The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?

[Caroline]

For obvious reason ! A joke isn't it. Once the landlord saw the poster they were using he was horrorfied that he'd been tricked in such a way.

Don't know how they thought they would get away with it - maybe they just don't care, which is worrying!

[Nicholas]

Don't know how they thought they would get away with it - maybe they just don't care, which is worrying!

I've just seen the poster and that record breaker chap has his photo side by side Jerry, they have matching ties and glasses and the same smirk - now that's worrying

[adam]

Has Roch been banned from this forum ? If not I don't know why he doesn't post.  He won't be able say he's seen evidence he can't disclose,  or swear,  goad & abuse like he does on the Blue forum.  David rarely posts on Red for these reasons. But still no harm in joining.

He talks about the Red forum enough. Complaining I mentioned the Blue forum on here last Thursday. As everyone else was doing,  commenting on Nigel.

His signature says he does not agree with Stephanie's views, which he reaffirmed last night. I am sure Stephanie would welcome a rational debate with him on here.

[Nicholas]

Has Roch been banned from this forum ? If not I don't know why he doesn't post.  He won't be able say he's seen evidence he can't disclose,  or swear,  goad & abuse like he does on the Blue forum.  David rarely posts on Red for these reasons. But still no harm in joining.

He talks about the Red forum enough. Complaining I mentioned the Blue forum on here last Thursday. As everyone else was doing,  commenting on Nigel.

His signature says he does not agree with Stephanie's views, which he reaffirmed last night. I am sure Stephanie would welcome a rational debate with him on here.

I hadn't seen his signature until today Adam; how interesting

"Absolutely no parallels between Simon Hall case and Jeremy Bamber case.  None whatsoever.  Utterly irrelevant"

 

[sika]

Has Roch been banned from this forum ? If not I don't know why he doesn't post.  He won't be able say he's seen evidence he can't disclose,  or swear,  goad & abuse like he does on the Blue forum.  David rarely posts on Red for these reasons. But still no harm in joining.

He talks about the Red forum enough. Complaining I mentioned the Blue forum on here last Thursday. As everyone else was doing,  commenting on Nigel.

His signature says he does not agree with Stephanie's views, which he reaffirmed last night. I am sure Stephanie would welcome a rational debate with him on here.

I used to enjoy reading Roch's posts.  I find him difficult to read these days.  Too much anger!

[Holly Goodhead]

Has Roch been banned from this forum ? If not I don't know why he doesn't post.  He won't be able say he's seen evidence he can't disclose,  or swear,  goad & abuse like he does on the Blue forum.  David rarely posts on Red for these reasons. But still no harm in joining.

He talks about the Red forum enough. Complaining I mentioned the Blue forum on here last Thursday. As everyone else was doing,  commenting on Nigel.

His signature says he does not agree with Stephanie's views, which he reaffirmed last night. I am sure Stephanie would welcome a rational debate with him on here.

I've found Roch has become very gullible, irrational and naive.  He has recently claimed outgoing DPP, Alison Saunders, is aware of the non-disclosed wounds to SC and "her victims". 

I think what he means is a 'supporter' has written to AS and she, or more like a member of her back office staff, has acknowledged receipt of the letter.

Seriously Roch you believe Dr Vanezis overlooked numerous wounds to SC and "her victims"?  It's claims like this that harm JB's case IMO. 

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9324.msg436405.html#msg436405

[John]

Has Roch been banned from this forum ? If not I don't know why he doesn't post.  He won't be able say he's seen evidence he can't disclose,  or swear,  goad & abuse like he does on the Blue forum.  David rarely posts on Red for these reasons. But still no harm in joining.

He talks about the Red forum enough. Complaining I mentioned the Blue forum on here last Thursday. As everyone else was doing,  commenting on Nigel.

His signature says he does not agree with Stephanie's views, which he reaffirmed last night. I am sure Stephanie would welcome a rational debate with him on here.

For the record Roch has never been banned here.

[Holly Goodhead]

Has Roch been banned from this forum ? If not I don't know why he doesn't post.  He won't be able say he's seen evidence he can't disclose,  or swear,  goad & abuse like he does on the Blue forum.  David rarely posts on Red for these reasons. But still no harm in joining.

He talks about the Red forum enough. Complaining I mentioned the Blue forum on here last Thursday. As everyone else was doing,  commenting on Nigel.

His signature says he does not agree with Stephanie's views, which he reaffirmed last night. I am sure Stephanie would welcome a rational debate with him on here.

The likes of David and Roch are able to post all sorts of whacky theories on Blue as they don't have anyone from the innocent camp to challenge them.

When I challenge David here he refers to me as "catty" and then runs away back to the Blue forum.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8956.msg448211#msg448211

[Nicholas]

I hadn't seen his signature until today Adam; how interesting

"Absolutely no parallels between Simon Hall case and Jeremy Bamber case.  None whatsoever.  Utterly irrelevant"

 

The irony being of course, he admits to knowing nothing about the Hall case


http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8041.msg380937.html#msg380937 

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9319.msg436597.html#msg436597  -
Btw - They didn't pin anything on him. You are twisting things as usual and making things up as you go. 

A further observation is the fact you (Lookout) do not recognise your own projections.
"I'm not interested in how any individual reaches their own conclusion providing their answer/explanation doesn't degrade that person/poster on a personal basis if their thoughts/theories don't match their own" http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9319.msg436602.html?PHPSESSID=dstpjr0144hk5ru4cvg33irkh3#msg436602

"JB was the " Billy Liar " of his day who enjoyed jesting and bragging to those who he thought or knew would know that this was part of his make-up. Again another show of immaturity who the likes of JM would ignore anyway as she knew what he was like-----------but she also sadly used this quirk when it best suited her to. No wonder she broke down during questioning because she knew deep down that what she was supposed to have said wasn't true. You don't cry when you know you're telling the truth!!   http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9319.msg436615.html#msg436615

[Nicholas]

No one believes they are irrational
I'm not exactly sure what you are playing
You're a member of both forums yourself
I am as certain as I can be
That's all!

Imho I think LM has an axe to grind and they are using the Bamber case in order to grind their axe so to speak. Whether they are attempting to show they are superior to the rest of us, I don't know? But I do think they are using the wrong case in which to grind their axe/prove their point.

Seems after LM has "held court," had a tantrum and lost all self control, they are off:

"I've had enough.  I'm asking the administrators to delete my account and posts here."

Prior to this they made an ultimatum between Steve_UK and themselves - one or other of them had to go.  How very intelligent and mature of them
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9320.msg436625.html#msg436625

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9347.msg436632/topicseen.html#msg436632

This is what Lookout had to say: "There are some who enjoy being top dog and when it doesn't materialise they show their true colours. Their aim being to disrupt when things don't go their way."

Oh the irony

[Nicholas]

For obvious reason ! A joke isn't it. Once the landlord saw the poster they were using he was horrorfied that he'd been tricked in such a way.

"Whoever is posting an event on Twitter supposedly to be held at The Cork Bar to raise funds for Jeremy Bamber please contact the Cork Bar asap, we will not be holding an event to raise funds for a convicted murderer

[John]

We have the owner of this forum to thank for taking the time and trouble to upload docs thus creating an alternative to what many regard as the madness on Blue!  Although ironically many of them on Blue are very much to the left of the political spectrum ie red!  Bet they're seeing red they're blue and not red 

It seems a long time ago now Holly but you are spot on.  The original forum was indeed set up to counter the malicious propaganda being promoted on the Jeremy Bamber forum. 

[Holly Goodhead]

It seems a long time ago now Holly but you are spot on.  The original forum was indeed set up to counter the malicious propaganda being promoted on the Jeremy Bamber forum.

Yes time flies!  Well I'm certainly grateful for your endeavours.  It takes a lot of time to scan and upload docs, naming them etc.   

[Holly Goodhead]

I hope LuminiousWanderer continues to post here.  I quite liked the case related content of his/her posts although he/she seems to get easily frustrated with others.   

Hope you join us again soon LuminiousWanderer.   

[ActualMat]

I hope LuminiousWanderer continues to post here.  I quite liked the case related content of his/her posts although he/she seems to get easily frustrated with others.   

Hope you join us again soon LuminiousWanderer.   

Luminous asked for his/her posts to be removed and account deleted.  Lookout told them they have a "weak attitude" for doing this...... On the same day Lookout returns from doing the exact same thing.