Author Topic: Sir Mo Farah  (Read 527 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Sir Mo Farah
« Reply #30 on: July 17, 2022, 05:31:36 PM »
If he was aware that the authorities knew the whole story and had no problem with it why did he also claim to be living in fear of deportation and of his very recent relief to learn that he would not?
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/sir-mo-farah-relieved-home-27472113. Who has actually independently corroborated his version of events to your satisfaction?  Does telling a lie to get out of a tricky situation or living a lie for many years mean that someone is fundamentally a dishonest person?

He learned when he started to share his story that strictly speaking his citizenship was obtained by deception. As he was a child at the time the Home Office won't act against him. His life changed after he confided in his PE teacher, who knew his background and helped him become a citizen. They did tell the authorities at the time that he was not actually Mo Farah.

I believe his story and I don't think he's a dishonest person, he's a victim of circumstance.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Sir Mo Farah
« Reply #31 on: July 17, 2022, 05:38:54 PM »
He learned when he started to share his story that strictly speaking his citizenship was obtained by deception. As he was a child at the time the Home Office won't act against him. His life changed after he confided in his PE teacher, who knew his background and helped him become a citizen. They did tell the authorities at the time that he was not actually Mo Farah.

I believe his story and I don't think he's a dishonest person, he's a victim of circumstance.
In other words you are giving him the benefit of the doubt, which is IMO the kind thing to do.  Others however are being less kind.  It’s a shame that there is this pernicious need by some to immediately jump to suspicious conclusions about people who unwittingly find themselves in the news because of tragic or unfortunate circumstances and then to spend so much of their time voicing these often quite unfounded suspicions online.  I guess that’s the darker side of human nature.   
I no longer read nor reply to posts made by those posters I perceive to be WUMS and TROLLS so if you think I'm ignoring you this may be the reason.  Best wishes.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Sir Mo Farah
« Reply #32 on: July 17, 2022, 07:58:32 PM »
In other words you are giving him the benefit of the doubt, which is IMO the kind thing to do.  Others however are being less kind.  It’s a shame that there is this pernicious need by some to immediately jump to suspicious conclusions about people who unwittingly find themselves in the news because of tragic or unfortunate circumstances and then to spend so much of their time voicing these often quite unfounded suspicions online.  I guess that’s the darker side of human nature.

Everyone reacts differently and for reasons of their own.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Sir Mo Farah
« Reply #33 on: July 17, 2022, 08:04:22 PM »
Everyone reacts differently and for reasons of their own.
Thanks for stating the obvious, I wouldn’t have known this otherwise.
I no longer read nor reply to posts made by those posters I perceive to be WUMS and TROLLS so if you think I'm ignoring you this may be the reason.  Best wishes.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Sir Mo Farah
« Reply #34 on: July 18, 2022, 07:41:41 AM »
Thanks for stating the obvious, I wouldn’t have known this otherwise.

You see certain people's posts as demonstrating signs of the darker side of human nature. I  don't know if that's true because I don't think someone's real character can be known by reading their online posts. I find the sentiments expressed and the language used in this article in a national newapaper completely revolting, for example;
OH, UP YOURS, SENOR https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/oh-up-yours-senor-516864
I suspect the person who wrote it isn't very nice, but perhaps s/he has a nicer attitude in real life.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Sir Mo Farah
« Reply #35 on: July 18, 2022, 08:17:12 AM »
You see certain people's posts as demonstrating signs of the darker side of human nature. I  don't know if that's true because I don't think someone's real character can be known by reading their online posts. I find the sentiments expressed and the language used in this article in a national newapaper completely revolting, for example;
OH, UP YOURS, SENOR https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/oh-up-yours-senor-516864
I suspect the person who wrote it isn't very nice, but perhaps s/he has a nicer attitude in real life.
@)(++(*. Well look who’s bringing the McCann case back into the discussion, whod’a thunk it?!
At least the journalist in question had the balls to put her name to her “revolting” article, I was referring more to the anonymous hate mobs that target people like Mo Farah (and the McCanns) and accuse them of committing criminal acts from a position of supreme ignorance.  I’m very surprised (not) that you were unable to find any examples of the sort of hateful online chatter I was referring to.
Also, everyone has a darker side to their nature, even saintly little old you!  Some are more successful than others at keeping it under control however…
« Last Edit: July 18, 2022, 08:19:30 AM by Vertigo Swirl »
I no longer read nor reply to posts made by those posters I perceive to be WUMS and TROLLS so if you think I'm ignoring you this may be the reason.  Best wishes.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Sir Mo Farah
« Reply #36 on: July 18, 2022, 09:57:15 AM »
@)(++(*. Well look who’s bringing the McCann case back into the discussion, whod’a thunk it?!
At least the journalist in question had the balls to put her name to her “revolting” article, I was referring more to the anonymous hate mobs that target people like Mo Farah (and the McCanns) and accuse them of committing criminal acts from a position of supreme ignorance.  I’m very surprised (not) that you were unable to find any examples of the sort of hateful online chatter I was referring to.
Also, everyone has a darker side to their nature, even saintly little old you!  Some are more successful than others at keeping it under control however…

I saw no name on that article, although it was on the original one published on 19/10/07.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/oh-up-yours-senor-tony-parsons-daily-mirror-19-10--t2347.html

As you will see, no females were involved in the production of the hateful piece which attracted the most complaints in 2007 to the Press Complaints Commission.

So you object to anonymity, although you post anonymously. The rest of your objections are just your opinions; that people are motivated by 'hate' and are ignorant.

I don't bother trawling the internet looking for hateful online chatter like you seem to. Why would I bother?

Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Sir Mo Farah
« Reply #37 on: July 18, 2022, 11:09:21 AM »
I saw no name on that article, although it was on the original one published on 19/10/07.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/oh-up-yours-senor-tony-parsons-daily-mirror-19-10--t2347.html

As you will see, no females were involved in the production of the hateful piece which attracted the most complaints in 2007 to the Press Complaints Commission.

So you object to anonymity, although you post anonymously. The rest of your objections are just your opinions; that people are motivated by 'hate' and are ignorant.

I don't bother trawling the internet looking for hateful online chatter like you seem to. Why would I bother?
I didn't have to look, it just presented itself.  In spades.  Same as with the recent Mo Farah revelations.  You must have a supremely effective pair of blinkers on when you scour the internet looking for information on cases that interest you if you have never encountered "the worst of the human psyche, electronically unleashed", that's all I can say.  And no, I don't object to anonymity per se, but I reckon the people I'm referring to would have a lot less to say about Mo Farah, the McCanns and anyone else they mercilessly rip to shreds day in day out if they were forced to publish under their own names.  And yes, I would have thought twice about ever getting involved in online discussions with the hate mob if I'd had to post under my own name, for fear of reprisals by them in real life.  And yes, they are my opinions, which let's not forget are equally as valid as yours.  8)--))   
I no longer read nor reply to posts made by those posters I perceive to be WUMS and TROLLS so if you think I'm ignoring you this may be the reason.  Best wishes.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Sir Mo Farah
« Reply #38 on: July 18, 2022, 12:02:22 PM »
I didn't have to look, it just presented itself.  In spades.  Same as with the recent Mo Farah revelations.  You must have a supremely effective pair of blinkers on when you scour the internet looking for information on cases that interest you if you have never encountered "the worst of the human psyche, electronically unleashed", that's all I can say.  And no, I don't object to anonymity per se, but I reckon the people I'm referring to would have a lot less to say about Mo Farah, the McCanns and anyone else they mercilessly rip to shreds day in day out if they were forced to publish under their own names.  And yes, I would have thought twice about ever getting involved in online discussions with the hate mob if I'd had to post under my own name, for fear of reprisals by them in real life.  And yes, they are my opinions, which let's not forget are equally as valid as yours.  8)--))

The difference being that I don't decide a person's worth  by reading their online posts. A lot of people make online posts which I wouldn't make, and I include in those any which launch online attacks on anyone else, no matter who does it or how they seek to justify it. So I don't approve of attacks on Mo Farah, the McCanns, Mr Bennett, Sonia Poulton, Richard D Hall, Martin Grime or anyone whatsoever. It's unacceptable no matter who does it imo.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Sir Mo Farah
« Reply #39 on: July 18, 2022, 01:28:03 PM »
The difference being that I don't decide a person's worth  by reading their online posts. A lot of people make online posts which I wouldn't make, and I include in those any which launch online attacks on anyone else, no matter who does it or how they seek to justify it. So I don't approve of attacks on Mo Farah, the McCanns, Mr Bennett, Sonia Poulton, Richard D Hall, Martin Grime or anyone whatsoever. It's unacceptable no matter who does it imo.
Which brings us back to Myster's post on page one which you cannot fail to agree with, if you are actually sincere in what you write.  Mo Farah deserves to be left in peace, as do the McCanns.  Incidentally your implication is that I have decided on people's worth based on reading their online posts.  No, I decide on the worth of their posts, some of which reflect rather badly on the authors IMO.  I'm sure in real life these people are all absolute darlings  who wouldn't say boo to a goose, real upstanding citizens who ooze loveliness and reasonableness at all times (when not hammering out hate on the internet for their own amusement).
I no longer read nor reply to posts made by those posters I perceive to be WUMS and TROLLS so if you think I'm ignoring you this may be the reason.  Best wishes.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Sir Mo Farah
« Reply #40 on: July 18, 2022, 08:37:24 PM »
Which brings us back to Myster's post on page one which you cannot fail to agree with, if you are actually sincere in what you write.  Mo Farah deserves to be left in peace, as do the McCanns.  Incidentally your implication is that I have decided on people's worth based on reading their online posts.  No, I decide on the worth of their posts, some of which reflect rather badly on the authors IMO.  I'm sure in real life these people are all absolute darlings  who wouldn't say boo to a goose, real upstanding citizens who ooze loveliness and reasonableness at all times (when not hammering out hate on the internet for their own amusement).

As you confirm, you take it upon yourself to judge others based upon your opinion of their posts.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Sir Mo Farah
« Reply #41 on: July 18, 2022, 08:43:48 PM »
As you confirm, you take it upon yourself to judge others based upon your opinion of their posts.
I confirm that I have an opinion of  their posts, some of which reflect badly on them IMO.  You of course wouldn’t dream of having any opinion of my posts, nor of me, being as you are so completely unjudgmental (except when you’re handing out warning points of course)  @)(++(*
I no longer read nor reply to posts made by those posters I perceive to be WUMS and TROLLS so if you think I'm ignoring you this may be the reason.  Best wishes.