On the 28th July 1981, an offer of £1,000.00 was submitted by the Supporters' Association to the M.E.R. Board for the purchase of locomotive No.9 Douglas.  As detailed in my letter to you of 6th November 1981 [this was circulated to all members at the time, ed] we were informed that the M.E.R. Board had accepted the offer at their meeting of 6th August 1981, and the chief executive had been instructed to prepare the necessary documentation in line with previously sold locomotives.  This was not acted upon in accordance with instructions by Mr. William Jackson, chief executive, as he had procured, since the M.E.R. Board meeting of 6th August 1981, another offer for the same locomotive from someone else.  The Supporters' Association immediately sent a letter of compliant to the M.E.R. Board, and in the absence of any reply, a formal complaint to the Lieutenany Governor was lodged.  Thepress coverage and the result of our complaint, together with the House of Keys being dissolved and a General Election taking place, were described in my letter.

Legal action against the M.E.R. Board was discussed, in view of the comments expressed to us by the then Vice Chairman of the M.E.R. Board, Mr. P.A. Craine, as witnesses were ready and willing to testify in open court of the M.E.R. Board's acceptance of £1,000.00 for the sale of the locomotive to the Supporters' Association.  However, with the election of a new House of Keys and the appointment of a new M.E.R. Board, it was thought that the common sense approach for us to adopt, was to request a discussion on the matter of the locomotive with the new members of the M.E.R. Board.  Before this occured, I received a letter dated 23rd December 1981 (in response to my letter dated 28th July!) from the chief executive of the M.E.R. Board, stating that our offer to purchase the locomotive could not be accepted, although no reasons were given.  Immediately following the Christmas and New Year festivities, I received confirmation that the pro-M.E.R. Board Hendry family who operate under the name of the Isle of Man Railway Society of Rugby (and who already own two other derelict I.M.R. locomotives) had purchased No. 9 "Douglas".  In their recent news letter, they state "that the only solution which would safeguard the best interests of the Island and the railway, was that No. 9 should be taken out of the arena of public controversy" . . . the Board resolved to accept the Society's offer of £1,600.00 for locomotive No. 9 Douglas.

No one can criticise the M.E.R. Board for obtaining a highest offer for its assets, but when we have been endeavouring to purchase the locomotive from the M.E.R. Board since 1978, surely the correct procedure would have been for the M.E.R. Board to inform us of the higher offer.  It would then have been for us to decide whether or not to increase our offer.  Apparently, the decision to refuse our offer and accept the higher price was agreed by the outgoing M.E.R. Board at their last meeting following the General Election and before the new M.E.R. Board had been approved by Tynwald.  This outgoing board was made up of a majority who wereno longer members of the House of Keys.  Was this action their last fling, or perhaps vengeance on us in that they had not been returned as members of the Keys?

In their recent publication, the Hendry family, unable to fill their newsletter with matters more relevant to the actual railway, describe in detail the recent press coverage concerning the matter and criticise our handling over the No. 9 locomotive situation.  At no time have I received any complaint from the membership over this matter.  In fact quite the reverse, as I have received encouragement and support from both on and off the island interested in our project.  I have no intention of wasting valuable space in replying to this bunch of squawing parrots, but I am prepared, if called upon by the membership, to detail the events that have taken place since the matter began originally with the Railway Company.  I would, however, make on observation.  They state "in an ideal world, the Supporters' Association and this Society would have worked hand in hand and given support and encouragement to eachother".  Surely in an ideal world there should only be ONE organisation.

In an attempt to prevent the problems which have existed between the Supporters' Association and the M.E.R. Board Chairman , Mr. Dominic Delaney MHK, I have received the following letter dated 6th January 1982 from the chief executive of the M.E.R. Board:-

I am directed by my Chairman, Mr. D.F.K. Delaney MInstM, MHK, to inform you that the following discussions with the Board's advocates, he has been advised not to enter in to any discussions with your association at the present time, and therefore wishes to cancel any arrangements made with you."

One can but regret the myopia clearly prevelant, but this Supporters' Association will continue to monitor events on the Railway and make constructive criticism where necessary.  The Railway forms part of the Manx heritage and we are duty bound to ensure its continued operation for future generations to enjoy at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer.

A.B.B.