Jump to content
Great War Forum

Remembered Today:

Butte de Warlencourt sold?


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, David Filsell said:

I'm sure most of us are in accord with your views, as indeed I imagine are the trustees. 

Nevertheless we are where we are. and there  eems to me  'something of the night' about some of the views expressed on this thread which I suspect no meeting will be able to reconcile.  I hope to be proven wrong at the EGM.

 

What is meant by "something of the night" please? [I do remember the original parliamentary reference]

It would be informative if you were to provide at least two examples, naming names and identifying the posts #.

 

 

Edited by Muerrisch
erratum
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Peter 1914 said:

To clarify, by “ill-informed “ I mean that I think the social media storm began without those leading it having a full understanding of the trustees decision process because they didn’t necessarily take the trouble to make full enquiry. If they had done that, they might still have disagreed with the decision (and I respect their entitlement to a contrary view) but at least they would have had the full factual basis. I think some of the stuff on social media is just plain inaccurate.

But time will tell. Let’s see what the charity commission say in due course.

 

My understanding is the complete opposite of this. It has been alleged that the EC kept facts and decisions from the membership and that the trustees didn't tell accurately report their decision making process.  If true it would have been impossible for anyone to do as you describe.  

 

Which of the social media stuff is inaccurate? I would love to know and will happily pass the correct info on to those who have posted "plain inaccurate" material.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, David Filsell said:

I'm sure most of us are in accord with your views, as indeed I imagine are the trustees. 

Nevertheless we are where we are. and there  eems to me  'something of the night' about some of the views expressed on this thread which I suspect no meeting will be able to reconcile.  I hope to be proven wrong at the EGM.

 

We are where we are, it seems, due to poor management decision making and poor communications allegedly.  There was clearly a massive comms screw up. I think to have a go at critics of this clear massive comms screw up with terms such as "something of the night" is clearly attacking the man and not the ball.  If you have a beef with someone, say it.  But surely any beefs should start with the EC for their massive screw up?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will sign out of this endless and increasingly agressive and fruitless debate with a few words. 

The question seems to me to be do we want, on behalf of the future well being of the WFA,  the resolution of a problem or would we prefer continuous and pointless aggression which seems to worsen our ability to find a solution? I know which I seek. Over and finally ought.

David

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

David, where is there any aggression?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, David Filsell said:

I will sign out of this endless and increasingly agressive and fruitless debate with a few words. 

The question seems to me to be do we want, on behalf of the future well being of the WFA,  the resolution of a problem or would we prefer continuous and pointless aggression which seems to worsen our ability to find a solution? I know which I seek. Over and finally ought.

David

 

 

Having made unfounded assertions David Filsell has now left them on the table unjustified and added "pointless aggression" to the accusations. 

I note that he has again not chosen to name his targets. 

This is unworthy. I do hope that he returns.

The mods must now regret their forbearance, for which I thank them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with Grumpy but I wonder if we could still keep this thread open. As we head to the AGM/EGM, and more importantly after the AGM/EGM, there will likely be items of interest to discuss on here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gareth Davies said:

 

We are where we are, it seems, due to poor management decision making and poor communications allegedly.  There was clearly a massive comms screw up. I think to have a go at critics of this clear massive comms screw up with terms such as "something of the night" is clearly attacking the man and not the ball.  If you have a beef with someone, say it.  But surely any beefs should start with the EC for their massive screw up?

I agree with Gareth and made a similar comment about poor comms when this first arose on here. The rot starts at the top and the board of directors as it were, have a responsibility for keeping members properly informed and involved, an important point.

 

Let's not forget it is the individual member , through their branches , that keep the WFA going. Of late,  I get the feeling that Ancestry money makes the executive feel more secure to the point where they  can ignore the membership irrespective of their particular views on the subject.

 

TR

 

 

 

Edited by Terry_Reeves
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that this is not getting any better. For the moment at least I am locking this thread.

 

Keith Roberts

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • keithmroberts locked this topic
  • keithmroberts unlocked this topic

as this is now unlocked it coincides with our first visit to the But. been past it a few times but never really saw the sign. having dragged SMWBO up she was not too impressed with the steps up, being slippery and at different angles. to us, someone could do with spending time making it more like Lochnagar. maybe the single owner thought maintaining would be expensive and better handled by an organisation. 

the discussion regarding who gave  permission should be down to the membership due to any financial implications not just a handful. two or three buddies would not be able to maintain the site on their own, yet they have the power to commit the membership funds.. 

there are multiple signs warning of the hazzards of reaching the top but there is a duty of care to have a safe place for the public. example, walking along the pavement and scaffolding above, you could post signs but people could still walk under. dangerous. alternatively put up barriers  and redirect footfall eliminates a great amount of danger...

who is liable, the scaffolder, the building owner or the contractor.  the But committee post signs but in the event of an accident , it falls back on the organisation.

 

we have had the same problems organising motocross meetings. foolish behaviour by one or two affecting the club as a whole and getting a bad name.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Neil Mackenzie

I visited the Butte in June , first time there in it's current state and I thought it was in very good nick. Admittedly it was a nice dry day.

 

Neil

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bonsoir à tous. Re the post of Chaz, l'm sure that a good number of us truly hope that the Butte does not become anything remotely like Lochnager is these days. Sadly this important historical site has, in recent years, become more akin to a setting from Disneyland. Whatever happened to the idea that  sometimes less is more.Just a thought.... of course other thoughts are available!!.

Link to post
Share on other sites

less is more

14 hours ago, Ricard 51 said:

Bonsoir à tous. Re the post of Chaz, l'm sure that a good number of us truly hope that the Butte does not become anything remotely like Lochnager is these days. Sadly this important historical site has, in recent years, become more akin to a setting from Disneyland. Whatever happened to the idea that  sometimes less is more.Just a thought.... of course other thoughts are available!!.

I am inclined to agree but compromise is possible.  Individual memorials could be permitted providing they conform to an agreed  form/style/precise location.  CWGC adopted a stripped NeoClassical design for its memorials in the post war years re Lutyens and Baker but there was nothing axiomatic in the adoption of Classicism.    The previous generation of fashionable architects would have opted for Art Nouveau and the one before that for Gothic as likely as not.  Personally I love the design of the CWGC memorials but recognise that the cultural elite's adoption of this proto Art Deco style is merely an accident of timing.

Edited by Hyacinth1326
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 11 months later...
Gareth Davies

Has anyone been to the BdW recently? I notice that a photo on the Butte's website showing the fruits of the the May 2020 tidy up still has the original WFA plaque in place.

 

http://www.buttedewarlencourt.com/news-article.php?id=41

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/08/2020 at 17:00, Gareth Davies said:

Has anyone been to the BdW recently? I notice that a photo on the Butte's website showing the fruits of the the May 2020 tidy up still has the original WFA plaque in place.

 

http://www.buttedewarlencourt.com/news-article.php?id=41

 

 

Gareth, 

I haven't been recently but happy to have a look this weekend and report back with photos. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gareth Davies

Thanks Ken.  I know that there are some boards that explain that the WFA is no longer the owner but I think the original plaque is still there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...