Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

No it is not. A lady passed us on the pavement this morning with two dogs unleashed. My wife asked her to put them on a lead, and was told it was not needed. Some people are petrified of dogs, which is why AIUI it is against the law. And this is what seems to have happened here, turning a drama, as @Red5 puts it, into a crisis.

 

Your praise for EA is slightly ironic as they do not allow members (i.e. shareholders) to put themselves forward to be directors. The FAQ on this point is quite funny:
"But I am not happy that EA’s directors are effectively self-appointed?"
"That is fine, you do not have to be a shareholder."

 

In “Fellowship of the Ring”, when Aragorn is introduced (at this stage, as Strider), he’s portrayed as a rough character but there’s a phrase along the lines of “not all that is fair seems fair”.

The problem here is not about constitutions, but manner of governance. There can be perfect constitutions (I believe that in Stalin’s USSR rated quite well, on paper), but it’s how they’re operated that really matters.

That’s where this Trust member is increasingly concerned.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I believe this is called transparency.....

 

The concept of transparency was created after the Financial Crash.

In a corporate environment this is achievable by writing into employee contracts to not disclose confidential information whilst employed and beyond. This way important and financially or commercially sensitive information, trade secrets, intellectual rights etc etc can be mostly protected.

In a charity setting where there are no such contracts this becomes more difficult, and as such too much transparency can become problematic in as much there is no way to prevent communication of sensitive information and data beyond the Charity membership.

There is a balance to be found and it's not easy especially where legal privilege and business relationships demand that confidentiality and privacy.

 

@DaveE that's all fine, but see my point in post #8460 above. And with the treatment of Anne Belsey, it's pretty conclusive that the Trust leadership are currently incapable of understanding when confidentiality and privacy are really required.

 

I would actually say that where internal investigations and inquiries are pending and while potential legal counsel is or might have to be sought it's even more important that confidentiality is preserved for all parties concerned.

 

Exactly, so why on earth are the Trust plastering unproven allegtions on the website as well in Newsletter 80?

 

I don't know, I haven't all the info, so not for me to say if right or wrong.

 

Even if the allegations are true, they remain in process. To assert them as true while in process is simply wrong.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Or indeed to publicise them until they were assessed by a fair and impartial process.

 

Like I said, I don't know apart from it appears the Charity Commission have been contacted by the Trust and as such, will leave it to them to sort out any issues between them.

 

It's wider than that, @DaveE - the Trust should NOT be publishing unproven allegations against anyone.

 

The trouble is that the Trust have been put under a lot of pressure to give an explanation and they have probably said more than they should. In my view they simply should have said that the matter is 'sub judice'.

 

But does it or would it have have planning permission for a tourist attraction car park and visitor accommodation? Or is the plan to buy it first and then apply, in which case you might be left with an expensive unusable asset for years.

Similarly the Yeo Valley Trust ...

Do you have elections to appoint Trustees?
No. The YVT is a Charitable Incorporated Organisation (‘Foundation’ model). The only members are the Trustees, who are not subject to election.

 

Indeed. But the nature of what has been said is also very revealing of the state of mind. So much so that it becomes hard to see how that process could ever be described as “fair”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

As I understand it no charge of any kind has been made, only a remark by one individual that he thought Anne might "leak" information. There appears to be no evidence to suggest that she has in fact done so, so the accusation is the somewhat Stalinist one that she might commit an offence in the future ! If there is no case presented then nothing can be sub judice, in fact the whole issue lacks any sense of justice.

 

I would argue that trial by media or social media is also wrong, it's not a court of law. That's all I will say on it now. I've more important things to worry about.

 

Worth pointing out that one Railway and another Loco Owning Group got their fingers badly burnt by making allegations, in public, certainly the loco owning group had to sell its loco.

I suggest that the trustees would be well advised to mind their language.

 

Quite right, trial by social media is totally wrong. So why have the Trust Board chosen to publicly post accusations against a member ?