Sunday, 04 July 2021
  96 Replies
  2.5K Visits
Only 3 weeks away, apparently, but you wouldn’t know as they don’t seem to make much mention in the lead-up.

Almost as though they don’t want folk to be interested…
Hi bejustandfearprokas

the trust is not ‘monitoring’ this board, we’re volunteers not Russian spies

The Trust sent a letter to Barry, revoking his membership because of comments he posted on here. How do you know what he posted on here if you aren't monitoring the forum?

Many people on here would just presume I am some sort of sneaky lapdog, who knows, maybe their mind is already made up after this and the damage is done. In which case, thanks a lot mate.

The Trust have, rather ironically, often behaved in such a way that doesn't inspire trust in them.

Needless to say, yes I am P!$$ed off about this and really I think its all so avoidable and pointless. In my opinion, painting someone in a derogatory way on a public forum, with no prior conversation, or a chance to even rectify any issue is extremely poor form, especially now that you've done it by name (I'm no legal expert but I'm sure it will be a bit dodgy too).

One of my pet peeves is people trying to intimidate others with legal threats. Do you actually think Mullen has broken a law? If so, which law? Can you point me to a specific post or a thread he's made where he has committed an offence?



Edited because quotes aren't formatting properly. Thanks EasyDiscuss!


Individual members of the trust reading this board in their own time is not indicative of some kind of surveillance campaign on behalf of the trust.
2 months ago
Individual members of the trust reading this board in their own time is not indicative of some kind of surveillance campaign on behalf of the trust.


What is the difference in practical terms?
2 months ago
For the record Jack it was an attack on the established members but fair enough.

You are a trust board member. We had a meeting with yourself and Kyle. It happened so naming you both is not against the law.

Yes Kyle is on holiday - fair enough and that’s fine but you came out of that DM and messaged me directly that Billy wanted names etc. Alarm bells started ringing.

The reason I didn’t come to you was because I didn’t trust you.
2 months ago
Completely agree it’s pathetic.

It’s absolutely pathetic that the trust got their minions to do their dirty work. To try and humour me.

In fairness the meeting was good. But straight after you wanted evidence. Then you and Kyle message again wanting evidence. Then I send and you want more evidence for Billy.

So yes I’m pissed of as well!

People are entitled to make their own decisions on the trust. This IMO is another sneaky snakey thing.
Individual members of the trust reading this board in their own time is not indicative of some kind of surveillance campaign on behalf of the trust.


What is the difference in practical terms?


Individual members of the trust reading about the club are no different to any of us reading about the club. A coordinated surveillance campaign would be a sign of bad faith on behalf of the trust, whilst individual members (who may have posted here long before joining the trust) doing so is not.
2 months ago
I think you have admitted that you wanted this to be secret by being annoyed you’ve been named!

It happened, we all had a meeting and you messaged me. I didn’t know it had to remain secret.

Again sneaky!

The meeting happened. As I feel now to butter me up to send the evidence. Then you just wanted the evidence and DM me for it.

So I’m pissed of as well.
2 months ago
Anyone chance someone (not those involved, although there seems to be a hell of a lot of Trust board members on here when the Trust don't seem capable of responding to anything)
I know Mullen found out Billy was suggesting dodgy people involved in running the club, but no idea where it has gone from there, apart from the Trust contacting Mullen and secretive meetings and something about doctor martins after that.
What a club this is - gets more like the Russian secret police every week and that's before competitions to out who is the biggest troll
2 months ago
Not like our trust to be involved in sneaking around is it?

Not fit for purpose!!!

REFORM THE TRUST!!!!!!
2 months ago
After sending a snippet of info - this is the message I received.

Thanks for sending the screenshot before. Billy has asked if you would be up for sending more of it, IE - something that shows names etc. I know you want to protect identities etc, but Billy doesn't want to comment on it, unless there's more in the proof, if you know what I mean?

We are all entitled to our opinion but If this isn’t doing “dirty work” I don’t know what is?

And to be fair it wasn’t an attack on the person it was an attack on the more established members.

However I felt completely pissed off when I received that message.
2 months ago
Thanks for sending the screenshot before. Billy has asked if you would be up for sending more of it, IE - something that shows names etc. I know you want to protect identities etc, but Billy doesn't want to comment on it, unless there's more in the proof, if you know what I mean?


I'd be asking specifically why Billy doesn't want to comment on it unless he has a name. Don't see any reason why he needs to know that.
I've said in my post I'm no legal expert. I said 'I'm sure it will be a bit dodgy.'

Not intimidating anyone with legal action.

Huge pet peeve of mine too.
2 months ago
It’s not dodgy to name as the people were there and no NDA signed.

If there was a law against naming people in a meeting then millions would be arrested.
2 months ago
A prospective trust member isn’t happy with me asking questions ffs!

I wouldn’t have to ask questions if you weren’t inept, told us stuff, had regular meetings etc.

Deary me - shared as it’s on a public forum
2 months ago
I've said in my post I'm no legal expert. I said 'I'm sure it will be a bit dodgy.'


Then how are you sure it will be a bit dodgy? What do you think is "dodgy" about it?
2 months ago
A prospective trust member isn’t happy with me asking questions ffs!

I wouldn’t have to ask questions if you weren’t inept, told us stuff, had regular meetings etc.

Deary me - shared as it’s on a public forum


I agree Richard, if the Trust were more likeable and informative, and did more than just take up Board Directorships there wouldn’t be any need to ask so many questions.

More power to you mate.
2 months ago
Ok to clarify.

I’m not an attention seeker - as apparently told by Jack to a mate.

Yes the meeting was good but I’ve no idea what vital information I missed. We had a meeting discussed the issue and all good.

Straight after I get messaged to send the evidence and the same a day after.

After I send it I then get asked whether it could be sent to the board - alarm bells but I reluctantly agree.

Then I get the message posted below.

Sorry I never came to you directly but that’s because I didn’t trust you!

And again the criticism wasn’t directed at Jack it was directed at the person in the message that asked for more info - he surely knew what it was/said and he could have made contact.

It’s just all so secretive bollocks!

If I have an issue with a mod on here I make public we comment and the person responsible deals with it - none of this ridiculous pettiness.
2 months ago


To recap I’m not anti trust or pro anyone just after a bit of truth. The whole thing has left a bitter taste in my mouth.

A person I know well attended BA shop and had a good long discussion about the club. In that discussion BA mentions, unsure of context, of unscrupulous people that may shock some people in the club. This person then asks me if I know who they are.

For clarification this person likes BA and Jm and has no issues. I regularly get told off from him for criticising them which is why I’m certain what was said was true.

However I don’t mention anything as it’s hear say. But I get included in some communications , not by BA, that also says the same thing - so I ask the question as it’s now valid.

I’ve fell for things before so I sent a snippet of good evidence to the mods here to clarify the question.

I then get an invite to a meeting with Jack and Kyle. To be fair it was a good fair meeting and explained the situation. It was a good meeting.

I then get messaged in a group with Kyle and Jack to provide evidence. I provide a little snippet.

Then alarm bells ring when I get a message of Jack directly saying Billy requires more info. This then leads me to post about the “dirty work” and getting the two lads to do it.

I then get a message from Jack to say he’s disappointed and shocked what I put and why I didn’t go to him. Simply I lost trust I felt I was being humoured to get the evidence. Sorry it’s just how I felt.

Really disappointed - all the trust had to do was reply to the question by saying yes or no. All this sneaky ness etc and other stuff just adds fuel to fire what the trust are about.

Sad really. I’d urge everyone who is a member to go to the AGM and make their feelings known either for/against


Right Richard, I’ve replied to you personally on this this yesterday. But now replying to you publicly because you've named me on this forum so everyone can see.

For the record, I’m speaking here in a completely personal capacity.

After a meeting at 2130 one night last week, where we seemed to have a good, open dialogue and where we even offered to answer any other questions you had etc, I’m annoyed you’ve said this.

Now, I can’t be bothered with a Back and Forth with you I'm sure we've both got better things to do with our time, but I will put one thing straight. I’m not doing anyone’s dirty work. I have my own business in the North East which I am steering through Covid, I am currently buying a house and I have a pregnant girlfriend. I’ve got a bit of time left to volunteer my time to CUOSC to try and help Carlisle United (the club I love and want to see nothing but a better future for.) I certainly don't have time to do anyone’s dirty work (which seems to be 2+2=5 type grasp to me).

For the record, as stated in my messages to you, the reason I messaged privately without Kyle the other night was because he was going on holiday, he's allowed one, he's a volunteer, he even asked me to himself. I noticed you've chosen to ignore that fairly important part.

I know we don't know each other, but rather than accusing me of dirty work on a public forum, why on earth would you not contact me personally first?

And what if I had never seen your post? I don't come on here a lot, but ultimately I visit because I’m a Carlisle United fan first and foremost (no, the trust is not ‘monitoring’ this board, we’re volunteers not Russian spies) . Many people on here would just presume I am some sort of sneaky lapdog, who knows, maybe their mind is already made up after this and the damage is done. In which case, thanks a lot mate.

I'd like to know, how you would feel if the tables were turned and someone you really didn't know at all accused you of doing dirty work the internet?

Needless to say, yes I am P!$$ed off about this and really I think its all so avoidable and pointless. In my opinion, painting someone in a derogatory way on a public forum, with no prior conversation, or a chance to even rectify any issue is extremely poor form, especially now that you've done it by name (I'm no legal expert but I'm sure it will be a bit dodgy too). I offered for you to get in touch if you needed anything else, but instead you've just hit your keyboard instead.

And by the way, Its no secret I was critical of the trust back in the day, but after doing something about it (AKA joining) in hindsight sometimes I was unfair. But ultimately, there’s some brilliant volunteers involved in ALL aspects of our fanbase, to the guys who give up their time to moderate this board, to those who go to CUSG meetings, London Branch, podcasters, WRE flags, Away Travel etc. These are people actively doing something to try and achieve progress and interaction. Vague allegations and personal digs on a public forum do the opposite and also cause a lot unneeded stress and hurt.

Now I'm scratching my head wondering how volunteering to try and do some good has led to me defending myself to someone I don't know at 7am on a Thursday.

Jack


@Mullen

Too many ambiguity’s and dare I say riddles in your accusations/information for me.

Maybe someone is playing you as they know you bite very easily but really if you have something to say get it out there as long as nothing is said in malice.

Don’t tell half a story it becomes tedious.
2 months ago
I’ve explained numerous times highland!

BA mentions unscrupulous people involved in club to a person I know.

I also get extremely good evidence which I shared with the mods - more than I provided to the trust. Mods confirm.

So I simply ask a question on who these unscrupulous people are - that’s it.

Meeting with Kyle & Jack to discuss.
Then get messages to send info
Do that and request for more as below.

No riddles
2 months ago
I’ve explained numerous times highland!

BA mentions unscrupulous people involved in club to a person I know.

I also get extremely good evidence which I shared with the mods - more than I provided to the trust. Mods confirm.

So I simply ask a question on who these unscrupulous people are - that’s it.

Meeting with Kyle & Jack to discuss.
Then get messages to send info
Do that and request for more as below.

No riddles


What is this information/evidence and why are you very choosy with whom you share this with.

It’s all very teasing.
2 months ago
Evidence is communications.

Quite simply I wanted to ask the question without any.

This was to see what they’d say and produce it, but I thought maybe wrongly to share with the mods to verify the question.

But as the mods are kindly going to ask and collate I thought I’d send them to verify the question.

The trust have never contacted me directly before on any questions asked but they did this one eh!

Again no problems with that - it’s when one of them started going a bit weird.
2 months ago
Another thing I’ve been accused of today is being a keyboard warrior - if I was I wouldn t attend fans forums or AGMs.

I will agree I’ve been reserved in agms for the trust - I won’t be Sunday

It’ll also be interesting if any of the invisible 60-80 people that always seem to vote for whoever stands will be there. They never seem to appear at meetings or AGMs - shame as surely they are all trust and be interested hearing their side.
2 months ago
And no calling the trust dead otters CCU on Sunday - upset them that.
2 months ago
And no calling the trust dead otters CCU on Sunday - upset them that.


I’m unsure why you chose these mods to share your information- why not Griff on the other message board or other constituent groups of cusg unless a question was raised for the cusg.
I’ve been away so a tad behind with the current game going ons.
2 months ago
Another thing I’ve been accused of today is being a keyboard warrior - if I was I wouldn t attend fans forums or AGMs.

I will agree I’ve been reserved in agms for the trust - I won’t be Sunday

It’ll also be interesting if any of the invisible 60-80 people that always seem to vote for whoever stands will be there. They never seem to appear at meetings or AGMs - shame as surely they are all trust and be interested hearing their side.


How long do you have to be a member before being granted access to the trust agm?
2 months ago
You’d have to contact the trust and ask highland.

The mods here ask the questions - that’s why and all there was too it. The mods have done more for fan engagement than the trust ever has.

Sending it to griff wouldn’t have helped

The trust in all their years of existence haven’t done anything like take questions etc. No fan engagement and answering questions makes them unable to breathe. Goodness knows how they deal with issues in the 1921 and holdings board?
  • Page :
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
There are no replies made for this post yet.
Be one of the first to reply to this post!
The Football League Paper