West Somerset Railway General Discussion

I would disagree with that statement as a generic comment. I still own (the equivalent of over 5500 BA shares) in what is now IAG. It was made very clear that shareholder or not any public comments against the BA company policy when I was an employee would be met with suitable sanctions. This of course would never have been put in writing though for the very reason you imply.

 

Really? Which comments were they? News to me.

 

So the candidates should only have stood if they weren't going to say anything against the plc? That sort of gets rid of democracy...

 

The old joke is:

Q: What do you call 500 dead lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

A: A start…

 

If what you said is true, then the whole affair is all about the Plc and its badmouthing by some of its own volunteers. In which case, why did the WSRHT get involved at all? Wearing his WSRHT hat, Steve Williams wrote, "What the Trust did however do was to ask the PLC to formally investigate the events both before and leading up to the Trust 2020 AGM and to determine whether any action was required against any of the individuals as a result. "
Apologists for the Plc management and lawyers can split hairs and be legally nice as much as they like. The reality is that the whole thing stinks.

 

Dodgy, Devious, Disreputable and Disgusting !

 

Or again: the difference between a lawyer and a cockerel is that when a cockerel wakes its first urge is to cluck defiance.

To adapt a book title of Dornford Yates (another lawyer), any collective of lawyers is “lower than vermin”. Paradoxically, the lawyer who saves your sorry arse becomes “the most wonderful human being I've ever known.” Could never fully get my head round that transformation...

 

I usually say that I’m your best friend or your worst enemy depending on where we are both sitting in court.

(Or who you have leased your shed from, perhaps.)

 

That reminds me of a joke often told onstage by the much loved and sorely missed Keith Floyd.

"What's the difference between orienteering and Keith Floyd ?

One's a pant in the country......"

 

It has now been quoted in public that some individuals were guilty of some unacceptable behaviour in relation to the railway. Exactly what they are alleged to have done or said remains unclear but, unless they were indeed guilty (which seems unlikely, considering their public stance of trying to get the railway steered onto a safer course) then the accusation seems to constitute a libel. Am I wrong?

 

Defamation actions are for the super-rich, the foolhardy, or, very occasionally, professionals with a reputation that has been bismurched.

I seem to remember a local school headmistress being threatened with one a while ago.

 

So, why didnt the WSRHA take action against the 'Pro Bailey' candidates?

Had they done so, I suggest that as membership of the organisation is 'Contractual' it would be open to them to go to court asking that their membership was reinstated, a risk the WSRHA didnt wish to run.

Can anyone comment on this?

 

There is also another question, to be asked of the other WSRHT Trustee's was the discussion to request the PLC to discuss what was an internal matter, discussed with the other trustees before any action was taken, or was it decided by the acting chair, alone, or perhaps with others he knew would for personal reasons want those 4 people off the railway, I get the impression, that like the PLC actual power is taken just by the acting chair, as if he, and he alone made the decision and the others were told, if they were told, only once the request, one he knew the outcome off, was taken,

 

As I understand it, the letter was sent on behalf of the board so by inference, it had the full backing of the board. That may or may not be true, however it does place the onus on the members of the board to publicly distance themselves from it, had the letter been sent without their approval.

It may be time for certain individuals to brush up on the meaning of "jointly and severally".

 

I think the phrase you are searching for is ‘collective irresponsibility’ or something like that…

 

I presume that it was addressed to the chair of the PLC?

 

So...rather than do the dirty work themselves, the WSRHT in effect hands over some of its members as sacrificial lambs to the Plc, having apparently already pre-judged them as guilty?

Whatever one may say about the ex-6, at least when they wanted to get rid of some members from the WSRA they kept the process 'in house'. Ironic really.

 

It does, in showing how somebody aspiring to, or actually holding, a position of authority merely displays pathetic ineptitude. Does he know no shame ?