2008/10/9 Adrian Stott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > "Steve Haywood" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >2008/10/9 Adrian Stott [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >> It was made abundantly clear that the current £30 million/year gap > >> between what BW needs to spend to keep the waterways in a steady state > >> of repair, and the revenue it now has, is *not* going to be made up by > >> added government grant. Boaters were advised bluntly by John Edmunds > >> (IWAC) not to waste any more time on that idea. > >> > >Interesting that you should have picked this out as a highlight since this > >has been very much your view all along, hasn't it Adrian? > > It has indeed been my opinion. But it appears that wearing > rose-coloured glasses tends to cause deafness, so some were unable to > receive it.
There are ways of making your point without being constantly rude, Adrian. We might listen to you more if you didn't treat us all like idiots > > > > So did Mr Fletcher or Mr Edmunds suggest where the shortfall was coming > from, or have we been > >left to work this no brainer out for ourselves? > > Yes. There was a *lot* of discussion about that. > > > In which case, I guess you'd > >best be budgeting for the extra levy on that wide boat of yours. > > The BWAF proposals to increase the already unfair charge on larger > boats would not result in *any* more money going to the waterways. The > total take from boaters is already fixed. All it would mean is that > owners of narrow boats would pay less. Well, that's alright then, eh? > Ever heard of "tyranny of the majority"? Wikipedia may be your > friend. Again, the Wiki suggestion is that we are all idiots whereas you of course have access to the facts at your fingertips. You are a rude man, Adrian. Sadly rudeness is the only way to deal with you. > > > >Me, I don't care what either of these people say. They're government > >spokesmen after all. What what you expect them to say? > > Edmunds is not a government spokesman. He is a former union official. > You think they like the current government? I was talking about Evans and Edmunds, botgh of which I think can be relied on to toe the party line. > > > Gummer is not a government spokesman. You may have noticed that his > party is in opposition? Rudeness again. But not even rudeness alleviated by a touch of humour. Or imagination. Or even passion or bad language. Your rudeness is souless, Adrian > > > >I believe that the the canals are a national heritage, > > Yes > > > that they are being > >used increasingly by the whole of the population > > yes > > > and that the whole of the population should pay for them by a government > grant that represents their national value. > > Do you also believe in the tooth fairy? You are SO absolutely rude. And the pathetic thing about you is that you seem to have no contextual understanding of how throwing out these types of comment which you genuinely believe are humerous are going to illicit the sort of response they do. > > > > The alternative is your way, Adrian. > > Yes. > > > That is to squeeze as > > much money as you can from hard pressed boaters. > > <holds face> Do you actually *read* my stuff? ,holds nose> Yes, I do. I always wonder why. > > > > That is as long as those > > hard pressed boaters aren't you, in which case you will argue 'fairness' > to > >protect your own position until you're blue in the face. > > "Fairness" as used by BWAF has *never* been defined by BWAF. Or, > rather, BWAF members define it in a different way every time it is > used. I think your arguments on this speak for themselves, Adrian. I think enough has been said on them. I think it down to the rest of the list to decide whether your view of this matter is determined by the sort of burning sense of injustice about the state of the world which we have seen in tyour other postings. Or on self interest. > > > My definition is that if you use up more or something of value , or by > using something you prevent others from using it, or you buy more of > something, or you impose additional costs on the provider of > something, then you should pay more. However, if you happen to be > different in some irrelevant way from other buyers, then you should > not pay more. Red-headed boat owners should not pay more. Owners of > larger boats should not pay more (actually, they should pay less). > > I would be interested to see your response to the above paragraph. My response is that I'm not going to undertake a debate with you based on your definitions which I reject completely as applied to the waterways model. > > > >Interesting to hear the Tories taking the popularist line for a change > > A change? Irony, Adrian. I know you have less of that that you have humour. By try and avoid making yourself look foolish. > > > >It strikes me that instead of courting approval by getting cheap > >cheers on what is after all an administrative matter between EA and BW > > Of course it isn't. They are at-the-throat rivals. > > >that nice Mr Gummer should be pressed on where HE stands on the public > financing > >of the waterways. Did you perchance ask him? > > I had used my question to ask something else (guess what). Why > weren't you there to ask that? I have explained to you the personal reasons why I was unable to attend, and I don't propose going into that further in a public forum. Steve > > . > > > Adrian Stott > 07956-299966 > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
