This puts Adrian in a very interesting position, Richard. As far as I can see he has four options (though others may see more):
1. He denies that there is a social dimension to BW's activities 2. He accepts it and concedes that his pure economic models are only applicable to pure economic circumstances and changes his mind about most of what he's been saying on the subject these last four years 3. He accepts it what you say but takes no notice of it. 4. He ignores your posting completely. Personally I wouldn't bet a lot on option 2. :) Steve Adrian Stott wrote: > BW is in fact a business, a government-owned company. It is directed > by the government to charge for what is provides at market prices. You missed out the "as far as possible" from the Financial Memorandum. > > The FM also says: > > "Under powers contained in the 1962 and 1968 Transport Acts BW has > responsibility for over 3,200km of canals and rivers, including statutory > navigation and safety functions. It carries out these responsibilities > within a > wider context where, subject to economic and environmental appraisal and in > partnership with others in the public and private sectors, it aims to > promote > and accommodate conservation and regeneration; to maintain and enhance > leisure, recreation, tourism and educational opportunities for the general > public; and to facilitate waterway transport." > > So the "as far as possible" clearly indicates that a balance is to be > struck in cases where > the two might confilct. > > Richard > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
