West Somerset Railway General Discussion

I think it's "alternative facts" now...!

 

Thank you very much , yes of course ,' Google is my friend ' should of known it .

 

If PJ is looking for a job, he should go over to the USA and join DT team to help to give the alternate correct stories to the press.

 

Whilst that is undoubtedly true, Pete, I believe it is more complicated than that. The owner and moderators of NP are, in my view, owed a significant debt by those of us involved in the WSR and more widely in the heritage railway movement by allowing the discussion to take place here over the last eighteen months. The discussion that took place here and in the previous thread was I believe, on balance, a significant positive factor in getting us where we are are today.

Social media is (are??) a fact of life. But those criticised - or indeed libelled - on websites or in other places do need some way of countering mis information and innuendo, short of going to law. The information will be there - and accessible - for a very long time. But I agree with you that one doesn't wish to stoke this up.

I have refrained from commenting on the "History" site until now, but I do want to make a couple of factual points. Neither of the presumed authors of the site were present at either the EGM or the AGM, though they could have attended if they wished. Second, I chaired both meetings, not Paul Whitehouse (for whom, having worked with closely, I have very high regard). Paul was Company Secretary at the AGM and then elected later as Chair. Finally I have talked with all the players in this sorry saga, many of them at length in one to one meetings. Without exception they were pleasant company! Which goes to show that most of us get engaged in social media (including discursive websites) at our peril.

Frank

 

I find the hysterical site fascinating. With insight into the mind of what was an officer of the Association you can see how dangerous it would have been if it had continued.
On Companies House there are two statements, for the Association 0 active persons with significant control, for 4160 Ltd 1 active person with significant control (Nature of control - has significant influence or control).
The members in general I am sure would not have noticed if that second statement had crept into the bottom of the Associations listing ....

 

The term made me wonder if they had become exiled in Scotland. Legal joke.

 

Surely an oxymoron? Or should we call it a Trumpism?

 

I see that according to WSR.Org FB page....need to be part of FB, that the Hawksworth Saloon is being given a repaint.....?

 

One of the risks is that these photo's are carefully watched by the "Powers that be" and any recorded H&S infringement could be quickly jumped on using the photo as evidence. Take for example what might be seen if a worker removed his/her safety glasses for a few seconds to clean them just as the photo was taken. The worker was being responsible and ensuring he/she had clear vision which would be good H&S you may say. However the photo only shows a worker with no eye protection therefore clearly breaching H&S regulations... That will be an £xxxx fine thank you ('cos we need the money to pay for HS2. )

There are so many people waiting to jump on you from a H&S viewpoint these days I won't blame anyone for restricting workforce photo's and any 'official' photo's I'd release would have been carefully checked to ensure that the above sort of scenario did not happen.

Another case of sad but true

 

Not restricted to heritage railways unfortunately.

Our lock restoration project gets a visitor who is a self-appointed "H&S inspector" and observes our project from outside the site's fence. He has made a nuisance of himself with taking photographs and then reporting what he deems to be non-compliances to the extent that he is causing potential for accidents because his presence causes a distraction for the folks working on the project.

I don't know if the law on harassment would apply in respect of the activities of this individual but I suspect the police have more pressing matters on their hands.

 

All very well hypothetically but what of photos taken, quite legitimately, from public viewpoints? Consider the hundreds of thousands of photos taken on the WSR every year many of which that are published on Steve Edge's site and elswhere. Are you seriosuly suggesting that the H&S are trawling through theselooking for possible breaches of the rules? I am still not convinced that the restriction is proportionate, or necessary.

 

Interesting on the WSR.ORG web site there are 4 PW photos taken at Longlands bridge of volunteers doing this work.

 

Someone about a year ago said this coach was deteriorating as it is stored outside all year around so keeping the paintwork in good order will help to keep it in good condition but needs a covered building for when it isn't in regular work.

 

Photos of volunteer activities *do* make their way to H&S minded people, so I can understand the reluctance to have any photos plonked on the internet - I'm sure WSR Pway always work within H&S regulations anyway, but sometimes photos can make things appear more dangerous than they are. Equally, I still can't see why whoever told Robin not too couldn't have just asked her to give the photos a once over first, I'm sure she's capable!

 

ORR/HMRI freely admit that they spend time on places such at Nat Pres and railway websites. So. yes, I am seriously suggesting it, as is Gwilialan.

 

I always check my images for any such issues before publishing them.

On more than one occasion I have raised safety / legal issues with web-published photos of a number of Railways, including the WSR.

Once a lawyer, you always see the world that way....

Robin

 

I'm sure you do, which is why I can understand the reluctance for any old person to take photos and post them up, but I'm still puzzled as to why you're not allowed. I'm not in much of a tizzy about it (unlike some folk!) just curious 'tis all.

 

As far as wsr.org.uk is concerned, I am not aware of a ban by the Plc (who are the WSR body ultimately responsible for operating a safe and secure railway) on publishing pictures of the WSR including pictures of folks at work. However, I fully understand that running a railway is a very serious business. Pictures are first assessed for any safety and security issues, along with risk of misinterpretation, and some images are not used.

Designated WSR worksites are specified in the Ops Notices and my understanding is that access is usually restricted to those involved in those works although I know permissions for on-site photography have been given in the past. I am not aware of a ban on photography of designated WSR worksites from public areas (although the same assessment as above should apply before publication).

At the time of writing I have not received a request to remove any images of the Minehead worksite and I don't recall rejecting any submitted images apart from those of poor quality or which tend to duplicate already-published pics.

Tis a fine line to tread. In my quest to provide a comprehensive view of "happenings", the Plc have been very supportive (and trusting) of my efforts. I will always comply with a request to remove a published image. Hopefully, wsr.org.uk will continue to show a sufficiently wide range of WSR activities for WSR supporters. Living 200 miles from the WSR I too fully understand the desire to "see what's going on" down there in West Somerset.

Steve

 

I think most of us that take snaps and submit to .org do tend to look before mailing. My last submission I'd asked a couple of chaps in the image if it was OK, was there anything 'iffy' in there, and though it was a cropped copy I had the full image that had a 'Stop' block on the rail if any one raised the question. They were satisfied with it. Years ago I had some shots of chaps working on the fishplates, I was about to submit to .org and had one last look before sending, oops! all had the gear, lookout, everything except tucked away behind the group I could just see ear defenders dangling around someone neck. Cancel that then. Another shot had a chap with the wrong colour hard hat. Not a crime but not a publication picture.