West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Ah I see. Very good! Thanks. And don't forget to vote for us at the EGM/AGM

 

IMHO it would be good were all organisations to ask their members what their views on the subject were.

I cant see the purpose of another charity unless it were to include the WSSRT & WSRA

 

Exactly. No more in fighting please.... although, as a recently joined member of the WSSRT I am still slightly sceptical of the aims and objects of the new Trustees. Is it yet another attempt at jostling for position and exerting power and influence or is it a genuine attempt to bring a semblance of stability to the railway.

 

Didn't he lay it all out here...
https://www.national-preservation.c...eral-discussion.508987/page-1529#post-2600604

 

Just to add to my previous comment. I find it difficult to make a judgement when certain ‘players’ in the saga (who I obviously don’t know personally) are actually named and ostracised or praised on this thread for their contributions or lack of. Makes it difficult for an outsider like me to decide how to cast my vote at the forthcoming AGM. My main reason for joining the Trust and supporting the new Trustees was that I hoped that stability could be achieved and the eviction of the S&DRT issue could be resolved. As far as the S&DRT is concerned maybe too late now but, hey, never say never.

 

I hope I can answer that. First and foremost we want to do what (we believe) is best for the WSSRT and, by extension, what is best for the WSR. We believe that, quite simply, one charity is better than two (or three), for many reasons which we have already outlined (would be happy to direct you to previous posts, if you have missed them - things move so fast on here, it is easily done).

The best ideas are almost always the most simple. When two support charities exist with nearly identical Objectives (WSSRT and WSRA), ask yourself, does it make sense to create a third charity? What value would this bring? What would be the costs versus the benefits of doing so?

Part of the change that is necessary is organisational/logistical, but a very large part, perhaps even more importantly, is cultural, as others have already explained better than we could. We set this out in our original "Pulling Together" document which we launched when we first sent in our WSSRT nomination forms nearly a month ago (see attached). In that, we said that we wanted to, "Agree the values, behaviours, vision and objectives for the Railway for the foreseeable future."

So, we hope that, yes, you will be persuaded that this is a genuine attempt to bring a semblance of stability to the railway.

But above all else, we don't wish to force this upon anybody, as recent press releases about "Trojan Horses" etc etc would make out. We simply want to have the opportunity, via the WSSRT EGM/AGM, to make our case. For members to vote on it. If the members don't want it, then they can vote against it, and that will be the end of it insofar as our 'campaign' is concerned.

 

OK. I hold my hands up and admit to missing that post. IF what it contains is correct my conclusion is that the gemm's a bogie.

 

I am afraid that a lot of the content of that post has since been debunked or is easily debunkable. Where would you like to start?

Charitable Objects can be changed, with the agreement of members and the Charity Commission.

We have explained on several occasions now how we would be acting in the interests of the WSSRT, if we got elected.

It was said that, "It would not surprise me if legal advice confirms that nominations of anyone who appears to intend to manipulate the Charity in the perceived interests of another entity could properly be rejected."
We are one month down the line from our nominations and this "legal advice" has not materialised.

And then the bit about ejecting the PLC board - it is not at all clear where John Bailey has inferred that from. Nowhere, ever, in any of our statements, have we ever talked about doing that.

Others have since tried to fan the flames of division with press releases and 'position statements' attacking our motivations and using incendiary language, but not us. We want to bring people together and create a positive culture and a positive, efficient structure which the railway so desperately needs if it's going to survive. And yes we do want this to happen democratically, "bottom up" rather than "top down" - the members and the volunteers are what make this railway possible. We are proud of that ambition.

 

The what's a what?

 

You are not familiar with Lallans?

I suppose that a loose translation would involve dead parrots.

 

That has as much evidence as the much vaunted "Trojan Horse". I was more into science in my student years but I don't remember a tale of the Greeks sending over a big wooden ornament telling the citizens of Troy that it contained a number of people who would set out a proposition and then ask them to vote on it. If the Trojans said "no" then they would jog off back to Athens and let the Trojans get on with things.

One side of the debate is clearly afraid of the membership thinking for themselves.

 

Further to my fellow candidate's post 32868, I am reproducing here a comment I posted on Facebook earlier today. I will also add that a question put at the recent WSRA Association AGM also included the words "hostile takeover".
I seem to hear about "jockeying for position" and "power grabs", and the need for new people to replace others perceived to have baggage. All this prompted my post.

One of the issues I have been extremely aware of during the course of our nominations to become trustees of the WSSRT, is language. If it were me I would be thoroughly ashamed of some of the words used on NatPres, on Facebook, and especially in press releases. "Baggage, hostile, trojan horse, old faces, takeover bids, destroying the railway". There was a petition of absolutely the worst kind, insults, personal attacks, intimidation, threats.
Nothing the like of which has ever come from our group.
I totally agree that new blood would be excellent, but thinking back to the Coombes Report where Robin Coombes suggested the very same thing for the Association five years ago. What new blood? The Association has not been inundated with candidates and with volunteers leaving in numbers, where will this new blood come from?
Futhermore, might I respectfully suggest that all who use inflammatory language, which is totally unnecessary, have a close look at themselves before criticising others.
If in the future there are individuals who come forward with the same enthusiasm, some experience (baggage) and knowledge of the railway then we will be well pleased.
Our aim is only to secure it's future, not only financially but to also make it a place to volunteer and work in safety and security.

 

Agreed. I think the proposers have lost sight of the KISS principle.

 

And perhaps a tad apprehensive of finding themselves accountable to their members.

 

To be clear, my comments about baggage are not a reflection on the calibre of particular individuals. What I do observe, though, is that certain individuals provoke reactions based on who they are, rather than what they say and that those reactions are serious enough that this may undermine the effectiveness of what they can do.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Understood. However, that is not a reflection of the individual concerned, rather the person doing the "perceiving"! It continues to be a derogatory term when used in that context.

 

Indeed, the issue may well be with the “perceiver” and not the individual. However, if that perception is at all widespread, the “perceived” need to consider the impact they, as individuals, are having and whether it helps or hinders the cause they support.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Two quite sad, but telling comments in QB Cook's post.
What new blood? The Association has not been inundated with candidates and with volunteers leaving in numbers, where will this new blood come from?
Given the continual strife and age of many volunteers - many who have had varying degrees of hassle in their working lives - it should come as no surprise that what was thought to be a pleasant hobby has not turned out to be so. Consequently they have left. Likewise, as far as prospective candidates is concerned who, in all honesty would want to get involved in the front running of the WSR? When the top Association man threw in the towel I am sure others also called it a day!

 

Oh that one... Where he lists everything that could go wrong, everything that might be difficult, things that may not work.... Never anything definite - and all casting doubt on what those standing are proposing - but never, ever, applying the same level criticism to anything the Plc Board might suggest.

Recent posts have been queried as to whether they are now showing a level of bias toward the Plc Board. I believe it's always been there - but just not quite as obvious.