I am stunned at the nature of this thread. Without knowing any of the people involved I can only take what I read at face value. To me it was an interesting comparison about how a company, the police and the media handle two criminal stories. One which shows that company in a good light and the other that shows it in a bad light.
Now apparently it is some sort of class war where your opinions mean you are either 'good' or 'bad'.
This is the internet. If you want to have some sort of personal confrontation, go and have one and let the rest of us debate something in an objective and rational manner.
To coin a couple of phrases, Hear hear and This.
You can't question or debate anything on here without it immediately bringing out the usual posters with the same old agendas.
You can say that but remember that the original poster has already dismissed your views before you had even expressed them. You post on Charlton Life therefore you are both "middle class tossers". And as such Loco sees your views as invalid.
This was was not an attempt by Loco to investigate or debate an "interesting" point. He had already decided it is a PC/Labour/Middle class tosser plot and named the person he thought was at the centre of it.
There is, IMHO, a debate to be had about should Steve Kavanagh been present or should the TV cameras been invited and by who? But that is a relatively minor point. The arrests would have taken place regardless.
There is another totally separate debate to be had about protecting the identity of rape victims but not those accused of rape.
Grapevine is spot on in my view but as he is also a "middle class tosser" or possibly "left wing tosser" his views can also be disregarded. Certainly they haven't and won't be debated by the original poster or those who agreed with him.
Sorry but that's simply wrong. I had no idea he had those views or had made any statements about SK until YOU told me he did. Just because Loco started the debate it is not 'his' debate. He raised the issue on CL for CL members to debate. Just because some people on here know who people and what their hidden agendas are, the rest of us are not allow to debate anything on face value. I know some hate it but you are really pushing me down the line of mentioning that C word and only those in it being allowed to be 'right'. You admit that there is a debate to be had about the clubs comments and yet destroyed the very thread where that debate sits. This thread should not have been about people, or the rights or wrongs of crime, but about how they are publicised.
But he did make those comments. You do now know that he said them. Why does it matter if I told you or someone else did? He still said them and they are directly relevant as it shows his real motives and views on you, me and everyone else on here. He can express himself very well and that is attractive and convincing but scratch the surface and you soon see the real motive.
The clique reference I just don't get. I'm one person expressing my views.
People may happily attach whatever political leanings they see fit to each contribution. To me such attachment whether they be serious or not (one or two comments were amusing) is irrelevant. Ultimately such comments have no bearing on the argument.
I actually have no UK political affiliation (if you think the UK is bad try living in Texas) as having spent much of the previous decade abroad I view the UK parties and their versions of political correctness as just coming in different shades of grey.
However the fact remains the original poster sought to correlate the actions of the club and/or its officials in respect of two alleged criminal activities with which the club has some connection. The intent appears to be to place the club and/or those officials in a bad light.
You see some value to that correlation. I can but reiterate I find the linking of the two alleged criminal events in poor taste and the attempt to critique the clubs response to the alleged criminal activities superficial because once you dig down just one layer of the argument the comparison is invalid. It is invalid to the degree that some unsurprisingly may perceive someone is pursuing a mischievous agenda.
I have sought to explain the clubs and its officials responsibilities within the two scenarios are entirely different. That the clubs and/or its officials' responses were different is entirely appropriate. I regret you may not agree but see little point in repeating the earlier analysis.
If there is a thread about the economy or strikes you can accuse people of betraying political leanings but a thread like this, people only betray their opinions and i'm sure the divide is not around politics - unless you are saying being anti racist is a left wing thing, which I'm sure it isn't.
It's all a laugh though really isn't it? People don't really take politics and stuff seriously do they? It's just a bunch of overgrown kids point scoring over each other. Absolute nonsense. Makes football look important.
1. HI - 'Quite happy to labour the point' - and that's the problem. Once someone starts labouring their point, they lose the impact and definition of their key point, because other people just see the same person steamrolling over the same debate, and sub-consiously get peeved with that person, even if they were supportive of their original point.
2. @DRF - You disagree with HI and throw in the old 'clique' jibe. There has been 130-odd comments on this thread, from around 80-90 different posters. So who exactly out of those posters do you see as being in 'Henry's clique on this thread', and what specific comments do you see that substantiate that ?
3. @Loco - If something potentially controversial is going to be raised and debated, like this thread you specifically joined the site for to start, at least have the decency to stick around and debate it, rather than throw a stink bomb through the pub door and then jump in the motor chuckling to yourself.
Couldn't give a toss about anyone biting. Someone though has to reign people in sometimes. Why should anyone be able to spout off and be so rude to people nearly all the time, constantly giving the impression that "What I say is right and whatever you say is wrong and there is no debate about that." Silly thing is, in person he's quite a nice chap.
I don't suppose there's any chance we could get back to debating the point of the post is there or have we reached that point in the thread where it just dissolves into squabbling among ourselves?
I don't suppose there's any chance we could get back to debating the point of the post is there or have we reached that point in the thread where it just dissolves into squabbling among ourselves?
This. If more debate is needed. From what I can tell most of us seem to be on the same wavelength in regard to the main point, which is something strange.
I think Chirpy is getting annoyed that Henry hasn't bitten in a while. He's trying though.
LOL Quick edit but not quick enough . ROFL when I saw that.
Three points:
1. HI - 'Quite happy to labour the point' - and that's the problem. Once someone starts labouring their point, they lose the impact and definition of their key point, because other people just see the same person steamrolling over the same debate, and sub-consiously get peeved with that person, even if they were supportive of their original point.
Point taken but half a dozen posts out of 80 or 90 is hardly steamrolling. It it was repeated it was because DRF raised the point.
I think Chirpy is getting annoyed that Henry hasn't bitten in a while. He's trying though.
LOL Quick edit but not quick enough . ROFL when I saw that.
Three points:
1. HI - 'Quite happy to labour the point' - and that's the problem. Once someone starts labouring their point, they lose the impact and definition of their key point, because other people just see the same person steamrolling over the same debate, and sub-consiously get peeved with that person, even if they were supportive of their original point.
Point taken but half a dozen posts out of 80 or 90 is hardly steamrolling. It it was repeated it was because DRF raised the point.
My point was to get back to the actual subject of the thread. And I can only come to the conclusion that no @Bournemouth Addick we are not allowed to actually debate it so I'm out.
Comments
But he did make those comments. You do now know that he said them. Why does it matter if I told you or someone else did? He still said them and they are directly relevant as it shows his real motives and views on you, me and everyone else on here. He can express himself very well and that is attractive and convincing but scratch the surface and you soon see the real motive.
The clique reference I just don't get. I'm one person expressing my views.
People may happily attach whatever political leanings they see fit to each contribution. To me such attachment whether they be serious or not (one or two comments were amusing) is irrelevant. Ultimately such comments have no bearing on the argument.
I actually have no UK political affiliation (if you think the UK is bad try living in Texas) as having spent much of the previous decade abroad I view the UK parties and their versions of political correctness as just coming in different shades of grey.
However the fact remains the original poster sought to correlate the actions of the club and/or its officials in respect of two alleged criminal activities with which the club has some connection. The intent appears to be to place the club and/or those officials in a bad light.
You see some value to that correlation. I can but reiterate I find the linking of the two alleged criminal events in poor taste and the attempt to critique the clubs response to the alleged criminal activities superficial because once you dig down just one layer of the argument the comparison is invalid. It is invalid to the degree that some unsurprisingly may perceive someone is pursuing a mischievous agenda.
I have sought to explain the clubs and its officials responsibilities within the two scenarios are entirely different. That the clubs and/or its officials' responses were different is entirely appropriate. I regret you may not agree but see little point in repeating the earlier analysis.
Grapevine49 MCT
Quite happy to labour the point here as I think it's very important that people like Loco aren't allowed a free hand to spread their bile.
more like question time than a football forum
1. HI - 'Quite happy to labour the point' - and that's the problem. Once someone starts labouring their point, they lose the impact and definition of their key point, because other people just see the same person steamrolling over the same debate, and sub-consiously get peeved with that person, even if they were supportive of their original point.
2. @DRF - You disagree with HI and throw in the old 'clique' jibe. There has been 130-odd comments on this thread, from around 80-90 different posters. So who exactly out of those posters do you see as being in 'Henry's clique on this thread', and what specific comments do you see that substantiate that ?
3. @Loco - If something potentially controversial is going to be raised and debated, like this thread you specifically joined the site for to start, at least have the decency to stick around and debate it, rather than throw a stink bomb through the pub door and then jump in the motor chuckling to yourself.
Party politics - no don't take that too seriously. Other stuff, yes, some of that does matter. I wouldn't join any clique that would have me as member : - )
Silly thing is, in person he's quite a nice chap.
Point taken but half a dozen posts out of 80 or 90 is hardly steamrolling. It it was repeated it was because DRF raised the point.
Enjoy the vitual reality fight.