Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.

You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Wandering Minds » Should a Coronavirus vaccine be mandatory?

Should a Coronavirus vaccine be mandatory?

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 3]

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Just read that Australia are close to having a vaccine and their PM is saying it should be mandatory for everyone to have one (apart from medical exemptions). Dr Fauci in America is saying he doesn't think it should and won't be mandatory in the Sates but what will happen here?

If the Government here do decide to try and make having the vaccine mandatory would you approve or fight it?

xmiles

xmiles
Jay Jay Okocha
Jay Jay Okocha
Definitely approve. A number of childhood vaccinations should be compulsory as well.

okocha

okocha
Andy Walker
Andy Walker
Agree with xmiles.

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Looks like the Aussie PM is now backtracking.

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Some folk will go apeshit if they’re forced to have a vaccine especially the right wing conspiracy theorists who believe the government is trying to sterilise them. So if it’s optional all the sensible folk will be safe and the dickheads can be left to kill each other.

Cajunboy

Cajunboy
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf
@wanderlust wrote:Some folk will go apeshit if they’re forced to have a vaccine especially the right wing conspiracy theorists who believe the government is trying to sterilise them. So if it’s optional all the sensible folk will be safe and the dickheads can be left to kill each other.
That sounds a good plan.

I always feel we have more dickheads and nutjobs than any other country.

I wonder if Sluffy has the stats on this?

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Cajunboy wrote:
@wanderlust wrote:Some folk will go apeshit if they’re forced to have a vaccine especially the right wing conspiracy theorists who believe the government is trying to sterilise them. So if it’s optional all the sensible folk will be safe and the dickheads can be left to kill each other.
That sounds a good plan.

I always feel we have more dickheads and nutjobs than any other country.

I wonder if Sluffy has the stats on this?

Well let us start off from where the conspiracy theory's spring from in the current era and that I would say is social media.

If you can accept that the next step is to see what engagement there is on social media for the UK?

In an article published a year ago I found this -

In the United Kingdom, there are more than 45 million active social media users.

This rate of 45 million social media users means that approximately 67% of the population of the UK, therefore, is using social media.

https://hostreviews.co.uk/social-media-statistics-uk/#:~:text=In%20the%20United%20Kingdom%2C%20there,social%20media%20on%20mobile%20devices.

However the article goes on to say this also -

The fact is that 77% of all social media users in the UK have actively engaged with social media platforms (posting, commenting, etc.) in the period of one month.

So my reasoning goes something like 67% of the UK population has access to conspiracy theory's but some/many will think of them as pure bullshit but of those who do swallow the utter tripe some/most will post, comment about it, so if we say only three quarters of the 67% have reacted to it then something like 41% have probably believed at least one piece of fake news/conspiracy theory at face value.

Let's say for argument sake there is a wide margin of error on the assumptions I've made of 8% plus or minus, then I suggest that somewhere between a third (33%) and a half (49%) of the UK population is stupid enough to believe such shit.

Seems about right to me.

How does it to you?






BoltonTillIDie

BoltonTillIDie
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
I don't believe the stat is nowhere near that high.

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
And most of the nutjobs seem to be facebook friends of mine  Very Happy

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@BoltonTillIDie wrote:I don't believe the stat is nowhere near that high.

You believed the conspiracy theory on social media about Ken Anderson illegally pillaging the club to line his own pockets and that didn't turn out to be true did it?

Or have I missed him being arrested, thrown into jail and his assets seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act?





BoltonTillIDie

BoltonTillIDie
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
@Sluffy wrote:
@BoltonTillIDie wrote:I don't believe the stat is nowhere near that high.

You believed the conspiracy theory on social media about Ken Anderson illegally pillaging the club to line his own pockets and that didn't turn out to be true did it?

Or have I missed him being arrested, thrown into jail and his assets seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act?





I have never said that so don’t put words into my mouth.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@BoltonTillIDie wrote:
@Sluffy wrote:
@BoltonTillIDie wrote:I don't believe the stat is nowhere near that high.

You believed the conspiracy theory on social media about Ken Anderson illegally pillaging the club to line his own pockets and that didn't turn out to be true did it?

Or have I missed him being arrested, thrown into jail and his assets seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act?


I have never said that so don’t put words into my mouth.

You had an avatar of him as Kim Jong-un posted up on here for months!!!

You'll be telling me next you only did it for a joke and believed he was completely innocent of all the conspiracy theory's about him robbing the club that everybody else were believing at the time (many still do so even now and I fully suspect you are one of them!).

I haven't put any words in your mouth, the picture YOU put up yourself painted a thousand words of their own!

BoltonTillIDie

BoltonTillIDie
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Oh yes, kim Jong-un, well known for robbing Football clubs Shocked.  Again interpreting a picture to how you want it to be portrayed.  I have never said he has robbed from the club.  As many people who have told you before that most people didn’t.  Like me, they didn’t Like the way the club was run by him.  Did what he wanted, what was best for him, not what was best for the club, players, employees and fans.Na but like a dictatorship, like erm, Kim Jong Un. 

Your Defense to most of these people who have a differing opinion to yourself is that we’re all brain washed by social media and we believe anything we are told.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@BoltonTillIDie wrote:Oh yes, kim Jong-un, well known for robbing Football clubs Shocked.  Again interpreting a picture to how you want it to be portrayed.  I have never said he has robbed from the club.  As many people who have told you before that most people didn’t.  Like me, they didn’t Like the way the club was run by him.  Did what he wanted, what was best for him, not what was best for the club, players, employees and fans.Na but like a dictatorship, like erm, Kim Jong Un. 

Your Defense to most of these people who have a differing opinion to yourself is that we’re all brain washed by social media and we believe anything we are told.

You know that for a fact then?
You know the laws in respect of trading when the business is insolvency?
You know what is required to keep the right side of the law?
You know what choices he had to make and why he had to make them?
You know for a fact that he ran the club the best for him and not to keep in trading legally for as long as possible?

Or is your opinion based on just hearsay you've read on Facebook, Twitter and the like?

Well you either know the facts of how companies have to be run in insolvency situations or you don't.

It so happens my profession is that of a Company Secretary -

"The company secretary ensures that an organisation complies with relevant legislation and regulation, and keeps board members informed of their legal responsibilities. Company secretaries are the company's named representative on legal documents, and it is their responsibility to ensure that the company and its directors operate within the law"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_secretary

I've had a very financially rewarding career from it and I like to think I know a bit about it.

So I'll ask you again, do you KNOW any of the questions I've asked above because I don't believe you do.

I believe you've formed your opinions (like so many others) from what you've read from others who are equally clueless about Company Law and running a business whilst in insolvent conditions.

And where perchance did you read such views, it couldn't be from social media could it?

Of course it was!

Fwiw I stood virtually alone at the time stating on here that things were not happening in the way people were saying - I said based on my knowledge of how companies HAVE to run LEGALLY in such conditions. I got dog's abuse for it too, so much so I even stopped posting on here and went on to ww instead.

A year on and after having the company accounts forensically examined by a the Administrator there has been found to be nothing, I'll repeat nothing, that has been reported, filed or otherwise of him, Ken Anderson, having done anything wrong or illegal.

In other words he ran the club in a proper manner, within the law, in the insolvency situation that the club was in.

That's not my opinion, that's a fact following from the Administrators findings.

You might not like it, you probably believe it is wrong, immoral or what ever you want to believe but he did what he had to do to keep the club going for as long as he could until a buyer could be found for it and ultimately saved.

If you think it is easy to sell football clubs then why could Eddie Davies only find Holdsworth to sell to and why was only FV (who let's be honest is underfunded so much so that they've had to renegotiate terms of payment to both EDT and the Administrators company) the only one serious about buying us out of Admin?

And Wigan bar a miracle look to be being put into liquidation in just over a weeks time despite over 80 companies registering with the Administrator an interest in buying them?

You are entitled to your opinion and no doubt it won't change a jot but when it comes to understanding what has happened and why business are compelled to act to keep afloat at times of insolvency/cash flow crises you simply haven't got a clue.

You stick with the social media conspiracy theory and opinion of Anderson and I'll stick with the actions of the Administrator who went through the books and know everything that went on.

One of us is clearly doesn't know what they are talking about and it isn't going to be the Administrator that saw the actual books and is legally compelled to report wrong doing, now is it?

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Correct me if i'm wrong (and i'm sure Sluffy will) but didn't Kenocchio give himself a bonus payment out of the club when we got promoted to the Championship?

BoltonTillIDie

BoltonTillIDie
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
I don’t claim to know more about business than you or anyone else.  I have never said he has
Done anything illegal. So we’ll ignore your response on business law etc. 

Making himself a secured creditor was for the best interests of himself. 

So claiming I believe social media conspiracies is again total bollocks. And your stat, which was the original reason why I responded is most likely way off. Think of how many people you know and do you think a third of them believe these conspiracy theories, no I don’t think so

And in regards so social media

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Norpig wrote:Correct me if i'm wrong (and i'm sure Sluffy will) but didn't Kenocchio give himself a bonus payment out of the club when we got promoted to the Championship?

In a word, yes.

That however is not unusual in business and certainly not specific to 'Kenocchio' as you like to call him.

There's many reasons this is done, for instance Anderson did not financially reward himself in the years he was there in terms of taking a salary or pay himself dividends whilst he was basically the CEO of a multi-million pound company.

Another view that is certainly a valid one and seems to fit in with the appropriate timelines was the bonus payment was made/claimed by him in order to 'pay off' Holdsworth by means of buying his ownership shares of the club from the Liquidator of Holdsworth's company Sports Shield BWFC and in dealing with the BlueMarble loan from Holdsworth side (the loan was taken out by SSBWFC but secured against the assets of the club).

(Fwiw, reading the liquidators report it seems BM did initially go after Holdsworth for the money to the tune of £8m and ended up with just £32,509.13p which in turn forced them to come after Bolton Wanderers for the money which Anderson negotiated down to some £4.5m and was ultimately cleared by the loan from Eddie just before his death).

Even if you were to discount this view the only publicly known sums of money paid to Anderson was this 'bonus' payment of (iirc) £475,000 of which Anderson is on record of paying Holdsworth's/the liquidator of SSBWFC two amounts - an initial £250,000 then the final £150,000 - totalling £400,000 (or roughly £475,000 gross of tax) - ie KA received a payment from BWFC for £475k and paid the taxman £75k tax leaving £400k net, which was paid to obtain Holdsworth shares in order to sort out the BM debt.

Even if he did pocket the £475k, that works out as roughly £150,000 wages per year for each year he owned BWFC.

Hardly excessive don't you think?

There was never any money to be made from within BWFC, the value for him was to turn the club around and sell it for a profit from his £1 purchase (plus debts!!!).

If he could reduce costs, keep the club afloat (and at Championship level) without ruining himself in the process, the money he was after and looking for was selling it on for a tasty profit.

Unfortunately for him/us/everybody else, there were few/no genuine buyers out there - look at what Wigan have found with their Chinese buyer for instance!.

I've no doubt Anderson walked away in profit from his time at Bolton but he certainly didn't rape and pillage the club as people love to believe, he acted just about legally throughout as per the Administrators findings/lack of further actions and got us ultimately to a genuine buyer in FV.

He's universally reviled/hated by people who really have no idea how business have to be run in order to survive in times of insolvency but he certainly was astute enough to get the club from Holdsworth suicidal BM loan to benevolent ownership of FV without personally ruining himself or getting locked up for anything illegal when he was sole owner and walk out with a reasonable profit for his time there.

Which judging him on a professional level (as opposed to the social media lynch mob view) seems fair and reasonable to me.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@BoltonTillIDie wrote:I don’t claim to know more about business than you or anyone else.  I have never said he has
Done anything illegal. So we’ll ignore your response on business law etc. 

Making himself a secured creditor was for the best interests of himself. 

So claiming I believe social media conspiracies is again total bollocks. And your stat, which was the original reason why I responded is most likely way off. Think of how many people you know and do you think a third of them believe these conspiracy theories, no I don’t think so

And in regards so social media

Well it was in the best interest for himself in just the same way Eddie Davies made himself a secured creditor, so to did Michael James/PBP, and Brett Warburton.

Sharron and Michael James have made themselves secured creditors in FV (for the best interests of themselves - as you put it) so to have Eddie Davies Trust and the Administrators company - again in their own best interests.

So what point are you trying to make???

And fwiw did you know when it came down to it Anderson waived his secured credit status at the time of the sale to FV?

If you look at Wigan, the Chinese owner put £24.5m into the club but didn't secure it - the best that can be recovered from in now is just £6m (as an unsecured creditor.)

So yes people secure vast sums of money against assets - if you have a mortgage the bank has secured it's creditor status against your home for lending you the money - in the best interest of itself!

As for the stat I came up with, it was a bit of FUN, not meant to be taken seriously - how in the world can anybody calculate the percentage of people believing conspiracy theory's without doing a proper scientific survey???

Obviously it touched a nerve with you though!

I'm guessing you are a big social media fan?

Clearly you believe what you've read on there about Ken Anderson - just like nearly everyone else who shares the same view of him.

You, like them, have no idea of the facts of what he's done/did not do and why he took such actions.

Most I would wager have no idea about running a business either.

So where has this myth/conspiracy about Anderson come from - certainly not from full facts or professional business knowledge?

So where have you formed your view about Anderson from?

Social media perhaps?

Where else other could it be from?

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
I base my views on what he got up to at Southampton. I've no knowledge of his financial doings at Bolton.
If a burglar moved in next door, I'd tend to be welcoming, but wary.

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
It must be lonely at the KA fan club meetings these days Sluffy, hope you don't over order on the buffet food  Very Happy

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Norpig wrote:It must be lonely at the KA fan club meetings these days Sluffy, hope you don't over order on the buffet food  Very Happy

I've never been one to court popularity or simply follow the crowd.

I prefer to see what the facts are and what they tell us.

If you forgive me for using this as an analogy but it is very current...

Everybody thought it was fine to own slaves and treat them how they did but there must have been a few who said that was wrong.

I'm sure they got ridiculed and abused at the time too.

They were right though weren't they - even though everybody but them believed completely differently at the time!

The crowd is not always right, shared beliefs can be without any basis and totally wrong.


I don't actually mind eating alone either!



okocha

okocha
Andy Walker
Andy Walker
Surely, this site is an example of social media that you deride and wouldn't deign to stoop to......



Last edited by okocha on Thu 20 Aug - 11:52; edited 1 time in total

BoltonTillIDie

BoltonTillIDie
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
I use social media like most people, you love it too with the amount of tweets you post up.  I’m intelligent enough to get my own opinions of what I read from various outlets.  Because something is on social media doesn’t make it true.  News outlets, governments all use social media.  And they can all lie too. 

And I guessed it touched a nerve?  You asked the question, so that invites feedback to what you posted.

You’re generalisations are poorly thought out.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@okocha wrote:Surely, this site is an example of social media that you deride and wouldn't deign to stoop to......

I've already explained why I do what I do.

@Sluffy wrote:As for the positions I take, I do so on what I either professionally know or have had personal experience in - my career was as a company secretary and I had thirty years experience in the public service many at a senior level.

I don't claim to know all the answers and I don't doubt things have changed somewhat since my time but I'm pretty confident about what I say still about company law (thus what I said at the time about Anderson and more recently about Wigan) and how public sector works (it is a different beast to that of how the private sector functions).

As you know I don't normally 'do' twitter and thus am not influenced one way or another by the 'gossip' and crowd reaction to it.

No doubt I do miss some golden nuggets of information but I also avoid 99.99% of the uninformed and often factually incorrect shite that is spouted on there.

I am happy to read stuff on social media about stuff that interests me at the time - for instance the 'Howard' thread on ww at the time of the take over was worth it to listen to the professional knowledge and insights of Howard, Escobarp, Benny and Custard but there was a great deal of shite and uncalled for abuse to suffer through too.

I regularly read Iles (although he clearly now is not seen as a friend of the club by the current and previous owners) but he is the focal point for many and he gets a lead every now and again, given to him.

I read Nixon when he is relevant to Bolton, or recently Wigan and he usually is much better informed than Iles although you have to take into account that Nixon job is to sell stuff to national papers so not everything he posts is, shall we say, totally relevant.

As someone myself posting on social media - which of course Nuts is - I don't expect to be believed or even trusted in what I say - which is only fair as apart from one or two (custard for instance on accountancy or Escobarp on M&A) I do the same.

I post really to help and inform and because I enjoy doing so, I also have the time to do it.  I don't do so to be abused or trolled although I am aware as that is seen part and parcel of normal social media behaviour.

I know it irritates many people with my style and lengths of postings (particularly those who view on their phones only) but if anyone is interested to  really want to know why things are how they are you need someone with knowledge to explain so and I simply can't provide detail in 120 characters and a couple of emoticons.

People can simply  take me or leave me, I don't mind which, it is only meaningless chatter on the internet when all said and done and helps me to happily pass my time away.

https://forum.boltonnuts.co.uk/t20522p840-how-is-the-tory-government-doing#410139

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@BoltonTillIDie wrote:I use social media like most people, you love it too with the amount of tweets you post up.  I’m intelligent enough to get my own opinions of what I read from various outlets.  Because something is on social media doesn’t make it true.  News outlets, governments all use social media.  And they can all lie too. 

And I guessed it touched a nerve?  You asked the question, so that invites feedback to what you posted.

You’re generalisations are poorly thought out.

I've already given what my views are on twitter previously and post them up again in the post above.

And I asked the question of Cajun who (IN FUN) asked me for the stat, to which (IN FUN) I replied to!  

It wasn't aimed at you or anyone else.

Clearly you missed the joke completely and took something said on social media as serious - to be responded to - which sort of ironically makes the point I was doing in jest anyway!

As for my "you're" generalisations being poorly thought out, then you are correct - they weren't meant to have been taken seriously!!!

And as for being intelligent enough "to get" your own opinion, then good for you.

Doesn't mean they are correct though.

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
if all else fails then pull them up on their grammar  Laughing

I thought that was reserved for us Leftys when answering back to knuckle dragging right wing Yaxley-Lennon supporters.

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Anyway lets get back on topic, anyone else think it should be mandatory?

xmiles

xmiles
Jay Jay Okocha
Jay Jay Okocha
@Norpig wrote:if all else fails then pull them up on their grammar  Laughing

I thought that was reserved for us Leftys when answering back to knuckle dragging right wing Yaxley-Lennon supporters.

Or spelling. Rolling Eyes

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Norpig wrote:if all else fails then pull them up on their grammar  Laughing

I thought that was reserved for us Leftys when answering back to knuckle dragging right wing Yaxley-Lennon supporters.

As someone who has dyslexia all his life, I appreciate the spell check function on this site and always read back every post I write to see if it reads ok and if there are any obvious mistakes in it.

I'm far from perfect on spelling and grammar but even I know the difference between 'your' and you're'.

If people can't be arsed reading back what they have written before posting it then why should anybody be arsed reading it when they do?

T.R.O.Y.


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
What a load of rubbish that is. Why are you going after BTID all of a sudden? He’s done nothing to you.

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 3]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum