LOST!! Hep Me!! Hep Me!!

[Renegadenemo]

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!

You actually speak for the great majority. We are yet to have any contributor, donor or sponsor suggest that they actually got involved so the boat could sit in a crusty old museum with an uncertain future - quite the opposite, in fact.

Yes, there's a handful of poisonous individuals with a lot to say but if they were rounded up and put in one place they'd amount to fewer than we get on a good workshop Saturday.
We've stayed true to our objectives throughout, the museum agreed in 2013 that we were entitled to take the boat out for 'running sessions' every year and they are just going to have to live with that, whilst Gina is going to have to learn that turning on the good people she professed to so admire a year earlier and stamping her feet does not necessarily lead to instant obedience.
The museum has sought to blacken our good name and reputation by publicly referring to a deed of gift written in 2006 and suggesting we had failed to honour its terms whilst in the full knowledge that they'd signed a new one in 2019 with the Campbells that says in no uncertain terms that the 2006 deed never took effect! Libel of the highest order and from a registered charity and an accredited museum too. Of course it was swiftly removed once it became known that we were aware but by then the online trolls had much grist for their mill.
They also exposed their charity to huge legal expenses when all they had to do was respond to any one of our many requests for discussion and pick up the phone and talk to us - they had many other options but blowing a fortune on a doomed legal challenge was extremely unnecessary and yet not entirely their doing as they were conned into that one - and not by us! Seeing as at least ten of their trustees have never clapped eyes on Bluebird , met any of the team that have slaved over her for 15 years or even stood in her workshop it seems incredible that they consider themselves qualified to make decisions about what happens to her but there you go.

Oh, there is much going on and we're having to sort it out but we will get there because we always do. It'll fix.

[mtskull]

Wise words, mate.

[rob565uk]

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!

You actually speak for the great majority. We are yet to have any contributor, donor or sponsor suggest that they actually got involved so the boat could sit in a crusty old museum with an uncertain future - quite the opposite, in fact.

Yes, there's a handful of poisonous individuals with a lot to say but if they were rounded up and put in one place they'd amount to fewer than we get on a good workshop Saturday.
We've stayed true to our objectives throughout, the museum agreed in 2013 that we were entitled to take the boat out for 'running sessions' every year and they are just going to have to live with that, whilst Gina is going to have to learn that turning on the good people she professed to so admire a year earlier and stamping her feet does not necessarily lead to instant obedience.
The museum has sought to blacken our good name and reputation by publicly referring to a deed of gift written in 2006 and suggesting we had failed to honour its terms whilst in the full knowledge that they'd signed a new one in 2019 with the Campbells that says in no uncertain terms that the 2006 deed never took effect! Libel of the highest order and from a registered charity and an accredited museum too. Of course it was swiftly removed once it became known that we were aware but by then the online trolls had much grist for their mill.
They also exposed their charity to huge legal expenses when all they had to do was respond to any one of our many requests for discussion and pick up the phone and talk to us - they had many other options but blowing a fortune on a doomed legal challenge was extremely unnecessary and yet not entirely their doing as they were conned into that one - and not by us! Seeing as at least ten of their trustees have never clapped eyes on Bluebird , met any of the team that have slaved over her for 15 years or even stood in her workshop it seems incredible that they consider themselves qualified to make decisions about what happens to her but there you go.

Oh, there is much going on and we're having to sort it out but we will get there because we always do. It'll fix.

Looking at the Ruskin’s accounts for year ended 31 March 2019, the total sum of £33, 477 was expended against the line item “Bluebird”.

I do not know whether the legal cost of the 2019 Deed of Gift falls in this accounting period, but even if it does, I cannot believe it cost so much - especially if, as claimed, the document is simply a fully signed version of the original 2006 Deed of Gift.

It’s regrettable that the Ruskin has not seen fit to publish the full contents of the 2019 Deed of Gift as they did for the 2006 Deed of Gift.

Interesting also that £30, 801 is credited against this line, as income from grants, donations or gifts.

These are very large sums and in my view, need further explanation in the light of the current controversy surrounding Bluebird K7.

[Renegadenemo]

I do not know whether the legal cost of the 2019 Deed of Gift falls in this accounting period, but even if it does, I cannot believe it cost so much - especially if, as claimed, the document is simply a fully signed version of the original 2006 Deed of Gift.

The 2019 deed was only the beginning - it was the first act of a two-tier plan. First, alter the deed to remove the Bluebird Project, which is why subsequently using the defunct , 2006 deed to damage our reputation was so libelous. Next, send in the lawyers to try and take the boat away. The first part of the plan made absolutely no difference because we can't be written out of the equation that way and the second was doomed from the off because giving duff info to your lawyer is like giving duff info to your doctor, you won't get a cure.
In this instance neither the true ownership position, which was perfectly understood by both parties, nor the fact that we reached agreement in 2013, had been explained to the lawyers and lawyers hate surprises. Having been involved in litigation I've seen what surprises do and how easy it is for the costs situation to run away with itself as a result.
But what is most astounding is that any of this happened at all. It is well known and very public knowledge that we the BBP have been strenuous in trying to get negotiations and discussions underway with only radio silence for our trouble. From when we got back from Bute to when the silly season began in March 2019 we have a paper-trail of our efforts to get around a table and what you most definitely don't do is go litigating when you have any sort of an alternative. That's very naughty.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... r-trustees

[rob565uk]

The 2019 deed was only the beginning - it was the first act of a two-tier plan. First, alter the deed to remove the Bluebird Project, which is why subsequently using the defunct , 2006 deed to damage our reputation was so libelous. Next, send in the lawyers to try and take the boat away.

Considering the above and the strict rules around a charity litigating before exhausting all alternatives, it seems to me as if the Ruskin received some highly questionable advice which has already cost a fortune and may well cost even more if the Charity Commission investigates in depth.

The worst aspect is that none of these moves is likely to bring about a sensible resolution to the dispute.

It’s high time the key people from the Ruskin and the Bluebird Project got around the table and came to a sensible agreement to both run and display Bluebird K7 in a manner designed to preserve this great British icon for present and future generations.

[Renegadenemo]

Considering the above and the strict rules around a charity litigating before exhausting all alternatives, it seems to me as if the Ruskin received some highly questionable advice which has already cost a fortune and may well cost even more if the Charity Commission investigates in depth.

It’s high time the key people from the Ruskin and the Bluebird Project got around the table and came to a sensible agreement to both run and display Bluebird K7 in a manner designed to preserve this great British icon for present and future generations.

With regard to getting good advice, they used to consult with us on such matters. There was a similar incident in 2013 that they asked for our guidance on and we were quickly able to point out who the bad guys were and trouble was quietly avoided but they didn't ask this time and the irony is that we could have explained the position in a single phone call and it all could have been avoided but instead they took disastrous advice with equally disastrous consequences.

As for getting around a table - please don't imagine that the BBP is in any way hindering that process. We've been banging on about it for a very long time even going to far as to say it live on BBC radio only to be told it'll be a 'long time coming'. Why that should be is more than we can explain but considering that charity trustees have a legal obligation to act in the best interests of their charity and not do anything to damage its reputation it does all seem a little odd.

https://bluebirdproject.com/assets/audi ... umbria.mp3

[rob565uk]

As for getting around a table - please don't imagine that the BBP is in any way hindering that process. We've been banging on about it for a very long time even going to far as to say it live on BBC radio only to be told it'll be a 'long time coming'. Why that should be is more than we can explain but considering that charity trustees have a legal obligation to act in the best interests of their charity and not do anything to damage its reputation it does all seem a little odd.

https://bluebirdproject.com/assets/audi ... umbria.mp3

Listening again to that broadcast, I am struck by how very negatively Mr Carroll of the Ruskin Museum comes across. He seems determined not to get round a table any time soon.

Given that it’s probably already too late to arrange an outing this year and given the current issues with Coronavirus, it looks like being 2021 before there is an opportunity to run Bluebird K7 in public again.

This is fully three years since the historic crew training runs in 2018 - which is absolutely tragic.

Surely the parties concerned do not wish to see this pointless deadlock continue?

[Renegadenemo]

Surely the parties concerned do not wish to see this pointless deadlock continue?

Apologies if I have thins wrong but you come across as though you feel it's six of one and half a dozen of the other when in actual fact we never wanted this pointless deadlock and have worked tooth and nail in the first instance to avoid it and in the second, to break it and get moving again.

As you say - no running this year either. We were full-throttle with our preparations to get to Coniston last year and when that was cancelled we invited the museum on a joint venture back to Bute then again for this year. It should be pretty obvious by now that the boat isn't going into the museum until the deal we already have from 2013 is finalised or a new one drawn up in its place and that process can't begin until they get their decision makers over here to thrash it out so what are the options?

We could issue proceedings to have a judge declare the 2013 agreement binding and they could either find a big pot of money to argue the toss or maintain radio silence while we do it then find themselves on the wrong end of a costs order. Or, we could just run the boat next year and invite them to find a big pot of money to injunct us whilst explaining to the public why they don't want them to have the benefit of seeing K7 on water.

Neither option is ideal but both would work but what is utterly baffling is this. In a former life I designed vehicle security and was involved in many projects. One of the most memorable was taking an ordinary family hatch and turning it into a classic but the problem was that adding all the British, boy-racer bits on the track in Germany caused the uber-efficient Germans all sorts of nightmares. The wheels specified were too big for the track itself, there was an extra stalk for a CD changer, some fat Geordie bloke messed terribly with their steering column, airbag wiring and knee-impact protection so villains couldn't break the steering lock. The car had to be built as far as possible on the track then taken away to another building to be partially dismantled then put back together again as we wanted it. The squeaks and rattles team (yes, there is such a thing) didn't like it, the quality guys didn't like it, the EMC and aesthetics people hated me messing with their steering column and, suffice to say, there was no way on earth that we'd ever join our German counterparts for an overflowing stein of pilsner after work but here's the thing - we could all see the big picture and how everyone would benefit in the long run. We all took pride in getting our bit of the project spot-on and the Focus ST170 and RS Focus were a big hit for both the special vehicles team and Ford Europe.
Is it really that difficult?

[rob565uk]

Surely the parties concerned do not wish to see this pointless deadlock continue?

We could issue proceedings to have a judge declare the 2013 agreement binding and they could either find a big pot of money to argue the toss or maintain radio silence while we do it then find themselves on the wrong end of a costs order. Or, we could just run the boat next year and invite them to find a big pot of money to injunct us whilst explaining to the public why they don't want them to have the benefit of seeing K7 on water.

The sort of legal options proposed above seem extreme and likely to cost both the Ruskin Museum and the Bluebird Project very large sums of money.

Is the Museum adamant that they see no other option?

Have all alternatives really been explored fully?

I still struggle with the idea that getting round a table presents such an apparently insurmountable hurdle.

It is tragic that K7 cannot currently be seen running, nor be available for public viewing. Though I notice in the Twitter feed that the Bluebird Project Workshop is occasionally open to the Public.

[Renegadenemo]

The sort of legal options proposed above seem extreme and likely to cost both the Ruskin Museum and the Bluebird Project very large sums of money.

Is the Museum adamant that they see no other option?

Have all alternatives really been explored fully?

I still struggle with the idea that getting round a table presents such an apparently insurmountable hurdle.

It is tragic that K7 cannot currently be seen running, nor be available for public viewing. Though I notice in the Twitter feed that the Bluebird Project Workshop is occasionally open to the Public.

Indeed - litigation is an expensive business. I caught some employees being very naughty in 2012 and it took almost eight years and a great deal of money to deal with the matter but at the same time it was also a very useful education. As to whether the museum can see another option - and they'd be wise to start looking - there are many alternatives not yet explored. But if litigation is what they fancy I guess that's the route we'll take.

K7 is a little covered up at the mo, that much is true, but that's partly to keep the sawdust off while we make our Crusader model. Our workshop has become a minor tourist destination in the summer when we have the door up and a fair number of people made the trip last year to get a selfie and meet some of the team. Especially since we introduced a biscuit tax. It's also possible to visit in the winter by appointment.

As for running - if we're going to be studiously ignored, having tried to play fair and get some dialogue going for a year and a half, we might just organise a bit of our own ignoring and gear up for a few runs in 2021 and just go and do it. It's obviously what the public wants so we'll see what the next few months bring and make a decision in the summer if there's no other progress to announce.