RM and Campbell Family make Final Appeal

What a gorgeous ensemble the Fool Me Once 2024 Maya Stern Pink Puffer Long Coat is! Vibrant pink and the soft fabric combine to make a stylish combination. With this essential winter piece, stay warm and draw attention.

The noel fielding smiley face sweater is a wearable ode to optimism. Positive vibes are disseminated wherever you go by the cheerful design and vibrant colors. It's a unique addition to the closet of any fashion enthusiast.

RM and Campbell Family's Final Appeal reflects their determination for justice. Their unwavering efforts to seek truth inspire others. In complex times, voices like theirs remind us of the importance of a fair legal system. For eloquent writing services that capture the essence of such stories, visit lor writing services. Let words empower your cause.

If the boat is to be taken apart I would like a world wide boycott of the Ruskin Museum to take place by the fans of Donald Campbell and Bluebird K7

Its nice to see that the trolls have seemingly blocked themselves on twitter.

All I see now is the educational (discussing the speedometer, the paint, the sponsons etc) and the entertaining (what are those teacakes?, lively discussion on likely lakes for running, latest visitor talk) and such like. It shows a dedicated bunch the BBP unskilled volounteers being honest, transparent and worthy of support.

I so much enjoy clicking all the LIKE icons in support of the lobster (and carers)

"Yes, I thought the comments about Name Calling was very ironic."

What's doubly ironic is that all we've done of late is set the record straight. A supposedly responsible charity and museum would have had you believe recently that the full extent of the 2013 agreement was a couple of emails between the curator and ourselves that she didn't even have the authority to send or that the meeting of 5th November might've gone somewhere but for our unpreparedness. That the 2013 agreement went right to the to of the same trustees who made our meeting a farce was to be firmly hushed up so if we correct things with appropriate evidence is that name calling? And if severely diluted half-truths are told about us in a deliberate attempt to mislead the public is that name calling? If so then we'll take that but at least ours is honest name calling.

"Interesting to note Jeff Carroll's comments about name calling etc. Could it be that they're out of pure frustration due to the museum's complete refusal to engage with the BBP and find a compromise that suits everyone?"

Interesting to note also that the snippet in question appears to be from the same interview as was conducted when the first press release went out. You know the one that outwardly said - with deep regret and much sorrow we're once again exercising our shocking sense of entitlement now the hard work is done whilst behind closed doors it said, give us the lot and leave with bugger-all despite what we promised you and, by the way, don't tell the public because they'll murder us. That press release, remember?

By the way that press release said there would be no further comment leaving the news media unable to tell both sides as they would wish. They quite rightly want a comment from both sides so hiding from reporters is very unprofessional.

Now I could have this all wrong and maybe Jeff does all his media appearances from his gaming chair via a fuzzy webcam but it was a fairly quiet news day and the Beeb were making something of it starting the day before. We were worth a Proper reporter and a cameraman so they'll have had a video journalist in Cumbria who would have wanted a nice shot down by the lake or by Campbell's grave or somewhere like that so that leaves but two possibilities.

Either the default position for talking to the media is the fuzzy webcam and gaming chair or that snippet came from the earlier interview and no one was made available for comment on the last occasion.

The point being that name calling is the term they use to describe criticism but when they go about their media relations in such a manner they're going to make themselves look stupid so they'll take criticism and that becomes name calling. Time to look closer to home.

"I thought I may have dreamt it, but I do remember a TV interview of a very happy Ms Campbell, who, after the first team trail runs on Bute, told everyone that a) only Bill could have achievd this and b) that she felt K7 was to young to rot in a museum."

The actual quote was 'she's too young to sit in a crusty old museum', which caused Coat-Tails to blow a fuse because he was busy courting the RM with a view to his future plans so he went crackers with Gina who then tried to retract it. First she said it was said in the heat of the moment and that everyone was very excited at the time and it came out wrong. That was a fair enough explanation and had it been left there it would have been written off as a reasonable enough mistake to make but it wasn't. She tried to go one better by next saying that it had been instantly retraced but the BBC, through some judicious editing had only aired the comment and not its retraction.

That was a step too far because anyone who has made a misstep on camera will tell you that either the question is asked another way so you get a chance to say it how you wanted to say it, it goes out with the retraction or it never sees the light of day. That's how it works, especially with the BBC. Then there's the fact that there's several other videos of the same interview

I thought I may have dreamt it, but I do remember a TV interview of a very happy Ms Campbell, who, after the first team trail runs on Bute, told everyone that a) only Bill could have achievd this and b) that she felt K7 was to young to rot in a museum.

I found at least the first part: Bluebird: The Afterlife - YouTube go to 9:20

Only if everyone involved (RM, CFHT,...) understands and respects this (again), there will be a solution. Otherwise things will stay in a deadlock forever - and remember: the BBP team is mostly younger than you.

Involving Bill and the BBP team into the life of K7 made the BBP a significant part of the history of K7. These people worked their butt off (for free!) to restore K7 and it took them longer than DC ever owned K7 or Leo Villa worked on her - keep this in mind. Noone, any I really mean noone, including DC if he'd be alive, has any legal and especially moral right to ask the BBP to return K7 - as is - or even worse - stripped down - and then pi** off.

I can only encourage the people behind the RM and the CFHT to ask themselves if they ever want to see K7 within their lifetime again. In case the answer is yes, then find an agreement with the BBP. There is no other solution than this.

Cheers.

The reporting seems fair enough.

Interesting to note Jeff Carroll's comments about name calling etc. Could it be that they're out of pure frustration due to the museum's complete refusal to engage with the BBP and find a compromise that suits everyone? Perhaps it would be more constructive for Mr. Carroll to get into his car and drive to the workshop one Saturday and actually talk with the team? The BBP have said they're interested in doing so numerous times in the past few years, so what is stopping him aside from personal pride?

As for Gina Campbell, she'd be best ignored and left out of it. She doesn't add any sort of value, and her continual promotion of the myth that DMC was an honourable, decent person is getting rather stale. Any respect I had for her was lost when she betrayed the BBP, who have done so much for her on a personal level, and even risked their lives doing so.

I thought it was quite fair too, depending on which perspective you hold. What I fail to understand is why on earth do Ruskin think that BBP will acquiesce to their demands, when its quite obvious to anyone sensible that there is a better solution for all concerned. It just needs some discussion.

By the way I was in the Lakes last week and went to visit The Ruskin Museum for the first time, I had expected it to be quite busy but to see how sleepy it was in high season astonished me. In the hour I was there, maybe 2 other families came in. However, to give it credit it is a small. well presented provincial museum focusing on the life and times of Coniston and John Ruskin. The Bluebird wing was interesting but hollow without the main event being there.

I may have this wrong but it didn't look like the sort of place that would be able to have or host a machine that needs regular maintenance and attention from anyone, without a massive increase in staffing levels and expense. Also the lake was pretty packed with all manner of watercraft and swimmers, and I can imagine it being very difficult if not impossible to 'secure' all access points onto the lake for some K7 running. For these reasons I don't think there is any will or intention for Ruskin to target getting K7 back for anything other than a static display which needs no extra staff - it's just too hard, or as my daughter says CBA!

Just watched the BBC piece, above. Seemed to be reasonably fair.....? All parties expressed their views, right or wrong. But - no indication of any willingness to negotiate, by the RM - or GC.

Just - Give It Back.

Could do better, IMO.

Tonight's BBC piece.

After that .... can you elaborate ? (I am smiling broadly)

What some people seem not to have realised is that in the 15 years or so we've been doing this boat thing we've put together a lot of skills and equipment and also become rather brave about the sort of tasks we'll take on. There's nothing we won't have a go at making or mending with the result that there's always some project or another bubbling away on the benches. We also go to the workshop to see our mates, it's our speakeasy, our club-house, if you like. We drink tea and talk rubbish in there. And we meet outside of the workshop too. We go diving, cycling, out for meals or to each other's houses so if there's some silliness going on with the boat it's no big deal. It means we get other things done instead. On Saturday we craned our spare engine cradle onto the top of the container where our fuel tank lives and removed a bush that had taken root and got a little too big for its boots and we did all this while drinking tea, having a laugh and flogging merch to passers by. It was a most enjoyable day.

Now autumn is on the way so the doors will be open less often and the inside jobs will take over and there's plenty of those! Zoe can drive now so if she can get over a bit more often we'll do some more Crusader and we have a couple of rally car projects going on.

We'll have a good catch up on our other jobs over the winter then, once we've done that and if there's no progress, we'll get back on the boat in the spring because there's still plenty to do - we'll finish the damn thing eventually. After that we have bigger space to move her into (bigger than the BB wing) and we'll do the display instead whilst keeping the big tin machine absolutely tip top for the next time she runs.

Looking back at the RM’s statement and the various replies on social media it reminded me of dealing with children when young. The conversation often went like this:

Child: “I want some ice-cream.”

Parent: “Well you haven’t eaten all your dinner so you can’t have any.”

Child: “But I want ice-cream.”

Parent: “You know you have to eat all your dinner before you are allowed ice-cream.”

Child: “But I want ice-cream.”

Parent: “No, you know you don’t get ice-cream until all your dinner is gone. If you’re too full for your dinner, there is no room for ice-cream. No arguments.”

Child lies on the floor and screams.

Now substitute dinner for contract and ice-cream for boat. It really is that simple!

I would suggest that running K7 (on Bute or wherever) would now be at the least, be.. provocative., shall we say. Its probably one thing which could prompt the RM to instruct Legal people. But - that might lead to a resolution of some sort, perhaps..

Other than that, its the Hudson Street Museum, I think....

Nothing will happen as RM truly believe they have put the ball into BBP’s court with their various letters and statements, and now a quiet stalemate will persist. RM will never formally instruct a dismantling, and BPP will not voluntarily start that, and probably can‘t use K7 without the co-owners permission. so how will this impasse be resolve?

Nothing so far but lawyers on stand by just in case. K7 is way down the list today. It's all B-cars here at the moment.

Just checking in, to find out if the sky has fallen in yet.....? After all, its 31st August today.....!!

"Thinking about the behaviour & positioning of the RM, made me look up 'Dog In A Manger' - I think its appropriate."

It's especially appropriate and we've said it before so how long do they plan to do that for because it's three years and counting.

We've asked them if they want to start dismantling the boat but they won't confirm and what all this 31st August thing is about is anyone's guess. At a glance it seems to be, if you don't hand us 20 years of work and leave empty handed by then we'll try to tell the world it was your idea to take it apart - as if anyone is going to buy that.

No, we'll keep on with the maintenance and catch up on our side projects - we have an exciting Gp-B rally car project going on that we'll show you in due course - and await confirmation, or not. Our stakeholders are aware and ready to join the fray if necessary and we can instruct lawyers and bring in the big guns at a moment's notice should we need to.

There also seems to be a bit of 'give it back' going on. Just to be clear, they've never had it. We found it in October 2000 (and don't believe all those tales about the locals knowing where it was, no one we met knew though some had a vague idea where the datum buoy had once been) with no intention of lifting it. That was Gina's idea when we almost lost a diver and she realised good people were risking (and very near losing on that occasion) their lives on her account because what we were doing was looking for her dad at her request. So we inherited about a ton of dripping scrap metal that lay about our workshop to the end of 2005 while twice we applied to the HLF for funding for the rebuild. Part of that plan was the HLF buying the wreck from the CFHT but that's another story. So, when that fell through, they binned it off quick as you like to the museum but it was still gathering dust in our workshop. Now it's a long way to being finished, though substantially dismantled after Bute and to this date most of the RM trustees have never clapped eyes on it. Certainly they haven't met the team or our families or made the tea in the workshop - a massive mark of disrespect so far as we are concerned.

Are we not worthy of a visit on a Saturday afternoon?

So when people say, give it back, what they really mean is, present it to them for the very first time despite their total lack of involvement over the years.

Yes - we can do that - soon as the ink is dry on the new contracts.

Thinking about the behaviour & positioning of the RM, made me look up 'Dog In A Manger' - I think its appropriate.

"There was a Dog lying in a manger who did not eat the grain, but who nevertheless prevented the Horse from being able to eat anything either."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dog_in_the_Manger

They keep saying they want an operable boat, but it's going to take years for it to get to where it is now again.

They'll have to source another Orph, of which the right type are extremely thin on the ground. I have been in contact with the fellow who donated an Orph to the BBP for use in K7. He has stated that if the boat is returned to the museum, he wants his engine back as per conditions of the donation. So again, the museum find themselves between a rock and hard place. No only that, they will have to re-manufacture the missing parts, which the BBP own. There is a lot of fettling involved to reproduce the right shape for each part to match what was there before the crash. The rebuild has taken around fifteen years, virtually from the ground up. The planing shoes for the sponsons will also be a huge challenge, as they will need to get new ones milled up at great expense. If it's taken the BBP fifteen years (including the RM imposed hiatus from 2019), it's going to take them another fifteen years, or perhaps longer to rebuild the boat again. Not only that, they will also cop a lot of bad press, as ultimately the decision to dismantle K7 lies with the Ruskin. No amount of deflection can change that fact. Do everyone a favour: build a bridge and get over whatever grudge you carry, Ruskin trustees. I work with many people I don't like, but I am still professional about it and work with them for the greater good. Instead of sending legal letters or threatening litigation, use the money to pay for professional mediation. It'll be cheaper in the long run. Or...You can continue carrying a grudge, and remain both unprofessional and petulant in the eyes of the public.

Ruskin won't do that as they think people would only come for original boat. However good idea. Problem is the fight is on over the parts who gets what and that could take years I fear. Most fans wanted to see it on the water not in museum. It could of done both if it wasn't for the greed of Ruskin. All Ruskin see is £££££££ if it is kept in the museum.

Perhaps if the museum were to appoint a contractor for their rebuild (running or static) who can liaise with BBP on the best way to dismantle.

Engineer to Engineer - what's not to like?

Considering the main fuselage frame/chassis for example. If for static display then jointly fund a model frame and BBP keep original. If for RM running then joint fund a replica and RM keep original. If you cant agree everyone gets their half and my guess is the rebuild costs would be double!

Has anyone read 'The Merchant of Venice' recently?

Sounds like to me that they will say bits that BBP put on or had to replace are gifted to them, so it will take years to agree. But as I said before nothing can happen until its been to court unless both parties agree to it. Easy way out of this happening would be for Ruskin to let BBP run the boat on Coniston, but from my own dealing with Tracey Hodgson they never wanted it running. Sad situation that has hurt the legacy of Bluebird K7. I have heard the lies from Ruskin claiming BBP are making money off the boat. Yes they have to to fund the rebuild, nothing is free materials and electricity cost money Ruskin. I have heard mug slinging from one side vs the other but to be fair to the BBP they have always been up front, that they wanted the boat to still run on water. The BBP were offering for free to run the boat and maintain it. But it would mean now and again not in museum and that was the sticking point for Ruskin. They said it would loose money if not in museum. 5. Under 5.3 it is envisaged that the Property will be placed on permanent display This line in Ruskin statement proves that they are not going to run boat again.

The museum says it has the much evidence of what parts were gifted to them. This is most helpful as they surely must submit this as a list to the project. No doubt the list will contain items which are controversial but further, when resolved, will be a good list of parts needed for the continuing running of K7.

All the drawings, specifications and experience already gained and owned by the Project will help considerably in setting out the plan and timescale of the next outing.

Conversely, what the museum or its contractors can do with few drawings, little research and no experience is anyones' guess - and fantastically expensive!

I don't see this getting them much sympathy at all, well, apart from a few of the Coniston locals, and CFHT groupies. Again, they try to pin the dismantling of K7 on the BBP, when it is clearly the Ruskin Museum (with the CFHT's involvment) who are instigating it. Interesting that there has to be an agreement between both parties as to how this can be completed. They don't want a running agreement with the BBP, but they want one for how K7 should be dismantled. That is beyond daft.

Agreed. Not seen this line before from the RM. Definitely looks like they may have had an attack of realism - ! They really don't want K7 to be parted out. Because (a) the RM would look petty & stupid and (b) its a lot of work, first to take it apart - and then to rebuild it (with a lot of expensive 'new' parts needed. Planing Shoes anyone.....? Front Spar....?

Re reading the above statement, something looks fishy. "We have requested that should Bluebird K7 be dismantled, a strict process should be adhered to and not until both sides have reached an agreement on how, and by whom this should be performed" "we do have a vast evidential portfolio supporting originality" Don't see how they can know what's new and what is original when they didn't help with rebuild. The electrics are new, but taking it out damages the boat so they are saying you can't do that. There saying taking out rivets will damage the boats. so can't do that. Basically they want to agree on how and who dismantles the boat, which is why I think they put that in to stop BBP doing that job and to get someone who will simply say can't dismantle it, as it would destroy structure of boat. Clever on their part. This is a sad situation brought on by Ruskin's refusal to let you run the boat for them.

I am impressed at how unprofessional the RM can be - in every post, statement, timeline, etc that they publish. They also manage to come across as angry & entitled, in every case, too. Nothing is their fault - ever.

Well... Kids....!

Thanks the thing here us that this statement is not legal binding as it needs to go to court to make it happen unless BBP agree to it. Secondly who Knows what parts were new and what are not only BBP as they put them on the boat. Telling BBP that they can't take bits off if it damages the boat well the boat came out the water damaged. It got to this cause Ruskin didn't want boat run again and BBP do, so stand off. That's how the public see it. Its sad as I wanted to see it run on Coniston. How about a counter offer of running it on Coniston for 2 years and then in the museum for life. If Ruskin refuse that then it would make them look stupid to the public. Just an idea.

Me neither. OK, have found it. Here it is (verbatim):

"Just a bit of an update.

Firstly, we would like to thank the people who have contacted us by various means, showing their support of our situation regarding Bluebird K7. For those who have requested responses, some under false names and then tried to misrepresent our reply on social media or various forums, we are aware of what is being posted and we are disappointed that you feel the need to take our words out of context to try and discredit us.

Just to recap, but not to bore you all, when we were gifted Bluebird K7 by the Campbell Family Heritage Trust (CFHT) in 2006, the deal was that Bill Smith would restore the boat to operable condition, and the Museum would build her forever home. That was the deal. The Museum completed the Bluebird wing in 2010, having raised more than £750K throughout the financial crash.

What the 2006 Deed of Gift from CFHT provided for was for Bluebird K7 to be restored to as close a condition as possible as she was at 08:30 on 4th January 1967. She was then to go on permanent display at the Ruskin Museum.

The Museum Trustees are legally obliged to fulfil that agreement, whatever anyone else may tell you, indeed, The Bluebird Project’s lawyers wrote to Don Wales (a member of CFHT, Donald Campbell’s nephew) on 29th July 2014 saying “Once rebuilt, Bluebird is to be displayed for Charitable purposes and public benefit, in perpetuity, at the Ruskin Museum, Coniston” and previous to that Bill Smith himself had written to the Museum, on 23rd May 2014 with a verdict from a Lawyer regarding the 2006 Deed of gift :-

“1. The document is with the Trustees of the CFHT – they are a party to and bound by the agreement. 2. On page 1 the CFHT clearly says it has caused the Property to be vested in and possessed by the Museum. 3. Under paragraph 1 the Museum is obliged to hold the Property for charitable purposes – ie not for the purposes of any private individual. 4. Under 5.1 the Museum agrees to undertake the conservation and reconfiguration of the Property. It has incurred substantial costs and expenses in so doing in reliance on the agreement. 5. Under 5.3 it is envisaged that the Property will be placed on permanent display”

Even today on the Bluebird Project donation site it states “We’re entirely volunteer run and fit the project around day jobs and families with no paid staff so any contribution, however small, will be gratefully accepted and used in its entirety to ensure the successful completion of this project and the return of Donald Campbell's iconic boat to her spiritual home in Coniston, Cumbria, England. Many Thanks”

So can we now dispense with the charade that says things have “moved on”? They haven’t, they hadn’t in 2014 and the Museum is still duty bound to fulfil the Deed of Gift, and The Bluebird Project (BBP) volunteers all know that.

There is this incessant talking from BBP about a 2013 “agreement”; that draft document was never formally agreed; for this to be accepted it would have needed to go in front of the full committee and be voted on, which didn’t happen. The “agreement” was merely a few emails sent between Bill Smith and the then Curator Vicky Slowe discussing future working, such as annual maintenance and possible absences from the Museum. In any case Bill Smith himself emailed on 25th Feb 2021 withdrawing that and any and all agreements between the Museum and BBP, so it’s pointless trying to say the Museum has reneged on it because even if it did exist (it was only ever in draft) it’s not on the table now, and in hindsight the terms were such that the Museum wouldn’t have signed up to it in full anyway.

As the BBP is now saying they will NOT allow Bluebird K7 back to Coniston without certain criteria being agreed from their side, these criteria being way outside the original scope of what was agreed and envisaged, what are we to do? Especially when an offer has been made to them based on what they said they wanted, but that was rejected, and a string of other demands placed upon us. These included demanding access to the boat for three months between May 1st and September 30th each year, the Museum’s busiest period. Additionally BBP were to decide where Bluebird K7 should run, if not on Coniston, apparently irrespective of the Museum’s wishes.

Our recent letters (from our lawyers) to The Bluebird Project Ltd have asked:-

1. Please will they honour the original agreement or offer up Bluebird K7 as she is now for completion. OR

2. As the Bluebird Project Ltd states that they have title to the parts which they have added, we have agreed in the absence of any other resolution, that we would accept back the parts which came out of the lake except for those parts which have become part and parcel of the boat – i.e., parts which cannot be removed without causing damage to the restored boat. So, The Museum gets ALL the original parts which were recovered from the bed of Coniston Water.

This is on a time-expiry basis – if Bluebird K7 is not agreed to be offered for collection, by 31st August 2021, then option 2 will be the default position, i.e. The Bluebird Project Ltd will have decided that Bluebird K7 should be dismantled.

We reiterate this is NOT the Museum’s preference, but when the operation which was supposed to be working in partnership for the collective benefit of everyone, and that partner then embarks on a program of belittling, insulting and just being plain unreasonable and unpleasant then what does one do?

If the Museum is guilty of anything in this saga, it’s being too trusting and not questioning motives along the way. We still view that in reality BBP has no claim on the new parts used in the restoration as they were donated to Bluebird K7 rather than BBP (or its predecessor, an unincorporated collection of volunteers), but in the interests of trying to avert a protracted and potentially costly dispute this is the quickest and simplest route.

The Trustees of the Museum are all volunteers, many also volunteer in other capacities in Coniston and further afield. The Chair was awarded an MBE for services to the community, and others have a long history of volunteering, where the reward is the achieving something worthwhile and the pride of being involved in something making a positive difference.

The relationship between BBP & The Ruskin Museum is irreconcilable, for those who say the Museum should grow up and get round the table, we’ve tried that, a few times, and very quickly the situation turned sour again. We refer you to our timeline, which we’ve been told is defamatory, but so far, we haven’t been told what is defamatory, it’s all been fact checked and corroborated, so there’s no “fake news” there.

So there you have it, BBP has until 31st August 2021 to do what was originally understood to be the deal (from both sides – again check the timeline) or unfortunately the default will be to remove the parts we can agree should be removed, (we do have a vast evidential portfolio supporting originality), and then the Museum can move on to the next phase.

We have requested that should Bluebird K7 be dismantled, a strict process should be adhered to and not until both sides have reached an agreement on how, and by whom this should be performed. The BBP have said they “Don’t mind dismantling K7 at all, it’s Just a collection of parts to us…” The Museum view Bluebird K7 as the whole being far greater than the sum of the parts, given her place in the history of Coniston, the UK and globally in terms of speed records.

All of this is fully supported by the original owners and donors of Bluebird K7, the Campbell Family Heritage Trust.

We can also categorically state that The Ruskin Museum paid the business and water rates for the building in which Bluebird K7 was being restored, the Museum, as a charity received an 80% discount on these bills and were happy to pay them whilst the restoration was ongoing – apparently for the Museum to receive back a fully restored Bluebird K7 (remember it fulfilled its side of the bargain in 2010). We stopped paying these bills in 2020 when it became clear that this was no longer a real partnership and it was therefore difficult to justify the reason behind the Museum claiming the exemption discount.

So, if anyone wonders how on earth this has got to this stage, think about the facts – the Museum is a charity with certain rights, powers and obligations, It is also an Accredited Museum with the Arts Council. The Museum would be in dereliction of its duty to not try to regain possession of one of its exhibits when it is being withheld unreasonably. Having considered the routes open to us, the Trustees have concluded this is the most appropriate course of action.

Again I am turning off comments, not because we don’t want people’s opinions but because it has been debated to death."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

No comments - just .. because..... Right. Makes you look pretty silly, RM.

It was somewhere on Facebook, I believe. I don't do Facebook so one of the team sent it as a screen capture.

RM's 'statement - ?

Did I miss something. Where can I find this....?

"Well, I have just finished wading through the RM's 'statement'."

It did take a bit of wading through. Many words but not the most coherent document I ever saw and what exactly did it say? Nothing that's going to change the course of history. Situation normal and if they imagine for one living second that the 31st August won't come and go without the slightest blip on the screen they still haven't worked out what's what.

So what happens then? Break up K7? That request would doubtless be desperately dressed up to look like everyone's doing but their own and do they really think anyone will believe that?

We'll break up K7 when we have their letter saying that that's what THEY want. It can can come with fourteen bound volumes of excuses trying in every imaginable (and probably ways we're yet to imagine) to say it's our fault but we'll have a letter that essentially says that rather than agree a compromise that suits everyone we're to take the boat apart and when we have that letter it will be published in full on our website because history will contain a proper record of what happened.

Then we'll see an interesting statement!

Another Theory:

Well, I have just finished wading through the RM's 'statement'. I am uncertain as to if this can be called a statement as in my experience statements are usually short and to the point, but I digress. I am just wondering if all the trustees or just the author of this collection of words has had a lobotomy? If they have had this to treat mental illness it appears to have failed…. My condolences.

"Who's telling the truth in my opinion BBP"

Yes, indeed - we always have and it's almost comical watching things unfold.

We made an agreement with you in 2013.

No you didn't - there never was a 2013 agreement.

Yes there was and you know there was...

Well it was only a few scraps of paper and it was never signed.

It matters not whether it was signed, you gave us every indication we had a deal and we were entitled to rely on it.

It wasn't us. It was the curator and she wasn't a trustee and she did it without authority.

Nope - here's the paper trail and it goes right to the top.

Silence...

And did you see how quick the teddy bear was to try and say how come Tonia didn't give me permission to stand on the boat as it was recovered only for the true dynamic to have been faithfully recorded in the 2001 doco?

I notice the little bear hasn't leapt up in outrage to emphatically deny the CFHT's 2013 attempt to overturn the Deed of Gift. I suspect that dog will be left to snore its face off.

Yes, we tell the truth.

And one more thing - where on earth did this rumour come from that we had a problem with the air intakes on Bute? We absolutely did not and that's the truth too.

We lost a canopy, let some water in past the rudder, filled up a sponson via its outboard root fairing, had a small fuel leak that we couldn't cure til the engine came back out and a faulty igniter but beyond that we were in good shape. No intake issues at all.

This is how the whole saga looks yo me

Bitter legal row over Donald Campbell's Bluebird: Museum begins court action to secure return of record-breaking jet boat as diver who restored craft after recovering it from Coniston Water refuses to hand it over

The real story is that the Campbells and the museum want it back to make money on it but never run it again on water.

The BBP were given donations to get a working boat. They achieved this only to be told bye bye its ours now from the Ruskin.

In 2013 BBP had to get a deal to ensure it ran on water so they could get parts to finish off the rebuild. They got that via emails. Once the boat was proven to run on water the Ruskin demanded it back saying they weren't allowed/ didn't know it was running on water. How strange as it was all over the press and Gina Campbell went to see it on Bute.

The Bute exercise showed a few problems in the build with somethings needing strengthening.

The BBP said we need to finalize the maintenance and running of the boat and were told by Ruskin that they would not be allowed to be involved.

The BBP then said we had an agreement in 2013 to maintain and run the boat and Ruskin said it was never put before the trustees, even though the curator of the museum sent a reworked draft to BBP and told them that it was ok to proceed.

Ruskin said 2013 agreement was invalid as it was done by someone with no power to do so. But it was done by the curator of the museum at the time, who has since retired.

Now the sad part the BBP were accused of making money on the boat by selling items on a website. Come on how else could they fund a rebuild with no source of income. The Ruskin provided no help in funding nor did the Campbells, saying BBP promised to do it for nothing.

It cost money to power tools and lighting and electric and materials, they don't grow on trees you know.

The BBP have a duty of care to all who have donated, bought stuff off their website. These people did so on the assumption that the boat would be kept running. They had the engine lent to them for the rebuild so the boat could run, as long as it runs they have the engine.

As soon as the boat was proven it could run the Ruskin were advised by the Campbells to get rid of the BBP.

Ruskin said they offered the BBP 3 months a year to run boat, but they refused, they did not. When questioned what 3 months the Ruskin were very vague, when asked to put that into writing, confirming dates.

There are now rumours that the Dead of Gift has been altered by the Ruskin and the Campbell's.

When pressed as to how and if Ruskin will Run Bluebird K7 again, Ruskin have been very vague.

The BBP have said if they want the boat back they can have it, in the condition it came out of the water or let them maintain it and run it. This is to ensure that people who helped fun the rebuild. At which no point did Ruskin say BBP were not going to run and maintain boat. The BBP said they would never of done a restoration if they thought they were not going to maintain and run the boat alongside the Ruskin looking after it. Ruskin have used this to say that BBP will break up Bluebird K7 no matter what, which is untrue. BBP will only break up Bluebird if they get a legal requirement to do so.

Who's telling the truth in my opinion BBP Edited to take out the air intake problem which was told to me by someone on another forum., which I have been corrected on. All in all the BBP need to make a statement to the press, cause what Ruskin are doing is getting press and some public on their side. If Gina and some local Coniston residents could make it to Bute why didn't some Ruskin Trustees go and reason I think to try and use that against BBP.

"After having done some digging it seems the RM had a QC on their board of trustees, Mr H J McCracken."

You're absolutely right. His tenure as a trustee was short-lived and the story goes that he advised the rest of them that they were 'sleep-walking into disaster' then baled before he got embroiled in it all.

But I had a brief, though indirect, dealing with Mr. McCracken QC years earlier.

In 2013 the CFHT tried rather cleverly to overturn the legendary Deed of Gift. They wanted Bluebird for themselves or, 'for their own ends' as Gina would later put it but I put a stop to it.

It came within a whisker of succeeding too and if it had the RM would have lost Bluebird there and then. It was before Jeff Carroll's time so he'd do well to sit down with some of the old hands and find out what actually happened.

The bald fact is this. If I hadn't spotted what was going on and driven straight to Coniston to set it out for the chair of the trustees the plan would most likely have succeeded and that boat wouldn't be going anywhere near Coniston.

Whether they like it or not, BBP is the best ally that museum has ever had.

Anyway - the challenge needed a firm rebuttal so I was invited to write it and the plan was that it would then be put across the desk of a certain QC who lived at the other end of the lake - you guessed it.

I'm a passable lawyer but I viewed this as quite a test so I gave it my best shot and sent it over fully expecting it to need much revision but to my quiet satisfaction it was signed off and sent on its way and did its job, not to mention the CFHT losing any support from the RM for a good while.

You'd think once bitten...

Just a thought...

After having done some digging it seems the RM had a QC on their board of trustees, Mr H J McCracken. He didn't last long as he was appointed in Nov 2019 (according to their accounts ending March 2020) and is no longer a trustee. He would be in a better position than most (albeit not his specific area expertise) to understand the legal positions of all parties and perchance advised them that the BBP indeed weren't bound by the DoG and did own all the new parts. He perhaps could foresee what might occur with regard to litigation and resigned. As they are down to 9 (from 14 in the same period) trustees now it may be that others have come to the same conclusion. Personally it speaks volumes but that is just my theory.

Wow. I struggle to fault your logic there, @Cerebus. It makes a lot of sense, to me - and may well explain some of the RM's 'behaviour' in recent years.

The only way (logically) to keep a complete version of Bluebird K7, is for the RM (and CFHT - ?) to swallow their pride, control their egos (perhaps by keeping some individuals out of the loop) - and getting round the negotiating table with the BBP - in a professional manner. But they need to stop the vitriol before then. It achieves nothing - and (IMO) makes the RM & CFHT look petty. YMMV, as always.

A Theory:

The CHFT and the RM watched as the BBP ran a successful mission on Bute. This was clearly a lovely cash cow seen by members of the CFHT and so the desperate need to get it back into the RM. So back in 2018/2019 a certain member of the Campbell family wanted the DoG changed and to get the boat back in the museum. It ultimately cost the RM £45,000 in legal fees. Member/s of the Campbell family bailed the RM out as an anonymous donation. But as with many things the CFHT do there was a catch. Once the boat was back in the museum, they could then have access to it and cart if off to Beaulieu, boat shows etc. This would help line their pockets and the RM’s. The RM did not wish to acknowledge the BBP owned the new parts (which they’ve known for some time which published emails confirm this) and quite rightly won’t hand the completed boat over to them without a contract. They are still labouring under the misguided notion the BBP are part of the DoG. The RM are well aware that any contract would likely contain conditions that the boat can only be moved etc by the BBP and they cannot loan the BBP’s property to third parties i.e. the Campbells. This mean the RM is stuck between a rock and a hard place. They can’t have the completed boat and if they do the CFHT are out of the loop. Discuss.

"Because its too big of a commitment - which they are unwilling to take on....? They simply do not have the people, IMO. "

One of their number has informed me on condition of anonymity that it's simply too big for them so they want to scale it down to something they can manage within their current facilities and skill set, which unfortunately reads to me as park it up in the museum and not have to do or think ever again.

Ironically, if they do order K7 broken up it's going to put them way out of their comfort zone. Even if another group was to start putting bit back together they'd still have the decision making and cost of that exercise, which seems way more involved than agreeing a way forward with us but never mind.

I saw an interview with a Taliban fighter 20 years ago and as it's current I remembered his wise words. He said that basically his people were farmers and if an invader was coming they'd all just put the weapons down and go back to their fields for as long as it took for the invader to get fed up and go home at which point they would dust off the guns and be Talibans again - and sure enough, tragic as it is. They'd done it to the Brits, he pointed out, then the Russians and next the Americans were going to try but he was unfazed and I couldn't help but draw a parallel.

When we first found the wreck the media portrayed us as Johnny Come Lately grave robbers bent on defiling the final resting lace of a hero but when we fetched DMC out of the lake for a roper burial we were the heroic ones. We were pilloried for sacking the HLF. They knew best and had all the money and who did we think we were saying we knew better but we built the boat our way and without compromise because we knew they would never have let that happen. There's been several other scrapes along the way but we do the same thing every time, we just go back to our fields and let the storm rage around us. Whether it be messing with our classic cars or making tank tracks or steam engines there's always plenty to catch up on around the workshop and even on quiet days we're happy drinking tea and being in each other's company.

The RM has a stark (and what ought to be a very simple) choice -they either order K7 broken up then have a massive operation on their hands to turn the pieces into something useful by working with outside agencies and finding workshop space or they get over themselves and sort a replacement agreement with BBP and have all the heavy lifting done by us to provide something that will ultimately benefit them much more and a great deal sooner than displaying pallets of wreckage and when this latest storm has done its worst we'll come in from the fields and pick up our tools again one way or the other.

It's certainly fascinating to watch...

"....Why haven’t they pulled the trigger on this Plan B? What’s stopping them cracking on with this..? "

Because its too big of a commitment - which they are unwilling to take on....? They simply do not have the people, IMO.

So if the RM have other teams standing by to finish off and operate K7 why haven’t they pulled the trigger on this Plan B? What’s stopping them cracking on with this instead of more costly legal letters? They’ve said they can’t work with BBP so that doesn’t leave them many options.

I will take a guess and suggest that the parties the RM are sure they can work with, are from the Vintage Car World. Car, Boat - same thing...? Err, no, sorry, not the same.

They will not reveal or detail their 'plans' because they don't have the real detail - just some vague idea. Jolly Good Chaps, what....

I remain very disappointed by this whole mess. I don't see an end to it. Option 4 applies. Do Nothing. BBP & RM to remain separate, with the RM in the corner, bemoaning their fate - without their Star Attraction. Which they think they should be given.

If they had people then why not tell people their plans or is it a bluff just to get boat back which is what I think.

Alright Tracey Hodgson get the Ruskin to detail their plans and list helpers here if you are not telling lies.

From having no connection with both BBP or Ruskin I can make a good judgement.

Basically it looks like Ruskin never wanted it running only restored to museum statue.

Now that Bluebird K7 is operational they want to stop it going back on water by getting rid of the people that restored and know how to run and maintain the boat.

That's what it looks like to me.

Quote (from a msg I received from the RM):

"We have now reached a point whereby since we can no longer work with the Bluebird Project Ltd, we need to find a way to go our separate ways, with the Museum being entitled to have at least the property back which it was gifted, but we believe both legally and morally that we should be given that which was originally intended and promised – i.e. a fully restored boat.

The Museum does, however have several offers of help regarding any further restoration and running the boat by very credible organisations with whom we know we can work. At this stage we are not announcing these prospective partners to prevent any potential tainting or disparaging behaviours being directed at them, as we at the Museum have endured for a number of years now."

From what I've seen heard and read it is clear one thing Ruskin don't want to run the boat or they would work with BBP.

All Ruskin are interested in is making money off Bluebird K7 not preserving the legacy of Bluebird K7 original designers and builders.

Sad to say Ruskin see Bluebird K7 as £ instead of what a museum should a national treasure.

"I also found this odd, because as far as I know, he has never had any direct contact with you."

Jeff and I have had plenty of direct contact over the years - not so much lately - but that radio interview did speak volumes about who is doing what here. I was all for getting things sorted while Jeff said it would be 'a long time coming'. Why would you say that? Why not just get on with getting done what needs to be done.

It's public knowledge that the trustees made a deal with us in 2013 and again, albeit with too many strings, in 2019 so what are we waiting for? The final draft can't be that far out of reach.

"Can't both parties put aside their differences and work together for the memory of Donald Campbell and his legacy. "

Always an interesting one, this... It's not as though one of us is vegan and the other likes to eat raw meat or we support different football teams - things that can be ignored while you get on with more pressing matters. It's the pressing matters that are the differences here.

The museum seems to labour under the misapprehension that they have somehow come to own everything and we're just some sort of service centre. Total disrespect for not only the team but for our families, sponsors and supporters. How do you set that aside? That isn't for us to get our heads around.

Then they seem to think that if a letter arrives on lawyer's letterhead it ought to be instantly obeyed or that by asking for the same thing time and again will make it happen or that a lawyer will get you anything you want if they ask in the correct way. None of the above is true but it's not us who needs to work that out.

Yes, the museum wants to borrow our lovingly crafted panels and parts for display and we fully understand and are fully prepared to allow that but not without first setting out an agreement to keep K7 running and in first class order at the hands of BBP - we've worked towards that goal and we've earned it. It's not a big ask.

So suggesting that we all set aside our differences and work together is all very commendable but what exactly are we supposed to set aside?

The BBP is for the true fans of Bluebird K7, I asked in an email why don't they Ruskin work with BBP and gave them ideas to start talking to BBP and they implied that the boat will just sit in the museum. At no time did they explain how they would run it . As I have said time and time again, the BBP's aim from what I learnt ,was to make Bluebird K7 operational and run it now and again on Coniston and other lakes, but Ruskin seem to not want to do that. What Ruskin and Gina and the rest of the Campbell family forget is people donated to help get a working operational boat that they can come and see. If I wanted to see a statue I can go to the lakeland motor museum to see a replica of Bluebird K7. People donated gave parts what for? I've been going on about Ruskin and BBP working together to keep Bluebird K7 on the water. Thats what true fans of Bluebird K7 want. Can't both parties put aside their differences and work together for the memory of Donald Campbell and his legacy.

"There is another Option open to the RM.

4. DO NOTHING.

This has many advantages, for them. Its very cheap. Its involves no effort. Does not require meetings with any people they don't not like. They can continue to claim to be on the Moral High Ground - and blame the BBP for nothing happening.

My money is on that one. Options 1, 2 & 3 are far too difficult...... "

It's certainly an option and if they go for it then so will we. We'll crack on finishing the rebuild so we can stand back and say, at last we've finished the bloody thing! Then we'll take her out into the yard for a good old systems and shakedown test before moving her into a bigger space because our visitor numbers go up every week. The public (who don't forget both BBP and RM ultimately serve) will be able to come and see a living machine and meet the team - something that always seems to go down well and she'll gradually be adopted into her new spiritual home as Tyneside has very much become part of the Bluebird story.

On the other hand, the RM can work with us on a JV that sees everyone getting some of what they wanted or they can order the boat broken up and suffer the cost of doing so because by then we'll be well and truly done with working away our evenings and weekends trying to do them a good turn.

Option No. 4 - do nothing. Not the worst idea and at least K7 is kept alive and fighting fit.

Reread the timeline from Ruskin which acknowledges the Vicky email . At no point did the Ruskin say this email is not for use going forward. Why send it then say years later, its not valid? Most importantly the timeline has been added after the dates actually taken place. They say they offered you 3 months use a year but did not specify which 3 months of the year. Which clearly proves that this was just to get the boat back. My question to Ruskin is why not let BBP maintain the boat and run it but house it in a modified BB wing. Or is the intention to say you will run the boat and lie to everyone who donated to get the boat fully operational?

Fairy Lights Committee will be, in due course, considering their options here

(I really cant stop laughing at the tale above)

In fact anyone named or inferred on that timeline could reasonably take the museum to task over the published factual inaccuracies, that's probably at least 20 individuals. Be careful what you wish for Ruskin Museum.

I've just checked on the museum website and the 'timeline' is now part of their official 'Campbell' story, issuing a statement is one thing, but making it part of the 'official' history, ups the stakes considerably. If it's as shonky as you say then you could reasonably ask for it to be taken down for any number of the reasons you've recently stated.

There is another Option open to the RM.

4. DO NOTHING.

This has many advantages, for them. Its very cheap. Its involves no effort. Does not require meetings with any people they don't not like. They can continue to claim to be on the Moral High Ground - and blame the BBP for nothing happening.

My money is on that one. Options 1, 2 & 3 are far too difficult......

"Will Ruskin answer the question or is it that they are telling people they will run it just to get the boat?"

It's easy to say but not so easy to do. We did it so we proved it's possible but we've also had long experience of how the various committees talk a good job without actually doing anything. We read in their published paperwork one year that the Fairy Lights Committee didn't have sufficient budget to put lights on the Christmas tree by Donald's memorial in the village so we went to Morrisons and spent £25 on a couple of strings of outdoor lights and some AA batteries and put them in the post. Fist we were accused of taking the p**s then we got an email to say that the health and safety officer said they couldn't be used. These were outdoor LED lights bought in a supermarket, remember. So I'd say the chances of the museum ever running the boat are extremely remote and considering they'll have a huge rebuild project to run before they ever got the chance the odds just lengthened considerably, which leads me to the point I wanted to make.

All of this speculation tends to take one's eye off the big picture - noise, as one observer described it - and it's a very simple once you boil it down. The options are limited. .The museum can either,

1. Order K7 to be broken up. Only they can do that as we won't be doing it anytime soon and the blood will be very much on their hands.

2. Try some more legal shenanigans but what form they would take is anyone's guess and whatever they were it would be wallet-warpingly expensive and run for many years but at least at some stage we'd have an opportunity to place before a judge the extent to which we've tried to negotiate amongst other things.

3. Get around a table and agree something to replace what was agreed in 2013 because despite any points of law there remains no question that they gave us every indication that they were in agreement with us and allowed us and everyone else to rely on that for the next five years.

And there are no other choices because NOTHING is going to induce us to simply roll up the workshop door and say please take our life's work and leave us empty handed. We have the interests not only of the BBP team to consider here but also their families who've held the forts at home while we've put in long hours. Then there's the sponsors, the supporters and donors and that's not to mention the public who want to see K7 on the water where she belongs so no amount of threats, bluffs, foot-stamping and teddy bear waving is going to make the blindest bit of difference.

The museum has described their latest effort, including their defamatory press release and highly libelous timeline, as their 'final' demand so hopefully, for all our sakes, that's exactly what it proves to be and from here they actually get on and do something constructive.

I think the latter part of your final question is true, sadly. Ruskin trustee Carroll has stated that there is a "back up plan", so what is it exactly, and who will do the work if this is the case? I honestly think this was just another dead cat to keep people distracted while they find a way to back-pedal out of their predicament. Transperancy isn't exactly the Ruskin's forte.

The question I would like to ask and millions of people too would

If Ruskin as they say want to run Bluebird K7 then why not let Bluebird Project do that for them. They know the boat inside out.

At no point has Ruskin detailed how they would run the boat, is it cause they don't want to run it. Just like what happened to the car CN7. Which was promised to run but a museum left it too long car froze up, not safe to do so.

Will Ruskin answer the question or is it that they are telling people they will run it just to get the boat?

Quite a while ago on another forum; someone alleged that the wing which became the Bluebird Wing had actually been planned well before 2001, and had been repurposed to house K7 once the wreckage had been gifted to the museum in order to gain funding to build it. Worthy of note is that the original quoted cost for building the wing was in the region of £650,000. That has since been exaggerated in recent times to £850,000 by the museum to both the media, and in their own statements. As an interesting aside; the funding for the Bluebird Wing came from the European Union's foot and mouth recovery fund, and was paid for by Belgium of all places. The Ruskin's narrative would have you believe that the wing was funded by entirely by the Coniston parish council, or out of the museum's own pocket. This certainly isn't the case, and I would surmise that they would still be trying to acquire funding to build if the EU's money hadn't been made available to them.

Paragraph 2 seems to hold the key to the reasons behind the dispute.

I surmise that when they built the new wing at the museum to house BB they never expected it back as an operational boat and therefore didn't specify the requirements for the new wing adequately. i.e. similar to an aircraft hangar.

I have no doubt that after spending the money on a museum wing they were horrified to find it was unsuitable and probably doesn't meet the requirements for legitimate boat storage. It is quite likely that this is the real reason for them reneging on the agreement. They do not have a suitable site to store an operational boat despite spending their funds to that aim. They now expect BBP to resolve their difficulties by saying only dead exhibits can be stored at the RM.

in addition paragraph 1 seems just a feeble excuse since I believe that BBP had at one time negotiated permission to run at more than 10mph on Coniston Water. It smacks of a lack of willingness to try and another excuse to kill BB.

I doesn’t matter how appallingly one individual has behaved, it will come down to who has title, and that’s the RM. Should Smith go on and destroy the rebuilt boat that will be his decision and he will have to live with it.

I'm very weary about the CFHT's involvement in all of this. Sure, I get that there is sentiment attached to K7 because it was once DMC's boat, but they have legally signed ownership of the wreckage (all original fabric) over to the Ruskin Museum. They should not be involved in any negotiations to do with K7's future, nor be involved in any sort of advisory role. A certain member of the CFHT has allegedly already cost the Ruskin over £30k in legal fees in the past couple of years, so you'd think the trustees would be keeping them at arms length, having learned such an expensive lesson. A re-occuring thought which I have about the current scenario is this: if the Ruskin were to instruct the BBP to dismantle K7, the Ruskin would automatically be in breach of the conditions of the 2006 Deed of Gift. This would mean that the museum trustees would potentially have to surrender the wreckage to the CFHT. The trustess are probably very well aware of this, hence their letters telling the BBP to give them K7 as a complete boat. But it's not that simple, as we all know. I do wonder if having K7 broken up is the exact outcome that some members of the CFHT are after. If one reads the Tweets and the latest diary entries regarding why the 2013 letter which was backdated to 2006 exists, you can pretty much follow the bread crumbs from there. Now that the issue of joint ownership with the BBP has now been proven, this places the Ruskin in a rather precarious position. Do they order K7 be dismantled and possibly lose ownership? Or do they pick up the phone and call the BBP to work out an agreement which works for both parties? I did see a reference in the OP to Ruskin trustee, Jeff Carroll. Mr. Carroll's involvement also raises questions. Is Mr. Carroll's judgement clouded by his friendship with some members of the Campbell family and their hanger ons? Is he is making decisions and comments which are vetted and solely within the interests of the Ruskin Museum Trustees, and not that of the Campbells? Has he even bothered to make the acquaintance of the BBP before casting judgement upon them, or is he basing his opinions on those that he associates with socially? Is he being played by certain people so that the Deed of Gift is broken, or is he party to it? Yes, I'll acknowledge that there is an air to the above thoughts as being a mere conspiracy theory...If only these thoughts weren't so damn plausible...

Way to resolve this let BBP run the boat and house it in the Museum. But from the emails I had with Ruskin they seem to suggest that they don't want the boat run. From a legal point of view only 2 options remain brake boat up or let BBP run the boat. The whole point of the rebuild was to get the boat back running on the water not to have it as a statue in a museum. Ruskin are scared that bluebird might sink again and they loose everything. The Campbell family want the matter resolved, we all do really. How many donated to the project bought dvds and clothing etc loads. Yet if it wasn't for us the supporters the rebuild would not of had the money to make it happen. If the boat is not shared I think then we should all ask for our money back and who would pay for that to happen?

I say take everying off the boat that was put on the boat and give it back to all the people who gave their parts to the boat and then see what Ruskin do. They can't sue every person.

It's all very peculiar. We've made it extremely clear that unless a new deal to replace the 2013 agreement is sorted out there's nothing to talk about so what happened? We get a letter that basically said give us all of the boat and go home empty handed or if you won't do that give us our bits back.

So we said, OK - you can have your bits back, no problem, but it's not the way we'd do things so if that's the route we're going you'll have K7's blood on your hands so please give us explicit instruction - does the RM choose breaking up K7 over sorting a new agreement?

Next thing we know there's all this shouting from the rooftops, BBP threatens to break up K7! Erm, no, that's not how it played and you know damn well it isn't.

Then we get another letter that says we don't want you to break it up at all, we just want you to hand over every nut bolt and rivet and go home empty handed. It was just the same letter rehashed.

What on earth would induce us to do that? A sheet of paper with some words on it? Endless muttering about litigation? Well get on and do it then and we'll sort it that way.

This, hand over your life's work and go home with nothing, idea is laughable and how is writing it down supposed to have us roll up the workshop door and say, come and get it?

It's a bit like Gina's speech in the BB wing. What was supposed to happen that time? An angry mob with pitchforks and blazing torches descending on Tyeside? Just how exactly and by what mechanism was that supposed to have a large team of people and their families say, bah, come and get it then? It's most puzzling. In fact, that speech was another thing that needs setting straight. Maybe that can be the next diary.

I say take everying off the boat that was put on the boat and give it back to all the people who gave their parts to the boat and then see what Ruskin do. They can't sue every person. These people gave parts to see a working boat not a museum statute. The rebuild has parts that are not governed by the agreement set out when the boat was taken out of the water. A judge would have to say give the boat back in the condition it came out of the water and Ruskin would say no due to the fact people don't want to see a wreck. For Ruskin its all about money, there'll make displaying the boat not preserving Donald Campbells legacy. From a fan of bluebird I would rather see a working model of the boat rather than a static boat in a museum. I can do that just by going to the lakeland motor museum. My thoughts were that it should be house in the museum and used on Coniston once a month and I suggested that to the Ruskin. But they said won't get a licence to run it on Coniston. Its a sad case one that can be fixed.

The only thing I am now clear about, is that nothing seems to be clear...! I understand that there was a meeting held, a few months back now, between representatives of the BBP and the RM. I assume the aim was to try to resolve matters...? The Museum took Minutes - but so far has refused to release them, I understand. Reports which have emerged suggest the RM was unhelpful & aggressive - ? But without any published Minutes, who can say what actually happened.

In my view, nothing which has emerged in the recent posting , from the RM and from the Campbell, shows either of these parties in a good light. It is certainly no way to try to negotiate a way forward.

The RM say the BBP is impossible to deal with..? Well, I will say its the RM which seems impossible to deal with. Unprofessional, will do for now.

Having just read your 'Shenanigans' post in the diary and the full Ruskin statement (whilst walking the dog!), I don't know the details of course, but the 'Timeline' would have you believe it's a historically accurate account, even though there are a number of maybes and suppositions included. If this is Ruskin's attempt to re-tell history, as they see it, then no good will come of it. It will polarise the issues further, and not lead to a happy outcome - they clearly see it as a bit of a game ('the story continues.....') and have no interest in working with BPP anymore.

They also mention that the Campbell family are involved, why, they have no legal part to play anymore, and the CFHT has what purpose exactly and what public presence? It's beyond me why a charity would put out half truths or incomplete narrative, unless they are being badly mis-led or persuaded by the Campbells or someone else that this is a good course of action. Can't the Charity Commission step in with whatever powers they have regarding good governance. OMG what a SNAFU. Best wishes in reaching some form of resolution.

I am bitterly ashamed of the Ruskin Museum. The restoration work was magnificently done and acts as an inspiration to all. This can only continue if the Bluebird is exercised regularly by knowledgable personnel. Without the BBP and Bill Smith in particular the only thing RM would have to exhibit would be wreckage similar to many other museums around the country, interesting maybe to a few but in no way inspirational to the many. Their actions smack of an opportunistic cash grab. When they did not understand what full restoration meant they were happy to have others spend money time and effort on the boat but when they saw what was being created they got greedy and tried to freeze out the workers and artisans who had poured their souls into the work. Shame on the Ruskin Museum.

Here's to the BBP. To whole purpose of the restoration was to have BB running not frozen in a mausoleum. The Ruskin Museum should be ashamed of it behaviour that we have seen over the years. It is a disgrace to museums everywhere as they would have displayed the wreckage in its recovered state since they would have been unable to afford to fund the restoration. Wreckage, while interesting, does not inspire people like the full restoration does. If RM did finally win the boat would languish and gradually decay under layers of dust getting less an less interesting to people by the decade.

Good to see the museum hitting back and making the full truth of the timeline and what was signed and what wasn’t, available to the media. Last night’s BBC North-West Tonight report was a clear victory for the museum, with Jeff Carroll making it clear that Bill Smith’s attempted goal-posts moving 2013 contract to run the boat was never signed and that the last signature he put his name to was the 2006 Letter of Authority (signed 2013) to return the rebuilt Bluebird to Coniston. Bill Smith’s feeble response that he wants a new deal says it all.