Redevelopment Closer Than Ever?

[Carton Lid]

Are the Trust board members going to reveal which senior management from the club have joined the Trust, or are they going to retract that statement?

So does that change the fact that Tom has accused the Trust of sending him "Offensive emails" (his words) and when asked for proof he CHANGED THE SUBJECT!
He keeps saying I twist words, everyone knows that he accused the Trust so, when he says
" Along side that, we had quite a few fake signatures try and sign the petition, all from a very small number of devices - Things like Tucson Tom, Ben Dover-Kelvin, Micky-mouse Petition, f** off Tucson etc - all with offensive email addresses associated with them, while we couldn’t possibly speculate which group of people may be inclined to do something like that"
 So that's not aimed at the Trust ?
Who's twisting words now?

[Carton Lid]

Do you ever think you might be on a bit of a proxy witch hunt Roger. Or did I miss your posts where you asked those that back the Trust to present proof when they accused Tom of being involved with KT… I can’t imagine that you’d want to operate such obvious double standards.

No need to ask for prove on that Nigel.

[Tabasco Kid]

Are the Trust board members going to reveal which senior management from the club have joined the Trust, or are they going to retract that statement?

And instead of changing the subject, Carton chose to ignore the question. For someone who is not a board member, he speaks for them a lot.

[Tom]

So does that change the fact that Tom has accused the Trust of sending him "Offensive emails" (his words) and when asked for proof he CHANGED THE SUBJECT!
He keeps saying I twist words, everyone knows that he accused the Trust so, when he says
" Along side that, we had quite a few fake signatures try and sign the petition, all from a very small number of devices - Things like Tucson Tom, Ben Dover-Kelvin, Micky-mouse Petition, f** off Tucson etc - all with offensive email addresses associated with them, while we couldn’t possibly speculate which group of people may be inclined to do something like that"
 So that's not aimed at the Trust ?
Who's twisting words now?

Still you.

I'm not sure if you genuinely just don't understand what is being talked about, or if you're deliberately mis-quoting and misrepresenting what was said, but for the avoidance of all doubt:

What you keep saying, repeatedly:

Tom has accused the Trust of sending him "Offensive emails" (his words) and when asked for proof he CHANGED THE SUBJECT!

What I actually said in regard to this was absolutely nothing about "sending offensive emails".

Things like Tucson Tom, Ben Dover-Kelvin, Micky-mouse Petition, f** off Tucson etc - all with offensive email addresses associated with them

Spot the difference? Just to be absolutely abundantly clear - I did not say anyone had sent offensive emails, I stated and then re-stated prior to this comment that false signatures with abusive email addresses used had been submitted to the petition, those are 2 very different things.

I also said :

while we couldn’t possibly speculate which group of people may be inclined to do something like that, we wanted everyone to know that the counter does not increase when an email address is not verified, we also have various programatic checks on the signatures to remove any that look suspicious to maintain as accurate as possible count, so these people are really doing nothing more than wasting their time.

To which you then said :

Tom has accused the Trust of sending him "Offensive emails" (his words)

You see how these quote might appear disingenuous Roger? especially as you're apparently quoting me there, despite me never saying that.

I'd argue that the very fact that you assume it referenced the trust board and advisors speaks volumes about the expected behavior of said people if even yourself assumes that it would be them, it also shows that you fully understand that behavior is happening - yet you still continue to defend this trust board at all costs, and you're now even joining in with the same tactics to try and discredit, such as this - where you totally ignore and try and discredit everything published by going down some bizarre rabbit hole.

As for the changing subject comment:

Has anyone else noticed that when Tom is asked to prove anything he changes the subject pretty quickly. "Move on", "you keep posting, you're doing my job for me"  anything but provide the proof.
   I can't be the only one to notice it but the backslappers chose to ignore it I think 

So you make said accusation against me, and I respond addressing the 2 examples where I have not provided proof to your liking, and that's somehow changing subject? again, seems a little disingenuous to me, but as with everything else I've said - I'll just leave all this for others to judge.

Lastly, here is a few tables from the database - I've blurred the last part of the email addresses just incase some poor soul out there actually owns them, but there are around 30 of these, all from a small number of individuals - again, people can decide for themselves who might want to do that.



You are a well respected member of our fanbase Roger - but you are damaging that reputation by continuing to align yourself with the behaviors of this trust board and it's advisors, you're defending behaviors that are simply not acceptable and you're doing it in a way that is easily disproven which reflects really poorly.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

So that’s the level is it?

[guest3063]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. What more can I say.

These people (who ever they are) need to look at themselves very hard.

[guest3481]

So does that change the fact that Tom has accused the Trust of sending him "Offensive emails" (his words) and when asked for proof he CHANGED THE SUBJECT!
He keeps saying I twist words, everyone knows that he accused the Trust so, when he says
" Along side that, we had quite a few fake signatures try and sign the petition, all from a very small number of devices - Things like Tucson Tom, Ben Dover-Kelvin, Micky-mouse Petition, f** off Tucson etc - all with offensive email addresses associated with them, while we couldn’t possibly speculate which group of people may be inclined to do something like that"
 So that's not aimed at the Trust ?
Who's twisting words now?

People like myself have been accused (incorrectly) of asking questions of the Trust but not the owners for a long time. So I was simply following the same logic.

[Gomez]

Lastly, here is a few tables from the database - I've blurred the last part of the email addresses just incase some poor soul out there actually owns them, but there are around 30 of these, all from a small number of individuals - again, people can decide for themselves who might want to do that.

A couple of obvious points, but;

(a) What evidence is there that this is the trust themselves adding fake petition entries?  I'd suggest it's probably highly unlikely.

(b) Is the bigger point being lost on you here. Look past the 'Alan Partridge Crank Caller' petition names and I think the point being made is that for all we know, these 500 petitioners could all be one person for all we know - OK I know that's an exaggeration of the point, but you see what I mean.

(c) My juvenile sense of humour caused me to chuckle a little at Ben Dover-Kelvin.

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

A couple of obvious points, but;

(a) What evidence is there that this is the trust themselves adding fake petition entries?  I'd suggest it's probably highly unlikely.

(b) Is the bigger point being lost on you here. Look past the 'Alan Partridge Crank Caller' petition names and I think the point being made is that for all we know, these 500 petitioners could all be one person for all we know - OK I know that's an exaggeration of the point, but you see what I mean.

(c) My juvenile sense of humour caused me to chuckle a little at Ben Dover-Kelvin.

In his defence he did not say it was the Trust. As he has highlighted repeatedly. Of course, most people will “assume” that was the inference.

Like you, I found myself chuckling a some of them. I even thought of a few others worthy of a go 😀😀

[DavCobb]

Tom. I’d suggest you are spending too much time and energy trying to battle over irrelevant points and views on a platform of little influence or consequence.
The important thing is how many new Trust members are there (from the petition to your knowledge) and have they called an AGM or applied for board positions?
If the Trust board are not acknowledging any requests (I’d discount your letter as they are not obliged to respond) or effectively buried themselves underground with their fingers in their ears, they need calling out.
Although we know they are busy volunteers with full time jobs….

Ben Dover for the chair.

[Carton Lid]

And instead of changing the subject, Carton chose to ignore the question. For someone who is not a board member, he speaks for them a lot.

I didn't ignore the question because I don't know the answer, how would?
I speak about the Trust when I see blatant lies posted, now who could possibly be doing that?

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

I didn't ignore the question because I don't know the answer, how would?
I speak about the Trust when I see blatant lies posted, now who could possibly be doing that?

I don’t disagree with you Roger. You are completely right to address where you see what you call “blatant lies” albeit on this occasion, he did not directly accuse the Trust as you suggest. But I’d imagine most would assume the inference.

Where I struggle with you, is that you seem to be completely on tracks, by ignoring the obvious transgressions and dishonesty from both sides of this debate. Concentrating solely on the Trusts view. Perhaps just a bit more balance might help. Neither side of this mess will come out of this mess intact.

[DavCobb]

Notice how "while we couldn’t possibly speculate which group of people may be inclined to do something like that, we wanted everyone to know that the counter does not increase when an email address is not verified"
is quickly translated as "So does that change the fact that Tom has accused the Trust of sending him Offensive emails"....quite a leap and clearly not a fact. Bypassing the point that the votes don't count.
I'm surprised he has been accused of throwing that data onto a spreadsheet, which now has been published (not sure why he bothered) has been overlooked.

There is some proper poisonous BS being spouted and it needs calling out, as there will be some who believe the cr*p that is written and stand behind the bullies in the playground.
Thankfully the allies to some of the Trust's current behaviours are few and far between and lose credibility every time they try to stand behind things that are quite clearly wrong on any level. They are the same rude and abusive numbskulls who appear time and time again on social media, thankfully a tiny minority. In all walks of life you will find c*nts though, so it is not surprising. Just not very nice human beings*

*for clarity, I am not accusing Carton of demonstrating the behaviours I read daily on social media. Definitely misplaced constant challenge and spin though, although maybe the current Trust would benefit if you were still a part of it.

Hold the owners/the club to account and challenge by all means...but demonstrate some intelligence, respect and balance for alternative views. I know which side of the current fence that I would see as more of a cult.

[Coolcat]

Don't know about Tuscon...surely Tom setting up a Phoenix Trust would be more apt! 

[Carton Lid]

I don’t disagree with you Roger. You are completely right to address where you see what you call “blatant lies” albeit on this occasion, he did not directly accuse the Trust as you suggest. But I’d imagine most would assume the inference.

Where I struggle with you, is that you seem to be completely on tracks, by ignoring the obvious transgressions and dishonesty from both sides of this debate. Concentrating solely on the Trusts view. Perhaps just a bit more balance might help. Neither side of this mess will come out of this mess intact.

Maybe that's what I'm trying to do Nigel, now that Random has been driven off the board by the pack, there are not too many defending the Trust when lies are posted.
I mean, we all know that Tom was aiming at the Trust with his ""offensive emails" post and being as he can't prove it, he shouldn't post it. We all know that mud sticks, so as a moderator, are you going to ask him to make it clear that he has no proof that the emails came from the Trust, or will he twist the words again?
  

[guest3481]

Maybe that's what I'm trying to do Nigel, now that Random has been driven off the board by the pack, there are not too many defending the Trust when lies are posted.
I mean, we all know that Tom was aiming at the Trust with his ""offensive emails" post and being as he can't prove it, he shouldn't post it. We all know that mud sticks, so as a moderator, are you going to ask him to make it clear that he has no proof that the emails came from the Trust, or will he twist the words again?
  

FWIW I didn't think that the Trust Board or advisors would have submitted those emails, they share their opinions publicly and dont think they operate in that way. There are one or two who post on here and one or two I've seen on social media who came to mind however who are vocal in their criticism of the petition in a more childish way

[guest3548]

Some of the behaviour being exhibited on here at present is tantamount to bullying, just like the "pack" that drove random/Derek away!

[DavCobb]

Some of the behaviour being exhibited on here at present is tantamount to bullying, just like the "pack" that drove random/Derek away!

I hope these references to Random being driven away are jokes.
He is the equivalent of someone turning up to a fight and waving a knife around, before getting a shotgun pulled on him.
I guess not too dissimilar to Hancock quickly becoming a national treasure after some jungle ‘bullying’.
Nothing queer as folk.

[guest3548]

I would imagine he's being kept ready for the next missive from the trust board, he appears well able to handle himself on here despite what others think

[guest3481]

why don't you email and ask them, there is not that many of them, sure you could work it out

But I cannot name them on here, I might be an idiot but i not that stupid.

The Trust will be releasing a statement shortly (sorry its another bloody statement !)

Looking forward to reading the statement from the Trust and / or their reply to the NMT questions. Really think this is a great opportunity for the current Trust and their NMT candidates to work together for the benefit of everyone. Find a way to hold the owners to account whilst maintaining a professional working relationship.