TT 2024

[Max Power]

13 hours ago, Gizo said:

You said oil wasn’t involved. Oil was involved, all your heroes including m Guinness said oil was involved, the Marshall acknowledged oil was there. And here you are saying it wasn’t, so (a) your heroes are liars or (b) failed Marshall is a liar. 
But when deaths in the TT are brushed under the carpet I see why you lot will never find or want to find the truth, in case the whole stack of cards come crashing down. 

You’re so wrong on so many points there that it’s hardly worth trying to convince you, you’re completely sold on anything which supports your agenda and not interested in the bigger picture.

[WTF]

9 hours ago, Kopek said:

 

I can't see why Police had to be withdrawn other than to remove them from culpability???

 

because every scrote and their camel knew when the races were on that 80% of the on duty officers were on point duty instead doing proper police work and response time to any offence would be slower than usual.

[A fool and his money.....]

On 7/13/2024 at 8:47 AM, Gizo said:

How so? You have basically said everything in that inquiry is a sham, Jefferies family would probably like to know the truth, but it appears a failed Marshall knows it all but isn’t prepared to say so. Furthermore you have sullied all your heroes reputations by saying they are liars.  I’m not the one being an idiot. Jeez. 

You are being an idiot, fairly typically from what I've seen. 

The oil thing is not the only rumour that was circulating at the time. I lost count of how many people told me the crash was due to a car on the course in the immediate aftermath. This surprisingly turned out to be complete bollocks too.

One thing the TT has always seemed to do, is be controversial. I guess something which closes the roads to the extent that it does will always have its haters, but the amount of complete bollocks that's written about the event is insane. Whether it be Flintie's assertion that it was run in a very amateur way for the best part of 100 years until he turned up and showed them how to do it, or the completely baseless bollocks that ( someone remarkably similar to you) keeps spouting about the taxpayer paying for Dan Kneen's Suzuki or Nathan Harrison's Honda ride.

Whatever it may be, the TT certainly attracts its fair share of delusional lunatics, although fewer than they may have you believe.

[A fool and his money.....]

16 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

I haven't called anyone amateurs either. But police officers were not trained marshals and had no place there if the event was to 'professionalise'- which it has.

The Grandstand and paddock was another area that would have been a reputational catastrophe in the event of an adverse incident. The review helped that and made it a safer place. One of those jobs that needed doing and which are difficult to confront at times. 

TT continues to evolve. It did before any of the people involved arrived, and it will continue to do after they've gone. Quite why you've tried to personalise that I'm not clear on?

That's all fair enough. Although I'm not sure it's me that personalised it. You've constantly talked about amateur and primitive practice in the "early days", which appears to mean, when you turned up. You then go on to talk about professionalising the event. 

Times change, of course they do, Comms technology, bike speeds, the benefit of hindsight from incidents. The TT has always changed and developed with them. If you went back to 1949, no doubt you'd find them very "amateurish" , and yet the TT was chosen as the first ever world championship round. You'd think they would have held it in Lancashire, where the professionals live.

The TT has always been professionally and well run, within the constraints of the time and without the benefit of hindsight. It has always developed and will continue to do so.

A few management buzz words and a bit more ass covering don't change that, nor do they proffesionalise it any more than it was. The idea that anyone with a couple of CPD'S in "risk management" who's just stepped off the boat can proffesionalise an event that's been well run for the best part of a century is nonsense.

[joebean]

3 hours ago, A fool and his money..... said:

That's all fair enough. Although I'm not sure it's me that personalised it. You've constantly talked about amateur and primitive practice in the "early days", which appears to mean, when you turned up. You then go on to talk about professionalising the event. 

Times change, of course they do, Comms technology, bike speeds, the benefit of hindsight from incidents. The TT has always changed and developed with them. If you went back to 1949, no doubt you'd find them very "amateurish" , and yet the TT was chosen as the first ever world championship round. You'd think they would have held it in Lancashire, where the professionals live.

The TT has always been professionally and well run, within the constraints of the time and without the benefit of hindsight. It has always developed and will continue to do so.

A few management buzz words and a bit more ass covering don't change that, nor do they proffesionalise it any more than it was. The idea that anyone with a couple of CPD'S in "risk management" who's just stepped off the boat can proffesionalise an event that's been well run for the best part of a century is nonsense.

Every event runs in its time and according to the standards of that time. What was deemed acceptable in 1949 will be dramatically different now. The TT has not always been run well and there were undoubtedly, periods when it could and should have been run a lot better, requiring concerted action at other times to, at least, catch up. I’ve heard so many times enthusiasts say things like “ if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” but that is usually said from a position of ignorance about the standards that are expected; the money available to run the event and the details of incidents that happen on the course. It will continue to change and adapt, or die. 

[Derek Flint]

5 hours ago, A fool and his money..... said:

That's all fair enough. Although I'm not sure it's me that personalised it. You've constantly talked about amateur and primitive practice in the "early days", which appears to mean, when you turned up. You then go on to talk about professionalising the event. 

Times change, of course they do, Comms technology, bike speeds, the benefit of hindsight from incidents. The TT has always changed and developed with them. If you went back to 1949, no doubt you'd find them very "amateurish" , and yet the TT was chosen as the first ever world championship round. You'd think they would have held it in Lancashire, where the professionals live.

The TT has always been professionally and well run, within the constraints of the time and without the benefit of hindsight. It has always developed and will continue to do so.

A few management buzz words and a bit more ass covering don't change that, nor do they proffesionalise it any more than it was. The idea that anyone with a couple of CPD'S in "risk management" who's just stepped off the boat can proffesionalise an event that's been well run for the best part of a century is nonsense.

As you'll no doubt be aware, the event dropped out of the world arrangements in 1976. The same year Lauda's crash closed the Nurburgring to F1. There was a reason for that, and to its credit, TT kept pressing on. 

However, it wasnt until 2007 things really started to really catalyse. Better scoping of restricted and prohibited areas, introduction of Recticel over hay bales, marshaling changes, are just a few of them. And most of those improvements weren't by anyone, 'just off the boat'.

Anyone who understands risk management knows that one of the biggest issues is just continuing to do the same thing and being surprised when the outcome remains the same. Thank goodness aviation decided to change its mindset or we'd still be flying airliners full of holidaymakers into the side of hills

[Banker]

21 hours ago, Gizo said:

You said oil wasn’t involved. Oil was involved, all your heroes including m Guinness said oil was involved, the Marshall acknowledged oil was there. And here you are saying it wasn’t, so (a) your heroes are liars or (b) failed Marshall is a liar. 
But when deaths in the TT are brushed under the carpet I see why you lot will never find or want to find the truth, in case the whole stack of cards come crashing down. 

You’re like Courtney heading with all your conspiracy theories!!

[Roger Mexico]

Meanwhile it still seems the Counsell v ACU show is still on the road:

Presumably the previous listing was vacated because they were still waiting for Needham to issue his ruling on the attempt to strike it out etc.  The case had been heard on 28 May, but the judgment not issued till 4 July (it's quite lengthy and detailed).

How far it will get beyond this in the Courts is another issue.  Needham was clearly of the opinion that resolution should be sought judging from the final paragraph:

Postscript

68. As part of the hearing bundle Mrs Unsworth drew the court’s attention to the decision of the Legal Aid Certifying Officer of 12th February 2024 discharging the legal aid certificate on the merits, as in that officer’s view the Claimant had no reasonable prospect of success. As I clarified with Mrs Unsworth, what view the Legal Aid Certifying Officer took of the case was certainly not a matter that should influence the court’s decision. Equally, it is not for the court to interfere with a legal aid determination. However, in light of my decision as set out above, I would urge the Claimant to perhaps see his former advocate, Mr Russell, again, in terms of whether to reapply for public funding now that the Limitation Act defence has been dispensed with. This is especially so in a case already delayed where the court will look for speedy and efficient progress to resolution, be that either through settlement, or adjudication at trial.

Of course the ACU and the Department may have their own reasons for things not being examined in full trial as discussed.  

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

Meanwhile it still seems the Counsell v ACU show is still on the road:

Presumably the previous listing was vacated because they were still waiting for Needham to issue his ruling on the attempt to strike it out etc.  The case had been heard on 28 May, but the judgment not issued till 4 July (it's quite lengthy and detailed).

How far it will get beyond this in the Courts is another issue.  Needham was clearly of the opinion that resolution should be sought judging from the final paragraph:

Postscript

68. As part of the hearing bundle Mrs Unsworth drew the court’s attention to the decision of the Legal Aid Certifying Officer of 12th February 2024 discharging the legal aid certificate on the merits, as in that officer’s view the Claimant had no reasonable prospect of success. As I clarified with Mrs Unsworth, what view the Legal Aid Certifying Officer took of the case was certainly not a matter that should influence the court’s decision. Equally, it is not for the court to interfere with a legal aid determination. However, in light of my decision as set out above, I would urge the Claimant to perhaps see his former advocate, Mr Russell, again, in terms of whether to reapply for public funding now that the Limitation Act defence has been dispensed with. This is especially so in a case already delayed where the court will look for speedy and efficient progress to resolution, be that either through settlement, or adjudication at trial.

Of course the ACU and the Department may have their own reasons for things not being examined in full trial as discussed.  

You’re over thinking. Now that the limitation strike out has been dealt with the court will be timetabling the next steps, any more pleadings, disclosure of documents, experts reports, joint meeting of experts, length of trial, possible trial date based on availability of court, counsel, witnesses.

[Barlow]

5 hours ago, John Wright said:

You’re over thinking. Now that the limitation strike out has been dealt with the court will be timetabling the next steps, any more pleadings, disclosure of documents, experts reports, joint meeting of experts, length of trial, possible trial date based on availability of court, counsel, witnesses.

Jings - all that. And all because a self-styled tough guy saw some stuff or something.

I'm dead 'ard me. Dead 'ard. Ham baps an' all that. Tough as fuck and yer gonna get a pastin'. Dead fookin' 'ard. 

Unless some compo comes callin'. Then I'll go snowflake.

[John Wright]

30 minutes ago, Barlow said:

Jings - all that. And all because a self-styled tough guy saw some stuff or something.

I'm dead 'ard me. Dead 'ard. Ham baps an' all that. Tough as fuck and yer gonna get a pastin'. Dead fookin' 'ard. 

Unless some compo comes callin'. Then I'll go snowflake.

There are clearly issues with liability, causation, contributory negligence, as well as extent of the alleged PTSD.

[Anyone]

Just ban it then , problem solved. Like strictly. 

[Roger Mexico]

7 hours ago, John Wright said:

You’re over thinking. Now that the limitation strike out has been dealt with the court will be timetabling the next steps, any more pleadings, disclosure of documents, experts reports, joint meeting of experts, length of trial, possible trial date based on availability of court, counsel, witnesses.

Oh I realise that, I was just pointing out that the process had started again.  How far it gets is another matter, though there will obviously be further hearings even if a settlement is reached.  Needham clearly wants things progressing fast, whatever happens.

[John Wright]

7 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Oh I realise that, I was just pointing out that the process had started again.  How far it gets is another matter, though there will obviously be further hearings even if a settlement is reached.  Needham clearly wants things progressing fast, whatever happens.

If you start outside the limitation period, and successfully apply to have it disapplied, you are expected to progress with expedition.

[Barlow]

On 7/17/2024 at 5:51 PM, John Wright said:

There are clearly issues with liability, causation, contributory negligence, as well as extent of the alleged PTSD.

I get that, of course I do.

and everyone is entitled to claim a bit of compo if it is calling. We are in a brave new world with this PTSD thing and of course it is a real thing. Mostly.

A claim for compo by the police from the 1970s will be erm, surely out of time.