Ernie Lazenby wrote: ↑
Mon May 06, 2019 10:26 pm
filertron. good to exchange comments in an adult manner thank you.
I have it on very good authority, indeed I am entirely satisfied otherwise I would not support it, that the 2013 document was submitted by the BBP for consideration by the Ruskin trustees but was never signed by the trustees. One can only conclude they did not agree with the contents. If that be so then the 2006 signed agreement is the one that remains legally binding. The terms of that agreement, and I have read it, are very clear.
My pleasure, Ernie.
Would you please allow the forum members the courtesy of knowing who your source is? It's absolutely obvious who my source is, and I have no reason to disbelieve, nor doubt what he says in regards to the 2013 agreement.
The 2013 agreement may not have been signed by the Ruskin for a myriad of reasons - perhaps it could even be through pure laziness. I tend to think that if the Ruskin did verbally agree to sign the contract, and even acted in favour of it, then surely they would owe the BBP at least some sort explanation as to why they don't want to sign it. Perhaps they feel that it needs tweaking as Bill has suggested? The only way that will happen is if they reciprocate communication with the BBP. When all is said and done, I believe this is what everyone wants - a solution that everyone is happy with.
Ernie Lazenby wrote:The amount of comments coming out of the BBP in recent days on twitter including threats to break K7 up are not one should expect when lawyers are involved trying to broker a deal.
Have lawyers been engaged to broker a deal, or have they issued a writ on behalf of the Ruskin to "hand over or else"? I'll need clarification from you on that. If it's the latter, then I can fully understand why there have been comments about breaking K7
up. Easier to give the museum back the bits they own, and the BBP keeps what they own. Imagine yourself in the BBP's shoes for a minute: deafening silence from your partners, then out of the blue they lob a grenade at you. I'd be very surprised if you weren't a little bit frustrated and angry.
Ernie Lazenby wrote:One side is going overboard while the other remains a dignified silence.
The silence is the cause of this problem, and it's hardly dignified. Dignified would be answering the letters and emails that have been sent from the BBP, or returning phone calls. Dignified would be sitting down with the BBP, and fleshing out an agreement which works for everyone. The silence is causing anxiety and unnecessary tension. That isn't dignified. That is downright spiteful.
Ernie Lazemby wrote:Does anyone seriously believe Bill would break K7 apart, its all good for newspaper space but not a very credible threat.
As disappointing as it would be, if it meant that the BBP didn't have the problem of not knowing where they stood with the Ruskin (see above comments), then I wouldn't put it past them. There is nothing worse than being in a relationship, and your partner won't communicate with you - we've all been there. As painful as it is, it's sometimes easier to grab your kit and head for the door.
Ernie Lazenby wrote:I accept your comments re the petition however to me they mean little, signed by, for the most part, well intentioned individuals but who have no legal or financial responsibilities connected to the subject. Its easy to be supportive from a keyboard.
One has to ask: what iron do you have in all of this? By the same token as above; it's also easy to be dismissive from behind a keyboard, and have no responsibilities, financial or otherwise to the project.
Ernie Lazenby wrote:I promised my good lady I would not post again because its causing conflict between me and my son however much I have been reading on the twitter feed has saddened me. PM me and we can exchange more comments if you wish.
Thanks for the offer, Ernie, but I'd prefer to keep dialog going here. It allows others to have input into the conversation, as an open forum is supposed to do.
Good luck with your lad. I am sure you'll both be able to find some common ground in due course, which I am sure will please your good lady.
Ernie Lazenby wrote:BTW One can understand why Bute wants K7 back in July, business's do rather well I think. A symbiotic relationship.
When it comes down to it, Coniston is no different in that regard.