1 Dec 2009

If 'Spirit of Shankly' is a 'democractic group', why has it ignored its own members?

Earlier today, I highlighted how Spirit of Shankly was planning to make it 'physically impossible' for Liverpool's Owners to enter the stadium. Given the fact that SOS is allegedly a 'democratic' group, this antagonistic, polarising plan was surely voted on by SOS's members, right? WRONG.

The following is stated on SOS's website:

"SOS is a professional body, elected democratically".

Given the serious nature of SOS's latest protest idea, surely it is incumbent on them to ensure that the majority of their members support the idea?

The truth is though, SOS has not bothered to consult its members or hold a vote; certain members of the group have just splintered off and taken it upon themselves to arrange the next H+G protest, which involves making it 'physically impossible' for the owners to enter the stadium.

When asked by another Liverpool fan if the protest had been voted upon by the SOS's members, Secretary, Graham Smith, was nonchalantly blasé out it:



He clearly doesn't think that SOS's paying members deserve the right to be consulted on a potentially incendiary protest.

And it's not just an idea - In the same thread, Graham outlined how the plan was already in action:

"We've already had tentative discussion with the police (over a whole range of safety and public order issues across the spectrum of protests)".

So - is this what democracy is all about? Shouldn't all SOS members get a say on if and when protests should take place?

Perhaps SOS's hierarchy bypassed the vote because they knew that the idea of using physical force against Hicks and Gillett would be met with some resistance.

And therein lies yet another problem with SOS: they purport to be a democratic group but the core group of superfans with all the power will ignore their own members when they want to further their own insidious agenda.

SOS members have gone on record before as saying that the 'Yank Liars Out' campaign was (allegedly) voted on by the group's members.

What makes this new campaign any different?

What do SOS members think about being cut out of the loop when it comes to this particular protest?

If I was a member, I'd want answers.

Democracy? Looks more like Autocracy to me.

Jaimie Kanwar
----

Join us on Facebook!


Become a fan on Facebook!



63 comments:

  1. Why are you obsessed with SOS?

    ReplyDelete
  2. stop bitching at SOS....an organisation that actually cares and does something about the state of the club and fans and get behind them rather than writing snidey articles. With Liverpool fans like you things will never improve.

    I dont know if you write these articals as a joke?
    Join SOS and if you have ideas then suggest them.
    Best thing to happen for LFC fans in years ok. FACT.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why are they obsessed with a baseless hate campaign against the Owners?  As long as they keep it up, I will keep it up.

    ReplyDelete
  4. SOS is the best thing to happen for LFC fans for years?

    The delusion problem is far worse than I thought.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jaimie, your doing Oldham on it scouring the LFC forums on the net to suck people in.

    ReplyDelete
  6. SOS have done some good in terms of travel arrangements for matchgoing fans etc.

    If you don't agree with their stance against the owners then don't become a member or start an alternative group for people that might share your views. You could also stand to be an elected representative for SOS and then you could push your ideas and agenda in a more constructive manner.

    It is impossible for every decision to be put to vote as the timescales wouldn't allow it. For those SOS members that don't agree with the action then they simply do not have to take part- they can then air their views at the next meeting. Nobody is being forced to do anything here...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Agree completely Jamie, I will not be renewing my membership for SOS (nor will the rest of my family)

    After the Munich "celebration" at the end of season party and several decisions taken that Mugabe would be embarrassed to claim as democratic, i'm done with them 

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jamie,

    This is getting a little silly. Firstly even if a democratic vote had been held and all members had agreed this would not have stopped you from writing your first article. Second despite SOS being a democratic organisation it does not neccesarily follow that all decisions have to be followed by a democratic vote of all members. I mean its quite simple really if the members don't support this action they won't turn up to protest!

    At the end of the day you don't like what SOS are doing fair enough but this article doesn't prove anything?

    i know your reply will be well if members didn't vote for it how can it be legitimate but I would argue that its 'tacit' approval i.e. if members were unhappy about the protest and felt that it was being forced on them then they could request a vote by not doing this one can argue that SOS can presume to have the support of its members.

    For e.g. my employer can change my contract and ask me to sign a new one I can refuse because i don't like the terms and conditions but if i turn up to work despite my disagreement over the contract that's tacit approval.

    ReplyDelete
  9. <span><span>"SOS is a professional body, elected democratically".</span></span>

    That is not the same thing as saying all decisions will be as a result of a referendum. You've wilfully misunderstood the quote on the website to take a pop at SOS. There are any number of thousands of democratically elected bodies that have an executive that make decisions for them.

    Not every member of the Labour party votes on every item for inclusion in their party manifesto, for instance, but that doesn't stop the Labour Party from being a 'professional, democratically elected' body.

    The members of an organisation will often vote for a committee to run the day to day business, and they in turn will vote for an executive to decide on such matters that need deciding. If it is not in the constitution of the organisation that votes need to take place to decide everything then it doesn't make them undemocratic.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Also, how do you know that the protest is going against the wishes of SOS members? Have you asked (m)any? You yourself are not one, so how can you speak on behalf of the few thousand who are? What evidence do you have to say that it is 'ignoring' its membership's wishes, rather than acting upon them?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Tacit approval?

    When a protest potentiall involves physically manhandling the owners and causing serious negative publicity for the club (images of the owners jostling with fans etc), do you not think that something more than tacit approval is required?!

    As long as SOS keep up their illogical and baseless hate campaign against the owners, I will be on their back.

    And believe me, it does them no good to have me as an enemy.  This site reaches tens of thousands of Liverpool fans every week; the site is aggregated by the most visible news aggregators (including Google News); the message will be spread far and wide, and people will make up their own minds, which is what I want.  And those who are fair-minded will see the sense in what I'm saying.

    ReplyDelete
  12. People will make up their own minds whether SOS is democratic or not.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Do you just write this clearly ridiculous stuff for attention?

    You claim you'd be asking questions if you were a member but you've clearly not approached a single member and asked them there opinion. If you actually bothered to do so you'd find the majority are happy with the decision and know it doesn't need to go to a vote.

    The Supporters Union hold annual elections in order to elect a commite who members vote for to represent them and make decisions. This is the way it's been done since SoS began and it's a democratic and efficient way to ensure members have who they want making the decisions.

    Clearly you won't take any of this is, you'll just go on writing 'shock jockey' style articles in order to make up for the fact that you're not a credible writer and don't have the ability to interest anyone without going down the shocking route.

    You're a disgrace to Liverpool supporters.  

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think it's fair to see that it is, otherwise they wouldn't be able to register for status under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts 1965-78.

    If you have any qualms with the democratic status or not of their constitution, I'd be happy to debate those with you, largely because you'd be pissing into the wind.

    ReplyDelete
  15. How is it 'fair minded' to use something that has not happened yet against SOS? No matter what "potentially" might happen maybe this article would have been better served if these events had actually taken place? Although the campaign against the owners isn't right IN YOUR OPINION the members of SOS believe it is right. If and when word is recieved that the owners will be at Anfield then maybe at that time SOS will have a vote to decide on the best course of action...

    ReplyDelete
  16. The only question that needs to be asnwered here is this: was the SOS membership offered the chance to vote on this new course of action?  The answer is NO. End of story.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Except that's not true because the committee were given the authority for a general campaign, of which any potential action (note the word potential) could form a part.

    Still, if the 'undemocratic' Union isn't representative of its members, how will they ever have a say? Oh, that's right, in the elections of its committee, or by 10% requesting a Special General Meeting under the terms of its constitution.

    That's not 'the only question that needs answering', it's just the only one you (and you alone, it appears) are asking.

    ReplyDelete
  18. If that was the case, why has SOS already began planning the protest?!

    No - the leadership has bypassed SOS members and gone ahead with what could be a very incendiary protest. Clearlym the leadership don't care what its members think.

    And given SOS's track record, I think it's entirely reasonable to be skeptical about their ability to control its members.

    They couldn't control their members chanting about Munich; what makes you think they can stop some over-zealous fan throwing a punch at Hicks or Gillett?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Right, so SOS leadership can splinter off and make whatever decision they like because once a year there are general elections?!

    Yes, that makes sense. 

    The 'Yanl Liar's out' campaign was voted on by the SOS membership (allegedly); what is different about this protest?  Why couldn't there be a vote?  Could it be that the idea of it is ridiculous and the required support would not be forthcoming?

    ReplyDelete
  20. my eyes hury looking at this stinking shit of a website. Was in built in 1995?

    ReplyDelete
  21. This is all based on speculation though. What if someone having read your article punches Graham Smith? It's not enough to say "look at their track record".

    SOS can't be held responsible for every individual. They have clearly said that the protest will be non-violent so if somebody wants to be violent towards the owners then they will do it- SOS member or not. There's a chance it could get violent- equally there's a chance it will be peaceful like the numerous other marches/protests thus far.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Do fully paid up members of the Labour Party get to vote on every policy the Cabinet decides on?

    Better campaign to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards about it!!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Are you a member of any trade union or professional body, or have you ever been in the past? Perhaps the NUS if you've been a student in the UK, or other professional association? Have you ever voted in a regional or national election?

    If the answer to that is yes, how many decisions that those democratic organisations made were you party to and had a direct say in? The answer will be very close to zero. You elect people to serve in your name, if you vote, based on their manifestos and what they promise to do on your behalf, whether they're an MP, Trade Union rep or committee member of your local Art Group.

    All these organisations will have safeguards in place that will stop those in the executive from taking action that is against the wishes of their constituents. SOS members vote annually, and have the option of recall of a Special General Meeting under their constitution.

    If there were any disquiet about this proposed action that SOS are looking into (note 'proposed' and 'looking into') then it would be apparent. The only dissenting voice, as ever, appears to be you; a non-member. Empty vessels making the most noise, and all that.

    When SOS have clarified any plans/ideas then they will make them public, because unless it is going to fall to this handful of the executive to execute, I would imagine that as with other SOS initiatives (such as the marches on Anfield) that they would require significant public support, from members and non-members alike.

    If their plans are met with antipathy, or concern, then I'd imagine that they will not be pursued, because they would not be reflective of public opinion, effective without support, or worthwhile in achieving whatever aims they might have.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Arise oh almighty one Sir Jamie; without you us poor delusional souls would continue to have believed that being loyal, supportive, caring and passionate fans was the right way forward.
    Instead, we are all now fully converted into the Kanwar philsophy of pro-american, anti-rafa & sos bile that you write so eloquently?!

    ReplyDelete
  25. This isn't just any policy though is it? It's potentially a large physical protest. You tell me how you can 'make it physically impossible' for the owners to enter the ground without making physical contact. Barricading the doors/gates won't do it because that would be an illegal protest, the only way they could do it would be to literally get in the way and stop them progressing physically. This has the potential to be covered by all the media outlets, and that is seen as a good thing by SOS because they're so blinkered the don't see that this can only cause harm to the club.

    We're having a particularly tough season as it is, the media have been waiting all season for every chance to knock us down, a potentially violent protest outside the ground would give the News of the World and the Star the perfect opportunity to put the nail in our coffin.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Labour went to war in Iraq without a vote among their own members!
    Are they undemocratic??

    I'm just addresssing the original accusation, which is blatantly ill-founded.

    ReplyDelete
  27. <span>
    <p>i would imagine that a significant number of the fans that come on this website, only do so becuase you have been berated on various liverpool forums, and they come on here to see if you really are as clueless as you are made out to be.
    </p><p> 
    </p><p>carry on like this please do... it is now painfully clear that you are either some sad case trying to make a name for himself by being deliberately controversial and trying to stir up a pointless hate campaign about SOS, or you are simply a PR mouthpiece for hicks and gilet. Either way, believe me... your articles are now working against you... you are embarrassing yourself, and the name jamie kanwar is just becoming synonymous with 'clueless cretin', to more and more fans... as i said, carry on lad, please do
    </p></span>

    ReplyDelete
  28. Jaimie (is that really how you spell it?)..... are you angry with SOS because you tried to claim that they didn't have the Interview with Gillett, and when the truth came out you were made to look slightly foolish?

    Its funny on this site that you only reply to people whose opinion you think you can attack. I have perused your site on the odd occasion and each time you have been rude to posters but yet your sites professed policy is to not be rude to anyone, how do you get away with it. When anyone has a go at you, you remove their posts, why? I really hope you post this and dont remove it.

    Whatever your or my opinion on SOS is, and no i am not a member. stop stirring up crap between supporters, its exactly what we dont need right now. Now you can claim that your just doing your 'duty', but are you really helping anyones cause?

    Your not the most liked of characters on many liverpool sites and i am not sure about what Graham Smith thinks about you posting his comments and then using them to attack the organisation he is a memeber of???? seems rather silly and petty to me.

    Anyway must dash! and please let this post, i haven't had a go at you or been rude in anyway so dont remove it....please.

    Oh if you could also answer me that would be great too.

    cheers

    ReplyDelete
  29. It's with fans like you that the team will never improve with. Since when has displaying xenophobic banners and blocking entrances become "caring about and doing something about the state of the club"?

    ReplyDelete
  30. i see y ou removed my post...well done you

    ReplyDelete
  31. Post your points without resorting to derogatory comments/slagging off me and/or the site, and your comment will stay upo. This is very clear in the comment policy. Stick to debating the issues and there's no problem.

    ReplyDelete
  32. No Jamie SOS have not stated anywhere that they intend to physically hard H&G. Peaceful protests have been used for years to demonstrate against issues. Obviosuly when H&G turn up they can choose to talk to the demonstrators or leave (to be honest they will know in advance if the protestors are there and simply not turn up) there does not have to be any violence. Your next point concerns potentially publicity well its been widely publicised that H&G don't get on in fact until recently they were both trying to buy each other out of the club. I would think the numerous articles in the times, guardian, daily mail etc discussing this caused more negativity for the club.

    Illogical campaign? well that's your opinion and just because a lot of people read your articles doesn't mean they agree with you or that your speak for all liverpool fans.

    You state that you want people to make up their own minds fair enough but insinuating that SOS are thugs and undemocratic because they didn't hold a vote is ridiculous. The poster below me made a very good point about representative democracy which i think makes the point better then I can here.

    Finally you imply that fair minded people will see what your saying implying that those that don't are not. implying that there is a clear moral choice which there isn't this is about people having the right to protest you may not agree with i don't understand what your point is...

    I guess i'm not fairminded!

    ReplyDelete
  33. i see you also removed my post...well done.Free speech...I love it!shame you dont!

    ReplyDelete
  34. No Jamie SOS have not stated anywhere that they intend to physically hard H&G. Peaceful protests have been used for years to demonstrate against issues. Obviosuly when H&G turn up they can choose to talk to the demonstrators or leave (to be honest they will know in advance if the protestors are there and probably not turn up in order to avoid negative publicity) there does not have to be any violence. Your next point concerns potentially negative publicity well its been widely publicised that H&G don't get on in fact until recently they were both trying to buy each other out of the club. I would think the numerous articles in the times, guardian, daily mail etc discussing this caused more negativity for the club.  
     
    Illogical campaign? well that's your opinion and just because a lot of people read your articles doesn't mean they agree with you or that your speak for all liverpool fans.  That's what makes this site interesting people debating and having different opinions.
     
    You state that you want people to make up their own minds fair enough but insinuating that SOS are thugs and undemocratic because they didn't hold a vote is ridiculous. The poster below me made a very good point about representative democracy which i think makes the point better then I can here.  
     
    Finally you imply that fair minded people will see what your saying implying that those that don't are not whilst implying that there is a clear moral choice which there isn't this is about people having the right to protest you may not agree with it... but I just don't understand what your point is? other then you don't like SOS nor do I but that doesn't mean they can't protest? isn't that fair minded? 
     

    ReplyDelete
  35. Don't contravene the comment policy and your posts wont be removed.  Spit out bile and insults, your comment will be zapped.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Its a interesting policy to have seeing as it lets you delete any post that you do not like under the guise of it contravening the policy.  It makes it far easier for you skew the debate towards your own opinion. :-D

    ReplyDelete
  37. Yes, that's why there are so many comments on this site that have stayed up.

    In case you haven't noticed, there are hundreds of people posting counter arguments against me; their comments stay up because they debate in the right way.  I only ever delete comments that include snide/derogatory remarks or slag off me, the site, other writers or other posters.  If you can't handle that, don't post here.  I welcome disagreement, and people are encouraged to state their views as passionately as they want.  If they veer into insults though, their comments will be deleted.

    Sometimes, if the point being made is coimpelling, I'll just edit the derogatory stuff out; other times, I'll just delete the post altogether (or, as is most often the case, it will automatically be deleted by the comment software).

    ReplyDelete
  38. Now this is interesting because there was an whole article by yourself yesterday basically branding all SOS members as "Arrogant" "Xenophobic" "Thugs" if this is not degorotory then what is?  ITs like me saying that all people who share your opinion on this site are reactionary banwagon jumping idiots.  Of course its not true of all but a very small minority but you generalise what is essentially a organisation with good intentions as being a Thuggish group who are just out for blood.

    Your whole premise for this article is also based on what ifs using the same generalisation.

    Again I could just as easily say "what if a frequent visitor here goes and hits Benitez because of all the anti Rafa stuff on here?  IS it your fault if that happens? 

    Your past 2 articles have been nothing more than an general attack on a organisation you clearly do not like using nothing but wild speculation very little else.

    ReplyDelete
  39. i bet shankly would lbe proud of the sos fans for making a stand against g and h

    ReplyDelete
  40. No Jamie SOS have not stated anywhere that they intend to physically harm H&G. Peaceful protests have been used for years to demonstrate against issues. Obviosuly when H&G turn up they can choose to talk to the demonstrators or leave (to be honest they will know in advance if the protestors are there and probably not turn up in order to avoid negative publicity) there does not have to be any violence. Your next point concerns potentially negative publicity well its been widely publicised that H&G don't get on in fact until recently they were both trying to buy each other out of the club. I would think the numerous articles in the times, guardian, daily mail etc discussing this caused more negativity for the club.    
       
    Illogical campaign? well that's your opinion and just because a lot of people read your articles doesn't mean they agree with you or that your speak for all liverpool fans.  That's what makes this site interesting people debating and having different opinions.  
       
    You state that you want people to make up their own minds fair enough but insinuating that SOS are thugs and undemocratic because they didn't hold a vote is ridiculous. The poster below me made a very good point about representative democracy which i think makes the point better then I can here.    
       
    Finally you imply that fair minded people will see what your saying implying that those that don't are not. Furthermore you use of fair minded to  implies that there is a clear moral choice, which there isn't. This is about people having the right to protest you may not agree with it... but I just don't understand what your point is? other then you don't like SOS nor do I but that doesn't mean they can't protest? isn't that fair minded?   
     

    ReplyDelete
  41. This jerk is as much a Liverpool fan as Kelvin McKenzie is.

    He runs Republic of Mancunia- a vile site that sells T shirts of Mancs taunting LFC fans calling them "murderers"  who "killed their own fans" etc etc

    He's paid by Glazer AND now Hicks.

    There must have been dozens of posts by Reds fans removed today.

    He's lower than a gutter journalist.
    And probably 3rd in line for a kicking behind the other 2 fraudsters, if ever ventured anywhere NEAR Liverpool.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Have not read all comments but this chap has made what I think is a logical reasoned argument. Jaimie was talking to him but when the logical argument is clearly laid out he seems to have disappeared.

    Simply put, when you elect someone they then have the authority to choose a course of action. Have the american or english people voted to go to war in Iraq or elsewhere? No, the government they voted in have chosen to. that is what happens when you have democratic elections.
    You cannot have elections every time a decision is made - just not practical. then we would end up with an election every time they wanted to change teh coke inteh coke machine from diet to coke zero or something stupid like that!!

    And teh suggestion of non-violent confrontational action is enshrined in law and they have the right to protest. Look at the civil rights activists in the US in the 60's as a prime example. But of course they were wrong as they NAACP did not hold a vote to decide if they should march on Washinton eh?

    So please answer these questions or just ignore some reasoned argument?

    ReplyDelete
  43. If SOS weren't a bunch of dumb fucks, they'd pull together a barca/real-style fan ownership organization and buy the club. but no, they'd rather pull this crap, even though H&G are already trying to sell the club. it makes no sense.

    ReplyDelete
  44. JK - any views on the above two posts?

    ReplyDelete
  45. No - it pointless debating this particular issue because the above two posters are attempting to dilute the point and thus avoid the issue.

    The bottom line is SOS voted on the 'Yank Liars Out' campaign.  Both Graham Smith and Paul Gardner have stated in the past that the SOS membership votes on every protest/campaign.  All of a suddent, this particular protest just goes ahead without a vote.  That is the inconsistency here; the wider issue of 'democracy' is irrelevent; what other groups/the government do is also irrelevent.

    ReplyDelete
  46. What a generally pointless comment. I take it you've not heard of 'ShareLiverpool', who are trying precisely that route? And I also take it you're ignoring the legal situation where clubs in Spain have to be registered as membership associations rather than privately owned companies?

    Barcelona and Real Madrid have tens of thousands of fee-paying 'Socios' (or 'Members') because they're required to by La Liga regulations. There are no such regulations in this country, which is why it's incredibly rare to see clubs owned by supporters, except at the very lowest levels of the game (such as Man United fans setting up FC United of Manchester), or where a Supporters' Trust steps in to own a club, which usually happens after a colossal clusterfuck by the previous owners leaving the business in such a state that nobody wants to invest in it but the fans (such as Stockport).

    If only we had those sorts of regulations in the Premier League where the fans had to own the club, then anyone and everyone would be able to have their say in the running of their club. And if only people knew what they were talking about on the internet...

    I'm not sure which is more likely to happen, because they're both about as likely as rocking horse shit as far as I can see it.

    ReplyDelete
  47. No - it pointless debating this particular issue because the above two posters are attempting to dilute the point and thus avoid the issue. 
     
    The bottom line is SOS voted on the 'Yank Liars Out' campaign.  Both Graham Smith and Paul Gardner have stated in the past that the SOS membership votes on every protest/campaign.

    ABSOLUTELY LAUGHABLE.

    As per usual Jaimie somebody (in this instance: blurred) completely devastates your original argument so you move the goalpost.

    Now it's not about whether SOS is a democratically run organisation, it's about the fact that at some point in the past (you allege) Smith & Gardner have said ALL protest decisions will bo voted on.

    WHAT A JOKE.

    As I've said before, once you're proved wrong you will never admit fault!

    PLEASE PROVE BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT THAT SMITH & GARDNER HAVE SAID "that the SOS membership votes on every protest/campaign."

    EVERY MEANING "ALL", NO?


    SOS HAVE NOT IGNORED THEIR OWN MEMBERS BECAUSE AS A DEMOCRATIC GROUP THEY DO NOT HAVE TO VOTE ON EACH INDIVIDUAL ACTION.

    You clearly have not idea what "democracy" actually means.

    ReplyDelete
  48. No - it pointless debating this particular issue because the above two posters are attempting to dilute the point and thus avoid the issue. 
     
    The bottom line is SOS voted on the 'Yank Liars Out' campaign.  Both Graham Smith and Paul Gardner have stated in the past that the SOS membership votes on every protest/campaign.

    ABSOLUTELY LAUGHABLE.

    As per usual Jaimie somebody (in this instance: blurred) completely devastates your original argument so you move the goalpost.

    Now it's not about whether SOS is a democratically run organisation, it's about the fact that at some point in the past (you allege) Smith & Gardner have said ALL protest decisions will bo voted on.

    WHAT A JOKE.

    As I've said before, once you're proved wrong you will never admit fault!

    PLEASE PROVE BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT THAT SMITH & GARDNER HAVE SAID "that the SOS membership votes on every protest/campaign."

    EVERY MEANING "ALL", NO?


    SOS HAVE NOT IGNORED THEIR OWN MEMBERS BECAUSE AS A DEMOCRATIC GROUP THEY DO NOT HAVE TO VOTE ON EACH INDIVIDUAL ACTION.

    You clearly have not idea what "democracy" actually means.

    ReplyDelete
  49. No - it pointless debating this particular issue because the above two posters are attempting to dilute the point and thus avoid the issue. 
     
    The bottom line is SOS voted on the 'Yank Liars Out' campaign.  Both Graham Smith and Paul Gardner have stated in the past that the SOS membership votes on every protest/campaign.

    ABSOLUTELY LAUGHABLE.

    As per usual Jaimie somebody (in this instance: blurred) completely devastates your original argument so you move the goalpost.

    Now it's not about whether SOS is a democratically run organisation, it's about the fact that at some point in the past (you allege) Smith & Gardner have said ALL protest decisions will bo voted on.

    WHAT A JOKE.

    As I've said before, once you're proved wrong you will never admit fault!

    PLEASE PROVE BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT THAT SMITH & GARDNER HAVE SAID "that the SOS membership votes on every protest/campaign."

    EVERY MEANING "ALL", NO?


    SOS HAVE NOT IGNORED THEIR OWN MEMBERS BECAUSE AS A DEMOCRATIC GROUP THEY DO NOT HAVE TO VOTE ON EACH INDIVIDUAL ACTION.

    You clearly have not idea what "democracy" actually means.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I think that you are also diluting the issue with supposition over fact, Jaimie.

    You've called it a 'polarising' plan, but where's the evidence of this, short of the fact that you (as a non-member) don't approve of what you *think* the protest might include? How can a plan, the specifics of which are unknown, be polarising?

    You claim that they will be using 'physical force' - how do you know this? They're in talks with the police about legal and legitimate forms of protest, as is their right, and I'm sure that the police will inform them of where, how and when they can make a legal protest.

    By all means use your site to promote your views and opinions, but it becomes dangerous when the views expressed are so 'tabloid' and devoid of factual basis.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Another excellent point blurred, I'm sure however, Jaimie will simply ignore you as he does with all posts that devastate his articles.

    He's now taken his usual tact of deleting my comments as they support your views and highlight his lack of understanding of all things "democratic".

    I find it quite ironic that he's attacking SOS' democratic value yet he's deleting comments that don't warrant deletion, is that democratic?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Simply, it's his site and he can do what he wants with it. Doesn't surprise me that he deletes derogatory posts (seen a few on here yesterday afternoon).

    As you say, constructive debate is the way forward, and I await him wriggling out of my most recent post presently.

    ReplyDelete
  53. You can keep saying it till the cows come home but it is not true at all: I do not delete valid points of view; I only delete comments that contravene the comment policy, the relevant provision of which is here:

    -----------

    Comments are NEVER deleted just because a commentor disagrees with the views of one of the site's writers. Disagreement is welcome!

    Having said that, the following <span>WILL</span> be deleted:

    1. Derogatory comments about any of the authors, the site or other users.

    2. Sniping comments that have nothing to do with LFC/Football or the issues raised in any given article.

    3. Comments that complain about negativity of the articles. If you don't like the critical approach, then there are hundreds of other LFC sites on the net.

    <span>IMPORTANT: </span>If you leave a comment that contains a valid argument but ALSO include any of the above three things, your comment will STILL be deleted, irrespective of the validity of your argument.

    If you want your comment to stay on the site, it's simple: debate the issue and argue your point in the right way. Banter is fine - sniping is not.

    Read more: http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2007/10/comment-policy.html#ixzz0YX03lYQt



    ----------------

    I don't care if you post the most compelling argument ever; if you include any of the above in the same comment, it will be deleted.

    It is not my fault that so many fans do not know how to debate properly, and regularly slip into yob mode with the hurling of insults etc.

    The best way to discredit me is to argue with reason and intelligence.  If you do that, your comment will never be deleted.

    And as you can see from the various posts on this site, there are thousands of comments that stay up.  Why? Because they debate in the right manner.

    My goal is to have a site where debate is passionate, heated and fair but without all the crap and slanging matches that usually occurrs on message boards. I also don't want a site where discussions are derailed and clogged up by people posting for the 100th time about how I'm so negative and blah blah blah.  Comment threads under posts are for discussion Liverpool FC, not me. If you want to criticise me, by all means do so, but do it in the correct thread (there is one) or email me.  Or do what other Liverpool sigtes do and post articles slagging off me and the site!

    If I have to be strict to achieve this goal then so be it.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Blurred - clearly, when I'm talking about these issues, I am advancing my opinion. 

    It is my opinion that a plan to physically restrain the owners from entering Anfield would polarise the fanbase.  This is a reasonable assumption, is it not?!  Or do you think its likely that the majority of the GLOBAL fanbase would applaud such a plan.

    The other proof that it is a polarising plan is the responses in the thread; many fans have posted their support for it; others have condemned the idea.

    re physical force:  I the plan is to 'make it impossible; for H+G to enter the ground, and SOS vow that they will 'not be allowed to enter the ground', is there not potential for physical force to be used?  How else do you make it impossible for someone to enter the ground?  Use the power of the force?!

    You seem like a reasonable person Blurred but you're clearly just arguing these points for the hell of it instead of looking at things rationally.

    If H+G really want to enter the ground, and SOS want to make it impossi ble for them, then the only way to stop them is the use of physical force. This is an obvious point.

    Just because SOS have allegedly been in contact with the police doesn't mean nothing will take place.  All it takes is one over-zealous fan to do the wrong thing and we have a major incident on our hands.

    Based on past incidents (Sandon; Munich chanting' Yank Liars out campaign), I don't trust SOS to control its members.

    And I have a right to raise the issue even though I'm not a member.  SOS puroprts to represent all Liverpool fans.  The following is stated on their site:

    <span><span>SOS exists to represent the wishes of Liverpool supporters</span></span>

    This is a wide statement that suggest they represent ALL fans.

    I am a fan, and they do not represent me.  When they plan such ridiculous protests, it puts me as a fan in a bad light.  And people should stop being so insular and take a global view.  The rest of the world sees SOS as a Liverpool fan's group, therefore their actions reflect badly on ALL Liverpool fans.

    ReplyDelete
  55. This isn't true Jaimie, you have previously deleted my comments when I've tried to challenge your accusation that I'm a liar - something you said in an article referring to Benitez, I believe you were advising Rossi you were going to delete his membership as he was being disrespectful.

    I pointed out that you had disrespected Benitez on more than one occassion and it would be unfair to carry out your threat on Rossi as he was only attempting to defend the man, a point which you said I was lying about.

    I went on to defend myself by citing two previous articles in which you'd called Benitez a "sabotuer" and accused him of "stabbing Keane in the back". You proceeded to delete this comment as it showed that you had indeed been disprespectful of Benitez.

    I asked for an apology but instead you deleted my comment.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Seeing as you're discussing your deletion policy I can ask again as it's currently the topic of discussion (comment deletion), why you haven't provided an answer to a question I've raised before?

    I've previously asked why, as a Liverpool fan, you've given interviews to the Republic of Mancunia site, a site which sells t-shirts (unashamedly so) that call us murderers, I'd also ask why (as a liverpool fan) you follow their site on twitter!?

    Surely any Liverpool fan would feel disgusted by the fact that they sell t-shirts that state "three european cups without killing anyone" so I find it disturbing that you would have anything to do with them.

    After all, you've criticised SOS for a small minority of their supporters singing about Munich, so why are you giving interviews to a site that sells this kind of merchandise?

    Queue deletion or extreme editing!

    ReplyDelete
  57. Guest - if you have questions about RoM or anything that is not related to the context of the article you can email me for an answer at:

    editor@liverpool-kop.com

    or you can post your question in the general discussion thread, here:

    http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2007/01/general-discussionquestions.html

    The comment policy is quite clear on this issue: article threads are for discussion of LFC issues only.

    ReplyDelete
  58. "If H+G really want to enter the ground, and SOS want to make it impossible for them, then the only way to stop them is the use of physical force. This is an obvious point"

    SOS members could chain themselves to the gates at the back of the Main Stand and Centenary Stand. This would be with the aim of preventing H&G from entering, but would not involve physical force. I'm sure that their consultations with the police (a necessary step before a public demonstration) they will be advised of acceptable and unacceptable methods and means at their disposal. All will be with the aim of preventing H&G from entering.

    Please note, though, before you run off with your next scoop about SOS members chaining themselves to gates that I am only speculating about what might happen, or proposing a hypothesis that counters your argument. There are any number of forms of non-violent protest that they could choose. This is 100% definitively not a fact, so please don't treat it as such. I realise you have problems distinguishing between your own opinions and facts, but this is only a supposition in the mind of 'blurred'.

    "It is my opinion that [this action]... would polarise the fanbase.  This is a reasonable assumption, is it not?!
     
    The other proof"

    So the first 'proof' is an opinion and an assumption? Well how can anything else even compare to that? But wait, there's other proof besides that conjecture? Well that's handy.

    If you're going to purport to be some sort of 'journalist' (and I use that term in the loosest possible sense) then please be a little bit more objective, even in editorial copy. It's possible to put your opinion based on fact, rather than assumptions, half-truths and conjecture.



    And I've never questioned your right to raise an issue (indeed, this is the first I've posted on your site), indeed the world needs contrary opinions and voices. I just question the way you do it. I think its rank amateurishness in style and tabloid sensationalism at the expense of factual accuracy detracts from any point you could possibly wish to make.

    I haven't agreed with everything the Union's done in the past, but if I were to try and wage some sort of campaign (as appears apparent from your previous postings on this site, and comments on this article) then I'd want to do it a lot more professionally, rationally and with a good deal more panache than you have managed and are continuing to manage.

    As has no doubt been said before, if I were you I would raise your concerns directly with SOS, whether by attending a meeting (if you are local) or by speaking to one of the many SOS committee if you attend a match at some point during the season, as they are always on hand. If there are many of you who share you concerns (posters on your site, friends or others) then make a representation on behalf of the group - strength in numbers and all that.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Has anyone seen the news that Gillett has sold his stake in the Montreal Canadiens today for an alleged figure of $550m - $575m?

    As this represents a profit of around £200m I wonder if any of it will be used to service the burden of debt our Club is under?

    Does anybody else find it strange that this in the 2nd time Gillett has invested in a sports franchise/club and then sold it for a huge return with little investment in between?

    Am I sensing a possible future scenario for us?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Mabye that will be the next article from JK?  Would be interesting to hear his thoughts on what Gillett should do with the money seeing as he does seem to think the owners are doing a good job and have the clubs best interests at heart.

    ReplyDelete
  61. The analogy I would use is Westminster MPs. It would be impractical to consult the membership on every issue, so a leadership is elected who are entrusted to make decisions within the framework of any votes taken at the AGM.

    If the leadership make decisions that the membership do not agree with, they are voted out. That is how unions work.

    If enough people disagree, they can force an EGM and mandate a change.

    If you don't like the direction the union is taking, join, campaign, stand for office and change its direction. SOS is a voice for all Liverpool supporters, including you.

    ReplyDelete
  62. See today's announcement. SOS are facilitating the formation of a credit union to attempt to buy a stake in the club.

    ReplyDelete