Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,067
|
Post by Angas on May 23, 2021 20:33:45 GMT
So the SC did want to make it public but, as there was seemingly no foundation to their accusation, are now embarrassed that it has been.
Is that the gist of it?
Confused of WsM.
|
|
|
Post by irenestoyboy on May 23, 2021 20:43:13 GMT
Mostly correct. The persons involved also took it to the council and the Police (maybe not in that order) as well as trying to sell a story to the press. The allegations were so spurious that even the press had a hard time trying to make a story of it, so didn't, to their better judgement. I believe this happened before KM was removed as FD. I also believe that at the time the club made a rather bizarre short press release regarding an update to the safeguarding proceedures at the club. It stemmed from this. I will add, I do find it odd the SC had released a statement about this, after all, if it was just forum nonsense, ignorance would be best ignored. No smoke without fire as they say... One more try. Do you have proof of this please? Oh yes there is plenty of proof.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on May 23, 2021 20:45:06 GMT
So the SC did want to make it public but, as there was seemingly no foundation to their accusation, are now embarrassed that it has been. Is that the gist of it? Confused of WsM. So they are saying that it would be better if no one said anything It sounds like, similar to the Catholic Church reference above, they might be looking to protect themselves rather than anyone else
|
|
|
Post by gastower on May 23, 2021 20:46:28 GMT
What the heck is going on? An argument has started, but nobody will say what it's about. gastower. If you are accusing me of something to do with stirring up some kind of 'anti-Wael' rhetoric, how can that possibly be the case when I honestly have zero clue what's going on? The SC have something on their website, all I've done is ask what it is. If we are looking at the same thing it doesn't mention Wael, in fact, it doesn't even mention the FC. Sorry TWD if it came across that way I apologise ,you’re not involved A certain poster always acts as a catalyst for a slanging match on here, and the debate goes from there downwards I knew nothing about this incident until it was posted on here a week or so ago but it appears the parent of the juvenile involved made a compliant so it had to be investigated.The answer of course is not to put yourself in that position in the first place .A matter of good judgement I suppose which has been sadly lacking of late
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2021 20:59:10 GMT
So the SC did want to make it public but, as there was seemingly no foundation to their accusation, are now embarrassed that it has been. Is that the gist of it? Confused of WsM. You and me both Ann. gastower hasn't made it any easier to understand with his latest post. Looks like a massive error of judgement by the SC. If something inappropriate was written on here then speak to admin and get it removed, admin could then have a quiet word with whoever put up the original post, if apologies are due they can be issued and we can move on, but instead they've written a cryptic website feature about it. For the record, whatever the original story was I totally missed it and am still completely lost, which is probably for the best by the sounds of it.
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,067
|
Post by Angas on May 23, 2021 21:00:11 GMT
I think I've got it now. Nothing to do with the 'unfit person' line, if I'm reading gastower correctly.
|
|
|
Post by The Concept on May 23, 2021 21:28:51 GMT
Also said that a member disclosed it...can’t have been me as JC cancelled my membership long before it was mentioned on here... 🤷🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️ Confused ... I thought a couple of weeks back we established it was support for your application as the BRSC rep on the board withdrawn, rather than BRSC membership cancelled. But now you're saying again "JC cancelled my membership...".
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on May 23, 2021 21:35:40 GMT
What the heck is going on? An argument has started, but nobody will say what it's about. gastower. If you are accusing me of something to do with stirring up some kind of 'anti-Wael' rhetoric, how can that possibly be the case when I honestly have zero clue what's going on? The SC have something on their website, all I've done is ask what it is. If we are looking at the same thing it doesn't mention Wael, in fact, it doesn't even mention the FC. Sorry TWD if it came across that way I apologise ,you’re not involved A certain poster.... That's what I mean about implying and insinuating
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,067
|
Post by Angas on May 23, 2021 21:36:44 GMT
Also said that a member disclosed it...can’t have been me as JC cancelled my membership long before it was mentioned on here... 🤷🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️ Well, not quite. What it actually says is "... a safeguarding concern raised by one of our members has been made public on a supporter’s chat forum".
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on May 23, 2021 21:43:34 GMT
I very rarely wade in as a Mod because this is a very light touch forum but it strikes me that this whole thread is skating on rather thin ice in about every direction. So unless someone is actually prepared to provide some solid information here then it might be for the best if we let this one drop for the timebeing because I don't think anyone on either side of this argument seems prepared to fully state their case here and there might be very good reason for that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2021 22:07:49 GMT
I very rarely wade in as a Mod because this is a very light touch forum but it strikes me that this whole thread is skating on rather thin ice in about every direction. So unless someone is actually prepared to provide some solid information here then it might be for the best if we let this one drop for the timebeing because I don't think anyone on either side of this argument seems prepared to fully state their case here and there might be very good reason for that. Totally agree, but it does raise the question, why did the SC kick a hornets' nest, if that's what they've done?
|
|
|
Post by irenestoyboy on May 23, 2021 22:30:43 GMT
To me it’s pretty simple, I’ve stated what I know to be true, the SC then released a statement, which passed everyone by really.
It would be easy to settle this with a simple question to the SC spokesman on here.
Did Ken Masters, Steve Hamer, Jim Chappell individually or as part of the BRSC report Wael and BRFC to the FA, the council and the police over a safe guarding issue?
Yes or No?
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,181
|
Post by eppinggas on May 24, 2021 9:08:29 GMT
I very rarely wade in as a Mod because this is a very light touch forum but it strikes me that this whole thread is skating on rather thin ice in about every direction. So unless someone is actually prepared to provide some solid information here then it might be for the best if we let this one drop for the timebeing because I don't think anyone on either side of this argument seems prepared to fully state their case here and there might be very good reason for that. Probably the best thing to do irish. I don't see anything potentially libellous (yet). Just mud-slinging.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on May 24, 2021 9:27:28 GMT
I very rarely wade in as a Mod because this is a very light touch forum but it strikes me that this whole thread is skating on rather thin ice in about every direction. So unless someone is actually prepared to provide some solid information here then it might be for the best if we let this one drop for the timebeing because I don't think anyone on either side of this argument seems prepared to fully state their case here and there might be very good reason for that. Probably the best thing to do irish. I don't see anything potentially libellous (yet). Just mud-slinging. OK - so I'm going to anchor this as I think we are in danger of entering some dodgy territory here and the conversation isn't really going anywhere anyway. Plus the potential for misinformation and confusion around a sensitive topic seems very high. I agree with Bamber that there is clearly a valid debate to be had around SC behaviour on this but I'm not sure this thread has become the best place to do that. If anyone objects please message me or Epping and make a case for it to come back up again.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2021 9:32:20 GMT
Yep, best decision.
When I linked to that SC piece I honestly didn't know what it was about.
Now it's just the usual 2 people shouting at each other but not getting anywhere, and in this case, it sounds as if there's a very real danger of someone saying something that could cause serious problems, for them and the forum.
I would lock the thread in all honesty.
I like this forum and don't want it shut down because 2 people get involved in an argument and one of them loses their temper and says something regrettable.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,181
|
Post by eppinggas on May 24, 2021 9:44:50 GMT
Probably the best thing to do irish. I don't see anything potentially libellous (yet). Just mud-slinging. OK - so I'm going to anchor this as I think we are in danger of entering some dodgy territory here and the conversation isn't really going anywhere anyway. Plus the potential for misinformation and confusion around a sensitive topic seems very high. I agree with Bamber that there is clearly a valid debate to be had around SC behaviour on this but I'm not sure this thread has become the best place to do that. If anyone objects please message me or Epping and make a case for it to come back up again. Agreed.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,263
|
Post by kingswood Polak on May 24, 2021 10:44:48 GMT
I think irenestoyboy should provide this incontrovertible proof, then it can be stopped. If the two keep playing verbal ping pong , sans proof, it’s just words with no meaning
|
|
|
Post by irenestoyboy on May 24, 2021 16:49:39 GMT
I think irenestoyboy should provide this incontrovertible proof, then it can be stopped. If the two keep playing verbal ping pong , sans proof, it’s just words with no meaning It would be more interesting if they just answered the simple straight questions posed...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2021 17:17:10 GMT
I think irenestoyboy should provide this incontrovertible proof, then it can be stopped. If the two keep playing verbal ping pong , sans proof, it’s just words with no meaning It would be more interesting if they just answered the simple straight questions posed... If you have an issue with something that someone has said or done please sort it out with them elsewhere, I don't think that anybody apart from you wants our forum dragged into some bitter personal dispute. Admin, please lock this thread before something happens that we can't roll back from. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on May 24, 2021 17:45:25 GMT
I think irenestoyboy should provide this incontrovertible proof, then it can be stopped. If the two keep playing verbal ping pong , sans proof, it’s just words with no meaning The fact the SC's article refers to a "safeguarding" issue seem to support ITB's version of the events?
|
|