Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Exactly - and I for one won't be revealing my voting intentions.

 

Appears to me some need to be a fair bit more restrained in your social media postings. You must realise that for many of you who live hundreds of miles away, even 10 or 20 miles away, the issues being discussed by the wonderful folk of Parracombe do not effect you in any way shape or form from a day to day living point of view. Please let them discuss and decide and converse with the railway and the ENPA without the sniping etc from the sidelines.

We also have railway people living in the village, people who like to get on with everyone in such a tight knit community.

In many ways, if you do not live there, and the issue doesn't effect you directly, shut the heck up might be a brash way of putting it, but perhaps it's more understandable?

 

its been happening for years and some of us have known who the person is for quite a while, if i was to sum up the AGM i would say it was a pure show of self indulgent , arrogance, we are not/ have never been/ its all their fault,your fault, the cats fault, everybody else and his dogs fault, lay the blame at someone else's feet by some of the trustee's, and press on regardless , as far as I'm concerned the attitude of a certain trustee towards the members in the room trumps anything Anne is accused of doing and he should resign with immediate effect

 

It is fairly clear how you feel about the Trustees, as you are involved with another L&B group you should keep you thoughts off here and to yourself.

As the earlier post said, there are objectors viewing this, Whoknows what they think of this.

 

You seem to be missing the fact that some 'enemies' of the L&BR might also be members. This cannot be prevented, can it? If so, how?
So why therefore can there not be a 'Members only' forum (which might well include fifth columnists)?

I think some posters here might well say things they perhaps might later regret through sheer frustration with the high-handed arrogance of some Trustees.
Yes, this might play into the hands of the anti-L&BR brigade, but once again, I don't see how this can be prevented.

 

I doubt many on Nat Pres or other groups would be surprised - it's exactly what I would do if I was objecting to a railway being built through my village, especially as I get precious little feedback through my trust membership. Yes, there are also objectors with full trust membership, and therefore eligible to stand as trustees.

 

An interesting ethical/moral question then - how can you act as Trustee for an organisation whose Charitable Objectives include the rebuilding of the L&BR if you are opposed to that in some way?

 

So you're telling me to shut up, so much for freedom of speech, irrespective of whatever group I'm involved with I'm also a paid up member of the L&B TRUST so have every right to criticise as I wish, also to correct you it is only a very few trustees I am unhappy with and also a couple of the CIC directors, as for objectors there were a couple at the AGM last night so the rest are no doubt already well info

 

I heard that argument last night. If only all those nasty people didn’t say stuff, then there’d be no objections. And better still, if there was no social media. It was an angry enough meeting, so I said nothing - but it was dangerous self delusion. There’s a core truth - especially from the speaker who lives in Parracombe and reminded us that loose talk costs neighbours - but it is no more than a starting point.

This forum is part of what’s got me interested enough to join the Trust, and willing to do a bit more than just sit in my armchair (my wife will have very strong opinions on how much…).

But more seriously, what worried me last night was how the focus was on engineering and building, not persuading. I was delighted to hear a constructive answer to my question on winning support locally, but would have been far happier if that had been front and centre, not the result of a question.

I am a newbie at the L&B, and have no credit in the bank. But too much of what was said from the top table would have been manna for objectors. It repelled where it could have engaged, and it betrayed contempt for legitimate disagreement rather than seeking to engage it.

Getting the L&B so that it goes to Lynton and Barnstaple will require good political skills, to build the relationships that will gain support. That needs the ability to see through others eyes.

Last night, I saw an appetite for change but was it enough?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You can’t. It’s so unlikely that such a person would even stand as a Trustee, let alone anybody vote for them, that the point is probably moot.

But no reason why they can’t be an ordinary armchair member. In fact that might be a good thing if the organisation is generally seen to act with integrity and good faith in the way it communicates with both the membership and the public.

 

I am not convinced that discussion on here is providing significant ammunition to objectors. Since the previous planning consent lapsed, most of the discussion has been about alternative ideas for possible extension(s) and about the irregularities in calling the AGM. The former are only possibilities at this point and, insofar as some of the locals may indeed object to them, their objections will need to be taken into account anyway and addressed one way or another. So I see no harm in opening the ideas to discussion by all interested parties including objectors. The AGM irregularities did deserve to be exposed and at least the exclusion of one candidate has been addressed, though the proper conduct of the renewed election needs to be watched. Insofar as the AGM irregularities indicate less than perfect performance by the incumbent trustees, yes that is ammunition for objectors, but the more it is out in the open the better the prospect of putting it right before new bad decisions are taken.

 

Unfortunately, the Trust appears to be run as an oligarchy, as evinced by many transgressions, including its particularly egregious treatment of Anne Belsey and another Trustee. As with all such organisations, control of the narrative is paramount, the promotion of which is advanced to the detriment of balance and transparency. Comments made previously on this and other fora (including those made at the EA meeting yesterday) clearly indicate acute frustration with the Trust’s reluctance to communicate fairly and unequivocally with its members. Denied a forum in which a full and frank exchange of views and concerns can be aired it is hardly surprising that members and indeed other interested parties, resort to social media to vocalise their grievances. That such commentary also informs those who are inimical to the reinstatement of the railway is one of those unfortunate, unintended consequences the blame for which lays entirely with the intransigence of the Trust and its failure to conduct itself with honesty and integrity. As to the extent that such disclosures reinforce the objectors' case is, in my opinion limited. After all there are many other sources available and as has been vocalised elsewhere, there may well be 5th columnists present within the Trust membership.

I note that with a degree of wry amusement that you (along with a couple of other latent censors) now wish to control the narrative on this forum. On what objective basis, may I ask? As Meatman observes he has every right to exercise his right to free speech and that includes criticism of the Trust. Critically, you do not have the right to shut him down simply because you happen to disagree with his opinions and/or actions. If the Trust refuses to acknowledge its members’ concerns and respond to them accordingly, then its members have every right to force it to do so with all the means at their disposal. Forcing the matter into the open is the way to deflect tyranny. As US Judge, Louis Brandeis observed over a century ago, “Sunlight is said to the best of disinfectants”. This maxim of transparency and good governance holds true to this day and is the hallmark of a fair and just society. The L&B Trust would do well to remind itsdelf of this mantra.

 

I was not at the AGM but my sense is that a reset or change is needed - for some of the current office holders the end of their period of service (for which they should be duly thanked) is in sight. If the next stage of the Railway’s development is to have the necessary continuity to be successful then a new generation, with new ideas, needs to be getting lined up to take things forward. Let’s hope that this nettle will now be grasped.

 

I am not sure how discussion on here is providing significant ammunition to objectors. Since the previous planning consent lapsed, most of the discussion has been about ideas for possible extension(s) and about the irregularities in calling the AGM. The former are only possibilities at this point and, insofar as some locals may indeed object to them, their objections will need to be taken into account anyway and addressed one way or another. So I see no harm in opening the ideas to discussion by all interested parties including objectors. The AGM irregularities did deserve to be exposed and at least the exclusion of one candidate has been addressed, though the proper conduct of the renewed election needs to be watched. Insofar as the AGM irregularities indicate less than perfect performance by the incumbent trustees, yes that is ammunition for objectors, but the more it is out in the open the better the prospect of putting it right before more bad decisions are made.

 

So one of the two posts after yours was mine. Are you saying I'm not allowed to post on here or give my opinion? On whose authority so you say that? You seem to be acting as if your word is law. One word from you and we all just do it.
Ian

 

I am in my late 40s; I felt even younger last night relative to the average than I do at Diocesan Synod! It was very clear that the trustees and directors include many people who’ve worked phenomenally hard when many would have reached for pipe and slippers.

At the same time, they embody significant expertise and experience.

There’s an important challenge for succession planning, in a world where old assumptions (eg relationships with ENPA) are crumbling.

Succession on the basis of a very tight identity will give a cohesive board. That will tend to be either very successful, or very unsuccessful, depending on how aligned they can be to external stakeholders.

More variety within the leadership, and more debate, will be more challenging to manage, but also more likely to cope with challenges that are thrown up.

It’s like the old line about trees, and those that bend serving better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

No need to get your knickers in a twist ...didnt spot your 3 word reply, if it helps and you read and use your common sense you notice I was speaking about the 2 decent size replys after mine.

My word is lnt law and will never be law but theres some on here that want to carry on talking to ''whoknows' on here and keep fueling the fire

 

No ethical/moral question really, people sometimes LIE If the end justifies the means...

 

Ok. Understood.

 

I understand what you are saying. Close to me there is a medium sized town which during the local government reorganisation in the 1970 lost it's Borough status and merged into a district council which was mainly rural where eash village had a parish council. The town was not permitted to have a parish/town council. The rules changed quite recently and a Town Council was suggested and eventually the wheels were set in motion. A high proportion of those who stood for the new council didn't want it - some of them got elected - they then tried to sabotage it so that it didn't get off the ground.

So people will stand and get elected who are opposed to the aims of the organisation.