“. I cannot believe what TC and pat rose are saying , they know none of the facts concerning the trustees asking roger whitfield to resign, and this issue about the solicitor is just one person who when he doesnt get his own way acts very badly by going to the press and bringing the good name of the pool and trustees down. if he had the best interests of the pool at heart he wouldnt have gone to the press.”

“i would like to add a comment here, the pool was saved by the community for the community, not by just one person. all the VOLUNTEERS should be praised for all their hard work and time spent maintaining the pool, manning reception and the tuck shop, and if it wasnt for them we would not have our lovely pool to swim in !!”

“I think the basic fact that matters in this case is that the trust needs to make money to survive and the first yeras figures, however many people walked through the door showed it just about survived. I await the second years figures with interest especially as breaking even will no longer be an option once the council withdraw all their grants. If anyone connected with the trust is making a personal gain from the trust then it is wrong and every trust member who supported such a move to employ a solicitor married to a trust member was also in the wrong and it does throw up the question of whether that trust meber is involved with the trust for self beneficial reasons.”

“You may wish to read the minutes dated 10th May 2009, when the issue of interests was discussed and, "it was UNANIMOUSLY resolved that the Trust directors authorised the continuing engagement" (of the solicitor). Any Trustee could have objected, but ALL agreed. Various conditions were included and what may be of interest to those reading the recent media report and comments is the one that states, "the trustees decided that they were satisfied that it would be in the best interests of the Company (PPCT) for the services to be provided" and then the solicitor's name is mentioned.

Questioning in the media now what one was party to at the outset is misleading. Therefore, everyone should ensure they do read ALL the facts not just look at a story that just tells one side.”

“I hate to gloat but I never believed this trust would ever work long term because different people have different motives and whether used for political or financial personal gain it will always ensure the demise of the trust and the original intentions become less important. Mr Whitfield appears to have rightly questioned what he thought may bring the trust into disrepute and by doing so it seems he has rattled a few cages which usually means there is something to hide and when transparency is a luxury this trust prefers not to indulge in then the doubts are already cast and the future of the pool will once more slide into question again just as the council wanted all along.”

“If you are the Pat I believe you to be, you are well aware that when the idea of a Trust was suggested, I was open in my belief that the council should be made accountable for its failure to maintain and operate the pool to its full potential. At the time, the Ombudsman had made it very clear that if a Trust was set up, then they would be unable to continue the investigation into holding the council to account. This is well documented. I had submitted the paperwork for the Ombudsman to look into the matter so was highly unlikely to want to hamper the process by going down the Trust route before they had had chance to thoroughly address the concerns. I felt the Trust was jumping in prematurely but could not persuade a slowing down of the negotiations. However, despite this I supported the Chairman of the Trust, providing data in my possession to him and volunteered help to show I was continuing in my support of the open air pool once the Trust was in place.

I am bemused by your rather confrontational style of commenting but the words remind me of the nastiness that arose in certain correspondence when political ambitions seemed to be of paramount consideration for some instead of focussing solely on the pool's interest.

Everyone with an interest in this pool needs to be calm and consider the facts rationally as they are presented in the correct arena.”

“Wasn't it Annette Henessey who refused to have anything to do with setting up a trust to run the pool when the council threatened to close it and walked away?
At least Roger Whitfield stepped up to the plate.”

“Annette Hennessy is absolutely right in all she says.

The question of the solicitor is a red herring. Solicitors were agreed and appointed by the trustees 2 years ago, the Charities Commission are happy and any trustee could have proposed something else at any time then or since then, but did not, so why is it an issue now?

The charity is not run perfectly - that means improvements are needed. Who exactly is the barrier?

Is the intention of raising things now in public an attempt to give the NSC councillors who wrote such a factually wrong report and who were determined to close the pool regardless of the facts, a second opportunity?”

“Firstly I apologise for the length of this comment but the following is important.

Pat Rose and TC, nobody has all the facts regarding this story except the Board of Trustees. No one person saved the open air pool or was the "driving force" behind it. It was a community and team effort from the outset, going back to 2007, (including media support in Bristol and locally) and behind the scenes were people whose faces were not in the media, yet were working as hard as those that were involved in the publicity. Some devoting time and energy long before the Trust was set up, including one current Trustee who attended and spoke at Town Hall council meetings showing a genuine interest in Portishead Open Air Pool from the outset and another current Trustee who contributed professional expertise in support of the Friends of Portishead Open Air Pool when the battle was being fought to question the review report that threatened development of the amenity site. Another current Trustee worked hard for the pool before the Trust was formed, all for the good of the pool.
The concern now, is the same as it was two years ago and that is, if the Trust breaks down because of internal disputes that cannot be resolved, then under the terms of the lease (and forget the 99 years that suggests a safe lease, it is not safe) North Somerset Council could effectively say they tried the Trust route, it failed and so the pool could be closed and once again at the mercy of developers. This cannot be allowed to happen especially at this sensitive time just months before the new season when the council subsidy is virtually nothing as per the terms of the lease.

Portishead residents and the wider community need to listen to ALL the facts when they are presented by the Trust, pleasant or otherwise, rather than read too much into individual media coverage that is currently unsubstantiated.

The solicitor information is not new. It has been documented previously and is on paperwork submitted to the Charities Commission. Ask yourselves why it is being raised now as a problem?

I feel confident that the trustees will try to resolve matters in the community's and pool's best interest consulting with Trust members as appropriate in the correct setting of the AGM.”

“I think that the member of the trust who is quite obviously benefitting from a finacial gain from payments made to a partner who is a solicitor should resign as the whole point of this trust set up was to run the pool for the community and anyone who seeks to gain finacially should be removed without quetsion from the trust. Sadly there are always some who look for personal gain in every situation, it just seems that in this case the boundaries are being stretched a little.”