too.
-
[quote author=bob link=topic=2374.msg72873#msg72873 date=1331235603]
What's Shona got to do with it Jackie? She doesn't post on this forum.
I am dumbfounded with what I've just read re. Vic and Hartley being banned.
I can't see how Neil and Grahame could continue as admins if this is true :(
Mike really seems to have jumped the shark :-\
[/quote]
Bob
Andrea has decided to adopt the same attitude as the nasty vile Shona JB is guilty END OF
Shona the nasty vile coward she is used the same attitude JB is definately guilty using an accomplice but not once did she ever explain this all the time she was on this forum, although I pushed her many times
Birds of a feather the pair of them
Shona was nice to my face and nice in her last pm to me but didnt have the guts to be nasty to me here
They all come out with the same crap about me that I worship at the alter of Bamber. Ridiculous. thats Shona, Andrea and Ferdia Shepherds getting together and saying the same thing about me. They make me sick
How dare a drunken witch say personal things about me being a spinster because its complete rubbish and fantasy. Why should I post all about my family on here where morons invade this space.
They need to craw back where they came from
-
bob, given that the situation between Vic, Hartley and Mike had become a bit strained, I'm not sure Andi helped matters by posting this...
Stop telling lies and making up stories then..... Muppet.
Bamber is guilty, end of.
-
Bob the other thing is Andrea calling Mike a muppet, where is she qualified to say that
-
bob, given that the situation between Vic, Hartley and Mike had become a bit strained, I'm not sure Andi helped matters by posting this...
Bob the other thing is Andrea calling Mike a muppet, where is she qualified to say that
I think we've all posted in anger and woken to regret it Jackie/Rochie.
And yet we've not been banned for our sins :-\
-
I think we've all posted in anger and woken to regret it Jackie/Rochie.
And yet we've not been banned for our sins :-\
Fair point bob. I wasn't advocating that anyone be banned.
-
To be honest Bob I am pretty mad with Mike if he bans them permanently because I might miss my chance to gloat in a few weeks
Bob Shona is meant to be your friend do you find her behavior acceptable
If you haven't seen the posts I can put them up they are disgusting
-
To be honest Bob I am pretty mad with Mike if he bans them permanently because I might miss my chance to gloat in a few weeks.
What's your thinking re. gloating in a few weeks Jackie - is there something afoot that makes you believe JB will walk?
-
Bob three high profile people from different parts of the judicial system have told me he will walk but we will have to wait to see what happens
-
Bob I was watching that interview with Simon today at the BBC and it's so surreal because it wasn't till the beginning of last summer Simon and I started messaging each other and he wished me good luck with the fight for JB then he saw my little home made video and we were messaging a lot and today I am listening to him on BBC talking about the case
-
I think we've all posted in anger and woken to regret it Jackie/Rochie.
And yet we've not been banned for our sins :-\
Hartley and Vic were not posting in anger, Bob, they were too systematic in their attacks on Mike and and enjoying it too much for this to be brushed off as temper tantrums.
I twice closed down my account here because I felt I was virtually being made an unwilling accomplice of Hartley's offensive abuse of Mike, Grahame and, at times, NGB, as it was impossible to avoid seeing this, Hartley posted everywhere, sometimes posting 70 times a day.
By logging on here, I felt I was adding to the audience that Hartley craves. I was angry that no action was taken regarding Hartley's - and, later, Vic's and Andrea's offensive posts and numerous breaches of forum rules.
Hartley's bullying - and Vic was beginning to emulate him - turned this forum into a unpleasant place to be. How many members Left the forum and did not return because of this?
I suspect that Hartley and co were intent on damaging this forum; because they do not want the gross injustice of Jeremy Bamber's trial to be brought out into the open and they are intent on damaging Jeremy's chance of an Appeal.
Well, they failed and I hope they never return.
Modified in the light of Nick's comments
-
all 3 were extremely unpleasant individuals in my view and thoroughly dishonest and disruptive.
they fully deserve the permanent bans and glad to see the back of them.
-
Bob I was watching that interview with Simon today at the BBC and it's so surreal because it wasn't till the beginning of last summer Simon and I started messaging each other and he wished me good luck with the fight for JB then he saw my little home made video and we were messaging a lot and today I am listening to him on BBC talking about the case
I haven't seen that interview Jackie - I shall have to seek it out.
I still wonder, though, why you "pros" aren't more suspicious of his involvement - out of the blue a man with a speciality in "covert policing, intelligence and witness protection" who rarely defends, has shown an oddly altruistic interest in JB's case... if I was a paranoid JBer I'd be asking some questions...
-
all 3 were extremely unpleasant individuals in my view and thoroughly dishonest and disruptive.
they fully deserve the permanent bans and glad to see the back of them.
Whereas you only got a 2 week suspension?
-
I haven't seen that interview Jackie - I shall have to seek it out.
I still wonder, though, why you "pros" aren't more suspicious of his involvement - out of the blue a man with a speciality in "covert policing, intelligence and witness protection" who rarely defends, has shown an oddly altruistic interest in JB's case... if I was a paranoid JBer I'd be asking some questions...
Come on, Bob, you've tried this tactic too many times, it doesn't work, mate, we aren't listening to you.
-
Come on, Bob, you've tried this tactic too many times, it doesn't work, mate, we aren't listening to you.
On the contrary. I think I've only ever posted about this once, and don't recall ever getting much of a response - I stand to be corrected of course.
And you are listening to me - as evidenced by the fact you responded.
-
Bob three high profile people from different parts of the judicial system have told me he will walk but we will have to wait to see what happens
Interesting, I wonder who they are? Don't tell me, leave me guessing, Jackie.
-
and only a cuple of days ago we were all geting on so well.
-
Mike ,when are you going to show us how bountflower got hold of the end cap?
Here's one documentary reference to the metal cap from the end of the rifles barrel, that David Boutflour handed to police on 14th September 1985, along with other exhibits:-
-
It happens , i always found hartley calm till his attack on jackie and he left i never shared his views .
-
Metal cap that fits onto the end of the rifles barrel was found in the gun cupboard at whf on 14th September 1985, by David Boutflour, same place that Bamber silencer was found on 10th August 1985...
Both the metal cap and the silencer could be fitted to the end of the guns barrel, and both these items were found in the same gun cupboard, and this suggests in the strongest possible way that neither was fitted to the end of the guns barrel at the time Ralph and Sheila were shot, because both items (end cap and silencer) were in the gun cupboard where they were normally kept, at the time of the shootings...
-
I will post other documentary proof about the existence and finding of the metal end cap that fitted the end of the rifles barrel during the course of tomorrow evening
-
Just received an email from Andrea that she's also been banned,
Guess that's it then - the end of an era.
Good luck to those of you who feel happiest when your world view is not challenged.
Personally I feel I learn more when it is :(
I agree Bob. x
-
Here's one documentary reference to the metal cap from the end of the rifles barrel, that David Boutflour handed to police on 14th September 1985, along with other exhibits:-
Is it known where the items were discovered.i of course assume he didn't supply the soil sample?
-
Is it known where the items were discovered.i of course assume he didn't supply the soil sample?
Metal cap found in gun cupboard at whf, 16:00hrs, on 14th September 1985, by David Boutflour, and handed to DC Oakey, at that tuime...
-
Metal cap found in gun cupboard at whf, 16:00hrs, on 14th September 1985, by David Boutflour, and handed to DC Oakey, at that time...
Funny how this metal cap became a court exhibit during the 1986 trial, yet nothing was known about it at the time, and no explanation has been officially forthcoming about how it ended up in police possession by 14th September 1985?
-
Metal cap found in gun cupboard at whf, 16:00hrs, on 14th September 1985, by David Boutflour, and handed to DC Oakey, at that tuime...
Lucky find ...........David Boutflour was so helpful in the investigation.
-
On the subject of banning members. Myself and Mike have crossed swords on a few occasions and things at times have been fairly heated.any "abuse" between us has always been on the public boards and I've often PM'd him prior to an aggressive post. I hope we understand each other as I admit I mainly post in the negative only as I believe that accurate information is essential. I hope Mike hasn't got to post another 10,000 though..... :) keep the good work up
-
Metal cap found in gun cupboard at whf, 16:00hrs, on 14th September 1985, by David Boutflour, and handed to DC Oakey, at that tuime...
Just for my clarification. What else was found / handed over at that time?
-
Funny how this metal cap became a court exhibit during the 1986 trial, yet nothing was known about it at the time, and no explanation has been officially forthcoming about how it ended up in police possession by 14th September 1985?
What I can't understand...
police supposedly find Sheila in the bedroom with a gun atop her body and there is nothing fitted to the end of the guns barrel, which is spotlessly clean and blood free, and three of four police officers search the gun cupboard that morning inside which we are being asked to believe the silencer and the end cap that could be fitted onto the barrel of the gun was hidden? Police did not find either exhibit on that day or on any other day before they gave the keys to the farmhouse back to Ann Eaton on evening of 9th August 1985? I can't understand why the relatives did not find the end cap at the same time they found the silencer, and why they should choose the find of the silencer over the find of the metal end cap, and decide which of the two was fitted to the end of the guns barrel at the time when Ralph was attacked in the kitchen, and Sheila shot and killed in the bedroom?
How could the relatives who were so meticulous in their pursuance of finding key pieces of evidence, miss the metal end cap inside the gun cupboard, where it remained until 14th September 1985 when David Boutflour found it there?
-
Funny how this metal cap became a court exhibit during the 1986 trial, yet nothing was known about it at the time, and no explanation has been officially forthcoming about how it ended up in police possession by 14th September 1985?
Can this end cap be positively attributed to the bamber rifle or can it also be fitted to the pargeter rifle,it must have the same thread after all?
-
Can this end cap be positively attributed to the bamber rifle or can it also be fitted to the pargeter rifle,it must have the same thread after all?
.22 semi-automatic Bamber rifle/.22 air rifle/.22 bolt action Pargeters rifle?
-
.22 semi-automatic Bamber rifle/.22 air rifle/.22 bolt action Pargeters rifle?
Reference to paint having been found on the end of the guns barrel is a reference to some paint being present upon this metal end cap that fitted on the end of the guns barrel, and the reason why on 8th August 1985, DI 'Ron' Cook took paint sample, RC/1...
-
Lucky find ...........David Boutflour was so helpful in the investigation.
8) 8) 8) :)
-
Lucky find ...........David Boutflour was so helpful in the investigation.
Yes, what a lucky find.
-
Lucky find ...........David Boutflour was so helpful in the investigation.
Wasnt he just!
Vortex..........I so wish that you would post more often!
There is reference to this "end cap" in CCs book (yes sorry,that book again).DB tells Colin something with regards to it,but cant remember what it was.Will have to have a look.
-
How so, if they're banned?
Because Mike may at some stage let them back? ::)
-
They are two of less than 5 regular dissenters - how can they gang up given the overwhelming numbers of pro-Bamber posters?
I didnt mind when they "ganged up" with regards to the case.They believe JB to be guilty,so that is expected.
I was referring to when it was to do with "other issues"!
-
Vortex is a top brilliant poster who used to always get the better of Hartley. They were great scraps
-
Whereas you only got a 2 week suspension?
On another site where Hartley helps out, anyone breaking the rules - and a ban on personal attacks is one of these - is allowed to return only at the discretion of the site manager (or owner?) and gets a life ban after a second offence.
Remind me, this is Hartley's....99th offence?
-
Vortex is a top brilliant poster who used to always get the better of Hartley. They were great scraps
I second that, Jackie! Vortex is brilliant. I second what Tyler has said too, we love you, Vortex, please post more often.
-
Vortex is a top brilliant poster who used to always get the better of Hartley. They were great scraps
Haha.Vortex definately knew what Hartley was all about!
-
i cant understand all this one minute you all love Hartley the next minute you hate him when he left of his own accord you all asked him to come back.
-
i cant understand all this one minute you all love Hartley the next minute you hate him when he left of his own accord you all asked him to come back.
I certainly did not!
Doesnt make any difference to me if he is here or not.
I hardly ever read his posts anyway.
-
i cant understand all this one minute you all love Hartley the next minute you hate him when he left of his own accord you all asked him to come back.
Don't fret, Nug Nug, just make the most of a peaceful forum while it lasts. It's great to have a rest from all of that screeching and teeth gnashing.
-
On another site where Hartley helps out, anyone breaking the rules - and a ban on personal attacks is one of these - is allowed to return only at the discretion of the site manager (or owner?) and gets a life ban after a second offence.
Remind me, this is Hartley's....99th offence?
what sight is that.
-
.22 semi-automatic Bamber rifle/.22 air rifle/.22 bolt action Pargeters rifle?
Is it not true,or am I misunderstood thet the "other" silencer is from the Pargeter rifle? If not, where does the "2nd silencer" belong to,weapon wise?
-
Is it not true,or am I misunderstood thet the "other" silencer is from the Pargeter rifle? If not, where does the "2nd silencer" belong to,weapon wise?
First silencer (SBJ/1) was/is silencer to Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle which was normally kept in downstairs toilet. The second silencer (DRB/1) was is the silencer belonging to Bamber rifle which was normally kept in the gun cupboard...
-
Hartley and Vic were not posting in anger, Bob, they were too systematic in their abuse and enjoying it too much for this to be brushed off as temper tantrums.
I twice closed down my account here because I felt I was virtually being made an unwilling accomplice of (1) Hartley's highly offensive abuse of Mike, Grahame and, at times, NGB - by being (2) forced to watch this. It was (3)impossible to avoid seeing it, Hartley was everywhere, sometimes posting 70 times a day.
By logging on here, I felt I was adding to the audience that Hartley craves, as so many abusive people do. I was angry that no action was taken regarding Hartley's - and, later, Vic's and Andrea's (4) highly offensive posts and countless breaches of forum rules.
(5) Those three bullies, Hartley - and to a lesser extent, Vic and Andrea - (6) turned this forum into a toxic place to be. How many members Left the forum and did not return because of this?
(7) I suspect that Hartley and co were intent on damaging and even destroying this forum; because they do not want the gross injustice of Jeremy Bamber's trial to be brought out into the open and they are intent on damaging Jeremy's chance of an Appeal.
Well, (8) they failed and (9) I hope they never return.
(1) Could you please post recent examples?
(2) Could you please explain how you were forced?
(3) Like the death photos of Sheila!
(4) Highly exaggerated imo!
(5) Again Highly exaggerated
(6) Just one opinion
(7) No proof at all
(8) You don't know that yet!
(9) The forum will imo be a more desolate place.
-
Vic and Hartley are to some extent experts on WHF and the relatives. They have first hand experience of the relatives as friends, in the case of Vic this contact is going back many years.
If Vic and Hartley sense blood on an issue with Mike, it is only natural that they will 'go in for the kill'.
Mike needs to present his arguments and then box clever in the event that his arguments are aggressively tested. If need be, Mike should concede on points where he has clearly taken the silver medal. However, there is much in this case that is open to interpretation, leaving plenty room for gold medals to be dished out on either side.
-
Vic and Hartley are to some extent experts on WHF and the relatives. They have first hand experience of the relatives as friends, in the case of Vic this contact is going back many years.
If Vic and Hartley sense blood on an issue with Mike, it is only natural that they will 'go in for the kill'.
Mike needs to present his arguments and then box clever in the event that his arguments are aggressively tested. If need be, Mike should concede on points where he has clearly taken the silver medal. However, there is much in this case that is open to interpretation, leaving plenty room for gold medals to be dished out on either side.
Roch a fair and diplomatic answer as ever! - similar to the suggestion you made about referencing photos to avoid them being splashed on the threads (and which appears to have been ignored).
I think the herd mentality has jumped on Mikes recent banning and is kicking the banned because they cannot respond (a pretty cowardly way)!
This Forum will soon become the JBSS (Jeremy Bamber Sycophant Society).
-
I have just had a phone call off Vic, he and harts have been banned from the forum. Vic would like to say that anyone who has his number is more than welcome to stay intouch.
Big mistake getting shut of vic and harts, both excellent posters, so the forum will now be one sided except for my self and nick, tut tut. I can hear the bell tolling already.
I have just seen this as I haven't been around. I'll have to study what is going on of course. But at first glance I don't think it was a good thing to have done. We need more members with opposite views (1) so as to get an all round view and (2) to stimulate debate. But as I said I haven't studied events that has brought the forum to this state of affairs?
-
I can only speak for my self but my own opinion is that I'd like to see bans rescinded. It's up to Mike. I don't buy the argument that it's an attempt to stifle an opposition view. This forum is awash with opposition views. It was a heat of the moment thing. It was a bit of goading and grandstanding that got of hand. If you removed the goading it would have been a very interesting argument.
-
What's Shona got to do with it Jackie? She doesn't post on this forum.
I am dumbfounded with what I've just read re. Vic and Hartley being banned.
I can't see how Neil and Grahame could continue as admins if this is true :(
Mike really seems to have jumped the shark :-\
Bob - this is a difficult situation and more complex than it may seem. In order to understand how Mike felt driven to ban three members it is necessary to have seen the posts which led to that. To my knowledge Mike has only ever in the past banned one member and all at the time saw the need for that in view of what had been posted. The problem now is that the posts leading up to the bans yesterday have been deleted (which I understand) so I will have to give a brief overview.
Before that I need to say that I am very sorry that this situation has arisen. The forum will in my view be weakened by the loss of the three members. I do hope it is possible for them to return, but that is Mike's decision. Hartley and Vic were knowledgeable about the case and closely connected with the family, which enabled them to provides certain insights. It was to this forum's credit that they both chose to be active here rather than frequenting Lamberton's forum. They both had contempt for Lamberton and wanted nothing to do with him. They recognised that this was the effective forum for genuine debate. They presented the "guilty" position and challenged Mike vigorously.
Mike has never had any problem with being challenged on the points he makes. He has not censored debate. He argues vigorously but does not take things personally when people present opposing arguments. Hartley had a tendency, which I have commented on before, to goad Mike. He seemed to like getting a reaction from Mike, which he sometimes succeeded in doing. Vic in the past presented arguments without goading.
Yesterday both Hartley and Vidvic were active on the forum. It is no secret that they know each other well outside the forum. They seemed to egg each other on in taunting Mike. They went far beyond robust challenge, their posts descended to insults and mockery. In the exchanges Mike was provoked into responding and using bad language. It was clear that this is what Hartley and Vic wanted to do, presumably in order to show Mike in a bad light. Putting it bluntly, they were taking the piss out of Mike. This went far beyond anything they had ever posted before, and it was very unattractive.
When I saw the posts I was surprised and disappointed. With anyone else I would have deleted posts but I have always taken the view that Mike is well able to take care of himself and that I should leave it to him to take action as he sees fit. With hindsight I wish I had intervened yesterday. I should have deleted the offending posts as soon as they appeared and sent a PM to Hartley and Vic. I saw too late that Mike had finally had enough and banned them both and deleted the posts. Andrea then unwisely posted attacking Mike. I do not think she had seen the posts before they were deleted and it was clear that Mike was very angry. He is the owner of the forum and the source of most of the huge amount of information on it. He has provided a forum where all views are tolerated. He deserves to be treated with respect and he was not yesterday. I think I would have lost my temper in the same way. Andrea found herself in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I have respect for Hartley, Vic and Andrea. Hartley and Vic in particular have added value to the debate here through their knowledge of the case and their connections with the family. I have got to know Vic and I like him. He is a genuine and a decent bloke. I do not agree with him about the case but I respect his views and he respects mine. I do feel Vic let himself down yesterday and privately I suspect he would admit that. I suspect that there was an element of pack mentality when Hartley and Vic were both active on the forum at the same time.
As I have said it is entirely up to Mike what he wants to do now. It is his forum and he is entitled to be treated with respect and not goaded or insulted. I hope Mike feels able to lift the bans. In future I will intervene to stop a situation developing as it did yesterday.
-
(1) Could you please post recent examples?
(2) Could you please explain how you were forced?
(3) Like the death photos of Sheila!
(4) Highly exaggerated imo!
(5) Again Highly exaggerated
(6) Just one opinion
(7) No proof at all
(8) You don't know that yet!
(9) The forum will imo be a more desolate place.
This is you opinion, I disagree. I'm too busy to do a detailed response now, it would take time to find the posts as Hartley has repeatedly deleted his account. I may reply another time.
-
Bob - this is a difficult situation and more complex than it may seem. In order to understand how Mike felt driven to ban three members it is necessary to have seen the posts which led to that. To my knowledge Mike has only ever in the past banned one member and all at the time saw the need for that in view of what had been posted. The problem now is that the posts leading up to the bans yesterday have been deleted (which I understand) so I will have to give a brief overview.
Before that I need to say that I am very sorry that this situation has arisen. The forum will in my view be weakened by the loss of the three members. I do hope it is possible for them to return, but that is Mike's decision. Hartley and Vic were knowledgeable about the case and closely connected with the family, which enabled them to provides certain insights. It was to this forum's credit that they both chose to be active here rather than frequenting Lamberton's forum. They both had contempt for Lamberton and wanted nothing to do with him. They recognised that this was the effective forum for genuine debate. They presented the "guilty" position and challenged Mike vigorously.
Mike has never had any problem with being challenged on the points he makes. He has not censored debate. He argues vigorously but does not take things personally when people present opposing arguments. Hartley had a tendency, which I have commented on before, to goad Mike. He seemed to like getting a reaction from Mike, which he sometimes succeeded in doing. Vic in the past presented arguments without goading.
Yesterday both Hartley and Vidvic were active on the forum. It is no secret that they know each other well outside the forum. They seemed to egg each other on in taunting Mike. They went far beyond robust challenge, their posts descended to insults and mockery. In the exchanges Mike was provoked into responding and using bad language. It was clear that this is what Hartley and Vic wanted to do, presumably in order to show Mike in a bad light. Putting it bluntly, they were taking the piss out of Mike. This went far beyond anything they had ever posted before, and it was very unattractive.
When I saw the posts I was surprised and disappointed. With anyone else I would have deleted posts but I have always taken the view that Mike is well able to take care of himself and that I should leave it to him to take action as he sees fit. With hindsight I wish I had intervened yesterdqay. I should have deleted the offending posts as soon as they appeared and sent a PM to Hartley and Vic. I saw too late that Mike had finally had enough and banned them both and deleted the posts. Andrea then unwisely posted attacking Mike. I do not think she had seen the posts before they were deleted and it was clear that Mike was very angry. He is the owner of the forum and the source of most of the huge amount of information on it. He has provided a forum where all views are tolerated. He deserves to be treated with respect and he was not yesterday. I think I would have lost my temper in the same way. Andrea found herself in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I have respect for Hartley, Vic and Andrea. Hartley and Vic in particular have added value to the debate here through their knowledge of the case and their connections with the family. I have got to know Vic and I like him. He is a genuine and a decent bloke. I do not agree with him about the case but I respect his views and he respects mine. I do feel Vic let himself down yesterday and privately I suspect he would admit that. I suspect that there was an element of pack mentality when Hartley and Vic were both active on the forum at the same time.
As I have said it is entirely up to Mike what he wants to do now. It is his forum and he is entitled to be treated with respect and not goaded or insulted. I hope Mike feels able to lift the bans. In future I will intervene to stop a situation developing as it did yesterday.
I see things different, if vic and hartley in some form know the family im sure you will agree they dont represent the family, i understand they want peace ,i find that hard to believe, mike was subject to a torrent of goading , how dare they attack the owner of the site , what they know of the family has nothing to do with the forum, the top left of the homepage is very clear.Andrea is normally quite easy going, she has recently changed her view on the case.
-
Rochy I think it's pretty obvious feeling are running high at the moment with a documentary coming up and a good chance of a referral, this could change a lot of people's lives forever.
I think Hartley and Vic are definitely more grumpy than usual but rather than attack Mike on things that cannot be proved either way they could ignore the topic.
I do think it's good to have pro's and antis
-
Police took these pictures of the rifles barrel on Sheila's body at a time when there was no silencer, and no end cap on the thread on the end of the guns barrel, and this is consistent with the findings obtained during tests carried out in Arizona:-
Mike, it still confuses me as to why the end nut is off the gun as shown clearly in the picture. The only reason that comes to mind was that it was taken off in order for the silencer to be fitted and when the silencer was taken off it was not screwed back? What are your thoughts on this?
-
Bob - this is a difficult situation and more complex than it may seem. In order to understand how Mike felt driven to ban three members it is necessary to have seen the posts which led to that. To my knowledge Mike has only ever in the past banned one member and all at the time saw the need for that in view of what had been posted. The problem now is that the posts leading up to the bans yesterday have been deleted (which I understand) so I will have to give a brief overview.
Before that I need to say that I am very sorry that this situation has arisen. The forum will in my view be weakened by the loss of the three members. I do hope it is possible for them to return, but that is Mike's decision. Hartley and Vic were knowledgeable about the case and closely connected with the family, which enabled them to provides certain insights. It was to this forum's credit that they both chose to be active here rather than frequenting Lamberton's forum. They both had contempt for Lamberton and wanted nothing to do with him. They recognised that this was the effective forum for genuine debate. They presented the "guilty" position and challenged Mike vigorously.
Mike has never had any problem with being challenged on the points he makes. He has not censored debate. He argues vigorously but does not take things personally when people present opposing arguments. Hartley had a tendency, which I have commented on before, to goad Mike. He seemed to like getting a reaction from Mike, which he sometimes succeeded in doing. Vic in the past presented arguments without goading.
Yesterday both Hartley and Vidvic were active on the forum. It is no secret that they know each other well outside the forum. They seemed to egg each other on in taunting Mike. They went far beyond robust challenge, their posts descended to insults and mockery. In the exchanges Mike was provoked into responding and using bad language. It was clear that this is what Hartley and Vic wanted to do, presumably in order to show Mike in a bad light. Putting it bluntly, they were taking the piss out of Mike. This went far beyond anything they had ever posted before, and it was very unattractive.
When I saw the posts I was surprised and disappointed. With anyone else I would have deleted posts but I have always taken the view that Mike is well able to take care of himself and that I should leave it to him to take action as he sees fit. With hindsight I wish I had intervened yesterday. I should have deleted the offending posts as soon as they appeared and sent a PM to Hartley and Vic. I saw too late that Mike had finally had enough and banned them both and deleted the posts. Andrea then unwisely posted attacking Mike. I do not think she had seen the posts before they were deleted and it was clear that Mike was very angry. He is the owner of the forum and the source of most of the huge amount of information on it. He has provided a forum where all views are tolerated. He deserves to be treated with respect and he was not yesterday. I think I would have lost my temper in the same way. Andrea found herself in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I have respect for Hartley, Vic and Andrea. Hartley and Vic in particular have added value to the debate here through their knowledge of the case and their connections with the family. I have got to know Vic and I like him. He is a genuine and a decent bloke. I do not agree with him about the case but I respect his views and he respects mine. I do feel Vic let himself down yesterday and privately I suspect he would admit that. I suspect that there was an element of pack mentality when Hartley and Vic were both active on the forum at the same time.
As I have said it is entirely up to Mike what he wants to do now. It is his forum and he is entitled to be treated with respect and not goaded or insulted. I hope Mike feels able to lift the bans. In future I will intervene to stop a situation developing as it did yesterday.
I respect your views, NGB, but what happened yesterday went beyond individual goading or bullying, it was tantamount to concerted personal harassment of Mike by a gang of two.
Mike is in poor health and comes under considerable pressure as forum owner here, seven days a week, 52 weeks each year. We are all guilty at times of pressurising him to sift through his 50,000 documents and 'post this, Mike, post that Mike', or answer this, Mike, answer that.
Hartley and Vic are well aware of Mike's health issues, they seemed to me to be exploiting these yesterday with their tirade of highly offensive posts and personal attacks.
This is one of the rules from another site that Hartley belongs to:
"...Personal insults, unsubstantiated or inflammatory statements, and demeaning or vulgar language will not be tolerated and can result in being banned from the site. Members will be clearly warned when they are in violation. Bans can be temporary or permanent, based upon the severity of the situation. Re-admittance will be at the sole discretion of the Forum Manager. Members who are readmitted and resume offensive behavior will be permanently banned. "
Those rules are enforced and Hartley never seems to break the rules on that site. On all other sites the rules are enforced, yet here they the rules as good as ignored. Hartley has repeatedly breached our forum's rules, he has been banned and readmitted in the past, only to recommence his offensive posts. He has therefore clearly demonstrated that he is unwilling to abide by our rules.
Every time Mike and the mods turn a blind eye to Hartley's - and Vic's - breach of our rules a clear message goes out that Hartley and Vic are above the rules and are empowered to abuse at will.
No other site would tolerate Hartley and Vic's highly offensive abuse of their forum owner, mods and members. I do not believe we should tolerate this either. I believe Hartley has earned a permanent ban - though I would bet my shirt that Hartley will be readmitted to abuse others again.
-
Bob the other thing is Andrea calling Mike a muppet, where is she qualified to say that
I think it was because Mike called her a muppet first. She was angered and I believe justifiably so.
-
I respect your views, NGB, but what happened yesterday went beyond individual goading or bullying, it was tantamount to concerted personal harassment of Mike by a gang of two.
Why? What happened yesterday? I'm still a bit confused as to why these three people were banned?
-
Why? What happened yesterday? I'm still a bit confused as to why these three people were banned?
The posts which led to the bans have been deleted Grahame. Mike was subjected to a torrent of abuse and taunts I am afraid.
-
Grahame, When vidvic and Hartley were arguing against Mike, the debate was one of the best ones
ever on this forum. Mike was gaining the upperhand after a couple of hours when Hartley introduced mild sarcasm, Mike bit and instead of argument, it descended into insults, if the three of them were in a Court, the Judge would have made them all withdraw certain comments and then resume. You want the truth, it was better than Eastenders or Coronation Street.
-
This is you opinion, I disagree. I'm too busy to do a detailed response now, it would take time to find the posts as Hartley has repeatedly deleted his account. I may reply another time.
Of course it's my opinion - I have used imo twice (short for in my opinion!!), and you have your opinion, and I disagree with that.
My point in (1) was about recent abusive posts from them, not dragging up old stuff!
Look at the words you use;
abuse
highly offensive
impossible
highly offensive (again)
toxic
destroying
All overly emotional and exaggerated - imo!!
-
Of course it's my opinion - I have used imo twice (short for in my opinion!!), and you have your opinion, and I disagree with that.
My point in (1) was about recent abusive posts from them, not dragging up old stuff!
Look at the words you use;
abuse
highly offensive
impossible
highly offensive (again)
toxic
destroying
All overly emotional and exaggerated - imo!!
Nick- did you see the posts yesterday before they were deleted?
-
Campion don't you ever leave this forum with posts like that :)
-
Stop telling lies and making up stories then..... Muppet.
Bamber is guilty, end of.
I thought Andrea used the muppet word first
-
Grahame, When vidvic and Hartley were arguing against Mike, the debate was one of the best ones
ever on this forum. Mike was gaining the upperhand after a couple of hours when Hartley introduced mild sarcasm, Mike bit and instead of argument, it descended into insults, if the three of them were in a Court, the Judge would have made them all withdraw certain comments and then resume. You want the truth, it was better than Eastenders or Coronation Street.
Ok, thank you for clarifying things a bit Neil and campion. Fortunately we are not in court, which is generally run on strict guidelines. I'm not sure that I would have banned them myself? But then again I wasn't the subject of the alleged abuse. It usually takes quite a lot in order for me to ban somebody. And judging my Mikes record he has banned even less people than I have. So bearing in mind the amount of overwhelming "circumstantial" evidence I am compelled reluctantly however to run with Mike's decision.
-
Bye, Muppet brain, find something else more useful to do with your time...
Andreas post 5.06
Mikes 5.11
-
Mike, it still confuses me as to why the end nut is off the gun as shown clearly in the picture. The only reason that comes to mind was that it was taken off in order for the silencer to be fitted and when the silencer was taken off it was not screwed back? What are your thoughts on this?
It is not necessary to screw the end cap on when the silencer is removed. It makes no difference to the performance of the rifle. All it does is protect the thread from being damaged (which is unlikely with ordinary use).
-
Andreas post 5.06
Mikes 5.11
Well foudn, Jackie.
-
Andreas post 5.06
Mikes 5.11
Yes she did didn't she I just noticed that. Unfortunately it seems she has decended to the same low as her "friends" from the other forum? How unfortunate. I liked Andrea. Oh well. Life must go on.
-
Mike, it still confuses me as to why the end nut is off the gun as shown clearly in the picture. The only reason that comes to mind was that it was taken off in order for the silencer to be fitted and when the silencer was taken off it was not screwed back? What are your thoughts on this?
Bump
-
Of course it's my opinion - I have used imo twice (short for in my opinion!!), and you have your opinion, and I disagree with that.
My point in (1) was about recent abusive posts from them, not dragging up old stuff!
Look at the words you use;
abuse
highly offensive
impossible
highly offensive (again)
toxic
destroying
All overly emotional and exaggerated - imo!!
Nick,
That's a good point. I was peed off at the thought of Hartley being allowed to return and my post was over emotional, you're right. I'll modify it.
-
At least we still have Nick. (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-violent014.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php) ;D
-
I have just had a phone call off Vic, he and harts have been banned from the forum. Vic would like to say that anyone who has his number is more than welcome to stay intouch.
Big mistake getting shut of vic and harts, both excellent posters, so the forum will now be one sided except for my self and nick, tut tut.
I can hear the bell tolling already.
As Mike has said, there has been an attempt by anti Bambers to shut down this forum. I believe that is what Andrea is referring to here, she is effectively taunting Mike about this. In my view, this comment alone - and there have been a number of rude and hostile comments about Mike from Andrea in recent months - justified a ban.
-
Nick,
That's a good point. I was peed off at the thought of Hartley being allowed to return and my post was over emotional, you're right. I'll modify it.
Thanks Choc - I hope we are back on a more level playing field, as I usually enjoy our disagreements :).
As a sort of neutral (c. 80% JB guilty) I got on well with Andrea Vid and Harts - I also understand they were not everyones "cup of tea", but who is! ;).
-
Nick- did you see the posts yesterday before they were deleted?
No - I cannot therefore comment on the content.
I was privy to the outbusts from Mike using a lot of expletives at one stage, and could see that Mike had lost it at that point, but missed the later posts.
Grahame has advised other forum members incl. myself to turn the other cheek when confronted with abuse (or simply ignore it), as this is best way to defate a situation.
I believe all parties poured petrol on this fire!
-
Bump
I answered you above Grahame.
-
Roch a fair and diplomatic answer as ever! - similar to the suggestion you made about referencing photos to avoid them being splashed on the threads (and which appears to have been ignored).
I think the herd mentality has jumped on Mikes recent banning and is kicking the banned because they cannot respond (a pretty cowardly way)!
This Forum will soon become the JBSS (Jeremy Bamber Sycophant Society).
Nick, Isn't this comment rather one sided? Did you object to Hartley's and Vic's herd mentality during their cowardly, combined attacks on Mike yesterday?
-
Yes she did didn't she I just noticed that. Unfortunately it seems she has decended to the same low as her "friends" from the other forum? How unfortunate. I liked Andrea. Oh well. Life must go on.
Grahame - I do in fairness have to take issue with you here. Andrea's post was unfortunate and unwise and no doubt posted in anger. It is not correct to equate Andrea's post with the filth on the Lamberton forum. Andrea should not be placed in the same category as some of those over there.
-
No - I cannot therefore comment on the content.
I was privy to the outbusts from Mike using a lot of expletives at one stage, and could see that Mike had lost it at that point, but missed the later posts.
Grahame has advised other forum members incl. myself to turn the other cheek when confronted with abuse (or simply ignore it), as this is best way to defate a situation.
I believe all parties poured petrol on this fire!
How can you meaningfully criticise comments that you did not see, Nick? You're apportioning responsibility for what happened when you didn't even see what happened!
-
Nick, Isn't this comment rather one sided? Did you object to Hartley's and Vic's herd mentality during their cowardly, combined attacks on Mike yesterday?
Maybe; but I don't consider two to be a herd - more a pair!
I wasn't on line when it kicked off!
To put the verbal boot in after a banning is - imo - cowardly, as the banned have no right of reply.
I think there is more decorum in gloating inwardly :-X
-
How can you meaningfully criticise comments that you did not see, Nick? You're apportioning responsibility for what happened when you didn't even see what happened!
I have not criticised comments I have not seen!
Repeat - I believe all parties poured petrol on this fire! - If I am making any apportionment it is they all contributed to it - and that is a fact!
However I can only comment on what I did see and that is all I have done.
- just like any eyewitness ::)
-
Maybe; but I don't consider two to be a herd - more a pair!
Is this a weak response?
I wasn't on line when it kicked off!
From the look of it, you weren't online for much of it or when it ended either. You have said that you didn't see what happened yet, from the following post you are apportioning the responsibility to Mike for what happened:
"I was privy to the outbusts from Mike using a lot of expletives at one stage, and could see that Mike had lost it at that point, but missed the later posts."
As you didn't see what happened, that comment seems rather biased to me.
To put the verbal boot in after a banning is - imo - cowardly, as the banned have no right of reply.
I think there is more decorum in gloating inwardly :-X
Aren't you putting the boot into Mike with your comment above - when he isn't here to defend himself?
-
I still wonder, though, why you "pros" aren't more suspicious of his involvement - out of the blue a man with a speciality in "covert policing, intelligence and witness protection" who rarely defends, has shown an oddly altruistic interest in JB's case... if I was a paranoid JBer I'd be asking some questions...
Why?...am I missing something?
-
I know it is unwise to respond to posts on Lamberton's forum and I have not done so before, but I have to make an exception now. Tim Invictus (DV8 on this forum) has copied what he believes to be my post posted at #120 above, which he claims is badly written. I do not care what he thinks of my writing style but he should at least quote me accurately. He has actually copied Mertol's post at #122, quoting me and disagreeing with me. Unfortunately Mertol placed his comment within the quote and so what is now attributed to me over there is inaccurate and distorted.
-
Aren't you putting the boot into Mike with your comment above - when he isn't here to defend himself?
Blimey. Has Mike been banned too?!
-
Blimey. Has Mike been banned too?!
He's away, Bob :D
-
I have not criticised comments I have not seen!
Repeat - I believe all parties poured petrol on this fire! - If I am making any apportionment it is they all contributed to it - and that is a fact!
However I can only comment on what I did see and that is all I have done.
- just like any eyewitness ::)
Do you tend to like the last word and dislike admitting when you're wrong, Nick? ::)
Why do I feel as though someone just walked over my grave?
-
Ngb isn't it time we banned the pond life DV8 aka Ferdia shepherds/Tim
Hasn't he done enough to get banned
-
I have not criticised comments I have not seen!
Repeat - I believe all parties poured petrol on this fire! - If I am making any apportionment it is they all contributed to it - and that is a fact!
However I can only comment on what I did see and that is all I have done.
- just like any eyewitness ::)
Anyway, Hartley and Vic have you to defend them, Nick.
-
Ngb isn't it time we banned the pond life DV8 aka Ferdia shepherds/Tim
Hasn't he done enough to get banned
Jackie - it is a fair question. He is by far the most unpleasant poster on Lamberton's forum, worse even than Lamberton himself and that is saying something. However if we look at his posts here he probably has not gone quite far enough to justify a ban. He has not responded to my last challenge about his identity. I expected him to make a final offensive post before being kicked out, as he has done in his previous incarnations here. As everyone knows I am very reluctant to ban forum members. However if there is a consensus that DV8 should be kicked out now I will happily oblige. Any views?
-
Maybe; but I don't consider two to be a herd - more a pair!
Is this a weak response? - ;)
I wasn't on line when it kicked off!
From the look of it, you weren't online for much of it or when it ended either. You have said that you didn't see what happened yet, from the following post you are apportioning the responsibility to Mike for what happened: - Yes and IMO Mike was partially responsible ;)
"I was privy to the outbusts from Mike using a lot of expletives at one stage, and could see that Mike had lost it at that point, but missed the later posts."
As you didn't see what happened, that comment seems rather biased to me. - it was based on what I witnessed ::)
To put the verbal boot in after a banning is - imo - cowardly, as the banned have no right of reply.
I think there is more decorum in gloating inwardly
Aren't you putting the boot into Mike with your comment above - when he isn't here to defend himself? - me "Putting the boot" yeah right! and no, he has a right of reply!
-
Do you tend to like the last word and dislike admitting when you're wrong, Nick? ::)
Why do I feel as though someone just walked over my grave?
:D I'm not wrong that's why, and funnily enough I do have the same thoughts about you and the last word.
Choc, maybe you need to buried deeper! ;D
However to prove I don't need to have the last word and that I am not as petty as, I will not respond to your further posts - if that's what you want?
-
Anyway, Hartley and Vic have you to defend them, Nick.
Choc, I am trying to promote and defend the statutes of a fair and evenly balanced forum - free speech (without resort to abuse and foul language) and the right to have an occasional laugh!
Hail Caesar!!
I hope you have a good weekend!
-
Bob - this is a difficult situation and more complex than it may seem. In order to understand how Mike felt driven to ban three members it is necessary to have seen the posts which led to that. To my knowledge Mike has only ever in the past banned one member and all at the time saw the need for that in view of what had been posted. The problem now is that the posts leading up to the bans yesterday have been deleted (which I understand) so I will have to give a brief overview.
Before that I need to say that I am very sorry that this situation has arisen. The forum will in my view be weakened by the loss of the three members. I do hope it is possible for them to return, but that is Mike's decision. Hartley and Vic were knowledgeable about the case and closely connected with the family, which enabled them to provides certain insights. It was to this forum's credit that they both chose to be active here rather than frequenting Lamberton's forum. They both had contempt for Lamberton and wanted nothing to do with him. They recognised that this was the effective forum for genuine debate. They presented the "guilty" position and challenged Mike vigorously.
Mike has never had any problem with being challenged on the points he makes. He has not censored debate. He argues vigorously but does not take things personally when people present opposing arguments. Hartley had a tendency, which I have commented on before, to goad Mike. He seemed to like getting a reaction from Mike, which he sometimes succeeded in doing. Vic in the past presented arguments without goading.
Yesterday both Hartley and Vidvic were active on the forum. It is no secret that they know each other well outside the forum. They seemed to egg each other on in taunting Mike. They went far beyond robust challenge, their posts descended to insults and mockery. In the exchanges Mike was provoked into responding and using bad language. It was clear that this is what Hartley and Vic wanted to do, presumably in order to show Mike in a bad light. Putting it bluntly, they were taking the piss out of Mike. This went far beyond anything they had ever posted before, and it was very unattractive.
When I saw the posts I was surprised and disappointed. With anyone else I would have deleted posts but I have always taken the view that Mike is well able to take care of himself and that I should leave it to him to take action as he sees fit. With hindsight I wish I had intervened yesterday. I should have deleted the offending posts as soon as they appeared and sent a PM to Hartley and Vic. I saw too late that Mike had finally had enough and banned them both and deleted the posts. Andrea then unwisely posted attacking Mike. I do not think she had seen the posts before they were deleted and it was clear that Mike was very angry. He is the owner of the forum and the source of most of the huge amount of information on it. He has provided a forum where all views are tolerated. He deserves to be treated with respect and he was not yesterday. I think I would have lost my temper in the same way. Andrea found herself in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I have respect for Hartley, Vic and Andrea. Hartley and Vic in particular have added value to the debate here through their knowledge of the case and their connections with the family. I have got to know Vic and I like him. He is a genuine and a decent bloke. I do not agree with him about the case but I respect his views and he respects mine. I do feel Vic let himself down yesterday and privately I suspect he would admit that. I suspect that there was an element of pack mentality when Hartley and Vic were both active on the forum at the same time.
As I have said it is entirely up to Mike what he wants to do now. It is his forum and he is entitled to be treated with respect and not goaded or insulted. I hope Mike feels able to lift the bans. In future I will intervene to stop a situation developing as it did yesterday.
I hope Mike will lift all three the bans. Mike can be pinned down on an aspect of the case without the use of goading. I think the two lads banned know this and the situation probably just escalated.
-
Dv8 care to comment on the last post you made about me?
-
Don't forget to blow out the candles on your little Bamber shrine before you hit the sack .... alone. Nite.
There you go DV8 incase you forget
Do you get your kicks out of writing stuff like this
You coward
-
Don't forget to blow out the candles on your little Bamber shrine before you hit the sack .... alone. Nite.
There you go DV8 incase you forget
Do you get your kicks out of writing stuff like this
You coward
He writes far worse on Lamberton's forum Jackie. He is very brave in front of his mates there. They think they are really clever and witty.
I doubt if he will have the guts to answer you here.
-
I hope Mike will lift all three the bans. Mike can be pinned down on an aspect of the case without the use of goading. I think the two lads banned know this and the situation probably just escalated.
Maybe some on here simply want to see the forum unfairly balanced in favour of the JB innocent side!
When two opposing sides get together it is inevitable there will be conflict.
If however the forum wants a closed community of the same thinking then so be it - the forum has definitely taken a step that way with the recent banning!
-
Maybe some on here simply want to see the forum unfairly balanced in favour of the JB innocent side!
When two opposing sides get together it is inevitable there will be conflict.
If however the forum wants a closed community of the same thinking then so be it - the forum has definitely taken a step that way with the recent banning!
Nick, I think it is because pro posters are sometimes split, with grey areas to boot. If the relatives had any involvement in 'improving' the evidence against JB, then those linked to the relatives who come on here, risk being judged as having a 'vested interest' or 'ulterior motives'. The flip side of the coin is that these people may genuinely believe that such unproven allegations are also simply not true. There is therefore no actual 'vested interest' or ulterior motive' from their perspective.
Regardless of who had involvement of 'improving' whatever, I think we need their views, experience and take on the case, back on the forum. Others might disagree.
-
Nick I disagree the forum has gone downhill
Lots of new people are joining and I am sure the banned people will be back
Everyone prefers it if there could be a better mix of anti s and pro s and I am sure some new members will be antis without going the personal insult route like DV8
I have had over a 100 new followers on twitter this week and I am sure some will find there way here
-
In my opinion healthy respectful debate is the best form of debate. The absence of opposing views that are argued in a well mannered and reasoned approach will detract from the forum.
From my observations I have seen manners and respect appearing to disappear from both sides on the divide / debating stand point.
Everyone deserves respect whether labelled a 'pro' or an 'anti'. I have to say I do not agree with such labelling but such appears to be understood within the forum.
A lack of opposing view in discussion / debate could be the thin end of the wedge in terms of only making the forum a self gratification and place of praise for those who fly the flag for Jeremy being innocent whilst he currently remains convicted in a Court of Law.
It is actually the case the more one debates within the open forum the stronger positions will be. Testing a well presented argument is the basis of our legal system. If arguments are not tested and the forum was left with just those who praise in Jeremy's innocence then it is not beyond the realms of possibility that having been in a position where the forum was helping Jeremy it may be the case such help will evaporate.
As such my opinion is the forum is already a weaker place without Hartley, Vidvic, Andrea and will be weakened further if a ban is also extended to DV8.
-
Curious you do realise who dV8 is don't you!
And what he has been saying about me?
-
Curious you do realise who dV8 is don't you!
And what he has been saying about me?
Jackie
I am afraid I have no idea who DV8 is?
Has DV8 been saying things about you on the forum or elsewhere. If on the forum what threads should be read to catch up?
-
Everyone deserves respect whether labelled a 'pro' or an 'anti'. I have to say I do not agree with such labelling but such appears to be understood within the forum.
Curious, remember my scale of guilt? Maybe we should each give ourselves a number, representative of the percentage mark we subscribe to? This number could be placed under our username / avatar.
For example, I be 25. You would be 70. Mike would be 0. Hartley would be 95. etc.
The only problem with this is that it would force 'pro' posters to admit doubt, by way of their avoidance of a 0 figure. :o
-
Curious, remember my scale of guilt? Maybe we should each give ourselves a number, representative of the percentage mark we subscribe to? This number could be placed under our username / avatar.
For example, I be 25. You would be 70. Mike would be 0. Hartley would be 95. etc.
The only problem with this is that it would force 'pro' posters to admit doubt, by way of their avoidance of a 0 figure. :o
Roch
One could interpret that IF it is a problem for a 'pro' posters to admit doubt then is a 'pro' poster being truely honest within themselves? This would be a little ironic given the legal system is supposed to be all about getting to the honest truth.
-
Curious he is Tim/Ferdia Shepherds even Hartley recognised him.
He has been saying the most vile disgusting things about me as he did when he commented on my videos
He thought he would bring it over here
I dread to think what he must look like to make him have such a twisted mind
Definitely ugly inside and out and he just ran away when I challenged him like the spineless person he is
-
Roch
One could interpret that IF it is a problem for a 'pro' posters to admit doubt then is a 'pro' poster being truely honest within themselves? This would be a little ironic given the legal system is supposed to be all about getting to the honest truth.
Good point. Maybe they are honest with themselves but guarded with others. Everyone should leave a little room for the opposition arguments. We both do.
-
Nick, I think it is because pro posters are sometimes split, with grey areas to boot. If the relatives had any involvement in 'improving' the evidence against JB, then those linked to the relatives who come on here, risk being judged as having a 'vested interest' or 'ulterior motives'. The flip side of the coin is that these people may genuinely believe that such unproven allegations are also simply not true. There is therefore no actual 'vested interest' or ulterior motive' from their perspective.
Regardless of who had involvement of 'improving' whatever, I think we need their views, experience and take on the case, back on the forum. Others might disagree.
I know exactly what you mean. I flagged some wiki sites for info only and got responses as I had written the negative JB stuff myself - emotions are certainly running high.
Do you think personal snipes (as opposed to case debate) come about just before some big news has or is about to happen? - as emotional tension builds!
-
Curious he is Tim/Ferdia Shepherds even Hartley recognised him.
He has been saying the most vile disgusting things about me as he did when he commented on my videos
He thought he would bring it over here
I dread to think what he must look like to make him have such a twisted mind
Definitely ugly inside and out and he just ran away when I challenged him like the spineless person he is
Jackie
Thank you for letting me know although I am still none the wiser.
I am afraid the name Tim/Ferdia Shepherds means nothing to me. Should I know Tim/Ferdia Shepherds?
-
I agree with Curiosessex's reasons regarding bannng people.
-
I agree with Curiosessex's reasons regarding bannng people.
Thank you Campion
-
Rochford
I would happily admit to anyone that I am 99% sure that JB is innocent. I think I may have posted when I first joined that I thought he was 100% innocent but when I thought about it I realised I was being a little stupid because how could I be 100% sure of his innocence? I wasn't there that night.
No-one apart from JB knows the truth 100%. I therefore still have that 1% unsurety and always will. :)
-
Rochford
I would happily admit to anyone that I am 99% sure that JB is innocent. I think I may have posted when I first joined that I thought he was 100% innocent but when I thought about it I realised I was being a little stupid because how could I be 100% sure of his innocence? I wasn't there that night.
No-one apart from JB knows the truth 100%. I therefore still have that 1% unsurety and always will. :)
Thanks Gillian. That puts you at 1 on my new scale :D
I've never agreed with the comment 'only JB knows the truth'. He may well know whether he is truly innocent. Others may may know that also.
-
Gillian. DV8 is your opposite on the scale at 99. Everyone should have an opposite. Opposites attract :D
-
Nick I disagree the forum has gone downhill
Lots of new people are joining and I am sure the banned people will be back
Everyone prefers it if there could be a better mix of anti s and pro s and I am sure some new members will be antis without going the personal insult route like DV8
I have had over a 100 new followers on twitter this week and I am sure some will find there way here
Jackie, where have I said the forum has gone down hill?
I referred to it being more "a closed community of the same thinking then so be it - the forum has definitely taken a step that way" - imo
Although lets say "Lot's of new people are joining" they do seem to lurke.
Out of 345 members I think about 15 are actually active (and then some more than others).
Banning 3 fairly active posters represents quite a significant reduction to the active member list!
-
Campion
DV8/TIM/Ferdiashepherds is a sad lonely person with no job, no real friends, a complete no hoper who sits on the forum spitting venom and making stuff up about people he doesn't know
He is also responsible for posting JB campaigners children up on Facebook insulting the mothers
A very sick sad individual with no life
-
Thanks Gillian. That puts you at 1 on my new scale :D
I've never agreed with the comment 'only JB knows the truth'. He may well know whether he is truly innocent. Others may may know that also.
When the under 5s / under 10s group has been established. I will look forward to reading the group version of events in relation to the timings and sequence of telephone calls on the morning of 7th August 1985. If such explanation in detail is both well contstructed and persuasive enough....... you never know I might want to join the same group.
-
That's very true Rochford. I'm not going to use that again. :)
Regarding your other comment I am somewhat offended. I would regard myself as a very nice person to know but from what I understand from you all DV8 is rather the opposite. If we are going to start a dating site as well could you at least pair me with someone a little nicer. You may think, however, that I might be able to tame DV8. Who knows? ;)
-
Curious does your opinion of JB being guilty relate almost entirely to the phone call discrepancies!
Gillian you deserve a million times better that thing!
You seem like a strong person and not someone into cowards
-
When the under 5s / under 10s group has been established. I will look forward to reading the group version of events in relation to the timings and sequence of telephone calls on the morning of 7th August 1985. If such explanation in detail is both well contstructed and persuasive enough....... you never know I might want to join the same group.
I must admit it's not one of my strong points. Shaw's private communications refers to Mugford's 32 coaching sessions with police and the towing of the line re her flat-mates, to get her out of the shit. Mugford changes the time of the call to her in different statements (?). The FSS have written to the defence on two occasions relating to the first (or second?) page of the logs having been tampered. Does this relate to the call times or merely the alleged Bews Myall sighting etc?
There is an allegation proposed from some quarters, that people at various points in the chain were told that 'unless this and that was done' a 'mass murder will get to get off the hook'.
This may seem a weak response considering this is your area of expertise in the case... but it's all I have at present.
-
Curious does your opinion of JB being guilty relate almost entirely to the phone call discrepancies!
Gillian you deserve a million times better that thing!
You seem like a strong person and not someone into cowards
Jackie
For me and in my opinion the answer to the tragedy lies in the timing and sequence of the telephone calls on the morning of the 7th August 1985. It is the first time the outside world knows that something has happened at WHF and Jeremy by his actions is the conduit of information. Maybe things would all have been very different if Jeremy had not rung the police regarding an alleged telephone call from Nevill.
-
It is not necessary to screw the end cap on when the silencer is removed. It makes no difference to the performance of the rifle. All it does is protect the thread from being damaged (which is unlikely with ordinary use).
Yes but why unscrew it in the first place if not to put the silencer on it?
-
That's very true Rochford. I'm not going to use that again. :)
Regarding your other comment I am somewhat offended. I would regard myself as a very nice person to know but from what I understand from you all DV8 is rather the opposite. If we are going to start a dating site as well could you at least pair me with someone a little nicer. You may think, however, that I might be able to tame DV8. Who knows? ;)
I'm only making assumptions as to DV8's ID. Maybe you really could 'tame' him....
-
Jackiepreece, The only option left is Gillian's cakes.
-
Yes but why unscrew it in the first place if not to put the silencer on it?
Or having taken the silencer off........then forgetting to replace it once a silencer has been removed?
Was the end cap ever found? If so where?
Would the end cap normally be in place on the weapon when it was available as a normal weapon for use on a farm?
Apologies if this information is already available on the forum.
-
Campion ha ha ;)
-
Yes but why unscrew it in the first place if not to put the silencer on it?
The end cap would have been unscrewed in order to enable the silencer to be attached. When the silencer was removed the cap was not screwed back on, either because it was intended to screw the silencer back on or because he could not be bothered. I store my rifles, most of which have a sound moderator available, without the end cap screwed on and without the sound moderator.
-
Grahame - I do in fairness have to take issue with you here. Andrea's post was unfortunate and unwise and no doubt posted in anger. It is not correct to equate Andrea's post with the filth on the Lamberton forum. Andrea should not be placed in the same category as some of those over there.
Fair do's guvnor.
-
Curious did you see DV8 skip off in the distance to the land of magic mushrooms
No challenge
No denial
Nothing
But I can bet the venom is coming thick and fast from the safety of the other forum
He will skip back on when Neils left
I would love to see what IT looks like
-
Jackie,is DV8 the same person that sent you those disgusting and threatening text messages that you once posted on here?
-
Curious, remember my scale of guilt? Maybe we should each give ourselves a number, representative of the percentage mark we subscribe to? This number could be placed under our username / avatar.
For example, I be 25. You would be 70. Mike would be 0. Hartley would be 95. etc.
The only problem with this is that it would force 'pro' posters to admit doubt, by way of their avoidance of a 0 figure. :o
I've inserted my level of guilt under username / avatar as suggested, are you, and will others follow?
I don't see problem with guilty or innocent posters putting their number on their sleeve , so to speak - 100 or 0.
In both cases it would show how committed they are to their beliefs!
-
Tyler the very one
I think they are on here somewhere
-
Tyler the very one
I think they are on here somewhere
I had a nasty feeling that he was one and the same person.
Im really shocked that he is allowed to be a member here.
-
Tyler he came in disguise as they all do!!
-
Maybe some on here simply want to see the forum unfairly balanced in favour of the JB innocent side!When two opposing sides get together it is inevitable there will be conflict.
If however the forum wants a closed community of the same thinking then so be it - the forum has definitely taken a step that way with the recent banning!
This is a JB is innocent site, Nick. Have you not noticed this?
-
Nick I disagree the forum has gone downhill
Lots of new people are joining and I am sure the banned people will be back
Everyone prefers it if there could be a better mix of anti s and pro s and I am sure some new members will be antis without going the personal insult route like DV8
I have had over a 100 new followers on twitter this week and I am sure some will find there way here
Well said, Jackie.
-
This is a JB is innocent site, Nick. Have you not noticed this?
Yes, I have noticed it leans that way - do you only want JB innocent posters?
-
I've inserted my level of guilt under username / avatar as suggested, are you, and will others follow?
I don't see problem with guilty or innocent posters putting their number on their sleeve , so to speak - 100 or 0.
In both cases it would show how committed they are to their beliefs!
I have completed my ROCH INDEX number
-
Yes, I have noticed it leans that way - do you only want JB innocent posters?
I thought you weren't talking to me?
No, I don't want only JB is innocent posters to post here. I want posters of any persuasion - who are prepared to debate without launching into toxic personal attacks - on the forum.
-
Yes, I have noticed it leans that way - do you only want JB innocent posters?
Nick........you and curious and bob arnt exactly pro Bamber,but are all valued members of the forum,and long standing ones too.
All of you challenge Mike and other forum members in a respectful way and stimulate debate....and not slanging matches.
Do you see where Im coming from?
-
I have completed my ROCH INDEX number
Duly noted. I've completed my ROCH INDEX no. also
-
Duly noted. I've completed my ROCH INDEX no. also
How do I do that? :-[
-
Duly noted. I've completed my ROCH INDEX no. also
Roch
Cool...... you da man!
-
When the under 5s / under 10s group has been established. I will look forward to reading the group version of events in relation to the timings and sequence of telephone calls on the morning of 7th August 1985. If such explanation in detail is both well contstructed and persuasive enough....... you never know I might want to join the same group.
What do you make of AE and JM changing their version of events over the timings of the calls Curious ? As mentioned in JB solicitors ( Mr Terzeon ) letter !!
-
Roch
Cool...... you da man!
I'm starting to really feel like a pint. Anyone else got that Friday feeling? What's the chance I'll come back on here later and let rip? And then have to delete some posts tomorrow? 8)
-
I'm starting to really feel like a pint. Anyone else got that Friday feeling? What's the chance I'll come back on here later and let rip? And then have to delete some posts tomorrow? 8)
I've started on the old vino already! ;D
-
How do I do that? :-[
Aww I did it........thanks Roch!
-
What do you make of AE and JM changing their version of events over the timings of the calls Curious ? As mentioned in JB solicitors ( Mr Terzeon ) letter !!
If you could post the letter I will gladly respond specifically to the content in Mr Terzeon's letter.
AE is dependent upon what she has heard or has been told by a.n.other.
JB admits ringing JM and JM admits receiving a telephone call from JB.
My gut reaction is the first thing stated or actions done / taken are normally what people would want others to believe.
-
I thought you weren't talking to me?
No, I don't want only JB is innocent posters to post here. I want posters of any persuasion - who are prepared to debate without launching into toxic personal attacks - on the forum.
You haven't confirmed yet that you don't want me to talk to you, which is how I phrased my post, but please let me know?
You keep asking me question's which suggest to me you want me to reply - it is not a case of I want the last word, but I will not concede when I know I am right - or when I am not wrong ;D
I agree with your last sentence, and I hope that comment is not directed at me as I don't believe I have ever been "toxic"!
-
If you could post the letter I will gladly respond specifically to the content in Mr Terzeon's letter.
AE is dependent upon what she has heard or has been told by a.n.other.
JB admits ringing JM and JM admits receiving a telephone call from JB.
My gut reaction is the first thing stated or actions done / taken are normally what people would want others to believe.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,618.msg13754.html#msg13754
-
I'm starting to really feel like a pint. Anyone else got that Friday feeling? What's the chance I'll come back on here later and let rip? And then have to delete some posts tomorrow? 8)
I had my first pint posting to Choc (read in to that what you like - hic!).
Don't delete them until I've read them!
We're out for a tapas to night!!
-
Curios , does this letter muddy the waters for you , on all the matters raised ?
-
I've started on the old vino already! ;D
I was hoping I can stay off that real cider. It's dangerous...
-
I was hoping I can stay off that real cider. It's dangerous...
Roch you are brill with you pics - so a bit Hyde later eh?
-
I was hoping I can stay off that real cider. It's dangerous...
Ha ha! Hopefully I won't look that bad :o Might feel like it though.....
-
Go Jon!!!!
-
Nick........you and curious and bob arnt exactly pro Bamber,but are all valued members of the forum,and long standing ones too.
All of you challenge Mike and other forum members in a respectful way and stimulate debate....and not slanging matches.
Do you see where I'm coming from?
Yes, and thank you for your fair opinion of us! (I feel a bit like an ethnic minority ;) )
I hope to continue posting in a respectful way. Slanging matches are futile and show weakness!
-
What do you make of AE and JM changing their version of events over the timings of the calls Curious ? As mentioned in JB solicitors ( Mr Terzeon ) letter !!
Yes, curious indeed, jon. Now why on earth would they have done that?
-
Curios , does this letter muddy the waters for you , on all the matters raised ?
Jon
Just read the telephone part of the statement from your link.
I am afraid the answer is NO.
On AE, as I mentioned before AE is dependent on others.
I seem to recall both JM and JB put 3.30 a.m. as the time of the telephone call and originally corroborated each other. Other flatmates (none police and none relatives) stated as witnesses they heard the telephone ringing at between circa 3.00 am and 3.15 am.
Both JM and JB subsequently changed the time of the call.
-
:D I'm not wrong that's why, and funnily enough I do have the same thoughts about you and the last word.
Choc, maybe you need to buried deeper! ;D
However to prove I don't need to have the last word and that I am not as petty as, I will not respond to your further posts - if that's what you want?
Pardon? I haven't suggested that I don't want you to respond to my posts. Where am I supposed to have said this?
-
You haven't confirmed yet that you don't want me to talk to you, which is how I phrased my post, but please let me know?...
Pardon? What an odd comment.
-
Pardon? I haven't suggested that I don't want you to respond to my posts. Where am I supposed to have said this?
Choc, can we somehow draw a line under this tit for tat stuff - I probably misinterpreted the having the last word dig!
Are you going to put your Roch index up?
-
Choc, can we somehow draw a line under this tit for tat stuff - I probably misinterpreted the having the last word dig!
Thank you, good idea :D
Are you going to put your Roch index up?
I have never thought in terms of what percentage of innocence or guilt might be appropriate, Nick, and I have always been reluctant to be labelled in this way. My reasons are, first, that I dislike the idea of being numbered and second, that the main focus of my objection to how Jeremy has been treated by our legal system is that he has never had a fair trial.
-
Hi Campion.
I've got a batch of them in the oven as we speak. :) :) :)
-
Help Anyone
I've PM'd Rochford but then realised he is off line. Could someone please tell me how I put my Roch Index score under my avatar please! Thanks. :)
-
Help Anyone
I've PM'd Rochford but then realised he is off line. Could someone please tell me how I put my Roch Index score under my avatar please! Thanks. :)
Hi Gillian,
If I remember correctly, you need to click on Profile (above), then click on forum Profile and you'll see a box for personal text - put it in there.
-
So I am a coward if I don't post and yet I have had about 10 different messages telling me I will be banned if I do. I have also been accused of being about 10 different people which is quite amusing. That and I have been back to work the last few days so have only been on for the odd looksee.
I was polite and decent with everyone I spoke to save a mild jibe back at Jackie who caused trouble for no reason whatever. I did notice the forum is killing off anyone who thinks Bamber is guilty so I guess I am next on the list.
I changed my introduction to Bob Hope but perhaps Alec Guiness would have been better, I believe he played eight seperate characters in one film.
At least I won't die a coward. I don't need a blindfold, just shoot.
-
You are a total loser go back to the forum of 5 people I promise by tomorrow at the latest you will be banned
Try explaining how you think I sleep alone
Taking the piss out of Grahame
You freak!!!
-
You are a total loser go back to the forum of 5 people I promise by tomorrow at the latest you will be banned
Try explaining how you think I sleep alone
Taking the piss out of Grahame
You freak!!!
I apologise Jackie you are obviously happily married and leading a wonderful life. I can tell by your posts you are very happy and content with your lot. I do tend to nip back when I am being mauled for no reason whatever.
As I said before I only had a mild row with you went you went off on a strange tangent so no I have not inszlted Grahame.
-
Hi Chocchok Eira
Thank you soooo much. I've done it! :)
-
Hi Roch
I've added my Roch Index score with the help of Chocchok Eira. Liked the photo a lot. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, my assets are much much bigger than hers ........... I mean my plaits of course!!! :)
-
DV8 your IP address is Gibraltar do you really think we do not know who u r.
You obviously have mental issues, like Weety, Lamberton, Stephanie and Shona
You are the laughing stock of twitter
I knew you would come on here when Neil had gone
My greatest wish Tim is to see a photo of you to see what evil looks like
-
Maggie it's good you find our pm service such a good tool
-
Maggie you joined this forum you never post but you spend every night on here sending pm messages
Anything you want to share with us
-
1 Member and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.
Jackiepreece
Guest
Re: And like an enigma, he was gone.
« Reply #75 on: August 06, 2011, 01:16:AM »
Quote
Just received
Help Centre | email options | report spam
ferdiashepherds has made a comment on Jeremy Bamber is Innocent:
'Are you suggesting he should still be here and I am not saying anymore on the subject .....'
He is still here if he ever wants to be ya sad groupe!
9441 and rightful imprisonment AND COUNTING ;-)
You can reply to this comment by visiting the comments page.
© 2011 YouTube, LLC
901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066
Remember when you called me a sad groupie Tim
-
DV8 and Maggie have scuttled back to the place they belong !!!!
-
I've added my Roch Index. Thanks for the kind words Tyler, Choch and Jackie! Although not posting recently I have as ever been following the case closely. Currently out skiing in Morzine France. Freedom is a wonderful thing and to have it taken away with a shambles of an investigation and an unfair trial is not acceptable. The evidence "found" by the relatives shouldn't have got anywhere near court.
My view on Hartley - he was either family or very close to family. The other alternative is he was paid to be monitoring the forum and steering any discussion in a "bamber guilty" direction with his special brand of spin (using quite some degree of intelligence at times). What I could never understand is how he could be so sure of guilt? I can't be that sure of innocence but I started all this from an impartial position. Hartley did not.
-
Hi Chocchok Eira
Thank you soooo much. I've done it! :)
So you have, you're welcome.
-
Vortex we have missed you so much and a great post
Have a wonderful time on the slopes!!!!
-
DV8 your IP address is Gibraltar do you really think we do not know who u r.
You obviously have mental issues, like Weety, Lamberton, Stephanie and Shona
You are the laughing stock of twitter
I knew you would come on here when Neil had gone
My greatest wish Tim is to see a photo of you to see what evil looks like
Facebook- once about 4 years ago
Twitter- never.
Gibraltar- once on a day trip from Puerto Banus. 10 years ago Those Barbary Apes are nasty little creatures that just won't leave you alone.
The irony of you being an unwanted disciple of one of the most evil (Beyond Belief) multiple murders in history calling anyone evil isn't lost on anyone but you.
Right I am off out for a nice vindaloo. You sit in and stew Jackie with your pot noodle and Heat Magazine and dream of Jeremy, who you will never meet. Alone as always.
Note to self - must stop conversing with chavvy old Eleanor Rigby's. :D
-
Bye Tim dream on !!!!
Your mother must have dropped you as a baby !!
-
One of the most evil (Beyond Belief) multiple murders in history.
Or one of the most wronged men in history.
-
For the benefit of posters, like me, who can only log on once a week usually. What is the "Big Mistake"? Is it something new or just another rehash of evidence we have all been over before?
-
Janet it was Andrea referring to the fact that Hartley and Vic have been banned
-
I am posting this on here because Andrea does not accept pm's but it is also a question I would like to ask the open forum.
Hi Andrea. I can only get online here on a Friday usually. Why has vic been banned? I like to hear both sides because I still haven't made my mind up about JB. That is also why I always refer to him as JB in my posts because I don't know if he is innocent or not. A jury found him guilty. I will never refer to him by his first name until he is proven not guilty. I don't think that is ever going to happen. He might be able to introduce evidence which makes his conviction wobble and thereby make it unsafe and make him a free man. I think that is possible because so much of the original evidence was fabricated. I am waffling again! What I am trying to say Andrea is can you accept that JB might be released on "new" evidence" even though he could still actually be guilty
-
I've added my Roch Index. Thanks for the kind words Tyler, Choch and Jackie! Although not posting recently I have as ever been following the case closely. Currently out skiing in Morzine France. Freedom is a wonderful thing and to have it taken away with a shambles of an investigation and an unfair trial is not acceptable. The evidence "found" by the relatives shouldn't have got anywhere near court.
My view on Hartley - he was either family or very close to family. The other alternative is he was paid to be monitoring the forum and steering any discussion in a "bamber guilty" direction with his special brand of spin (using quite some degree of intelligence at times). What I could never understand is how he could be so sure of guilt? I can't be that sure of innocence but I started all this from an impartial position. Hartley did not.
Good to see your posts again VORTEX.
-
Facebook- once about 4 years ago
Twitter- never.
Gibraltar- once on a day trip from Puerto Banus. 10 years ago Those Barbary Apes are nasty little creatures that just won't leave you alone.
The irony of you being an unwanted disciple of one of the most evil (Beyond Belief) multiple murders in history calling anyone evil isn't lost on anyone but you.
Right I am off out for a nice vindaloo. You sit in and stew Jackie with your pot noodle and Heat Magazine and dream of Jeremy, who you will never meet. Alone as always.
Note to self - must stop conversing with chavvy old Eleanor Rigby's. :D
Well looks like another troll is outed.
-
Bye Tim dream on !!!!
Your mother must have dropped you as a baby !!
Obviously not from a great height? ;D
-
Well looks like another troll is outed.
Love the way you bypass my post Neil.
-
I am posting this on here because Andrea does not accept pm's but it is also a question I would like to ask the open forum.
Hi Andrea. I can only get online here on a Friday usually. Why has vic been banned? I like to hear both sides because I still haven't made my mind up about JB. That is also why I always refer to him as JB in my posts because I don't know if he is innocent or not. A jury found him guilty. I will never refer to him by his first name until he is proven not guilty. I don't think that is ever going to happen. He might be able to introduce evidence which makes his conviction wobble and thereby make it unsafe and make him a free man. I think that is possible because so much of the original evidence was fabricated. I am waffling again! What I am trying to say Andrea is can you accept that JB might be released on "new" evidence" even though he could still actually be guilty
I think perhaps you are asking the wrong person Janet.
-
if only a spam control could be in place for these trolls, they remind me of the figures in small soldiers at the end on that tiny boat with archer sailing for gorgon .
-
I think perhaps you are asking the wrong person Janet.
Who should I be asking Grahame?
-
Keira would give a brilliant run down on the situation
-
Is she online now?
-
I am posting this on here because Andrea does not accept Pm's but it is also a question I would like to ask the open forum.
Hi Andrea. I can only get on line here on a Friday usually. Why has Vic been banned? I like to hear both sides because I still haven't made my mind up about JB. That is also why I always refer to him as JB in my posts because I don't know if he is innocent or not. A jury found him guilty. I will never refer to him by his first name until he is pr oven not guilty. I don't think that is ever going to happen. He might be able to introduce evidence which makes his conviction wobble and thereby make it unsafe and make him a free man. I think that is possible because so much of the original evidence was fabricated. I am waffling again! What I am trying to say Andrea is can you accept that JB might be released on "new" evidence" even though he could still actually be guilty
Hi Janet,
Vic and Hartley were banned because they ganged up and harassed Mike with a tirade of offensive posts, some involving personal attacks. Mike hardly ever bans anyone, he is so tolerant. Most forums or forum owners would have banned Vic and Hartley long before Mike did. I believe this has been building up for weeks. Hartley and Vic have pushed their luck time after time, this time they pushed their luck too far and Mike rightly banned them.
-
Hi Janet,
Vic and Hartley were banned because they ganged up and harassed Mike with a tirade of offensive posts, some involving personal attacks. Mike hardly ever bans anyone, he is so tolerant. Most forums or forum owners would have banned Vic and Hartley long before Mike did. I believe this has been building up for weeks. Hartley and Vic have pushed their luck time after time, this time they pushed their luck too far and Mike rightly banned them.
Thanks for the reply. I was going to suggest that maybe some of the post Mike made that seemed a bit eratic were because of his brain tumour and that I am willing to make allowances for. But I know that will be folled by Grahame telling me how inapropriate I am being before ultimately banning me from tis site. Do I think JB is guilty yes. Did he have a fair trial no. If he ever gets out of prison will it be on a technicality? Yes.
I just want to know what really happened that night end of.
-
Thanks for the reply. I was going to suggest that maybe some of the post Mike made that seemed a bit eratic were because of his brain tumour and that I am willing to make allowances for. But I know that will be folled by Grahame telling me how inappropriate I am being before ultimately banning me from tis site. Do I think JB is guilty yes. Did he have a fair trial no. If he ever gets out of prison will it be on a technicality? Yes.
I just want to know what really happened that night end of.
They didn't just aim offensive posts at Mike, Janet, they have also made unacceptable remarks about NGB and Grahame. Let's be honest, Hartley has been rude to almost every member of the forum at one time of another. He's broken the forum rules on numerous occasions. I thought Vic was a decent man, and I'm shocked that his recent posts became so offensive.
-
They didn't just aim offensive posts at Mike, Janet, they have also made unacceptable remarks about NGB and Grahame. Let's be honest, Hartley has been rude to almost every member of the forum at one time of another. He's broken the forum rules on numerous occasions. I thought Vic was a decent man, and I'm shocked that his recent posts became so offensive.
That is interesting,the last part of your post concerning Vic.I believe that he is ultimately a decent man,who unfortunately got led along by Hartley.Now it is easy to see how he has also got led along by the relatives too.If the relatives managed to convince the police of Jeremys alleged guilt,they must be some kind of force to be reckoned with.Hence how they have managed to convince Vic,Hartley,Bob Woof-Woof etc.
-
That is interesting,the last part of your post concerning Vic.I believe that he is ultimately a decent man,who unfortunately got led along by Hartley.Now it is easy to see how he has also got led along by the relatives too.If the relatives managed to convince the police of Jeremys alleged guilt,they must be some kind of force to be reckoned with.Hence how they have managed to convince Vic,Hartley,Bob Woof-Woof etc.
I think a lot of this boils down to self interest, Tyler.
-
Everything in some form has reason and even in this topic, if you are trying to understand why things went this far all this kicking and screaming is it because posts have been made which for one way or another are pointing to a completly different chain of events relating to events on and the weeks after the shootings ? for now and looking forward perhaps its time to move on and hopefully new members will join and no matter what stance they take are able to add to the forum in a positive way, there are still many members as yet to start posting.
-
Love the way you bypass my post Neil.
I'm grahame.
-
I'm grahame.
haha........that confused me too ???
-
Who should I be asking Grahame?
Well if you want an honest answer then ask someone neutral, not Andrea as she is absolutely convinced (why I cannot tell as things have not changed except for the new evidence that seemingly blows a great hole in the prosecution's argument) that JB is guilty. Possibly because of her private contacts with those from the other forum? Possibly because she is fed up with Mike and his seemingly improbable stories? and possibly because she appears to be in contact with Vic by telephone? Only she knows why?
I am sorry if you think that I had bypassed your question. But I thought it was addressed to Andrea. But probably because I am more concerned about my daughter right now who is dangerously ill in hospital. But I am sure someone will pick up on your obviously important question?
-
Thanks for the reply. I was going to suggest that maybe some of the post Mike made that seemed a bit eratic were because of his brain tumour and that I am willing to make allowances for. But I know that will be folled by Grahame telling me how inapropriate I am being before ultimately banning me from tis site. Do I think JB is guilty yes. Did he have a fair trial no. If he ever gets out of prison will it be on a technicality? Yes.
I just want to know what really happened that night end of.
Janet. Why you think that I will be banning you I cannot think? I hardly ever ban anyone for just disagreeing with me or for being "inappropriate" as you say? In fact I weight things up carefully before I do so. In fact it was Mike who banned these people not me. In fact Neil had to email me as I was at the hospital all day and didn't get back til 1 am the next day. But having been clued in so to speak by those with balanced views I fully support their ban. I have no intention of banning you. I am not trigger happy as some with less discernment think.
-
Tyler I recognise that Avatar!!!
It's him isn't it!!!
-
Having sat in the background on this forum for nearly 8 months,reading posts,information and anything else i can find.I come to the conclusion the the more info Mike found which pointed to Mr Bambers innocence the more Hartley and Vidvic(only recently) became more irate,abusive etc.
I am not convinced Hartley is family i am more of the opinion the he has connections with Police or some such service e.g a relative or close to someone involved in the case.
Keep diggin Mike ,the more you unearth the more uncomfortable and tetchy the anti Mr Bamber brigade become.. :)
-
Having sat in the background on this forum for nearly 8 months,reading posts,information and anything else i can find.I come to the conclusion the the more info Mike found which pointed to Mr Bambers innocence the more Hartley and Vidvic(only recently) became more irate,abusive etc.
I am not convinced Hartley is family i am more of the opinion the he has connections with Police or some such service e.g a relative or close to someone involved in the case.
Keep diggin Mike ,the more you unearth the more uncomfortable and tetchy the anti Mr Bamber brigade become.. :)
I think perhaps you may be right about Hartley? He said once that people can speculate all they like about who he is, but that he will not show up on the radar. I'm not sure that even Vic knows who he is?
-
Should this ever be confirmed at a point then you have one important piece of news , the idea/notion the family wish and want peace collapses.
-
Jaymo132 please post some more these are exciting times
I am loving your avatar, amazing!!!!!!
-
They didn't just aim offensive posts at Mike, Janet, they have also made unacceptable remarks about NGB and Grahame. Let's be honest, Hartley has been rude to almost every member of the forum at one time of another. He's broken the forum rules on numerous occasions. I thought Vic was a decent man, and I'm shocked that his recent posts became so offensive.
Keira I think the jibe Vic made about Grahame and Neil was a joke. It just caught people by surprise and needed a double take. I think this was confirmed. There was some goading the other day re the telephones or itemised bills (I'm not sure which) but I think that Hartley and Vic sensed blood and went in for the kill with Mike. I am supportive of Mike but I don't think he wins all of his arguments. To be honest, some of the forum's best exchanges have between Mike and Hartley. They have always crossed swords. Not that I'm condoning the goading.
-
I almost sense a slice of a taken humble pie moment coming on with a topping of mustard .
-
Love the way you bypass my post Neil.
What are you talking about?
-
What are you talking about?
Think it was a mistake Neil. She meant to say Grahame (?)
-
Think it was a mistake Neil. She meant to say Grahame (?)
OK, thanks for explaining that. I am just catching up with last night's posts.
-
Gosh its quiet on here tonight!
I take it Vidvic and Andrea have been had their bans lifted.
But not Hartley?
-
I have been thinking there is a lot more girls on here like the 2 janets and Gillian we could resurrect the wide awake club with a different name as Andrea has taken the other one over to the other forum
-
Gosh its quiet on here tonight!
I take it Vidvic and Andrea have been had their bans lifted.
But not Hartley?
idingleberry, i.e. Hartley, appears to be back, Tyler, unless I've misunderstood the way bans operate. His details are certainly on the members' list and I'm sure they were removed when he was banned. I stand to be corrected on this.
-
You have to look on the positive side of things, maybe they have been allowed to come back for the celebrations if JB s case is referred
-
I have been thinking there is a lot more girls on here like the 2 janets and Gillian we could resurrect the wide awake club with a different name as Andrea has taken the other one over to the other forum
Well, like begets like as they say. A great pity about Andrea. But suddenly change like she did is unfathomable? But can you understand her actually going over to that madman?
-
idingleberry, i.e. Hartley, appears to be back, Tyler, unless I've misunderstood the way bans operate. His details are certainly on the members' list and I'm sure they were removed when he was banned. I stand to be corrected on this.
Than you Keira x
-
It looks as if both Andrea and Vidvic have had their bans lifted by the great OZ. But Hartley has deleted his account.....again. ::)
-
Well, like begets like as they say. A great pity about Andrea. But suddenly change like she did is unfathomable? But can you understand her actually going over to that madman?
In all fairness,Andrea has made her mind up that Jeremy is guilty as charged.Therefore,there is not much more for her to debate?
Shona is over at the other forum and they are good pals,so it makes sense really I suppose?
-
It looks as if both Andrea and Vidvic have had their bans lifted by the great OZ. But Hartley has deleted his account.....again. ::)
Grahame.......read Keiras last post.
-
It looks as if both Andrea and Vidvic have had their bans lifted by the great OZ. But Hartley has deleted his account.....again. ::)
Nope. My mistake I was looking under Hartley but he changed his name to dingle something? His ban has been lifted by the great OZ as well.
-
Grahame its totally unfair because everyone on here has nown for days the lowlife chipmunck cheeks Tim/Ferdiashepherds/DV8 has been seriously using vile abusive words about me then he did it on here and then again last night and I had to deal with it on my own
Its a piss take
As if I havent done enough to help
I think its disgusting
-
Grahame its totally unfair because everyone on here has nown for days the lowlife chipmunck cheeks Tim/Ferdiashepherds/DV8 has been seriously using vile abusive words about me then he did it on here and then again last night and I had to deal with it on my own
Its a piss take
As if I havent done enough to help
I think its disgusting
Jackie what are you referring to? I don't understand. Who was on here?
-
Grahame
FerdiaShepherds/Tim?DV8 was on here last night for the second time throwing abuse at me. He wasnt banned either and Tyler couldnt believe it. We are a laughing stock.
-
It looks as if both Andrea and Vidvic have had their bans lifted by the great OZ. But Hartley has deleted his account.....again. ::)
He deleted his account prior to being banned, I believe, but he is back as idingleberry, Grahame.
-
If that ugly fat faced Thai bride comes on here she will get a right mouthful for thinking she can threaten me it will go with all the other crap straight to Simon Hall in prison to show how she treats people. She does not even know me. Something of a wife to be proud of
-
I hope she gets arrested charged and deported out of our country!!!
-
how long will the new JL site last ? who has a carrier bag full of limpet mines ?
-
Abs can handle herself Roch.She is absolutely lovely,but wont take any crap!
J-Low should rename his site "The Personality Disorder Forum" ;D
I second that! Why pay for therapy when you can let all your misbegotten angst out on the JB forum?
-
Grahame
FerdiaShepherds/Tim?DV8 was on here last night for the second time throwing abuse at me. He wasnt banned either and Tyler couldnt believe it. We are a laughing stock.
I didn't see that. If I had I would have taken action. I apologise for that.
-
I'm very glad it not against Abs, Rocky. In that case...
These are rather sexist, personal accusations, Rocky. Are you on the sherbert, or something? You are going to have to delete these comments in the morning, you know that, so why not do it now, before Amazon sees it and gets angry with you?
No, no sexist attacks on me. If there were, I would leave pronto. That is one thing I do not accept.
-
Hi Abs, good to see you! Is that remark sexist etc in your view?
* Sorry, I should have asked...are those remarks sexist etc....
You removed it?
-
I second that! Why pay for therapy when you can let all your misbegotten angst out on the JB forum?
Keira,I was referring to Lambertons forum,not this one?
We are all relatively sane and normal on here.Well...........most of us :-[
-
Keira,I was referring to Lambertons forum,not this one?
We are all relatively sane and normal on here.Well...........most of us :-[
Oh, right... ;D
-
Does anyone know how to put a gif image as an avatar like Jaymo
This is what I want to put up but I cannot seem to do it
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Owner/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/QKJKKMCY/image[1].gif
-
What error message did you get?
-
Reader
jaymos url
http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/92542096/21812026
mine
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=11063;type=avatar
something seriously wrong with mine
I just get a red cross in my avatar
-
You wrote "I cannot seem to do it" - were you trying to use the "Specify avatar by URL" option or the
"Upload an avatar" option? Also, how come the file you specified is in your Temporary Internet Files? Do you know the size of the file you specified? The current image is not that file, but I can't tell where it came from. Could it have been selected by mistake from a similar location?
-
Jaymo132 please post some more these are exciting times
I am loving your avatar, amazing!!!!!!
Try this one Jackie,send it to people that annoy you lol..x
http://www.gifs.net/Animation11/Science_and_Body/Bones_and_Skulls/come_here.gif
-
Try this one Jackie,send it to people that annoy you lol..x
http://www.gifs.net/Animation11/Science_and_Body/Bones_and_Skulls/come_here.gif
Brilliant. (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing021.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
-
I think some people need their heads examined.
The complete truth (which is not contained in this thread), is:
1. Mike called me an idiot.
2. I called Mike a dingleberry.
3. Mike made a sweary tirade accusing me of telling lies.
4. I asked if a dummy that I had found near Mikes pram was his.
5. I posted a cartoon about a person asking for a pack of lies.
And that's it, that is the full story of my involvement in any altercation.
In actual fact I'd made a concerted effort to be extra polite and accomodating to all, even exchanging a couple of breif PM's with Jackie.
The commentary contained in this thread from certain posters, together with Mikes really quite odd outbursts given his own recent behaviour, has told me more than I needed to know.
One suprising feeling I have towards certain members of this forum, is sympathy.
-
Hartley - please can we avoid reopening this? I know exactly where it will end and I do not want that. I am not going to censor your post but I do urge you to delete it. Can we not draw a line under this and move on?
-
Hartley - please can we avoid reopening this? I know exactly where it will end and I do not want that. I am not going to censor your post but I do urge you to delete it. Can we not draw a line under this and move on?
I will not delete my post, I have posted exactly what I intended to.
However a line has indeed been drawn.
_____________________________________________________
-
My personal problem at the moment was more about a person from the LowLifes forum not being banned.
Hartley I did not get involved in your fight
-
My personal problem at the moment was more about a person from the LowLifes forum not being banned.
Hartley I did not get involved in your fight
I know you didn't Jackie. In fact there actually wasn't a fight at all.
But anyway, nevermind, no harm done.
-
My personal problem at the moment was more about a person from the LowLifes forum not being banned.
Hartley I did not get involved in your fight
Jackie. Please trust Neil and myself to handle the situation with the other forum. Our judgment is that as long as they don't bring the abuse over here we will ignore it and them. I advise that you do the same for your peace of mind. To my mind they are not worth even my thoughts.
-
Its great to be back ;)
-
Its great to be back ;)
It is good to see you again Andrea. :)
-
thanks grahame x
-
Hartley, As i saw it, your dastardly remark of a bible being dark grey and not black was the spark that caused the ensueing explosion !
-
Grahame/NGB:
May I request that you look at the possibility of reinstating the ignore feature of the forum, judging by the animosity expressed in this thread (including the deleted posts), towards myself, it's clearly a feature which would benefit a number of people.
-
Has it been removed? i havent noticed.
-
Hartley, As i saw it, your dastardly remark of a bible being dark grey and not black was the spark that caused the ensueing explosion !
Yes, how dispicable of me.
Anyway I'm in danger of stepping over the line that has been drawn so I'll say no more on the matter.
-
Welcome Back
-
Grahame I don't think I can make the point more clearly that ferdiashepherds was on this forum as Dv8 and this was known
He made a personal comment about me sleeping on my own
No ban
A couple of days later he did the same thing
He was never banned
Grahame just say if you want me to leave because you are pushing me that way
I don't put up with personal comments like that when low life's come on to this forum
-
Grahame/NGB:
May I request that you look at the possibility of reinstating the ignore feature of the forum, judging by the animosity expressed in this thread (including the deleted posts), towards myself, it's clearly a feature which would benefit a number of people.
I wasn't aware that it had been removed? I'll take a look.
-
Just watching crimes of Britain
Rachel Nickell murder
The police nearly did a good job of stitching Colin stagg up
-
Grahame I don't think I can make the point more clearly that ferdiashepherds was on this forum as Dv8 and this was known
He made a personal comment about me sleeping on my own
No ban
A couple of days later he did the same thing
He was never banned
Grahame just say if you want me to leave because you are pushing me that way
I don't put up with personal comments like that when low life's come on to this forum
Jackie. If you want ME to go then please keep pushing me. I am not pushing you at all. But if you don't trust either myself or neil. Or if you think we are somehow wronging you. Then please say so. Because at this very moment it won't take long for ME to go I can tell you. >:(
-
Grahame I am not talking about Hartley, Vic or Andrea, I am talking about the constant interuptions to this forum from the sick people from the other forum trying to ruin this one. TEXT CENSORED
All I am asking is when someone comes on this forum that is clearly here to cause trouble from another forum they are dealt with rightaway
You can clearly see here where they are taking the piss below
The site has NOTHING to do with MOJ its just a sick place for sick people
-
Hello Andrea. :)
Hello Hartley. :)
Hello Vic...... :)
So good to have you back. Forum was not the same without your input. :D
-
the other forum can only keep going if its given oxygen by us.
-
Grahame I am not talking about Hartley, Vic or Andrea, I am talking about the constant interuptions to this forum from the sick people from the other forum trying to ruin this one. TEXT CENSORED
All I am asking is when someone comes on this forum that is clearly here to cause trouble from another forum they are dealt with rightaway
You can clearly see here where they are taking the piss below
The site has NOTHING to do with MOJ its just a sick place for sick people
Jackie, will you please stop this? It is too personal.
-
Jackie, will you please stop this? It is too personal.
Abs, no offence... but what's good for the goose is good for the gander? The abuse towards jackie on the other site is sickening and also constant. Surely you don't condone it?
-
Abs, no offence... but what's good for the goose is good for the gander? The abuse towards jackie on the other site is sickening and also constant. Surely you don't condone it?
I don´t, why would you think that, besides, I haven´t read everything there? I just think it is crossing a line threatening to go to Social Services with shona´s personal details. At least a line has been crossed in my book.
-
But I do understand Abs post Rochy. She is not condoning anything. She put her view very clearly and why she wanted the post to stop......
As nugnug said (but from a completely different angle).....starve it of oxygen and (hopefully) it will die!!
-
No Abs I wont and you obviously condone it by going on there, on this forum all of us are interested in a MOJ case and I am not putting up with people who want to come over here, nick all Mikes work and make out they are a MOJ site
Joke
Nobody and I mean nobody is going to mess this up, why dont you try talking to your mate she has clearly lost the plot and needs professional help
Try going down that route Abs
-
No AA these mentally disfunctioning people think its funny to come on this site and then we cant tell who is genuine and who is not
What a life!!
If any one of them were serious about ANY MOJ why do they keep coming over here
-
Abs, no offence... but what's good for the goose is good for the gander? The abuse towards jackie on the other site is sickening and also constant. Surely you don't condone it?
Jackie has indeed been subjected to horrible abuse on that other, sickening forum, Rocky. Like you, I completely condemn this abuse. I am sure that Abs does not condone this, she may be unaware of the extent of this.
-
I don´t, why would you think that, besides, I haven´t read everything there? I just think it is crossing a line threatening to go to Social Services with shona´s personal details. At least a line has been crossed in my book.
Again, no offence. But it's littered with abusive bullying. It's not difficult to spot abs. Their last forum was closed down? I have to say that at times I've crossed the line my self and this is not something I'm proud of. Best to be honest.
-
No AA these mentally disfunctioning people think its funny to come on this site and then we cant tell who is genuine and who is not
What a life!!
If any one of them were serious about ANY MOJ why do they keep coming over here
You know they are not serious......I know they are not serious about JB's MOJ too.....but, why can't such a vile post be ignored by us members and removed immediately once the mods come on?
They think it's a game - they would like nothing more than for us to be distracted.....and every time we copy or post, or reply to them....they are laughing at us, for once again they have distracted us!!
AS you have said before, they know nothing about you.....you know the truth - and that's all that really matters isn't it?
-
Abs I bet Shona wouldnt say a word if I had her real name would she.She is a bully and a coward. I would not put up with anyone being bullied on here and she did it to Smiffy.
Maybe you would like to have a word with your mate and also tell her I know how many times she has been on here today as she is being monitered.
Not one day goes by when she doesnt open her foul mouth
-
I dont go looking at the losers...places...
now others have lost respect for persons that never deserved it anyway...
-
Grahame's not been at all well and his daughter, Jo, has been very ill. That's an awful lot of pressure for Grahame, can we please be kinder to him by chilling a bit?
-
Grahame's not been at all well and his daughter, Jo, has been very ill. That's an awful lot of pressure for Grahame, can we please be kinder to him by chilling a bit?
Hello Keira , i agree with you all i will say is jackie is the target not for what she says or believes in oh no, its because she is a woman, i hope very much his new site is removed from terra firma.
-
Hello Keira , i agree with you all i will say is jackie is the target not for what she says or believes in oh no, its because she is a woman, i hope very much his new site is removed from terra firma.
I agree, Mertol, Jackie has been subject to the most horrible abuse, enough to frighten the daylights of anyone. Like you, I do believe JL is nasty enough to single out Jackie because she is female. I would so love to see that vile site gone too. We must look after Jackie and Grahame.
-
Sorry Grahame :'(
-
I post and read where I please. I have always made it clear that I am interested in all points of view.
I get very uneasy when people on an internet forum threaten to do something to people in real life. I have seen it happen before, it can get very nasty. It really needs to stop from both sides.
-
Hello Andrea. :)
Hello Hartley. :)
Hello Vic...... :)
So good to have you back. Forum was not the same without your input. :D
Thanks Aggie xx
-
Would just like to say that certain posts should be removed from this thread, like Abs said they are too personal, yes, there has been name calling (on both sides) but mentioning social services and stating that shona is unfit to be a nanna is going to far, it has to stop. i do know that Shona is a brilliant nanna and mother.
-
Grahame I am not talking about Hartley, Vic or Andrea, I am talking about the constant interuptions to this forum from the sick people from the other forum trying to ruin this one. TEXT CENSORED
All I am asking is when someone comes on this forum that is clearly here to cause trouble from another forum they are dealt with rightaway
You can clearly see here where they are taking the piss below
The site has NOTHING to do with MOJ its just a sick place for sick people
Jackie these people who have such limited lives that they feel it necessary to constantly abuse must be mentally sick and ought to be ignored.
Notice how how they say things like I joined today to see of I would be sussed. It is a silly and immature thing to say. Because anyone is free to join the forum anyway. But believe me we will soon delete them if they come here simply to abuse people. Why do they count it an "achievement" to have joined the forum unnoticed? It is just too silly for words.
You will have the greatest effect upon them if you just ignore their childish taunts. What people hate more than anything is to be ignored. No one can overcome me simply because I don't rise to the bait.
What they do on their kindergarten forum is entirely up to them. Who cares what they call me? It really is too laughable for words. Take my advice Jackie. Just take no notice at all. Without fuel the fire will die and the cinders that are left are fit for nothing but to be cast out onto the garden. Please develop a calm spirit. No one can overcome you if you don't let them. Remember Jackie you can also share my friends in very high places and get their support. They know everything that is going on and everyone who is abusing you. In due time they will if they persist get what is coming to them I can promise you that. ;)
-
Welcome back everyone. :)
-
Mike, it is to your credit that you lifted my ban and thank you to all of you that questioned it. Now, where were we?......
-
Mike, it is to your credit that you lifted my ban and thank you to all of you that questioned it. Now, where were we?......
Dont know about you vic, but i was just in the garden trying to sus the weather out. ;D
-
I still think the police should be involved with Horsey Dave's posts (Lord C / Lady C). And I believe the police should be notified about Tim Bennet's repeated bullying towards female forum members over here.. To compare this site to that one is totally disingenuous. This forum has by no means been perfect. But even the relatives spokesperson branded their previous pro boards forum as "foul". The response I've seen over there to that being queried is laughable. There is no intention whatsoever to curtail any abuse over there. it is tacitly encouraged by the very set-up in place. Steps should be made to have it shut down. IMO.
-
I still think the police should be involved with Horsey Dave's posts (Lord C / Lady C). And I believe the police should be notified about Tim Bennet's repeated bullying towards female forum members over here.. To compare this site to that one is totally disingenuous. This forum has by no means been perfect. But even the relatives spokesperson branded their previous pro boards forum as "foul". The response I've seen over there to that being queried is laughable. There is no intention whatsoever to curtail any abuse over there. it is tacitly encouraged by the very set-up in place. Steps should be made to have it shut down. IMO.
I totally agree with you David.
-
I post and read where I please. I have always made it clear that I am interested in all points of view.
I get very uneasy when people on an internet forum threaten to do something to people in real life. I have seen it happen before, it can get very nasty. It really needs to stop from both sides.
Abs - Of course you are free to post and read where you please and I would never suggest otherwise. I have defended your right to do so on this forum. However, if you are going to continue posting on Lamberton's forum I urge you to acquaint yourself with the filth that is posted there. I believe if you do that you will have strong reservations about being associated with it. Nothing posted on this forum even begins to get close to the foul and disguting material posted there, hiding behind the safety of a Columbian based host.
-
I still think the police should be involved with Horsey Dave's posts (Lord C / Lady C). And I believe the police should be notified about Tim Bennet's repeated bullying towards female forum members over here.. To compare this site to that one is totally disingenuous. This forum has by no means been perfect. But even the relatives spokesperson branded their previous pro boards forum as "foul". The response I've seen over there to that being queried is laughable. There is no intention whatsoever to curtail any abuse over there. it is tacitly encouraged by the very set-up in place. Steps should be made to have it shut down. IMO.
Roch,the whole site is laughable!There is a poster called Claudia on there who was giving it large towards Jackie and stated something along the lines of "Jackie should know that I come from Isleworth" insinuating that Jackie should therefore not mess with her.That comment made me roar with laughter.If she knew who my family were,her cheeks would burn with embarrassment for that comment!She is now picking on Keira.........obviously jealous of the fact that Keira has a lovely personality and intelligence!
-
Roch,the whole site is laughable!There is a poster called Claudia on there who was giving it large towards Jackie and stated something along the lines of "Jackie should know that I come from Isleworth" insinuating that Jackie should therefore not mess with her.That comment made me roar with laughter.If she knew who my family were,her cheeks would burn with embarrassment for that comment!She is now picking on Keira.........obviously jealous of the fact that Keira has a lovely personality and intelligence!
Well I come from hell.
-
Well I come from hell.
That explains a lot. ::)
-
Well I come from hell.
Sorry,but I cannot believe that for a single moment!
You are definately "one of the good guys" x
-
Sorry,but I cannot believe that for a single moment!
You are definately "one of the good guys" x
Not with bad guys I'm not. ;)
-
Roch,the whole site is laughable!There is a poster called Claudia on there who was giving it large towards Jackie and stated something along the lines of "Jackie should know that I come from Isleworth" insinuating that Jackie should therefore not mess with her.That comment made me roar with laughter.If she knew who my family were,her cheeks would burn with embarrassment for that comment!She is now picking on Keira.........obviously jealous of the fact that Keira has a lovely personality and intelligence!
Some one on twitter was giving them an awful pasting last week. I had to look away, it was like watching somebody hoofing a puppy.
-
Roch,the whole site is laughable!There is a poster called Claudia on there who was giving it large towards Jackie and stated something along the lines of "Jackie should know that I come from Isleworth" insinuating that Jackie should therefore not mess with her.That comment made me roar with laughter.If she knew who my family were,her cheeks would burn with embarrassment for that comment!She is now picking on Keira.........obviously jealous of the fact that Keira has a lovely personality and intelligence!
How kind of you, Tyler, thank you. I haven't seen Claudia of Isleworth's remarks as I never look at the site as a matter of principle. Whoever she is, I am unimpressed.