Not sure what the point of an open debate would be.
There are two forums, which anyone can post on, including CT members. Posters can also post on what the campaign team says or post on any new news received via the internet or Youtube.
A couple of hours is no where near enough time either.
Perhaps you will be kind enough then to make yourself available to meet and greet and take the coats? And help me sort out the refreshments? 
Martin did post on Blue but his posts were all based on what imo are simply errors in paperwork: phone logs, two bodies in kitchen, SC (and June) on bed etc. He also had an intensely irritating habit of wanting to label everyone either pro guilt or pro innocence and seemed to take great offence when Caroline changed her mind. He objected having a pro guilt admin on a pro innocence forum!
Frankly I found him as irritating as Gladys and I suspect the feeling was/is mutual.
Personally I think the CT entering into forum debates would be a good thing. This will enable them and us to test the strength of their arguments. After all if they can't get past posters on a forum they aint goona be passing the CCRC/CoA. I appreciate they may have access to privileged info which they are unable to share but that shouldn't be a problem since members only have access to whatever is in the public domain. It will also help with donations ie if others can see strength in their arguments and where any monies are likely to go in terms of services, forensic testing etc.
Yes agreed if you're allowed to create thousands of threads covering your "mountain of circumstantial evidence" and your "forensic library" 
I think the idea is we have one session lasting about 2 hours with a set number of pre-agreed threads. Dependent on how it goes we can arrange further sessions. Hopefully you will join in Adam if the CT accept our invitation?
