I have been “ADVISED” that I will not be able to take any parts to sell at the rally, so I will be putting a new list of original Scott parts that I have available together in the next couple of day’s, I only have one or two of most of the parts but it will be a fairly long list due to the number of items I have.
I am still after a Scott aero engine if anyone out there has one they no longer need.
All the best.
The objective of the Scott Owners Club, is, or certainly should be, to try and provide to the membership, the widest access to spares and info possible. If you had Scott spares that could have filled a need by our members, then my belief, unless there was a very logical argument to the contrary. is that you should have been at the Rally with your spares.
I am also a little mystified by your vague statement, that you were “advised” that you would not have permission to attend. As I understand matters, the SOC pays for permission to use the park, but does not have any rights to refuse admittance to anybody. Only the owners of Stamford Hall have that right. Following my election to become “Press Officer” of the SOC, I am a member of the management committee. I have received no communication regarding this matter, in truth of fact, I have received no communication of any kind from other Management committee members, since I was appointed to office. I can only surmise that it is considered that there are no matters of importance to discuss. I do realise that in a club which is dedicated to a highly individual marque, it is a natural consequence that we will number amongst our membership, a significant proportion of highly “individual” people. It naturally follows that some lack of understanding and cohesion will be experienced. We can only hope that enough “Live and let live” spirit will prevail over simmering passions.
So Bob, I ask if you will contact me personally and tell me the facts of the matter, so I might respectfully enquire further as to what exactly prevented our members having the opportunity to consider taking advantage of what you had to offer. After all, they were not being obliged to buy anything, they are all people who are quite capable to make that judgement. You infer that they were prevented from being able to exercise that judgement. This, on the face of it, seems inappropriate.
Kind Regards Roger Moss
In response to Roger’s recent message, I am sure many others will feel as I insofar as I feel mystified by Bob Trickett’s claim that he was “ADVISED” not to attend the rally.
By whom I ask – and trust Roger will sort out an answer to that question in the name of the S.O.C. if and when Bob contacts him.
However, one point of correction Roger. To my understanding is that The Club does not actually pay anything for the use of the Rally field – unless things have changed since I set up the venue back in the seventies, when the arrangement was that we only had to pay the normal admission charge per individual on the gate.
Given that is still in force, then I cannot see how anyone can be prevented from being present in the field where we hold our rally. But perhaps someone knows something I (we) dont.
Please keep us informed Roger, as the facility for Members to purchase spares from whatever source irrespective of personalities is fundamental to The Club.
In reply to Stan & Roger.
I phoned John Underhill to see if it would be OK for me to take some spares to the rally, I myself would not have been manning the table as I did not wish to cause any trouble at the rally “which would have happend if certain people had been at the rally as well”, Mr Underhill phoned me back on the evening of Saturday the 4th of September to tell me that he had spoken to a number of other club officials & they had decided that they did not wish me to sell any of my spares at the rally, I therefore decided not to take any spares “I assumed that I would need permission from the owners club to do so” I also did not wish to cause any trouble at the rally as this might have spoilt things for many of the Scott enthusiasts who go there purely to enjoy Scotts.
I used the word “ADVISED” as I believe this word is more polite than saying that I had been WARNED OFF & TOLD not to come to the rally.
I hope this clears things up a bit.
All the best.
Hi Bob I do not wish to be biased either for against any person or faction. Personally, I find that the safest thing is just to adopt a strictly logical approach.
Some time ago, a detractor of yours put information on the website that some matters involving you, were being investigated by the police and this person urged Scott owners with any pertinent knowledge to contact DC Young at Downham Market police station.
As one of the only logical reasons for “advising” you to stay away from the Stamford Hall rally, could have been a doubt regarding the title and rights to sell these spares, I contacted DC Young before replying to your message.
DC Young told me that the investigations that were currently nearing their conclusion, did not involve Scott spares and to his knowledge, there was no reason to inhibit their sale. He went on to say that he had received many phone calls from SOC members, but would respectfully remind people that in this country “a person is considered innocent, until proven guilty” I think that this observation has some relevance in this club.
I do not wish to incurr the displeasure of our senior members of management, who, possibly by this time in their lives, did not need any spares, but I will respectfully enquire of the, to me, obscure logic that underpinned the “Advice” you received.
Kind Regards Roger
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.