The Reqs the facts (from RM)

[Mountain Bear 0]

How on earth can any rational person be against Paul Murray's record as a Director, but supportive of Stockbridge's?

[RyanGers193 0]

Of course he is. What brings you over here anyway Ryan? Not banned from RM are you?

 

Have you missed the protests and everything SOS have been doing? That's a campaign, a few people on the internet not liking him is not.

 

And aye I am, only til later tonight though.

[bossy 0]

How on earth can any rational person be against Paul Murray's record as a Director, but supportive of Stockbridge's?

 

I fear that this debate has gone beyond any semblance of rationality.

[crucible 0]

Well that's ok then.

 

It certainly is that's the way it works by law.

[Mountain Bear 0]

It certainly is that's the way it works by law.

 

It's not a question of law, it's a question of trust.

[j1mgg 0]

Comes across as RM promoting an agenda and no one buying it. Only time I see people like j1mgg is to promote this agenda.

 

I guess like many, to me it makes him and RM appear compromised and biased and therefore I won't buy it even if they may be making some valid points. At pains to tell people how they only deal in facts and then don't.

 

Just my opinion.

 

I am just posting something that was written on another forum that wasn't on here so people can read it. I understand a lot of people have already made up their mind, but there is no harm in them learning/reading more. If it had all of been hear say I would not of bothered, but the person has went out their way to back it up and remove personal opinion. It just seems that anything good about the board gets jumped on straight away here, surely the more information provided about both sides can only be good.

 

If the names in the article had been replaced with members of the current board I am guessing the tone towards it would be completely different.

[Calgacus 8]

spent doesn't mean that it is no longer on his record, only that he doesn't need to reveal it to potential employers. It doesn't change the fact that he is a convicted criminal. If he is convicted of another offence, the Judge will be able to take it into account when deciding on his sentance.

[TheWeissMan 0]

How on earth can any rational person be against Paul Murray's record as a Director, but supportive of Stockbridge's?

 

I dont think very many are supportive of Stockbridge though. Im certainly not.

[bluebear54 0]

I am just posting something that was written on another forum that wasn't on here so people can read it. I understand a lot of people have already made up their mind, but there is no harm in them learning/reading more. If it had all of been hear say I would not of bothered, but the person has went out their way to back it up and remove personal opinion. It just seems that anything good about the board gets jumped on straight away here, surely the more information provided about both sides can only be good. If the names in the article had been replaced with members of the current board I am guessing the tone towards it would be completely different.

 

But it's not merely posting something that was written on another forum is it? It ends up as forcefully trying to put certain perspectives over.

No debate at all.

[crucible 0]

spent doesn't mean that it is no longer on his record, only that he doesn't need to reveal it to potential employers. It doesn't change the fact that he is a convicted criminal. If he is convicted of another offence, the Judge will be able to take it into account when deciding on his sentance.

 

As I said his conviction is spent.