<html>
<body>
<h1><b>Monkton Wyld community, new trustees at another UK countryside
charity attempt ‘hostile
takeover’</b></h1><font size=5><b>
<a href="https://tlio.org.uk/monkton-wyld-community-new-trustees-at-another-uk-charity-attempt-to-to-oust-founders/" eudora="autourl">
https://tlio.org.uk/monkton-wyld-community-new-trustees-at-another-uk-charity-attempt-to-to-oust-founders/<br>
</a>
<a href="https://tlio.org.uk/monkton-wyld-community-new-trustees-at-another-uk-charity-attempt-to-to-oust-founders/">
2 August 2023</a> <a href="https://tlio.org.uk/author/tony/">Tony
Gosling</a>
<a href="https://tlio.org.uk/monkton-wyld-community-new-trustees-at-another-uk-charity-attempt-to-to-oust-founders/#respond">
Leave a comment</a> <br><br>
</font><h4><b>Support group ‘Friends of Monkton Wyld’ was set up at the
end of July</i></b></h4>Updates:
<a href="https://www.monktonwyldcourtcase.co.uk">
https://www.monktonwyldcourtcase.co.uk</a><br><br>
<i>Whilst all charities must change with new blood, in a failed economy
one of the last ways to make money seems to be to find new and more
imaginative ways to get hold of land, buildings and other assets that
aren’t yours.<br><br>
</i>Trust is the word. If you can get yourself appointed s part of a
voting majority on the board of a UK charity you can leverage the trust
to your will. In time and in theory, you can alter the deed, commandeer
trust assets and even, with luck, cash them in.<br><br>
This isn’t how trusts are supposed to operate but the UK charity
commission is so risk-averse, underfunded and unprincipled that when
dubious activities, akin to theft, take place, they tend to insist on
looking the other way.<br><br>
<h3><b>Leveraged buyout: The Countryside Restoration
Trust</b></h3><img src="cid:.0" width=750 height=500 alt="Emacs!"></b>
</h3><br><br>
In 2019 recent appointee David Mills, husband of actress Dame Judy Dench,
became active on the board of renowned Cambridgeshire author and
broadcaster Robin Page’s Countryside Restoration Trust charity. Over
decades Robin had been donated and bequeathed over 2,000 acres, tens of
millions of pounds worth of farmland and buildings.<br><br>
This new board faction turned on Robin in 2021 and voted him off the
charity he’d founded, leaving him not just heartbroken, but quite rightly
feeling robbed of the substantial fruits of his life’s conservation
work. To rub salt in the wounds the new clique changed the
charity’s name to the Countryside Regeneration Trust, bringing in more
commercially-minded new managers for the farms entrusted to
them.<br><br>
<img src="cid:.1" width=334 height=437 alt="Emacs!"><br>
A wonderful old man who should have been enjoying his retirement was
turned into a nervous wreck, seeing enemies everywhere, not knowing who
he could trust. He thought the people who’d turned on him to take over
his thousands of acres of farms, were his friends.<br><br>
In fact, Robin told me late in 2022, they had indeed pretended to be
friends and supporters, while secretly establishing a majority on the
board to vote him out. Everything Robin ploughed into his trust was
usurped, he said, by the sort of business managers he’d set it up to
oppose. Robin died in the spring of 2023.<br><br>
<h3><b>Hostile takeover: Monkton Wyld Court</b></h3>The latest of these
attempts to usurp the founders of a successful charity, incubating arts,
the very best of tradition, social justice and not buying in to the ‘Net
Zero’ dogma, is at the editorial HQ of
<a href="https://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk/">The Land Magazine</a> at
Monkton Wyld, near Lyme Regis in Dorset. Here, bullied editors Gill
Barron and one of The Land Is Ours founders Simon Fairlie are now facing
eviction.<br><br>
<img src="cid:.2" width=453 height=439 alt="Emacs!"><br>
<font size=5><b>
<a href="https://www.change.org/p/fighting-against-the-coup-d-%C3%A9tat-at-monkton-wyld-court">
https://www.change.org/p/fighting-against-the-coup-d-%C3%A9tat-at-monkton-wyld-court<br>
<br>
</a></b></font>There is a decidedly neo-con political twist to the new
trustees’ gang. One of the faction trying to take over has links to
Price Waterhouse Coopers, and, as a team, they stand to acquire a
property worth millions to manage this purpose-built Victorian rural
school the way they please.<br><br>
<a href="https://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk/">
https://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk/</a><br><br>
Please consider subscribing to
<a href="https://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk">The Land</a> and/or joining
the Friends of Monkton Wyld campaign, to help restore this community to
its pre-2023 values and to terminate any hint of hijacking the magazine’s
HQ along with Gill and Simon’s retirement.<br><br>
<img src="cid:.3" width=560 height=420 alt="Emacs!"><br>
<br><br>
<br>
<h2><b>Monkton Wyld: Timeline of Treachery – or – How Four New Trustees
Destroyed our
Community:</b></h2><a href="https://www.monktonwyldcourtcase.co.uk/news/">
As of 15 July, four members of the community have been ordered to leave
by the new trustees; one member and one long term volunteer have
resigned; two long term volunteers are on strike; and three trustees have
resigned. Only two members of the community are still working, along with
“blackleg” staff brought in by the trustees. Here is how it happened
–</a><br><br>
<a href="https://www.monktonwyldcourtcase.co.uk/" eudora="autourl">
https://www.monktonwyldcourtcase.co.uk/<br><br>
</a><b>27 March 2023 </b>A volunteer who we shall call “SW” applies to
the Monkton Wyld Community for permanent residency after a six month
trial period in the maintenance/ handyman role. To be accepted as a full
member, an applicant has to win full consensus agreement of the whole
community (otherwise pre-existing discord can be cemented into the
community). Several people feel unsure of his suitability (because of a
quick temper, and a tendency to be pushy) so his trial period is extended
for another three months.<br><br>
<b>28 March</b> The community receives an email from the trustees saying
only that “issues have been raised and must be investigated by the
trustees”. A long email correspondence follows over the next ten days in
which the trustees drip feed us information: that the matter involves
“contracts and behaviour” (29 March); that it is a workplace complaint (5
April); that the complaints are of bullying and harassment against Simon
and Gill (12 April). Eventually, after pretending otherwise for two
weeks, SW acknowledges what many suspect, that he is the source of the
complaints.<br><br>
<b>12 April</b> Kelly Marsden launches an investigation into these
complaints without revealing to us what they consist of despite repeated
requests from us to see them. Marsden claims that they are
“whistleblowing complaints” (even though grievances over matters such as
bullying are not normally regarded as whistleblowing) and we therefore
have no right to see what we are charged with. Gill and I can therefore
cannot respond to any of the evidence.<br><br>
<b>14 April</b> Gill and I ask another member of the community to ask SW
to inform us through a third party what his complaints are, as indeed he
should have done under our normal community procedures and the terms of
his volunteer contract. SW refuses and when Gill and I bump into him and
ask him directly, the conversation rapidly becomes heated. We accuse him
of disregarding the terms of his agreement, and he claims we are “Lord
and Lady of the Manor”.<br><br>
<b>16 April</b> As a result of this altercation, SW enters another
complaint against Gill and me, claiming that he fears for his safety (he
is in his forties, Gill and I are in our seventies). We receive an
emailed warning from the trustees that if we ask him again we will be
“asked to leave”.<br><br>
<b>20 April</b> Kelly Marsden sends us an email accusing Gill and I of
“blackmail” and stating, without citing a shred of evidence, “you both
seem to have developed considerable influence over the community whereby
others are brought around to agreeing with what you want through pressure
and intimidation”.<br><br>
<b>26 April</b> The trustees finally allow us to see a copy of SW’s
letter of complaint. In the same email they send Kelly Marsden’s
completed report, which entirely endorses SW’s complaints; and a summons
to attend a disciplinary hearing on 2 May. The report provides no
concrete evidence in support of SW’s allegations. The charge of
bullying relies substantially on the events of 14 April, which
occurred after SW submitted his letter of complaint; and also on the fact
that Gill and I objected to the kangaroo court procedure, which we have
every right to do. She also repeats the charges that our “overbearing
influence” serves to “maintain control over community decision-making”
without citing a single community decision that could be said to have
been forced through in this manner; or mentioning the fact that Gill
never attends meetings. The evidence also relies on non-specific,
undocumented allegations from four witnesses (out of a total of eleven).
Since we do not know who these witnesses are, or what they said, we have
no way of challenging their evidence, nor of assessing whether their
evidence has been, twisted, cherry-picked or influenced by leading
questions. None of this anonymous evidence would stand up in a court of
law.<br><br>
<b>28 April</b> Gill and I make a formal complaint against SW: that he
failed to follow the complaints procedure laid down in his contract; and
that he had applied for permanent membership of the community on false
pretences, since he concealed from the community the fact that he had a
week earlier submitted to the trustees a raft of complaints against
community members, one of the trustees and the community as a whole. Our
complaint is summarily dismissed by the trustees.<br><br>
<b>2 May </b>Gill and I face a disciplinary committee. I provide a 12
page rebuttal of SW’s complaints and Kelly Marsden’s report, along with a
comprehensive rebuttal of her report by community member Jared Hills. I
also provided testimonies from all eight of the people who have assisted
me on the farm over the last eight years. These are the people whom I
have spent most time working with, yet none of them were invited to give
evidence by Kelly Marsden, who has never visited Monkton nor met with any
of the people concerned face-to-face.<br><br>
<b>3 May </b>XXX XXX MBE, who has been a trustee for 15 years is
subjected to a grilling on Zoom by all the other trustees, five out of
six of whom have been trustees for only 4 months. In her words she is
“coerced into resigning”.<br><br>
<b>8 May</b> Jasmine Hills, a community member who runs the garden
makes a formal complaint, first to the community and then to the
trustees against SW’s aggressive behaviour towards her. The
complaint is ignored by the trustees.<br><br>
<b>9 May</b> Gill and I are informed of the outcome of the disciplinary
inquiry: we are told we have to leave Monkton Wyld Court as soon as
possible, and in any case within six months. No mention is made of the
evidence I and Gill submitted, nor of the substantial testimony that we
submitted in our favour from other people we have worked and lived with
here.<br><br>
<b>10 May</b> Asked in person why the trustees are pursuing this
approach, one of the new trustees states “it is time for a
change”.<br><br>
<b>11 May</b> Student cinematographers, currently filming at Monkton Wyld
as part of its educational remit, are forbidden by the trustees to film
on site and ordered to destroy all footage. The trustees also phone the
student’s college saying that they will call the police if filming
continues. The college tells the students not to film. Oh dear, what sort
of advice is that for budding investigative journalists?<br><br>
<b>16 May </b>Jasmine Hills makes a further complaint against SW’s
aggressive behaviour towards her. This is again ignored by the
trustees.<br><br>
<b>18 May </b>We are informed that two members of the Board of Trustees
have resigned, leaving only four out of the original seven.<br><br>
<b>20 May</b> Jasmine Hills is informed that she has to leave Monkton
Wyld Court “with immediate effect”. This is because she “instigated” a
meeting to review SW’s position in the community. The meeting (which has
not been held yet) has to happen in June anyway , and most members of the
community wish to bring it forward since there is no conceivable prospect
of SW will be accepted into the community.<br><br>
<b>21 May</b> Simon is told by the trustees that he is barred from his
kitchen, dining room, toilets, bathroom and all other shared areas of the
community household. He is also banned from attending community meetings.
“Formal action will be taken” if he does not abide by these
restrictions.<br><br>
<b>23 May</b> Five community members and three long-term volunteers
(eight out of eleven people altogether) sign a motion of no-confidence in
the trustees.<br><br>
<b>30 May </b>Simon and Gill are “invited” to an appeal on 5 July.
Even though it involves eviction from our home of 13 years, it is
just 45 minutes long, and on Zoom (which neither of us do). We have no
right to bring a lawyer, call witnesses, or question those who have given
evidence against us. The adjudicating panel consists of an HR expert and
LG, the trustee who has been spearheading the campaign against us,
in other words the prosecutor is judge and jury. Simon and Gill refuse to
attend on the grounds that it is a stitch-up<br><br>
<b>5 June </b>The “Appeal Outcome” is delivered. Gill and Simon are given
notice “<b>that you are no longer a community member of Monkton
Wyld Court with immediate effect. </b>This means that you are asked not
to . . .(among other things) participate in any community activity,
including attending meetings and work activities . . . communicate
verbally or in writing with community members, visitors, service users,
service providers, students, clients or associates on any matter
connected with Monkton Wyld Court. . . etc”<br><br>
<b>11 June</b> Fantastic response from members of the public at
this years Scythe Fair in Somerset. 284 people signed our petition, with
41 pages of comments from just a few hours in the afternoon. Thank you to
everyone who signed for your support – it means a great deal.<br><br>
<b>14 June</b> The trustees order Jasmine to stop working in the garden,
saying that there should be a “lapse” in activity there until further
notice.<br><br>
<b>15 June</b> Our solicitor, who has 26 years experience in employment
law drafts a letter on behalf of Simon to the trustees informing them
that “All legal cases involving PIDA and the government and ACAS guidance
on PIDA are clear that internal complaints of the nature raised by SW,
are not ‘disclosures’ and should be dealt with using internal grievance
procedures.. The non-justified use of PIDA has been relied upon by the
Trustees as an excuse to override and ignore the clear process that is
set out in the Community Staff Handbook for dealing with internal
grievances and conflict resolution and disciplinary matters.” There has
so far been no response to this letter from the trustees.<br><br>
<b>19-23 June </b> Since the main housekeeper is on strike, and both
office workers are threatening resignation, the trustees bring in a
certain fellow to work in the house and the office This
person has worked here before, but was found to be a heavy drinker and
liar who was witnessed stealing from our pub, and who made unwanted
advances to women. The community is unanimous in not wanting him back,
and three people informed the trustees of this fact. The trustees ignored
these pleas, and drafted him in as blackleg labour. When the community
presented documentary evidence of his unreliability, the trustees
responded: “We have concluded that there is no substance to your
claims. You are not in full possession of the facts.” The trustees have
never even met the fellow, while we all lived with him for several
months.<br><br>
<b>21 June </b> SW embarks on a programme of trying to harass the members
and residents of the community. He confiscates the communal car key,
turns off the water in the garden, and brings in a lawnmower to replace
the scythes which we have used for over 12 years to mow the lawns. Our
groundsman hides the lawnmower, and the SW calls the police to report
that it is stolen.<br><br>
<b>27 June</b> As SW has completed his extended probationary period of 3
months, full members of the Community review his performance. They
decide that he is not a suitable person to be living here and give him
four weeks notice to leave. Five members wish him to leave, and one
abstains. Three other long term volunteers support this decision. SW is
informed by letter.<br><br>
<b>28 June</b> The trustees demand £25,900 in outstanding
rent from Simon, even though the value of the milk, cheese and yoghurt he
has supplied’ plus improvements to the infrastructure well exceeds the
value of the rent. They threaten court action if it is not paid
immediately. Simon responds “sue and be damned”.<br><br>
<b>28 June</b> The trustees charge Simon with £25,920 rent arrears
(including statutory interest of 8 per cent) without bothering to ask to
see his accounts, later still not having viewed his accounts – “.. if you
do not make immediate payment of the arrears. Our next step will be to
apply to the court and pursue the claim for rent arrears, which will
inevitably incur additional costs for you..”. In fact Monkton Wyld Court
owes Simon over £10,000 for improvements in the event that he leaves the
premises, and there is abundant documented evidence to support
this.<br><br>
<b>4 July</b> With the resignation of two office workers, and the main
housekeeper on strike, LG the London based trustee who is the architect
of the coup comes down to help fill these roles for a few days. She also
brings down her daughter as a “ volunteer” and immediately gives her the
freedom to enter our office from which we ourselves are now barred. Entry
to the office would never normally be granted to a volunteer who had only
worked here one day. There would appear to be a conflict of interest
here.<br><br>
<b>5 July</b> An ad hoc group of community members, long term volunteers
and three former trustees decide to call a public meeting. Its main
purpose would be to form an association of “Friends of Monkton Wyld
Court” whose objective would be to advise the trustees and help safeguard
the welfare of the charity.<br><br>
<b>11 July</b> On returning home from holiday, office worker JL is told
by the trustees to leave the premises forthwith, and without pay.
Meanwhile the office sits unstaffed.<br><br>
<h2><b>Former BBC presenter Robin Page is sacked from the CRT charity he
founded</b></h2>09 June 2021 by Stephen Delahunty<br><br>
<a href="https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/former-bbc-presenter-sacked-charity-founded/governance/article/1718518">
https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/former-bbc-presenter-sacked-charity-founded/governance/article/1718518</a>
<br><br>
The Countryside Restoration Trust said it had removed the One Man and His
Dog star with immediate effect<br><br>
A former BBC presenter has been sacked from the charity he founded after
trustees accused him of failing to observe standards of governance and
damaging the charitys reputation.<br><br>
<img src="cid:.4" width=431 height=627 alt="Emacs!"><br><br>
In March, a war of words broke out between Robin Page, founder of the
Countryside Restoration Trust and a former presenter of the BBC sheepdog
trials programme One Man and His Dog, and the charity’s
trustees.<br><br>
Page claimed he was being “bullied out” of the charity, which he started
with one farm in 1993, by a group of greedy elderly men who wanted to
take the charity away from its members.<br><br>
The charity, which has since grown to manage 18 properties around the UK,
denied this was the case.<br><br>
It said Page’s role as executive chair was being concluded on legal
advice, but he had been invited to continue as a trustee.<br><br>
In a statement on its website yesterday, the charity said it had passed a
resolution to remove Page as a company member with immediate
effect.<br><br>
This follows repeated public criticism of strategic decisions taken by
the charity, including those he had supported as a trustee, and his
failure to observe standards of governance required of a CRT trustee,” it
said.<br><br>
By doing so, he has damaged the charitys reputation and, despite
extensive efforts to work constructively with Robin, the trustees have
reluctantly concluded that the relationship has broken down
irretrievably.<br><br>
The charity said it was in the process of reforming its organisational
structure to help manage growth under a strengthened senior management
team, and thanked Page for his many years of dedication.<br><br>
We are confident that the plans we have for its future growth will be in
keeping with his vision to create a working countryside, where sensitive
farming practices encourage and protect wildlife but also produce
high-quality produce, the charity said.<br><br>
Page did not respond to a request for comment, but appeared to
acknowledge the news on social media.<br><br>
In a tweet he said: The CRT website about me in my view lie, after lie
after lie.<br><br>
They are thick too they threw me out three weeks after I had
left.<br><br>
“About normal for that band of nodding donkeys.<br>
</body>
</html>