Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Is that something which is written into the constitutions of both groups, or is it something that just 'happens'?

 

Particularly if it "just happens" careful attention should be paid to the comprehensive Charity Commission guidance on relationships between a charity , like the CIO, and an non-charity such as the CIC. That's all the more so if they have trustees/directors in common. it depends what "locking the two groups together" involves in practice but care needs to be taken to avoid financial blurring of the lines or the CIO undertaking activities beyond its charitable purposes.

 

It might be fruitful to question what has motivated such leaks...it seems to occur when there is a mismatch between the very limited official pronouncements & what had occurred in eg board meetings. Whistle-blowing is an essential method of revealing internal malfunction. 'Confidentiality' can become a convenient way of avoiding scrutiny & challenge.



Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

Just in case you're alluding to me extracting information from the L & B Blackmoor Co. 2023 accounts (sent to me by concerned shareholders) with the accusation of breaching confidentiality in what I have posted, I did this because members of the Trust are not being told of the risks to it and the railway should the business not be financial success. The Trust controls the Company through it's A shares, and has an unsecured investment of at least £648,000 in the Company, probably more from the £40,000 B shares allotted 3rd or 4th January (since the accounts). The more the loan it has made is converted into shares, as has been done with the first repayment, the less security the Trust has an unsecured creditor. Mr Miles is Chairman of the Trust and is a Director of this Company, but details of the Company are not included in the Magazine and members of the Trust are not being told of the risk to the Trust that this document highlights. He says in the strategic report of the Company: ‘The principal external risk facing the company relates to the cost of living crisis and the effect this has on people’s disposable incomes’, whereas it is clear from these accounts showing a profit of £8,290 (benefitting from non-repeatable £13,000 interest receivable) that a bigger risk is finding the money to repay the £379,000 secured loan by the end of next year (£101,333 of it within seven and a half months time or on demand). If that is not achieved the Trust's investment is at risk, and that is why I considered it was in the interest of members of the Trust to know about it, as they have not been otherwise informed.

 

I ha

I believe that CFL is owned by the church.

 

What documents are these ? I've seen nothing that is not, or should not be, available to all members.

 

There was one on this forum marked 'Company Confidiental'. There were a few others which were clearly not meant to be circulated. However I would add that some documents sent to members are intended for members only and should not be posted here. If people want this information they should pay their subscription and become members.

 

I couldn't help laughing at that. As if the general membership are any better informed! As a member, I get virtually all my information from here, or groups.io.
Honestly, Harold. And I know it "shouldn't" happen like that, but it does. Thanks to the communications black hole known as "The Trust"

 

I have worked in an environment with government restricted documentation, and also have to observe company confidentiality in my work. My experience of working with government "Restricted" documents was that the classification was so overused as to become meaningless, with the result that any information with a "Restricted" label on it became excessively exciting to journalists, no matter how mundane. Work use of "company confidential" is similar, but with a strong awareness that the information may well be exposed and is therefore (a) looked after and (b) not used for genuinely sensitive material.

Where the L&BRT and subsidiaries are concerned, I see a great deal made of confidentiality, but very little released to members or the wider world that I would really regard as sensitive. Instead, that emphasis on confidentiality seems to make otherwise mundane documents much more interesting.

This, however, is a symptom of something more important. That is to do with trust and engagement. Those mundane documents are seen as interesting because they are presented as highly confidential, and because it is so rare to get clear information out that any glimmer attracts attention, like moths to a light. If I compare this to the updates posted here and elsewhere from the RVR, or Jonnie's very detailed updates from the Spa Valley, I'm left wondering why the need for such a blanket level of confidentiality. Where trust exists (e.g. the RVR), it's then possible to very lightly throw a cloak of confidentiality over the stuff that really is sensitive.

 

Indeed.

I've worked with a government project that was the subject of quite a few 'press release' articles in relevant trade journals. Quite a lot of the content was often derived from 'Restricted' classification documents - had I circulated them, then I would have been reprimanded, but it seemed OK for the 'bosses' to grab the limelight. Likewise there was also a 'clear desk' policy when offices were empty - if I left a document on my desk overnight it would be seized by the security patrol in case it was seen by unauthorized personnel (eg cleaning contractors), yet pin the document to a notice-board in the office for staff information and leave it there 24/7 and nobody minded about that - weird ! For the same reason we were not allowed to have unattended fax machines in case someone sent us a document and it sat in the output tray overnight - but as the custodian of the fax machine only worked part-time, they were never there late afternoon if you needed to send/receive an urgent document for a morning meeting next day.

 

We are used to the 'so called' leaks of politicians - all brands - and 'unofficial' reports and more recently whistle blowing has become a favourite. No names, no pack drill.

 

This.

In bucketloads.

 

And now, of course, being a protected species you have to face the dreaded bat surveys before you can do any remedials just in case the little (ahem) darlings have decided it's a nice place to roost. Also, don't forget these surveys can only be done in summer when the bats are active. Don't decide to start work in the autumn as the surveyors will not do anything if there is a chance they will be hibernating there. The longer you leave it the more likely it will be that the little... rascals have taken up residence - then you have a whole new list of (expensive) problems.

 

I attended the EA and YVT meetings last Saturday, and wrote a piece in my Heritage Herald blog about the visit:

https://haylesabbeyhalt.blogspot.com/2024/05/concrete-ordered-for-floor.html

While the Heritage Herald is mainly about the GWSR, I do write about the EA track purchases from time to time (I am a shareholder), so readers might be interested.
The EA / YVT piece is about half way down.

 

In your blog, do you mean item 16, not 15?

 

I note that the CIC AGM results are now on the Members part of the website. Particularly interested to note that 2 of the elected directors got quite significant number of 'Against' votes and that those Against the Chairman were almost 50% of those in favour.

 

Yes, well spotted at the back there!

 

So does that change who had the most support? i.e. Votes for minus votes against. It's all well and good getting a lot of votes for but if there are also a lot of votes against do they change things? Bit like goal difference really?

 

The results as reported on lynton-rail.co.uk were as follows:

• Report and Accounts: For: 722; Against: 21
• Appointment of Accountant: For: 723; Against: 12
• Re-election of Brom Bromidge: For: 615; Against: 125
• Election of Jonathan Griffiths: For: 715; Against: 22
• Re-election of Peter Miles: For: 499; Against: 235
• Re-election of Michael Grimoldby: For: 687; Against: 44

Only the votes FOR were taken into account. There were 4 candidates for 4 vacancies, so the votes cast had little or no impact on the outcome. They do, however, perhaps send a message...

 

There’s clear discontent for Peter Miles.

I noticed there’s a post about mothballing Woody bay on FB.