| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
5995 Posts |
 Posted - 12/11/2017 : 15:18:51
|
Nick,
While I appreciate what you say, it surely wouldn’t be unreasonable to get at least a holding reply if any or all of these situations applied. It’s not that I’m, as you put it, desperate; it’s just that the longer the silence, the more curious I get, not least because I was on Committee during the period between the car being listed on the Register and it seemingly disappearing, and I know nothing about it either.
Simon J
J3437 |
 |
|
|
Nick Feakes
USA
3337 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2017 : 15:22:08
|
Simon
It might just not be prudent right now. I am sure an answer will be forthcoming as soon as it is prudent.
Keep your powder dry!
Nick |
|
|
|
kimber
United Kingdom
1526 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2017 : 15:38:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Foz
Hi Oliver,
oh also the brake cable I sheared when Patrick G. put me off in a Triple-M race by spinning at Maggots....
FOZ
Are you confusing Patrick with me? I remember getting in your way at Silverstone and causing you to break a brake cable. Or maybe they were two separate incidents in which case you could have been even closer than you originally thought to having enough bits to build another car...
|
|
|
|
DickMorbey
United Kingdom
3672 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2017 : 16:26:12
|
Well then, here we are again!
I’m staggered and impressed by the amount of time that some people appear to have to devote to continuing this now 10 page topic. Speaking for myself I’m like many others having to juggle limited time to deal with family commitments, including providing support to a family member who is 48 hours into her recovery from brain surgery.
I think also some of you may have overlooked the fact that discussions concerning specific cars cannot be segregated from issues relating to the ownership of such cars. That in turn takes down the slippery slope of data protection issues concerning living individuals. Quite apart from the current UK data protection laws we should not overlook the provisions of the general data protection regulation is which will shortly become law in the UK. And will remain so even after this nation depart from the EU. And I don’t propose to go into that here!
Suffice it to say it should not surprise readers when I say that the committee and therefore the register is disinclined to make any public comment touching upon an individual car because any such comment might inexorably link it with a particular person or persons.
Look at it this way: suppose a hue and cry arose about a car owned by any of us contributors. Would we be happy to see a detailed public exposition of the ins and outs of the committee’s deliberations with regard to our particular cars? I think not. But if you think otherwise, for the time being kindly content yourselves with the fact that the committee is operating in accordance with its guidelines, will keep these under review and will announce publicly the outcome of any such review.
Must now get back into my car and head back down the M40.
I’m sure that we would all welcome a period of dignified silence hereonin.
Dick Morbey
PA-PB0743
Frieth, Oxon, UK |
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
5995 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2017 : 17:00:26
|
Thanks, Dick, at last. The good ol' data protection line, eh? Where would we be without it?
Simon J
J3437 |
|
|
|
Ian Bowers
United Kingdom
937 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2017 : 17:13:17
|
Well Nick and Simon, if you look for the knuckle number in Google, the only page on this subject has been deleted. Curious!
But if you look further back for NA0356 in Google the following is found:
This special car is one of the few K3 reps that have been copied from the Wilkie Wilkinson/Bellevue garage 1930s modification of utilising a paralleled N series chassis to accept K type axles and brakes. It was originally built to its current style by Peter Gregory, but then underwent a complete engine rebuild 3 years ago by Mike Zimmermann, who thoroughly sorted the car, and transformed it into the superb K3 condition which it is today.
Now sporting a 1400cc magneto ignition N series engine, pre-select gearbox, and Marshall 85 supercharger, the car carries 4 ft. K series axles, 13" alloy brakes, divided track rod steering and a 4-star steel high ratio differential. In addition it has a full race dash, correct slab tank body, Brooklands exhaust and VSCC buff form.
Finished in Monza Red, with black leather, aeroscreens & tonneau cover
Well blow me, it's that Peter Gregory again, isn't that where all this started.
Also we know from an earlier posting by George Eagle:
The picture of (NA 0356) shown in the posting appears to have been taken when the car was advertised for sale by Barry Walker in 2016.
Perhaps concern over this loss of a Registry Number around the same time needs to be put to bed.
Ian Bowers
OD 6791
J3 3772 |
|
|
|
DickMorbey
United Kingdom
3672 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2017 : 18:09:21
|
No not a 'line' Simon - an Act of Parliament with teeth, to be sharpened shortly by the GDPR. Both are worth a read.
Denning LCJ: "Be ye never so high, the law is above you."
Resumes respectful silence.
Dick Morbey
PA-PB0743
Frieth, Oxon, UK |
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
5995 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2017 : 18:26:43
|
But Dick, you still used the data protection line to avoid answering the question of who took the decision and when. I certainly saw no evidence of this being discussed between June 2016, when the car was still on the Register, and May 2017, by which time it had been removed. It never featured in the minutes of the Committee meetings, so who made the decision? Answering that doesn't contravene data protection laws, does it?
Simon J
J3437 |
|
|
|
DickMorbey
United Kingdom
3672 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2017 : 18:49:51
|
Simon,
Minutes of committee meeting held on 4/12/2016 which you have in your private papers Page 2, final para of #4 refers to this and other identified PG-built cars as well as similar instances of another type, albeit not in particular detail, but identifies the need for them to be discussed.
Dick Morbey
PA-PB0743
Frieth, Oxon, UK |
|
|
|
Cathelijne
Netherlands
744 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2017 : 19:53:14
|
| One hell bent on proving corruption, the other refusing to admit he (or another Committee member) could (and possibly should) have said something along the lines of what KevinA suggested straight away. Your Mums should send you both to bed without supper! |
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
5995 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2017 : 19:56:31
|
Dick,
I'd already found that - but there was no record of it actually being discussed, nor what decision had been come to, unlike another car (not a Gregory car - much more mundane) about which there was an extensive email discussion amongst the Committee before the matter was then discussed at Committee, a decision reached, and the conclusion recorded. What was Denning's quote again?
Simon J
J3437 |
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
5995 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2017 : 20:42:48
|
Believe me, Cat, if I thought there was corruption I wouldn't be wasting my time here! The fact remains that an apparently acceptable car was removed from the Register and nobody will admit to doing it. I'm not asking why it was removed as I fully accept there may be commercial, privacy or legal issues; I'm simply asking how it was done as it doesn't appear, and I use the word 'appear' advisedly, to have been discussed and decided by the Committee, unlike a car of lesser value/importance which was extensively discussed prior to the Committee making a decision which was duly minuted. As far as I can see from the papers that were available to me as a Committee member, this decision was not taken by the Committee and there is no record of it in the minutes.
Simon J
J3437 |
Edited by - Simon Johnston on 12/11/2017 20:43:31 |
|
|
|
Onno
Netherlands
1027 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2017 : 22:59:33
|
Being a bit sleep deprived myself I have done my best to wade through this topic
And though they might have been said before a few things sprung to mind that I think should be said.
First and foremost there can only be respect for our committee members for volunteering to do a difficult job.
That job is not made easier by us meddling in things most of us have to little knowledge off (more on that later)
Sure you can give an opinion or ask a question, but when the reply is in your mind not satisfactory that is your problem not theirs.
When your beliefs are so strong that you can not let it rest use the “if you can’t beat them join them” approach and join the committee to dedicate your time to the cause.
But then to me the root problem of most of these discussions is a lack of transparency, resulting in the above mentioned lack of knowledge.
Either by the owner/builder of a car or by the register.
In my mind the name register should do what it says on the tin, that is register and document all triple M’s
And apparently the most accepted way however flawed it is is by rh front knuckle and number
The only other thing the register then should do is open this info up to all.
In my mind this does not mean publishing the details of current owners but it does mean publishing all previous owners and all information documented on the car.
Simply put every one would be able to find out what a car is.
It should state how it left the factory (to the best possible knowledge)
Then it should state it’s evolution over the years and in what state it now is.
For example my own D type would say something in the way of:
Originali 4 seater D type chassis nr D0495 engine nr etc colour Black
History diff failed withing half a year fixed partialy onder waranty
First owner Ali Khan
Second owner etc
Changes hydraulic brakes fitted ‘60 etc
Current state built as a racing special spec etc
Then no one could ever claim it to be a C J4 or what ever.
An N type with parallel chassis rails would have that on record and would be described as such and could therefore not claim to be a K3
The open availability of information would mean people could educate themselves and most of these discussion could be avoided.
And yes you eagle eyed reader in claiming that the information now only visible to the registrars and committee members should be open to all I have falen fowl of my own first point.
An inconsistency I am more than willing to fix when my personal situation allows.
Untill then I will thank and support our committee members in how they run our register
Onno "D" Könemann |
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
5995 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2017 : 23:33:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Onno
When your beliefs are so strong that you can not let it rest use the “if you can’t beat them join them” approach and join the committee to dedicate your time to the cause
Just to be clear, Onno, lest this is directed at me, I did join the Committee ... but gave up after a year as I'd had enough. So I'm afraid that joining the Committee isn't necessarily the answer. As many have said in this thread, a lack of transparency is the problem (or one of them!), and the example of how the saga of NA0356 has been handled illustrates this.
Simon J
J3437 |
|
|
|
Nick Feakes
USA
3337 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2017 : 23:39:39
|
OK, I think this topic has reached the end of its useful life. I don't believe there is any more to be said until and if ever the day arrives when the committee is in a position to make some sort of a statement.
To lock this topic is my own decision, I have NOT been asked by anyone else to do this. Please do not start another thread on this topic. If you have something original to add please contact me with the text and I will consider unlocking the thread.
Nick
Webmaster |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
