Guest Posted April 30, 2016 (edited) On the ratio total of complaints about noise, it is indicated that 16% were invalid. That leaves a massive 84% whose complaints seemingly were valid? If so, just because the council have made their latest decision in favour of Kent Kings, what are those whose complaints were it would seem acceptable going to do now? As I see it this is something which Kent Kings need to consider carefully. The 84% will remember this latest action when the next council elections take place - and accordingly Kent Kings to ponder just how many of those who attend the track are LOCAL people compared to those who travel from outside the area for meetings. Kent Kings now urgently need to put in place acampaign to persuade the dissenting 84% to change their attitude towards speedway noise. Otherwise, this dispute about noise could easily resurface and that's is something nobody wants to happen. I assume that for example a complainant knows that speedway is run every Monday starting at 6.30 so every Tuesday they have been complaining about noise to the council, even when there hasn't been a meeting for whatever reason before. So that casts doubt on the credibility of their other, valid, complaints because they've been complaining about noise when there hasn't been any. Sounds an awful lot like something someone would do to complain for the sake of complaining to me. You seem to be missing the point? It was proven that 16% were complaining when there was no speedway. That it would appear was what turned the council decision in favour of Kent Kings. But 16% is only a fraction of 100% - so were 84% which is a majority correctly making their noise objections and it would seem were over-ruled? They may - we must hope not - reopen their noise campaign once again. Has it been proven that the 84% were also wrongly complaining? Why should there be 'doubt on their credibility' as well? If that was the case it should have been made clear that the council decision was based on a figure of 100% and not the 16% currently being publicised as the deciding factor in their decision to favour Kent Kings. Edited April 30, 2016 by Guest Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
iris123 20,979 Posted April 30, 2016 The things is i'd guess those people,the 16% were also complaining on days when speedway was run......so part of the 84% also.Which puts all their compaints even on days when speedway were run in question.Which imo greatly reduces this 84% as it has been shown that they will just complain without reason.Or do we think that these people have only complained on days when speedway wasn't run?Strange conclusion 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blueherb777 571 Posted April 30, 2016 The things is i'd guess those people,the 16% were also complaining on days when speedway was run......so part of the 84% also.Which puts all their compaints even on days when speedway were run in question.Which imo greatly reduces this 84% as it has been shown that they will just complain without reason.Or do we think that these people have only complained on days when speedway wasn't run?Strange conclusion Spot on. These people have obviously complained more than once so the Council have seen through their lies. Why is it these people are not happy unless they are moaning to try and stop others having fun ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted April 30, 2016 (edited) I wonder what validity there is to the complainants case in that they have to live in the vicinity of the "speedway noise." I wonder how many of those who attend speedway at Kent Kings live within a one-mile radius of the stadium? I do not in anyway want to see Kent Kings speedway vanish - far from it. But I have a feeling despite the recent council verdict that we have not see the end of this matter. I will just say - "...remember Hastings and Romford..." Two very sad episodes in speedway history. The Hastings closure is mentioned here...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastings_Saxons ...as is the Romford closure here...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romford_Bombers Edited April 30, 2016 by Guest Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ben91 1,743 Posted May 1, 2016 You seem to be missing the point? It was proven that 16% were complaining when there was no speedway. That it would appear was what turned the council decision in favour of Kent Kings. But 16% is only a fraction of 100% - so were 84% which is a majority correctly making their noise objections and it would seem were over-ruled? They may - we must hope not - reopen their noise campaign once again. Has it been proven that the 84% were also wrongly complaining? Why should there be 'doubt on their credibility' as well? If that was the case it should have been made clear that the council decision was based on a figure of 100% and not the 16% currently being publicised as the deciding factor in their decision to favour Kent Kings. Say somebody complains ten times, on two occasions they complained there had been no speedway, that means 20% of their complaints were lies. Therefore that would cast doubts over the honesty of their complaints on the other eight occasions. So while 80% of the time there was speedway happening it doesn't mean they actually heard it, just that their complaints coincided with a meeting going on. It's really not that difficult to understand? 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
iris123 20,979 Posted May 1, 2016 Say somebody complains ten times, on two occasions they complained there had been no speedway, that means 20% of their complaints were lies. Therefore that would cast doubts over the honesty of their complaints on the other eight occasions. So while 80% of the time there was speedway happening it doesn't mean they actually heard it, just that their complaints coincided with a meeting going on. It's really not that difficult to understand? For 99% of the population,no,but we are dealing with 'gustix' here who has a long history of not being able to understand the simplest of matters 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teaboy279 1,038 Posted May 3, 2016 In 2015 all the complaints came from 5 households! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nikko 181 Posted May 4, 2016 Great news that permanent planning was given and it certainty seems that the council took into account sone bogus complaints that would not have helped. I can't say if all the complaints only came from 5 households in 2015 as unless you are a privy to private council papers you won't be but it would surprise me if only 5. The main thrust of the most vocal complaints in the lead up to the first season and in the first season itself was organised by a local who had a personal issue with Mr Cearns. It had nothing specifically to do with speedway but was an easy way for said individual to "get back" at Roger. Some others jumped on the bandwagon. Roger did everything the council asked and there were many thorough inspections.Iknow because I was there. Roger deserves massive credit for the years it took to get speedway to Central Park and for everything achieved so far. Riders and even co-promoters may come and go at CP over the coming years but without Roger there is no speedway at CP. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teaboy279 1,038 Posted May 4, 2016 It is on the Kent website that only 5 households complained in 2015. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rebel1 72 Posted May 5, 2016 Great news that permanent planning was given and it certainty seems that the council took into account sone bogus complaints that would not have helped. I can't say if all the complaints only came from 5 households in 2015 as unless you are a privy to private council papers you won't be but it would surprise me if only 5. The main thrust of the most vocal complaints in the lead up to the first season and in the first season itself was organised by a local who had a personal issue with Mr Cearns. It had nothing specifically to do with speedway but was an easy way for said individual to "get back" at Roger. Some others jumped on the bandwagon. Roger did everything the council asked and there were many thorough inspections.Iknow because I was there. Roger deserves massive credit for the years it took to get speedway to Central Park and for everything achieved so far. Riders and even co-promoters may come and go at CP over the coming years but without Roger there is no speedway at CP. Well said Nikko. Monday, Bank holiday, a motorcycle could clearly be heard from within the stadium from the adjacent estate during the meeting. Noise is an evocative subject and therefore I would suggest that people refer to the noise level monitoring undertaken by the stadium for the purpose of the submission for permanent running of speedway at CP. Fact not fiction goes a long way and is irrefutable given it is undertaken by a professional undertaking. The locals will have an uphill struggle to overturn the submission on the grounds of noise unless something substantial alters. Long live speedway at CP. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedwayPortal 234 Posted May 30, 2016 Anyone wishing to purchase the DVD of the Warriors vs Kent Kings meeting can do so by clicking the following link taking them to the Warriors online DVD shop. £7 plus £2 P&P. http://www.speedwayp...-dvd-shop/ij7yc Many thanks Andy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Reviresco 708 Posted August 15, 2016 Congratulations to Jame Shanes on winning the British Masters Grasstrack Solo Championship for the second successive year at Hangar Farm at the weekend. Eddie Kennett finished Runner-Up with Paul Hurry Third. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
