Deportation - Apparently A Debate Thread?? :?

[peeriesooky]

In addition (from what I understand), he volunteers his time and abilities in service of local sport.

 

at last, an actual answer. this wis all i wis efter. can ony wan confirm, since gibbo is only stating dis fae an as far as i understand point o view.

 

i wis simply curious as tae whit it wis he wis daing dat set him oot. nithing malicious in my intentions at aa.

 

thanks fir di response gibbo

[peeriesooky]

May I hazard a guess peeriesooky that you think he does sweet FA for the community? That is why you are beating this drum so fiercely and are missing the wider point here?

 

i wisna missing ony wider point, aaboady else wis missing da simple point which wis i wis simply curious and wanted tae ken.

 

when will folk realise dat a question on here is no neccessarily an attack?

 

i made no assertations at aa in regards tae whit sakchai dus or dusnae dae. i jist didnae ken. simple as

[plucker]

welcome back

[Gibbo]

i wisna missing ony wider point, aaboady else wis missing da simple point which wis i wis simply curious and wanted tae ken.

 

when will folk realise dat a question on here is no neccessarily an attack?

 

i made no assertations at aa in regards tae whit sakchai dus or dusnae dae. i jist didnae ken. simple as

 

The point is these questions are heavily loaded which leads Satch's supporters and others to view them as unsavoury additions to the debate.

 

For example...

 

"I am totally on Satch's side but would his supporters tell me why we should support a convicted criminal with little to add to society beyond his taxes and a cheeky smile. After all, the public were far less vocal in their support for Hazel and Tanya. Perhaps - and I am not condoning this view - it is because he has loads of mates and isnt unemployed/mentally disabled. I just want to know because I am interested. This is a DEBATE after all? Or is it? Why is everyone so defensive? What are you trying to hide?"

 

These kind of messages are very TIRING.

[Gibbo]

by the way, that was a hypothetical - not a direct quote. In case anyone accuses me of mis-quoting.

[penfold]

He has made a contribution to society by showing that it is possible after being incarcerated for a crime in the penal system that offenders can become an active member of their local community, this alone is a positive example to others who may find themselves in this situation within this community.

 

The media circus surrounding his efforts to remain in this country may leave some people with a bad taste in their mouth regards personal situations that they experienced and they feel that they didnt get the same level of support is dissapointing, but none the less it should'nt be vented in such a manner as belittling the efforts of others in ways such as goading them into arguements over subjective things as "contribution to the community" or where someone comes from.

[Sam]

god, your aa getting hot under the coller tonight, please dont

[penfold]

nae winder wi dis wadder.

[penfold]

geen aaful quiet in here

[peeriesooky]

i agree wi whit du's saying penfold, hooever, der niver was ony attempt tae goad onyboady intae an argument or such like, simply wanting information on a subject i didnae ken.

 

maks me wonder tho, if someboady asked a general question lik dat on da street while you were asking dem tae sign a petition/donate tae da fund, wid du go aff on a rant aboot trying tae disrupt things, human rights, mak derogatory remarks etc, or wid du jist answer da question as part o a discussion wi waaever it is du's talking wi?

 

if yer answer is you'd jist answer da question, why not dae dat on here as weel? alternatively, given sum o da replies, accusations, discontent etc shown tae folk simply asking questions and whit not on here, it's hardly surprising dat der is sum folk put aff da campaign thru feelings of harassment etc.

 

it's no da folk asking questions etc dat are bringing it aa intae disrepute, it's da folk dat cannae simply answer withoot paranoid notions o campaign sabotage dat are bringing it intae disrepute by no simply sticking tae da point. dus answering a question really cause dat much trouble?

[penfold]

its subjective, im answered whit I tink his contribution has been fae his release fae da clink, wether dat wis conscious upa his pairt or no only he'll ken, and try leaving oot hooever, but, why dat, what if and i ken what du's sayin, da neest time du agrees fur du maks affa hard readin idder wyes.

[peeriesooky]

[DavieG]

Hi everbody

 

Must as it pains me to say it in terms of freedom of speech and the right to use this forum for that purpose one of our so called contributors has stepped over a totallu unacceptable line, so here goes......

 

SAM

 

I have tried very hard to be patient and tolerant with you from the outset Sam and have, where reasonable, at least tried to answer your questions honestly and fairly even though, in my opinion at least, they often appear to be as erratic, confused and changeable as our weather. I have to say I also get the feeling they are aimed more at general and personal mischief making than being truly interesting, constructive or observant, especially given the seriousness of the subject.

 

I have also attempted to be tolerant and remain open minded when you have made it abundantly clear that many of your angles or thoughts have been loaded more toward personal issues and grievances toward myself and other members of the campaign group, rather than honest and rational observations relating to the current issues at hand. Almost all of these, again only my opinion, are totally irrelevant at this particular time, especially in the context of the Shetland for Sakchai campaign.

 

But now, having failed to inflame me / us in this manner, you have chosen to cross a totally unacceptable ‘line’ and a very dangerous one for you personally. I have been made aware that one prominent member of the campaign team has received, and been subjected to, a malicious and spiteful personal e-mail from you, once again on a subject totally un-connected to the issue of Sakchai Makao or the Shetland for Sakchai campaign.

 

By this action I can only assume that your personal grievances are so deep rooted that you are willing to jeopardise, de-rail or attempt to discredit the campaign, and / or those involved in it, to achieve whatever your personal aims are in this respect and have your personal grievances publicly aired however irrelevant and inconsequential they may be.

 

If this is indeed you aim this is morally reprehensible and disgusting and you should rightly be ashamed of yourself. Whatever your reasons for this personal axe-grinding campaign, especially given the fact that we hardly know each other personally or professionally, I wish you would deal with this in other ways and not seek to damage this campaign. The outcome of this, for Sakchai at least, is far too crucial for us to allow you to damage it by a series of selfish and ill-conceived actions.

 

You have almost continually chosen to be a ‘lone voice’ in this respect. Absolutely no problem with that of course, if your intentions were in any ways honourable – I suspect however they are not. I have also suspected all along that your approach is one of a desperate, if sadly misguided, desire to achieve some level or feeling of self-importance for yourself in the overall scheme of things and to make you stand out from what is after all a pretty large and unanimous crowd – majority of Shetland or not. A case of “if you can’t join them, beat them� Who knows!!!

 

However you choose the cowards method of making your points and spouting your personal vitriol – namely electing to hide and speak behind a perceived mask of anonymity. I am sorry to say that in this respect you have seriously miscalculated the situation. Had you chosen to maintain personal discretion at all times, chances are you would have got away with it. If so perhaps hindsight will tell you that being ‘open’ with others, especially in the past, was perhaps a mistake on your part. However that has been your choice and if you now have to pay a price for that indiscretion then so be it.

 

In short, given the seriousness of your most recent action, namely the anonymous, personal e-mail attack on a prominent campaign member – almost certainly an illegal action - you are now in very serious and deserved danger of being, at the very least, publicly unmasked. As I say you yourself have chosen to cross this line and I have no intention of standing by and allowing fellow campaign members to be subjected to spiteful, derogatory and potentially slanderous remarks, and suffer unwarranted treatment at your hands, while they freely offer their voluntary and much appreciated support and services to Sakchai’s campaign.

 

Should you continue to pursue this approach I will have no hesitation in seeking legal action, and passing on the information I presently hold to the suitable authorities for investigation in this respect. Surely you should know that your current standing in the community could be severely compromised should this course of action prove necessary.

 

For the time being however I merely request that you withdraw from such despicable, unwarranted actions and behaviour before it is too late to do so.

 

By all means continue to post on this site and enter into sensible, mature and constructive debate on the issues in hand and try to set aside your petty personal squabbles for another more appropriate occasion. I for one will be happy to openly discuss any such issues with you if you have the desire, courage and conviction to do so in the not too distant future, but somehow I suspect that I need not hold my breath in this respect.

[DavieG]

i'm getting a peerie bit worried that sakchai is gettin turned intae sum kind o "celebrity". is this no in danger of trivialising things?

 

Could be a fair put if potential deportation was a trivial issue.....

[penfold]

If such allegations are proven to be true Davie, a well written reposte.