Jeremy Bamber Forum
OFF TOPIC => General => Topic started by: scipio_usmc on October 09, 2014, 09:01:PM
-
Why is it considering bullying to point out when people are operating based on bias and not based on evidence?
When people do lie and distort why is it not permissible to call them on it?
Moreover, why do posts calling me a liar which I refute which evidence end up being deleted and thus also erasing the evidence I present to refute it?
Posts where lookout called me a liar but offered no evidence to establish it- gone. I didn't complain about such posts and ask them to be deleted the way alias begs for posts launched against her to be deleted. They get deleted and then it is presented as me picking on lookout or whoever with there posts often missing.
Reader asserted I lied and made up the claim that Jeremy told police Sheila fired all guns in the house. I attached images of 5 different statements from police discussing such. Reade lacked the guts to respond to the evidence that proved I didn't make up anything. He ignored it so in a different post I noted he lacked the balls to even respond. My post challenging him to repsond was not touched just criticized but his post accusing me of lying and my proof Jeremy did it were erased so the record of him falsely accusing me was erased and more siginficantly the post showing exactly what police were told by Jeremy. It seems that attcks on me are erased to hide that people attack me and hide my substantive response to such attacks.
My posts illustrate the proper way to respond to a charge. You respond substantively with evidence to refute a charge if it is untrue. If you can't and instead they produce evidence against you that is the nature of the beast with respect to debating.
If there is a debate where 1 person claims another names and the other responds with names and it just goes back and forth like that then it serves no purpose and all and I can see mods stepping in.
When there are substantive charges levied and/or refuted I do not understand mods stepping in.
I prefer any attacks on me to stand and not be deleted. I'm a big boy I can handle the attacks and have never responded by saying FU or calling the people curse words which I would agree is not appropriate though I also prefer when people call me curse words to leave it up as well. Let the people modify their posts if it embarrassess them too much. Maybe they will learn something in the process.
-
I have moved this to off topic. Hope you don't mind.
-
Just have to lump it I am afraid, Scip. I saw your posts to Lookout - were her posts based on absolutely NOTHING? Yes they were and they OFTEN are. Quite often we're told that we are not allowed to post personal things about members - but what about the disgusting posts members make about people not on the forum? That seems to be okay. ::)
Lookout called you fucking nasty today, which I reported but it's been said that post WILL stay.
Although I tihnk you've been too personal at times with Lookout I don't think you were today. You exposed her POSTS. You've also been too personal at times with Alias - but she has been just as bad with you and has even followed you onto other forums to try and prove her point - this is ignored.
I know the mods can't view EVERY posts but syaing this too many times seems an excuse as I remember Patti attacking Caroline for saying she didn't see Hartleys post. :-\
-
A new lie about me, skip, you can´t help yourself, can you? I have never asked to have posts removed. Never ever. Not mine, not other people´s, not even your vile and constant attacks on me and others.
Any moderator or admin, present and past, can confirm this.
Neither have I sent complaints about other posters.
Needed to clear that up - I am fed up with the lies you make up about me.
Skip: the way alias begs for posts launched against her to be deleted.
I am outraged by this!
-
Just have to lump it I am afraid, Scip. I saw your posts to Lookout - were her posts based on absolutely NOTHING? Yes they were and they OFTEN are. Quite often we're told that we are not allowed to post personal things about members - but what about the disgusting posts members make about people not on the forum? That seems to be okay. ::)
Lookout called you fucking nasty today, which I reported but it's been said that post WILL stay.
Although I tihnk you've been too personal at times with Lookout I don't think you were today. You exposed her POSTS. You've also been too personal at times with Alias - but she has been just as bad with you and has even followed you onto other forums to try and prove her point - this is ignored.
I know the mods can't view EVERY posts but syaing this too many times seems an excuse as I remember Patti attacking Caroline for saying she didn't see Hartleys post. :-\
Quit stirring it Mat will you. Can I remind you that you are a member of the red forum. Go over there and say this to the members over there if its something you feel strongly about about. And bringing up that about Caroline just goes to show me the type of person you are. Feel free to feed the fuel and all that.
You forget how many times I stuck up for you. Just thought I would remind you. :o
-
Just have to lump it I am afraid, Scip. I saw your posts to Lookout - were her posts based on absolutely NOTHING? Yes they were and they OFTEN are. Quite often we're told that we are not allowed to post personal things about members - but what about the disgusting posts members make about people not on the forum? That seems to be okay. ::)
Lookout called you fucking nasty today, which I reported but it's been said that post WILL stay.
Although I tihnk you've been too personal at times with Lookout I don't think you were today. You exposed her POSTS. You've also been too personal at times with Alias - but she has been just as bad with you and has even followed you onto other forums to try and prove her point - this is ignored.
I know the mods can't view EVERY posts but syaing this too many times seems an excuse as I remember Patti attacking Caroline for saying she didn't see Hartleys post. :-\
WHAT???
WTF is wrong with you - following skip! Now I´ve heard everything!
-
Quit stirring it Mat will you. Can I remind you that you are a member of the red forum. Go over there and say this to the members over there is its something you feel strongly about about. And bringing up that about Caroline just goes to show me the type of person you are. Feel free to feed the fuel and all that.
You for get how many times I stuck up for you. Just thought I would remind you. :o
Patti you are also a member of the red forum, so I don't see your point? I'm not stirring and there is no need for me to post anything on the red forum as I am replying to THIS post on the blue forum. Your posts to Caroline are on the open forum and I just used them as an example to Scip that things aren't fair all the time.
If he is going to last here he needs to just grin and bare it.
WHAT???
WTF is wrong with you - following skip! Now I´ve heard everything!
Yes you did. :-\ You went onto the amytiville website after googling his username and screen shot it. Surely I'm not the only one who remembers that? :-\
-
Patti you are also a member of the red forum, so I don't see your point? I'm not stirring and there is no need for me to post anything on the red forum as I am replying to THIS post on the blue forum. Your posts to Caroline are on the open forum and I just used them as an example to Scip that things aren't fair all the time.
If he is going to last here he needs to just grin and bare it.
Yes you did. :-\ You went onto the amytiville website after googling his username and screen shot it. Surely I'm not the only one who remembers that? :-\
Oh, but I wasn´t really interested in scipio - it was the name that rang a bell, so I googled it. Something to do with ancient Rome. You could say I stumbled upon that post
-
Oh, but I wasn´t really interested in scipio - it was the name that rang a bell, so I googled it. Something to do with ancient Rome. You could say I stumbled upon that post
Ok.
-
Patti you are also a member of the red forum, so I don't see your point? I'm not stirring and there is no need for me to post anything on the red forum as I am replying to THIS post on the blue forum. Your posts to Caroline are on the open forum and I just used them as an example to Scip that things aren't fair all the time.
If he is going to last here he needs to just grin and bare it.
Yes you did. :-\ You went onto the amytiville website after googling his username and screen shot it. Surely I'm not the only one who remembers that? :-\
For your information I registered over there to help Susan, a long time ago and I have been a member over there ever since. One thing I don't do is go over there and tells tales. I also don't go over there to cause anyone any bother, nor do I gossip about people behind closed doors, or gang up on anyone.
What I said to Caroline I said in the open, not behind her back.
-
For your information I registered over there to help Susan, a long time ago and I have been a member over there ever since. One thing I don't do is go over there and tells tales. I also don't go over there to cause anyone any bother, nor do I gossip about people behind closed doors, or gang up on anyone.
What I said to Caroline I said in the open, not behind her back.
Nor do I, Patti? I barely post on the red forum and often only log on there when NGB wants posts removing or when I need to PM people that I can't reply to on the blue because of the new PM limits that have been set here.
I have posted once on the RED forum today asking that Mike's phone number isn't abused.
-
A new lie about me, skip, you can´t help yourself, can you? I have never asked to have posts removed. Never ever. Not mine, not other people´s, not even your vile and constant attacks on me and others.
Any moderator or admin, present and past, can confirm this.
Neither have I sent complaints about other posters.
Needed to clear that up - I am fed up with the lies you make up about me.
Skip: the way alias begs for posts launched against her to be deleted.
I am outraged by this!
It's not a lie at all, I saw a post where you demanded the mods remove my post. You whine like a child because you are incapable of winning a debate.
You have no idea what proof and evidence even are. You are so irraitonal you claim that based on the limited knowledge we have of Sheila you can say she had no metnal illness and that she was misdiagnosed. Your bias is undenaible and your claims of sitting on the fence not the least bit credible. You are a staunch Jeremy support masquerading as a fence sitter like Graham was doing.
-
It's not a lie at all, I saw a post where you demanded the mods remove my post. You whine like a child because you are incapable of winning a debate.
You have no idea what proof and evidence even are. You are so irraitonal you claim that based on the limited knowledge we have of Sheila you can say she had no metnal illness and that she was misdiagnosed. Your bias is undenaible and your claims of sitting on the fence not the least bit credible. You are a staunch Jeremy support masquerading as a fence sitter like Graham was doing.
I don't think Alias is a fence sitter, I've posted with her for a couple of years now on the blue and the red and I'd say she is a guilter, quite clearly. Not sure where you get the idea she is a fence sitter. I do think you can be harsh at times and it is probably better to ignore each other, sometimes two people just don't get along
-
It's not a lie at all, I saw a post where you demanded the mods remove my post. You whine like a child because you are incapable of winning a debate.
You have no idea what proof and evidence even are. You are so irraitonal you claim that based on the limited knowledge we have of Sheila you can say she had no metnal illness and that she was misdiagnosed. Your bias is undenaible and your claims of sitting on the fence not the least bit credible. You are a staunch Jeremy support masquerading as a fence sitter like Graham was doing.
I suppose you think this post is expectable? I locked the other thread to stop this sort of thing and then you open a new thread to continue your attack.
I will ask for a warning to be given to you. I have no other choice.
-
For your information I registered over there to help Susan, a long time ago and I have been a member over there ever since. One thing I don't do is go over there and tells tales. I also don't go over there to cause anyone any bother, nor do I gossip about people behind closed doors, or gang up on anyone.
What I said to Caroline I said in the open, not behind her back.
And Caroline liked it just as much as I when you announced to the whole forum that you had no confidence in us and we should step down. You must have felt REALLY proud of yourself.There ARE times when it's better to say nothing.
-
Quit stirring it Mat will you. Can I remind you that you are a member of the red forum. Go over there and say this to the members over there if its something you feel strongly about about. And bringing up that about Caroline just goes to show me the type of person you are. Feel free to feed the fuel and all that.
You forget how many times I stuck up for you. Just thought I would remind you. :o
To be fair, Mat is right for some reason you singled me out when there were other mods on the forum - even though I was the one who acted first. I could only do something about it, when I saw it. I also talked to H behind the scenes and made him realise he's gone too far. You then called me a 'know it all' simply because I argued a point about head injury being associated with violent crime. An attack that came from left field as far as I could see - but no matter. I do like to be right, show me someone who doesn't? ;D ;D
I have had some pretty rotten attacks on here but no one says anything and I don't bother to complain. Someone even went so far as to contact Jeremy just to tell him I had changed my stance to guilty. How nice of them ;D ;D. I'm sure they did it with the worst of intentions and that it would impact negatively on me. As it happens, I was quite pleased to hear from him and will be replying soon. Whoever the person was (and I can only guess), I suggest you seek help pretty quickly because you're one sick puppy! :P
-
Someone even went so far as to contact Jeremy just to tell him I had changed my stance to guilty.
Damn. Why would someone bother? :-\
-
Damn. Why would someone bother? :-\
Because they're NUTS!!
-
It's not a lie at all, I saw a post where you demanded the mods remove my post. You whine like a child because you are incapable of winning a debate.
You have no idea what proof and evidence even are. You are so irraitonal you claim that based on the limited knowledge we have of Sheila you can say she had no metnal illness and that she was misdiagnosed. Your bias is undenaible and your claims of sitting on the fence not the least bit credible. You are a staunch Jeremy support masquerading as a fence sitter like Graham was doing.
Skip, I have won debates with you, stop being such a baby!
Show me where I have "begged" for posts to be removed. I challenge you.
I haven´t, I know that - you like spreading lies about me. That is one of the reasons I can´t stand you.
What is it to you what I think about a thirty year old case? I have my doubts, deal with it and leave me alone!
-
And Caroline liked it just as much as I when you announced to the whole forum that you had no confidence in us and we should step down. You must have felt REALLY proud of yourself.There ARE times when it's better to say nothing.
Yes like now April. One never said that to you and I admit saying it to Caroline, because at the time I got some horrible abuse that you thought was a joke. Well I did not think it was a joke. I knew you were all there I looked at the members list to see activity. I got no help from either of you that day. Why I don't know. Oh yes, I do know, its because I am on the wrong side and this is what its all about isn't it April.
This is why you and others have turned your back on me and Maggie. Maggie being ill too, you all ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
-
Skippy, an honest question, now we´re at it. Why do you get such massive hissy fits over people thinking Jeremy Bamber might be innocent or that he didn´t have a fair trial? Why is that so important to you that you resort to name calling and making up lies about people?
-
Yes like now April. One never said that to you and I admit saying it to Caroline, because at the time I got some horrible abuse that you thought was a joke. Well I did not think it was a joke. I knew you were all there I looked at the members list to see activity. I got no help from either of you that day. Why I don't know. Oh yes, I do know, its because I am on the wrong side and this is what its all about isn't it April.
This is why you and others have turned your back on me and Maggie. Maggie being ill too, you all ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
That isn't true and you know it!
-
Yes like now April. One never said that to you and I admit saying it to Caroline, because at the time I got some horrible abuse that you thought was a joke. Well I did not think it was a joke. I knew you were all there I looked at the members list to see activity. I got no help from either of you that day. Why I don't know. Oh yes, I do know, its because I am on the wrong side and this is what its all about isn't it April.
This is why you and others have turned your back on me and Maggie. Maggie being ill too, you all ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
And this is rubbish!
-
Patti now please be fair you thanked Neil for his support for attacking me for supporting Harters in his abuse to you. This was totally untrue my post to Harters had nothing to do with you and I had not even read his posts to you yet again I was attacked as I have been by Steph Hall because of a dispute I have with Maggie which has nothing to do with you or this forum and it is very wrong of you to make it public. I admitted I was out of order with you and offered you my sincere apologies which you rejected and implied you wanted nothing more to do with me so let it be. I will not comment further on this subject as I consider it a private matter which I have discussed with nobody but Maggie appears to have done so. Remember always two sides to every story and you have heard one but will never hear my side..
-
Yes like now April. One never said that to you and I admit saying it to Caroline, because at the time I got some horrible abuse that you thought was a joke. Well I did not think it was a joke. I knew you were all there I looked at the members list to see activity. I got no help from either of you that day. Why I don't know. Oh yes, I do know, its because I am on the wrong side and this is what its all about isn't it April.
This is why you and others have turned your back on me and Maggie. Maggie being ill too, you all ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
If you want truths you can have it.
As you didn't specify names it was difficult to know, but as you're now admitting it was Caroline you were speaking of it was a pretty low thin g to do publicly about anyone who has worked as long and hard for the forum as she has.I rather looks as if it was you who chose sides when you made that un called for remark.
I'm not prepared to reveal ANY private conversations I've had, but I WILL say that I -AND Caroline- supported Maggie as much as I was able, through what was a very difficult time for her. We were BADLY let down. Your relationship with Susan isn't something which should be discussed on forum.
I will just add that we both were abused and attacked, Caroline more than I. We didn't complain when we weren't rescued/suported. It's par for the course when you become a mod.
-
Just have to lump it I am afraid, Scip. I saw your posts to Lookout - were her posts based on absolutely NOTHING? Yes they were and they OFTEN are. Quite often we're told that we are not allowed to post personal things about members - but what about the disgusting posts members make about people not on the forum? That seems to be okay. ::)
Lookout called you fucking nasty today, which I reported but it's been said that post WILL stay.
Although I tihnk you've been too personal at times with Lookout I don't think you were today. You exposed her POSTS. You've also been too personal at times with Alias - but she has been just as bad with you and has even followed you onto other forums to try and prove her point - this is ignored.
I know the mods can't view EVERY posts but syaing this too many times seems an excuse as I remember Patti attacking Caroline for saying she didn't see Hartleys post. :-\
Before Scipio came on here have you ever seen Alias be rude to anyone at all? If not I think that shows that Scipio knows exactly what buttons to push.
I highlighted a post to him which was very personal - just in case he was still confused about what is considered offensive and what is not. But he just carried on.
I do appreciate what you say about being rude about people involved who are not on the forum though.
-
To be fair, Mat is right for some reason you singled me out when there were other mods on the forum - even though I was the one who acted first. I could only do something about it, when I saw it. I also talked to H behind the scenes and made him realise he's gone too far. You then called me a 'know it all' simply because I argued a point about head injury being associated with violent crime. An attack that came from left field as far as I could see - but no matter. I do like to be right, show me someone who doesn't? ;D ;D
I have had some pretty rotten attacks on here but no one says anything and I don't bother to complain. Someone even went so far as to contact Jeremy just to tell him I had changed my stance to guilty. How nice of them ;D ;D. I'm sure they did it with the worst of intentions and that it would impact negatively on me. As it happens, I was quite pleased to hear from him and will be replying soon. Whoever the person was (and I can only guess), I suggest you seek help pretty quickly because you're one sick puppy! :P
Caroline I did not single you on purpose. Maybe it was because I felt I needed the right support at the time and you were first on the scene. I could not believe it when you and April thought Hartley was joking with me. I reacted, which to me is a normal thing to do, maybe I over reacted, I guess I did..
Answer me this: Did you and April really step down because of what I said?
I cannot believe that anyone would contact Jeremy to tell them that you had changed stance...Its not a nice thing to do is it, tell tales....
Caroline I have never attacked you personally, your post yes and I have always said to you that you are know it all.... :P :P :P :P
-
As you didn't specify names it was difficult to know, but as you're now admitting it was Caroline you were speaking of it was a pretty low thin g to do publicly about anyone who has worked as long and hard for the forum as she has.I rather looks as if it was you who chose sides when you made that un called for remark.
I'm not prepared to reveal ANY private conversations I've had, but I WILL say that I -AND Caroline- supported Maggie as much as I was able, through what was a very difficult time for her. We were BADLY let down. Your relationship with Susan isn't something which should be discussed on forum.
That's what happens when you only know half the story though April, and we're the ones being accused of gossiping over pm's?
-
Before Scipio came on here have you ever seen Alias be rude to anyone at all? If not I think that shows that Scipio knows exactly what buttons to push.
I highlighted a post to him which was very personal - just in case he was still confused about what is considered offensive and what is not. But he just carried on.
I do appreciate what you say about being rude about people involved who are not on the forum though.
Hi, Jansus.
No, not on the blue forum that I recall, that is a good point. Scip and Alias just don't seem to gel too well. His way of posting can be abrasive and I would fight back against it if it was directed at me. But I see it as a 60% 40% split. I'm happy I am not a mod that has to deal with it because I don't think it's as black and white as some may make out.
-
Patti now please be fair you thanked Neil for his support for attacking me for supporting Harters in his abuse to you. This was totally untrue my post to Harters had nothing to do with you and I had not even read his posts to you yet again I was attacked as I have been by Neil and Steph Hall because of a dispute I have with Maggie which has nothing to do with you or this forum and it is very wrong of you to make it public. I admitted I was out of order with you and offered you my sincere apologies which you rejected and implied you wanted nothing more to do with me so let it be. I will not comment further on this subject as I consider it a private matter which I have discussed with nobody but Maggie appears to have done so. Remember always two sides to every story and you have heard one but will never hear my side..
And my thank you to Neil had no baring on you said what so ever Susan, you know that I had told you so. You said nothing that offended me, nor did I say anything to offend you. I merely thanked Neil for his support. You did the rest. Maggie has not discussed anything at all with me Susan.
-
Caroline I did not single you on purpose. Maybe it was because I felt I needed the right support at the time and you were first on the scene. I could not believe it when you and April thought Hartley was joking with me. I reacted, which to me is a normal thing to do, maybe I over reacted, I guess I did..
Answer me this: Did you and April really step down because of what I said?
I cannot believe that anyone would contact Jeremy to tell them that you had changed stance...Its not a nice thing to do is it, tell tales....
Caroline I have never attacked you personally, your post yes and I have always said to you that you are know it all.... :P :P :P :P
April and I were not the ONLY mods who thought H was joking Patti - at least you should know that. We thought he was joking because it was out of character. I was talking to him for almost an hour via PM and he eventually realised he had gone too far.
Our stepping down had nothing to do with you at all - not sure where you got that from?
I have to be honest and say that I did feel attacked during the head injury debate but nothing I can't handle ;D ;D ;D 8)
I think it may have backfired on Miss/Mr poison pen, I got a really nice letter - to which I will reply. So, whoever you are plllllaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :P :P :P :P
-
That's what happens when you only know half the story though April, and we're the ones being accused of gossiping over pm's?
That's exactly right Caroline. The problem comes when someone you trust whispers their half of the story to another person, who believes it, and they're then not interested in hearing the other side. People seem to forget that WE weren't the only mods.
-
Hi, Jansus.
No, not on the blue forum that I recall, that is a good point. Scip and Alias just don't seem to gel too well. His way of posting can be abrasive and I would fight back against it if it was directed at me. But I see it as a 60% 40% split. I'm happy I am not a mod that has to deal with it because I don't think it's as black and white as some may make out.
So am I Mat - because it's not.
-
As you didn't specify names it was difficult to know, but as you're now admitting it was Caroline you were speaking of it was a pretty low thin g to do publicly about anyone who has worked as long and hard for the forum as she has.I rather looks as if it was you who chose sides when you made that un called for remark.
I'm not prepared to reveal ANY private conversations I've had, but I WILL say that I -AND Caroline- supported Maggie as much as I was able, through what was a very difficult time for her. We were BADLY let down. Your relationship with Susan isn't something which should be discussed on forum.
I will just add that we both were abused and attacked, Caroline more than I. We didn't complain when we weren't rescued/suported. It's par for the course when you become a mod.
April apart from that day in question have I ever attacked you or abused you? Have I attacked and abused you since?
-
April apart from that day in question have I ever attacked you or abused you? Have I attacked and abused you since?
I know this wasn't aimed at me but I would have to say yes and all I know is, when Wills and Kate have their 2nd baby, I won't be joining in any conversations :o :o ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
April apart from that day in question have I ever attacked you or abused you? Have I attacked and abused you since?
No Patti, I have to be honest. You haven't. However, I don't think I've spoken to you since -because I didn't want it to be repeated :D :D.
-
Oh dear - I hope you girls can sort out your differences because it seems quite sad.
Life is to short and I hope you can agree just to disagree but try and be friends again?
I think despite what Scipio says we are all strong enough to have our own opinions , but have respect for others.
I just hope that we all remember it is all opinion , none of us know 100% what the truth is ( except skippy of course ;D)
In my opinion only I just found it odd when a few people changed their minds at times close to each other when I had not seen anything new on the forum ( its not that difficult to spot the wheat from the chaff)
But fairs fair - all I know is that it definitely was not Adam that caused it ( only joking ::))
-
I know this wasn't aimed at me but I would have to say yes and all I know is, when Wills and Kate have their 2nd baby, I won't be joining in any conversations :o :o ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I knew you would say that... ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi, Jansus.
No, not on the blue forum that I recall, that is a good point. Scip and Alias just don't seem to gel too well. His way of posting can be abrasive and I would fight back against it if it was directed at me. But I see it as a 60% 40% split. I'm happy I am not a mod that has to deal with it because I don't think it's as black and white as some may make out.
Heheheheee So am I Mat. You gets it in the ear if ya do AND ya gets it in the ear if ya don't. All part of life's rich tapestry ;D ;D ;D
-
Heheheheee So am I Mat. You gets it in the ear if ya do AND ya gets it in the ear if ya don't. All part of life's rich tapestry ;D ;D ;D
LADIES AND GENT, I will NOW take my leave of you and go to bed where I was headed an hour ago. I wish you ALL a very good night.
-
Oh dear - I hope you girls can sort out your differences because it seems quite sad.
Life is to short and I hope you can agree just to disagree but try and be friends again?
I think despite what Scipio says we are all strong enough to have our own opinions , but have respect for others.
I just hope that we all remember it is all opinion , none of us know 100% what the truth is ( except skippy of course ;D)
In my opinion only I just found it odd when a few people changed their minds at times close to each other when I had not seen anything new on the forum ( its not that difficult to spot the wheat from the chaff)
But fairs fair - all I know is that it definitely was not Adam that caused it ( only joking ::))
[/quote
Well said Jansus.... ;) ;D ;D ;D
-
me too
goodnight all - tomorrow is a new day.
-
LADIES AND GENT, I will NOW take my leave of you and go to bed where I was headed an hour ago. I wish you ALL a very good night.
Night April :D XX
-
LADIES AND GENT, I will NOW take my leave of you and go to bed where I was headed an hour ago. I wish you ALL a very good night.
Night April... :D
-
April and I were not the ONLY mods who thought H was joking Patti - at least you should know that. We thought he was joking because it was out of character. I was talking to him for almost an hour via PM and he eventually realised he had gone too far.
Our stepping down had nothing to do with you at all - not sure where you got that from?
I have to be honest and say that I did feel attacked during the head injury debate but nothing I can't handle ;D ;D ;D 8)
I think it may have backfired on Miss/Mr poison pen, I got a really nice letter - to which I will reply. So, whoever you are plllllaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :P :P :P :P
If that's aimed at me. Your rude and I hope you are happy being friends with a complete nutter who is a pathological liar
Try asking Jeremy who told him or try asking Ngb
Do you think it makes any difference to Jeremy what you believe
-
Try asking Jeremy who told him or try asking Ngb
Why would NGB know? Or you saying it was NGB?
If that's aimed at me. Your rude, and I hope you are happy being friends with a complete nutter who is a pathological liar
She isn't friends with you, Jackie.
-
Ngb speaks to Jeremy so let him ask JB
Knowledge of submissions
Ha ha ha
Funniest thing I ever heard
-
Ngb speaks to Jeremy so let him ask JB
May you are as twisted as she is, everyone sees right through you
Crawl back under that stone
Knowledge of submissions
Ha ha ha
Funniest thing I ever heard
I did see the pages, Jackie. Go stalk Keira, get the pages off her - she saw them too. Spoke to MD recently?
With all the nasty things you've done to people you should feel lucky no one has reported you to your work Jackie using the details that were posted on this forum that you were going to use company resources to promote MD's book on a child killer! That's not good PR!! If it was the other way around you would of reported them to their work right away.
I hope someone does it to you because you sure as heck would do it to them.
-
Come on please... :(
-
I would imagine that somebody from the Campaign Team told him.Apparently they tell him everything.
Not sure I would want to correspond with somebody who I believed without a doubt slaughtered 5 people,including 2 sleeping little boys :o In fact,I know I wouldn't. Still,each to their own I guess.
-
Come on please... :(
Oh don't worry Patti - you don't need to mod her. Let her say what she wants to me, it really doesn't phase me. Jackie deserves a wake up call. She's abused too many people for too long.
-
You are the saddest most twisted person I know
You have sent me threatening messages
Phoned people from this forum trying to prove who you were?
Then said you had lied where you actually lived
As usual tonight you are trying to stir up trouble for Patti
It's always someone isn't it Mat
You need to get professional help and soon
-
If that's aimed at me. Your rude and I hope you are happy being friends with a complete nutter who is a pathological liar
Try asking Jeremy who told him or try asking Ngb
Do you think it makes any difference to Jeremy what you believe
But I'm not your friend? ???
-
I would imagine that somebody from the Campaign Team told him.Apparently they tell him everything.
Not sure I would want to correspond with somebody who I believed without a doubt slaughtered 5 people,including 2 sleeping little boys :o In fact,I know I wouldn't. Still,each to their own I guess.
Huh? Did I miss something? He wrote to me!
-
You are the saddest most twisted person I know
You have sent me threatening messages
Phoned people from this forum trying to prove who you were?
Then said you had lied where you actually lived
As usual tonight you are trying to stir up trouble for Patti
It's always someone isn't it Mat
You need to get professional help and soon
I spoke to you and Stephanie to prove I wasn't John Lamberton because of the rubbish that you sprea, I spoke to John Lamberton to prove I wasn't someone else too. I told Keira I lived 20 miles north of where I lived - because of people like you. What's wrong with that? Are you happy for people to know exactly where you live? Because the next time your details are posted on the red forum, I won't be deleting them!
-
Huh? Did I miss something? He wrote to me!
If I remmeber correctly - you wrote to him when you thought he was INNOCENT. And he wrote to you this time.
Do you think any action will be taken against Jackie for saying you need to see a head doctor? I have a feeling no, sadly. I think now will be a telling time to see how fair the mods/admins are.
-
If that's aimed at me. Your rude and I hope you are happy being friends with a complete nutter who is a pathological liar
Try asking Jeremy who told him or try asking Ngb
Do you think it makes any difference to Jeremy what you believe
Why would you think it was aimed at you? I will be asking him.
-
If I remmeber correctly - you wrote to him when you thought he was INNOCENT. And he written to you this time.
Do you think any action will be taken against Jackie for saying you need to see a head doctor? I have a feeling no, sadly. I think now will be a telling time to see how fair the mods/admins are.
Yes, that's right.
No, I don't think any action will be taken but if I need a 'head doctor' I'll be right behind her in the queue ;D
-
If I remmeber correctly - you wrote to him when you thought he was INNOCENT. And he wrote to you this time.
Do you think any action will be taken against Jackie for saying you need to see a head doctor? I have a feeling no, sadly. I think now will be a telling time to see how fair the mods/admins are.
Mat how can you say one thing and mean another? I edited Jackie's posts and then you told me to leave them. There is no pleasing you is there. No matter what is done to help. I give up!!!
-
Huh? Did I miss something? He wrote to me!
Yes,and you said that you were going to be writing back. Is that not corresponding then?
I wasnt having a pop at you,it's just not something that I personally could do,that's all.
-
Mat how can you say one thing and mean another? I edited Jackie's posts and then you told me to leave them. There is no pleasing you is there. No matter what is done to help. I give up!!!
Patti I am not having a go at you. I told you to leave her posts to me, she can say what she likes. And I asked Caroline if anything will be done about the posts TO HER. Not to me.
-
Yes,and you said that you were going to be writing back. Is that not corresponding then?
I wasnt having a pop at you,it's just not something that I personally could do,that's all.
I have my reasons and that's all I'm saying on the matter, now or in the future. I find it VERY creepy that someone would contact him about a specific member, far more creepy than replying to a letter that I received as a result of someone's scheming
-
Mat how can you say one thing and mean another? I edited Jackie's posts and then you told me to leave them. There is no pleasing you is there. No matter what is done to help. I give up!!!
Yeah,I'd give up if I were you Patti. Wherever there is any argument on this forum,you can always rely on Mat to wade in. He's done well so far in this thread,managing to take a pop at first you,then Alias and now Jackie. I really dont like to see all this 'jumping on the bandwagon' business. :(
-
Yeah,I'd give up if I were you Patti. Wherever there is any argument on this forum,you can always rely on Mat to wade in. He's done well so far in this thread,managing to take a pop at first you,then Alias and now Jackie. I really dont like to see all this 'jumping on the bandwagon' business. :(
Oh thanks, Tyler - I can always trust you to stick the knife in. I actually stood up for Alias!.......I wasn't having a pop at Patti. Other than Petey she's the person I've been friends with the longest. You convienetly fail to notice Jackie popped up JUST to have a pop at Caroline and myself.
-
I have my reasons and that's all I'm saying on the matter, now or in the future. I find it VERY creepy that someone would contact him about a specific member, far more creepy than replying to a letter that I received as a result of someone's scheming
Well,at least by replying hopefully you may get to the bottom of who is discussing you with him. I agree that is a little creepy. Creepy :) I love that word!
-
Well,at least by replying hopefully you may get to the bottom of who is discussing you with him. I agree that is a little creepy. Creepy :) I love that word!
Hopefully, we shall see. And yes, it is a good word and perfect in this instance! :)
-
Oh thanks, Tyler - I can always trust you to stick the knife in. I actually stood up for Alias!.......I wasn't having a pop at Patti. Other than Petey she's the person I've been friends with the longest. You convienetly fail to notice Jackie popped up JUST to have a pop at Caroline and myself.
Stick the knife in? lol. I NEVER get involved in forum squabbles these days,so please do not attribute lies towards me! It is true Mat,you are well known on this forum for popping up whenever there is a slight hint of trouble. In fact,the vast majority of your posts have been to do with getting involved in other peoples disagreements rather than about the case itself. As for Jackie,I am not her keeper. Any disagreement between her and Caroline is none of my business. And,unless you have failed to notice,I am not a moderator.....thank God!
-
Stick the knife in? lol. I NEVER get involved in forum squabbles these days,so please do not attribute lies towards me! It is true Mat,you are well known on this forum for popping up whenever there is a slight hint of trouble. In fact,the vast majority of your posts have been to do with getting involved in other peoples disagreements rather than about the case itself. As for Jackie,I am not her keeper. Any disagreement between her and Caroline is none of my business. And,unless you have failed to notice,I am not a moderator.....thank God!
Well thanks for your opinion on me having an opinion, I guess.
-
If that's aimed at me. Your rude and I hope you are happy being friends with a complete nutter who is a pathological liar
Try asking Jeremy who told him or try asking Ngb
Do you think it makes any difference to Jeremy what you believe
I have no idea. My guess is that it will have been someone who is not a member here, but is part of the campaign team. They monitor this forum and report back to Jeremy.
-
I have no idea. My guess is that it will have been someone who is not a member here, but is part of the campaign team. They monitor this forum and report back to Jeremy.
I will be asking him.
-
I will be asking him.
Hi Caroline, did you say that the letter you received from him was a very nice letter?
-
caraline why dident you want him to know you thought he was guilty.
-
caraline why dident you want him to know you thought he was guilty.
It's not that I don't want him to know, but it's not for some sneaky bastard to go stirring behind my back. It's nothing to do with anyone else and the only reason someone would do that is to be malicious.
-
Hi Caroline, did you say that the letter you received from him was a very nice letter?
I did indeed.
-
It's not that I don't want him to know, but it's not for some sneaky bastard to go stirring behind my back. It's nothing to do with anyone else and the only reason someone would do that is to be malicious.
Your behaviour disgusts me and I will await your apology after Ngb speaks to jb
-
Hello Caroline what is Jackie's problem what have you done that disgusts her ?
-
Your behaviour disgusts me and I will await your apology after Ngb speaks to jb
YOU completely disgust me and you will never get any apology from me. Even answering your posts makes me sick!
-
Hello Caroline what is Jackie's problem what have you done that disgusts her ?
How long have you got?
-
Caroline Jackie has done some disgusting stuff like warning Mason Doyle in her email about me my name was blanked out but everyone knows it was me he had told me anyway he always tells me ;) Maybe I will get an apology from her.
-
Caroline/Susan, I wonder what pleasure one would get from such devious behaviour? There must be something in it for them or they wouldn't entertain it.
-
Caroline/Susan, I wonder what pleasure one would get from such devious behaviour? There must be something in it for them or they wouldn't entertain it.
You susan and Caroline are pathetic, it was obvious the remarks were meant about me
Caroline is insignificant to me, why would I write to Jeremy about a sad person who stays up all night on forums
Thank god we have honest decent mods in place now
-
My guess is the persons who do this are trying to be accepted by the person they are warning and it is so sad because it has the opposite effect and they are then wary of them ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
You susan and Caroline are pathetic, it was obvious the remarks were meant about me
Caroline is insignificant to me, why would I write to Jeremy about a sad person who stays up all night on forums
Thank god we have honest decent mods in place now
Lets hope they do something about YOU - care to explain this?
-
My guess is the persons who do this are trying to be accepted by the person they are warning and it is so sad because it has the opposite effect and they are then wary of them ;D ;D ;D ;D
Come on then Susan who do YOU think this person is?
You've got so much to say for yourself
-
Jackie how would I know who this person is not me as I have never written to him and never would.
-
Jackie I ask myself why you would mention me in your email to Mason Doyle. I did know of course before your email was posted he told me ;D Wonder what you were hoping to achieve by doing this ???
-
It is indeed creepy that someone told JB that Caroline changed her stance. Shame on that person! I think we will find out who it was eventually.
BTW, I have a feeling that Jeremy already knew from Caroline´s questions to him, that she was about to change her opinion.
-
he would have to be a bit daft not to.
-
It is indeed creepy that someone told JB that Caroline changed her stance. Shame on that person! I think we will find out who it was eventually.
BTW, I have a feeling that Jeremy already knew from Caroline´s questions to him, that she was about to change her opinion.
Thanks you Alias - it is indeed VERY creepy. He had no idea and when I asked the question about the wallet, I just expected a simple answer - I thought it would be a niggle that would go away. You have your own niggles I'm sure and maybe if you had a similar response, it might make you feel different.
-
he would have to be a bit daft not to.
Why? Are there not questions you would like to ask - or are you happy with everything?
-
what qustions could he answer if hes guilty hes not going to give a truthfull answer and if hes innocent he wont know any of the answers.
-
what qustions could he answer if hes guilty hes not going to give a truthfull answer and if hes innocent he wont know any of the answers.
That's true but he didn't say he didn't know the answer, he said he couldn't remember the question! He had the question written in the letter I sent so he didn't need to remember it, he just had to read the letter again!
-
That's true but he didn't say he didn't know the answer, he said he couldn't remember the question! He had the question written in the letter I sent so he didn't need to remember it, he just had to read the letter again!
Can I just ask you Caroline - did Jeremy just send a letter out of the blue?
And did he specifically say you had been named as changing your stance , and not anyone else ? Is that why he started writing again?
Does he sound hopeful about the immediate future and his chances of success?
-
Can I just ask you Caroline - did Jeremy just send a letter out of the blue?
And did he specifically say you had been named as changing your stance , and not anyone else ? Is that why he started writing again?
Does he sound hopeful about the immediate future and his chances of success?
Yes he did, he said 'the gossips had told him' I had changed my view and yes he sounds very hopeful - he always does.
-
the reason I asked -and I am being 100% honest - I wrote to him months ago(june I think) to discuss my correspondence with the home office.It was also to discuss certain documents on the forum that "allegedly" Sheila had written ( you know the ones I mean) I did express my disappointment with the change in the forum and how it had changed and I found it strange that some administrators of the site which I thought was supporting him now thought he was guilty. This was nothing that I had not ( as you know) said in public on the forum. However I NEVER mentioned any names or gave ANY reason for that change of heart . And I still have the copies of the letters to prove that.
I am not worried about the above - because I never said anything to stir or give any information about who was involved . But I just wanted to make sure you had not mis-interpreted his letter and were accusing someone of something they had not done.
He in return gave me information about the documents I mentioned and told me his feelings about the forum , which as they were in a private letter and not on a public forum I would never reveal.
-
the reason I asked -and I am being 100% honest - I wrote to him months ago(june I think) to discuss my correspondence with the home office.It was also to discuss certain documents on the forum that "allegedly" Sheila had written ( you know the ones I mean) I did express my disappointment with the change in the forum and how it had changed and I found it strange that some administrators of the site which I thought was supporting him now thought he was guilty. This was nothing that I had not ( as you know) said in public on the forum. However I NEVER mentioned any names or gave ANY reason for that change of heart . And I still have the copies of the letters to prove that.
I am not worried about the above - because I never said anything to stir or give any information about who was involved . But I just wanted to make sure you had not mis-interpreted his letter and were accusing someone of something they had not done.
He in return gave me information about the documents I mentioned and told me his feelings about the forum , which as they were in a private letter and not on a public forum I would never reveal.
Jansus, he didn't know I was an admin here (as far as I know) and he mentioned me specifically and used the term 'gossips' to describe the person who had told him.
-
Jansus, he didn't know I was an admin here (as far as I know) and he mentioned me specifically and used the term 'gossips' to describe the person who had told him.
Did he describe it as heavy gossip????
-
Ok that's fine - Then it does sound like someone mentioned you specifically and that was not me.
Just wanted to make sure because some fires on here don't need anymore "fanning" if you know what I mean.
perhaps it will backfire on the person and you may learn more about the case going forward than they will.
I am a great believer in what goes around comes around.
-
Did he describe it as heavy gossip????
whats heavy gossip when its at home?
-
Jansus, he didn't know I was an admin here (as far as I know) and he mentioned me specifically and used the term 'gossips' to describe the person who had told him.
who ever contacted him must know your real identity and your online identity how many people would that be.
-
who ever contacted him must know your real identity and your online identity how many people would that be.
They only need to know my name is Caroline because that IS my real name and that I live in Co. Durham. I have never hidden who I am! I have no need to.
-
Did he describe it as heavy gossip????
Heaviest!! :)
-
Heaviest!! :)
;D ;D
-
Ok that's fine - Then it does sound like someone mentioned you specifically and that was not me.
Just wanted to make sure because some fires on here don't need anymore "fanning" if you know what I mean.
perhaps it will backfire on the person and you may learn more about the case going forward than they will.
I am a great believer in what goes around comes around.
Let's hope it does, Jansus.
Frankly, I can think of nothing more despicable. I always wonder what sort of vicarious pleasure is to be gained by doing such a thing. WHY would one wish to cause doubt in another's mind unless there's an ulterior motive?
-
I am not sure - you see I always like to see the good in people. And I have no idea what has gone on in the past on here - but I can see it has been very divisive.
Does it have to have been someone from here though - could it be someone from the other forum who visits here?
The fact is that as a result it appears that Jeremy has contacted Caroline so I am assuming that he does hold her opinion in some regard.
Perhaps he might put her mind at rest - or even the opposite convince her more of his guilt?.
The one good thing is because of his writing at least you always know the letter in genuine .
-
I am not sure - you see I always like to see the good in people. And I have no idea what has gone on in the past on here - but I can see it has been very divisive.
Does it have to have been someone from here though - could it be someone from the other forum who visits here?
The fact is that as a result it appears that Jeremy has contacted Caroline so I am assuming that he does hold her opinion in some regard.
Perhaps he might put her mind at rest - or even the opposite convince her more of his guilt?.
The one good thing is because of his writing at least you always know the letter in genuine .
Jansus, I believe that Caroline WILL be able to make something positive of this as there is nothing of the duplicitous about her.
It actually matters NOT which forum was responsible for the underhand behaviour. IMO, it was the act which was despicable. It speaks to me of self interest and jealousy. Why else would it be seen as being necessary to try to show Caroline in a bad light.
-
Personally I don't think it does show Caroline in a bad light . She stated her opinions on a pubic forum. She had doubts based on her personal contact with Jeremy that she was entitled to do. When someone has been convicted of a crime of course we will all have doubts from time to time. My only confusion at the time was that when I started on here I was under the miscomprehension that this site was set up to support Jeremy in his fight and that's what I thought when I came on here . Now I realise it is purely a discussion forum and if the mods or admin wish to change their minds that their prerogative . I found the complete sudden switch difficult to understand , especially when people who had been agreeing with my suddenly started questioning everything I was posting.
I understand more now.
-
Personally I don't think it does show Caroline in a bad light . She stated her opinions on a pubic forum. She had doubts based on her personal contact with Jeremy that she was entitled to do. When someone has been convicted of a crime of course we will all have doubts from time to time. My only confusion at the time was that when I started on here I was under the miscomprehension that this site was set up to support Jeremy in his fight and that's what I thought when I came on here . Now I realise it is purely a discussion forum and if the mods or admin wish to change their minds that their prerogative . I found the complete sudden switch difficult to understand , especially when people who had been agreeing with my suddenly started questioning everything I was posting.
I understand more now.
Jansus, I realize that when people change their minds the ground beneath us can feel a bit wobbly :) I think it's only by discussing things "out loud" that we can arrive at conclusions which may have been there for a while, lurking beneath the surface. Personally, I think doubts and questions are healthy. They show that we're thinking rather than just accepting.
The sneak letter certainly doesn't show Caroline in a bad light, but SENDING it wasn't an attempt to show her in a good one.
-
Hello jansus when I changed my stance (which had been coming on for ages) I felt really bad and always made sure I did not post against my friends it is very difficult after supporting them for 2 years and now not agreeing with them :'(
-
I have never read so much rubbish in all my life.
Anyone that knows Jeremy as I do knows perfectly well this forum is read by the OCT every day
Anybody could have told Jeremy but she has chosen to make it sound sinister
Caroline has stated she believes him to be 100% guilty so why shouldn't someone tell Jerrmy
Her stance will not make the slightest difference in this case going forwards
As for gossips I would say that refers to members of this forum who send more pm messages than actual posts
One things for sure if I had told Jeremy Caroline's stance had changed from innocent to guilty I would quite happily post on this forum I had done so
As I think Caroline is insignificant as far as Jeremy getting his conviction overturned I obviously would not bother to tell anyone let alone Jeremy
He has more than enough weirdos saying he is guilty without learning about another
The interesting thing is she hadn't replied to her letter
Well he has
-
I have never read so much rubbish in all my life.
Anyone that knows Jeremy as I do knows perfectly well this forum is read by the OCT every day
Anybody could have told Jeremy but she has chosen to make it sound sinister
Caroline has stated she believes him to be 100% guilty so why shouldn't someone tell Jerrmy
Her stance will not make the slightest difference in this case going forwards
As for gossips I would say that refers to members of this forum who send more pm messages than actual posts
One things for sure if I had told Jeremy Caroline's stance had changed from innocent to guilty I would quite happily post on this forum I had done so
As I think Caroline is insignificant as far as Jeremy getting his conviction overturned I obviously would not bother to tell anyone let alone Jeremy
He has more than enough weirdos saying he is guilty without learning about another
The interesting thing is she hadn't replied to her letter
Well he has
So by saying that it WASN'T sinister and why shouldn't Jeremy know -that's despite you believing Caroline to be insignificant to him- could you be admitting to having sent it?
-
Hello jansus when I changed my stance (which had been coming on for ages) I felt really bad and always made sure I did not post against my friends it is very difficult after supporting them for 2 years and now not agreeing with them :'(
It throws everyone into confusion and suspicion as it did to me, because the only experience that I had from most guilters on the euphemistically termed "red" forum was constant abuse. So I was immediately suspicious of anyone who takes that stand with them. But I have seen that you, April and Caroline are not viscious or hateful.
Because of that I am looking at the case with fresh eyes. When someone is abusing someone else the defenses are usually up and the person abused is more aware of the abusers and mockers than they are of the case.
-
So by saying that it WASN'T sinister and why shouldn't Jeremy know -that's despite you believing Caroline to be insignificant to him- could you be admitting to having sent it?
Another ridiculous post April
Concentrate
Read my post
If I had told Jeremy I would quite happily post on here that I had
But I don't see anything sinister in Jeremy being told
-
So by saying that it WASN'T sinister and why shouldn't Jeremy know -that's despite you believing Caroline to be insignificant to him- could you be admitting to having sent it?
Another ridiculous post April
Concentrate
Read my post
If I had told Jeremy I would quite happily post on here that I had
But I don't see anything sinister in Jeremy being told
-
It throws everyone into confusion and suspicion as it did to me, because the only experience that I had from most guilters on the euphemistically termed "red" forum was constant abuse. So I was immediately suspicious of anyone who takes that stand with them. But I have seen that you, April and Caroline are not viscious or hateful.
Because of that I am looking at the case with fresh eyes. When someone is abusing someone else the defenses are usually up and the person abused is more aware of the abusers and mockers than they are of the case.
Grahame I think you missed the behaviour Patti had to put up with from the 'pm' addicts and guilter
It was nasty
-
Another ridiculous post April
Concentrate
Read my post
If I had told Jeremy I would quite happily post on here that I had
But I don't see anything sinister in Jeremy being told
No there isn't really Jackie. So he was told, so what? All I know is that it wasn't me. I haven't written to him for years and am definitely not on his telephone list. Personally I agree with ngb that it was more likely one of the Bamber Official Site team than a member of this forum.
But I must add that it appears to be the first time that Bamber has written to anyone that wasn't a reply to a letter to him. So Caroline must be an important person to him whom he seemed to trust? Maybe it was a shock to him?
-
Grahame I think you missed the behaviour Patti had to put up with from the 'pm' addicts and guilter
It was nasty
Yes I did see that Jackie. But then again as Patti said herself no moderator is very popular, especially with the opposition whoever the opposition are at that time.
-
Morning Mr. Gee excellent post and very true suppose I was disappointed when I saw him as guilty having defended him for over 2 years but I do try and remain respectful and have kept all my original friends in spite of my change of stance.
-
carline why dont you just ask him who it was.
-
Yes I did see that Jackie. But then again as Patti said herself no moderator is very popular, especially with the opposition whoever the opposition are at that time.
Grahame I think it's quite obvious that Caroline and April think it was me
That's very sick and another reason why I am glad we have new moderators in place
The abuse is relentless
You know me and you know I would say if I was responsible
That's the last I am going to say about this because Caroline and April have once again made themselves look stupid
-
it could of been anybody who reads this forum.
carline if you really think hes a psycophatec killer how do you know hes telling you the truth.
-
Grahame I think it's quite obvious that Caroline and April think it was me
That's very sick and another reason why I am glad we have new moderators in place
The abuse is relentless
You know me and you know I would say if I was responsible
That's the last I am going to say about this because Caroline and April have once again made themselves look stupid
They haven't met you and I have and so I know where you ae coming from. Yes I did get the impression that it was yourself they were suspecting. But as you say it was not you I believe you. I do really suspect it was one of those close to Jeremy. In spite of what the campaign team say they do watch this forum very closely. I do not believe that it was you. But hey, who cares anyway? I've had so many lies told about me I don't really care about trolls and gossips any more.
-
Grahame I think it's quite obvious that Caroline and April think it was me
That's very sick and another reason why I am glad we have new moderators in place
The abuse is relentless
You know me and you know I would say if I was responsible
That's the last I am going to say about this because Caroline and April have once again made themselves look stupid
No Jackie the only person looking foolish is you! You say you would admit it? You haven't taken responsibility for the MD fiasco in which you insisted he contacted you but from the PM's that were posted, it was obvious to ALL that YOU contacted HIM and you're STILL trying to worm out of it. You prattle on about abuse when the only person dishing abuse out is you!! You joined the forum in order to have a go at me thinking I was someone else, so I really don't know how you have the gall to accuse anyone of abuse!!
You haven't explained what you mean by this post http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5802.msg258592.html#msg258592
We were discussing the questions that Jeremy didn't answer and you wrote "I can't wait for tomorrow I'm sure you will get an answer"
Yes, I do think it was you because of the above and if people read it (and are honest) I'm sure they will think so too!!!
-
They haven't met you and I have and so I know where you ae coming from. Yes I did get the impression that it was yourself they were suspecting. But as you say it was not you I believe you. I do really suspect it was one of those close to Jeremy. In spite of what the campaign team say they do watch this forum very closely. I do not believe that it was you. But hey, who cares anyway? I've had so many lies told about me I don't really care about trolls and gossips any more.
I care! Read the link - I don't know the woman but you MUST have noticed that he goads me at every opportunity? You don't like people getting abused Grahame but she is an abuser and the fact that I give back as good as I get shouldn't enter into it. She cannot debate the case and is underhanded. Fair enough if you like her but I choose my friends with more care! You weren't here when she tried to insinuate MD contacted her but it was the other way around, when she was caught out she tried to suggest her PM's here hacked by a mod or admin (she might as well have just said me!). But when that failed she picked up on a weak point where MD mentioned email instead of PM. Anyone who believes this woman should be very careful.
-
carline how do you know jeremys not just playing games with you.
-
I care! Read the link - I don't know the woman but you MUST have noticed that he goads me at every opportunity? You don't like people getting abused Grahame but she is an abuser and the fact that I give back as good as I get shouldn't enter into it. She cannot debate the case and is underhanded. Fair enough if you like her but I choose my friends with more care! You weren't here when she tried to insinuate MD contacted her but it was the other way around, when she was caught out she tried to suggest her PM's here hacked by a mod or admin (she might as well have just said me!). But when that failed she picked up on a weak point where MD mentioned email instead of PM. Anyone who believes this woman should be very careful.
Yes I can see where you are coming from Caroline. But I think that you also will appreciate where I am coming from as well? But I certainly didn't get that impression when I was just defending myself against the abusers and I was the one who was called the abuser and according to one, "The worst abuser on the forum" which I might add was not refuted by the admin.
When I flare up against people it is because I can see their unnessessary abuse and mocking. But unfortunately some cannot see this and I usually get the blame for it and told I should know better.
I can also see where Jackie is coming from and I can say quite honestly how she is able to put up with all the abuse she got from those who belong to the so called red forum and who now post here is beyond me. I handled the abuse in a different way than she did. But I saw what she went through with threatening phone calls and pizzas and Indian meal delivered to her door and taxis sent round to her. It was so bad that I went to Chelmsford police with her anout those two in particular (both lived abroad) but the cops were the most useless lumps I had ever come across. When I see these pop stars and such getting cases brought against stalkers and the like, yet nothing was done to these two men, one of whom is allowed to post on here. All they said was, "Don't go online then. They can say what they like about you".
So although I certainly can see where you are coming from and believe that Jackie ought to tonethings down a bit. I can also appreciate her position and it would be a good thing if others try to see things from her perspective as well.
-
Mr Gee do you think it fair that Jackie warned Mason Doyle against me can't remember her exact words but he did tell me. What connection is there between her me and Mason Doyle just don't get it. She is the second person to do that by the way :'(
-
Yes I can see where you are coming from Caroline. But I think that you also will appreciate where I am coming from as well? But I certainly didn't get that impression when I was just defending myself against the abusers and I was the one who was called the abuser and according to one, "The worst abuser on the forum" which I might add was not refuted by the admin.
When I flare up against people it is because I can see their unnessessary abuse and mocking. But unfortunately some cannot see this and I usually get the blame for it and told I should know better.
I can also see where Jackie is coming from and I can say quite honestly how she is able to put up with all the abuse she got from those who belong to the so called red forum and who now post here is beyond me. I handled the abuse in a different way than she did. But I saw what she went through with threatening phone calls and pizzas and Indian meal delivered to her door and taxis sent round to her. It was so bad that I went to Chelmsford police with her anout those two in particular (both lived abroad) but the cops were the most useless lumps I had ever come across. When I see these pop stars and such getting cases brought against stalkers and the like, yet nothing was done to these two men, one of whom is allowed to post on here. All they said was, "Don't go online then. They can say what they like about you".
So although I certainly can see where you are coming from and believe that Jackie ought to tonethings down a bit. I can also appreciate her position and it would be a good thing if others try to see things from her perspective as well.
Thanks Grahame, but whatever abuse she got from whoever is nothing to do with me but I certainly don't condone anything like that. However, two wrongs don't make a right and her attitude sucks big style! First she didn't like me because she thought I was Keira, now she KNOWS I'm not but continues to goad simply because I changed my opinion about Jeremy - it's pathetic. If she could debate the case and explain why she believes he's innocent, it would be a start but all she does is bark out posts about how he loved farming - that isn't going to get him far!! Then she makes sinister comments such as the one in the link and wonders why people think she IS sinister. I'm sorry about her abuse but at the moment she is the abuser and I'm not alone in thinking that. She still hasn't explained what she meant by "I can't wait for tomorrow I'm sure you will get an answer"? In the context of what was being discussed when she posted it - is it any wonder that she is prime suspect?
-
Mr Gee do you think it fair that Jackie warned Mason Doyle against me can't remember her exact words but he did tell me. What connection is there between her me and Mason Doyle just don't get it. She is the second person to do that by the way :'(
Hi Susan. If that was so then no I don't. But I also expressed my concern that Jackie should tone things down somewhat. But I am aware of these things. There are ways of dealing with things other than reacting directly against them. For instance I have been wrongly accused of lying and of abusing, but I haven't reacted to these accusations immediately. I would rather suffer these things for the sake of peace, otherwise we get a free for all mud slinging contest which we are all accustomed to.
-
Thanks Grahame, but whatever abuse she got from whoever is nothing to do with me but I certainly don't condone anything like that. However, two wrongs don't make a right and her attitude sucks big style! First she didn't like me because she thought I was Keira, now she KNOWS I'm not but continues to goad simply because I changed my opinion about Jeremy - it's pathetic. If she could debate the case and explain why she believes he's innocent, it would be a start but all she does is bark out posts about how he loved farming - that isn't going to get him far!! Then she makes sinister comments such as the one in the link and wonders why people think she IS sinister. I'm sorry about her abuse but at the moment she is the abuser and I'm not alone in thinking that. She still hasn't explained what she meant by "I can't wait for tomorrow I'm sure you will get an answer"? In the context of what was being discussed when she posted it - is it any wonder that she is prime suspect?
Well we all know you are not Keira. I know Keira and recognise the way she writes. I've told Jackie this, whether she believes me is of course another question? I did in fact try to email Keira the other day. I know she still uses that email because it wasn't returned to my mailbox. But she just doesn't want to be involved with the case any more. In my opinion she got involved too deep with another member here. I warned her about the deception she was attempting. She didn't listen. Her private address and her picture was pasted on the "red" forum and the membershe was involved with here remarked when he saw her picture saying something like, "How can anyone fancy her?" and so she left. So I know for certain that you are not her and Jackie should know that as well.
Jackie can be abrasive sometimes. It's just her character I suppose. But she really was quite a nice person when I met her. Unfortunately the image that we all portray on here is a very imperfect one and I suspect none of us is capable of conveying our true personalities in a forum such as this one?
-
Mr Gee I totally agree I have tried believe me and still try to remain dignified :)
-
Well we all know you are not Keira. I know Keira and recognise the way she writes. I've told Jackie this, whether she believes me is of course another question? I did in fact try to email Keira the other day. I know she still uses that email because it wasn't returned to my mailbox. But she just doesn't want to be involved with the case any more. In my opinion she got involved too deep with another member here. I warned her about the deception she was attempting. She didn't listen. Her private address and her picture was pasted on the "red" forum and the membershe was involved with here remarked when he saw her picture saying something like, "How can anyone fancy her?" and so she left. So I know for certain that you are not her and Jackie should know that as well.
Jackie can be abrasive sometimes. It's just her character I suppose. But she really was quite a nice person when I met her. Unfortunately the image that we all portray on here is a very imperfect one and I suspect none of us is capable of conveying our true personalities in a forum such as this one?
I understand what you're saying but I think Jackie is more than just abrasive - she has done things to try and discredit people such as MD and while she fails to explain 'exactly' what she meant by "I can't wait for tomorrow I'm sure you will get an answer"? I will continue to believe that it was her and that she is an abusive, sinister character who is quite underhanded and prepared to do anything to undermine anyone who thinks Jeremy is guilty.
-
Thanks you Alias - it is indeed VERY creepy. He had no idea and when I asked the question about the wallet, I just expected a simple answer - I thought it would be a niggle that would go away. You have your own niggles I'm sure and maybe if you had a similar response, it might make you feel different.
I am trying to turn the situation around and imagine what I would think if I were Jeremy, and someone asked me a question like that. I think I would suspect that the person asking was having doubts about me.
-
I understand what you're saying but I think Jackie is more than just abrasive - she has done things to try and discredit people such as MD and while she fails to explain 'exactly' what she meant by "I can't wait for tomorrow I'm sure you will get an answer"? I will continue to believe that it was her and that she is an abusive, sinister character who is quite underhanded and prepared to do anything to undermine anyone who thinks Jeremy is guilty.
Yes I can see what you mean. Concerning MD. I think that he has been deceiving us into thinking he is a pro Bamber. But in reality he believes him to be guilty. I rather feel that he is the one who is being deceptive and Jackie knows this. I am not saying of course this gives her licence to be abusive herself. I'm trying not to offend anyone here and perhaps that is not the right way of going about it. But I'm just trying to see things from all sides and it isn't easy when you like all of the parties concerned.
-
i not sure what to make of MD i think we will have to waite till hes book comes out if it ever does.
-
I am trying to turn the situation around and imagine what I would think if I were Jeremy, and someone asked me a question like that. I think I would suspect that the person asking was having doubts about me.
Perhaps he did that really doesn't explain why he didn't answer. You'd have thought if that were the case, he would have answered and not dodge it completely.
-
Mr Gee if that is the case and Jackie suspected it surely she should have been warning me about him ;D
-
Yes I can see what you mean. Concerning MD. I think that he has been deceiving us into thinking he is a pro Bamber. But in reality he believes him to be guilty. I rather feel that he is the one who is being deceptive and Jackie knows this. I am not saying of course this gives her licence to be abusive herself. I'm trying not to offend anyone here and perhaps that is not the right way of going about it. But I'm just trying to see things from all sides and it isn't easy when you like all of the parties concerned.
I don't agree. I was never left with that impression.
Perhaps it was just wishful thinking on your part, or, I suppose, you may have quite reasonably assumed that he wouldn't be bothering to write a book in favour of guilt, because....well...what would be the point?
-
No,not wishful thinking at all on Grahame's part. Did you not read the article that was printed in a Scottish newspaper?
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Book+cop+I%27ll+show+Bamber%27s+innocent.-a0337437563
-
Perhaps he did that really doesn't explain why he didn't answer. You'd have thought if that were the case, he would have answered and not dodge it completely.
Not neccessarily. Given his character, he might have thought, she has a nerve to be asking me this, none of her business. Him being non confrontational, he might have just dodged the question. After all, he could easily have made up a lie, he didn´t.
-
Hello tyler Mason Doyle told us on the forum not to believe anything we read in newspapers only believe what he himself told us. I must ask has he said he thinks Jeremy Bamber is innocent or guilty I don't believe he has.
-
No,not wishful thinking at all on Grahame's part. Did you not read the article that was printed in a Scottish newspaper?
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Book+cop+I%27ll+show+Bamber%27s+innocent.-a0337437563
Thanks for that Tyler. I never read newspapers.
-
Hello tyler Mason Doyle told us on the forum not to believe anything we read in newspapers only believe what he himself told us. I must ask has he said he thinks Jeremy Bamber is innocent or guilty I don't believe he has.
He has made it very clear that he believes Jeremy Bamber to be guilty. His last post here contained one indication, but there have been others.
-
so why is he saying this then.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Book+cop+I%27ll+show+Bamber%27s+innocent.-a0337437563
-
so why is he saying this then.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Book+cop+I%27ll+show+Bamber%27s+innocent.-a0337437563
That was then, this is now.
-
i wonder what made him change his mind.
-
He has made it very clear that he believes Jeremy Bamber to be guilty. His last post here contained one indication, but there have been others.
I recall the last post you refer to. I don't remember any others. I made a point of reading all his posts.
-
i not sure what to make of MD i think we will have to waite till hes book comes out if it ever does.
I doubt if it will, but we will see in due course.
-
That's strange. MD always struck me as believing Bamber was innocent. In fact his posts seem to confirm he is of an innocent stance & in the PM he sent me he asked if I had a vested interest in keeping an "innocent man inside" so I never took him for a guilter, not even slightly.
I doubt if it will, but we will see in due course.
I think people were taken in by him rather easily here.
-
i never seen anything thats suggested he had changed his mind of course i dont know what hes said in private.
-
Hello ngb I thought that but was not sure if it was appropriate for me to post that as I thought he said alleged MOJ.
-
Hello tyler Mason Doyle told us on the forum not to believe anything we read in newspapers only believe what he himself told us. I must ask has he said he thinks Jeremy Bamber is innocent or guilty I don't believe he has.
Hi Susan, you have my sympathy for all the grief you've had recently, it's been painful to watch.
Did Mason Doyle influence your change of stance at all ?
-
That's true but he didn't say he didn't know the answer, he said he couldn't remember the question! He had the question written in the letter I sent so he didn't need to remember it, he just had to read the letter again!
In fairness Caroline he does receive a large volume of correspondence. I am not sure how easy it would be for him to retrieve a letter from weeks or months earlier.
-
Hello tyler Mason Doyle told us on the forum not to believe anything we read in newspapers only believe what he himself told us. I must ask has he said he thinks Jeremy Bamber is innocent or guilty I don't believe he has.
Hi Susan.No,I dont think he has ever stated whether he believes Jeremy to be innocent or guilty.But he has stated that he believes his case to be a MOJ due to corrupt evidence I believe? From what I understand,he now believes Jeremy to be guilty but still believes the evidence used to convict him was corrupt. Last time he posted on here,he referred to Jeremy as an 'alleged' MOJ. If the evidence used to convict somebody is corrupt,then is that not a MOJ? Regardless of guilt or innocence?
-
Hello ngb I thought that but was not sure if it was appropriate for me to post that as I thought he said alleged MOJ.
He did say alleged, and emphasised it. He posted it here so there is no problem referring to it.
-
Neil thank you for your kind words. :)
-
all i saw MD say was what he has allways said that he wasnt sure jeremy was innocent.
-
Then why did Jackie offer to use her jobs resources to promote the book for him? :-\
-
Then why did Jackie offer to use her jobs resources to promote the book for him? :-\
I imagine because she had no reason to believe he had changed his mind.
-
Hi ngb we are correct then in assuming that Mason Doyle now thinks he is guilty I did feel when he came on the forum at first he was leaning towards innocence don't think he actually said one way or another. I am surprised you say you don't think the book will be published. :'(
-
Hi ngb we are correct then in assuming that Mason Doyle now thinks he is guilty I did feel when he came on the forum at first he was leaning towards innocence don't think he actually said one way or another. I am surprised you say you don't think the book will be published. :'(
I think he was more than leaning towards innocence, as illustrated by the press report based upon what his publisher had put out.
I do not know whether the book will be published, but my hunch is that it will not. Obviously I could be wrong about that.
-
I don't agree. I was never left with that impression.
Perhaps it was just wishful thinking on your part, or, I suppose, you may have quite reasonably assumed that he wouldn't be bothering to write a book in favour of guilt, because....well...what would be the point?
No Neil I made that assumption because of (1) What he said about himself and (2) Because all Jeremy supporters were under that impression as well.
-
Hello tyler Mason Doyle told us on the forum not to believe anything we read in newspapers only believe what he himself told us. I must ask has he said he thinks Jeremy Bamber is innocent or guilty I don't believe he has.
I believe that you also thought he was a supporter and I assumed that seeing that you were supporting him and you yourself were a supporter and therefore you in turn gave me the impression that he was writing a book in support or Bamber.
-
i never saw him say he thought jeremy was innocent or guilty.
-
Mr Gee you are quite right but Mason Doyle never actually told me he thought Jeremy was innocent I wrongly assumed and I was Jeremy innocent supporting him :'(
-
nugnug neither did I until recently and I kinda knew then what his stance was I think ???
-
I imagine because she had no reason to believe he had changed his mind.
So are you saying that Jackie approached MD, offering her firm's resources, because she believed his forthcoming book supported Jeremy's innocence?
-
So are you saying that Jackie approached MD, offering her firm's resources, because she believed his forthcoming book supported Jeremy's innocence?
That's exactly it April.
-
I think he was more than leaning towards innocence, as illustrates by the press report based upon what his publisher had put out.
I do not know whether the book will be published, but my hunch is that it will not. Obviously I could be wrong about that.
He even said that some of his book was being used in Bamber's forthcoming application for appeal. So as far as I am concerned (and it WASN'T wishful thinking on my part) he has been deceiving the forum all along. If he said that he believed Bamber to be guilty I wouldn't have got the impression as some others have that he believed Bamber to be innocent. Anyway I think at the end he revealed his truth beliefs and I for one feel that I have been deceived, not only by him but by others on the forum who now defend him by saying that he never said that he thought Bamber to be innocent. I feel hurt and grieved to have been led up the garden path like this. I am exceedingly angry about the way people are defending the man now.
-
I'm posting the link to Jackie's post again as it seems to be getting lost as the conversation has shifted to MD and I would like to know what Jackie meant when she said "I can't wait for tomorrow I'm sure you will get an answer"
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5802.msg258592.html#msg258592
She says she didn't contact JB to maliciously tell him of my change of opinion and yet the above seems to indicate that she knows something about it - or perhaps it's an unrelated innocent comment (although this seems unlikely given the nature of the discussion at the time), but we will never know unless she answers the question.
-
He even said that some of his book was being used in Bamber's forthcoming application for appeal. So as far as I am concerned (and it WASN'T wishful thinking on my part) he has been deceiving the forum all along. If he said that he believed Bamber to be guilty I wouldn't have got the impression as some others have that he believed Bamber to be innocent. Anyway I think at the end he revealed his truth beliefs and I for one feel that I have been deceived, not only by him but by others on the forum who now defend him by saying that he never said that he thought Bamber to be innocent. I feel hurt and grieved to have been led up the garden path like this. I am exceedingly angry about the way people are defending the man now.
graham i can only coment on what have seen.
-
So are you saying that Jackie approached MD, offering her firm's resources, because she believed his forthcoming book supported Jeremy's innocence?
It appears so and she obviously thought he was a JB supporter as well. He lied of course when he said he didn't know "who this woman is" knowing all the time that he did. So you can't put all the blame on Jackie for that incident for which he was rightfully banned. He is a deceiver in my eyes.
-
Mr. Gee I firmly believe we should not judge a person until we know the full story and as far as Mason Doyle is concerned we don't I am sure in time all will be revealed. Just my take on things. I certainly have not been deceiving people at all.
-
So are you saying that Jackie approached MD, offering her firm's resources, because she believed his forthcoming book supported Jeremy's innocence?
I can't speak for Jackie. I assume that to be the case. He then responded to her in a friendly way, urging her to keep up the fight (or words to that effect) and invited her to email him. It was a very strange response from him in the circumstances.
-
I'm posting the link to Jackie's post again as it seems to be getting lost as the conversation has shifted to MD and I would like to know what Jackie meant when she said "I can't wait for tomorrow I'm sure you will get an answer"
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5802.msg258592.html#msg258592
She says she didn't contact JB to maliciously tell him of my change of opinion and yet the above seems to indicate that she knows something about it - or perhaps it's an unrelated innocent comment (although this seems unlikely given the nature of the discussion at the time), but we will never know unless she answers the question.
Could I suggest that you pm her Caroline? Since the thread has progressed a bit now and also she can't ignore your question so much as it is not on open forum. I am also in the dark as to what she meant?
-
I'm posting the link to Jackie's post again as it seems to be getting lost as the conversation has shifted to MD and I would like to know what Jackie meant when she said "I can't wait for tomorrow I'm sure you will get an answer"
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5802.msg258592.html#msg258592
She says she didn't contact JB to maliciously tell him of my change of opinion and yet the above seems to indicate that she knows something about it - or perhaps it's an unrelated innocent comment (although this seems unlikely given the nature of the discussion at the time), but we will never know unless she answers the question.
Well, Caroline, MIGHT it be that she contacted him to CHEERFULLY tell him of your change of opinion. After all, she's made no bones as to the sort or regard she holds you in.
-
Jeremy has spent a lifetime being let down by people, the relatives, the police, Ewen Smith, De Stefano, the CCRC but he still manages to pick himself up. He must get contacted by numerous authors so I don't think a change of stance by the latest jump on the bandwagon book writer will upset him too much. Jeremy still has someone who knows the law inside out and tells him how it is to turn too when these very odd people appear.
-
He even said that some of his book was being used in Bamber's forthcoming application for appeal. So as far as I am concerned (and it WASN'T wishful thinking on my part) he has been deceiving the forum all along. If he said that he believed Bamber to be guilty I wouldn't have got the impression as some others have that he believed Bamber to be innocent. Anyway I think at the end he revealed his truth beliefs and I for one feel that I have been deceived, not only by him but by others on the forum who now defend him by saying that he never said that he thought Bamber to be innocent. I feel hurt and grieved to have been led up the garden path like this. I am exceedingly angry about the way people are defending the man now.
Why? He isn't here to defend himself - why should you feel deceived? The man was writing a book to sell, if he told everyone what was in it - he wouldn't sell many copies. I don't know what is in the book and neither does anyone else. Perhaps 'waiting and seeing' is the best option and as he can't reply to any of these accusations it is completely unfair to discuss him.
-
Could I suggest that you pm her Caroline? Since the thread has progressed a bit now and also she can't ignore your question so much as it is not on open forum. I am also in the dark as to what she meant?
No, I can't because I want everyone to see her response.
-
Mr. Gee I firmly believe we should not judge a person until we know the full story and as far as Mason Doyle is concerned we don't I am sure in time all will be revealed. Just my take on things. I certainly have not been deceiving people at all.
No I'm not referring to you Susan? But you did believe he was a supporter as also did Tyler and obviously Mat. So I'm not imagining things. He definitely gave that impression. In other words I can only just by the facts and the facts indicate that he has deceived the forum, otherwise he would have "definitely" said one way or the other. But he didn't, he left it all up to us who were guided by what he wrote and what he wrote indicated that he believed he was innocent. Just another xxxx.
-
Why? He isn't here to defend himself - why should you feel deceived? The man was writing a book to sell, if he told everyone what was in it - he wouldn't sell many copies. I don't know what is in the book and neither does anyone else. Perhaps 'waiting and seeing' is the best option and as he can't reply to any of these accusations it is completely unfair to discuss him.
I think you understand the point Grahame is making Caroline.
-
Well, Caroline, MIGHT it be that she contacted him to CHEERFULLY tell him of your change of opinion. After all, she's made no bones as to the sort or regard she holds you in.
No doubt but she certainly isn't in any hurry to explain what she mean - I guess she hasn't thought of anything yet! ;D
-
I think you understand the point Grahame is making Caroline.
I do, but I don't agree with it.
-
I can't speak for Jackie. I assume that to be the case. He then responded to her in a friendly way, urging her to keep up the fight (or words to that effect) and invited her to email him. It was a very strange response from him in the circumstances.
And then he lied on the forum about receiving any message from her and that is when it all blew up and Jackie was the only one to be accused of lying. His lie was never mentioned.
-
Well, Caroline, MIGHT it be that she contacted him to CHEERFULLY tell him of your change of opinion. After all, she's made no bones as to the sort or regard she holds you in.
Are you totally stupid April I have stated in black and white that I have made no contact with Jeremy by phone, email or carrier pigeon but I am very glad if someone has contacted him to tell him about people or wannabe authors he should not trust
-
I do, but I don't agree with it.
Really?
-
Mr Gee you are quite right I thought Jeremy was going to walk a free man in the near future but unfortunately I misread his comments to me on the forum and off :'( I can only think in his defence things turned out differently for him as well as us.
-
I can't speak for Jackie. I assume that to be the case. He then responded to her in a friendly way, urging her to keep up the fight (or words to that effect) and invited her to email him. It was a very strange response from him in the circumstances.
It was indeed a very strange response to a complete stranger who'd basically emailed him offering a business proposition.
-
Why? He isn't here to defend himself - why should you feel deceived? The man was writing a book to sell, if he told everyone what was in it - he wouldn't sell many copies. I don't know what is in the book and neither does anyone else. Perhaps 'waiting and seeing' is the best option and as he can't reply to any of these accusations it is completely unfair to discuss him.
If I were you Caroline I should be asking the others who were misled into thinking he was a supporter of Jeremy. He ceratainy caused upset he not long ago that got him banned. If he were still here and had not been banned then he could answer for himself couldn't he?
-
I can't speak for Jackie. I assume that to be the case. He then responded to her in a friendly way, urging her to keep up the fight (or words to that effect) and invited her to email him. It was a very strange response from him in the circumstances.
I imagine he responded that way because he didn't want to tell her anything and telling her to 'email' him would be to stop her pestering him via PM. I don't think it sounds strange at all. She deliberately tried to suggest he contacted her first and then tried to suggest that an admin/mod (namely me) had hacked her account. This was of course all BS because she contacted MD first and gave him specific information that ONLY she could know. This whole thing was about what Jackie tried to do but people are sweeping that under the carpet in order to have a dig at MD - simply because he MAY now think Jeremy is guilty. I really don't understand people here. What she did was completely wrong and underhanded but she gets away with it - time and again.
-
maybe we should contact him and ask him if the books still going to be published.
-
If I were you Caroline I should be asking the others who were misled into thinking he was a supporter of Jeremy. He ceratainy caused upset he not long ago that got him banned. If he were still here and had not been banned then he could answer for himself couldn't he?
You weren't here then Grahame and it was Jackie who caused the upset.
-
Mr Gee you are quite right but Mason Doyle never actually told me he thought Jeremy was innocent I wrongly assumed and I was Jeremy innocent supporting him :'(
Susan he told me that his book was more about the collected evidence and points of law he had gathered and not a book merely set to prove Jeremy's innocence. :-\
-
Are you totally stupid April I have stated in black and white that I have made no contact with Jeremy by phone, email or carrier pigeon but I am very glad if someone has contacted him to tell him about people or wannabe authors he should not trust
Would that be along the same lines as MD approaching you out of the blue to make use of your fount of information, whilst neglecting to say you'd contacted him first offering your firm's assistance in marketing his forthcoming book?
-
Susan he told me that his book was more about the collected evidence and points of law he had gathered and not a book merely set to prove Jeremy's innocence. :-\
well in that case theres no reason for it not to be published.
-
He even said that some of his book was being used in Bamber's forthcoming application for appeal. So as far as I am concerned (and it WASN'T wishful thinking on my part) he has been deceiving the forum all along. If he said that he believed Bamber to be guilty I wouldn't have got the impression as some others have that he believed Bamber to be innocent. Anyway I think at the end he revealed his truth beliefs and I for one feel that I have been deceived, not only by him but by others on the forum who now defend him by saying that he never said that he thought Bamber to be innocent. I feel hurt and grieved to have been led up the garden path like this. I am exceedingly angry about the way people are defending the man now.
I concede that MD may well have initially identified himself as a Jeremy supporter. Unfortunately, we can't now go back and look at his posts! I can't understand why you would feel hurt by his change of mind, or deception, if that's what you believe.
Why are you exceedingly angry about people defending him?
-
Hello Patti yes he told me it was more to do with the police investigation and never actually said he thought Jeremy was innocent I wrongly assumed :'( then I was shocked when he posted the alleged MOJ thought may be he was just cross at the time :'(
-
I imagine he responded that way because he didn't want to tell her anything and telling her to 'email' him would be to stop her pestering him via PM. I don't think it sounds strange at all. She deliberately tried to suggest he contacted her first and then tried to suggest that an admin/mod (namely me) had hacked her account. This was of course all BS because she contacted MD first and gave him specific information that ONLY she could know. This whole thing was about what Jackie tried to do but people are sweeping that under the carpet in order to have a dig at MD - simply because he MAY now think Jeremy is guilty. I really don't understand people here. What she did was completely wrong and underhanded but she gets away with it - time and again.
I do not agree that Jackie got away with anything. She received considerable flak here for starting the thread here and posting as she did. I am not in any way condoning that and I am very critical of it. However, MD then posted his account of what had happened and to say it was disingenuous is perhaps a polite way of describing it. It was only when I looked into the matter myself that I was able to post a factual account of what had happened so that members here could draw there only conclusions. Having done that and allowed members to have their say I removed the thread. Paul Harrison responded with insults and threats which were of a totally unacceptable nature. He received a ban for that. He then issued further threats and took certain steps which for the time being I will refrain from mentioning. However any respect I had for this individual has completely disappeared and I would hope that those with knowledge of the facts would understand that.
-
I imagine he responded that way because he didn't want to tell her anything and telling her to 'email' him would be to stop her pestering him via PM. I don't think it sounds strange at all. She deliberately tried to suggest he contacted her first and then tried to suggest that an admin/mod (namely me) had hacked her account. This was of course all BS because she contacted MD first and gave him specific information that ONLY she could know. This whole thing was about what Jackie tried to do but people are sweeping that under the carpet in order to have a dig at MD - simply because he MAY now think Jeremy is guilty. I really don't understand people here. What she did was completely wrong and underhanded but she gets away with it - time and again.
But Caroline you were an admin at the time so why didn't you do something about her is you felt so strongly?
-
But Caroline you were an admin at the time so why didn't you do something about her is you felt so strongly?
Caroline was not an admin at the time.
-
I do not agree that Jackie got away with anything. She received considerable flak here for starting the thread here and posting as she did. I am not in any way condoning that and I am very critical of it. However, MD then posted his account of what had happened and to say it was disingenuous is perhaps a polite way of describing it. It was only when I looked into the matter myself that I was able to post a factual account of what had happened so that members here could draw there only conclusions. Having done that and allowed members to have their say I removed the thread. Paul Harrison responded with insults and threats which were of a totally unacceptable nature. He received a ban for that. He then issued further threats and took certain steps which for the time being I will refrain from mentioning. However any respect I had for this individual has completely disappeared and I would hope that those with knowledge of the facts would understand that.
I appreciate that you and he have issues which went on behind the scenes and that isn't really the business of anyone here. As far as I'm concerned she didn't get enough flack and now she is twisting the story and saying it was MD who lied and not her which isn't true. Jackie talks about abuse but is one of the worst offenders. She acts as though she should be the last person who should be considered in respect to recent events and yet she can't explain what she meant by this comment "I can't wait for tomorrow I'm sure you will get an answer" - I feel like I'm sitting in the story of the Emperors New Clothes.
-
But Caroline you were an admin at the time so why didn't you do something about her is you felt so strongly?
No I wasn't, it happened on the day I stood down but if I had been ........
-
I appreciate that you and he have issues which went on behind the scenes and that isn't really the business of anyone here.
The issues were forum issues, the demands and threats issued by MD were to me as a forum administrator.
-
I appreciate that you and he have issues which went on behind the scenes and that isn't really the business of anyone here. As far as I'm concerned she didn't get enough flack and now she is twisting the story and saying it was MD who lied and not her which isn't true. Jackie talks about abuse but is one of the worst offenders. She acts as though she should be the last person who should be considered in respect to recent events and yet she can't explain what she meant by this comment "I can't wait for tomorrow I'm sure you will get an answer" - I feel like I'm sitting in the story of the Emperors New Clothes.
Awww Caroline. I'm sure there are some who can see the Emperor's credentials ;D ;D ;D
-
I concede that MD may well have initially identified himself as a Jeremy supporter. Unfortunately, we can't now go back and look at his posts! I can't understand why you would feel hurt by his change of mind, or deception, if that's what you believe.
Why are you exceedingly angry about people defending him?
Because those who are defending him are mainly guilters and now think he himself is a guilter. But I definitely was led to believe that he was a Bamber supporter so I can't understand why you are puzzled as to why I now feel deceived? The simple answer to that is if the person is deceptive now what will his book be like? Certainly not a good advertisement for his book is it?
I'm not stupid Neil, I wouldn't have imagined the fact that he made people here think that he was a supporter and then towards the end reveals himself as one who thinks Jeremy is guilty. That to my mind is deception. That alone should make people distrust him on anything else he may write. Unlike you I cannot understand why people on here tolerate such things when they critisise the same kind of deception they accuse other forum members of. It appears to me to be a bit hypocritical on their part?
-
The issues were forum issues, the demands and threats issued by MD were to me as a forum administrator.
Fair enough but you banned him, Jackie accused admins/Mods (me) of hacking her account when she knew that wasn't true but she is still here.
-
I do not agree that Jackie got away with anything. She received considerable flak here for starting the thread here and posting as she did. I am not in any way condoning that and I am very critical of it. However, MD then posted his account of what had happened and to say it was disingenuous is perhaps a polite way of describing it. It was only when I looked into the matter myself that I was able to post a factual account of what had happened so that members here could draw there only conclusions. Having done that and allowed members to have their say I removed the thread. Paul Harrison responded with insults and threats which were of a totally unacceptable nature. He received a ban for that. He then issued further threats and took certain steps which for the time being I will refrain from mentioning. However any respect I had for this individual has completely disappeared and I would hope that those with knowledge of the facts would understand that.
Ultimately, we all suffered because we lost a notable member.
-
Because those who are defending him are mainly guilters and now think he himself is a guilter. But I definitely was led to believe that he was a Bamber supporter so I can't understand why you are puzzled as to why I now feel deceived? The simple answer to that is if the person is deceptive now what will his book be like? Certainly not a good advertisement for his book is it?
I'm not stupid Neil, I wouldn't have imagined the fact that he made people here think that he was a supporter and then towards the end reveals himself as one who thinks Jeremy is guilty. That to my mind is deception. That alone should make people distrust him on anything else he may write. Unlike you I cannot understand why people on here tolerate such things when they critisise the same kind of deception they accuse other forum members of. It appears to me to be a bit hypocritical on their part?
Perhaps he changed his mind.
-
Caroline was not an admin at the time.
Ok my apologies to you Caroline. I forgot, I was not on the forum then.
-
I appreciate that you and he have issues which went on behind the scenes and that isn't really the business of anyone here. As far as I'm concerned she didn't get enough flack and now she is twisting the story and saying it was MD who lied and not her which isn't true. Jackie talks about abuse but is one of the worst offenders. She acts as though she should be the last person who should be considered in respect to recent events and yet she can't explain what she meant by this comment "I can't wait for tomorrow I'm sure you will get an answer" - I feel like I'm sitting in the story of the Emperors New Clothes.
But he did lie Caroline. He posted saying he did "not know who this woman is". But he did if it is claimed that Jackie contacted him afore hand offering him her support. So if she lied, then so did he in return. I must add of course that I don't know why Jackie is denying it?
-
Hi Caroline I agree Mason Doyle changed his mind and never set out to deceive anyone. :'( Mr. Gee why are you so angry.
-
No I wasn't, it happened on the day I stood down but if I had been ........
Yes ngb has corrected me on that matter. I am sorry for my mistake. :)
-
Because those who are defending him are mainly guilters and now think he himself is a guilter. But I definitely was led to believe that he was a Bamber supporter so I can't understand why you are puzzled as to why I now feel deceived? The simple answer to that is if the person is deceptive now what will his book be like? Certainly not a good advertisement for his book is it?
I'm not stupid Neil, I wouldn't have imagined the fact that he made people here think that he was a supporter and then towards the end reveals himself as one who thinks Jeremy is guilty. That to my mind is deception. That alone should make people distrust him on anything else he may write. Unlike you I cannot understand why people on here tolerate such things when they critisise the same kind of deception they accuse other forum members of. It appears to me to be a bit hypocritical on their part?
Thanks for that Grahame. I just wondered why you felt so angry about it. I would understand it if you had formed a private relationship with him. I suspect that he would be a very interesting poster, if he were able to share his views with us.
-
Because those who are defending him are mainly guilters and now think he himself is a guilter. But I definitely was led to believe that he was a Bamber supporter so I can't understand why you are puzzled as to why I now feel deceived? The simple answer to that is if the person is deceptive now what will his book be like? Certainly not a good advertisement for his book is it?
I'm not stupid Neil, I wouldn't have imagined the fact that he made people here think that he was a supporter and then towards the end reveals himself as one who thinks Jeremy is guilty. That to my mind is deception. That alone should make people distrust him on anything else he may write. Unlike you I cannot understand why people on here tolerate such things when they critisise the same kind of deception they accuse other forum members of. It appears to me to be a bit hypocritical on their part?
As is not recognising what Jackie did to be also deceptive - it has nothing to do with whether you believe JB innocent or guilty (personally I think the innocent/guiltiers lables are BS) it's about right and wrong and if it's WRONG it's wrong no matter what 'side' you support. MD was under no obligation to tell anyone anything and he is certainly free to change his mind. Jackie on the other hand set out to try and discredit someone and to try and snare an admin just for the hell of it.
-
Fair enough but you banned him, Jackie accused admins/Mods (me) of hacking her account when she knew that wasn't true but she is still here.
That of course is wrong. But when I was admin I could have if I wanted read all the emails and pm's of members. Needless to say I did not as that would have been unethical and I doubt that you would either.
-
Because those who are defending him are mainly guilters and now think he himself is a guilter. But I definitely was led to believe that he was a Bamber supporter so I can't understand why you are puzzled as to why I now feel deceived? The simple answer to that is if the person is deceptive now what will his book be like? Certainly not a good advertisement for his book is it?
I'm not stupid Neil, I wouldn't have imagined the fact that he made people here think that he was a supporter and then towards the end reveals himself as one who thinks Jeremy is guilty. That to my mind is deception. That alone should make people distrust him on anything else he may write. Unlike you I cannot understand why people on here tolerate such things when they critisise the same kind of deception they accuse other forum members of. It appears to me to be a bit hypocritical on their part?
Grahame, I can HEAR your frustration. Clearly you feel duped but it is DONE. OK, he may have been duplicitous. You can register your disapproval by shunning his book, should it ever be released, as can anyone else who feels as strongly as you. Personally, I don't have the involvement with him to see him as anything other than someone who used to his advantage something he thought would help him with his work as an author. I worry FAR more about the trustworthiness, or otherwise, of some closer to home.
-
Fair enough but you banned him, Jackie accused admins/Mods (me) of hacking her account when she knew that wasn't true but she is still here.
I have already explained the basis for my decision to ban MD but not Jackie. You can disagree with that decision, fair enough. However in my view MD's conduct was far more serious than Jackie's. Jackie could have been banned, MD had to be banned. To be accurate Jackie fell short of making the direct accusation, although I accept that the hint was there. The strong reaction of members, including me, to any suggestion of you or any other admin or mod hacking an account dealt with that issue firmly.
-
But he did lie Caroline. He posted saying he did "not know who this woman is". But he did if it is claimed that Jackie contacted him afore hand offering him her support. So if she lied, then so did he in return. I must add of course that I don't know why Jackie is denying it?
But does receiving a pm or email entitle one to say they "know" someone?
-
Ultimately, we all suffered because we lost a notable member.
We lost that member because of his conduct, not that of anyone else. He indicated his contempt for the forum.
-
That of course is wrong. But when I was admin I could have if I wanted read all the emails and pm's of members. Needless to say I did not as that would have been unethical and I doubt that you would either.
You can't read PM's unless you have their password and NGB will confirm this! However, Jackie sent MD information ONLY SHE would know.
-
As is not recognising what Jackie did to be also deceptive - it has nothing to do with whether you believe JB innocent or guilty (personally I think the innocent/guiltiers lables are BS) it's about right and wrong and if it's WRONG it's wrong no matter what 'side' you support. MD was under no obligation to tell anyone anything and he is certainly free to change his mind. Jackie on the other hand set out to try and discredit someone and to try and snare an admin just for the hell of it.
I don't believe he changed his mind Caroline? He said to me that he didn't know when his book was coming out because he was helping Bambers legal team in the forthcoming appeal application. Now honestly does that sound as if he believed Bamber to be guilty? I just think his purpose in joining the forum was to plug his book personally? And in so doing he misled some of Bamber's supporters into thinking he himself was a supporter. The first I heard of it was from Tyler, although she only hinted at it and didn't mention his name, but when he published in his post the word "alleged moj" or similar words in regard to Bamber I guessed what she was talking about.
-
I have already explained the basis for my decision to ban MD but not Jackie. You can disagree with that decision, fair enough. However in my view MD's conduct was far more serious than Jackie's. Jackie could have been banned, MD had to be banned. To be accurate Jackie fell short of making the direct accusation, although I accept that the hint was there. The strong reaction of members, including me, to any suggestion of you or any other admin or mod hacking an account dealt with that issue firmly.
It was stronger than a hint and whether anyone believed it or not, it shows how underhanded she is and it's why I think she is at the heart of recent events and her earlier post indicates such. What will she do next?
-
I don't believe he changed his mind Caroline? He said to me that he didn't know when his book was coming out because he was helping Bambers legal team in the forthcoming appeal application. Now honestly does that sound as if he believed Bamber to be guilty? I just think his purpose in joining the forum was to plug his book personally? And in so doing he misled some of Bamber's supporters into thinking he himself was a supporter. The first I heard of it was from Tyler, although she only hinted at it and didn't mention his name, but when he published in his post the word "alleged moj" or similar words in regard to Bamber I guessed what she was talking about.
Well, that's up to your Grahame but he did change his mind.
-
We lost that member because of his conduct, not that of anyone else. He indicated his contempt for the forum.
Which none of us saw. Conversely, Jackie seem to indicate her contempt, on forum, on a regular basis, for anyone who opposes her views, as well as refusing to acknowledge the extent of her involvement in the MD email debacle.
-
I won't comment on the MD/NGB issue because I haven't seen what was said. BUT - I see where NGB could be coming from in relation to MD's attitude as I am one of the many members he threatened with legal action and his attitude was anything but proffesional - he seems to have a short spark and rather than discuss he quickly began to throw threats and ultimatums - it seems he treated NGB the same way.
As for Jackie and MD. It seems black and white to me but there appears to be an attempt to make it a grey area. I am sure MD recieves a lot of emails and PM's regarding his work - why would he remember Jackie? He was perplexed and responded to her accusation in a defensive way. But she did lie. She was seen to be lying and then she tried to cover her ass by blaming an admin. If NGB chooses not to ban her, that's fine and needs to be respected BUT history can't be re-written and the lack of a ban can't be used as lack of wrong doing. If MD has contempt for this forum, then so does Jackie.
The post to Caroline about "can't wait for tommorow" Is being CLEARLY ignored. Members need to ask themselves why.
-
I have already explained the basis for my decision to ban MD but not Jackie. You can disagree with that decision, fair enough. However in my view MD's conduct was far more serious than Jackie's. Jackie could have been banned, MD had to be banned. To be accurate Jackie fell short of making the direct accusation, although I accept that the hint was there. The strong reaction of members, including me, to any suggestion of you or any other admin or mod hacking an account dealt with that issue firmly.
No matter what you do in order to be fair Neil will always be questioned. I remember exactly the same thing happened to me when I was administrator and if Caroline is honest, and I am confident that she is, exactly the same criticism was levelled at her as well. Me? I got fed up with all the fickleness and just chucked it in. Never again will I be either moderator or admin. I can see from what you have posted in the past against Jackie that you do not tolerate any nonsense from her.
-
Well, that's up to your Grahame but he did change his mind.
In order to do that he would have had to change his whole book Caroline.
-
Which none of us saw. Conversely, Jackie seem to indicate her contempt, on forum, on a regular basis, for anyone who opposes her views, as well as refusing to acknowledge the extent of her involvement in the MD email debacle.
So that makes it OK? Are you doubting that it happened?
Jackie has been banned several times here and has had many posts censored. It is up to the admin/mod team to make decisions at the time using their own judgement as each situation arises. I do not believe it would be right to impose some retrospective sanction now based upon pressure from some members who disagree with my decision. If issues arise in the future we will take the action that we feel is appropriate. We can do no more than that.
-
Hi Caroline I agree Mason Doyle changed his mind and never set out to deceive anyone. :'( Mr. Gee why are you so angry.
Susan if you do not know by now then you never will. I have explained why quite clearly I don't like deception. I believe that the reason that he wasn't that clear what his position was in the beginning was because he already thought him to be guilty. I cannot see why certain people can't even recognise when they have been deceived?
-
Mr Gee maybe he has changed the whole book and that is why it has not yet been published just a thought.
-
Will take the opportunity to say that I have added a few new photos of Jeremy´s birth parents in the photo thread. I have some more, will add them later. Also added two "new" photos of the WHF.
P.S. and one new picture of Julie Mugford from 2001. Took it from a video Gee posted.
-
So that makes it OK? Are you doubting that it happened?
Jackie has been banned several times here and has had many posts censored. It is up to the admin/mod team to make decisions at the time using their own judgement as each situation arises. I do not believe it would be right to impose some retrospective sanction now based upon pressure from some members who disagree with my decision. If issues arise in the future we will take the action that we feel is appropriate. We can do no more than that.
Neil, I'm a highly articulate woman with an excellent vocabulary and if I may say so, a superlative command of the English language. WHY is it then, that I constantly get the feeling that you feel I'm attacking you when I'm doing NO SUCH THING. On this occasion you appear to have taken exception to my words "Which none of us saw" FULL STOP, Neil. Statement of fact. NO hidden agenda. NOR am I doubting that it happened. HOWEVER, I would like to say that I feel there may be something here about the SUBjective as opposed to the OBjective. If MD threatened/attacked you personally, and I have NO reason to think that he didn't, you would understandably feel aggrieved and you were within your rights to take the action you did. Please understand that there are many of us here who feel that Jackie has treated us in the same way that you feel MD treated you and WE feel as aggrieved as you.
-
Neil, I'm a highly articulate woman with an excellent vocabulary and if I may say so, a superlative command of the English language. WHY is it then, that I constantly get the feeling that you feel I'm attacking you when I'm doing NO SUCH THING. On this occasion you appear to have taken exception to my words "Which none of us saw" FULL STOP, Neil. Statement of fact. NO hidden agenda. NOR am I doubting that it happened. HOWEVER, I would like to say that I feel there may be something here about the SUBjective as opposed to the OBjective. If MD threatened/attacked you personally, and I have NO reason to think that he didn't, you would understandably feel aggrieved and you were within your rights to take the action you did. Please understand that there are many of us here who feel that Jackie has treated us in the same way that you feel MD treated you and WE feel as aggrieved as you.
Exactly.
-
In order to do that he would have had to change his whole book Caroline.
Well no he wouldn't the facts of the case are the facts of the case. I doubt he would have included any of the myths that circulate and even then, you can include them by asking them to be considered and not taken as fact.
-
I won't comment on the MD/NGB issue because I haven't seen what was said. BUT - I see where NGB could be coming from in relation to MD's attitude as I am one of the many members he threatened with legal action and his attitude was anything but proffesional - he seems to have a short spark and rather than discuss he quickly began to throw threats and ultimatums - it seems he treated NGB the same way.
As for Jackie and MD. It seems black and white to me but there appears to be an attempt to make it a grey area. I am sure MD recieves a lot of emails and PM's regarding his work - why would he remember Jackie? He was perplexed and responded to her accusation in a defensive way. But she did lie. She was seen to be lying and then she tried to cover her ass by blaming an admin. If NGB chooses not to ban her, that's fine and needs to be respected BUT history can't be re-written and the lack of a ban can't be used as lack of wrong doing. If MD has contempt for this forum, then so does Jackie.
The post to Caroline about "can't wait for tommorow" Is being CLEARLY ignored. Members need to ask themselves why.
I get that impression too - I haven't seen anyone actually comment on it yet - however, if a similar incident had occurred which involved Scipio, it would be a different story.
-
So that makes it OK? Are you doubting that it happened?
Jackie has been banned several times here and has had many posts censored. It is up to the admin/mod team to make decisions at the time using their own judgement as each situation arises. I do not believe it would be right to impose some retrospective sanction now based upon pressure from some members who disagree with my decision. If issues arise in the future we will take the action that we feel is appropriate. We can do no more than that.
NGB I totally agree with what you have said. I agree we should monitor issued should they arise in the future.
Action was taken at the end of the day the thread was removed and rightly so.
Here we have a classic example that one might have indicted or should I say asked if a Mod could have sent a PM using there account. With respect it was not a nice thing to say. Equally we now have another member who thinks that a member on this forum has wrote to Jeremy to tell him that one of the members has changed her stance. To me two members are accusing, more or less each other for something that they might not have done.
Mason Doyle went that extra mile and made threats. His ban was a worthy action in my opinion regardless of his stance on Jeremy Bamber. :)
-
Neil, I'm a highly articulate woman with an excellent vocabulary and if I may say so, a superlative command of the English language. WHY is it then, that I constantly get the feeling that you feel I'm attacking you when I'm doing NO SUCH THING. On this occasion you appear to have taken exception to my words "Which none of us saw" FULL STOP, Neil. Statement of fact. NO hidden agenda. NOR am I doubting that it happened. HOWEVER, I would like to say that I feel there may be something here about the SUBjective as opposed to the OBjective. If MD threatened/attacked you personally, and I have NO reason to think that he didn't, you would understandably feel aggrieved and you were within your rights to take the action you did. Please understand that there are many of us here who feel that Jackie has treated us in the same way that you feel MD treated you and WE feel as aggrieved as you.
Hi April, please don't take this the wrong way, but the words, "Which none of us saw" appear to have the ring of doubt about them and seem to be challenging ngb's honesty. Perhaps that is why he answered you the way he did? The words could be interpreted "Which none of us saw but only you saw " thus implying that because none of us saw we only have your word for it. Just saying. :)
-
Will take the opportunity to say that I have added a few new photos of Jeremy´s birth parents in the photo thread. I have some more, will add them later. Also added two "new" photos of the WHF.
P.S. and one new picture of Julie Mugford from 2001. Took it from a video Gee posted.
Thank you Alias....I shall have a granny! ;D
-
Will take the opportunity to say that I have added a few new photos of Jeremy´s birth parents in the photo thread. I have some more, will add them later. Also added two "new" photos of the WHF.
P.S. and one new picture of Julie Mugford from 2001. Took it from a video Gee posted.
Thank you Alias.
-
Neil, I'm a highly articulate woman with an excellent vocabulary and if I may say so, a superlative command of the English language. WHY is it then, that I constantly get the feeling that you feel I'm attacking you when I'm doing NO SUCH THING. On this occasion you appear to have taken exception to my words "Which none of us saw" FULL STOP, Neil. Statement of fact. NO hidden agenda. NOR am I doubting that it happened. HOWEVER, I would like to say that I feel there may be something here about the SUBjective as opposed to the OBjective. If MD threatened/attacked you personally, and I have NO reason to think that he didn't, you would understandably feel aggrieved and you were within your rights to take the action you did. Please understand that there are many of us here who feel that Jackie has treated us in the same way that you feel MD treated you and WE feel as aggrieved as you.
So many people feel aggrieved by treatment by other posters. Scipio has been awful towards me from get go, hurling insults at me and others, making lies up about me. I didn´t see you or Caroline do anything about it - on the contrary, you buddied up with the man.
Things aren´t always fair.
P.S. and you thought Harters was "joking" when he was viciously attacking Patti. I didn´t think for one second he was joking!
-
NGB I totally agree with what you have said. I agree we should monitor issued should they arise in the future.
Action was taken at the end of the day the thread was removed and rightly so.
Here we have a classic example that one might have indicted or should I say asked if a Mod could have sent a PM using there account. With respect it was not a nice thing to say. Equally we now have another member who thinks that a member on this forum has wrote to Jeremy to tell him that one of the members has changed her stance. To me two members are accusing, more or less each other for something that they might not have done.
Mason Doyle went that extra mile and made threats. His ban was a worthy action in my opinion regardless of his stance on Jeremy Bamber. :)
Have you read what she posted? Also, Jackie KNEW no one had hacked her account because she admitted sending the PM's the two things aren't similar at all.
-
So many people feel aggrieved by treatment by other posters. Scipio has been awful towards me from get go, hurling insults at me and others, making lies up about me. I didn´t see you or Caroline do anything about it - on the contrary, you buddied up with the man.
Things aren´t always fair.
Exactly Alias. The truth is being an admin or mod can be very frustrating at times. You try to do the right thing, but somehow it is never enough for some. I used to get that all the time. I was unjustly accused all the time that I favoured some people over others. Ngb knows this and I am very surprised that April and Caroline do not appreciate it as well since they themselves have also been treated unjustly as well when they didn't appear to do much about scipios abuse. Now for some unknown reason they say that scipio is treated badly over against Jackie who somehow gets away with stuff? Believe me Alias it can be very wearing being a mod and I really do wish Patti good luck. How fickle folk can be. ;D
-
So many people feel aggrieved by treatment by other posters. Scipio has been awful towards me from get go, hurling insults at me and others, making lies up about me. I didn´t see you or Caroline do anything about it - on the contrary, you buddied up with the man.
Things aren´t always fair.
Oh WOW! That isn't true, I picked him up on his language many times - I agree with a lot of what he says but I have NEVER defended ANYONE who has make attacks. But funny you should single me and April out - were we the ONLY mods on this forum? I see also you have failed to comment on Jackie but I'm not surprised.
-
Hi April, please don't take this the wrong way, but the words, "Which none of us saw" appear to have the ring of doubt about them and seem to be challenging ngb's honesty. Perhaps that is why he answered you the way he did? The words could be interpreted "Which none of us saw but only you saw " thus implying that because none of us saw we only have your word for it. Just saying. :)
"He indicated his contempt for the forum" Neil's own words, Grahame. Short and to the point, to which I responded, equally short and to the point "Which none of us saw". I responded in similar vein to the one used by him and which I didn't feel attacked by. Had I, in ANY way, suspected that Neil WASN'T telling the truth, I would have added to my sentence ".......and we only have your word for it" Apart from anything else, MD wasn't the focus of my post, so I saw no reason to spend any time on him.
-
So many people feel aggrieved by treatment by other posters. Scipio has been awful towards me from get go, hurling insults at me and others, making lies up about me. I didn´t see you or Caroline do anything about it - on the contrary, you buddied up with the man.
Things aren´t always fair.
Alias, I've lost count of the amount of times I've taken Scipio to task for the way he speaks to you.
-
Oh WOW! That isn't true, I picked him up on his language many times - I agree with a lot of what he says but I have NEVER defended ANYONE who has make attacks. But funny you should single me and April out - were we the ONLY mods on this forum? I see also you have failed to comment on Jackie but I'm not surprised.
It is you two complaining now. I made an addition to my post.
-
Oh WOW! That isn't true, I picked him up on his language many times - I agree with a lot of what he says but I have NEVER defended ANYONE who has make attacks. But funny you should single me and April out - were we the ONLY mods on this forum? I see also you have failed to comment on Jackie but I'm not surprised.
To be fair Caroline there were only four mods on the forum and you two were the only active mods at the time. But there you see what ngb was talking about. That a lot of work is done by pm. You said that you didn't see that he did anything about Jackie, but Alias is saying the same thing about scipio. All she is saying is that she didn't see anything done. Why didn't she see it? Because it was done by pm's to scipio.
-
Alias, I've lost count of the amount of times I've taken Scipio to task for the way he speaks to you.
It seems because we think Bamber might be guilty, we no longer deserve any consideration. That has become completely clear in recent weeks. Never mind the two years sat hear refereeing between grown ups who seem to have no boundaries. ::)
-
So many people feel aggrieved by treatment by other posters. Scipio has been awful towards me from get go, hurling insults at me and others, making lies up about me. I didn´t see you or Caroline do anything about it - on the contrary, you buddied up with the man.
Things aren´t always fair.
P.S. and you thought Harters was "joking" when he was viciously attacking Patti. I didn´t think for one second he was joking!
Here is my addition.
-
It is you two complaining now. I made an addition to my post.
And we have a right to do so - it certainly makes a change!
-
To be fair Caroline there were only four mods on the forum and you two were the only active mods at the time. But there you see what ngb was talking about. That a lot of work is done by pm. You said that you didn't see that he did anything about Jackie, but Alias is saying the same thing abou scipio. All she is saying is that she didn't see anything done. Why didn't she see it? Because it was done by pm's to scipio.
April reprimanded Scip on the board many, many times. As did Caroline.
P.S. and you thought Harters was "joking" when he was viciously attacking Patti. I didn´t think for one second he was joking!
Can't really have a dig at people if they genuinely believed he was joking though.
-
So many people feel aggrieved by treatment by other posters. Scipio has been awful towards me from get go, hurling insults at me and others, making lies up about me. I didn´t see you or Caroline do anything about it - on the contrary, you buddied up with the man.
Things aren´t always fair.
P.S. and you thought Harters was "joking" when he was viciously attacking Patti. I didn´t think for one second he was joking!
So what? So did Maggie and April - your point is?
-
It seems because we think Bamber might be guilty, we no longer deserve any consideration. That has become completely clear in recent weeks. Never mind the two years sat hear refereeing between grown ups who seem to have no boundaries. ::)
You are complaining that things aren´t moderated fairly now - regarding yourselves. I have a right to express my personal discontent with how you moderated. Mostly you did well, but skippy had a free pass to hurl insults.
As I said, things aren´t always fair.
Nothing to do with your change of stance.
-
It is you two complaining now. I made an addition to my post.
OK Alias, it's looking like you, and others can stamp your feet and demand that something be done when you get abused but when it comes to Caroline and I, TOUGH!!!
-
It seems because we think Bamber might be guilty, we no longer deserve any consideration. That has become completely clear in recent weeks. Never mind the two years sat hear refereeing between grown ups who seem to have no boundaries. ::)
That simply is not true Caroline. I also can speak from experience and can indeed sympathise with what you are saying. I also felt the same as you when all the lies and insinuations were thrown at me. But isn't true. I think that you two were very good moderators and administrator. None of us are perfect and I felt very down after I quit. I just felt that most on here were against me and questioning my integrity and honesty. But you and April are still very valuable on this forum. :)
-
You are complaining that things aren´t moderated fairly now - regarding yourselves. I have a right to express my personal discontent with how you moderated. Mostly you did well, but skippy had a free pass to hurl insults.
As I said, things aren´t always fair.
Nothing to do with your change of stance.
And things have changed now, HOW, Alias. Are you trying to say that Scipio is so enthralled and impressed with the new team that he's suddenly started quoting poetic odes to you?
-
April reprimanded Scip on the board many, many times. As did Caroline.
Can't really have a dig at people if they genuinely believed he was joking though.
Thanks Mat :) I was beginning to think I'd dreamed it............................and it's just come to mind that not EVERYBODY thought I was justified in reprimanding him.
-
And things have changed now, HOW, Alias. Are you trying to say that Scipio is so enthralled and impressed with the new team that he's suddenly started quoting poetic odes to you?
Frankly I don´t know, I don´t read his posts anymore. Patti did take some action, but I don´t know if it has worked.
-
April any word on my abuse gone unnoticed other than from Neil :'( and Mat of course.
-
You are complaining that things aren´t moderated fairly now - regarding yourselves. I have a right to express my personal discontent with how you moderated. Mostly you did well, but skippy had a free pass to hurl insults.
As I said, things aren´t always fair.
Nothing to do with your change of stance.
Actually, no I'm not - I'm not bothered how things are moderated now - I'm simply asking for an explanation of what Jackie meant by the comment she made and others are doing their best to divert from that subject because they don't want to admit that a fellow 'innocent supporter' is underhanded. And even though it was proven the last time she did it, people are concentrating on MD in order to deflect from what Jackie did - when in fact, it was she who was responsible for the WHOLE incident!
-
That simply is not true Caroline. I also can speak from experience and can indeed sympathise with what you are saying. I also felt the same as you when all the lies and insinuations were thrown at me. But isn't true. I think that you two were very good moderators and administrator. None of us are perfect and I felt very down after I quit. I just felt that most on here were against me and questioning my integrity and honesty. But you and April are still very valuable on this forum. :)
Thanks Grahame - I appreciate that! :)
-
Actually, no I'm not - I'm not bothered how things are moderated now - I'm simply asking for an explanation of what Jackie meant by the comment she made and others are doing their best to divert from that subject because they don't want to admit that a fellow 'innocent supporter' is underhanded. And even though it was proven the last time she did it, people are concentrating on MD in order to deflect from what Jackie did - when in fact, it was she who was responsible for the WHOLE incident!
Maybe you should start a seperate thread about it, then perhaps it will not drown in other issues.
-
Frankly I don´t know, I don´t read his posts anymore. Patti did take some action, but I don´t know if it has worked.
So in other words, the chances are that she hasn't achieved any more than Caroline and I. May I suggest that you do with him as I have done with Jackie, and put him on ignore.
-
Wow! if you could all hear yourselves. Now can you see why I quit as administrator and left the forum. Sick and tired of all this childish complaining all the time. Please some of you try and grow up for goodness sake. None of us can claim to be perfect. Yet we expect everyone else to be. Please please stop all this for the sake of peace and harmony.
-
So in other words, the chances are that she hasn't achieved any more than Caroline and I. May I suggest that you do with him as I have done with Jackie, and put him on ignore.
I have. Sometimes his posts are quoted though, and I accidentally read a few sentences.
-
That simply is not true Caroline. I also can speak from experience and can indeed sympathise with what you are saying. I also felt the same as you when all the lies and insinuations were thrown at me. But isn't true. I think that you two were very good moderators and administrator. None of us are perfect and I felt very down after I quit. I just felt that most on here were against me and questioning my integrity and honesty. But you and April are still very valuable on this forum. :)
THANK-YOU Grahame, that's very much appreciated.
-
Wow! if you could all hear yourselves. Now can you see why I quit as administrator and left the forum. Sick and tired of all this childish complaining all the time. Please some of you try and grow up for goodness sake. None of us can claim to be perfect. Yet we expect everyone else to be. Please please stop all this for the sake of peace and harmony.
When she answers the question - I'm not asking for water into wine - just an answer to the question.
-
When she answers the question - I'm not asking for water into wine - just an answer to the question.
If you wait for her to answer I fear that the water will turn to wine on its own Caroline. Just move on for the sake of sanity on the forum.
-
Wow! if you could all hear yourselves. Now can you see why I quit as administrator and left the forum. Sick and tired of all this childish complaining all the time. Please some of you try and grow up for goodness sake. None of us can claim to be perfect. Yet we expect everyone else to be. Please please stop all this for the sake of peace and harmony.
Grahame, this is a WONDERFUL example of the SUBjective versus the OBjective. It's dead easy to sort something out when one can sit back and look at a problem without emotion but sadly we ALL are emotionally involved at some level. Hence things can become a little heated and the brick wall doesn't get any softer :D
-
April/Caroline everyone knows you were both good Mods shame you have been defrocked ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Wow! if you could all hear yourselves. Now can you see why I quit as administrator and left the forum. Sick and tired of all this childish complaining all the time. Please some of you try and grow up for goodness sake. None of us can claim to be perfect. Yet we expect everyone else to be. Please please stop all this for the sake of peace and harmony.
I echo that Grahame.
I think we should all try and build some bridges and have a quiz...lol
-
If you wait for her to answer I fear that the water will turn to wine on its own Caroline. Just move on for the sake of sanity on the forum.
Let's hope it's a good year.
-
Actually, no I'm not - I'm not bothered how things are moderated now - I'm simply asking for an explanation of what Jackie meant by the comment she made and others are doing their best to divert from that subject because they don't want to admit that a fellow 'innocent supporter' is underhanded. And even though it was proven the last time she did it, people are concentrating on MD in order to deflect from what Jackie did - when in fact, it was she who was responsible for the WHOLE incident!
Jeremy often rings Ngb on a Saturday then Ngb would be able to ask who informed him of your change of stance
When Ngb confirms this I hope you get a lifetime ban for falsely accusing me And attacking me in such a disgusting way
-
Jackie you do amaze me. It is acceptable for you to tell Mason Doyle lies about me how can this be right you do not know him or me so how can you come to any conclusions that you feel you should warn him about me.
-
I think the current mod team are amazing. I would like to see Jon as a mod because he knows the case so well
-
April/Caroline everyone knows you were both good Mods shame you have been defrocked ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Susan they weren't defrocked as you assume. They resigned.
-
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-angry032.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
-
Jeremy often rings Ngb on a Saturday then Ngb would be able to ask who informed him of your change of stance
When Ngb confirms this I hope you get a lifetime ban for falsely accusing me And attacking me in such a disgusting way
Ha, ha!! Hilarious!!! You falsely accused MD and me over the messages YOU sent to him - you're admitting you should have been banned!!!! Now answer the question, what did you mean by "I can't wait for tomorrow I'm sure you will get an answer"?
-
after all this I hope it was not someone from another forum trying to stir things up . Because its obviously worked :'(
-
I said I replied to him message one PM
Got it !!!
Ngb asked for a screen shot of the supposedly 2 messages
He had refused
Now work it out Caroline !!!
Caroline I have just given you an answer and I have not said I should be banned you should
The new admin team are brilliant because they don't gossip by pm
-
I said I replied to him message one PM
Got it !!!
Ngb asked for a screen shot of the supposedly 2 messages
He had refused
Now work it out Caroline !!!
Caroline I have just given you an answer and I have not said I should be banned you should
The new admin team are brilliant because they don't gossip by pm
You didn't REPLY to him, you contacted HIM FIRST! Then you tried to pretend your account was hacked. I was HERE Jackie, you won't twist what happened - I saw what happened and read the PM's they were posted here - remember?? ;D ;D Now answer the question - what did you mean by "I can't wait for tomorrow I'm sure you will get an answer"?
Oh and how do you know what's said via PM ::)
-
You didn't REPLY to him, you contacted HIM FIRST! Then you tried to pretend your account was hacked. I was HERE Jackie, you won't twist what happened - I saw what happened and read the PM's they were posted here - remember?? ;D ;D Now answer the question - what did you mean by "I can't wait for tomorrow I'm sure you will get an answer"?
Oh and how do you know what's said via PM ::)
Was just about to ask the same question , Caroline.
-
Was just about to ask the same question , Caroline.
This is a forum for open discussion
When you keep exceeding your pm I expect you are gossiping
As for Caroline and her rude behaviour, I gave access to Ngb to my pm's
Your mate could have done the same he didn't
Now I am off to dinner
I will reply to any more nasty posts on my return
-
after all this I hope it was not someone from another forum trying to stir things up . Because its obviously worked :'(
funnly enough those were my thoughts as well.
ngb will tell us who it is soon though im sure.
-
I gether no one wants a quiz then hahahahahaha
Dare I ask that we keep to the topic of this thread please. :-[
-
This is a forum for open discussion
When you keep exceeding your pm I expect you are gossiping
As for Caroline and her rude behaviour, I gave access to Ngb to my pm's
Your mate could have done the same he didn't
Now I am off to dinner
I will reply to any more nasty posts on my return
You gave access to your PM's and were busted!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I gether no one wants a quiz then hahahahahaha
Dare I ask that we keep to the topic of this thread please. :-[
yes lets have a qui then.
-
Oh just in case you forgot Jackie - this is the question I asked HOURS ago! What did you mean by "I can't wait for tomorrow I'm sure you will get an answer"? Perhaps you can answer THAT on your return!
-
yes lets have a qui then.
OK, first question - what did Jackie mean by "I can't wait for tomorrow I'm sure you will get an answer"? - Clue! The conversation just prior to her comment was in respect to Jeremy not answering a question I asked ;) ;D ;D
-
That of course is wrong. But when I was admin I could have if I wanted read all the emails and pm's of members. Needless to say I did not as that would have been unethical and I doubt that you would either.
This has shocked me? Is this true?
-
OK, first question - what did Jackie mean by "I can't wait for tomorrow I'm sure you will get an answer"? - Clue! The conversation just prior to her comment was in respect to Jeremy not answering a question I asked ;) ;D ;D
Jackie has psychic abilities? :D :D :D
-
Hello justice
think the system must have changed don't worry all your saucy pm's to me will be safe ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
HaHaHa Caroline I am still awaiting for her to answer me but I wont hold my breath ;D
-
This has shocked me? Is this true?
I can't answer for back then but certainly not now.
-
Hello justice
think the system must have changed don't worry all your saucy pm's to me will be safe ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Hi Susan ha ha, can you remember when i talked to you about how i thought others could read my pms? I had a a conversation about just losing my Father, i had never at this stage told anyone else on the forum, then out of the blue i got a message from someone, How's business after all your problems? I could not work it out?
-
Hi Susan ha ha, can you remember when i talked to you about how i thought others could read my pms? I had a a conversation about just losing my Father, i had never at this stage told anyone else on the forum, then out of the blue i got a message from someone, How's business after all your problems? I could not work it out?
Justice, that's APPALLING. >:(
-
Justice, that's APPALLING. >:(
April i was took aback i even Pm Susan to check, nothing else came with it, no follow up even when i answered back?
-
Hi Susan ha ha, can you remember when i talked to you about how i thought others could read my pms? I had a a conversation about just losing my Father, i had never at this stage told anyone else on the forum, then out of the blue i got a message from someone, How's business after all your problems? I could not work it out?
Actually, I remember that Justice but I can assure you that you can't read member's PM's - you can alter their setting etc. but you can not view their messages.
-
Actually, I remember that Justice but I can assure you that you can't read member's PM's - you can alter their setting etc. but you can not view their messages.
So how come Jackie is saying that Neil can read hers or have I got the wrong end of the stick?.
-
justice I remember that well as we then started to delete our pm's straight away as you suspected somebody was reading them . I remember earlier my email address and password were taken off this forum and posts made on my Facebook page and only two places I used that password was here and on Facebook. I deleted my page. I always delete my pm's as I get them what is the point in keeping them I just hate clutter.
-
April she sent him her secure password.
-
I guess it is possible that Jackie may know who told Jeremy and may have been told that Jeremy was going to write to Caroline,but that she doesn't want to reveal who the person is?
-
Actually, I remember that Justice but I can assure you that you can't read member's PM's - you can alter their setting etc. but you can not view their messages.
Caroline i dont for one mniute think that you, April, or Patti and any of the new mod team would or can? This is no coincidence if Grahame could back then whats changed? You have to understand the lead up to this post to have any suspicions? Really sorry Patti for going off topic but this is worrying. I nearly gave sensitive information away via pm.
-
Caroline i dont for one mniute think that you, April, or Patti and any of the new mod team would or can? This is no coincidence if Grahame could back then whats changed? You have to understand the lead up to this post to have any suspicions? Really sorry Patti for going off topic but this is worrying. I nearly gave sensitive information away via pm.
I wouldn't think it possible. But Grahame says it is.....and he was admin. :-\
-
Oh just in case you forgot Jackie - this is the question I asked HOURS ago! What did you mean by "I can't wait for tomorrow I'm sure you will get an answer"? Perhaps you can answer THAT on your return!
You have had your answer twice
-
April she sent him her secure password.
Cheers, Susan.
-
The problem with pm's is that sometimes they can be mistakenly sent to the wrong person. I have received loads of pm's in the past that were meant for other people. Some of them have been a real eye opener!
-
tyler I have never been that lucky ;D ;D ;D ;D this must be the result of a poster being careless.
-
The problem with pm's is that sometimes they can be mistakenly sent to the wrong person. I have received loads of pm's in the past that were meant for other people. Some of them have been a real eye opener!
Sorry Tyler i have neither received or sent posts to the wrong person. Very rarely send them and mostly to Susan when i do and a lot of the time talking not of Bamber?
-
The problem with pm's is that sometimes they can be mistakenly sent to the wrong person. I have received loads of pm's in the past that were meant for other people. Some of them have been a real eye opener!
Never happened to me! Would be interesting.... 8) ;D
-
The problem with pm's is that sometimes they can be mistakenly sent to the wrong person. I have received loads of pm's in the past that were meant for other people. Some of them have been a real eye opener!
So have I!
-
So how come Jackie is saying that Neil can read hers or have I got the wrong end of the stick?.
She gave him her login details and he signed into her profile.
-
The problem with pm's is that sometimes they can be mistakenly sent to the wrong person. I have received loads of pm's in the past that were meant for other people. Some of them have been a real eye opener!
I THINK!!! I've only done it once. I sent it to the wrong Neil. Nothing revealing but embarrassing, nonetheless.
-
Alias my sentiments exactly life is so boring at times ;D
-
I guess it is possible that Jackie may know who told Jeremy and may have been told that Jeremy was going to write to Caroline,but that she doesn't want to reveal who the person is?
Well, I think the fact that she has spent the entire day avoiding the question speaks volumes. Had that been the case I wouldn't have asked her who it was or expected her to tell me. The comment she made stuck in my mind and I expected something like this to happen. And here we are.
-
You have had your answer twice
Are you really that thick !!!!!!
Obviously you must be you answered A question not THEE question. I'm not talking about your trying to discredit MD, I'm talking about what you said a few weeks ago ie. what were you referring to? "I can't wait for tomorrow I'm sure you will get an answer"? When have you answered this?
-
Caroline. I do think that if it was Jackie,she would indeed admit it. After all,Jeremy is likely going to tell you who it was anyway?
-
Caroline. I do think that if it was Jackie,she would indeed admit it. After all,Jeremy is likely going to tell you who it was anyway?
I'm asking her what she meant by the comment and she doesn't answer. I don't believe she would admit it - she is still denying what happened with MD.
-
Caroline. I do think that if it was Jackie,she would indeed admit it. After all,Jeremy is likely going to tell you who it was anyway?
Tyler, there's been much more in the way of fudging, hedging, blurring, telling Caroline what she'd like to see happen to her and general huffing and puffing, than there has been by way of explanation.
-
I wouldn't think it possible. But Grahame says it is.....and he was admin. :-\
Strange though Matt don't you think? After having private conversations with Susan about the trauma of losing dad out of the blue i get this?
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: Conversations with persons inside WHF. How was this carried out ?
« on: September 02, 2014, 07:18:PM »
Quote from: JackiePreece on September 02, 2014, 07:08:PM
How's business after all your problems?
Never mentioned anything before about any problems, i have not been able to talk about it.
-
Strange though Matt don't you think? After having private conversations with Susan about the trauma of losing dad out of the blue i get this?
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: Conversations with persons inside WHF. How was this carried out ?
« on: September 02, 2014, 07:18:PM »
Quote from: JackiePreece on September 02, 2014, 07:08:PM
How's business after all your problems?
Never mentioned anything before about any problems, i have not been able to talk about it.
OMG! Not her AGAIN!! :o
-
OMG! Not her AGAIN!! :o
Oh dear :o :o :o
-
OMG! Not her AGAIN!! :o
Surely Caroline you can remember i asked Susan to ask you if people could read my Pms? It might be innocent and i will apologise maybe Jackie could remind me what problems she was on about.
-
Caroline justice knows everything he tells me is in confidence so where did this information come from. justice and I were quite worried about it and did receive then delete just to be on the safe side.
-
justice I remember I contacted Caroline on your behalf. Very strange indeed.
-
Strange though Matt don't you think? After having private conversations with Susan about the trauma of losing dad out of the blue i get this?
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: Conversations with persons inside WHF. How was this carried out ?
« on: September 02, 2014, 07:18:PM »
Quote from: JackiePreece on September 02, 2014, 07:08:PM
How's business after all your problems?
Never mentioned anything before about any problems, i have not been able to talk about it.
How would jackie know what was in your private PMs? Someone must have told her, surely she has no access to PMs. Or one PM accidentally was sent to her?
-
Aias I can assure you Jackie and I don't pm ;D I am the only person justice told and we are very good friends and do not break a confidence so no I told nobody and justice told nobody but me. We will see what Jackie has to say when she appears
-
How would jackie know what was in your private PMs? Someone must have told her, surely she has no access to PMs. Or one PM accidentally was sent to her?
Susan was the only person i told and i trust her 100 per cent. Same as i say it might be innocent but i got this out of the blue, with no follow up?
-
Hi Justice.
Yes, tha does seem strange. But she didn't refer to your Dad - so she may have meant something else. Jackie often thinks she knows who EVERYONE is and that it is her business to let them know she knows her real identity. So there is a chance that she believed she knew who you are and that was her way of letting you know she knows. If that makes sense to you.
-
Hi Justice.
Yes, tha does seem strange. But she didn't refer to your Dad - so she may have meant something else. Jackie often thinks she knows who EVERYONE is and that it is her business to let them know she knows her real identity. So there is a chance that she believed she knew who you are and that was her way of letting you know she knows. If that makes sense to you.
Funny i had this explained to me at the time in a similar way. but with Grahame saying what he did just made me think again? If it could be done then it can be done now? Who knows who has special powers?
-
Funny i had this explained to me at the time in a similar way. but with Grahame saying what he did just made me think again? If it could be done then it can be done now? Who knows who has special powers?
OHHHH She thought you were BRIDGET!!!! ;D ;D ;D
-
justice you cannot be too carefu carry on doing what we do read then delete that way we know it stays with us xxx
-
Aias I can assure you Jackie and I don't pm ;D I am the only person justice told and we are very good friends and do not break a confidence so no I told nobody and justice told nobody but me. We will see what Jackie has to say when she appears
I am sorry that it seemed I thought you had said something! I don´t think you would. I was thinking along the lines that a PM from justice might have landed in the wrong inbox as people are taking about happened to them.
Either in jackie´s or someone elses´ who then told jackie.
But I find Mat´s explanation the most likely.
-
Good Lord,I've just wasted a bloody hour reading this lot and still can't make head nor tail of it. ;D ;D ;D
-
Surely Caroline you can remember i asked Susan to ask you if people could read my Pms? It might be innocent and i will apologise maybe Jackie could remind me what problems she was on about.
Yes, I do remember but I forgot who asked you the question. How could I? :)
-
Alias I know you would never think that about me :)Yes Mat is right she thought Justice was Bridget and she told me earlier that Bridget was having problems with her business not sure this is true but she had picked up on justice and me posting to one another and hey presto came to the wrong conclusion. She knew Bridget and I were close when she was on the forum.
-
Hi Justice.
Yes, tha does seem strange. But she didn't refer to your Dad - so she may have meant something else. Jackie often thinks she knows who EVERYONE is and that it is her business to let them know she knows her real identity. So there is a chance that she believed she knew who you are and that was her way of letting you know she knows. If that makes sense to you.
Yeah, I'd go with that and as we all know, she is invariably wrong!
-
Yes, I do remember but I forgot who asked you the question. How could I? :)
Thanks Caroline.
-
I am sorry that it seemed I thought you had said something! I don´t think you would. I was thinking along the lines that a PM from justice might have landed in the wrong inbox as people are taking about happened to them.
Either in jackie´s or someone elses´ who then told jackie.
But I find Mat´s explanation the most likely.
What that i'm Bridget? Only Joking Alias
-
Alias I know you would never think that about me :)Yes Mat is right she thought Justice was Bridget and she told me earlier that Bridget was having problems with her business not sure this is true but she had picked up on justice and me posting to one another and hey presto came to the wrong conclusion. She knew Bridget and I were close when she was on the forum.
That pretty much explains it.
-
Well here goes, i am really truly sorry Jackie for thinking ill of you and i apologise to you i really thought you were phsycic.
-
Justice that should be a lesson to her not to be assuming people she knows and dislikes are on the forum with a different username. Bridget is still a member of this forum and IF we could get her back we would and she would post using her username Bridget. It is a shame you have been caused all this worry. Bridget please come back we miss you.
-
Good Lord,I've just wasted a bloody hour reading this lot and still can't make head nor tail of it. ;D ;D ;D
gripping isnt it. :)
-
gripping isnt it. :)
It does make a change from the shit and repeated topics on the discussion board though?
-
It does make a change from the shit and repeated topics on the discussion board though?
Justice, your sense of humour is a delight :D
-
g rpping isnt it. :)
I have said it before and I will say it again - I love your posts . They are the opposite to skippys . Brief , straight to the point and effective :)
-
I have said it before and I will say it again - I love your posts . They are the opposite to skippys . Brief , straight to the point and effective :)
I agree, nugs is very sharp and to the point. Love it. ;D
-
Justice, your sense of humour is a delight :D
Why thanks my dear April, i must be that good everyone wants to read my profile?
-
It does make a change from the shit and repeated topics on the discussion board though?
oi - you talking about me? ::)
I had better come off the discussions as I might be rude to skippy in a minute. Ooops too late
-
Why thanks my dear April, i must be that good everyone wants to read my profile?
Hahahahahaha I was reading your profile Reader. Did you get the hail stones this afternoon? ;D
-
oi - you talking about me? ::)
I had better come off the discussions as I might be rude to skippy in a minute. Ooops too late
If i meant you i would tell you. Don't you think its all repeats?
-
Hahahahahaha I was reading your profile Reader. Did you get the hail stones this afternoon? ;D
Ha ha Patti i saw you and someone else? Shame on you, you know me lol. You havent answered me for a while and i knew you would respond xx
-
Ha ha Patti i saw you and someone else? Shame on you, you know me lol. You havent answered me for a while and i knew you would respond xx
I thought I knew you, but I'd forgotten that you changed your name lol Hey don't make the ladies jealous with those kisses...hahahahaha. X
-
I thought I knew you, but I'd forgotten that you changed your name lol Hey don't make the ladies jealous with those kisses...hahahahaha. X
Don't think we had hail stones Patti? Have you been to crystal peaks lately?
-
If i meant you i would tell you. Don't you think its all repeats?
oh yes definitely - groundhog day is one of my favourite films but experiencing it on here is quite un-nerving ;D
-
Don't think we had hail stones Patti? Have you been to crystal peaks lately?
Shall be going there tomorrow Reader :)
It came down really hard here, but those in Killamarsh didn't get any either. Mind you we are higher up than you lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Shall be going there tomorrow Reader :)
It came down really hard here, but those in Killamarsh didn't get any either. Mind you we are higher up than you lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
Patti have you been on the wine? Reader? try Ralph lol
-
Shall be going there tomorrow Reader :)
It came down really hard here, but those in Killamarsh didn't get any either. Mind you we are higher up than you lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
Oh dear lololol.......To be honest I have just sent you a PM to tell you that I have a hangover from hell. I don't think I belong to any planet today. There can't be much water left in the res either, because I think I've drank it all....Sorry Justice. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Patti calling Ralph, Reader, had me so confused!!! ;D ;D
-
Oh dear lololol.......To be honest I have just sent you a PM to tell you that I have a hangover from hell. I don't think I belong to any planet today. There can't be much water left in the res either, because I think I've drank it all....Sorry Justice. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Ha ha what your like Patti. Wouldn't change ya though.
-
Caroline i dont for one mniute think that you, April, or Patti and any of the new mod team would or can? This is no coincidence if Grahame could back then whats changed? You have to understand the lead up to this post to have any suspicions? Really sorry Patti for going off topic but this is worrying. I nearly gave sensitive information away via pm.
Hi justice I must emphasise that I have never actually read anyone's pm's. But it was possible. The administrator then whose name I forget, but he had nothing to do with the forum only the technical side of it. He told me that it was possible if you go into the database. But he told me never to touch the database in case I messed it up. Knowing me I probably would. But that is the way to read any emails or pm's.
On my own forum also it was possible on signforums.com. There again it was possible, but there again I did not do so. Only the Admins can get into the database. But I doubt very much if any of the admins here have ever done it?
It is more likely that someone has talked to someone else about a pm they received from so and so than it is for so someone to read them as an admin unless they are (1) unethical, or (2) technically minded.
-
Ha ha what your like Patti. Wouldn't change ya though.
Awww thank you Mr Whatyamacallit.......lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Alias I know you would never think that about me :)Yes Mat is right she thought Justice was Bridget and she told me earlier that Bridget was having problems with her business not sure this is true but she had picked up on justice and me posting to one another and hey presto came to the wrong conclusion. She knew Bridget and I were close when she was on the forum.
Susan bridget was handling the affairs of her flat that is how she would know about her business. There was some kind of dispute between them both Bridget is local to her and runs the affairs of many houses and flats. Most of what Jackie says are just guesses. She has no special knowledge about things as you might suppose.