[Oldtimer]

Westbars Spireite, on 09 October 2019 - 11:57 AM, said:

There is no possible honourable intention here Oldtimer. What possible reasonable could there be?

As I said earlier Westbars. I don't have the answer but it could simply be that he wanted an answer to a question which was important to him regarding why a PS email address was being used.

As I also said earlier not defending Mr Bean simply refuse to find him guilty without any real evidence.

[Oldtimer]

calvin plummers socks, on 09 October 2019 - 11:58 AM, said:

Who would he do an FOI if not to get him in the sh17e with his employer?
The rancid stench of a club gets worse.
Community Club my arris

I think you're still feeling a little bitter and twisted because we didn't reply to your employment request. So if you don't mind I'll disregard your opinion on this occasion.

[Oldtimer]

hilly81, on 09 October 2019 - 12:01 PM, said:

Oldtimer is surely a parody account?

Are you implying if someone doesn't agree with the majority they must be a clown ??

[Westbars Spireite]

Is it Crooty?

[Oldtimer]

Quaker, on 09 October 2019 - 12:22 PM, said:

"We didn't reply to your employment request" ?

Whose we, are you a board member?

Aren't we all one at CFC ??

[Oldtimer]

Westbars Spireite, on 09 October 2019 - 12:24 PM, said:

Is it Crooty?

The only thing I do with CFC watch them play. Nothing more. Besides I'm much better looking than John

[CFC91]

Oldtimer, on 09 October 2019 - 12:19 PM, said:

I think you're still feeling a little bitter and twisted because we didn't reply to your employment request. So if you don't mind I'll disregard your opinion on this occasion.

Ahhhhh..rumbled

[Westbars Spireite]

I'd have used 'they' in your sentence personally. At the moment it is very much 'us' and 'them'.

[Oldtimer]

CFC91, on 09 October 2019 - 12:32 PM, said:

Ahhhhh..rumbled

Not really. Simply used the we to signify CFC. As I said earlier simply a supporter, nothing more.

[Oldtimer]

Westbars Spireite, on 09 October 2019 - 12:33 PM, said:

I'd have used 'they' in your sentence personally. At the moment it is very much 'us' and 'them'.

"They" as you call them don't give tuppence about "us". Where we differ Westbars is that, even before Dave Allen took over, I have never thought it to be any different. Some are just better at hiding it than others. For me, supporting CFC isn't a defining part of my life. I do it to be entertained and yes also at the moment out of habit. Will I be doing it next season ?? I very much doubt. No matter who is in the hot seat and no matter what they tell you, they will come to realise they are simply selling a product. If they can't get you through the gate with entertainment they will fall back to the old faithful and try to pull at your emotions

[Town_Fan]

Oldtimer, on 09 October 2019 - 12:36 PM, said:

Not really. Simply used the we to signify CFC. As I said earlier simply a supporter, nothing more.

I'm calling shenanigans. Noone says we in that context.

[clarevoyant.]

Quaker, on 09 October 2019 - 12:22 PM, said:

"We didn't reply to your employment request" ?

Whose we, are you a board member?

This post has been edited by clarevoyant.: 09 October 2019 - 01:47 PM

[isleaiw1]

Oldtimer, on 09 October 2019 - 09:32 AM, said:

My guess that when the OP talks of not being allowed to share the email from Mr Bean he is simply looking at the disclaimer that is printed as a footer. Something that is on all business emails. It's something that is basically meaningless and ignored by millions on a hourly basis.

While I don't condone Mr Bean's FOI request, he was within his rights to do so. What is in question is his intent, was it malicious or did he have a genuine need to know something ??

I can only speak for my company in that we all know to use company emails for private business is not permitted. although to differing levels it's something we all do. I don't profess to know rules in the public sector but imagine something similar.

As I said earlier I'm not trying to fight Bean's corner but once again I think many of you guys are being a little premature in your eagerness to push someone under the bus.

As I am often told, I can find a contrary view to most things.... but I really struggle to see what valid basis Bean would have for checking with the employer about sending the email from a work address.

You can only speak for your company. Mine says its OK as long as you dont abuse it or send anything inappropriate that would be damaging to the business. I havent worked for the public sector but wouldnt be surprised if they had a similar approach to reflect it will happen but give an opportunity to discipline if needed.

So, what valid reason have you come up with on why he took the approach he did??

I had the joy of dealing with Bean over a Data Privacy Issue. He told me I was wrong. He told me they would not change. The ICO told him he was wrong and he had to change. I never did receive the apology that I asked for....so to my mind seeing him in a bad light is not unreasonable.

[hilly81]

Oldtimer, on 09 October 2019 - 12:24 PM, said:

Are you implying if someone doesn't agree with the majority they must be a clown ??

No. I'm implying that if someone doesn't think Bean is being disingenuous with his email business (Where the email is sent from is completely irrelevant to Bean or anyone at the club) and if someone generally sticks up for all his/her mates at the club at every opportunity given the huge amount of shady goings on over the last 5 years, then, yes, they could quite possibly be a clown.

[Cactoise]

Is Oldtimer Bean himself?

[warfey is a spireite]

Cactoise, on 09 October 2019 - 01:37 PM, said:

Is Oldtimer Bean himself?

NO

[Westbars Spireite]

Please don't try and guess what my feelings are Oldtimer. If you want to know something I'll answer most questions posed on here.

You were the one referring to the 'we' in any case, suggesting an attachment at odds with your later comments.

[Goku]

Oldtimer, on 09 October 2019 - 11:05 AM, said:

Nope. Certainly not defending him but neither am I willing to push someone under the bus on what amounts to little more than hearsay and innuendo. However if you prove his FOI request was intended to be malicious rather than a genuine need to an answer to a question, now that would be different. Until then I'll abstain from hanging the guy at the present time thanks.

Haha. You're an idiot.

[calvin plummers socks]

Oldtimer, on 09 October 2019 - 12:19 PM, said:

I think you're still feeling a little bitter and twisted because we didn't reply to your employment request. So if you don't mind I'll disregard your opinion on this occasion.

Ah good to hear from you Ashley!
Not bitter and twisted at all- just glad one of us offering help have finally had a response (Stockholm and Misnomer- this may be the best thanks but no thanks we gonna get)!

Good to see the Club doing so well despite our help though 👏🏽