Andy Posted October 24, 2015 Report Share Posted October 24, 2015 Dadof2, can you please delete your last post please. I find it offensive that you are posting information regarding locating Scott sections that are supposed to be out of bounds to spectators. As an observer of one of those sections mentioned and also a member of Richmond Motor club I feel you have jeapordised the future successful running of Trial by posting such information. Many thanks John.B DADOF2. YOU ARE RISKING THE FUTURE OF THE SCOTT TRIAL! I've removed the post. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyboxer Posted October 24, 2015 Report Share Posted October 24, 2015 Good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dadof2 Posted October 26, 2015 Report Share Posted October 26, 2015 (edited) This is the first time I have visited TC since I made the post that Andy has now deleted. I do understand members concerns but am also of the view that most of the comments are an overreaction. Very few of the sections I mentioned are not in the programme and those not in the programme are already well known to a large number of Northern riders and are on or very near footpaths or bridleways. My post was mainly aimed at the American & European riders to give them something in addition to the usual Photos. I have been familiar with the Scott course for more years than I care to mention and the off programme sections I mentioned have had quite a number of spectators for as long as I can remember, so I was hardly introducing anything new. Do members really think my post would have influenced a significant number of Scott spectators? I know a few of the landowners or farmers who rent grazing on the course and have shot on part of it. Apart from the odd comment about traffic blocking the roads none of these people have complained about the event or the trial followers / spectators. The threat to the Scott (and trialling in general) is from those who have an intrinsic, unreasoning hatred of anything motorised in the countryside and the environmental zealots who have no tolerance for anything but their own viewpoint. Those followers taking motorcycles where they should not also risk causing problems especially if seen by NP rangers. It is the policy of the National Parks, backed by the CROW or NERC acts to increase non motorised access in the countryside. For the trials community to try to self impose some sort of access restrictions on the days of trials is probably a pretty pointless exercise. As mentioned at the start of this post this is first time I have visited since I made the section position post. If Andy had not already have done so I would have removed the post out of respect to the Richmond MC and its helpers. Edited October 26, 2015 by dadof2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigel dabster Posted October 27, 2015 Report Share Posted October 27, 2015 As mentioned at the start of this post this is first time I have visited since I made the section position post. If Andy had not already have done so I would have removed the post out of respect to the Richmond MC and its helpers. So why post it in the first place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyboxer Posted October 27, 2015 Report Share Posted October 27, 2015 So why post it in the first place? Scratches head?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john.b Posted October 27, 2015 Report Share Posted October 27, 2015 Hi dadof2, it was me that requested you delete your post about The Scott, however Andy also had the good sense to delete it quickly. You gave the locations of about 9 sections that are out of bounds to spectators, is n't it about time you started to think of the implications of posting such information! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baldilocks Posted October 27, 2015 Report Share Posted October 27, 2015 Could we send him a message via cable ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigel dabster Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 (edited) pidgeon? Edited October 28, 2015 by nigel dabster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perce Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 pigeon? So that's why the Yanks call them a lever perch? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
english electric Posted October 29, 2015 Report Share Posted October 29, 2015 it would have been far better to make an un resevred apology DO2 and say I got it wrong than trying to justify your actions in the first place. a far better way to go about future topics is to confirm in the first place it is ok make the information available. and like has been touched on there is an ant brigade out there that would love it if to see it restricted or bans placed on the sport hobby etc.you certainly do not want it to go down the hunting route with basically a blanket ban or heavy ristrications placed on it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cleanorbust Posted October 29, 2015 Report Share Posted October 29, 2015 The hunting ban was introduced to bring a halt to an activity which was seen as leading to the tortured injury or death of beings chased down by others which were faster or more powerful. While I can see the parallel, and the Scott is the toughest of challenges, it's not that bad is it? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laird387 Posted October 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) Sadly the anti-motorsports 'brigade' in the Scott area comprises a great many 'locals' who had a chocolate box image of 'country life' before they followed the urge of the TV 'Escape to the Country' to do just that - only then to find out that they hadn't a clue what living in the country really meant................ Sadly a similar view to those wishing to introduce the hunting ban - many of whom had not witnessed the grief of a young girl when she woke in the morning to check her Bantam hens and found that a fox had got at them during the night and bitten the legs off all twelve hens 'just for the fun'............... Edited October 30, 2015 by laird387 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b40rt Posted October 30, 2015 Report Share Posted October 30, 2015 Sadly a similar view to those wising to introduce the hunting ban - many of whom had not witnessed the grief of a young girl when she woke in the morning to check her Bantam hens and found that a fox had got at them during the night and bitten the legs off all twelve hens 'just for the fun'............... Good point, if that happened to me I'd certainly want to chase it till it was exhausted,rip it to shreds, then smear its blood on my face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cleanorbust Posted October 30, 2015 Report Share Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) Yes, and if I had a Bantam which was gratuitously destroyed overnight I'd probably replace it with a Tiger Cub, which would see off any intruders. I think I've heard the story of the fox and bantams before. One of the bantams, called Drayton, escaped the fox because he didn't look like any of the other bantams and was much nimbler than they were. He went on to have a successful life, winning many prizes at country shows, helped by his incredibly youthful looks - he claimed to have been born in the early 1960s but nobody ever really believed this. Sadly he eventually died a lonely death, shunned by the other creatures of the countryside who felt he didn't have a proper pedigree and had been bred just to win prizes they should have had. Edited October 30, 2015 by cleanorbust 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
english electric Posted October 30, 2015 Report Share Posted October 30, 2015 I used hunting as an example to be quite honest to not be an hypocrite on views of hunting you would have to be a Buddhist monk the fact is them nice leather trial boots or the dyes that goes into your nice new trial clothing range is tested or was tested at some point on animals. I also think you will find millions more animals die each year the subject off weapons testing beauty products effects of various drugs, the effects of smoking alcohol on health clothing dyes various fuels oils clothing products food production . a fine example is the Ecuador v chevron lawsuit so in the cold light of day our greed alone for cheaper products like oil etc leads to disasters like this and being consumers all of us are in directly responcible for what happens. and I didn't even mention the conditions of factory farming. our own pursuit of cheap products our lifestyle and countless over wants and needs results in not only the needless destruction of millions of animals each year but the destruction of the environment as well in the way we mine explore and extract products for our personal use. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.