S&D Railway Trust

Ye Gods!

They certainly didnt hold back there and of course laid down several challenges that need to be addressed

 

I would suspect that the Trust's patience has finally been exhausted.

It is quite clear now, even if it has not been so far, that the 'understanding' of who has agreed, or not agreed, what and when, or replied or not replied to various requests , as written by the Plc in its various statements is fundamentally completely different from the view held by the Trust.

When the evidence is weighed in the moderation/arbitration process then one or other of the parties is going to look very foolish indeed......

 

Kerpow! Well. In most respects this statement is welcome. It has refuted some of the blatantly ridiculous claims the WSR has aimed at the S&DRT, which is probably good. It has stated the case for the S&DRT at Washford, reminded everyone what they've done and generally written in a calm manner. Good.

However, as much as I enjoyed reading the paragraph that contained the sentence "That faith has been thrown onto the volcano in Mordor where reasonableness and common sense have already suffered a demise", as much as I agreed with it and have every sympathy with the chairman who wrote it, that paragraph was perhaps a little ill-judged. Especially when it is immediately followed by "The Somerset & Dorset Railway Trust Ltd has tried, at all times, to conduct their affairs in a civilised, honourable and constructive manner" and references to the moderated talks with the HRA. The S&DRT quite rightly currently enjoy the moral high ground in all of this with a lot of public sympathy, along with a decent legal case. Thus far they have appeared extremely restrained in their statements, which have been in stark contrast to the WSR's. Tempting though it may be, I'd urge them to not throw that all away.

That said, it's still hard to see how anyone but the S&DRT are in the right over this. The WSR have still behaved disgracefully throughout, and the S&DRT have been by far and away the body who have acted the most proffesionally.

 

The words of a keen Tolkein Fan............

 

Indeed, it was well-written, I just fear it could be compared with the "Cuckoo in the nest" comment and a narrative of false equivalence could begin, both as bad as each other etc. which is clearly not the case.

 

Will we know hear the sound of the Horn of Helm Hammerhand echoing across the Brendon Hills ???

 

Well, they are not describing the PLC they are describing how they feel though...............

 

Those of us of a certain age might remember the Margaret Thatcher/Geoffrey Howe cricket metaphor which rebounded spectacularly. By and large it is best to stick to facts and not use metaphor descriptors....(just my view)

regards

Matt

 

+1

 

They clearly are Tolkien the talk with a statement like this, but I do agree it was a slightly jarring note

 

Imagine then, if it goes to court, and a judge has to decide on it, based on the evidence so far, I would not be surprised one bit if it came to pas that the PLC were found to have not only acted illegally, but has so to the point that the Trust were awarded such a level of damages the PLC were then made insolvent and forced to call in the receiver's and the Chairman went on to blame everyone but him self and ends up being sued by those he libels.

 

Steady on Martin ...

Far better IMHO to allow the various statements to speak for themselves rather than predict all sorts of scenarios, especially not to assert what someone may or may not say in the future.

Tom

 

What we need is for the PLC to provide the evidence to support their allegations.

 

I have read the statement and found the volcano stuff puzzling. Apparently it is to do with Tolkien and I am still none the wiser. An odd thing to put in a rebuttal letter.

Before many people get too carried away, there are 2 issues that I feel need to be borne in mind.

Firstly, suggestions that the plc might lose or get bankrupted forget the important point that the plc, and them alone, hold the LRO. This cannot be simply passed to a new company or other organisation on the line. So, be careful what you wish for.

Secondly, I have not seen much discussion about what happens if the Trust win, by however that is defined. How will the relationship between the Trust and the plc work thereafter? What are the implications for communications between the parties?

I fear that there can be no winners in this case and the resultant fallout, in whatever form it takes, will inevitably be played out very publically; here, the railway press and the general press.

Just my thoughts.

Ed

 

No body will win is the short answer, jaw jaw is better than war war, something the Plc seem to have forgotten.

 

important to remember the “legal” case is a matter of Landlord and Tennat, a narrow procedure under the 1954 act. It is a very technical area of law, without knowing full facts (and I am certain that not all facts are public) then it is very hard to predict what would happen.

as the SDRT statement recognises; the wider issues namely (but possibly not limited to) financially supporting WSR Plc ; loco 88 and regulatory matters ; meetings or non- meetings are simply side issues and are not going to be tested in court. None of the above issues are directly related to the eviction as far as the court procedure is concerned but it’s background to understand how we have got to this point.

Regards

Matt

 

I think metaphor conveys the sense of the breakdown in trust, without putting it in such explicit terms. I wouldn’t use it but I think it better to focus on the substance of the letter than the form.

What is the key takeaway is the refuting of the allegation of safety violations and ORR becoming involved. This really does blow a hole in the claims by the PLC, and particularly as these were the most damaging.

Furthermore, the letter shows that they have been willing to engage in discussions and also fund raising for the WSR and for 88, but that they can not just give money to the PLC.

I hope @RHM will give as much coverage to this statement in their next issue as they did to the PLC in their last.

 

IMHO successful use of metaphor descriptors in rhetoric does require that everyone is singing from the same hymn book.

Robin

 

They should all sit down with a LEgal Eagle of eviction. Listen to their conclusion, and agree to part as Gentle-folk. A Court room drama will simply yield the same result for millions more plus one losing bankrupcy.
What about a legendary move back to Radstock?