Author Topic: Paedophiles in Parliament  (Read 76350 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Paedophiles in Parliament
« Reply #180 on: May 06, 2020, 10:11:21 PM »
Or that excuses aren't reasons?

'Excuses' is your word. I prefer 'possibilities'. The amateur psychiatrists on here seem to think they can make diagnoses.

Psychopaths or idiots?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS9LUVVb434
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2NFrs910mk
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Paedophiles in Parliament
« Reply #181 on: May 06, 2020, 10:33:09 PM »
Why don't people understand that assertions aren't facts?
They certainly can be.
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Paedophiles in Parliament
« Reply #182 on: May 06, 2020, 10:35:33 PM »
'Excuses' is your word. I prefer 'possibilities'. The amateur psychiatrists on here seem to think they can make diagnoses.

Psychopaths or idiots?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS9LUVVb434
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2NFrs910mk
Throwing sticks at ducks doesn’t mean you’re a psychopath but together with a whole host of other questionable behaviour it could certainly be an indicator.  You do understand that many psychopaths have a history of hurting defenceless animals and exhibiting physical cruelty don’t you?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/domestic-violence-animal-cruelty-abuse-neglect-murder-children-dogs-a9018071.html
« Last Edit: May 06, 2020, 10:38:11 PM by Vertigo Swirl »
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Paedophiles in Parliament
« Reply #183 on: May 06, 2020, 10:48:12 PM »
Furthermore, JB did not “just” throw stones at baby birds, he did it specifically to upset his sister. 
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline G-Unit

Re: Paedophiles in Parliament
« Reply #184 on: May 06, 2020, 10:50:36 PM »
Throwing sticks at ducks doesn’t mean you’re a psychopath but together with a whole host of other questionable behaviour it could certainly be an indicator.  You do understand that many psychopaths have a history of hurting defenceless animals and exhibiting physical cruelty don’t you?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/domestic-violence-animal-cruelty-abuse-neglect-murder-children-dogs-a9018071.html

I think you need more than a boy throwing stones to make your point. Many boys do things which are not acceptable;

Every act of violence committed against an animal is not a sign that a person is going to turn out to be a homicidal maniac. Particularly with young children, whose natural exuberance and curiosity can lead to some unpleasant experiences for their pets, it is fine to shrug off an occasional lapse in judgment while continuing to educate the child about humane animal treatment.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-human-equation/201104/children-who-are-cruel-animals-when-worry
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Common sense

Re: Paedophiles in Parliament
« Reply #185 on: May 06, 2020, 10:53:32 PM »
What I find interesting is Bambers constant denial that he is or was a diagnosed psychopath which tends to suggest he doth protest too much. For what reason?

and why are his supporters so touchy about this? If there are two sure fire ways to upset a Bamberette, one is to say that Julie was gorgeous,brave and too good for him and the other is to call him a psycho.

His CT tweet about this constantly and include a psychopathic checklist on which, for my money, he appears to tick many boxes.

I wonder what his prison files say? Release the evidence Mr Bamber! - and the CCRC statement of reasons too.

Offline Common sense

Re: Paedophiles in Parliament
« Reply #186 on: May 06, 2020, 10:56:24 PM »
Furthermore, JB did not “just” throw stones at baby birds, he did it specifically to upset his sister.

Didn't he wear make up around the farm to torment June?

He tormented Julie by flirting with other women in front of her.

What about tormenting CC about the death of his sons?

Seems to be a pattern.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Paedophiles in Parliament
« Reply #187 on: May 06, 2020, 10:58:40 PM »
I think you need more than a boy throwing stones to make your point. Many boys do things which are not acceptable;

Every act of violence committed against an animal is not a sign that a person is going to turn out to be a homicidal maniac. Particularly with young children, whose natural exuberance and curiosity can lead to some unpleasant experiences for their pets, it is fine to shrug off an occasional lapse in judgment while continuing to educate the child about humane animal treatment.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-human-equation/201104/children-who-are-cruel-animals-when-worry
You seem to have missed my point completely.  Did I not acknowledge that throwing sticks at animals does not mean you will grow up to be a homicidal maniac?  There is a lot more to Bamber’s behaviour that gives one pause for thought than just stone throwing so try and re-read what I wrote and understand it this time.
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Paedophiles in Parliament
« Reply #188 on: May 06, 2020, 11:06:03 PM »
I think you need more than a boy throwing stones to make your point. Many boys do things which are not acceptable;

Every act of violence committed against an animal is not a sign that a person is going to turn out to be a homicidal maniac. Particularly with young children, whose natural exuberance and curiosity can lead to some unpleasant experiences for their pets, it is fine to shrug off an occasional lapse in judgment while continuing to educate the child about humane animal treatment.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-human-equation/201104/children-who-are-cruel-animals-when-worry
The article you link to suggests that if a child derived pleasure from hurting animals then this is a red flag.

This, from another article:

James' son, Robert, has chilling memories of the young Bamber.

He said: "He could be very cruel to animals and he used to take great delight in throwing stones at waterhen chicks and hitting farm animals with sticks."
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline G-Unit

Re: Paedophiles in Parliament
« Reply #189 on: May 06, 2020, 11:08:22 PM »
Furthermore, JB did not “just” throw stones at baby birds, he did it specifically to upset his sister.

As recounted by Robert Carr. He and his father disliked Jeremy as much as Robert Boutflour did, didn't they?

Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Caroline

Re: Paedophiles in Parliament
« Reply #190 on: May 06, 2020, 11:09:09 PM »
'Excuses' is your word. I prefer 'possibilities'. The amateur psychiatrists on here seem to think they can make diagnoses.

Psychopaths or idiots?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS9LUVVb434
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2NFrs910mk

Excuses!

The psychiatrist that you keep ignoring classified Bamber as a psychopath pre-trial. I'll keep repeating it so you don't forget.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2020, 11:12:40 PM by Caroline »

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Paedophiles in Parliament
« Reply #191 on: May 06, 2020, 11:10:07 PM »
As recounted by Robert Carr. He and his father disliked Jeremy as much as Robert Boutflour did, didn't they?
I’m not surprised.  Would you like someone who tormented defenceless animals?  Oh hang on, you kicked a dog so it probably wouldn’t bother you..
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Paedophiles in Parliament
« Reply #192 on: May 06, 2020, 11:10:51 PM »
Excuses!

The psychiatrist that you keep ignoring classified Bamber as a psychiatrist re-trial. I'll keep repeatig it so you don't forget.
psychopath, not psychiatrist, lol
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Caroline

Re: Paedophiles in Parliament
« Reply #193 on: May 06, 2020, 11:11:51 PM »
I think you need more than a boy throwing stones to make your point. Many boys do things which are not acceptable;

Every act of violence committed against an animal is not a sign that a person is going to turn out to be a homicidal maniac. Particularly with young children, whose natural exuberance and curiosity can lead to some unpleasant experiences for their pets, it is fine to shrug off an occasional lapse in judgment while continuing to educate the child about humane animal treatment.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-human-equation/201104/children-who-are-cruel-animals-when-worry

The fact that he's a psychopath is more to do with his action in planning and killing his family. He was classified as a psychopath pre-trail.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Paedophiles in Parliament
« Reply #194 on: May 06, 2020, 11:12:31 PM »
As recounted by Robert Carr. He and his father disliked Jeremy as much as Robert Boutflour did, didn't they?
Is it your belief that the only people who’s opinions of Jeremy we should pay attention to are those who liked him and speak favourably of him?
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".