MOLD do the Dirty on Jeff Kent

[JOHNNYAITCH]

I wasn't there and watched all this via OVF, the Sentinel etc from the safety of 200+ miles away..however...

 

People said and did things..people read things into what was said and done..what they read into those things was correct or not correct....some are now saying that what was read into those things was not correct, was not meant..some will accept this and some will not.

 

From what I can see what it's claimed was meant (whether one is the accuser or the accused) cannot be proven one way or the other as it's opinion and where an opinion cannot be proven (is it an opinion if proven?) one sometimes has to simply agree to disagree for one's own benefit and well being confident that one knows the truth, confident that those that matter to you know the truth and not caring about those that don't matter to you that don't know the truth, let them believe what they want, who cares, after all they don't matter, they cannot harm you nor those that matter to you and what they believe cannot harm you nor those that matter to you..if anything relish the fact that you and those that are important to you know that you are right and they are wrong.

 

In other words..s0d 'em!!!!

 

From what I see, we are at that point.

[glenpvfc]

If i was a judge and someone came to me and said "I want to sue this person because he thinks that i wound people up but i didn't" then i would laugh at them and make them pay the court costs straight away. You cannot decide if you wound people up or not Jeff, that is their reaction whether you meant it or not. i would definitely hope that people cannot actually be sued over it because that is completely outrageous if that's the case.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

If i was a judge and someone came to me and said "I want to sue this person because he thinks that i wound people up but i didn't" then i would laugh at them and make them pay the court costs straight away. You cannot decide if you wound people up or not Jeff, that is their reaction whether you meant it or not. i would definitely hope that people cannot actually be sued over it because that is completely outrageous if that's the case.

 

It's the "I was provoked" defence used so often on here..as though the "provoked'' has no say in the matter just the alleged "provoker". People choose their reaction whether the provoker intended to incite it or not...which they of course claim that he/she did.

[toyahw]

You also need to know why im called "spunk trumpet" Jeff.

 

I bowled in, pissed up, and spouted off big time. When i got back to my pc that night, Dean Leese asked who the "spunk trumpet" was.

 

RS refer to you as Mr Trumpet. Made me laugh.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

You also need to know why im called "spunk trumpet" Jeff.

 

I was dreading what was to follow this...I need not have worried ;)

[Loggerheads Sage]

Sorry for the belated post, Iv'e only just had the time to fully digest this thread. Well this has brought back some bad memories hasn't it! My take on it (for what its worth) is this. Jeff, whether you meant to wind people up or not only you truly know the answer to, but what i can definitely state is that you certainly did wind me up that day!! Firstly with the content of your speech, Bratts cartel almost killed the Vale,( I would argue that we have never fully recovered from his misrule, our fanbase hasn't - many fans left never to return), and your views, although you state that you did not back the Board, did exactly that!. Why do you think Brat selected you to speak first?. Bratt started off by putting a time limit on each speaker - something you just ignored. I was on the front row and kept tapping my watch and eventually Bratt cut you off. What on earth what happened in 1906, was it, had to do with anything i do not know! When i heard about your infamous "V" sign i was furious - assuming that it was literally a v sign at first. With all the emotion of that day it was at best a very inflammatory thing to do in the circumstances. What interests me is the oft quoted "smirk" on your face - surely that only has one interpretation? Wish i had seen it so that i could have made my own mind up.

Still, water under the bridge now eh, or perhaps not looking at this thread. Shortly afterwards Bratt (Vales worst ever chairman?) had gone - with all of his money as well. What interests me is the difference between a dreaded dictator owner and the small cartel that ruled us as a dictatorship - can't see how the rules were helping us - in fact they weren't, thats why they were in place!

i think the comment of one poster that "you are looking ridiculous" relates to the sense that you are coming over as very mard and full of your own importance - determined to get your own way with threats of legal action repeatedly. Whatever your motives you upset a lot of people that day Jeff - people who had been abused just like you. Hope i haven't said anything to warrant legal action?

I had previously bought several of your books, but have not bought one since and won't be in the future either.

For us all eh, lol. Owned by the fans for the fans.

[Jeff Kent]

If i was a judge and someone came to me and said "I want to sue this person because he thinks that i wound people up but i didn't" then i would laugh at them and make them pay the court costs straight away. You cannot decide if you wound people up or not Jeff, that is their reaction whether you meant it or not. i would definitely hope that people cannot actually be sued over it because that is completely outrageous if that's the case.

 

As you said, you're not a judge!

[Jeff Kent]

The High Court established in Smith vs ADVFN that comments on an internet forum can only be slander, not libel. There is a big difference. I suspect this is what Stupers was alluding to.

 

Spunktrumpet saying "you look as ridiculous as you come across in real life" is not Libel. It is his honest opinion. Defamation act 2013, chapter 26, section 3.

 

I haven't libelled you, nor am I interested in arguing with you, I just suggest you take the above into consideration. That'll be £230 for 5 minutes of my legal opinion please.

 

Thank you for that information and your conclusions. My legal adviser and I are well aware of the 2008 case and the Act. There are subtantial differences between the Smith vs ADVFN case and this particular one that make the position very different.

[Jeff Kent]

You also need to know why im called "spunk trumpet" Jeff.

 

Back in the dark Bratt days you backed, i didnt. After Sinnotts sacking (untimely considering so early in the season) i went down to protest after the directors had their meeting.

Sadly for me i ended up walking from Bradwell at 5pm and having a pint in most pubs in Burslem.

By the time i got to the car park, Bratty was talking to about ten to fifteen Vale fans.

I bowled in, pissed up, and spouted off big time. When i got back to my pc that night, Dean Leese asked who the "spunk trumpet" was. I got a torrent of abuse.

I was ridiculed big time on here.

 

Thing is Jeff, i embraced it. Changed my username from Vale in Esher and became "spunk trumpet"

Ive since become good friends with Dean and he even came over to Norway and visited "may un mar lady"

I didnt go spouting libel andall sorts of nonsense. At the end of the day....... As the saying goes...... "We're all Vale arent we?"

 

I myself actually look ridiculous these days Jeff. Ive got grey hair at 36!

Imagine that!

But by god i embrace it.

A young George Clooney if you will!

 

So i won't apologise or retract anything Jeff. And lets face it youre being a little bit silly in holding this grudge.

 

Ive been called much worse on here. Way worse in real life and yet i would never let it cross my mind to do a fellow vale fan for liable over something so absolutely pathetic.

 

I will however, look forward to reading your next book.

 

Cheers Jeff.

 

As you've twice refused to withdraw the offending remarks, and have produced no evidence to substantiate them, I'm now in a very strong position to proceed without further notice.

However, it's obvious that your tone in the above post and your previous one has become altogether more friendly and, obviously, it pleases me that you're look forward to reading my next book in spite of our dispute.

I'm therefore responding positively and am suggesting that we discuss it further through this website's private messaging system to try to reach an agreement to end the matter.

Can you please let me know if that's acceptable to you?

[Spunk Trumpet]

Note from Admin Rob F - this post and others have been deleted by the user's request as he wants to withdraw those comments.

[Jeff Kent]

Sorry for the belated post, Iv'e only just had the time to fully digest this thread. Well this has brought back some bad memories hasn't it! My take on it (for what its worth) is this. Jeff, whether you meant to wind people up or not only you truly know the answer to, but what i can definitely state is that you certainly did wind me up that day!! Firstly with the content of your speech, Bratts cartel almost killed the Vale,( I would argue that we have never fully recovered from his misrule, our fanbase hasn't - many fans left never to return), and your views, although you state that you did not back the Board, did exactly that!. Why do you think Brat selected you to speak first?. Bratt started off by putting a time limit on each speaker - something you just ignored. I was on the front row and kept tapping my watch and eventually Bratt cut you off. What on earth what happened in 1906, was it, had to do with anything i do not know! When i heard about your infamous "V" sign i was furious - assuming that it was literally a v sign at first. With all the emotion of that day it was at best a very inflammatory thing to do in the circumstances. What interests me is the oft quoted "smirk" on your face - surely that only has one interpretation? Wish i had seen it so that i could have made my own mind up.

Still, water under the bridge now eh, or perhaps not looking at this thread. Shortly afterwards Bratt (Vales worst ever chairman?) had gone - with all of his money as well. What interests me is the difference between a dreaded dictator owner and the small cartel that ruled us as a dictatorship - can't see how the rules were helping us - in fact they weren't, thats why they were in place!

i think the comment of one poster that "you are looking ridiculous" relates to the sense that you are coming over as very mard and full of your own importance - determined to get your own way with threats of legal action repeatedly. Whatever your motives you upset a lot of people that day Jeff - people who had been abused just like you. Hope i haven't said anything to warrant legal action?

I had previously bought several of your books, but have not bought one since and won't be in the future either.

For us all eh, lol. Owned by the fans for the fans.

 

Unfortunately, the above ill-timed post is probably the most inept piece of "factual" writing I've ever read!

As I've already explained on this thread several times, I didn't wind anybody up at the EGM. I peacefully made a brief speech at a supposedly democratic meeting because I cared about the future of the Vale. People did get wound up, but it was obvious from the atmosphere in the room that they were wound up before the meeting started. Also, I have no control over how people react to things - that's entirely their own doing. Anyone who gets wound up because someone expresses a different opinion in a reasonable manner at a meeting is in need of stress counselling, in my view.

As just hearing my point of view wound you up, then imagine what effect being heckled, booed and otherwise interrupted (as I was) would have had on you! Did I allow all that to wind me up? No! I gave my answer to the hassle with my "V" for victory sign when I'd finished, which was to show that I wasn't prepared to have my democratic rights to speak trampled down by what was in effect intimidation by a large number of people.

And did I get wound up by the endless speeches and comments made in favour of the motions? No! I didn't agree with them, but I respected the speakers' views by not interrupting and thereby supporting their democratic rights to give their honest opinions.

As I've already stated, I didn't back the board despite your insistence that I did. I didn't mention the board or any of its members once in my speech. If you couldn't understand what I said in pretty straightforward English, then you have problems in understanding the language. As I've said previously, I have a copy of my speech in my exact words on my PC and anyone who wishes to see it can do so. It's available for public scrutiny.

Neither Brat nor Bratt selected me to speak. No-one selected me to speak! I volunteered to do so because I wanted to make a point about democracy and dictatorship, even though I was confident in advance that few people, if any, would take any notice of what I said. I spoke as a matter of principle. Also, it appeared to me that everyone who spoke at the meeting did so voluntarily and that no-one was chosen by anybody to speak. So much time was allotted to the debate that it appeared that everyone who wished to do so had the opportunity to have their say.

Neither did I speak first, as you claim. The first speaker was Malcolm Hirst, who was the proposer of the motions. Other pro-resolutions speakers then followed and I came in after that.

Neither Bill Bratt nor anyone else put a specific time limit on how long shareholders could speak for, so I broke no rules of the meeting. Malcolm Hirst opened with a speech five minutes long (in anticipation of any problems, I timed it) and therefore he set a marker for all who would follow. As he had essentially the same view as you did, I assume you weren't tapping your watch with impatience during his speech!

I spoke for 4½ minutes (which I had timed by a friend) and so, as you ‘kept tapping' your watch, you must have been on an unbelievably short fuse! Perhaps had you concentrated on listening, instead of tapping a watch to absolutely no purpose, you might have understood what I was saying and perhaps have learned something. Also, my 4½ minutes included the time the chairman (not very effectively) twice asked the interrupting shareholders to allow me to speak and the time when I stopped speaking in order to (more effectively) make the same point myself.

Bill Bratt did not cut me off! Under pressure from a largely hostile crowd, he asked me to come to a conclusion, which I did, in my own time, and I completed my speech.

[Jeff Kent]

Sorry for the belated post, Iv'e only just had the time to fully digest this thread. Well this has brought back some bad memories hasn't it! My take on it (for what its worth) is this. Jeff, whether you meant to wind people up or not only you truly know the answer to, but what i can definitely state is that you certainly did wind me up that day!! Firstly with the content of your speech, Bratts cartel almost killed the Vale,( I would argue that we have never fully recovered from his misrule, our fanbase hasn't - many fans left never to return), and your views, although you state that you did not back the Board, did exactly that!. Why do you think Brat selected you to speak first?. Bratt started off by putting a time limit on each speaker - something you just ignored. I was on the front row and kept tapping my watch and eventually Bratt cut you off. What on earth what happened in 1906, was it, had to do with anything i do not know! When i heard about your infamous "V" sign i was furious - assuming that it was literally a v sign at first. With all the emotion of that day it was at best a very inflammatory thing to do in the circumstances. What interests me is the oft quoted "smirk" on your face - surely that only has one interpretation? Wish i had seen it so that i could have made my own mind up.

Still, water under the bridge now eh, or perhaps not looking at this thread. Shortly afterwards Bratt (Vales worst ever chairman?) had gone - with all of his money as well. What interests me is the difference between a dreaded dictator owner and the small cartel that ruled us as a dictatorship - can't see how the rules were helping us - in fact they weren't, thats why they were in place!

i think the comment of one poster that "you are looking ridiculous" relates to the sense that you are coming over as very mard and full of your own importance - determined to get your own way with threats of legal action repeatedly. Whatever your motives you upset a lot of people that day Jeff - people who had been abused just like you. Hope i haven't said anything to warrant legal action?

I had previously bought several of your books, but have not bought one since and won't be in the future either.

For us all eh, lol. Owned by the fans for the fans.

 

I didn’t mention 1906, but I did make an important point about 1907, which was when the then chairman, Robert Audley, liquidated the original club. Had you been listening instead of tapping your watch, you might have understood the vital point I was making. In any case, as you said you’d bought several of my books, you should have known something about the events of 1907.

You say my “V” (for victory) sign was ‘at best a very a very inflammatory thing to do in the circumstances’, but it wasn’t something you saw for yourself because you only ‘heard’ about it. So, actually, you know nothing about it! It’s just hearsay to you. And yet the hearsay made you ‘furious’! So you didn’t bother to check the facts before condemning me. And if my sign was inflammatory, what can you call the jeering, booing and interrupting my democratic right to speak (which led me to take that action)? The really peculiar thing, though, is that you were sitting on the front row, as I was, and I stood up in front of it to speak. And yet you didn’t see my action! You’ve got it all very mixed up!

I don’t know about a ‘smirk’ on my face because I wasn’t watching myself at the time. However, if I didn’t put on a mock smile at the attempts by numerous people to destroy my democratic rights, then I should have done!

Cartels can’t rule as dictators because dictators are single individuals, who have total control. The 24.9% rule protected the club from a dictatorship. That is it meant that at least three directors had to agree before any action could be taken to the detriment of the club. That gave three times the protection of a single individual having to agree with himself to liquidate the club.

I wasn’t at all happy with the performance of the board, especially from a real democracy perspective, and I’d tried hard (mainly as the convener of Vale Supporter Links) to help make the club more democratic despite resistance from board members, including Charles Machin and Bill Bratt. So my speech was nothing about supporting the board. It was urging the (mainly ordinary) shareholders not to give away the very small amount of power that we had. Throughout the existence of Valiant 2001, not many supporters tried to make the running of the club more democratic, but large numbers complained very loudly when it wasn’t!

I’d wanted to put amendments to the EGM motions, in order to create a third choice for the shareholders and to try to democratise the club, but my request was refused by the club secretary, so, really, I became stuck between Scylla and Charybdis! I was unhappy with both camps and reluctantly chose the least-worst option available to me. To have had so much abuse and grief and become a scapegoat over something I didn’t really want to do anyway has really taken the biscuit!

You say the reason I’ve been posting on this thread is because I’m ‘very mard and full of my own importance’. So, firstly, you’re effectively saying that it’s bad form for victims to defend themselves – they should just quietly allow themselves to be sacrificed. Not me! I fight my corner!

It doesn’t seem to have occurred to you that I might be posting because I feel aggrieved about the injustice I’ve suffered since the EGM and am continuing to do so on this thread. If I am ‘full of my own importance’ as you say, I can get immeasurably more attention by simply ringing The Sentinel about some aspect of Vale’s history and having it read by thousands of people. And I could have drawn this thread to the newspaper’s attention for the same reason, but I haven’t. Or I could even have started my own thread, trying to victimise those people who held a different view than me, but instead I respected their right to hold and express their views.

Thank you for letting me know that you won’t be buying any of my future books. I’ll tell my printers so that they won’t have to make the effort to print them. In any case, your post has indicated that you have learned little or nothing about facts and history from my previous books, so it would obviously be futile for you to buy any more!

Nevertheless, I highly recommend that you get your facts right if you continue to have the impertinence to rubbish others for having views different to your own.

In the unlikely event that you or any other of the criticising posters would want to know what really happened at the EGM, I suggest that you read the only known objective report of it in The Sentinel, which bears little or no resemblance to your fantastic imaginings and doesn’t disagree with my version of events that I’ve been stating on this thread, sourced mainly from my detailed diary entry on the day and the newspaper!