----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Stott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 9:03 AM
Subject: [canals-list] Re: Future Waterways Organisation and Funding
> "Nigel Stanley"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>But while I am not saying that no-one should discuss it, and there
>>have been some interesting posts here, this thread demonstrates my
>>point IMHO. Consensus is hardly breaking out all around us.
>
> That's what the debate is for, surely. With luck, it will lead to a
> common, or at least majority, position. At the least, it will bring
> forward useful ideas, and help clarify thinking.
>
>>But if you want a clue, I think BW is not just a business - of course
>>it has business activities that should be run in a business-like way,
>>but it is also the custodian of something that is a public good that
>>cannot be simply inserted as values in a business balance sheet.
>
> Agreed. That is a major part of the argument for the retention of the
> waterways, and for the government's providing funding to cover the gap
> between their costs and what they can earn for themselves.
>
> Adrian
>
Before we go changing the world we should remember that the internet
community is only a small minority of the canal users. Even if we reach a
consensus here it possibly still is only a minority view.
Sue nb Nackered Navvy
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
