Christopher Daniel's request for the return of his books from the BSS Library

The Disputed Ownership of Christopher Daniel's Books in the BSS Library
The story so far......!

[If you simply want the latest in the saga just go to the bottom of this page or click here.]

At the end of the Society’s AGM that was held on Friday morning 25th April 2014 to elect trustees for the coming year and to approve the conversion of the charity to a Charitable Incorporated Organisation, the BSS President Christopher Daniel MBE, stood to speak. He had found it necessary to seek help from delegates concerning the extraordinary way in which he was being treated by the present Council of the very society he helped to found 25 years ago! All this as a result of what can surely only be described as the Council’s unbelievable ineptitude

in failing to respond properly to members’ long held concerns about a frankly quite bizarre suggestion made by one BSS member in 2012 that the library should be closed because the cost of £150 a year needed to maintain it might be better spent elsewhere. A suggestion that, of course, had been made without any regard as to what might, could or should, be done with the library's contents and one which completely ignored the extraordinary value for money that the £150pa represented which, as well as providing all conventional reference library facilities, also includes insurance of the contents!

Concern about this ridiculous proposal had first been raised in March 2013 by society members in a letter to the Editor of the Society’s Bulletin, but inexplicably to many, the issue was thereafter largely ignored by the Council although an extraordinary proposal was made by the Chairman that a count might be mounted of those who visited the BSS collection - something that no library in the country would ever regard as appropriate for a reference collection. Unsurprisingly, that was refused by the present Librarian. If input obtained by SunInfo from members is to be believed, blunder was followed by blunder and the matter was not even placed on the agenda of trustee meetings for something like six months. Furthermore none of the usual charity commission protections for items of value appear ever to have been considered, let alone put in place. Becoming increasingly concerned at the cavalier approach of the present Council to the future for the library and the many works that he had placed there on long term loan to form the start of a reference collection and to which members could refer, Christopher not surprisingly asked for their return. Then, well over a year and a half later, the Council persisted in trying to suggest that the works must have been a gift and must therefore must be the property of the Society, even though there is no signed handover document and even though Graham Aldred, the librarian who set up the library in the first place, confirmed Christopher’s view that his books were placed there are on long term loan. To any BSS member on the proverbial Clapham Omnibus, it all began to read rather as some sort of attempt to cover up Council incompetence and if so, it was surely appalling that in so doing the most celebrated of the founders of the Society should have his integrity so persistently questioned like this. See for yourself here just how appalling the matter is.

● Read the text of Chris Daniel’s speech after the Greenwich AGM for yourself here further down on this page.
● Read the accompanying documentation and then - wait for it! - read the Council's attempts to maintain their position as presented in the June 2014 Bulletin-mailing.
● Read, a formal legal request to the 'Secretary' (dated the 11th April 2014) to see the Council's evidence has apparently been forgotten or ignored. A reminder had to be sent and still there was no reply nearly five months later.
● Then, read what some were writing both to the Council and to this web page about this issue.
● Then, read some of the extraordinary emails that were still coming from the Council as a meeting is proposed.
● See how ill-informed one or more of the trustees appears to be. By any standards this is all surely a shambles? The Membership deserve better.
● See the extraordinary letter sent on 11th September by BSS's Chairman to the Membership which unilaterally tried to close the matter and then see how members have responded.

However, and as may be seen from the letters below, the Society's librarian who actually accepted the books in the first place, had already provided the necessary evidence of a loan in his letter (something which has still not been disclosed to the Membership by the Council) and when this same assertion of a gift came to be repeated by the Council earlier that year, Graham felt it necessary to write again to the Secretary in March to point out that his letter had been misrepresented. Not only that but it is also quite wrong for the Council to say in their June Newsletter notes that the trustees do not have the power to return the books - the Constitution provided for it!

And Then, in another twist and three months after first being formally asked for its evidence to support its stance that Christopher Daniel's books were indeed a gift, the Society had to be asked again! Members must now be asking if this evidence really does exist. See the latest requesting letter from the solicitor further down on this page or click ►here.

Let us be quite clear: anything on loan to the Society can always be returned. Gifted assets are the subject of a gift contract. Can the council now produce such a contract? No. What's worse, even if ownership of some or all of the other books in the library had been legally gifted to the society, the trustees still have complete control over all the society's assets - See Clause 4a of the applicable (1992) Constitution. The only restriction is that they may not make gifts to other charities and they generally must always act in furtherance of the charity's objects. It has to be in furtherance of the charity's objects to prevent its disintegration.

As if all this is not enough, it was now beginning to emerge that the return of gifted assets to their original owner had always have been permitted within charity law. If this is so why then was BSS STILL prevaricating over this matter?

Members and others who were still concerned, were urged to write to the Chairman of BSS - with copies to the other Trustees if possible - to request that the Council immediately accede to Christopher Daniel's entirely reasonable request. See examples of what some wrote at the bottom of this page - or jump straight to them ►here.

I - Christopher Daniel's Statement to delegates after the AGM at Greenwich in April 2014

II - Documents available to view at the time of Christopher's statement to the 2014 Conference

Three further documents were made available to delegates at the meeting, the text of which is given below. These reinforce the serious concerns about the attitude of the Council in this matter, the protracted nature of the communications and provide further evidence of Chris Daniel's position. They also provide documented proof of the Council's early knowledge of the fact that Christopher's books were indeed a loan despite the Council's later statement to the contrary.

III - Evidential text of Christopher Daniel's Foreword to the first BSS Catalogue 2006

Christopher Daniel's Foreword to the first BSS Library Catalogue makes it entirely clear that his contribution to the library was in a category apart from the gifts of others. Please read its wording highlighted here:

IV - Text of the Request by the Concerned Members that was published with the June 2014 Bulletin

From: Douglas Bateman
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 11:07 AM
Subject: The books

Dear all,

The attached note is intended, primarily, for the "A3 sheet quintet" who are strong supporters of giving away the books. Council members for info, who will take this material as read.

I am not intending to give an equally strident opposite view, but it is necessary to state some of my concerns quite strongly. Even so I consider that I have been restrained, and I hope that all can be aware of potential pitfalls ahead.

I hope that readers will accept my concerns as sincere, and at the same time, trying to keep in mind exactly why we band together in this Society.

Best wishes, Doug

DONATION OF BOOKS

Following the Newbury meeting and the brief discussions about the current problem I would like to make some comments, including support for our elected officers, and scanning the books.

I have known Christopher Daniel since the beginning of the Society and always found him to be the perfect gentleman, however, recent actions have been far from gentlemanly.

During the 10 years as Secretary I spent many productive hours alongside Christopher at Council meetings and on other occasions. During all this time, I never heard it mentioned that the books were on loan, indeed there was much euphoria at the time of the gift in March 2000, coinciding with finding a home for the library.

When Christopher interrupted the AGM in April he issued a letter to members together with a note by the former librarian, Graham Aldred, purporting to support the ‘loan’. However, it was Graham who used the word donation more than anyone else in reports to Council, other notes, and with his 50 page published catalogue of the library (Graham Aldred, Reference Library Catalogue, British Sundial Society, 2006). In this he refers explicitly to the donation of the books, and Christopher as Chairman wrote a Foreword, again using the word donation. Furthermore, the books were included as assets and the Chairman signed off the accounts each year. Surely if the donation had been intended as a loan, the opportunity should have been taken to correct the terminology.

Christopher grumbled over the time taken for Council to respond to his request for the return of the books, but Council meetings are infrequent, and he may have assumed, quite wrongly, that a meeting would be called specifically to discuss the matter. During this time I was asked if I could recall the use of the word ‘loan’. I have all the minutes that I wrote (10 year’s worth) on my old computer, and I could find no trace of the word. Surely a diligent search could hardly be construed as “intransigence”, and by then invoking the assistance of a solicitor Christopher himself initiated an “inappropriate” dialogue with “a distinguished learned scientific Society”.

To then follow with solicitor’s letters of a threatening nature to all the trustees is aggressive, to say the least.

Referring back to the discussions in Newbury, David Young decried the legalistic approach, but it must be pointed out that this is not new. Firstly, you cannot manage accounts without a framework, and some council members were becoming more and more legalistic.

I recall causing some dissension when I asked what Christopher (one fourth of the founders) had actually done for the Society. This is a distinction between qualitative and quantitative. In terms of published material, rather less than some other members, especially over the last 10 years. Some may mention the extensive published material in Clocks Magazine, and whilst promoting sundials generally, this was a source of income. (I know because I published quite a few articles in this journal and they paid well.)

I don’t wish to belittle his contributions of a PR nature, but if we are being true to ourselves then comparisons should be made in a more objective manner. Christopher has done nothing of an administrative nature and many others have made major contributions to the Society, collectively, far eclipsing Christopher’s work.

I also recall having to state that whilst Christopher has his supporters, some eminent members have made contrasting statements such as “disgraceful”, and “why does he want the books?” and “selfish”. In my opinion these members have status in the dialling world at least as great as Christopher’s. The point should be taken that support for Christopher is not unanimous.

It was noted at Newbury that my raising of the issue of the library may have precipitated the current situation. I raised my concerns, quite properly, at the AGM two years ago. So why now? Christopher’s supporters may like to find out, preferably by personal contact, what is prompting this so far, far, out-of-character behaviour. They could also point out that this process is damaging the Society and, more importantly, his reputation. What matters most, a few books or a reputation? “At ev’ry word a reputation dies”, Alexander Pope, The Rape of the Lock.

It would not surprise me if solicitor’s letters continued, perhaps to avoid going to court, with demands of a Machiavellian nature so that the Society would appear in the wrong whatever we did.

I now come to my main point. Instead of criticizing Council, they require support. They are our elected trustees and giving their time voluntarily. I have come across this problem in other organisations such that where there are some changes or difficulty, members tend to shoot the messenger forgetting that the ‘messenger’ volunteered to make the changes, generally with members’ approval! If Christopher’s supporters feel strongly about matters, then they should offer themselves for election at the AGM, assuming they are prepared to put in the hours of travelling time and effort.

Alternatively, any constructive suggestions should be made that take into account members who are strong supporters of a library, and the fiduciary responsibilities of the trustees. I can’t help noticing that those in favour of returning the books, seem to be overlooking (or even riding roughshod over) the democratic wishes of the library supporters!

It will be obvious that removing some or all of Christopher’s donated books will severely compromise the library.

My second and quite important point, is that we should gain something out of this with public benefit by scanning the rare books as soon as convenient, as already suggested, and make the results available on the internet.

Finally, I believe that Council should suggest that Christopher’s legal team take us to the Small Claims Court, or shut up. Or we ignore the demands. No matter that Christopher is “dear to our hearts” such bullying behaviour is inexcusable and I am strongly against any sort of appeasement.

Just one more comment, one has to ask just why Christopher and his legal advisers are prepared to create dissension within a society that he has been so keen to foster! Instead he should be grateful for having helped to create such a strong society.

Regrettably this matter is creating much unwanted effort in Council, but if we take a lofty overview, in the general scheme of things I am inclined to regard this matter as relatively minor.

Even the Royal Society was embroiled in disputes, some engineered by Sir Isaac Newton. Overall, I am confident that the Society, which belongs to its members, has a strong and continuing future.

Doug Bateman, September 2014

DONATION OF BOOKS - a Memo from Doug Bateman

A Membership Response

Following the Newbury meeting and the brief discussions about the current problem I would like to make some comments, including support for our elected officers, and scanning the books. I have known Christopher Daniel since the beginning of the Society and always found him to be the perfect gentleman, however, recent actions have been far from gentlemanly.

It is true that recent bullying actions of the Council have been far from gentlemanly – as may be seen by anyone reading this website.

Christopher’s actions on the other hand have always been gentlemanly and always with the interests of the society in mind. Indeed his most recent suggestion to make a very long term loan of his books to the society confirms just that.

It is hardly surprising since the history of both the formation and original content of the library was never a topic of discussion until a casual discussion in the Council after the complaining member’s time and later when the present Council’s vote about its future was not unanimous. It was at that time that it emerged that any Council could disband the library on a whim by a single vote. Yet, we STILL have no proposals from the Council as to how the Library may be protected. This doesn’t give members any confidence as to the future. Who in their right mind, one might ask, would EVER loan or gift anything to the Society now?

When Christopher interrupted the AGM in April he issued a letter to members together with a note by the former librarian, Graham Aldred, purporting to support the ‘loan’. However, it was Graham who used the word donation more than anyone else in reports to Council, other notes, and with his 50 page published catalogue of the library (Graham Aldred, Reference Library Catalogue, British Sundial Society, 2006). In this he refers explicitly to the donation of the books, and Christopher as Chairman wrote a Foreword, again using the word donation. Furthermore, the books were included as assets and the Chairman signed off the accounts each year. Surely if the donation had been intended as a loan, the opportunity should have been taken to correct the terminology.

It is a very part of the argument that the sprinkling of the word ‘donate’ and its noun was never made in the sense of an irrevocable gift as other real gifts have been.

There is no use of the word gift in any of this and no deed of gift either.

Graham Aldred and now another prominent BSS member confirm that the books were indeed a loan. The forward to the Catalogue carefully distinguishes between other donations and Chris’s books see above in this page. There is no mention in the catalogue that Chris books were gifted.

The mention of these so called ‘assets’ in the accounts was simply a one off valuation of what is held by the charity which was needed for insurance purposes and which had to be declared. It was so declared and of course this has already been pointed out. The fact that this sum in the annual accounts has never been updated shows this as well. The society has an asset register and these books have never been mentioned in that.

Referring back to the discussions in Newbury, David Young decried the legalistic approach, but it must be pointed out that this is not new. Firstly, you cannot manage accounts without a framework, and some council members were becoming more and more legalistic. I recall causing some dissension when I asked what Christopher (one fourth of the founders) had actually done for the Society. This is a distinction between qualitative and quantitative. In terms of published material, rather less than some other members, especially over the last 10 years. Some may mention the extensive published material in Clocks Magazine, and whilst promoting sundials generally, this was a source of income. (I know because I published quite a few articles in this journal and they paid well.) I don’t wish to belittle his contributions of a PR nature, but if we are being true to ourselves then comparisons should be made in a more objective manner. Christopher has done nothing of an administrative nature and many others have made major contributions to the Society, collectively, far eclipsing Christopher’s work.

Christopher’s contributions to the society are not limited to the numbers of articles he might have written.

The issue of book ownership is in no way related to whether or not, nor to what extent, Christopher has written any articles for Clocks Magazine, for the Bulletin or even for his PR skills.

However, let us indeed have a more objective analysis of Christopher’s contribution to the Society. How about his idea for a Register of dials, for a prestigious Bulletin rather than a News sheet, how about his being instrumental in getting BSS affiliated to the RAS, how about his achievement in getting the National Trust (and other heritage organisations) to regard sundials as important assets of their original properties, how about the astonishing number of documents published by him (see here) , how about his personal development into the country’s most prolific and well known sundial designer with more than seventy designs, restorations and commissions behind him.?

‘Christopher has done nothing of an administrative nature for the society’? What rubbish. The mental process behind this statement is redolent of the journalist at the announcement of the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize saying of Malala Yousafzai that 'she has not achieved anything'. He was of course immediately put down by the head of the prize committee saying “Thanks to Malala, the issue of children's rights has been put on the world agenda”. The same is true of Christopher. Sundials are now recognised throughout the world as important aspects of heritage. Christopher has brought BSS to its place as an academic society of reference on dialling. And of course his contribution has been publicly and independently assessed and recognised by his appointment to MBE. Can anyone say the same about the complainant?

You cannot be the Chairman of any entity for over twenty years and not be a good administrator. Christopher has always ‘bitten the bullet ’ when needed - as indeed we may all recall regarding the ill-advised venture of the very member making this comment in the matter of his (persistently rejected) proposal for a society leaflet that would have included potentially identifiable photographs of young children.

“Many others have made major contributions to the Society, collectively, far eclipsing Christopher’s work?”.

This is a wonderful non-sequitor which shows the logical paucity of the argument. What sort of logical comparison is it that seeks to rubbish the work of one person by comparison with the collective works of many? We might equally say that many others have made major contributions to science collectively far eclipsing Isaac Newton’s work. Of course that in no way detracts from the pre-eminence of Isaac Newton as a scientist.

Why have we been given no names for those who might collectively have contributed to the so called ‘eclipsing’ of Christopher’s work. Could it just possibly be because there are too few?

Just for the record here are the FACTS!: Up until January 2013 Christopher had made 172 contributions of all descriptions to magazines, journals etc, written 244 articles for Clocks magazine and his Shire Publication Sundials had sold more than 29,000 copies. An output possibly more than the entire membership of BSS put together. Is that objective enough? See the detailed list for yourself here

I also recall having to state that whilst Christopher has his supporters, some eminent members have made contrasting statements such as “disgraceful”, and “why does he want the books?” and “selfish”. In my opinion these members have status in the dialling world at least as great as Christopher’s. The point should be taken that support for Christopher is not unanimous.

Many still do use the word ‘disgraceful’– but about the Council’s actions not about Christopher’s.

Christopher wants these books because they are his and, additionally because the council has wholly and totally failed to secure the long term future of the Library, he fears that his books could be lost to him. There is nothing ‘selfish’ about that, especially when his recent proposal STILL plans for a secure fifty year future for his books in the BSS Library.

It was noted at Newbury that my raising of the issue of the library may have precipitated the current situation. I raised my concerns, quite properly, at the AGM two years ago. So why now? Christopher’s supporters may like to find out, preferably by personal contact, what is prompting this so far, far, out-of-character behaviour. They could also point out that this process is damaging the Society and, more importantly, his reputation. What matters most, a few books or a reputation? “At ev’ry word a reputation dies”, Alexander Pope, The Rape of the Lock.

Indeed it was the very complaining member who first suggested that the library should be closed claiming that the (miniscule) £150 a year it costs could be more usefully spent elsewhere and this despite the fact that Society’s liquid assets were – and are - able to fund such a sum for 500 years! Then, on a vote, the Council wasn’t even unanimous about keeping the library. Not surprisingly that alarmed the membership – the more so since there has never been any formal commitment to the Library made by this Council and no security measures have been put in place either. It cannot be surprising that now no BSS Member will gift ANYTHING to the Society whilst the present council is in place and those members with items on loan, like Christopher, naturally want them back or their ownership recognised and recorded. All of this is a consequence of what surely can only be described as the inadequacy of the present trustees?

As well, we need to note that all delays on this matter have been on the Council’s side. An early settlement could have been made long ago. Any and all damage to the Society’s reputation has been brought about by the Council, not by Christopher.

The SunInfo web page (www.bit.ly/suninfo) covers this issue in considerable detail and uniquely, it provides copies of much of the correspondence too; something that is wholly unavailable from the Council.

It would not surprise me if solicitor’s letters continued, perhaps to avoid going to court, with demands of a Machiavellian nature so that the Society would appear in the wrong whatever we did. I now come to my main point. Instead of criticizing Council, they require support. They are our elected trustees and giving their time voluntarily. I have come across this problem in other organisations such that where there are some changes or difficulty, members tend to shoot the messenger forgetting that the ‘messenger’ volunteered to make the changes, generally with members’ approval! If Christopher’s supporters feel strongly about matters, then they should offer themselves for election at the AGM, assuming they are prepared to put in the hours of travelling time and effort.

Undoubtedly that will be the case unless and until this Council return Christopher’s books and announce what they will do to secure the Library from any future risk of disbandment.

Just because there is an elected board of trustees it most certainly does not follow that they should be supported when they make mistakes. This Council has made rather too many mistakes in the period it has been in office.

Members are entitled to assume that their elected representatives will listen to complaints about them and act properly on them. When an elected board of trustees fails to do this - in yet another act of secrecy - that is when others will stand up to present the alternative argument.

The evidence on this matter is now clear. Christopher’s books should now all be returned to him.

Alternatively, any constructive suggestions should be made that take into account members who are strong supporters of a library, and the fiduciary responsibilities of the trustees. I can’t help noticing that those in favour of returning the books, seem to be overlooking (or even riding roughshod over) the democratic wishes of the library supporters!

Clearly the complaining member is not aware of the facts. Christopher’s (ignored) proposals are specifically designed to secure the library for the benefit of Members. The supporters of the library are the very people who want to establish Christopher’s ownership. They also want the society to use measures available within the Charity framework to secure the library from isolated trustee votes that may attempt to wind it up.

It will be obvious that removing some or all of Christopher’s donated books will severely compromise the library. My second and quite important point, is that we should gain something out of this with public benefit by scanning the rare books as soon as convenient, as already suggested, and make the results available on the internet.

Isn't it a pity the member didn’t gather the facts before commenting and consequently is left ‘shooting from the hip’ without any real knowledge of what is on offer?

The library would actually be better secured under Christopher’s latest proposals. The member also appears to be unaware of the Google initiative on rare books. Many, if not most of the rare books on dialling are already available on line through Google.

The Council cannot ignore Christopher’s demands – that has been a welcome outcome of solicitor consultation. What bullying there is actually comes from the Council:

We have had refusals by the Council to negotiate at all if Christopher employed a solicitor, we have seen their several refusals to meet one to one, we have seen their refusals to meet at Christopher’s house, we have seen the Council insisting that Christopher may only bring one person (and that a BSS member) to any meeting to discuss this matter, we have had the Council suggest that Chris is being ‘unreasonable’ because he did not agree to a ludicrous proposal of theirs, we have had Christopher, at his own expense, deliver a detailed proposal for a 50 year loan of his books but this was deliberately ignored and we then have the Council trying to impose an ultimatum such that if Chris did not agree to their aforesaid ludicrous offer by the 9th September last, the council would consider the matter closed. An action that has been refuted by the acting solicitor.

We have had the Council refuse at least two lawful requests to disclose what evidence it has and we have had the Council refuse to disclose, let alone have an independent analysis of, the results of their faulted survey of the membership on this matter. Just who is the bully in all this? For sure it is not Christopher.

Why? Simply because BSS needs to be brought back to be the society he co-founded; something which a majority of members want. This is by no means the only issue where the Council has failed to understand an issue of importance to the membership. The faulted and still uncorrected 2011 membership survey is another.

The time comes when it is important for the forces of reason to act. That time has come.

Regrettably this matter is creating much unwanted effort in Council, but if we take a lofty overview, in the general scheme of things I am inclined to regard this matter as relatively minor. Even the Royal Society was embroiled in disputes, some engineered by Sir Isaac Newton. Overall, I am confident that the Society, which belongs to its members, has a strong and continuing future. Doug Bateman, September 2014

There is no need for any ‘unwanted’ Council effort.

Graham Aldred and now another long standing BSS member confirm that the books are loaned and not gifted.

Does anyone reading this really believe that laying claim to tens of thousands of pounds is a minor matter?

The books should now all be returned to Christopher forthwith. This issue and the exposure of the Council members' involvement in it - will undoubtedly mount and mount until they are.

Keep coming here for more in this quite unnecessary and utterly distressing saga ...

Letters and other material are reproduced here by permission, extracts are used under terms of Copyright Fair Dealing. SunInfo is committed to accuracy. If we have made a mistake or violated any copyright we shall correct it and print an apology.
Please notify thewebmaster immediately of any mistakes, errors or if you have further information relevant to the arguments presented on this page.

*V - What BSS* said in June 2014 to try to justify their position - and an analysis of it. Oh! and note the things they didn't tell their members!**
	Under a heading: "Some Relevant Considerations", the Council offered these summary points in the June mailing: What is the evidence the books were donated? Considerable documentary evidence exists including that created by Chris Daniel and the Librarian at the time: • Chris Daniel's schedule of 'BOOKS DONATED TO BRITISH SUNDIAL SOCIETY, 2000'. After each book's details, 'Daniel Collection: presented to BSS 2000' appears. • A further schedule of 'Second list of books donated to the British Sundial Society by Christopher Daniel', ending 'Christopher Daniel 12 July 2000'. • The Librarian's report of March 2000 to Council stated 'Chris Daniel generously decided to donate .... to the BSS Library.' • The Librarian's report of June 2000 to the membership (Newsletter No. 17) stated the books were '.... a recent donation from Chris Daniel.'	Some rather MORE relevant considerations. These claims hinge on a narrow definition of the word 'donate' and its repetitive use in the various lists of books. Yes, with hindsight it would have been better if Christopher had enacted a proper legal document regarding his loan but his placement of books was one of the first deposits made to start a society library and at that time - in sharp contrast to today - the society was formed from a friendly grouping of members who were not disposed to the litigious approach to management and minimisation of trustee-risk that we have come to see since 2011. Christopher's actions were altruistic and performed with the highest integrity. He simply wished to give others in the society the opportunity to handle important dialling works and it suited him at a time when he had neither the space in a new small house nor the security to keep them at home. To many, it is little short of a disgrace that some now try to deprive him of his property. It seems to have escaped the notice of the Council that the word donation has more than one meaning. The word is also applied to the action of making a contribution. That use is common where exhibitions and other other displays are involved and it is common in the case of temporary loans to a library. It is interesting that the documents sited by the Council make extensive use of the word donate. Indeed in some the word is used against each and every book - just as is necessary if at a later date the ownership of each individual book has to be established. If these deposits were truly gifts to the Society, free of any encumbrance, then why is there not a single document to that effect? Christopher has gifted other things to the Society, perhaps most notably the ownership of the society logo, and this was the subject of a formal document. Why then can the Council not produce a single document of transfer? Furthermore, why has there been no attempt to place the books on the Society's asset register?

	Is there any evidence of a loan? No reference to a loan can be found in the Society's records. Despite repeated requests to Chris Daniel and the former Librarian and the receipt of several communications, no documentary evidence of a loan has been received. Furley Page (Chris Daniel's solicitors) state in their 19 March 2014 letter to the Secretary that there is no documentary evidence of a loan. Current recall of a loan is contradicted by documentary evidence from the time.	Of course there is no reference to a loan in the society records - just as there is no document of transfer. *BSS 'HOLDS BACK' FACTS THAT YOU MIGHT THINK MEMBERS SHOULD KNOW* We are not aware of anything other than a single request for documentary evidence. But that request was answered by Graham in his letter of 4th February 2014 (see above) and when this was quietly ignored, he emphasised it again in his further letter of March 7th (see above). Interestingly the fact has been ignored yet again in the society's list of relevant considerations of the June 2014 mailing - see below. Because Graham Aldred was the receiving librarian, his letters of evidence constitute documentary evidence of a loan. At the very least it is surely disingenuous for the Council to infer that that these are somehow inadmissible or do not exist .

	What therefore is the status of the books? The documentary evidence is that the books were donated. As such they are the property of the Society.	The documentary evidence as supplied by the receiving librarian of the time is that the books were a long term loan whose return may be requested at any time.

	Are there restrictions on how the Society's property and assets can be used? Yes. Both the Society's Constitution and the Charity Act state that the Society's property and assets can only be used in the pursuit of the Society's/charity's objects. What does this mean for Chris Daniel's request? The Trustees are not able to meet this request as they have no power to give away the Society's property and assets and would be breaking the law if they did so.	*BSS SAYS IT DOESN'T HAVE POWER WHEN IT DOES * Let us be clear. These books have never been logged as assets of the Society, they are on loan, so there is no restriction to their return. Even if they had been properly registered as a gift and were true assets of the Society it would still be incorrect for the Council to suggest that the Trustees have no power to dispose of them. They have every right within the law and the Constitution. The applicable Constitution says under 'Condition 4 - Powers': 4. In furtherance of the objects but not otherwise the Council may exercise the following powers. 4a. Power subject to any consents required by law to sell, lease or dispose of all or any part of the property of the Society. It is most certainly in accordance with the Objects of the Society to return these books since not to do so risks the resignation of the President and co-founder of the Society, the man who has done more for British dialling than any other and the one who within the past 12 months has even been appointed MBE in part for such work. With any such resignation would come the undoubted formation of an alternative society and the loss of considerable numbers of BSS members to it. Not only that but not returning these books may well precipitate the collapse of the whole BSS Library Collection. Unless this matter is properly resolved, no one in the future would ever make any gift or loan to the BSS library when the status of the library can be overturned by a wrong thinking subsequent-year's elected council.

	How can the issue be resolved? The Trustees are prepared to be as flexible as possible and explore alternative ways forward with Chris Daniel. This must be consistent with the evidence, the Society's Constitution and the law, and we will consult with the Charity Commission's Legal Services as appropriate. We cannot do this whilst under constant threat of legal action.	How can this issue be resolved? By the simple return of these books to Chris Daniel without prejudice, irrespective of the contested ownership issues and by immediately placing the library under the stewardship of the 'Official Custodian for Charities' or some similar entity. Legal considerations do not affect this action at all. Anyone - BSS member or not - troubled by the way in which Christopher is being treated by the present BSS Council should write immediately to the Chairman, Frank King at the address given in any BSS Bulletin.
	Letters and other material reproduced by permission, extracts used under terms of Copyright Fair Dealing. SunInfo is committed to accuracy. Please notify the webmaster of any mistakes, errors or if further information is relevant to the arguments presented on this page.


THREE MONTHS on BSS STILL has to be reminded to submit its evidence. Does it really exist?		Now, it seems it may not matter whether the books were loaned or not!! So: Why is BSS STILL holding onto them?