[Siderite]

Hilton has evidence of paying off the original debt. Fair. It doesn’t exonerate him for nearly taking us out of business again, racking up more debt, running ponzi schemes, lying and abusing fans. After all he has said before I do not trust a word of the dodgy one.

It baffles me how anyone can think he was wanting to do good over Sharp.

[Siderite]

The evidence is seemingly Dave says. His words mean nothing, he was economical with the truth so many times. We’ll see what comes out in the wash, but I suspect it will tell a different story.

[Siderite]

You’re a strange one awg. Having a go at Sharp for wanting a loan back when he had no idea he would be able to be involved with the club, but trusting that a con man was actually working well for the club.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Heath

[Siderite]

They were both bad, but one was intentional and Hilton did continue to run up the debts. Funny how those CCJs, which were all to do with Swann apparently (despite being dated to Hilton’s tenure), suddenly stopped at the exact moment Harness took over.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Rene Artois

[Siderite]

It is a shame, Rene, but many wanted to believe. I have no issue in those who were conned coming together through a unity that is needed now, especially if they weren’t the ones who resorted to dog’s abuse against those who were sceptical. There were no prizes for being right, though I do hope the most ardent backers can reflect on it all. Still, the main blame will be on dodgy Dave, the most shameful man to grace this club. Yes, I do include Swann in that, not because Swann was decent or likable, but because I have a bit more time for inept businessmen than malicious and dishonest spivs.

[Siderite]

Deereyme66 wrote:

‘Stone throwing leads to sentences’. That made me chuckle. Thanks.

If it was me, it would probably lead to several on here, spanning an essay length post.

Well, I made myself giggle.

[Siderite]

Deereyme66 wrote:

I think you misinterpreted the original post tbh Siderite. Maybe you think we’re idiots? I don’t know. I know you’ve accused me of slander recently and made comparisons to Bucksiron’s style of debate, whilst ironically strawmanning me, so ‘meh’ indeed.

The question made it appear as if they were in prison for no reason, so if that was the intention, it was easy to be misinterpreted.

I don’t know why you keep trying to make out I think I you’re intellectually inferior; if someone posts something which makes it sound like juveniles were in prison for no reason, I am going to argue against it, but it doesn’t mean I think they’re stupid. I made the Bucks comparison because it was a back and forth over the strength of language in both cases. I know I can be emotional and sarcastic, yes, I know I am not perfect, but I don’t think everything said in return has been great either.

I know I don’t have to be such a soapbox and opinionated sod, but it feels like a character assassination at times. I can respond, I know, but a lot of it has been about how awful I am. I have enough self-questioning and doubt of my own to deal with.

[Siderite]

Stone throwing leads to sentences here for those found guilty. In my response to Deerey, I can see that there is much needed to change in that. However, I don’t think the original post was clear in this being the point, and the prisoners weren’t just stone throwers.

[Siderite]

Deereyme66 wrote:

Do your concerns about humanitarian agencies include UNICEF, who’ve been very critical, not so much the sentencing itself but the treatment when they’re imprisoned? And, you have no idea of the actual circumstances and context of their arrests. You have no idea whether their incarceration was fair or not.

I will need to read into it more, but I am thinking that the treatment of the prisoners is something needing to be addressed and is bad.

[Siderite]

It didn’t seem that way when it was being discussed on another thread from some quarters. As I said, I mentioned that because I was explaining why I was ‘perturbed’ by this and how I see this conflict being used by some elsewhere to justify their anti-Semitism and hounding of Jews.

[Siderite]

I have worries about many of the humanitarian agencies now after they claimed there were no weapons or armed men at Al-Shifa, but CCTV footage and stashed weapons show that to be a lie, so UNRWA, MSF and others didn’t tell the truth. OK, it might be because they were under duress, I get that, but it does create a crisis of confidence.

That said, I understand it’s complex and some might say the sentences are harsh, that Israeli security are strong with use of guns to rock throwers. There are arguments there, fair, but there was a reason they were detained and found the original post today to be not clear on that. It made it sound like there was no reason behind it at all.

A lot of it is worrying about where this country is going. I am seeing synagogues graffitied, anti-Semitic placards, ripping down of hostage posters etc, and all defended as if it’s legitimate criticism of Israel. Most Jews see it as an attack on them, and don’t feel safe in this country any more. I find that sad and worrying; maybe I am seeing this and becoming ultra-defensive as a result. However, I do feel like any other minority group would get more support. After Islamist terror people urge others not to use that against Muslims, and rightfully so, yet here we have people from prominent positions (including universities) justifying discrimination against Jews.

[Siderite]

WWII and Korea justifiable from the US-UK perspective, obviously!

Deereyme66 wrote:

I would hope no one expects another to ‘fall in line’ tbh. Of course people should express their opinions, within the general rules of the forum. Thankfully that includes no abuse, like one sees on other social media platforms.

I realise being sarcstic didn’t help me, and maybe I sometimes react too emotionally to them. I am not self-unaware, but I still think there’s a bias here which isn’t held elsewhere. People hold the opposite opinion, meh, doesn’t bother me. Though, when faced with accusations that I am frustrated that people don’t agree with me, I am going to make it clear that it’s not about ‘falling into line’. It’s a hot topic and bound to create emotive reactions, but I still don’t see what’s bad about calling Netanyahu and his gang of crooks bad news and wasn’t meaning to be snide when I pointed out why I said I wanted him gone in a previous post. I was trying to give context and agreement on that.

[Siderite]

You asked why they were ‘in shackles’ when they were teenagers as if they had no reason to be in custody, which is not the case. Yes, some for attempted murder (but not all). I used a more extreme, but clarified later. I think there was bias on show in how you spoke of it, because it assumed ill reason for them to be in custody, when all offenses would find juveniles imprisoned elsewhere.

I have not claimed to be a pacifist and would not. It is not dissimilar to my position other conflicts, like WWII, Korea and other conflicts I think are justifiable. When terrorists commit a pogrom I can only see conflict as inevitable and the fault of Hamas. No hypocrisy there.

I cannot comment on everything about the conflict, because I do not know everything, so it’s hard for me to make specific examples of Israeli wrongdoing in terms of targets. I do think it was telling that there were a lot of complaints about the existence of tunnels, but that seems to have been goalpost shifted on social media now the tunnels are becoming strongly evident. As for Netanyahu in this war, I wish his government didn’t make such incendiary and horrendous remarks, arm settlers in the West Bank and do not like his comments about territorial gain. I have condemned that before, do now and think he needs to be reigned in.

[Siderite]

I do not think I am right about everything, others are fair to disagree. Heck, I have admitted to such on here and can do again. I was wrong to call for a second referendum on here, for instance, because it was a pipe dream that served no-one. I think maybe I am too sarcastic a lot, which I will stop now, but I am not obliged to agree. So gotchas there won’t work.

I can argue that the civilian tragedy is bad until I am blue in the face, but it won’t matter. My point has been what is the alternative to conflict and I have had that thrown at me when bemoaning anti-Semitism. No matter what happens in Gaza, it’s not an excuse for Jews to be targeted or made to feel unwelcome. Unfortunately many do, and the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza does not justify it, so answering with that does nothing but demonstrate bias for me.

As for sighing, I have used it twice recently, and was in response to comments from others I found troublesome for misrepresentation of arguments. It was an expression of my opinion, nothing more, and not meant to silence. My rule of thumb is that I can post disagreements, but don’t expect any other to fall in line. I can’t expect that, but I can express my own opinion nevertheless. Less sardonically in future.

[Siderite]

Oh no, I use sighs to express frustration. If only I shared the right opinion on this to act like such with impunity.

Accusations of genocide here when not used against other nations who have done similar is not reasonable in my opinion.

[Siderite]

I am not sure how I am supposed to see it when people claim Israel are committing genocide. Ludicrous bias and is making them sound akin to Nazis.

I am allowed to disagree, it’s hardly undermining to disagree with comments making out the Palestinians in shackles were in shackles for no reason. Heck, I wasn’t even irritated when I said about what I had put a week ago, but nope, not good enough.
Not ‘reasoned’ enough for those who recommend wonky sources like Segal. This is all my opinion, of course, I don’t think I am superior to anyone, but will air my disagreement. It’s not meant to undermine, it’s meant to express my disagreement and why. I don’t expect me to be the ‘genius’ who shows everyone how wrong they are, I am nothing special, but as this is a discussion I will share when I find something wrong.

[Siderite]

I can say the same to be honest given that saying bad news is apparently not strong enough. I don’t think it’s ‘downplaying’ to say they are bad, which is what I meant. If saying they are bad is my bias, then I don’t actually think it’s my bias on show.

But that’s par the course. There are, frankly, biased opinions about genocide and such. Yet that gets ignored, but trying to tone it down and counter this with similar examples shows my bias. If only I was so reasoned as the ‘reasonable’ and drone on about how Israel is something akin to the Nazis.

[Siderite]

I think the mistakes are too one sided to be anything but bias. As for saying bad news, I don’t see what’s wrong with that. Complaining over the term bad news seems a bit pedantic really. It reminds me of when Bucks had a go at me for not agreeing with him strongly enough.

I mean, I specifically called Likud fascists the other day, which shows my opinion of them, so I don’t really know how I can make opposition to be stronger. I don’t expect people to recall everything, but it gets wearisome facing demands over that continuously.

[Siderite]

Deereyme66 wrote:

‘Netanyahu, and his more ideologically minded allies (Netanyahu is more of a grifter than a hard ideologue, in my opinion) are bad news.’

That’s an big understatement IMO. I can’t see there being a two state solution with their continual support of aggressive far right settlers in the West Bank, even if Hamas were destroyed

Aye, which is one reason why I said Netanyahu and Likud need booting out on the last page.

[Siderite]

Well, when people see something as outlandish being reported, they will resort to mockery, satire and sarcasm. Just as when Fox News, RT or some other generally more disreputable outlet makes ridiculous footage. Mockery may not be polite, but I would rather live with the ability to mock than not and criticism should certainly be allowed. Some people may take it too far and not engage with another story because of an error elsewhere, but the greatest damage comes from journalists making these bad errors in the first place.

It does create scepticism when they make future claims if unaddressed. Reputable scientific journals place a large weight on ensuring material published is robust because one dodgy paper can cause scepticism on what else is published, rightly or wrongly. High standards for this and journalism should be expected.

[Siderite]

I can find some agreement there. Netanyahu, and his more ideologically minded allies (Netanyahu is more of a grifter than a hard ideologue, in my opinion) are bad news. There is a worrying trend of that recently, as seen with Netherlands and Argentina lately.

[Siderite]

In reflection, I will change “he can’t be wrong” to “he can’t be biased.”

[Siderite]

I see. Thomas Sowell, who is black, has an issue with how liberals and anti-racist activists see racism in the USA*. He can’t be wrong about that because he’s black.

There are plenty of other Jewish Holocaust historians, including the Auschwitz Institute, who disagree with him. Do they become wrong because another one says something different? I think his claims are wrong and comments to be biased.

*I do not have much agreement with him on this or other topics.

[Siderite]

They should have detained that example, and there would be no arguments there about that from me.

It’s also a shame that there is radicalisation in Palestinian society which helps cause this conflict. You only have to look at Tomorrow’s Pioneers telling kids to become martyrs and that Jews are the enemy to be eliminated or that their bunny character eats Jews.

[Siderite]

Segal isn’t without huge bias and absurd claims. A fan of claims of Jews weaponising the Holocaust and then wondering why people react badly towards him.

[Siderite]

I am not really interested in gotchas of the media, I don’t want them to be poor to catch them out. I want them to be as impartial as possible and be about evidence, and some of the standards have fallen way short of acceptable. Like Kay’s partisan questioning yesterday which displayed huge bias and stupidity.

I am aware of the ‘defund the BBC’ mob who will target the BBC no matter what, and similar with other outlets. The best the media outlets can do is to not give them ammunition, but most importantly to strive to be the best they can be, instead of falling down the rabbit holes which make ‘alternative media’ so poor.

[Siderite]

I don’t really see how that really changes much to be honest. There seems to be some equivocation going on online between the prisoners and Israeli hostages. While I can understand why from some on social media, given some seem to have gone all in on how Israel is the most irredeemable state ever, it really isn’t. Those who are charged or convicted of crimes are not the same as people abducted from their homes. Even if the crimes of many are minor, they’re still crimes which would see them go to prison elsewhere.

There’d be a lot less questioning of the BBC and Guardian if they didn’t make errors, like misquoting articles or Kay Burley of Sky for asking if Israel views Palestinians less because they are releasing 3 Palestinians for one Israeli. I can’t even warp my brain into thinking how that was portrayed as “evil Israel”; that’s a positive deal for Palestinians, and people wonder why the media get stick over this.

[Siderite]

I would say that saying they’re imprisoned because of criminal activity is answering the question. It’s hardly a secret, it has been detailed in the news that the prisoners are jailed for crimes like attempted stabbings, handling explosives, arson and throwing rocks. Some are more minor than others, but all are crimes and would be considered crimes elsewhere. Expecting Israel not to criminalise those, including juveniles, is holding them to a different standard as any other country (including ourselves, who would imprison anyone for any of these things). I do have to question why the hideous crime of Israel imprisoning those for committing crimes is evil when it isn’t for anyone else, unless the argument is that the UK and other countries should decriminalise assault, arson and attempted murder.

[Siderite]

I wonder why Israel criminalises people for crimes like attempted murder.

I see Hamas are already firing rockets, but no doubt Israel will be at fault if it breaks.

[Siderite]

I think Elliott claims Herbert showed up at Barnard Castle unannounced and spotted him in the pub, before clinging on to him. I have been told he is not liked around the club, but I think they humour him. Still, humouring or not, he should be given the cold shoulder.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Cliff Byrne's Right Peg, TheJuryeffsOut

[Author]

Posts