West Somerset Railway General Discussion

I made a prior post exploring the issue of identifying the error, and concluded that I couldn't think of a good reason for an independent mediator to publicly opine that there is a flaw, but not to make public what they felt the flaw to be. I still can't see any flaw in that analysis; I'd be curious to hear your take on it.

Noel

 

As far as I can see @Big Al has summarised the situation very clearly, never mind the legality, think of the impact of the decision on the WSR

 

I'm sorry for having gone into the tedious legal detail, but John Bailey's (@Lineisclear) assertion the the S&DRT was given notice because it had supposedly breached the terms of its lease came as a complete surprise to me. Since the information on which I had based my assessment never suggested that this was why the plc had acted as it had, I felt I should explain in my defence why I had drawn the inference about the plc's view of the Agreement's validity that John Bailey now tells me is wrong.

I've seen nothing from the plc's solicitors consistent with the notion that they treat the Extension Agreement as invalid. In their correspondence they say that their 12 months' notice ending the term of the Trust's tenancy is given “in accordance” with clause 28 of the Agreement. The problem is that clause 28 implies that the procedure in clause 26 I referred to previously has been complied with, and on the information known to me that is not the case.

The tenant's right to compensation I referred to is conferred by the 1954 Act, but it is of an amount prescribed by that Act, and as such is unlikely to be the subject of much negotiation. Since it is modest in amount I would not expect the plc to have difficulty paying it, but my point remains that if the plc's actions were triggered by some perceived breach of the Agreement by the Trust then why would the plc not rely on such breach as the basis for denying a renewal of the Trust's tenancy and so avoid having to pay any compensation at all for the resulting loss to the Trust of its tenancy?

 

Noel, I thought you made a number of good points in that post for just the reasons you advanced in their support.

I hope I have been consistent in the expression of my view that a person who participates in a public debate about a dispute in which he has been cast in the role of facilitator or mediator runs a significant risk that any public comments he makes may adversely affect one or other of the disputants' perceptions of his impartiality, and by extension that of the organisation he represents. For that reason, however erroneous might be the commentary put into the public domain by outsiders, I think the better course is for any such facilitator to resist the temptation to make any public response. Once he has done so, any subsequent refusal to put additional information into the public arena encourages speculation that information is being released selectively in the furtherance of some ulterior purpose. However honourable the facilitator's intentions may be, a loss of trust in his impartiality may well result.

As is his privilege, John Bailey / @Lineisclear evidently takes a different view on this to me, so we are where we are.

 

They also run the significant risk of upsetting one or both disputants to the point where they refuse to participate further in the mediation, so they have to be very careful of what they say in public, even if this may lead to an impression of partiality.
I think we should be very grateful for @Lineisclear for coming on here and putting his views forward, given the risks that he runs. Otherwise this thread would turn into little more than an echo chamber with occasional sniper fire, to thoroughly mix metaphors.

 

Good morning NatPres.

This account has been created to represent the 10 candidates standing for election as West Somerset Steam Railway Trust (WSSRT) trustees.

In response to a letter from the WSSRT Chairman, Chris Austin, and a subsequent article in the West Somerset Free Press last week, we have written a statement, please click here to read it:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iSpEBoF5a7QDObj1ulVnIUwEC-iPwWPg/view?usp=sharing

We would welcome any messages of support, either by a 'like' to this post or through an e-mail to WSSRTcandidates@gmail.com.

We would particularly like to hear from members of the WSSRT who have, so far, been denied the opportunity to discuss our proposals because of the AGM having been put on hold by the present Trustees. In standing for election we are following the correct democratic processes of the WSSRT, in accordance with the Articles of Association.

Yours

The Prospective WSSRT Trustees:
David Horton
Stephen Doughty
Jeff Price
James Price
Nigel Power
Robin White
Brian Fraser
Barrie Childs
Dee Childs
Emma Haywood

 

Would the current WSSRT trustees be so good as to respond?

I hope that this has gone to the local press

But, it quotes the WSR as needing £60K a month to cover its overheads, by next year March thats £750000 and only £230000 has been raised so far, to say nothing of a distinct impression that the line is dying unlike most others

 

We are sending the statement to Steam Railway magazine, Heritage Railway magazine, the local press, and BBC. It is important that people are able to see both sides of the story. We would have preferred to have had this debate quietly and democratically amongst the WSSRT members at the AGM, so that they can form a view, but the PLC (later retracted) and shortly afterwards the WSSRT made a choice to put out their "hostile takeover" press releases last weekend, so we are compelled to respond. We are quite prepared that the WSSRT membership may not agree with us, in which case they can choose not to vote us in. This is how democracy works.

 

The Chairman of the Association claims that the WSRA are neutral but the document issued by the 10 states they intend to merge Steam trust with the WSRA. The WSRA cannot be neutral. @Alfort has either to nail his colours to the takeover bid or to the PLC. Sitting on the fence only produces a pain in the A*** Is it with 4 of the 10 being trustees of the WSRA after the AGM (so I am told by a member who has had his voting papers) he is hogtied by them but doesn't want to be seen to be involved should this go belly up? Surely there is a conflict of interests if the WSRA are neutral.

 

Out of interest and my attempt to understand things better, given that the WSSRT and WSRA have such similar objectives, and generally speaking pooling resources is beneficial in achieving aims, what is your objection to a merger?

Sent from my SM-J330FN using Tapatalk

 

Please explain why you think that the two are incompatible. In any case, it is not a takeover bid but a proposal to consult the membership and have them discuss and decide what they think is best. It's called openness and democracy. I know it is rather unfashionable in some quarters.

Some people claim to know what the membership want without bothering to ask them. I recall the 6+1 taking a similar stance.

 

Is there a date for the rescheduled AGM?

 

As (in particular) supporters of the current plc board are wont to remind us, no one has to respond to anything in particular on here. Nor do the two facts that the “14” include trustees of the WSRA and that the “14” wish to merge the two bodies mean that this is WSRA policy. I also question what you mean by “conflict of interest”, and whether the (presumably unintended) implication is actually that anyone with a prior view on an issue should be disqualified from any forum at which they can represent that view.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

You have my support as a WSSRT member.

 

Morning everyone,

Already there is 'bickering' from people who allegedly support the line. Folks, get together, shake hands, and agree that the Railway needs the unified support of every one of you if it is to stay alive.
This petty mud-slinging and back-stabbing will not do anyone any good whatsoever. The old-boys clubs need to adapt to halt the dire circumstances that threaten the WSR.

Put your differences behind you all (there shouldn't be any differences anyway if you all purport to be supporting the Railway, should there?...).

 

For the WSSRT AGM - not as far as we know. It is still on hold. We hope the Trustees will allow it to go ahead without further delay. We believe there to be no good reason for postponing it.

The WSRA AGM is on 26th September: https://www.wsra.org.uk/agm_2020/

The PLC AGM is on 21st November: https://www.west-somerset-railway.co.uk/news/detail/change-of-date-for-plc-agm

 

In the light of your earlier views on harassment, or the lack of it, perhaps you would like to comment on this part of the statement?
Q8: Have any of the individuals involved with this action been subject to bullying or harassment over their involvement?
Some of the individuals involved in this action have been contacted by members of the Board of the West Somerset Railway PLC, their advisors, and by existing Trustees of the WSSRT, seeking to persuade them against standing for election. Some of this contact has been very unpleasant and constitutes harassment*. However, the policies defining bullying or harassment, and covering what protections were in place for staff and volunteers, have been suspended by the West Somerset Railway PLC for some time. These policies also applied (or were accepted) by all the WSR charities and support organisations until having been withdrawn, without consultation, by the PLC.

*When I asked for clarification about the harassment, I was told this "The past few days have been utterly vile. One prospective Trustee was called every 20 minutes but a tag-team of WSR plc High-ups for 8-hours until he was driven to distraction on a day dealing with a personal matter."

 

Assuming Alfort is the chairman of the WSRA, he does have a third option, which is to consult the membership of the WSRA. It is possible that the membership would disagree with the Chairman - have they been asked?

Edit - And if not , why not? This is a defining moment for the WSR - so all should be involved in the decisions.

Whatever the WSRA membership chooses is unlikely to be altered by the inclusion of the WSSRT membership, simply because the WSRA has so many more members.

So should a merger take place, it is still the wishes of the overall membership which should take precedence - and all trustees, present and future, should remember that.

 

Is there a latest date beyond which the AGM cannot be postponed and the Trust remain compliant to the Charity Commission rules and/or its articles of association?

 

A breath of fresh air with extremely welcome transparency coming from the '14'.

Lets hope collectively the WSR are finally at the start of a solution. I wish you all well in your endeavours, and hope that well intentioned WSSRT members might consider supporting this development.