West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Undermine the company? The problems that continue to afflict the WSR have gone on for how long now? A glance at the number of pages devoted to this line should offer a clue. In failing to address the structural failings of the organisation and some of the entrenched attitudes therein the WSR has largely undermined itself.

Not too many years ago the line was a red route, deteriorated to a blue and now looks unlikely to run anything for quite some time. The infrastructure has been suffering a steady decline and to fully reverse this will take both time and money. But the railway does not have the money, if it did the overhaul of number 88 or rather the refusal of the company to meet its obligations with respect to this would not be so much of a factor in the minds of those concerned about the line.

The nature of the spread and allocation of the company shares has been raised before and I would agree that mustering the needed support for action to be taken at an AGM looks to be a very remote possibility.

Another area to think about is whether the other directors are comfortable with what has taken place? Tarred with the same brush comes to mind. As to the PLC responding positively to the proposals for structure change, what is your preferred currency, words or deeds? PLC deeds? Look at these pages.

The railway has staggered on so far but for many enough is enough. There are far more deserving organisations to support.

 

The problem in all of this is that the organisations have to trust each other and that's never going to happen, in part because of the PLC, who is playing a divide and rule game, can or will a leopard change it's spots, no, and this latest spat, which I think is more Trumpian than anything else, and childish, does not install any confidence,
If the railway does survive into 2021, nothing will change, unless the personalities are changed, otherwise it will be more of the same, change is needed that is clear, but the leadership won't allow it because they are most interested in power, than in the railway. by agreeing to change they are signing their own P45, and lose their power .

 

@Lineisclear are you the same John Bailey who wrote the WSR report?

 

If I wanted to hide that I could easily have done so. I believe it's more important to stand up and be counted.

 

I wouldn't say it's perfection, just common sense that a lot of people want.

 

There's an insurance policy (I used to arrange them!) that pays the claimant's costs should you lose. You can in some cases insure out all costs - the insurance premium and the other side's costs. There's other forms of funded litigation too. I've no idea what the circumstances of this case are, but it's possible in some cases to sue someone for libel at virtually no monetary cost or risk to yourself.

Again, some barristers offer no win no fee/funded arrangements (Google 'no win no fee barrister').

Patrick

 

I believe the ex 6 had insurance for this kind of situation. I also think that there was still a big financial cost to the WSRA even so.
Mention in an earlier - and many posts - suggest change needed if the line survives this coming winter. If it does I think it would not be the same WSR that supporters presently know and love. Which may be why donations are slow to be realised.
But that maybe a forthcoming crisis.

 

If the post is correct
https://www.national-preservation.c...lway-operations.508987/page-1385#post-2588112

the WSR PLC Chairman and his holdings company have now instructed Solicitors (in Clitheroe), who have written to Julie Norman (Headteacher of Stogumber C of E Primary school) threatening libel proceedings and a claim for compensation, legal costs, and a threat to report her to the Police for the crime of harassment.

Then it is not a purely personal matter.
They have written a legal letter to a public sector body, & apparently decided it should involve their business entity.
Even though anything that is likely to have been said has nothing to do with that entity.

The entity that is involved is the WSR, so if the action goes any further, then the letters will be coming from/on behalf of the WSR, & costing the WSR money.

If I remember correctly, the letter which was written by the Headteacher concerned was with reference to stuff that was possibly contractually due to her employer.

Even if there was no direct contract between her employer & the WSR, this is in relation to a grant that the WSR received on the basis that certain services would be provided to the Headteachers employer.

Also, didn't the employer support the grant application?

 

Indeed they did. The insurance was put in place by one of the Reform Group which was rather ironic. The insurer provided clear instructions on what to do and what not to do however the combined intellect of the 6+1 thought they knew better and voided the cover. If it had not been the members' money then it would have been extremely funny.

Given that the latest dispute appears ultimately to be between an individual and a trade union, let's hope the losing party or his insurer covers his own costs.

 

Can anyone summarise what was actually said or supposed to be said in the apparently offending letter written by Julie Norman

Thanks

 

For the purposes of accuracy: The 'Insurers' offered £8K post the legal action, despite the fact
that the former WSRA Trustees had apparently acted without the 'Insurers' approval/authority.
We, the interim Trustees ( post the Spring EGM and before the Autumn AGM ) were very
pleased to accept the offer. Finances were at a very low ebb.

Michael Rowe

 

Unless I've missed something, it refers to this back in March: https://www.somersetcountygazette.c...chers-accusation-misappropriating-grant-cash/ the letter in full is published somewhere on here, but searching is difficult on my phone.

 

It was a goodwill gesture covering a small portion of the costs for which the WSRA was most grateful. Blind stupidity and a "we know best" attitude bit hard.

 

You should find it linked upthread, and I think in the local paper's website; there is significant further elaboration including by her husband, @Andy Norman which is worth reading with care. It provided an account of significant discrepancies between what formed part of the submission to the Hinckley Point C community funds, and the way in which it was eventually agreed that the grants should be used. The detail of that account is disputed by some who appear close to the current board of the WSR plc, as is the value of the grant to the WSR.

 

For some reason, I have a feeling that the total fees incurred were nearer £30k, meaning that the Association was down £20k or thereabouts on the matter due to the actions of the former trustees.

 

Careful! Wouldn't that be repeating the alleged libel?

 

Litigation is not a cheap hobby!