2009/11/18 Adrian Stott <[email protected]> > Steve Haywood <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >There is a perfectly valid argument that the annual grant is better for BW > >than the existing system. This is because there is never going to be a > >situation where BW can be entirely self sufficient of government grants. > >Even Robin Evan's discredited policies of recent years only ever aimed at > >being 'largely' self sufficient of the grant. Even if it allowed BW to > >retain the property portfolio, ggovernment would still have complete > control > >over BW's finances. If BW's property income rose, it could and would > simply > >trim its annual budget accordingly. > > I'm afraid that simply isn't so. > > Adrian, if you want to argue this why don't you post a piece of consistent thought-out prose rather than make these random bullet points. I certainly don't intend to engage with you while you do it this way. It's impossible. What on earth do you mean, for instance, by saying blandly on my first point 'I'm afraid that simply isn't so.' What 'simply isn't so'?
That BW can never be entirely self sufficient of government grants? That Robin Evans policy had been to be 'largely' self sufficient of government grant? That under any circumstances government would still ultimately retain control over BW's finances? You say I like the status quo, almost as an accusation. You say the status quo has done a lot of 'harm' to the waterways. Really? Are these the same waterways I started cruising in the 1970's which were so shallow you couldn't get into the bank in most places. Where there were hardly any water points or sewerage stations? Where there were hardly any boats on the system and what there were, weren't paying licences. I think the status quo has done very nicely for the canals, thank you very much. They could do with more 'harm'' like that. What will damage the canals is people like you who cravenly support BW on every policy they come up with without showing an iota of independent thinking to separate you from the herd. Steve [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
