The only thing I could add is if it wasn't flask gate, those all so critical of the Trust would find another reason to not join, slag off and put down the efforts of those involved in running the Trust.
I see the resident idiot 'liked' your post; throw him a bone or bale of straw to occupy him, there's a good lad. You say it is a cut and paste of one of my posts, but about which part you are referring to? It might also be a decent thing to do, although I'm not holding my breath, to give a quote or link to that post so I can see what the fuller post was and what date and conversation it was in. Aren't you the communication officer for a HCOSC branch, don't you know about context and honesty? Edit: Ah, a different device made it clearer, I think, although it is difficult with your posts. You mean the full-stop. You would have been better off using it on the end of your reply, or Bengal will be on your case.
In between your abject stupidity, you still haven't told me where I mentioned the owner; just another made up fact from you.
Its your post, work it all out for yourself, lazy ****. There's more "The 'Hip-Flask' nonsense requires a strong and clearly made apology for the unnecessary offence and lack of judgment inherent is seeming to be associated and supportive of the mindless gift. If that is not forthcoming then the chairman needs to reconsider his position. All of the conciliatory words and actions penned by CTWD are worthless, otherwise." Direct quotes from you Fez.
Why not put them in context, what have you to hide. It is clear this quote was within his tenure with CTWD not HCST. As. I said, I disagreed with it, but HCST and it newly elected board offered an opportunity for everyone to move on; but that fact spoils your pathetic attempts at being clever. Sorry, maybe everyone except you and the owners who have openly insulted everyone and never apologised once. Have you worked out why my opinion of you dropped off a cliff-face?
It's clear enough. Nothing hidden. No snide questions to someone else. Nothing behind your back. You haven't got answers, go back into lurking mode, I suppose that's very similar to fence-sitting. We didn't always agree, but I thought you were straight, I even spoke for you, but I discovered the truth about your style and it's ****.
No, why? Tom posted at me, I've done the same as you and most others and responded to his incorrect bollocks. Chazz and Dog turning up is a part of the bollocks they pursue. Watching the Arse- Pool game, so I'll leave them to it.
Really? How, exactly? These conversations are held in the context of the time and I see that time as 3 fundamental periods: The CTWD period: We had the one-issue campaign group, it was established and there were some issues that were being roundly criticised and the way in which Mark Gretton handled Flaskgate was the key one for me. Conversations were held, some on here and some on PM, it was clear that a course of action had been decided. I did not agree with the decision in those circumstances. The interim period: between the demise and disbandment of CTWD and the formal formation of HCST. This was a period, as far as I was concerned, to try and understand who all of the personalities really were (that information was made available), whether or not lessons had been learnt and what was the best way forward for the new Trust. Another factor that played a big part for me, was the behaviour of the owners Assem and Ehab Allam; they continued to manipulate and lie, they continued their caustic name-change campaign and, more importantly, they showed absolutely no change in their dismissive and arrogant stance regarding their customers, the supporters. The current HCST period: This period evolved through a democratic vote, I am a part of that Trust as a member and I have accepted the democratic process I signed up for. Has my view of Flaskgate changed since the CTWD period? No it has not, but I have decided that things need to move on, a mistake has been recognised, we have been told in a honest and straightforward manner how the Trust dealt with it and an option for members to take recourse has been pointed out. Is it so difficult to see how an opinion, held at one time can change or be maintained, but withheld so that progression can be made for the greater good? So, in a nutshell, yes I believe MG should have made a public retraction and apologised for the publication of his personal view (even though someone else posted it), but he choose not to and that moment has passed and life goes on - he may find an opportunity, when the owners show more willing, to redress that point, but will the owners do the same? But let's explore TOM's manipulation a bit deeper: Here is the post that he has been referring to. The difference is that it is unedited and posted in its entirety - the conversation it was a part of is here. TOM wasn't too lazy to show everything in context, just manipulative and focussed on trying to discredit me when I had responded to a post he directed at me. That's the end of it for me. TOM decided to break up a post, then quote it out of context, for no other purpose than to try and discredit me. He failed to do that, in my opinion, but he succeeded in demonstrating the shabby extremes he will go to in trying to big himself up. Be warned.
