Deserved or out and out Pettiness ? (1 Viewer)

[chiefdave]

You can provide no explanation for why no other journalist posts under their name

How do you know they don't? Have you been on every teams forum to check?

 

---

[Nick]

Why is my opinion on why he stopped posting barrel scrapping.
What's strange is, you seem to obsessively disagree with my opinion omit. You can provide no explanation for why no other journalist posts under their name.
Apart from sarcastically saying ask them.
Also you are providing no alternative explanation for why he stopped.
I guess there is some bizzare paranoid thing in your head that you won't declare?

What's bizarre and paranoid?

You are saying the reason he stopped posting was because other journos don't. It's a strange argument really.

How can I say why others don't post on here if I'm not them?

 

[dongonzalos]

Come on dongo. Simon Gilbert made hundreds of posts on here under his own name. His last post was the day before the ethics meeting at the council where it was revealed the CT had colluded with the council to suppress stories to the benefit of the council and ultimately Wasps.

Despite previously making out anyone who suggested anything like that was in tin foil hat territory he didn't come on to give any response or comment, he just disappeared off the forum.

Do you really believe that was a coincidence and he suddenly decided not to post on this forum but still be active on social media?

You mean this.........


Sisu also suggested the council had waged a "media war" against the football club's owners, pointing to email exchanges involving council officials and ACL's PR firm Weber Shandwick.

Those emails included suggestions of encouraging one member of the press in 2012 who was said to be eager to visit Ms Seppala at her home address in order to demand answers.

Read More Coventry City announce special kids ticket offer for Colchester United clash
Other emails produced in day one of the hearing in November referred to former Coventry Telegraph editor Alun Thorne as "wanting the story first" and senior council officials having a "constructive and honest" discussion with him.

But Mr Goacher previously said: "When you follow the schedule (of emails) and what was actually said, it doesn't seem to have been replicated. There's no evidence of that. It isn't translated to press comments to support this is what was going on."

Today he added: "We've heard a lot about the press smear campaign which seems to be based on pieced together bits of information, none of which relates to these councillors. There's not even an inkling that they were involved, if such a campaign even existed."

It's hardly concerning for him is it?
If He was that concerned why only come off here?
Why didn't he come off all the other social media outlets. He could still be asked about it on Facebook and twitter surely?

 

[dongonzalos]

How do you know they don't? Have you been on every teams forum to check?

No that's why I only talked about this forum and our local journalists.
Why do you think it is the case?

 

[chiefdave]

You mean this.........

No I mean this:

Today’s hearing heard more evidence that council chief executive Mr Reeves appeared to be pleased that the then Coventry Telegraph editor Alun Thorne appeared to be on board with the council’s media strategy.

The paper had obtained a leak that the council was set to bail out the Ricoh Arena company it part-owned using taxpayers’ money in January 2013. But the editor agreed to totally suppress publishing anything about the deal until the £14.4million loan was agreed and signed in private by councillors, giving the public no opportunity to scrutinise it in advance

You can find the referenced email here:
Agenda item - Hearing into Complaint under Code of Conduct

 

[hill83]

Dongo must have shares in Lego.

 

[Nick]

Ha, Weber Shandwick - PR Attack, Media War.

Have we spoken to Richard Keys? ha

 

[dongonzalos]

No I mean this:

You can find the referenced email here:
Agenda item - Hearing into Complaint under Code of Conduct

Well that should take a quick 5 minutes.
Or should I just save myself the time and look at the conclusion on the report by the people analysing the evidence that the allegations were not merited?

 

[Nick]

Well that should take a quick 5 minutes.
Or should I just save myself the time and look at the conclusion on the report by the people analysing the evidence that the allegations were not merited?

Probably best to look at the evidence surely? After all, it is the same ethics committee who acknowledged that rules had been broken about something else but then tried to change the rules to get round it

 

[chiefdave]

Or should I just save myself the time and look at the conclusion on the report by the people analysing the evidence that the allegations were not merited?

Why would you do that? The hearing itself was about the actions of the council not the CT. It just happened that some of the evidence presented revealed the deal done between CCC and CT.