Coniston Bye laws/Ruskin

Post Reply
User avatar
Filtertron
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:15 pm
Location: East of Lake Dumbleyung.
Contact:

Re: Coniston Bye laws/Ruskin

Post by Filtertron »

Renegadenemo wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 4:36 pm
I Never would have believed it but we are were we are but there you go thats life :|
Next time you're at BBP HQ I'll show you some things you really won't believe!

But on a more encouraging note - it seems there's been some progress on the floor in the BB wing.

http://www.ruskinmuseum.com/content/con ... events.php

That can only be a good thing, perhaps we're moving forward at last. I shall email at once for the loading figures and then ask with pretty-please and a cherry on top if the facilities management folk will still look at it for us.

The problem isn't having the boat standing still, it's the horror story of turning the heavy lump through 90 degrees once it's through the door as anyone who has helped us get her out of her workshop will testify and we only have to get through about 30 degrees there!

Watch this space.
Any news about the floors yet? I am hoping they make contact with you about it.
"What are you doing up that tree?"
"We're mountaineering on a rather tight budget."
El Lole
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2018 4:16 pm

Re: Coniston Bye laws/Ruskin

Post by El Lole »

After all that Bill has done regarding phone calls and other communications, I would have thought the Ruskin Museum would at least have the courtesy to reply.

El Lole
User avatar
Renegadenemo
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 12:29 pm
Location: N E England
Contact:

Re: Coniston Bye laws/Ruskin

Post by Renegadenemo »

Any news about the floors yet? I am hoping they make contact with you about it.
Not as yet but it's early days. Someone may have to do some extra sums or be away on holiday but, if we get the data we've asked, for we'll be able to set up with some trolley jacks and load cells and do some measuring and experimenting. As I said, it's the pushing and pulling around the corner that'll load up the floor - not sitting still once we get there.
After all that Bill has done regarding phone calls and other communications, I would have thought the Ruskin Museum would at least have the courtesy to reply.
That's a little different. Manners cost nothing and it's easy to enough to reply even with a holding letter but all we get is deafening silence in response to our emails. There's two schools of thought here and I was always taught that the scenario with the least number of assumptions is likely to be the correct one.

So, on the one hand some believe that the museum is just in a big huff - no more, no less. But I have two young daughters who will spat about one using the other's hairbrush then half an hour later they'll be sitting together on the bed watching a movie and sharing a tube of Pringles. That's a huff. Not a dozen so-called professional adults and officers of a charity with their toys out of the pram for two years! That's surely not the case. Other's say they just won't work with us, which to me is the same thing. But it's a case of being professional and working together for the greater good and the big picture - said that many times too.

Then there's another school of thought, and I dismissed this for a long time but it's now been said so many times that the idea is beginning to gain traction, and it says that the museum simply isn't interested in K7.
Oh, sure, were we to just dish it up then go home and never return they'd take it, of course they would. But join us in a dynamic project where work would have to be done by one and all on a regular basis - nah, too much effort, just let it go. They have enough visitors to see them through, there's enough in the new wing to get people through the door and in 20 years their officially stated charitable aims haven't mentioned Campbell or Bluebird.

So, seeing as the former has several assumptions and the latter fits with no assumptions at all I'm inclined these days to dismiss the huff theory and conclude that, unless we just hand over the boat and our half with it, which will never happen without a contract so we can operate on water, it's simply too much effort and they just don't want to know.

Sooner or later they'll have to declare whether they want to be involved or if they don't.
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
User avatar
Renegadenemo
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 12:29 pm
Location: N E England
Contact:

Re: Coniston Bye laws/Ruskin

Post by Renegadenemo »

Just a quick update...

After all the stuff on the Ruskin website about revisited load calculations and the floor being good for 'all estimated loads', etc. we asked what values had been arrived at following the revisiting so we could then consider the safest way to struggle the boat around the corner without smashing anything or firing shards of shattered tile at anyone. Now you'd think that therein lay a heaven-sent opportunity to bottom one of the current unknowns and that a value would have been forthcoming by return. But it wasn't.

We did get a reply but all it said was pretty much what's on the website and that everything is fine. But saying it's fine doesn't make it fine so, on the assumption that some conclusion had been arrived at but maybe questions remained, we then offered to take the value and test it for real by physically lifting the boat at various places and actually measuring the loads involved. That way, we explained, we'd either be able to verify their estimates or offer a correction one way or the other if it was a long way adrift. That seemed like a very reasonable and practical way forward for all concerned but, sadly, we were told that this request would be 'considered' at the next trustees meeting in September and not to bother messaging again as I wouldn't get a response. It's not very promising, is it.

I can see us building a representative section of floor from the photographs and specifications and testing it to destruction. That might be good fun, actually. :D
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
User avatar
thunderer
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:18 am
Location: London UK
Contact:

Re: Coniston Bye laws/Ruskin

Post by thunderer »

Renegadenemo wrote: Wed Aug 26, 2020 3:09 pm [snip][/snip]
I can see us building a representative section of floor from the photographs and specifications and testing it to destruction. That might be good fun, actually. :D

Much as I rarely comment....

!t looks (at the moment) as that may well be the only sensible way forwards to certain knowledge of the load pressures involved in moving K7 about on that particular floor construction.

That it may come to that, instead of a simple "here are the specs you requested" is indicative of many things but mostly it smacks of beauracratic BS and raises further questions.

And yes, I agree, it could well be fun too.
Just cos my username is Thunderer, doesn't necessarily mean I SHOUT !!
"A vehicle is designed to be used, restored or otherwise" A personal response on the question "you have just restored it, why use it?"
User avatar
Filtertron
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:15 pm
Location: East of Lake Dumbleyung.
Contact:

Re: Coniston Bye laws/Ruskin

Post by Filtertron »

I don't understand why they can't simply give you the figures you're after. It'd save a lot of trouble, and would mean they would have K7 on display a lot quicker. They're rather quick to release documents when it suits them (The 2006 Deed of Gift for example), yet can't send you something which is vital in speeding up the return of the boat to it's "Spiritual Home". I don't know if I'm reading this situation wrong; but that seems to be extremely self-defeating, and rather unprofessional. Come on, Ruskin! Surely it's not that hard? Everyone needs to leave their baggage at the gate and start talking again.
"What are you doing up that tree?"
"We're mountaineering on a rather tight budget."
Healey nut
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:56 am

Re: Coniston Bye laws/Ruskin

Post by Healey nut »

Just get some scales for however many wheels the trailer has put them under each wheel with K7 on it “A la F1 weigh bridge” , bingo there’s your point loads , give them to the Ruskin Retards and see what they say .
Thats not an oil leak , its my patent pending Old British Sports Car rustproofing system . :mrgreen:
User avatar
Renegadenemo
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 12:29 pm
Location: N E England
Contact:

Re: Coniston Bye laws/Ruskin

Post by Renegadenemo »

Just get some scales for however many wheels the trailer has put them under each wheel with K7 on it “A la F1 weigh bridge” , bingo there’s your point loads , give them to the Ruskin Retards and see what they say .
It's not so much the point loads under the wheels - though they are pretty huge and ultimately she'll have to be put up on stands to keep the weight off the tyres so all that equipment has to be calculated and constructed. But the main problem is understanding what we can get away with when using trolley jacks and skates. If you look at the launch and recovery dolly the forward axle is roughly under the main spar and therefore only three feet forward of the boat's centre so the dolly turns around its mid-point for all practical purposes except that the turntable at the back has woeful authority so the turning circle is akin to that of the old Queen Mary. Add in that the access door is not much wider than the workshop door and the width of the wing is even smaller than the length of the workshop and that the boat must be turned through 90 degrees the second it's through the door and you see the problem. We've tried to get a better look at what's involved but with no cooperation it will just have to wait.
I don't understand why they can't simply give you the figures you're after. It'd save a lot of trouble, and would mean they would have K7 on display a lot quicker. They're rather quick to release documents when it suits them (The 2006 Deed of Gift for example), yet can't send you something which is vital in speeding up the return of the boat to it's "Spiritual Home". I don't know if I'm reading this situation wrong; but that seems to be extremely self-defeating, and rather unprofessional.


No - you haven't read that wrong, it's extremely unprofessional but in all likelihood they don't have the figures anyway. The statement on the website was no more than a huffy counter to the fact that we now have all the photographic evidence we need plus the knowledge of the issues with the floor so we can pretty much work it out from here.

And remember also that the 2006 DoG wasn't trotted out to further the cause, it was used to try and turn people against us when the museum knew they'd signed a new one, albeit not worth the very expensive paper it's written on.

Unbelievably there are still one or two who to this day don't understand that DoG and think that somehow the Campbells gave the museum all of K7 but to do that was both legally and technically impossible. It would be like trying to gift your house to an as-yet unborn child. They couldn't give all of K7 away for the very simple reason that half of it didn't exist at the time and there was no guarantee that it ever would.

Even their accounts state that they own no more than 'the wreck of K7' though our lawyers are yet to follow that trail all the way back to be sure.

Then there's the fact that BBP were never signatories to the DoG and it bound us to nothing, why is that so difficult to understand? Yet some just can't seem to grasp it.

Then there's the way the museum insisted on things being done - at absolutely no cost to them, which meant that we were on our own in terms of fundraising and donations of whatever and we explained very early in the exercise that this would make us joint owners at the end if we didn't donate our parts, which we haven't. But that was OK so long as we were spannering away over here and not costing them anything. Nor did they mind us making big promises about a running boat in the future so long as we kept going without it costing them a penny.

So, when it comes to the 2006 DoG, in the first instance that was an agreement between the Campbells and the museum that basically said, we'll give you our scrap if you display it and the BBP will replace the missing bits. They both signed up to that and in so doing it committed the museum to working with BBP (though that wasn't expressly stated) to meet their obligation.

The bald fact of the matter is that it isn't the BBP that's failed in any way with regards to the terms of the 2006 DoG, it's the museum. They signed to say they'd put the boat on display then forced huge delays on proceedings instead of working as hard as possible to overcome the difficulties.

We built a team, set up a workshop, courted sponsors, built a brand then worked damned hard for fifteen years whilst being open and honest about our intentions to build a running boat and display it in Coniston when not out on the water.

The museum, meanwhile built a museum wing, which had been in gestation for years anyway as an additional art gallery and they don't even seem to know what it cost or when it was opened between the lot of them!

If you read the BEWG statement on their website it was opened in 2008 at a cost of 700k then if you read the paragraph above, which is a statement from the trustees themselves, it cost 800k and was opened in 2010. Hamming up the cost to make their efforts seem greater whilst not knowing within two years when they opened their own wing just makes them look stupid and it's been there for months so clearly they never bother to check their own website either.

Have a look for yourself but be quick because now we've flagged it it won't be there for long - have screen captured it for posterity.

http://www.ruskinmuseum.com/content/con ... events.php

In point of fact the cost was around 650k with almost half of that coming from the foot & mouth fund. Lovely building, let's not deny it but what it took to put it there is hardly comparable in terms of effort expended and to now be palms outstretched saying give us everything then go home is simply an outrage.

They'll have to work much harder than that.
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
JfromJAGs
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 6:16 pm

Re: Coniston Bye laws/Ruskin

Post by JfromJAGs »

A few days ago I had time to watch the video from Jan. 4th for the first time. Somehow things turned south since the Team trails on Bute in August 2018.

Maybe I got some things wrong, but from Gina Campbell's speach I found 2 key points remarkable:
1. She claimed that BBP was offered a 3 month/year period of having the boat.
2. At least she understood that nothing concerning K7 will be achieved without the agreement and support of Bill.
So, it's kind of incomprehensibly why she asks to return K7 immediately in the same context. Who wrote that sentence into her speach?

The speach from Mr. Carroll pretty much shows the missunderstanding the museum has about the condition of K7 and the work that went into the project - and still needs to go. He said, K7 ran on Bute, fine, that meams she is finished and has to be returned. Period. Anyone who was on Bute, saw K7 closely and knows a bit about mechanics knows that there is still a lot of work left. It's not as easy as the museum thinks. But that is probably their view towards K7. They look at K7 as another (dead) piece they have on display. There seams to be very little understandling about the initial plan to rebuild K7 to running conditions AND to run her regularely. Since I follow the BBP (since about 2006) I know this is and always was the plan. This is what got me exited.

What I don't know is, if rebuilding K7 to running conditions and then also to run her was the original plan of the Campbell family too. But from what Gina said live on TV on Bute, she wanted K7 to be shown to the world. So what changed her mind since then?

Anyway, under the current situation I don't see K7 on the water or in a museum soon. What could be a compromise both sides could agree to?

BR,
Joerg
User avatar
Renegadenemo
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 12:29 pm
Location: N E England
Contact:

Re: Coniston Bye laws/Ruskin

Post by Renegadenemo »

JfromJAGs wrote: Mon Aug 31, 2020 5:59 pm A few days ago I had time to watch the video from Jan. 4th for the first time. Somehow things turned south since the Team trails on Bute in August 2018.

Maybe I got some things wrong, but from Gina Campbell's speach I found 2 key points remarkable:
1. She claimed that BBP was offered a 3 month/year period of having the boat.
2. At least she understood that nothing concerning K7 will be achieved without the agreement and support of Bill.
So, it's kind of incomprehensibly why she asks to return K7 immediately in the same context. Who wrote that sentence into her speach?
Hi Joerg,

Good to hear from you. Re. your points above. Much was made of the offer of us running K7 for three months per year but the part that is always conveniently omitted is that the wording read something like,

'We might allow you but it's all subject to what our committee decides'.

Not difficult to see where that would lead, is it.

I was amazed by one little part of Gina's speech that went something like,

'When Bill said he's going to do something it gets done so I can only assume he doesn't want to put the boat in the museum.'

I had explained face to face not a couple of weeks earlier that what was needed was a contract guaranteeing that K7 would be operated by the BBP, as agreed, and until that happened we'd wait. Now then, on the basis that if I say I'm going to do something then it gets done what on earth was the point in standing there demanding something I'd already said I wasn't going to do? It was doomed to failure. What was supposed to happen next?

Sad to say, Gina pulled the pin and detonated a very large credibility-busting bomb beneath herself that day. It was a real eye opener to a great many people though not so much for us as we'd seen similar behaviour a few times and quietly brushed it under the rug.
The speach from Mr. Carroll pretty much shows the missunderstanding the museum has about the condition of K7 and the work that went into the project - and still needs to go.
Unbelievably, all but one or two of the trustees have ever set eyes on K7. Most have never visited the workshop or met any of the team yet they seem to think they're entitled to brush us off as though we never were. Is it any wonder that feelings run high? But hey-ho, we're a forgiving bunch.
What I don't know is, if rebuilding K7 to running conditions and then also to run her was the original plan of the Campbell family too. But from what Gina said live on TV on Bute, she wanted K7 to be shown to the world. So what changed her mind since then?
A long and complicated story with all the usual ingredients - will tell you when we see you next.
Anyway, under the current situation I don't see K7 on the water or in a museum soon. What could be a compromise both sides could agree to?
We're happy with what was agreed in 2013. We maintain the boat and operate her on water and when she's not running she's displayed in the museum. It's not even a compromise, it's a win-win for everyone with no drawbacks. Just need a new document drafted and signed and we're ready to go.

It needs saying that the silliness has gone on more than long enough and it's time to get down to business and get this sorted out once and for all. The public desire to see K7 back on the water gets stronger with each passing day as their patience with the procrastinators wears thinner.

So the plan is this, we're now so rusty we're going to need another crew training exercise so we'll request the permissions to use Loch Fad and assuming we can do that we'll put a date on our next outing and invite the museum to work with us in getting there and then onto Coniston and from there into the museum.

If it ends up being spoiled for everyone it won't be for lack of effort on our part.
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
Post Reply