On 18/05/07, Sue Burchett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Any idea what happened to the 'don't knock BW agreement'?


I think your posting lacked an emotocon, didn't it Sue? Is it the ;-) face
which communicates deep cynicism?

Of course, there never was an 'agreement' not to knock BW. What there was,
was a unilateral declaration by certain on this list, encouraged by BW
itself, to get us to fall in line on the basis that we were fighting the
same battle in opposing the DEFRA cuts. As a direct result, over the past
year BW has hit us harder than they've done for years, screwing us for more
money on everything from pump out charges to moorings.

But a greater success of the strategy is that most of us now believe that
the future of the waterways is best left in the hands of BW rather than the
government We have had so much BW propaganda thrown at us that we believe
that every failing in policy, every attempt to make money out of the
waterways, every move towards making it 'self sufficient' whether by cutting
services or laying off staff, is not the fault of BW at all, but of the
government.

Frankly, I'd back the government - any government - over BW any day. At
least I can get rid of  the government which is more than I can do with the
atrocious Robin Evans whose dreadful policies have set the climate for this
debate, and whose leadership is now effectively being accused of
maladministative dishonesty.

Personally, I can't say at this stage whether it's true, that BW's
presentations on the whole of the cuts issue has been devised to hide the
fact that they've been getting more from their property portfolio than they
have declared; I can't say whether they have 'wilfully withheld information'
from the government; that they have done this 'with the intent of deceiving
the general public.' All I know is that the government believes this, and
for better or worse, when the relationship between government and BW has
broken down to this extent the only loser is going to be the waterways
itself.

Steve


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply via email to