LOST!! Hep Me!! Hep Me!!

jondavidvox
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 4:06 pm

LOST!! Hep Me!! Hep Me!!

Post by jondavidvox »

Greetings....Long time Lurker, 1st time caller....

What do you mean...

"We've done all we can. If it doesn't fix this time we'll lay down a new main frame for our own K7 in the summer and start swapping our parts across."

I've obviously missed news of some catastrophic failure of K7's mainframe...Necessitating a new one. What happened? What is the problem?

J-D...The Yank.

Sam_68
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:25 am

Re: LOST!! Hep Me!! Hep Me!!

Post by Sam_68 »

This article should explain most of what you need to know:

https://www-dailymail-co-uk.cdn.ampproj ... tored.html

In short: Billy's threatening to take his ball home.

I'm interested that Mr Smith is quoted as saying "About 50 per cent belongs to them and 50 per cent belongs to me"

Surely the project was funded by donations, which until the homepage of the website was changed last year stated that the objective was to 'return Bluebird to her spiritual home at Coniston', undertaken by voluntary labour, under the auspices of a company which (until Mike Bull's recent removal) had four Directors, and Articles of Association that define it as a charity and prevent the transfer of any of its property to any of its members?

User avatar
Renegadenemo
Posts: 4969
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 12:29 pm
Location: N E England
Contact:

Re: LOST!! Hep Me!! Hep Me!!

Post by Renegadenemo »

I'm interested that Mr Smith is quoted as saying "About 50 per cent belongs to them and 50 per cent belongs to me"
As usual - someone not paying attention. Probably a reporter in this case but that's not unusual.

That quote is incorrect for one very simple reason - Bluebird Project is not a 'me' it's a 'we' so we don't need to transfer anything anywhere because it's already ours.
I'm only a plumber from Cannock...

"As to reward, my profession is its own reward;" Sherlock Holmes.

'Sometimes you gotta be an S.O.B if you wanna make a dream reality' Mark Knopfler

Sam_68
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:25 am

Re: LOST!! Hep Me!! Hep Me!!

Post by Sam_68 »

Renegadenemo wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 1:07 pm
...we don't need to transfer anything anywhere because it's already ours.
Allegedly

User avatar
Renegadenemo
Posts: 4969
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 12:29 pm
Location: N E England
Contact:

Re: LOST!! Hep Me!! Hep Me!!

Post by Renegadenemo »

Allegedly
Not really - we're not alleging anything. We're telling you because we know and have the necessary proof. Now you may allege that it's not the case after all but that's up to you.

By the way, you've been a member of our forum for a good while. Why not tell us a bit about yourself?
I'm only a plumber from Cannock...

"As to reward, my profession is its own reward;" Sherlock Holmes.

'Sometimes you gotta be an S.O.B if you wanna make a dream reality' Mark Knopfler

Sam_68
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:25 am

Re: LOST!! Hep Me!! Hep Me!!

Post by Sam_68 »

Are you sure about that, Bill?

The documents published by the museum seem to very clearly say different.

If, as you say, you have the 'necessary proof', surely now is long past the time you should publish it yourself?

User avatar
Renegadenemo
Posts: 4969
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 12:29 pm
Location: N E England
Contact:

Re: LOST!! Hep Me!! Hep Me!!

Post by Renegadenemo »

The documents published by the museum seem to very clearly say different.
Think about what the documents really say - they prove that a lot of what we've been saying was true all along.

We didn't sign the deed of gift, that's something the trolls have banged on about since time began but we always said we'd never signed it. The deed also proves that all the museum was given was the wreckage and no more - another thing we've been pointing out. Look also at who the deed is between. The Campbells agree to gift the wreckage and the museum agrees to display it once the rebuild is complete. The only mention of the BBP is as the elected restorer.

The letter is interesting. It was actually written in late 2013 because the museum's 'favourite idiot' was getting very nosy about the deed and making noises about its validity so they thought a letter would give them an extra layer of security and as their favourite idiot was ours too and we believed the museum was our partner at the time we had no problem with their letter - not that it's worth the paper it's written on except to once again confirm us as the designated restorer. What they seem to have forgotten is that that letter comes with a lengthy email trail and two other drafts. It was written in October but the deed was signed in December seven years earlier so the first draft was full of over-done references to it being Christmas. The second left out anywhere to sign and had some other minor issues so what you see on their website is actually the third attempt.

Now then - at the same time we decided that we ought to have a proper deal with the museum for future maintenance and operations so that was all agreed in 2013 too but now the museum is trying to pretend that didn't happen. Yet this also comes with an extensive email trail of offer, counter offers with amendments by a senior trustee who is still a trustee leading to its eventual acceptance. They can't pretend it didn't happen if push comes to shove, plus we all know that it doesn't need to be signed because all the necessary boxes are ticked already.
We've since said, as a gesture of goodwill, that we'd limit our use to three months a year and if they had any common sense they'd jump at that because should we choose to enforce the original agreement not only will they have to get on with organising for us to run the proving trial on the lake head of anything else happening there's also no limit to how long we can take the boat away for. We've said we're not bothered if they never get organised to run on their lake because we're as happy elsewhere so they can get themselves off the hook nicely there so we wait for discussions to begin.

Then there's the matter of the boat being far from finished. We went to Bute with the bare minimum to allow safe operations then completed a strip inspection on our return. We began the painting and all the other jobs then they cancelled our trip to Coniston. We offered a joint venture back to Bute with them to keep the momentum up and to display the boat in the museum after that, subject to the paperwork, etc. but all they did was send a lawyer's letter having not told their lawyers the whole story so that was easily dealt with. We offered again to run in 2020 followed by display, etc. and they said no and now we're out of time so we offered 2021 and got Gina's epic fail on the anniversary of her dad's accident instead.

Another thing we've patiently explained many, many times is that we have no problem displaying the boat in the museum so long as we know we can get it back out again so if you really want to see the boat in Coniston it's not us you need to be telling because as soon as they sort themselves out we'll be on our way. They were offered the boat for display last summer and turned us down.

We want to borrow their restored wreckage to run on water for public benefit for not more than 3 months of the year and they want to borrow all our shiny new parts to display in their museum the rest of the time - is that not fair enough?
I'm only a plumber from Cannock...

"As to reward, my profession is its own reward;" Sherlock Holmes.

'Sometimes you gotta be an S.O.B if you wanna make a dream reality' Mark Knopfler

Sam_68
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:25 am

Re: LOST!! Hep Me!! Hep Me!!

Post by Sam_68 »

None of which answers my question:

If you've got the 'necessary proof', as you claim, why don't you just publish it, as the Museum has done, and resolve the matter in the public domain, once and for all?

User avatar
Renegadenemo
Posts: 4969
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 12:29 pm
Location: N E England
Contact:

Re: LOST!! Hep Me!! Hep Me!!

Post by Renegadenemo »

Because the trolls don't want the proof - they want to dissect and gossip and vent their spite and it doesn't matter what you put in front of them, they have only their own truth. Better to sit back and let the museum provide it in dribs and drabs as they just did.

We always said we never signed the deed of gift but the trolls knew better then, lo and behold...

When all of this is sorted and the deal is struck are you going to come back here and acknowledge the fact that we played with a straight bat from the outset?

By the way, you didn't answer my question...

We want to borrow their restored wreckage to run on water for public benefit for not more than 3 months of the year and they want to borrow all our shiny new parts to display in their museum the rest of the time - is that not fair enough?
I'm only a plumber from Cannock...

"As to reward, my profession is its own reward;" Sherlock Holmes.

'Sometimes you gotta be an S.O.B if you wanna make a dream reality' Mark Knopfler

Sam_68
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:25 am

Re: LOST!! Hep Me!! Hep Me!!

Post by Sam_68 »

That's not an answer, its an excuse.

If you've got the necessary evidence, as you claim you have, then its publication would satisfy the vast majority of people, and pull the rug out from under the trolls feet.

More importantly, it would also pull the rug out from under the Ruskin's feet.

So why not publish it?

Post Reply