Scum

[HC.]

.........that's needing to be flushed away. Him and his side-kicks.


https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scot ... n-13594543

[anders]

Yep. Need an announcement that he's not welcome anywhere near hmfc

[Forrest]

This may not surprise you, but there are folk on KB defending him.

IMO, he's entitled to his views, but when he starts airing them at public meetings, he should be treated the same way as Abu Hamza and the other hate preachers.

[anders]

Suspect it's a case of a guy with an axe to grind and he's unfortunately picked us as a means of publicity.
Yes there'll be those that will defend his views, but if you look across society will there be any football club that doesn't have followers of that mentality? Prob not.
The fact that he's picked Hearts doesn't make Hearts guilty nor complicit.

[HC.]

Suspect it's a case of a guy with an axe to grind and he's unfortunately picked us as a means of publicity.
Yes there'll be those that will defend his views, but if you look across society will there be any football club that doesn't have followers of that mentality? Prob not.
The fact that he's picked Hearts doesn't make Hearts guilty nor complicit.

The fact that HMFC have said nothing makes them complicit.

[Forrest]

The story blew up a matter of days after the Club released a pretty strong statement about there being no place for politics at football; maybe it thought that was sufficient?

But what should Hearts do? Should he be banned from the ground? He's not actually broken any rules (yet) (I think).

[anders]

Suspect it's a case of a guy with an axe to grind and he's unfortunately picked us as a means of publicity.
Yes there'll be those that will defend his views, but if you look across society will there be any football club that doesn't have followers of that mentality? Prob not.
The fact that he's picked Hearts doesn't make Hearts guilty nor complicit.

The fact that HMFC have said nothing makes them complicit.

Disagree. There's that recently coined adage about the oxygen of publicity, an organisation or individual is free to not rise to the bait dangled by a troublemaker.

If organisations all rush to make public statements about every mention of themselves by those who, it might be suspected, would actually like such a reaction to enable them to make a (or yet another) display of faux-outrage and/or to boost their preferred public image of 'bad boy' and voice of the common man then everyone who fancies such self-publicity is likely to be hooking organisations all over the country by the score to dance to their manipulative tune. I'm not ready to see an organisation as guilty just because they bide their time and wait and see if the smoke of someone's comments is just attention-seeking fishing really and will just blow away if ignored.

[HC.]

Suspect it's a case of a guy with an axe to grind and he's unfortunately picked us as a means of publicity.
Yes there'll be those that will defend his views, but if you look across society will there be any football club that doesn't have followers of that mentality? Prob not.
The fact that he's picked Hearts doesn't make Hearts guilty nor complicit.

The fact that HMFC have said nothing makes them complicit.

Disagree. There's that recently coined adage about the oxygen of publicity, an organisation or individual is free to not rise to the bait dangled by a troublemaker.

If organisations all rush to make public statements about every mention of themselves by those who, it might be suspected, would actually like such a reaction to enable them to make a (or yet another) display of faux-outrage and/or to boost their preferred public image of 'bad boy' and voice of the common man then everyone who fancies such self-publicity is likely to be hooking organisations all over the country by the score to dance to their manipulative tune. I'm not ready to see an organisation as guilty just because they bide their time and wait and see if the smoke of someone's comments is just attention-seeking fishing really and will just blow away if ignored.

I first saw this at school and to this day, it stands as an inspiration for my outlook on life.

Hopefully it explains my thoughts on the above.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemöler

[anders]

Yes, I've long liked that saying. And it's my way too. But others are free to take a different way forward, and that doesn't make their way wrong, just different. They can feel as strongly and be just as opposed to what they may also see as wrongs, just that they are not us and have a different, possibly less overt, way of dealing with things. I don't know what Hearts' decision on dealing with this is but as I don't know I don't feel I'm personally in a position to say it's wrong.

[HC.]

Anders, this one is best kept for a conversation over a drink. I'll leave it at that.