West Somerset Railway General Discussion

I suspect that will be the outcome a complaint to the CC, And of course, very p*ssed off members, who will want to pursue this via an EGM, What will be interesting is what the PLC's response will be, i'm foreseeing more cards being removed, and then a legal case, that will sink the current PLC .and possibly the railway, such is the toxicity surrounding the PLC. unless enough shareholders say we have had enough of this, that is what it will take to kick start change,

 

But, apart from the WSSRT and the WSRA, who are these 'shareholders' who seemingly will rise up in anger ? Without wishing to appear rude about the WSSRT, but apart from the aforementioned two groups, will the 'average' shareholder actually care what happens to the WSSRT?
Just asking....

 

No. The last response I had was this:

Still no answer, although the prospective Trustees have said they will no longer be commenting on social media. Still think I should have had an answer, especially as a draft response had been circulated around the 10 (12) for comment.

 

Some WSSRT members have reported on here that they have received their AGM papers, and I have received the candidates' mailing, but I have not received my AGM papers. I am querying this with Don Fraser.

 

I asked the candidates a question at the weekend and was very impressed with their prompt response. Well done to them. <BJ>

 

Quite.

 

@D1002 Apologies for the delay in answering this one.

We have been asked, by several people now, for our views about the eviction of the S&D Trust and what we would like to see happen, so we will comment on this one.

Under the current structure, the decision about the S&D occupation of the Washford site lies with the PLC. While we do have strong personal views about what has been done, as WSSRT candidates we must respect the fact that this is not today a matter for the WSSRT and we must therefore keep these views to ourselves.

However, the issue highlights one of the fundamental reasons why we have taken the action we have. Had the membership body been able to exercise a level of influence appropriate to its shareholding, we have no doubt that strategic and/or potentially controversial decisions such as this would have been the subject of significant consultation before action. We doubt whether the eviction notice would have been served, had this happened. With the membership shareholding split between two charities with very similar objects, the PLC clearly feels that it does not need to engage in this way. We feel that has to change.

We note that the WSSRT Trustees have asserted that they wish the Trust to remain independent of the proposed new charity structure. While the WSSRT trustees may feel that the presence of PLC Board Directors amongst their number ensures that their interests are protected, this may not always be the case and it is therefore conceivable that the WSSRT might find itself in the same situation as the S&D Trust at some future time.

 

Oh come on! This just isn't good enough a response.

There are quite a lot of forum members and those involved with the SDRT etc who were hoping you would not shilly shally over this.

In one single post you have probably lost a huge amount of support and votes.

'How very silly' is about all I can constrain myself within forum rules. Others will appreciate how inadequate your response is and what a let down to the SDRT it is and how you have misjudged the basis for those that hitherto have supported you, and all those SDRT members.

Very disappointed.

Julian

 

I should also hesitantly state that if the new WSSRT board candidates are not prepared to state a clear position regarding the SDRT over it's Notice to Quit over Washford, and SDRT loco '88', then I think they have fallen at the first hurdle and a major PR disaster.

Many of us were trusting - and I use the word trusting with some emphasis - that a key player in the new WSSRT candidates would support the SDRT against the WSR plc board.

 

I am going to disagree Julian.

Let us say that the 10/12 had given the answer that you want which is an unequivocal ‘we will make the S&DRT stay’.

For one thing, it would be an outright declaration of war on the PLC and would play into Bailey/PLC’s Trojan Horse narrative.

It would give Jones Pratt, Bailey, Price etc all the ammunition they need to say ‘I told you so’.

You, yourself know the position and attitude of the key players on the board towards the S&DRT. It would make for a hardening of attitudes. It would make the situation for the S&DRT worse not better.

The WSSRT is as you, and others have pointed out, in a weak position because of the lease situation, but they have the leverage of the shareholding. So you have the potential for a Mexican standoff.

Now, I am aware that time is ticking for the S&DRT, it is my view that of the three options (staying the same, Bailey, or Rebel Evolution) the first two mean for certain goodbye to the S&DRT, only the third option provides the opportunity for more things to change on the line and that also includes the future of the S&DRT.

I want the S&DRT to stay but not at the cost of having to live in a toxic environment.

 

Thanks for the reply......although it was not quite the response I was hoping for...........

 

Julian

You know, and we know, that the WSRA and the WSSRT leadership had the chance to condemn the action of the PLC in evicting the S&DRT back in February, but they didn't. They must have had their reasons. Perhaps the membership of the WSSRT may like to consider that when casting their votes on or before 14th November.

What is clear is that the existing WSSRT Trustees stand for the 'status quo' and do not want to change, as long as everybody leaves them alone, bad things can happen to other members of the 'family', just as long as they're ok.

We are the only people prepared to challenge the status quo, that much should be very obvious to you.

So perhaps S&DRT members, if they haven't already done so, might like to join the WSSRT (it's still not too late), and then look at the value of what we are actually campaigning for. As we have said, if the membership, via a combined charity, had the ability to exercise a level of influence appropriate to its shareholding, then the S&DRT debacle would probably have never happened.

Are you a member of the WSSRT?

 

The current WSSRT board have other ideas on that one. Unless the AGM is postponed *again* due to the 2 additional candidates. By the way, I think if you were to be seen as causing that, which you would if it happened, support would drain fast.

 

They have indeed said that they can't process any more membership applications before the AGM (http://www.wssrt.co.uk/2020/10/20/membership-applications/) but that doesn't mean there is no value in joining the WSSRT. It would seem a bit odd if the legitimate lodging of trustee nominations within the rules and deadlines laid out in the Trust's own Articles of Association could twice be blamed for an AGM having to be delayed, don't you think?

 

I did intend to join the WSSRT before all of this and the new members ban, and I subsequently thought to myself would it be false in me joining for what might be considered ulterior motives that pricked my conscience and moral stance over these things.

I'm an unashamedly SDRT member.

Not impressed or persuaded by your inadequate reply that was mostly whaffle.

 

It would, I was just postulating that even if that were to occur, I don't think you would come out of it very well. Right now you're teetering on the edge of "a plague on both your houses" in my view as a "close observer of WSR matters". I think it likely that would tip you over, as your 2 extra candidates, no matter how fine they are and how proper the procedure, would be seen as unnecessary further shenanigans. Just a personal view.

 

So despite telling us what you think of our campaign and our 'waffle', by deciding not to join the WSSRT, you have forfeited your chance to actually influence what happens next anyway, which is an interesting position to take.

 

Do I sniff hypocracy by the @WSSRTcandidates here? In one post they say it isn't a matter for the WSSRT and in the next they criticise the existing WSSRT for NOT speaking out. You can't have it both ways.

So a question for @WSSRTcandidates . If the ten are elected and thus, as a group have the majority of board votes, will the new WSSRT board speak out officially against the eviction?

Ian C

 

I think there are a lot of us who would have liked to have seen the WSSRT Candidates give a much stronger opinion.

However we have to remember we can't now stop the S&DRT leaving, they have announced they are leaving and where they are going. The time for the people of the WSR to stop that happening through their 3 Boards passed months ago and nobody acted.

Thats sad and it makes me angry but all the WSSRT Candidates can do is stop that happening again to somebody else if they get voted in and all the Members of the WSSRT can do is vote them in and then help the S&DRT pack up to reduce their costs of moving which is what I've offered to do.

No doubt whilst I help them pack l will get more angry but it won't change anything now sadly.

 

I think the point they were making is that it's not a matter for the WSSRT *now*, because the moment for that has passed. So no, not hypocritical at all.