The details of a very select meeting held, on the 14th January, by the board of NEMT were never made available and many of the members would not have know that an objection to their proposal to withhold funds from the NFHT had been made just in time, on the 6th January.
The objection highlighted one particular proposal but some of us had become aware that NEMT had not being consistent with the care that was being taken with the vessels that had been restored and made seaworthy by their members over the years and here I refer to those repaired on the slipway off River Drive, since the Trust was given charitable status in 2007.
There is something very wrong with what NEMT have been doing over the last few years and I believe it came to a head at a meeting held on Friday 25th of November 2022 from which arose the Policy Document signed by Alec Renwick and Dave Parker, amongst others.
How the detail of the Objection remained hidden:-
| Date | Time | Sender | Recipients | Title | |
| 1 | 06-Jan | 12:07 | PW | NFHT | Northumbrian Fishing Heritage Trust – Peggy |
| 2 | 06-Jan | 12:39 | PN | NFHT | Response to NFHT – Peggy |
| 3 | 06-Jan | 17:15 | MD | AR | Objection to Proposed Fraud |
| 4 | 06-Jan | 20:49 | AR | MD | Response to OtPF 1 |
| 5 | 07-Jan | 10:22 | AR | MD | Response to OtPF 2 |
| 6 | 07-Jan | 10:41 | AR | NFHT + NEMT – MD | Response to OtPF 3 |
| 7 | 07-Jan | 10:58 | PW | NFHT | Response to 3rd response from AR |
| 8 | 08-Jan | 14:00 | KB | NEMT | Slanderous Accusations |
Notes.
1. the first two entries are about NEMT leaving NFHT with little option, except to get essential work done on Peggy at Royal Quays.
2. the 3rd is an objection to their policy of of using different terms and conditions for two trusts who share the same objectives that was made by, me, one of NEMT’s members.
3. the author of 4th implied that my observations were amongst the more aggressive ones in compiling my objection. A strange way of calling me a liar:-
However apart from more aggressive, personalised emails to me, which I find objectionable. This is the only communication by anyone relative to the ‘Proposal’ to NFHT received so far (in response to replies requested within 7 days prior to the next NEMT meeting).
4. re the 5th:
Dear Mr Dawson
Further to your previous emails.
Can you tell me if this is your personal opinion or does it represent the case for NFHT.
Also, in future, I will be pleased if you can reply to the following email address not my personal email – nemaritime2020@gmail.com
A. the Objection was the first email complaining about the double standards being employed by NEMT since Mr Renwick became Chair;
B. it was my opinion as a member of NEMT.
5. re the 6th:
A. notice that I was not copied into the 6th email appears that I was not copied in because he did not wish me to know that being less than honest with the NEMT Trustees about either the ‘Objection’ or its author;
B. Mr Renwick did not request any of the trustees to use nemaritime2020@gmail.com
6. Re the 7th:-
Please see the message below from Alec Renwick.
Should we leave it to you, Richard, to make any response – if you think it is wise to respond?
It looks as is it though the NFHT are not going to be able to respond to the claims made by the Chair of NEMT and when Keith Barnard accused me of making ‘Slanderous Accusations’ in the 8th email, he removes any ambiguity arising from Mr Renwick’s responses.
Mick Dawson
15th November 2024