West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Only if someone pays the SDJRT for them...

Keith

 

Yes, but people have been (rightfully, IMO) upset at the treatment of the SDRT, and human nature is such that it's not always easy to restrain one's upset and act in the most calculated possible way to attain one's goals. (I'll stop there to avoid side-tracking into a long philosophical discussion.)

I hope people on both sides have learned lessons. We'll see...

Noel

 

Or alternatively, I've seen how the WSR treats people who speak out against it. There is no obligation and no one owes anyone any information here. God knows why you would want to know anything about me.

The campaign of nastiness started with the PLC and its treatment of critical volunteers and continued with their behaviour towards groups like the SDRT, later the threats against 169, and now with the treatment of the 15 people who decided to try to become WSSRT trustees. But somehow in your world it is NP that is the cause of the problem?

There is no cause other than wanting the mistreatment of volunteers and groups by management and their supporters to end.

The solution is pretty straightforward - rescind the eviction, return passes to excluded volunteers, stopping stabbing each other in the back and front, stop viewing every critical thought as treachery and any action as a conspiracy plot, and maybe just maybe, the WSR will be able to survive and move forward. (OK maybe not that simple).

 

People have undoubtedly been upset but you don't get those who you wish to change their mind to do so by calling them every insulting name under the sun and being as nasty as you can towards them. That is folly of the highest order.

 

The vast majority of those that post on here are not secretive about who they are and are known to at least some. The few that remain truly anonymous usually give good reason for being so. What's your reason?

 

I dislike your post 'Steve', and it is disingenuous too.

I know 'Monkey Magic ', and he is no 'internet troll' as you suggest. Like me he doesn't like injustice or unfairness.

The first the SDRT knew of any plan by the WSR plc board to evict them was when the 'Notice to Quit' was served on 10th February. Overtures were made via a number of people to attempt to engage with the WSR plc board subsequently, and all were rebuffed in a perfunctory manner (and some of you will know or can guess what sort of language was used).

And don't accuse others of hiding behind an alias - I haven't a clue who you are other than 'Steve'!

Cheers,
Julian Atkins

 

Because I chose to.

Tbh, I think this is more than a touch off piste even for the WSR thread.

 

"So you're not going to pay the contribution to our funds that we've asked for on the ground that your charitable objects don't permit it? Well, we're not going to tolerate you acting like a cuckoo in our nest in that way. You've got a year to get off that site at Washford you've been occupying. And don't get any ideas about relying on the commitments given by our board in that agreement signed two years ago – so far as we are concerned we are no longer bound by it."

I am afraid that I do not see how the S&DRT might have initiated a “sensible negotiation” after communications to that effect from the WSR plc. If I were the Trust board, I would regard any offer of compromise made in response as sending a clear signal that such tactics would be rewarded by concessions. Or do you think the appropriate response for the Trust to have made was "How much do you want us to pay you"?

 

I wondered when the argument that everything would be OK if it wasn't for the troublemakers on Nat Pres would resurface. There is precious little evidence that the attitude of the Plc board has ever been any softer than it is now, and quite a lot that has been quite a bit harder. Stark reality is a good deal more persuasive than any anonymous comments on the internet.

Oh yes it did, but no-one ever heard about it and for a very good reason: it was practiced against the banks and it was very lucrative, but the last thing the banks wanted was someone standing up in court and saying "Yes, I admit I hacked into the NatWest computers: it really wasn't that difficult". Nor was it!

 

Unless I am much mistaken, I am not aware of anyone in 'a position of authority' on either side making any comments on this issue.

It would be an unwise move for either party's approach to the issue to be coloured by what is said here, there may however have been an opportunity to realise how the matter is being viewed by many in the enthusiast community.

 

Steve is Steve. That is his name.

 

http://railwells.com/meetings/events-programme/

10 November
My Life in Transport Jonathan
Jones-Pratt

 

Interesting. The Wells Railway Fraternity as a group is a strong supporter of matters S & D. If this meeting goes ahead I wonder what sort of welcome JJP will get.

Sent from my SM-T590 using Tapatalk

 

A person who remains anonymous and that goes for everyone and not just @Magic Monkey obviously is not man/woman enough to be taken seriously. A real man/Woman will ALWAYS stand up and defend their postings. This "I cannot because they will get rid of me" is a smokescreen. How many volunteers has the WSR PLC (including this chairman) got rid of, I know of 1. Be an adult show yourself or the majority will continue to think of you as a troll. Balls in your court!

 

If the Sep 8th meeting went ahead, then it would be interesting to know what they asked of Steph Gillett, given that he is the S&DRT's 'Collections Assistant'.

 

Ad hominem statements are the hallmark of those who know they have lost the argument.

 

More ad hominem statements.....

We'll be having invitations to a "meeting" behind the cycle sheds soon.

 

Another very grown-up post...!!! It is all getting rather tiresome..

 

I know of two, both by this chairman. Neither received fair process. How many before it's unacceptable in your eyes? Personally, I think 1 is 1 too many. There is certainly a fear of ID card removal among volunteers, ask yourself how that situation came to be? It won't have come from nowhere, and even if their own personal fears are unfounded to be in a state where volunteers are genuinely afraid to speak out for fear of ejection is a real state to be in.

As for anonymous postings, I don't see why just because you don't know what their name is you shouldn't take their opinions any less seriously than if you didn't. In any case, what difference would it make if I told you my surname here for example - you still don't know who I am, you just know my surname. I'm still just some guy on the internet bashing away on the keyboard. On this forum we have some trolls who give a name, and some who don't, and some members who's opinions I value most highly who give their names, and some who do not. I judge posters on their previous content, rather than whether they've chosen to publish their name in full on here.