Leicester Lions 2016

[The Voice Of Reason]

I have to chuckle when I read this oh so overly used phrase these days - 'threatening AND abusive language' (or behaviour).

 

Would someone care to explain the actual difference?

 

Isn't it the case that if someone acts in a threatening manner, then it's clearly abusive anyway?

 

And if something is deemed to be abusive, that it is also automatically threatening - particularly as far as the recipient is concerned?

 

Sorry to be pedantic.

 

Getting back on track - the fine imposed by the SCB is truly incredible; and I'm quite certain, could not be justified in a court of law. For a £300 penalty to increase to £7,500 represents an increase (if my sums are correct) of 2,500%!

 

I would love to see the SCB's rationale for this increase; particularly given the initial fine imposed v the severity of the alleged misdemeanour(s).

 

They truly are an utter embarrassment to this sport; and undoubtedly, one of the biggest contributory factors for its sad demise here within the UK.

[bigcatdiary]

I have to chuckle when I read this oh so overly used phrase these days - 'threatening AND abusive language' (or behaviour).

Would someone care to explain the actual difference?

Isn't it the case that if someone acts in a threatening manner, then it's clearly abusive anyway?

And if something is deemed to be abusive, that it is also automatically threatening - particularly as far as the recipient is concerned?

Sorry to be pedantic.

Getting back on track - the fine imposed by the SCB is truly incredible; and I'm quite certain, could not be justified in a court of law. For a £300 penalty to increase to £7,500 represents an increase (if my sums are correct) of 2,500%!

I would love to see the SCB's rationale for this increase; particularly given the initial fine imposed v the severity of the alleged misdemeanour(s).

They truly are an utter embarrassment to this sport; and undoubtedly, one of the biggest contributory factors for its sad demise here within the UK.

Criminal threatening (or threatening behavior) is the crime of intentionally or knowingly putting another person in fear of bodily injury. "Threat of harm generally involves a perception of injury...physical or mental damage...act or instance of injury, or a material and detriment or loss to a person."

 

Abusive behaviour is mainly verbal and although clearly not pleasant especially when minors are around doesn't generally make the person being abused feel threatened with violence. (Name calling and swearing etc)

[Barney Rabbit]

I have to chuckle when I read this oh so overly used phrase these days - 'threatening AND abusive language' (or behaviour).

 

Would someone care to explain the actual difference?

 

Isn't it the case that if someone acts in a threatening manner, then it's clearly abusive anyway?

 

And if something is deemed to be abusive, that it is also automatically threatening - particularly as far as the recipient is concerned?

 

Sorry to be pedantic.

 

Getting back on track - the fine imposed by the SCB is truly incredible; and I'm quite certain, could not be justified in a court of law. For a £300 penalty to increase to £7,500 represents an increase (if my sums are correct) of 2,500%!

 

I would love to see the SCB's rationale for this increase; particularly given the initial fine imposed v the severity of the alleged misdemeanour(s).

 

They truly are an utter embarrassment to this sport; and undoubtedly, one of the biggest contributory factors for its sad demise here within the UK.

 

 

I think you'll find that, In law, the actual wording is 'threatening OR abusive behaviour'.

 

Don't know about the SCB/BSPA though.

[SteveLyric2]

There were presumably witnesses to the alleged/admitted offences?!

[LionsDen]

There were presumably witnesses to the alleged/admitted offences?!

 

Yes there were, including young children who heard all the 'industrial' language quite clearly as it wasn't just confined to the inside of the referee's box. To be honest, he'd have a harder job not admitting to the threatening and abusive behaviour!

 

As regards the fine, surely it's as high as it is because there are SEVEN counts he is charged with. Plus the costs. Plus the original unpaid fine at the meeting itself. I'm not totally justifying it because unless you were at the hearing then it's speculation. However, the charge sheet is long and whilst I don't pretend to know the rules regarding this I'm sure they wouldn't have arrived at that figure if it was beyond the limits of what they can sanction.

 

Regardless of that..... what a totally stupid way to conduct yourself in any event, let alone as the promoter of a professional speedway club to appointed meeting officials. It's not unusual though, as a lot of people who have worked with this person will know. When the first recourse to something you're not happy with is to 'lose it' and throw all your dummies out of the pram then at some point, and in one form or another, it will cost you.

Edited June 10, 2016 by LionsDen

[TonyE]

Perhaps the initial £300 was the maximum the referee on the night could impose. If that was the case, then the use of a multiplier to illustrate the later fine as excessive does not really apply.

[E I Addio]

I'm with JChapman & Danny Smith.

 

 

 

He might well deserve that punishment. The thing is there is absolutely no guarantee at all that if Matt Ford, Alex Harkess or Jon Cook did the same thing they'd also get it.

You will never know the answer to that one, because they, have never done it, never come close to doing it and frankly there is no reason to belive they are ever likely to do it. The same goes I think for all the current EL promoters as far as I can recall, with one exception, who three years ago went to the referees box with his team manager, against the rules, to remonstrate with the referees decision to exclude a particular rider. The action was all the more distasteful because it was done while another rider was lying seriously injured on the track. That exception was .....er....the current BSPA chairman. That's to imply I have an option about Hemsley though. No excuse for that sort of behaviour by promoters in any sport.

 

Incidentally, assuming the fracas was in some way connected with the referee inadvertently turning the lights off, it is just worth mentioning that the same thing happened at Lakeside about 3-4 years ago when the guy who did the music inadvertently turned the lights off. There were no threats or anything else. They just sent out for an electrician (for some technical reason these floodlights can't just be turned on) . Mistakes happen. Threatening people doesn't put them right.

Edited June 10, 2016 by E I Addio

[arnieg]

 

 

Incidentally, assuming the fracas was in some way connected with the referee inadvertently turning the lights off, it is just worth mentioning that the same thing happened at Lakeside about 3-4 years ago when the guy who did the music inadvertently turned the lights off. There were no threats or anything else. They just sent out for an electrician (for some technical reason these floodlights can't just be turned on) . Mistakes happen. Threatening people doesn't put them right.

Does the switch now have a big 'do not press this button' sign attached to it?

[The Voice Of Reason]

Does the switch now have a big 'do not press this button' sign attached to it?

The red one at The White House apparently does.

 

Worringly, someone made the basic assumption that the likes of Reagan & Bush (Snr/Jnr) could actually read.

Edited June 10, 2016 by The Voice Of Reason

[Hannahrack]

 

Incidentally, assuming the fracas was in some way connected with the referee inadvertently turning the lights off, it is just worth mentioning that the same thing happened at Lakeside about 3-4 years ago when the guy who did the music inadvertently turned the lights off. There were no threats or anything else. They just sent out for an electrician (for some technical reason these floodlights can't just be turned on) . Mistakes happen. Threatening people doesn't put them right.

 

The Ref was still trying to start the race in the dark DH was just trying to stop him starting it , it could have caused injury or even death to a rider the ref is the one who needs fineing or even sacking for such a disgrace

[bornagainlion]

A lot of posts here talking about lawful phrases, applying the law in this situation and multiple counts DH is indicted on but surely that would assume that the SCB and BSPA always follow some moral code rule book aligned to English law and not just make it up as they go along wouldn't it?

[Halifaxtiger]

David Hemsley has never been popular with a lot of people for usually very good reasons. He ditched Sam, for the better I think, but he also ditched the very people who had been with him to set up the whole project in the early days. He went ahead with a poor designed track in a very good mini stadium. He did things his way that people didn't like, and totally messed up the adjoining park area with rubbish being dumped on his land for income. He seems to have man management issues, and in this case he has obviously let fly with bad behaviour and dubious actions, which no promoter should do. LionsDen has highlighted what he knows happened, and it does not make pleasant reading. You should not like to support his(DH) actions, and must accept that that sort of behaviour has to be challenged and sanctions imposed on him. Banning him and fining him, seems to most folks a reasonable response, even with the complication of him still being the owner, which is not then compatible with a banned promoter.

So an errant promoter is taken to task for his actions, which were against laid down practices with the BSPA/SCB. Whether the sanctions are too severe or about right, we will never know, as none of us know exactly what happened, except he failed to appear when he was commanded to do so. Not good form from a businessman, who elected to join an organisation and signed to abide with the 'rules' of that organisation. No man is an island.

So the charges are known, the penalties are known. But instead of his actions being condemned and the penalties accepted, the BSPA gets the criticism for taking the action, despite a mix of BSPA/SCB is the expected mix for a disciplinary committee. What should the BSPA have done in the circumstances, when their rules are the ones that are broken, along with the breeches of SCB protocol.

 

Unfortunately, many on here have a BSPA phobia, which clouds their natural justice. So they turn on the BSPA/SCB as if they were the miscreants in this whole business. Yes, the BSPA are not perfect and have make many mistakes in the past, and continue to do so. Given that there are agreed representations for these sort of discipline matters within both the BSPA/SCB, abiding by them should not then doubt the eligibility of anybody sitting in judgement on this case. Unless of course you have a greater issues with either/both organisations, and are allowing them to cloud your judgement.

It seems to me a lot of folks on here are using this case to air their opposition per se, instead of stepping back, looking at the bigger picture, reading the post from LionsDen, then making a rational response.

Will it happen, will it hell. Very surprised at some who have joined in.

 

It is not my intention to defend David Hemsley or even to suggest that his punishment is incorrect. Some might find it harsh, some might not.

 

My point was (and is) that the BSPA system of adjudication is completely discredited. In the last month, we have seen Craig Cook refused permission to ride for two clubs because their race night is the same despite the fact that Dan Bewley does it. We have seen Richard Hall saddled with a way out of date NL average although Luke Bowen rides on a converted PL one. I am sure I could name a dozen more such incidents that have occurred over the last few seasons where crooked and illegal rulings have been made, almost certainly motivated in part by jealousy, spite and self interest.

 

Why, then, on this occasion should we accept that this decision is totally fair, above board and consistent ?

 

Last season, I saw the current vice chairman of the BSPA join a sit in on the track in front of the tapes when riders were at the gate. He did so following an incident involving one of his riders in which (in my view and, I suspect, his) a very poor refereeing decision had been made

 

The referee saw that as a bit of a laugh(I can't remember his exact words) and I didn't take it seriously. Others, however, might view that as a gross act of irresponsibility that broke every rule in the health and safety handbook.

 

To my knowledge, he suffered no punishment whatsoever.

 

And that really sums up my point - a ridiculously inconsistent approach that seems to enable some to get away scot free while others are poleaxed, and its little wonder that some see this verdict as completely subjective.

 

I think you are right when you say that there are those who will criticise the BSPA whatever they do, but I think their opinions are regarded with the sort of contempt that we all have for the ludicrously biased. I am certainly not one of them , and in fact merely share the anger and disillusionment that many feel when yet another bent decision is given out.

 

You will never know the answer to that one, because they, have never done it, never come close to doing it and frankly there is no reason to belive they are ever likely to do it. The same goes I think for all the current EL promoters as far as I can recall, with one exception, who three years ago went to the referees box with his team manager, against the rules, to remonstrate with the referees decision to exclude a particular rider. The action was all the more distasteful because it was done while another rider was lying seriously injured on the track. That exception was .....er....the current BSPA chairman. That's to imply I have an option about Hemsley though. No excuse for that sort of behaviour by promoters in any sport.

 

Incidentally, assuming the fracas was in some way connected with the referee inadvertently turning the lights off, it is just worth mentioning that the same thing happened at Lakeside about 3-4 years ago when the guy who did the music inadvertently turned the lights off. There were no threats or anything else. They just sent out for an electrician (for some technical reason these floodlights can't just be turned on) . Mistakes happen. Threatening people doesn't put them right.

 

In truth, I could have put any names there - those were just the first three that came to mind.

 

It would be interesting to know what punishment that promoter got (if any) wouldn't it ?

 

I can certainly recall (albeit some years ago) Len Silver being abusive to a referee. Then there's the incident when Chris Louis entered the referee's box at King's Lynn at the precise moment that the destiny of the NL title was to be made a few years ago - he wasn't abusive, but he most certainly shouldn't have been there. If memory serves me correctly, he wasn't punished at all.

 

Someone has mentioned Mick Horton being fined, appealing and getting most of it cancelled. I can't remember why, but it would seem he has been down the same route.

 

Then there's the Rob Godfrey incident above.

 

Makes you wonder whether Hemsley has been dealt with fairly after all, doesn't it ?

Edited June 11, 2016 by Halifaxtiger

[Whisperer]

What is potentially unfair is the decision to publicise the outcome, there are many more occasions and incidents where disciplinary action or sanctions have been taken but NOT made public.

 

Both the BSPA and the SCB adjudicate on breaches of the rules under their respective areas of responsibility including some of those mentioned but the outcomes remain in the minutes and communications of those bodies, the fines and suspensions get paid and served however the SCB clearly feel that there is a need to inform the public of the outcome when the incident has taken place in the public arena.

 

I accept they are in a no win situation with supporters of the sport but yet again it lacks consistency

Edited June 11, 2016 by Whisperer

[Tsunami]

 

It is not my intention to defend David Hemsley or even to suggest that his punishment is incorrect. Some might find it harsh, some might not.

Exactly. It does not make the decision wrong.

 

My point was (and is) that the BSPA system of adjudication is completely discredited. In the last month, we have seen Craig Cook refused permission to ride for two clubs because their race night is the same despite the fact that Dan Bewley does it.

Bewleys signing was meant to be a fluid arrangement, and may still be, whilst the Davey passport was sorted out. On the other and, Cook was a dedicated rider looking for a team place and eventually signed by changing race nights.

 

We have seen Richard Hall saddled with a way out of date NL average although Luke Bowen rides on a converted PL one. I am sure I could name a dozen more such incidents that have occurred over the last few seasons where crooked and illegal rulings have been made, almost certainly motivated in part by jealousy, spite and self interest.

Way way over the top comment Chris, or are you playing to the crowd ?

 

Why, then, on this occasion should we accept that this decision is totally fair, above board and consistent ?

If someone has made an alleged bad decision before, it does not mean that every decision they afterwards make is automatically wrong. Each case on it's merit.

 

Last season, I saw the current vice chairman of the BSPA join a sit in on the track in front of the tapes when riders were at the gate. He did so following an incident involving one of his riders in which (in my view and, I suspect, his) a very poor refereeing decision had been made

The referee saw that as a bit of a laugh(I can't remember his exact words) and I didn't take it seriously. Others, however, might view that as a gross act of irresponsibility that broke every rule in the health and safety handbook.

To my knowledge, he suffered no punishment whatsoever.

I know you are a fan of Rob's and Scunny, and i'm surprised you even quote this incident. Many on here, and those attending speedway, seem to want a bit of showmanship to entertain, and a return to the tricks that people like Jonny Hoskins, Ian Thomas, Neil MacFarlane, etc, and this is just an example of that. The SCB referee was on the spot to adjudicate and, as you say, he saw it as a bit of a laugh. Perhaps if he had you and others would have been criticising the Ref/SCB for being too much of a stickler with the rules and should seen it as a bit of a laugh, If he had decided to treat is really seriously. Perhaps some need to put this one in perspective.

 

And that really sums up my point - a ridiculously inconsistent approach that seems to enable some to get away scot free while others are poleaxed, and its little wonder that some see this verdict as completely subjective.

One would hope they are all subjective.

 

I think you are right when you say that there are those who will criticise the BSPA whatever they do, but I think their opinions are regarded with the sort of contempt that we all have for the ludicrously biased. I am certainly not one of them , and in fact merely share the anger and disillusionment that many feel when yet another bent decision is given out.

i agree, hence my surprise at your reaction to this matter.

 

What is potentially unfair is the decision to publicise the outcome, there are many more occasions and incidents where disciplinary action or sanctions have been taken but NOT made public.

 

Both the BSPA and the SCB adjudicate on breaches of the rules under their respective areas of responsibility including some of those mentioned but the outcomes remain in the minutes and communications of those bodies, the fines and suspensions get paid and served however the SCB clearly feel that there is a need to inform the public of the outcome when the incident has taken place in the public arena.

 

I accept they are in a no win situation with supporters of the sport but yet again it lacks consistency

EXACTLY.

Publish and be damned, withhold the details and be damned and be accused of Freemasonry secrecy.

[speedibee]

A lot of posts here talking about lawful phrases, applying the law in this situation and multiple counts DH is indicted on but surely that would assume that the SCB and BSPA always follow some moral code rule book aligned to English law and not just make it up as they go along wouldn't it?

SCB/BSPA obey matt fords law to the letter .they never make new rules without his permission

[Halifaxtiger]

EXACTLY.

Publish and be damned, withhold the details and be damned and be accused of Freemasonry secrecy.

 

The way I see it , it doesn't matter what the arrangement with Bewley is. You can either ride for two clubs with the same race night or you can't.

 

I think you know that my view has always been that speedway needs independent adjudication (I hasten to add, not independent control) and I only wish that my comments were over the top. I also think you know me better than to say something simply to please others - my views are my own, always have been and always will be. The fact that my opinion is popular with others merely reflects the fact that they think I have a point.

 

I'd agree that you can't judge the correctness of one decision by another but what we have here is people whose record is, I believe, questionable at best and who cannot be seen to be impartial by any means. Having someone judging a case who can easily be accused of prejudice and who has made poor decisions in the past will inevitably attract adverse comment and raise issues about their competence in dealing with such cases.

 

I am sure that any ruling would attract debate but if it were independent there would be no allegations of self interest. Its difficult to see how that might not be better than what we have currently.

 

I am huge fan of Rob Godfrey and Scunthorpe (for the most part). There is, however, a very thin line between showmanship and taking an action that will damage the reputation of the sport and even compromise safety. Make no mistake, when Josh Auty went and sat on the track he was deadly serious and it most certainly was not something to please the crowd. Moreover, Peter Clarke's handling of the circumstances of that meeting was almost universally criticised and one can only speculate how someone like Jim McGregor, for example, would have dealt with it.

 

What effectively happened was that a rider and a promoter incited part of the crowd to take part in a sit in on the track in front of the tapes when riders were at the gate. The motivation for that was what happened to Auty in an earlier race and the referee's failure to take appropriate action in dealing with it. It was Clarke's view that it was merely light hearted; I am not sure that Auty, for one, would agree.

 

No ruling should ever been completely subjective. In making a decision, you look overwhelmingly at the circumstances and only marginally at the person. The question is whether that is true here.

 

And that's really my point. Given their history, can we be absolutely sure that this decision is entirely objective and without prejudice ?

 

The position on publication merely adds weight to the argument that they are not. While I'd agree that decisions will be criticised no matter what, surely the procedure should be consistent. After all, how can you justify making one person's misdemeanours public while hushing anothers up ?

Edited June 12, 2016 by Halifaxtiger

[Big Al]

Does anyone know about the two "fraudulent comments" Mr Hemsley was judged to be guilty of making - what he said and when/where/how they were made?

[E I Addio]

 

In truth, I could have put any names there - those were just the first three that came to mind.

 

It would be interesting to know what punishment that promoter got (if any) wouldn't it ?

 

I can certainly recall (albeit some years ago) Len Silver being abusive to a referee. Then there's the incident when Chris Louis entered the referee's box at King's Lynn at the precise moment that the destiny of the NL title was to be made a few years ago - he wasn't abusive, but he most certainly shouldn't have been there. If memory serves me correctly, he wasn't punished at all.

 

Someone has mentioned Mick Horton being fined, appealing and getting most of it cancelled. I can't remember why, but it would seem he has been down the same route.

 

Then there's the Rob Godfrey incident above.

 

Makes you wonder whether Hemsley has been dealt with fairly after all, doesn't it ?

The first point I would make is that fairness and consistency are not necessarily the same thing. Because on person gets an unduly lenient punishment for something it doesn't mean everyone else should get away with it.

 

I think we can discount Len Silvers behaviour in the past because times change, and no doubt Johnny Hoskins may (and probably did ) something similar to whip up the crowd but times move on. I can't remember any of the present crop of EL promoters doing anything similar, apart from the Keith Chapman incident I mentioned previously. To the best of my knowledge Chapman suffered no disciplinary penalty for his behaviour. I stand to be corrected if someone else knows differently but if my understanding is correct then I agree that it is unacceptable that someone in a management position should be allowed to behave that way without reprimand, but that doesn't make the Hemsley case wrong, it makes the Chapman case wrong.

 

The sport is riddled with inconsistencies but two wrongs don't make a right. It's ridiculously inconsistent that Craig Cook should be allowed to ride in the PL but Lewis Bridger on a much lower average isn't. That doesn't make the Craig Cook decision wrong it makes the Bridger decision wrong.

 

Now, as far as Hemsley is concerned, in any sport any attempt to intimidate the referee or umpire should be severely dealt with otherwise you are on the road to chaos. If Hemsly was guilty then it's right that he got a fine that will hurt, so he doesn't repeat the behaviour. The fact that someone else got away with it is an indictment of the sport but it doesn't excuse Hemsley.

 

If as you say self interest is at the root of Hemslys fine that is a serious claim and needs a bit of substance to support it. Personally I think Hemsleys fine is a bit steep but if guilty it still needs to be substantial. I am more surprised that people on here are so concerned about Hemsley and hardly give a peep when others seem to get away with similar behaviour. That is where the real wrong really lies.

Edited June 12, 2016 by E I Addio

[AlanF]

Does anyone know about the two "fraudulent comments" Mr Hemsley was judged to be guilty of making - what he said and when/where/how they were made?

1. Leicester is the best track in the country.

2. This Lions team is capable of making the playoffs.

 

Both comments made in front of witnesses so can't be denied.

Edited June 12, 2016 by AlanF

[Big Al]

1. Leicester is the best track in the country.

2. This Lions team is capable of making the playoffs.

Both comments made in front of witnesses so can it be denied.

Ha! If he was up before the beak for the likes of those, they'd struggle to finish the hearing within a week!