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.

Does anyone on this forum seriously believe there is sufficient goodwill and trust between the parties to this situation to enable a negotiated settlement that is acceptable to all? Unfrotunately the best route forward at this point is for the ownership situation to be established by the courts. The BBP has the most to lose from a legal battle as a loss will mean the entire boat will be handed over to the RM with no role for teh BBP and a win will just allow them to break up the boat at which point RM will appoint another party to rebuild it. The BBP has to wake up to this situation, whether they believe it is reasonable or not.

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

It would seem, thank you to the RM’s latest offering, the Campbell’s are indeed the puppeteers in this saga. I assume that the trustees, past and present, were quite happy for Ms Campbell to negotiate on their behalf and offer deals to the BBP. I concur with the statement made by BBP earlier today that it is a very risky strategy, especially if she offered something the RM were unable to honour.

What is of concern, if these ‘conversations’ weren’t true, is that the RM as a publicly funded museum has not in fact distanced themselves from someone who is prepared to go onto social media and flaunt such lies. Instead, the RM has stated their relationship remains as strong as ever. A particularly unprofessional and curious act.

One aspect of their letter I particularly liked was:

‘Your constant reference to the much-vaunted 2013 draft Deed of Gift is at best misleading. Whilst we acknowledge this was submitted and discussed, no agreement was reached with the Trustee board, and it was never signed as a Deed’

A very naive view. It doesn’t have to be signed. There was an agreement which the BBP has proved. Additionally, the RM have indeed pointed out there was the spirit to create an agreement and the 2019 negotiations confirm they wanted to enter into a contract. I certainly wouldn’t want to be the RM should this debacle ever end up in a courtroom. It is rather amusing, however, that the RM find the reference to the 2013 agreement as ‘misleading’ but are quite prepared to flaunt the DoG from the CFHT and mislead the public that the BBP are party to that. They really are playing with fire.

I do wonder about these late-night rambling from the RM. I am sceptical that 9 trustees have all agreed on the contents of the letters they have publicly posted. I do wonder if it is indeed all 9 or perhaps just 1 so late on a Friday night?

Update from the BBP, elsewhere in this website. Added in case people have not seen it.

I read with interest Gina's comments on FB. However, the most interesting statement was the "the museum would always be on the back foot". Therein lies the problem. Instead of seeing it as an opportunity to work with the people who know K7 best and openly admitting it is beyond the RM capabilities (which Gina stated) they have turned it into a power struggle, backed by the CFHT. They have yet to name their partners but seeing as there is only 1 team that knows K7 well, I am doubtful they will have the expertise needed. A glance back at old diary entries show the breadth of knowledge BBP has as they’ve worked on her for 20 plus years. You cannot buy experience. I’m also quite sure transparency is essential when running a charity so perhaps they should reveal these partners if not to reassure the public that K7 would be in safe hands should it have to come to pieces.

Gina discussed 'a divorce' as there are 3 parties in this affair.... legally there are 2. The RM and the BBP. The RM know fine well they cannot go to court for several reasons. Firstly, they refuse to mediate and any lawyer in the land will tell you that will go against them in court. Secondly, they know fine well the BBP own the new parts and if they don’t it would simply have been to get a court order and it would be in the RM. Thirdly, the offer to mediate is on the table and if they choose court over mediation, they could be in breach of Charity Commission laws/directives. Finally, they also know the BBP is not legally obligated to the DoG. The RM have yet to answer why they and BBP can’t be joint owners, but I speculate that the CFHT have more to do with that. It would seem, having read the RM’s open letter, that despite the fact the BBP have offered their parts back, the latest angle for them is to imply the BBP are deliberately withholding parts. In fact, the BBP is willing to put K7 on display in the museum, but it is the RM’s failing to meet their obligations to BBP as to why K7 remains where she is. I suggest they carefully go through previous posts/correspondence to verify facts. I do find the ‘let a judge decide’ statements a little naive. It takes a very long time to get in front of a judge it is not simply walk into a court and tell the judge your grievances and all the problems are sorted. There are many costly hoops to jump through before any court hearing. You need a strong stomach and very deep pockets.

It continues to be a very sad state of affairs but there is some hope as I saw on Twitter BS is quite prepared to step back and let others negotiate. I would also suggest the RM does the same. Mr Carroll dwells on the past which quite frankly is unhelpful and unprofessional.

Ok, this statement makes it very clear. The RM (and the CFHT) want to keep K7 alive and running - just not with Bill. They want the boat, all the parts, all the work, they want to do all the things Bill wants to do - but just kick Bill out? That's not going to happen that way. They should have thought about that before they had K7 restored by Bill and his volunteers.

So it will come down to the 3rd option: K7 will linger unfinished in Northumberland until a judge makes a decision. That decision one of the sides will not accept, will appeal. How many judicial instances are there in the UK? How long is this going to take?

Sorry, rarely read such stubbornness. Very disappointing.

Correct me if I’m wrong but the Ruskin Museum as a registered charity is legally obliged to engage in mediation as part of its resolution process ? If this is correct then why has it not happened ? if mediation is a requirement and it fails then the courts have the final say ?

Same old regurgitated drivel about the DOG and a few legalese terms thrown in for good measure .