In a message dated 17/10/2007 12:07:50 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The government produces a response to every select committee report. Working my way through the report, but the first bit of double-speak is right near the front when trying to justify the cuts: =========== Defra faced considerable budgetary problems as a result of unfunded pressures in the 2006/07 financial year. BW, in line with other Defra delivery bodies, was asked to make a contribution to managing these Departmental pressures. =========== 'Unfunded pressures'? DEFRA/ RRA screwed-up big time and were fined, not a casual 'Oops, we fell short of our targets' BW were 'asked to make a contribution'? Oh, so BW could have just said 'Well, we would like to help, but we're sorry that we have unfunded budgetary pressures so you'll just have to look elsewhere'? =========== we are looking at scenarios for different spend levels and how impacts are to be managed in the context of options that BW is developing to inform a new long term strategy that will deliver a network that is sustainable and affordable. =========== 'sustainable'? 'affordable'? So whatever the government says in support they will undermine until the true phrases 'limping along' and 'minimum possible expenditure' apply. Oh, and what happens to the bits of the network that do not fit conveniently into these categories? Methinks SOW still have a long way to go!! DaveD [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
