I didn't see some of the social media interactions with Colin so can't give a comprehensive response but when I was running the ESG I'd have been OK with what went on on WUP. Conversely some of us gave the enshriners such a hard time that their campaigns shied away from the Super RA position to saying "Restricted Actions were about right". Was that unfair on them?

Bert the sharing of the business name is not illegal. It is a public record available to all of us at Companies House. The question raised was valid.

What do you mean by rock the boat Spartan? Do you think Shane could have worked with the people he upset?

TBK- how many pages was the ESG report prior to redaction please?

Apologies. You just did.

Colin and Trigger would probably have rocked the boat a bit, but I think the boat needed rocking.

Nick, I'm not defending anything. Just stating the facts as I see them. I'm not going to hide behind a previous board either. Being elected means taking responsibility and accountability for all decisions that the board made and make.

Because of collective responsibility it’s hard for those of us on the outside to judge whether or not those elected have been good board members- it’s obviously impossible to assess whether someone not even allowed to stand for election would or wouldn’t have done a good job if they had been elected.

I think both Colin and Trigger would've been a breath of fresh air to the board and would've blown away a few cobwebs and the clique who seemed to run things their own way. I'm obviously looking at this from the outside, but It's the impression that I get and talking to a few other fans in the past, they seemed to think the same, so imagine if there were a lot of other fans, who I don't know, thought the same way.

From the website - We aimed to find the right balance between our ongoing and unwavering commitment to providing outstanding value for money for all supporters - Club and DTB are just trolling their own fans now.

TBK - "Has Shane done anything over the last few months that suggest he would be a good board member?". What an extraordinary comment. If he had been allowed to stand, the members would have voted for him or not. If elected, who knows what he would have done, but it is rather Orwellian to be judged as a 'good' board member (or not), IMO.

Biggles has it in for Trigger regardless of what he says or does or whether he apologises or not. If there was such a thing as a ban for just being a horrible person who shit stirs and is obnoxious and has said a few bad things themselves, then Biggles would be a prime candidate.

Well some of us remember how Colin was hounded when he stood for election a few years ago by some of our Enshriners. No way he was going to get voted in if they had their way.

TBK- you are a sensible person and know full well that attempting to defend what went on (in which I realise you were not involved) isn’t a good look. It’s entirely up to you, of course, but in your place I wouldn’t impair my credibility by attempting to defend the indefensible. Let those who made the decision stand or fall by it.

10 blah blah blah 20 goto 10

check or NOT leave it to the last minute I mean.

It was certainly convenient. Maybe another reason to check or leave it to the last minute to give anyone that excuse? Has Shane done anything over the last few months that suggest he would be a good board member?

TBK- pretty clear in the sense of “obvious to anyone who thinks about it”. Can I prove that an “establishment” candidate would have been treated more leniently and allowed to stand on the basis of this being an “ honest mistake”? Clearly I can’t, but it’s what I believe, which in itself says something about the level of trust I have in the process. Ultimately I realise that it doesn’t really matter ( it’s like the quote about academic politics being so vicious because the stakes are so small), but I think that we either have fair elections or we don’t bother at all.

I did discuss this with one of the erm "protagonists", and saw the posts from TF/Shane on here and I would agree with Bert inasmuch that the DTB/ESG should not have hid this behind the email cock-up BUT I think it was right to ban him if he didn't provide an apology (on here at least)

And much as I don't want to discourage anyone from responding to Martin's campaign to reinvigorate the ESG, the third reason I didn't volunteer again is that it was very frustrating to have to be completely unbiased and make sure there was no hint of my preferences.

Is it pretty clear Nick or have you assumed that?

Yes, Nick, and potentially barred forever if they do not undergo successful "rehabilitation".

It’s pretty clear that the “wrong address” thing was just a ploy to exclude a “rock the boat” candidate. Someone who wasn’t an unwelcome voice would not have been excluded on an irrelevant technicality, based on an error made by the DT itself. Of course if it hadn’t been that it would have been reasonably easy to find another pretext to exclude someone with “dangerous” ideas.

Martin. In the manifesto - I'd definitely ban swearing or libel, there was a case of comments about Franchise (probably a word banned in a manifesto!) that would be fine here but not in a document published by the DT. In campaigning it would be a case by case basis for me. The ESG remit used to say something about "running a vibrant election" which encourages a degree of leeway. Libel would be an extreme case, maybe retract publicly or be disqualified? Personal attacks might be allowed or bring a public rebuke. What was wrong when I was involved was the non-standing DTB members being the ultimate authority, it should be the independent scrutineer, who I would have advised to resign if he/she was ever overruled by the DTB.

OI, where would you draw the line? Swearing? Libel?