Bamber tries to sell nude pictures of Sheila to The Sun newspaper

[G-Unit]

I wonder who gave the press the other family photos?

[Vertigo Swirl]

I wonder who gave the press the other family photos?

Why don’t you start a new thread about it?  This one is about the nude photos Bamber tried to sell to the Sun, something which you dispute ever happened for some reason.

[APRIL]

Well I'm hopelessly biased being from Liverpool, where you don't even mention that rag. But obviously they didn't pull the story out of their arses, as the MO is to use the nucleus of the story and turn it in to sensationalist, lying, hateful bile and attempt to create a new truth. ****s
In short, it probably happened.

That's a well thought through conclusion you've arrived at, General. However, once it's accepted that Jeremy and Brett met two of the Sun's finest, the question arises, "Why?". There had to be a reason and it's doubtful that they were interested in journalism. I think it must remain that they believed they had something the Sun would be interested in, and it was unlikely to be Sheila, showing to best advantage, those outfits chosen for her to wear by which ever house was paying for the shoot.

[G-Unit]

Why don’t you start a new thread about it?  This one is about the nude photos Bamber tried to sell to the Sun, something which you dispute ever happened for some reason.

I'm sure something happened, just not sure what. All I know is that the Sun isn't the best source to rely on about anything imo.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I'm sure something happened, just not sure what. All I know is that the Sun isn't the best source to rely on about anything imo.

Did you not watch the interview withthe journalist Holly posted?  Now either he is telling the truth or he is telling bare-faced lies to the camera.  Which do you believe is more likely?

[APRIL]

I'm sure something happened, just not sure what. All I know is that the Sun isn't the best source to rely on about anything imo.

There was every opportunity for Jeremy and Brett to deny they'd ever had a meeting with anyone connected to the Sun.

[Caroline]

I'm sure something happened, just not sure what. All I know is that the Sun isn't the best source to rely on about anything imo.

If you don't like what is being said, you just rubbish the source. What's the point in peole supplying a source if you're never going to be happy with it?

[Brancher]

Are you satisfied that Jeremy Bamber tried to sell nude photos of his murdered sister to the Sun, or do you reckon the Sun just printed a pack of lies as Holly and G-Unit seem to be suggesting?

Would you kindly, again, just remind us how that proves he is a murderer?

Please hear me out....

Before you say "It's part of a pattern of behaviour", the problem is that it isn't suspicious.  Applying a pattern to this sort of behaviour is just an expression of bias.  Some of what Jeremy did was nasty, I agree, and also I agree the attempt to sell the nude pictures probably happened and that Jeremy was a nasty piece of work, but again, it doesn't make him murderer. 

Likewise:

Having a hearty breakfast - normal behaviour.

Carrying on as if nothing has happened - normal behaviour, especially for an English male.  Being socially reserved and taciturn in this sense was still a pronounced quirk of English men back then and Jeremy was brought up this way.

Putting the dog down quickly just because you don't want to keep it - perfectly normal behaviour, especially during that era.  Jeremy was an Essex farmer, not a touchy-feely metropolitan type.  I am a dog lover and I have put down dogs in similar situations on a similar pretext.

Faking emotional reactions at the crime scene, faking grief and faking it at the funeral - normal behaviour.  Emotionally-normative people do this.  People can't summon up crying and grieving on demand, and as a result, they sometimes feel pressured to fake it.  Not being upset at the death of a close relative is quite common.  Not everybody likes their relatives.  It's not a crime.

Grinning at the funeral after faking it - normal behaviour, as above.

Talking dirty to your girlfriend at the funeral and saying inappropriate things in front of Colin on the way to the crematorium - again, normal behaviour, albeit callous, immature and inappropriate.

Selling off personal effects - perfectly normal behaviour in that situation, and the relatives behaved similarly.

Going on holiday abroad - normal behaviour, and he came back.

Trying to sell nude pictures of your dead sister to a s..mmy tabloid - DESPICABLE BEHAVIOUR, but not suspicious.  Sheila was not his biological sister and maybe he just didn't care about her?  It's not nice to dislike and not care about close relatives, but it's not a crime.

Other behavioural quirks I picked up from Colin Caffell's book, such as Jeremy aping Colin's behaviour - all normal.  Why does Colin take issue with Jeremy taking cues from him?  Maybe because Colin is looking at it in retrospect and judging Jeremy's behaviour by what he now knows.  But I can imagine myself doing just the same as Jeremy in that situation.  Some people are 'socially autistic/unaware'.  I would not know how to behave at a funeral and would look for cues from somebody more sensitive like Colin and I would probably copy his behaviour.  Maybe Jeremy should have confided in Colin about his disabilities/insecurities?  But is Jeremy the type to do that?

Burning clothes -  SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOUR.  On this point, I agree with you and disagree with Holly and the other pro-innocent people.  Holly, I think, has tried to explain this by saying that Jeremy would not want to see people in his dead relatives' clothes.  That's a cogent surface explanation, but I'm not entirely satisfied on this point.  Frankly, most people don't care about other people wearing their dead relatives' clothes, assuming they would even stop to notice.  How would you even tell or know?  I am wondering what Jeremy was burning and why.

Jeremy Bamber was a nasty character.  But I didn't like my parents either.  I hated my mother and I disliked my father.  I helped myself to cocoa-pops, jam on toast and a large mug of coffee after hearing about my schizophrenic father's death, after faking being upset about it, then being genuinely upset for a bit, then going back to work and forgetting about it.  In two days, I'd forgotten my father completely and didn't care.

Am I a murderer?  A rhetorical question, but most of Jeremy's behaviour you are highlighting isn't suspicious.  Whether you think there is a pattern or not, if the behaviour isn't suspicious, then it's just an exercise in biasing.

Reminder - I say all this as somebody who thinks he probably did it.

[Caroline]

Would you kindly, again, just remind us how that proves he is a murderer?

Please hear me out....

Before you say "It's part of a pattern of behaviour", the problem is that it isn't suspicious.  Applying a pattern to this sort of behaviour is just an expression of bias.  Some of what Jeremy did was nasty, I agree, and also I agree the attempt to sell the nude pictures probably happened and that Jeremy was a nasty piece of work, but again, it doesn't make him murderer. 

Likewise:

Having a hearty breakfast - normal behaviour.

Carrying on as if nothing has happened - normal behaviour, especially for an English male.  Being socially reserved and taciturn in this sense was still a pronounced quirk of English men back then and Jeremy was brought up this way.

Putting the dog down quickly just because you don't want to keep it - perfectly normal behaviour, especially during that era.  Jeremy was an Essex farmer, not a touchy-feely metropolitan type.  I am a dog lover and I have put down dogs in similar situations on a similar pretext.

Faking emotional reactions at the crime scene, faking grief and faking it at the funeral - normal behaviour.  Emotionally-normative people do this.  People can't summon up crying and grieving on demand, and as a result, they sometimes feel pressured to fake it.  Not being upset at the death of a close relative is quite common.  Not everybody likes their relatives.  It's not a crime.

Grinning at the funeral after faking it - normal behaviour, as above.

Talking dirty to your girlfriend at the funeral and saying inappropriate things in front of Colin on the way to the crematorium - again, normal behaviour, albeit callous, immature and inappropriate.

Selling off personal effects - perfectly normal behaviour in that situation, and the relatives behaved similarly.

Going on holiday abroad - normal behaviour, and he came back.

Trying to sell nude pictures of your dead sister to a s..mmy tabloid - DESPICABLE BEHAVIOUR, but not suspicious.  Sheila was not his biological sister and maybe he just didn't care about her?  It's not nice to dislike and not care about close relatives, but it's not a crime.

Other behavioural quirks I picked up from Colin Caffell's book, such as Jeremy aping Colin's behaviour - all normal.  Why does Colin take issue with Jeremy taking cues from him?  Maybe because Colin is looking at it in retrospect and judging Jeremy's behaviour by what he now knows.  But I can imagine myself doing just the same as Jeremy in that situation.  Some people are 'socially autistic/unaware'.  I would not know how to behave at a funeral and would look for cues from somebody more sensitive like Colin and I would probably copy his behaviour.  Maybe Jeremy should have confided in Colin about his disabilities/insecurities?  But is Jeremy the type to do that?

Burning clothes -  SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOUR.  On this point, I agree with you and disagree with Holly and the other pro-innocent people.  Holly, I think, has tried to explain this by saying that Jeremy would not want to see people in his dead relatives' clothes.  That's a cogent surface explanation, but I'm not entirely satisfied on this point.  Frankly, most people don't care about other people wearing their dead relatives' clothes, assuming they would even stop to notice.  How would you even tell or know?  I am wondering what Jeremy was burning and why.

Jeremy Bamber was a nasty character.  But I didn't like my parents either.  I hated my mother and I disliked my father.  I helped myself to cocoa-pops, jam on toast and a large mug of coffee after hearing about my schizophrenic father's death, after faking being upset about it, then being genuinely upset for a bit, then going back to work and forgetting about it.  In two days, I'd forgotten my father completely and didn't care.

Am I a murderer?  A rhetorical question, but most of Jeremy's behaviour you are highlighting isn't suspicious.  Whether you think there is a pattern or not, if the behaviour isn't suspicious, then it's just an exercise in biasing.

Reminder - I say all this as somebody who thinks he probably did it.

Much of what you have dismissed as normal behaviour isn't normal to me but with respect to how you felt about your parents, they weren't murdered so that fact that you hated them is neither here nor there. His were. You think he probably did it? Why?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Would you kindly, again, just remind us how that proves he is a murderer?

Please hear me out....

Before you say "It's part of a pattern of behaviour", the problem is that it isn't suspicious.  Applying a pattern to this sort of behaviour is just an expression of bias.  Some of what Jeremy did was nasty, I agree, and also I agree the attempt to sell the nude pictures probably happened and that Jeremy was a nasty piece of work, but again, it doesn't make him murderer. 

Likewise:

Having a hearty breakfast - normal behaviour.

Carrying on as if nothing has happened - normal behaviour, especially for an English male.  Being socially reserved and taciturn in this sense was still a pronounced quirk of English men back then and Jeremy was brought up this way.

Putting the dog down quickly just because you don't want to keep it - perfectly normal behaviour, especially during that era.  Jeremy was an Essex farmer, not a touchy-feely metropolitan type.  I am a dog lover and I have put down dogs in similar situations on a similar pretext.

Faking emotional reactions at the crime scene, faking grief and faking it at the funeral - normal behaviour.  Emotionally-normative people do this.  People can't summon up crying and grieving on demand, and as a result, they sometimes feel pressured to fake it.  Not being upset at the death of a close relative is quite common.  Not everybody likes their relatives.  It's not a crime.

Grinning at the funeral after faking it - normal behaviour, as above.

Talking dirty to your girlfriend at the funeral and saying inappropriate things in front of Colin on the way to the crematorium - again, normal behaviour, albeit callous, immature and inappropriate.

Selling off personal effects - perfectly normal behaviour in that situation, and the relatives behaved similarly.

Going on holiday abroad - normal behaviour, and he came back.

Trying to sell nude pictures of your dead sister to a s..mmy tabloid - DESPICABLE BEHAVIOUR, but not suspicious.  Sheila was not his biological sister and maybe he just didn't care about her?  It's not nice to dislike and not care about close relatives, but it's not a crime.

Other behavioural quirks I picked up from Colin Caffell's book, such as Jeremy aping Colin's behaviour - all normal.  Why does Colin take issue with Jeremy taking cues from him?  Maybe because Colin is looking at it in retrospect and judging Jeremy's behaviour by what he now knows.  But I can imagine myself doing just the same as Jeremy in that situation.  Some people are 'socially autistic/unaware'.  I would not know how to behave at a funeral and would look for cues from somebody more sensitive like Colin and I would probably copy his behaviour.  Maybe Jeremy should have confided in Colin about his disabilities/insecurities?  But is Jeremy the type to do that?

Burning clothes -  SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOUR.  On this point, I agree with you and disagree with Holly and the other pro-innocent people.  Holly, I think, has tried to explain this by saying that Jeremy would not want to see people in his dead relatives' clothes.  That's a cogent surface explanation, but I'm not entirely satisfied on this point.  Frankly, most people don't care about other people wearing their dead relatives' clothes, assuming they would even stop to notice.  How would you even tell or know?  I am wondering what Jeremy was burning and why.

Jeremy Bamber was a nasty character.  But I didn't like my parents either.  I hated my mother and I disliked my father.  I helped myself to cocoa-pops, jam on toast and a large mug of coffee after hearing about my schizophrenic father's death, after faking being upset about it, then being genuinely upset for a bit, then going back to work and forgetting about it.  In two days, I'd forgotten my father completely and didn't care.

Am I a murderer?  A rhetorical question, but most of Jeremy's behaviour you are highlighting isn't suspicious.  Whether you think there is a pattern or not, if the behaviour isn't suspicious, then it's just an exercise in biasing.

Reminder - I say all this as somebody who thinks he probably did it.

You had a big breakfast on learning of your father’s death?  Good for you.  You were probably ravenous.  If that was all we had to go on with Jeremy, I agree, it’s not suspicious.  Add in ALL the other stuff you are excusing as perfectly normal and it paints a picture of someone who is callous, greedy, selfish, money orientated, deceitful, fake.  Were you all of those things as well as a bit hungry?  I’m not the only person who sees Jeremy’s behaviour as suspicious.  Experienced police offices did too right from the start.  If you’re saying character traits and behaviour has no bearing on whether or not a person has a propensity to commit a crime, then that is your opinion.  Personally I think it’s relevant. 

[Brancher]

Much of what you have dismissed as normal behaviour isn't normal to me but with respect to how you felt about your parents, they weren't murdered so that fact that you hated them is neither here nor there. His were. You think he probably did it? Why?

Thanks.  I do accept that a police officer would make a note of what he regarded to be 'odd' behaviour - that's his duty and his training - but my point is that none of it proves Jeremy Bamber to be a murderer and it does not form a helpful pattern because it is, in each case, non-suspicious.  I maintain that in most cases, the behaviour highlighted is normal.  Moreover, all of it is susceptible to context and interpretation.  I am allowed to make this point, and I am being reasonable because I accept you are right about at least one of the points made, and I am open to reasonable arguments that show I am wrong. 

If I had been investigating those killings, I would like to think that I would have suspected Jeremy from the start and I would noted that he's a bit of merchant tanker.  However, I would have also weighed it all up and, for the purposes of the investigation, I would have dismissed all of the above points except one of them due to a need to focus on the evidence - play the ball, not the man, so to speak.  That's not because I like his behaviour, but in virtually all cases, his behaviour is within the bounds of normalcy.  Acting inappropriately is not good, but it is not abnormal either. 

Anyway, that's my opinion.

[mrswah]

Would you kindly, again, just remind us how that proves he is a murderer?

Please hear me out....

Before you say "It's part of a pattern of behaviour", the problem is that it isn't suspicious.  Applying a pattern to this sort of behaviour is just an expression of bias.  Some of what Jeremy did was nasty, I agree, and also I agree the attempt to sell the nude pictures probably happened and that Jeremy was a nasty piece of work, but again, it doesn't make him murderer. 

Likewise:

Having a hearty breakfast - normal behaviour.

Carrying on as if nothing has happened - normal behaviour, especially for an English male.  Being socially reserved and taciturn in this sense was still a pronounced quirk of English men back then and Jeremy was brought up this way.

Putting the dog down quickly just because you don't want to keep it - perfectly normal behaviour, especially during that era.  Jeremy was an Essex farmer, not a touchy-feely metropolitan type.  I am a dog lover and I have put down dogs in similar situations on a similar pretext.

Faking emotional reactions at the crime scene, faking grief and faking it at the funeral - normal behaviour.  Emotionally-normative people do this.  People can't summon up crying and grieving on demand, and as a result, they sometimes feel pressured to fake it.  Not being upset at the death of a close relative is quite common.  Not everybody likes their relatives.  It's not a crime.

Grinning at the funeral after faking it - normal behaviour, as above.

Talking dirty to your girlfriend at the funeral and saying inappropriate things in front of Colin on the way to the crematorium - again, normal behaviour, albeit callous, immature and inappropriate.

Selling off personal effects - perfectly normal behaviour in that situation, and the relatives behaved similarly.

Going on holiday abroad - normal behaviour, and he came back.

Trying to sell nude pictures of your dead sister to a s..mmy tabloid - DESPICABLE BEHAVIOUR, but not suspicious.  Sheila was not his biological sister and maybe he just didn't care about her?  It's not nice to dislike and not care about close relatives, but it's not a crime.

Other behavioural quirks I picked up from Colin Caffell's book, such as Jeremy aping Colin's behaviour - all normal.  Why does Colin take issue with Jeremy taking cues from him?  Maybe because Colin is looking at it in retrospect and judging Jeremy's behaviour by what he now knows.  But I can imagine myself doing just the same as Jeremy in that situation.  Some people are 'socially autistic/unaware'.  I would not know how to behave at a funeral and would look for cues from somebody more sensitive like Colin and I would probably copy his behaviour.  Maybe Jeremy should have confided in Colin about his disabilities/insecurities?  But is Jeremy the type to do that?

Burning clothes -  SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOUR.  On this point, I agree with you and disagree with Holly and the other pro-innocent people.  Holly, I think, has tried to explain this by saying that Jeremy would not want to see people in his dead relatives' clothes.  That's a cogent surface explanation, but I'm not entirely satisfied on this point.  Frankly, most people don't care about other people wearing their dead relatives' clothes, assuming they would even stop to notice.  How would you even tell or know?  I am wondering what Jeremy was burning and why.

Jeremy Bamber was a nasty character.  But I didn't like my parents either.  I hated my mother and I disliked my father.  I helped myself to cocoa-pops, jam on toast and a large mug of coffee after hearing about my schizophrenic father's death, after faking being upset about it, then being genuinely upset for a bit, then going back to work and forgetting about it.  In two days, I'd forgotten my father completely and didn't care.

Am I a murderer?  A rhetorical question, but most of Jeremy's behaviour you are highlighting isn't suspicious.  Whether you think there is a pattern or not, if the behaviour isn't suspicious, then it's just an exercise in biasing.

Reminder - I say all this as somebody who thinks he probably did it.

I don't think the above is  normal behaviour-------and I'm not even sure Jeremy is guilty!

I think Jeremy's behaviour at the funeral was peculiar, and also very disrespectful, particularly grinning, and joking with his girlfriend. I have heard people argue that he might have been on the autistic spectrum, but , being on the spectrum myself, he doesn't come over that way to me----at all. (And, I know how to behave at funerals!). I do wonder whether Jeremy had downed his cocktail of Valium and booze beforehand-----that little mixture does not lend itself to appropriate behaviour.

Can't really comment re his "hearty breakfast", because I'm not sure how true this is: I heard somewhere that he made breakfast for the police officers who were with him, and decided to have some himself. Who knows what is true.

Trying to sell pictures of Sheila to a tabloid is, IMO, appalling------unless he, Brett and the chap from the Sun had been drinking together beforehand. Then, I'll partly blame the drink!

I was interested in what Colin says in his book re Jeremy copying his responses: Colin, being an artist, is probably very observant, so I would tend to believe him. I would like to know, however, whether this was apparent to Colin at the time, or whether he realised it retrospectively.

Burning of clothes?  No, not normal as far as I'm concerned, but if you were to tell me that , out in the sticks, having a bonfire is the most convenient way to get rid of stuff one no longer wants, then it doesn't seem quite so abnormal----particularly as we suspect Jeremy didn't like his parents. In any event, disliking his parents doesn't necessarily mean he killed them.

The dog?  No, I could never have done it. Jeremy, by all accounts, disliked Crispy, but he didn't dislike dogs: I'm sure I read that he had a dog of his own at one time, and was heartbroken when it died. Perhaps he thought Crispy wouldn't settle with anyone other than June, so would be better off being put down. Perhaps Jeremy is guilty, and knew Crispy would always be a reminder of the night he killed his family. 

Who knows!

[Brancher]

You had a big breakfast on learning of your father’s death?  Good for you.  You were probably ravenous.  If that was all we had to go on with Jeremy, I agree, it’s not suspicious.  Add in ALL the other stuff you are excusing as perfectly normal and it paints a picture of someone who is callous, greedy, selfish, money orientated, deceitful, fake.  Were you all of those things as well as a bit hungry?  I’m not the only person who sees Jeremy’s behaviour as suspicious.  Experienced police offices did too right from the start.  If you’re saying character traits and behaviour has no bearing on whether or not a person has a propensity to commit a crime, then that is your opinion.  Personally I think it’s relevant.

Yes....and I appreciate the point.  Nothing in what follows is aimed at you and this is just my opinion.  I think this is a good discussion.

The thing is - I have been callous, greedy, money-oriented, deceitful and fake at points in my life. 

I've done terrible, terrible things.  I hated my mother.  I disliked my father.  I didn't care when they died.  On the day of my father's death, after hearing of his demise, I faked being upset and had an extra helping of cocoa-pops with whole milk.

I'm still not a murderer or a psychopath of any sort.

Of course, there hadn't been a murder, nevertheless the point I am highlighting is the danger of inferring things from patterns of behaviour that are susceptible to context and interpretation and which may not be very important in proving anything.

You are right when you say character traits can have a bearing on proving a criminal case, but there are rules about bad character evidence.  It's dangerous to significantly base a criminal conviction on it because it's often essentially subjective and it doesn't actually prove the criminal act. 

Virtually all (with one exception) of the 'behavioural' points highlighted in this and other threads are, to me, non-suspicious, so they don’t form a pattern except in your own head.  It’s one notch above, “He looks a bit funny”.  You can call it evidence, but it can’t be taken seriously because it proves nothing of importance.

And much of it also depends on interpretation of wording and context.   A lot of it is ‘verballing’ by relatives and Stan Jones, and other officers, a routine police practice back then prior to the full implementation of PACE, but something ordinary coppers still do to this day.  Have you much experience with the police?  Some of it, especially from Colin Caffell, is presented as ‘being wiser after the event’, but may in fact be confirmatory biasing of inappropriate but innocent behaviour in order to fit a retrospective narrative.  That doesn’t mean Colin Caffell is lying.  Far from it.  I would never call Colin Caffell a liar.  He's a lovely man.  But if Jeremy, still a young man, takes his cues from Colin about how to behave so that he can fake grieving (if that’s how you want to put it), is that suspicious? 

Don't worry, I do 'get' the point you're all making here and possibly I'm being a but 'autistic' about it, but at the same time, what I'm trying to do is focus on the evidence.  I'm not very interested in the 'gossipy' angle on Jeremy because I know that it's unreliable.  I have experience of the legal system - from both sides of it - and I have extensive experience of the police and the courts, and I know the dangers involved in adopting these views, which I do think are indicative of bias and can lead you to wrong conclusions.

But I accept he was a proper tanker, a nasty character.  You're pushing at an open door with me on that point. 

[APRIL]

Thanks.  I do accept that a police officer would make a note of what he regarded to be 'odd' behaviour - that's his duty and his training - but my point is that none of it proves Jeremy Bamber to be a murderer and it does not form a helpful pattern because it is, in each case, non-suspicious.  I maintain that in most cases, the behaviour highlighted is normal.  Moreover, all of it is susceptible to context and interpretation.  I am allowed to make this point, and I am being reasonable because I accept you are right about at least one of the points made, and I am open to reasonable arguments that show I am wrong. 

If I had been investigating those killings, I would like to think that I would have suspected Jeremy from the start and I would noted that he's a bit of merchant tanker.  However, I would have also weighed it all up and, for the purposes of the investigation, I would have dismissed all of the above points except one of them due to a need to focus on the evidence - play the ball, not the man, so to speak.  That's not because I like his behaviour, but in virtually all cases, his behaviour is within the bounds of normalcy.  Acting inappropriately is not good, but it is not abnormal either. 

Anyway, that's my opinion.

"Normal" is a word I try to stay well clear of. It's different for every one of us. Whilst Jeremy's behaviours -combined- maybe within the parameters of whatever your idea of normality is, it falls outside what many see as being acceptable.

[Brancher]

I don't think the above is  normal behaviour-------and I'm not even sure Jeremy is guilty!

I think you raise a good point about the possibility of Asperger's syndrome.  Possibly if the case were re-tried today, there may be a basis for arguing that he has diminished responsibility due to a personality disorder.  I have wondered whether we should regard him as just as ill as Sheila.

But....

Situational inappropriateness, such as laughing and sniggering at funerals or during the solemn parts of religious weddings, is common behaviour, therefore it is 'normal'. 

Normal people do behave like that.  Surely you must have done, at least once?

If we adopt the hypothetical that Jeremy is innocent, then he had just lost his entire family in a shooting incident.  What template of behaviour should we apply to him?

Faking emotion and 'acting up' is normal, is it not?  People do it because there is a social pressure to act in a certain way on certain important occasions.