Donald Campbell's restored Bluebird in museum home row

[ace_chris]

“restore it run it on Coniston, put it in the museum and maybe once every 2 years take it out and run it on Coniston for the public to see.” Because despite the best endeavours from the BBP, Coniston and the wider community seem dead set against ANY running!!

All there is at the moment are different models that get run on occasion which don’t really have the same impact in terms of inspiration that running K7 will.

Campbell and Coniston will always be linked but that doesn’t make coniston the spiritual home. Whilst k7 was left to rot on the lake bed I get that’s where the spiritual home notion came from, but things have changed now!

[Malcolm Ops]

For over 35 years I have given talks to various groups. Regarding Campbell, out of interest I always ask the audience what significance Dumbelyung and lake Mead have, blank expressions.

Ernie, I am sure that your audiences now know about those two important locations, as well as Ullswater perhaps.

The Australians celebrated both the 50th Anniversary of what they called "our lake's record" in 2014 and commemorated Donald's lifetime of achievements in 2017 as much as the village of Coniston did. All according to those who I have met or spoken with who were able to travel from Perth to Dumbleyung.

I agree that there is nothing at Lake Mead that tells the K7 story, or at Nellis Airfield nor in Vegas where the key team players spent their time when not running the boat, but that could change as a new generation have been made aware of what happened in 1955 as a 'you tube' video has been seen.

Having spent so long getting the Bye Law in place by 2010, I wish to see the craft on Coniston Water. However, I will not be concerned if those tasked with putting a workable Public Event Plan in place do not succeed, because 'my' Bye Law 7 will remain in print until the Secretary of State is asked to strike it out.

Any idea of running periodically on Coniston Water above 10mph was scotched/thwarted/banned by the LDNPA members in 2010. I do not think that a machine such as K7 should be treated to a displacement 'pottering' at tickover percentage (speed) of the Orpheus jet. If someone wants to alter the minds of the LDNPA please try, I may be 70 before there is any success.

(All comments my own!).

[Ernie Lazenby]

Malcolm, I have to say I find it interesting that the LDNP authority wont allow periodic runs of K7 given the amount of 'noise' and possible pollution arising out of the yearly 'Coniston speed week'. That does not make any sense to me, seems like a contradiction. If K7 could be displayed/run during the speed week event I am sure that would be a major attraction and keep her at Coniston. Is the timing of the speed record event each year wrong for the project if the LDNP authority moved a little?
I do however feel that the owners of K7 as written and documented, the Ruskin Museum, must have the last say as to if, where and when its run. It would however seem a reasonable thing to do given the need to keep her serviced. For clarity I am not one for locking K7 into the museum never to see the light of day again, that would be quite wrong; I am however a believer in doing what's right and that is for the good people of Coniston who run the museum trust to determine how its looked after/used. If at the end of the day keeping it in the museum and not run is what they want then that's their right. Miss Campbell gave up any rights when she signed it over to the Ruskin. Its quite wrong to expect people to accept changes of mind 10-15 years after a chain of events was determined but I accept there may be moral considerations/sensitivities regarding Miss Campbell.

Just to say I do get a little frustrated that K7 and DC seem to be the only focus of what we achieved in the UK in the field of record breaking. Sir M, Henry Seagrave, John Cobb and others all deserve to be spoken of and remembered in the same way as we do DC and K7. All pioneers and indeed what about Stanley Sayers and Slo Mo Shun, the boat that provoked DC into action.

BTW Malcolm I am now past 70 and hope to live long enough to see this sad saga come to a conclusion. When you get past the 70 mark the years seem to fly by.

[JfromJAGs]

Ernie, didn't you promise you would give us some good reasons why K7 should be locked away dead in the Ruskin museum and why this would be good for all the DC and K7 ethusiasts around the world? So far I don't see any argunents except: because 10+ years ago papers were signed that way. Were they really? Just because you point out in every post at least twice that you think the Ruskin owns K7 fully, it does not mean this is the truth. I can fully follow Bills argument that nothing has been signed in terms of the work of the BBP team and all the new parts. So how can anyone expect this is for free? Please tell me. Which laws enforce this?

Anyway, at this point I doubt K7, restored as she is today, will be stored dead in the Ruskin museum. This would mean a judge would need to force the BBP team to give all their work and new parts for free to the Ruskin museum. I don't see this happen. If at all a jugde could force the BBP team to give all the recovered parts to the Ruskin - leaving all the new parts to the BBP team. So the Ruskin would end up with parts of K7 only. How does that sound to you? Do you really want this?

Joerg

[Ernie Lazenby]

Joerg. I am not the enemy!!! and please read carefully what I wrote above. I am someone who spent all his life believing in doing what's right. My signature on some forums used to be 'To live a life of lies and deceit is not to live a life at all' I stopped using it because it upset too many people but it defines me.
BTW I am absolutely sure Bill does not expect only those who say how great he and the team are to post on this forum, I offer a view that differs from most posters but that's life is it not. BTW I think I am certain that a deed of transfer of ownership was signed when K7 was handed over to the Ruskin. I cannot believe the Ruskin would have set in motion a chain of events resulting in the expenditure of over £800000 if that was not so.

[JfromJAGs]

Ernie, I don't see you as enemy - both of us are just arguing and we both don't own anything of K7. At least I gave the little I gave as a gift without any restrictions.

I still like to understand your view, as it seams to be the view of those who want to keep K7 stored in the Ruskin exclusivly. What are the reasons for this? Why, while a huge majority of those who follow the BBP on twitter want it different. I'm not on twitter, so I couldn't vote, but I was on Bute to see K7 run. And I want more of this. Faster, louder.

To me the 800k are not so much of an argument, because as far as I was told most of it came from somewhere else (the EU?), it was left over from the foot and mouth disease.

[Malcolm Ops]

I was upset on the day that the Members of the LDNPA voted (at their Kendal offices) not to give the operators of Bluebird any opportunity to run the craft after the Proving Trial. No reason for the vote against was given, and I cannot recall the discussion points.

The organisers of the Speed Record Week, now being held on Coniston Water, decided that their very serious event for World and National Water Speed Records should not be disrupted by Bluebird K7. Indeed, their event only proceeds under the Bye Law because all entrants are serious record contenders, operating craft that meet (what was) RYA rules or UIM Rules. A practice or demonstration run by a 1950's design does not meet their criteria.

The weather in November is not often kind, so operating days will be lost at that time of year. The event works to timings that suit the clocks having 'gone back'. Short days. Yes, there is an R in the month, which the BBP (me) said to all involved the project would avoid with the Proving Trial. The speed record event is held outside school holidays so that none of the countries young people could view K7, if she got to run.

Given sufficient time it might be possible for the village group to get an event agreed for summertime 2020, but many advise me that it will be 2021 before the Festival and Proving Trial will take place.

[Having come from the car world (records are set by Bikes and Boats as well as cars), you would observe for many that Richard Noble with Andy Green are the only players on four wheels].

[Renegadenemo]

I think I am certain that a deed of transfer of ownership was signed when K7 was handed over to the Ruskin. I cannot believe the Ruskin would have set in motion a chain of events resulting in the expenditure of over £800000 if that was not so.

Perhaps a little context is warranted here. The Ruskin Museum did not set in motion a chain of events resulting in expenditure of over £800,000.00.

The Bluebird Project did.

Gina Campbell decided in November 2002 that the boat was to be rebuilt by BBP (we then lost four years to the HLF) until left little option but to proceed regardless with (we assumed at the time) the museum and the village of Coniston as equal partners in an endeavour that would see Bluebird K7 totally rebuilt and remain fully operable into the future.

From the day we announced that the project was no longer seeking HLF support we also announced that Bluebird K7 would be rebuilt into a living machine that must, by the very nature of the systems and structures we proposed to build, be periodically removed from wherever she would be displayed and operated either on water or ashore to maintain her in a fully operable and safe condition and be conserved in line with good museum and engineering practice. At no time did the Ruskin Museum, when considering our proposals, ask that we desist on the basis that, were she to be displayed at the Ruskin Museum, they did not wish that the boat be removed and treated as we proposed. Rebuilding Bluebird K7 to operable condition, displaying her then removing her periodically from display for running, and/or maintenance/conservation was our idea and on this basis the Ruskin Museum was invited by the Bluebird Project to explore extending and adapting the museum to meet this requirement.

They subsequently accepted our invitation and their acceptance is embodied in the very architecture of the 'Bluebird Wing', which testifies to this both in its execution and in the documentation pertinent to its original design with a large pair of full-height steel doors where there otherwise may have been more aesthetically pleasing glass panels removable on a once-only basis and its designated area of 'grasscrete' hard-standing immediately outside designed specifically for safely moving Bluebird K7 once outside of the building.

With regards to the alleged 'transfer of ownership' the following defines what was donated to the Ruskin Museum under the terms of that agreement.

“Property” the Bluebird K7 as recovered from Coniston Water in or around 2001, the associated parts of the vessel both recovered and unrecovered and all other associated items and objects so recovered and/or unrecovered to include, but without limitation clothing and overalls of Donald Campbell (deceased);

There is no provision anywhere in the document for transfer of title of any of the material necessarily added to the Property to create the partially completed craft as operated on the Isle of Bute in 2018.

The project's long-term aims and ambitions to rebuild the boat, run her on Coniston Water and then display her in the village - with the proviso that the BBP retained a long-term interest - were set out a long time ago, have never fundamentally altered and were those of the Bluebird Project originally and not those of the Ruskin Museum, which, as with so many other issues and proposed plans, has chosen to engage with those that it liked and has had over a decade to engage equally with BBP and reach agreement or otherwise on those with which it took issue.

We currently await entry of the trustees of the Ruskin Museum into negotiations with settlement in mind and the BEWG, or any competent body choosing to supersede it, to begin planning for the proving trials and what was originally envisaged in 2002 may possibly be brought back on track with, hopefully this time, a successful outcome.

[Ernie Lazenby]

“Property” the Bluebird K7 as recovered from Coniston Water in or around 2001, the associated parts of the vessel both recovered and unrecovered and all other associated items and objects so recovered and/or unrecovered to include, but without limitation clothing and overalls of Donald Campbell (deceased);

That is very interesting and relevant but what took place after is equally relevant. The Bluebird project Limited became a legal entity in 2012 when it was incorporated as a private company limited by guarantee. That event occurred a long time after the original discussions as to what would happen to K7. It appears to me that prior to 2012 the BBP had no defined legal entity and was for all purposes Bill Smith.
Going back to the early days then one assumes no formal contract was entered into and the Ruskin trustees at that time simply assumed volunteers would restore the vessel and return it completed. Press cuttings from that time make no mention of running it anywhere other than on Coniston for a proving trial. One can also assume that the Ruskin museum would not have expected the restorers to claim joint ownership.

It seems there may have been much misunderstanding arising out of conversations rather than printed documents. Therein may be the problem, one party to any verbal agreement has not seen the possibility of problems as years passed by and memories dulled.

The Bluebird project limited company protects the directors from any actions against them personally and, whilst I am by no means certain, it appears if this matter does proceed to lawyer level any action would be against the company, The BBP limited. Thus, those who have made donations to that company may find the funds being used to defend an action. In the absence of the limited company any possible action would be against the individual who was involved from the outset.

My long career in the police force and working in the legal system thereafter taught me one thing, property ownership/ possession can be a mine field and only lawyers get rich.


To sum up; notwithstanding any possible legal proceedings I cannot believe either side of the process would want to see K7 broken up with the BBP retaining the new parts and the Ruskin getting the rest. That is too silly to contemplate and in my view would never be directed by a judge therefore someone has to come up with a solution acceptable to both sides. At worst any action is likely to result in ownership of K7 being awarded to one or the other, perhaps with some kind of caveat being added.


Just some thoughts from an aged brain trying to offer an alternative and balanced view.

[Ernie Lazenby]

Mike. In my experience a prolonged period of silence is usually indicative of a need not to prejudice possible impending or intended action. Good practice. This matter is now way beyond picking up a phone, the only way forward will now be by formal written communication. I may be wrong, time will tell.

Just my opinion.