Good to know that somebody with clear thinking is helping to steer/influence the CFHT or RM 🤣

@MGB Yep, seems a pretty fair assessment, this is going to be stalemate for a long time

What I find extraordinary is that the RM, have basically closed off all avenues to move forward; - the original DoG was and is insufficient to deal with future outcomes - RM don't/won't recognise the 2013 agreement - RM torpedoed the potentially good 2019 agreement between verbal and written agreement, which is impossibly unprofessional by any standard - RM don't want to talk to BPP anymore - RM went public using the esteemed offices of the RAC and the genuine good will of @Geoff Love to pedal significant untruths - RM won't consider mediation The only consistent line is 'give us our boat back', and they know that will not happen because it's not all theirs, if it was they could easily force the issue. So what on earth can they be thinking and where do RM expect this to lead, there seems to be absolutely logic to it. BTW I may have this wrong, I'm only a keen observer, please correct any misunderstanding, Thanks

I‘ve helped with a few charity auction, and it’s a huge effort to market them properly to the right people who will first buy the tickets and more importantly bid for the auction items. I didn’t see any promo as to what the auction items were. To be honest it’s probably in the wrong part of the world to do a charity fun raising auction.

I heard on the social media (so probably wrong!), that there weren’t enough tickets sold, so it got cancelled.

My point (badly made) is that in the eyes of RM and BPP, ownership is the key issue getting in the way of discussions, rightly or wrongly

I've just watched the whole video, and thanks for hosting it Geoff. I was very surprised how polite everyone was until the last five minutes so, well done Neil. It appeared to me that RM and Don Wales really don't want to look Bill in the eye let alone work with him, and that their continuous referring back to the past renders any meaningful negotiation almost impossible. As others have said ownership is the issue, that's it, unless that is finally resolved amicably or legally (I though it had?), K7 will fast become history, again. However, I thought there was a glimmer of hope when Bill said something to the effect of he'd talk about ownership if something tasty was reciprocated. Come on everyone, get round the table, one last effort.

I've often wondered who is behind the BSC on Facebook, it's clear that it is the CFHT. Their agenda is married to the Campbells and the Ruskin Museum. What's his name, Ginna's bloke says it'll be two years to re-build, oh my goodness they have absolutely no idea what they are getting into - somebody will be very much poorer afterwards. They say a fool and his money are easily separated.

It does seem that the vast majority of un-harmonius chat on twitter and facebook has diminished substantially. So let's hope that by pausing and sending a very clear message, BPP and the Ruskin Museum can actually have a quiet discussion about what a good compromise for all concerned could look like.

I just see on another forum, that Brian Eastham has said 2 years - huge, huge pot of money needed for that !

Moving on....Regarding the ability of anyone to rebuild K7. If you've ever been involved in proper classic car or aircraft restoration you'll know the costs are astronomical if you engage professionals to do the work, or it can be cost effective with skilled volunteers and willing partners/donors, but it takes ages to re-learn some nearly forgotten skills. I would take an informed guess that it could easily cost Ruskin around £0.5-1.0m to engage an appropriate contract engineering company, maybe more maybe less, but it's in that ballpark. That's also assuming they can source an engine in running condition., without which its a non-starter (literally!) So either the Ruskin have done their homework, found an appropriate organisation, briefed them, got a quote, got an epic fundraising plan in place, and a project manger/liaison to deal with said company etc etc..........or they've bitten off more than they can chew. I guess only time will tell, unless those in the know can explain this conundrum?

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!

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?

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.

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.

On the ’other’ forums of Twitter and the dreaded Facebook, there is constant mention of ‘the truth will out’ and ‘everything is not as it seems’, or simila, implying some great facts that are about to emerge. I’m not close to any of the detail, so is this just jesting or does anyone actually know what is about to come out into the public domain? thanks