Page 3 of 7

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

Posted: Sat Jan 25, 2020 2:24 pm
by Ernie Lazenby
One other point is this. I do much work for members of my model boat club on a voluntary basis. Often this involves weeks of work striping out models to rebuild them however I never charge even when I have used my own materials/parts. I could never envisage a situation arising when I tell an owner that I retain part ownership of his boat because some of my bits are in it. No contracts, just my word that I will do the work unpaid then hand it back.

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

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 12:59 pm
by Renegadenemo
It's all very interesting that the Ruskin Museum have seen fit to publish the 2006 deed of gift, which served admirably to prove at long last to those who doubted that in fact BBP was not a party to it but - and this is a big but - they have not breathed a single word of their 2019 Confirmatory Deed of Gift from the CHT.

Now why would they do that?

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

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 2:31 pm
by Sam_68
Renegadenemo wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2020 12:59 pm It's all very interesting that the Ruskin Museum have seen fit to publish the 2006 deed of gift, which served admirably to prove at long last to those who doubted that in fact BBP was not a party to it but
Interesting too that they have also published the letter of authority for you to restore the boat.

You see the bit above your signature, Bill?

The bit that reads: "Countersigned, in acceptance of this letter of authorisation and in agreement with the terms of the Agreement of Deed of Gift dated 7th December 2006"?

Sorry to have to break the news to you, but you effectively became party to the terms of the 2006 agreement when you signed and dated the document below that statement.

You legally committed yourself at that time to the objective stated at paragraph 5.3 of the deed of gift to place K7 on permanent display within the Ruskin Museum. Suggest you look up the dictionary definition of 'permanent', if it's not in common use in Geordieland... it doesn't mean 'for 9 months of the year or any period I am willing to agree to when I don't want to appropriate the boat as my personal plaything'.

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

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 2:45 pm
by Renegadenemo
they have not breathed a single word of their 2019 Confirmatory Deed of Gift from the CHT.
The arguments about the 2006 DoG can forever go in circles. No, the question asked was why the museum hasn't breathed a word about their Confirmatory Deed of Gift drafted and signed in April 2019?

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

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 3:00 pm
by Sam_68
Renegadenemo wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2020 2:45 pm The arguments about the 2006 DoG can forever go in circles.
Only if they're being led by someone who can't see where he's going because he has his head up his arse. The document is perfectly clear to everyone else.
Renegadenemo wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2020 2:45 pm the question asked was why the museum hasn't breathed a word about their Confirmatory Deed of Gift drafted and signed in April 2019?
Possibly because it's not relevant?

Why don't you publish it yourself, if you're so desperate for us to know the contents?

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

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 3:08 pm
by Renegadenemo
It is very relevant, that's why it wasn't published with the 2006 one. A little mystery for the sleuths, perhaps.

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

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 3:11 pm
by Sam_68
Renegadenemo wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2020 3:08 pm It is very relevant, that's why it wasn't published with the 2006 one. A little mystery for the sleuths, perhaps.
Well, you seem desperate to deflect attention away from the very clear earlier documents, so I repeat: why don't you publish it yourself?

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

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 3:17 pm
by Renegadenemo
There's been no deflection. The earlier documents have been out for days and we've mostly watched from the sidelines.
No, this is something new for you to investigate.

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

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 3:28 pm
by Sam_68
Renegadenemo wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2020 3:17 pm There's been no deflection.
Well, why don't you address the issue of your legal commitments under the earlier agreement, then, and why both mentioning a document that you're not prepared to produce?

If it's relevant, publish it. Otherwise, STFU trying to create a distraction when one doesn't exist.

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

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 3:39 pm
by Renegadenemo
Surely the logical conclusion has to be that the later document somehow affects the earlier one in a way that they don't want to reveal. That seems to stack up in theory at least, yes?