West Somerset Railway General Discussion

I would caution NatPres forum members to assume that the SDRT has "thrown in the towel".

There are a vast number of reasons why certain things might have been said of late.

That is all I'm going to say on this. I've obviously bored forum members quite enough and repeated myself far too much recently.

 

Nah... The real crime is that the dedicated volunteers at the WSR have to put up with the over inflated egos, petty personal points scoring and constant dubious claims of 'saving the railway' from senior personnel primarily from three organisations who are all supposedly 'Supporting the railway in these troubled times..'

Most children have gone back to school now, sadly it appears they never left the WSR...

 

Fat lot of good for those of us who don't have and don't want Facebook accounts.

 

Well what do you expect, an SAE to be provided!? I completely understand if you don't want to sign up to Facebook, but it seems a bit odd to then moan about not being able to enjoy its benefits.

 

Benefits ? I can't see that a high exposure to security risks and a complete lack of moderating, resulting in much trolling and unpleasantness is a benefit !

 

Like I say, I completely get why some folk don't want to be on it, it just seemed odd to then complain about not being able to take part in something being conducted on that platform.

 

If there were no alternative platform, that would be fair enough: take it or leave it.
But it is someone's choice to use Facebook and thus restrict who can contribute.

 

I've highlighted the relevant bit of your message . We quite understand that you support the S&D Trust and oppose the actions of the WSR Plc but you already have a thread covering that issue, so why bring it over here and why start attacking the WSSRT who, at worst, have remained neutral (or silent ?) on that issue ? There's enough charge and counter-charge on this thread without you bringing in overspill !

 

I don't suppose they were expecting non-Facebook members to contribute...

 

I don’t think the WSSRT gang of ten are neutral as far as the S&D Trust are concerned. They don’t want them evicted as far I know (from a conversation with one of the prospective Trustees). But hey ho, sadly, what do I or anyone else know about the machinations of the various factions of this rather sad Railway.
Hopefully, the AGMs planned for November may provide a way forward.
(I was going to append a picture of flying pigs to this comment but decided against it. The WSR has enough negative posts in this thread. Let’s hope November can prove productive).

 

We are 10 individuals and, I'm sure, all have a personal opinion as regards the Washford affair. I'm a S&DRT member and am rightly donating to the Trust's relocation appeal.

Our WSSRT campaign must however remain focused solely on setting WSSRT on a path to becoming a willing, integral and important element of the mooted single WSR charity. The existing Trust board will need agreement of a majority of their members to mandate that outcome. At the same time, our Railway Family as a whole need to engage fully with the ongoing restructuring process and work hard to ensure that any new sole charity is set up as a true member led entity from outset. The trustees of both existing charities have a very important role in working with the plc project team to ensure 'One Railway' in every sense is the eventual outcome. One Railway, One Chance.

 

Not to add a Facebook argument into the fun WSR contretemps, but the highlighted section is completely wrong. Communities and Page Owners are responsible for moderating content in their own corners of Facebook. What isn’t moderated is the creation of pages and communities, but that’s clearly not an issue in this context.

Simon

 

Ok, but it appears a number of Page Owners are not exercising that responsibility. Within this (WSR) community alone there have been multiple claims of abuse and intimidation received on "Social Media" which, in this context, has been specifically identified as Facebook.

 

It seems to me that as it is stated they hold, in effect a controlling shareholding, were the WSSRT & WSRA to come out in favour of withdrawing the Notice to Quit issued to the S&DRT, or at least requesting that the PLC provide the full justification for the decision, the board might be wise to re visit the decision.

 

Sure, but that's like saying 'I received an abusive email – email and I are *done*' or 'I got a dirty phone call, never using the telephone again'. It doesn't meant that the platform is inherently bad (though there are lots of other reasons why it's bad).

Simon

 

Are you inviting Jon Jones Pratt on one side and Robin White on the other to stand aside then? If so I hope there could be some accommodation of them as future volunteers, we will need every one we can get. The powers that be presently do not know how many of the existing workforce will return - I personally think they have cause for concern and the longer the railway remains closed the worse it will get. I only hope we are allowed to run these Santa Trains but there is no guarantee they will be able to do so, sadly.

I agree we are in the last chance saloon and people are taking sides the prize being whether or not the WSR survives as we know it!

 

I think there has to be a real question about them, and about others, who have polarised opinion. Not because they are or are not good at the jobs they volunteer at, but because their presence may impede the reconciliation process that’s required. However, when volunteers are not ten a penny, that outcome should be the last resort, not the first.

There’s a parallel in the church, where it is customary for priests to retire well outside their last parish, so as not to overshadow their successor(s) as they seek to take things forward.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

This seems like a sidestepping of the issue. The '10' are being guided by the 'big picture' of a new charity owning the plc. Well surely that big picture either does or does not include the SDJRT? It's really not that difficult to make a policy choice on the issue and stick to it. Unless of course there is a political side to the non decision ('don't want to upset group X'), this would not surprise me.

If the '10' are really going to make a difference then I think they need to clearly state their position on the controversial things that have happened over the last few years. The new charity must be accountable to the members yes, but it also needs to have a backbone and stand up for the oppressed when injustice has taken place.

Keith

 

Firstly I agree that the WSR might not survive, partly as a result of historical mis-management, partly as a result of COVID & partly as a result of actions taken by the current board & its supporters.

BUT who has caused division in all this? In any walk of life there are those with different ideas as to how things should be done, the WSR is no exception.

We should ask the questions though of who took what action and why. I think it is agreed that some of the actions taken are not only misguided but clearly wrong and they should be held to account for them. In which case those who have called for people to be held to account are not 'taking sides' but doing the right thing.