@owlstalk Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 Just now, Yellowbelly said: No, I think juries are usually impartial until they’ve heard both sides That's been my point all the way through this thread Seems it only applies if you're sycophantic towards Chansiri though for some reason I personally find that unfair I'm sure you'd agree too Owlstalk Shop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystic Neg Posted December 31, 2020 Author Share Posted December 31, 2020 1 minute ago, Lawrie’s Left Peg said: The owners 12 year old son has allegedly been verbally abused by Sheffield Wednesday fans. If true, it is appalling. There are no excuses. It’s irrelevant whether he or his son are in the public eye. I use social media, so do you, it is not mandatory to verbally abuse children simply because “social media is a thing” All right minded people should unconditionally condemn child abuse (verbal, mental, physical or sexual) It is not that black and white a) Are they Wednesday fans abusing him. b) Why hasn't it been pointed out to the police c) What are we supposed to do about it. d) Are you arguing a case that because a very small minority if idiots have abused Chansiri's son we should simply sweep all his failings under the carpet? Social Media is an awful thing in the wrong hands but we as a collective cannot be persecuted for it. If we are then it means the trolls and the bullies have won. No one on here thinks abusing children on Social Media is fine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwë Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 I think anyone messaging a twelve year old on social media, and doing so in a threatening manner really needs to look in the mirror at the person they've become. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Willow Owl Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 5 minutes ago, @owlstalk said: Thought so So did I !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@owlstalk Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 Getting sick to the back teeth of people shouting about the Chairman's son getting abuse on Instagram WE KNOW NOBODY AGREES WITH IT THE CHAIRMAN SHOULD CALL THE COPS - WE WOULD ALL SUPPORT THAT 100% - WHY HASN'T HE? WHY DOESN'T HE? Stop telling US about it ffs We're not the ones doing it Stop ranting about it If it's that bad the Chairman can sort it with one phone call Let's leave him to do that That's his own personal issue The CLUB is our issue Let's stick to that FFS 1 Owlstalk Shop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystic Neg Posted December 31, 2020 Author Share Posted December 31, 2020 4 minutes ago, Yellowbelly said: Oh ok thanks. So it’s not possible for the Jury to have a neutral opinion until they have all the facts then? FFS I submit it's too painful yellowbelly 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Willow Owl Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 6 minutes ago, @owlstalk said: Willow Owl says NO - and that he's going with what the Chairman says without hearing Pulis side of the story Post not poster, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@owlstalk Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 4 minutes ago, Willow Owl said: So did I !! I've no issue with your sycophancy towards anything and everything Chansiri does That's your choice If you think it's supporting the club better than those who don't that's totally fine If you think it's all the fans fault and they're all being too critical of this chairman that's your right and I have no issue with it I do take exception to you applying hypocritical logic to things though I'm not even saying you're wrong on the Chansiri subject I'm just asking you to stick to our own rules and to not criticise someone for doing the exact same thing YOU are doing Owlstalk Shop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owlinexile Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 2 hours ago, Errol Flashman said: They need a headline. Someone being vile to a kid is more dramatic than "Owner admits to appointing wrong manager" I think 'SWFC owner in unhinged rant: It's the fans' fault I tried to cheat my way around FFP' would have been a good headline myself. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystic Neg Posted December 31, 2020 Author Share Posted December 31, 2020 1 minute ago, Willow Owl said: Post not poster, If I were being pedantic we went off topic of the post ages ago. I was merely pointing out at the start that our Chairman can't help himself having PR disasters when he accuses us of creating them via our one knob head fan giving his child abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowbelly Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 Just now, @owlstalk said: That's been my point all the way through this thread Seems it only applies if you're sycophantic towards Chansiri though for some reason I personally find that unfair I'm sure you'd agree too But in the Pulis sacked thread you were quite critical of Chansiri, which led me to believe that you had already made your mind up over the wrongs and rights of it all. And there’s plenty of Chansiri out supporters who made that decision with you and despite the explaination from DC they still side with Pulis - I don’t mean reserving judgement, I mean siding with - despite the wisest choice obviously being to take the chairman’s comments at face value until evidence from Honest Tone proves other wise. To do so would surely mean that you are inherently against Chansiri and refuse to give him the benefit of the doubt. I mean, you don’t have to believe him but staying neutral is fairer than still being against him on this subject, isn’t it? I found this very confusing. It seems that there’s plenty of double standards on display today. Wouldn't you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Down South Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 1 hour ago, Willow Owl said: Just read back on the number of threads on here making assumptions and criticising the chairman without knowing the facts of the sacking. Why shouldn’t he go into this much detail if it’s true. Why shouldn’t the rest of the football world know what Pulis is like as a person, and if it may save another club from of employing him then good. Personally I am glad he has gone into this much detail as this is what fans were crying for after the sacking. I’m not really that interested in the reasons behind the sacking - my own view is that Chansiri went into far too much detail and looked totally unprofessional as a result. What I find pretty staggering was the suggestion that Pulis was appointed in the belief that entertaining / attacking football would then follow. Who on God’s green earth actually made that recommendation? Surely they should be following Pulis out of the door, but I expect they’re currently involved in the hunt for his replacement. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@owlstalk Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 Just now, Yellowbelly said: But in the Pulis sacked thread you were quite critical of Chansiri, which led me to believe that you had already made your mind up over the wrongs and rights of it all. And there’s plenty of Chansiri out supporters who made that decision with you and despite the explaination from DC they still side with Pulis - I don’t mean reserving judgement, I mean siding with - despite the wisest choice obviously being to take the chairman’s comments at face value until evidence from Honest Tone proves other wise. To do so would surely mean that you are inherently against Chansiri and refuse to give him the benefit of the doubt. I mean, you don’t have to believe him but staying neutral is fairer than still being against him on this subject, isn’t it? I found this very confusing. It seems that there’s plenty of double standards on display today. Wouldn't you agree? What if someone was pro chansiri and happy to just hear his side of stories and that's that? Owlstalk Shop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owlinexile Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 14 minutes ago, Mystic Neg said: Here's how it works The fans or the Jury were out debating who has made the biggest pigs ear of life at Hillsborough - DC or Pulis. They appeared to discuss and decide it was DC who had messed up. Then today DC gave us something first hand to go on, many may have stayed in their camp, some may have changed camps. For it to be a fair trial then we need to hear what Tony Pulis has to say FFS Is pretty much everything that has happened for the last several years before Pulis was appointed Tony's fault too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystic Neg Posted December 31, 2020 Author Share Posted December 31, 2020 Just now, owlinexile said: Is pretty much everything that has happened for the last several years before Pulis was appointed Tony's fault too? Sorry you've lost me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowbelly Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 1 minute ago, @owlstalk said: What if someone was pro chansiri and happy to just hear his side of stories and that's that? Then they’re as unreasonable as the people who slate him just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystic Neg Posted December 31, 2020 Author Share Posted December 31, 2020 2 minutes ago, Yellowbelly said: But in the Pulis sacked thread you were quite critical of Chansiri, which led me to believe that you had already made your mind up over the wrongs and rights of it all. And there’s plenty of Chansiri out supporters who made that decision with you and despite the explaination from DC they still side with Pulis - I don’t mean reserving judgement, I mean siding with - despite the wisest choice obviously being to take the chairman’s comments at face value until evidence from Honest Tone proves other wise. To do so would surely mean that you are inherently against Chansiri and refuse to give him the benefit of the doubt. I mean, you don’t have to believe him but staying neutral is fairer than still being against him on this subject, isn’t it? I found this very confusing. It seems that there’s plenty of double standards on display today. Wouldn't you agree? Are you a lawyer by any chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@owlstalk Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 1 minute ago, Yellowbelly said: Then they’re as unreasonable as the people who slate him just because. I agree - it should apply both ways We're in full agreement Only one person in this thread saying otherwise Owlstalk Shop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystic Neg Posted December 31, 2020 Author Share Posted December 31, 2020 Just now, @owlstalk said: I agree - it should apply both ways Ladies and gents it appears that at the 11th hour we have another deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@owlstalk Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 Just now, Mystic Neg said: Ladies and gents it appears that at the 11th hour we have another deal Not with everyone Owlstalk Shop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now