I think all this fence sitting stuff is silly. Fair enough if you're new to the case but if you've been around the case for a number of years and you're sitting on the fence I think it's somewhat disingenuous.
Maggie seems to have a lot of strong views on other subjects, especially left wing politics, so why she is reticent with JB who knows.
IMO the fence sitters we know of on blue lack the courage of their conviction. They aren't prepared to openly admit their mistakes and fear being critisised if they do.
In a matter of minutes Maggie goes from posting this:
"
As I said unless you were there you don't know what went on. You can imagine as many scenarios as you want but they are always only your opinion you cannot know what the order of events was If Sheila was in a psychotic rage the situation would be totally different than if she was just a bit angry. I openly admit I don't know who was responsible for the deaths. I have my own thoughts but accept they are my opinions and not truths.,
To this:
"Well if 'Nevill rang Bamber-FACT then you have just lost your own argument. IF Nevill rang Jeremy then he is telling the truth.
Saying someone had an OPTION to do something simply means it's a possibility, it doesn't prove anything except that your arguments are all possibilities..... FACT."
Then Lookout posts this:
"I just despair at the anti-bombing campaigners during this last attack on the chemical factories. Left to Corbyn,thousands more children would have perished and this country would have been up in arms about it,but because the " job was done " to destroy these factories that's not right either ??
So what was it to have been ?
The difference was that the air-raids didn't attack civilians !! Corbyn would still have been dithering while children were being murdered. I found it difficult to watch such news on the children of Syria---perhaps Corbyn didn't !
It's a disgrace that the PM has to face questioning on this. Nobody questioned Blair when he took all our troops NEEDLESSLY to Iraq !!
Maggie states:
"Children are being murdered every day by bbarrel bombs and all kinds of unimaginable horrors. I have a friend who's partner is Syrian, his family are either in Idlib or Turkish refugee camps. They have heard stories and seen phone videos of absolute horror which has stopped them sleeping and functioning properly. I haven't got the courage to look at such things and neither do most people but we do need to accept the true horror of Syria. True the bombs by Trump, May and Macron probably didn't kill anyone and chemical weapons are a scourge and illegal but people young and old will still die horribly. We have flexed our muscles ... Jeremy Corbyn has campaigned against nuclear and chemical weapons all his life. He was against war in Iraq. Worked for peace in Ireland. However much people may disagree with his politics I don't think anyone can condemn him for being uncaring. The only answer to Syria is talking however difficult otherwise this will end in a world war. It is horrendously dangerous.
Then Lookout:
It'll be far more of a dangerous situation if there is an outcry over the bombing of the factories. I think people should just hold their tongues as a sharp shock to the likes of Assad is more productive saving days/weeks of negotiating and dithering. I couldn't watch the news with those children suffering,so it has to stop.
The only other alternative is to totally ignore anything that goes on in other countries and their regimes. In fact in the Syria case,Assad's regime won't be compromised---just his methods of chemical destruction which would/could have a wider effect than just his own country. Other than that should we ever interfere in those countries which have monstrous rulers ? Particularly places such as the Middle East.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9365.msg437327.html#msg437327I find their behaviour interesting and very telling. Especially when considered alongside some of the comments (critisisms - I'm being generous) made by LM about many of us over the 2 boards these past few weeks.
Often the way people behave doesn't match with what they say but what they do say can often be their own psychological projections.
Maggie is a moderator of a forum supporting mass murderer Jeremy Bamber who has been tried and found guilty in a court of law; regardless of his protestations of innocence. In the eyes of the law and the majority of the public he murdered his family and two sleeping little boys (one was found deceased whilst still sucking his thumb).
These facts appear to be lost on some people or indeed appear unimportant to them.
Their behaviour comes across as self serving and they appear able to dissosociate from reality when it suits.
When Maggie states:
"I haven't got the courage to look at such things and neither do most people but we do need to accept the true horror of Syria" she displays her hypocrisy. She has the courage when it suits her, to look at and comment on, for example, the photos of the murder victims at WHF, but readily dismisses the horror of WHF and states "
we do need to accept the horror of Syria." Which only goes to further highlight her quite apparent double standards. Many of us have accepted the true horror of WHF but because Maggie hasn't, and she says she doesn't know who murdered the family, she sees nothing wrong in her behaviour.
"Hypocrites are the people who try their damnedest to convey a sense of virtue, only to reveal that they’re about as deep as a puddle. Unsurprisingly, people despise hypocrisy.
“People dislike hypocrites because they unfairly use condemnation to gain reputational benefits and appear virtuous at the expense of those who they are condemning–when these reputational benefits are in fact undeserved,” explains psychological scientist Jillian Jordan of Yale University, a co-author on the study.
Another study by researchers at the University of Southern California showed that hypocrisy is made up of at least one of the following behaviors:
(1) Moral double standards occur when a person is vindictive about a perceived offensive act of someone else; yet, shows little hesitance or guilt in doing the same thing. (Example: cutting someone off in traffic.)
(2) Moral duplicity is generally the one we use to define the act. Moral duplicity is when someone claims to be honorable in their motives, but this is known to be a complete falsehood. (Example: a politician citing neutral views on an issue despite indisputable evidence to the contrary.)
(3) Moral weakness is a type of cognitive disconnect wherein a person’s beliefs or morals are trumped by their lack of self-control; thereby, they engage in the act knowing it to be wrong. (Example: a clergy member taking a vow of celibacy and then engaging in sexual acts.)
Read more here
https://www.powerofpositivity.com/5-hidden-behaviors-hypocrite-displays-revealing/HERE ARE FIVE SUCH BEHAVIORS:
1. INCONSISTENCIES
Of course, one may be inconsistent without being hypocritical. For example, an unpredictable employee who is capable of great performance may demonstrate inconsistent effort and results. They’re not hypocrites; they’re unreliable.
But hypocrites’ inconsistencies tend to be more calculated, and related more to word and deed – and this behavior gets worse as time passes. They’ll say one thing and do something else more frequently.
2. “DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO.”
High expectations of others and little to no expectations of themselves. Perhaps this is all that needs to be said. The hypocrite may be articulate and charming in their manipulative efforts, but they’ll never emulate any standard they set forth for others.
Dean Burnett, a writer for The Guardian, uses the British political scene to emphasize this point:
“Where do people get off dictating how others should behave, putting restrictions on what they can say and do that they don’t adhere to themselves? It’s wrong and immoral, and shows that they can’t be trusted.” Pretty much.3. PLAYING THE VICTIM
Make no mistake: hypocrisy and narcissism are two peas in a pod. “Like peas and carrots,” as Forrest Gump would say. Both groups of people will always try to play the victim. Never is this act so evident as when they’re caught for being in the wrong.
Hypocrites can also be quite crafty. They may use sleight of hand to shake off any blame placed their way. This “Woe is me” attitude wears quite thin after a while.
4. AN AURA OF SUPERIORITY
A hypocrite’s level of arrogance and superiority is borderline narcissistic. Attempt to engage them as equals, as you’ll likely walk away feeling like a student who has just been reprimanded by the teacher. They’ll (directly or indirectly) mock your intellect, maturity (oh, the irony!), or stability.
Similar to playing the victim, this condescending veil will wear thin as the relationship progresses. After all, when no one likes you, it’s pointless to act superior!
5. THEY START BEING NICE TO “THE RIGHT PEOPLE.”
Watch a hypocrite carefully enough, and you’ll inevitably see their two-faced attitude come to the surface. The “important” people, i.e., those with power, will bear the brunt of a hypocrite’s inauthenticity. If those “important people” are smart, they’ll dismiss the charlatan without prejudice.
You see, hypocrites like to believe that they belong to a certain “class,” despite their victim-playing, complaining, and outright lying. The only “class” to which these fraudsters belong is alongside all the other phonies.
Maggie later goes on to state:
I'm not absolutely sure Jon2 I have heard that claimed and no one has disputed it but no actual proof."With respect I don't believe Assad will take any notice, he is apparently reckless like his father before him and the rest of the family. In many ways he is fighting for his life. Like Gaddafi, Saddam and others they believe they will win by crushing all before them but he is doomed just like the others. Using the Syrian people to maje a point is wrong imo. All we can do is fight for peace by talking imo, whether it seems hopeless or not you need to keep going and never give up. Nothing is resolved by war They all have to talk in the end.
Maggie states:
"She 'lied' by pretending JB was innocent, staying with him at Colin's flat after the deaths. If she knew Jeremy Bamber was guilty at that time which aparrently she did then she was highly devious and lied by her actions. How can you not find her action appalling? Colin had lost his two beloved boys, JB and JM go to stay with him no doubt supposedly to support and comfort him. If JB is guilty JM knowingly chose to play along with Bamber and deceive Colin. in my book that's living a lie and Amaral."
As I said unless you were there you don't know what went on. You can imagine as many scenarios as you want but they are always only your opinion you cannot know what the order of events was If Sheila was in a psychotic rage the situation would be totally different than if she was just a bit angry. I openly admit I don't know who was responsible for the deaths. I have my own thoughts but accept they are my opinions and not truths.
