Whilst my fingers are typing my own comments, I do.

What you do is entirely up to you and if I decide not to join in that is up to me.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

You don’t get involved when you are backed in a corner. That’s you in a nutshell.

I’ve stated it before but it’s worth repeating. Replacement theory is a bit like quantum theory. It only exists when you agree with it.

What was typed is a matter of record on this site.

I'm quite happy to bring up exact quotes if I'm accused of dishonesty.

The 'clarifications' were excuses for holding positions that have been roundly and comprehensively condemned.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Intentional dishonesty? Who can tell but the poster.

Misunderstanding? Quite possibly. Which is why further clarifications were given.

Misrepresentation? Certainly.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

i don't have a problem with any of your opinions, data or logic.

if some other people beg to differ, then that is just their own opinion.

Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford

The most recent misrepresentation, and there have been several, this one being quite mild, was:-

"Indeed, he's on record on the site for defending the Police's actions in keeping this quiet.....amongst other institution defending statements on this issue....Essentially, because he wasn't there, he feels he can't comment. Even though it doesn't cause him much issue with anything else.

He even stated he'd heard about something about this 20 years ago."

It wasn't because "I wasn't there". It was because none of us were there, or party to all the information.

What I think you will actually find I said, if not directly in the post but in the follow ups, was that as no-one here knows what restrictions and instructions the Police or Authorities were working to we should not rush to judgement. What we don't know is if there was some wider overall strategic plan which demanded a softly softly approach. I also encouraged everyone to support our Police and to report anything they know to them. I also sympathised with them for trying to do a difficult job with reduced resources as a consequence of austerity. I have though always said that any criminal, from whatever background, should be pursued and prosecuted without fear or favour. If subsequent investigations have found shortcomings which suggest, with the benefit of hindsight, things could have been managed better then that's all for the good. We all make mistakes and can learn from them. This was all in the context of "Robinson" injecting himself onto the scene and being hailed as a folk hero for doing so. My remarks were primarily as the counter argument to that idea. I was indeed aware of a similar problem many years ago and know that the Police were also aware and dealing with it then. From what little I heard back then this was not simply in bringing the guilty to justice but in working together with social services and community leaders.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.