Beth via Twitter

I’m still on the Conway out group.

To read what they have to say in the main. But I couldn’t not say anything when I heard about what happened to Beth last night. They only approved the post this morning; nobody has been brave enough to argue against what I said or admit they did it so far.

 

At no point did i say it does. I would say there are quite a lot in both groups plus other groups besides. The implication from a couple of posters in this thread is that if your part of the Conway out page your a Knuckle dragger when thats clearly not true

 

No it's not.

My point is that the 'leader' of the Conway Out group is essentially stoking this all up and inciting this kind of thing.

Nobody on here has written as such.

 

It appears, from this statement, the perpetrators have been identified, this information has been relayed to the Facebook group, who have cross referenced their membership, found that those accused are not part of the group and issued a statement accordingly.

In which case I retract my previous post. This definitely happened though, right?

 

Plural

 

Think that’s pretty clear. Basically we condemn violence but advocate for people’s right to make a peaceful protest. I mean I think the group is idiotic but that seems fair enough.

 

well put I’m definitely in the ambivalent camp myself.

 

Quite surprised by that. Have no idea who you are referring to either!

 

Some right ******* about. Glad ye okay beth

 

I’m expecting it to either be a Noel Edmonds style Gotcha or it to be like those evangelicals who stand in town centres with a microphone preaching manically about doom unless you repent.

 

I’m on the Facebook group as I am this one. Some rubbish written on both platforms, more aggressive on the FB group in the main. Both are simply platforms with people sounding off.

The key for me remains; how do supporters put pressure on the Owners to state their intention to up sticks and leave? I think there are two separate philosophies that have developed (three if you count the ‘apathetic/don’t care/don’t want to engage’).

Those who have no desire to engage with the Owners because 4 years of incompetence is enough - that seems to include many who are on the FB site and a fair few on here. The other group appears to be represented by the Trust. They want to engage with the Owners and are looking for dialogue to improve the situation.

Personally, I’m with the former group. I would not engage with the Owners or the CEO. They have had their opportunity. There are no circumstances in which they can take the Club forward. They need to state their intention to leave asap and then we can start to build again in L1.

 

I think they found a club office and saw an easy target. They were probably somewhat disappointed it was a woman as they couldn't use physical violence, I've no doubt they would have gone even further than throwing lager if it was a bloke.

 

Our mate Luke has done a Facebook video just now.

Basically ten minutes of him saying nowttodowime, and that it's definitely not people from the Conway Out group.

Aye.

 

I have nothing to explain. I didn't raise the two camps comment. I was responding to the prior comment where it was raised by Fonzie. Maybe ask him. My views are in my earlier post.

 

The SPaG in this post is rather poor plus the message is ambiguous. I'm not sure what their position is on aggressive or violent protest at the club. Criminal behaviour is not accepted or allowed under the right to protest and congregate. The is no such thing as Free Speech, there are lawful restrictions and responsibilities on everyone, whether in person, print or online.
It is difficult to work out what offences have been committed,from the report. The club can claim trespass, damage, Beth could claim threat and intimidation.

 

I think it's fair to say there are three camps And I don't agree with or welcome different factions, but sometimes it can't be helped.