Following on from last week’s report on the award-winning rail journalist who was snubbed by Isle of Wight MP Andrew Turner’s advisors and Nick Finney’s subsequent response, Phil Marsh, the rail journalist involved responds.
In his own words. Ed
Hi Nick
Many thanks for your email – some comments if I may, to a wider media audience:
You write that: You did send some highly technical questions in advance, but as we were due to meet on Thursday they had not been answered in writing and probably wouldn’t have been answered. You said they were based on Andrew wanting Island Line to be outside the franchise (something he has never said). They were also premature given the fundamental need for an independent expert to be appointed by the Council and supported by the DfT.
My reply: All I am after is answers to the usual standard railway questions and from what you write, you had no intention of answering despite having plenty of time to consider them – as a transport expert (Source transcript of IOW Radio interview August 21st) or to research if you were unable to answer in the first instance. My only interest is in IOW railway matters which have surfaced since the March 26 letter from Turner to Perry so what you suggest is at best disingenuous about operating outwith a franchise. I assume the MP wrote the letter?
You write that: Finally, as a volunteer adviser, with some experience of freelance journalists, I have to say that your whole approach seems to me to have been designed to denigrate the office of the IOW MP. You changed your approach, first demanding answers to detailed technical questions, many of which were irrelevant at this stage of events. Then you sent in a further demand that we be prepared to answer questions about location and ability to manufacture light rail units on the Island since that was the main point of the story.
My reply: My whole approach has been to test the various statements about the future of Island Line reported on the record (in no particular order), on IOW Radio, County Press and On The Wight assisted by sources I have on the Island and in the rail Industry. Whether I am freelance, or tied to one publication as I was for five years, is entirely irrelevant. Should the MP’s office decline to be interviewed then this is where accountability starts to be called into question and suspicions aroused. I do not need to waste my time or energy denigrating the MP’s office, I am only interested in railway matters. The local media outlets have done a good job in reporting the MP’s office rail-related regular policy changes.
This latest missive from you does beg another question:
How for example, does a volunteer advisor such as you claim to be, have direct Ministerial contact when for example I cannot get to ask the MP questions on his railway policy?
For the benefit of the IOW media outlets, I will repeat three questions I left with you that need answering and are not of a railway technical nature so I assume that providing answers will not prove to be too onerous.
Can you confirm your [Nick & Carole] respective constituency roles and responsibilities please so I can accurately report them?
Who devises the MP’s transport policy so far as the railways are concerned?
And here is the supplemental question about your friend and former colleague Chris Garnett‘s appointment:
Why do consider this appointment to be a gamechanger – what do you know that taxpayers don’t?
One final observation put to me by Richard Tuplin who is the editor of Railway Herald;
“The interview that had been arranged between Nick Finney and Carole Dennett and yourself to discuss Island Line matters was cancelled without notice. By declining the interview and subsequently including the whole spectrum of IOW media are you suggesting a Press Conference is now to be held?”
With best wishes and in anticipation of the foregoing points being answered without descending to personal insults. For absolute clarity, I am only interested in seeking the elected representative’s views on his announced rail policy.
Nothing less, nothing more.
Phil Marsh
See more on the Garnett Report.
