Bruce wrote ... > On 29 Nov 2008, at 00:31, Bru Peckett wrote: > > > OK, here is a radical change of direction. > <snip an excellent account and proposal> > > I knew if I left it overnight someone would spare me the pain of > replying to Adrian! > > This is the best account I've seen for a while, and I agree > absolutely, with proviso that you mean "principle" not "principal" :-}}
T'wasn't me Guv, honest! I *typed* principle every time but failed to notice that my speel chucker was auto-correcting <sic> it to 'principal'. It has been taught the error of it's ways! > Wasn't this what the Waterways Trust was originally meant to be if it > hadn't lost its way under Robin? Not really. TWT was really, IMO, a vehicle for extracting funding that wouldn't be available to British Waterways and a means of offloading activities and responsibilities which were not compatible with a more commercially orientated British Waterways. Another point I didn't raise which is relevant to the current discussions ... If one applies the pure commercial principles (got it!) to BW's operations then the problem of continuous moorers will never be dealt with in a satisfactory manner. There is no commercial benefit in actually tackling the problem. If a way can be found to extract an increase in income from the activities of that group of users so be it, if not the problem will be effectively ignored. Bru
