In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roger Millin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>As I see it, a (loose) analogy could be the alliance in World War 2
>between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin. I'm sure that R and C didn't
>agree with lots that S did and represented (master of the understatement
>here ;-)) but, during the fight with the common enemy (the Nazis), they
>set aside their differences and got on with the fight. After they had won
>the war they rapidly returned to bickering and tub thumping at each other
>(hence the Cold War that lasted so long). I see no reason why we can't
>all get behind BW in the short term while the fight with Defra/the
>Treasury/the Government goes on. When that war is won or lost we can
>return to the minor skirmishing that goes on between the waterway users
>and BW, and occupies many of your thoughts. In the meantime though,
>let's not publicly attack BW, creating a second front that will divert BW's
>energies away from the main war. IMO that would only help Defra and the
>Government, it certainly
>wouldn't help us (the waterway users).
>Roger
Now this is what I find puzzling. Your analogy relies on all three
parties doing an equal amount of the fighting but this is not what is
happening in the situation with DEFRA and the joint attack by BW and its
customers (i.e., us). If only one party, us (the smallest incidentally)
is doing all the public fighting then the campaign is doomed to failure.
Talk of cloak and dagger stuff going on behind closed doors is
irrelevant if it doesn't get publicity and therefore helps to sway
public opinion. BW needs to do some flag waving of its own or else admit
that it is scared of the consequences and that the rest of us are just
on a fools errand.
Bob
--
Bob Adams - email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
