Donald Campbell's restored Bluebird in museum home row

[Renegadenemo]

Re Donald's will, he left the boat to Leo with instruction to keep up the inspirational work. Leo didn't make it to the party but we'll do it for him.

[Ernie Lazenby]

What Ernie is putting out on this forum is information anyone can obtain from companies house - what does it achieve?

The memorandum of articles and association etc etc are fairly generic documents you download them when you form a company.

From Ernies side it is nieve to think that the revenue would waive the corporation tax. In ernies experience of running a limited company I’m sure he is well aware of the positive tax advantages this presents.

Clearly Bill runs a highly successful company of whom I hold in very high regard (I’ll wait for Ernie to post up bills latest accounts, members, annual return and all the other stuff that anyone can find online...)

Leave it to the experts!

That post is so full of wrong information its not worthy of comment and as for posting accounts etc get real.. BTW Chris I am a proffesional. After I retired as a 'top cop' as the press likes to call us I worked for a solicitor covering both civil and criminal law.

[Ernie Lazenby]

It has. Registered on 22nd January 2018. I have registered at Companies houses, will get a copy of the articles of association to see what the purpose is. Five directors including the current head of the Ruskin trust and Tony Robinson.
Its called 'Bluebird Heritage Group limited'


update. Very little information available yet. Lists the names etc of the directors and individual with significant control.

Is this the same as 'Coniston Bluebird Heritage Limited'?

5 Officers inc Tony Robinson...

Appears to be the same. registered on the same date.

[Ernie Lazenby]

Having established that the project is and has been since 2012 completely in control of K7 and 'de facto' owners of it there is little more to say on the subject. Original post that started this thread answered.

[Renegadenemo]

Was told today that the good old LDNPA await two applications. One for a public event and one to run at speed. Well I wonder who will make those applications. Certainly it's not our event - we're just the headline act - so it will be interesting to see how that develops.

In the meantime, following what we learned about or limits on Loch Fad, we now have two possible sites in the North East should Northumbrian Water wish to host us. We could run on Kielder water, though it's a bit deep here and there, or on the Derwent Reservoir in Co. Durham.

[Rhyl46]

My wife and I were at Loch Fad last Tuesday.
No static display or video presentation could convey the awesome power, noise or smell as Bluebird starts and then launches off down the water.
We felt very privileged to have a few minutes with Bill and some of the team but It was the banter, professionalism, and commitment to her that was so evident.
It was something we'll always remember, our heartfelt thanks to Bill and his fantastic team that have made this all possible.
Nick & Cathie

[rob565uk]

Was told today that the good old LDNPA await two applications. One for a public event and one to run at speed. Well I wonder who will make those applications. Certainly it's not our event - we're just the headline act - so it will be interesting to see how that develops.

In the meantime, following what we learned about or limits on Loch Fad, we now have two possible sites in the North East should Northumbrian Water wish to host us. We could run on Kielder water, though it's a bit deep here and there, or on the Derwent Reservoir in Co. Durham.

There has been mention in the press and on the media that the LDNPA need a "safety plan" before K7 can run on Coniston Water,but surely there already exists a tried and tested plan - that used for the annual Records Week event? Surely a modified form of that plan would be satisfactory?

Similarly, a modified form of the traffic management plan used for Records Week could be adopted - or am I missing something?

[Jett]

Having established that the project is and has been since 2012 completely in control of K7 and 'de facto' owners of it there is little more to say on the subject. Original post that started this thread answered.

But does it answer the all-critical original question that you asked, Ernie?

The question I posed in my original post.
In simple language used by lawyers the question is 'who has legal title to K7 Bluebird' as opposed to any moral right of ownership.

And does this really answer it?

I have read the articles of association submitted when the Bluebird project was set up in 2012. Articles of association recorded at companies house.

article 4.1 To restore, preserve and protect K7 as a historical object for the benefit of the public and to demonstrate, exhibit and display such water speed craft to the public and at public events and
4.2 the advancement of education of the general public in terms of historical interest together with the associated equipment thereto in particular in the field of world water speed craft.

Reading the rest of the articles it is clear that the project is firmly in control of K7 and is 'effectively' owned by the project as the reporter said.

Aren't the articles of association simply a legal document that set out the objectives, duties and purpose of an incorporated company? They don't rubber stamp or confirm legal title to any entity, do they? 'De facto' ownership or 'complete control' may equate to possession, but not necessarily to ownership of legal title, surely?

However, thanks for your considered, enquiring, polite posts on this thread.

And many congratulations to the BBP team for bringing Bluebird back to life, and where she belongs, skimming across water once again, at speed. May she continue to do so for as long as possible, on Coniston Water and wherever else she may be appreciated.

[Renegadenemo]

We developed our safety plan on Bute so they have nothing to worry about. As for a traffic plan, well that's all theirs to sort.

[Ernie Lazenby]

Thanks Jett. I did try to keep it factual without getting personal but my comments did get me some silly e mails which I deleted forthwith. My last post on the subject was simply to say its as far as we are going to get and I noticed Bill did not disagree with my summing up.(okay he did not agree either) If anyone wants to think about the question of ownership further, one needs to look at the 'Campbell family heritage trust' In particular what Donalds widow agreed in 2001. She agreed to waive Donalds will and handed ownership of the wreck to the CFHT with conditions. Those conditions are however not available to be read. The CFHT was formed in 2001. Jean and Don Wales, Gina Campbell and Peter and Brian Hulme. Presumably Gina was acting for the CFHT when she gifted it?? to the Ruskin museum. That gets us back to the beginning of this thread. Tried my best, for others to pick it up if they so wish. The question of legal ownership rather than a moral right of ownership can only be finally determined by someone getting well paid to make such determinations.

The public on the outside looking in and reading press reports can only think Bill with the Project owns K7. The piece in the Westmoreland Gazette in recent days was interesting and adds to the perception. Assuming the rights of an owner does not make one the owner. In the final analysis it is for the legal owner of K7 Bluebird to determine what should happen and not any one person or organisation assuming the rights of an owner, that of course supposes the person/organisation with legal title wants to be that involved?

The formation of the new companies in Coniston is an interesting development. No idea what they are for. Time will tell.


to quote Winston Churchill 1939 ' A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside and enigma'