Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I may be in a minority of one - but actually said its seemed that there was a vendetta. I accept that mistakes have been made by the trustees - but we may disagree what those mistakes are. It is important to follow the rules and the law. I get increasingly concerned about GDPR. I serve on a number of committees of voluntary organisations including a Charity and seem to spend a lot of time convincing other committee members of the importance of keeping data secure. A small number of them see it as a big inconvenience and that it gets in the way of what they want to do. But it is the law must be followed.

 

I agree, the law must be followed. That is the heart of this discussion, and where there is significant evidence suggesting that it is not being.

However, as a non-lawyer working in and around data, I find that there are a lot of myths about GDPR, in particular that it relies on consent for any use of personal data and that it trumps any other legislation requiring the use of personal data. For example, subject of course to appropriate controls over the data, the mailing of members about a prospective EGM and including a statement setting out reasons for that is not just allowed, but required under law - the only role of GDPR would be in ensuring that it was done with appropriate protection of personal data, and not that it could restrict such a mailing.

 

Absolutely, however it does need to be borne in mind that while GDPR is not a multi-headed hydra that means you can't do anything, it's also not 'nothing to worry about' or 'someone else's problem' either!

As someone else who works in data, I've got whiffs of both positions from this thread at times.

 

On the basis of what I have seen if there is a vendetta, and I am not saying there is, then it would be being perpetrated by the trust.

I don’t care much who the trustees are. I certainly (and I think most here) care not who they are, only that they follow the rules. I am very concerned about the fitness to be a trustee of anyone who cannot even manage to follow the rules of their own organisation. Rules which they are responsible for and indeed could rewrite and subject to confirmation at an AGM (following the rules) change if they don’t suit.

When I see internal rules being broken then I start to think that such behaviour is probably also applied to other areas that require attention. Cash management, reporting, compliance and, strategy. The board currently does not have an exemplary record and I want this to change. So surely should any member? Note though, I want the behaviour to change, if the present board can do this, that’s fine. I doubt it is possible now as I think they have dug themselves too big a pit, but I would be quite happy to be proven wrong on that account.

 

I don't believe anybody involved in this "vendetta" is against the Trust, of which many of those involved are members, but there are some against certain actions and decisions made by some of the trustees. The Trust is its members, not just its trustees.

 

Sorry I should have said the Trustees or probably some of the trustees.

 

It is taking a more personal character, but it is rooted in the actions of individuals in their capacity as trustees, rather than the individuals in their own right.

 

As an "arm chair" trust member, it's hard to know what to make of any of this.

Anna Beezleay: Martyr or PITA? So hard to say at a distance!

What I do know is that it is incumbent on the leaders of any organisation to find ways to bring onboard and keep focused individuals who have demonstrated a serious commitment to being involved. Not least because trustees apparently bullying a volunteer is a terrible look for an organisation - even if the facts behind the scenes are far more nuanced.

Ironically, if we look back at the original causes of this dispute, I was far more inclined to align myself with the trustees than with those objecting from the sidelines. However, the way that the trustees have apparently chosen to tackle this issue has left a a really bad taste in this trust member's mouth.

I have no insight into the "real" facts behind the scenes. I just know that from the outside, the whole situation seems to absolutely stink!

 

Who is Anna Beezleay??? You appear to be as confused as Peninsular Face2Face !

 

I was under the impression that egregious misspelling of Anne's name was mandatory behaviour for all loyal trust members. Did I get that wrong?

 

I feel like manner of the departure of said person may be difficult to arrange within the boundaries of the law.

In a related matter, I have an anonymous friend who arranged a wonderful corporate day out at Peak Rail (with the accompanying significant contribution to its coffers) and was asked "didn't you have a lifetime ban?" to which he replied "yes, but it turned out it wasn't my lifetime."

 

I am not suggesting that the parallels should be too exact


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I imagined as much! It was a real shame that was what it came to, and it always seems a little off to express an outside opinion after a death, but it really is a railway that should have been so much more so much more quickly. The immediate nature of the changes for the better was sufficient proof for me that everybody was right.

The parallels and worries of stagnation are definately with precedent. A loss of momentum at this point seems like a terrible prospect.

 

I don't know the story at Peak Rail, but I certainly don't want any deaths over this.

As I've said repeatedly, my interest is in restoring the L&B. I was delighted when the Planning Permission was granted in 2018, and it remains a very significant achievement. Where I became concerned was the lack of the obvious next step - a TWAO in order to get the CP powers required to meet the Grampian Conditions. This would have jumped out of any critical path analysis, and yet it never appeared. So when the s73 proposal arose, I was open to it, even as I cringed at the manner in which it was pursued (ie, no consistent engagement in Parracombe).

What has become clear over the last 12 months is that the Trustees have not been straight with us - working in government, the legal advice to ENPA last summer was the most definitive that I've seen in 25 years, and yet the Trustees didn't bother to take the Membership into their confidence last autumn, insisting all was well and when it all fell apart, they (shamefully and stupidly) publicly blamed the ENPA planning team.

Then, when Anne sought to canvass a text for a Vote of No Confidence, her valid nomination was illegally pulled by Mr Miles and Mr Nicholson and we've seen the cascade of disreputable and incompetent behaviour since.

None of this is a organised attack on the Trustees - I completely agree with @21B in saying:

 

Fortunately it was natural causes! It serves as a warning how difficult it can be to unseat someone who wants to hold on to their little corner of the world, and it consigned Peak Rail to a permanent life of trundling along a short stretch of pleasing but unspectacular line with an industrial tank and some Mk1s and a gigantic collection of unrestored stuff melting into the ground rather than the NYMR/ELR/SVR/GCR/KWVR status line it should have been. There were endless reasons/excuses as to why opportunities went whizzing by, but in the end they were dealt the same cards as everyone else who did better. In all fairness to the L&B with the original stock and Lyn they have already far transended PR, but the danger of stagnation or even regression remains, and as PR showed the longer an extension/restoration is delayed the more difficult it becomes to make it happen.

No doubt some people prefer it like it is, it isn't challanging and it's a pleasent enough place to spend some time, but a secondary Midland main taking in some of the finest scenary in England it is not.

 

A handful of years ago I got slated on exmoor ng for suggesting certain trustees were megalomaniacs, having witnessed the antics of the last 3 years and indeed the last few months I still stand by that comment and would add that in my own opinion that megalomania is slowly spreading amongst the ranks, things have I think nearly, if not already reached a point where those trustees are in fact the ones bringing the reputation of the railway in to disrepute through their recent actions against Anne

 

Yes, I remember, I was one of those slaters, but we all make mistakes...

 

Having thought about it, why is the report on Anne in the public domain? That hardly discharges the trustees duty of care does it?

 

Anne herself released it.

 

Should she have? It's marked 'Company Confidiental'.