Forum Replies Created
-
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.
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.
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.
It would have been nice if you correctly guessed the Kiddy score.
1 user thanked author for this post.
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.
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.
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.
