SIGN THE PETITION PLEASE TO LET THE BLUEBIRD RUN

[Filtertron]

I have an authorised copy of DC's will obtained from the national probate office. Seems clear to me why the court decided what it did. I see no problem with the deed of gift. The only document that matters is that which Bill Smith and the Ruskin trustees signed in 2006.
Signatures clear on both. No other document of any relevance exists changing that agreement, end of. The endless protestations about something that was never signed up to in 2013 will amount to zero.


BTW It costs £10 to get a copy of a will.

Thanks, Ernie. I don't live in the U.K, so obtaining such documents over there is unknown to me. I am still curious as to why you're so against K7 being able to run for three months of the year under the BBP. Surely any DMC enthusiast would want to see K7 do what it was designed for?

[Filtertron]

Getting personal is extremely unprofessional, and is only used as a tactic when there isn't a valid argument to be made.

You might want to remind others around here of that fact... you know, the ones who invented the term 'Type 3' for that specific purpose?

Seems a pretty polite/tame/humourous way of classifying idiocy. Personally, I'd be a lot more graphic, but this is a family orientated forum.

It's a bit different if you are point-blank slagging someone off, which the Coniston based petition is doing. In contrast, Robert's petition isn't doing that. It's simply calling for common sense to prevail from the Ruskin.

[Ernie Lazenby]

Replying to filertron
I have said many times I want to see the signed 2006 agreement complied with and the K7 returned to the legal owners. If after that the trustees agree to K7 being run, and it is their right to make such a decision, I would have no problem with it being run again in a manner that does not risk its longevity for future generations. It should not be left in the control of a business man running PLC's, putting it in stark terms what happens if he passes away or goes bust.
The Ruskin trust is a legal entity that will remain no matter how many members come and go. If the Ruskin want K7 kept in running order and want to allow Bill Smith to keep it so then good nothing wrong with that sort of arrangement. I have issue with the constant referral to a 2013 document that has no relevance.

There is a consideration here and its simply this. If contracts are to have any meaning then the 2006 one must be complied with otherwise who would have confidence that any subsequent contract would be honoured? Surely no one expects the Ruskin trustees to ignore the 2006 agreement- it would be a dereliction of their duty if they did.


BTW I feel the on line petition really indicates desperation in the knowledge that there is no 2013 signed agreement. That said one can wonder why during the period 2013 to 2019 things were allowed to drift along by both sides when it was clear an issue was likely to arise.

[Filtertron]

Thanks for your reply, Ernie.

May I ask; exactly what difference would it make if the Ruskin and the BBP make an agreement prior to K7 returning to Coniston? I don't understand why it needs to be in the museum before such an agreement is reached.

It should not be left in the control of a business man running PLC's, putting it in stark terms what happens if he passes away or goes bust.

Can you please elaborate on this one a bit more?

My understanding is that the BBP is a not-for-profit volunteer group. If Bill were to pass on, someone else would step into the void, as with any other volunteer group. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is a succession plan in place. Most volunteer groups have one.

There is a consideration here and its simply this. If contracts are to have any meaning then the 2006 one must be complied with otherwise who would have confidence that any subsequent contract would be honoured?

If the 2013 agreement has superseded the 2006 agreement, why should the 2006 agreement be adhered to? Do you have absolute proof that the 2013 agreement between both parties doesn't exist?

BTW I feel the on line petition really indicates desperation in the knowledge that there is no 2013 signed agreement. That said one can wonder why during the period 2013 to 2019 things were allowed to drift along by both sides when it was clear an issue was likely to arise.

The petition wasn't setup by the BBP. It was setup by a member of the general public who simply wants what the rest of us do - to see K7 run, and be kept operational. By that same token, surely the Ruskin would have been aware of the BBP's activities, and could have objected at any time prior to recent events if they didn't agree with something.

[Ernie Lazenby]

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.

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. One side is going overboard while the other remains a dignified silence. Does anyone seriously believe Bill would break K7 apart, its all good for newspaper space but not a very credible threat.

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.

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.

BTW One can understand why Bute wants K7 back in July, business's do rather well I think. A symbiotic relationship.

[wbjohn]

I promised my good lady I would not post again

Here's hoping you keep your promises......

[ace_chris]

[Filtertron]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Richie]

Oh look, it’s the thread we locked as folk were going around in circles.....back.....under a new name.....same content....

LEAVE IT TO THE ACTUAL EXPERTS !

Not one person commenting on here is an expert in the appropriate field, no matter how much “sleuthing” is done you won’t know if you are barking up the wrong tree or not and ultimately may end up looking foolish.

Leave it alone, let the solicitors do their thing.

The opinions shared here are riddled with conscious and unconscious bias, let it be, let it be....

[Renegadenemo]

Oh look, it’s the thread we locked as folk were going around in circles.....back.....under a new name.....same content....

Can't argue with that. Quick, someone lock the thread!