LOST!! Hep Me!! Hep Me!!

[Ernie Lazenby]

Just like to add that this is between the Ruskin museum CHT and BBP and has absolutely sod all to do with anyone else. All of you key board warriors have been invited to the workshop to air your views. Where are you. We have great support world wide.

Your frustration is clear and understandable but please remember that everyone who has contributed to the project or the building of the Ruskin Annex is entitled to an opinion one way or the other. Without public support nothing would have happened. An aggressive tone responding to reasonable comments does not help anyone, there's enough of that on piston heads.

As Richie said - peace.

[Sam_68]

...everyone who has contributed to the project or the building of the Ruskin Annex is entitled to an opinion one way or the other.

Indeed.

And if they contributed on the basis of a very clear statement that the object was to return the boat to Coniston, as existed on the home page of this website until recently, and which still exists on the 'donate' page (presumably Billy has failed to spot and try to re-write history on that bit, yet), then that entitlement probably carries legal weight.

" any contribution, however small, will be gratefully accepted and used in its entirety to ensure the successful completion of this project and the return of Donald Campbell's iconic boat to her spiritual home in Coniston, Cumbria, England."

I suspect that that they would be perfectly entitled to request the return of their contribution, if the project is now clearly pursuing different objectives.

[Richie]

Just like to add that this is between the Ruskin museum CHT and BBP and has absolutely sod all to do with anyone else. All of you key board warriors have been invited to the workshop to air your views. Where are you. We have great support world wide.

Rob........Martin and the guys are entitled to discuss this in a polite manner, as long as it remains civilised. You are correct that it’s between the CHT, Ruskin and BBP to thrash out by what ever means. In the meantime we have to wait until the above parties have concluded their discussions before we can proceed constructively (for better or worse).

There are many theories being put forward which people are discussing, ultimately though, it is only the above three parties that hold all the proverbial cards, everything else put forward is potentially supposition, but makes for an educated debate nonetheless.

As I said then Ernie said and now I am saying again - Peace

[JfromJAGs]

https://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk ... necessary/

This sucks.

[Renegadenemo]

This sucks

It certainly does but what is impossible to fathom is just how all the bluster was supposed to have us put the whole shebang on a wagon and wave it goodbye without finalising the deal. It's just going to have to take as long as it takes.

[Sam_68]

[...what is impossible to fathom is just how all the bluster was supposed to have us put the whole shebang on a wagon and wave it goodbye without finalising the deal.

Is the concept of returning someone's property to them without trying to hold them to ransom really all that difficult to fathom?

I would have thought not...

[Renegadenemo]

No problem returning their property but they want to borrow ours too so we need it written down.

[Sam_68]

...they want to borrow ours too...

Notwithstanding dispute of the claim that it's 'yours', when it was paid for by donations against your own website stating that the aim was to return K7 to Coniston, and without any legal agreement assigning any reward or part ownership of the boat to BBP as 'reward' for the the work that they'd agreed to do, Gina has made clear that she's happy for you to just return the original bits.... which I believe according to your own past claims amounts to 90% of the boat:

https://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.u ... necessary/

So, are you going to remove 'your' 10% and hand the rest back to its lawful owner, or are you going to continue to attempt to hold them to ransom?

Out of interest, why does any of this prevent your continued work on the boat? Why not continue work so that it's ready to hand back, as soon as the legal situation is resolved (be that by agreement, or in the courts)?

Is it, perchance, because you've recognised that the main flaw in the agreement you signed up to is that it doesn't stipulate a completion date, so whilever the 'conservation and reconfiguration' of the boat remains 'incomplete', you can claim not to be in breach by its retention in your workshop?

[Filtertron]

...they want to borrow ours too...

Notwithstanding dispute of the claim that it's 'yours', when it was paid for by donations against your own website stating that the aim was to return K7 to Coniston, and without any legal agreement assigning any reward or part ownership of the boat to BBP as 'reward' for the the work that they'd agreed to do, Gina has made clear that she's happy for you to just return the original bits.... which I believe according to your own past claims amounts to 90% of the boat:

https://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.u ... necessary/

So, are you going to remove 'your' 10% and hand the rest back to its lawful owner, or are you going to continue to attempt to hold them to ransom?

Out of interest, why does any of this prevent your continued work on the boat? Why not continue work so that it's ready to hand back, as soon as the legal situation is resolved (be that by agreement, or in the courts)?

Is it, perchance, because you've recognised that the main flaw in the agreement you signed up to is that it doesn't stipulate a completion date, so whilever the 'conservation and reconfiguration' of the boat remains 'incomplete', you can claim not to be in breach by its retention in your workshop?

With all due respect; if the Ruskin now owns the original bits of K7, then it doesn't matter what Gina, you, me or anyone else says or thinks should or shouldn't happen with K7. It's between the Ruskin and the BBP to sort out amongst themselves now.

[JfromJAGs]

And if they contributed on the basis of a very clear statement that the object was to return the boat to Coniston, as existed on the home page of this website until recently, and which still exists on the 'donate' page (presumably Billy has failed to spot and try to re-write history on that bit, yet), then that entitlement probably carries legal weight.

I suspect that that they would be perfectly entitled to request the return of their contribution, if the project is now clearly pursuing different objectives.

I can only speak for myself, but I have contributed to the BBP to support they guys who worked their ass off to bring K7 back to a usable state and return the boat to what is was made for - to skim accross the water. I have NOT contributed to lock K7 dead behind museum doors!

I have no problem with K7 beeing displayed in the museum in Coniston - while it's not in operation somewhere or beeing prepared to do so.

As I said, I do not like the idea of locking K7 behind the museum doors. And if you manage to do so, then I will not visit the museum and the Coniston area. As it feels wrong, ungrateful and unfair what you are requesting.

Joerg