Paedophiles in Parliament

[Vertigo Swirl]

So posting misinformation is OK on chat forums in your opinion? This 'chat forum' has rules which say it isn't.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11327.msg580864#msg580864

I’m not here to change the world, or to put innocent parents behind bars or free mass murderers from prison. Unlike some I don’t take this terribly seriously, if someone says they read something somewhere but can’t remember where then no one is under any obligation to believe the claim, they can just ignore it, like I do with most everything AA has posted here for example.

[G-Unit]

I’m not here to change the world, or to put innocent parents behind bars or free mass murderers from prison. Unlike some I don’t take this terribly seriously, if someone says they read something somewhere but can’t remember where then no one is under any obligation to believe the claim, they can just ignore it, like I do with most everything AA has posted here for example.

I don't actually care why you're here or what you think. All I ask is that people respect forum rules. 

[ISpyWithMyEye]

As a moderator, I certainly don't see myself as an authority figure, just as someone attempting to help keep the forum running in an orderly manner.

Did see myself as "in authority" when I was teaching in secondary schools though----I had to, otherwise nobody would have learned anything, and I would have lost my job.

But a good moderator should be diplomatic and unbiased.

It’s noticeable how you and your small clique of some other mods only like one another posts; never like certain members who you see as controversial — even if they’ve made a good valid point. If you show favouritism to a select few, regardless of how wring some of their posts sometimes are, it puts people off from contributing

No-one wants to belong to a forum that’s run by a small clique of moderators who aren’t prepared to listen to valid arguments...it becomes a pointless exercise.

[G-Unit]

But a good moderator should be diplomatic and unbiased.

It’s noticeable how you and your small clique of some other mods only like one another posts; never like certain members who you see as controversial — even if they’ve made a good valid point. If you show favouritism to a select few, regardless of how wring some of their posts sometimes are, it puts people off from contributing

No-one wants to belong to a forum that’s run by a small clique of moderators who aren’t prepared to listen to valid arguments...it becomes a pointless exercise.

Valid arguments are those which are supported by evidence. Invalid arguments are those which contradict the evidence. Invalid posts are those which goad or abuse others. I congratulate you on your efforts to tone down your attitude towards others recently.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I think G-Unit just has that methodical type of brain and enjoys assimilating information.  You have certainly hit the nail on the head as far as I am concerned though.  I think it is next to impossible for the rest of us newbies to play catch-up with you guys who have probably forgotten more than we'll ever assimilate and I don't even want to make the attempt.  Also I think it is totally irrelevant for us to even think of second guessing the legal deliberations which in my opinion came to the right decision as far as Bamber was concerned.

I think it important to stress that although I believe Bamber acted as Judge, Jury and Executioner of his family - giving them no opportunity to plead their case (or even to make peace with their God) and certainly no chance of appealing his judgement on them as he was able to do on the judgement on him ... I believe he had a fair trial and the sentence was commensurate with enormity of the crime he committed.

As far as I can see from my limited reading of the history of the appeals and leaves to appeal he has never actually beat the drum too much about innocence or evidence of innocence ... it is all about technicalities and I'm not too impressed by that.

Fabulous point, Briatt!

I agree especially about Bamber...

He’s never been able to present one piece of concrete evidence that he didn’t kill his family.

Like David Beckham (a ludicrous comparison, I know) but when David Beckham was done for speeding he never even denied it: his solicitor got him off on a loophole simply because the fine arrived one day late.

Of course, you can’t compare a speeding ticket with a cold-blooded mass murderer, but effectively, that’s what Bamber is trying to do: get out on a technicality because he knows he’s guilty.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I don't actually care why you're here or what you think. All I ask is that people respect forum rules.

If you don’t care what I think, then don’t ask my opinion and then tell me you don’t care what I think.  It’s just plain rude. 

[ISpyWithMyEye]

You accuse me of making 'excuses' but that's your subjective opinion. My subjective opinion is that some other posters repeat rumours and misquotes rather than facts to support their viewpoint. Neither of our opinions matter.

What matters in my opinion is whether people are posting facts, supported by cites, or whether they're just repeating something they think they read somewhere but can't remember where.

But you post false facts taken from Jeremy Bamber’s blog which is littered with lies and twisted falsehoods.

If you wanted to posts TRUE facts, as you say, why don’t you post from the OFFICIAL court documents which have all the true facts there, and the reasons why he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and lost two appeals?

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I don't actually care why you're here or what you think. All I ask is that people respect forum rules.

Are you only here to make sure the forum rules are being adhered to?😳

Surely you should have an interest in the TOPICS?

You frequently give your “opinions” on this case, many of which are just that: your opinions, so why shouldn’t others give theirs too? It isn’t a discussion forum if you just want to copy excerpts from the court case...

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Valid arguments are those which are supported by evidence. Invalid arguments are those which contradict the evidence. Invalid posts are those which goad or abuse others. I congratulate you on your efforts to tone down your attitude towards others recently.

Almost all my arguments derive from facts Ive read — I certainly don’t read the CT’s falsified “truths”.

I don’t usually back up my arguments with cites, because they’re MY arguments based on the REAL FACTS, and people au fait with the case know I’m telling the truth. I have very occasionally made a petty mistake over a date or time etc...but I always admit to it. I don’t set out to lie. What would be the point of that?

I also have scores of documents and books I’ve read, and it takes valuable time for me to hunt through them all...quite frankly, everything I state as fact can be corroborated by you doing a Google and searching the official documents yourself.

What’s ironic about you saying I should present evidence, is that you believe much of Jeremy Bamber’s lies (with which he couldn’t back up with any evidence), and you “LIKE” certain peoples posts who come out with hypothesis and ideas they’ve made up in their heads, however bizarre, yet get uppity when I present an idea. Why’s that?

[G-Unit]

But you post false facts taken from Jeremy Bamber’s blog which is littered with lies and trusted falsehoods.

If you wanted to posts TRUE facts, as you say, why don’t you post from the OFFICIAL court documents which have all the true facts there, and the reasons why he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and lost two appeals?

I haven't posted anything from a blog afaik, unless you have an example? I have an example of a false fact; that 13 bands of Sheila Caffell's DNA were found.

[G-Unit]

Are you only here to make sure the forum rules are being adhered to?😳

Surely you should have an interest in the TOPICS?

You frequently give your “opinions” on this case, many of which are just that: your opinions, so why shouldn’t others give theirs too? It isn’t a discussion forum if you just want to copy excerpts from the court case...

Opinions are fine but claiming they're facts isn't.

[G-Unit]

Almost all my arguments derive from facts Ive read — I certainly don’t read the CT’s falsified “truths”.

I don’t usually back up my arguments with cites, because they’re MY arguments based on the REAL FACTS, and people au fait with the case know I’m telling the truth. I have very occasionally made a petty mistake over a date or time etc...but I always admit to it. I don’t set out to lie. What would be the point of that?

I also have scores of documents and books I’ve read, and it takes valuable time for me to hunt through them all...quite frankly, everything I state as fact can be corroborated by you doing a Google and searching the official documents yourself.

What’s ironic about you saying I should present evidence, is that you believe much of Jeremy Bamber’s lies (with which he couldn’t back up with any evidence), and you “LIKE” certain peoples posts who come out with hypothesis and ideas they’ve made up in their heads, however bizarre, yet get uppity when I present an idea. Why’s that?

I wonder why people who post misinformation and opinion as fact tend to suggest others carry out research instead of doing it themselves? In my opinion it's because they know very well they can't provide evidence to support their claims. If there's no cite those three bolded words are very useful, by the way.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Opinions are fine but claiming they're facts isn't.

It’s worth bearing in mind that “Jeremy Is Innocent” is also just an opinion, not a fact.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I haven't posted anything from a blog afaik, unless you have an example? I have an example of a false fact; that 13 bands of Sheila Caffell's DNA were found.

You obviously haven’t read it, have you?

It’s in all the official documents in black and white.

Go and find them...they’re al there 😌

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I wonder why people who post misinformation and opinion as fact tend to suggest others carry out research instead of doing it themselves? In my opinion it's because they know very well they can't provide evidence to support their claims. If there's no cite those three bolded words are very useful, by the way.

I don’t post misinformation — you do, though

Neither do I work for you. I’m not traipsing through thousands of documents just to prove to you what’s fact. You do it yourself and prove me wrong 😌