Think Peter Sellers Kemps , that’s the only Sellers we are likely to see.Think Charles Dreyfus in the Pink Panther
New owner confirmed…
- Thread starter Hutch-tiger69
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Ffs ..I've said it once and I'll say it again...you are one of the allams....no question.....just sell your club and fcuk off
I thought it was generally accepted that the real reason was just to upset Hull City Council. Surely if they were concerned about Allam Out graffiti being sprayed on the stadium at night they could simply lock the gate at night and have it open during the day (in the same way as they presumably do with access to the rest of the stadium).
I don't make anything up. Perhaps I , and everyone else should consult you before posting because you seem to know everything ?
Hull City Council said that having had sight of all correspondence, there was no mention of a need to get a gate installed. In fact there was no specific instructions at all, just general advice about football stadiums potentially being a target, as it was a place that a lot of people congregated. The SMC even admitted that they'd received no specific instructions, but that they'd decided the walkway was a security risk themselves.
Still, it's worked, nobody has been blown up in West Park since the gates were installed.
Urika says he's seen the letter, knowing him I have no doubt whatsover he's seen it. I also have little doubt he'll give much of a toss who believes him or not.
I believe he's seen a letter. But I don't believe for a second that it says the counter terrorism police have insisted that Hull City erect a gate which would do nothing to deter terrorism but conveniently would achieve the Allams' long-standing goal of annoying the fans and council, which coincidentally peaked at that exact time. If the counter terrorism police were that stupid we'd be in a lot of trouble.
This has always been a feature of the Allam playbook; taking something real and blowing it way out of proportion to the extent that the point they're using it to make becomes a complete lie. The letter probably noted that venues need to consider terrorism threats, maybe it mentioned access points in a very general sense, but no way did it say that we have to put one gate up on one entrance only, it's utterly ridiculous that anyone would be prepared to entertain that idea.
I didn't say the counter terrorism unit insisted on anything. It was advice. Advice can be taken and it can be ignored. The danger then is if is ignored and something does go wrong who do you think would shoulder the blame ?
I couldn't give a toss either way but obviously there are several on here who do.
Gates an alternative view.
Lock a gate on private land just once a year and no right of way exists.
Any land that has pathways on it where a right of way exists may face increased objections during planning.
If I had a piece of land that the public walked across, I would find any excuse to put a gate up. Even if I was just a tenant.
Just saying like.
Lock a gate on private land just once a year and no right of way exists.
Any land that has pathways on it where a right of way exists may face increased objections during planning.
If I had a piece of land that the public walked across, I would find any excuse to put a gate up. Even if I was just a tenant.
Just saying like.
Would you answer a really easy question for me please?
What do you believe this "danger" was? and do you believe that gate stopped such danger? Or are you of the opinion that the Allams are just thick ****s?
The continued chip on your shoulder about my location and how that has a bearing on my ability to have an opinion about a takeover will forever be strange.
Seems like there are a lot of people who's time of the month it currently is!
As I do not work for the anti terrorist services I , like everyone else expertly posting on here, was not privvy to any intelligence they may have had at the time. So it was not my call to make. But at a guess............
The gate prevented one of the main entry points to the stadium and concourse from becoming a public right of way 24/7.
It probably made security of the site a bit easier.
I don't see why people get so up in arms over it. It's there, it's done a job and it didn't cost anyone on here a penny piece to install.
That doesn't mean I agree with it. I dont agree with many of the restrictions that have been imposed on us since 9/11.
I just go to the stadium to watch the football. Perhaps you should try it ? And I'll leave it there for you to worry about all weekend, meanwhile I'm off to Huddersfield.....
Last edited:
Seems a bit prejudice,mockery toward the female species?
Misogyny?
Yes,best leave it to the 'free-streamers' to discuss while you're away enjoying yourself...Extremely selfish if you ask me
Actually, one of us was privy to the advice, that's how they knew there was no letter.
https://www.not606.com/threads/spor...sory-group-meeting-22nd-february-2017.345106/
They squirmed when questioned about this being about a terrorist threat, everybody in the room knew it wasn't about terrorism.
I've absolutely no idea on these things so forgive me if I'm missing something or confusing things here but doesn't this paragraph show it was done following advice ( not questioning if it was the right or best advice or if the gates a good idea or not )
RH questioned whether the threat was significant enough to justify the proposals, PC, who is a counter terrorism officer explained that that the access to the footbridges and general access to the stadium out of hours was identified as requiring action following a counter terrorism threat assessment and the identification of the vulnerabilities were was based upon real life intelligence.
Last edited: