Should preserved railways 1940s events go ahead this year?

[WesternLancer]

Or do you mean you don't agree with it and think everybody should follow in line with your opinion ?

The minority telling the majority what to think.

It's called woke and cancel culture.

It does not really matter what you or I think though - unless we are the people who organise the events (or actively participate in them as anything other than a paying visitor).

The minority can tell the majority what to think (or the other way round - what makes you so sure it is the minority in any case) - it's a democracy and we allow free speech - that does not mean that the people being told have to do it though!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Mar 2022 ==

Noticed during the Yugoslavia civil war I don't recall any historic rail based organisation having cancelled any WW2 type events.

I'm not sure we have the detailed source data to verify that do we?

Just to add - I've been to these events, enjoyed them, thought they were good and worthwhile, and would go to them again - I just think the idea that it's down to some mysterious 'liberal force / cancel culture / woke' that some have been cancelled to be a daft - to put it politely - line of thinking.

The event is up to the people who want to organise it - they are free to do as they please. If anyone wants to organise a 1940s event with a war time theme - just so ahead and do it - put your own time and money into it and see how it goes.

 

[AlterEgo]

It seems to be thing now with cancel culture nowadays and fear of offending, if charities wants to virtue signal at a financial loss to themselves, that's politicising the event instead of it being pure nostalgia within the USP of a heritage organisation without asking the public if that's what they want, instead they assumed and presumed.

Did they go out and put surveys out to see if people would come to a 1940s weekend before organising it?

I think it is relatively clear that some volunteers and the regular public will have diminished interest in a "joyful" weekend of air raid shelters and swing bands this year, so they are cancelled. Many events are cancelled on the grounds of poor taste or "not appropriate this year" without asking the public if they think it is poor taste, so be it.

It is a total non issue and you cannot force a charity to put on an event to satisfy your cultural mores.

 

[43066]

Good points in your post. In reality - and within reason of course, charity trustees have an enormous amount of flexibility to do what they think is right - with little or no requirement to justify it to anyone. Not even any shareholders to vote them out in many or most cases.

But they will be looking to visitors (and various interested benefactors) to provide money, and this approach might give these people pause for thought.

Why is it so hard to understand that the people who are organising it simply don’t think it’s appropriate?

Charity trustees (and those senior enough within charities to make decisions on cancelling events) shouldn’t be using their roles as a personal soap box. If they are doing so that perhaps exposes a worrying lack of scrutiny of the sector.

Soon there will be arguments that Victorian and early twentieth century railways had tenuous links with slavery and colonialism (as did most aspects of life in these periods), so it’s somehow offensive to operate preserved railways today. A ludicrous argument you might think, but that’s the direction of travel.

Unsurprisingly I'm going to disagree on that because we are not.

I wish I shared your confidence. I would suggest recent events and the current, increasingly intolerant, direction of political discourse in the U.K. indicate otherwise. There is a worrying tendency for those on the left, especially, to simply “cancel” anything or anyone they find challenging.

Actually I think there is another angle to it I have juts thought of - and that is the risk people might feel of being a bit of a laughing stock - along the lines of - 'look, this is the reality of war in Europe - happening now, but our response to that is to run and event, charge entry and make it into a day out'

It could be a WW2 themed event, but with a tasteful nod to the Ukraine situation. The idea that events themed around a conflict which ended over 75 years ago should be distasteful in light of the present day Ukraine conflict makes absolutely zero sense when quite clearly nobody (and rightly) nobody felt this was the case in relation to other recent conflicts.

Still nobody on this thread has given a good reason why this war is (objectively) any different other, than the obvious factors that the people involved have white skin and are a little closer.

Now whilst personally I think these events are a fair chunk about entertainment, they are also of value in provoking thought about it all - but I also think the people who get involved with them have great respect for the service men and women and civilians of the time and what they went through. I don't think they ignore that at all - but it may well be though that this isn't the moment for it, and I'm sympathetic to that - even tho I personally think these sorts of 1940s events can be very good.

What I find worrying is how increasingly anything that’s even remotely thought provoking or controversial is written off as “offensive” to some hypothetical group of individuals. In years past people were more prepared to confront difficult subjects, today getting offended on behalf of others is an entire cottage industry.

I'm uncomfortable with that line of argument, as it strays dangerously close to the suggestion that if there are people who want to attend a certain kind of event, there's a duty to provide it for them.

We are talking here about long established events that have run successfully for many years, and raised a good deal of money for the charities putting them on. It’s the duty of those running said charities to consider more than their personal views when cancelling them.

I think perhaps you’re struggling see beyond your own personal dislike of these events.

Public hangings lets say (or maybe just re-enactments of them) - popular in their day, or so it would seem.

What an odd comment. Most people will see a distinction between a 1940s railway themed event and a same public hanging.

The whole concept of "cancel culture" seems to me a massive myth about how hard done by people on the right are that their views aren't taken as gospel.

Lots of woke halfwits like to vilify Churchill for being racist and judge him by 2022 standards, apparently not realising it would be surprising if he wasn’t, given he was born in Victorian times.

As for examples - how many examples have there been over the last few years of universities denying “controversial” speakers a platform, statures being defaced (and thrown into docks) etc.?

If you honestly can’t see the issue people are concerned about, you’re almost certainly part of the problem.

 

[AlterEgo]

Charity trustees (and those senior enough within charities to make decisions on cancelling events) shouldn’t be using their roles as a personal soap box. If they are doing so that perhaps exposes a worrying lack of scrutiny of the sector.

But nobody seems to be using this as a personal soap box. I'm not sure where that comes from.

Soon there will be arguments that Victorian and early twentieth century railways had tenuous links with slavery and colonialism (as did most aspects of life in these periods)

They indisputably were. And so what indeed? I agree that nearly all aspects of life were touched by Britain's involvement in the slave trade. So what!

, so it’s somehow offensive to operate preserved railways today. A ludicrous argument you might think, but that’s the direction of travel.

I don't foresee anyone arguing that and that is quite separate to what this thread is about.

 

[43066]

But nobody seems to be using this as a personal soap box. I'm not sure where that comes from.

The decision to cancel these popular and long standing events appears to be a knee jerk one, made by those responsible for operating the charities concerned. Nobody has said it’s because volunteers don’t wish to take part, or because research shows customers don’t wish to attend.

I personally don’t agree with that for the reasons outlined.

They indisputably were. And so what indeed? I agree that nearly all aspects of life were touched by Britain's involvement in the slave trade. So what!

I don't foresee anyone arguing that and that is quite separate to what this thread is about.

My concern is with the direction of travel, as I’ve expressed above. I agree it’s off topic to discuss further on here so I will leave it there.

 

[WesternLancer]

Public hangings lets say (or maybe just re-enactments of them) - popular in their day, or so it would seem.

What an odd comment. Most people will see a distinction between a 1940s railway themed event and a same public hanging.

@43066 - I would remark needs to be seen in the context of the post I was replying to.

As for examples - how many examples have there been over the last few years of universities denying “controversial” speakers a platform,

Of note is the fact that it is often if not usually Students Union trying to do this (or members of said students union to be more accurate) NOT universities (which are the academic institutions) they are very different and separate organisations - albeit for obvious reasons co-located.

Mind you, a friend of mine (at a senior university decision making level) told me about how one student society had invited a 'controversial' speaker - but the event got cancelled when the estimated charge for policing the planned meeting was sent in by the local constabulary. Cancelled, of course, by the student society when they realised they would be the ones paying the bill to the local police. I have every confidence that the University got the blame on social media however...

But more generally (and thanks for your post by the way), as I think you mentioned before - it will be agreeing to disagree on much of this

 

[43066]

@43066 - I would remark needs to be seen in the context of the post I was replying to.

Understood.

Of note is the fact that it is often if not usually Students Union trying to do this (or members of said students union to be more accurate) NOT universities (which are the academic institutions) they are very different and separate organisations - albeit for obvious reasons co-located.

Mind you, a friend of mine (at a senior university decision making level) told me about how one student society had invited a 'controversial' speaker - but the event got cancelled when the estimated charge for policing the planned meeting was sent in by the local constabulary. Cancelled, of course, by the student society when they realised they would be the ones paying the bill to the local police. I have every confidence that the University got the blame on social media however...

Agreed it is generally the SU’s, perhaps I should have said “no platforming at universities”.

And agreed re your last comment above - it’s nice to have a respectful (if robust) discussion. It would be boring if we agreed all the time.

 

[WesternLancer]

Understood.



Agreed it is generally the SU’s, perhaps I should have said “no platforming at universities”.

And agreed re your last comment above - it’s nice to have a respectful (if robust) discussion. It would be boring if we agreed all the time.

Points well made!

 

[John Luxton]

All social media is, is the views of some of your potential customers - and any good business will weigh up the impact of that for plus or minus.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Mar 2022 ==


Yes, this thread is getting off topic I fear.

But certain customers - often those with an agenda shout loudest!

 

[stuu]

Lots of woke halfwits like to vilify Churchill for being racist and judge him by 2022 standards, apparently not realising it would be surprising if he wasn’t, given he was born in Victorian times.

As for examples - how many examples have there been over the last few years of universities denying “controversial” speakers a platform, statures being defaced (and thrown into docks) etc.?

If you honestly can’t see the issue people are concerned about, you’re almost certainly part of the problem.

A few do, it's nothing like a mainstream opinion. Your statement about preserved railways not being allowed in the future is so beyond reality I don't know where to start.

Yes, some universities have said they don't want certain views represented. So what? They are not remotely representative, and again, nothing like mainstream views. Statues have always been taken down ever since there have been statues, to suggest this is a new phenomenon is frankly a lie. Should the statue of Jimmy Saville have been kept? All the statues of Hitler?

 

[Vespa]

I think it is relatively clear that some volunteers and the regular public will have diminished interest in a "joyful" weekend of air raid shelters and swing bands this year, so they are cancelled. Many events are cancelled on the grounds of poor taste or "not appropriate this year" without asking the public if they think it is poor taste, so be it.

Do you have source that shows that there is a diminshed interest in such events ?

Not counting the last two years of course which is affected by the pandemic.

 

[AlterEgo]

Do you have source that shows that there is a diminshed interest in such events ?

Not counting the last two years of course which is affected by the pandemic.

I have as much information as you do. Of course the people to ask would be the charities themselves, given they have made this decision.

 

[Vespa]

I have as much information as you do. Of course the people to ask would be the charities themselves, given they have made this decision.

So you're making assertions of "fact" without actually backing it up with an irrefutable source or link

 

[AlterEgo]

So you're making assertions of "fact" without actually backing it up with an irrefutable source or link

I didn’t claim it was literally fact, I said it seems pretty clear that the number of people and volunteers who’d be interested in a joyful weekend of spivs and air raid wardens is probably less than in previous years.

That seems much more realistic than making vague, unfounded, grumpy suggestions that the people who run these charities are making some sort of political or virtue signalling point. I’m inclined to think they know their market - and their volunteer base - better than we do, and no, I don’t think they should do some sort of straw poll and canvass people to see if it’s “bad taste” or not to satisfy internet reactionaries who have no dog in the fight.

I suppose we will all just have to live with the fact some railways have cancelled their 1940s days that we didn’t have an interest in going to anyway.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Did they go out and put surveys out to see if people would come to a 1940s weekend before organising it?

I think it is relatively clear that some volunteers and the regular public will have diminished interest in a "joyful" weekend of air raid shelters and swing bands this year, so they are cancelled. Many events are cancelled on the grounds of poor taste or "not appropriate this year" without asking the public if they think it is poor taste, so be it.

It is a total non issue and you cannot force a charity to put on an event to satisfy your cultural mores.

Yes, it would be interesting to know how these railways came to their decision.

I wonder if questions were asked that had never been considered in previous years. A survey of likely attendance might have shown that there was little interest in attending but if the same survey had been carried out before Covid I argue the result could have been equally negative. What people actually do (attending) can be very different from what the say they will do (as in most people will not bother responding to a survey).

It could be nothing to do with surveys and popularity. It could be that MI5 (or suchlike) have a fear that these events will be infiltrated by Novichock wielding Russians !.

Of course the bit about WW2 where the Russians swung (shoved) to our side might be unpleasant to remember !.

I think there is a risk of attendance to all events being low. I do not think people are necessarily going to gatherings as much as they used to since Covid. Give it a few more years - well maybe one summer of no mention of deaths etc. For example two of my three nearest Wetherspoons are closing. People think it is wrong but I for one know my group of friends have lost the habit of going to the pub every Saturday night. It is winter so perhaps when the weather gets milder we will fall back into the swing of things. So maybe Covid is STILL to blame ?.

I think the most likely cause is that once seeds of doubt had been sown no one could be bothered to risk it.

 

[WesternLancer]

And agreed re your last comment above - it’s nice to have a respectful (if robust) discussion. It would be boring if we agreed all the time.

Indeed - a mark of these forums and their membership and moderation of the forum is that I often think even when having a robust exchange of views with people I'd happily offer to buy them a drink!

 

[Vespa]

I didn’t claim it was literally fact, I said it seems pretty clear that the number of people and volunteers who’d be interested in a joyful weekend of spivs and air raid wardens is probably less than in previous years.

That seems much more realistic than making vague, unfounded, grumpy suggestions that the people who run these charities are making some sort of political or virtue signalling point. I’m inclined to think they know their market - and their volunteer base - better than we do, and no, I don’t think they should do some sort of straw poll and canvass people to see if it’s “bad taste” or not to satisfy internet reactionaries who have no dog in the fight.

I suppose we will all just have to live with the fact some railways have cancelled their 1940s days that we didn’t have an interest in going to anyway.

"We" ? who is "we" ?
I'm not in that "we" category.

I personally think you are struggling with and trying justify with very little evidence to show of a cancellation based in the expectation of low attendence to a WW2 event.

 

[WesternLancer]

"We" ? who is "we" ?
I'm not in that "we" category.

If you are not going to live with it, I hope that means you are laying one of these '40s events on then Vespa, at a preserved railway convenient to you of course...

Obviously it is for the organizers of such events who have pulled them to justify their decision if they wish to do so. Forum members can only offer their own views on it (and I assume your explanation is all around them having been frightened or persuaded by militant liberals etc into doing so). It just seems fairly improbable to me.

 

[Vespa]

Hope that means you are laying one of these '40s events on then Vespa, at a preserved railway convenient to you of course...

Certainly would be happy to, I would aim to be authentic as well.

Will have to see if I can get some oppos involved and do some good old fashioned army squaddie grumbling

 

[WesternLancer]

Certainly would be happy to, I would aim to be authentic as well.

Complete with that handshake with the Russians at the Elbe! As per these pics

Elbe Day: When Russians and Americans embraced and shook hands in friendship

Never before, or since, have relations between the two superpowers been so cordial as during the meeting of the two armies on the Elbe River at the...

www.rbth.com

Will have to see if I can get some oppos involved and do some good old fashioned army squaddie grumbling

Quite right too!

 

[AlterEgo]

"We" ? who is "we" ?
I'm not in that "we" category.

I personally think you are struggling with and trying justify with very little evidence to show of a cancellation based in the expectation of low attendence to a WW2 event.

If you read my posts, yet again, I’m saying neither of us know and it might be better to simply accept that the people organising it might have a better idea than you or I do.

Once again, for the third time; I am not justifying or arguing for cancelling an event I care nothing about, in fact, if I have made any argument, it is for the opposite. Your continued misrepresentation of my views, which I have taken the time to state several times in direct reply to you, is as tedious as your repeated, unfounded, unsubstantiated claims that the charities have some sort of agenda.

 

[reddragon]

The Heritage Rail Association have given clear advise.

Heritage railways show solidarity with counterparts in Ukraine

Britain’s heritage rail sector is supporting their counterparts in Ukraine as they try to protect their country’s railway heritage.

www.railadvent.co.uk

Responding to requests from HRA members, the trade body also considered what advice it could give to organisations planning and running military re-enactment events during the conflict in Ukraine. After due consideration by the HRA board, member railways are being advised that military re-enactment and ‘war weekend’ style events should not go ahead during 2022, or for as long as the conflict in Ukraine continues.

 

[yoyothehobo]

Interesting that they have said (For as long as the conflict in Ukraine continues). It is inevitable i believe that the war will just fade into the background and not remain headline news for the entirety unless there is a significant change in events, which yes is possible. Unlikely to have that fading into the background this year, however that seems to back themselves into a corner a bit.

Again my thoughts on why they shouldnt/wouldnt go ahead this year were more on people less wanting to go to them.

Kids will still be playing war games on their computers, we will still have movies about wars, no one will ban the showing of dambusters at 3pm on ITV4 on a sunday afternoon.

Again, i guess they just dont want to risk a faux pas where someone out of the control of the railway turns up dressed as Russian soldiers and trial by media breaks out.

 

[35B]

Charity trustees (and those senior enough within charities to make decisions on cancelling events) shouldn’t be using their roles as a personal soap box. If they are doing so that perhaps exposes a worrying lack of scrutiny of the sector.

We are talking here about long established events that have run successfully for many years, and raised a good deal of money for the charities putting them on. It’s the duty of those running said charities to consider more than their personal views when cancelling them.

I think perhaps you’re struggling see beyond your own personal dislike of these events.

I am a charity trustee, and have been involved in discussions as to whether to mount events (not related in any way to those under discussion here) that might benefit the charity. When doing so, I've had to weigh a number of factors in mind about these events, and whether they are worth putting on or not. My opinions, and those of my fellow trustees, have been part of that. So have our understandings of whether we can attract the necessary volunteers, what it will cost to run the event, the likely income, and our reputation. I also do this unpaid, and ultimately with a personal legal risk if things go wrong.

As trustees, we do have our own opinions - and are not expected to leave them at the door when making decisions. But in the same way, we are also expected as a matter of law to consider the advice we're given, and make decisions for the benefit of the charities entrusted to our leadership. Which means, for example, that if I support an event, I am also obliged to consider the advice I hear that may suggest against it. In the last couple of years, that has included being involved in decisions to cancel events that we have believed to be legal, because the risk of failure has been disproportionate to the reward of success.

So, when it comes to these events, I do dislike them - and always have. Not in a "please ban them" way, but in a "I'd never visit" way - in the same way that I'd gladly go to the opera, but not to a musical. I think there's merit to the arguments about them this year, because the war in Ukraine is causing different reactions to other wars in other places. I think organisers are entirely justified in deciding not to run them this year, but also that it would be a legitimate choice to run them.

But I suggest giving them credit for the difficulty of making a decision in good faith, rather than dismissing those decisions as somehow politically motivated and illegitimate. As I heard in a different context recently, it's important to be able to disagree well.

 

[WesternLancer]

I am a charity trustee, and have been involved in discussions as to whether to mount events (not related in any way to those under discussion here) that might benefit the charity. When doing so, I've had to weigh a number of factors in mind about these events, and whether they are worth putting on or not. My opinions, and those of my fellow trustees, have been part of that. So have our understandings of whether we can attract the necessary volunteers, what it will cost to run the event, the likely income, and our reputation. I also do this unpaid, and ultimately with a personal legal risk if things go wrong.

As trustees, we do have our own opinions - and are not expected to leave them at the door when making decisions. But in the same way, we are also expected as a matter of law to consider the advice we're given, and make decisions for the benefit of the charities entrusted to our leadership. Which means, for example, that if I support an event, I am also obliged to consider the advice I hear that may suggest against it. In the last couple of years, that has included being involved in decisions to cancel events that we have believed to be legal, because the risk of failure has been disproportionate to the reward of success.

So, when it comes to these events, I do dislike them - and always have. Not in a "please ban them" way, but in a "I'd never visit" way - in the same way that I'd gladly go to the opera, but not to a musical. I think there's merit to the arguments about them this year, because the war in Ukraine is causing different reactions to other wars in other places. I think organisers are entirely justified in deciding not to run them this year, but also that it would be a legitimate choice to run them.

But I suggest giving them credit for the difficulty of making a decision in good faith, rather than dismissing those decisions as somehow politically motivated and illegitimate. As I heard in a different context recently, it's important to be able to disagree well.

Thanks - interesting to read your post and insights based on experience of being in that position as a Trustee.

 

[Peter Sarf]

The Heritage Rail Association have given clear advise.

Heritage railways show solidarity with counterparts in Ukraine

Britain’s heritage rail sector is supporting their counterparts in Ukraine as they try to protect their country’s railway heritage.

www.railadvent.co.uk

I would think that this then explains the decision to cancel taken by individual railways.

The next question is has similar advice been given to other charity sectors ?.

I also recall my earlier theory that once it enters someones head or a committees thoughts not to do something because of a new found risk then it is likely that any perceived risk taking will have to be avoided. I hereby present the trigger for such thoughts - or er @reddragon has above.

 

[E759]

If I was a Trustee of a so called Preserved Railway owning a WD or USTC locomotive I would be feeling very nervous right now. Having taken the decision to cancel a 1940's event I'd feel duty bound to send my WD/USTC off to the cutters torch on Barry's Island to avoid any distress to the public.

Pity the good Yorkshire folk in Worth Valley: A two day 1940's event, with money being raised for Ukraine, in Haworth but the Railway Children have thrown their toys out of their pram and are no longer talking part. God forbid they dare run their USTC S160 war locomotive on their Blue timetable that weekend.

 

[XAM2175]

If I was a Trustee of a so called Preserved Railway owning a WD or USTC locomotive I would be feeling very nervous right now. Having taken the decision to cancel a 1940's event I'd feel duty bound to send my WD/USTC off to the cutters torch on Barry's Island to avoid any distress to the public.

Good thing you're not, then.

 

[Mike Machin]

I still don’t see the attraction of war events at all. I’m neither for or against, but my dad served in RAF Bomber Command during WW2 and it was one of the most harrowing, frightening and awful times of his life, possibly only surpassed when he later took part in the Berlin Airlift and saw first-hand on the ground the awful destruction and abject suffering the allied bombing, in which he was involved, had caused.

Nostalgia events and heritage railways are made for each other, but how about some 1953 Coronation events, 1950s Rock & Roll years weekends, Roaring Twenties, Swinging Sixties etc?

 

[reddragon]

Heritage railways do events that attract punters and make money, as simple as that. The reason that so many railways do the same types of events. WW2 events are the biggest money makers to raise funds for many lines.

Ukraine is much bigger than any other war since WW2, anyone who doesn't think this is totally out of touch with reality. That is why out of respect the HRA recommended that they didn't go ahead and railways respected that view.

Covid, Brexit & Ukraine has changed the world immensely as did WW2 and WW1, basic history!