K7 To Be Dismantled - ???

I see the argument against moderators and cant disagree.

I will remain frustrated that an intelligent discussion should be messed up by trolls that purely wish to disrupt. It makes the otherwise interesting topic an absolute pain to follow.

I still believe my suggestion could be refreshing and helpful - but here I am, adding irrelevant text which is so off topic that, in this, deserves to be moved!

... so, back to "K7 to be dismantled" with my apologies :)

The idea of 'trolling' is to mislead or distract from the topic, hence to prevent discussion.

I know it could look bad to some but the role of a moderator here may be advantageous. If one could delete (better to move) Eastman's post on the basis of 'trolling' and similarly all the replies to his post, and the topic could remain sensible.

Personally I invite Eastman to contribute with constructive comments and questions which can be debated. By implication if he just rudely intervenes, as above, with banal and aggressive statements then his post serves no purpose and should be deleted (moved) before it appears or better be moved to another topic (called 'Trolls and Children' ?) by the moderator.

The poor moderator will come in for criticism but in practice nothing need be actually deleted and the otherwise adult debate my continue.

Not sure Brian was thinking railway locomotives, somehow.

Maybe he'll explain.

How about it, Brian? Who or what is the Great Gatherer?

I thought I was missing something. I even Googled 'The Great Gatherer' but even Google was baffled. And who got their knuckles rapped? Many questions.

It's neither insulting nor informative, it's just peculiar.

Anyone got a clue what he's on about?

How very appropriate(engine 711s village idiot comment) now knowing who BTG is …..you would think he would pick a slightly more “under the radar” screen name .

No need for popcorn. It really isn't that interesting but speaking to Peter today it appears that his questions to the RM have again gone unanswered so we may have to pursue that one.

Pass the popcorn please , better make it an extra large as well . Here we go again …….my mother bless her soul used to say …….if you don’t have anything nice or constructive to add to the conversation ……..say nothing . Wouldn’t it be nice if others would follow suit .

Care to elaborate? Explain the smoke and mirrors suggestion, perhaps? Outline what you feel is rubbish so we can see where you're coming from. Otherwise you may as well say, the earth is flat, then run off.

But it isn't bullshit at all. It's a very fair assessment. Cerberus has also clearly taken the time to understand what's what too.

We did go a fair way down the road of enforcing the original version of the 2013 agreement but after several conferences, Counsel basically said, why do you want to spend money giving away more than you need to? Let them come to you.

Fair enough.

Nor is there any chance of a brace of brainless trolls having the slightest influence. When we're not laughing at them we're ignoring them.

As for a lengthy stalemate, well it isn't really because we're now getting on with some of the work needed to finish the rebuild and that has always had a big following so we're getting back to business as usual there and we'll get the doors open soon as the worst of the winter is behind us and grow the visitor experience as that was something we began working on last summer and that was very exciting. After all, our little Bluebird Wing is about the same size it's just we've got it full of stuff - soon clear that out.

Our corner of the world was really beginning to become a little local tourist attraction with Debs' shop doing a roaring trade only this time we'll reinstall an engine and put on a proper show. There's lots to look forward to while we wait for common sense to prevail and at the end of the day the only loser is the RM. We're doing what we love, anyone who wants to come and visit K7 is welcome with the added bonus that you get to meet the team and have an expert on hand to answer questions and we'll be at complete readiness to go back to the water soon as everything is settled. What's not to like?

It does not seem advantageous for anyone to START legal proceedings.

The museum will not initiate action (against Charity Commission guidance) where they would knowingly expect years of expensive legal action based on their own refusal to mediate. Although they could win the original recovered parts but be then unable to fund any rebuild, Any engineering partner, now forewarned, would likely insist on very very strict terms. Lastly, but importantly their last legal action did not end well for them and the trustees could become personally liable for the enormous costs.

BBP seem similarly unlikely to initiate the action, they have never even claimed to own the recovered wreckage and so have little to gain. The project's existing costs have already been recovered through merchandise, donations and no doubt personal sacrifice of the team. The Project have already proven their ability to raise substantial funding to finish the restoration.

The Ruskins only realistic course of action is probably to try and goad the BBP through social media into some sort of legal action. Given their vocal trolls number perhaps 2 or 3 and seem only to talk to each other this appears an unlikely prospect.

Fortunately the project team have a surfeit of skilled volunteers to keep BBK7 fighting fit and can afford to wait till common sense prevails and we see it on the water again.

What was his name again? - you must remember? that guy who got all those world records?

It doesn't need goodwill, it needs professionalism. We've all worked with people we wouldn't necessarily get along with but it's easy enough to do. As for stepping back, I've been leaving the negotiations to the rest of the crew for some time now. Since 2019, in fact. Remember it was Peter and Jordan who put together the Zoom meeting - I had nothing to do with that. Then another well-meaning individual stepped up with an offer of independent brokerage and that person was immediately passed to Peter, who you will recall, also asked all the right questions of the museum when they tried to claim that it was us who had failed to come to the table having turned down the 90 day offer. Once again I stayed well out of proceedings there. I did the RAC thing but that was because Neil asked me if I would and as Neil is a top bloke I was happy to oblige but otherwise I'm out of it and happy working on the Group-B rally cars that I put down 20 years ago to try my hand at a wrecked boat. Let others do the negotiating from here.

What some probably won't like, though, is that our team knows exactly what has to be delivered so no matter which of us does the negotiating nothing will be significantly different. Yes, the words used might be different and the individual delivering them will be whoever steps up on the day but the message remains unaltered.

And as for all this 'let the courts decide' nonsense... I'm yet to see an offering on that matter from anyone who appears to have the slightest inkling of what that involves. Who is going to issue proceedings and for what? The RM can say we're not giving them their bits back and we'll be right back at them for trying to wriggle free of what they very publicly agreed with us and we'll all be locked into a five year legal wrangle that will cost half a million quid with the trustees having refused to mediate and therefore potentially exposing themselves to personal liability in the event of an adverse costs order. And that's without their obligation to the Charities Commission to stay away from litigation unless all other options have been explored and exhausted. Obviously there are still a great many unexplored options remaining.

And the first thing a court would do anyway is adjourn for a while and 'suggest' we have a mediation, which under those conditions will be expensive when the opportunity to do it on the cheap is right under everyone's noses.

And how do I know this? Because I spent eight years locked into High Court civil litigation in two separate cases in which I was named as Respondent.

Both were baseless and the first was abandoned outright and I was awarded 100% costs, something my legal team had never seen before, and the second was settled for pennies in the pound at mediation because the claimant realised very late in the day that they were throwing good money after bad. I've been there, seen it, done it and the tee shirt probably went to be used as dusters years ago. It's brutal and draining and unhealthy in the extreme but a very exciting challenge at the same time. And that's only civil court because in two previous lives I have also testified as an expert in the Crown Court in the fields of vehicle security and underwater exploration.

Go to court? Let's do it.