Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I can’t see how you can say that, when you have this statement “BY THEACQUISITION, RESTORATION, PRESERVATION, CREATION ANDEXHIBITION OF RAILWAYLOCOMOTIVES, CARRIAGES, ROLLING STOCK, EQUIPMENT, ARTEFACTS,DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS, TOGETHER WITH ANY APPROPRIATE LAND,BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES INPARTICULAR BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY THOSE OF THE FORMER LYNTON &BARNSTAPLE RAILWAY”

That literally says that an aim is the acquisition, restoration etc of rolling stock and land related to the L&B.

 

Tom

 

Yet it would seem its perfectly OK for the trustees to invest £600,000+ of its own money (because its their wishes) in to a murky deal with the pub and refuse to clearly explain to the members exactly what they have done

 

As @Meatman says, @Lineisclear , you're extrapolating from a hypothetical to assert a conclusion about the L&B today - which I'm afraid, given the facts, either makes you look foolish or worse, as a flack for the current Trustees whose repeated failures and lies have brought us to the place.

For clarity, neither is a good look.

Have a fun day everyone, sorry I can't be there.

 

Very simply Keith as your selective quote makes clear. It starts with "BY" and then gives examples. It clearly references , as is the case in the full registration , some purpose that is facilitated by those examples. Reading the full text confirms that is education of the public. In other words all those specific activities are incidental to the overarching charitable purpose of public education. Of course it 's true that the more railway there is the greater the potential to fulfill the educational purpose and re-creation of more of the railway can be a way of doing that. That's a means to an educational end not the overriding charitable purpose as some clearly believe or would like to be the case. It follows that unless and until the charitable purposes are amended the core test oh any extension proposal is whether it would enhence realisation ot the L&B's educational purpose and, inevitably, whether it would have an adverse impact on the current achievement of that purpose at Woody Bay.

 

It's little better than trolling. He'd be better advised to invest his time & energy in the railway he has responsibilities to.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

I selectively quoted to show the relevant part. No one said it was an overriding object to rebuild the entire railway-both Tom and I said it was mentioned (and therefore encouraged) in the objects. Please stop trying to create arguments about things that have not been said.
You said:

The objects do not specifically mention rebuilding the entire railway, but neither do they prevent it (despite your assertion). They say the public is to be educated by the acquisition of rolling stock, land etc specifically related to the L&B.
Logically, that aim continues until the acquisition part is no longer possible ie all the land etc is acquired and then the aim changes to just the “restoration, preservation, creation and exhibition“ part.

Honestly John, you come across as thinking that trustees are some kind of business geniuses that can do no wrong and must never be questioned. These are ordinary people who, with the best will in the world, can and will make mistakes. There are also many ways of interpreting the written word (I would’ve thought you would appreciate this given your profession).

 

No, keep him as fully occupied as possible - then , maybe, he'll lose interest in the Other one As an example:

"Honestly John, you come across as thinking that trustees are some kind of business geniuses that can do no wrong and must never be questioned. These are ordinary people who, with the best will in the world, can and will make mistakes. There are also many ways of interpreting the written word (I would’ve thought you would appreciate this given your profession)."
This sounds to me to be a perfect description of the SMT at that "other railway"!

 

I quite agree. Surely time to draw a line and move on.

 

Precisely. The issue seems to me to be one of which is locomotive, and which tender.

Charitable objects are written to enable an organisation to secure the advantages of being considered of public benefit. Previous discussions on here have suggested that the Charity Commission were reluctant to allow these to be defined too tightly, and therefore that wordings like those being discussed became normal, specifying the railway of interest as the primary focus but without limiting benefit to just that railway. The classification of “education of the public” then becomes a peg on which they may be hung.

That means that the objects become permissive rather than restrictive of the organisation’s deeper goals. But reading them without understanding that background, and therefore that the full story is to be found in a wider reading is to profoundly misunderstand them.

The only point in this on which I unequivocally agree with @Lineisclear is that the trustees are constrained in law to work within those objects to the best advantage of the charity. I am willing to concede that they pursued CFL in good faith believing it to be so; the issue then remains not what they tried to do but how they pursued it.

There may be arguments for broadening those objectives to draw out other aspects of what the railway does. This happened at NYMR; opinions vary on how necessary this was to achieve the intended results.

 

I agree with 35 B. What I would suggest is that at the right time, a full review of the L&BR Trusts' M&A be undertaken, looking at the current version, it has not been reviewed since 2011, and we have had a lot of legislation passed since then, also Society has changed and as Lineisclear is aware, the definition of just what is charity has also expanded since then.

There are lots of areas within the M&A that I feel need to be explained and expanded, as well as one area that we do need to get a grip on, and that is Trustee burnout. My personal feeling is that trustees should not serve more than three consecutive terms in a row, and a Chairman should only serve one term of three years before stepping down for a break.

The other big area that, as a railway, I feel we need to address is OWMS (old white man syndrome). We also need to update our Trustee replacement policy (do we have one?) and look for the best people to fill the roles that are being considered. Now personally, I wouldn't care if a one-eyed purple people-eater was made the next Chairman as long as they delivered on turning this group around.

Having said that, to stand as a trustee or director at an AGM should still be the right of any member to do so, but at the same time, both the trust and the CIC need to make it clear as to what sort of person they are looking for to fill the knowledge gap.

 

For clarity, I am neutral about the merits of revisiting the Articles. My view is that the issues in the L&BRT are cultural, and that constitutional change is at best secondary.

 

I'm not quite so neutral, as I feel that there are quite a few deficiencies in the current version. Certainly, when looking thru' them in the past to find the answer to a specific issue, the answer is not there - perhaps simply because no-one has looked beyond the basic of elections and GMs etc to envisage other possible matters. Admittedly, however well-written and comprehensive you make them, there will always be the unforeseen to arise at some stage, but in the meantime I do think they can be improved. Were they not supposed to be looking at this anyway by now?

 

Given the known problems with the Sec 73 application, despite the intention being to use the existing heritage station site with public road and footpath access, compared with the CFL site - no heritage basis and no road or public RoW access, coupled with the 'harm' aspects of the proposed design and the need to undo much of the work at a later date in order to extend southwards - I would be very interested to hear the Trustees give a detailed explanation of exactly how they judged the application to be in the best interests of the Trust. As my maths teacher used to say - show your working

 

No thanks!
There are enough problems at the L&B already without Bailey's tedious rehashing of a straw-man like a stuck record.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

Yes, I agree. I just hope we haven't got to the point where we need to legislate the culture as well, as I think that would be a step too far

 

I completely agree - and that explanation and discussion would be very welcome. But there also needs to be acceptance that views may legitimately differ, and that a poor decision can still be valid.

I come back to the point that I have spoken with people whom I respect, not numbered among the “usual suspects”, who favoured CFL.

 

Had an exceptional visit to the railway r today. Started at Woody Bay and a nice run up and down behind Lyn. Then chortled over to Chelfham and the viaduct walk. Parking was much better than expected and it all seemed to be very well organised indeed. I was amused to see the attached sign at Chelfham but disappointed with the last line...hardly a line to take ig you are looking to make friends. Will the rift ever be healed with this type of thing?


Chelfham station is a beautiful place, just crying out for track and trains trundling over the viaduct and through the woods. I look forward to the AGM update.
Ian

 

And @60044
Everything I say is true... For a given value of 'true'
(with apologies to Terry Pratchett)

 

I was expecting to be at the AGM this year but a medical emergency cancelled my trip to the UK from Australia two weeks ago. So I am hanging out to know now the meeting is over, what happen guys??