Back to Bahrain, a poll on James Allen's website has 92% of voters saying that the FIA has made a mistake. Whereas on the other hand, crash.net has a poll where opinion is divided with 48% think it should return this year.
That is a very interesting statistical difference Westy. One can only wonder at the way each poll has been conducted since such a huge difference is highly unlikely if the information has been presented in a similar manner. Without having read either of them yet, my guess would be that Crash.net (or the article's journalist) is much more in favour of returning to Bahrain than James Allen. And I know whose opinion I trust more…
I am not trying to wind anyone up and I am surprised that people consider an alternative view as nothing more than a wind up. This article was written in order to encourage people to sign a petition to prevent a race taking place. The article did not provide any justification for signing the petition. Anyone who is slightly interested in global politics will realise that Bahrain is not much different from any other countries hosting F1 races or other sporting events. You can go to the website of human rights watch and check out the record of any country you choose and see for your self. Miggins, the author, made his views clear regarding his belief in the inferiority of women. Other people on this thread seem to be annoyed by me posting my views. The Bahrain government includes female representation despite the fact that the dissidents are actually opposed to that. The dissidents are also opposed to free speech - just like this forum apparently. http://www.hrw.org/en/home
In response to Cosicave and WCB... Having just read them both, personally I feel the crash.net article is more biased than James Allen against the reintroduction of the race. Which is very odd in comparison to the results. The crash.net report includes quotes from Bahrain residents saying they've been beaten, and states that people have died suspiciously in prisons, whilst James Allen concentrates more on whether F1 should get involved in politics. I wouldn't expect, based on the crash.net report, such a positive response from the people who voted, but I guess that begs the question about the type of people each site attracts? I don't know, an odd stat!
Well, I've still not read either but from what you say it sounds as if Crash.net have focussed on the turmoil within Bahrain, whilst James Allen has asked the straight-forward question (according to what you say) along the lines of "What should F1 do?". I think that F1 journalism should focus on F1's perspective, rather than showing an interest in the specifics of particular accounts, which is more in the domain of general politics. Crash.net's stance would seem (according to what you've said here, since I emphasise that I've still not read it) to be volunteering its own involvement with the politics, just as the Bahrain government would appear to be hoping that F1 volunteers itself! In my opinion, F1 should not allow itself to be used as part of someone else's political agenda, which seems to be what James Allen's poll was asking. Crash.net on the other hand, (according to what I've read in this thread) have taken the bait and gone straight down that short-sighted route⦠Ha! Perhaps I'll get around to reading them later but reading between the lines is a lot of fun!
Theres an interesting article on the issue by the Guardian. Summarising it, apparently the teams are contractually (and legally) obliged to compete if the World Motor Sport Council (WMSC) decide the race should go ahead. The penalties for failing to attend are severe, and could be compounded if any TV station contracted to show the race demands compensation for a no-show. The only way, apparently, for the teams to avoid competing if the WMSC say they should is if insurance becomes an issue. With the country in a volatile state, getting insurance could prove very difficult, and if none can be obtained the teams can't compete. Interestingly, if the race had initially been written off to begin with, as it was in February, then a 'civil strife' clause in the concorde agreement meant teams had no obligation to attend. But in March, when the deadline of 1st May was put in place, by postponing rather than cancelling the race, teams are then locked back into contractual obligations. More interestingly, Bahrain's "state of emergency" was lifted just 2 days before the deadline, when the country announced they were ready to host a race again. Sorry for dragging this thread up again, but I felt the article gave some more insight into the dilemma the teams are facing, with the £40m price of the race being potentially theirs to pay if they back out. I'm hoping the WMSC vote against it and give everyone an easy way out!
Yes, I'm only too well aware of the contractual implications DHC. This is why it is so vitally important that the governing body behaves in a thoroughly responsible manner. Of course, whilst falling a long way short of being blackmail, the teams have no choice other than to do as they're told, as usual, which is part of the philosophy behind ensuring that they remain unempowered to take action themselves; by being kept thoroughly divided and conquered. The drivers are pawns of the teams who are pawns in the FIA's and Bernie's power play, who are in turn being used as pawns in international politics. Power to the drivers who make F1 roll…
I'm with the poster above who doesn't want to give his details out on the internet. I saw footage of protesters being shot in Bahrain recently and that's enough for me not to want to have a GP there in the immediate future, I don't care what some troll on here might argue otherwise.
I am not a troll and I am not a hypocrite either. There are currently two threads on the subject of the Bahrain GP http://www.not606.com/showthread.php/50157-Bahrain-ready-to-host-rescheduled-GP. http://www.not606.com/showthread.php/51484-NO-to-Bahrain-your-vote-is-needed I mentioned England Cricket team versus Sri Lanka in order to question the extent of your morals and I was told to keep my posts to F1. Yet on the other thread another member mentioned England Cricket team versus South Africa with no complaints from yourselves. So what is the difference between these two examples in your eyes? Is it that you considered my contribution unwelcome but the other contribution suited your agenda? South Africa hosted F1 despite the apartheid regime shooting civilians. British troops shot unarmed civilians but that did not effect the British GP. Do you contributors actually care about human rights or are you just jumping on some bandwagon? What violations of human rights are acceptable when deciding to host a GP and at what point do the violations become unacceptable. The comments regarding the fact that the track was designed by Tilke and that the venue might be unsafe for team members seem to sum up your real views. And don't get high and mighty with me. I have followed F1 a lot longer than most of you put together, apart from ErnieBecc. If you can not take on board alternative or difficult views then form your own gang and make sure you are the only members.
This is not a thread to discuss the 'morals' of members is it !!! - It is a thread discussing F1's decision to go reinstate the Bahrain Grand Prix! But you may have missed ERNIE's view, as stated on the other thread you mention, in which he quotes Max Mosley and totally agrees with him on this subject:
Well Ok then. According to you it should not go ahead because Tilke designed it. According to me there is no reason why this particular sporting event should not go ahead when others in repressive regimes do without question.
Ha Ha you guys haven't got a clue have you? More people protest about Lewis Hamilton's dad appearing on television than they do about human rights. According to you people the countries that have human rights violations are welcome to host F1 races as long as the track has not been designed by Tilke. And now we have miggins doesn't think much of women does he? But thinks enough about AVAAZ to encourage you to fall for it. So what exactly is AVAAZ ? I don't seem to recall their presence at any human rights protest. Maybe miggins can put the record straight on that point. I seem to recall that AVAAZ was set up by a particular political motivated regime that you would no doubt complain about when it suits you. So brave fellows of F1 tell me how you have put your cards on the table about the issue that you claim is so important to your life. Have you signed the petition? Did you give your correct name, address and contact number? Or are you just another [email protected]. Don't worry – M Mouse is going to get all the spam and fraud emails that the site was set up for in the first place.
Why don't you just go away and bore somebody else, this thread is about the Bahrain GP, if you read the title, not the failing of the rest of the world and yourself.
The thread is about the Bahrain GP. Not about the political situations in the rest of the world where they have F1. Why don't you start a new thread with your irrelevant opinions and conspiracy theories on it, maybe on another website where none of us have to read it? Just a thought. Good night!
I have never mentioned any conspiracy theory at all. I think it is obvious that I have hit a raw nerve of pretentious people who have suddenly realised that they have been taken in by some spam website seeking their email details. All of my posts have been about this thread and nothing else.
haha, you're so funny RI, you talk absolute **** and back-track and change your argument every 5 minutes, first it was Sri Lanka and the Tamils, then it was women, now it's about the website, make your mind up. Also please tell me how exactly you joined this forum without giving your email details? Personally I don't think you have any political or social stance at all, your just some sad lonely CoGT that tries to get off on annoying people, it's worked on everyone else, they think your an irritating cock, I personally look forward to pissing on your pathetic arguments, it's like arguing with a 6 year old (although I know a 6 year ld or 2 that can put together a better argument than you. As for following F1, I personally doubt you even heard of F1 before 2007. Your poorly thought arguments remind me of the Hamelots like Bruce and Ave on 606. P.S. sorry guys, I just can't resist this tit, it's like offering candy to a baby
Not changed my argument at all. You are just looking for some excuse to denounce my viewpoint. I have concentrated on your article which asks for people to sign a petition. Normally on this forum such an article as yours would have been merged with the original one concerning the Bahrain GP. You have created a separate article believing that everyone in the world will agree with you and reply by posting "I have". I come along and post an alternative legitimate viewpoint and lo and behold the believers in freedom of speech jump on me. Why did you link to that particular website? Did you do any research on their motives or did you just fall for it? Having a viewpoint regarding the opposition to the hosting of a sporting event such as the Bahrain F1 GP is OK as far as I am concerned. Most of the legitimate issues that I have raised seem to have been ignored. instead you rely on ganging up. Can you see the irony?
you've come on here simply to annoy people, everyone knows it, it's why your arguments are so poorly researched (if at all). You try to validate yourself psuedo intellectually and fail at every hurdle because, quite frankly, you're full of ****. Nearly everything you've said on here can be disproved in abut 5 minutes. now go and masturbate to the Lewis Hamilton poster you have on your wall.
I don't think that I have used that type of language on this thread. A debate is where people disagree and try to put forward reasoned arguments in the hope that the other person considers them and re-thinks their viewpoint. All of my posts on this thread have been in response to something another person has posted. A lot of of the questions I have asked have been ignored because it is easier to gang up and insult someone instead of engaging in adult debate. Of course your disgusting personal insults to me will be conveniently overlooked by the moderators on the grounds that presumably you are in the same gang.
This is new ground for me as I agree with the points made by both sides on this thread. Miggins has hit the nail on the head though, we all like to think that 'our' team will/would do the right thing, but unfortunately, nothing speaks louder than money! Shame all round really. Perhaps you should read other people's posts before tarring everybody with the same brush. We are capable of free thought, we are capable of choice, you have to learn that other peoples views will differ from yours, it doesn't make them bad people, and if the majority of people on this thread think the same way, it doesn't mean they are ganging up on you, merely like minded. The only irony I can see on this thread is the way that a minority (you) are telling the majority (us) that we are all wrong and we should think the way you do.....remind you of anything? I still agree with some of your points, I'm just ashamed that it was you I agreed with.
