West Somerset Railway General Discussion

That's true when you are a normal company going about your normal business making things or carrying out services, but when you are going to the public for money, it is not unreasonable for the public to ask for some information in return.

 

True to a point BUT such an incident may reflect upon the originator and their suitability for the role they hold.

There have been two cases in the Railway World where a strong case existed, as it affected the livelihood of the individuals concerned. Does this one?

 

On the specific suggestion of harrassment, don't the actions have to be repeated to count as harrassment?

 

The letter from Backhouse Jones Solicitors dated 6th July to Julie Norman, Headteacher of Stogumber school, was not a private letter with any confidentiality attached; it was a standard 'letter before action' required of the new court rules for defamation proceedings, though of some length. The letter states it was also sent to the school Governors; and naturally, due to it's implications, that are potentially formidable, the Somerset County Council were informed and are involved, and as a result via various channels has become widely known.

Whilst we may consider it a "personal matter" on one level and the motives underlying it, it is certainly NOT on every other level. Most parties to the PDG are named in the letter; requiring Julie Norman to apologise and retract to all of these named bodies (including the SCC) any 'alleged' libelous statements concerning one particular individual, and ALSO retract and remove all 'alleged' defamatory/derogatory statements on social media against the same one particular individual made by Andrew (Andy) Norman.

Not a happy day for the WSR family; except weed removal on the tracks. Perhaps the 'weed removal' might migrate to the WSR PLC board, and hopefully soon.

 

I’m a long suffering shareholder and member of a Derbys railway near the Peak District. The WSR saga has uncanny parallels to the way that ‘my’ railway is dominated by a small number of individuals seemingly operating out of their depth, making questionable decisions, and cheerfully brassing off supporters left right and centre. The MD has a history of issuing legal letters and pursuing legal actions. It’s costly and energy sapping. Said MD has never won a case (one dispute is still ongoing, maybe lucky this time eh?). The railway was only saved from financial ruin last year by a single benefactor with deep pockets. WSR supporters be warned! A public spat, a school, a County Council, media attention, solicitors. It’s a disastrous public relations strategy when WSR needs friends, goodwill and money like never before.

 

The "devil in the detail" IIRC is that the solicitors won't charge but the minute a barrister is engaged then a 4-figure sum is required. That is payable by the client NOT the solicitor. This happened to a relative over 20 years ago and I don't think the situation has changed since.

 

4 figure sum? A barrister, especially a defamation specialist, is unlikely to get out of bed for that, these days!

Litigation is a disaster that I should hesitate to wish upon my worst enemy.

 

Copied from the website of the aforementioned solicitor.

"At Backhouse Jones, we have a formidable team of individually and collectively ranked leaders in regulatory road transport law and are dedicated to assisting any goods and passenger vehicle operators who find themselves on the wrong side of DVSA or the Traffic Commissioners anywhere in the UK.” Draw your own conclusions as to why this firm is involved.

I find this new revelation particularly sad. I desperately want to think good things about the future of the WSR. It's one of the most scenic lines in the country, it goes somewhere instead of to the middle of a field, and I greatly enjoyed my five years as a volunteer when I lived in Somerset. At grass roots level it has a great bunch of volunteers too. Yet it is beset by problems caused by conflict at the top. A couple of weeks ago, I thought I saw a glimmer of hope at the end of the tunnel with the general welcome from all parties to the suggestions for reorganisation contained in the Bailey report. I was, at last, seriously considering making a donation to help it get through the current crisis, and now this. The cheque book is firmly locked away again, I am afraid. Yet more critical headlines in next month's magazines,, no doubt. I shall just have to content myself with being able to recommence volunteering on my present line when it starts running again in August.

Sent from my SM-T590 using Tapatalk

 

I may be wrong, but doesn't 'no win, no fee' only protect you from having to pay your own legal costs if you lose, but you would still be liable to pay a costs order for the other side's costs. You can insure against that, but it wouldn't be cheap and I expect the insurer would have a good look at your case before taking on the risk.

I am inclined to agree that we should not go too far into the details of this case on line, but no harm in keeping an eye on it.

 

I just looked at their site, and searched on terms like “defamation” that may be relevant to current matters. Strangely, I found nothing there at all, let alone suggesting staff members with expertise in that area of law.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

An astute observation Tom. Because you happen to disapprove of the decisions directors is taking doesn't mean it makes sense to try and undermine the company. It's very sad to see people withdrawing financial support because they dislike members of the Board or the decisions they are making. What can that achieve apart from the one outcome that everyone dreads?
If the PLC were to fail it's hard to imagine the company and its business being sold as a going concern. Someone with very deep pockets might be ready to buy it but with the accumulated infrastructure overhaul/replacement liabilities they would need to invest a substantial seven figure sum. In that event it would be a very different WSR. The supporting Charities do not have the power in their Articles to take it on at the moment even if they could raise the capital required. So the likely outcome if the PLC goes under is the line reverts to the County Council as freeholder. Obtaining a new licence to operate from the ORR would take a considerable time and , in the meantime, the track, earthworks, bridges and buildings become the Council's liability. Unless it is prepared to invest ratepayers' money in maintaining the infrastructure the railway could soon deteriorate to the point of no return.
The response to that situation, as suggested in a number of posts on here, is that the existing directors should be removed. That's quite a challenge! Assuming the required percentage of shareholders can agree on a resolution to appoint additional directors, and comply with the notice periods specified in the company's articles, a vote to appoint additional directors could be put to a vote at the AGM. Although much is made of the shareholdings of WSRA, WSSRT and the County Council these add up to less than 20% in total. There could be a mountain to climb to reach the necessary majority. In any event it would not achieve the desired effect. The PLC Articles ( which bind the shareholders just as much as the company) specify that a director cannot be voted out unless all the other directors agree. The result would be a divided board unable to agree or do anything. For the shareholders to vote a director out at an AGM requires a whopping 75% majority so that's an unlikely prospect.
The hard truth is that whether or not you approve of the PLC's decisions, and the Directors making them, the best prospect is to support the railway in whatever way you can at this time of crisis. The PLC has responded positively to the proposals for structure change but that will take time. The best response is to be patient. You may not like the way things are but it's better to allow time for them to change rather than forcing the PLC and the railway into oblivion.

 

When you think that the WSR has attracted all the bad news and publicity it could well have done without, hey presto! along comes another example of bringing the line into the public news arena - for all the wrong reasons.

A previous post mentions 'responding positively', that may be, but that is not the same as accepting them. When the WSR changes, for what many financial supporters consider, as 'for the better' (less acrimony and hostility) then they may be persuaded to donate to the lines appeals. At present there is a great reluctance.

 

I wonder just how many people feel the same way!
If only there was some way of getting all the small shareholders together to persuade the "few" that due to their infighting and cavalier attitude to the "good of the railway" have ruined all chances of a swift return of services. It appears a strong possibility that with the latest revelations will destroy all support of the "common people" for ever.
Whoever suggested "locking the lot in a carriage half way down the track with no food no water and only released when solid agreements are made" had the best idea. I've seen better management of situations from schoolkids rather than these grownups!
The beautiful railway is slowly dying.

 

Let's not beat about the bush ...... most people do no not throw good money after bad. What the Directors have sown, so shall they reap !

 

You make fair points, but when it is the actions of individuals - such as regarding Washford - acting as the management of the company, then the distinction becomes moot. I have made the comment before, but when the behaviour of preservation organisation makes me think of them in the same ethical light as the likes of Sports Direct, the option of giving directly or indirectly to the plc under it's current incarnation becomes impossible.

As for the role of shareholder democracy, I think you underestimate the power of moral authority. The report criticises vote chasing, but that process can actually help drive change. Even an outright defeat (especially if the result of proxy use) can help change the narrative of a leadership, let alone a majority that falls short of the super-majority requirement.

 

All fair points but it will take time. To pick up on a post above........the danger is is you push for perfection now you may simply encourage the grim reaper.

 

Indeed. In my previous post, I nearly posted a view that preservation could do with a high profile organisation going under. Much as I'd regret that outcome, I can't help feeling that the culture of entitlement implicit in the post from @Lineisclear needs puncturing, and that the realisation that they have to earn and continue to earn goodwill needs reinforcement. There is much to be said for the idea of "pour encourager les autres".