They say there are two sides to every story.
WSRA+ is just one of several ways for both sides to have their say.
Trouble is the comments to articles on WSRA+ tend to be one-sided. Again we remind folks that WSRA+ remains open for comment from one side or the other side.
Maybe a rough analysis of WSRA+ would show comments are almost wholly from one side.
That would suggest two possible reasons:
1 Those on the quiet side are afraid of speaking up
2 Those on the quiet side actually have nothing to say
3 There is no-one on the quiet side
Oh, that’s three possible reasons (there’s probably a few more!)
If anything has been a disappointment to us bloggers it has been the reluctance of one side to engage with the blog – no comments and no articles offered for publication.
To the “six” (you know who are) and those who stand alongside them, we encourage you to state your case here on WSRA+
Well, we did offer…
WSRA+ 
Are those on the ‘quiet’ side perhaps on the “dark side” ? 🙂
In my view their major failing is that they may speak – or perhaps more accurately, they pronounce or pontificate – but they do NOT ‘engage’, certainly not with the membership at large.
As they have not been prepared to ‘put up’, as demonstrated by their failure to turn up at the EGM to state their case, then I think that it is time for them to shut up, pack up and push off.
LikeLike
Please don’t encourage them. They have said enough over the years, and I have heard enough.
Sorry.
LikeLike
It appears that they would prefer to state their case for the sale of the shares in 4160 Ltd on another site, http://www.4160ltd.com/news-1/. I reckon something you said must have upset them, Steve!
LikeLike
Unfortunately it appears that ‘mob rule’ appears to have won the day in this particular argument. I find the arrogance and vindictive attitude from the Reform Group totally distasteful in both methods and conduct. All I see happening is the WSRA being
converted into the WSR Plc’s bank with a mandate to bankroll a Plc which is seeing
falling passenger numbers. The Plc which is profligate , spending funds on unnecessary projects such as the Williton loop.All the Reform Group has to offer is to hand funds over to the Plc at their behest..The Plc have gratuitously interefered
in the conduct of another body , something wholly unethical in general commercial
activity. Seems to me that not only the Reform Group but the WSR Plc needs to take
a long hard look look at itself !
LikeLike
Thank you Neale for posting an alternative view. However. We hope the debate on WSRA+ will not stray into the rights and wrongs of the Plc’s actions but rather concentrate on the way the WSRA has been (and will be) run. We don’t plan a “WSR Plc Plus” blog but if others wish to do so, then it might be a lively affair. A reminder that comments to this blog are moderated.
LikeLike
Could I ask Neale when the Reform Group ever acted in an ‘arrogant or vindictive’ manner?
Could he please say which of our methods he has found distasteful and why?
Could he be good enough to identify anywhere where the Reform Group have ever advocated ‘handing funds over to the plc at their behest?
Always delighted to try to understand the alternative view.
LikeLike
Neale Long is entitled to an alternative view, although I would suggest that it is not supported by the available evidence.
As regards the Williton loop, anyway who has observed the operations at Williton during busy periods will appreciate just how necessary that work has been for some while. I believe that ALL those involved with the project should be congratulated, not berated.
LikeLike
Neale
Please will you explain a couple of things I don’t understand in your note?
Firstly. Why should the WSRA not make any grants to the PLC in the same manner as it can do to any other suitable project? Why should the PLC be singled out to not receive a grant?
Secondly. Why is it unnecessary for the PLC to increase capacity by extending the Williton Loop? This is a argument I’ve not heard before which demands an explanation. You cannot just make a sweeping statement like that without an explanation and expect members to accept it.
I look forward to reading your explanation of these views.
Over and above this it is quite clear to me that the bad relations between the PLC bought has the whole WSR family into disrepute and a laughing stock around the whole country. This cannot be allowed to continue. Have a look at pages 32 and 33 of issue 451 of Steam Railway if you don’t believe me. I could see no possibility of improvement with the previous trustees.
The Reform Group is only an insignificant part of the association’s membership but it is quite clear from Saturday’s vote that a significant proportion of independently minded members support their aims.
Roger Tylor
LikeLike
Pure fantasy that has no basis in fact. The Reform group have, despite many underhand tactics by the EX6 +1 have behaved in an exemplary manner. Interesting that you claim the Wiliton loop was unnecessary when the WSRA contributed to it. As for the PLC they have not interfered with the WSRA. Their invovelment amounts to taking discpilinary proceedings against the ex WSRA Chairman that was conducted by an independent third party i.e. the HRA. Hardly interfering is it? As for converting the WSRA into the PLC’s bank account that is ludicrous. Where is your evidence? In fact by virtue of the stone train traffic the PLC has effectively subsidized the WSRA for some years. You really will have to do better than that Neale.
LikeLike
Neale, Just a quick question: If you feel so strongly opposed to the PLC and to the WSRA becoming a proper support organisation, why are you bothering with the WSR at all? Why have all this grief? Is there no other heritage railway where you would be more happy with the orgaisational structure?
LikeLike
An interesting contribution from Neale Long, I look forward to his detailed and concise answers to Robin’s questions.
LikeLike
It’s an interesting use of the phrase ‘mob rule’ you will of course be referring to the Members of the WSRA who gave a vote of no-confidence in the Trustees of the WSRA and called for an Independent review. This was completed and it called amongst other things for the immediate resignation of 6 Trustees, when those Trustees refused to acknowledge the Coombes Review and didn’t go the Members voted for their removal by over 95%.
As for the PLC they have sat quietly and patiently waiting for its support Association to sort itself out and the Reform Group they are just a few concerned members who merely brought the issues into the light for Members to see, which led to the various A/EGM votes. It’s the Members who spoke, so these are your ‘mob’. However you are entitled to your opinion so I guess one person’s Terrorist is another person’s Freedom Fighter.
LikeLike
You could say that 67 peoples’ terrorists are 1674 members’ freedom fighters. Or perhaps 200 odd more, given the proxy forms diverted by the X^ after they obtained control of the WSRA post last Monday…
LikeLike
I see the Neale’s post as just part of the guerrilla warfare campaign being waged by irrelevant EX6.
LikeLike
I don’t agree with all the things the RG have said or done and I know for certain they don’t agree with me on many points. What you can’t argue with is the result on Saturday which wasn’t the product of some narrow faction: far from it. However, I do feel that we should allow Mr Long, and maybe others like him, space to express and explain his position before jumping in to tell him why he’s wrong. If there is to be some sort of reconciliation going forward, this is vital.
LikeLike
It may give Neale a crumb of comfort to know that the reform group have gone back to sleep for now. We certainly believe in giving the new guys a fair shake. There never was a plot although it would be foolish to say there was never communication with the plc. We have come through a dark period in Association history. Now is the time for healing surely?
LikeLike
I sense that there’s little point in asking for evidence, facts or justification from someone who has such a firm belief in The Truth.
LikeLike
So dose Neale Long want to go back to the days when Crowcombe Heathfield Station didn’t have a passing loop then, if he wants to stop the railway improving and Victor and Vulcan trying to pull the trains.
LikeLike
Neale,
You are more than entitled to have your say.
The Williton loop is a very necessary improvement as until now, down trains have been held outside of the station until the up train has arrived. The enlarged loop now makes it possible for trains to enter the station from either end at the same time. This is an obvious improvement both to operations and the passenger experience.
I hope this shows that the expense was necessary and not “profligate”.
The ash shelter at BL is another much needed improvement. It can be chuffing cold prepping locos in the middle of winter at that end of the line. One obvious benefit is that loco injectors will now be out of the icy winter blast. If one freezes and cracks then you are looking at a £10k repair. The shelter is to an authentic GWR design so is a real heritage item, as much part of our railway as a goods lock-up. You must agree that money spent on real or replica heritage infrastructure is a good thing.
“Win win” as a ghost from the past was often heard to say……….
LikeLike
Neale – are you a WSRA member?
If so, then did you send in a proxy vote for the EGM (clearly you did not attend and vote against in person). If not, then why not please – after all, voting was open to ALL members, so why not participate?
LikeLike
Having accepted the challenge to provide an alternative viewpoint regarding the WSRA
and its affairs by Steve, it was of no surprise to me whatsoever that people were going to disagree vehemently with my views. In view of the controversial nature of the subject matter it was inevitable that I was going to be castigated for having the temerity to disagree with WSRA members seeking reform something which I’m comfortable with. I do however totally respect those who have responded to my mailing, I may not agree with all of those comments made but you are all very much entitled to criticize.One or two comments may have been made in the heat of the moment coupled with the feelings about the WSRA.With hindsight perhaps the choice of ‘mob rule’ was perhaps not wise
and I am happy to retract that Robin.I do feel that one or two comments could have been more constructive.
As regards the pro versus anti reform camps, well the perception I have of the pro reform group is that of a group that is somewhat narrow minded and intolerant of criticism. May be fair may be unfair but that is the impression I get and unfortunately
the response of one or two to my mailing rather reinforces this.The last sentence of Andy Norman’s mailing which I hasten to add was scrupulously, fair sums the situation up,,ie there are differing points of view.What I’m really trying to say is that those seeking
reform should respect the views of those who don’t.
Finally, my view on the subject matter as a whole. There is a wide ranging debate on the structure of the WSR as a whole and the part the WSRA plays as a whole, something which clearly needs to be undertaken to ensure the railway is fit for the 21st Century.
I welcome the Reform Group’s contribution to that but the debate really needs to be conducted in a civilized and orderly manner( out of the public gaze preferably) then perhaps the Reform Group may even gain my support. In other words, it is not
the actual change I’m really concerned about it the way its been conducted.Hopefully
a way forward is emerging , courtesy and civility can return and the WSR can resume
its development. There is clearly a case for a revamp of the WSRA’s governance so as
ensure transparency and accountability.From a personal point of view, there is a case for transferring some commercial aspects of the WSRA operation to the Plc , perhaps the Quantock Belle and the BL shop and for greater involvement of what is perhaps
the most exciting project of all namely the Heritage Coaches Project something for which Robin White deserves the greatest credit for in initiating.
Essentially those are my views in response, one or two may approve but many wont
something which I do accept but again thanks to all who responded.
LikeLike
An interesting response from Neale. In many ways it seems completely at odds with the *impression* created by his original posting, to the extent that it could almost be see as a pro-Reform Group statement!
“… the perception I have of the pro reform group is that of a group that is somewhat narrow minded and intolerant of criticism….” One might say the same about those previous Trustees who tried to force out 4 members who had the ‘audacity’ to query the way in which the Board was behaving. The matter of the 4160 shares is a good example of a matter of great concern that was done ‘behind closed doors’ and swept under the carpet afterwards.
I am sure that no one is really happy about the way that the change has happened, but it was forced upon us by the stubborn refusal of the previous Board to work with others in the railway family in a co-operative manner, to refuse to recognise that – in the eyes of most observers – it was failing to follow the Articles, and to refuse to acknowledge the outcome of the Review and stand aside. Hopefully, once the last rumblings of their dissent have vanished, then the progress of rebuilding the Association can continue for the mutual benefit of all on the WSR.
LikeLike
Good to hear from you Neale and thanks for entering into the discussion. Did my views on the Williton loop make sense ?
Elsewhere, it has been reported that 6 computers have been removed from WSRA premises. It will be interesting to see the outcome of the police investigation. A very sad situation as I am sure you will agree.
I see also that the former trustees have also seen fit to instruct their very expensive legal team to issue a letter to nobody in particular that infers that the Reform Group may threaten un-named individuals. See http://www.wsra-railway-history.co.uk/news/ If ever an example of profligacy were needed, surely this is it.
LikeLike
Brian
Thanks for that .
Yes your comments regarding Williton loop do make sense. Not against the
project per se , it is good to see infrastructure enhancements. My concern
was whether it was absolutely necessary at this point in time. Perhaps a project which is desirable rather than a necessity. Anyway, its been carried out and it will be of use when charter trains operate on regular running days.
Likewise, in many ways ,it is time for the WSRA to move on and let the new trustees
move things forward. No litigation please, all need to pull in one direction and improve
matters.
Neale Long
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why doesn’t the charity commission wake up and put in a neutral administrator to sort it out or can’t they do that sort of thing? I believe current arrangements are giving the 6x an excuse to carry on. Did the missing computers contain all the membership data bases I wonder?
LikeLike
Peter
You raise a very important point about the membership database. I submitted a Security Breach Report to the Information Commissioner’s Office about this.
Fortunately we have now located the computers and determined that no-one has been able to get through their security. I have therefore updated my report, and members may rest assured that their personal data remains safe.
Paul Whitehouse
Company Secretary
WSRA
LikeLike
I would like to thank Neale for his generous remarks, especially about the Heritage Carriages Project.
I have repeatedly said that I would wish not support retaliatory actions and would be looking for reconciliation when the problem with the WSRA was solved, as we now seem well on the way towards.
The difficulty with the ‘6’ is that reconciliation requires them to ‘stand down’, accept the will of the members, and stop interfering with the hard work now needed.
As far as litigation is concerned, I would agree that that is undesirable. (Yep, that is me as a lawyer saying that.) The problem is that a significant asset of the WSRA (the 4160 shares) is improperly in the hands of two private individuals, and there appear to have been multiple breaches of charitable trust with considerable financial consequences. The new Trustees (when the dust has settled) have no choice under their duty to the charity, to do other than consider recovery of the property / money.
Of course, if the shares were voluntarily handed back, and the money wasted on lawyers to protect personal egos repaid, that would become unnecessary…
If the old Trustees really have the good of the WSRA in mind, why would they NOT do that?
Robin
LikeLiked by 1 person
To be blunt, I suspect that the WSRA is a very small fish in a very large pond as far as the Charity Commission is concerned. We are probably more likely to see (say) a 50% increase in WSR passenger numbers than the sort of action from the CC which some people seek!
If and when the CC may decide to look more closely at the true situation, I would hope that they would come to the rapid conclusion that the current (new) Board is more than capable of doing – and is already doing – what is necessary to get the WSRA ‘sorted out’. Probably the most beneficial action from the CC at the moment would be for them to tell the 6 former Trustees to ‘push off’ as they nor longer have any validity or credibility.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Neale,
The only right time for infrastructure projects is during the closed season for obvious reasons. The next question is “which year is best” and the answer is always “last year”. I suspect that there are many projects in the pipeline for 2016, 2017 etc so it must be a question of operational necessities.
The litigation question is always controversial however to turn a blind eye only sends the wrong message.
Brian
LikeLike
Re- doubts about the CC being interested. I note in “Steam Railway’ page 24 that they have been asked to investigate irregularities of a similar nature afflicting the Gresley Society, involving voting irregularities and illegally declined nominations etc., and the main bone of contention appears to be a pro-duck and anti-duck dispute. Wonder where the WSRA events feature in the ‘pecking’ order of such complaints.
LikeLike
Hi Neale,
Reference the Williton Loop, I’m sure more knowledgeable members will agree that this was originally programmed for 2014 or 15,(we had loose change envelopes on trains even raising the funds.) and because of various financial constraints was shelved until the later end of 2015 to be completed by Easter 2016.
This was a long standing programme which was completed on time, and hopefully within budget..
LikeLike
Many thanks to all those responded constructively to my reply clarifying my position
in respect of the debate about the future of the WSRA. I appreciate that some if not all my views might not have been particularly palatable to many but I think it is important
that alternative views be aired.
Now for the most important part of this mailing, several weeks ago I consented to
David Williams publishing a letter of mine in the Journal criticizing the Coombes Report
ad those who sought reform. With hindsight this I should not have done. Subsequently
I withdrew this consent on the grounds that I have NO wish to encourage any further division within the WSRA, but alas this was too late. So this will see the light of day.
So, in view of the above and in the interests of clarity can I be permitted to make the following points as to my current views as opposed to those held previously
1) I welcome the fact that reform is now likely within the WSRA
2) The interim trustees must now be allowed to undertake such reform without
hindrance
3) There must be no further infighting, this has to stop now !
4) There must be no litigation and the former trustees in the wider interests
of the Association at large, should now accept the new management.
5) Hopefully the WSRA and the Plc can construct a positive dialogue
between each other
6) Hopefully a reconciliation process involving all WSRA parties can now begin
so as to facilitate the reform process.
The points 1-6 reflect my viewpoint as of 04/03/2016 and NOT the published letter.
Some will castigate me again no doubt and they have every right to but to those of you
who read this, please bear this in mind before calling me a stupid old so and so ! I have
modified my position on this important and emotive subject and I hope people respect that !
Apologies for boring you all to death.
Will be great to debate, railway matters again after all the politics
Neale Long
LikeLiked by 1 person
Neale
I think Luke 15:7 would be the relevant biblical quote (yes, even we atheists know our bible!).
The history of this story has been a gradual realisation by many folks that the approach started by David Williams, and subsequently led by Peter Chidzey and now Paul Johnson (Ian Aldridge being a rather sad figurehead for the ‘6’ at the moment) was a wrong path. Some worked that out very quickly, others needed more time, and yet others wanted to give the ‘6’ more time, and many could not believe what they have got up to until they had the likes of the Coombes report to read.
The important point is that the vast, vast majority are now behind Frank and the new Trustees, and further ‘silliness’ from David Williams and his cronies will just serve to further isolate them from the WSR family.
Fortunately a ‘who really are the Trustees’ debate cannot go to court without involvement of the Charity Commission, so wasteful litigation should be avoided, but, given the 1674 – 67 result (even after some votes were diverted by the X6) the will of the members is clear.
Onwards!
Robin
LikeLiked by 1 person
Neale.
May I first apologise if my initial response to your post was a little curt. My initial impression was that you were not at all happy with the PLC or a reformed WSRA. This has been the mantra of the old trustees and their supporters for a long time. They are also suspected of posting under different names on other blogs so I have to admit my initial reaction to your post was of suspicion. Was this another one I wondered.
Anyway, Thank you for taking the time to bring your views on here. Open discussion in a civilised manner is far better than secret plotting behind closed doors, and a differing viewpoint is good because it can challenge the status quo and make people think rather than just follow blindly.
I suppose that is what the reform group did in some ways. They asked the awkward questions and offered a different view and, when the old board failed to answer – or came back with personal attacks instead – people started to look harder at what was going on.
Now there is a new (albeit temporary) Board in place who are to hold the fort while a more permenant temporary Board (!) is found to take us up to the AGM we have already seen a change in the spirit of openness and willingness to answer questions. It may be some time before all the concerns about what has been going on behind closed doors can be answered, but I have faith in the new administration that they will be, eventually.
And finally, with regard to you letter to DW, I would say, Don’t worry. Your open and honest posts on here do you great credit. We all have some differing opinions and now, I hope, with a new team at the helm we can all use those differences to challenge each others views and ideas to get the best answer to the question. “How can we make the WSRA and therefore the WSR even better?” Which is what we all realy want, isn’t it?
LikeLike
Alan
Many many thanks for your mailing in response to my previous mailings.
Suffice to say I totally agree with what all you say and that your very generous comments are very much appreciated.
The nonsense has to stop NOW !
LikeLike
As one of those who has been on the quiet side,it seems to me that cautious silence seems the best option until one has caught up with what has been going on. Although I should not disagree with the Coombes report and support progress and an Association more suited to the 21st century, there seem to be many aspects to the argument about the purposes and management of the association, about which I am unclear.
I note that, following the EGM and the appointment of the new trustees, the 6 who were voted out are still asserting that the EGM was not properly requisitioned and the resolutions were invalid (see letter of 1 March 2016 from Gowling WLG). The present trustees, of course, hold the contrary view.
The prospect is one of extended costly litigation, wasting the Associations’s time and money, diverting it from the support of the railway.
Meanwhile, I read the assertions by both sides but find that their general statements are not backed by clear references to the particular provisions of the governing legislation, or the details of the underlying events which shew that the Trustees meeting or EGM were, or were not, properly called. In the absence of clear facts, it looks as though there is room for interpretation in the light of each person’s views. That seems are sure recipe for continued disputes.
Maybe the information is on the web somewhere, but, as I have not yet found it, I’d be grateful for factual help from those more acquainted with what is going on.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anthony
I apologise for not replying earlier. There have been many other matters to attend to. The Association’s Articles are on our website under documents. For the law applying to General Meetings you will need to visit legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/contents. You will note in the Articles that all trustees have to be given notice of meetings. It follows that actions taken by the former trustees when they failed to invite Ian Coleby (last year) and Michael Rowe (this year) are invalid. That is one example among many of such failures.
The Board of Trustees have determined that they will not spend substantial sums of charitable funds on lawyers (unlike the former trustees who spend £90,000 last year). The former trustees’ behaviour is a nuisance, but one that will be overcome by persistently following the precepts of good governance and being transparent.
Paul Whitehouse
WSRA Company Secretary
LikeLike
I understand your point about no litigation Neale but even the Trustees’ hands are tied. Insurance conditions will require reports to the police before even making a claim, the Trustee’s are legally required to report a wide range of incidents to the CC, and DPA irregularities have already been reported by members and non-members alike.
Finally. The Trustees have a legal duty to act in certain circumstances so even they cannot agree to no litigation. Their hands are tied by legal requirements.
LikeLike
I think it will take a few months for everyone to understand whats been going on now for a few years, by listening to the volunteers on the ground & not get your ideas from the journal…..
LikeLike
It is rather pleasing to note that comments made on this page this week seem more constructive and balanced. Perhaps a sign of the more considerate way of working that we can now expect as the new WSRA emerges.
As Robin said ‘onwards’
LikeLike
Neale,
Are the ex-Trustees still about to publish a magazine at this point?
AIUI, without access to WSRA funds, this might be an expensive activity for someone?
LikeLike
Jim
Very good point.and one which I cannot answer but perhaps someone else
can?
When I sought withdraw to my consent I was advised it was too late.
LikeLike
Neale
David Williams has been flashing his e-mail address around a bit in past days and it would help us all to understand if another nonsense-drop is due. As this alleged publication is, apparently, to use your words, it would seem that you have a legitimate question to ask of DW when his (last?) Journal is to appear. I am sure that we would all be fascinated to know, not least to have the wood burner at the ready….
Robin
LikeLike
Robin
Another very pertinent point and one which very much deserves an answer. If I remember correctly the last Journal arrived November together with a promise that the next Journal’s punctuality would improve. As always I do stand to be corrected.
Looks like I’m going to be drawn into this wretched affair something I didn’t really
want, hence my statement yesterday hopefully clarifying my position.. The whole thing has gone on too far now and one can only plead with all concerned end all the squabbling.
Off to work shortly, one or two have kindly responded to the said statement I made
and I will respond very shortly.
LikeLike
the new trustees details seem to have disappeared from the wsra site this morning??
LikeLike
The temporary website http://www.wsrma.org is your best source of accurate information at the moment.
LikeLike
Not only the trustee details but a lot of the documents have disappeared as well. It looks like a large “tidy up” has taken place.
LikeLike
In post #8547 on the NP thread Roger Thompson said:
“No need to worry. For the moment your best source of accurate information is the temporary website http://wsrma.org.uk/ “
LikeLike
I am still hopeful to see the new trustees do exactly what Coombes required and bring forward proposals at the next AGM for members to vote on. This surely is the key in what should be a member lead organisation? We may not all totally agree 100% of the time but we should at least know that what our Association is doing is that which we vote for it to do. This wat the trustees act with th4e mandate of the membership.
Accepting that there is a great deal to unravel which does not fall into this category from recent past history as has been commented upon already.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As I see it the timescales envisaged by Coombes were based on the EX6 resigning straight away. Because of their rearguard action the work of the new board in getting to that objective is being hampered and several months delay has already occurred. I believe the crucial thing for the new board is to stabilise the finances and wrest control from the EX6 +1. Until that is done and proper forensic investigation of the accounting performed it is difficult to see how the board can move forward with future plans. I am as keen as anyone to see progress but I don’t want the job botched by too much haste. I am confident the new board will serve us well but patience is needed. Please give them some breathing space.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Some valid points re the timescale, which I support. However, for a moment let us look at the matter from another perspective.
One part of the Resolution passed at the EGM was to advertise *within 48 hours* for volunteers to be co-opted as Trustees. This does not appear to have happened yet. I know that the ‘official’ website still seems to have problems, but on the temporary ‘wsrma’ site it as stated quite clearly on 27th Feb “Within the next 48 hours the required notice ……will be posted on this website”, yet after 7 days there is no sign of it, nor has any there been any comment/explanation about the delay.
After the initial ‘public’ Board meeting last Sat, for which Minutes have appeared, there was a further ‘private’ Board meeting. It was reported that the Minutes for that meeting would be published shortly thereafter, once matters had been clarified after the weekend with some external bodies. Still no sign of those Minutes. It was reported then that the Trustees would meet again last Thursday. Did they? – there has been no mention of that anywhere.
My point is that, while I realise that perhaps good intentions by the new Board have been overtaken by the need to do more ‘firefighting’ than anticipated, there is a risk that those who support the old guard will say “well, the new lot started off with fine words, but in practice it has soon faded”.
LikeLike
Steve has been asked to publish synopses of both our Board Minutes on WSR. Readers will understand why we are not yet publishing our Minutes as agreed, but may rest assured that we shall do so. We are also in dialogue with Robin Coombes over the wording and arrangements for the advertisement. An announcement will follow as soon as possible.
Paul Whitehouse
Company Secretary
LikeLike
I see that the former trustees are questioning Robin Coombes’ independence on their ‘history’ page, http://www.wsra-railway-history.co.uk/coombes/
In the interests of balance, can you shed any light on their allegations?
LikeLike
Yes, I can.
If you were to attempt to write a spoof on the Coombes Report, you would be hard pushed to better what has been written. I actually laughed out loud.
LikeLike
I understand that Peter Chidzey, WSRA Chairman at the time, chose Robin Coombes!
The whole so-called news item smacks of desperation in trying to make a story out of nothing. For example, the resolution which gave birth to the Review specified that the Panel should include a representative from the WSRA. None of the Trustees at that time put themselves forward, instead they nominated Simon Stretton, the Chairman of the WSRA Promotions Ltd (the commercial arm and wholly owned subsidiary of the WSRA.)
Yet now the ‘news item’ says about him “He recently at the invalid EGM held on 27th February was voted on as a (invalid) Trustee. So it is very plain where his allegiances lie”. But they chose him, so it was their mistake if they got that wrong!
Also, that statement is wrong- Simon was NOT “voted on” as Trustee at the EGM, he was co-opted by the residual Board at a Board Meeting which took place immediately after the EGM.
LikeLike
Robin Coombes was the former Trustees own choice! The choice of the members who assisted RC were chosen from a group of applicants by RC to give a voice to various parts of the WSR. The suggest of bias is frankly ludicrous.
LikeLike
Hilary
Members were informed at the time that Robin Coombes was invited by David Williams and appointed by the former trustees, which did not then include Paul Johnson. Nell Barrington is (not surprisingly) a woman! She was brought in by Robin Coombes to add an additional degree of independence. Readers will know the other people listed and draw their own conclusions. I shall nit be commenting further on this point.
Paul Whitehouse
Company Secretary
LikeLiked by 1 person
The whole “former Trustees saga” reminds me of the 1970s/80s TV series ‘Soap’ (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap_(TV_series) ). Just like the TV series, at the start of each new outburst from those ‘6’ you need a resume of the ‘story so far’, only to find that it then gets even more ridiculous than ever. Their website is good for a laugh – if you are desperate – but otherwise merely holds them up for even more ridicule.
LikeLike
I was a Plc employee. I retired just short of my 62nd birthday. I am now 68. Good to see whoever wrote the piece on the “history” page is so up to date.
As an aside, I believe I left the Plc employment before PJ did!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you all for your illuminating comments regarding the ‘information’ put out about the Coombes Report on the WSRA History page.
I am not a member of the WSRA (shortly to be rectified), but I am trying to understand the position of both sides in this dispute, and from all that I have heard to date my sympathies are most certainly with the reformers.
The WSR is to my mind one of the best, if not the best, heritage railways in the country, and needs an efficient and effective plc working closely with a supportive volunteer association to keep moving forward and improving.
No more ‘them and us’, more WSR!
LikeLiked by 1 person
A load of nonsense has appeared from the ex-Trustees in this morning’s post.
The best advice is to do NOTHING with it until guidance is issued by the new Trustees.
Using the reply paid envelope is just likely to cost out Association more money to no purpose whatsoever. Amazing how they love spending our resources to no purpose.
Robin
LikeLike
Might I suggest the Reply paid account used by the envelope is closed. It must be easy for an alternative be arranged
LikeLike
That was in hand before you posted.
Paul Whitehouse
WSRA Company Secretary
LikeLike
At the moment the reply-paid envelopes have the ‘wrong’ address. Also, I understand that the lease on Brunel House will expire in the near future and the WSRA offices will have to relocate? That may prove to be the catalyst for the WSRA to organise a new delivery address – probably one of the many things on Jacquie Green’s “to do” list already!
LikeLike
Have just shredded all the nonsense that arrived yesterday, journal a bit too thick to go through, so dismantled first!
LikeLiked by 1 person