West Somerset Railway General Discussion

If we are into Voltaire quotes, my top three are:

"dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres"

And for Jeff Price:

'Judge a man by his questions not by his answers.'

And my personal favourite is:

'Life is a shipwreck; but we must sing in the lifeboats.'

How true

Robin

 

Struggling to understand the reference to admirals or do I have that wrong?

 

It's a quote from Candide, satirising the ruthlessness of the British Admiralty, who executed one of their own Admirals for a perceived failure in battle: "These days, it is necessary from time to time to kill an admiral, in order to encourage the others".

Seemingly, all things are possible beyond Taunton.

Tom

 

Google 'Admiral Byng' and all should become clear.

Robin

 

I also meant to say that Candide is well worth a read. I encountered it first aged 14 when staying with my French relatives. It taxed my 14 year-old French but I had a good tutor in an elderly neighbour whom I first met as an obsessive 'Belotte' player but who turned out to be a retired teacher. Perhaps because I had to work harder to absorb it, I worked through its satirical messages and thinking more clearly. There are good English translations, some of them annotated, available.

Robin

 

With regard to the shares in 'Four One Six O Ltd' the owning company of locomotive 4160.

It appears that:-

Organisation 'W' rightly owned a quantity of shares in 'Four One Six O' Ltd. The directors/trustees of organisation 'W' decided to offer those shares for sale to one or more individuals.

Individual 'A' who was not part of the management of organisation 'W' agreed to purchase some of the shares at a price that was mutually agreed, the sale went ahead.

Individual 'B' who may have been part of the management of organisation 'W' at that time, or who may only became so later after the sale, agreed to purchase some of the shares at a price that was mutually agreed, the sale went ahead.

Not everyone is happy with this state of affairs.


History will eventually record the outcome, which will probably be one or more of the following:-

• All was above board and both sales stand.
• Lack of evidence either way, so the status quo stands.
• There was a bit of underhand dealing in one transaction.
• There was a bit of underhand dealing in both transactions.
• Organisation 'W' did not do very well in obtaining best price for the shares and has to accept the incompetence of their predecessors.
• The new Trustees make a claim from the old Trustees for the loss of value. [Quite right, I missed this one off the list. My observations are not intended to indicate any opinion but to express the reality of the situation however undesirable, any morality question (however valid) is probably a separate issue. Andy]

No one yet knows the outcome (least of all me) although they can wish that they know. The legal profession, if given a chance, will enjoy having a good chat about it in and out of court before saying yes, no, or maybe. Followed perhaps by an appeal, then a different selection of the legal profession can have a similar chat with similar results.

Like a good book I await the actual ending with interest.

On the plus side advertising revenue on this thread will help maintain "Nat Pres" due to the high viewing figures.

Andy.

 

There is a lawyer in the house, but were W not obtain the best price due to incompetence of their predecessor trustees then W does not 'have to accept the incompetence'. W (its current trustees) would have a legal duty to recover from the predecessor trustees. Whether there was an undervalue, incompetence and other issues is what will come out in the wash and probably better not discussed at length on here.

Patrick

 

Well Andy

The issue you seem to have overlooked is that the asset (4160 Ltd shares) was held by a charity who's trustees are required to act in the best interests of the charitable objectives of the WSRA

Therefore the standards of action required by charity trustees are somewhat higher than those of a private individual.

If you review the published WSRA minutes the whole process seems somewhat vague, thus unless the report laid before the Trustees suddenly appears with all the working and justification for the chosen course of action it will remain unknown.

The former WSRA trustees had a responsibility, if they have failed in that responsibility it appears they are somewhat liable personally.

Who is or is not counted as a trustee, elected or co-opted is an open matter.

It is also clear that the current WSRA trustees have a duty to attempt to recover losses, which appears to ongoing reading the WSRA journal and the outpourings from the WSRA History Web site.

If the current WSRA trustees do not follow this course they themselves could be in breach of there duties as Trustees.

Now as to the actions of the purchaser of the shares, very few people (Andy Aberdare is rather a lone voice it would seem) seem to think this was a morally acceptable action.

The process will grind on I am sure.

Jeff

edit The quick fix would of course be to pass the shares back to the WSRA - this may be too simple of course for some who wish to defend a past action.

 

*leaps up at the back of class with hand in the air*
Sir, Sir, I know this one!

Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote it in her biography of Voltaire, but the phrase was hers not his.

Thank you and Jamessquared for the steer to Candide, I thought is was Robespierre or somesuch. I am now more educated.

Patrick

 

There is.

Sage advice.

However, missing from Andy Forster @Aberdare 's analysis is the fact that 'W' is a charity, which brings additional legal responsibilities on those involved.

And putting my legal wig aside for a moment, there is a moral dimension to dealing with the assets of a charity . They are not just the belongings of others, they are assets held in trust for the public good.

'A' and 'B' might want to reflect on their moral position as well as their legal one... if, that is, they want a place in the heritage Railway world in future.

Robin

 

Regardless of the attribution the principle is the same.

 

I do wonder, if we are throwing aphorisms by dead Frenchman around, whether Pierre Bosquet is closer to the truth than Voltaire?

Tom

 

I am not a WSRA Trustee, just a lowly member, so I cannot speak for the organisation. But such a course would very significantly 'clear the air'.

As a lawyer I have seen many apparently intractable disputes settled by such an appropriate step. It takes courage to accept that you have taken a wrong course and to step away from it, but the benefits can be considerable and long lasting.

Robin

 

Is 60103 using triangle to turn in September and park ride or will there be s dmu into BL for connection

 

You are presumably referring to the comment that:

'It's Manchester, but is not that station, it's Foley Park.'

as Pierre Bosquet said on the 'Picture Puzzle' thread.

Or is my French getting rusty these days.....

Robin

 

That's the one ...

Tom

 

It's probably far too early for these details to have been decided, but I'm pretty sure that FS is too big for the TT at MD so will probably not be turned at either end during the day. If it is going to spend the nights at BL, it could be turned on the triangle at the end of the day.

 

I think we are on rather thin ice on that point. If for example, I enter into a deal with a Beefeater at the Tower to buy some jewellery which is kept in a glass case for a tenner, he and I have brokered a deal. Setting aside all sorts of debate about receiving stolen goods, I would have done nothing wrong. All the argument in the world about me having a moral obligation to hand them back would count for nothing. The Beefeater on the other hand, would have a rather predictable social life for quite some time.

I think we have to accept that the shares are not heading back anytime soon. The best option is to have those who held the fiduciary duty to the membership, made liable for fair compensation.

 

You may also want to consider the Leonard Bernstein adaptation of it - not in the class of West Side Story but still worth a listen.