Halifaxtiger

Both McDonald & Evans were accused of rape. The girl went willingly to McDonalds hotel room with him through the front door. That was deemed to be consensual even though she said it was not, and I can see why. As someone said, 'What did she think they were going to do there, play Scrabble ?'. She did not go to that room with Evans. He was phoned, turned up later, sneaked in and then sneaked out. The difference to me is absolutely clear.

Seen Barker do some stunning team rides at SBA, to the extent of pointing to where he wanted his partner to ride. Sadly, he seemed to forget all about that last season. The best I ever saw was at Scunthorpe a few years ago, and it was Richie Dennis (aged 17) protecting Grant Hayes (aged 16). The speed that Dennis went into the corners had to be seen to be believed, to the extent that it drew an angry reaction from an opposition rider at the end of the race.

You're right that nothing in the law should stop him resuming a former career. But as is evident, public opinion can and that is of relevance in a profession where the business relies almost completely on public support. While I see the argument that someone has served their time, I can very much appreciate why people object to a convicted rapist being in a high profile occupation. If it is accepted that Evans slate is now wiped clean and he can return to his former profession, I fail to see why, if Jimmy Savile had lived and served his time, he could not return to mainstream television. The possibility is both appalling and unthinkable, as is the suggestion that those who would seek to prevent it were acting through 'mob rule'. Rape is often (and was in this case) a pre-meditated, deliberate act in which the perpertrator is fully aware that the consequences for the victim can, at least potentially, be absolutely devastating yet they still do it. It is the very nature of how heinous this crime is that has led to the reaction that has been expressed and, to me, that is entirely understandable.

Having sex with someone isn't a crime. Rape is, and he was found guilty of it. I don't think the description 'scumbag' in such circumstances is an unreasonable one, and I suspect that many would probably use something a lot stronger. I think E I Addio is spot on. Its fair point that he's served his time so he should be able to start again, but I can very much understand why people deeply object to having a convicted rapist in such a high profile profession.

I think the problem is not that Somerset (and Berwick) didn't listen but that they were told two different things (although I'd probably accept that they chose to believe what suited them). Had they been told correctly in the first place, had SCB Regulations been changed and had the change to regulations been made public (instead of the usual ridiculous secrecy)this almost certainly wouldn't have happened. That's not down to Somerset. From what I heard last season, you're dead right. Tends to make you wonder just how clear instruction was given regarding riders averages, doesn't it ?

Barrow, Belle Vue (Hyde Road), Birmingham (Wheels),Bradford, Boston, Canterbury,Cradley,Crayford, Ellesmere Port, Exeter, Hackney,Hull(NCP), Isle of Wight,Milton Keynes (Groveway), Long Eaton, Newport (QM),Oxford, Reading, Sittingbourne, Weymouth (Wessex), White City,Wimbledon.

I think so too, particularly last season. Changing Leicester for Peterborough was a good start. The usual suspects - Scunthorpe, Sheffield, Plymouth, Somerset, Workington - maintained their standard of racing while others - Redcar and Glasgow - upped theirs.

I am sure that a few others - probably with bigger bank accounts - went after Extance so its good to see that loyalty still exists.

From what I was told all hell broke loose with the UKBA last season precisely because one club replaced an English rider with a foreign one.

http://www.iowislanders.co/2014%20News/News%2009-Dec.html

That's a not an unreasonable point but to my knowledge the UKBA (or whatever they are called) knew precisely what was going on so an announcement would have made no difference. I certainly know that all hell broke last year. It wasn't Somerset. You'd have to look a little closer to the BSPA management committee for that. That's the way I see it. I think you're right about the Somerset promotion which makes their action here all the more surprising.

My suspicion is that is precisely what Somerset did initially and were told Holder was a 5.00. The problem is that the BSPA (because we never, ever, get a statement as to who precisely has made decisions, its always a collective) can't and won't admit they made a mistake. It won't be the first time they have tried to maintain the ridiculous illusion that they are infallible and it won't be the last. Whichever way you look at it, this changes the whole position here. Who on earth announces publicly a team in the full knowledge that that team is illegal and will have to be changed before the season starts ? I'd maintain the BSPA is to blame for the initial problem but to take the above action isn't just ludicrous, its positively bizarre and I don't think it needs the benefit of hindsight to know that that is a mistake. The question that has to be answered is how a sponsor would feel if he went along, was delighted with the line up only to find out the next day that that couldn't be the team and the promotion knew that all along. Not strange, ridiculous. The question is though who is really at fault ?

My understanding is Somerset were told that Holder was a 5.00 and then told otherwise. Berwick were the same. If it was so clear to everyone, why wasn't the change in averages indicated in the AGM statement ? Not one single speedway fan knew that was the case until Steve Whitehead made comments on the Workington forum. That's where the problem lies, because if it had been made public this debate would not even be taking place. As if a 'girl in the office' is going to answer a question about averages from a promotion or team manager. That would come from someone much higher up and if it didn't, shame on the BSPA for letting a junior member of staff be responsible for responding to such an important point. To me, the blame lies fairly and squarely with the BSPA and their behind close doors, you scratch my back I'll scratch yours procedures where they never make a mistake and no-one is ever named as having made a decision so no-one is ever responsible.

I don't dispute that. The question is whether Sheffield knew that when they signed him, because they certainly didn't mention it. Word I got was that another club went after him but abandoned the plan because they thought he'd be a 7.00. It must be a possibility (which is why I qualified the original post)that Sheffield weren't aware of his dual nationality and signed him thinking he'd be a 5.00 anyway.

Based upon last years rules, no. 19.9.2.2 A current PL Rider under 25 years-old with a PL MA of 4.00 or below at the start of the Season.

I think there is some question over whether Simota will improve but there's no doubt that he was the most popular rider (apparently with everyone) at SBA last season, as is evidenced by the fact that he won a clutch of awards at the end of season presentation. There's definitely a case for keeping riders who are very popular with the crowd and its a brave promotion that dumps one of them. A lot depends on who the final two riders are - that will make or break the prospects for the season. Polish lad who does a few laps after most meetings as SBA.

Berwick & Somerset apparently didn't and its just possible that Sheffield didn't either. One or two seem to be suggesting that Somerset brought Holder in because they had BSPA authorisation that he would be a 5.00 and the latter now don't have the honesty to admit they got it wrong. To me, that's entirely believable. Its certainly their fault that no public statement regarding averages was made following (or before) the AGM which would have killed any argument stone dead. I think this is a matter of confusion rather than a deliberate attempt to break the rules - after all, who puts a rider in on a 5.00 knowing full well he's a 7.00 - and that's not down to Somerset.

Very impressed with Manzares at the back end of 2014. No reason why he can't go forward next season. Quite clearly you didn't see him at Sheffield. I thought the same thing last August and was proved totally wrong. To be fair, he's definitely better than that average and worth signing. The question will be whether he has decent machinery or not. If he has, then he could easily be a heat leader. If not, he won't improve that much.

I think its a good team too, and I look forward to getting over to watch it. I think you are a little hard on Nielsen in particular (and I am biased). For me, the Aces undoing last year was particularly in the second reserve position but also in the form of Cook & Worrall. Whatever the case, you're dead right about Worrall and Payne. The difference is massive.

Its truly astonishing that someone buys a property next to a silage pit and then complains about it 3 weeks after moving in. I hope it stinks to high heaven. While the farmer was absolutely right to take the action that he did and the local authority equally so to impose the conditions that they did, that really shouldn't have been totally necessary. I doubt if there is anyone that would disagree that both planning permission and the fact that someone moves in next to a stadium should be highly relevant factors in determining a nuisance claim whatever the circumstances might be. Hopefully, this petition will be the first step in ensuring that they are.

I agree - I think that's a good team. King is obviously one of the top riders in the PL, I was very impressed with Manzares last season and Heeps still has a lot of potential. Covatti was very disappointing at Sheffield last year but he's better than that - the last time I saw him ride for Birmingham he went round the outside of Craig Cook at Belle Vue, no mean feat.

It doesn't matter what he has done or hasn't done. Plymouth need every fan they can get so anyone who says that they aren't going (or aren't going as much) will be missed.

Part of Mildenhall Stadium's defence was that they had planning permission to make noise. That's why the judgement had to deal with the issue. The thing is here is that the arguments put forward by the stadium seemed to me to make perfect sense and the petition reflects that. Firstly, planning permission should not just be treated as irrelevant. When a planning application is made, it details what precisely is being requested and what it is going to happen. The application is usually published in the press and the locality (on lamp posts and the like). Its then considered by the councils planning officer after making a number of tests, and his results are similarly published. Finally, the application itself is judged by a committee of elected officials at a hearing which is also public. It should count (and I'd say for an awful lot) otherwise the stadium (or whatever) can be nicked for not having planning permission and if they have it............they can be nicked anyway. The second point is purchaser responsibility - because, basically, there isn't any. 'We were here first', to me, is entirely relevant and, indeed, persuasive. In this case, it was shown that the home owners were told about the existence of stadium by the estate agent and the previous owner and, as anyone who has been to Mildenhall will tell, its almost impossible to believe that they didn't see it, given that they had to drive right past to get to the house. Surely there must be some onus on a person buying a house to ensure that it is suitable for them before they move in ? Finally, in this case those who created the problem have been found to be in the right. The stadium had been there for 30 years before they moved in and although it is my understanding that there had been complaints before hand, they never got to the legal stage. Thus, the fact that they moved in created the issue with the noise. It must be rare in the legal world for a person to create a problem yet be given judgement. I think there were attempts to solve the matter and much was made of the intransigence of the stadium owner. I have, admittedly, only one side of the story but my understanding is that the stadium would have been uneconomic if the house owners had got their way, so restrictive were the conditions that they wanted. The way I see it, this petition is an attempt to both ensure that planning permission has considerable weight and that there must be a responsibility on the part of someone moving in to establish the circumstances relating to their new home before they move in. To me, that is entirely reasonable when the law at the moment is anything but. I certainly heard noise as late as that and, to be fair, that is unreasonable. At present, the law relies on binding case law - the judgement is full of it. That means that you can actually initiate legislation to change the legal position. For what its worth, I don't think you can make a homeowner sign some sort of legal guarantee that they won't complain. What you can do, though, is ensure that planning permission is given the weight it deserves if a complaint is made and the fact that a person has moved in next to a stadium is treated as an important factor. In the Mildenhall case, both of those arguments were entirely brushed aside as worthless and that simply can't be right.

I'd check the court determination if I was you. Planning permission counted for nothing. 'Accordingly, I consider that the mere fact that the activity which is said to give rise to the nuisance has the benefit of a planning permission is normally of no assistance to the defendant in a claim brought by a neighbour who contends that the activity cause a nuisance to her land in the form of noise or other loss of amenity'.

Nothing wrong with that, but I think you will find that Mildenhall Speedway's planning permission counted for absolutely nothing. So its reasonable to say,then, that if a business has planning permission if is worth sod all but if they break it they can be closed down. What this will do is ensure that there is a responsibility on the part of a purchaser of a property to establish the circumstances in the locality before they move in and that that will have some force should legal proceedings take place. What on earth is wrong with that ?