Lerwick Up Helly Aa

[oddtablet]

Please stop shouting

thank you

[unlinkedstudent]

"ANOTHER THING YOU MAY HAVE MET, IS BULLYING VIA THE INTERNET. THEIR THREATS, INSULTS, INTIMIDATION WILL CAUSE YOU PAIN AND MUCH FRUSTRATION.

THESE BULLIES ARE FILLED WITH SPITE, WHEN THEY`RE AROUND KEEP OUT OF SITE.

 

The only bullying going on right now is you shouting at the rest of us. Threats, what threats? Insults, what insults? Intimidation, what intimidation?

 

What is it these days with folk? You debate something, comment on something and suddenly, you're an internet bully?

 

Right, now I'll hop off this website and go out of sight.

[smileyface]

He could and probably did put a damper on the jarls day by phoning him in the middle of the night, as an ex jarl he should have known better.

 

 

He maybe needed his peerie glasses tae see the time cos it wis da back o eleven at night alledgedly. And incidentally is eleven o`clock at night not an inconvenient time of night for a member of the Up Helly Aa Committee to approach a member of the public to inform them they are going to be featured on the Bill in the morning.

[Stevo]

He could and probably did put a damper on the jarls day by phoning him in the middle of the night, as an ex jarl he should have known better.

 

 

He maybe needed his peerie glasses tae see the time cos it wis da back o eleven at night alledgedly. And incidentally is eleven o`clock at night not an inconvenient time of night for a member of the Up Helly Aa Committee to approach a member of the public to inform them they are going to be featured on the Bill in the morning.

 

I am sorry, but this is rubbish, most people dont know they are on the bill until UHA morning. Whit makes him so special? Why are you making an issue of this? Surely **** would be wanting this whole mess to die down? After all its down to him that its been brought up again! As another ex-jarl stated in the paper, if **** had kept his head down and laughed it off then it would all be forgotten about. Its his OWN actions that have caused a stir.

[NewBigFoot]

This issue has the potential to open a very big can of worms. The members of the “jokes committee†had better ensure they have good Liability Insurance as *** may have a case against them as group or as individuals for any slanderous comment and/or communication that has been made about him. I’d recommend all parties involved apologize and over turn ****s ban.

[smileyface]

He could and probably did put a damper on the jarls day by phoning him in the middle of the night, as an ex jarl he should have known better.

 

 

He maybe needed his peerie glasses tae see the time cos it wis da back o eleven at night alledgedly. And incidentally is eleven o`clock at night not an inconvenient time of night for a member of the Up Helly Aa Committee to approach a member of the public to inform them they are going to be featured on the Bill in the morning.

 

I am sorry, but this is rubbish, most people dont know they are on the bill until UHA morning. Whit makes him so special? Why are you making an issue of this? Surely **** would be wanting this whole mess to die down? After all its down to him that its been brought up again! As another ex-jarl stated in the paper, if **** had kept his head down and laughed it off then it would all be forgotten about. Its his OWN actions that have caused a stir.

 

I think you`re missing the point Stevo

 

A member of the Up Helly Aa Committee contacted Big **** at an unreasonable hour on the Monday evening to inform him of the Article on the Bill, this was in itself totally unacceptable. To approach a member of the public and tell them they are to featured on the Bill about a legal matter not yet dealt with by the courts. The Committee should be very careful not to put ongoing legal matters on the Bill before they have even gone to Court.

I think you`re missing the point.

[smileyface]

Trial By Media.

 

A phrase popular in the late 20th Century early 21st Century to describe the impact of television and Newspaper coverage on a person`s reputation by creating a widespread perception of Guilt or Innocence before or after a verdict in a Court Of Law.

[EM]

...

I am sorry, but this is rubbish, most people dont know they are on the bill until UHA morning. Whit makes him so special? Why are you making an issue of this? Surely **** would be wanting this whole mess to die down? After all its down to him that its been brought up again! As another ex-jarl stated in the paper, if **** had kept his head down and laughed it off then it would all be forgotten about. Its his OWN actions that have caused a stir.

Indeed. I also wonder what smileyface is hoping to achieve with their postings. It just seems to be throwing about more negativity. Worse, the facts of the matter are being twisted in a most lamentable manner. My advice to smileyface would be to, at the very least, check on the veracity of matters they believe to be facts before posting.

 

For example:

A member of the Up Helly Aa Committee contacted Big **** at an unreasonable hour on the Monday evening to inform him of the Article on the Bill, this was in itself totally unacceptable.

This completely misrepresents what happened and gives the impression that the committee member was doing something nasty. My understanding is that they were both having a friendly yarn and dram at the time. The bill had, as usual, already been unveiled many hours earlier at the signing. Were I the committee member, I would be unimpressed by the negative spin smileyface has presented.

[NewBigFoot]

...

I am sorry, but this is rubbish, most people dont know they are on the bill until UHA morning. Whit makes him so special? Why are you making an issue of this? Surely **** would be wanting this whole mess to die down? After all its down to him that its been brought up again! As another ex-jarl stated in the paper, if **** had kept his head down and laughed it off then it would all be forgotten about. Its his OWN actions that have caused a stir.

Indeed. I also wonder what smileyface is hoping to achieve with their postings. It just seems to be throwing about more negativity. Worse, the facts of the matter are being twisted in a most lamentable manner. My advice to smileyface would be to, at the very least, check on the veracity of matters they believe to be facts before posting.

 

For example:

A member of the Up Helly Aa Committee contacted Big **** at an unreasonable hour on the Monday evening to inform him of the Article on the Bill, this was in itself totally unacceptable.

This completely misrepresents what happened and gives the impression that the committee member was doing something nasty. My understanding is that they were both having a friendly yarn and dram at the time. The bill had, as usual, already been unveiled many hours earlier at the signing. Were I the committee member, I would be unimpressed by the negative spin smileyface has presented.

 

 

EM, as you are recognised and respected Up Helly Aa enthusiast I’m guessing you are a wee bit saddened by this affair. In my opinion the 10 year ban is ridiculous and reeks of settling old grievances. I’d like to hear your view on the ban imposed on ****.

[Infiltrator]

smileyface and bigfoot seem to have a remarkable interest in this particular issue. They've also only just signed up, and have only posted on this thread

[EM]

EM, as you are recognised ... Up Helly Aa enthusiast ...

Certainly a pyromania anorak.

 

... and respected ...

That I think would be pushing things somewhat.

 

I’m guessing you are a wee bit saddened by this affair.

Certainly. Like other enthusiasts, we have sympathy for **** and his situation, but also consider the problems caused to Stevie, the Committee and UHA generally to have been unreasonable.

 

In my opinion the 10 year ban is ridiculous and reeks of settling old grievances. I’d like to hear your view on the ban imposed on ****.

It is very much a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. The Committee were faced with behaviour which was unprecedented and, whatever justification is presented, caused massive disruption to the festival. Had they not delivered a hefty sanction then they would have been unable to sanction other people in future years for lesser misbehaviour. People would have, rightly, claimed that a special case had been made for **** because he was an ex-Jarl. Indeed, as an ex-Jarl, expected standards would be higher.

[Ghostrider]

I really don't get where this thread is supposed to go. If somebody wants to be a part of UHA they sign up as a guizer and accept whatever the Committee decides is how things are, and if they piss the Committee off, they'll have to put up with whatever consquencial penalties the Committee decides are appropriate. There is no appeal!

 

If anybody doesn't like that arrangement, they can either not get involved in the first place, lobby to get folk put on the Committee in the future that will work on changing how it operates, or say "F*** You All" and walk away.

 

If what was originally put on the Board was unacceptable insofar as it affects any legal action which may occur in the future, I'm sure the old Sheriff will be among the first to haul the Committee over the coals for it when the time comes. Whether of not what **** has and hasn't done and the ban the Committee has handed down as a result is fair, appropriate etc, is a matter between him and the Committee.

 

If there really are 2013 guizers in meaningful numbers that believe the Committee were out of order, start collecting signatures or organise a meeting and take a vote, as proof of strength of feeling is the only way the guizers who are indifferent to the issue, and consequently the Committee are going to take a protest seriously. The Committee firstly pleases themselves, and secondly pleases the majority feeling of the rest of the guizers, a lone dissenting voice or two here and there is quite rightly ignored until or unless they prove the level of support they have.

[NewBigFoot]

smileyface and bigfoot seem to have a remarkable interest in this particular issue. They've also only just signed up, and have only posted on this thread

 

 

I think you’re a bit of a ‘Pink Panther’ i.e. a bumbling detective?

[NewBigFoot]

If a banned guizer decides to turn-up in costume at the Hillhead on Up Helly Aa night who acting within the Law can actually stop him. Would the marshal’s try to pull him from the ranks? What could our constabulary actually do, besides keeping order? The Hillhead is a public place isn’t it, and a banned guizer could march at the end of the procession, couldn’t he? Also, I’ve witnessed Marshal’s trying before to remove guizers and failing!, ‘best not to cause a scene!’. I hope ****’s Jarl squad support him not forgetting who ultimately invited them into the squad to enjoy and take part in that special night i.e. remember the good and don’t dwell on bad.

 

****, if you are reading this, don’t get to down, have a year off and just quietly turn-up in 2015 with your squad and enjoy your night.

[NewBigFoot]

I really don't get where this thread is supposed to go. If somebody wants to be a part of UHA they sign up as a guizer and accept whatever the Committee decides is how things are, and if they piss the Committee off, they'll have to put up with whatever consquencial penalties the Committee decides are appropriate. There is no appeal!

 

If anybody doesn't like that arrangement, they can either not get involved in the first place, lobby to get folk put on the Committee in the future that will work on changing how it operates, or say "F*** You All" and walk away.

 

If what was originally put on the Board was unacceptable insofar as it affects any legal action which may occur in the future, I'm sure the old Sheriff will be among the first to haul the Committee over the coals for it when the time comes. Whether of not what **** has and hasn't done and the ban the Committee has handed down as a result is fair, appropriate etc, is a matter between him and the Committee.

 

If there really are 2013 guizers in meaningful numbers that believe the Committee were out of order, start collecting signatures or organise a meeting and take a vote, as proof of strength of feeling is the only way the guizers who are indifferent to the issue, and consequently the Committee are going to take a protest seriously. The Committee firstly pleases themselves, and secondly pleases the majority feeling of the rest of the guizers, a lone dissenting voice or two here and there is quite rightly ignored until or unless they prove the level of support they have.

 

 

I’m hearing you; however a lot depends on the constitution that Lerwick Up Helly Aa has in place regarding all i.e. if not properly constituted (and legal) ‘the committee’ (and individual committee members) could find themselves in very hot water if challenged.