The solution to the puzzle
The real joy of the internet, to me personally, is that I can discuss things in the same way that I would if I were amongst a group of friends. There is a time lag, of course, but things can be mulled over and implications considered, without any wish to criticize anyone. Perhaps, however, my personal philosophy can be misunderstood by some.
A true engineer does not deal in dreams, illusions or especially pride. All solutions are constructed from a pyramid of logic. If a person can show me a logically better way of solving a problem, then I will shake his hand thankfully knowing that I will finish that day a wiser man.
Why all this?
My comments re Bob Trickett’s spares seem to have caused offence to our senior management.
It is believed that I was criticizing the decision to refuse Bob Trickett permission to sell his spares at the rally.
I have been told that I should consult others before making such comments in the future.
If I have caused offence, then I am truly sorry, as this was very far from being my intention.
A careful re reading might reveal that my comments were that, given the information I had and our duty to assist to present the very widest opportunity to our members to procure spares and technical information, then the decision seemed inconsistent and that I would enquire further.
I have enquired further.
I am told that Bob Trickett rang John Underhill on the Saturday evening before the rally, to enquire if he might attend.
John rang Martin Hodkin our chairman, to pass on this request.
Martin was concerned, as he knew that Bob Trickett was involved in a legal action which was in the final stages of consideration. He needed to know, quite correctly, that any sale of the Scott spares held by Bob Trickett, was free of any legal impediment. As, on that Saturday evening, Martin was unable to talk to DC Young, who had been dealing with this matter, he was unable to verify the legality of selling the spares. In this case, he declined to involve the club in any permission to sell these spares, lest it become legally embroiled in any future proceedings.
This is all fair and reasonable and answers clearly the questions I advanced.
In advancing them, I sought to gain understanding. To ask a question is not the same as a criticism.
OK now before it is suggested that I should also not air these matters publically, let me put forward the following comments.
It is important that the legal freedom of Bob Trickett to sell these spares, is known by our members, and not just our management. They are, after all, the people who would be in the position of considering any purchase.
As I said before. I have talked to both David Holder and DC Young and established that in the opinion of these two persons who are most closely involved, that there is NO legal impediment to the sale of the Scott spares.
As DC young told me, there are other matters being considered which in no way concern the Scott spares.
If Bob Trickett has stepped outside the law in other matters, then the law will exact an appropriate penalty.
If Bob Trickett has not so done, then he will be so judged.
Until then he is innocent.
For myself, if for instance Bob had an undertray I needed, at the right price, then I would buy it, even if Bob had horns and a bolt through his neck!
So Bob, if you read this, if you had enquired earlier, so that there had been time for Martin Hodkin to talk to DC Young and confirm the situation, perhaps all would have been OK.
In truth, I would suspect that Stan Thomas was correct and that if you had checked with the owners of Stamford Hall, you did not need the permission of the SOC.
