GWSR Broadway Developments

This is beginning to look like a case of cock-up rather than conspiracy.

 

What a surprise! Usually the case but less useful for grinding axes!

Steven

 

So someone in the volunteer group has asked the council to get involved? Wow.

 

Bean Counter as a Corporate type it is understandable that you seek to excuse other Corporate types and shield them within the collective responsibility of an anonymous Board.

But the facts are the decision, re the shop, was made by the Board in 2015 and then not communicated to other volunteers building the project until 2017. In fact not even then as it slipped out in a blog.

Dictionary definition, Conspiracy -" a secret plan by a small group to do something".

 

I suspect because if your own leadership are not listening and you know whats planned is illegal what else can you do? Building regs are there for a reason, as are having proper planning controls, in a nut shell someone has royally screwed up, by deciding to change without notice what the building will be, and then compounded it by not checking the legal requirements have been met for that change. that to me says, they are incompetent as a board member/ director.

 

That's not how I read it. I read it as the volunteer has asked for clarification from the council as to what they approved (and expected to see built) and what processes would be required to change that approval.


Keith

 

I don't think we have enough information to declare this a cock-up or a conspiracy, and the line between the two is often quite fuzzy - people are quite capable of acting dishonestly and making mistakes at the same time.

On the other hand, any argument that starts by grouping people and labeling them, whether it's 'us' & 'them', progressives & conservatives, or, in this case, 'corporate types' & 'those doing the real work', is starting from a point of prejudice. And that filter usually gets in the way of understanding a problem and solving it.

In my humble opinion.

 

In my humble opinion too!

Also, for the sake of clarity, AFAIK Mike Rose is a shareholder, not a volunteer. (Apologies if this is not the case, but he has only ever mentioned he's a shareholder, and lives in South Wales.) And I agree, i don't think it's a case of "getting the council involved", more clarifying the position.

Oh do give it a rest!

 

Would I be miles off to suspect that you accusing me of being 'a Corporate type' is not meant as a compliment!

I don't know anyone on the GSWR Board (and hence have no idea if they are 'Corporate' types but that is not the impression @flying scotsman123 gives of the Board members he, as a working member of the GSWR, knows) but I have been there, being on a Board made of many 'types' that has made mistakes and got things wrong but has also got things right, been there when things have gone well (and badly) and in many cases put in many, many unseen hours for the privilege of slagged off right left and centre by those who would never dream of taking any such responsibility themselves.

Have you?

Steven

(Not saying that someone has to be have done something to have the right to comment on those that are doing but when an individual repeated makes potentially libelous accusations of ill-will and even dishonesty, I do think they should expect to be robustly challenged as to the generalisations and insults they like to throw out to those who dare to disagree with them - it can come across that they have the 'I am right and you have no right to put an alternative view' - in fact, exactly what they accuse others of!)

 

Much as I appreciate your pressing need to signal your own virtue, there is but one problem with your critique of my post.

At no point did I use the phrase " those doing the real work" or draw any comparisons with them.

 

For the installation, the crane was on the trackbed. Now that the track is in, that's not an option. Plus to which a lot of work has been done since the lift - e.g. adding the roof, putting in the drains, etc, etc and some amount of that would have to be undone (the drains at least - not sure if it can be moved with the roof on, etc, etc). So it would be a very major undertaking to move it. It's just not going to happen.

Noel

 

How do you know my motives?

Only one? So you accept the critique of prejudice against those you label 'corporate types'?

 

No, because your critique linked that phrase with one I didn't use in an 'us and them' comparison.

If I didn't use the phrase I didn't make the comparison.

Can I suggest if you chaps want to defend the Boards actions in this matter you at least try and use some facts instead of making attacks on the person reporting them. Play the ball not the man.

So please lets see evidence that the BAG team were consulted in 2015 about the change of use, that an application was made to the council for a shop instead of a cafe and I will agree with you that they, the Board,are beyond reproach.

 

To be clear, I am not seeking to defend the board. If the directors overseeing the project decided two years ago to change the cafe to a shop and neglected to inform those building the station, that seems either inept or dishonest. My post #1454 was quite critical.

That is (ironically), precisely the point I am making to you. Prejudice distorts the argument and makes it harder to find the best resolution to the problem. You've done it again in this post: grouped several people in this conversation, ('you chaps'), and instead of listening, assumed you know what we're saying (defending the board). That's exactly how prejudice gets in the way of communication.

(I'm still chuckling at the idea that someone who was desperate to signal their own virtue would choose a discussion about a cafe on a Nat Pres forum as the ideal media platform. I'm positively basking in the nationwide attention).

 

Question is will this thread beat that of the WSRA ?
Got a long way to go yet but I might be tempted to have a flutter..

 

That's not a record we want to hold!

Chris.

 

My point was that the track is not yet "in" as far as the bridge, although it probably will be by next week, and, as the originator of this question (PaulK, post #930 in July) pointed out: a crane will have to be brought in to attach the stairs in due course anyway. And, yes I agree, I overlooked the roof and drains, so add another few hundred quid to the cost to cover making good. I still don't think that could be described as a major undertaking.
However I see that Breva has approved your post so, as it was him who raised the issue in the first place, we can assume that he and the Broadway team can live with the new arrangement, but I am surprised that this has never been explained to us.

I am also concerned that a number of the smaller things seem to be either put on the back-burner or downgraded for "lack of funds" despite the Share Issue being substantially over-subscribed, donations still coming in, and the Boardroom blog reporting excellent trading figures and surpluses. There should be room to manoeuvre for some of these small items in amongst the big stuff. This again seems to indicate a communication gap between the Board and the project teams, which seems to have dogged this project for years.

Mike

 

Mike[/QUOTE]

I don't quite follow your question but will try to answer if you rephrase it. Noel is basically correct.

 

It could well be a lot more than that; and I'm also dubious about your initial estimate (guess?) as to the overall cost. But I lack the detailed data on crane rental prices, etc, so I can't say for sure.

Don't forget, they discovered they needed some unexpected (i.e. un-budgeted) and very expensive repairs to the embankment (I forget the amount, but it was on the order of 100K GBP, IIRC). That 'ate' the over-subscription, and a lot more besides, which caused a number of planned 'nice things' to be dropped.

Noel

 

T'was more like £300k, a big chunk of money indeed swallowed up.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk