What's New?

This is where my friends and foes may find themselves in print.

 



HATE MAIL

From: Lance Adlam
To: 'QRS webmaster' ; 'Undisclosed-Recipient:;'
Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 3:29 PM
Subject: RE: Quainton Members Web Site
Dear Ray,
Following your hasty decision to stand down from the QRS Exec, you were asked to hand back to the
Society the software and database that they provided to you, to be used for the membership contacts for
getting staffing for our events, and this you have failed to do.
You are still abusing your former position, and the trust that your position required by your flow of your rather
bitter views, right or wrong, and you are still pretending that you are the QRS Webmaster, which is untrue
from the time that you resigned your membership of the Exec.
When you and I spoke about this at a recent Aylesbury Lunch Club meeting, you categorically denied
sending out anything to the members which purported to come from the either the Exec or the QRS official
channels. Reading the email addresses below, and the subject heading above, of your email below, would
suggest that your comment to me was untrue, and that you are still seeking to undermine the Exec, and
create disharmony amongst our members.
This disgraceful behaviour must cease, as much of the comment is blatantly not correct, but is your spin on
your currently distant relationship with the membership. You are demeaning yourself in the eyes of
members, after all the good work that you did for the Society, which is a great shame.
Kindly return the Society’s property to the BRC office, and take down your versions of the QRS/BRC
website, which pretend to come from QRS, which they don’t.
Regards
Lance

 


REPLY

From: "Raymond Powell" <ray@raymond-powell.me.uk>
To: "Lance Adlam" <l.adlam@lance-adlam-architects.org.uk>
Sent: 17 February 2016 20:09
Attach: Fwd_ Re_ Quainton Members Web Site.eml
Subject: Quainton Members Web Site
Page 1 of 4

 

26/03/2016
Dear Lance,
I have to tell you that I dispute your assertions in your e-mail and sincerely hope you have been encouraged by
others to write in this manner rather than doing so of you own volition.

You should be aware that most of your present colleagues on the Executive Committee did not want you
nominated for election as they associated you with Andrew Bratton whom they regarded as a trouble maker
because of his persistent criticism of their actions or rather inactions. In fact Brendan Lawrik deliberately
remained available for re-election in order to block either you or Chris Northedge from becoming Trustees. The
fact that Judith Emmerson resigned allowed at least one of you to be elected.

Andrew Bratton's indictment voiced at the 2014 AGM, (http://www.raymondwlpowell.me.uk/bratton%20-%20qrs%20agm%202014%20address.htm) still remains pertinent largely because the Executive Committee can ignore
most commented from one AGM to another. I might add that if Andrew's own Vice Presidential position had
been up for election last year there were opinions on the Committee that he should be deposed. That probably
will not happen this year with you and David Aplin having some regard for Andrew.

This is why I campaign for more transparency from the Trustees and much better communication. It is just not
good enough to “get your story straight” before an AGM, the members deserve better than this. I have
consistently reminded those that read the Member's Web site the biggest by far shortcoming within the QRS is
that of meaningful communication. This was unanimously agreed at the consultation meetings held in 2014 by
all attendees including the paid employees.

Interestingly, I have just watched a BBC4 program about the Shah of Persia that illustrated just how far a
despotic regime will go to stifle and dissenting voices so I am rather relieved that QRS does not employ secret
police – Yet!

I have made it clear in the Welcome page of the Member's Web Site that the web site is open to all members to
make contributions most especially the Executive Committee or individual from that group. If you think
something is inaccurate I am quite willing to rectify mistakes or include different views. I will welcome
contributions from you and your colleagues which will not be altered by me providing they are not personal
insults or inappropriate language. These rules apply to anyone submitting entries for the web site.
I am quite happy to provide a Chairman's Column, Honorary Secretary's Column, Treasurer's Column and
Membership Secretary's column or any other column that requires regular entries just like the present QEL
inclusions. (I notice the new membership listing was missing from the last NfQ.) Meanwhile, you might like to
consider calling back our former Consultant to give the present Executive an independent assessment of the
progress of the Society since she last met with us. I think she will be disappointed despite our having achieved
Accreditation.

I believe an open dialogue with the membership, especially the shareholders, will ultimately be beneficial for
the society for the reasons already detailed on the web pages which I will not repeat. My interest is that the
work of the members both volunteers present and past and donors are not disregarded and lost to future
generations. David Aplin states he will accept constructive criticism and I do not believe any aspect of the
present web site are destructive but designed to point out the errors of the ways things are presently managed.

Your remarks are inaccurate as in the first place I did not agree to withhold from publicising the QRS web site
but only to stop using the title rosterman-ray which was not an official title anyway just an original bit of fun.
The use of it previously was not intended but due to a slightly strange quirk in the old Outlook Express program
used at the time.

Your claim that I have been requested to return items of QRS equipment is also inaccurate as this has not been
received.

Furthermore, your claim that I purport to represent the Executive Committee on this web site is not true as it is
clearly stated within various texts that the web site is not under the control of the committee and that it should
remain independent as a place of free expression.

One of the most striking phenomena at QRS is that I have yet to meet a member that is happy with the way
things are managed either by the Executive or the employed staff. You may be interested to know some of the
none attributable comments received back to me are: -

“Hi Ray Please keep me informed”
“Excellent mail, hit the nail on the head.”
“I do not wish to receive further e-mails from you - volunteer member.”
“Whoever you are&ldots; I have not seen this website before & have not had time to read everything yet.”
“Hi Please could you add the following address to the distribution list.....”
“I think that Quainton executives should get off their backsides and be more proactive.”

Incidentally, my views are not bitter they are designed to draw the attention of the members to the shortcomings
of the present arrangements and the need to appraise these for the future. I do not seek to undermine the
Executive just hold them to account and encourage change for ultimately you are there to represent the
members. In the end it is up to the membership, in particular the shareholding ones, to decide how the QRS
progresses into the future. It will be far better for them to decide from a position of understanding important
issues than to remain ignorant of alternative strategies. This will only come from meaningful dialogue for
which this web site is hoping to contribute.

I have written to Andrew Bratton, as Vice President of the Quainton Railway Association, about these matters
and, as you are mentioned in the text, I am attaching a copy to you. This comprises a covering e-mail to
Andrew and the actual letter attached thereto. You will also note that Andrew is seriously concerned at the
legality of the last AGM proceedings and you should be aware that David Aplin was the prime initiator of how
things were arranged as he defined the Rule Book at the time.

Finally, a word about my hasty departure from the Executive which was not that quick as I considered my
position for about two or three weeks. The reason I resigned was because I no longer held the support of the
other Executive members not least because of David Aplin's intervention over the problems with the catering
management. David Aplin was entitled to his views which he could have expresses much earlier rather than let
me waste my time and more importantly the service of an outside consultant and a prospective manager to
whom he had been most objectionable. This was not the first time he adopted the same tactic and I was not
prepared to further waste my time on fruitless endeavours.

I also withdrew my support from the Commercial Office in the face of the unacceptable behaviours perpetrated
by Adrian Ayleward. I did not volunteer to be treated in the manner to which Mr Ayleward thought acceptable
and for which I would not have treated my own staff in the near forty years of running my own business. It was
evident that the Officers were not about to invoke a discipline procedure against Mr Ayleward in respect of the
official complaint I made about him.

These matter remain documented on my personal web site if you wish to re-appraise yourself of the events
which I do not think you would stand for if directed against you. (http://raymondwlpowell.me.uk/quainton.htm)

Never the less Quainton is bigger than me, Mr Ayleward, you or any other individual and I would like it to
survive into the future and in better shape that at present. I was quite happy to make a contribution at Christmas
when I was asked and I have offered Brian Amman to help with the restoration of the “T” Stock.

You may have noticed the short lived replacement roster sheet disappeared from the BRS web pages well
before the end of last year so now volunteers have no idea of the state of play for open days except by
telephoning the office or being telephoned themselves. I doubt that I will be high on the list of candidates to
request help from so I may not appear too often at the reception desk and, anyway, I don't want to be around
when either Mr Aplin or Ayleward are in evidence so an occasional Sunday should be OK.

There are enormous opportunities to be grasped if the Trustees are able to manage the change from just being
an Enthusiast Centre to that of a credible Social History Museum of repute and reputation. Presently they are
staring down the barrel of oblivion with some of the evident challenges ahead and, not with standing your own
credible efforts in respect of HS2, the degree of self centred complacency is quite astounding.

I trust you will understand that I am acting like a Dutch Uncle for the good of the Society as a whole and look
forward to witnessing proactive and sensible communication from a future Executive Committee.

Regards,

Ray.

 

News Item Three