Peterborough Panthers 2021

[wealdstone 3,454]

16 minutes ago, KingoftheTrack said:

Age is just a number. The top 5 have years of experience and track knowledge to get around any circuit well. 

Fans will laugh at the side but in a watered down SGB Premiership this team could easily roll back the years riding against bang average riders who will never reach the heights some of the Panthers have in their career.

I know that  we are arguably  in an unavoidable position, but  the Standard of Speedway this year is  likely to be the lowest in living memory. I am hopeful that those that allowed the promoter to hang on to last seasons season ticket money will not be disappointed by what is decided on that issue. I also hope that decency will prevail over the BB parking issue (a situation entirely of managements making)  especially as the management troll is now in a less exalted situation

[Mimmo 1,070]

I personally think this is quite a nice looking team, despite the ages of some.

If decency does prevail over the BB parking, then my wife and I will be in attendance whenever her health allows, but if decency doesn't prevail, then with great sorrow, we'll never visit the venue again.   It's a sad situation for her, but one we can do nothing about, so her only speedway in 2021 will be Mildenhall. 

[Ghosty 500]

20 hours ago, Mimmo said:

I personally think this is quite a nice looking team, despite the ages of some.

If decency does prevail over the BB parking, then my wife and I will be in attendance whenever her health allows, but if decency doesn't prevail, then with great sorrow, we'll never visit the venue again.   It's a sad situation for her, but one we can do nothing about, so her only speedway in 2021 will be Mildenhall. 

It's a joke if the parking hasn't been sorted @ the Showground by now. This reflects very badly on all involved surprised that a discriminations group have not come on board.  This must be a relatively easy task to sort out & create some positive news for a change.

[Daniel Smith 5,646]

1 hour ago, Ghosty said:

It's a joke if the parking hasn't been sorted @ the Showground by now. This reflects very badly on all involved surprised that a discriminations group have not come on board.  This must be a relatively easy task to sort out & create some positive news for a change.

To be fair, I don't see the discrimination. Also, the East of England Showground website no longer itself advertise disabled parking within the venue. 

"There are numerous designated disabled parking bays at key locations points within the parking areas." 

 

[foamfence 2,917]

Nicholls and Harris are the Morton and Pymar of the modern era.

[wealdstone 3,454]

35 minutes ago, Daniel Smith said:

To be fair, I don't see the discrimination. Also, the East of England Showground website no longer itself advertise disabled parking within the venue. 

"There are numerous designated disabled parking bays at key locations points within the parking areas." 

 

Lets be very clear about this. This has nothing to do with EOES but all to do with Peterborough Speedway and probably to do with one man in particular. As most events are staged at the Arena arguably the EOES designated BB parking areas may suffice, they definitely are not sufficient or fair for events within the Stadium where the distance required to walk for BB holders even  the old arrangements are more than those required to qualify for a BB. Whilst disgracefully the management tried originally tried to blame the Showground management  , which ploy was firmly rejected by the Showground, and then even more disgracefully they tried to link it to the tragic death of Colin North. |They have never told us the true reasons but I suspect it may be no more than for management convenience

[mikebv 10,242]

5% of all car parking spaces should be set aside for disabled customers, however their location (distance from building etc), isnt ever specified.. 

However.. 

The owner of the car park has a duty of  care to respond to any complaints about the locations and their suitability, and have to then assess whether 'reasonable adjustments' can be made to accommodate what is being requested..

I presume in the Showgrounds case, the bays that have been 'removed' are no longer 'official bays'? If so, could they be asked to reinstate? 

Of course, if they were never 'official bays' but just an area set aside which was convenient to be used as such, then there wont be any obligation to put them in officially.. 

And unfortunately (if that is the right phrase), even if they were 'official', any possible wider Health and Safety contravention eg fire risk close to a building, fire exit blocking etc, etc) by reintroducing disabled bays, would take precedent and render any request pretty much worthless..

[wealdstone 3,454]

21 minutes ago, mikebv said:

5% of all car parking spaces should be set aside for disabled customers, however their location (distance from building etc), isnt ever specified.. 

However.. 

The owner of the car park has a duty of  care to respond to any complaints about the locations and their suitability, and have to then assess whether 'reasonable adjustments' can be made to accommodate what is being requested..

I presume in the Showgrounds case, the bays that have been 'removed' are no longer 'official bays'? If so, could they be asked to reinstate? 

Of course, if they were never 'official bays' but just an area set aside which was convenient to be used as such, then there wont be any obligation to put them in officially.. 

And unfortunately (if that is the right phrase), even if they were 'official', any possible wider Health and Safety contravention eg fire risk close to a building, fire exit blocking etc, etc) by reintroducing disabled bays, would take precedent and render any request pretty much worthless..

I think you are not aware at all of the situation  re BB Parking at EOES.

[Crump99 4,474]

On 3/19/2021 at 2:51 PM, Daniel Smith said:

To be fair, I don't see the discrimination. Also, the East of England Showground website no longer itself advertise disabled parking within the venue. 

"There are numerous designated disabled parking bays at key locations points within the parking areas." 

 

Taking the EoES out of it because it was a club decision to remove a working system that had been in place for the best part of 20 seasons for their disabled customers, here's the potential discrimination for you to see: -  indirect discrimination - putting rules or arrangements in place that apply to everyone, but that put someone with a protected characteristic (ie disability) at an unfair disadvantage.

It has to be said that they are probably legally entitled to do what they've done with good justification (not that I'm sure that it'd be a legal matter anyway?). I doubt that their current explanation would win the day if it ever came to that, which it will not. I remember Jim Lynch threatening to take the EoES to court when Mercer arrived at the EoES as CEO and threw the disabled out. That probably put the rent up a few hundred quid.

If the club are happy to take the hit of losing paying customers and resulting poor public relations at this time in particular then more fool them perhaps!

[Daniel Smith 5,646]

1 hour ago, Crump99 said:

Taking the EoES out of it because it was a club decision to remove a working system that had been in place for the best part of 20 seasons for their disabled customers, here's the potential discrimination for you to see: -  indirect discrimination - putting rules or arrangements in place that apply to everyone, but that put someone with a protected characteristic (ie disability) at an unfair disadvantage.

It has to be said that they are probably legally entitled to do what they've done with good justification (not that I'm sure that it'd be a legal matter anyway?). I doubt that their current explanation would win the day if it ever came to that, which it will not. I remember Jim Lynch threatening to take the EoES to court when Mercer arrived at the EoES as CEO and threw the disabled out. That probably put the rent up a few hundred quid.

If the club are happy to take the hit of losing paying customers and resulting poor public relations at this time in particular then more fool them perhaps!

That's the thing. Many know I can't stand the way Buster does thing's, he's the reason I no longer go to Speedway, but, I genuinely believe Buster wouldn't have done this without the pressure being put on by the EoES owners. I know someone had a response from the owners saying it wasn't them, but do you really believe that?? 

Buster has made absolutely massive strides at King's Lynn to include ALL disabilities. Viewing areas, access around the whole stadium, improved parking etc etc. 

I'm not having it that he's gone to Peterborough and though "let's make thing's difficult for the disabled."

Buster is very very pro-inclusion, absolutely no way he would have made this choice without EoES input. Yes, he's a stubborn man but absolutely no way would he be happy himself with this situation. 

At the end of the day, he rents, the landlords own rules is that disabled parking is around the perimeter. Just because something has been done for 20yrs doesn't automatically give it a right to remain.

Having been to the EoES on TruckFests, antique fares, the disabled find ways of getting around. 

My question will always be 'If you don't have options to be able to get from the car park to the main stand at Peterborough, obviously you live a reclusive life which you don't have to do. 

Just for the record, I'm also disabled 

[wealdstone 3,454]

5 hours ago, Daniel Smith said:

That's the thing. Many know I can't stand the way Buster does thing's, he's the reason I no longer go to Speedway, but, I genuinely believe Buster wouldn't have done this without the pressure being put on by the EoES owners. I know someone had a response from the owners saying it wasn't them, but do you really believe that?? 

Buster has made absolutely massive strides at King's Lynn to include ALL disabilities. Viewing areas, access around the whole stadium, improved parking etc etc. 

I'm not having it that he's gone to Peterborough and though "let's make thing's difficult for the disabled."

Buster is very very pro-inclusion, absolutely no way he would have made this choice without EoES input. Yes, he's a stubborn man but absolutely no way would he be happy himself with this situation. 

At the end of the day, he rents, the landlords own rules is that disabled parking is around the perimeter. Just because something has been done for 20yrs doesn't automatically give it a right to remain.

Having been to the EoES on TruckFests, antique fares, the disabled find ways of getting around. 

My question will always be 'If you don't have options to be able to get from the car park to the main stand at Peterborough, obviously you live a reclusive life which you don't have to do. 

Just for the record, I'm also disabled 

I am that person that had the E Mail which was unequivocal that this was not down to the EOES( I still have the E Mail).  At the time Peterborough was run by a triumvirate of Buster, Colin Pratt and Carl Johnson. I do not necessarily think the instigator was Buster.  As a matter of interest last time  I went to KL there were no designated Disabled Spaces  but the did try to direct BB holders to a small area near the ticket office. However the entire KL car park is nearer to the Arena than  even the existing arrangements at EOES.

[Crump99 4,474]

11 hours ago, Daniel Smith said:

That's the thing. Many know I can't stand the way Buster does thing's, he's the reason I no longer go to Speedway, but, I genuinely believe Buster wouldn't have done this without the pressure being put on by the EoES owners. I know someone had a response from the owners saying it wasn't them, but do you really believe that?? 

Buster has made absolutely massive strides at King's Lynn to include ALL disabilities. Viewing areas, access around the whole stadium, improved parking etc etc. 

I'm not having it that he's gone to Peterborough and though "let's make thing's difficult for the disabled."

Buster is very very pro-inclusion, absolutely no way he would have made this choice without EoES input. Yes, he's a stubborn man but absolutely no way would he be happy himself with this situation. 

At the end of the day, he rents, the landlords own rules is that disabled parking is around the perimeter. Just because something has been done for 20yrs doesn't automatically give it a right to remain.

Having been to the EoES on TruckFests, antique fares, the disabled find ways of getting around. 

My question will always be 'If you don't have options to be able to get from the car park to the main stand at Peterborough, obviously you live a reclusive life which you don't have to do. 

Just for the record, I'm also disabled 

The club have made no secret in the past of where the trouble lies regarding parking so I’m not buying silence and taking the rap this time. Of course nobody wants to make things difficult but ill-conceived and rushed decisions often have that effect. As far as we know, the landlord delegates parking to individual events and if the said event has the organisation and capacity for internal parking then they could use it? Don’t really get the last bit. Disabled concessions are about making things easier not more difficult. Whether anyone can possibly go that extra mile occasionally shouldn’t come into it.

A very admirable defence of Buster. Not seen too many of those but good to see.

[stevehone 3,425]

i do know that when buster rebuilt the stands at Kings Lynn he even had disabled people in to get extra advice

[wealdstone 3,454]

I suspect that the problem here is that management take the view that they are management and  their decisions should not be questioned and that they will lose face if they back down. Something that can't be tolerated

[Crump99 4,474]

8 minutes ago, wealdstone said:

I suspect that the problem here is that management take the view that they are management and  their decisions should not be questioned and that they will lose face if they back down. Something that can't be tolerated

Always a first.