Holly's response to recent posts on the Jeremy Bamber forum.

[Holly Goodhead]

FAO 'CAROLINE'

I agree Neil - there are entire threads dedicated to slagging off our members with vile insinuations. I have just checked the red and one or two mild posts from here are being highlighted as being abusive towards their members. I believe there is one in which  they are referred to as 'lunies'. The very people who are commenting and highlighting such meager spats, have been responsible for constant abuse towards both members and mods alike for months. The trolling is coming from a minority of posters, BUT I can't see how leaving whole threads that are nothing other than attempts to goad our members, is in keeping with any kind of truce. I do congratulate Joanne, who has tried recently to stop the abuse but her words have fallen on deaf ears. One in particular just can't seem to move on after being banned from here and insists upon USING the red forum as a platform to tread her sour grapes. Oh and by the way - I think it's hilarious that she STILL thinks I'm Keira.  ;D

You fail to see the flaws in your post above.

I haven't seen any "vile insinuations" here which match Mike's recent claims ie last month that Nevill fathered the twins.  April suggested this was curtailed on the basis that it would give Red ammunition.

You appear to think that you should act as judge and jury in terms of deciding what is offensive, not only on Blue (fair enough you are a mod) but on Red too.  The fact Grahame continually refers to this forum and its posters in derogatory terms is as far as you're concerned fair game and amounts to "spats" and is "mild".  However if we retaliate with silly names eg Comb Over, Misty's Owner etc it is "slagging off", "abuse", "trolling" and "goading". Your arrogance and sanctimony will no doubt prevent you from seeing this.

As far as I am concerned my ban is not a case of "sour grapes".  It was totally unfair and unreasonable.  I had no history whatsoever of causing any problems on Blue.  A few days prior to my ban I received a couple of warnings for teasing Lookout about knitting and refusing to go along with Susan's claims of childhood obesity.  This did not warrant a ban of any description.  Ironically in part I was banned due to Susan's weight and yet Susan and I have always been friendly and continue to keep in contact as I do with Patti.  Yet despite you banning me to 'protect' Susan you now ignore her to the point that you refuse to respond to her posts.  I can only assume the reason for this is as a result of her stating that she thinks you're "heavy handed" and use your position as mod. You want to control the forum to the point that yesterday you removed one of Adam's posts simply because he hadn't referenced it. Unbelievable.

If I think something is unfair whether it be a conviction (JB) or a forum ban I will protest.

It is true I continue to believe that you are Keira.  That is my prerogative.

[Holly Goodhead]

FAO APRIL

Sadly, what you casually dismissed as happening because you were "feeling bored and mischievous" caused some people deep distress. The saving up of pm's in which some people had shared with you , because they trusted you, painful and intimate secrets, only to have them splashed all over the forum, telling someone that you'd reveal to her children, things she'd told you in confidence. YOU may have thought it was funny. Would it have been quite as funny had you been in their position. How would you feel if someone was to stoop so low as to threaten to tell your family what you'd done.

You fail to understand that communication is a two way thing ie just because a poster wants to send pm's of a sensitive and confidential nature does not mean to say that the recipient automatically wants to receive them.  In fact in the case that you are alluding to I did not.  Especially when it was clear the poster was intoxicated and was then rude to me as she did not get the desired response.  I have no desire whatsoever to get personally involved with anyone on an internet forum.

I joined the forum to debate the JB case and to introduce areas that I believe are relevant but that have not previously been discussed.  This person has been a hindrance to me fulfilling my objectives in part due to her disclosures in pm's.

I don't consider it stooping any lower than the person not appreciating boundaries in the first instance.  If a poster wants to unburden themselves with sensitive confidential information then I would suggest a partner, family member, friend or counsellor instead of a poster they have 'known' a matter of weeks on an internet forum.  As it happened I felt obliged to respond positively and found myself offering to meet the person face-to-face and also giving her my telephone number.  Too much of a soft touch.

I would never find myself in such a position as I would never reveal any information that would make me feel vulnerable to anyone other than someone I had 'known' for a very long time and certainly not a faceless poster on an internet forum.

The threat was deserved as the person used the above against with me with her role as mod and a conflict of interest arose as a result.

[Holly Goodhead]

What you have had to say about other people says much more about you than about them. I'm really no longer certain how this whole thing started but I seem to recall that there was a suggestion that there was trialed for a period a clap/clout of posts system which rapidly descended into chaos. Whilst it was never a competition, I seem to recall you complaining about how points were awarded and awarding yourself extra points. I wonder why you thought you deserved them. I can't imagine just HOW angry and vengeful a person would need to be to betray their friends, but that's what I experience you as having done. I appreciate that you'd become unhappy with us because the spitefulness started before you left and was the reason for the temporary ban which only changed to a life time ban when you chose to air your resentment, and what feels very much like personal hatred, from the red forum where you appear to be trying to whip up the same resentment of us amongst your fellow posters who for the most part only want to do what they joined the forum for-debate MoJ's. You don't seem to accept that you have any responsibility in what has happened. It comes over that you think we've treated you unfairly because we didn't understand that you were "feeling mischievous and bored". From where we were, it felt like neither. If we overlook that it wasn't the sort of behaviour one would expect of an intelligent, adult woman, it felt mean, venomous, menacing, spiteful and CRUEL. It actually destroyed the last vestige of sympathy any of us may have had for you, however, if you're seeing all of this as a compliment, you're probably feeling very proud of what you've achieved.

I think most of the points you raise above have been answered in my previous post.

If you think that I could be 'moved' about some silly point system on an internet forum you are mistaken.

I don't really consider posters on an internet forum "friends".  Acquaintances maybe.

So according to you I am vengeful, angry, spiteful, resentful, venomous, menacing and cruel.  I doubt any posters will recognise the adjectives you use to describe me aside your 'friends'.

I don't accept any responsibility for my ban and think I was treated very unfairly on the basis of what I have witnessed on Blue over the last 2/3 years with many other posters.

"Sympathy"...you fool.

[puglove]

I tried to post to Holly, re; Announcement. But apparently I can't. So I'll do it here. Who's modding this stuff, by the way? Mary Whitehouse?

Holly. You put the wind up a bunch of old gimmers, and they banned you. Move on. What exactly do you imagine that you're missing? Oscar Wilde? Hunter S Thompson? No. It's just Gladys' rectum, and Mingham, who probably lives under a bridge on a bit of cardboard. If you're lamenting the blue forum, watch Loose Women, when it's Kerry Katona, some old bird with a problem w..b, and Janette Krankie. You'll get the same effect.

[Angelo222]

Holly.  I don't know what you hope to gain by airing your disappointments over past events which happened on the Jeremy Bamber forum but could I suggest it is time to put it behind you.

You have made some very good points in Bambers case over several threads but it would be a shame to ruin it simply because of a historic spate with a forum which bears his name but which I hear he has little or no support for.

By all means debate Jeremy's case but can we leave the crankies over on blue out if it??

[Holly Goodhead]

Yes I agree with the posts above it is now time to draw a line under the matter and move on.

I would just like to say thank you to John and other posters here for your support.  Much appreciated. 

[Tim Invictus]

Holly dearest I have seen your tag line! OMFG are you serious? Are you really asking for Justice. For Jeremy Bamber? This is the Jeremy who murdered the parents who kindly adopted him and gave him every advantage in life? Sheila and Jeremy were both very lucky to be chosen by Neville & June!

Justice For Jeremy happens everyday he wakes up in his Cat A cesspit!

[Holly Goodhead]

Holly dearestI have seen your tag line! OMFG are you serious? Are you really asking for Justice. For Jeremy Bamber? This is the Jeremy who murdered the parents who kindly adopted him and gave him every advantage in life? Sheila and Jeremy were both very lucky to be chosen by Neville & June!

Justice For Jeremy happens everyday he wakes up in his Cat A cesspit!

Oh is that what it is!

Tim sweetie I don't agree that SC and JB were lucky to be chosen by NB and June.

The psychiatrist who treated June and SC, Dr Ferguson, confirmed June suffered severe depression in 1959 as result of her decision to adopt.  The depression was so severe she required in-patient psychiatric care and ECT treatment.  At this point SC should have been removed from the Bambers care and as a couple they should have been prevented from adopting any further children.  The needs of children must always come first not the needs of infertile couples.  June clearly had ambivalent feelings about adopting.

There has to be something wrong with an adoptive family that produces the following outcomes:

- adoptive mother mentally ill requiring in-patient psychiatric treatment
- adopted daughter mentally ill requiring in-patient psychiatric treatment
- adopted son serving a whole life prison sentence for murdering the above and 3 other family members

Sheila and Jeremy come from good genetic (hope I'm not sounding like a Nazi but you know what I mean) backgrounds:

Sheila's birth family

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2532.0.html?PHPSESSID=01ba1d3b1ea695efd7af04d3b16c4b7b

Jeremy's birth family

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=281.msg4830#msg4830





 

[Mr Moderator]

I have just noticed some of the comments.

This thread is reserved for Holly in order that she can make measured and appropriate responses to comments made on the JB forum.  It is not a platform to air private grievances or for the promotion of abuse directed against members of said forum.

If this facility is abused or in any way breaches the terms of the existing truce with the JB forum it will be removed.