West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Tacit acknowledgement perhaps that a Somerset and Dorset locomotive is the most suitable for lines in Somerset. James Clayton would be delighted (and I suspect would not be on his own).

 

Mmm. If only. Happy days when o8 and Tangmere double headed on the WSR.

 

I seer that if you look on the WSR website in the 'News' page the latest update on the Appeal is dated 13th July. Are they perhaps just going to issue them on a monthly basis, in which case maybe I should send 6-2 ?

 

If JJP thinks he can do what he did with LMS 4f 44422 to SDRT 53808, and breach another contract, he is mistaken.

 

I don't know - that's why I'm asking.

It's up to the members/shareholders to do something. I'm neither. Just an interested bystander who feels that the discussion on this thread doesn't really help the situation or move anything forward.

 

The trouble with that is that the candidates standing went in like a heavy mob with all verbal guns blazing. It's no wonder that the locals instant reaction was to lock the doors, bar the windows and completely ignore anything they said. There may well have been some members of the WSSRT who could have been sympathetic to their intentions, had they been expressed less forcefully, but as it was the attitude of "Out of the way... We're gonna change the the WSSRT ..Now!" was never going to win over anyone. (Yes, that is exactly as it appeared from here)

That said there is no excuse for the chairman at that time running off to the WSR board for help as he did. It was an internal matter that could and should have been handled internally without all the hoo-hah that followed. If anyone is responsible for bringing the railway into disrepute I believe it was the WSSRT chairman for showing total incompetence and a complete lack of understanding of the correct processes.

 

Alas, it seems to this observer that unfortunately, there's nothing that anyone can say, anywhere, that will help the situation or move anything forward.

Noel

 

Having just had a peruse of the current WSR website and having no confidence whatsoever of getting any sort of response from the board can I ask; Is there anyone out there in a position of influence that could explain any of the following queries about the website please?

1) The Railway > Monthly Newsletter. Only one single issue of ONLINE, dated January 2019 When is the next issue expected?
2) Events & Experiences > Catering Specials. Fish & Chips or Cheese & Cider specials is all. Where are the Quantock Belle services listed? (as we have now been told there will be some services this year )
3) The WSR has many support groups and organisations. Why is there not even one of them mentioned on the website? No links, nothing. Shameful if you want their continued support.

I know that people in power read this thread, the questions are not that hard and the website is important, after all, members of the public are going to look for the railways official website and may not even be aware of Steve's .org site. (which has all the links) so why is it that he can get it right and a so called professional organisation can't?

 

‘Light the remaining boilers, Captain Smith.’

 

Really? Your perception is, well, what you saw. I am surprised though.
It appeared to me, (and I am observing from alongside you) that the candidates stood on a platform of "We think change is needed. If you elect us, we will let you vote for or against change".
All I'm saying is, it is astonishing how two people who are both informed by the same source, and both are critical of the current set-up, and both want the best for the WSR, could have such different views of the events last year

 

Indeed, if anyone should be charged with bringing The railway into disrepute it should have been the Chair of the WSRHT, and the chair of the PLC, an action that I for one, hope they live to regret , its a shame that these two people in question can't be held personally financially responsible for depriving those people of the ability to give their leisure time to the railway, in the case of the WSRHT, can the charity commission get involved as the chair wearing two hats, has to be of concern? if some case could be brought against the two for the loss of the ability to volunteer, when they broke no rules, and severe financial lost caused to the gentlemen in question, and barred from holding directorships in future, that would be a fitting result, How much value would those who have been excluded from the railway in total have been worth, to the railway, their expertise, and time, perhaps the law needs to change so that financial penalties can be levied against the organisations when they abuse the power they have

 

As you have rightly stated, this is a discussion forum.
No-one here (except maybe yourself) is expecting the forum to change anything, they just come on here to share news, rumours, pics, memories etc. and express their opinions. Think of it as sitting in the pub chatting with friends or colleagues-not a campaign trail.

 

Charity Commission guidance makes clear that wearing two hats is not, of itself, objectionable. It can create a conflict of loyalty/duty in certain circumstances but , like conflicts of interest, as long as it is declared and managed accordingly I doubt he Commission would be interested.

The post refers to "loss of the ability to volunteer" and "depriving those people of the ability to give their leisure time to the railway". The seems to imply that there is a right to volunteer. In law there is no such enforceable right. As the law does not see volunteering as a service offered by the organisation concerned equality legislation does not apply to volunteers. Consequently the underlying legal status is that volunteers are making an offer to that organisation which it can accept or refuse with or without good reason. Volunteering is not regarded as creating a contract between the organisation and the volunteer giving any rights similar to those of a worker or employee (such as the right not to be dismissed without due process or good reason.) Sometimes rule books and HR policies fail to distinquish adequately between volunteers and paid staff which can , at best aid misunderstanding, and at worst, create inadvertant employees regardless of what both parties may have intended.

Volunteers' protection is the organisation's need to attract and retain them, Treat them badly and that vital resource may evaporate . However that is very different from any question of personal liability for those involved in making decisions they are free to make.

There is pressure to change the law to give more rights to volunteers, particularly protection against discrimination but, for the moment, "the ability to volunteer" and "the ability to give their leisure time to the railway" are not protected rights.

 

The discussion on here did make a considerable difference during the long campaign to evict the (now ex-) six. Unfortunately

 

Unfortunately that is how it seemed. Fourteen people, later reduced to ten: it had the appearance of a take-over bid to many folk.

 

The most recent published minutes of the WSRHT trustees states that the chairmanship has been passed to a different trustee who is not a PLC director (based on Companies House information, it looks like he was until earlier this year, but isn't now). The previous ("interim") chairman remains a trustee.

 

It was, I voted for it, and I wish it had succeeded. Lesson learned.

But I also observe from a number of corners a determination to be right, which from a distance makes compromises seem vanishingly unlikely. And that’s rather a pity, as this mess will only be solved through the making of compromises.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

That may have been the platform they stood on, but their tactic, in "springing" a large number of nominations at the last minute, was very ill-advised, as it called into question their motives and handed a huge stick to their opposition to beat them with. Hardly surprising that they went on to take a drubbing at the polls. If they hadn't made that initial error, they may well have succeeded in getting one or two candidates elected.

 

All this talk of withdrawal of labour is most unhelpful. Especially if it comes from non-WSR volunteers. Either way, it is the stuff of the playground creeps who goad other kids into doing things but melt away when trouble brews.

An appalling suggestion by @Sidmouth and cohorts.

Steve
wsr.org.uk