Facebook cult abuse page

[Iron414]

I mentioned several months ago on this forum about Stu’s unsavoury appetite for much younger females and his requests for ‘nudies’. It was quickly chalked up, by our resident supermod, as ‘social media naivety’.

At that time we had been directed to Stu’s twitter account to admire his bold defending of our incompetent manager despite the wheels having come off.

So to be clear, when Stu’s blindly advocating for our manager his questionable tweets are just ‘naive’ but now he’s taken aim at the trust he’s suddenly a predator?

Hmmm…

[Siderite]

One person’s opinion at the time doesn’t reflect all. The reactions to Stu’s social media output came to the forefront when he was pontificating about his heroism, as these things often do (when someone’s not causing a stir, people don’t take so much interest in them). It rubbed people up the wrong way when he was being high and mighty.

[64]

No,if you make accusations and we haven’t seen or have nay proof we’ll delete it,it’s as simple as that .more recently twitter activity was actually shown on Stu’s account. Ironically it surfaced because of someone attempting to denigrate the trust linking it.
The problem with looking for issues is that you find them when they don’t exist 414,bit like to loons on facebook saying the club are scared of the trust.
Basically 414,it being true is less important than being able to prove it’s true

[Iron414]

You misunderstand 64. There was no lack of evidence nor any posts deleted. To simplify:-

Back in October Deerey directed us to Stu’s X account to check out some posts in which he was defending Butler.
I pointed out that only a few post previous Stu was asking for ‘nudes’ and so on to which Deerey promptly replied that it was ‘social media nativity’.
Stu’s tweets were there for all to see, Deerey acknowledged them himself, there was no lack of evidence.
My point is that when Stu’s making all the right noises he’s ‘naive’ but now he’s criticised both the manager and the trust there’s no defending it as naivety and we’re jumping on the bandwagon that he’s a pervert.
Double standards from some is the point I’m making.

[64]

AH , I am only explaining from a point of view of what I’d do. I have to say I cannot remember most of what I delete so assumed I had. I hadn’t even seen Stu’s twitter feed until Bellend highlighted it.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Iron414

[Siderite]

By some, you mean one person, otherwise you’re using his past stated opinion to cast shade at anyone for commenting on Stu’s social media antics. Even though the person you have a seeming thing for hasn’t commented much on the sleazy aspects since.

[64]

has deeerey changed his mind?

[CMC]

Seeing SM sat in the stand living it up after his vitriol towards the Trust and fans makes my skin crawl.
And some on here defend him.

[64]

yep appalling

[64]

I cannot find it on facebook,is it really back up and running?

[Deereyme66]

‘My point is that when Stu’s making all the right noises he’s ‘naive’ but now he’s criticised both the manager and the trust there’s no defending it as naivety and we’re jumping on the bandwagon that he’s a pervert.
Double standards from some is the point I’m making.’

Literally making something out of nothing which I suspect no one gives two hoots about. Apart from suggesting back in October some of his questionable activity might be ‘social media naivity’ (probably trying to give him the benefit of the doubt), what am I supposed to have said about him being a ‘pervert’ and my thoughts on him having a go at the Trust? Maybe I have (re the Trust) I dunno. I have a fairly busy life, contrary to smears about me being on here 24/7. All that aside, the situation has developed and evolved a lot since then. If I’ve changed my mind over that time, so what? No one cares that much 414. As Siderite says, I’ve barely commented on any of this anyway.

[Author]

Posts