I have now been advised that the Exhibition Hall is a restricted area. I have explained the circumstances of my visit and suggested better signage and a reminder to other members in 'Contact'.
I have asked to be given access in a controlled manner as I was for Wakebridge last year and Town End this year. I hope this will be granted as I understand that the New Exhibition is not just a facelift but a major and exciting project.
Did you get authorisation to enter what I understand is at present a restricted site (for safety reasons)?
ReplyDeleteDoes 'Anonymous' have instruction to assert rules to the blog on behalf of the board?
ReplyDeleteIts common sense. If it says its restricted site, that is generally what it means!
ReplyDeleteQuite. Thanks for making that clear to me, although that wasn't my point. If you're as keen as you profess on the issue of 'common sense' then might i suggest that you refrain from making silly heavy-handed comments.
ReplyDeleteRichard has had since 7 Dec to answer whether he had authorisation to enter the Exhibition Hall restricted site and has failed to respond, his pictures remaining on his blog and so illustrating his apparent contempt for the museum's health and safety obligations.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I have no involvement with the Library (Richard has a problem there, you may recall), I cannot see how the staff can be expected to trust him when he seems quite happy to continue acting in such a maverick, unaccountable way via his blog. It would seem impossible for them to feel at ease and work in harmony with such a person.
So you're suggesting the museum is guilty of a dereliction of duty by improperly ensuring HSE 'obligations'?
ReplyDeleteIf you have a desire to make things more accountable then might i suggest that you attach your name to your comments in future.
'Anonymous' 9/12/09 22:22-
ReplyDeleteYet another example of the heavyhanded disdain for volunteers.
I notice that you obviously read the blog you despise or are you a 'Board mole'.
Anon. and Freel07 just don't get it. If I was from the HSE and read this particular blog item, I'd be at Crich quick as a flash to see why the museum was allowing apparently unauthorised people to wander round a restricted site ('obligations' aren't imposed by the museum, 'obligations' are are something the museum is obliged to do, hence the word 'obligation'). As Richard has still failed to answer whether he had authorisation to enter the restricted site (for Anon and FreeI07, remember that I've just explained that the museum has an obligation - that difficult word again - to restrict access for safety reasons), one must assume he had no authorisation. Consequently, the HSE could accuse the museum of neglecting its health and safety responsibilties.
ReplyDeleteIt's this sort of activity on Richard's part which is the cause of so much opposition to the style of his blog. Note the word 'style'. Not his blog per se, but the style. He's undiplomatic, which is probably the most diplomatic way of putting it. Why should people at the museum (both volunteers and staff), all working with their best intentions for the benefit of the museum, have to put up with Richard broadcasting potentially sensitive items mainly initiated by him in the first place - remember, he went into the Exhibition hall to grab the photos. I'm most definitely not advocating censorship, but just trying to get over to Richard and others that there are other, more diplomatic ways in the first instance. Richard's Library episode is the perfect example. Those involved with the Library were working to the best of their abilities with extremely limited resources to try and develop and maintain a valuable reference source and were facing severe practical problems. Next thing, with apparently no prior discussion or warning, Richard rubbishes their work on his blog for all to read worldwide. Hardly constructive, but that seems to be Richard's undiplomatic way of working. Many people reject that way of working in favour of more sensitive methods, and consequently fail to see how Richard can be of positive benefit to the museum.
Further to my comments on 7 Dec, 9 Dec and today re access permission, I've just read your explanatory addition to the blog in question, and am personally quite happy to accept that. Thank you, Richard. My general tone about the sensitivity of your blog still applies, but let's hope that's taken on board for 2010.
ReplyDeleteI've no wish to gloat over this matter, so don't feel any need to publish this comment.
From the distance it seems to be a bit odd to classify the Exhibition Hall as a "restricted site" not accessible even to TMS members. I would understand this move if there was heavy machinery moving about and if any bystanders might hinder the work going on but from the pictures neither seems to be the case.
ReplyDeleteI find it even more disturbing that some anonymous insider decides to pick upon the author of the blog. In my eyes "zero tolerance" may be okay when it comes to graffiti on New York Subway trains, but do we need this inside the TMS, a group of like-minded people? This suggests to me that either someone has a personal axe to grind or dreams of a TMS version of the KGB/Stasi/Securitate with himself or herself in leading position without being brave enough to expose himself or herself. Pretty sad, really.
Regards
Christoph
Whichever way you put it the most recent comments of Mr./Mrs. Anonymous sound pretty ridiculous to me.
ReplyDeleteLet us assume that the Exhibition Hall was entered without permission. Thus the person doing so breached the rules, not the institution which imposed the rules. If the institution was found to be in negligence of any obligation this would be similar to a houseowner whose house was broken into and was subsequently accused of not securing this house properly. Certainly a case of changing the roles of culprit and victim!
Who has gone completely over the top, the HSE (very likely) or Mr./Mrs. Anonymous?
Kind regards
Christoph
(TMS member since 1993)
Clearly independent thought is alien to you Anonymous, which i might add is an apt name for a dogmatic drone. Your attempt to influence other minds on matters, not involving yourself, is no different from what you are accusing Richard of doing via his blog, only that Richard has the moral character to put his name to it.
ReplyDeleteWe all know that Richard can be a loose cannon sometimes but quite frankly i welcome his input rather than dismiss it as being completely out of hand.
ReplyDeleteThe museum as a whole is better for it and i encourage more to follow his like as opposed to the dry dusty bed-wetting cowardly anorak sort characterised so well here by 'Anonymous'.
Three cheers for The Jolly Beggar, free speech, democracy and Planet Reality! About time someone slapped the tedious axe grinding anonymous snipers down who quite clearly have too much time on their hands, paid or not to be the TMS blog police! It's quite obvious to anyone who is level headed that reads Richards blog that it's absolutely nothing to do with Health and Safety or restricted sites, just hidden and personal agenda! Illegitimus nil carborundum!
ReplyDeleteTime for a little light relief, I sense. We're all getting too serious.
ReplyDeleteNoticed this some weeks ago (not mine)
Blog entry 2009-09-27:
Ant Repairs:
Comment 2 - first letters of each word spell.....
Laugh, I wet the bed!
Whoops, I got it wrong. It's the first letters of each LINE (I was busy wetting myself last night) but some of you probably got it anyway.
ReplyDeleteNo more comments from me from now on. After seeing the quality of argument I'm off to start my PR firm. Should be absolutely no problem - just pitch everything at the lowest common demoninator and I'll be a millionaire overnight!
Happy 2010
A. Nonentity
PS Maybe should have added a further line to the Ant comment:
Super blog, Richard
Good to see some lightening up, we (me included) were getting far too heavy. I also like the blog for what I first saw it as, an up to date photo record of tramway matters as seen through one person's eyes.
ReplyDeleteBOARDS CHURL GRIPE
ReplyDeleteI think Richard's explanation has explained this nicely and also shows that the TMS are the ones in the wrong, not Richard. A lack of signing is a breach of HSE Regs, not ignoring invisible signs. Fact check you lovely anons before going accusing people - and own up to your mistakes by not posting anonymously.
ReplyDeleteBest of luck in getting access Richard, I certainly want to see more as the "Exbo" has been something that i've been very critical of recently.
Keep up the quality updates.
Jack