S&D Railway Trust

Julian, I wouldn't go so far as to say that I am never going to be persuaded by any opinion expressed by John Bailey, and I'm fairly sure he and I could agree about a number of the legal aspects of the present dispute.

I'm well aware of my fallibilities, so I try to be open to persuasion that any assessment I've made of how the law applies to given facts is wrong. However, I'm not likely to be persuaded I'm wrong in the absence of cogent reasons for reaching such a conclusion. The problem here is worse than a failure to offer such reasons – we haven't even been told what the defect in the attempt to extend the S&DRT's lease is supposed to be. Consequently none of us is left with so much as a starting point for a dispassionate analysis of whether there is any substance in the defect asserted by John Bailey, and we have been put in that position by his view that confidentiality precludes him from giving Nat. Pres. details of the defect he perceives, but doesn't preclude him from saying that such a defect exists. To my way of thinking, such selective lifting of the lid on the confidentiality of what he has told the parties to the dispute is one of the more disagreeable aspects of the way in which it has been handled.

Either give full disclosure of what the parties were told or give none at all. Selective disclosure is bound to excite concerns that it was prompted by ulterior motives that no neutral facilitator should be entertaining.

 

You are wrong on this.

There are more stakeholders involved in this than just the WSR PLC and the SDRT.

Public opinion matters precisely because the railway depends on the good will of volunteers, donors and passengers.

Hence clear explanations are critical in preventing misconceptions from taking root. Explaining decisions and how they were arrived at is vital.

 

If that is so then why the cloak and dagger attitude of the PLC?
With so much obfuscation regarding the WSR, no wonder so many donors are reluctant to support the line.

 

@Lineisclear has posted before where he sees the defect in the relationship between two pieces of law; @jma1009 has stated that he considers this irrelevant. This non-lawyer lacks the expertise to judge between these opinions and NP is not a legal forum.

 

I thought long and hard before posting on this Forum. One of its least satisfactory traits is that postings sometimes appear based on suppositions ,or even assumptions represented as fact, that are just plain wrong. In the absence of any response from those involved they are then assumed to be factual and correct. So it was with comments about the 50 year extension agreement.
I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t. People criticise others for not communicating but when an attempt is made to clarify the situation as far as possible the cry goes up that is improper behaviour.
In wishing to keep posters on here informed I have been scrupulously careful not to disclose the details of the discussions between the parties.
Frankly I can understand why people are reluctant to engage on here even when doing so might be helpful.

 

Oops. Managed to screw up again. Mods could you please extract my reply from John Palmer’s post? Thanks

 

Click on “Edit”

Where you see .[/QUOTE add a closing ] (Square bracket).

You’ll probably find an extraneous [/QUOTE] right at the end of your post - that can be deleted.

That should fix it.

Tom

 

right at the end of your post - that can be deleted.

That should fix it.

Tom[/QUOTE]

Thanks Tom! You’re a star!

 

Just for the sake of clarity could you inform us of how you were selected to carry out the review please.
Were you appointed by the HRA without reference to any party? Were you appointed by the HRA at the request or either or both parties? Were you appointed without any involvement of the HRA purely at the request of one party or both parties or at the request of one party with the agreement of the other?
Thank you.

 

However, considering that the case will never go to court: neither side can afford it and the S&DRT are too gentlemanly to force the issue by remaining in possession of the site, the legal rights or wrongs are largely irrelevant. The S&DRT has been persuaded to go without a fight and expensive lawyers are not required. However, there is another battle which the Plc has not been able to avoid, and that is the one to prevent itself looking like an unscrupulous bully. This is the battle that is being fought on Nat Pres and in other places and this is the one that they are losing badly.

 

Both parties approached the HRA for help and advice following which I was asked if I could help by the CEO of the HRA. Both parties were consulted before any involvement commenced.

 

I have to say that I agree with you and would wish that posters who disagree with you would be a little more polite, but that is the internet, although it must be said that aggressive posts come from both sides. I wish such posters would realise that they are not helping their cause, in fact quite the opposite. However, that being said it remains a fact that the Plc needs to make the case, on here and elsewhere, that its actions are not only legally correct, but also fair and morally justifiable, if it is to succeed in raising the very considerable sums of money it need to survive. Those sums of money are going to come from the internet and news media reading public, not from a court of law.

 

I agree - the moral battle is very distinct from the legal one.

 

For those of us on the outside, looking in, it's hard to know what to make of this, without knowing what the alleged defect is. What I don't understand is why you just can't tell us what you think the problem is. You're quite right that only a court ruling can establish definitively whether there is a defect; but how can public disclosure of the grounds for concern affect that? The court, in making that determination, won't (I would think) be affected by whether or not the grounds have been made public (and indeed, unless filings in any potential action are sealed, they will/would undoubtedly be revealed therein).

I can think of a reason for one side not revealing it, which is that the information may give them an edge in the dispute: e.g. the other side can't be sure (even with competent legal advice) that there isn't some angle they've missed. But you're not one side, you're an independent mediator. You may take the position that as an independent mediator, you shouldn't be weighing in, or disclosing such matters to the public - but by saying 'there is potentially an issue with the lease - but I won't say what it is', you're already giving the appearance of aiding one side. To put it another way, what's the difference between i) the PLC saying 'there is potentially an issue with the lease - but we won't say what it is' (using the reasoning above), and you saying 'there is potentially an issue with the lease - but I won't say what it is'?

Unless you've already told both sides what the issue is - but then, what's the harm in making it public? Saying 'well, it's not my place to speak in public' ignores the fact that you've already spoken on the point in public - to disclose that you think there is a defect.

Noel

 

In life, we are taught, treat others as you would expect to be treated, be honest, be fair, be considerate, as the WSR plc have sowed, so shall they reap, if you bully, lie and are untrustworthy, so others will treat you accordingly , they will only have themselves to blame if they find people do not respond to calls to donate, or threats if you don't.
The problems with the WSR go back several years, before the current board, but that does not excuse them from collective responsibility the way the line is run needs to change, but the railway, and its leadership seem incapable of agreeing that change, egos, bloody mindedness, internal feuds all make it likely that there is only one outcome,, they carry on, until they can't continue, and the cost of that is the end of a project started many years ago, and years of hard work, down the drain , History will judge those who hold power and responsibility at the moment , and I can't see how they can change in time.

 

Where was that, may I ask? I just had a look through his past posts, and didn't see it (although I cheerfully admit didn't read ever line of every post). All I could find was a reference to a specific piece of legislation.

Mind, there may well be a defect, but I really am utterly in the dark on this (and of course, there's no telling how the court would rule even if it did agree there was a defect in the lease - the two parties do seem to have had the intent to have a valid extension).

Noel

 

Oh yes indeed, that is a likely scenario. I did not mention that because I was responding specifically to the suggestion that there is goodwill to resolve the situation. It seems to me that the two scenarios that I did mention are the two that would be consistent with goodwill.

 

53808 has today left the WSR...

 

Treating others as you would like to be treated yourself is one way of looking at things. However perhaps this can in a way be reversed in that if an individual or even a group of the same treat others badly how do they treat themselves? It is said that you ought to treat yourself like you would treat someone that you are responsible for. If you do not treat yourself well how can you know how to treat others well? You cannot assume overmuch about something that looks like a human being.

 

I'm a bit sad to read this (especially if it were to mean that you all won't donate the funds you've already collected, to the SDRT). Can you all consider that the SDRT might have decided, after careful consideration, that so doing may be what's best for the SDRT overall, in the long run? (Since the SDRT has not yet made a public statement on their plans, or their reasons for their choice, what follows is necessarily supposition.)

I can definitely understand a decision to leave; they might well feel that in the long run they would be better off somewhere where they are clearly welcomed and desired. As for 'punishing' the WSR for their outrageous behavior (a phrase I use after careful consideration, taking into account the PLC's treatment, for no good reason that can be perceived, of a band of devoted rail enthusiasts who have laboured for decades to build up their installation), again, they may have felt that, as desirable as that might be in some abstract sense, it would be neither i) any part of what the SDRT's real goals were, nor ii) any good for them, either as an organization, or as individuals.

This has clearly deeply upset many of us, and I hope you all can eventually gain some peace over it.

Noel