The Bluebird Project

Ace-chris said (as predicable as night following day)
Well said Thunderer! Interesting to see where some of the Ruskin go fund me donations* are coming from too...

* I have not got started yet

Ernie Lazenby wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2019 4:39 pm Exactly what do the trustees have to sign off on? All was signed off in 2006. They apparently don't agree with what you wanted signed in 2013. (part deleted) The Ruskin trustees have legal responsibilities, they are decent people who are probably sick of the entire dispute but they cannot just ignore what is written down and signed. To do so would be a gross dereliction of their duties. For you to expect otherwise is unfair.

The Coniston Water Bye Law change was not accepted by the Secretary of State (DEFRA) until 2011. Therefore the 2006 'gift' agreement could not and did not cont6ain 'all' matters. The current Trustees may now differ from those in 2008 to 2011, but those holding office then were involved in and fully supported the consultations for what became Bye Law 7. They spoke up for K7 to be operated (by the BBP) at speeds over 10mph on Coniston Water. Some Trustees and the Museum Director were (because it seems it is now 'wound up') members of the Bluebird Event Working Group established in 2016. That group was planning to get the boat on the water in 2019. I would expect them or their successors to support the running of the craft before it reaches the Bluebird Wing .

Could you clarify what it is you hav'nt got started on yet Ernie

Ernie Lazenby wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2019 6:24 pm Ace-chris said (as predicable as night following day)
Well said Thunderer! Interesting to see where some of the Ruskin go fund me donations* are coming from too...

* I have not got started yet

Thanks for the compliment Ernie, but specifically, what is it you haven't started on as a few of us on here seem a touch confused?

Ernie,

Please enlighten my aged brain....... what have you not got started yet ?


Tish Tish, Veiled threats towards your best pal Bill "And his team", it does not appear to be very nice at all, quite unbecoming, very Appleyard.


I am shocked

I'll say something, we've been extremely patient so far. We've worked damned hard and whatever anyone says the deal has always been that we'd build a boat, it would run on Coniston Water and THEN it would go into the museum. They should have been on this just as hard as we have been, knocking down every obstacle just as we have so that when the time came the red carpet could be rolled out and this project could have been a triumph from beginning to end for all concerned.

But look what we really got - ten years of us playing the Little Red Hen. We've tried to play fair, be reasonable, open dialogue and keep things on the rails.

How dare anyone suggest we're being treated any other than abysmally. And if the museum wants to play lawyers we'll play lawyers to the death if needs be so I hope they have the stomach for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Od6R3a33bro

Don't recall anyone saying it would run on Loch Fad on the Isle of Bute TWICE before running on Coniston THEN going into the museum??

Personally i think when the chimps at the ruskin get there grubby paws on k7 for the 'display months' they will just wedge them doors shut and never open them again and say "right, its ours now and your not getting her back", then blow a raspberry. Ian lazenby

Let me make things very clear. My son is his own man and free to do and say what he feels right however I am very sad and annoyed that he has chosen to use such language about people in Coniston who welcomed him 2 years ago at the 50th event. I am no way supportive of comments I find offensive, juvenile and not the least bit helpful to anyone not least himself should he wish to be welcome again at Coniston. If he wishes to join the kinder garden attendees on this forum well that's his choice.

I'm not a lawyer nor do I know the details of UK legal system, but as most of the legal systems in Europe have a common base, I assume the UK legal system also distinguishes between owner and possessor.

I also don't know the details of the contract signed in 2006, but from what I read, today the Ruskin Museum is the owner of about the half of K7, the parts recovered from the lake bed, while the BBP is the owner of the new parts. If I'm right then the BBP wants to transfer the ownership of the new parts to the Ruskin - but this has not happened yet.

Besides this, the BBP is currently the possessor of K7. It was agreed between the original owner (the Campbell family), the Ruskin Museum and the BBP, that the BBP would restore the boat (on their cost), run it on Coniston water, then present it as a living object in the Museum. But until this has happened (no dates were given!), the possession of K7 was handed over to the BBP to work on the boat, so it can fullfill the original plan.

So far so good. I doubt anywhere in the contract of 2006 was anything written about team trails on any lake. So if the BBP declares team trails and test runs as part of the restoration - which makes sence, because you would not want to run K7 on Coniston Water for the first time, then the Ruskin has nothing in their hands to prevent further team trails and test runs.

What happens after the run on Coniston is a different story, but until the Ruskin didn't get their act together for the trails on Coniston water, the BBP, as the legal possessor of K7 can do as much as the like to ensure a propper restoration.