| Conflict of interest 05:10 - Feb 22 with 23460 views | Loyal |
It was mentioned the other day Phil running the site and being on the trust was a conflict of interest.
I can't find any response by E20 after alleging there was. Probably me. Is there a link ? |  |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |  |
| Conflict of interest on 15:31 - Feb 24 with 1983 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 15:30 - Feb 24 by Loyal |
Oh dear, trying to get at me by having a go at a family member.
Pretty low stuff.
And indeed bullshit. |
Where was I having a go at your family member? |  | | |
| Conflict of interest on 15:36 - Feb 24 with 1970 views | Loyal |
| Conflict of interest on 15:31 - Feb 24 by The_E20 |
Where was I having a go at your family member? |
Your a walking mental health case study.
Full of conspiracy theories about who people are - and unable to accept anything other than what the latest voice in your head tells you. If that's the case when you ever have the pleasure of seeing him, and he is very visible when he goes to games, go and have a word with him and report back. He generally sits in Phil's vicinity in the east when he's over. I'm pretty sure he would love to chat with you or Pissy.
Now, you are on ignore.
Silly cnt. | |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 15:38 - Feb 24 with 1941 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 15:36 - Feb 24 by Loyal |
Your a walking mental health case study.
Full of conspiracy theories about who people are - and unable to accept anything other than what the latest voice in your head tells you. If that's the case when you ever have the pleasure of seeing him, and he is very visible when he goes to games, go and have a word with him and report back. He generally sits in Phil's vicinity in the east when he's over. I'm pretty sure he would love to chat with you or Pissy.
Now, you are on ignore.
Silly cnt. |
Didn’t you claim I was DYSS last week and now claimed I was on ignore only for you to reply to me for the next 40 mins pretending to be your brother?
I think what you have posted there is clinically described as ‘projection’. Bless. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 23:12 - Feb 27 with 1614 views | Elmo |
Something awry with the Trust and this forum.
It's herd of twps are running this asylum.
The forum has been neutered. No football discussions - a thread (ironically started today by the twpest of all the herd) to that effect seems to have been deleted. Anything challenging the Trust is clearly shut down.
The irony. |  | | |
| Conflict of interest on 08:38 - Feb 28 with 1514 views | Chief |
| Conflict of interest on 23:12 - Feb 27 by Elmo |
Something awry with the Trust and this forum.
It's herd of twps are running this asylum.
The forum has been neutered. No football discussions - a thread (ironically started today by the twpest of all the herd) to that effect seems to have been deleted. Anything challenging the Trust is clearly shut down.
The irony. |
There's no thread more vociferous in its criticism of the trust than this one.
But it remains available for us all to enjoy.... |  |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 10:04 - Feb 28 with 1444 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 08:38 - Feb 28 by Chief |
There's no thread more vociferous in its criticism of the trust than this one.
But it remains available for us all to enjoy.... |
No idea what thread was deleted, but it would be a mistake to think it isn’t happening or at least didn’t happen frequently prior to people quite rightly making a song and dance about it and informing people what was going on.
I don’t understand how anyone has faith in the current Trust. There was a stern test of character put out there last week where a third of the Trust board were made aware of a vital misdirected part of Trust history (maybe even the Trust secretary too but not certain on that) - not one single one of them came forward with it and instead decided to close ranks and hope it went away.
Speaks volumes for each of those people and where their loyalty and interest is attached to, it’s like a bloody cult. Scary.
(Elmo I just noticed your PM, I can’t respond unfortunately as replies don’t work on a proxy server which I have to now use after my device/IP was banned after I spoke out - but it is an interesting idea and not against it, although has been tried before with varied success). [Post edited 28 Feb 2019 10:08]
| | | |
| Conflict of interest on 10:34 - Feb 28 with 1421 views | Darran |
E20 is a liar. He’s always used a proxy server,always.
He was using a proxy server back when I was a Mod because I looked many times.
Oh and just for the record there are no threads that have been deleted about the Trust,not by the Trust Chairman,not by anyone. |  |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 10:36 - Feb 28 with 1419 views | Chief |
| Conflict of interest on 10:34 - Feb 28 by Darran |
E20 is a liar. He’s always used a proxy server,always.
He was using a proxy server back when I was a Mod because I looked many times.
Oh and just for the record there are no threads that have been deleted about the Trust,not by the Trust Chairman,not by anyone. |
There was one that you started yesterday that appears to have disappeared.
But you are an advocate of the trust so that goes against what Elmo and others are saying here. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Conflict of interest on 10:55 - Feb 28 with 1404 views | Elmo |
| Conflict of interest on 10:36 - Feb 28 by Chief |
There was one that you started yesterday that appears to have disappeared.
But you are an advocate of the trust so that goes against what Elmo and others are saying here. |
Indeed - entitled Football board is quiet (or similar).
Which would have been interesting given all of the decent football posters have disappeared.
Planet swans has descended into a non-football talking shop. Which speaks volumes about the Trust and its deficiencies. A fans forum ? No way. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 11:09 - Feb 28 with 1395 views | Chief |
E20 has backed up your sentence too. Him and Elmo cooking up something behind the scenes. | |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 11:52 - Feb 28 with 1377 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 10:34 - Feb 28 by Darran |
E20 is a liar. He’s always used a proxy server,always.
He was using a proxy server back when I was a Mod because I looked many times.
Oh and just for the record there are no threads that have been deleted about the Trust,not by the Trust Chairman,not by anyone. |
You lost any crumb of credibility you had years ago, if anybody still believes your nonsense then more fool them. I did not and never have used a proxy server prior to my initial E20 account being banned - this is a fact.
And you are also incorrect regarding threads being removed, what you mean is that you didn’t see them. But considering you can’t see 5 feet in front of your face that is also baseless.
Cheers. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 11:56 - Feb 28 with 1370 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 11:09 - Feb 28 by Chief |
E20 has backed up your sentence too. Him and Elmo cooking up something behind the scenes. |
No I haven’t. I’m not “cooking” anything up, I’m always completely open and honest about my views and my intentions and don’t need secretive messages in order to carry them out.
Elmo suggested that if people aren’t allowed to discuss the Trust here in a way that represents reality then maybe there is appetite for another supporters forum in which you are free to discuss things.
While it is a fair idea, I think it is important that all fans know the ins and outs of things as opposed to the ones that are already aware. Sinister eh? | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 11:58 - Feb 28 with 1362 views | The_E20 |
No it isn’t obvious at all. Just you getting over excited again while probably someone within the Trust confirming to you that I am correct. You being you then decide to try and make up a story that fits in any way you can try and make it - like when you made up I revealed the team sheet and then edited it out... before you realised it was already out so the lie made no sense.
You have form. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 12:01 - Feb 28 with 1356 views | whitemountains |
| Conflict of interest on 10:34 - Feb 28 by Darran |
E20 is a liar. He’s always used a proxy server,always.
He was using a proxy server back when I was a Mod because I looked many times.
Oh and just for the record there are no threads that have been deleted about the Trust,not by the Trust Chairman,not by anyone. |
Maybe not deleted but certainly locked so that nothing else can be posted.
I always thought mods were in place to keep an eye on what was being said and to stop abuse not snoop behind the scenes to try and find out who people are and where they are from. It surely seems to fly in the face of data protection | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 12:03 - Feb 28 with 1355 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 12:01 - Feb 28 by whitemountains |
Maybe not deleted but certainly locked so that nothing else can be posted.
I always thought mods were in place to keep an eye on what was being said and to stop abuse not snoop behind the scenes to try and find out who people are and where they are from. It surely seems to fly in the face of data protection |
Both deleted and locked.
In fact there are swathes of threads with people asking what on earth is going on due to the flow of conversation no longer making sense while replies are deleted right left and centre.
Most of the threads I had deleted were first thing in the morning UK time from the previous night. If many people see it they tend to lock it, if they think not many have then they will remove it.
But you are absolutely correct regarding data protection and privacy. It speaks volumes about these people. Darran, if saying the truth (which is always 50:50) has just admitted snooping into the private details of posters without permission, thankfully his powers of observation and truth telling are a perfect match and it was some other poor soul he tried, and was allowed, to cyber bully supporters on the site run by the Trust Chairman. It’s foul. [Post edited 28 Feb 2019 12:13]
| | | |
| Conflict of interest on 12:54 - Feb 28 with 1305 views | chad |
| Conflict of interest on 23:24 - Feb 22 by londonlisa2001 |
I’m not sure why any fan would be against Trust aims if you read them. They were posted above.
Keeping a football team in Swansea and attempting to ensure supporters have as strong a say as possible in the way the club is run to aim to prevent the club ever again coming close to extinction seems something that any fan would support as far as I can see. There may be disagreements as to tactics or the ways of achieving that, but if people are fundamentally against Trust aims then they are strange fans,
As for the ‘they silenced some who were against the deal but not me, because I was vociferously against it’ - yeah, that’s just nonsense when you think about it, isn’t it. |
“As for the ‘they silenced some who were against the deal but not me, because I was vociferously against it’ - yeah, that’s just nonsense when you think about it, isn’t it”
Not quite as vociferously as some. I always got the impression you were trying to tread the line / keep onside, even though you did agree with the likes of Shakes, myself and many others about the serious deficiencies of the deal and certainly did speak out about it.
However
* I recall you most vigorously baying with the clique of officialdom on here against Shakes at the time he was trying to raise issues and advise. Of course he was more than able to give back what he got.
* I recall the main group of concerned parties posting on the other site because of being banned on here. That included shakes, T2C, Parley and myself.
* I recall issues being brought up repeatedly on the other site and finally the Trust Vice Chair making a few posts over there in response to repeated claims of unfair access to Trust officials and information on the Trust Chairs own censored website. Although initially he repeatedly would ignore any direct questions from me.
* I recall the Trust Vice Chair (when eventually he could no longer ignore my repeated questions on the other site) incorrectly denying the weaknesses of the protection of 25% ownership (as subject to dilution by share issue).
* I recall the Trust Vice Chair falsely claiming no payment to Trust officials with specific named e.g.s
* I recall you asking the question on here about payment to Trust Officials (possibly a specific Trust official). It seemed strange to me at the time given the Trust Vice Chairs clear statement of no payment as I could not believe a senior Trust official would be allowed to openly lie about such a sensitive and important issue. However that is what happened
* I recall it being suggested that you had been planted to ask that question by the Trust to finally get it out into the open after the long cover up and lies. I neither believed or disbelieved this accusation but it does reflect the affinity you were seen by some to have with officialdom on this site.
* I recall the Trust announcing they could not deal with the new majority owners without guarantees against share dilution, this was of course unrealistic and soon totally dropped.
* I recall after Shakes raising issues on the other site you starting to raise the same issues here
Given your statement above please tell me why I was repeatedly banned (along with others) when I was speaking out about concerns, first with inaccuracies allowed to be repeated re the strength of protections of 25% ownership, and then for strongly challenging the Trust Board on their strong support for the deal, given its serious deficiencies (which we both agreed on).
I would not use abusive language, always tried to refer to facts to back up my post, did not even resort to the type of comment like “it’s not difficult” etc. designed to imply the stupidity of posters who do not share an opinion.
Even when I set up New IDs to try and get the message over these were all immediately deleted, many even before I could make a single post on them. There was a very deliberate and determined approach to shut me up.
Neither were you at the pre vote meeting where rationally trying to explain the serious deficiencies of the deal (that many of us including yourself shared) and mentioning I had been prevented taking these issues up on the Trust Chairs website because I was banned, I was immediately verbally attacked by the Trust Chair and made out to be a liar, thus also discrediting the serious and accurate issues I was raising.
He later, when I was eventually able to raise it here, said it was because I was attacking him. Well if the truth casually mentioned as an aside feels like an attack perhaps it is not the teller that needs verbally attacking and falsely made out to be a liar.
Nor witnessed the Trust Chairs faux denials when my husband tried to speak to him about the abuse and bannings. And finding that my account (which had just been restored not long before the meeting) was again banned when I got home immediately after the meeting. Pretty sick, and not in a good way.
Nor At the end of that pre vote meeting where the Trust Chair repeatedly told the members present not to listen to people who google stuff. That was obviously referring to the serious and accurate concerns being raised on the websites by the likes of shakes and presumably yourself.
I agree it is not helpful to bring theses issues up, ,but it is totally unacceptable to deny them. Also Recent things said by Trust Board members on here and at the latest Trust meeting have given me serious cause for concern.
Plus more recent open lies, misrepresentation and attempts to stifle debate by Ux show this type of attitude / behaviour towards members is far from a thing of the past.
One of the many correct things E20 said on here
They shouldn’t be “getting the fanbase to vote in favour” of anything. This is the fundamental problem.
The supporters need fair and balanced information on the pros and cons of each argument. Which is why I suggested at the last 2 Trust meetings I attended, as a prudent precaution (after all the claims of bias on the last voting papers) that members be allowed to review and comment on the voting documentation prior to its formal issue, to ensure all issues and concerns are raised.
I don’t think you were at either of those meetings Lisa as far as I know (I understand you live away) However at the previous meeting when asked who would do this I said “well me, and anyone else who is interested” and at the last meeting I clearly stated in my question that this should be “from all sides of the argument” This was obvious to make clear as nothing else would be fair.
This was dismissed by the Chair basically saying the Trust Board were best equipped to handle this. Umm remember last time. When I tried to interrupt what was effectively the Trust Chairs dismissal of the memberships ability to add value and give protection from accusations of bias, I was told I would be given the opportunity to respond at the end, although that never occurred as it moved straight on to other questions.
Why would the Trust Board fear a review from all sides of the argument to ensure the document fairly reflected all the actual pros and cons. Why would the Trust Board think other members did not have something to offer after what occurred last time. Is it not a little arrogant to consider that amongst the membership there is not a shared knowledge, logic and business skills that meets and very possibly exceeds that of the Board. Especially as it is always possible to fine tune a product at review.
Such a review process on fitness for purpose is long established good business practice. Why would the Trust dismiss out of hand. Why would the Vice Chair subsequently mock me on this site and totally twist what I said, to say I was presenting myself as some sort of balanced arbiter when I made it clear it should be reviewed by all sides of the argument, which of course would be the only fair thing to do.
Why also would he accuse me of misrepresenting people at the Trust meeting but sit silent at the meeting and not mention this. I am totally unaware of misrepresenting anyone in the few questions I raised, neither would have any wish to do so. Perhaps the Vice Chair should speak up at meetings if we he has any actual valid concerns of this nature, as he had plenty of opportunity to do that |  | | |
| Conflict of interest on 13:24 - Feb 28 with 1266 views | Chief |
| Conflict of interest on 11:56 - Feb 28 by The_E20 |
No I haven’t. I’m not “cooking” anything up, I’m always completely open and honest about my views and my intentions and don’t need secretive messages in order to carry them out.
Elmo suggested that if people aren’t allowed to discuss the Trust here in a way that represents reality then maybe there is appetite for another supporters forum in which you are free to discuss things.
While it is a fair idea, I think it is important that all fans know the ins and outs of things as opposed to the ones that are already aware. Sinister eh? |
There are other Swansea forums already available | |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 13:28 - Feb 28 with 1260 views | Darran |
| Conflict of interest on 13:24 - Feb 28 by Chief |
There are other Swansea forums already available |
Yeah but they can’t purposely antagonise Phil on them can they. | |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 13:37 - Feb 28 with 1247 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 13:24 - Feb 28 by Chief |
There are other Swansea forums already available |
Yes. It would be awful if Trust board members forced fans off here just because they want a critical and balanced approach. Wouldn’t it? | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 13:40 - Feb 28 with 1243 views | Bazswan |
Chief and Darren seem to have conveniently ignored the previous post?
It's all very, very intriguing.
E20s presence is clearly providing an obvious distraction from something which is obviously not being addressed. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 13:41 - Feb 28 with 1242 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 13:28 - Feb 28 by Darran |
Yeah but they can’t purposely antagonise Phil on them can they. |
Antagonise Phil? You mean the guy who bans people at his will just because he disagrees with them? I think that may be the other way around my good chap. What have I ever said about Phil designed to antagonise him that wasn’t simply stating facts then?
If stating simple facts is antagonising someone then I don’t think there are many aspects of life that are set up for you to thrive in.
If you don’t want to be called a liar - don’t lie. If you don’t want to be accused of abusing power - don’t abuse power. If you don’t want to be accused of making error after error - don’t make error after error etc etc it’s all very simple. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 13:41 - Feb 28 with 1241 views | swanforthemoney |
| Conflict of interest on 08:38 - Feb 28 by Chief |
There's no thread more vociferous in its criticism of the trust than this one.
But it remains available for us all to enjoy.... |
Spot on Chiefy. Allegations that the forum is neutered to protect the Trust Board are surely refuted by the existence of this thread. There’s some serious allegations on the thread, yet it stands proud. The E20 has expounded their criticisms at length and apparently uncensored and yet the thread is open and available. Long may the forum support open debate amongst Swansea supporters. |  |
| I stand in the North Stand
|
| |
| Conflict of interest on 13:45 - Feb 28 with 1232 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 12:54 - Feb 28 by chad |
“As for the ‘they silenced some who were against the deal but not me, because I was vociferously against it’ - yeah, that’s just nonsense when you think about it, isn’t it”
Not quite as vociferously as some. I always got the impression you were trying to tread the line / keep onside, even though you did agree with the likes of Shakes, myself and many others about the serious deficiencies of the deal and certainly did speak out about it.
However
* I recall you most vigorously baying with the clique of officialdom on here against Shakes at the time he was trying to raise issues and advise. Of course he was more than able to give back what he got.
* I recall the main group of concerned parties posting on the other site because of being banned on here. That included shakes, T2C, Parley and myself.
* I recall issues being brought up repeatedly on the other site and finally the Trust Vice Chair making a few posts over there in response to repeated claims of unfair access to Trust officials and information on the Trust Chairs own censored website. Although initially he repeatedly would ignore any direct questions from me.
* I recall the Trust Vice Chair (when eventually he could no longer ignore my repeated questions on the other site) incorrectly denying the weaknesses of the protection of 25% ownership (as subject to dilution by share issue).
* I recall the Trust Vice Chair falsely claiming no payment to Trust officials with specific named e.g.s
* I recall you asking the question on here about payment to Trust Officials (possibly a specific Trust official). It seemed strange to me at the time given the Trust Vice Chairs clear statement of no payment as I could not believe a senior Trust official would be allowed to openly lie about such a sensitive and important issue. However that is what happened
* I recall it being suggested that you had been planted to ask that question by the Trust to finally get it out into the open after the long cover up and lies. I neither believed or disbelieved this accusation but it does reflect the affinity you were seen by some to have with officialdom on this site.
* I recall the Trust announcing they could not deal with the new majority owners without guarantees against share dilution, this was of course unrealistic and soon totally dropped.
* I recall after Shakes raising issues on the other site you starting to raise the same issues here
Given your statement above please tell me why I was repeatedly banned (along with others) when I was speaking out about concerns, first with inaccuracies allowed to be repeated re the strength of protections of 25% ownership, and then for strongly challenging the Trust Board on their strong support for the deal, given its serious deficiencies (which we both agreed on).
I would not use abusive language, always tried to refer to facts to back up my post, did not even resort to the type of comment like “it’s not difficult” etc. designed to imply the stupidity of posters who do not share an opinion.
Even when I set up New IDs to try and get the message over these were all immediately deleted, many even before I could make a single post on them. There was a very deliberate and determined approach to shut me up.
Neither were you at the pre vote meeting where rationally trying to explain the serious deficiencies of the deal (that many of us including yourself shared) and mentioning I had been prevented taking these issues up on the Trust Chairs website because I was banned, I was immediately verbally attacked by the Trust Chair and made out to be a liar, thus also discrediting the serious and accurate issues I was raising.
He later, when I was eventually able to raise it here, said it was because I was attacking him. Well if the truth casually mentioned as an aside feels like an attack perhaps it is not the teller that needs verbally attacking and falsely made out to be a liar.
Nor witnessed the Trust Chairs faux denials when my husband tried to speak to him about the abuse and bannings. And finding that my account (which had just been restored not long before the meeting) was again banned when I got home immediately after the meeting. Pretty sick, and not in a good way.
Nor At the end of that pre vote meeting where the Trust Chair repeatedly told the members present not to listen to people who google stuff. That was obviously referring to the serious and accurate concerns being raised on the websites by the likes of shakes and presumably yourself.
I agree it is not helpful to bring theses issues up, ,but it is totally unacceptable to deny them. Also Recent things said by Trust Board members on here and at the latest Trust meeting have given me serious cause for concern.
Plus more recent open lies, misrepresentation and attempts to stifle debate by Ux show this type of attitude / behaviour towards members is far from a thing of the past.
One of the many correct things E20 said on here
They shouldn’t be “getting the fanbase to vote in favour” of anything. This is the fundamental problem.
The supporters need fair and balanced information on the pros and cons of each argument. Which is why I suggested at the last 2 Trust meetings I attended, as a prudent precaution (after all the claims of bias on the last voting papers) that members be allowed to review and comment on the voting documentation prior to its formal issue, to ensure all issues and concerns are raised.
I don’t think you were at either of those meetings Lisa as far as I know (I understand you live away) However at the previous meeting when asked who would do this I said “well me, and anyone else who is interested” and at the last meeting I clearly stated in my question that this should be “from all sides of the argument” This was obvious to make clear as nothing else would be fair.
This was dismissed by the Chair basically saying the Trust Board were best equipped to handle this. Umm remember last time. When I tried to interrupt what was effectively the Trust Chairs dismissal of the memberships ability to add value and give protection from accusations of bias, I was told I would be given the opportunity to respond at the end, although that never occurred as it moved straight on to other questions.
Why would the Trust Board fear a review from all sides of the argument to ensure the document fairly reflected all the actual pros and cons. Why would the Trust Board think other members did not have something to offer after what occurred last time. Is it not a little arrogant to consider that amongst the membership there is not a shared knowledge, logic and business skills that meets and very possibly exceeds that of the Board. Especially as it is always possible to fine tune a product at review.
Such a review process on fitness for purpose is long established good business practice. Why would the Trust dismiss out of hand. Why would the Vice Chair subsequently mock me on this site and totally twist what I said, to say I was presenting myself as some sort of balanced arbiter when I made it clear it should be reviewed by all sides of the argument, which of course would be the only fair thing to do.
Why also would he accuse me of misrepresenting people at the Trust meeting but sit silent at the meeting and not mention this. I am totally unaware of misrepresenting anyone in the few questions I raised, neither would have any wish to do so. Perhaps the Vice Chair should speak up at meetings if we he has any actual valid concerns of this nature, as he had plenty of opportunity to do that |
N/t [Post edited 28 Feb 2019 13:52]
| | | |
| Conflict of interest on 13:51 - Feb 28 with 1578 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 13:41 - Feb 28 by swanforthemoney |
Spot on Chiefy. Allegations that the forum is neutered to protect the Trust Board are surely refuted by the existence of this thread. There’s some serious allegations on the thread, yet it stands proud. The E20 has expounded their criticisms at length and apparently uncensored and yet the thread is open and available. Long may the forum support open debate amongst Swansea supporters. |
Does Aguero not scoring in open play in his last game suggest he is not a natural
goalscorer? Or would it be sensible to look at the goals he HAS scored as proof of that... as opposed to the occasions he hasn’t?
Does the fact Harold Shipman didn’t kill a particular person prove he is not a mass murderer? Or would it be more sensible to judge whether he is or not on the people he HAS killed?
Should I go on? | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 13:53 - Feb 28 with 1574 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 12:54 - Feb 28 by chad |
“As for the ‘they silenced some who were against the deal but not me, because I was vociferously against it’ - yeah, that’s just nonsense when you think about it, isn’t it”
Not quite as vociferously as some. I always got the impression you were trying to tread the line / keep onside, even though you did agree with the likes of Shakes, myself and many others about the serious deficiencies of the deal and certainly did speak out about it.
However
* I recall you most vigorously baying with the clique of officialdom on here against Shakes at the time he was trying to raise issues and advise. Of course he was more than able to give back what he got.
* I recall the main group of concerned parties posting on the other site because of being banned on here. That included shakes, T2C, Parley and myself.
* I recall issues being brought up repeatedly on the other site and finally the Trust Vice Chair making a few posts over there in response to repeated claims of unfair access to Trust officials and information on the Trust Chairs own censored website. Although initially he repeatedly would ignore any direct questions from me.
* I recall the Trust Vice Chair (when eventually he could no longer ignore my repeated questions on the other site) incorrectly denying the weaknesses of the protection of 25% ownership (as subject to dilution by share issue).
* I recall the Trust Vice Chair falsely claiming no payment to Trust officials with specific named e.g.s
* I recall you asking the question on here about payment to Trust Officials (possibly a specific Trust official). It seemed strange to me at the time given the Trust Vice Chairs clear statement of no payment as I could not believe a senior Trust official would be allowed to openly lie about such a sensitive and important issue. However that is what happened
* I recall it being suggested that you had been planted to ask that question by the Trust to finally get it out into the open after the long cover up and lies. I neither believed or disbelieved this accusation but it does reflect the affinity you were seen by some to have with officialdom on this site.
* I recall the Trust announcing they could not deal with the new majority owners without guarantees against share dilution, this was of course unrealistic and soon totally dropped.
* I recall after Shakes raising issues on the other site you starting to raise the same issues here
Given your statement above please tell me why I was repeatedly banned (along with others) when I was speaking out about concerns, first with inaccuracies allowed to be repeated re the strength of protections of 25% ownership, and then for strongly challenging the Trust Board on their strong support for the deal, given its serious deficiencies (which we both agreed on).
I would not use abusive language, always tried to refer to facts to back up my post, did not even resort to the type of comment like “it’s not difficult” etc. designed to imply the stupidity of posters who do not share an opinion.
Even when I set up New IDs to try and get the message over these were all immediately deleted, many even before I could make a single post on them. There was a very deliberate and determined approach to shut me up.
Neither were you at the pre vote meeting where rationally trying to explain the serious deficiencies of the deal (that many of us including yourself shared) and mentioning I had been prevented taking these issues up on the Trust Chairs website because I was banned, I was immediately verbally attacked by the Trust Chair and made out to be a liar, thus also discrediting the serious and accurate issues I was raising.
He later, when I was eventually able to raise it here, said it was because I was attacking him. Well if the truth casually mentioned as an aside feels like an attack perhaps it is not the teller that needs verbally attacking and falsely made out to be a liar.
Nor witnessed the Trust Chairs faux denials when my husband tried to speak to him about the abuse and bannings. And finding that my account (which had just been restored not long before the meeting) was again banned when I got home immediately after the meeting. Pretty sick, and not in a good way.
Nor At the end of that pre vote meeting where the Trust Chair repeatedly told the members present not to listen to people who google stuff. That was obviously referring to the serious and accurate concerns being raised on the websites by the likes of shakes and presumably yourself.
I agree it is not helpful to bring theses issues up, ,but it is totally unacceptable to deny them. Also Recent things said by Trust Board members on here and at the latest Trust meeting have given me serious cause for concern.
Plus more recent open lies, misrepresentation and attempts to stifle debate by Ux show this type of attitude / behaviour towards members is far from a thing of the past.
One of the many correct things E20 said on here
They shouldn’t be “getting the fanbase to vote in favour” of anything. This is the fundamental problem.
The supporters need fair and balanced information on the pros and cons of each argument. Which is why I suggested at the last 2 Trust meetings I attended, as a prudent precaution (after all the claims of bias on the last voting papers) that members be allowed to review and comment on the voting documentation prior to its formal issue, to ensure all issues and concerns are raised.
I don’t think you were at either of those meetings Lisa as far as I know (I understand you live away) However at the previous meeting when asked who would do this I said “well me, and anyone else who is interested” and at the last meeting I clearly stated in my question that this should be “from all sides of the argument” This was obvious to make clear as nothing else would be fair.
This was dismissed by the Chair basically saying the Trust Board were best equipped to handle this. Umm remember last time. When I tried to interrupt what was effectively the Trust Chairs dismissal of the memberships ability to add value and give protection from accusations of bias, I was told I would be given the opportunity to respond at the end, although that never occurred as it moved straight on to other questions.
Why would the Trust Board fear a review from all sides of the argument to ensure the document fairly reflected all the actual pros and cons. Why would the Trust Board think other members did not have something to offer after what occurred last time. Is it not a little arrogant to consider that amongst the membership there is not a shared knowledge, logic and business skills that meets and very possibly exceeds that of the Board. Especially as it is always possible to fine tune a product at review.
Such a review process on fitness for purpose is long established good business practice. Why would the Trust dismiss out of hand. Why would the Vice Chair subsequently mock me on this site and totally twist what I said, to say I was presenting myself as some sort of balanced arbiter when I made it clear it should be reviewed by all sides of the argument, which of course would be the only fair thing to do.
Why also would he accuse me of misrepresenting people at the Trust meeting but sit silent at the meeting and not mention this. I am totally unaware of misrepresenting anyone in the few questions I raised, neither would have any wish to do so. Perhaps the Vice Chair should speak up at meetings if we he has any actual valid concerns of this nature, as he had plenty of opportunity to do that |
And I don’t want Darrans intentional derailing tittle tattle to detract from this, which says it all really. Simply magnificently put, chad.
This thread has made it clear, even though it was anyway, how these people operate and how the Trust is continuing to operate and turning what seemed like decent people into monsters.
As soon as you become involved in the toxic regime then it all becomes about the Trust, not the members, not the club, not the fans - but the cult that is the Trust that exists solely to protect its own personal interests and positions. [Post edited 28 Feb 2019 13:58]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
