Please bear in mind that I can't know what is behind what people post. This is a decontextualised medium. That being so, we must ask: what is the point of the above post? What's the relevance of it? This poster has a very long record of inflammatory postings on two different forums related to the Bamber case, to the extent that on the blue forum it would appear there is an entire thread dedicated to discussing her behaviour. She has also been warned repeatedly on here and ignores those warnings and thereby disrespects the moderators.
I am asked to report incidents to the moderators of this Forum, but that then leads to this behaviour being buried and deleted. I'd prefer her posts stay up and to highlight them, so that people can see for themselves the tactics used by dogmatic and emotionally-driven people. This poster provides us with an interesting case study in the genre. She is rather obsessed with the Bamber case and psychopaths. She is convinced of his guilt, as if it were a singular fact, and will brook no gainsayers.
To recap, I am asked by a moderator of this Forum to explain the basis of my knowledge of the legal system, and I explain it and indeed go further in an effort to help my questioner. My post was therefore relevant, at least to that post if not the thread generally, and it was civil and - I think - knowledgeable to some degree. Agree or disagree with me about the substance of what I said, that's fine.
Moving forward, in so far as I may post here from time-to-time, I should like to keep the discussion on all aspects of the Bamber case rational, civil and relevant, but I will defend myself against people, like the individual above, who clearly harbour an agenda and try to take discussions off-course with inanities.
I think Stephanie's ref to smug and insufferable were ref to your description of us on the so-called Blue forum.
Many of the members here have been banned from the Blue forum including myself and the owner of this forum.
I have recently agreed with Stephanie we will draw a line under what has gone and move on. It seems from your last para you wish to do the same. So we're all signed up.
Stephanie's recent personal experience of her late husband's case no doubt causes her to look at JB's case from a different angle. Stephanie believed her late husband's claims of innocence. As I understand it many experts and lawyers were also sympathetic to his cause including high profile lawyers like Sir Keir Starmer.
As far as moderating the forum goes we only take action when the rules on the homepage are broken. We don't take action on the basis one poster doesn't like the post content or style of another. If we did there would be no one left! If you experience any problems rather than posting about it on the open forum I would ask you either report the post using the report to moderator function or send me a pm referring me to the offending posts.
