This from the Ruskin Museum at Coniston is a sad lengthy read..
The Ruskin Museum
25 August at 12:13 ·
Just a bit of an update.
Firstly, we would like to thank the people who have contacted us by various means, showing their support of our situation regarding Bluebird K7.
For those who have requested responses, some under false names and then tried to misrepresent our reply on social media or various forums, we are aware of what is being posted and we are disappointed that you feel the need to take our words out of context to try and discredit us.
Just to recap, but not to bore you all, when we were gifted Bluebird K7 by the Campbell Family Heritage Trust (CFHT) in 2006, the deal was that Bill Smith would restore the boat to operable condition, and the Museum would build her forever home. That was the deal. The Museum completed the Bluebird wing in 2010, having raised more than £750K throughout the financial crash.
What the 2006 Deed of Gift from CFHT provided for was for Bluebird K7 to be restored to as close a condition as possible as she was at 08:30 on 4th January 1967. She was then to go on permanent display at the Ruskin Museum.
The Museum Trustees are legally obliged to fulfil that agreement, whatever anyone else may tell you, indeed, The Bluebird Project’s lawyers wrote to Don Wales (a member of CFHT, Donald Campbell’s nephew) on 29th July 2014 saying “Once rebuilt, Bluebird is to be displayed for Charitable purposes and public benefit, in perpetuity, at the Ruskin Museum, Coniston” and previous to that Bill Smith himself had written to the Museum, on 23rd May 2014 with a verdict from a Lawyer regarding the 2006 Deed of gift :-
“1. The document is with the Trustees of the CFHT – they are a party to and bound by the agreement.
2. On page 1 the CFHT clearly says it has caused the Property to be vested in and possessed by the Museum.
3. Under paragraph 1 the Museum is obliged to hold the Property for charitable purposes – ie not for the purposes of any private individual.
4. Under 5.1 the Museum agrees to undertake the conservation and reconfiguration of the Property. It has incurred substantial costs and expenses in so doing in reliance on the agreement.
5. Under 5.3 it is envisaged that the Property will be placed on permanent display”
Even today on the Bluebird Project donation site it states “We’re entirely volunteer run and fit the project around day jobs and families with no paid staff so any contribution, however small, will be gratefully accepted and used in its entirety to ensure the successful completion of this project and the return of Donald Campbell's iconic boat to her spiritual home in Coniston, Cumbria, England. Many Thanks”
So can we now dispense with the charade that says things have “moved on”? They haven’t, they hadn’t in 2014 and the Museum is still duty bound to fulfil the Deed of Gift, and The Bluebird Project (BBP) volunteers all know that.
There is this incessant talking from BBP about a 2013 “agreement”; that draft document was never formally agreed; for this to be accepted it would have needed to go in front of the full committee and be voted on, which didn’t happen. The “agreement” was merely a few emails sent between Bill Smith and the then Curator Vicky Slowe discussing future working, such as annual maintenance and possible absences from the Museum.
In any case Bill Smith himself emailed on 25th Feb 2021 withdrawing that and any and all agreements between the Museum and BBP, so it’s pointless trying to say the Museum has reneged on it because even if it did exist (it was only ever in draft) it’s not on the table now, and in hindsight the terms were such that the Museum wouldn’t have signed up to it in full anyway.
As the BBP is now saying they will NOT allow Bluebird K7 back to Coniston without certain criteria being agreed from their side, these criteria being way outside the original scope of what was agreed and envisaged, what are we to do?
Especially when an offer has been made to them based on what they said they wanted, but that was rejected, and a string of other demands placed upon us. These included demanding access to the boat for three months between May 1st and September 30th each year, the Museum’s busiest period. Additionally BBP were to decide where Bluebird K7 should run, if not on Coniston, apparently irrespective of the Museum’s wishes.
Our recent letters (from our lawyers) to The Bluebird Project Ltd have asked:-
1. Please will they honour the original agreement or offer up Bluebird K7 as she is now for completion. OR
2. As the Bluebird Project Ltd states that they have title to the parts which they have added, we have agreed in the absence of any other resolution, that we would accept back the parts which came out of the lake except for those parts which have become part and parcel of the boat – i.e., parts which cannot be removed without causing damage to the restored boat. So, The Museum gets ALL the original parts which were recovered from the bed of Coniston Water.
This is on a time-expiry basis – if Bluebird K7 is not agreed to be offered for collection, by 31st August 2021, then option 2 will be the default position, i.e. The Bluebird Project Ltd will have decided that Bluebird K7 should be dismantled.
We reiterate this is NOT the Museum’s preference, but when the operation which was supposed to be working in partnership for the collective benefit of everyone, and that partner then embarks on a program of belittling, insulting and just being plain unreasonable and unpleasant then what does one do?
If the Museum is guilty of anything in this saga, it’s being too trusting and not questioning motives along the way. We still view that in reality BBP has no claim on the new parts used in the restoration as they were donated to Bluebird K7 rather than BBP (or its predecessor, an unincorporated collection of volunteers), but in the interests of trying to avert a protracted and potentially costly dispute this is the quickest and simplest route.
The Trustees of the Museum are all volunteers, many also volunteer in other capacities in Coniston and further afield. The Chair was awarded an MBE for services to the community, and others have a long history of volunteering, where the reward is the achieving something worthwhile and the pride of being involved in something making a positive difference.
The relationship between BBP & The Ruskin Museum is irreconcilable, for those who say the Museum should grow up and get round the table, we’ve tried that, a few times, and very quickly the situation turned sour again. We refer you to our timeline, which we’ve been told is defamatory, but so far, we haven’t been told what is defamatory, it’s all been fact checked and corroborated, so there’s no “fake news” there.
So there you have it, BBP has until 31st August 2021 to do what was originally understood to be the deal (from both sides – again check the timeline) or unfortunately the default will be to remove the parts we can agree should be removed, (we do have a vast evidential portfolio supporting originality), and then the Museum can move on to the next phase.
We have requested that should Bluebird K7 be dismantled, a strict process should be adhered to and not until both sides have reached an agreement on how, and by whom this should be performed. The BBP have said they “Don’t mind dismantling K7 at all, it’s Just a collection of parts to us…” The Museum view Bluebird K7 as the whole being far greater than the sum of the parts, given her place in the history of Coniston, the UK and globally in terms of speed records.
All of this is fully supported by the original owners and donors of Bluebird K7, the Campbell Family Heritage Trust.
We can also categorically state that The Ruskin Museum paid the business and water rates for the building in which Bluebird K7 was being restored, the Museum, as a charity received an 80% discount on these bills and were happy to pay them whilst the restoration was ongoing – apparently for the Museum to receive back a fully restored Bluebird K7 (remember it fulfilled its side of the bargain in 2010). We stopped paying these bills in 2020 when it became clear that this was no longer a real partnership and it was therefore difficult to justify the reason behind the Museum claiming the exemption discount.
So, if anyone wonders how on earth this has got to this stage, think about the facts – the Museum is a charity with certain rights, powers and obligations, It is also an Accredited Museum with the Arts Council. The Museum would be in dereliction of its duty to not try to regain possession of one of its exhibits when it is being withheld unreasonably. Having considered the routes open to us, the Trustees have concluded this is the most appropriate course of action.
Again I am turning off comments, not because we don’t want people’s opinions but because it has been debated to death.
