Stirring up the hornet's nest, eh? Well, my goodness, there's certainly been some very loud buzzing on here and the constant distraction has unfortunately led to my sister Dolly's vol-au-vents collapsing.
She therefore asks me to present her compliments, and, I quote, "Tell that spotty bunch of 007 wannabes that the next time they are planning a mission on Operation Grandad and taking a perilous ride on Eurostar deep behind enemy lines for another session of Hassle The Pensioner, would they kindly think twice before stirring up all this trouble. If it's a rumble they're looking for me and the girls from the WI will happily oblige any time, round the back of the Village Hall !"
Don't worry : she was only joking - or was she ? So - do you feel lucky ?
Everyone who is condemning this action- if it actually brought about Roland moving nearer to selling up would you still disapprove?
In short, yes.
One day Roland will be looking to sell and we need to ensure we as supporters make ourselves out to be as appealing as possible (in addition to being mindful of the perception of ourselves in the press). We want to make sure that any potential owner coming in has no reservations about us as fans. As such, I think acts that could potentially be interpreted as "scare tactics" of the families of those who run the club should be avoided.
Even if this were the straw that broke the camels back, I'd say that we can and will have better ideas, and we can and will find other ways of getting them out.
Wearing a black and white scarf or standing in a car park shouting at a window with the blinds down - or even keeping the moral high ground - isn't going to work, not in its own.
Whether I agree or not is irrelevant. The point is that these guys feel that have been driven to this and that is a concern for us all.
Fair play that they "did something" and as long as it's legal I ain't gonna dig them out for that.
I agree - fair play for doing something.
However you have to think about how things look in the media and what is to be gained by releasing this.
It's just as effective if it's "out there" or not, right?
The morals can be debated, either way. I wasn't there so can't make a judgement on how peaceful it was - yet people would always have spun this as "intimidating" whether it was or not. It was naive not too forsee this IMO.
Once again things go wrong when things are made public and as far as I can see a need for regognition has got in the way here.
This group have done some great things but I fear that wanting plaudits and things such as yesterday's "kicking the hornets nest" are negatively impacting what they are doing.
If the media pick up on this & start criticizing CARD & the protests, all CARD need to do is issue a statement dis-associating themselves from & condemning the actions of this group of renegades.
Did they knock at the door or did the parents of pinnochio open the door to see who had put a leaflet in the letter box ? Were they intimidating (the Belgian 20 not the parents) or were they polite ? How many on here know the full facts or even enough to justify these outpourings of horror ?
So on further reading, it was @The_President himself who had the conversation with Mr Meire. He denied that KM was his daughter, but the conversation carried on? What did you talk about, if he was denying all knowledge of KM? Like I said, I am not as strongly critical as some, but at the very least, if you decide to tell CL what you've done, you need to tell us exactly what happened.
Somebody asked why this is worse than @Coyotejohn1947 's efforts with KM's University. The answer is that he has targeted her professional reputation in Belgium, and that is exactly what we should do in RD's case. Both of them are bringing their Belgian professional peers into potential disrepute in England, and their peers should know about it. But separate the professional and the personal, I think that is the red line. And if a particular operation seems like a grey area, opt for caution.
As the author of the letter to KU Leuven (Meire's former University) I would add that the letter arose primarily as a result of Meire having been awarded a prize for her achievements by her Uni who had seemingly remained unaware of her statement given to a Belgian newspaper that 'I know I shouldn't say this but I don't care about the history of the club'.
The pertinent paragraph in the letter is/was: As an historian I take great exception to this statement which is unbecoming of an academic who has received five years educational training at KU Leuven. Was she equally dismissive of the near 600 year history of the University which nurtured her? The fact that she recognises in the interview given to L’Echo that what she is about to say shouldn’t actually be voiced, even if she believes it, only serves to heighten the impact of the insult and is grossly disrespectful to the Club which employs her and to the many thousands of the Club’s fans who hold its history very dear. Charlton Athletic FC is a treasured part of the fabric of the community in South-East London and has been so for over 100 years. Katrien Meire however saw fit to dismiss this with one calculated, single, unforgiving sentence.
I was somewhat surprised subsequently to receive a few responses which questioned this approach to KU Leuven (which went on to request them to consider recalling the award and passing it to a more worthy recipient). Those opposed saw it as a personal attack on Meire somehow divorced from her CEO role. But I had demonstrated in the letter that she had betrayed professional and academic standards and was not genuinely entitled to benefit professionally from the KU award which will no doubt figure on her future CV. Therefore I agree with Prague Addick's analysis.
I remain therefore unrepentant about the letter (for which so far there has been no reply) for the reasons explained above.
Whatever your view, this thread does demonstrate the general decency of Charlton folk, as we launch into a debate about the morality of elements of our protesting. Good on us. Down with the unethical regime that doesn't give a monkeys what we think. Now back to knocking back the prosecco in the garden in the sunshine...:-)
Disagree entirely with this action. It's an own goal and counter productive.
Just had a discussion with a fellow Charlton supporting friend. He was initially supportive of Roly Two Sheds tenure but has slowly turned away from the "dark side" over the last few months i.e. he was starting to see the light and moving to a "Roly Out" position. However, he is now stating that he could not support any group that stooped to this sort of action.
A Millwall supporting friend in on the discussion stated "f**k that is low!"
I agree with both of them. It was an ill thought out thing to do and CARD supported or not it has made getting the "waivers" on side a bit more difficult.
So, please, if you don't mind, can you tell me more about your "fellow supporting friend", and your "Millwall supporting friend" ? Or, have you just made that up ?
Do the people against going to Meire's family house think dressing up as camels and singing ' we're all going on a summer holiday' will help them sell up?
Well done all the lads that went out there, good tactic IMO
About five years ago I banned an overseas-based poster from here. Over the next year I kept getting emails about what a coward I was, how he was going to track me down and beat me up, how he was going to f*ck my mum etc.
What would you say if he come over from abroad, knocked on my parents door wanting to speak to them about me, and leafleted all their neighbours about the terrible way in his opinion I moderate a forum and impacted on his enjoyment.
Much more of this creepy stuff and CARD might find itself in injunction territory.
Can't believe the stupidity behind this.
It wasn't CARD.
I'm glad to hear it but would that distinction be important to Meire seeking some sort of protection for her parents in a foreign country ? The adverse publicity would be awful.
But, it happened nearly 2 weeks ago, so, what "adverse publicity" ? It was the "Belgium 20" who, in my opinion, got the reaction from RD and his bizarre statement. Again, no threats, no violence, just talking.
Hey, here's an idea, RD, KM, RM, try talking to people ?
PLEASE - no flowers. I beg you. Do not send flowers.
Fruit basket?
Wreath?
I'm of course joking before anyone's flag finger gets itchy.
Fwiw I wasn't entirely comfortable with the tactic when it was announced earlier either. I couldn't see very much to be gained by the approach no matter how polite and respectful those involved were. By all means leaflet around her own neighbourhood explaining what's going on as a means of ramping up the grief she's getting but taking the time to find out where her parents lived and doing the same there just didn't feel right to me and I could see it backfiring at the time it was first reported, even though I am sure the intentions of those involved were not in any way malicious or intimidatory.
So far it hasn't been picked up (or used) elsewhere and I hope that remains the case and we can focus our future efforts perhaps a bit more appropriately.
So on further reading, it was @The_President himself who had the conversation with Mr Meire. He denied that KM was his daughter, but the conversation carried on? What did you talk about, if he was denying all knowledge of KM? Like I said, I am not as strongly critical as some, but at the very least, if you decide to tell CL what you've done, you need to tell us exactly what happened.
Somebody asked why this is worse than @Coyotejohn1947 's efforts with KM's University. The answer is that he has targeted her professional reputation in Belgium, and that is exactly what we should do in RD's case. Both of them are bringing their Belgian professional peers into potential disrepute in England, and their peers should know about it. But separate the professional and the personal, I think that is the red line. And if a particular operation seems like a grey area, opt for caution.
As the author of the letter to KU Leuven (Meire's former University) I would add that the letter arose primarily as a result of Meire having been awarded a prize for her achievements by her Uni who had seemingly remained unaware of her statement given to a Belgian newspaper that 'I know I shouldn't say this but I don't care about the history of the club'.
The pertinent paragraph in the letter is/was: As an historian I take great exception to this statement which is unbecoming of an academic who has received five years educational training at KU Leuven. Was she equally dismissive of the near 600 year history of the University which nurtured her? The fact that she recognises in the interview given to L’Echo that what she is about to say shouldn’t actually be voiced, even if she believes it, only serves to heighten the impact of the insult and is grossly disrespectful to the Club which employs her and to the many thousands of the Club’s fans who hold its history very dear. Charlton Athletic FC is a treasured part of the fabric of the community in South-East London and has been so for over 100 years. Katrien Meire however saw fit to dismiss this with one calculated, single, unforgiving sentence.
I was somewhat surprised subsequently to receive a few responses which questioned this approach to KU Leuven (which went on to request them to consider recalling the award and passing it to a more worthy recipient). Those opposed saw it as a personal attack on Meire somehow divorced from her CEO role. But I had demonstrated in the letter that she had betrayed professional and academic standards and was not genuinely entitled to benefit professionally from the KU award which will no doubt figure on her future CV. Therefore I agree with Prague Addick's analysis.
I remain therefore unrepentant about the letter (for which so far there has been no reply) for the reasons explained above.
I was the one that raised your letters in all this (which I thought were great by the way)...
My point was really that people are happy with activities designed to undermine her professionally and potentially have long term impact on her future employability (and therefore her entire life), but not with leaflets put through doors to temporarily embarrass her in her family's neighbourhood.
Personally I'm OK with both but I think it goes to illustrate just how grey some of these areas are.
I guess it also illustrates the emotional response bringing families into things can produce, which maybe also demonstrates why it wasn't the best idea. (even if she's having a major impact on our families... )
The best thing about this thread is that it has convinced me to abandon plans of dognapping her pet and holding it to ransom.... so something good has come of it.
Huge over-reaction on this thread in my opinion to what actually happened.
If the heading to the thread had been different I would have hoped the comments would be more balanced.
The first point to make is that Belgium protests are a MUST for us to succeed. The demonstrations, posters and leafleting have all been very positive actions which we need to see more of. I think (almost) everyone is agreed in this.
I think most people are agreed that posting leaflets to RD, his neighbours and business associates is also positive (indeed there is some evidence that this has infuriated him).
I think most people also agree it is fine to leaflet KM and her neighbours.
The problem therefore seems to be just her parents. Some people seem to ignore that this was not intimidating, friendly and ended in the "handshake". Even so it is fair to say the majority don't approve. The other point that hasn't been mentioned on this thread is the tone and thrust of the leaflet that was put the doors. It was very much aimed at RD and although some comments were made about KM the main comments were about RD ruining her career and implying she should resign before her career is totally ruined. Perhaps detail but important detail.
So as a conclusion to all this, if her parents house is deemed out of bounds, does this mean we now have a lot of people willing to undertake Belgium exploits (either with or without the President) ?
I can see where people are coming from in terms of public image of the protests... but I want RD and KM out of SE7. The crucial question is how far am I (or indeed anyone else) prepared to go? And how far are those means related to the ends?
Public opinion and support is important. But it isn't enough. In about 1991 there was an ambulance drivers strike. The govt were unreasonable and the ambulance drivers had something like 96% of public support. Factor in statistical variance and it might as well have been everyone apart from the govt. They still lost. Leverage is what we need most, rather than people supporting us (which is great, but isn't going to get the Interim Owner to sell).
I think publicly shaming RD and KM is one of our most powerful weapons. It might not work (it hasn't for Blackpool fans with the loathsome Oystons - at least Duchatelet hasn't raped anyone or sued fans yet). I want every Belgian businessman/woman and every resident of Duchatelet's company town to know that he is a failure. The fact that the local police chief or mayor is in his pocket and can prevent protests should be like a red rag to a bull. And overall I think we should stay within the law, but if the law is such that you're not allowed to protest, as appears to be the case in Duchateletville, then surely that law is one that should be broken?
Personally I wouldn't have gone to her parents but let's be honest, they have raised a daughter incapable of telling the truth. They should be ashamed. And if they won't even admit she is their daughter, perhaps they are?
So on further reading, it was @The_President himself who had the conversation with Mr Meire. He denied that KM was his daughter, but the conversation carried on? What did you talk about, if he was denying all knowledge of KM? Like I said, I am not as strongly critical as some, but at the very least, if you decide to tell CL what you've done, you need to tell us exactly what happened.
Somebody asked why this is worse than @Coyotejohn1947 's efforts with KM's University. The answer is that he has targeted her professional reputation in Belgium, and that is exactly what we should do in RD's case. Both of them are bringing their Belgian professional peers into potential disrepute in England, and their peers should know about it. But separate the professional and the personal, I think that is the red line. And if a particular operation seems like a grey area, opt for caution.
As the author of the letter to KU Leuven (Meire's former University) I would add that the letter arose primarily as a result of Meire having been awarded a prize for her achievements by her Uni who had seemingly remained unaware of her statement given to a Belgian newspaper that 'I know I shouldn't say this but I don't care about the history of the club'.
The pertinent paragraph in the letter is/was: As an historian I take great exception to this statement which is unbecoming of an academic who has received five years educational training at KU Leuven. Was she equally dismissive of the near 600 year history of the University which nurtured her? The fact that she recognises in the interview given to L’Echo that what she is about to say shouldn’t actually be voiced, even if she believes it, only serves to heighten the impact of the insult and is grossly disrespectful to the Club which employs her and to the many thousands of the Club’s fans who hold its history very dear. Charlton Athletic FC is a treasured part of the fabric of the community in South-East London and has been so for over 100 years. Katrien Meire however saw fit to dismiss this with one calculated, single, unforgiving sentence.
I was somewhat surprised subsequently to receive a few responses which questioned this approach to KU Leuven (which went on to request them to consider recalling the award and passing it to a more worthy recipient). Those opposed saw it as a personal attack on Meire somehow divorced from her CEO role. But I had demonstrated in the letter that she had betrayed professional and academic standards and was not genuinely entitled to benefit professionally from the KU award which will no doubt figure on her future CV. Therefore I agree with Prague Addick's analysis.
I remain therefore unrepentant about the letter (for which so far there has been no reply) for the reasons explained above.
I was the one that raised your letters in all this (which I thought were great by the way)...
My point was really that people are happy with activities designed to undermine her professionally and potentially have long term impact on her future employability (and therefore her entire life), but not with leaflets put through doors to temporarily embarrass her in her family's neighbourhood.
Personally I'm OK with both but I think it goes to illustrate just how grey some of these areas are.
I guess it also illustrates the emotional response bringing families into things can produce, which maybe also demonstrates why it wasn't the best idea. (even if she's having a major impact on our families... )
Yes, you must surely see the difference between targeting Katrien Meire (the letters) and targeting Katrien Meire's Dad, in his home, ?
AFKA thought he'd taken down all the photos.... but he missed one.
I'll post it again here as it clearly shows El Presidente (40 likes for the original post BTW), having got past the front door, communicating with Meire's Dad in a calm, thoughtful and meaningful way.
So on further reading, it was @The_President himself who had the conversation with Mr Meire. He denied that KM was his daughter, but the conversation carried on? What did you talk about, if he was denying all knowledge of KM? Like I said, I am not as strongly critical as some, but at the very least, if you decide to tell CL what you've done, you need to tell us exactly what happened.
Somebody asked why this is worse than @Coyotejohn1947 's efforts with KM's University. The answer is that he has targeted her professional reputation in Belgium, and that is exactly what we should do in RD's case. Both of them are bringing their Belgian professional peers into potential disrepute in England, and their peers should know about it. But separate the professional and the personal, I think that is the red line. And if a particular operation seems like a grey area, opt for caution.
As the author of the letter to KU Leuven (Meire's former University) I would add that the letter arose primarily as a result of Meire having been awarded a prize for her achievements by her Uni who had seemingly remained unaware of her statement given to a Belgian newspaper that 'I know I shouldn't say this but I don't care about the history of the club'.
The pertinent paragraph in the letter is/was: As an historian I take great exception to this statement which is unbecoming of an academic who has received five years educational training at KU Leuven. Was she equally dismissive of the near 600 year history of the University which nurtured her? The fact that she recognises in the interview given to L’Echo that what she is about to say shouldn’t actually be voiced, even if she believes it, only serves to heighten the impact of the insult and is grossly disrespectful to the Club which employs her and to the many thousands of the Club’s fans who hold its history very dear. Charlton Athletic FC is a treasured part of the fabric of the community in South-East London and has been so for over 100 years. Katrien Meire however saw fit to dismiss this with one calculated, single, unforgiving sentence.
I was somewhat surprised subsequently to receive a few responses which questioned this approach to KU Leuven (which went on to request them to consider recalling the award and passing it to a more worthy recipient). Those opposed saw it as a personal attack on Meire somehow divorced from her CEO role. But I had demonstrated in the letter that she had betrayed professional and academic standards and was not genuinely entitled to benefit professionally from the KU award which will no doubt figure on her future CV. Therefore I agree with Prague Addick's analysis.
I remain therefore unrepentant about the letter (for which so far there has been no reply) for the reasons explained above.
I was the one that raised your letters in all this (which I thought were great by the way)...
My point was really that people are happy with activities designed to undermine her professionally and potentially have long term impact on her future employability (and therefore her entire life), but not with leaflets put through doors to temporarily embarrass her in her family's neighbourhood.
Personally I'm OK with both but I think it goes to illustrate just how grey some of these areas are.
I guess it also illustrates the emotional response bringing families into things can produce, which maybe also demonstrates why it wasn't the best idea. (even if she's having a major impact on our families... )
Yes, you must surely see the difference between targeting Katrien Meire (the letters) and targeting Katrien Meire's Dad, in his home, ?
I've previously said that "targeting her Dad" is probably going too far and that's not what I'm referring to.
I was drawing comparisons between leafleting the neighbourhood and writing the letters.
Everyone who is condemning this action- if it actually brought about Roland moving nearer to selling up would you still disapprove?
Yes - the ends should not be used to justify the means. It is often said that you shouldn't visit the sins of the parent on the children. I think the reverse also applies - especially since I have a number of not well behave children whose behaviour gets no better when they become adults.
The first point to make is that Belgium protests are a MUST for us to succeed. The demonstrations, posters and leafleting have all been very positive actions which we need to see more of. I think (almost) everyone is agreed in this.
I think most people are agreed that posting leaflets to RD, his neighbours and business associates is also positive (indeed there is some evidence that this has infuriated him).
I'm taking a portion of what you said here Redman, but hopefully context remains intact. I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a moment:
Do we have anything beyond speculation regarding what succeeds and what doesn't? We heard that the leafletting last time made Roland mad, and there was clearly a reaction in the form of "The Statement," but we now have a sample size of two (including this past weekend) and roughly a 50% success rate--assuming that it was the leafletting and not the other protests on the day that infuriated him.
I'm not saying this to be intentionally petulant or to say "well we don't know if it's working so let's pack it up and stop protesting," but instead trying to make the point that we don't have a lot of insight into what is successful and what isn't. Furthermore, what is successful in infuriating Roland may not be successful in terms of getting him to sell up.
The reason I'm bringing this up is because I think in general we'll start to need to get into the mindset that there may not be direct, measurable, or traceable cause and effect with the protests. It's something I think is particularly important when it comes to renewing season tickets. I certainly understand and support those who will not renew and will not give this regime money on principle, but it seems clear that, to date, Roland has no problem continuing to prop the club up with capital. As such, reducing the club's revenue may not rank that highly with him if his ultimate goal is to build some sort of footballing empire.
In short, there is no inarguable right and wrong here, only a series of best ideas and intentions, and it's something I think most on here have kept in mind, and something we'll need to continue considering in the weeks, months, and possibly years ahead.
Comments
Good afternoon, everyone - Private Godfrey here
Stirring up the hornet's nest, eh? Well, my goodness, there's certainly been some very loud buzzing on here and the constant distraction has unfortunately led to my sister Dolly's vol-au-vents collapsing.
She therefore asks me to present her compliments, and, I quote, "Tell that spotty bunch of 007 wannabes that the next time they are planning a mission on Operation Grandad and taking a perilous ride on Eurostar deep behind enemy lines for another session of Hassle The Pensioner, would they kindly think twice before stirring up all this trouble. If it's a rumble they're looking for me and the girls from the WI will happily oblige any time, round the back of the Village Hall !"
Don't worry : she was only joking - or was she ? So - do you feel lucky
One day Roland will be looking to sell and we need to ensure we as supporters make ourselves out to be as appealing as possible (in addition to being mindful of the perception of ourselves in the press). We want to make sure that any potential owner coming in has no reservations about us as fans. As such, I think acts that could potentially be interpreted as "scare tactics" of the families of those who run the club should be avoided.
Even if this were the straw that broke the camels back, I'd say that we can and will have better ideas, and we can and will find other ways of getting them out.
Did they knock at the door or did the parents of pinnochio open the door to see who had put a leaflet in the letter box ? Were they intimidating (the Belgian 20 not the parents) or were they polite ? How many on here know the full facts or even enough to justify these outpourings of horror ?
The pertinent paragraph in the letter is/was: As an historian I take great exception to this statement which is unbecoming of an academic who has received five years educational training at KU Leuven. Was she equally dismissive of the near 600 year history of the University which nurtured her? The fact that she recognises in the interview given to L’Echo that what she is about to say shouldn’t actually be voiced, even if she believes it, only serves to heighten the impact of the insult and is grossly disrespectful to the Club which employs her and to the many thousands of the Club’s fans who hold its history very dear. Charlton Athletic FC is a treasured part of the fabric of the community in South-East London and has been so for over 100 years. Katrien Meire however saw fit to dismiss this with one calculated, single, unforgiving sentence.
I was somewhat surprised subsequently to receive a few responses which questioned this approach to KU Leuven (which went on to request them to consider recalling the award and passing it to a more worthy recipient).
Those opposed saw it as a personal attack on Meire somehow divorced from her CEO role.
But I had demonstrated in the letter that she had betrayed professional and academic standards and was not genuinely entitled to benefit professionally from the KU award which will no doubt figure on her future CV. Therefore I agree with Prague Addick's analysis.
I remain therefore unrepentant about the letter (for which so far there has been no reply) for the reasons explained above.
Seems like a Belgian trait.
Good on us. Down with the unethical regime that doesn't give a monkeys what we think.
Now back to knocking back the prosecco in the garden in the sunshine...:-)
Or, have you just made that up ?
What, as in Wrexham?
It was the "Belgium 20" who, in my opinion, got the reaction from RD and his bizarre statement.
Again, no threats, no violence, just talking.
Hey, here's an idea, RD, KM, RM, try talking to people ?
RD,KM,RM---- talk to no one just fuck off
I'm of course joking before anyone's flag finger gets itchy.
Fwiw I wasn't entirely comfortable with the tactic when it was announced earlier either. I couldn't see very much to be gained by the approach no matter how polite and respectful those involved were. By all means leaflet around her own neighbourhood explaining what's going on as a means of ramping up the grief she's getting but taking the time to find out where her parents lived and doing the same there just didn't feel right to me and I could see it backfiring at the time it was first reported, even though I am sure the intentions of those involved were not in any way malicious or intimidatory.
So far it hasn't been picked up (or used) elsewhere and I hope that remains the case and we can focus our future efforts perhaps a bit more appropriately.
My point was really that people are happy with activities designed to undermine her professionally and potentially have long term impact on her future employability (and therefore her entire life), but not with leaflets put through doors to temporarily embarrass her in her family's neighbourhood.
Personally I'm OK with both but I think it goes to illustrate just how grey some of these areas are.
I guess it also illustrates the emotional response bringing families into things can produce, which maybe also demonstrates why it wasn't the best idea. (even if she's having a major impact on our families... )
JOKING
If the heading to the thread had been different I would have hoped the comments would be more balanced.
The first point to make is that Belgium protests are a MUST for us to succeed. The demonstrations, posters and leafleting have all been very positive actions which we need to see more of.
I think (almost) everyone is agreed in this.
I think most people are agreed that posting leaflets to RD, his neighbours and business associates is also positive (indeed there is some evidence that this has infuriated him).
I think most people also agree it is fine to leaflet KM and her neighbours.
The problem therefore seems to be just her parents. Some people seem to ignore that this was not intimidating, friendly and ended in the "handshake". Even so it is fair to say the majority don't approve. The other point that hasn't been mentioned on this thread is the tone and thrust of the leaflet that was put the doors. It was very much aimed at RD and although some comments were made about KM the main comments were about RD ruining her career and implying she should resign before her career is totally ruined. Perhaps detail but important detail.
So as a conclusion to all this, if her parents house is deemed out of bounds, does this mean we now have a lot of people willing to undertake Belgium exploits (either with or without the President) ?
Public opinion and support is important. But it isn't enough. In about 1991 there was an ambulance drivers strike. The govt were unreasonable and the ambulance drivers had something like 96% of public support. Factor in statistical variance and it might as well have been everyone apart from the govt. They still lost. Leverage is what we need most, rather than people supporting us (which is great, but isn't going to get the Interim Owner to sell).
I think publicly shaming RD and KM is one of our most powerful weapons. It might not work (it hasn't for Blackpool fans with the loathsome Oystons - at least Duchatelet hasn't raped anyone or sued fans yet). I want every Belgian businessman/woman and every resident of Duchatelet's company town to know that he is a failure. The fact that the local police chief or mayor is in his pocket and can prevent protests should be like a red rag to a bull. And overall I think we should stay within the law, but if the law is such that you're not allowed to protest, as appears to be the case in Duchateletville, then surely that law is one that should be broken?
Personally I wouldn't have gone to her parents but let's be honest, they have raised a daughter incapable of telling the truth. They should be ashamed. And if they won't even admit she is their daughter, perhaps they are?
I'll post it again here as it clearly shows El Presidente (40 likes for the original post BTW), having got past the front door, communicating with Meire's Dad in a calm, thoughtful and meaningful way.
they live at the Brussels Care Home, Brussels Road, Brussels, Belgium BS6.
I was drawing comparisons between leafleting the neighbourhood and writing the letters.
Do we have anything beyond speculation regarding what succeeds and what doesn't? We heard that the leafletting last time made Roland mad, and there was clearly a reaction in the form of "The Statement," but we now have a sample size of two (including this past weekend) and roughly a 50% success rate--assuming that it was the leafletting and not the other protests on the day that infuriated him.
I'm not saying this to be intentionally petulant or to say "well we don't know if it's working so let's pack it up and stop protesting," but instead trying to make the point that we don't have a lot of insight into what is successful and what isn't. Furthermore, what is successful in infuriating Roland may not be successful in terms of getting him to sell up.
The reason I'm bringing this up is because I think in general we'll start to need to get into the mindset that there may not be direct, measurable, or traceable cause and effect with the protests. It's something I think is particularly important when it comes to renewing season tickets. I certainly understand and support those who will not renew and will not give this regime money on principle, but it seems clear that, to date, Roland has no problem continuing to prop the club up with capital. As such, reducing the club's revenue may not rank that highly with him if his ultimate goal is to build some sort of footballing empire.
In short, there is no inarguable right and wrong here, only a series of best ideas and intentions, and it's something I think most on here have kept in mind, and something we'll need to continue considering in the weeks, months, and possibly years ahead.