John Wright

Heysham and back. TT week.

There’s a lot of wasted space in the present layout, due to the way it changed from Victoria house, country house hotel, 1920’s and 1950’s additions. Plus the designs I’ve seen have additional floor levels in some areas.

Entirely on the areas currently built on or tarmacced.

I have. In exchange for 100’s hours free legal advice over the years, including drafting that T&C you just cut & pasted. I hardly ever advertise, link or promote. Thanks for promoting my business. Much appreciated.

Really? It’s marginal. Getting out of Liverpool is slow. Going east from Heysham via M61/60/62 A63 to Hull takes exactly the same as Liverpool to Hull on M62/60/A63. Leeds is the same. Newcastle is 45 minutes less via M6/A66/A1M Cambridge or London, there might be a 10 minute advantage, via Liverpool. Even Portsmouth, where I often go for onward ferry travel has no more than 15 minutes in it. On a 5 hour journey 15 minutes is nothing. And the crossing time is 30 to 45 minutes less ( on a conventional ropax)

Yes, I’m familiar. There are short, medium and long routes. Of course they have different vessels that are route specific. But the fact remains, all routes are substantially subsidised. Even the longer ones. Government finances builds and owns the boats in one public company CalMac Assets) and franchises the routes to a second public company on the basis of least subsidy for the operating period. CalMac operations nearly always wins, and when it doesn’t the private competitor gets into difficulties and CalMac takes the route over. Look at NorthLink. Also look at the mess with the latest design/build of the two new vessels, delayed by up to 2 years and the first already over budget by 100%. There’s every resemblance to how the IoM Government provides public transport. The ratio between ticket sales and operating cost is remarkably similar. Yes, it’s correct that population base there is nowhere with equivalent population, but passenger numbers on some routes put IoM figures to shame.

But CalMac has a monopoly on most routes. But public service lobbying/vote buying, has resulted in huge losses and subsidies. That's something we need to avoid. The call for subsidy/cheap tickets because its publicly owned. That's why selling a substantial shareholding, to raise capital, is a safeguard.

GIYF

I deliberately didn’t go into all the transfers back and forward. The 1905 Act confirms state ownership. The church fundraises because the state has deep pockets and short arms when it comes to repairs. The 1801 concordat didn’t transfer ownership, it restored use. Between 1793 and 1802 it was used as The Cult of Reason, The Cult of the Supreme Being and finally as a warehouse.

Any religious building in France ( excluding Alsace ), which was operating as such in 1905, belongs to the state. That includes Catholic, Jewish, Calvinist and other Protestant places of worship. This dates back to the revolution and Napoleon when all religious property was expropriated and the state took over maintenance and payment of salaries. In 1905 Cathedral were vested in Central Government and other places of worship in local government. Parishoners had to set up associations which were allowed to use them free of charge and to employ priests, rabbis, ministers etc. This separated churches and state. The state was still responsible for maintenance and repair. So Notre Dame is owned by the French Government, not the Catholic Church. Alsace is still subject to the 1801 arrangements because between 1870 and 1919 it was part of Germany and when given back the 1905 law didn’t apply. Religious buildings built since 1905 have to be funded by their congregations.

It’s nothing to do with licensing. Its planning. Aren't planning appeals dealt with by inspectors, who give their report to the minister, who then actually makes the decision? So inspector has to write his report and minister has to consider it and either accept, or hand down his own decision, with reasons.

They have been transparent. There is a full list. So, if no one was able/willing to undertake the original specific intent what happens to the fund. Gift fails, bona vacantia, Treasury. The court tried to ensure it was used cy-pres, in as near a manner to original intent as could be to deliver benefits to Colby/Ballabeg/Arbory.

None of it, because Mr Collister’s bequest is located in the volunteer led private part of the charity. It doesn’t pay the statutory body wages or expenses.

It’s a problem when the person preparing the will doesn’t check with the charity whether the bequest is one the charity could carry into effect. I knew Mr Collister, I was secretary, then chairman of LCK. He was a successful exhibitor, especially in the vegetable groups, and not just at LCK. Ive also been a trustee of MNH twice. I draw wills professionally ( www.manxwills.co.im ). Whatever the historic, collectible or displayable nature of his things, and, even if his estate was sufficient to build the museum and social facilities no account was taken of the ongoing operating costs, heat, light, power, staffing, administration, or the willingness or ability of MNH to deliver without affecting other areas of operation. No account was taken either of the fact that Arbory has halls, club houses, and other social institutions whose viability might have bee affected. Im sure Mr Collister would have appreciate the replacement tentage for LCK. The Royal, Southern and LCK cooperate and lend their exhibition and tea tents to each other. There aren’t three completely separate inventories. They get much more usage than you might think. I know a case, at Earystane, where a small farmstead full of Victorian and Edwardian furniture and decoration, was left to the museum to be a museum. It’s not open. It is difficult to access. Or Larch Gerrard’s bequest. I suppose that there are valid questions. 1. Do you just sell up and put the money into general funds, and do nothing to honour spirit and intent? 2. Do you sell up, account for the funds separately, and do things in spirit and intent for the heritage of the local area. 3. Do you try, however hard and costly, and to whatever detriment to your other operations, to follow the unrealistic terms of the bequest. MNH have taken a course between 1 & 2. Funding things for Ballabeg and Colby, but keeping back and doing up Mr Collister’s former home and renting it out to generate income. That is a balance between splurging all the funds at once and spreading over a number of years. Its long been an issue in heritage circles about what you can/should and can’t/shouldn’t accept. A stately home comes with upkeep liability attached. Without an endowment you may not want to take it on. Finally, don’t forget that MNH is a strange mix of public and private. The statutory, government body, funded by the tax payer, and Friends of MNH, private funds, legacies and bequests, money allocated to assist specific projects. Just to be clear, I’m in favour of all the money and income from the bequest being spent in Colby/Arbory, and, say, within 21 years.

Aka woody2