Author Topic: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?  (Read 3906 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6051
  • Total likes: 109
  • Bamber Campaign For Freedom, How Can I Help?!
Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #135 on: April 15, 2018, 10:44:12 PM »
You met Michael O'Brien ?

Doesn't a relation of Barry George also support Bamber ?  Another released criminal where no alternative suspect has been charged. These people can relate to Bamber, after having long fights for freedom themselves. Perhaps they have other reasons for supporting Bamber.

All Bamber needs now is Sion Jenkins on his side.

I've heard Trudi is working on OJ  8)-)))
Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline Stephanie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1600
  • Total likes: 27
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #136 on: April 16, 2018, 10:09:16 AM »
I see Maggie has posted in reply to Steve_uk

Posts: 13393
Re: Do Anti-Bamber Posters Have Secret Motives?
« Reply #16 on: Today at 01:38 PM »
Quote from: Steve_uk on Yesterday at 11:18 PM
Well we all agree on something.


"Of course we do. Colin was a victim  as much as anyone. He showed tremendous courage and fortitude. One reason why I am so shocked that JM stayed a weekend in his flat with JB supposedly supporting him when she later claimed she  had known Jenemy was the killer.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9373.msg437322.html#msg437322

Probably for the same reason why I organised Hall's funeral. Maggie again shows her complete and utter lack of comprehension or understanding with regards what men like this do to their victims and the cognitive dissonance sufferered following such an experience. 
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ce7TO3aMgNs

Maggie suffers from a selective memory imo

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7980.msg379294.html#msg379294
"Hi Adam,
I do believe a cold blooded murderer has to have some kind of personality disorder, many have been abused as children themselves.  It's often a 'chicken and egg' situation i.e.. nature or nurture and very difficult to sit in judgement imo. 
To me the main action is to keep the rest of society safe from such damaged and dangerous individuals so I am up to a point in agreement with Steve's suggestion of a safe island for such people
.


The question here is why is Maggie focusing on JM's supposed wrong doings? The term "flying monkies" springs to mind.


7. Cognitive Dissonance
This one involves look within. When a psychopath enters your life, you’ll notice an intense and ever-increasing sense of dread and self-doubt. Your brain will struggle to reconcile the “perfect” person from the beginning, with the inappropriate behavior you’re starting to see more regularly. That’s because that perfect person never actually existed. It was a persona, created just for you. This is the hardest thing for our minds and hearts to understand.
With a psychopath, you’re always the bad one. Even though they lie, cheat, manipulate, steal, and con—you’re the one with the problem. Psychopaths have this innate ability to make you feel like there’s something wrong with you for recognizing that there’s something off about them.https://www.psychopathfree.com/articles/top-7-ways-to-spot-a-sociopath-psychopath-or-narcissist.342/

5. Covert Backstabbing and Betrayal
Psychopaths devalue and replace others at the drop of a hat. Although you probably experienced an instant connection of trust and excitement with them, you’ll come to realize they can forge that bond with anyone. After once declaring you better than all the “crazy” people in their life, they’ll go running back to those very same people and declare you crazy. Psychopaths have no loyalty, no attachment, and no love. They leave behind a trail of destruction, and they blame their victims for it every time.

6. Turning People Against Each Other
When a psychopath enters the picture, you’ll find yourself disliking people you’ve never even met. Psychopaths are constantly whispering poison and gossip into everyone’s ears, making each person feel jealous and suspicious of the others. But they do so under a guise of innocence, using pity stories and pseudo-concern to warp your perception. Psychopaths want people distracted and in constant competition for their attention, so they seem in high-demand at all times.


Julie Mugford was GROOMED by Jeremy Bamber http://outofthefog.website/top-100-trait-blog/2015/11/4/grooming Grooming is the predatory act of maneuvering another individual into a position that makes them more isolated, dependent, likely to trust, and more vulnerable to abusive behavior

And Maggie yet again displays her hypocrisy. "It's often a 'chicken and egg' situation i.e.. nature or nurture and very difficult to sit in judgement imo. 

She now chooses to not sit in judgement of Bamber but has no problem whatsoever judging JM! Yet again, pathetic and indeed shameful and clearly lacking insight.

Maggie today states:
"Hi Frankie as far as we are aware there are no reports of injuries to JB. There are comments by relatives short time after the murders that he had a few scars on his hands but nothing concrete and as he was a farmer that is not surprising.  Julie Mugford slept with Jeremy after the murders and although later accusing him of the murders she has never claimed to have seen any injuries on his body.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9381.msg437394.html?PHPSESSID=2uufgsp53ktfo4brgggn1ep8n5#msg437394


"Nothing concrete" Maggie wasn't there so how does she know what the relatives said a short time after the murder wasn't true. Is she suggesting they lied?

Just because JM never claimed there weren't injuries to Bamber, doesn't mean he didn't have injuries.

He could have hidden them. He could have slept in long sleeved tops and pyjama bottoms, turned the lights out, for example. There has been no suggestion he slept naked for starters.

Plus, I imagine by this point JM was hyper-vigilant and in shock and her mind was all over the place. It's often not until sometime after, that victims of psychological abuse (psychological abuse following a relationship with a highly disturbed and disordered individual) recognise, with the benefit of hindsight, things they've not considered before. It's all too consuming and overwhelming to come to terms with overnight. It's a process. Some victims of this type of abuse dissociate from the traumatic events.

Maybe Bamber wore make up, a concealer of some description? Who knows. Maybe he was covered in bruises but the make up concealed them? Maybe JM didn't ever say out loud that Bamber had bruises but this doesn't mean he never had any.

Well done Adam for pointing out some of the facts.

Especially these;

There have been a lot of suggestions of third party involvement -

Crispy fired the second shot into Sheila. Suggested by Bamber.

Nevill may have said 'She' rather than 'Sheila' on the phone. Suggested by Bamber.

A hit man team carried out the massacre. Suggested by Mike.


One of the relatives carried out the massacre. Suggested by Sherlock.

Sheila and Bamber committed the massacre together.

The massacre was committed by a hunched figure seen in the area.

Sheila shot herself once downstairs and was then shot again upstairs by the police. Suggested by Mike.

Someone had a grudge against Nevill, who was a part time magistrate.

Bamber couldn't have committed the massacre alone. So had an accomplice. Who this could have been has never been suggested.


A man called Jeff Blake committed the massacre. Suggested by Mike.


It would appear Maggie is unable to recognise the error of her ways and unable to separate facts from fiction so misleads and dismisses what is put before her, by stating to Adam:

"Nice short story Adam. Your opinions are not fact"
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9381.msg437399.html#msg437399

Because of Maggie's bias (and abusive behaviour) towards Adam she is too busy shooting him down and attempting to show herself as being better than Adam to recognise where she is going wrong. I did it myself once, especially with Hall's brother. Then again, so did many others.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2018, 11:59:53 AM by Stephanie »
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6051
  • Total likes: 109
  • Bamber Campaign For Freedom, How Can I Help?!
Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #137 on: April 16, 2018, 10:23:59 AM »
Is Maggie a 'supporter'?  She seemed to be when she first joined Blue and then seemed to change stance when others did. 

AE's WS's states she observed JB's arms in a short sleeve short shortly after the murders and they were mark free.

AP said he thought he saw scars on JB's hands but this was all investigated and nothing untoward was found. 

Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline Stephanie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1600
  • Total likes: 27
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #138 on: April 16, 2018, 10:28:17 AM »
Is Maggie a 'supporter'?  She seemed to be when she first joined Blue and then seemed to change stance when others did. 

AE's WS's states she observed JB's arms in a short sleeve short shortly after the murders and they were mark free.

AP said he thought he saw scars on JB's hands but this was all investigated and nothing untoward was found.

Investigated when? Bambers wasn't arrested immediately after the murders.

The news reports recently of the 78 year old man who defended himself against burglars, in the process stabbing one of them to death, shows how today's policing has changed since the WHF murders. As pointed out elsewhere on the board, it's now procedure for police to arrest, question and strip search any potential suspect, no matter what the perceived circumstances.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2018, 10:42:36 AM by Stephanie »
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6051
  • Total likes: 109
  • Bamber Campaign For Freedom, How Can I Help?!
Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #139 on: April 16, 2018, 10:34:32 AM »
Investigated when?

See ground 13, point 444

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

Bet you're pleased to have me as your bestie on the forum. 
Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline Stephanie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1600
  • Total likes: 27
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #140 on: April 16, 2018, 10:41:18 AM »
See ground 13, point 444

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

Bet you're pleased to have me as your bestie on the forum.

I'm aware of the details in the case papers, including the above Holly.

Jeremy Bamber was not arrested immediately after the murders and strip searched. Therefore any injuries he may have had on his body, were never photographed and/or accounted for. Doesn't mean there weren't any.
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline Stephanie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1600
  • Total likes: 27
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #141 on: April 16, 2018, 10:47:14 AM »
Is Maggie a 'supporter'?  She seemed to be when she first joined Blue and then seemed to change stance when others did. 

AE's WS's states she observed JB's arms in a short sleeve short shortly after the murders and they were mark free.

AP said he thought he saw scars on JB's hands but this was all investigated and nothing untoward was found.

She flits between the two and is now an apparant fence sitter? This is what she states today:

"As I said unless you were there you don't know what went on. You can imagine as many scenarios as you want but they are always only your opinion you cannot know what the order of events was  If Sheila was in a psychotic rage the situation would be totally different than if she was just a bit angry.  I openly admit I don't know who was responsible for the deaths.  I have my own thoughts but accept they are my opinions and not truths.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9381.msg437407.html#msg437407

My opinion, Maggie isn't being honest. She appears unable to be honest through fear of upsetting certain members of the blue forum. Her position as a forum moderator appears to bring her some kind of control. She has a tendency for favouritism and seems to turn on any member who doesn't support Bamber and becomes irrational towards anyone who draws to her attention the error of her ways. Bottom line, she appears unable to admit when she is in the wrong.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2018, 11:04:28 AM by Stephanie »
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6051
  • Total likes: 109
  • Bamber Campaign For Freedom, How Can I Help?!
Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #142 on: April 16, 2018, 10:54:05 AM »
I'm aware of the details in the case papers, including the above Holly.

Jeremy Bamber was not arrested immediately after the murders and strip searched. Therefore any injuries he may have had on his body, were never photographed and/or accounted for. Doesn't mean there weren't any.

I thought we were talking about his arms and hands only.

With regard to the rest of his body.  He was seen naked, bar his underpants I assume, by others in the aftermath eg CC, CC's friends and mother, the Bishops.  No one recalled marks to his body.

JM was sleeping with him and only noted spots on his willy. 

 
Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6051
  • Total likes: 109
  • Bamber Campaign For Freedom, How Can I Help?!
Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #143 on: April 16, 2018, 11:04:31 AM »
She flits between the two and is now an apparant fence sitter? This is what she states today:

"As I said unless you were there you don't know what went on. You can imagine as many scenarios as you want but they are always only your opinion you cannot know what the order of events was  If Sheila was in a psychotic rage the situation would be totally different than if she was just a bit angry.  I openly admit I don't know who was responsible for the deaths.  I have my own thoughts but accept they are my opinions and not truths.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9381.msg437407.html#msg437407

My opinion, Maggie isn't being honest. She appears unable to be honest through fear of upsetting certain members of the blue forum. Her position as a forum moderator appears to bring her some kind of control. She has a tendency for favouritism and seems to turn on any member who doesn't support Bamber.

I think all this fence sitting stuff is silly.  Fair enough if you're new to the case but if you've been around the case for a number of years and you're sitting on the fence I think it's somewhat disingenuous. 

Maggie seems to have a lot of strong views on other subjects, especially left wing politics, so why she is reticent with JB who knows. 
Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline Stephanie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1600
  • Total likes: 27
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #144 on: April 16, 2018, 11:21:40 AM »
I think all this fence sitting stuff is silly.  Fair enough if you're new to the case but if you've been around the case for a number of years and you're sitting on the fence I think it's somewhat disingenuous. 

Maggie seems to have a lot of strong views on other subjects, especially left wing politics, so why she is reticent with JB who knows.

IMO the fence sitters we know of on blue lack the courage of their conviction. They aren't prepared to openly admit their mistakes and fear being critisised if they do.

In a matter of minutes Maggie goes from posting this:
"As I said unless you were there you don't know what went on. You can imagine as many scenarios as you want but they are always only your opinion you cannot know what the order of events was  If Sheila was in a psychotic rage the situation would be totally different than if she was just a bit angry. I openly admit I don't know who was responsible for the deaths.  I have my own thoughts but accept they are my opinions and not truths.
,
To this:
"Well if 'Nevill rang Bamber-FACT then you have just lost your own argument. IF Nevill rang Jeremy then he is telling the truth.
Saying someone had an OPTION to do something simply means it's a possibility, it doesn't prove anything except that your arguments are all possibilities..... FACT
."

Then Lookout posts this:
"I just despair at the anti-bombing campaigners during this last attack on the chemical factories. Left to Corbyn,thousands more children would have perished and this country would have been up in arms about it,but because the " job was done " to destroy these factories that's not right either ??
So what was it to have been ?
The difference was that the air-raids didn't attack civilians !! Corbyn would still have been dithering while children were being murdered. I found it difficult to watch such news on the children of Syria---perhaps Corbyn didn't !

It's a disgrace that the PM has to face questioning on this. Nobody questioned Blair when he took all our troops NEEDLESSLY to Iraq !
!

Maggie states:
"Children are being murdered every day by bbarrel bombs and all kinds of unimaginable horrors. I have a friend who's partner is Syrian, his family are either in Idlib or Turkish refugee camps. They have heard stories and seen phone videos of absolute horror which has stopped them sleeping and functioning properly.  I haven't got the courage to look at such things and neither do most people but we do need to accept the true horror of Syria. True the bombs by Trump, May and Macron probably didn't kill anyone and chemical weapons are a scourge and illegal but people young and old will still die horribly.  We have flexed our muscles ... Jeremy Corbyn has campaigned against nuclear and chemical weapons all his life. He was against war in Iraq. Worked for peace in Ireland.  However much people may disagree with his politics I don't think anyone can condemn him for being uncaring.  The only answer to Syria is talking however difficult otherwise this will end in a world war. It is horrendously dangerous.

Then Lookout:
 It'll be far more of a dangerous situation if there is an outcry over the bombing of the factories. I think people should just hold their tongues as a sharp shock to the likes of Assad is more productive saving days/weeks of negotiating and dithering. I couldn't watch the news with those children suffering,so it has to stop.
The only other alternative is to totally ignore anything that goes on in other countries and their regimes. In fact in the Syria case,Assad's regime won't be compromised---just his methods of chemical destruction which would/could have a wider effect than just his own country. Other than that should we ever interfere in those countries which have monstrous rulers ?   Particularly places such as the Middle East
.http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9365.msg437327.html#msg437327


I find their behaviour interesting and very telling. Especially when considered alongside some of the comments (critisisms - I'm being generous) made by LM about many of us over the 2 boards these past few weeks.

Often the way people behave doesn't match with what they say but what they do say can often be their own psychological projections.

Maggie is a moderator of a forum supporting mass murderer Jeremy Bamber who has been tried and found guilty in a court of law; regardless of his protestations of innocence. In the eyes of the law and the majority of the public he murdered his family and two sleeping little boys (one was found deceased whilst still sucking his thumb).

These facts appear to be lost on some people or indeed appear unimportant to them.

Their behaviour comes across as self serving and they appear able to dissosociate from reality when it suits.

When Maggie states: "I haven't got the courage to look at such things and neither do most people but we do need to accept the true horror of Syria" she displays her hypocrisy. She has the courage when it suits her, to look at and comment on, for example,  the photos of the murder victims at WHF, but readily dismisses the horror of WHF and states "we do need to accept the horror of Syria." Which only goes to further highlight her quite apparent double standards. Many of us have accepted the true horror of WHF but because Maggie hasn't, and she says she doesn't know who murdered the family, she sees nothing wrong in her behaviour.


"Hypocrites are the people who try their damnedest to convey a sense of virtue, only to reveal that they’re about as deep as a puddle. Unsurprisingly, people despise hypocrisy.

“People dislike hypocrites because they unfairly use condemnation to gain reputational benefits and appear virtuous at the expense of those who they are condemning–when these reputational benefits are in fact undeserved,” explains psychological scientist Jillian Jordan of Yale University, a co-author on the study.

Another study by researchers at the University of Southern California showed that hypocrisy is made up of at least one of the following behaviors:

(1) Moral double standards occur when a person is vindictive about a perceived offensive act of someone else; yet, shows little hesitance or guilt in doing the same thing. (Example: cutting someone off in traffic.)

(2) Moral duplicity is generally the one we use to define the act. Moral duplicity is when someone claims to be honorable in their motives, but this is known to be a complete falsehood. (Example: a politician citing neutral views on an issue despite indisputable evidence to the contrary.)

(3) Moral weakness is a type of cognitive disconnect wherein a person’s beliefs or morals are trumped by their lack of self-control; thereby, they engage in the act knowing it to be wrong. (Example: a clergy member taking a vow of celibacy and then engaging in sexual acts.)

Read more here https://www.powerofpositivity.com/5-hidden-behaviors-hypocrite-displays-revealing/


HERE ARE FIVE SUCH BEHAVIORS:

1. INCONSISTENCIES
Of course, one may be inconsistent without being hypocritical. For example, an unpredictable employee who is capable of great performance may demonstrate inconsistent effort and results. They’re not hypocrites; they’re unreliable.
But hypocrites’ inconsistencies tend to be more calculated, and related more to word and deed – and this behavior gets worse as time passes. They’ll say one thing and do something else more frequently.

2. “DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO.”
High expectations of others and little to no expectations of themselves. Perhaps this is all that needs to be said. The hypocrite may be articulate and charming in their manipulative efforts, but they’ll never emulate any standard they set forth for others.
Dean Burnett, a writer for The Guardian, uses the British political scene to emphasize this point: “Where do people get off dictating how others should behave, putting restrictions on what they can say and do that they don’t adhere to themselves? It’s wrong and immoral, and shows that they can’t be trusted.” Pretty much.

3. PLAYING THE VICTIM
Make no mistake: hypocrisy and narcissism are two peas in a pod. “Like peas and carrots,” as Forrest Gump would say. Both groups of people will always try to play the victim. Never is this act so evident as when they’re caught for being in the wrong.
Hypocrites can also be quite crafty. They may use sleight of hand to shake off any blame placed their way. This “Woe is me” attitude wears quite thin after a while.

4. AN AURA OF SUPERIORITY
A hypocrite’s level of arrogance and superiority is borderline narcissistic. Attempt to engage them as equals, as you’ll likely walk away feeling like a student who has just been reprimanded by the teacher. They’ll (directly or indirectly) mock your intellect, maturity (oh, the irony!), or stability.
Similar to playing the victim, this condescending veil will wear thin as the relationship progresses. After all, when no one likes you, it’s pointless to act superior!

5. THEY START BEING NICE TO “THE RIGHT PEOPLE.”
Watch a hypocrite carefully enough, and you’ll inevitably see their two-faced attitude come to the surface. The “important” people, i.e., those with power, will bear the brunt of a hypocrite’s inauthenticity. If those “important people” are smart, they’ll dismiss the charlatan without prejudice.
You see, hypocrites like to believe that they belong to a certain “class,” despite their victim-playing, complaining, and outright lying. The only “class” to which these fraudsters belong is alongside all the other phonies.

Maggie later goes on to state:
I'm not absolutely sure Jon2 I have heard that claimed and no one has disputed it but no actual proof.

"With respect I don't believe Assad will take any notice, he is apparently reckless like his father before him and the rest of the family.    In many ways he is fighting for his life. Like Gaddafi, Saddam and others they believe they will win by crushing all before them but he is doomed just like the others. Using the Syrian people to maje a point is wrong imo.  All we can do is fight for peace by talking imo, whether it seems hopeless or not you need to keep going and never give up. Nothing is resolved by war They all have to talk in the end.

« Last Edit: April 17, 2018, 04:29:28 PM by Stephanie »
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline Stephanie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1600
  • Total likes: 27
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #145 on: April 16, 2018, 03:58:26 PM »
IMO the fence sitters we know of on blue lack the courage of their conviction. They aren't prepared to openly admit their mistakes and fear being critisised if they do.

In a matter of minutes Maggie goes from posting this:
"As I said unless you were there you don't know what went on. You can imagine as many scenarios as you want but they are always only your opinion you cannot know what the order of events was  If Sheila was in a psychotic rage the situation would be totally different than if she was just a bit angry. I openly admit I don't know who was responsible for the deaths.  I have my own thoughts but accept they are my opinions and not truths.
,
To this:
"Well if 'Nevill rang Bamber-FACT then you have just lost your own argument. IF Nevill rang Jeremy then he is telling the truth.
Saying someone had an OPTION to do something simply means it's a possibility, it doesn't prove anything except that your arguments are all possibilities..... FACT
."

Then Lookout posts this:
"I just despair at the anti-bombing campaigners during this last attack on the chemical factories. Left to Corbyn,thousands more children would have perished and this country would have been up in arms about it,but because the " job was done " to destroy these factories that's not right either ??
So what was it to have been ?
The difference was that the air-raids didn't attack civilians !! Corbyn would still have been dithering while children were being murdered. I found it difficult to watch such news on the children of Syria---perhaps Corbyn didn't !

It's a disgrace that the PM has to face questioning on this. Nobody questioned Blair when he took all our troops NEEDLESSLY to Iraq !
!

Maggie states:
"Children are being murdered every day by bbarrel bombs and all kinds of unimaginable horrors. I have a friend who's partner is Syrian, his family are either in Idlib or Turkish refugee camps. They have heard stories and seen phone videos of absolute horror which has stopped them sleeping and functioning properly.  I haven't got the courage to look at such things and neither do most people but we do need to accept the true horror of Syria. True the bombs by Trump, May and Macron probably didn't kill anyone and chemical weapons are a scourge and illegal but people young and old will still die horribly.  We have flexed our muscles ... Jeremy Corbyn has campaigned against nuclear and chemical weapons all his life. He was against war in Iraq. Worked for peace in Ireland.  However much people may disagree with his politics I don't think anyone can condemn him for being uncaring.  The only answer to Syria is talking however difficult otherwise this will end in a world war. It is horrendously dangerous.

Then Lookout:
 It'll be far more of a dangerous situation if there is an outcry over the bombing of the factories. I think people should just hold their tongues as a sharp shock to the likes of Assad is more productive saving days/weeks of negotiating and dithering. I couldn't watch the news with those children suffering,so it has to stop.
The only other alternative is to totally ignore anything that goes on in other countries and their regimes. In fact in the Syria case,Assad's regime won't be compromised---just his methods of chemical destruction which would/could have a wider effect than just his own country. Other than that should we ever interfere in those countries which have monstrous rulers ?   Particularly places such as the Middle East
.http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9365.msg437327.html#msg437327


I find their behaviour interesting and very telling. Especially when considered alongside some of the comments (critisisms - I'm being generous) made by LM about many of us over the 2 boards these past few weeks.

Often the way people behave doesn't match with what they say but what they do say can often be their own psychological projections.

Maggie is a moderator of a forum supporting mass murderer Jeremy Bamber who has been tried and found guilty in a court of law; regardless of his protestations of innocence. In the eyes of the law and the majority of the public he murdered his family and two sleeping little boys (one was found deceased whilst still sucking his thumb).

These facts appear to be lost on some people or indeed appear unimportant to them.

Their behaviour comes across as self serving and they appear able to dissosociate from reality when it suits.

When Maggie states: "I haven't got the courage to look at such things and neither do most people but we do need to accept the true horror of Syria" she displays her hypocrisy. She has the courage when it suits her, to look at and comment on, for example,  the photos of the murder victims at WHF, but readily dismisses the horror of WHF and states "we do need to accept the horror of Syria." Which only goes to further highlight her quite apparent double standards. Many of us have accepted the true horror of WHF but because Maggie hasn't, and she says she doesn't know who murdered the family, she sees nothing wrong in her behaviour.


"Hypocrites are the people who try their damnedest to convey a sense of virtue, only to reveal that they’re about as deep as a puddle. Unsurprisingly, people despise hypocrisy.

“People dislike hypocrites because they unfairly use condemnation to gain reputational benefits and appear virtuous at the expense of those who they are condemning–when these reputational benefits are in fact undeserved,” explains psychological scientist Jillian Jordan of Yale University, a co-author on the study.

Another study by researchers at the University of Southern California showed that hypocrisy is made up of at least one of the following behaviors:

(1) Moral double standards occur when a person is vindictive about a perceived offensive act of someone else; yet, shows little hesitance or guilt in doing the same thing. (Example: cutting someone off in traffic.)

(2) Moral duplicity is generally the one we use to define the act. Moral duplicity is when someone claims to be honorable in their motives, but this is known to be a complete falsehood. (Example: a politician citing neutral views on an issue despite indisputable evidence to the contrary.)

(3) Moral weakness is a type of cognitive disconnect wherein a person’s beliefs or morals are trumped by their lack of self-control; thereby, they engage in the act knowing it to be wrong. (Example: a clergy member taking a vow of celibacy and then engaging in sexual acts.)

Read more here https://www.powerofpositivity.com/5-hidden-behaviors-hypocrite-displays-revealing/


HERE ARE FIVE SUCH BEHAVIORS:

1. INCONSISTENCIES
Of course, one may be inconsistent without being hypocritical. For example, an unpredictable employee who is capable of great performance may demonstrate inconsistent effort and results. They’re not hypocrites; they’re unreliable.
But hypocrites’ inconsistencies tend to be more calculated, and related more to word and deed – and this behavior gets worse as time passes. They’ll say one thing and do something else more frequently.

2. “DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO.”
High expectations of others and little to no expectations of themselves. Perhaps this is all that needs to be said. The hypocrite may be articulate and charming in their manipulative efforts, but they’ll never emulate any standard they set forth for others.
Dean Burnett, a writer for The Guardian, uses the British political scene to emphasize this point: “Where do people get off dictating how others should behave, putting restrictions on what they can say and do that they don’t adhere to themselves? It’s wrong and immoral, and shows that they can’t be trusted.” Pretty much.

3. PLAYING THE VICTIM
Make no mistake: hypocrisy and narcissism are two peas in a pod. “Like peas and carrots,” as Forrest Gump would say. Both groups of people will always try to play the victim. Never is this act so evident as when they’re caught for being in the wrong.
Hypocrites can also be quite crafty. They may use sleight of hand to shake off any blame placed their way. This “Woe is me” attitude wears quite thin after a while.

4. AN AURA OF SUPERIORITY
A hypocrite’s level of arrogance and superiority is borderline narcissistic. Attempt to engage them as equals, as you’ll likely walk away feeling like a student who has just been reprimanded by the teacher. They’ll (directly or indirectly) mock your intellect, maturity (oh, the irony!), or stability.
Similar to playing the victim, this condescending veil will wear thin as the relationship progresses. After all, when no one likes you, it’s pointless to act superior!

5. THEY START BEING NICE TO “THE RIGHT PEOPLE.”
Watch a hypocrite carefully enough, and you’ll inevitably see their two-faced attitude come to the surface. The “important” people, i.e., those with power, will bear the brunt of a hypocrite’s inauthenticity. If those “important people” are smart, they’ll dismiss the charlatan without prejudice.
You see, hypocrites like to believe that they belong to a certain “class,” despite their victim-playing, complaining, and outright lying. The only “class” to which these fraudsters belong is alongside all the other phonies.

Maggie later goes on to state:
I'm not absolutely sure Jon2 I have heard that claimed and no one has disputed it but no actual proof.

"With respect I don't believe Assad will take any notice, he is apparently reckless like his father before him and the rest of the family.    In many ways he is fighting for his life. Like Gaddafi, Saddam and others they believe they will win by crushing all before them but he is doomed just like the others. Using the Syrian people to maje a point is wrong imo.  All we can do is fight for peace by talking imo, whether it seems hopeless or not you need to keep going and never give up. Nothing is resolved by war They all have to talk in the end.

Then along comes Roch with:
"Isn't all this falling in to the hands of the very media we are discussing?  Former British ambassadors have gone on record in very hostile media interviews (Sky and BBC radio), questioning both the Salisbury and Douma incidents.  Where is the proof that Russia was involved in the former and Assad in the latter?  This is very point I am making.  The media are running with a narrative across the board, like it's preordained. There's no dissenting voice and any interviewee who dares to dissent is treated with contempt and mockery.

Not dissimilar to the jeremybamberforum, hey Roch
« Last Edit: April 16, 2018, 04:05:19 PM by Stephanie »
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline APRIL

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #146 on: April 16, 2018, 06:20:14 PM »
Then along comes Roch with:
"Isn't all this falling in to the hands of the very media we are discussing?  Former British ambassadors have gone on record in very hostile media interviews (Sky and BBC radio), questioning both the Salisbury and Douma incidents.  Where is the proof that Russia was involved in the former and Assad in the latter?  This is very point I am making.  The media are running with a narrative across the board, like it's preordained. There's no dissenting voice and any interviewee who dares to dissent is treated with contempt and mockery.

Not dissimilar to the jeremybamberforum, hey Roch

I guess forums -like all other 'families' with difficult members- are just microcosms of what goes on in the larger world

Offline Stephanie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1600
  • Total likes: 27
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #147 on: April 17, 2018, 12:34:59 PM »
Is Maggie a 'supporter'?  She seemed to be when she first joined Blue and then seemed to change stance when others did. 

She did change stance. There was a time when she believed he was guilty. 

Maggie had today "totally" agreed with Roch; he states (this carries on from yesterday's posts-same thread)

Roch:"A lot has been made of a load of rubbish, imho.
(He's posted photos of SC's hands)
And there are more.  And both both Nevill and June had wounds also. 
In order to prosecute Jeremy, they first had to ensure that any evidence of a fight between Sheila / Nevill / June was ommitted.  This was done in varing ways: outright omission of wounds from the record (e.g. June's chin); attributing wounds to another cause (e.g. when the marks on Nevill's arm came to light); and passing off wounds as 'smears' or 'smearing'.
Sheila even has a mark on the outside of her forefinger (see base of finger) consistent in shape with a machined part of the Anschutz.  At trial when questioned, Peter Vanezizs claims he is not sure what this is and that from the larger photo shown in court, it may be smearing. 
How can Peter Vanezis - a pathologist with a body in front of him, not know what the mark is on the base of the forefinger of her right hand, which had been found draped across the rifle?  At that point in time, he had on the table in front of him, the corpse of the sole suspect in a multiple shooting incident.  Not just the prime suspect - the only suspect.  He even went on record in some form, expressing that he was distinctly unimpressed with DS Stan Jones' later theory that Jeremy was the killer. 
How can he then appear in a courtroom and profess not to know what the mark was?  His questioning in this matter was choreographed, imo.
Then there's the small matter of Jeremy's lack of wounds.  An inheritance killer, who using a weapon designed for shooting small mamals, attempts to kill three adults, any of whom could have fought to protect the twins.  If he sustains just one notable injury in the ensuing incident, his whole plan would collapse with immediate effect
.

Maggie replies: "Well said Roch.  Totally agree

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8088.msg456771#msg456771

Let's remind ourselves where it is believed these new theories came from:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5568.msg243277.html#msg243277

Quote from: justice on May 28, 2017, 08:41:AM
Hi Bill, sorry if we got carried away with your post, I really did find it interesting but just wanted more from you that's all.  We are all on a public forum and we get a bit suspicious at times, you state your ex colleagues meaning police, I too had dealings with Essex police and I sent proof to Two posters on here, I have also talked to NGB about my role and willing to send him the same proof, would it be possible for you to do the same.  I have many friends who work/worked with Essex police and I'm sure they would find your comments about them interesting.  I was not an officer by the way but I had powers. Sorry for any offence this might cause you, but keep posting which I'm sure you are.


Bill Robertson stated on: May 24, 2017, 04:22:PM
"Except that the principle of Occam's razor would confirm that the most simple explanation is that Jeremy made the call at 03:36 and PC West wrote the correct time down. Your suggestion is rather more complicated than Occam's razor would suggest?[/color=blue]http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8401.msg400060.html#msg400060

The same Bill Robertson who stated this:

PC 1990 Michael West witness statement dated 13 September 1985:-
“I then asked him to hold the line and put the call on ‘hold’. I contacted Headquarters Information Room…I was informed Police Officers had just returned to Witham and then spoke with PC Saxby at Witham Police Station. I spent about three minutes maximum speaking to Information Room and Witham Police Station and then returned to Mr Jeremy Bamber who was still on the line” [Note: He could not have spent 3 minutes maximum, it was clearly around 5 minutes minimum]
PC Robin Saxby made a witness statement dated 23 September 1985 in which he said that he spoke to PC West at 03:30 via his personal radio.
According to her witness statement of the 8th August 1985 Julie Mugford recalled:
“The next time I heard from Jeremy was by telephone again at about 3.30 am on Wednesday morning the 7th August 1985”
According to Jeremy Bamber in his witness statement dated 7th August 1985, at 03:25 he telephoned Julie Mugford and at 03:30 they had a conversation (after her flatmate Doug Dale finally managed to rouse her).
So, if the phone call from Jeremy had been just prior to 03:26, as the police claim, how could he be calling Julie Mugford at the same time as his phone call was put on hold by PC West? How could he be speaking to Mugford at 03:30 and also be speaking/on hold to PC West at 03:30, when the phone line to 9 Head Street could only send and receive one call at a time?
It is impossible for PC West to have put Jeremy’s call on hold, just prior to 03:26 and go back to Jeremy after speaking to PC Saxby at 03:30 if Jeremy was actually engaged in an entirely different telephone call with Julie Mugford between 03:25 and 03:33.
Therefore, as PC West said all along, the phone call by Jeremy to PC West happened at 03:36 and the call prior to 03:26 to PC West had to be from Nevill Bamber. Thus Jeremy is innocent
.

And this http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/victim-support/support-at-the-scene/family-home-is-a-crime-ccene/media-intrusion/psychological-impact-and-implications-for-recovery/social-and-relationships/advocacy/bodies-and-funerals/dimensions-of-ptsd-and-conclusion/supplement-shock-trauma-response

According to Jeremy Bamber he is not a psychopath nor does he have any mental health problems.

Frankie stated Yesterday at 09:00 AM
"As to whether or not JM would have acted differently, maybe? I think she's got JB just where she wants him ie locked away not able to access any other woman and hopefully in her mind thinking about her every day.

David replies today: "You can run, but you can't hide. Time won't help you. Karma has no deadline 

"Karma is simply the illusion that we have limits. No more. No less
http://1meditation.com/blog/why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-karma/

I say again David, Julie Mugford was groomed by a highly disturbed and dangerous individual. She would have suffered trauma following her experiences with Bamber.

The psychological abuse and torture inflicted on JM by Bamber started the moment they met.


David states here:
"With the passage of time it would get to the point where EP have no members or living retirees with any direct involvement in the WHF tragedy. It would simply be boxes of evidence they have inherited to hold onto. The contents within would have no implications against the current generation in charge of EP. Hopefully they realise this and thus understand they have nothing to hide.

Remember this David, it was Jeremy Bamber who was on trial. It was Jeremy Bambers defence team who came to learn from a pre trial assessment he was a psychopath.

I would imagine if Julie Mugford were ever assessed following the trial, the evidence would point to her having been psychologically abused and tortured by a mass murderer


Time won't help Bamber, until such time that he confesses he will have no options available to him other than to groom further victims.

You have been groomed by Jeremy Bamber David. He has exploited your strengths and weaknesses, as he has done with all his other victims. As he once did with Julie Mugford. She had nothing to hide then and has nothing to hide now. Whether you like it or not, she held her hands up to her wrong doings and received a caution.


"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

David then states: "I dont find the blame game very constructive. Specially if the blame is being pointed in the wrong direction

You are a hypocrite David (among other things http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8731.0.html),not dissimilar to Maggie and Lookout!
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8088.msg456771#msg456771
« Last Edit: April 17, 2018, 02:01:06 PM by Stephanie »
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline Stephanie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1600
  • Total likes: 27
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #148 on: April 17, 2018, 02:35:41 PM »
You met Michael O'Brien ?

Doesn't a relation of Barry George also support Bamber ?  Another released criminal where no alternative suspect has been charged. These people can relate to Bamber, after having long fights for freedom themselves. Perhaps they have other reasons for supporting Bamber.

All Bamber needs now is Sion Jenkins on his side.

Bob Woffinden may be able to shed some light on that

The irony of this headline http://www.thejusticegap.com/2017/03/proof-magazine-media-betrays-us-daily-basis/
« Last Edit: April 17, 2018, 05:49:28 PM by Stephanie »
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline Stephanie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1600
  • Total likes: 27
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #149 on: April 17, 2018, 04:30:42 PM »
I guess forums -like all other 'families' with difficult members- are just microcosms of what goes on in the larger world

It does indeed seem to appear that way April.

Today Maggie states:
"Very true Jon2 but is it worse than it always was?  I agree they appear to have not learned anything but maybe much of that is because it doesn't suit their agenda to learn.   Fake news is everywhere.

It would indeed seem Maggie has learned nothing as it appears to not suit her agenda to learn.  *&^^&
« Last Edit: April 17, 2018, 04:32:49 PM by Stephanie »
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"