On 18/05/07, Will Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Steve Haywood wrote: > > On 18/05/07, Sue Burchett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> Any idea what happened to the 'don't knock BW agreement'? > > > > > Of course, there never was an 'agreement' not to knock BW. What there > was, > > was a unilateral declaration by certain on this list, > > It wasn't a unilateral declaration. It was a suggestion, plea if > you like, that we should concentrate for a while on opposing the > cuts rather than bashing BW. My by-line at the time was 'Save the > Waterways first, argue the details later.'
Don't be so defensive about SOW. It - and by implication you personally - have done much valuable work. In its own way SOW signalled a sea change in in the relationship between BW and its clients, and the ramifications will be felt for years. But two points. Yes, I do believe there is a relationship between those policies BW seek to pursue, and those it thinks it can get away with. I'd have thought that was self-evident. Faced with a weakened IWA, and a compliant waterways clientele already battle-weary from the anti-DEFRA cuts campaign, I know BW have pursued policies that have been internally controversial which in other circumstances it might have chosen to defer. Secondly, it is true that you do not know who I have been talking to, but trust that I have been talking to a great number of people. My view of Robin Evans' tenure is not just based on the current sub-Committee enquiry; indeed very little of it is. But you would be naive to think that the sub Committee report will tell you anything about the way the government thinks, let alone of how it will act. BW have made some very powerful enemies. Steve [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
