Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

It looks like it was only posted on YouTube four days ago?

David


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Great to finally see this film in all its glory. Previously it had only been available in lower quality on the BBC's Little Train to Lynton, in which it was played at completely the wrong speed! (Think of early Chaplin films...) The YouTube video also has a number of 'new' shots which were left out by the BBC.

I think I'm right in saying that it was filmed by Donovan Box, son of Frank? It had ended up with Andrew Dow, so I'm assuming it's been uploaded by his son. It was reported by the L&B Trust a few months back that the original negative had recently been donated to them.

Nice to see something positive for a change.

 

Yes. Including former General Managers & Trustees of other railways, experienced trustees, risk management experts, engineers, lawyers, directors of substantial companies. How many & when depends on what happens.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

The question as you say @H Cloutt is whether these are significant enough to require preclearance; self-evidently, 'the six' think not, but given that the Trust *is* under CC investigation (quite why 'the six' would brrazenly lie about this in their last missive is beyond me), I'd really want to get that in writing from the Commission. In any event, the on-going investigation just shows that this entire EGM is premature until they report or close the investigation - making this needless expense.

 

s
Your earlier post 12044 showing the CC email hardly says the Trustees are under invesitagation.. It says the CC is reveiwing the evidence and is continiung to engage with the trustees.
Yoo might consider what happened, or did not, with the L&B's near neighbour the WSR.

 

Indeed it is! It was filmed by Donovan Box, and was posted to YouTube by Andrew Dow's son. The original negative is now in the ownership of the L&BRT, although I believe it was purchased, rather than donated. It is great to see it so well preserved/restored.

 

Okay, so why would the CC be "reviewing the evidence" unless they were investigating something? Why did the trustees deny that there was an investigation into some aspect of the Trust's activities, when they know there was?

 

The Charity Commission Website clearly outlines what sort of changes need Prior approval and none of these apply.

 

Can you point me to this, please, @H Cloutt ? And are you supportive of the changes proposed by 'the six'?

 

@Greenway @Old Kent Biker is spot on. If you doubt this, you can email the CC to check.

 

Prior? Who he?

 

Donovan said he had taken it. I recall him saying he took the sequences from the train from the saloon of the observation car. I wondered why the train was going backwards - Donovan may have explained it. But thinking about it, 9mm film, unlike the ordinary 8 and super 8 (mm) that we remember in the 60s and 70s, had the sprockets down the centre, so just reversing the film in the editing would have had the effect of making it look as though it was shot from the front of the engine. As you say, it's a shame the BBC in Bristol with all their available expertise could not have improved the quality for the film on the television programme. Regarding the 9mm negative film being in Andrew Dow's possession, this was fortuitous. I knew Donovan lived in a flat near me in Redland, Bristol, because his cousin Charles in Southport (a superb L & B photographer) had told me in 1967 that he had given his negatives to him. But I did not pursue it. I mentioned this to Andrew a long time later, and he contacted him and we had access to the L & B albums and pictures. We all met up on occasions, but some years later in 1983, Donovan died at the age of 80, and his wife very shortly afterwards, with no known relatives. Andrew organised the funerals and all the L & B material (other than the negatives of the pictures taken by Frank, Donovan's father) were rescued by Andrew from the garage. So a remarkable survival. Frank Box's negatives and some of Donovan's had somehow migrated to Germany and were purchased by Ian Allan and formed the basis of the book 'Portrait of the Lynton and Barnstaple Railway' published that same year. The idea for the television programme came from Andrew in 1987. He wrote the script, Andrew Johnson produced it and Gwynn Richards spoke the commentary. It went out on West television, but then Johnson won a prestigious film award for his Somerset & Dorset film on Evercreech Junction and the 'Little train to Lynton' L & B programmes went out nationally and for some years became a stock repeat.

 

This came up earlier - see my post #11766 (Though the PDF link given in that post now seems to be broken).

In particular, from https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...le-companies-changing-your-governing-document

Changes you can make without the Charity Commission’s authority
You can make most changes to your governing document without Charity Commission authority.

For example, changing how your charity:

• appoints trustees
• admits members
• communicates with its members
• arranges and runs meetings

Changes that the Charity Commission must authorise
You must ask for Commission authority if your amendment will:

• change your charity’s purposes
• allow trustees, members, and people or organisations connected to them to benefit from your charity
• change what happens to your charity’s money or property if you decide voluntarily to close it

These changes are called ‘regulated alterations’, and more information about each of them is included below.
​

That seems pretty black and white to me (but I am not a lawyer, and haven’t read all the other guidance to check if there are circumstances where additional scrutiny might be required).

Tom

 

Follow this link. Basically you only need prior approval if the amendment will:-

• change your charity’s purposes
• allow trustees, members, and people or organisations connected to them to benefit from your charity
• change what happens to your charity’s money or property if you decide voluntarily to close it

 

Thanks. You beat me to it - I knew we had discussed this earlier but could not locate the post. Seems to me that advance approval is not required for the changes proposed by the trust.

 

Thanks to @H Cloutt and @Jamessquared . In leaving remuneration open, I'd argue that the precautionary principle kicks in and therefore as a matter of transparency and good practice CC clearance should have been sought - the more so since we're under CC investigation for governance failures.

Of course, if this were a good faith attempt to update the M&As, amongst other things,

(i) it would have waited until the CC investigation was complete to incorporate any recommendations they may make;

(ii) Members would have been invited to contribute to the process and to comment on a draft;

(iii) this would have been held at an AGM to save time and money.
​

None of these things are true, leading us to ask why, and why now?

The only answer that makes sense is that 'the six' fear losing their majority in this year's election, and are doing this now to seize control of who is allowed onto the ballot. If this wasn't true, we'd be discussing this at the AGM in May.

That's disgraceful - and for many of us, reason enough to reject the proposed M&A changes.

If you don't want this to be your last ever meaningful vote in a Trustee election, please vote NO on the M&A revisions (Motion 3).

 

I have STILL (Sat 9th) not had the EGM paperwork - indeed, if it were not for the web I suspect the EGM would happen without me being aware of it - so I have relied on the copies uploaded by others. IIRC somewhere in the various bits of paperwork the Trustees said that further changes to the M&AoA were proposed with regard to the Charitable Objectives, and these would need CC approval, so they would be done in slower time at a later date.
Which IMHO is just another good reason for asking - WHY do some of it now in a rush, rather than do it all together in slower time and hopefully get it right?

 

My late father-in-law was a charity commissioner and he told me that they simply did not have the staff to investigate all the complaints they received and only the most serious would receive their attention. Times may have changed but I have my doubts.

 

Although I agree with the thrust of your arguments about governance, if you want to effect change you have to fight on territory where the issues are very clear and unambiguously in your favour. On this particular point, the existing trustees can argue that they have the ability to propose changes to the articles around selection of trustees without any kind of charity commission approval; and once you lose that argument, it then weakens all your other arguments by a process of osmosis. (Essentially, people can argue "Well, the rebels who want a hostile takeover (*) were wrong on that point, so what else are they wrong on?")

You have to fight on strong ground, and I don't think that particular argument is strong ground.

(*) I'm paraphrasing how the argument may come back to you, not my own view.

Tom

 

The pressure on resources at CC is real, @Steve but they've picked on the issues here, not least because at some point, the L&B will be looking for several million pounds of public/lottery support, meaning that the CC has a special interest in getting it right.