08 Jun 2026 20:34:17
What did you think of the Panarama program? He’s got to give his shares up now!!

1.) 09 Jun 2026
08 Jun 2026 22:04:52
Firstly, I don't think he would have a hope in hell with a legal action against the BBC. I think it depends if it opens a box like it did with Savile, Al Fayed and Bill Cosby. They will be able to tell if they are real or fake, as there is a particular MO.

I have to say, the things I heard were far more sinister than what was said here, and far more recent. I won't say what they were. But I think the excuse 'it was acceptable in the 80s' won't wash. Sexual assault is sexual assault. He's not just pinched someone's bum.

2.) 09 Jun 2026
08 Jun 2026 22:09:31
Exactly what the programme was titled - a predator that used his money and status to force women to do things they didn't feel comfortable to do. A few will say oh they knew what would happen etc but that is wrong!

Get this disgusting man out our club now!

3.) 09 Jun 2026
08 Jun 2026 22:21:45
Read the BBC article on it, was there anything in the documentary that suggested illegality? Sordid, sleazy? yes, fit and proper? Probably not
But. His pre-existing criminal record didn't affect him owning a club for over the last 2 decades.

Do we want him back? Not a chance.
However this is hardly Weinstein, Epstein, Andrew M-W or Netenyahu territory, unless further claims come out. Wonder what Ampika and Brady had to do to or know to gain their "special" status?

4.) 09 Jun 2026
09 Jun 2026 05:34:00
Well, one did suggest rape, and that is illegal. She didn’t use the word, and wasn’t the most convincing, but I said no and he continued. It is rape. With Savile, there had only been various rumors, and most people knew he was a wrongen, but not to the extent until after the documentary was shown.
Brady! Good point.

{Ed001's Note - there will always be a lot more, but they can't put anything in the TV show that the lawyers feel they could not prove - which would mean anything like rape, which is the hardest crime in the world to prove.}

5.) 09 Jun 2026
09 Jun 2026 07:27:30
The Panorama programme was certainly damning, and you are right Ed, there was an air of "implying" worse than was actually said because they were being careful to only state what they can prove.

They also covered themselves at the beginning when they said "accusations of".

I won't deny, I expected it to be worse and none of the accusations surprised me. It won't surprise me if a lot more comes out in the coming months.

One thing that I did notice there was a guy in it that made a comment about Weinstein and the #MeToo movement, and his point was, no one came out and said anything about it then. Flimsy though it may be, I reckon that'll be something they grasp to.

I'm happy he has stepped down, I'm happy the sons aren't interested in taking over let's see the club back in the Premier League and put this sordid, chequered ownership behind us.

6.) 10 Jun 2026
10 Jun 2026 11:35:28
Good comments D4W and Ed001. Without wanting to drag this sordid affair out, I did watch a really good concise short 7 minute summary of the situation by Geo on Hammers chat. He covered virtually everything by talking about what can and can't be said and whilst many may look at this as a storm in a teacup or nothing to see here.

It's not necessary what we did learn from this but what we didn't hear and what could well follow.

{Ed001's Note - the fact he was banned from interacting with youth and women's teams at West Ham in 2023 should be more of a concern than the programme! It should never have been covered up by the FA if they felt kids and women needed protecting from this vile predator. Disgusting that he wasn't forced to sell up under those circumstances.}

7.) 10 Jun 2026
10 Jun 2026 13:35:12
Very true. ?

8.) 11 Jun 2026
11 Jun 2026 05:30:55
Spot on Ed that was a very diluted 30 mins of a sordid vile perverted predator who trust me has done a lot worse it will all come out and his little cronies should be punished with him ⚒️⚒️⚒️