We said if we received a reply to our question we'd report and lo and behold a reply arrived late last night.
Let's keep this brief.
According to their letter, Gina Campbell was making private proposals and very tasty offers to Bill in face to face meetings that he then turned down without speaking to the team. It's absolute rubbish, of course, but difficult to know this time whose rubbish it actually is. But set that aside and ponder what might happen were it true. What if we had said, ooh, we like that one, Gina. We'll have that. Would it then be incumbent upon the trustees to just suck it up and get on with it just because Gina said so? Of course not. Sad to say but the response to our question is absolute rubbish too. Sorry.
And much as they would like what was agreed in 2013 to go away the fact remains that at that time agreement was reached that BBP would operate and maintain the boat and the RM would display it and regardless of particular offers being withdrawn or frustrated words uttered in the hinterland of the matter the fact remains that the RM has tried to wriggle out of what they agreed (at chair and treasurer level as previously proven) and we have tried to get a new contract in place ever since. It has not gone away and until something is proposed and accepted that enacts the spirit of that agreement it won't go away. We very publicly accepted what was agreed both in writing and in conduct and relied and acted upon it in good faith, as did our sponsors and stakeholders and we will happily take that into any court in the land if we have to.
So there you have it and, as we said in our letter to the RM yesterday - we are prepared to mediate. Can't be any fairer than that, can we?
Yours 'til the next point of interest.
The BBP team.
Comments