[Siderite]

Thank goodness for Mr Hilton, him running the club further into the ground and the bad debt.

[Siderite]

Which is already a damn site better than Hilton’s plan of distract fans with shiny things, so they can enjoy football for a quarter of a season, before quitting while he can.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Apollo11

[Siderite]

Indeed. She gets thanks for steadying the ship in the time of need and given this year’s drama, likely initiated by one of the other board members and the CEO, I do not blame her for wanting a more relaxed time.

Her fight for the club in a dark year will cement her as a legend. Hopefully soem of the others (well, one in particular) buck their ideas up and realise what is important.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Sanfran49

[Siderite]

He wasn’t always right in identifying who the toxic fans were and encouraged toxic fans to slander his critics.

[Siderite]

Ukraine were really evil warmongers when they devided to fight back against invasion and not let their country to be destroyed. The country that invaded had no responsibility, of course. Another country being sovereign and not under your control is definitely provocation and wipes all responsibility from the invader.

[Siderite]

unity iron wrote:

So all this Unity shite was just about Stuart Maw FC all along. What a self-serving vile creature he is. I’m amazed his wife stayed with him after his naughty tweets to teenagers!

I don’t think it’s wise to get too personal. That is private between him and her and I don’t feel comfortable judging.

This whole raucus by Maw is most unbecoming and entitled. Like he thinks he deserves more than anyone else for his own saintly status. I think that should be the focus of any criticism and comments, not private matters.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Rene Artois, TheJuryeffsOut, ironfromafar

[Siderite]

I see the man who just wants peace and cares about lives thinks an attack on a Palm Sunday gathering was a mistake and can be just forgiven. Even though it was a ‘double tap’ strike and follows exactly what the Russians have been doing for years, and not just in Ukraine. I’d have thought that Trump, given he loves peace so much, would be angry, but he isn’t. It’s almost as if it never was about peace for him. I don’t think someone for peace would be blaming those who were invaded and seeking silly excuses for those who cause war crimes. The strikes on civilians have increased since Trump started seeking for ‘peace’. If his concerns were genuine, he’s failing miserabley. I don’t think they were genuine though.

[Siderite]

It would have been nice if you correctly guessed the Kiddy score.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Rene Artois

[Siderite]

More like 12-24 hours, with the FC 100,000 farce coming the next day.

[Siderite]

Now it just needs Herbert to attend with some party pills with Hilton’s face on them.

[Siderite]

Under dodgy Dave we heard how we can’t hound him out or the club is dead. There’s been a lack of that when saying Sharp and/or George should go.

Sharp has created bad feeling among fans, no doubt about that, I am just making an observation.

[Siderite]

AI has gone too far when it can just bastardise a Michael Buble-esque piece and turn it into some autotuned slop:

[Siderite]

If you read my previous response I make it clear that not all are conspiracists. However, it is something I have noted. Peter Hitchens has some conspiracist beliefs, as has this guy:

You keep trying to dismiss others as unthinking and prone to propaganda just because they disagree with you, so the point I am making is that if there are some who are ignoramuses who think Letby is guilty, and you’re just going to dismiss anything contrary to your own opinion like this, I can pull up examples like this to say gthe opposite. It’s a point to show how illogical it is.

“She was paid off by the elites” – Sounds kinda Johnny Brexity, doesn’t it?

I do note that you have nothing substantial to say about what was stated in said videos. Just attacks on style, not substance. Of course she has some things in her youtube to sell, to make herself popular to an audience. It doesn’t inherently make it ‘crankery’. Youtubers I watch regularly (I don’t with this person) also have gimmicks; an archaeologist graduate who has made a lot of videos debunking Atlantis, Graham Hancock’s pre-Ice Age advanced civilisation rubbish, civilisations below the pyramids, ancient civilisations on Anarctica, pyramids were power plants etc is a favourite of mine and has gimmicks. His humour, making a drink for each debunk and other things like an attire is also a play to the audience. It doesn’t make him wrong and the Atlantis, ancient aliens type nonsense some brave truth telling against Brexity thinking to just accept what mainstream archaeology is saying though. I can’t say I have watched many of Susan’s videos, so maybe I have missed something, but from that video alone she cites peer reviewed research that disputes this from experts in the field, even if her speciality is different. Stuff which can be checked out and that does dispute some of the claims, and while I am not an expert myself, the claims made by the defence team are contradicted by statements there. That is what is crucial for me. Not this woman, but the disputes by the experts (in relevant fields) who have been mentioned by her in the videos I have seen, the papers cited and the experts in the court notes. The experts who have spoken up since have not said much different to what was in court; they failed then and it doesn’t make it different now that people who rely on using their figure as an authority (logical fallacy) are making out that because experts have said something it makes it inherently incorrect. Other experts have contradicted and were more convincing in court, to me and others (because we read their arguments and saw that these ‘shocking’ claims are not that revelatory, at least according to opinion). Or maybe these experts had cutsie dogs and twee ‘live, laugh, love’ signs at home, which makes them a crank.

I agree people should be able to sort the wheat from the chaff, which is why I am not agreeing with your evidence free post, which relies on experts who happen to agree with you because they have experts and big names like David Davis. I have read the actual disagreements from these experts and other experts (not from Susan, directly) and seen that the claims from the Letby defence are dubious and not fully supported by the evidence in court or the scientific literature. That’s what matters and until that can be resolved, I am unlikely to change my mind. I will if it does, but it is based on evidence, not because Gurny says so and you must be irrational to disagree with him.

And, yes, I may be wrong, but so might you. Think on that before making out anything that disagrees with you is rigid Brexity thinking.

[Siderite]

That’s the issue. Biker boy has to be given a stern talking to or more though.

[Siderite]

Price controls being mooted. USA is trying to mimic Venezuela. Strange for such avowed anti-Marxists against the communists of the WEF and pinko commie free trade supporters.

[Siderite]

Things are choppy with this CEO’s errors and Sharp causing issues, but the end point? Some grips need to be got.

[Siderite]

Apollo11 wrote:

It’s the ‘clear directive that became noticeable a number of months ago’, the praise for Michelle and Roj, the total absence of thanks or praise for AchingHead, Sharp and CEO Roberts, and the bit on James Moody fighting the Merch Labs corner to the very end. That all suggests to me that there is huge tension and massive internal difficulty at the Club. Can we read into this, on top of Smoking Goat’s comments about Sharp, that the problems are now not just confined to the boardroom and the two factions power-pissing in there? Has the whole place gone toxic again?

Yeah, but they held hands on the pitch that time!

[Siderite]

I’m not sure if resigning and leaving it with complete control of the people who appear to be causing the issues will do us good. They will have no chance of being disagreed with then.

1 user thanked author for this post.

ironingboard

[Siderite]

Some figures are noticeable in their absence from the thanking.

[Siderite]

The idiot used a “Francis Austin” name when he was posting to the Facebook group a while back. Either he couldn’t think of an original name or someone (like Herbert) is framing him.

[Siderite]

Whether he does or not, there are perhaps more trustworthy people than a likely Dave burner to be amplifying. He is doing it purely to try and whip up trouble.

[Siderite]

I wonder if thr CEO thinks this is all going well.

[Siderite]

If a suitable buyer came, it would have to be considered, but it can’t be the sort of outsider who we had previously. The board have made errors, but none so drastic as dodgy Dave or Swann. I don’t miss the days of CCJs and winding-up petitions. The £250k bad debt is a bit of a hint of what happened, and I suspect it wasn’t money for the stadium.

A new investor is needed though.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Cliff Byrne's Right Peg

[Siderite]

Yes. They have been making a racket on these islands in the south. It’s about time someone put them in their place.

[Siderite]

The polar bears of Svalbard have been mocking Americans with their piggybacking off American help too.

[Siderite]

I dunno. Those tariffs on Norfolk Island seem like a genius move of a 5D chess player. Those penguins have been leeching off the hard work of honest Americans for too long.

[Siderite]

I have noted that anti-vaxxer, covid denialist, chemtrail believing conspiracy theorists tend to sway towards Letby is innocent messaging. I don’t think these people are being particularly rational and see this as another crusade against the mainstream view. However, I don’t think it would be fair to say all people who disagree with me are like this. I am not suggesting you are. This creates a couple of categories of people on this side. The conspiracy theorists and those who disagree, but are more critical. Maybe consider the opposite is true and don’t assume those who disagree are doing it because they want to believe in her guilt, they are culture warriors or some other reason. They might know something you don’t (or they might not) and consider this, rather than treating anyone who disagrees as someone who cannot hope to match your own thinking.

It’s assuredness which can blind to faults.

[Siderite]

I am so dogged in my opinion that I have stated I could be wrong (more than once). I said this specifically to state that it’s not some set in stone opinion. However, for it to be overturned, it has to deal with the issues that I have with their reasoning. Such as the before mentioned discrepancies over claims about skin colour, as well as others about how the adminmistered insulin in one case could be a false positive. Yet, there is evidence this spike of insulin came after administered bags and there was more than one positive test (where false positives are something like 1 in 200, from what I read when looking at this – quite a coincidence for false positives). These are some of the claims made by those claiming foul at her guilty verdict and they don’t wash because they don’t explain away what I have read, not because everyone who disagrees with you is some rigid thinker below your own rationality.

If Letby is innocent, she has the courts to go by, the proper route. So far she has failed, and instead of assuming it’s because of anything awry ith the courts, maybe the Letby defenders should self-reflect first over their understanding. Much of these ‘revelations’ came up in the court case and other experts disagreed. The jury agreed with them. It’s funny when this is being compared to Brexit thinking. It was claimed that it was Brexit arguing against due process and such.

That is my position. That it is up to the courts to decide; so far they have decided guilty and it doesn’t look like changing. To reiterate, maybe consider that there is a reason why and look into it first. My own opinion is based off what I have read. I may be wrong, but consider you might be and these claims are not that shattering for a change of opinion (and that those who disagree might not be such complete ignoramuses). For all your claims of ‘rigid thinking’ I was more sceptical of the verdict initially because of the claims made by defenders. I looked into it more, including the court notes and what it was based on, and became sceptical of the defending claims, which didn’t match with what was presented. I reiterate, I may be wrong, but I don’t think it’s because of ‘rigid thinking’ because you have a habit of dismissing anyone who disagrees as being some gammony, stuck in their ways rigid thinker. For all your talk of rigid Brexit thought, you seem to denigrate anyone who disagrees. Including a scientist and science communicator who lays out some of the issues with the defender claims. She is apparently Dame Edna and her pooch.

[Siderite]

And, yes, I do think someone with a PhD in nanomedicine and has activity within the field is more knowledgable in medical matters than me, who has no medical degree whatsoever. It doesn’t mean I am saying that because I agree with her; I am saying it because that is likely the case. A doctor is more qualified to express an opinion than a layman like me who might be wrong and whose understanding is not based on expertise (neither is yours, so far as I know). It doesn’t make her automatically correct, medicine is a wide field with many specialities. However, it doesn’t make me on a par with her, does it?

[Siderite]

You do realise that this video isn’t the only thing I have come across on this? Have you bothered to watch or read up on what might contradict the evidence claimed by the people on Letby’s side? For example, they make claims of skin discolouration by the defence are debunked by peer reviewed research which says the opposite. Evidence that had nothing to do with the case, even. Or does the fact that they are doctors make the qualified to have authority, even if others disagree? Just like the climate change ‘sceptics’ who wheel out the ‘expert scientist’ who can make them sound like they have authority.

I have previously made errors, but if my error in an unrelated thread precludes me from arguing from a position of consideration, I don’t see why I should not view your position as equally based on what you want to believe.After all, you believed those not so trusty Hamas casuality figures without consideration for the context or reliability of live updates of casuality figures from a warzone. If a dubious video origin can dismiss me, this can with you.

You’re right though in that it has created the ‘culture warriors’ and conspiracist craze. Peter Hitchens and the conspiracists have seized on this to show how the lying ‘experts’ and ‘MSM’ have damned poor Lucy. If I can be so glibly dismissed based on your own prejudice, the same can be applied to you.

Moreover, I have not said it is beyond the realms of possibility that this was a miscarriage. However, it would be a huge coincidence based on the many pieces of circumstantial evidence and there is no medical evidence arisen that has changed the mind of myself, or more importantly the judge. The thoughts otherwise, from people who are (like me) not experts, are just that and the fact that they are not being considered is not necessarily evidence of a refusal to consider new evidence, but maybe that they have not understood the evidence and there is no conspiracy to silence their ‘greater understanding’ than us mere fools who must think the evidence can’t be enough to overturn the verdict because of our own biases. Only the ‘free thinkers’ who may misunderstand some things can critically assess anything, not the jury, judges and more.

Of course, I may be wrong, but so might you be and the burden is on the doubters to overturn the evidence and not just dismiss videos that question their stances as some cover-up or because they’re ‘sheep’. The point is that I am not dismissing the possibility of new evidence. The point is that the Letby defenders have not yet produced anything that can fully withstand scrutiny. Hence why it has (likely) been dismissed for appeal. Mistrials happen, but the defenders have failed to produce anything convincing to the court. Previous mistrials don’t magically make this one.

Maybe consider that those who disagree aren’t doing so because they want to believe something, but because maybe they have interpreted the situation different to you and it doesn’t make them below your own rationality.

[Author]

Posts