West Somerset Railway General Discussion

What cannot speak cannot lie. If you don't want to believe what I have provided that is up to you. Reminds me of somebody on twitter who wouldn't believe pretty much all of Transport for Wales' fleet by 2024 will be new to the company (not inherited from Arriva Trains Wales in 2018) and only the Mk4s and 67s won't be new builds, despite showing him evidence of it.

 

It has not been made public otherwise so until then, that's the situation. No news is good news!

 

Any chance of an answer?

Robin

 

i am sure the s&d trust love some random keyboard warrior being spokesperson for them.

 

F.Y.I. the donor was 'outed' by somebody loosely connected to him and not by anybody at Llangollen.

Bob.

 

Well yes of course. For answers to questions such as these, you need to contact the Trust directly.
Ian

 

I suggest that somebody other than me does it as I have put my query to the trust in the public domain which makes me think they might not want to reply to me again.

 

Ian. It was you who chose to appear on social media speaking about donated funds which have, from your post, been transferred to the WSR plc in advance of works being carried out or, apparently, even materials being ordered.

The very fact that you give such an answer as the one above leads to the inevitable conclusion that the relevant charitable funds are unprotected. Otherwise, why would you not give the relevant reassurance?

Does that not concern you as a Trustee?

Robin

 

Well Robin, I am sure you understand this! The fact that the trust donated the money is a matter of public record.
You can't expect the trust to publish its detailed financial arrangements on a forum like this. I refer you to my previous response.
Ian

 

The questions are not about the Trust's "detailed financial arrangements" but about what has happened to the money that has already been transferred from the Trust to the PLC.

 

I do. That's why I asked the question that I did.

I didn't ask that question.

It remains - I believe - the position that monies appear to have been donated for a project which has not been undertaken.

How / where are they held?

Will / can they be returned if the project is not undertaken?

Robin

 

Blimey. The WSR interests are still knocking the crap out of each.

Your civil war does little for the reputation of heritage railways.

 

Looking at the last few exchanges, we can clearly see that if the existing WSRHT Trustees had been joined by the ‘candidates’ last year things would have been even less harmonious.

 

The sad thing is that they expect the WSR to receive donations to stay in business but this harms the railway. The story of the WSR I am afraid.

 

Ian - why the defensiveness? I find those answers very non-comforting from the point of view of being a potential donor.

For donors and potential donors, trust that their donation will be wisely spent is absolutely critical. That is doubly so when donating to a restricted fund: if I donate to the track appeal, I want absolute certainty that the money has been spent on track and nothing else. Yet you don't seem to be able to give a public answer to that question. How do you expect to solicit future donations on that basis?

It is nothing to do with "detailed financial arrangements" but it is to do with project arrangements. I mentioned up thread that one very simple protection is that when awarding a grant, the recipient (i.e. the plc) does the work in advance and then bills the grant-awarding body (i.e. the WSRHT) for the costs incurred, subject to sign-off that they have been done according to the requirement. That seems like a simple mechanism to give donors confidence that their donations are properly spent. Without that assurance, what would happen if the plc spent the money on, say, flat-bottom rail when the agreement was for bullhead? Or even worse, spent it on something (however worthwhile) that wasn't track at all? How would you recover the donations?

You don't get many bites at the donor cherry: lose their trust, and it is very difficult to regain. So why be defensive when you could, presumably, give an open statement of what controls you have to ensure that money is spent for the purposes that it was donated?

Tom

 

I agree, and have been involved in appeals that have worked that way.

I think the challenge is slightly different, though. My suspicion is that the grant has been given free of any binding conditions to the WSR plc, and is on their honour to use as specified. Much though I distrust the current regime, I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to using it as intended. However, when the PLC is running an appeal with the implied message of donate to keep us alive, my question as a donor is what happens if, God forbid, the plc were to collapse. As events at Llangollen have shown, funds believed to be ring-fenced can sometimes prove not to be under the conditions of administration or, worse, liquidation; and grant giving stipulations of the sort described by Tom are IMHO reasonable conditions to place to ensure that charitable funds go whence they're intended.

 

So your way is what? Harmony by not allowing debate and discussion. The only other place I can think of that takes that approach is North Korea.

Don't you think that what has happened to trust funds is actually quite important considering the financial hole that the WSR is in?

I assume as a supporter of the WSR you want potential donors to donate? If I am donating to an organisation I want to make sure that the money is spent on what it is supposed to be spent on. Unlike you, I welcome robust and open debate, discussion and transparency about such issues because it is critical in showing that funds will not be appropriated for purposes other than those that they were intended for.

BTW you denied that it was possible that the PLC would have removed the cards from those who stood. Still denying it?

 

If clarity and good governance means that some may not like it, then it's a price worth paying. I have been contacted by one senior member of the WSR who advises that had he known more at the time, he would have voted differently.