Dunkan Jenkins on Twitter

[zigackly]

Wow, fucking ITKs always hoarding the good stuff. I'll be round to yours tonight with some freshly laid dog's eggs sonny, best stick a bucket under the letterbox.

 

Well I don't have a season ticket or a letterbox and my dad doesn't have an online business, so do your worst.

[Whelan]

Would you trust Chang to handle anything after this? He's a fuckin disaster

 

I want to know what exactly went on, not one opinion of what went on. He has been in the job for a few months which is no time to form an opinion on his performance - and lets be honest, nobody on this sit, absolutely nobody has his job description handy!

 

I can only speak for myself, I know neither of them and as I have said, I tend to believe DJ - or rather, I believe it could easily have happened the way he said it did, but I do have large reservations over the way DJ has gone about this. From producing fake articles and the like, to putting his out on his blog! That seems a strange way to get your point of view accross, especially if, as seems to be the case he does know a number of journalists who could easily have reported the story - which is where my doubts creep in as that would involve them clarifying aspects of the story and getting Chang's point of view.

 

I would like to know why he didn't do this.

[Code]

Which was a mistake!

 

There is an alternative point of view of Chang from someone who has worked with him.

 

Rather than the accusations and insults by a number of people who have never met him. As was pointed out at the beginning of the thread we have one persons point of view of what happened.

 

Now unless TAW have spoken to Chang and confirmed that DJ is correct, all they can verify is that DJ is not lying about his evidence.

 

The whole situation is ridiculous we have a person the majority have never met and another who doesn't exist! It isn't as though anyone can offer an alternative view of DJ since nobody knows who he is!

 

You are aware of the fact its not Duncans family we are talking about here or are you not?

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

So we are sacking people on the back of a mistake now?

 

Hope this isn't a policy that is applied to our players as we would be seriously fucked!

Would hardly call what Chang has done as mistake.

 

He has threatend to do stuff not only to him but also his family.

 

That isnt a mistake to do something that nasty and evil to somebody.

 

Chang should get his arsed kicked right back to where he came here from.

[Whelan]

You are aware of the fact its not Duncans family we are talking about here or are you not?

 

What the fuck are you blathering on about you fucking Moose munching spastic!

 

 

Would hardly call what Chang has done as mistake.

 

He has threatend to do stuff not only to him but also his family.

 

That isnt a mistake to do something that nasty and evil to somebody.

 

Chang should get his arsed kicked right back to where he came here from.

 

That is my point Scouse, I am not sure that is a fact. I have no reason to believe it is a fact other than DJ said it is what happened. And since I am not part of the inner circle of TLW, then I can only go on what I know - I am sceptical of DJ and why he used the blog when he had access to journalists who could have been far more effective in getting this story out.

 

I also know that had I been threatened by Chang I would have threatened him, he does have to work in Liverpool after all.

[Brownie]

For anyone doubting this, what does DJ stand to gain by any of this?

[Whelan]

For anyone doubting this, what does DJ stand to gain by any of this?

 

Then why not release his name?

[Code]

Then why not release his name?

 

Whats your name, can I have full name and adress please and also your phone number if you dont mind?

[Whelan]

Whats your name, can I have full name and adress please and also your phone number if you dont mind?

 

Yeah I see what you did there!

 

It was missing the point, as usual. Never mind.

[zigackly]

Then why not release his name?

 

Worried about the dogshit?

[Whelan]

Worried about the dogshit?

 

Then why not speak to a Newspaper? Why not give this same story to a newspaper - keeping your name - and do it that way?

 

I'm sorry but he is a parody account - there is nobody who knows him except the odd ITK winking and tapping his nose, telling us plebs to trust them - it did happen.

 

In any other context you would question (I don't mean you, I mean everyone) whether or not this is a true and honest reflection of what happened.

[BillyBob]

So we have an employee of LFC being accused of something which he denies.

 

The accuser has no evidence of what he claims except his own words, no video or audio evidence exists.

 

It reminds me of the Suarez/Evra issue, when 99% of us rightly claimed that using 'no evidence' except one man's word against another was a farcical and unjust way to arrive at (or decide) the truth.

 

We also claimed that by using this farcical process of one man's word over another it was proof that people were not interested in what actually happened and were only interested in driving an agenda!!

 

It would appear that we have a few hypocrites amongst our fanbase!

[zigackly]

Then why not speak to a Newspaper? Why not give this same story to a newspaper - keeping your name - and do it that way?

 

He spoke to newspapers over a month ago, but something happened to stop them from printing it. Join the dots.

 

It's in the papers now that he has released it on his blog, and will be in a few more tomorrow.

[Gym Beglin]

Wow, all of this looks boss, im seeing top class ITK action, a fair bit of xenophobia, and tons of internets.

 

[Whelan]

He spoke to newspapers over a month ago, but something happened to stop them from printing it. Join the dots.

 

It's in the papers now that he has released it on his blog, and will be in a few more tomorrow.

 

Look, we're going to have to leave it after you have replied.

 

But, maybe the papers didn't print the story because they could verify his version of it! They do seem to be happy printing it now, so what has changed?

 

Other than a few select individuals, nobody knows who this person is, what he does, where he lives, etc - nothing outside a parody of a slightly disturbed and idiotic football fan, yet we are being asked to accept this one version of events. Sorry but you wouldn't accept that in any other context. This isn't to say he is wrong, as I have said I tend to believe he is right, but until I know more about him I am going to retain my scepticism.

[zigackly]

But, maybe the papers didn't print the story because they could verify his version of it!

 

If that's the way you want to believe it, go ahead, but it's not the only way it could have gone down. Again though, it's not my place to say why some journalists didn't print before but others are now.

 

Hypothetically, a director of communications might have some influence on the press though.

 

Anyway, there's no point going round in circles. Wait to see what comes out.

[Major Tom]

Look, we're going to have to leave it after you have replied.

 

But, maybe the papers didn't print the story because they could verify his version of it! They do seem to be happy printing it now, so what has changed?

 

Other than a few select individuals, nobody knows who this person is, what he does, where he lives, etc - nothing outside a parody of a slightly disturbed and idiotic football fan, yet we are being asked to accept this one version of events. Sorry but you wouldn't accept that in any other context. This isn't to say he is wrong, as I have said I tend to believe he is right, but until I know more about him I am going to retain my scepticism.

 

I agree with you, Whelan. Like you, I tend to agree with DJ's versions of events but, ultimately, it's his word against Chang's. So who really knows what the fuck went down.

 

Farcical scenes all round though!

[Whelan]

If that's the way you want to believe it, go ahead, but it's not the only way it could have gone down. Again though, it's not my place to say why some journalists didn't print before but others are now.

 

Hypothetically, a director of communications might have some influence on the press though.

 

Anyway, there's no point going round in circles. Wait to see what comes out.

 

I did say 'maybe'!

 

But you're right, will have to wait and see what more comes out.

[zigackly]

If "Jenkins" is making it all up, I'm sure Chang will soon be taking him to court to clear his name.

[Major Tom]

Wait to see what comes out.

 

Which will be nothing.

 

Unless 'DJ' recorded the whole thing and, if he did, would he - as a supposed Liverpool fan - really put it in the public domain and drag the club through the palava which would inevitably follow?

 

We'll argue about this a bit longer on here, then the whole thing will die down and be filed, correctly, under 'complete farce'.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

If "Jenkins" is making it all up, I'm sure Chang will soon be taking him to court to clear his name.

More chance of the FA declaring Suarez a saint than that happening.

[Whelan]

Chang can't sue can he? (not because it isn't true!)

 

Jenkins said this happened, Chang said it didn't - you can't sue on that anyway. Even if he had proof, there has to be a reason to sue, you can't sue on the basis that you didn't insult/threaten someone to the extent they said you did!

[Code]

Which will be nothing.

 

Unless 'DJ' recorded the whole thing and, if he did, would he - as a supposed Liverpool fan - really put it in the public domain and drag the club through the palava which would inevitably follow?

 

We'll argue about this a bit longer on here, then the whole thing will die down and be filed, correctly, under 'complete farce'.

 

I'd say most sensible fans would say he is doing the club a favour by outing the incompetent Chang.

[Major Tom]

I'd say most sensible fans would say he is doing the club a favour by outing the incompetent Chang.

 

I know nothing of Chang or his role, really.

 

Is he bad at his job, then? What actually is his job?

[zigackly]

Chang can't sue can he? (not because it isn't true!)

 

Jenkins said this happened, Chang said it didn't - you can't sue on that anyway. Even if he had proof, there has to be a reason to sue, you can't sue on the basis that you didn't insult/threaten someone to the extent they said you did!

 

Hang on a minute, does that mean anyone can go round accusing anyone of anything?