So how do you know that he hasn't been personally involved with the Yorkshire reforesting effort? We never knew he was involved with Phil's Millions either until some private photos turned up on Phil's site. Who is to say what the hell he's doing when we are thinking he's being quite boring? He did donate quite a lot of money to the cause and did a lot towards raising hundreds of thousands of pounds. I doubt his cottage in Sheffield is simply a place to sleep off the aftereffects of a footie match. Given his absence from public eye, he's likely staying up there quite a lot now days.. So who is to say that he didn't make an effort to participate in the activity of actually getting the trees planted. He said he was "personally involed", but does that necessarily have to mean he put hands to spade? Its quite possible he was merely involved in the procurement of the trees and seeing that they got planted, even if he didn't plant them himself. I know that if I had contributed a huge chunk of money that I would want to see where it is going and not merely hand it over to some foundation functionaries.
What you or I would do is totally irrelevant, since we're debating what he does or doesn't or might or mightn't do.
I don't KNOW that he isn't involved. Neither do you KNOW he is involved. We have different opinions on this - and neither of us has anything more than speculation to base them on.
You can choose to believe that 'personally involved' means a great deal. Maybe it does.
I can choose to believe that 'personally involved' means very little. That may be true, instead.
My POINT - which you seem to be deliberately missing, Sable - is not whether or not he has been 'personally involved', but how people may react to a statement that is as vague as that. Case in point: I reacted poorly to it - the rest of you apparently not at all, since it was my comment that started this.
As I said, it is a small risk that some people in Sheffield may question his veracity (and like you, I wander through forums and such and have seen absolutely vicious commentary about him from some in that city - they either love him or hate him, I guess). Given that it was vague - and
potentially misleading statement - it was, IMO, silly to include it in an otherwise excellent advert.
I could frankly give a tinker's damn if Sean plants trees - or really anything else he does in his personal time. It's his life. But when he uses his name and reputation to promote something, I'd like to see him do it in a way that leaves absolutely no wriggle room for critics.
He gets enough crap just for living - it makes me uncomfortable when he wades (inadvertently) into a potential sticky patch, and from my perspective, this poorly phrased comment is a potential sticky patch.
That's all I have to say about it. If you want to believe that he is personally involved in reforestation efforts, go for it. I think that would be a grand thing for him to do - and I hope you're right.
