Inappropriate criticism will not be tolerated.

[Admin]

I have just warned a member that incitement is contrary to the good spirit in which this forum operates.  Comments posted on threads which amount to thinly veiled criticisms of this forum and those of us who run it will be treated with the contempt that they deserve.  Any member making such a comment should consider their position very carefully.

Admin

[Miss Taken Identity]

I have just warned a member that incitement is contrary to the good spirit in which this forum operates.  Comments posted on threads which amount to thinly veiled criticisms of this forum and those of us who run it will be treated with the contempt that they deserve.  Any member making such a comment should consider their position very carefully.

Admin

Can you please clarify...

Does this include feedback? are you suggesting any feedback about issues affecting our posts should be done privately?

[John]

I have just warned a member that incitement is contrary to the good spirit in which this forum operates.  Comments posted on threads which amount to thinly veiled criticisms of this forum and those of us who run it will be treated with the contempt that they deserve.  Any member making such a comment should consider their position very carefully.

Admin

History has shown us that there are some who would like to see these debates shut down and the forum as it now exists has had to adapt and change on several occasions in order to defeat those attacks. I will always support freedom of speech but with it comes responsibility too.

The forum has operated extremely smoothly and indeed amicably over the last week and if necessary I will impose permanent sanctions on any member who attempts to undermine that stability.  There will be NO APPEAL!

[robo]

Hello Every Forum Member,
In my opinion, this is a sensible warning note and good but incomplete rules.
The world wide web is governed -not only by UK laws-but by international treaties and conventions. Also
as an adide, I know that police in certain internet projects- spend their time trawling and reading through forums etc.... We are all concerned that justice must be served fairly and in accordance with international human rights and we have much hard work to cover- so best to "stick to the knitting", as they say (in management 'speak').

[Brancher]

I agree that inappropriate criticism of moderation is wrong, but what about when the criticism is well-founded and highlights a human weakness of some moderators?

This Forum is clearly pro-guilt and is deliberately allowing an abusive poster to continue simply because that poster's views align with those of most of the moderators.

What if a pro-Bamber poster behaved the same way?  I am sure this would not be tolerated.

Bias is a human weakness.  One of my posts about the moderator evidence still hasn't appeared because the moderator 'on duty' is anti-Bamber.  This same moderator is taking it upon herself to edit my posts before they appear.

Some posters here focus on Bamber's mundane quirks and habits after the murders, such as making a hearty breakfast or acting out at the funeral or going on holiday or selling personal items or putting a dog down, etc., etc..  None of this is evidence that he killed anybody.

[Alf]

I agree that inappropriate criticism of moderation is wrong, but what about when the criticism is well-founded and highlights a human weakness of some moderators?

This Forum is clearly pro-guilt and is deliberately allowing an abusive poster to continue simply because that poster's views align with those of most of the moderators.

What if a pro-Bamber poster behaved the same way?  I am sure this would not be tolerated.

Bias is a human weakness.  One of my posts about the moderator evidence still hasn't appeared because the moderator 'on duty' is anti-Bamber.  This same moderator is taking it upon herself to edit my posts before they appear.

Some posters here focus on Bamber's mundane quirks and habits after the murders, such as making a hearty breakfast or acting out at the funeral or going on holiday or selling personal items or putting a dog down, etc., etc..  None of this is evidence that he killed anybody.

You are showing your own bias by describing actions such as having his mother’s pet dog put down the day after her murder, burning his parents clothes and trying to sell nude pictures of his murdered sister to the Sun as mere “mundane quirks and habits”.  IMO, many people would view these as quite shocking behaviours in the circumstances , not the insignificant nothings you seem to think they are.

[Brancher]

You are showing your own bias by describing actions such as having his mother’s pet dog put down the day after her murder, burning his parents clothes and trying to sell nude pictures of his murdered sister to the Sun as mere “mundane quirks and habits”.  IMO, many people would view these as quite shocking behaviours in the circumstances , not the insignificant nothings you seem to think they are.

I am not showing bias.  I am not biased in this case.  I have no dog in the hunt.  I am not vested in the case.  Let me tell you that if Jeremy Bamber had killed my children, he wouldn't have lasted the week.  I would have found him and killed him before the police could even get to him.  But he didn't kill my children.  I am not a family member.  I am not a police officer and never have been.  I had no other involvement.  I am not vested in the case.  I am not biased.  I am not pro-Bamber.  I am not anti-Bamber.  I am not pro-innocent.  I am not pro-guilt.  I have no reason to be either. 

My approach to the case is strictly about the evidence, which tells me he probably did it, but I am not as sure as I'd like to be and I'm not comfortable with the idea of a 'legally innocent mass murderer', so I'd like to hear convincing arguments. 
It doesn't endear me to you!  Accusing me of bias when I am clearly a jumping and dancing example of the complete opposite won't help either. 

I am only interested in the evidence that either proves or disproves he is a mass murderer.  Making hearty breakfasts, smutty jokes at funerals, and going on holiday aren't relevant.  They prove he was a total and utter tanker, but that doesn't make him a mass murderer. 

Likewise, asking a vet to put a dog down on a flimsy pretext is quite normal behaviour.  Millions of people up and down Britain have done the same thing.  Very few of them are murderers.

It's just not good enough!

I've explained all this quite fully and reasonably to you, but I suspect I'm flogging a dead horse.  I suppose the moral of this story is, if somebody close to you gets murdered, don't make yourself any hearty breakfasts, at least not for a few days; don't go on holiday - especially somewhere hot - and whatever you do, don't grin at the funeral.  Keep a straight face.  Otherwise, you may end up as a lifer.

[Alf]

I am not showing bias.  I am not biased in this case.  I have no dog in the hunt.  I am not vested in the case.  Let me tell you that if Jeremy Bamber had killed my children, he wouldn't have lasted the week.  I would have found him and killed him before the police could even get to him.  But he didn't kill my children.  I am not a family member.  I am not a police officer and never have been.  I had no other involvement.  I am not vested in the case.  I am not biased.  I am not pro-Bamber.  I am not anti-Bamber.  I am not pro-innocent.  I am not pro-guilt.  I have no reason to be either. 

My approach to the case is strictly about the evidence, which tells me he probably did it, but I am not as sure as I'd like to be and I'm not comfortable with the idea of a 'legally innocent mass murderer', so I'd like to hear convincing arguments. 
It doesn't endear me to you!  Accusing me of bias when I am clearly a jumping and dancing example of the complete opposite won't help either. 

I am only interested in the evidence that either proves or disproves he is a mass murderer.  Making hearty breakfasts, smutty jokes at funerals, and going on holiday aren't relevant.  They prove he was a total and utter tanker, but that doesn't make him a mass murderer. 

Likewise, asking a vet to put a dog down on a flimsy pretext is quite normal behaviour.  Millions of people up and down Britain have done the same thing.  Very few of them are murderers.

It's just not good enough!

I've explained all this quite fully and reasonably to you, but I suspect I'm flogging a dead horse.  I suppose the moral of this story is, if somebody close to you gets murdered, don't make yourself any hearty breakfasts, at least not for a few days; don't go on holiday - especially somewhere hot - and whatever you do, don't grin at the funeral.  Keep a straight face.  Otherwise, you may end up as a lifer.

You’ve gone (whether by your own volition or by termination by a greater power) so kind of pointless me replying, however I very much take issue with the idea that millions of people have their recently deceased relative’s pet put down within 24 hours of the beloved’s death.  That is absolute balls IMO.  You never did tell us what evidence was so compelling that made you believe he likely did the crime either.  If it wasn’t any of the above, and it wasn’t the silencer, and you don’t believe JM then just what the hell was it?  I guess we will never know now.  How sad.

[Eleanor]

One of my friends died of Tuberculosis.  I had his much loved dog put down almost instantly.  There wasn't anything else to be done.

A dog is a dog and as much as I love my own dog someone has to care about this article.  And if it isn't yours then why should you care.

[Alf]

One of my friends died of Tuberculosis.  I had his much loved dog put down almost instantly.  There wasn't anything else to be done.

A dog is a dog and as much as I love my own dog someone has to care about this article.  And if it isn't yours then why should you care.

Surely the dog could have been re-homed or the RSPCA contacted?  For me personally there is no way on Earth I would have an inconvenient animal put to death, especially not one belonging to one of my parents, and especially not within hours of their own death.  I find the idea morally repellent.  You clearly disagree, your prerogative.

[Eleanor]

Surely the dog could have been re-homed or the RSPCA contacted?  For me personally there is no way on Earth I would have an inconvenient animal put to death, especially not one belonging to one of my parents, and especially not within hours of their own death.  I find the idea morally repellent.  You clearly disagree, your prerogative.

Then you don't know anything about Dogs.  Or the taking on of a dog that isn't yours.

[Alf]

Then you don't know anything about Dogs.  Or the taking on of a dog that isn't yours.

Whatever Eleanor.  You know best. I know nothing about anything. As Always x

[Eleanor]

Whatever Eleanor.  You know best. I know nothing about anything. As Always x

You might be able to beat me on dreadful men and the handling of.  Me?  I am too old to care anymore.  And besides, they are all dead now.

[Miss Taken Identity]

I think we should have a list of what is inappropriate criticism.

IS it OK to moderate a direct quote to change the meaning of the quote? IF not, is it inappropriate to ask for this to be referenced by the moderator and inserted next to the text? when it has been inserted by a member.

The word sexual activity was replaced by  Mr Bates - which was a direct quote.

New look at the meaning.:
Human sexuality is the way people experience and express themselves sexually.[1][2] This involves biological, erotic, physical, emotional, social, or spiritual feelings and behaviors.[3][4] Because it is a broad term, which has varied with historical contexts over time, it lacks a precise definition.[4] The biological and physical aspects of sexuality largely concern the human reproductive functions, including the human sexual response cycle.[3][

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sexuality