Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I have no "skin in the game" and don't know any of the people involved, but wish the L & B well. I've been following this saga with ever more incredulity at the attitude of the existing trustees.
From their position it would surely be better to let the election go ahead with Anne on the ballot papers?
If she fails to be elected they can just carry on with what appears to be their very unjust actions.
If Anne is elected, even if only on the premise that "It's better to have your enemy inside the tent pi$$ing out than the other way around", it would dispel some of the current disquiet. There may be a some heated moments at the first few trustee meetings, but she will either have go along with the principle of collective responsibilty or resign. Have they not paused to think that she might actually bring in some much-needed fresh energy?
The lack of thoughtful strategy with this doesn't bode well for a renewed attempt to get to Parracombe.

 

I think that the trustees are behaving like a wounded animal. They are very defensive. Very closed and very unwilling to listen. It is not uncommon in the face of a crisis. I suspect there will be one or more trustees who think that only they can lead the railway into the future. The blindness to the reality that they are almost certainly the last people who should remain in charge is compelling to themselves

 

I don't think anyone is going to compromise, seek solutions between parties, everyone seems to have dug their heels in and this is going to go on for years, meanwhile the railway itself will take a battering and suffer.

Everyone is in trenches and basically at war.

No point in me commenting on it anymore, just mark my words, war destroys everything, and nearly always the very things you are fighting over.

Below is a movie clip crested in 1952 called Neighbours. It's on Facebook so most can see it I think. It demonstrates very well what happens when people can't agree, or start to argue over things, even things they both enjoy or love, nearly every single time all it does is destroy.

As for me, I have lots to do elsewhere, I've politcked enough, I hate politics, and I hate arguments, especially where no one seems to want to compromise or give way even just a little bit for the welfare and sake of what they are fighting over.

https://fb.watch/lP_zSOglTA/

 

Personally I don’t have any entrenched view. What I see is a board of trustees that is sowing the seeds of discord upon pretty fertile ground created over many years by permitting far too many only loosely associated organisations. I don’t want to see argument because it is already sapping the life out of the place.

I simply want the trustees to act with the integrity that they should. To actually follow the processes laid down. That’s it.

I would like the board to engage more visibly in reviewing the way forward.

I have no other opinion.

 

@DaveE hi

This isn't a war, all anyone is trying to do is to get the Trustees to play by the rules. Once that happens, we will see improved governance and the way forward will become clear.

I for one want to build a railway: but the governance has to be right for us to be credible to external partners and funders, and to agree a plan which everyone can get behind. Healing will take time, because building trust takes time.

But if those in charge would start following the rules and telling the truth, that'd be a big step forward. They can start by calling off this ridiculous vendatta against Anne, irrespective of what happens when the votes are counted next weekend.

 

Can you (or anyone on here) see that actually happening unless and until through the application of some sort of force (such as an EGM or a complaint to the Charity Commission)?

 

@MellishR , I'm always optimistic that people can change.

Whilst it is possible that the Charity Commission could get involved, as was shown in Lynton where pressure from the floor forced Mr Miles to rerun the election he tried to rig - at a cost of several thousand pounds, which is a cost he and his co-conspirators should bear, not the Trust or the Members - there is no substitute to pressure from the Membership, and voting in new Trustees.

Based on the language used by Mr Miles at Lynton and his body language towards Chris Duffell, I suspect that his has been a pretty lonely vigil in pushing for good governance; let's see what he can achieve if he is joined by some like-minded colleagues after the votes are counted next weekend.

 

Ot certainly seems like a war to me. There are many on here who appear to be conducting a vendetta ["a prolonged campaign against someone"] against the trust. Lets see what the result of the election is.

 

Do you really not understand what it is all about, or do you just not care ?

 

I am not a member of the L&B 'family' however there appears to be irrefutable evidence of non compliance with the Trusts own rules coupled with the potential targeting of someone who might seek to hold trust management to account.

If anyone were to come up with evidence to refute those allegations then please can they do so.

 

I do care - but it seems to me that what we are seeing on here is very one-sided. It also seems that a lot of people have made their minds up. Are you saying that there is not a campaign against the trust?

 

No, there is not a campaign against the Trust. How could there be ? Nearly all the people posting are members of the Trust.
What is concerning them are the actions of certain of the Trustees, which have been well-detailed in this thread, but appear to be, if not illegal, certainly unethical and improper.
Of course you are getting a somewhat one-sided view as the Chairman and Secretary refuse to explain their actions even to their own members. In doing so they are painting themselves further into a corner and aggravating an already difficult situation. It is hardly surprising that, having seen the evidence that has been presented, many people have drawn their own conclusions.

 

Against the Trust board, possibly. Against the Trust, no.

The difference is important. In any charity, the trustees are there to fulfil the role of the charity, and provide leadership. They are servants of the charity, not it’s masters - which means that they may also be replaced if and when they are no longer the best leadership available.

I see a dispute within the Trust, where some members of the Trust have lost confidence in the current leadership due to a mixture of their record in delivering the objectives of the charity and their conduct in response to challenge.

My view, entirely personally, is that this conduct is sufficient in itself to justify demands for change. That is partly moral, but more importantly because the conduct provides so poor a basis for the hard work that is required to deliver the railway’s objectives.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

As posted by Jon Baker on the Groups website, 'GDPR regulations apply to Organisations, not individuals'. His text shows that using details passed on by an organization is therefore not a breach by the individual to whom the details were passed.

 

.....and, what is more, as Anne Belsey herself has pointed out recently on exmoor-ng, the report from the HR company is in regard of an Anne Besley - whoever she is. So not only have the Trust spent £X on a report from an HR firm who can't even proof-read their own document properly - so what else have they got wrong? - but appear at face value to have released private information to the Trust about a different person altogether. GDPR anyone????

You can't make it up.....but sadly these days it seems to be a never-ending catalogue of errors emerging from the Trust :-(

 

....

 

It is though potentially a breach by the originating organisation for not having proper controls around data security. (Otherwise there would be a loophole that you could drive a coach and horses through …)

I think using a list of contacts sent - albeit possibly accidentally - for another purpose would at a minimum be unethical.

Tom

 

I've just deleted my post saying the same thing, as you said it better.

 

I'm sorry @H Cloutt, you're wrong - read the other posts in response and you will find you are in a minority of one. Even the most outspoken of us are not conducting a vendetta - you will not be able to find any evidence for that. Even those of us who didn't spend a career as a Solicitor, Lawyer or Accountant (as I did) have instilled in us the need to follow the rules and the law even if we don't agree with it. And this is what has been happening here - nothing to do with who should run the Trust or become a Trustee.

 

It would be highly unethical. Such unauthorised use would expose that organisation to action over their failure to control the data, and increase their liability to action by ICO.

In reality, I suspect the initial breach would, assuming it had already been reported in line with the ICO's regulations, be at the most mild end. When one of my children's schools sent out a mailing with parents' emails on the cc, not bcc, line, it was a case of an immediate self-report followed by measures to ensure that mass mailings were sent in a privacy supporting way.

Of course, if the initial breach hadn't been reported, the ICO might take a less forgiving line if it was then found that addresses were being used by others.