More theft from charity?

Not a major theft from charity this time from Oldham, but theft nonetheless.

You’ll remember when Oldham crapped his XXXXL trousers earlier this summer when his charity site and so on for his disabled cousin were looked at by people taking part in this blog. How on earth could it be a genuine and trustworthy collection when all the money had to be sent to the Koptalk office (a portakabin outside his mam’s house) and all the cheques had to be made payable to Dunk’s mam? Dodgy is the word that comes to mind, alongside others like scandalous, theft and lowlife.

Even more worrying than that was what went on before we got going on this blog. He’d been taking money to pay the mortgage for his Aunty and Uncle after their daughter had been struck down with this illness. It had to be paid into the Koptalk PayPal account! Some people I believe gave hundreds, but everyone who contributed gave generously. And nobody got any kind of evidence in hindsight that it had gone to Lauren and her parents. To this day, despite us pointing it out to his full knowledge, he’s made no efforts at all to prove to anyone that he’s paid any of this money to Lauren. Our guess is that she’s received a small token amount – the rest went towards the Koptalk plasma TV and the upgrade to Dunk’s Merc. And perhaps the deposit on Steve’s Ka.

Tonight though what he’s done is to record the game being shown on Sky One in the UK between “celebrities” (you’ll not have heard of them if you’re from outside the UK) and “legends”. The Legends side includes ex-Reds like Grobellaar and Beardsley, along with two of the top five from the official site’s 100PWSTK – Rush and Barnes. In the studio is the player who topped that list, King Kenny. All of this is being done for charity. Even ex-Red Michael Owen is involved – he’s donated his crutches for a phone-in competition, all proceeds of which go to charity.

The opening goal was scored by Ian Rush and Oldham decided it would be a good idea to put it onto the Koptalk site. More accurately he put it onto YouTube, seeing as he now has a serious fear of putting videos onto his own webspace all of a sudden.

Now we all know that Oldham has no right to put any video onto his site, but one from a charity show? Personally I’ve no problem with that (although it’s not my copyright he’s stolen) as long as he pays an affordable amount for doing it. Thankfully YouTube have viewing stats, so why not say this – Dunk, you pay £10 (that’s ten English pounds) for every time it’s viewed this week. I looked before and it had been viewed 25 times, so that’s 250 quid already. A mere trifle to someone as successful as Oldham claims to be, and a fraction of the thousands he saved by scrapping his 12-grand-a-year hosting costs for his now defunct free forums.

The video is here – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy6MXkYbLtk – and remember this – every time you view the video Dunk (should) give a tenner to charity.

* The official website for Sky One’s “The Match” is at http://www.skyone.co.uk/thematch3. The site says that the charities earmarked for the proceeds of all the phone-ins and the gate receipts from the 52,000 attendance at Dunk’s fave ground are two children’s charities – the NSPCC and the Chicken Shed Theatre Company.

** We’ve still not worked out why the fatso himself wasn’t there, seeing as the Legend’s captain was Dunk’s mate Chris Waddle. Waddle owns the house that Oldham claims to be buying in West Derby.

Advertisements

31 Responses to “More theft from charity?”

  1. Disco Says:

    Presumably you guys will be donating £10 for some of the clicks having advertised the link on this website 😉

  2. LouisRoberto Says:

    Oh dear – I just got banned. Think it might have been the change of avatar

  3. McWar Says:

    The links are available to all on youtube so the person posting the video should pay.

  4. rupertinsider Says:

    Is that idiot Disco still trying to make a case for his fat master?

  5. Ron Nasty Says:

    Yes he is Rupert. Over at Est1892 he couches it in ‘I’m having a bit of a laugh’ terms, a bit like putting a wink after his post here.

  6. Disco Says:

    Whatever, if you losers can’t see the irony of posting a fucking link then no-one can help you…

  7. fat_boy_fat Says:

    Behave will you Disco! You defence of your fat twat overlord is laughable at times.
    The blog is NOT here to generate money or hits for itself by posting links. Its here to show people that fat oldham is the one doing it. II and rupert pointed this fact out a long time ago that they realise the ironey in slagging Oldham for the links but then posting them here.

    The fact of the matter is this blog is NOT a business and is NOT posting links to feed more £30 into their bank accounts. OLDHAM IS! SIMPLE!

    And anyway i am sure FATTY TWATTY wont mind paying £10 for everytime the clip is viewed, as because its for charity is tax deductable …………………. FUCK i forgot the fat prick dosent pay tax.

  8. fat_boy_fat Says:

    BTW LoiusRoberto that was a quality avatar. How long did you manage to last with it?

  9. Disco Says:

    fat_boy_fat – see what happens when I don’t use a smiley after my posts.
    😉

  10. Disco Says:

    fat_boy_fat – see what happens when I don’t use a smiley after my posts.
    😉

    Ron Nasty – I’ve not posted anything defending Dunk on Est1892 in bloody ages, I’m bored of all this childish stalker internet bollocks…. ( 🙂 )

  11. geeko Says:

    explain the irony then disco cos im pretty sure the blog didnt post the video on youtube

  12. Disco Says:

    I refer you to my 9.20 am post…..

    Anyway, bored of this now, another incredibly weak blog entry.

  13. LouisRoberto Says:

    I lasted 30 seconds with my avatar – although I did change the email in my profile to dunk@ripoff.com. Not sure if that helped.

  14. Toby Says:

    He probably received the ‘you’ve banned yourself email’ himself LR, as I’m sure that’ll be one of his domains 🙂

  15. Kopwank Says:

    Why did Dunc know the image was aimed at him? Guilty conscience?

  16. rupertinsider Says:

    LouisRoberto. Have you a large version I can use in my “Shop Oldham” piece I am preparing?

  17. Ron Nasty Says:

    Disco, in a post on 5th October over at EST you seem to imply that if someone uses the same username as on Kraptalk they should expext to be banned. “To be fair, he can see you posting all the posts on here under an identical username “. Can you explain to me why it’s fair for Dunk to ban people for going on another site? Why can’t people question him?
    As for irony, posting links to you tube means you don’t have to pay the fat one for info. Geddit?
    No you don’t coz he’s never done anything to you so that’s ok jack.

  18. Disco Says:

    Ron mate,

    a) part of it was taking the piss out of someone who I get on with on Est1892, but (to answer your point)

    b) the poster must know that Dunk can see he’s taking the piss, so must know he’s going to be banned. If he wanted a serious answer he shouldn’t have boasted about it on Est1892, but as it turns out he wanted to get banned anyway lol. 😉

    Is it fair? Fuck knows, but plenty of people who are overtly critical of any site usually get themselves banned or hounded out whether it be Koptalk, Est1892, RAWK or whoever.

    re. Youtube : sorry, can’t get why this is so difficult to understand. In simple terms, the bloggers are going on about breaching copyright of a charity show (albeit, I think slightly tongue in cheek), so Dunk should compensate them somehow. But as soon as you post the fucking link you’re expanding this ‘breach of copyright’ (at least to the 10-15 regulars who still come here 😉 ) .

    Simple example : when major films get footage/trailers leaked to websites, the film company go after not only the website which originally posted it, but as many sites as they can find who have a link to it. 😉

    Anyway, that was a wasted 5 minutes of my life so feel free to rip my thread to shreds and accuse me of sucking up to Dunk 😉

  19. Disco Says:

    PS, so who are you on Est1892, or are you still a KT member?!

  20. LouisRoberto Says:

    I did a google image search for con artist

  21. est-er Says:

    *waves at Disco and rupert* 😉

  22. Disco Says:

    LOL Est-er. All I did was post a flippant remark

    [i]Goes back to hole[/i]

  23. Vicky Pollard Says:

    i agree wiv disco coz he is rite when he says that he wasted 5 minuts of his life on here i would never ever never at all waist time on this blog coz its rubbish so i wud never waist time righting a coment here at all JEOLOUS! and disco made even more than 5 minutes of waisted time because he came back for more and more and more and he said hes board of all this internet childish stalking bollocks and he came on again to tell you that and i admire him for that because he was clever when he did that coz you was all not expectin him to come back so that was realy realy clever and out ironicalising you and it was a quaduple bluff and you didnt gess it SHADDUP! so i agree wiv disco hes made me see sens and im sining up for koptalk agin 1000 times so ner! disco made me see that this blog is rubish in just 1 coment he made and i bet you stop pasting links now because disco has shamed you and made you look silly and that is the end of the blog coz disco said so and he is my fave kt member by far and he really is clever and you are not and i hate you all and this blog is a disgrace SHADDUP! the end

  24. rupertinsider Says:

    Oldham awarded Disco with an honorary membership from his help in provoking EST 1892 posters into revealing their KT names so Oldham could ban them – much to Disco’s delight. He loves pleasuring his master.

    But he is on borrowed time over at KT. He failed in his major task to discover “the bloggers”.

    (As is evident from his post to day he cannot even work out which one of us wrote an article – never mind our KT names).

    And if he doesn’t supply some posts to KT soon, he will find himself banned, too, and his honorary memebership will not be worth the ether it was written on.

    (This is probably the 9th time he has returned to the blog after promising us all that he would never return.)

  25. Disco Says:

    LOL Vicky and Rupert (although I’ve got a horrible feeling that Rupert’s being serious)

  26. Ron Nasty Says:

    I happen to think, and it’s just my opinion of course, that Disco is full of shit. Anytime someone slags the fattun off he pops up with his ‘oh you shoulda known that would happen.’

  27. geeko Says:

    haha, what a sad state of affairs for disco

  28. est-er Says:

    Disco is one of the good guys 🙂 although his comments may come across as anti-blog and pro-Oldham, he’s only trying to analyse the situation objectively and he does come up with some helpful suggestions to the blog.

  29. geeko Says:

    i know disco is a good guy, im just piss farting around

  30. rupertinsider Says:

    est-er: I disagree. Disco does not analyse the situation objectively – he is highly subjective.

    II devoted an article to him on the blog way back after Disco conducted an obsessive pro-KT/anti-blog campaign in the comments section of the blog. Disco was so stung by the article he asked for it to be removed and complained about it on other sites. One of the points II made in that article is that Disco repeats himself in virtually every post. His “questions” are rhetorical – if someone takes them seriously and attempts to answer he responds by saying he does not have time to read the blog or the matters referred to in the reply.

    I, personally, had already stopped taking him seriously even before the II article.

    When he started visiting the blog his main gripe was that he had just paid 30 pounds to Oldham to be part of his elite, he enjoyed being part of the elite and he objected to the blog ruining the experience – not least not until he had had his full year’s membership – after that he would consider.

    This is not being objective – its being subjective.

    Miffed by the reception he received on the blog he set himself up as Oldham’s barrack-room lawyer on the blog and EST 1892. He argued strenuously that Oldham was a good guy acting honestly and reasonably and that the critics were being unreasonable and wrong. He said several times that all Oldham was doing was defending his 5 million pound business, as he should, and he would also argue the merits of particular Oldham actions and statements. He would object if anyone pointed out his obvious bias in favour of Oldham. (I’ve read that Oldham rewarded him for his efforts with an honourary membership – but I don’t know if that’s true).

    He cheered every perceived point made by KT or Oldham. But if the critics seemed to making progress he would declare that he was bored with the whole matter. He would announce his leaving the blog or the KT thread on Est 1892 but return repeatedly.

    I am only aware of these things because of the frequency of his posts on the EST 1892 KT thread and on the blog.

    On EST 1892 he went out of his way to provoke members there into revealing their KT names and when they were banned from KT, as a result, often within a few minutes or an hour, he would deliver little lectures about how reasonable a reaction from Oldham that was.

    On EST 1892 he seems obsessivley stressed by each new defection from KT and especially any that were accompanied by an farewell announcement on KT. It is still his pet peeve, although I have not read his posts on EST 1892 in some time.

    In all this he has tried to portray himself as a light-hearted gadfly – much in the way you have described him. One of his more obvious techniques is to present himself as a kind of literary critic of the blog – volunteering reviews of its “entertainment” value – always poor reviews – offered as a service to the blog to help it improve its popularity. A remarkable feat from someone who constantly reminds us that he does not have the time to read it. I suppose this more than anything shows how out of the loop he is.

    As the case against Oldham and KT became blindingly obvious even to Disco – as for example in Koptalk calling the employers of EST 1892 members – he would make a few mild comments on KT as though to earn his spurs as a “neutral” – but nothing that would get him banned.

    His style is fine for forums where silly one-liners are valued for their entertainment value – but he falls far short of being witty. Judged as a clown, I would give him 4 out of 10.

    (I almost forget my smilie 🙂 )

  31. est-er Says:

    Poor Disco 😦


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: