Sir Sidney

It's a bit more nuanced than that. It wasn't Kent that ran the NORA meeting, but Iwade ( who continued to run NORA meetings including one in which an SCB board member took part!) If the SCB were evenhanded they would also have threatened Kings Lynn ( who allow Dirst Track Events to run NORA Events on the track) and Scunthorpe ( who allow flat track Events not under SCB licence on the track). Using the case law they are relying on then SCB would be as liable to have a duty of care for those Events. But it is clear that the SCB was selective in the action they took.

I think this is the source https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryMagazine/DestinationsUK/Oxford-City-of-Dreaming-Spires/#:~:text=Oxford is the county town,architecture of these university buildings.

This is the case Wattleworth v Goodwood Road Racing Company Ltd & Ors | [2004] EWHC 140 (QB) | England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) | Judgment | Law | CaseMine Look at the duty of care issues. In simple terms, The MSA was held to have a duty of care to Mr Wattleworth, even though the event at which he lost his life was not an MSA event. Indeed MSA were found to have a duty of care for any motor activity on the circuit. Therefore, using that logic, the SCB concludes it has a duty of care for any NORA events on an SCB licenced track and could be exposed to a legal liability - however, they chose only to take issue with Iwade staging a NORA league meeting, not any other NORA events (including one shortly after where an SCB board member took part). If you accept the SCB interpretation of the case then any motorcycling event on an SCB licenced track creates a potential liability for them - and so whether that is motorcross, Dirt Track Events meetings, Flat Track meetings, track days, practice sessions, private hire etc not held under SCB then it should have applied the same sanctions to the promoters of those tracks as it applied to Kent. As it happens, I believe the SCB interpretation is incorrect, but if I was an affected party then I would get a legal opinion. As a postscript then it is worth noting a quote from Si Kellow in Speedway Star where he is quoted as saying ' Secondly, after being used as a tool to get at a club which isn't part of the SCB and BSPL anymore, I can't condone being part of a group which uses those practices'. (page 7 Speedway Star December 2 )

Correct Wattleworth v Goodwood Road Racing Company Ltd & Ors | [2004] EWHC 140 (QB) | England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) | Judgment | Law | CaseMine

Wattleworth v Goodwood Road Racing Company Ltd & Ors | [2004] EWHC 140 (QB) | England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) | Judgment | Law | CaseMine

Actually, that's not correct. It's got nothing to do with whether riders are being paid or not. The SCB are using motor racing case law (Goodwood case) to say that no other motor bike activity should take place on an SCB licenced track outside of SCB events. Therefore, in it's view, no NORA licenced events (or any other non SCB event), training or otherwise, should be taking place on SCB licenced tracks. However, SCB only chose to enforce that to stop the NORA league meeting taking place at Iwade.

We will have to agree to disagree. I did have a chat to Lee Complin at the time, who explained to me what he felt Michael was doing wrong. Lee was very direct! The referee had no issues with his riding. If your only experience of him is that one meeting, and given that he didn't really engage with anyone during the meeting, it's difficult to see how you concluded he was unpleasant. If you have other experience of him then all well and good.

You are being too harsh on Michael West. Very focused and with potential. The issue in his one meeting on IOW was not caused by him. I was there when it happened. Brayden McGuinness also worth a shot. Neither would necessarily be a big name in the Championship next season

Thanks for the clarification. I trust the resubmitted application will provide time for comments again.

I'm not clear on the basis on which the Planning Committee decision has not been enacted. My understanding is that AEPG are being allowed to modify its application and take it back to Planning Committee, rather than having to submit an appeal about the decision to refuse.

I'm a bit disappointed that the Council has allowed the DHL operation to continue whilst they discuss with AEPG / DHL variations to the planning application ( changing the entrance for transporters). My understanding is that a revised retrospective application is going back to the Planning Committee in January, and that the public will have a chance to have another say before then. We will have to keep a regular check on the planning site, but I'm sure there will be as many resident objections as before, although maybe from a different set of residents.

Of course, if the Council refuses planning permission because the application doesn't meet the Local Plan requirements or National Planning framework, then AEPG has a much bigger problem than whether Chapman is on their side or not.

On that I agree with you sadly

Not at all. I've told you what I think and why.

I'm beginning to think, like others, that you are just on a wind up

Sorry to be a pedant, but he is developing a stadium, he hasn't developed it as yet.

So let me ask you again. Do you believe that no British company should hold its AGM abroad, or just BSPL?

So you have skillfully avoided the point. If I said your stance or belief rather than your argument would that make a difference?

Where I am at a loss with your argument is understanding whether you are saying no British company should hold its AGM abroad, or just that the BSPL shouldn't because you think they are unprofessional and just off on a booze up. Personally I have no issue with them holding it abroad, because if just one decision is made that benefits from them all being there and focused on matters in hand, then it will have been worthwhile. However, given the general lack of trust in them from supporters, it doesn't show much reading of the room to know they might get some flack.

Completed to what standard? It's all semantics really. It will be completed to the minimum possible standard so that the remaining housing can be built. I predict it will then be swiftly close, with the cost incurred on the build far less than that gained by the land sold for development.

If they used the £1k to reduce admission prices that would be about 2p per meeting per person based on 1,000 attendance.

Yes, the stadium build in progress but not yet in use. The dogs don't need the stadium building I thought I had seen elsewhere that the building was only a shell with none of the internal works competed. I'd have every expectation that it will never be completed and will be closed down as soon as possible once housing is complete. We'll have to wait and see I guess

Is it complete and in use? I thought it was no more than a shell

Not sure there is much devious about it. Gaming International don't want speedway there and Terry Russell says it's not viable.

I suspect this year, with so few teams left, they wouldn't dare risk fining teams who didn't turn up. Of course, we don't have any actual evidence on BSF of clubs saying they don't want to go to Tenerife.