West Somerset Railway General Discussion

I meant the wording of the PLC statement not the HRA's report: " The ('New', My insert from a previous comment in the statement) charity could set broad strategic objectives for the operating company, but the subsidiary’s board would be free, within those objectives, to operate the business against a requirement to generate annual surpluses to be paid over to the Charity" & "Clearly, before anything can happen, a key part of any transition process would be to secure agreement from PLC shareholders to vote in favour of exchanging transferable shares for membership of a Charity with appropriate voting rights and which would normally involve membership fees. It is also clear that any such re-organisation will throw up significant internal challenges. The most obvious of these is the future role of the existing charities,"

You could take this wording a number of different ways of course but a new Charity (controlled by who?) and a rehashed PLC (Subsidiary Board) who are free to act as they see fit is one way of looking at it, which I don't think is what the HRA had in mind.
Perhaps its just not clear wording and I'm reading too much into it but it seems the bit you quote from the HRA says in very simple terms: 'get rid of the PLC in a staged manner" where as the PLC statement says again in simple terms "keep the PLC and the two charities may not have a place to go because of a new one".

Maybe thats a good thing if this is going to go forward, but is there is a danger of one party driving the agenda of change and changing the starting point into a different version. Today we seem to have developing a situation where one Charity supports the PLC in all things and other family members are being pushed out including the main large supporting Charity. To me that could be the same thing as the PLC say in their release today ?

 

As Andy Norman has stated, many of us have been In possession of the bailey report for just over a month. We took the decision not to publish due to the header of the report. I would like to question if the PLC chairman asked permission not only of the author, but also the 3 other chairman mentioned before publishing the report. If the telephone calls I have received this evening are anything to go by many of the charities trustees have confirmed they did not agree to publication.
So...what are we seeing here? Yet another attempt for the PLC to control the situation and create a new separate charity at their beck and call.
Now is the time for members of the WSSRT to get behind a merger with the WSRA and protect the WSR for good.

As for the redacted s and d paragraphs, having seen the full report I have to question why these have been omitted. Also it is interesting that the HRA who were drafted in to mediate with the S and D trust have ended up recommending organisational change. I’m sure the HRA representative recognised the rotten core here!

 

Clicked on https://www.west-somerset-railway.c...response-to-sections-4-5-of-the-bailey-report - but response says "Page Not Found".
Has it been deleted or is the hyperlink the wrong one?

 

Well, the link from Mr E's site to the WSR site worked earlier, but not now....

Do I hear the sound of yet another downward-pointing projectile entering a 5-digit bipedal appendage....?

 

That struck me as a bit odd. The report is sent equally to chairmen of four different organisations with "Confidential - Not for publication", but one of those four organisations unilaterally sent it out to over 20,000 people on Facebook, with that organisation's comments as a prefix - feels like an attempt to get their retaliation in first, so to speak.

Tom

 

Ethics?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Publishing a confidential document and hastily unpublishing it when people notice seems to show, if nothing else, something of a lack of an eye for detail at the very least. The words "rash" and "unprofessional" also come to mind.

 

#ClassicJon ?

 

You could say that. I was trying hard to keep my hands on my balls (have I got this metaphor right?)

 

I'm lost now!

 

Sorry, I was just leaping at the opportunity to be childish and puerile!

 

Oh, I didn't know you had directorial ambitions!

 

I saw earlier on that apparently replying to posts on here with just the word "Yawn" counts as Top Leadership-Level Content in Somerset, and I thought "hang on, I can reach those dizzy heights of razor-sharp wit too"

 

I've got the WSR PLC board statement and the redacted Bailey Report still on my computer screen from earlier, but when I attempt to copy it and paste there is a big black box. However, I've gone into the HMTL coding and saved it.

I should imagine the full (unredacted) John Bailey Report will be generally available very soon, but the WSR PLC board statement that preceded the redacted statement this evening might not be so available.

Content at this point removed by moderators because of personal comments about the skills of the report author.

(I could go into more detail but that would be very boring for forum members).

Content at this point removed by moderators because of personal comments about the skills of the report author.

Cheers,

Julian

 

If it's raining down there, is it too wet to woo ?

 

I took the precaution of downloading it after it had been deleted but still up on my screen (for future reference, "Print" then "Save to PDF") attached herewith.

 

And they say things move slowly in Somerset! You've got to be quick to keep up with all this issuing and then de-issuing of confidential documents!

 

Indeed, it seems to be becoming something of a habit!

 

There are plenty of confused shareholders out there now - the (now broken) link was emailed to all those with email addresses on the share register, as well as everyone on HOPS.

 

In other news, WSRA website has announced a provisional Association AGM date of Saturday 26th September (TBC).