Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: Thinwhiteduke on February 22, 2012, 06:22:28 pm
-
Just because Silent Majority doesnt want to discuss this.....
http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=999999&id=221608&Itemid=108
....he has deemed it his right to lock the thread despite nothing controversial or offensive being posted. I assume the rest of us are not allowed to discuss anything that doesnt suit these 'holier than thou' individuals either then?
Tell you what Mods....remove my account......I frankly cant be arsed on here anymore.
-
Why has the thread been locked can the blocker please explain????
(
-
In before the lock!!
-
It is getting beyond a joke on here. Makes me laugh that we're all grown men and some women, yet we can't get into a discussion or heated debate without the mods deleting comments or locking threads. I mean seriously, grow up. People swear, personalities clash, it's life, and for god sake it's the bloody internet!
If you can't hack it from time to time, then why use the internet? Absolute joke the mods on here
-
It is getting beyond a joke on here. Makes me laugh that we're all grown men and some women, yet we can't get into a discussion or heated debate without the mods deleting comments or locking threads. I mean seriously, grow up. People swear, personalities clash, it's life, and for god sake it's the bloody internet!
If you can't hack it from time to time, then why use the internet? Absolute joke the mods on here
At a guess the total number of locked threads on the whole forum over the last two years is about 5 or 6.
The topic of MrFrost leaving/being banned is not open for discussion, neither should it be. Suffice to say, it wasn't anything to do with any mod or VSC Director simply \"disagreeing with his opinions\" or a \"personality clash\".
-
You could always flip that the other way and say \"we're all grown men and some women, yet we can't accept it when a forum Admin decides to exercise their right to lock or remove a thread\".
Not necessarily my view, just making a point.
-
I'm not saying you were wrong to ban him. I don't know why he got banned, what he said, he was an idiot who probably deserved it. What I am saying is that I don't understand why comments get deleted and threads get locked, all because the mods don't want to talk about it. It's a bit childish is it not? Because you don't want to talk about it, the rest of us can't? Sounds almost like how Hitler's regime began...
-
Just because Silent Majority doesnt want to discuss this.....
http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=999999&id=221608&Itemid=108
....he has deemed it his right to lock the thread despite nothing controversial or offensive being posted. I assume the rest of us are not allowed to discuss anything that doesnt suit these 'holier than thou' individuals either then?
Tell you what Mods....remove my account......I frankly cant be arsed on here anymore.
How do you know there was nothing controversial or offensive? You don't. But I do, because I know that MrFrost misrepresented some parts of a private message to him and ignored other parts when he made his last post, in another attempt to blacken the VSC. I found that controversial and offensive. However, as the messages were private ones and not posted publicly I'm not sure what the legal position is about making them public.
-
6 posts before mentioning hitler? Got to be some kind of record...
-
I'm not saying you were wrong to ban him. I don't know why he got banned, what he said, he was an idiot who probably deserved it. What I am saying is that I don't understand why comments get deleted and threads get locked, all because the mods don't want to talk about it. It's a bit childish is it not? Because you don't want to talk about it, the rest of us can't? Sounds almost like how Hitler's regime began...
Threatening the VSC with legal action could be regarded as childish too. And could also be a good reason not to want to talk about it.
-
discuss
:laugh:
-
Bollox to this, IM PHONING THE POLICE!!! hope you like porridge!!!!
-
Sounds almost like how Hitler's regime began...
So true. So, so true.
-
Dear VSc Community,
I don't know what all this criticism of the moderators is about. In my view, they are doing a fine job, promoting free speech for all.
Regards,
President Assad,
Syria
-
What I am saying is that I don't understand why comments get deleted and threads get locked, all because the mods don't want to talk about it. It's a bit childish is it not? Because you don't want to talk about it, the rest of us can't? Sounds almost like how Hitler's regime began...
I'm afraid you're mistaken. We don't delete/lock threads just because \"we don't want to talk about it\". :huh:
-
Dear VSc Community,
I don't know what all this criticism of the moderators is about. In my view, they are doing a fine job, promoting free speech for all.
Regards,
President Assad,
Syria
If you'd signed it Ken Bates you might have had me.
-
Dear VSc Community,
I don't know what all this criticism of the moderators is about. In my view, they are doing a fine job, promoting free speech for all.
Regards,
President Assad,
Syria
If you'd signed it Ken Bates you might have had me.
Papa Smurf would have sued if he did. :silly:
-
Anyone know when we're gonna get to focus on that 'football' malarky again on here?
-
Just because Silent Majority doesnt want to discuss this.....
http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=999999&id=221608&Itemid=108
....he has deemed it his right to lock the thread despite nothing controversial or offensive being posted. I assume the rest of us are not allowed to discuss anything that doesnt suit these 'holier than thou' individuals either then?
Tell you what Mods....remove my account......I frankly cant be arsed on here anymore.
Which one?
You know, you always jump into a thread and try to take the moral high ground don`t you?
I`ll tell you what, you put yourself in the firing line, you deal with the threats of legal action and we`ll sit back and criticise everything you do, it`s OK for you posting stuff like that is n`t it, safe in the knowledge that you`re not in the sights of a legal bullet!
Many posters are commenting without the full facts as usual, we hardly ever lock threads, we hardly ever delete posts, but when a poster decides to threaten the organization with legal action whether it`s posturing or serious, we have to treat it as a serious threat and take action accordingly. I`m saddened that it`s come to this, it need not have if the poster in question had n`t thrown his toys out. :(
-
A very sad episode however, I'm sure everyone is aware of the forum rules and please be assured the mods and directors of the VSC only take action as a last resort. We hope the rules will suffice to enable people to take a step back and review their stance however, when this does not happen action unfortunately needs to be taken.
Once action is taken, for the protection of the individual and for the protection of the VSC, it's members and visitors it is not appropriate for details to be published to then be subject to further debate.
The Directors and Mods perform voluntarily, vigilantly and thanklessly and on balance get very much more things right than wrong.
We hope you understand this and help us to move on when quite frankly, there are more pressing issues that need our time and positive input.
-
The Viking Chat moderation team is made up of VSC directors and VSC members who have volunteered their own time to help maintain the smooth running of this website.
The VSC does not exist as a supporters type club, we are a co-operative that is registered as an Industrial and Provident Society under the Financial Services Authority and we are also a member of Supporters Direct which was originally Government funded to support fan influence and fan ownership of Football clubs.
Under the rules provided by Supporters Direct (from the Model Rules) we are bound by our own legislation to be accessible by all, and a democratic organisation that provides members 1 share and one vote in our society. Another rule is that our objective is to be a representative voice of the supporters of the Club and strengthening the bonds between the Club and the Community which it serves. Therefore the VSC does not deny any supporter the right to speak their opinions of the club, and also of the society.
As Viking Chat is a service provided by the VSC, we implement these rules which is why we do not deny non-members the chance to use the forum and voice their concerns. However all users of this forum (whether members or non-members) make an bonded agreement with Viking Chat of the terms and conditions, by doing so you agree to our rules of this website. The poster in question failed to abide by these rules and his right to be a member became void under our \"3 strike policy\".
This was not an incident that was dealt with by one individual, it was discussed between all directors and a decision was reached. The subsequent thread was locked because the moderators have spent some time discussing this issue, and discussions were ongoing between the poster and the moderators via PM, under the sites rules the moderators cannot state what was said privately between a user and a moderator. The post was locked because it was leading to fellow users scrutinizing the VSC and putting the VSC in a position where it cannot defend itself due to the 'evidence' of defense being a private discussion where we are not in a position to reveal what was said. We therefore felt that because we cannot answer the questions specifically that were going to arise about the VSC, it would be a waste of your own time to ask them.
Should any of you have any further concerns about Viking Chat please PM a moderator, or locate the VSC Director's email addresses in the 'contact us' link under the information bar located on the left of your screen.
Regards
Lee,
-
Just as a matter of interest, how many Mods do we have on the forum?
-
The idea that this forum is destined to turn into YAURS was scoffed at by one of the mods on here a few weeks ago.
I'd say talk of legal action between mods and posters has brought that reality a step further.
-
Just as a matter of interest, how many Mods do we have on the forum?
The moderators are: DRNaith, Filo,
The VSC Directors (labelled Administrators or Admin) are: Gartom, Berkshire Rovers, Silent_Majority, RobtheRover, bobjimwilly, Glyn_Wigley, NathanDRFC DonnyBazRovers, Mr1Croft.
That makes 11 moderators in total, if I missed anyone out don't kill me :(
-
The idea that this forum is destined to turn into YAURS was scoffed at by one of the mods on here a few weeks ago.
I'd say talk of legal action between mods and posters has brought that reality a step further.
It`s the other way round this time though
-
''but when a poster decides to threaten the organization with legal action whether it`s posturing or serious, we have to treat it as a serious threat and take action accordingly''
I dont understand this, how are you protecting the 'organization' - do you really think Mr Frost would have sued the 'organization' for deformation of character or something similar, and even if he had the chances of him winning based on the evidence I have seen would have been miniscule.
Where is the threat?
-
The idea that this forum is destined to turn into YAURS was scoffed at by one of the mods on here a few weeks ago.
I'd say talk of legal action between mods and posters has brought that reality a step further.
:zzz:
Can we get back to talking about the Rovers at some point?
-
The Viking Chat moderation team is made up of VSC directors and VSC members who have volunteered their own time to help maintain the smooth running of this website.
The VSC does not exist as a supporters type club, we are a co-operative that is registered as an Industrial and Provident Society under the Financial Services Authority and we are also a member of Supporters Direct which was originally Government funded to support fan influence and fan ownership of Football clubs.
Under the rules provided by Supporters Direct (from the Model Rules) we are bound by our own legislation to be accessible by all, and a democratic organisation that provides members 1 share and one vote in our society. Another rule is that our objective is to be a representative voice of the supporters of the Club and strengthening the bonds between the Club and the Community which it serves. Therefore the VSC does not deny any supporter the right to speak their opinions of the club, and also of the society.
As Viking Chat is a service provided by the VSC, we implement these rules which is why we do not deny non-members the chance to use the forum and voice their concerns. However all users of this forum (whether members or non-members) make an bonded agreement with Viking Chat of the terms and conditions, by doing so you agree to our rules of this website. The poster in question failed to abide by these rules and his right to be a member became void under our \"3 strike policy\".
This was not an incident that was dealt with by one individual, it was discussed between all directors and a decision was reached. The subsequent thread was locked because the moderators have spent some time discussing this issue, and discussions were ongoing between the poster and the moderators via PM, under the sites rules the moderators cannot state what was said privately between a user and a moderator. The post was locked because it was leading to fellow users scrutinizing the VSC and putting the VSC in a position where it cannot defend itself due to the 'evidence' of defense being a private discussion where we are not in a position to reveal what was said. We therefore felt that because we cannot answer the questions specifically that were going to arise about the VSC, it would be a waste of your own time to ask them.
Should any of you have any further concerns about Viking Chat please PM a moderator, or locate the VSC Director's email addresses in the 'contact us' link under the information bar located on the left of your screen.
Regards
Lee,
Would you be writing all that if they hadn't added an admin badge to your profile? You certainly won't be arranging any protests now, will you?!
-
I'd say talk of legal action between mods and posters has brought that reality a step further.
It`s the other way round this time though
True Filo. But whichever way round it is it's very sad.
:zzz:
Can we get back to talking about the Rovers at some point?
You go for it champ...in one of the other threads. The one's about football. The titles are a dead giveaway.
-
I'd say talk of legal action between mods and posters has brought that reality a step further.
It`s the other way round this time though
True Filo. But whichever way round it is it's very sad.
I agree
Just for clarification the last legal spat was for comments made on this forum`s predecessor and not on the now defunct other place
-
Just for clarification the last legal spat was for comments made on this forum`s predecessor and not on the now defunct other place
For clarification (http://www.footballforums.net/forums/showthread.php/152620-Fans-in-court-battle)
-
Can you lock this thread too?
-
The Viking Chat moderation team is made up of VSC directors and VSC members who have volunteered their own time to help maintain the smooth running of this website.
The VSC does not exist as a supporters type club, we are a co-operative that is registered as an Industrial and Provident Society under the Financial Services Authority and we are also a member of Supporters Direct which was originally Government funded to support fan influence and fan ownership of Football clubs.
Under the rules provided by Supporters Direct (from the Model Rules) we are bound by our own legislation to be accessible by all, and a democratic organisation that provides members 1 share and one vote in our society. Another rule is that our objective is to be a representative voice of the supporters of the Club and strengthening the bonds between the Club and the Community which it serves. Therefore the VSC does not deny any supporter the right to speak their opinions of the club, and also of the society.
As Viking Chat is a service provided by the VSC, we implement these rules which is why we do not deny non-members the chance to use the forum and voice their concerns. However all users of this forum (whether members or non-members) make an bonded agreement with Viking Chat of the terms and conditions, by doing so you agree to our rules of this website. The poster in question failed to abide by these rules and his right to be a member became void under our \"3 strike policy\".
This was not an incident that was dealt with by one individual, it was discussed between all directors and a decision was reached. The subsequent thread was locked because the moderators have spent some time discussing this issue, and discussions were ongoing between the poster and the moderators via PM, under the sites rules the moderators cannot state what was said privately between a user and a moderator. The post was locked because it was leading to fellow users scrutinizing the VSC and putting the VSC in a position where it cannot defend itself due to the 'evidence' of defense being a private discussion where we are not in a position to reveal what was said. We therefore felt that because we cannot answer the questions specifically that were going to arise about the VSC, it would be a waste of your own time to ask them.
Should any of you have any further concerns about Viking Chat please PM a moderator, or locate the VSC Director's email addresses in the 'contact us' link under the information bar located on the left of your screen.
Regards
Lee,
Would you be writing all that if they hadn't added an admin badge to your profile? You certainly won't be arranging any protests now, will you?!
-
Just for clarification the last legal spat was for comments made on this forum`s predecessor and not on the now defunct other place
For clarification (http://www.footballforums.net/forums/showthread.php/152620-Fans-in-court-battle)
Thank you, I know what i`m on about ;)
-
Well, after one of the worst days I can remember, mostly spent either sitting around in Gloucester Hospital or mopping up copious amounts of sick, at least this thread has brought a smile to my face. Thanks chaps. :)
I'll venture just a few short thoughts:
1) Without rules there is anarchy. Anarchy, despite its attractions, is a destructive force. So, mods have every right, and indeed the duty, of enforcing whatever rules we have - whether we like those rules or not. So, if Frosty broke them, he has to pay the price.
2) When clubs are in trouble, as ours obviously is, supporters tend to lose their sense of proportion, their sense of reality, their sense of justice. The end result of that lot is always, always, always, spats, arguments and raised emotions. Hence, people fall out with each other, and, people say things they should not.
3) Frosty, despite his occasional shafts of insight, has consistently, and persistently, been an obnoxious, argumentative and destructive force. It is not difficult to put across an unpopular view, a strongly disagreeing view, a critical view, without provoking the reactions that Frosty has done so consistently. He has brought it upon himself. A few moments thought before hitting the keys would have allowed his arguments to be put without creating the animosity which quite a feew on here feel for him. He's peed me off enough I know. The chap has brains. He has insight sometimes. He has the right to challenge. But he's always so damn offensive about it that hardly any bugger listened. Throwing his toys out with fellow supporters, threatening legal action, just like Wroey, is a measure of the man. Sad as it is, he will be no loss.
If you want to see how to challenge current orthodoxies, look up BST. He's master of the art.
Cheers
BobG
-
Well, after one of the worst days I can remember, mostly spent either sitting around in Gloucester Hospital or mopping up copious amounts of sick, at least this thread has brought a smile to my face. Thanks chaps. :)
I'll venture just a few short thoughts:
1) Without rules there is anarchy. Anarchy, despite its attractions, is a destructive force. So, mods have every right, and indeed the duty, of enforcing whatever rules we have - whether we like those rules or not. So, if Frosty broke them, he has to pay the price.
2) When clubs are in trouble, as ours obviously is, supporters tend to lose their sense of proportion, their sense of reality, their sense of justice. The end result of that lot is always, always, always, spats, arguments and raised emotions. Hence, people fall out with each other, and, people say things they should not.
3) Frosty, despite his occasional shafts of insight, has consistently, and persistently, been an obnoxious, argumentative and destructive force. It is not difficult to put across an unpopular view, a strongly disagreeing view, a critical view, without provoking the reactions that Frosty has done so consistently. He has brought it upon himself. A few moments thought before hitting the keys would have allowed his arguments to be put without creating the animosity which quite a feew on here feel for him. He's peed me off enough I know. The chap has brains. He has insight sometimes. He has the right to challenge. But he's always so damn offensive about it that hardly any bugger listened. Throwing his toys out with fellow supporters, threatening legal action, just like Wroey, is a measure of the man. Sad as it is, he will be no loss.
If you want to see how to challenge current orthodoxies, look up BST. He's master of the art.
Cheers
BobG
Post of the millenium IMHO
Cheers Bob, the voice of sanity
-
Lol! Thank you Redwine!!! Really has been a shite day here today. You too have cheered me up a bit. Thank you!
BobG
-
Thank you for that summation, Bob.
I find comparisons of our barely perceptable moderation and what YAURS decended into towards the end quite laughable. Like its either black or white - no moderation or full censorship. We do nothing like that, and never will, but we will react to threats against us personally, the site, or the organisation, as it all paints the VSC in a bad light, whether true or not. As we've seen in other threads over the years, the truth is incidental to what people believe.
-
[attachment=1033]ball.jpg[/attachment]
-
Just as a matter of interest, how many Mods do we have on the forum?
The VSC Directors (labelled Administrators or Admin) are: Gartom, Berkshire Rovers, Silent_Majority, RobtheRover, bobjimwilly, Glyn_Wigley, NathanDRFC DonnyBazRovers, Mr1Croft.
(
You are actually a Director of the VSC?
-
Just as a matter of interest, how many Mods do we have on the forum?
The VSC Directors (labelled Administrators or Admin) are: Gartom, Berkshire Rovers, Silent_Majority, RobtheRover, bobjimwilly, Glyn_Wigley, NathanDRFC DonnyBazRovers, Mr1Croft.
(
You are actually a Director of the VSC?
New VSC Board Members (http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=1000007&id=219591&Itemid=108#220094)
-
Just as a matter of interest, how many Mods do we have on the forum?
The VSC Directors (labelled Administrators or Admin) are: Gartom, Berkshire Rovers, Silent_Majority, RobtheRover, bobjimwilly, Glyn_Wigley, NathanDRFC DonnyBazRovers, Mr1Croft.
(
You are actually a Director of the VSC?
Neil, in between AGM's the VSC Board can co-opt Directors to join them, the numbers of such co-opted members is limited and their appointment has to be endorsed by members at the subsequent AGM. Lee and Barry fall into this category.
-
The Viking Chat moderation team is made up of VSC directors and VSC members who have volunteered their own time to help maintain the smooth running of this website.
The VSC does not exist as a supporters type club, we are a co-operative that is registered as an Industrial and Provident Society under the Financial Services Authority and we are also a member of Supporters Direct which was originally Government funded to support fan influence and fan ownership of Football clubs.
Under the rules provided by Supporters Direct (from the Model Rules) we are bound by our own legislation to be accessible by all, and a democratic organisation that provides members 1 share and one vote in our society. Another rule is that our objective is to be a representative voice of the supporters of the Club and strengthening the bonds between the Club and the Community which it serves. Therefore the VSC does not deny any supporter the right to speak their opinions of the club, and also of the society.
As Viking Chat is a service provided by the VSC, we implement these rules which is why we do not deny non-members the chance to use the forum and voice their concerns. However all users of this forum (whether members or non-members) make an bonded agreement with Viking Chat of the terms and conditions, by doing so you agree to our rules of this website. The poster in question failed to abide by these rules and his right to be a member became void under our \"3 strike policy\".
This was not an incident that was dealt with by one individual, it was discussed between all directors and a decision was reached. The subsequent thread was locked because the moderators have spent some time discussing this issue, and discussions were ongoing between the poster and the moderators via PM, under the sites rules the moderators cannot state what was said privately between a user and a moderator. The post was locked because it was leading to fellow users scrutinizing the VSC and putting the VSC in a position where it cannot defend itself due to the 'evidence' of defense being a private discussion where we are not in a position to reveal what was said. We therefore felt that because we cannot answer the questions specifically that were going to arise about the VSC, it would be a waste of your own time to ask them.
Should any of you have any further concerns about Viking Chat please PM a moderator, or locate the VSC Director's email addresses in the 'contact us' link under the information bar located on the left of your screen.
Regards
Lee,
wow cheers crofty. . . !
-
Thank god this has caused TWD to f**k off, absolute bore of a tory t**t.
-
Thank god this has caused TWD to fcuk off, absolute bore of a tory t**t.
IS there any need???????
-
Exactly, we seem to be hemorrhaging posters faster than a burst blood bag, soon the way it's going there will be less posters than there are admin...
-
Thank god this has caused TWD to fcuk off, absolute bore of a tory t**t.
And who can blame him for not bothering with comments like that becoming widespread on here.
-
how do you get to be on the board of the Vsc.
Is there any truth in the rumour you had to petition them, crofty
-
Crofty,
Obviously the main part of this dispute was by PM. I may be wrong, because of the lack of information, but Frosty was made a \"liar\" by VSC in no uncertain terms. Now if the VSC is confident of its ground there is no fear of any legal action, if not, it should not have called him a liar.
Surely Frosty has the right to appeal this decision if its not in the constitution then it should be. VSC is acting as judge and jury in this case and it doesn't sound right to me.
I have been criticised by a member of VSC in the past for having a distorted(my word not his) view of democracy I would be interested in your opinion as I know you are not frightened to rock the boat.
-
Crofty,
Obviously the main part of this dispute was by PM. I may be wrong, because of the lack of information, but Frosty was made a \"liar\" by VSC in no uncertain terms. Now if the VSC is confident of its ground there is no fear of any legal action, if not, it should not have called him a liar.
Surely Frosty has the right to appeal this decision if its not in the constitution then it should be. VSC is acting as judge and jury in this case and it doesn't sound right to me.
I have been criticised by a member of VSC in the past for having a distorted(my word not his) view of democracy I would be interested in your opinion as I know you are not frightened to rock the boat.
Alickismyhero,
Firstly the user approached a director of the VSC by PM, that is all I am going to say in terms of the PM's I will not reveal anything on the content. After discussing it among moderators and directors the VSC came to it's decision after it was decided that the user had indeed violated the 3 strike policy.
As for the \"liar\" issue I was not on the Society Board to back up what either the user or the moderator were claiming was truth and lie and therefore I cannot comment on this, and until I am proved otherwise I will defend the actions of my fellow Director.
The VSC does have a Constitution, but the VSC and Viking Chat are not one and the same. Viking Chat is a service provided by the VSC with very few rules. The user was not a VSC member either so he didn't have the right to implement any part of the Constitution to their situation, as only a Viking Chat member. Therefore we do not implement a \"right to appeal\" but PERSONALLY I think that this is something we may need to look at in the future.
Cheers
Lee,
P.S Anyone who believes in a democracies existence has a distorted view in my opinion ;)
-
Crofty,
A good reply and perhaps the VSC member calling Frosty a liar would have been better placed had he taken a similar approach.
It seems, on the surface, poorly handled and the credibility of the VSC site will be brought in to question in the areas of censorship and democracy.
When it comes to democracy I am equal and opposite to your stated view.
Poacher turned gamekeeper springs to mind.
-
Thank god this has caused TWD to fcuk off, absolute bore of a tory t**t.
IS there any need???????
Every need.
-
Thank god this has caused TWD to fcuk off, absolute bore of a tory t**t.
And who can blame him for not bothering with comments like that becoming widespread on here.
Are you suggesting comments like that are more common than on the old site? The legendary old site.
-
Tbh Alick the democracy comment was tongue in cheek and it was not implied in any way to the running of the VSC, in all honesty democracy doesn't really exist in any part of the world, not absolute democracy anyway.
The VSC is democratic in that it gives each member 1 share and 1 vote and we will listen to what ever member says but we cannot please everyone. We have to act in the interest of the majority of members, we are a registered Industrial and Provident Society regulated by the FSA, we have our own set of rules that we are bound by. Because this is only a service of the VSC we created our own rules precisely foe this forum and we must abide by them.
The VSC regrets that it was forced to make a decision, but we do not regret the decision made.
-
The thing that I find most comical out of all this, is that crofty has somehow become a member of the board! :ohmy:
-
The thing that I find most comical out of all this, is that crofty has somehow become a member of the board! :ohmy:
It's part of the \"divide and conquer\" strategy.
-
Croft's promotion to board member status is surely linked to his fondness for wearing suits.
-
Poacher turned gamekeeper springs to mind.
I'm sure you can think of many in history who have seen the light !
Lee, like myself, have been on both 'sides' (although there are no sides)and has recently seen more of how the VSC operates this forum and how fair people are treated. Of course in any unfortunate episode there is a right of appeal however, when that right is declined then sanctions are made as a last resort.
-
Poacher turned gamekeeper springs to mind.
I'm sure you can think of many in history who have seen the light !
Lee, like myself, have been on both 'sides' (although there are no sides)and has recently seen more of how the VSC operates this forum and how fair people are treated. Of course in any unfortunate episode there is a right of appeal however, when that right is declined then sanctions are made as a last resort.
wtf ?
-
I think it`s time to move on from this episode, plenty of posters have had their say and I think the Forum admin team can probably learn something from this. The top and bottom line is that any forum has to have administrators and moderators, sometimes (although very rarely on here) decisions are made that may not be popular, posters have to respect those decisions whether they agree are not, without that respect there`s no point in having administrators or moderators, and without those there is no forum. Do we want that? All we ask is respect everyone, posters and admin alike and sometimes accept that some one elses point of view is different from your own
-
The thing that I find most comical out of all this, is that crofty has somehow become a member of the board! :ohmy:
haha he's an absolute clown right? Has he not been ejected from football grounds in the past? Good look for the vsc that is :suicide:
-
Crofty
my response would be \"define what you mean by absolute democracy\" but please don't respond.
I have had my say, in a respectful way, pointing out that I don't like the way it was handled, purely on what I have read on the site.
I am pleased I was allowed to say it, you could say, democracy in action.
Crofty,
A good reply and perhaps the VSC member calling Frosty a liar would have been better placed had he taken a similar approach.
It seems, on the surface, poorly handled and the credibility of the VSC site will be brought in to question in the areas of censorship and democracy.
When it comes to democracy I am equal and opposite to your stated view.
Poacher turned gamekeeper springs to mind.
-
The thing that I find most comical out of all this, is that crofty has somehow become a member of the board! :ohmy:
haha he's an absolute clown right? Has he not been ejected from football grounds in the past? Good look for the vsc that is :suicide:
Wtf as him being ejected from a mactch before got to do this? Nothing, thats the correct answer. If he does good for the VSC then whats the problem?
-
The thing that I find most comical out of all this, is that crofty has somehow become a member of the board! :ohmy:
haha he's an absolute clown right? Has he not been ejected from football grounds in the past? Good look for the vsc that is :suicide:
are you the jester then?
-
Well donnyrovers fc, since you ask I may as well elaborate. The point I make is an implicit one, that someone who may have been ejected from football matches might not be the best choice for a director of the VSC.
For people who get ejected from football matches have a tendency to be loose-cannons, and more importantly, trouble.
But like I say, good luck to Crofty with the VSC. Let's hope it works out.
And thanks for the 'correct' answer. I'll be sure to PM you if I have any more pressing questions that need correct answers. Oh actually, I just thought of one. Would you like Rovers to get relegated next season?
-
Thank god this has caused TWD to fcuk off, absolute bore of a tory t**t.
And who can blame him for not bothering with comments like that becoming widespread on here.
Are you suggesting comments like that are more common than on the old site? The legendary old site.
The 'old site' or 'legendary old site' or whatever you are refering to never even crossed my mind. My reply to your post regarding TWD was in relation to comments made in a similar vein by a number of posters on THIS forum.
-
Well donnyrovers fc, since you ask I may as well elaborate. The point I make is an implicit one, that someone who may have been ejected from football matches might not be the best choice for a director of the VSC.
For people who get ejected from football matches have a tendency to be loose-cannons, and more importantly, trouble.
But like I say, good luck to Crofty with the VSC. Let's hope it works out.
And thanks for the 'correct' answer. I'll be sure to PM you if I have any more pressing questions that need correct answers. Oh actually, I just thought of one. Would you like Rovers to get relegated next season?
Pretty sure i read somewhere that he recieved an apology from Middlesbrough for them kicking him out... Dont think he makes an habit of it, or goes alll out to cause trouble.
PM me anytime you like, i'm not clued up on literature questions though so you're on your own if you need an answer to a question on that subject.
Do i want Rovers to be relegated next season? Simple answer, no. I like league 1 but league 2 is a terrible level.
-
Well donnyrovers fc, since you ask I may as well elaborate. The point I make is an implicit one, that someone who may have been ejected from football matches might not be the best choice for a director of the VSC.
For people who get ejected from football matches have a tendency to be loose-cannons, and more importantly, trouble.
But like I say, good luck to Crofty with the VSC. Let's hope it works out.
And thanks for the 'correct' answer. I'll be sure to PM you if I have any more pressing questions that need correct answers. Oh actually, I just thought of one. Would you like Rovers to get relegated next season?
Well if I was a trouble caused (although hooligan is perhaps more accurate) you could say that considering the VSC needs to reach out to all DRFC fans, it isn't the worse situation for the VSC to be in.
But I must confess im only 9 stone, I couldn't cause trouble with a buffet.
But yes I have had incidents (over a year ago now) where I have been foolish, drinking far too much and been on the wrong end of some heavy handed stewards. However I was kicked out for wearing a suit, and persistent standing on seperate occassions, neither are acts of criminal law and I have never been held in police custody for anything inside or outside of football, and nor have I committed an offence that would lead to it.
I was younger, naiver and thought I knew better then anyone else. The only good thing to come out of these is that I learnt and they helped me to mature. On Saturday I was sat next to the young lad who got kicked out for jumping up when bamago hit the post. In the past I probably would have reacted by causing a fuss and leading to myself getting ejected or at the least warned. Instead I calmly watched, and when that biggish bloke (suited) pulled the stewards to one side to give them a bollocking i spoke to him about the incident and retrieved an email address for the head of safety to whom I could complain.
Previous to me being a board member I have done previous work with the VSC in terms of community work and that poster on the home page in regards to Wednesday's launch is my poster, I attended meetings to help set up this scheme with other members and tomorrow I am meeting with other members of this forum and various organisations including the DRFC community team to finalise things. I hope by doing this I proved my commitment and I ask I am judged by what I am going to do, and not by my past.
-
I ask I am judged by what I am going to do, and not by my past.
How can anyone judge you by what you haven't done yet? :huh:
-
Well if I was a trouble causer (although hooligan is perhaps more accurate) you could say that considering the VSC needs to reach out to all DRFC fans, it isn't the worse situation for the VSC to be in.
VSC are hunting the 'hooligan pound'? :laugh:
-
I ask I am judged by what I am going to do, and not by my past.
How can anyone judge you by what you haven't done yet? :huh:
any need to be pedantic? we both know Lee meant judge him on the work he is doing now for the vsc, not on his past.
-
I ask I am judged by what I am going to do, and not by my past.
How can anyone judge you by what you haven't done yet? :huh:
any need to be pedantic? we both know Lee meant judge him on the work he is doing now for the vsc, not on his past.
Sorry, forgot the 10 VSC commandments...
1. Thou shalt remain 100% serious in every post.
-
Well donnyrovers fc, since you ask I may as well elaborate. The point I make is an implicit one, that someone who may have been ejected from football matches might not be the best choice for a director of the VSC.
For people who get ejected from football matches have a tendency to be loose-cannons, and more importantly, trouble.
But like I say, good luck to Crofty with the VSC. Let's hope it works out.
And thanks for the 'correct' answer. I'll be sure to PM you if I have any more pressing questions that need correct answers. Oh actually, I just thought of one. Would you like Rovers to get relegated next season?
Well if I was a trouble caused (although hooligan is perhaps more accurate) you could say that considering the VSC needs to reach out to all DRFC fans, it isn't the worse situation for the VSC to be in.
But I must confess im only 9 stone, I couldn't cause trouble with a buffet.
But yes I have had incidents (over a year ago now) where I have been foolish, drinking far too much and been on the wrong end of some heavy handed stewards. However I was kicked out for wearing a suit, and persistent standing on seperate occassions, neither are acts of criminal law and I have never been held in police custody for anything inside or outside of football, and nor have I committed an offence that would lead to it.
I was younger, naiver and thought I knew better then anyone else. The only good thing to come out of these is that I learnt and they helped me to mature. On Saturday I was sat next to the young lad who got kicked out for jumping up when bamago hit the post. In the past I probably would have reacted by causing a fuss and leading to myself getting ejected or at the least warned. Instead I calmly watched, and when that biggish bloke (suited) pulled the stewards to one side to give them a bollocking i spoke to him about the incident and retrieved an email address for the head of safety to whom I could complain.
Previous to me being a board member I have done previous work with the VSC in terms of community work and that poster on the home page in regards to Wednesday's launch is my poster, I attended meetings to help set up this scheme with other members and tomorrow I am meeting with other members of this forum and various organisations including the DRFC community team to finalise things. I hope by doing this I proved my commitment and I ask I am judged by what I am going to do, and not by my past.
Good lad. It's all part of the growing up process.
Before you know it, you'll be mature enough to not vote Tory in 2015.
-
Well donnyrovers fc, since you ask I may as well elaborate. The point I make is an implicit one, that someone who may have been ejected from football matches might not be the best choice for a director of the VSC.
For people who get ejected from football matches have a tendency to be loose-cannons, and more importantly, trouble.
But like I say, good luck to Crofty with the VSC. Let's hope it works out.
And thanks for the 'correct' answer. I'll be sure to PM you if I have any more pressing questions that need correct answers. Oh actually, I just thought of one. Would you like Rovers to get relegated next season?
Well if I was a trouble caused (although hooligan is perhaps more accurate) you could say that considering the VSC needs to reach out to all DRFC fans, it isn't the worse situation for the VSC to be in.
But I must confess im only 9 stone, I couldn't cause trouble with a buffet.
But yes I have had incidents (over a year ago now) where I have been foolish, drinking far too much and been on the wrong end of some heavy handed stewards. However I was kicked out for wearing a suit, and persistent standing on seperate occassions, neither are acts of criminal law and I have never been held in police custody for anything inside or outside of football, and nor have I committed an offence that would lead to it.
I was younger, naiver and thought I knew better then anyone else. The only good thing to come out of these is that I learnt and they helped me to mature. On Saturday I was sat next to the young lad who got kicked out for jumping up when bamago hit the post. In the past I probably would have reacted by causing a fuss and leading to myself getting ejected or at the least warned. Instead I calmly watched, and when that biggish bloke (suited) pulled the stewards to one side to give them a bollocking i spoke to him about the incident and retrieved an email address for the head of safety to whom I could complain.
Previous to me being a board member I have done previous work with the VSC in terms of community work and that poster on the home page in regards to Wednesday's launch is my poster, I attended meetings to help set up this scheme with other members and tomorrow I am meeting with other members of this forum and various organisations including the DRFC community team to finalise things. I hope by doing this I proved my commitment and I ask I am judged by what I am going to do, and not by my past.
Good lad. It's all part of the growing up process.
Before you know it, you'll be mature enough to not vote Tory in 2015.
Already considering it, my problem lies with Cameron. Any other Conservative leader (apart from IDS) would have stormed to power in the last General Election. Probably because he is private school educated unlike every leader in the past 40 years...
That said I ain't voting Labour either, can't stand Miliband, and Labour aren't known for getting rid of their poor leaders either...
-
Croft's promotion to board member status is surely linked to his fondness for wearing suits.
:lol:
This post needs more love, brilliant stuff.
Also, I must admit (on a Doncaster Rovers forum this may not be the best way forward) that I voted for the Conservatives last year. I only had four choices and don't consider myself a Tory, but they were the best of a bad bunch. I knew I could have probably added my own box in biro, put \"John Doolan\" down as my vote and it would have had the same effect because Labour won by a mile, as they have done for the last 80 years and will no doubt continue to do for the next 80 odd years unfortunately.
-
Croft an admin...christ almighty
-
I was at that game and saw the 2 lads get kicked out for no reason what so ever. I said to my brother at the time the reason they have been kicked out is because they was wearing suits. Never seen anything like it. Lets be honest it dont take much to get kicked out of a ground nowadays anyway. Only last sat a lad got kicked out for standing up. There was also another 60-70 others they could of chosen to kick out.
-
Croft an admin...christ almighty
Give Crofty a break , he's told you that he was remorceful, young and daft as most of us have been.
He's having a go at some serious stuff that will help both the VSC and DRFC........good luck Lee keep it up. That incidentally wasn't a dig at you personally Goldthorpe but a general one on the adverse criticism this lad is getting from various posters. :whistle:
-
Hoola, I think it's more to do with the \"Road to Damascus like conversion\"
The about face from crofty has been so swift that I'm convinced the VSC have him holed up somewhere and an imposter is posing as him
Come on VSC tell us what you have done with the real crofty
:laugh:
-
Hoola, I think it's more to do with the \"Road to Damascus like conversion\"
The about face from crofty has been so swift that I'm convinced the VSC have him holed up somewhere and an imposter is posing as him
Come on VSC tell us what you have done with the real crofty
:laugh:
Let's just say what remains has helped pay towards the \"red ink\" on the JR Flag you'll see tomorrow... ;)
-
It's not a petition is it?
-
Well Crofty voted Conservative at the last general election? I'm warming to this admin stuff already ;)
Ha, like I say I hope it's a move that works out well for the VSC.
-
Well Crofty voted Conservative at the last general election? I'm warming to this admin stuff already ;)
Ha, like I say I hope it's a move that works out well for the VSC.
At the time I was very vocal about my support for the Tories, despite being raised in Stainforth where I got my fair share of Thatcher being trashed daily I still have more to relate to the Tories then what was coming out of Gordon's Browns mouth and now Miliband...
-
Well Crofty voted Conservative at the last general election? I'm warming to this admin stuff already ;)
Ha, like I say I hope it's a move that works out well for the VSC.
At the time I was very vocal about my support for the Tories, despite being raised in Stainforth where I got my fair share of Thatcher being trashed daily I still have more to relate to the Tories then what was coming out of Gordon's Browns mouth and now Miliband...
Oh dear Lee, this is something we will have to agree to disagree on. :boxing:
-
Well Crofty voted Conservative at the last general election? I'm warming to this admin stuff already ;)
Ha, like I say I hope it's a move that works out well for the VSC.
At the time I was very vocal about my support for the Tories, despite being raised in Stainforth where I got my fair share of Thatcher being trashed daily I still have more to relate to the Tories then what was coming out of Gordon's Browns mouth and now Miliband...
Oh dear Lee, this is something we will have to agree to disagree on. :boxing:
I'm with Lee on this one too, the ineffective Milliband doesn't exactly inspire you to vote Labour nor do the policies.......we'll see whether or not they keep him.
None of the parties seem to have any direction at the moment, there seems to be little innovation or inspiration especially at a time when the electorate needs it most.
Still we have the SNP to turn to being Scottish ;)
-
Well Crofty voted Conservative at the last general election? I'm warming to this admin stuff already ;)
Ha, like I say I hope it's a move that works out well for the VSC.
At the time I was very vocal about my support for the Tories, despite being raised in Stainforth where I got my fair share of Thatcher being trashed daily I still have more to relate to the Tories then what was coming out of Gordon's Browns mouth and now Miliband...
I'm with you on this one Lee, despite my working for the NCB & British Coal for 25 years, living in Stainforth for 15 years and experiencing brainwashing (mis)management lock-ins with Ian McGregor without seeing any daylight solidly for a whole two weeks I got converted. Best of luck with your VSC involvement. We all see the light eventually. ;)
-
Well I think Ian McGregor will evoke strong feelings on here... But I can't understand how anyone can support the modern day labour party with any conviction anymore.
They're hopelessly out of touch - so much so i don't even know what the party stands for. They're too narrow minded. They don't care about the working class, they care about scoring cheap political points over the \"tories\". It's embaressing watching Labour politicians pretend they're normal.
-
Well I think Ian McGregor will evoke strong feelings on here... But I can't understand how anyone can support the modern day labour party with any conviction anymore.
They're hopelessly out of touch - so much so i don't even know what the party stands for. They're too narrow minded. They don't care about the working class, they care about scoring cheap political points over the \"tories\". It's embaressing watching Labour politicians pretend they're normal.
Despite being appointed by Thatcher, McGregor had his own personal and political agenda. As for your last paragraph, successive labour administrations have all displayed that characteristic.
-
Crofty in an excellent appointment to the higher echelons of the VSC. Despite being politically incorrect in the past the VSC has recognised his talents and he has benefited accordingly. So have we all. We now have a voice (I'm talking about all us doom mongers).
If Crofty changes his mind about his views in the past then that should give all us doom mongers pause for thought. He now has a lot more information to hand and I for one will respect his views and not jump to the obvious conclusion that he is now towing the VSC line because that is how he will get on. I credit him with being an honest individual who will still give his honest opinion about things. His answers to VSC questions are always excellent and the other moderators could take a leaf out of his book.
As far as the Labour/Tory argument goes I am an unabashed Labour Party hater. They have totally ruined the country and anyone who is thick enough to blame the Tories who are only trying to sort out the horrendous mess they were left should never be allowed to vote ever again.
-
As far as the Labour/Tory argument goes I am an unabashed Labour Party hater. They have totally ruined the country and anyone who is thick enough to blame the Tories who are only trying to sort out the horrendous mess they were left should never be allowed to vote ever again.
:facepalm:
-
Crofty in an excellent appointment to the higher echelons of the VSC. Despite being politically incorrect in the past the VSC has recognised his talents and he has benefited accordingly. So have we all. We now have a voice (I'm talking about all us doom mongers).
If Crofty changes his mind about his views in the past then that should give all us doom mongers pause for thought. He now has a lot more information to hand and I for one will respect his views and not jump to the obvious conclusion that he is now towing the VSC line because that is how he will get on. I credit him with being an honest individual who will still give his honest opinion about things. His answers to VSC questions are always excellent and the other moderators could take a leaf out of his book.
As far as the Labour/Tory argument goes I am an unabashed Labour Party hater. They have totally ruined the country and anyone who is thick enough to blame the Tories who are only trying to sort out the horrendous mess they were left should never be allowed to vote ever again.[/quote]
Unfortunately we seem to have lacked both effective ruling and opposition parties (both Conservative and Labour) over the last 20-30 years or so.
It begs a question about how effective our existing type of democracy is , imo the weakness of an opposition and it's policies are equally as bad as the inefficiences of the ruling group. All politicians are elected to contribute to the well being of this nation and they have all failed in recent times to produce the goods sadly.
In the meantime 'Rome still burns' infrastructure is corroding alarmingly and the fabric of society is beginning to tear about at the seams.
The Tory/Liberal parties both 'swanned' about whilst Rome was burning as the existing Labour leadership continues to do.
Where are the strong opposition policies that can be used by the Government of the day as there were in the past (albeit 'watered down' and given a diferent slant) ? The answer is nowhere, basically we have a set of grey politicians that could virtually be moved from party to party without any discernable difference.
My apologies I've just realised this is an 'on topic' thread.
:rtid:
-
I credit him with being an honest individual who will still give his honest opinion about things.
Are you questioning my/our integrity, if you are, I resent that comment!
-
Is this a kind of odd variant of Godwin's Law- that any internet discussion will eventually end up on the subject of party politics?
-
As far as the Labour/Tory argument goes I am an unabashed Labour Party hater. They have totally ruined the country and anyone who is thick enough to blame the Tories who are only trying to sort out the horrendous mess they were left should never be allowed to vote ever again.
This topic is far too big NOT to have a dedicated thread
Minds immesurably superior to mine can then tell you why THEY think you are wrong
Personally each colour Govt blames the previous lot and you seem to have gone along with that view with the phrase \" they have totally ruined the Country \"
However were you around when Mrs Thatcher decided to totally ruin the Mining industry which in turn led to .... which led to .... which led to ... where we are today ?
As for suggesting that people have to be of a certain intelligence to be allowed to vote - I come from a more serious angle and would wish EACH VOTE cast JUST to be of equal weight.
Some Tory seats are won with 11 or 12 thousand votes and (I cant be bothered to look it up) some Labour Seats are won with 36000 votes (Hemsworth and Goole and Thorne used to be higher even than that) so 36000 gets Labour 1 Seat whereas the same number of votes gets the Conservatives 3 Seats
Personally I think that is grossly unfair but heigh ho what the F... do I know. I should not even be entitled to a vote iyo
-
Unfortunately we seem to have lacked both effective ruling and opposition parties (both Conservative and Labour) over the last 20-30 years or so.
It begs a question about how effective our existing type of democracy is , imo the weakness of an opposition and it's policies are equally as bad as the inefficiences of the ruling group. All politicians are elected to contribute to the well being of this nation and they have all failed in recent times to produce the goods sadly.
The Tory/Liberal parties both 'swanned' about whilst Rome was burning as the existing Labour leadership continues to do.
Where are the strong opposition policies that can be used by the Government of the day as they were in the past (albeit 'watered down' and gien a diferent slant) ? The answer is nowhere, basically we have a set of grey politicians that could virtually could be noved from party to party without any obvious difference.
Hoola- was just going to post something along the lines that there's nothing more bankrupt in this country than the current state of the political parties and you beat me to it!
That's why I've become a convert to PR. Not that awful Alternative Vote thing that Clegg tried to get brought in last year, which would have only entrenched the current system. No, what's needed is proper PR, Single Transferable Vote in multi-member constituencies. It is the only thing that will bring about the political realignment we need to get better government and better opposition. At the moment it's like a choice between three flavours of ice cream that are barely distinguishable from one another.
-
As far as the Labour/Tory argument goes I am an unabashed Labour Party hater. They have totally ruined the country and anyone who is thick enough to blame the Tories who are only trying to sort out the horrendous mess they were left should never be allowed to vote ever again.
This topic is far too big NOT to have a dedicated thread
Minds immesurably superior to mine can then tell you why THEY think you are wrong
Personally each colour Govt blames the previous lot and you seem to have gone along with that view with the phrase \" they have totally ruined the Country \"
However were you around when Mrs Thatcher decided to totally ruin the Mining industry which in turn led to .... which led to .... which led to ... where we are today ?
As for suggesting that people have to be of a certain intelligence to be allowed to vote - I come from a more serious angle and would wish EACH VOTE cast JUST to be of equal weight.
Some Tory seats are won with 11 or 12 thousand votes and (I cant be bothered to look it up) some Labour Seats are won with 36000 votes (Hemsworth and Goole and Thorne used to be higher even than that) so 36000 gets Labour 1 Seat whereas the same number of votes gets the Conservatives 3 Seats
Personally I think that is grossly unfair but heigh ho what the F... do I know. I should not even be entitled to a vote iyo
Are you talking about the number of votes cast in those seats or the majorities? Some of it is due to poorly-drawn constituency boundaries which have been un-reformed for a long time. Having larger constituencies which elect several MPs would help to do away with that unfairness- and STV would ensure that every vote counted.
-
The last sentence says it all RB and it's not good enough, good post.
-
As far as the Labour/Tory argument goes I am an unabashed Labour Party hater. They have totally ruined the country and anyone who is thick enough to blame the Tories who are only trying to sort out the horrendous mess they were left should never be allowed to vote ever again.
This topic is far too big NOT to have a dedicated thread
Minds immesurably superior to mine can then tell you why THEY think you are wrong
Personally each colour Govt blames the previous lot and you seem to have gone along with that view with the phrase \" they have totally ruined the Country \"
However were you around when Mrs Thatcher decided to totally ruin the Mining industry which in turn led to .... which led to .... which led to ... where we are today ?
As for suggesting that people have to be of a certain intelligence to be allowed to vote - I come from a more serious angle and would wish EACH VOTE cast JUST to be of equal weight.
Some Tory seats are won with 11 or 12 thousand votes and (I cant be bothered to look it up) some Labour Seats are won with 36000 votes (Hemsworth and Goole and Thorne used to be higher even than that) so 36000 gets Labour 1 Seat whereas the same number of votes gets the Conservatives 3 Seats
Personally I think that is grossly unfair but heigh ho what the F... do I know. I should not even be entitled to a vote iyo
If as you state the system was corrupt and favoured a particular party to the extent you describe Wolfie, then don't you think that the Labour party had sufficient time and reason to balance it more as you suggest ? :huh:
The Boundaries Commission deals with this side of it does it not , couldn't the Govt. of the day have asked them to look at the discrepancies that you claim are all so evident ? Jeez they had more than enough time didn't they ?
-
Has this thread not earned the right to go in off-topic yet :P
-
Has this thread not earned the right to go in off-topic yet :P
Nah we're still working on it jd. :laugh:
-
As far as the Labour/Tory argument goes I am an unabashed Labour Party hater. They have totally ruined the country and anyone who is thick enough to blame the Tories who are only trying to sort out the horrendous mess they were left should never be allowed to vote ever again.
This topic is far too big NOT to have a dedicated thread
Minds immesurably superior to mine can then tell you why THEY think you are wrong
Personally each colour Govt blames the previous lot and you seem to have gone along with that view with the phrase \" they have totally ruined the Country \"
However were you around when Mrs Thatcher decided to totally ruin the Mining industry which in turn led to .... which led to .... which led to ... where we are today ?
As for suggesting that people have to be of a certain intelligence to be allowed to vote - I come from a more serious angle and would wish EACH VOTE cast JUST to be of equal weight.
Some Tory seats are won with 11 or 12 thousand votes and (I cant be bothered to look it up) some Labour Seats are won with 36000 votes (Hemsworth and Goole and Thorne used to be higher even than that) so 36000 gets Labour 1 Seat whereas the same number of votes gets the Conservatives 3 Seats
Personally I think that is grossly unfair but heigh ho what the F... do I know. I should not even be entitled to a vote iyo
If as you state the system was corrupt and favoured a particular party to the extent you describe Wolfie, then don't you think that the Labour party had sufficient time and reason to balance it more as you suggest ? :huh:
The Boundaries Commission deals with this side of it does it not , couldn't the Govt. of the day have asked them to look at the discrepancies that you claim are all so evident ? Jeez they had more than enough time didn't they ?
I agree ... that is my point really ...Politics is corrupt and both Labour and Conservative BOTH \"benefit\" from first past the post so maintaining the Status quo suits them both even given that they may be out of power now and again
There have been landslides using this system - massive majorities in Parliament for a Party getting just 42% of the total vote. So we got an extremeist Government when only 42 out of 100 voted for them and 58 out of every 100 voted against them ... BARKING MAD
I agree with Jonnydog ... dump this on Off topic
-
Hoola, I think it's more to do with the \"Road to Damascus like conversion\"
The about face from crofty has been so swift that I'm convinced the VSC have him holed up somewhere and an imposter is posing as him
Come on VSC tell us what you have done with the real crofty
:laugh:
Let's just say what remains has helped pay towards the \"red ink\" on the JR Flag you'll see tomorrow... ;)
You haven't put graffiti all over the new VSC flag have you Crofty. :laugh:
-
However were you around when Mrs Thatcher decided to totally ruin the Mining industry which in turn led to .... which led to .... which led to ... where we are today ?
Think you need to have a look again at who closed down the majority of the mines.
-
However were you around when Mrs Thatcher decided to totally ruin the Mining industry which in turn led to .... which led to .... which led to ... where we are today ?
Think you need to have a look again at who closed down the majority of the mines.
Thinking the same mesen , I can't remember many of any mines being closed down during her time at the top. Strange how these 'urban myths' come about and become deeply entrenched . Quite simply Thatcher did NOT close all the mines, yes she took on a moron who was blindly followed by some but not all miners. :headbang:
-
As far as the Labour/Tory argument goes I am an unabashed Labour Party hater. They have totally ruined the country and anyone who is thick enough to blame the Tories who are only trying to sort out the horrendous mess they were left should never be allowed to vote ever again.
This topic is far too big NOT to have a dedicated thread
Minds immesurably superior to mine can then tell you why THEY think you are wrong
Personally each colour Govt blames the previous lot and you seem to have gone along with that view with the phrase \" they have totally ruined the Country \"
However were you around when Mrs Thatcher decided to totally ruin the Mining industry which in turn led to .... which led to .... which led to ... where we are today ?
As for suggesting that people have to be of a certain intelligence to be allowed to vote - I come from a more serious angle and would wish EACH VOTE cast JUST to be of equal weight.
Some Tory seats are won with 11 or 12 thousand votes and (I cant be bothered to look it up) some Labour Seats are won with 36000 votes (Hemsworth and Goole and Thorne used to be higher even than that) so 36000 gets Labour 1 Seat whereas the same number of votes gets the Conservatives 3 Seats
Personally I think that is grossly unfair but heigh ho what the F... do I know. I should not even be entitled to a vote iyo
If as you state the system was corrupt and favoured a particular party to the extent you describe Wolfie, then don't you think that the Labour party had sufficient time and reason to balance it more as you suggest ? :huh:
The Boundaries Commission deals with this side of it does it not , couldn't the Govt. of the day have asked them to look at the discrepancies that you claim are all so evident ? Jeez they had more than enough time didn't they ?
I agree ... that is my point really ...Politics is corrupt and both Labour and Conservative BOTH \"benefit\" from first past the post so maintaining the Status quo suits them both even given that they may be out of power now and again
There have been landslides using this system - massive majorities in Parliament for a Party getting just 42% of the total vote. So we got an extremeist Government when only 42 out of 100 voted for them and 58 out of every 100 voted against them ... BARKING MAD
I agree with Jonnydog ... dump this on Off topic
You could argue that the current boundaries are actually biased against the Tories. At the last GE they got 36% of the vote, Labour got 29%. Had those figures been reversed, Labour would have had a healthy majority, even with the Lib Dems on 23%.
I don't know where you got the 42% from. The current Government had (in theory) the backing of 59% of voters, although it is doubtful that many of them thought they were voting for a coalition.
-
However were you around when Mrs Thatcher decided to totally ruin the Mining industry which in turn led to .... which led to .... which led to ... where we are today ?
Think you need to have a look again at who closed down the majority of the mines.
Thinking the same mesen , I can't remember many of any mines being closed down during her time at the top. Strange how these 'urban myths' come about and become deeply entrenched . Quite simply Thatcher did NOT close all the mines, yes she took on a moron who was blindly followed by some but not all miners. :headbang:
Far more mines were actually closed under the Major Government than under Thatcher. I wouldn't call Scargill a moron- I actually think he was a very clever and dangerous man. The thing was he ended up being more dangerous to his followers than to those he opposed.
-
yes she took on a moron who was blindly followed by some but not all miners. :headbang:
That moron was correct all along though, in the months running up to the announced closure of Cortonwood he was telling everyone that the Tories had a secret pit closure program, something that the Tories all along denied, even though the brought in an American with a history of closing business`s down to over see the closure programme. The thing that the mentioned \"moron\" got wrong was falling for the Tories carefully orchestrated timing of the closure`s, they knew closing the first pit in the closure programme down in the militant heartland of the Yorkshire coalfield would trigger a strike, something they wanted and got! Why did they not close a Notts pit down first? Because they knew if they did then the whole of the NUM would have been behind the strike and the Tory government would have been brought down like Heath`s government in the 70`s was. The Tories used the Notts miners and then shit on them big style!
-
Its the way people (mis)read my comment
I said when Thatcher decided to ruin the Mining industry (not the number of Pits that closed under her Prime Ministership). There may well have been more closed under Major but the seeds had been sown previously
I was trying to point out to mjdgreg that succesive Govts merely blame the previous lot and did he remember that period in the history of the Party he seemed to support - in that if the Mines had not been destroyed we may not be in this mess now *
*Personally who knows ?
-
I think we all need to remember the 1970-74 Conservative Government under Ted Heath, the unions decided that they would demand pay rise after pay rise and the UK was so low on coal supplies that many of you will remember Ted Heath imposing that 3 day week on your television sets. This ultimately lead to Heath saying \"Who Governs Britain?\" and the Voting public said \"Not you Ted\".
The Education secretary of that time was Margaret Thatcher, and she was dubbed Milk Snatcher after her policy to stop milk for certain ages of primary school children. She ultimately would not let that drop that the government was brought down by what she described as \"terrorists demands\" in her speech some years later in Brighton when the hotel was bombed hours earlier.
Thatcher was smart in that the UK had just found oil on the shores of Scotland, and coal supplies were much more than that under Heath in that she could afford (only just) to let the miners strike again, it was one battle she would not lose, and Scargill knew this would require the backing of all miners which he why he called a strike without asking the members to vote.
The British people were in truth fed up of this saga, and many were relieved when Thatcher 'won', what brought about this 'myth' is the scenes you all witnessed on the evening news with rioting between ordinary working class men and police officers, she didn't help her self by calling these people criminals when they were only trying to do what is best for their family.
As for Scargill, he was a very good public speaker, but taking in mind that he has recently sued the NUM over a legal dispute shows you where his heart his. He named his office in Barnsley King Arthur's castle and had a portrait of himself Stallin like on the back of the wagon issuing to follow him. As good as he was speaking he underestimated Thatcher and that made her victory that much sweeter.
-
At the end of the day he could have avoided the whole mess by just having a vote. He couldn't take democracy, and the rest is history.
-
I think we all need to remember the 1970-74 Conservative Government under Ted Heath, the unions decided that they would demand pay rise after pay rise and the UK was so low on coal supplies that many of you will remember Ted Heath imposing that 3 day week on your television sets. This ultimately lead to Heath saying \"Who Governs Britain?\" and the Voting public said \"Not you Ted\".
The Education secretary of that time was Margaret Thatcher, and she was dubbed Milk Snatcher after her policy to stop milk for certain ages of primary school children. She ultimately would not let that drop that the government was brought down by what she described as \"terrorists demands\" in her speech some years later in Brighton when the hotel was bombed hours earlier.
Thatcher was smart in that the UK had just found oil on the shores of Scotland, and coal supplies were much more than that under Heath in that she could afford (only just) to let the miners strike again, it was one battle she would not lose, and Scargill knew this would require the backing of all miners which he why he called a strike without asking the members to vote.
The British people were in truth fed up of this saga, and many were relieved when Thatcher 'won', what brought about this 'myth' is the scenes you all witnessed on the evening news with rioting between ordinary working class men and police officers, she didn't help her self by calling these people criminals when they were only trying to do what is best for their family.
As for Scargill, he was a very good public speaker, but taking in mind that he has recently sued the NUM over a legal dispute shows you where his heart his. He named his office in Barnsley King Arthur's castle and had a portrait of himself Stallin like on the back of the wagon issuing to follow him. As good as he was speaking he underestimated Thatcher and that made her victory that much sweeter.
Politics from the text book seldom reflect the realities of the situation at the time, we were in an unofficial state of marshall law in Yorkshire during the strike, people were prevented from travelling out of Yorkshire at a checkpoint just the other side of Bawtry, I know this for a fact, I was prevented from going fishing on the Trent by the militia masquerading as police officers, ask one of your uncles Lee, TC, he was in the same car! So who was the Soviet style leader? Scargill? or Thatcher?
-
I think we all need to remember the 1970-74 Conservative Government under Ted Heath, the unions decided that they would demand pay rise after pay rise and the UK was so low on coal supplies that many of you will remember Ted Heath imposing that 3 day week on your television sets. This ultimately lead to Heath saying \"Who Governs Britain?\" and the Voting public said \"Not you Ted\".
The Education secretary of that time was Margaret Thatcher, and she was dubbed Milk Snatcher after her policy to stop milk for certain ages of primary school children. She ultimately would not let that drop that the government was brought down by what she described as \"terrorists demands\" in her speech some years later in Brighton when the hotel was bombed hours earlier.
Thatcher was smart in that the UK had just found oil on the shores of Scotland, and coal supplies were much more than that under Heath in that she could afford (only just) to let the miners strike again, it was one battle she would not lose, and Scargill knew this would require the backing of all miners which he why he called a strike without asking the members to vote.
The British people were in truth fed up of this saga, and many were relieved when Thatcher 'won', what brought about this 'myth' is the scenes you all witnessed on the evening news with rioting between ordinary working class men and police officers, she didn't help her self by calling these people criminals when they were only trying to do what is best for their family.
As for Scargill, he was a very good public speaker, but taking in mind that he has recently sued the NUM over a legal dispute shows you where his heart his. He named his office in Barnsley King Arthur's castle and had a portrait of himself Stallin like on the back of the wagon issuing to follow him. As good as he was speaking he underestimated Thatcher and that made her victory that much sweeter.
Politics from the text book seldom reflect the realities of the situation at the time, we were in an unofficial state of marshall law in Yorkshire during the strike, people were prevented from travelling out of Yorkshire at a checkpoint just the other side of Bawtry, I know this for a fact, I was prevented from going fishing on the Trent by the militia masquerading as police officers, ask one of your uncles Lee, TC, he was in the same car! So who was the Soviet style leader? Scargill? or Thatcher?
I can back up that Statement as I used to fish on the Trent \" a lot\"
Also I once ran foul of a similar \"ambush\" at J36 near Goole. I was off there to catch a train to London and the Police / Army were stopping every single car to ensure that every Miner heading for Goole or Drax (not sure where) were stopped and diverted elsewhere
They honestly would not believe that myself and my Dad who was going to drive the Car home were not involved. I showed them the Ticket to London AND the time and how it was \"running out\" and eventually the bloke in charge deigned that I was allowed past and had to shunt 2 Lanes of traffic to let me out
Some years later I was heading to London by Car when the news came on announcing Thatcher has resigned / been forced out and I laughed my b******s off
-
I think we all need to remember the 1970-74 Conservative Government under Ted Heath, the unions decided that they would demand pay rise after pay rise and the UK was so low on coal supplies that many of you will remember Ted Heath imposing that 3 day week on your television sets. This ultimately lead to Heath saying \"Who Governs Britain?\" and the Voting public said \"Not you Ted\".
The Education secretary of that time was Margaret Thatcher, and she was dubbed Milk Snatcher after her policy to stop milk for certain ages of primary school children. She ultimately would not let that drop that the government was brought down by what she described as \"terrorists demands\" in her speech some years later in Brighton when the hotel was bombed hours earlier.
Thatcher was smart in that the UK had just found oil on the shores of Scotland, and coal supplies were much more than that under Heath in that she could afford (only just) to let the miners strike again, it was one battle she would not lose, and Scargill knew this would require the backing of all miners which he why he called a strike without asking the members to vote.
The British people were in truth fed up of this saga, and many were relieved when Thatcher 'won', what brought about this 'myth' is the scenes you all witnessed on the evening news with rioting between ordinary working class men and police officers, she didn't help her self by calling these people criminals when they were only trying to do what is best for their family.
As for Scargill, he was a very good public speaker, but taking in mind that he has recently sued the NUM over a legal dispute shows you where his heart his. He named his office in Barnsley King Arthur's castle and had a portrait of himself Stallin like on the back of the wagon issuing to follow him. As good as he was speaking he underestimated Thatcher and that made her victory that much sweeter.
Politics from the text book seldom reflect the realities of the situation at the time, we were in an unofficial state of marshall law in Yorkshire during the strike, people were prevented from travelling out of Yorkshire at a checkpoint just the other side of Bawtry, I know this for a fact, I was prevented from going fishing on the Trent by the militia masquerading as police officers, ask one of your uncles Lee, TC, he was in the same car! So who was the Soviet style leader? Scargill? or Thatcher?
I was hinting at this above, Thatcher couldn't lose so there was no need for how she treated ordinary family men that exist in both our families the way she did.
-
I think we all need to remember the 1970-74 Conservative Government under Ted Heath, the unions decided that they would demand pay rise after pay rise and the UK was so low on coal supplies that many of you will remember Ted Heath imposing that 3 day week on your television sets. This ultimately lead to Heath saying \"Who Governs Britain?\" and the Voting public said \"Not you Ted\".
The Education secretary of that time was Margaret Thatcher, and she was dubbed Milk Snatcher after her policy to stop milk for certain ages of primary school children. She ultimately would not let that drop that the government was brought down by what she described as \"terrorists demands\" in her speech some years later in Brighton when the hotel was bombed hours earlier.
Thatcher was smart in that the UK had just found oil on the shores of Scotland, and coal supplies were much more than that under Heath in that she could afford (only just) to let the miners strike again, it was one battle she would not lose, and Scargill knew this would require the backing of all miners which he why he called a strike without asking the members to vote.
The British people were in truth fed up of this saga, and many were relieved when Thatcher 'won', what brought about this 'myth' is the scenes you all witnessed on the evening news with rioting between ordinary working class men and police officers, she didn't help her self by calling these people criminals when they were only trying to do what is best for their family.
As for Scargill, he was a very good public speaker, but taking in mind that he has recently sued the NUM over a legal dispute shows you where his heart his. He named his office in Barnsley King Arthur's castle and had a portrait of himself Stallin like on the back of the wagon issuing to follow him. As good as he was speaking he underestimated Thatcher and that made her victory that much sweeter.
Scargill like most union leaders is and does take the piss out of their members true union is the members.