chunky

Pish... That's bugger all compared to dealing with some of the rabid creatures here on the BSF...

Oh, we all stopped going to Plough Lane because Colin Richardson was riding for both Wimbledon and Eastbourne... The writing was clearly on the wall for Birmingham and Milton Keynes when Andy Grahame had the audacity to qualify for both the BLRC and NLRC in the same season. Moxey must have been disgusted to see PC appearing regularly for both Belle Vue AND Rochdale. How terrible...

The dates are irrelevant, as is the "full-time" comment. The thing is, you admit that you probably were judgemental at times. That is not a criticism, as it is almost impossible for a sports journalist to write without being judgemental. However, you appear to be confusing journalism and private comment here. I am quite sure that "Bruce Semmens was the dirtiest rider I ever saw" never ever appeared in any journalistic submission from Maurice Jones; that was just a private comment he made. Dave Lanning was always known to skirt controversy, but trust me, some of the things he told me privately would NEVER have made it on air or into the papers!

Do you ever feel that YOUR writings (as a speedway journalist) are judgemental?

Did they ride on stir-Friday???

If you read the article posted by Midland Red (the very first reply on this thread), it does state that Sandy was National Champion in 1958. Steve

I think you are missing the point, John. I dont think JOS50 is referring to Split's speedway career (although I could be wrong), but the fact that he is commonly regarded as a "wonderful character" and it is often said that we "need people like him" in the sport today. Split Waterman is rightly regarded as one of England's greatest ever speedway riders, and we can't - and shouldn't - take that away from him. However, stating that he was a "luvverly fella" and "we need more like him" is stretching it. Same with Kenny Carter. I never liked Kenny, and in fact I thought he was a psycho tw*t. However, he too was one of England's finest. We know that there are people - even forum members - who think his name should be expunged from the record books, and nobody should ever mention his name again - because of his final acts. To me, that is ridiculous. His career and his final acts are totally separate, and in any case, we can't - and shouldn't try to - change or erase history. My own personal opinion of Kenny Carter is that he was not "evil"; he had true mental issues, and it was these that caused the problems. After all, who, in a normal frame of mind, would take their own life? Certainly when children are involved? Individuals who commit other types of criminal offence, though not as severe, but usually for personal gain, are not suffering from mental health issues, and just commit them because they want to. If they make those decisions, then they should not be looked up to or revered, or simply considered a "cheeky chappie". Again, that does not and should not be used to destroy their achievements.

I wondered about that first point too... As far as your second paragraph, I agree 100%. Similar to my statement earlier about the East End; it's not like things have changed or deteriorated drastically in recent years!

Crime has gone up everywhere - and it's all because of a basic lack of respect. People, whatever their race, creed, colour, or nationality, think it's "all about me", and nobody respects law enforcement or authority. You can't discipline kids. Criminals don't get punished, just get a slap on the wrist, because "everybody makes mistakes", and they can be "rehabilitated". There are two kinds of people - good people and bad people.

Immigration has happened for years. Britain - and the US - have been built by immigrants. The East End hasn't been "British" for over a century. It seems that white immigrants are accepted, but not others. I am not in a position to complain about immigrants, knowing that I am one myself. Things change. Places change. People change. That's life...

Hit the nail on the head, there...

I'm glad you said something...

You mean it's an ailment confined to Poland???

Exactly the way I feel. You don't go from that good to that bad that quickly - and that consistently.

Yeah, there were many more tracks with a home advantage then because there was a much bigger variety of shapes, sizes, and surfaces. Look at how we have lost all the big tracks - Hyde Rd, the Shay, Earle St, Custom House, Hampden Park etc... We have also lost a number of smaller tighter ones like Wimbledon and Crayford. The surfaces aren't so varied either now because the machinery basically dictates what we can and can't use. We used to have fine sand-like tracks and heavy cinder tracks, and the bikes - and riders - could handle everything.

I think the real wild card here is Dudek - depending on which one shows up. He could be pushing for a medal or propping up the rest of the field...

Hmmmm... I can tell you that in the US there are MANY foreign town names there are here, particularly German ones. There were so many German settlers here that whole areas were taken over. Just west of St. Louis, there is a sizeable area along the Missouri river with a number of German-named towns and villages. Looks like I'll have to look into the California debate a little more.

But ALL speedway back then was far better than the modern crap. Even gustix said that four men going around in circles was boring - although I don't know if that applies to the old days?

Or it could be that your dad was trying to protect others from you!!!

That happens - it always has - but this seems a little over the top! I can see it with a real household name, but not with a speedway rider...

So sorry... Must have missed that!

So, be careful what you say here. We have connections...

Now, that is interesting - particularly the 1761 info. It appears on maps, but in what form? Of course, that means it predates the US state... Things likes this genuinely intrigue me.

Really? I had no idea! I do apologize most sincerely...

That is not my responsibility, and if we can't get Split Waterman's passing on there, what makes you think we could get anything else changed? Have you ever considered that YOU may be wrong, and that this particular entry in Wikipedia may be inaccurate? I don't just assume that everything I read is correct (particularly if there is a question about it), so I will conduct my own research. I have always been under the impression that California (or California-in-England was not an actual place name, more a term applied to a certain area. I didn't actually know the history of the place until now, and so far, what I have found seems to agree with what The Doctor has said. The ONLY reference to California as a village is that single entry on wikipedia, which was submitted by an individual claiming supposed knowledge of the subject. We all know that due to the origins of the information on there, it is not 100% accurate. Steering away from wikipedia, a couple of the main resources I checked were detailed (and, it would seem, pretty accurate) gazetteer of towns and villages in Berkshire, and one of towns and parishes in Berkshire. There is no reference to it as a village, hamlet, parish, or any other locale with the actual name of California. All reference to "California: or "California-in-England" concerns the park. More to the point, if California WAS a true village or hamlet, then I am pretty sure it would appear on a map of the area. I have yet to find a map on which it is shown, other than in reference to the park.