West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Please note that Andy's reference to "The Chairman" refers to a previous Chairman, not to me.

Paul

 

Yes I take the point, perhaps not the best example to use, so its an awfully big pub with lot of friends in it, with also a lot of other people stood at the bar who are overhearing what you are saying, its a very, very large pub where people come and go because they want to chat or debate or just listen. I'll get my coat !!!!

 

Paul, Yes to confirm I was not referring to you in any way.

 

That, and the fact your message is here to stay, not just broadcast for the 10 seconds you were talking.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

Yes I have, but you will note that I am not the only trustee posting, and I am not clear to which cohorts you refer (and see my earlier post on the change of Chairman).
You should also know that Andy Norman is leading on a joint bid by the Association and the Plc to the Hinkley Point Community Fund, and he and I are on good terms. All we are interested in is supporting the whole railway. I hope you will help. If you want to know more about what we are doing, please read our Minutes (freely available to all on our website).

Paul

 

There are fundamental differences between a conversation down in a pub and online though, in that anything you say in a pub disappears into the aether instantaneously, whereas anything you say online is recorded more or less in perpetuity. Secondly, while in a pub you may be exactly certain of your audience, on social media you never know who is reading what you have to say. So while openness is to be welcomed, it must be tempered with a degree of consideration for how such remarks may be interpreted, possibly by people unknown, now and in the future. I think there is also a consideration for anyone who is identifiably in a position of responsibility (for example, a Trustee or director) that they at least make clear whether any comment they make is made in a personal capacity or as the collected view of the organisation they represent.

With those caveats, the more the better with regard communications.

Tom

 

Noted, thank you.

 

Not forgetting those 2 other features of a face to face conversation which cannot be replicated online: body language and inflection.

 

Sorry, but what are you on about? What "fake news" and which "cohorts presenting a united front"? You say you are "fortunately" no longer a WSRA member and you seem quite unhappy about things. Can you elaborate?

 

Don't tell Snifter but word on the street is that there might be a new WSR Poster Boy featured on the cover of our 2018 Timetable and Information leaflet. Same department, younger man I heard.

 

Andy, I am nervous at commenting on the above but individual memories often vary. I was also a WSRA Trustee at the time to which you refer and on occasion I commented on 'Social Media'. Indeed I received some less than flattering 'reviews' (if that is the right word ) on NP. The challenge was always to separate (or preferably sublimate) my individual views from possible conflicts with agreed 'cabinet' responsibilities/decisions (particularly relevant at what was then a difficult/critical time for the WSRA).

Ultimately one is either a member of the metaphorical 'cabinet' or as a 'party member' sits on the 'back benches' ( and even that I suggest is not without its responsibilities.) I do not believe you can do both.

I hope also Andy you will not mind me, as you have introduced the subject, remembering as you note, that you also had other areas of disagreement other than posting on NP, which memory says were key to your decision.

As a point of information since he has commented; the current WSRA Chairman was then a Trustee and the Company Secretary

Michael Rowe

 

One of the things I love about social media is that the empowering nature of it allows folk to question and ‘out’ massaging of facts, pure nonsense, pomposity and the like.

I have always believed in the clensing power of bright sunlight.

It will be remembered that the X6 and their apologists) attempted to swim in the social media sea (who remembers ‘Newrailwayman’?) but soon found the water a bit hot.

To anyone of goodwill, I would say ‘Come on in, the water’s lovely!’

(That applies to Nat Pres and to the WSR!)

Robin

 

Alas, every star eventually fades.

There is good news on the horizon in that they are making "Reform Group - The Movie". Insiders say that George Clooney has been practicing an Edinburgh accent. Modesty forbids me from saying how much he is looking forward to the role.

 

Please don’t be nervous, you make some fair points which as you focus on them are worth me giving an opinion on. My view was that people telling me ‘you are to stop making comments on social media’ and then putting that into Trustee guidelines in writing was not the way forward. In my view it just reflected on what had gone before with the ex6, what I felt we needed for all members was (and is) an open and honest dialogue whenever asked for it from people who are in effect our ‘employers’ as they placed their trust in us as trustees.

As you quite rightly say it’s difficult to be both a cabinet member and a party member but that was (and is) the trustees problem to resolve and as trustees we should have had the strength to embrace that and take the challenge not default back to not saying anything because it’s too difficult and risky. I felt rightly or wrongly it was better to talk and risk getting it wrong once in a while rather than being gagged. Whilst that’s a strong word to use many will remember the ‘gagging orders’ previous trustees were under with the old guard, so perhaps we should have gone out of our way to demonstrate the opposite behaviour.

As you say and as I pointed out it was one but not the main reason I resigned, the main reason was another issue of cultural behaviour impacting on me which in my opinion was not acceptable, others felt it was. Therefore I felt I had no option other than to resign rather than just be there to make the numbers up. My issue was with two people neither of whom was the current Chairman. In defence of some of the people I’m critising here that period was immediately post ex6 so many were feeling a bit battered and bruised so maybe their behaviour was not typical.

However the point I was trying to make in my post, badly it appears (along with my pub example) was: That was then and this is now. Things have changed for the better and the WSRA is clearly changing its cultural behaviour, the Chairman and Vice Chairman freely comment on here and as has been pointed out I’m currently working very closely with both Paul and Mike plus Ben from the PLC and Chris from the WSSRT on a project trying to gain some funding for the railways benefit. Both boards have backed this plus I’m keeping the WSSRT involved as much as they wish as well so it is a great example of the way things should be going forward as one railway and a million miles away from where I was 18 months ago, feeling a bit excluded in a fragmented railway.

Will we make a success of this particular funding bid? Frankly I don’t know it’s a tough thing to achieve and it’s more likely to be no rather than yes but if nothing else it shows that with the right positive mind-set the railway can and is working together now.

 

Bravo! Keep up the good work.

 

Personally I don't go with the idea that a pub conversation is fundamentally different to a social media post as in both situations the person voicing the opinion has no control of who overhears it and how they may replay it. Journalist's unnamed sources, gossip columns etc. etc.

Secondly I can't agree with any concept of collective secrecy the members have every right to know who voted which way on key matters because without such knowledge how can they cast meaningful votes to ensure their preferred candidates representing their views get elected. In reality if there is proper and full discussion between Trustees and members (via social media, pub chats, personal engagement etc.) a consensus ought to emerge such that everybody understands the reasons the organisation acts as it does with factions and dissent minimised. Whilst for volunteer trustees such discussion may require huge personal effort and perhaps be seen as not getting things done the longer term reward from having fully discussed, debated and agreed plans and objectives is likely to be not just reduced dissent but successful growth as everybody pulls in the same direction.

 

Does the WSR plc regime engage?

 

Very much so!

 

It is now clear that the WSRplc board face a difficult choice in this closed season.

The choice is to make some changes in private that will allow the WSR to progress seamlessly into 2018
or have to deal with a very public shareholder engagement,
hopefully before the 2018 season starts.

Having seen the waste of money, time, resource, headway and wreckage of the WSRA wars, largely as a result of people not understanding when it is time to go. It would be unforgivable if a few people are unable to step away with dignity in a timely manner rather than further funds having to be spent to sort the matter out in public in the New Year

The upside of the WSRplc as an organisation is that one would feel the democratic process would be fair and the intervention of the HRA would not be required.

The WSR, its staff and volunteers deserves more than another public punch up.

Let's hope for a settled Christmas

Jeff

 

It is learning, I believe.

The acting Chairman, Ian Coleby, certainly contributes here.

Robin