[64]

I’ll take it all in with a brew later

[64]

the only crowd funder we should have is to get £3m for the iron trust to buy GP?

2 users thanked author for this post.

Sharp_Shooter24, Ferrite

[64]

clowns

[64]

can you point us towards the official account of events ? Mr Fer

[64]

Ferrite wrote:

I noticed some discrepancies between Max’s reports and those from the professional reporter who was also there.

I bet the discrepancy was positive for Davey several names, I also notice his 1st line was to have a pop at those he disagrees with rather than report ?
Journalist lol,was he being a journalist when he stole content from Bru for his book?

1 user thanked author for this post.

Ferrite

[64]

Yes! quite right ,though you forgot those who agree with me

[64]

Anyone thinking a judge would call this yesterday was an idiot,there were those who thought we’d be kicked out and those who think Dave is god that thought a 1st hearing would go through this in a few minutes in court and throw Swann’s claim out .They were all wrong, then we have those that don’t care either way as long as they can tell people to shut up and somehow claim they were right to do so , they were also wrong.
Then they are those who just repeat facts that people try to wrongly lump in with some or all of the above ,they are right.
The last group are idiots, those who see facts and call them rumours
I would add, repeating what Swann or Hilton says is not repeating facts ,it’s repeating what they say ,which, may or may not be fact

[64]

Max has no credibility with me since he took part ,with Hilton and his cohorts,in the attack on this site which led to death threats and abuse to further his own publicity and that of his little video site .Still no apology from either Hilton or whatever he’s called today or anyone else who set the dogs on us. In fact he doubles down by calling people who call him out liars or trolls

2 users thanked author for this post.

Ferrite, Siderite

[64]

It has a swipe thing that if I don’t read it back ,
“weird any no old sentence”
The above should say, writes any old sentence

[64]

TwoWrights wrote:

I trust my OWN thoughts enough to express them in person, others have to use YouTube videos incessantly to try to express theirs.

Not their own, just something they agree the hell out of

[64]

I’d say it was for one of four reasons,
Matt is in Swann’s pocket,if it was about Swann
Matt wants to in in Hilton’s pocket like Smitho and the boys if it was about Hilton
I am operating double standards(although this one was nowt to do with me)
The trust

I can confirm that in now way was it against the rules

[64]

Lucinda brings some fine emotion to this but ,she’s up against one in a line of the best duets ever so she misses out here

[64]

I never understood there 1st post

[64]

The problem those who use the term don’t know what it means

[64]

Andy Flounders is king

[64]

Iron-awe wrote:

Had a perfectly legitimate post removed when asking IB to front up about the Southend owner on their fans forum, does he post there or not. Just thought I’d inform the forum that censorship appears to be returning to this board but only in a certain form.

You missed the bit where by you tried to put someone’s name on here , if you’d posted what you said above be and only that it would be still here.So be truthful in your whining. Theres reason we protect your identities, the abuse and death threats being chief among them.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Heath, , Interested Bystander, Deereyme66

[64]

People got libeled as Paedos and had death threats for spreading such rumours, hope Dave’s followers don’t see this, can you imagine their dilemma ?

1 user thanked author for this post.

Siderite

[64]

there’s nothing to fear,I am sure there’s people wanting to watch it I just don’t. I am preferring non league grounds at the moment and I find a crowd of 60-100 more fun

[64]

The truth is people need to be presented with something to watch, I’d like to hope MPs don’t like Murdoch when snivelling around him ,it’s because they need coverage and this is the same
I have to say, I didn’t think much to the football I have seen from the women’s game so far. They are trying to play the right way though but it just misses a certain spark.

[64]

that interest is in part driven by the BBCs licence fee being under constant pressure and women’s football being far more accessible pricewise for them. It’s still a big influence in the UK despite Tories trying to kill it. They give it equal billing which annoys in a way.
When I see “premier league scores” I am still surprised to see women’s football when I click on the link, especially as the women’s league is called the The FA Women’s Super

[64]

250% more watched the Men’s Euro final,and in 2022 the same amount 12.6m watched LFC Vs Real on BT in the champions league final it has a long way to go bearing in mind it was on 2 free to air channels

[64]

Just Iron wrote:

OK Some measured responses ..and some made their minds up and no way back. As always … I’m not sure what those who think Dave Hilton is a villain with bad intentions are posting for. To be proved right in the end? To damage the man? To taint any glimmers of light for ordinary Joes? To make any turnaround and progress more difficult? Or, as they maintain, all for the sake of truth and integrity. Place your bets.

I don’t want to damage anyone but cannot accept what is happening in his name and in support of him. That’s really damaging, anything damaging we try to remove from here if not true or unable to prove,hence some Saturday night melt downs we get

2 users thanked author for this post.

CMC, Deereyme66

[64]

IT doesn’t say anything about being public in what I just wrote does it?
It says it the record can be removed earlier than if it’s after 30 days . nothing about being public.
it say if you get one it goes on the register ,it doesn’t say goes on the register after 30 days at all. Only mentions removing from the register, nothing about preventing it going on .It’s there in black and white .
“If you pay the full amount within one month, you can get the judgment removed from the register.” I might add FACT!
They cannot remove things from a register if not there can they?

[64]

He must have photos of a BBC director, he’s so bad and always has been. I just hate his voice

[64]

” I just hope we can keep it pretty civil and posters don’t revert to being disrespectful of each other, insulting and abusing.”

It couldn’t get any worse, we’ve had people’s homes pin pointed on google earth with sinister messages like ” how’s (wife’s name)” ,we’re watching you
We’ve had people threatened with having their throats slit ‘
We’ve had one case of a person ,proporting to be Hilton on twitter finding out what he wrongly thought was a twitter users real name and suggesting he was a convicted paedophile by searching his wrong name and promoting stories about a genuine paedo and intimating it’s this particular Twitter user.
Personally I don’t care what this chairman does at SUFC anymore, I just know he attracts the sort of persons above and hasn’t ever distanced himself from such behaviour and for that I find him distasteful .
I also don’t like that little verifiable business record, by verifiable I mean at companies house .
As for his own online behaviour and shoot from the hip pronouncements, good grief!

2 users thanked author for this post.

Interested Bystander, CMC

[64]

sufc_not_on_tour wrote:

Why can I not publicly name the party involved?
Because if the debt is satisfied within 30 days then the CCJ will not be made public and wiped from the record.
If it isn’t satisfied then it will be made public for all to see, in which case there will be no need for me to name the creditor.

Not true “FACT!”

CCJs and your credit rating
If you get a county court judgment (CCJ) or a high court judgment, it will stay on the Register of Judgments, Orders and Fines for 6 years.

Banks and loan companies use this information to decide whether to give you credit or loans.

If you pay the full amount within one month, you can get the judgment removed from the register.

Write to the court to say you’ve paid. You’ll need to send proof of payment from the person or business you owed money to.

If you pay after one month
If you pay after one month, you can get the record of the judgment marked as ‘satisfied’ in the register.

It will stay on the register for 6 years but people searching the register will see that you’ve paid.

Write to the court to say you’ve paid. You’ll need to send proof of payment from the person or business you owed money to.
It goe4s on record straight away according to the government

https://www.gov.uk/county-court-judgments-ccj-for-debt/ccjs-and-your-credit-rating

[64]

I was aiming it at you too . as much as anyone else

[64]

sufc_not_on_tour wrote:

The CCJ was for a supplier during the current owners tenure, FACT.
Was he given ample notice that a claim was to be made, yes, FACT.
Did he ignore it, yes, FACT.
Do I know who that supplier is, yes I do , FACT.
Can I divulge that publicly, no that would be wrong and I’m not prepared to do that, FACT.
Do I care if the usual suspect don’t believe me, no I don’t.

Snot stated it is a fact is the only true fact , the rest is heresay that some of us believe to be true but for whatever reason SNOT appears afraid to put forward actual facts
“Do I know who that supplier is, yes I do , FACT.
Can I divulge that publicly, no that would be wrong and I’m not prepared to do that, FACT.” why would i tbe wrong if it’s in the courts?

[64]

This is getting as bad as the old days ,are the idiots back?.People on this site are less interesting b to talk about than thev Iron

[64]

Yeah ifc you provide a link with real information

[Author]

Posts