46233 Duchess of Sutherland.

Meanwhile, the people at Butterley are getting on with the important thing and getting (4)6233 running again (a new photo posted yesterday) http://www.prclt.co.uk/New_6233_Overhaul.htm

 

Read the article and it really does lean heavily on this thread for content and context, suppose it reduces the need to actually go out and seek facts.... Some of you are real celebrities now!

The really scary thing is how much livery seems to mean to some people, I thought we had some obsessed people on here, but the article suggests that Mr Ewart placed votes via cheques totalling £6k on this issue and then to 'challenge the legitimacy of the ruling' when certain are not counted (article suggests that this second cheque was submitted too late) as is suggested in the article takes the obsession to a whole new level.

Now what to debate on here now so a journalist can rehash it for an article.....

 

I was thinking exactly the same. The engine had 10 years in red, to be putting in thousands of pounds to keep it in a colour that it'll return to at some point in the future is incredibly stubborn.

 

Why bother arguing what's already been argued over & over again?

So what, she's going into BR livery & the poll raised money for the loco, so why get so wound up over it? As far as I can tell everybody wins.

I thought I needed to make a more outrageous comment after my sensible one a couple of hours ago went unnoticed

 

I've just read the article and wish to make some obeservations in no particular order about the whole debacle.

. Firstly the criticism of Mr Wilcock seems unjustified to me, we all know he has a preference for BR Liveries and funnily enough like the rest of us he's allowed that, by and large it seems a reasonably accurate report of a poll that's been manipulated, i know some of you are unhappy that your quotes have been lifted for publication in the article, but you were quite happy to put them in the public domain in the first place by posting here, i fail to understand why if your happy enough to post your opinions here, your not happy to stand by them when a few more people see them.

. Despite questionable motives, Mr Ewart has done nothing wrong, he voted for his favourite option and it's not his fault if the rules and validity of the poll were flawed.

. It was a mistake by the trust to allow multiple voting in the first place, if the afformentioned Mr Ewart could (and nearly did) win the livery poll by himself then that is in no way a fair vote, a 'one person, one vote' system should of been the way to go.

. While i don't begrudge the trust wanting to raise money, witholding votes and adding them when they see fit was a very dishonest way to do it and has destroyed a lot of peoples trust.

. LMS Maroon should not have been an option if the period we are talking about is as little as a year.

One thing that is crystal clear from this debacle is that by going about the issue in a totally dishonest manner, the trust has alienated a lot of people and i fear as a result when the proverbial begging bowl is produced in the future the reply from many will be short and end in 'off'

Im afraid it appears to me some cynics overlooking the dishonest element of what's taken place and just having a go at those who voted for BR Green, what took place can't be overlooked and im sad to say will be remembered.

 

Fair point, but I would ask if it is entirely fair for someone who has had such a stake in the PRCLT to participate?

Again, a fair point and one which was made rather pointedly by members when the livery poll was originally announced.

I agree entirely with your sentiments; whether it has destroyed people's trust is down to the individual, however I had an inkling of what was going to happen prior to the poll taking place, simply taking on board comments certain prominent members of the PRCLT have said regarding their engine and its livery over the last few years, in the railway press.

In complete agreement, however this view was shouted down pretty quickly when aired in this thread, early on in the poll's life.

It is a PR blunder and a half in my view. We get so many outrageous accusations and derisory comments about groups on here, and elsewhere, that is rarely justified, but on this occasion we have a group actively seeking to mislead people donating to their project and then...what exactly?

Justifications for what is essentially fiddling the numbers?

I find the whole thing totally outrageous, particularly when it is clear the locomotive itself in top notch condition, thanks to the hard working people repairing it.

Spot on the money (to coin a phrase).

It is the dishonesty of the whole saga that leaves the most bitter taste in the mouth. The ends do not justify the means.

It is this sort of behaviour which will end up killing off railway preservation. If we can't even trust other enthusiasts within our own movement, how on earth are the general public supposed to get on board with our plethora of campaigns and charities with acts like this hanging over railway preservation?

For once this year, I feel Steam Railway has done the preservation movement a favour. David Wilcock too. This sort of behaviour needs to be nipped in the bud and shown to be unacceptable. Otherwise, where does it end...?

 

To sum up, this episode shows that it would probably have been better if the owning group continued to select livery without consulting the public at large. I can see why they allowed multiple voting, as they'd have probably struggled to make £2,000 with one person, one vote. The main bone of contention is the fact that LMS crimson remained as an option in the poll when it was (retrospectively) obvious that various stakeholders in the locomotive would rather see the thing scrapped than wear BR Brunswick again. As I mentioned a long time ago, would they have repainted it LMS crimson again in a years' time after a year running in the 'people's' LMS crimson'? Absolutely daft, and I'm glad I didn't contribute.

 

To err is human. Mistakes were made in this poll, as some of us noted when it started many months ago. I think that the PRCLT will learn from this debacle.

I was surprised to see my quote and username in the article, but appreciate that anything I post on this site can be used in that way - or in a Court of Law, it's worth remembering.

 

I don't have any problems with SR quoting my post. I saw through this at an early stage and I (and many others) were taken aback that an organisation with the enviable record of the PLCRT would try and con the movement with such a rigged poll. Massive own goal in my opinion.

 

With regard to the use of quotes:

This forum is a membership restricted section, so surely it's not quite the same as publishing something on a normal website for the whole world to see? Yes, anyone can register and then view the postings, but is it not akin to a chat between a group of people - ie, it is a chat and not formal statements to be taken as gospel?


Keith

 

With the exception of a couple of specific sections, the vast majority of the Nat. Pres. forums can be read without any need to register, much less log in.

Mon-Fri I'll browse the forum on a fairly regular basis, but I'll only log-in if I actually intend to post something - generally speaking everything that's posted is available for the whole on-line world to see and read, unrestricted.

 

You do not have to be a registered user to be able to see the postings - what we say here can be seen by anyone, member or no. Naturally what goes on on NatPres is basically chatting, but it is worth remembering that what we say is here indefinitely unless deleted by ourselves or a mod. The fact that a lot of what we say is chatting has no bearing, as I interpret it, on the basic fact that we are putting our thoughts in writing.

 

I don't see why people are getting so agitated about this - the ballot was always billed as a fundraising exercise, and if Mr. Ewart felt so strongly as to spend £6000 promoting his livery of choice that should be welcomed. It was always going to be a case that the livery attracting the most cash would win, so it just seems like sour grapes complaining that this cash forced others to stump up more in order to win.

 

Thanks I.Cooper and guard_jamie - I seem to recall that you couldn't see the 'Member's sections' unless you were logged in (this was a few years back). I don't log out so I wasn't sure - thanks for the clarification

Keith

 

Would you put your money in any poll if you knew from the outset it was the intention of some rich bloke to make sure you coulden't win ?, don't be silly you woulden't waste your money would you.

As i mentioned last night too many seem happy to overlook the dishonest dealings that have took place and just have a go at those who were very nearly cheated because they like a certain colour, get your priorities right and regonise which is the more serious issue here.

 

In all fairness PRCLT could have let Brell Ewart's second cheque through even though it was after the date they said they would accept posted votes, they stuck to their own rules. I think we would have been more outraged if his votes had all gone in and Crimson Lake won by a landslide.

 

Because fundraising excercises should be transparent in their aims and practices, and fair to those who, when called for funds, provide them.

You are effectively saying it's alright to lie in order to obtain funds.

 

Nat pres posts are also indexed on google.

Type "6233 livery competition" np is 5th on the list.

On some other searches it comes back top.

As said before if you don't want people to see what you write.. Don't write it.
But everything is indexed archived and searchable in the long term future... I have some "thing" i made back in 1991 still live on at least one site... When I wrote it graphics were almost unheard of in web browsers, the idea of streaming media,and web based payments were pipe dreams, ( Internet pipe dreams that is).

 

What's the copyright position?

It may be posted on the internet, but its on a private members' forum and therefore whilst in the public domain, not necessarily free for duplication without the forum owner's consent, if he has the poster's permission in the sign up terms.

And as far as the "poll" goes - A lie is a lie is a lie, and those who tell them have condemned themselves. Fund raise by all means, but not by fraudulent ones.

A poll is one man one vote - otherwise its payola!