In very general terms, the agenda is itemised by department, and at the end of each department's report there is time for questions. I didn't go to the last AGM, but I seem to remember from the one before, also on Zoom, that you could still ask face-to-face questions. From personal experience, all I'll say is don't back down when given a wishy-washy answer. The one that intrigues me is the boiler from 4115. Now I have not personally seen the Three Counties agreement, but when an email circular in 2016 revealed disquiet amongst the Didcot workers over the proposed Churchward County, it was met with an email from a GWS Director, who robustly asserted that the Three Counties agreement was legally binding, and therefore the GWS had to build a Churchward County. The relevance to 4115's boiler? Well I believe part of the agreement was that Vale of Glamorgan Council would build a County Tank, using this boiler. [I know, I know... the idea of a Council building an engine is itself utterly absurd.] However, some time prior to 2014, this boiler was sold to another concern. Presumably VGC were not legally bound to build this engine. So why was the GWS legally bound to build theirs? Who decided this distinction? And why? The person responsible for organising the boiler's purchase told me that he offered the GWS Chairman an (unbelievably low!) amount for it, to which the Chairman 'nearly bit me arm off!' When I asked the same Chairman about this at the 2016 AGM, he denied any involvement and said the deal was done between the new owner and VGC. So who organised the sale? And why did the GWS not get first refusal? The GWS has three engines in its collection that use this type of boiler. Did no one think that it might come in useful? As you can see, what's happening with Thornbury is nothing new. It's just that, as a Castle, its popularity is shining light on the sorts of antics which have been going on for years.