Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: tonyb on May 18, 2012, 08:52:PM
-
Has the CCRC route of appeal finished. Its going to Judicial Revue as i understand,so is this aspect beyond the control of the CCRC? That is has the case been bumped to the next part of the appeal stage or the end of the CCRC stage. sorry if the question is convoluted but the answer needs to be accurate
many thanks in advance.
-
Has the CCRC route of appeal finished. Its going to Judicial Revue as i understand,so is this aspect beyond the control of the CCRC? That is has the case been bumped to the next part of the appeal stage or the end of the CCRC stage. sorry if the question is convoluted but the answer needs to be accurate
many thanks in advance.
The CCRC has made what it hopes is its final decision, but that decision is now being challenged via JR in the High Court. If the challenge is successful the CCRC will have to take the decision again, in light of the High Court's findings. That does not mean that the decision will be reversed, but it could be, depending on what if any faults the High Court find with the decision making process.
-
The CCRC has made what it hopes is its final decision, but that decision is now being challenged via JR in the High Court. If the challenge is successful the CCRC will have to take the decision again, in light of the High Court's findings. That does not mean that the decision will be reversed, but it could be, depending on what if any faults the High Court find with the decision making process.
thank you for your prompt response
have a good weekend
tony
-
thank you for your prompt response
have a good weekend
tony
You too tony
-
CCRC could have reviewed the matter without the need for it to go to judicial review, and appointed a different set of commissioners to look at the case, and make a new final decision, but they appear to have chosen not to, at least for the time being...
-
CCRC could have reviewed the matter without the need for it to go to judicial review, and appointed a different set of commissioners to look at the case, and make a new final decision, but they appear to have chosen not to, at least for the time being...
Correct. I imagine they are confident of success at the JR.
-
CCRC could have reviewed the matter without the need for it to go to judicial review, and appointed a different set of commissioners to look at the case, and make a new final decision, but they appear to have chosen not to, at least for the time being...
So the CCRC have made a final decision? Are you expecting them to make a new final,final decision ?
-
So the CCRC have made a final decision? Are you expecting them to make a new final,final decision ?
The CCRC have made a final decision, but it is still open to them to review it.
-
The CCRC have made a final decision, but it is still open to them to review it.
It takes hours to get locked up and a thousand years to get out of prison. If I were JB I would tunnel through to the chap in the cell next door and when the chap next door dies take his place and get out in a coffin. It's his only chance. Well it worked for the Count of Monte Christo. Then all he has to do is find some treasure on an island somewhere then carry out his well planned revenge on his enemies. Just like the count did. Ok so I'm off on one of my fantasy trips again.
-
Hi Grahame(alias bloggs and son) Just wondering what meds you are on today tell me and I can take some too. ;D :D :)
-
The CCRC have made a final decision, but it is still open to them to review it.
Thank you again.
-
CCRC could have reviewed the matter without the need for it to go to judicial review, and appointed a different set of commissioners to look at the case, and make a new final decision, but they appear to have chosen not to, at least for the time being...
Yep. This.
They were asked if they wish to review their decision, they thought it over and decided no. They are certian enough that the decision was correct and that the JR will fall in their favour.
-
Yep. This.
They were asked if they wish to review their decision, they thought it over and decided no. They are certian enough that the decision was correct and that the JR will fall in their favour.
Hi mat :) If they know that, then surely this is not right, for if it is then no one is doing their homework and abiding by the law....It can't be as clear cut as that?
The CCRC can't possibly know the outcome, before is has been agreed. :)
-
Hi mat :) If they know that, then surely this is not right, for if it is then no one is doing their homework and abiding by the law....It can't be as clear cut as that?
The CCRC can't possibly know the outcome, before is has been agreed. :)
What are they supposed to do, re-review their decision every time JB says he doesn't like it, which will be any decision which is not to refer?
They will have been told the basis of the JR application in the letter from Simon McKay, clearly they think they will be successful in defending whatever points he has raised.
-
Hi mat :) If they know that, then surely this is not right, for if it is then no one is doing their homework and abiding by the law....It can't be as clear cut as that?
The CCRC can't possibly know the outcome, before is has been agreed. :)
The CCRC are confident. Simon McKay knows that MOJ's are not easily overturned. He took over with limited time to spare. If the JR is rejected, then I think Mckay will take full control of future submissions, as opposed to having picked up the various threads this time. He will have to start from scratch in one sense. Bottom of the pile. Personally I do not believe that the CCRC have properly investigated what has been brought before them over the nine years.
-
What are they supposed to do, re-review their decision every time JB says he doesn't like it, which will be any decision which is not to refer?
They will have been told the basis of the JR application in the letter from Simon McKay, clearly they think they will be successful in defending whatever points he has raised.
If they are confident that they have acted within the law, then that is fine. Simon must think otherwise...Hopefully we will find out in due course.
What I was saying to mat is that no outcome is known, yet Mat is saying otherwise....My question was...How can this be? :)
-
If they are confident that they have acted within the law, then that is fine. Simon must think otherwise...Hopefully we will find out in due course.
What I was saying to mat is that no outcome is known, yet Mat is saying otherwise....My question was...How can this be? :)
Mat is like the countless others who have come and gone claim to know information few do also, i for one did not fall out a box of cornflakes.
-
If they are confident that they have acted within the law, then that is fine. Simon must think otherwise...Hopefully we will find out in due course.
What I was saying to mat is that no outcome is known, yet Mat is saying otherwise....My question was...How can this be? :)
Think you may have mis-understood just a little. The CCRC are sure that they abided by the law when they didn't refer the case to the COA.
Which is why they believe that the JR will fall in their favour, they don't beleive that have done anything wrong so do not expect to be told they have.
-
If they are confident that they have acted within the law, then that is fine. Simon must think otherwise...Hopefully we will find out in due course.
What I was saying to mat is that no outcome is known, yet Mat is saying otherwise....My question was...How can this be? :)
The outcome of the CCRC decision is known - no referral. The JR is JB's application.
-
Hi Mat/Bridget....to be honest with you I am not sure of the legalities....Alls I (think) i know is that the high court will decide whether or not is goes any further....Help me out here for I am not familiar with it all. :)
-
Hi Mat/Bridget....to be honest with you I am not sure of the legalities....Alls I (think) i know is that the high court will decide whether or not is goes any further....Help me out here for I am not familiar with it all. :)
I don't know how to explain it any better! Haha.
I guess if I tell you I have 10 marbles, but you count then and you disagree and say I have 11. The defence is me, the CCRC is you. So the CCRC say there are 11 and the defence say there are 10.
So no one agrees.
They send it to the judges to see if the CCRC counted correctly.
The CCRC expect the decision to fall in their favour, because they believe they've counted/acted correctly.
Please tell me that makes sense to you? :)
-
I don't know how to explain it any better! Haha.
I guess if I tell you I have 10 marbles, but you count then and you disagree and say I have 11. The defence is me, the CCRC is you. So the CCRC say there are 11 and the defence say there are 10.
So no one agrees.
They send it to the judges to see if the CCRC counted correctly.
The CCRC expect the decision to fall in their favour, because they believe they've counted/acted correctly.
Please tell me that makes sense to you? :)
But what if the judges say there is one very large marble that need more attention....Like a massive ball barian? Then what? :) :) :) :)
-
Then they disagree with the CCRC's decision. They get the CCRC to look at it again. :)
-
Then they disagree with the CCRC's decision. They get the CCRC to look at it again. :)
What if they say they stand by their decision? :)
-
It's no more than a game of cat and mouse with the " remainder " of someone's life here.They're not always right.
The CCRC,that is. Independent,? Impartial?. Another biased organisation.!
-
What if they say they stand by their decision? :)
If they paid the required further attention to the large one in coming to their decision to stand by their original decision it is very unlikely that a further JR application would be accepted.
-
I don't think it will be long till the ccrc decision in the Simon Hall case it will be interesting to see how that ends up
-
They're expecting an update from the CCRC sometime in June I think.
-
Bridget they might even know the result already
-
Bridget they might even know the result already
I suppose, but it was the CCRC that said June, why would you think otherwise?
-
Maybe there is a mole at the CCRC
-
Maybe there is a mole at the CCRC
Or maybe there isn't.
-
The Simon Hall case is an interesting one but I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole, as In my opinion I have seen nothing that makes me think the case will be referred to the COA
-
The Simon Hall case is an interesting one but I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole, as In my opinion I have seen nothing that makes me think the case will be referred to the COA
Neither have I, but then neither of us has seen the submissions.
-
The CCRC are confident. Simon McKay knows that MOJ's are not easily overturned. He took over with limited time to spare. If the JR is rejected, then I think Mckay will take full control of future submissions, as opposed to having picked up the various threads this time. He will have to start from scratch in one sense. Bottom of the pile. Personally I do not believe that the CCRC have properly investigated what has been brought before them over the nine years.
They haven't properly investigated. They haven't consulted with the experts in Arizona. In order to have done that they would have to ask SM and such a request has not been made. How do I know that? Because the experts in Arizona, who conducted the tests under instruction from JB's legal team are under obligation to tell SM before they reveal any information to a third source. That has not taken place either. So if anyone says otherwise is either grossly misinformed or the are lying about who they are. period. ;)
-
Commonly known as jiggery-pokery,Bloggs.
-
Grahame alias bloggs and son for anyone to say what has been said to you about your daughter just now is so so sick it is too contemptable to reply to. Hope you don,t.
-
They haven't properly investigated. They haven't consulted with the experts in Arizona. In order to have done that they would have to ask SM and such a request has not been made. How do I know that? Because the experts in Arizona, who conducted the tests under instruction from JB's legal team are under obligation to tell SM before they reveal any information to a third source. That has not taken place either. So if anyone says otherwise is either grossly misinformed or the are lying about who they are. period. ;)
Wouldn't there be an agreement, either express or implied, that the experts may discuss the issues with the CCRC? I accept that SM should and would have been told about any communication between them, but given that the experts are supposed to be independent, it cannot be right that they should require SMs permission to 'reveal' anything.
-
Mat, you're completely out of order.
-
Stop trying to goad me, you're the liar. Lied about a sick daughter for attention online. You're sick!
Mat I never speak to you but That is an appalling statement. I can only think you have no idea how dreadful that is.You owe Grahame and his family a massive apology.....should not be toletated imo
-
Grahame alias bloggs and son for anyone to say what has been said to you about your daughter just now is so so sick it is too contemptable to reply to. Hope you don,t.
What? He can call me a cleaner, say I would get shot and am a traitor and a liar - but I can't doubt him?
He's can't throw around baseless accusations without expecting the same in return.
-
Mat, you're completely out of order.
No, I'm just not being bullied and called a liar by him anymore.
If I'm a liar, the so is he.
-
No, I'm just not being bullied and called a liar by him anymore.
If I'm a liar, the so is he.
Do I really have to explain why bringing his daughter into this is wrong?
-
Stop trying to goad me, you're the liar. Lied about a sick daughter for attention online. You're sick!
You must withdraw that immediately Mat. It is totally unacceptable and a wholly disproportionate response to what has been said to you.
-
He brought his daughter onto these boards, not me.
He can say I am a traitor and would get shot. But I can't call him a liar? He calls me it daily.
I don't believe him, I don't have to believe him. He doesn't believe my story, I don't believe his.
He isn't going to bully me anymore, NGB.
-
Wouldn't there be an agreement, either express or implied, that the experts may discuss the issues with the CCRC? I accept that SM should and would have been told about any communication between them, but given that the experts are supposed to be independent, it cannot be right that they should require SMs permission to 'reveal' anything.
No there would not. I do know that there was no discussion between the CCRC and the US experts.
-
They haven't properly investigated. They haven't consulted with the experts in Arizona. In order to have done that they would have to ask SM and such a request has not been made. How do I know that? Because the experts in Arizona, who conducted the tests under instruction from JB's legal team are under obligation to tell SM before they reveal any information to a third source. That has not taken place either. So if anyone says otherwise is either grossly misinformed or the are lying about who they are. period. ;)
So does that mean they haven't acted within the law and followed an investigation which is vital to a man's case? :)
-
No there would not. I do know that there was no discussion between the CCRC and the US experts.
That surprises me, but I accept that that is the case.
-
He brought his daughter onto these boards, not me.
He can say I am a traitor and would get shot. But I can't call him a liar? He calls me it daily.
I don't believe him, I don't have to believe him. He doesn't believe my story, I don't believe his.
He isn't going to bully me anymore, NGB.
He did not say you were a traitor and would be shot. He gave an analogy of what might happen in wartime if secrets were disclosed. You must withdraw what you have said about Grahame's daughter Mat. You have said it in anger but that does not justify the comment. The allegation that Grahame has made up his daughter's illness is one which you have picked up from Tim Bennett on the Lamberton forum. It is an appalling and insensitive allegation to make. Please withdraw it.
-
He brought his daughter onto these boards, not me.
He can say I am a traitor and would get shot. But I can't call him a liar? He calls me it daily.
I don't believe him, I don't have to believe him. He doesn't believe my story, I don't believe his.
He isn't going to bully me anymore, NGB.
Hi Mat, please don't bring personal things to the forum, it's not cricket....:) Go delete your posts...please.
-
So does that mean they haven't acted within the law and followed an investigation which is vital to a man's case? :)
That is what is being asserted, the high court will decide whether that is the case.
-
So does that mean they haven't acted within the law and followed an investigation which is vital to a man's case? :)
The defence case is that the CCRC have not evaluated the latest submissions and the fresh evidence in the way required by law. If they had done so, they would have referred the case to the Court of Appeal.
-
He did not say you were a traitor and would be shot. He gave an analogy of what might happen in wartime if secrets were disclosed. You must withdraw what you have said about Grahame's daughter Mat. You have said it in anger but that does not justify the comment. The allegation that Grahame has made up his daughter's illness is one which you have picked up from Tim Bennett on the Lamberton forum. It is an appalling and insensitive allegation to make. Please withdraw it.
On that forum they are all saying that they wish her the best and doubt she would want her details posting all over the internet. I don't recall seeing someone say that he made it up.
But that analogy was aimed directly at me to piss me off, you know that.
I apologise if he is telling the truth about his daughter. I choose to call him a liar, even though it is baseless on my behalf. I hope he knows how it feels to be attacked when you're being honest.
-
The defence case is that the CCRC have not evaluated the latest submissions and the fresh evidence in the way required by law. If they had done so, they would have referred the case to the Court of Appeal.
To do so they would have needed to have the Arizona test's replicated , by their own expert's ?
-
Hi Mat, please don't bring personal things to the forum, it's not cricket....:) Go delete your posts...please.
I didn't, Patti. I just said I choose not to believe what he posts on the forum.
-
On that forum they are all saying that they wish her the best and doubt she would want her details posting all over the internet. I don't recall seeing someone say that he made it up.But that analogy was aimed directly at me to piss me off, you know that.
I apologise if he is telling the truth about his daughter. I choose to call him a liar, even though it is baseless on my behalf. I hope he knows how it feels to be attacked when you're being honest.
I can assure you that Tim Bennett repeatedly said that Grahame was making it up. He also made the most disgusting suggestions about Grahame's daughter. I am not going to repeat them.
-
I can assure you that Tim Bennett repeatedly said that Grahame was making it up. He also made the most disgusting suggestions about Grahame's daughter. I am not going to repeat them.
Well I haven't seen them.
My remarks where made to show him how it feels when someone says you're a liar. If he keeps on doing it to me, I will fight back on or off the forum - I'm not getting bullied by him.
-
Well I haven't seen them.
My remarks where made to show him how it feels when someone says you're a liar. If he keeps on doing it to me, I will fight back on or off the forum - I'm not getting bullied by him.
Really. So you randomly pick probably the most hurtful subject you could have and use it to teach him a lesson. That's just nasty.
-
Only so much I can take, Bridget. He's done nothing but be nasty since I came here.
-
Only so much I can take, Bridget. He's done nothing but be nasty since I came here.
He doesn't like you. He doesn't like me much either, get over it.
-
He doesn't like you. He doesn't like me much either, get over it.
Absolutely agree bridget. I find it hard to believe mat is such a sensitive flower.
-
What are they supposed to do, re-review their decision every time JB says he doesn't like it, which will be any decision which is not to refer?
They will have been told the basis of the JR application in the letter from Simon McKay, clearly they think they will be successful in defending whatever points he has raised.
It is not the job or the role of the CCRC to carry on as though they are a jury, they have to refer a case back to the court of appeal if there is any chance of a new ground or any evidence which has since come to light, which could have made a difference to the juries original verdict - in this case, the new evidence from various experts from Arizona, that a rifle minus a silencer was used to shoot dead Sheila at the scene, is capable of undermining the prosecutions case that a silencer was used in the shooting of Sheila Caffell, and as such unless the CCRC could produce conflicting expert opinion denouncing the latest findings, the case should be sent back to the CCOA for judgement. A Failure to do so, amounts to a case of unacceptable bias...
-
It is not the job or the role of the CCRC to carry on as though they are a jury, they have to refer a case back to the court of appeal if there is any chance of a new ground or any evidence which has since come to light, which could have made a difference to the juries original verdict - in this case, the new evidence from various experts from Arizona, that a rifle minus a silencer was used to shoot dead Sheila at the scene, is capable of undermining the prosecutions case that a silencer was used in the shooting of Sheila Caffell, and as such unless the CCRC could produce conflicting expert opinion denouncing the latest findings, the case should be sent back to the CCOA for judgement. A Failure to do so, amounts to a case of unacceptable bias...
No doubt Simon McKay will be saying similar, but it's for the high court to decide now.
-
Mike,I agree with you. The case has been biased right from the start. No doubt whatsoever about that.
-
It is not the job or the role of the CCRC to carry on as though they are a jury, they have to refer a case back to the court of appeal if there is any chance of a new ground or any evidence which has since come to light, which could have made a difference to the juries original verdict - in this case, the new evidence from various experts from Arizona, that a rifle minus a silencer was used to shoot dead Sheila at the scene, is capable of undermining the prosecutions case that a silencer was used in the shooting of Sheila Caffell, and as such unless the CCRC could produce conflicting expert opinion denouncing the latest findings, the case should be sent back to the CCOA for judgement. A Failure to do so, amounts to a case of unacceptable bias...
So, surely the " photo on the bed " would undermine assertions that SC had not been moved and the producing of said photo would seriously undermine the prosecutions case, irrespective of if they cannot agree on silencer evidence. So failing to produce said photo therefore amounts to a case of unacceptable stupidity or bullshit. IMO
-
So, surely the " photo on the bed " would undermine assertions that SC had not been moved and the producing of said photo would seriously undermine the prosecutions case, irrespective of if they cannot agree on silencer evidence. So failing to produce said photo therefore amounts to a case of unacceptable stupidity or bullshit. IMO
Newspaper reports of the day, reported that the body of Sheila and June were found on the bed, some reports suggest the rifle was between their bodies on the bed, and others that a bible was atop Sheila's chest. I wonder where the journalists who produced these articles got there information from?
-
He doesn't like you. He doesn't like me much either, get over it.
These incessant feuds between different members are just plain daft at times. Some members hold grudges about having been slighted by such and such, months ago. If it's not A vs B it's C vs D. Round and round it goes.
-
These incessant feuds between different members are just plain daft at times. Some members hold grudges about having been slighted by such and such, months ago. If it's not A vs B it's C vs D. Round and round it goes.
Eventually it'll be Z then...
-
Eventually it'll be Z then...
Maybe he's not gonna save the day...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7Yp2L6c2KM
-
Newspaper reports of the day, reported that the body of Sheila and June were found on the bed, some reports suggest the rifle was between their bodies on the bed, and others that a bible was atop Sheila's chest. I wonder where the journalists who produced these articles got there information from?
No idea Mike. Facts are sacred,you can't believe everything you read,but seeing it with your ( and our ) own eyes is surely proof beyond doubt?
-
Maybe he's not gonna save the day...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7Yp2L6c2KM
Z's dead baby...
-
Z's dead baby...
It's not a motorcycle,it's a chopper....
-
Stop trying to goad me, you're the liar. Lied about a sick daughter for attention online. You're sick!
I think you should reconsider your post Mat. This is one of the most disgraceful post I have ever read.
This is the reason I look at the other forum.
You are an absolute disgrace Mat. Have you been to the pub, or drinking at home.
That was a terrible post, and hope you leave the forum, as you have nothing to add, only bile.consider
If you are who you say you are then you need to consider your position, and certainly do not be considered as a man that should be taken seriosly.
You are a foul mouthed moron.
-
I think you should reconsider your post Mat. This is one of the most disgraceful post I have ever read.
This is the reason I look at the other forum.
You are an absolute disgrace Mat. Have you been to the pub, or drinking at home.
That was a terrible post, and hope you leave the forum, as you have nothing to add, only bile.consider
If you are who you say you are then you need to consider your position, and certainly do not be considered as a man that should be taken seriosly.
You are a foul mouthed moron.
Well said Buddy. Many of us are very aware of the stress Grahaame is under at the moment he deserves support from us all.
-
Well said Buddy. Many of us are very aware of the stress Grahaame is under at the moment he deserves support from us all.
I Doubt that Grahame needs support from a wanker like me, but I am here if he does.
-
I Doubt that Grahame needs support from a wanker like me, but I am here if he does.
You're a good guy Buddy. :) :)
-
You're a good guy Buddy. :) :)
Thanks Maggie. I am just humane.
-
Buddy you are one nice genuine guy the world would be a better place with more people like you in it.
-
Thanks Maggie. I am just humane.
Nicely soft, I love someone that admits to crying over the loss of mans best friend
We love you Buddy
-
Nicely soft, I love someone that admits to crying over the loss of mans best friend
We love you Buddy
I love you all too.
-
Well isn't that just the nicest thing I've heard all day.
-
Awwwww :'(
-
It wasn't the smartest comment, I've ever made.
I've seen worse though - so don't dress me as the devil just yet.
I apologise.
-
Eventually it'll be Z then...
thats enough zed ;D
-
I think you should reconsider your post Mat. This is one of the most disgraceful post I have ever read.
This is the reason I look at the other forum.
You are an absolute disgrace Mat. Have you been to the pub, or drinking at home.
That was a terrible post, and hope you leave the forum, as you have nothing to add, only bile.consider
If you are who you say you are then you need to consider your position, and certainly do not be considered as a man that should be taken seriosly.
You are a foul mouthed moron.
Actually Buddy those words are reminiscent of Tim Bennett? What's the betting? ;)
-
I Doubt that Grahame needs support from a wanker like me, but I am here if he does.
I didn't know you did that? ;D Don't worry folks mat's small fry. I notice that when I called him a liar that my post was censored. But when he called me a liar his post was not censored? Not complaining mind. Only saying. It's hard being a moderator. Sometimes you can't tell the good guys from the bad. I would like mats post to stayand not be deleted if possible? For it is only when we see ALL the evidence that we can then make the correct decision. Something that should have happened at Bamber's trial.
-
Well said Grahame you have been treated so badly it's unforgivable
-
Now we just have to deal with the vile person responsible for splashing all Simon McKays private life over twitter in the hope he would walk out on Jeremy
-
Now we just have to deal with the vile person responsible for splashing all Simon McKays private life over twitter in the hope he would walk out on Jeremy
Who's that?
-
Grahame, I edited one post each, regarding 'liar'.
-
Grahame, I edited one post each, regarding 'liar'.
Thats ok Rochford. I'm not complaining I'm just glad you didn't delete mat's post about me making it all up about my daughter. Perhaps I had better post a picture of her weighing only 4 stone lying on her bed wrything in pain last night? Oh! But of course until he sees that he will tell everyone that I'm Mike Tesko if I don't produce such a picture. ;)
-
Thats ok Rochford. I'm not complaining I'm just glad you didn't delete mat's post about me making it all up about my daughter. Perhaps I had better post a picture of her weighing only 4 stone lying on her bed wrything in pain last night? Oh! But of course until he sees that he will tell everyone that I'm Mike Tesko if I don't produce such a picture. ;)
I'm sure anyone with an ounce of common sense believes you Grahame. There is no need for you to 'prove' anything. There was a request made to Mat to withdraw the offending post, as opposed to the mods removing it.
-
Wouldn't there be an agreement, either express or implied, that the experts may discuss the issues with the CCRC? I accept that SM should and would have been told about any communication between them, but given that the experts are supposed to be independent, it cannot be right that they should require SMs permission to 'reveal' anything.
I suppose it depends what's in the agreement if there is one of course? But I would have thought that the contract was a private one between SM and the Arizona testing team? It is a question of etiquet and that if the CCRC wanted access to the results of those tests, they (the testers) being a private firm would naturally demand payment before the request is is granted? Of course I could be wrong about the whole thing. But I do know how American companies operate.
-
Grahame I am so so sorry you are having to put up with such disgusting abuse as well as having to see your dear daughter in so much pain. I for one have not heard much about your daughters illness and did not realise you and your wife are having to see your child suffer this way. Nothing we can say will make it easier for you but you do know we are all hear for you and your daughter is in our prayers.
-
Don't upset yourself,Grahame. I'm sure the majority here support you.
-
Of course he knows that he doesn't need to prove anything. He's just going to keep going on about my one comment now because he thinks that makes him high and superior.
I made a mistake, I shouldn't have mentioned Jo-Jo. I should have gone straight after Grahame. Lesson learned.
-
I'm sure anyone with an ounce of common sense believes you Grahame. There is no need for you to 'prove' anything. There was a request made to Mat to withdraw the offending post, as opposed to the mods removing it.
I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and believe he said it in the heat of the moment. I've done the same myself. That why I have restrained myself from calling him a big fat twat. ::) ;D
I rather like the banter really. That's the naughty side of me. His words or the words of that other crappy forum make absolutely no impression on me....But now that I know that MY words really annoy Mat...Well...Who's to say what I might say? ;D ;D ::)
-
Keep it up Grahame.
-
Grahame I am so so sorry you are having to put up with such disgusting abuse as well as having to see your dear daughter in so much pain. I for one have not heard much about your daughters illness and did not realise you and your wife are having to see your child suffer this way. Nothing we can say will make it easier for you but you do know we are all hear for you and your daughter is in our prayers.
I mean...Why on earth would I want sympathy? It's Jo who needs the sympathy. ???
-
Its no use mat. I cant read whatever you're saying. I've got you on ignore and the silence is golden golden. ;D
-
Of course he knows that he doesn't need to prove anything. He's just going to keep going on about my one comment now because he thinks that makes him high and superior.
I made a mistake, I shouldn't have mentioned Jo-Jo. I should have gone straight after Grahame. Lesson learned.
You are so ungracious mat. You should be really ashamed but you just can't help yourself. You're a disgrace thats a fact.
-
Grahame I know it is your daughter that needs sympathy but it is difficult for you to have to deal with it without having abuse added to it.
-
I called him a liar. That's what he's been saying to me since I joined, he's a nasty bully. Usually it is the female members he bullies - he isn't going to play this game with me and get away with it.
-
I called him a liar. That's what he's been saying to me since I joined, he's a nasty bully. Usually it is the female members he bullies - he isn't going to play this game with me and get away with it.
It was the subject matter of what you asserted as his lie that was objectionable Mat, but I think you know that.
-
Of course.
And I've apologised. I was having a bad day at work, came on here and yet again he was being the bully everyone knows him as.
But it's fine because I am not going to deal with him on the board.
-
I was just going off what the girls on the other forum sya - that they've been bullied by him. He does bully, he's tried his best with me so I am more than inclined to believe them.
-
Take the hint Mat and do one
You are not wanted here
Grahame has never been a bully
-
Right, can we call and end to this please. It's getting out of hand.
-
Rochy I cannot sit here and see Grahame called a bully, he is so not
Let's sit here all night and watch Mat throw insults at Grahame when he might be up all night with his daughter
-
If Grahame would stop following me and other members and quoting their posts to cause trouble with them. There wouldn't be a problem.
I'm not the only one who has complained about him doing this.
-
Rochy I cannot sit here and see Grahame called a bully, he is so not
Let's sit here all night and watch Mat throw insults at Grahame when he might be up all night with his daughter
Mat and Grahame have been arguing for weeks. This kind of thing (where it gets personal) is best avoided on the open forum. Mat has been challenged by two mods and some regulars. I would hope that he keeps things civil and that Grahame gives him a chance to do so, by suspending this feud.
-
If I feel protective towards Grahame I am not going to make excuses for it
Is Mat suggesting that the mods have told him who has complained about Grahame
Shouldn't that be confidential
That's outrageous
-
If I feel protective towards Grahame I am not going to make excuses for it
Is Mat suggesting that the mods have told him who has complained about Grahame
Shouldn't that be confidential
That's outrageous
I don't think that's what he means. I think he is referring to ex members of this forum who are now members of the Bennett / Lamberton forum.
-
Right, can we call and end to this please. It's getting out of hand.
Good evening all
I have never got involved with the arguments on the forum, as they detract from the whole purpose of the existence OF this forum. I believe that nothing is gained by these actions, and that the time would be better spent discussing the cases.
My opinion is that when a thread goes "off topic" I lose interest in it. And that is a pity as there are some very good posts from pro AND anti members. Why do many threads end up as slanging matches?
May I respectfully ask that personal differences are conducted within the privacy of the PM facility. There is a wealth of information on here which I have great interest in, and there is, unfortunately public spats which I am not interested in. I imagine I am not alone in this request. Please may we treat each member of this forum in a courteous manner. It costs nothing.
And finally, with respect to Grahame (alias bloggs and son), I personally delivered a get well card to his daughter whilst she was in hospital. As always, I wish Jo a very speedy recovery. Please afford this young lady the respect she deserves.
Thankyou.
-
Blodwyn I have said my piece, there's not much I can add
-
Good evening all
I have never got involved with the arguments on the forum, as they detract from the whole purpose of the existence OF this forum. I believe that nothing is gained by these actions, and that the time would be better spent discussing the cases.
My opinion is that when a thread goes "off topic" I lose interest in it. And that is a pity as there are some very good posts from pro AND anti members. Why do many threads end up as slanging matches?
May I respectfully ask that personal differences are conducted within the privacy of the PM facility. There is a wealth of information on here which I have great interest in, and there is, unfortunately public spats which I am not interested in. I imagine I am not alone in this request. Please may we treat each member of this forum in a courteous manner. It costs nothing.
And finally, with respect to Grahame (alias bloggs and son), I personally delivered a get well card to his daughter whilst she was in hospital. As always, I wish Jo a very speedy recovery. Please afford this young lady the respect she deserves.
Thankyou.
Every single word, the voice of reason. Thanks Blodwynflower.
-
Mat and Grahame have been arguing for weeks. This kind of thing (where it gets personal) is best avoided on the open forum. Mat has been challenged by two mods and some regulars. I would hope that he keeps things civil and that Grahame gives him a chance to do so, by suspending this feud.
Thank you for your support. By making me responsible for his actions.
-
Thank you for your support.
Grahame, there are two people involved in the disagreement between you and Mat? I have been supportive towards you, imho.
-
Grahame, there are two people involved in the disagreement between you and Mat? I have been supportive towards you, imho.
Please don't try and put his reational posts on to me Rochford. That is not fair. The man is a troll and always has been. You just haven't recognised it. Can't you see even now ever since he has been here he has disrupted the forum and it has not only been me who has objected to his wiles. Wake up man and see whats really going on here.
-
Good evening blodwyn. Good to have you on line.
-
Good evening blodwyn. Good to have you on line.
Thankyou Maggie.
-
Please don't try and put his reational posts on to me Rochford. That is not fair. The man is a troll and always has been. You just haven't recognised it. Can't you see even now ever since he has been here he has disrupted the forum and it has not only been me who has objected to his wiles. Wake up man and see whats really going on here.
Grahame, I agree there has been some disruption since Mat came along.
-
But that isn't all down to me. I've been attacked numerous times every time I make a post and 90% of that time the attack comes from the bully Grahame.
Their small circle lied to get me banned - thankfully the mods corrected this quickly. They have lied about PM's I sent, they have lied about what I have said on the other forum.
I am always arguing with them because I am forever having to defend myself.
The mods have had to deal with them time and time again when they begin a PM campaign to get me banned on baseless claims and their lies.
-
But that isn't all down to me. I've been attacked numerous times every time I make a post and 90% of that time the attack comes from the bully Grahame.
Their small circle lied to get me banned - thankfully the mods corrected this quickly. They have lied about PM's I sent, they have lied about what I have said on the other forum.
I am always arguing with them because I am forever having to defend myself.
The mods have had to deal with them time and time again when they begin a PM campaign to get me banned on baseless claims and their lies.
I cant comment with any accuracy on your assertions above. But if the issue does not end soon, I will have to lock down the thread and split the topic. I would rather not have to do this.
-
But that isn't all down to me. I've been attacked numerous times every time I make a post and 90% of that time the attack comes from the bully Grahame.
Their small circle lied to get me banned - thankfully the mods corrected this quickly. They have lied about PM's I sent, they have lied about what I have said on the other forum.
I am always arguing with them because I am forever having to defend myself.
The mods have had to deal with them time and time again when they begin a PM campaign to get me banned on baseless claims and their lies.
Who lied to get you banned Mat? Me? I dont think so.
-
Every single word, the voice of reason. Thanks Blodwynflower.
You're very welcome, Rochford.