There’s quite a lot of passion being shown by posters on the National Preservation forum. Sadly some of the “facts” about the WSRA being presented contain errors, and/or simple speculation. Here’s some examples for members to consider:

“The abortive freehold bid really lit the fire.” – hmmm, maybe that point in time was the throwing of oil on the fire but the fire was well alight long before that and was already well alight. In our humble opinion, folks need to consider the relationship between the Plc and the WSRA in the years before the WSRA announced their bid for the freehold.

“Negotiating behind the backs of the PLC to buy the lease of the railway whilst in cahoots with a property developer” – well, it wasn’t the lease but the freehold. If anyone can point us to cast-iron evidence that the WSRA was in “cahoots with a property developer” then it would be really, really helpful to have that evidence. We know very little about the true relationship between Roger Bush and the WSRA.

“Using a kangaroo court to suspend a trustee who has the temerity to exercise his right to scrutinise the voting papers” – well, although the timing of the suspension and the cancellation of the arranged meeting at which the papers were to be scrutinised, do we actually know that was the reason for suspension? And why “kangaroo court”? Was the trustees action outwith their authority? If so, let’s have some details of that. Many of us know what it looks like but we cannot (yet) prove a thing.

“Announcing your resignation in front of a packed hall and then returning by co-option.” – err, if this comment is referring to David Williams then do we know he formally resigned and was then co-opted? We’d love to know if that was actually the case.

“[The WSRA got] a developer involved who only interest was how much money he could make from building on parts of the land, and not the railway at all they made a blunder.” – well, again, do we actually know that is the case?

We say speculation is fine if it draws out the truth. Sadly much of the discussion goes round in circles. Members need the facts. With clear evidence. We’d love to be able to share that evidence here. And help members weigh up the evidence before making a considered verdict.

Do we have any clear evidence? Yes we do:

– The EGM Chairman ignoring a member’s clear demand that his proxy vote had not been counted was utterly wrong and could so easily led to one of the trustees being removed.

– The WSRA Chairman stating he would stand down as Chairman, which he did, but then returned as Vice Chairman and thus potentially retains chairmanship in the absence of the (new) chairman.

– The collection of votes at general meetings is not consistent and does not inspire confidence with accuracy.

None of those three things is sufficient to see the removal of six trustees in one go.

The WSRA is heading for a second EGM with a single resolution – the removal of six of the seven trustees – and there needs to be some pretty clear evidence before that resolution can be won. WSRA+ currently supports the resolution on the basis that a strong argument with clear evidence will emerge, but come the day, who knows which way (if any) members will vote.

So, please, less of the gossip, error and speculation and more, more, more of the clear evidence. Then members can make the right decision.