LOST!! Hep Me!! Hep Me!!

[Renegadenemo]

Still didn't answer my question!

[Renegadenemo]

No, it's a perfectly valid answer. You haven't answered my question though.

[Sam_68]

t's a perfectly valid answer.

In a Billy Liar fantasy world, perhaps.

Everyone else will see it as yet more evasion to add to the excuses.

To answer your question: I believe that you once managed to convince yourself that I was Jim Noone... in which case I see no reason to disabuse you of that fantasy, either. It's much more interesting than the truth.

Call me Mr Shadrack...

[Piston Broke]

To Sam_68

Could you give me a yes or no answer do you think the 3 months 9 months agreement is unfair?

All the team are asking for is the paperwork to agree to this

If you think it isn't a fair agreement which of the following do you think will be best?

• Locking K7 up and this will keep the public flocking to the museum after the initial rush

• Seeing K7 on the water will prompt the public to go to the museum to get a closer look and therefore generating more income for not just the Ruskin but the whole area

[Jordangbr]

Sam 68/Shadrack
Why such an aggressive tone in your postings?
If you are representative of the Ruskin or Coniston it’s not doing you any favours in name calling and being aggressive.

[Sam_68]

Why such an aggressive tone in your postings?
...it’s not doing you any favours in name calling and being aggressive.

Jordan, Mr. Shitrack has no testicles, which is a shame because if he possessed a pair that matched the weight of his on-line bravado they would undoubtedly have sufficient mass to pull his spine straight, assuming he has one of those too, but now we're reaching, I admit.

Your turn, Mr. Shitrack, either out yourself and tell us who you are or snivel back to troll-land.

Bill

Whereas Billy is a model of tact, diplomacy and professionalism?



Half of the problem he has today is down to him having spent years slinging petty insults and name-calling at the Ruskin, the Lotteries Commission, the Lake District Planning Authorities, K777 project, and basically anyone who didn't see the world as it stands in Billy's little egotistical fantasy.

The reason I'm taking what you perceive to be an aggressive tone, Jordangbr, is that quite a number of years ago, back when there was still a very clear promise that K7 would be returned to the Ruskin, and a general understanding that BBP would do so from public donations and volunteer effort at no cost, I pressed Billy Liar for a simple confirmation that this would be the case, and that BBP would not be trying to make any claim against the Ruskin for part ownership of the boat, or invoicing them for restoration costs. He did his usual trick of blatantly evading a straight answer, when it didn't suit him to do so, and when pressed, forced the forum that the discussion was taking place on to delete it altogether under threat of legal action.


... Lo, and behold where we find ourselves today.

So, you see, I have learned from experience that when Billy won't give a straight answer to a VERY SIMPLE question, it's because he knows the truth won't do him any favours.

I say again, Bill, if, as you claim you 'have the necessary proof' (your exact words), then the answer is really very simple and straightforward: publish it, as the Ruskin have done with their documents, and the matter will be settled.

[Filtertron]

Without descending into petty insults (it matters nought to me who started it, we're adults, correct?).

The emails that Bill has referenced may not be able to be released publicly for a myriad of reasons. They could contain sensitive and/or personal information which can't easily be redacted or omitted without the email's narrative losing all context. The emails and any related documents would no doubt be produced in court as evidence, if the need ever arose - I really hope it never has to come to that though.

The Ruskin chose to release the deed documents, and that is their prerogative. The enthusiasts on both sides of the argument must respect that some things simply can't be released in the public domain, no matter how much we might want to see or read them. We as enthusiasts need to be mindful that any negative discussion we have could affect a positive outcome - I'm as guilty as everyone else in this regard, but I want it to stop, so I'm bowing out of the sillyness. It's pointless, and doesn't benefit anyone - not least the BBP or the Ruskin.

Hopefully both the Ruskin and BBP can put the past behind them, and get together and thrash out an agreement which will work in everybody's favour. Investigating the custodianship arrangement between the NRM and Riley & Sons (E) Ltd. for Flying Scotsman as a possible way forward, would be a great start as a suggestion.

[Piston Broke]

Sam_68

You didn’t answer my questions any reason????

[Sam_68]

You didn’t answer my questions any reason????

I didn't think them important enough to warrant a response.

But since you insist:

No, I don't think that the 3month/9month agreement is fair, for the simple reason that Billy has no legal right to impose any terms upon the Ruskin about how they dispose of their property.

It's irrelevant which of the two options you list I favour, because it's not my decision, it's the Ruskin's.

If they choose to allow any organisation to run Bluebird (and it needn't be BBP Ltd, who I think we can all agree have now breached their trust with the Ruskin to a level that is beyond redemption - fortunately there are other outfits experienced in the operation of cold-war jets who could easily take on the technical support to such operations), then that is entirely their decision as legal owners and custodians of the boat.

Let me ask you a question in return. Again, simple yes or no answer, as you demanded of me:

If you were to enter into a contract to have a specialist restore a classic car (or boat, or plane... take your pick), would you see it as reasonable that they should dictate after the event that they should have exclusive rights to the ongoing operation of the vehicle, for ever more, including taking ownership of it for 3 months of each year, as a condition of returning your property to you?

I've owned many classic cars, and I'm damned if I can remember any specialist who worked on them calling me up and saying "Your car is finished and ready for you to collect, sir, but we forgot to mention when you brought it in that we want it back every summer so that we can race it at Goodwood and Silverstone..."

[Ernie Lazenby]

My understanding is that the Ruskin Museum have formally requested in writing the return of their property. They have also placed in the public domain those documents that are relevant, I had sight of those some time ago and hence my previous comments on this forum. Property held by one individual who refuses to give it back can result in a problem for the holder. As soon as the 'owner' informs the holder that the property must be returned and not used/touched any further the holder must not do anything that could be construed as 'assuming the rights of an owner', to do brings in consideration of a whole different set of laws not civil litigation. Perhaps that is why K7 now sits covered up.
Bill has many times on this forum said he's only doing what Gina Campbell wants and in that respect I do have some sympathy for him due to Miss Campbell changing her mind several times. That said Miss Campbell has now made it very clear what she wants to happen and I am interested to know how Bill feels about that. Does his own feelings now surpass hers.
The lengthy argument about an alleged 2013 contract could be resolved by publication of the contract drawn up and submitted by Bill to the Ruskin trustees who felt unable to agree with it. All the private e mails, if they exist, are irrelevant as are spoken words be they by telephone or face to face. It may be the Ruskin Trustees will publish that proposed contract given it has attracted such media attention. Not good to conduct business in the public eye however things have gone to such a level it may be the only way to calm troubled waters.
I am troubled to have read on the twitter feed a suggestion that the relevant 2006 letter is in some way fake/altered? Seems fairly straight forward and authentic to me. I would think it very unwise if the trustees of a registered charity posted something on their web site that was not authentic.
From memory, and I will have to trawl through all my papers to confirm it, there was at a time last year that the Bluebird project go fund me page made reference to being a charity? Maybe wrong on that one however I have kept a fairly comprehensive record of published matter. It was probably a genuine mistake if indeed it were so.

This entire K7 ownership matter has clearly gone way beyond any possibility of a meeting of minds, that is very sad but perhaps not much of a surprise given the lack of detail in the 2006 paperwork with regard to ownership of property donated for the rebuild.

BTW My identity is clear for all to read because I don't believe hiding it is the morally correct thing to do when being critical of other people. Those who resort to personal abuse should make it clear who they are and who they represent.

I have suffered much personal abuse because of posts on this forum attempting to give a balanced view of 'the story'. As displayed during the recent general election and since, some people cannot offer reasoned argument so resort to personal attacks. I had not intended to post again on this forum however some of the stuff appearing on the twitter feed and emerging again on here is lamentable.

One way or another K7 Bluebird will arrive at the Ruskin museum to be its permanent base, until then one can but hope that the complications do not cause any long lasting unpleasantness and a breakdown of relationships.

Best wishes.