Jump to content
cambridgeshire canary

CLUB STATEMENT- BK8 CONTRACT TERMINATED

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

I don't think you're in any position to talk about rational, informed debate given what a failure you're doing at attempting it here. I'll give you a really simple example;

Person A: I think this is true!

Person B: That's boll*cks!

Person A: No it's not, here's proof.

Person B: *scuttles away with his tail between his legs*

You can make me that Person B. Instead, you made the comment that JK Rowling; ""liked" some horribly transphobic tweets she claimed it was a mistake. All that money and she still targets minorities."

Knowing what I know about the subject, I believe that to be patently false, or, using a more colourful terminology, boll*cks.

Your response, "WeLl, YoU, dOn'T kNoW wHaT tWeEtS i'M tAlKiNg AbOuT so STFU."

Just tell me what tweets you're talking about.

Careful though, the children's news website The Day were threatened with legal action and forced into a humiliating apology when they tried to insinuate that JK Rowling was transphobic and harmful to trans people.

I didn't say she was transphobic. You need to read more carefully. I said she liked some transphobic tweets then claimed it was a mistake.

 

What excuse did Rowling give for liking the transphobic tweets? With your in depth knowledge you must know the answer to that.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, spindrift said:

I didn't say she was transphobic. You need to read more carefully. I said she liked some transphobic tweets then claimed it was a mistake.

 

What excuse did Rowling give for liking the transphobic tweets? With your in depth knowledge you must know the answer to that.

 

 

What transphobic tweets? What transphobic tweets did she like and then claim was a mistake?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 pages. Glad the whole forum membership is enjoying this politicial, social, economic football related thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty funny how in there statement they claimed that they would change how they market themselves and then instantly turned their youtube account back on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

 

 

13 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

What transphobic tweets? What transphobic tweets did she like and then claim was a mistake?

The one she liked, then claimed it was an accident. Did you genuinely know nothing about this? 

 

13 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

What transphobic tweets? What transphobic tweets did she like and then claim was a mistake?

Finally you admit the obvious. You have no idea what Rowling said.

 

Don't you dare accuse people of falsehoods them grudgingly concede you haven't a clue what happened. Just be honest next time. 

 

Edited by spindrift

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, KeiranShikari said:

Pretty funny how in there statement they claimed that they would change how they market themselves and then instantly turned their youtube account back on.

They lied three times in their statement. The grammar was pretty garbled too, you'd think they'd at least hire a native English speaker for company statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, spindrift said:

 

The one she liked, then claimed it was an accident. Did you genuinely know nothing about this? 

 

Finally you admit the obvious. You have no idea what Rowling said.

 

Don't you dare accuse people of falsehoods them grudgingly concede you haven't a clue what happened. Just be honest next time. 

 

OK. So you've made something up and are getting p*ssy at being asked to evidence it.

Good work.

You cannot point me to the transphobic tweets she liked, or even the apology she made, because they do not exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, canarydan23 said:

OK. So you've made something up and are getting p*ssy at being asked to evidence it.

Good work.

You cannot point me to the transphobic tweets she liked, or even the apology she made, because they do not exist.

There you go again.

 

I didn't say she apologised, I said she claimed it was a mistake. You MUST read more carefully or you will keep making these mistakes.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, spindrift said:

There you go again.

 

I didn't say she apologised, I said she claimed it was a mistake. You MUST read more carefully or you will keep making these mistakes.

 

Fair enough, you did say she said it was a mistake.

Now, those tweets, if you please. And the bit where she said it was a mistake.

Edited by canarydan23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Just over a week ago, Rowling misgendered a trans woman and referred to a TERF in a tweet that she said was accidental"

https://www.advocate.com/people/2020/6/06/jk-rowling-goes-full-terf-new-series-transphobic-tweets

 

Apology accepted.

"Rowling’s action in liking the tweet brought confusion among fans of her beloved series, and it was originally written off as being an accidental like or a slip of her fingers."

https://www.spectatornews.com/opinion/2021/03/how-harmful-were-j-k-rowlings-transphobic-tweets/

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, spindrift said:

"Just over a week ago, Rowling misgendered a trans woman and referred to a TERF in a tweet that she said was accidental"

https://www.advocate.com/people/2020/6/06/jk-rowling-goes-full-terf-new-series-transphobic-tweets

 

Apology accepted.

"Rowling’s action in liking the tweet brought confusion among fans of her beloved series, and it was originally written off as being an accidental like or a slip of her fingers."

https://www.spectatornews.com/opinion/2021/03/how-harmful-were-j-k-rowlings-transphobic-tweets/

Read links before you provide them.

The Maya Forstater tweet she liked was categorically not transphobic and as I previously said, Maya has been completely exonerated at the Court of Appeal, which ruled her opinions not only valid but that people who hold them are protected from discrimination for that belief.

The first one she called a male trans person a man after said male assaulted a feminist (and was convicted). I did address this in an earlier post, so perhaps take some of your own advice and read a bit more carefully. It was the same issue where she referred to a "TERF" and quoted a swear word by mistake in a reply to a child reviewing Ickabog. Again, I covered that.

So you did make it up, didn't you? Or you don't understand what transphobia means.

The article itself has even gotten confused. Rowling never made any claim that liking the Forstater tweet was an accident. That was a member of her office after a tweet over a year before the Forstater one when she liked a tweet from a Labour activist bemoaning that trans women seem to get preferential treatment over actual women and used the term men in dresses. A valid point albeit made clumsily. But Rowling never said it was a mistake and the tweet wasn't objectively transphobic, certainly not in law as proven by today's judgement that reinforces the precedent set by Corbett v Corbett (further ratified in the House of Lords in 2015 in Chief Constable of W Yorkshire Police v A); sex is immutable and biological. There is nothing wrong or transphobic in dismissing the idea that trans women are not women.

Is that enough to put you back in your box, or have you got some more boll*cks to come out with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you call a trans colleague a "man in a dress" at your place of employment you'll be escorted from the premises for transphobic discrimination. It's plainly transphobic because misgendering is a breach of employment law.

 

You've been proven wrong, you've misquoted me and you've been rumbled. You're a dishonest, unreliable person who makes false claims cos you don't read posts carefully. Now be quiet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, spindrift said:

After she "liked" some horribly transphobic tweets she claimed it was a mistake.

No misquoting, here is what you said. You haven't provided anything to back this up. I gave you the only tweet she liked that could come even close to bring considered transphobic but you'd be stark raving bonkers to describe it as "horribly" so, and Rowling herself never claimed it was a "mistake".

And regardless, you said tweets, plural.

Honestly, come back when you're in the big leagues, this is embarrassing. I feel like Reece James to your Raheem Sterling in the Champions League final. If I let you out of my pocket, do you promise to go to bed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news that the Club have done a u turn. 

I am not impressed by the management textbook platitudes. They need to do far more to demonstrate that their moral compass is now functioning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

No misquoting, here is what you said. You haven't provided anything to back this up. I gave you the only tweet she liked that could come even close to bring considered transphobic but you'd be stark raving bonkers to describe it as "horribly" so, and Rowling herself never claimed it was a "mistake".

And regardless, you said tweets, plural.

Honestly, come back when you're in the big leagues, this is embarrassing. I feel like Reece James to your Raheem Sterling in the Champions League final. If I let you out of my pocket, do you promise to go to bed?

So it turns out that your claim that it was not true that Rowling liked transphobic tweets is based on your beliefs that Rowling's spokesperson doesn't speak for Rowling, although Rowling has never made such a claim, and to ignore the dictionary and legal definitions of transphobic.

 

That's your evidence?

 

Sadly the ruling you cite demolishes your own argument when it clarified:

 

"This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘misgender’ trans persons with impunity.”

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jun/10/gender-critical-views-protected-belief-appeal-tribunal-rules-maya-forstater

Didn't you read that bit? You cited a legal ruling that destroys your own point. Oh dear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony is whoever the next sponsor is it will be a “gamble” for them

are you pure enough, red or black, sink or swim. All in on Norwich. You spin the wheel and if you meet the purity levels you get to be our sponsor. We are now a sponsorship betting organisation.

Its unsponsored or charities for the foreseeable, I can’t see anybody with any cash taking a chance on us that won’t be run out of town. Maybe Aviva? I don’t think those who campaigned against this realise the long term hole this has put in our finances.

Still, I guess it could get worse. Maybe we’ll drag a charity through the dirt for not being family friendly enough? I guess we’ll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, spindrift said:

So it turns out that your claim that it was not true that Rowling liked transphobic tweets is based on your beliefs that Rowling's spokesperson doesn't speak for Rowling, although Rowling has never made such a claim, and to ignore the dictionary and legal definitions of transphobic.

 

That's your evidence?

 

Sadly the ruling you cite demolishes your own argument when it clarified:

 

"This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘misgender’ trans persons with impunity.”

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jun/10/gender-critical-views-protected-belief-appeal-tribunal-rules-maya-forstater

Didn't you read that bit? You cited a legal ruling that destroys your own point. Oh dear.

Your head is completely and utterly gone. Come back when you've gained a bit of composure, you're making a bit of a show of yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, The Real Buh said:

The irony is whoever the next sponsor is it will be a “gamble” for them

are you pure enough, red or black, sink or swim. All in on Norwich. You spin the wheel and if you meet the purity levels you get to be our sponsor. We are now a sponsorship betting organisation.

Its unsponsored or charities for the foreseeable, I can’t see anybody with any cash taking a chance on us that won’t be run out of town. Maybe Aviva? I don’t think those who campaigned against this realise the long term hole this has put in our finances.

Still, I guess it could get worse. Maybe we’ll drag a charity through the dirt for not being family friendly enough? I guess we’ll see.

All a company has to do is avoid having links with the p0rn industry.  Not that difficult really.   Anyhow, it's good to be seen as a club that will only accept high standards. That should appeal to any business that also has high standards.....and there are plenty of those around.

Edited by lake district canary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

All a company has to do is avoid having links with the **** industry.  Not that difficult really.   Anyhow, it's good to be seen as a club that will only accept high standards. That should appeal to any business that also has high standards.....and there are plenty of those around.

If an adult movie star comes to Carrow road are they welcome?

if a Norwich player takes a selfie with an adult movie star are they out of the club?

who are the self appointed council deciding this, because I know a few fans that’d like a word with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Real Buh said:

If an adult movie star comes to Carrow road are they welcome?

if a Norwich player takes a selfie with an adult movie star are they out of the club?

who are the self appointed council deciding this, because I know a few fans that’d like a word with them.

I presume anyone is welcome to CR if they are not sponsored to do so by the cluband if a Norwich player is seen to do something that is not in line with the code of the club (which they will be well aware of), then they will be disciplined accordingly. 

I'm not sure why you keep on with this, it is clear that the right thing has been done to rectify something that doesn't fit in with club values, so what is the point in trying to push this further?  The company were unsuitable. End of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

I presume anyone is welcome to CR if they are not sponsored to do so by the cluband if a Norwich player is seen to do something that is not in line with the code of the club (which they will be well aware of), then they will be disciplined accordingly. 

I'm not sure why you keep on with this, it is clear that the right thing has been done to rectify something that doesn't fit in with club values, so what is the point in trying to push this further?  The company were unsuitable. End of.

We need to go to war with the fans like this in our fanbase. This purity thing is going to get well out hand of we don’t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Real Buh said:

We need to go to war with the fans like this in our fanbase. This purity thing is going to get well out hand of we don’t.

Keyboard war?

Come on - you're flogging a dead horse now. It's always been the case, even in your glorious 70's . If a player was caught out drinking the night before a game, they were dropped. If they were caught with their pants down in the News of the World, then they got fined a weeks wages.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As it stands the club are £5m down on their potential transfer budget....until if/when another sponsor is found  - which may not be quite as lucrative.

Once the easily offended puritans have celebrated this apparant moral victory...for something which which would have all been forgotten in a couple of weeks, these are the facts.

Potentially a new signing being missed out on. These dozen or so self appointed 'celebrity' fans who appear to think they speak on behalf of everybody can be held responsible for that.

Theyd better hope an equally lucative sponsor can be found.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, g00se said:

Keyboard war?

Come on - you're flogging a dead horse now. It's always been the case, even in your glorious 70's . If a player was caught out drinking the night before a game, they were dropped. If they were caught with their pants down in the News of the World, then they got fined a weeks wages.

 

Should we have an approved list of places and times the players can go for a drink? 
 

I know and you know this is not over. This has emboldened a section of the fanbase. There’s lots of “representation groups” putting out “press releases” in the name of whatever. Appointed by nobody.

These zealots will look for “victories” elsewhere now. This club will pure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

As it stands the club are £5m down on their potential transfer budget....until if/when another sponsor is found  - which may not be quite as lucrative.

Once the easily offended puritans have celebrated this apparant moral victory...for something which which would have all been forgotten in a couple of weeks, these are the facts.

Potentially a new signing being missed out on. These dozen or so self appointed 'celebrity' fans who appear to think they speak on behalf of everybody can be held responsible for that.

Theyd better hope an equally lucative sponsor can be found.

 

Don’t forget our long term ability to attract sponsorship as well. £5m is the tip of the iceberg. This will be remembered and redirected to those who campaigned for it.

look before you leap and think before you tweet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, The Real Buh said:

The irony is whoever the next sponsor is it will be a “gamble” for them

are you pure enough, red or black, sink or swim. All in on Norwich. You spin the wheel and if you meet the purity levels you get to be our sponsor. We are now a sponsorship betting organisation.

Its unsponsored or charities for the foreseeable, I can’t see anybody with any cash taking a chance on us that won’t be run out of town. Maybe Aviva? I don’t think those who campaigned against this realise the long term hole this has put in our finances.

Still, I guess it could get worse. Maybe we’ll drag a charity through the dirt for not being family friendly enough? I guess we’ll see.

Nope, in my pension portfolio with Aviva they market a Fund which includes a large Huawei holding - y'know the people utilising a AI Machine Perception (for facial recognition) to aid the Chinese Government to round up Uighurs and force them into concentration camps (BBC Panorama last week - so it must be God's Honest) 

Edited by Foxy2600
spelling
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

As it stands the club are £5m down on their potential transfer budget....until if/when another sponsor is found  - which may not be quite as lucrative.

Once the easily offended puritans have celebrated this apparant moral victory...for something which which would have all been forgotten in a couple of weeks, these are the facts.

Potentially a new signing being missed out on. These dozen or so self appointed 'celebrity' fans who appear to think they speak on behalf of everybody can be held responsible for that.

Theyd better hope an equally lucative sponsor can be found.

 

All fair enough, (I haven't actually seen the offending images or investigated the company so I cannot comment upon the morality/sense of it all) but surely that £5m wouldn't have come in one hit. It would have been the value of the contract ..... which was spread over  how many years?

We should find another sponsor, PL and all that. It might even be more lucrative, but if not it need not necessarily be such a big loss.

Regards your general point. I too am getting a little bit more than p-issed off at being told how to think by people that I have little respect for in the first place.

I'm not referring to any on this forum, but I could start with that Markle nonentity and the dopey little puppy dog she married.

 

 

Edited by BroadstairsR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BroadstairsR said:

All fair enough, (I haven't actually seen the offending images or investigated the company so I cannot comment upon the morality/sense of it all) but surely that £5m wouldn't have come in one hit. It would have been the value of the cotract ..... which was spread over  how many years?

It was £5m per season, so that would likely have been budgeted for this season even if it was paid in instalments throughout the year.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BroadstairsR said:

I'm not referring to any on this forum, but I could start with that Markle nonentity and the dopey little puppy dog she married.

You might want to think about why you're being whipped up to hate two people you've never met and who have absolutely zero impact on your life..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, kirku said:

You might want to think about why you're being whipped up to hate two people you've never met and who have absolutely zero impact on your life..

Who mentioned "hate?"

Get a grip!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...