Poll -Truce with the Jeremy Bamber forum.

[John]

To NOT personally attack any individuals from the blue forum - yes, I am in favour of that.

One can debate what an individual has posted, but to post personal remarks about that persons,  beliefs or perception in a critical and abusive way is wrong.

The still do not like the thread being up about Lookout - it is most personal and is bound to cause upset - this is what I disagree with.

I would favour avoiding personal attacks on blue forum members but that fair comment on some of their specific posts, eg Teskowski's wild theories and Lookout's persistent defamation of Sheila , should be acceptable. I also strongly feel that the agreement should evolve so that unfounded defamation of individual family members, alive and dead, Julie Mugford , various police officers etc by posters on the blue forum should cease . They should stick to objective evidence to support their position that Bamber is not guilty and not personal vilification of individuals who are largely not in a position to defend themselves on the internet.

Good post Dillon.  I think we should be able to formulate some guidelines around this. 

[Tim Invictus]

I don't see the problem. Of course utter rubbish and lies posted on the Blue Forum will be challenged and exposed. Some of the rubbish posted about Sheila is deplorable. (Z) and the phantom photo/itemised phone bills  are just lies as far as I am concerned and I will always say so!

No problem.

But if we return to publishing personal details and the old threads go back up then so be it ... I will just leave both forums to it!

[Angelo222]

They want to be able to make up any pish they like about the family, police officers, forensic scientists, pathologists, the CCRC and others and be able to get away with it as if it were fact.  Well I for one won't be letting them do so no matter what name they want to hide under.  IMO anonymous doesn't mean untouchable.

[Tim Invictus]

They want to be able to make up any pish they like about the family, police officers, forensic scientists, pathologists, the CCRC and others and be able to get away with it as if it were fact.  Well I for one won't be letting them do so no matter what name they want to hide under.  IMO anonymous doesn't mean untouchable.

Of course you should expose that stuff!

[John]

They want to be able to make up any pish they like about the family, police officers, forensic scientists, pathologists, the CCRC and others and be able to get away with it as if it were fact.  Well I for one won't be letting them do so no matter what name they want to hide under.  IMO anonymous doesn't mean untouchable.

Of course you should expose that stuff!

Rightly so, I agree about the personal details thingy though and will make that clear through our new guidelines.

[John]

I have added another option to the poll which admin started this morning. 

Please note: Members can change their vote at any time.

[Angelo222]

To NOT personally attack any individuals from the blue forum - yes, I am in favour of that.

One can debate what an individual has posted, but to post personal remarks about that persons,  beliefs or perception in a critical and abusive way is wrong.

The still do not like the thread being up about Lookout - it is most personal and is bound to cause upset - this is what I disagree with.

Lookout is just a name AA unless I am missing something here??   8-)(--)               

Don't tell me s(he) is really Mr(s) Lookout.   

[John]

To NOT personally attack any individuals from the blue forum - yes, I am in favour of that.

One can debate what an individual has posted, but to post personal remarks about that persons,  beliefs or perception in a critical and abusive way is wrong.

The still do not like the thread being up about Lookout - it is most personal and is bound to cause upset - this is what I disagree with.

Lookout is just a name AA unless I am missing something here??   8-)(--)               

Don't tell me s(he) is really Mr(s) Lookout.   

Lookout can change their name any time they like and that would be an end of it, you can't do that with a real name can you J ?

[puglove]

To NOT personally attack any individuals from the blue forum - yes, I am in favour of that.

One can debate what an individual has posted, but to post personal remarks about that persons,  beliefs or perception in a critical and abusive way is wrong.

The still do not like the thread being up about Lookout - it is most personal and is bound to cause upset - this is what I disagree with.

Lookout is just a name AA unless I am missing something here??   8-)(--)               

Don't tell me s(he) is really Mr(s) Lookout.   

A few of us on here know Lookout's identity, because of some posts a while ago on the blue forum.

[James]

I like the third option, very sensible given everones views.      

[James]

To NOT personally attack any individuals from the blue forum - yes, I am in favour of that.

One can debate what an individual has posted, but to post personal remarks about that persons,  beliefs or perception in a critical and abusive way is wrong.

The still do not like the thread being up about Lookout - it is most personal and is bound to cause upset - this is what I disagree with.

Lookout is just a name AA unless I am missing something here??   8-)(--)               

Don't tell me s(he) is really Mr(s) Lookout.   

A few of us on here know Lookout's identity, because of some posts a while ago on the blue forum.

Best keep it quiet then 

[puglove]

To NOT personally attack any individuals from the blue forum - yes, I am in favour of that.

One can debate what an individual has posted, but to post personal remarks about that persons,  beliefs or perception in a critical and abusive way is wrong.

The still do not like the thread being up about Lookout - it is most personal and is bound to cause upset - this is what I disagree with.

Lookout is just a name AA unless I am missing something here??   8-)(--)               

Don't tell me s(he) is really Mr(s) Lookout.   

A few of us on here know Lookout's identity, because of some posts a while ago on the blue forum.

Best keep it quiet then 

Absolutely, in the spirit of the truce!! But I wish I had the option to argue against some of their more strongly-worded views.

[John]

Absolutely, in the spirit of the truce!! But I wish I had the option to argue against some of their more strongly-worded views.

There is nothing stopping you Shona, just start a new thread where necessary.  This applies to every member, if you wish to discuss any topic just start a new thread where appropriate.

[Angelo222]

I want to apologise for being a bit narky earlier today, had a bit of trouble at work and had a bad start to the day today.   Sorry Joanne for being a bit sharp.   

[Andrea]

Constructive criticism of those on the blue forum will continue and to that end I would hope to see guest posting brought back at the earliest opportunity.

Then I'm no longer willing to be part of this on both counts. I've had enough, I think it's no longer practical to be a member of both forums and I'd prefer to be on the blue forum.

Obviously...you want to run with the liars.

I think people want to stop prevaricating, this forum will not be used by them as an escape from the blue forum.  This forum was set up primarily to dispute the rubbish being posted over there and will continue to do so.  Members are either with us or against us, there can be no middle ground.

From now on any member leaving to join the blue forum will be barred permanently.  Actions have consequences!

Do you mean deleting their account on here and posting on blue, they will be banned? Or do you mean anyone who posts on blue will be banned even if they have an account on here? Just want this clearing up.