Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About timps

  • Rank

  • Birthday December 21

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • From

Recent Profile Visitors

1,091 profile views
  1. Teague Beretta Optima flush fitting chokes for sale, used in my DT10, AL391 and 682 Gold E. 2 X Teague flush - 3/8 UK (light modified US) - £20 each inc P&P (not Optima plus or HP Optima) 1 sold 1 still available
  2. From my memory the 85 to 88 were very similar producing 60 + hp with a ridiculous low end power designed by beelzebub to send you straight to hell. Then from 89 to its end they redesigned the head and exhaust to lower compression which was supposed to aid starting and make it more user friendly. I think that produced about the 55 ish hp. I know plenty that raced the 86 put two base gaskets on to help starting and tame it. The jetting was off from standard as Honda jetted it rich on the 86 to aid starting as well. I don’t miss trying to kick the thing up that’s for sure but I did miss racing it. The later models behaved like an 86 with to gaskets on so I always wondered if Honda had listened to the complaints.
  3. I Raced an 86 CR 500 for 2 years, the kickstarter ate through a pair of Axo boots in 2 months. I look forward to the next instalment
  4. He will have had the chance but the disqualification itself is handled by shoot management of the ground or the jury appointed by them not the NSCA. According to the rules :- “Shoot management may disqualify or expel a member when a complaint has been filed in writing and after giving both parties (the party filing the complaint and the party complained of) an opportunity to be heard prior to disqualification or expulsion.” Obviously by the fact he has now been disqualified he has had the chance to appeal so either his appeal against disqualification failed or he never lodged an appeal against the disqualification with shoot management. As to which it is we wont find that out until after the NSCA appeal is heard.
  5. According to the NSCA "Northbrook has rerun the shoot results, and the current posted results are the final official results." Therefore based on the above statement he cannot appeal the disqualification and that stands. The NSCA have then looked at the evidence and the NSCA Executive Director, have reached a decision if any additional disciplinary action should be taken, this additional disciplinary action is what is being appealed not the disqualification from the shoot. It would be an interesting turn of events if at the meeting of the NSSA Officers they come to a different decision to Northbrook and the NSCA Executive Director seeing as they have stated the results with him removed are final, but at this moment in time he is not innocent he is disqualified from the shoot and the current NSCA disciplinary action is in effect until the appeal is heard. Regarding his sponsors I see he is absent from the list of shooters on their respective web pages when before the incident he was listed.
  6. Just an update for those who are following this. From the NSCA Facebook page: ”EDITED: The disciplinary case from the World English Sporting Championship is under appeal. It is NSCA policy not to discuss the details of any disciplinary matter, but we can explain the process being followed, which is dictated by the NSCA Rule Book, Section IV “Rules of Conduct,” starting on page 11. This prescribes how rule violations are to be addressed and how disciplinary actions are undertaken. http://nsca.nssa-nsca.org/rule-book/ Following notification of an appeal, according to rule IV-E-1, “… the NSSA Officers shall hold a hearing on the matter, which will take place at the next regularly scheduled quarterly meeting of the NSSA Officers.” This meeting will take place on January 16, so the case will remain on appeal until that time. The decisions of the NSCA Executive Council will remain in effect during the appeal process. Following the meeting, NSCA will make a final statement on this case. Thank you for your patience and understanding as we follow our established process.”
  7. timps


    you can read the full judgement or listen to countless Boris interviews where he said it wasn't about Brexit. Like I said the decision of the court was not about Brexit, he took a gamble on procedure they have not said he lied but left the two choices up to parliament to decided. this is not a remainer rant just a reckless prime minister rant, it was a gamble that lost my respect not that any of them have my respect now.
  8. timps


    Yes it does, what was said and how it was done is not in any dispute by either side, there are procedural records. The reasons given were not Brexit related however the court deemed they had an impact. So this was Borris either lying to the Queen for his own political gain or he just was incompetent and didn't mean it to happen. Therefore Brexit related means lying and non Brexit related means not thinking of the ramifications, by your stance of it being Brexit related you believed he lied.
  9. timps


    With that stance then you have a prime minister that actively lied to the Queen proven in a court of law.
  10. timps


    I don’t think he has, it’s nothing to do with remain or leave it is to do with Boris was found out by the supreme court to have acted unlawfully as either constitutionally feckless or lying to the Queen for his own political gain, the supreme court doesn’t say which but neither is good. If he leaves without a deal then that’s court case number 2 because of the Ben act, he is going to face so much political pressure if he tries to break the law twice now. God knows what happens next but he is in a worse position now that’s for sure, trying to ignore the Ben the act is so much harder now.
  11. timps


    The thing is if Boris says that the supreme court is trying to frustrate Brexit by the ruling then he has admitted that he lied about the reason and therefore the supreme court was right. If he stands by his original stance that the prorogation was for convenience and the Queen’s speech and nothing to do with Brexit then the supreme courts decision doesn’t affect Brexit in anyway. He cannot have it both ways, we cannot have a prime minister that doesn’t agree with the rule of law however unsavoury it may be to him, the prime minster (senior law maker) stating he doesn’t agree with the supreme court means we can do the same should we ever find ourselves in court. Not a good stance from our political leader regardless of your stance on Brexit, his advise not to give evidence to the supreme court was so wrong, they had no sworn evidence to prove his assertions.
  12. timps


    Nope the European Court of Human Rights or the Court of Justice of the European Union cannot overrule the UK Supreme court. What actually happens is any cases that are directly applicable European Union law are referred by the UKSC to the Court of Justice of the European Union and not heard by them.
  13. Well we will find out more sometime around October the 10th. The NSCA posted on their website :- “On September 12, the NSCA was notified by Northbrook Sports Club that it has disqualified one of the shooters at the 2019 World English Sporting Championship. Northbrook has rerun the shoot results, and the current posted results are the final official results. Following an investigation of the disqualification to determine if any additional disciplinary action should be taken, the NSCA Executive Council, along with the NSCA Executive Director, have reached a decision. The NSCA EC and Executive Director feel that their decision is appropriate, given all evidence. The decision will be disclosed once all interested parties have been notified and the appeal process expires 21 days thereafter.” Until then no official comment will be released.
  14. I think the ground have jurisdiction on running the shoot they will have a jury in place and if they decide to disqualify then that is final, the NSCA are not going to overturn the DQ. However the NSCA may feel further sanctions are needed or just leave it at the DQ for that one shoot depends on how bad they think it was I guess. What Mr.clays alleged was a very ingenious way of getting the master card to match the altered travelling card. But how true his assertions are or if they can ever be proved I doubt we will ever find out. I also doubt the NSCA will go into the gory details, however just my opinion on this would be. NSCA no further sanctions = “bending the rules” NSCA long ban = maybe Mr.clays was telling the truth
  • Create New...