Banned from Bedford!!!!!!
04 December 2003, 02:54 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a land full of corsets
Posts: 9,755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Webmaster,
Why else would people be banned from going to this day, other than for expressing an opinion? I was there that day, I passed all the noise tests. I wasn't black flagged or talked to by the officials about my driving or anything.
I did however express an opinion on one of the threads at the time about the organisation on the day.
Some people who weren't evn there have been banned,becaused of what was said on the various threads.
Fair enough, if I'm banned, well, I'm banned. No great loss really (although it is a nice circuit), there are lots of other circuits to chose from both in the UK and Europe, I shall just continue to use them instead.
I'd like to point out that even the most obnoxious bouncers I've come across will tell you why you are being thrown out.
Seems I'm in good company though
Why else would people be banned from going to this day, other than for expressing an opinion? I was there that day, I passed all the noise tests. I wasn't black flagged or talked to by the officials about my driving or anything.
I did however express an opinion on one of the threads at the time about the organisation on the day.
Some people who weren't evn there have been banned,becaused of what was said on the various threads.
Fair enough, if I'm banned, well, I'm banned. No great loss really (although it is a nice circuit), there are lots of other circuits to chose from both in the UK and Europe, I shall just continue to use them instead.
I'd like to point out that even the most obnoxious bouncers I've come across will tell you why you are being thrown out.
Seems I'm in good company though
04 December 2003, 02:56 PM
#33
Tavia
I don't know the answer to this question. Which is why I have not commented and made a statement suggesting that I do.
Regards
Simon
Why else would people be banned from going to this day, other than for expressing an opinion?
Regards
Simon
04 December 2003, 03:15 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,675
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh leave it out Simon.
People have been banned for having or expressing an opinion.
We spoke to JP after Bedford and he told us emphatically he had no problem with Ian or myself and would help us get the XTR through their noise tests. He invited us down to have it done. And now we're banned.
So, as to balanced views, mine is, perfectly. JP is 2 faced. Unless you can offer any other explanation, I think that's fair to say.
Why was TaviaRS banned, or Davyboy? Seems they've just taken every name of the initial post and banned them. It's madness banning people for having an opinion. Unless you want a perfect little Utopia like I said.
If someone criticises you for how you run Scoobynet, would you ban them?
[Edited by CraigH - 12/4/2003 3:17:08 PM]
People have been banned for having or expressing an opinion.
We spoke to JP after Bedford and he told us emphatically he had no problem with Ian or myself and would help us get the XTR through their noise tests. He invited us down to have it done. And now we're banned.
So, as to balanced views, mine is, perfectly. JP is 2 faced. Unless you can offer any other explanation, I think that's fair to say.
Why was TaviaRS banned, or Davyboy? Seems they've just taken every name of the initial post and banned them. It's madness banning people for having an opinion. Unless you want a perfect little Utopia like I said.
If someone criticises you for how you run Scoobynet, would you ban them?
[Edited by CraigH - 12/4/2003 3:17:08 PM]
04 December 2003, 03:23 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1998
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just recieved an e-mail from Pete telling me that JP has named me as being banned from attending another track day there.
I was one of the very few who was banned on the day for breaking the noise regs.
Now my question is this, as I no longer have the Scooby and have a very quite BMW Z4 am I still banned or did this just apply due to the Scooby.
At no stage did I post and elongated rant about JP on this site or any other for that matter.
Also on the day apart from questioning the apparant noise of the car I did not bother to take it any further.
I applied for my money back as I only did three laps but never heard a thing although I believe JP said we would refund the poeple not allowed to continue.
Comments Please.
Grant
I was one of the very few who was banned on the day for breaking the noise regs.
Now my question is this, as I no longer have the Scooby and have a very quite BMW Z4 am I still banned or did this just apply due to the Scooby.
At no stage did I post and elongated rant about JP on this site or any other for that matter.
Also on the day apart from questioning the apparant noise of the car I did not bother to take it any further.
I applied for my money back as I only did three laps but never heard a thing although I believe JP said we would refund the poeple not allowed to continue.
Comments Please.
Grant
04 December 2003, 03:24 PM
#36
Craig
I really don't have the spare time to deal with this, but for some reason I think there is a chance you will grasp what I'm saying if I spell it out to you.
I'll give you some potential options straight off the top of my head, as to what MAY have happened.
1) JP made a mistake choosing you
2) JP asked someone else to get names of people who posted insults on scoobynet on that thread, and the person who was asked mis-understood
3) SIDC were asked to chose the names (like I say just POTENTIAL options - I have absolutely no reason to suspect any of them)
4) JP didn't like what colour shirt you were wearing and has a rule that people with that colour shirt will be banned from his circuit
5) You said something that you're not telling us which was REALLY insulting and you deserved a ban
6) Pete made a mistake and sent you the email in error.
It makes no difference which of the above it was, or even if it was countless potential others.
If you carry on stating that JP is two faced, and insulting him, you are a lot less likely to get a reply like "oopps! I would just like to apologise to CraigH as he is a top man, and we made a simple clerical error when selecting him. The person concerned has been fired." You are more likely to get "Well, it was a mistake that we banned you originally, but it shows that you deserved it anyway by the way you're conducting yourself!".
Do us all a favour and KEEP IT BALANCED. Then..
a) This thread will stay open
b) It won't be spoilt for everyone else
c) We might get to the bottom of why this all happened
Another post from you in the same tone will show you to be the person that decided that their opinons were more important than any potential for the rest of the people concerned to have a chance to straighten things out. You will be letting them all down.
Regards
Simon
I really don't have the spare time to deal with this, but for some reason I think there is a chance you will grasp what I'm saying if I spell it out to you.
So, as to balanced views, mine is, perfectly. JP is 2 faced. Unless you can offer any other explanation, I think that's fair to say.
1) JP made a mistake choosing you
2) JP asked someone else to get names of people who posted insults on scoobynet on that thread, and the person who was asked mis-understood
3) SIDC were asked to chose the names (like I say just POTENTIAL options - I have absolutely no reason to suspect any of them)
4) JP didn't like what colour shirt you were wearing and has a rule that people with that colour shirt will be banned from his circuit
5) You said something that you're not telling us which was REALLY insulting and you deserved a ban
6) Pete made a mistake and sent you the email in error.
It makes no difference which of the above it was, or even if it was countless potential others.
If you carry on stating that JP is two faced, and insulting him, you are a lot less likely to get a reply like "oopps! I would just like to apologise to CraigH as he is a top man, and we made a simple clerical error when selecting him. The person concerned has been fired." You are more likely to get "Well, it was a mistake that we banned you originally, but it shows that you deserved it anyway by the way you're conducting yourself!".
Do us all a favour and KEEP IT BALANCED. Then..
a) This thread will stay open
b) It won't be spoilt for everyone else
c) We might get to the bottom of why this all happened
Another post from you in the same tone will show you to be the person that decided that their opinons were more important than any potential for the rest of the people concerned to have a chance to straighten things out. You will be letting them all down.
Regards
Simon
04 December 2003, 03:50 PM
#48
Yes I read it absolutely perfectly.
It was sarcastic and did not benefit the thread. It is likely (from what I have seen personally) that your banning was a mistake. If it was not a mistake (again, in MY PERSONAL OPINION based on what I have seen) it is unwarranted.
Posting what you did, is exactly the oposite of what I asked earlier in the thread.
Regards
Simon
It was sarcastic and did not benefit the thread. It is likely (from what I have seen personally) that your banning was a mistake. If it was not a mistake (again, in MY PERSONAL OPINION based on what I have seen) it is unwarranted.
Posting what you did, is exactly the oposite of what I asked earlier in the thread.
Regards
Simon
04 December 2003, 04:04 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: where the wild roses grow
Posts: 5,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think I contributed to the original thread too. Anyone know where the list of shame is?
BTW, Craig, anyone who mentions the words "Utopia" and "Bedford" in the same sentence should be banned from going there on principle.
BTW, Craig, anyone who mentions the words "Utopia" and "Bedford" in the same sentence should be banned from going there on principle.
04 December 2003, 04:05 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 3,491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Craig, fashion police wouldn't hurt anyway 
But...
Wouldn't it be a next logical step to hear from the "horses mouth", aka Pete, on what basis the list of emailed people was construed ? Meaning, was it a list given to him, or a list that he had to put together ?
The answer to that question would already clear up a few things, no ?
But...
Wouldn't it be a next logical step to hear from the "horses mouth", aka Pete, on what basis the list of emailed people was construed ? Meaning, was it a list given to him, or a list that he had to put together ?
The answer to that question would already clear up a few things, no ?
04 December 2003, 04:11 PM
#53
why are you jumping over everyone Simon? This is a discusion about people being banned from bedford, let them speak. That includes any "moderator" you are trying to whip.
Add me to the list of banned people.
I had my letter published in CCC magazine when i corrected a poor article that was written about the day, it's a shame the SIDC chairman or Scoobynet owner didnt bother to do this themselves as they were both mentioned and information about them was incorectly printed.
To Quote Pete Croney after my letter was sent to CCC.
And now SIDC have talked with JP and agreed to run there again, but under the condition that people who voiced an opinion get refused access. Quite frankly that is a disgrace to accept those terms, especially after allowing the members of the SIDC do the work they should have done for themselves.
DR Palmer had his response in CCC which did not apologise for his actions, which ruined the day for all concerned.
The very last issue of CCC has a response from a person in New Zealand who backs up what i said about the significance of a 2.5db drop on the day and his final words are "State it and stick to it"
The relevent threads are
http://www.scoobynet.co.uk/bbs/threa...=178498&Page=1
http://www.scoobynet.co.uk/bbs/threa...hreadID=155166
http://www.scoobynet.co.uk/bbs/threa...hreadID=158060
Edited to make clicky
[Edited by johnfelstead - 12/4/2003 4:24:05 PM]
Add me to the list of banned people.
I had my letter published in CCC magazine when i corrected a poor article that was written about the day, it's a shame the SIDC chairman or Scoobynet owner didnt bother to do this themselves as they were both mentioned and information about them was incorectly printed.
To Quote Pete Croney after my letter was sent to CCC.
"Well done John
I was trying to take a very diplomatic line over the event but it was clear that when JP rang me it was to tell me that we were banned, not to discuss a way forward.
The more people who know about our treatment on the day the better."
I was trying to take a very diplomatic line over the event but it was clear that when JP rang me it was to tell me that we were banned, not to discuss a way forward.
The more people who know about our treatment on the day the better."
DR Palmer had his response in CCC which did not apologise for his actions, which ruined the day for all concerned.
The very last issue of CCC has a response from a person in New Zealand who backs up what i said about the significance of a 2.5db drop on the day and his final words are "State it and stick to it"
The relevent threads are
http://www.scoobynet.co.uk/bbs/threa...=178498&Page=1
http://www.scoobynet.co.uk/bbs/threa...hreadID=155166
http://www.scoobynet.co.uk/bbs/threa...hreadID=158060
Edited to make clicky
[Edited by johnfelstead - 12/4/2003 4:24:05 PM]
04 December 2003, 04:12 PM
#54
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: A land of lap-dancers and Lanson Black Label
Posts: 9,400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
04 December 2003, 04:13 PM
#55
Theo
I completely agree.
Of course, we do not have the right to demand this, but it certainly would be useful if time allows.
I've just spoken to Pete Croney. SIDC have not given Palmer Sport any information. Palmer Sport provided the list to SIDC.
Make of that what you will. But request in my previous posts still stand.
Regards
Simon
I completely agree.
Of course, we do not have the right to demand this, but it certainly would be useful if time allows.
I've just spoken to Pete Croney. SIDC have not given Palmer Sport any information. Palmer Sport provided the list to SIDC.
Make of that what you will. But request in my previous posts still stand.
Regards
Simon
04 December 2003, 04:18 PM
#56
John
Won't get in to a drawn out debate over this with you.
Keep it respectful and balanced and all is ok.
Risk the chances of this being a useful thread that could benefit people who were wrongly banned and all is not ok.
All the best
Simon
Won't get in to a drawn out debate over this with you.
Keep it respectful and balanced and all is ok.
Risk the chances of this being a useful thread that could benefit people who were wrongly banned and all is not ok.
All the best
Simon
04 December 2003, 04:23 PM
#58
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,675
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why's everyone having a go at me about my (lack of) fashion sense all of a sudden 
Theo, you can hardly comment
I've emailed Dr Palmer to hear what he has to say and hopefully the logic behind it. Not my fashion sense,
[Edited by CraigH - 12/4/2003 4:35:26 PM]
Theo, you can hardly comment
I've emailed Dr Palmer to hear what he has to say and hopefully the logic behind it. Not my fashion sense,
[Edited by CraigH - 12/4/2003 4:35:26 PM]
04 December 2003, 04:28 PM
#59
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 3,491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys, all feuds aside for a sec...
I do think Simon tries to tell us he wants this sorted out, meaning, he does not object to this thread at all, alledgedly etc...
The previous thread contains all the viewpoints about that day, no need to argue that again. I'm not even going to check my statements on that thread, but I do know a thing or 2 about dessies in a bell
But it seems that it's no longer about that day itself, it's about "a bit more", even "a lot more".
Personally, I'm miffed about the emails (I didn't get one) and I do feel they are "strange" to say the least. Questions have to be raised about the list, as well as to the fact (IMHO) that the people on that list have been "told off".
I think if we play this right, it might have some positive results.
I do think Simon tries to tell us he wants this sorted out, meaning, he does not object to this thread at all, alledgedly etc...
The previous thread contains all the viewpoints about that day, no need to argue that again. I'm not even going to check my statements on that thread, but I do know a thing or 2 about dessies in a bell
But it seems that it's no longer about that day itself, it's about "a bit more", even "a lot more".
Personally, I'm miffed about the emails (I didn't get one) and I do feel they are "strange" to say the least. Questions have to be raised about the list, as well as to the fact (IMHO) that the people on that list have been "told off".
I think if we play this right, it might have some positive results.